Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Geof]

Originally Posted by misher

There are of course businesses that have to go. But in the end, thrift shops, used clothing stores, hipster places, etc. are much like rug stores...they choose the cheapest lease areas to be in and are generally not meant to be there permanently.

There is no such thing as "permanent." We never live in a finished city. The city is always being torn down and rebuilt, as we ourselves pass through different stages of life. We only live in transient moments of a city that is always coming into being. Permanence is the dream of the homeowner who wants to preserve the character of a neighourhood in amber, or the condo association that wants every balcony to look perfect. The only way the city can be permanent is if it is dead (and not even then, as entropy takes over).

We don't live in the long run, we live in a succession of moments of now. As Keynes said, in the long run, we're all dead. Recognizing this, we should care very much about transience, including transient businesses (like virtually every restaurant): they are the fabric of the city. For that, Jane Jacobs argues, old buildings are essential:

Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them.... for really new ideas of any kind--no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be--there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.

But as the city changes, we can't build new old buildings. I asked a Burnaby city planner about this. She said they are aware of the problem; it is why they try to get developers to build commercial units of different sizes. But it's an imperfect solution. Master planning entire neighbourhoods is inimical to a vibrant city. As the city changes, we are always be building anew (and tearing down or - as is more common in Europe - developing the old), but doing it imperfectly, organically, in a patchwork of old and new. Then we live in the reality of the transcience of the always-changing city, instead of dismissing reality for perfect final city that will never be.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Sheba

With SkyTrain on track, Mount Pleasant businesses worry

NIMBYism at its finest. Whether there's skytrain or not, businesses will come and go. It's survival of the fittest. Neighbourhoods are never at a standstill. They are constantly growing and changing. Those who resist or refuse to adapt will just fall by way side.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

NIMBYism at its finest. Whether there's skytrain or not, businesses will come and go. It's survival of the fittest. Neighbourhoods are never at a standstill. They are constantly growing and changing. Those who resist or refuse to adapt will just fall by way side.

If it's one thing I hate about having underbuilt infrastructure, it's NIMBYs.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

With SkyTrain on track, Mount Pleasant businesses worry

Wouldn't the Skytrain bring more people into their business though?

Originally Posted by misher

Density does not mean businesses fail. I don't know how that insane notion gets into peoples heads. The city could easily require that the first few floors of all high density projects be commercial. Sure the old business would have to move out but the city could require they be allowed to return under the same lease rate once the development is finished (with a ton of other conditions to protect the business). If major density increases do not occur around Broadway stations then the city will have failed everyone's expectations.

As a solution to keeping commercial nearby I totally support commercial/residential buildings. There the future and are basically everywhere for a reason. Visitor parking+elevators+the lobby is used by customers during the day then residents at night. Residents can live upstairs and go downstairs to work which reduces traffic on roads.


There are of course businesses that have to go. But in the end, thrift shops, used clothing stores, hipster places, etc. are much like rug stores...they choose the cheapest lease areas to be in and are generally not meant to be there permanently. Landlords only allow them in when they are desperate for tenants and are waiting for a better one.

Commerical/Industrial is also great to densify Mt Pleasant and the Flats without demolishing the warehouses entirely.

Thus, I doubt Broadway and Mt. Pleasant won't be zoned mostly as mixed. There's no reason to not do it there.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

NIMBYism at its finest. Whether there's skytrain or not, businesses will come and go. It's survival of the fittest. Neighbourhoods are never at a standstill. They are constantly growing and changing. Those who resist or refuse to adapt will just fall by way side.

My thoughts exactly.

They've stalled the extremely necessary extension and have had their view cones long enough. Time for change.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Wouldn't the Skytrain bring more people into their business though?

Indirectly - I doubt that very many more people will use Skytrain to get to small businesses on Broadway, but Skytrain will attract development that will house new residents, and those new residents will patronize the local businesses.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Indirectly - I doubt that very many more people will use Skytrain to get to small businesses on Broadway, but Skytrain will attract development that will house new residents, and those new residents will patronize the local businesses.

Exactly, that's my point. How is that a bad thing?

I guess it is survival of the fittest.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Exactly, that's my point. How is that a bad thing?

I guess it is survival of the fittest.

It's not a bad thing for the businesses that will be there when the SkyTrain opens.

It's a bad thing for the businesses that are there now, who will almost definitely be forced out by redevelopment and land speculation pushing retail rent prices higher. Many of the current businesses would probably do very well with the increased traffic that the extension would bring, but they won't survive to see that increased traffic.

It's a difficult balancing act where redevelopment is required and justified to add some much needed density that the transit line can support, but also trying not to encourage the loss of all the existing businesses.

[misher]

Originally Posted by dpogue

It's not a bad thing for the businesses that will be there when the SkyTrain opens.

It's a bad thing for the businesses that are there now, who will almost definitely be forced out by redevelopment and land speculation pushing retail rent prices higher. Many of the current businesses would probably do very well with the increased traffic that the extension would bring, but they won't survive to see that increased traffic.

It's a difficult balancing act where redevelopment is required and justified to add some much needed density that the transit line can support, but also trying not to encourage the loss of all the existing businesses.

I work near Granville and Broadway. There are 3 carpet stores and two art galleries that definitely need to go 😂

Besides that I think the only business there that deserves special treatment is that tailor shop near 7th and Granville as it’s been there forever. Rest are restaurants who I hope come back.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

I work near Granville and Broadway. There are 3 carpet stores and two art galleries that definitely need to go ������

Besides that I think the only business there that deserves special treatment is that tailor shop near 7th and Granville as it’s been there forever. Rest are restaurants who I hope come back.

South Granville's kind of a special case though, because the neighbourhood is already expensive to begin with. The concern (sometimes irrational, sometimes not) is that a place like the Main-Kingsway-Broadway triangle would have all the cafes priced out and replaced with Starbucks and Cactus Clubs.

[a very long weekend]

^ easy enough to prevent that. Just enforce strict formula retail prohibitions like SF and NYC do in some neighborhoods. Pushes down demand and keeps the spaces affordable. Also keeps the garbage out, and makes the neighborhood better.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ easy enough to prevent that. Just enforce strict formula retail prohibitions like SF and NYC do in some neighborhoods. Pushes down demand and keeps the spaces affordable. Also keeps the garbage out, and makes the neighborhood better.

You use the words 'easy enough' and 'just' as if the powers available to Canadian municipalities, and their American cousins, are the same. They aren't.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by misher

Density does not mean businesses fail. I don't know how that insane notion gets into peoples heads.
There are of course businesses that have to go. But in the end, thrift shops, used clothing stores, hipster places, etc. are much like rug stores...they choose the cheapest lease areas to be in and are generally not meant to be there permanently. Landlords only allow them in when they are desperate for tenants and are waiting for a better one.

Let me explain this another way and you can see the logic of why there have to be changes.

At present every square foot of ground floor is used up - for retail. Now you bring in a gaziilion floors of residential, both on top of the retail and for the two blocks behind it.

To put this another way, you took 1 unit of retail and 5 units of residential and made it the same 1 unit of retail but now 100 units of residential.

So the retail space changes use to the tenants who can be of the greatest benefit to the max number of residents.

Makes sense, it is the way of things

[misher]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Let me explain this another way and you can see the logic of why there have to be changes.

At present every square foot of ground floor is used up - for retail. Now you bring in a gaziilion floors of residential, both on top of the retail and for the two blocks behind it.

To put this another way, you took 1 unit of retail and 5 units of residential and made it the same 1 unit of retail but now 100 units of residential.

So the retail space changes use to the tenants who can be of the greatest benefit to the max number of residents.

Makes sense, it is the way of things

Would be intersting to see how having residential units in the same building affects the sales of some businesses. I assume food and coffee places must have large gains but I doubt it’s more than a 5% increase.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You use the words 'easy enough' and 'just' as if the powers available to Canadian municipalities, and their American cousins, are the same. They aren't.

If anything, it would be easier in Canada, where there property rights are so much weaker. And it doesn't look like there was any legal issue when it was debated in Toronto after being raised by Mike Layton. The problem in most of Canada is that formula retail restrictions aren't even on the map. They should be though, should have been years ago.

Incidentally, Santa Monica just banned chains on the Promenade.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by misher

Would be intersting to see how having residential units in the same building affects the sales of some businesses. I assume food and coffee places must have large gains but I doubt it’s more than a 5% increase.

Actually, their use might increase due to unintended consequences. If, for example, there was a Starbucks in an area surrounded by low density, low rise and it got blown away and now there are 200 good sized units on top with Starbucks in a fresh premise, they might get more business.

People are social. I will bet you that inhabitants of the building will tend to spend more time in the starbucks because it becomes the social club. You can dawdle because everything is an elevator ride away.

The same goes for a new barber shop (for the guys) and a hairdresser (for the ladies). They become your neighbourhood.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Actually, their use might increase due to unintended consequences. If, for example, there was a Starbucks in an area surrounded by low density, low rise and it got blown away and now there are 200 good sized units on top with Starbucks in a fresh premise, they might get more business.

People are social. I will bet you that inhabitants of the building will tend to spend more time in the starbucks because it becomes the social club. You can dawdle because everything is an elevator ride away.

The same goes for a new barber shop (for the guys) and a hairdresser (for the ladies). They become your neighbourhood.

This is logical but has not been the case in my buildings. I have one with a coffee shop downstairs and residents rarely go there. Customers are mostly business people downtown. Same for the one with the Tim Hortins.

[Tetsuo]

Outside downtown and high traffic commuter areas, plenty of coffee shops are local social hubs, be it an independent shop or a large chain.

The waves coffee near me seems to be a social hub for new immigrants to the country wanting to get together and socialize in their mother tongue (Amharic/Tigrinya)

[misher]

Would anyone mind if I started a Broadway corridor development plan topic as this one is supposed to be for discussion of the transit portion of it?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by misher

Would anyone mind if I started a Broadway corridor development plan topic as this one is supposed to be for discussion of the transit portion of it?

Go for it! Great idea. I hope others support the idea, too.