Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[Vanville]

What's with the English?

[Canucks223]

Originally Posted by rofina

I do find it peculiar that they would completely omit French, and use Mandarin/Cantonese and English only.

Its a little silly the game some choose to play here pretending that Chinese community does not have a huge input into whats happening in this town.

Exactly! Its one thing for a developer to advertise in Mandarin/Cantonese to cater to the demographic, but this notice is coming from a municipal government where the official languages of the county are English and French.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by Canucks223

Exactly! Its one thing for a developer to advertise in Mandarin/Cantonese to cater to the demographic, but this notice is coming from a municipal government where the official languages of the county are English and French.

The Official Languages Act does not have a bearing on Municipal Gov't business. In either case British Columbia (the entity from which the City of Vancouver derives it's powers) does not have an Official Language.

I'm pretty sure I've gotten notices from the CoV written in multiple languages including English, French, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Spanish. Please stop making this non-issue into one.

Also, did you not read my last post? The sign is in Chinese. For it to be advertised in Mandarin or Cantonese it would have to be done as a radio or TV ad.

[Canucks223]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

The Official Languages Act does not have a bearing on Municipal Gov't business. In either case British Columbia (the entity from which the City of Vancouver derives it's powers) does not have an Official Language.

I'm pretty sure I've gotten notices from the CoV written in multiple languages including English, French, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Spanish. Please stop making this non-issue into one.

Also, did you not read my last post? The sign is in Chinese. For it to be advertised in Mandarin or Cantonese it would have to be done as a radio or TV ad.

I never said the City was not allowed to post notices in other languages. My point is the official languages in this country are English and French. Seems like the City of Vancouver is opening up a can of worms by posting in "Chinese".

[CivicBlues]

Canada has two official languages, English and French. These are the official languages of the federal government. English and French have equal status and rights within federal institutions. The federal government, as part of this policy, hires bilingual staff, translates its laws and policies into both official languages, and funds French immersion programs across the country.

This federal law doesn’t apply to the government of British Columbia, nor does it apply to Richmond or any other municipality in the province. Our provincial and municipal governments are not required to translate their laws into French and English nor hire bilingual civil servants.

In Canada, each province can adopt its language legislation. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed this in the 1980s. It explains why Quebec could adopt the Charte de la langue française and why Alberta and Saskatchewan could declare that all provincial laws and regulations would be available in English only.

British Columbia doesn’t have language legislation. English is the main — if not the exclusive — language of our provincial and municipal governments, but this is not guaranteed or mandated by law. Essentially, governments debate and pass laws in English because that is the way things are done in B.C. Our historical approach has been to leave it to the free market, with the underlying assumption that people would naturally gravitate toward English.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/opinion+official+language/10907405/story.html

[Canucks223]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/opinion+official+language/10907405/story.html

That's interesting information and I never doubted you, nor did I say Vancouver was breaking laws by posting signage in Chinese. They are no doubt catering towards Chinese nationals and this sign proves it. Personally I don't have issue with it as we get new cool developments for wealthy Chinese nationals to buy but for others it may be seen as an issue correct?

[CivicBlues]

Of course, there will always be those that would take accommodation of others' needs as an affront to their own no matter what.

I don't even think this is as sinister as "selling out" to overseas Chinese investors.

Chinatown is a hop, skip, and a jump away from 777 Pacific. It could just CoV policy be that all signs within a x km radius of Chinatown need to be in Chinese. Stadium-Chinatown Skytrain Station's signage is an example of this. The Chinese Characters are Traditional as well (as opposed to the Simplified version found in Mainland China) hinting to their intended audience.

Until we start seeing bilingual Future Development signs in Kits and the West End I don't think this is a trend.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was submitted a year ago - revised a bit in January. Now 40 storeys, 389 units for Pavco, the Provincial agency who own the stadium, designed by Stantec.
There's a bit more (but not a lot!) on the Changing City blog.

There's a rendering!


https://changingcitybook.com/2018/05/14/777-pacific-boulevard/

This one came up too - I think it's older as the hole at the top is bigger.


https://changingcitybook.com/2018/05/14/777-pacific-boulevard/

[Vanville]

The beginnings of Concord Pacific's temporary Creekside Pop-Up Park, my pics:

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's a rendering!


https://changingcitybook.com/2018/05/14/777-pacific-boulevard/

This one came up too - I think it's older as the hole at the top is bigger.


https://changingcitybook.com/2018/05/14/777-pacific-boulevard/

It’s Vancouver, you know the story here, the older render was the original before being reduced in height.

[osirisboy]

I like the taller one. Why wouldn't they want that?

[Metro-One]

Because 130 metre towers apparently make 1300 metre + mountains disappear from arbitrary stationary points.

Ironically much of the mountain areas that such towers would block the views of are now covered in suburban sprawl.

So we then get less attractive / stunted towers and unobstructed views of sprawl.

Thanks city!

[osirisboy]

Is that the actual reasoning the city gives though? Lol. It just doesn't make any sense to knock off 3 floors. all seems so arbitrary

[Metro-One]

Yes, that was the official reason, and yes, it is very arbitrary.

For the record I am not 100% against viewvones, but Vancouver has far too many that are far too strict / low and that are far too rigid (especially regarding sites in and around major transit hubs / stations).

[Prometheus]

Apparently, the reason for the reduction in height may be even more absurd than that.

This proposal (even when reduced in height) will extend into a city-made viewcone. Therefore, if this project proceeds, it will constitute a rare exception to the city's rigidly-applied viewcone policy. But in addition to obstructing a protected slice of the mountains, the taller version would have extended into some of the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. The shorter version, by contrast, will still block the same protected slice of the mountains but stop short of extending into the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. Apparently, the idea is that obstructing a protected view of the mountain may be supported by the city in this case but blocking the view of the empty air above it will not. So, the reduction in height is for the sake of our view of the empty air above the mountain, not the mountain itself.

But if someone knows better, then hopefully they can set the record straight.

[Metro-One]

This is really all I can say about that reasoning...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, even for City Council, that is some incredibly lousy-ass logic.

[officedweller]

If they took 2 steps back, the building probably wouldn't exceed the crest of the mountain.
But it seems like they already took two steps back...

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Apparently, the reason for the reduction in height may be even more absurd than that.

This proposal (even when reduced in height) will extend into a city-made viewcone. Therefore, if this project proceeds, it will constitute a rare exception to the city's rigidly-applied viewcone policy. But in addition to obstructing a protected slice of the mountains, the taller version would have extended into some of the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. The shorter version, by contrast, will still block the same protected slice of the mountains but stop short of extending into the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. Apparently, the idea is that obstructing a protected view of the mountain may be supported by the city in this case but blocking the view of the empty air above it will not. So, the reduction in height is for the sake of our view of the empty air above the mountain, not the mountain itself.

But if someone knows better, then hopefully they can set the record straight.

I would love, love, love for someone in the planning department to actually read that if true to get an understanding of the level of stupidity.

A 5 year old knows that's absurd. I cant even come up with a witty comment its so patently stupid.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Apparently, the reason for the reduction in height may be even more absurd than that.

This proposal (even when reduced in height) will extend into a city-made viewcone. Therefore, if this project proceeds, it will constitute a rare exception to the city's rigidly-applied viewcone policy. But in addition to obstructing a protected slice of the mountains, the taller version would have extended into some of the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. The shorter version, by contrast, will still block the same protected slice of the mountains but stop short of extending into the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. Apparently, the idea is that obstructing a protected view of the mountain may be supported by the city in this case but blocking the view of the empty air above it will not. So, the reduction in height is for the sake of our view of the empty air above the mountain, not the mountain itself.

But if someone knows better, then hopefully they can set the record straight.

Even Sarah Huckabee Sanders wouldn't read that shit outloud.