Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Maybe it's worth repeating that nobody is preventing anybody proposing more retail or office or a hotel in Southeast False Creek. That's why the new MEC store is currently under construction on a site that also permitted a residential building. It was a surprise, but it was permitted. There's an intention that Main Street should have retail, and that's been built, although some hasn't been occupied in several years (under Central, for example), and some has failed already (the coffee shop). Forcing developers to add even more retail on Yukon Street, which you seem to want, would probably result in even more vacant units.

There are many more retail units being added along Main between West 2nd Avenue and West 7th, and it's not clear there's demand to fill all of those, so requiring even more elsewhere seems counter productive.

Retail along an arterial like Main Street should and could work, but they are doomed to failure in buildings like Central because the retail units are built to the lowest possible standards. They don't attract the right mix or right type of tenants. Consequently, you will never get the right type of retail synergy that you see in Mt. Pleasant and Riley Park, so, I'd say it's probly a good assumtion that retail between 2nd and 7th won't work either.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Retail along an arterial like Main Street should and could work, but they are doomed to failure in buildings like Central because the retail units are built to the lowest possible standards. They don't attract the right mix or right type of tenants. Consequently, you will never get the right type of retail synergy that you see in Mt. Pleasant and Riley Park, so, I'd say it's probly a good assumtion that retail between 2nd and 7th won't work either.

If the larger office buildings proposed around West 5th are developed (and with Hootsuite as a major anchor, it seems likely) then that should create demand for restaurants and maybe some services as well. The other unknown is whether the other outdoor stores will follow MEC. If they do, there might be quite a few units taken up around West 2nd. However, it'll leave a stretch of West Broadway bereft of any obvious role instead.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They've already tried doing exactly that at Marine Gateway. That TNT is also next to a SkyTrain and retail complex and movie theatre, but is rarely over half full.

From my experience the TnT at MG is usually quite busy. I've been caught in long lines waiting to checkout on multiple occasions there.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by vanman

From my experience the TnT at MG is usually quite busy. I've been caught in long lines waiting to checkout on multiple occasions there.

Agreed. I would consider it "busy".

[Migrant_Coconut]

Huh, go figure. Maybe I came at the wrong time...

I wonder if it's the location, or just the fact that it's a T&T? I can't see Safeway or Whole Foods doing as well in that space - Marine Gateway's not exactly bustling, after all.

[vanman]

Have you ever visited weekdays around mid afternoon to 6pm? Or Friday and Saturday evenings? It actually does get busy. You'll see large waves of people coming from the Canada line station and bus loop at times.

[SpongeG]

I've been to marine gateway a few times, last summer mainly and it was busy each time, the winners was quite busy, the restaurants looked busy, the T&T had a steady stream and the movie theatre was pretty sold out.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They've already tried doing exactly that at Marine Gateway. That TNT is also next to a SkyTrain and retail complex and movie theatre, but is rarely over half full.

The Stadium TNT owes its success mostly to being the best place downtown to get cheap Asian groceries (which is also why it's killing Chinatown). Evict it and move another supermarket chain in, and neither it nor the new guy are going to do as well.

Changing City's right - the entire point of densifying Vancouver is to make the place MORE affordable, not less. "Pretty" architecture (of which we're getting more and more of anyway) is a happy side effect.

Totally don't agree with you on your first point here (see below).

As for your second point, did you read what we were discussing about previously? Concert Properties already built one subsidised housing building and four other market condo mid-rises at The Creek development. These buildings are OK but not exceptional. The new landmark tower at the last phase is something we all think should be architecturally excellent, so what does that have to do with creating an affordable Vancouver as a whole?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Huh, go figure. Maybe I came at the wrong time...

I wonder if it's the location, or just the fact that it's a T&T? I can't see Safeway or Whole Foods doing as well in that space - Marine Gateway's not exactly bustling, after all.

Think about how small the concentrated population is compared to OV at Marine Gateway, but it seems like the businesses and services are doing well there. Similarly, the Urban Fare close to Yaletown Station, or the Wholefoods at Cambie/W.Braodway are also doing much better than the Urban Fare or London Drugs at OV? What about the Safeway at New West Station? Do you then see the common denominator here? Good planning is key to how successful a community will become.

[SFUVancouver]

I am of the opinion that at-grade retail should be mandatory on all arterial streets. It may at times lead to localized oversupply, but will support the broad-based infill and intensification that will occur across the city. I don't think that historical retail nodes should be the determining factor of where new retail is expected.

Furthermore, I support a loosening of permitted uses for retail space to allow general office, daycare, education, arts and cultural uses, and light industrial uses, provided they can satisfy their respective permitting requirements. This would greatly enhance the viability of retail and responsiveness to local commercial opportunities while making the city a more interesting place.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I am of the opinion that at-grade retail should be mandatory on all arterial streets. It may at times lead to localized oversupply, but will support the broad-based infill and intensification that will occur across the city. I don't think that historical retail nodes should be the determining factor of where new retail is expected.

Furthermore, I support a loosening of permitted uses for retail space to allow general office, daycare, education, arts and cultural uses, and light industrial uses, provided they can satisfy their respective permitting requirements. This would greatly enhance the viability of retail and responsiveness to local commercial opportunities while making the city a more interesting place.

I don't know about all or mandatory but I generally concur. At least perhaps additional "free" density for commercial above what would be allowed for the residential only portion to insentify commercial built form. Yes this will lead to oversupply at times but with escalating retail and commercial rents in this City, a healthy supply or healthy vacancy rate will be healthy for all. More supply will lead to suppressed rents which will enable a broader diverse range of retail and help the smaller local and mom n pops. Yes you will see ugly storefront vacancies for a while but the market will work its way through the inventory overtime.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

As for your second point, did you read what we were discussing about previously? Concert Properties already built one subsidised housing building and four other market condo mid-rises at The Creek development. These buildings are OK but not exceptional. The new landmark tower at the last phase is something we all think should be architecturally excellent, so what does that have to do with creating an affordable Vancouver as a whole?

What I read is ChangingCity pointing out how that big, shiny helical condo could cost an owner $85M per unit. Then I read you replying "With that mentality, it's no wonder that cities elsewhere get better buildings than what we have here."

To which I say that surely there's a midpoint on the sliding scale between "affordable and utilitarian" and "big shiny things for the one percent?"

Originally Posted by Vin

Think about how small the concentrated population is compared to OV at Marine Gateway, but it seems like the businesses and services are doing well there. Similarly, the Urban Fare close to Yaletown Station, or the Wholefoods at Cambie/W.Braodway are also doing much better than the Urban Fare or London Drugs at OV? What about the Safeway at New West Station? Do you then see the common denominator here? Good planning is key to how successful a community will become.

Yeah, I see a common denominator - they're all near rapid transit.

A supermarket under Cambie Bridge next to the OV Station would definitely work, and so might one near one of the streetcar stops; OTOH, Quebec and 1st will likely not be adjacent to either one, and so they'll have to fight Urban Fare for a limited pool of customers. I don't blame the Navio developers for thinking the same way.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I am of the opinion that at-grade retail should be mandatory on all arterial streets. It may at times lead to localized oversupply, but will support the broad-based infill and intensification that will occur across the city. I don't think that historical retail nodes should be the determining factor of where new retail is expected.

Absolutely, but the arterials for OV are West 2nd and Quebec. 1st is more of an extra-large side street.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

1st Ave isnt even a secondary arterial. haha. it ends at Main Street for going E/W on the East Side. it end at the Cambie Street Bridge on the West Side. it is just a residential side street with leaning lamp posts and a wide median for trains!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I am of the opinion that at-grade retail should be mandatory on all arterial streets. It may at times lead to localized oversupply, but will support the broad-based infill and intensification that will occur across the city. I don't think that historical retail nodes should be the determining factor of where new retail is expected.

Furthermore, I support a loosening of permitted uses for retail space to allow general office, daycare, education, arts and cultural uses, and light industrial uses, provided they can satisfy their respective permitting requirements. This would greatly enhance the viability of retail and responsiveness to local commercial opportunities while making the city a more interesting place.

I think you're going beyond what's likely to be realistic or successful with that idea.

Below is a map of the arterials in the city. The map comes from a City of Vancouver webpage that shows where the City might permit higher density affordable rental projects. Note that all the lines on the map are arterials (including the dotted ones), but the coloured sections show the arterials in the city outside areas with recent Policy Plans. (So not the Metro Core or Cambie corridor for example, where other policy applies). I'd estimate perhaps a third of those arterials have retail (red) and the other two thirds have existing residential uses (blue).

I'd question whether there would be sufficient business demand to fill even half the arterial length - even with all the uses you suggest. I can see selectively adding to the commercial space, like on Main (as discussed above) or the new retail streets like Salt Street in the Olympic Village (which isn't an arterial) or in the River District (which is also not an arterial).

If you did require that much commercial space, it could actually limit development. I really don't think we would have seen anything like as many projects built on Cambie Street for example, if they had to include retail the entire length - and if it had been built, I can see much of it staying empty. Only some residential developers want to build, or retain retail space, not all buyers are willing to live over commercial space, and strata retail can be the most difficult to find buyers, especially outside existing retail locations.

There's a serious question, moving forward, about how much retail space we'll need if current trends towards delivered goods and food continue. I think the city has a reasonable balance for now, and some reasonable opportunities to add a bit more. I question whether a massive increase in required commercial space (including all the uses you suggest, most of which are permitted today) would be a wise move.

In South East False Creek retail is an option along West 2nd (taken up by some, but not all developers) and required on Main. It's also been provided in the new Salt Street / Manitoba Street retail hub. Even now, there are quite a few units that are vacant (and several that might not last too long). It doesn't seem to make any sense to try to get it on West 1st or Quebec (which is an arterial) as well.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A supermarket under Cambie Bridge next to the OV Station would definitely work, and so might one near one of the streetcar stops; OTOH, Quebec and 1st will likely not be adjacent to either one, and so they'll have to fight Urban Fare for a limited pool of customers. I don't blame the Navio developers for thinking the same way.

OV Station area is already well served by Save on and Whole Foods (and No Frills!) just a few blocks away.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Absolutely, but the arterials for OV are West 2nd and Quebec. 1st is more of an extra-large side street.

West 2nd is lined with commercial, and in fact the newer CRUs are getting filled up faster than Main St. The restaurants are quite busy during the day, it's clear that it is foot traffic from Mount Pleasant offices (ie: Hootsuite, Kit & Ace, etc.)

Olympic Village "proper" bars are restaurants are busy with locals on weekend mornings, and the after work crowd.

Quebec only has some commercial at the corner of West 2nd, again, like Tractor. It's quiet at night, but packed for weekday lunch.

[VanK]

I think ALL of Main street should have retail. including 33rd to 49th.
King edward a block east and west of Cambie should have had retail.
we need more supply! Industrial supply, retail supply, office supply

[Vin]

In addition to the major arterial retail, side streets should have retail too, especially at high density neighbourhoods, like OV. There is a reason why our street retail isn't doing very well. The high-density node system allow shoppers to linger in the neighbourhood, rather than having to drive or walk a few times down a very long stretch of street.

For OV, I always believe that there should be a continuation of retail from Main street, to Quebec, to 1st Ave. and 2nd Ave, and ending at the OV plaza where Urban Fare is.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, I see a common denominator - they're all near rapid transit.

A supermarket under Cambie Bridge next to the OV Station would definitely work, and so might one near one of the streetcar stops; OTOH, Quebec and 1st will likely not be adjacent to either one, and so they'll have to fight Urban Fare for a limited pool of customers. I don't blame the Navio developers for thinking the same way.

Having a market at Navio will even help Urban Fare. Navio's market will help attract some transit riders or Science World visitors to shop/dine there, and since they are already there, shoppers will hop over to get more stuff nearby in the vicinity. That's what retail continuity synergy is all about.


Another example is Metrotown. Distance-wise, Superstore and T&T aren't exactly close to Metrotown Station, yet many transit riders shop there. Why? Again, the retail continuity concept works here.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by VanK

I think ALL of Main street should have retail. including 33rd to 49th.
King edward a block east and west of Cambie should have had retail.
we need more supply! Industrial supply, retail supply, office supply

sorry didn't realize this is an OV thread. i am off-topic

[SpongeG]

Urban Fare is so expensive and doesn't attract regulars unless they need something in a pinch. I wonder if another more affordable chain were in the same spot if it would be busier, if UF is truly as dead as some are saying it is.

I worked at the UF on alberni and it was never that busy, the prepared and hot food did well, especially at lunch, but the rest seemed pretty quiet to me most of the time, its just too expensive to do your weekly shopping at.