Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Let’s not just assume that because someone prefers one party’s platform over another’s that they agree with everything? Some of the criticisms of the NPA and Liberals have merit.

Did somebody hack your account?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, 40 near 6th Ave, and on Granville-Broadway and Main-Broadway. The viewcones won't even let you go 40 on Cambie-Broadway anyways (ironic on the central part of the line), and going 40 near False Creek takes advantage of the lower terrain to build higher.

Obviously this is median height, not actual height.

I'd rather have over-zoning than underzoning again. Consider it took ~30 years for Downtown to go from http://d3exkutavo4sli.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Vancouver-1974-1024x731.jpg to https://s3.amazonaws.com/medias.photodec...86c5919e8bc8/18-08-2015-1128_xgaplus.jpg.

Granville Square is now lost in a sea of towers.

Any Broadway plan definitely needs a viewcone review, but I'd question the need for 40 floors when we can rezone the rest of the city to 10 and spend the next thirty years building that instead.

40 overall just takes downtown's flattop and expands it to Fairview... not to mention how 6th Avenue as a road and commercial strip is not prepared to handle ten thousand more people. Broadway's the main focus for a reason.

Originally Posted by fredinno

?Source?

The SFC workshop. Lot of reassurances of "no, we will honour your lease until it expires..."

Originally Posted by fredinno

?

The current occupants of the site are Concord's presentation centre, a nightclub, and whoever's renting out the Plaza of Nations. Eviction's going to be pretty easy.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Any Broadway plan definitely needs a viewcone review, but I'd question the need for 40 floors when we can rezone the rest of the city to 10 and spend the next thirty years building that instead.

40 overall just takes downtown's flattop and expands it to Fairview... not to mention how 6th Avenue as a road and commercial strip is not prepared to handle ten thousand more people. Broadway's the main focus for a reason.



The SFC workshop. Lot of reassurances of "no, we will honour your lease until it expires..."
That assumes that's going to happen- it's easier to convince one small piece of land to redevelop to high density, than a much larger chunk of land to get medium density. Especially since 1/3rd of Vancouver's land area is Point Grey.

I mean, it'd not like the two are mutually exclusive anyways. Ask Surrey.

The flat-top is a problem, but that's basically the status-quo of Vancouver's Skyline. Not to mention going down in height would signal that Broadway =/= Downtown, which isn't really accurate from a planning perspective.

6th Ave would have the Downtown Streetcar...

The current occupants of the site are Concord's presentation centre, a nightclub, and whoever's renting out the Plaza of Nations. Eviction's going to be pretty easy.

And when it expires?

I don't know why you were talking about NEFC when I had been talking about SFC, but

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, it'd not like the two are mutually exclusive anyways. Ask Surrey.

The flat-top is a problem, but that's basically the status-quo of Vancouver's Skyline. Not to mention going down in height would signal that Broadway =/= Downtown, which isn't really accurate from a planning perspective.

6th Ave would have the Downtown Streetcar...

Do we really need both at the same time? I'd argue that 20-30+ on Broadway and 10+ everywhere else would be enough. We're unlikely to have 'rises anywhere but Broadway for now, so it's pretty obvious that it's part of downtown.

But the streetcar is supposed to back up the SkyTrain RT network - as an RT unto itself, it ends up with the same problems as Surrey's!

Originally Posted by fredinno

And when it expires?

I don't know why you were talking about NEFC when I had been talking about SFC, but

Pause and rewind to "Though, I still believe South False Creek should have been sold with the Expo lands." One has residents, the other doesn't.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Do we really need both at the same time? I'd argue that 20-30+ on Broadway and 10+ everywhere else would be enough. We're unlikely to have 'rises anywhere but Broadway for now, so it's pretty obvious that it's part of downtown.

But the streetcar is supposed to back up the SkyTrain RT network - as an RT unto itself, it ends up with the same problems as Surrey's!



Pause and rewind to "Though, I still believe South False Creek should have been sold with the Expo lands." One has residents, the other doesn't.

I'd be skeptical of 10+ across Vancouver. 5 story - townhouses is the 'missing middle density' that Vancouver generally seems to prefer outside the city centre, and a general compromise that is generally easier to get more NIMBYs to agree too. Not to mention it's the general density the suburbs are rezoning to outside the town Centres and tower clusters.

Also, getting NIMBYs to capitulate in one area is easier than the entire city. It's going to be hard enough to get townhouses in Point Grey.

Exactly, the streetcar is a secondary network intended to get people the extra km to Skytrain or Downtown without walking uphill or 20min. From that POV, putting density on 6th Ave actually improves the rationale for its existence by providing an anchor of less-serviced people over 5 min away from the subway. Double-articulated BRT could work too.

Speed is less a deal for these short distances vs capacity. Not to mention it has its own ROW (sort of).

I thought SFC was still industrial in the 80s. My bad. It was leased off in the 60s-70s.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I'd be skeptical of 10+ across Vancouver. 5 story - townhouses is the 'missing middle density' that Vancouver generally seems to prefer outside the city centre, and a general compromise that is generally easier to get more NIMBYs to agree too. Not to mention it's the general density the suburbs are rezoning to outside the town Centres and tower clusters.

Also, getting NIMBYs to capitulate in one area is easier than the entire city. It's going to be hard enough to get townhouses in Point Grey.

True on 10+, but despite the NIMBYs, we're already seeing 5+ all over. And three blocks of midrise = one block of highrise.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Exactly, the streetcar is a secondary network intended to get people the extra km to Skytrain or Downtown without walking uphill or 20min. From that POV, putting density on 6th Ave actually improves the rationale for its existence by providing an anchor of less-serviced people over 5 min away from the subway. Double-articulated BRT could work too.

Speed is less a deal for these short distances vs capacity. Not to mention it has its own ROW (sort of).

They'd be walking anyway if they needed to get east or west instead of downtown though. Or vice versa. Viewcones aside, putting the tram density along the metro route and the metro density along the tram route sounds like an SNL sketch.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True on 10+, but despite the NIMBYs, we're already seeing 5+ all over. And three blocks of midrise = one block of highrise.



They'd be walking anyway if they needed to get east or west instead of downtown though. Or vice versa. Viewcones aside, putting the tram density along the metro route and the metro density along the tram route sounds like an SNL sketch.

There's still an immense amount of room that could be zoned for 5-6 story apartments, mostly off the arterials- and medium density/'eurodensity' is consistent with the prevailing trend of New Urbanism.

You know that there's something called 'False Creek' separating Broadway from downtown? Unless you're right next to one of the bridges, or going by Ferry, you generally have to go east or west to get to one of the bridges to cross False Creek.

It seems illogical, but there are comparable densities in Coal Harbor as Downtown East, despite the latter being serviced by Skytrain. Or compare Burrard St near the bridge vs Main St. Skytrain Station. I'm basically trying to maximize density under the view cones and geography of Central Broadway.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

There's still an immense amount of room that could be zoned for 5-6 story apartments, mostly off the arterials- and medium density/'eurodensity' is consistent with the prevailing trend of New Urbanism.

You know that there's something called 'False Creek' separating Broadway from downtown? Unless you're right next to one of the bridges, or going by Ferry, you generally have to go east or west to get to one of the bridges to cross False Creek.

It seems illogical, but there are comparable densities in Coal Harbor as Downtown East, despite the latter being serviced by Skytrain. Or compare Burrard St near the bridge vs Main St. Skytrain Station. I'm basically trying to maximize density under the view cones and geography of Central Broadway.

And zoning those apartments on every arterial corridor in Vancouver would be great. You hear the same argument about the West End: upgrading existing density is great, new density all over would be better.

We're confusing each other here. The streetcar only saves you a walk if you're near it and riding downtown (either as a straight trip or a transfer to a bus/SkyTrain); if you want to go to UBC or Commercial or further out, you're walking uphill anyway.

Sure, but Coal Harbour's within walking radius of Burrard Station and probably the Hastings Line. Main, Burrard and the DTES can always densify, but streetcar neighbourhoods generally have problems with density that'd be a no-brainer with SkyTrain.
I get the maximizing, I'm just questioning whether it's needed.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And zoning those apartments on every arterial corridor in Vancouver would be great. You hear the same argument about the West End: upgrading existing density is great, new density all over would be better.

Exactly. I don't know, I feel that smaller density on all streets is less likely to spur a NIMBY fight than higher density on arterials.

Plus, it avoids creating a 'curtain' of high density.

We're confusing each other here. The streetcar only saves you a walk if you're near it and riding downtown (either as a straight trip or a transfer to a bus/SkyTrain); if you want to go to UBC or Commercial or further out, you're walking uphill anyway.

I mean, I guess if you're going to UBC or Commerical, you might be able to use the Streetcar to transfer at Artubus or Main St (depending on if the Streetcar can get into the False Creek Flats).

Sure, but Coal Harbour's within walking radius of Burrard Station and probably the Hastings Line. Main, Burrard and the DTES can always densify, but streetcar neighbourhoods generally have problems with density that'd be a no-brainer with SkyTrain.
I get the maximizing, I'm just questioning whether it's needed.

Coal Harbor is about as far away in terms of walking time as the Broadway stations are from False Creek.

You can disagree, but I'd rather have over-zoning than underzoning here. If you're going to extend downtown into Broadway, go all the way.

[misher]

Originally Posted by fredinno

You can disagree, but I'd rather have over-zoning than underzoning here. If you're going to extend downtown into Broadway, go all the way.

I agree but the city definitely doesn't. Honestly seems like Vancouver has decided to go at its own pace and rely on the nearby municipalities to make up the slack.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

You can disagree, but I'd rather have over-zoning than underzoning here. If you're going to extend downtown into Broadway, go all the way.

No doubt, once it's underzoned, the area will become a write-off for the next 40 years or so, just like the current Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, West Broadway and West-end zoning. The viewcone policies may last for centuries.

However, the suburb cities would be extremely glad if Vancouver underzones the neighbourhoods: it means more developers will head over there.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

No doubt, once it's underzoned, the area will become a write-off for the next 40 years or so, just like the current Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, West Broadway and West-end zoning. The viewcone policies may last for centuries.

However, the suburb cities would be extremely glad if Vancouver underzones the neighbourhoods: it means more developers will head over there.

Always figured thats why Brodie doesn't want a big bridge leading out of Richmond. The crappy tunnel is what keeps people and business from going South.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

I agree but the city definitely doesn't. Honestly seems like Vancouver has decided to go at its own pace and rely on the nearby municipalities to make up the slack.

NIMBYism is the strongest in Vancouver. It's less strong now in many ways, but darn, the regulations to maintain 'livability' are strict.

Originally Posted by misher

Always figured thats why Brodie doesn't want a big bridge leading out of Richmond. The crappy tunnel is what keeps people and business from going South.

I mean, TPF, the NPA would not have supported the Canada Line or 98-B Line if that was the case. Plus, both the Knight St and Oak St. Bridges are ultimately limited by the capacity of Vancouver's Arterial Network, which are just as limited (6 lanes on both Oak St. and Knight St.) and is the primary concern (same as the Pautello bridge for New West.)

[misher]

Speculation over the site for the Arbutus station:


https://www.straight.com/life/1222331/ho...tation-location-speculation-time-arbutus

[Migrant_Coconut]

Unless the streetcar plan changed over the past two years, the City and TransLink'll probably go ahead with the NW corner.

Originally Posted by fredinno

NIMBYism is the strongest in Vancouver. It's less strong now in many ways, but darn, the regulations to maintain 'livability' are strict.

Good rule of thumb, NIMBYism increases with proximity to water or mountains. Neighbourhoods that have both (cough*West Van*cough) are stuck firmly in the 1950s.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Unless the streetcar plan changed over the past two years, the City and TransLink'll probably go ahead with the NW corner.



Good rule of thumb, NIMBYism increases with proximity to water or mountains. Neighbourhoods that have both (cough*West Van*cough) are stuck firmly in the 1950s.

What about Port Moody? They are somewhat NIMBY, but not really anything like the North Shore.

I think you have to add age to the mix. The inner suburbs are generally more NIMBY than the newer ones. Maybe because they're more entrenched, maybe because they live in the suburban mindset that the inner city should remain a certain way, not to post-1980s mindset of redevelopment.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

What about Port Moody? They are somewhat NIMBY, but not really anything like the North Shore.

I think you have to add age to the mix. The inner suburbs are generally more NIMBY than the newer ones. Maybe because they're more entrenched, maybe because they live in the suburban mindset that the inner city should remain a certain way, not to post-1980s mindset of redevelopment.

Guess who blocked the Canada Line and the Evergreen, and continue to block development along the Evergreen? Port Moody's not as bad as West Van, sure, but it's still bad... albeit more "hippie" than "retired WASPie millionaire."

Wouldn't the outer suburbs be more reactionary? If you're used to nothing but cars and two-storey infill, then urbanization is going to seem much more alien.

[misher]

Pressure mounting on the CoV to give up its plan to make Broadway rental/social housing.

https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/a-bro...bc-is-not-a-regional-priority-1.23784368

The minutes say that “project costs must be borne by Vancouver and UBC as the line is not a regional priority.” So the municipal tax base will be used to fund transit, which is a provincial and federal funding responsibility, rather than funding the municipal services needed for a growing population.

More property taxes, development fees and a proposed land value capture tax would go to pay for a subway.

More rentals and affordable housing will not be achieved because the fees required to pay for the subway will need market strata development and much higher tower densities, like Oakridge and the Cambie corridor. Increased taxes will also make housing even more expensive.

Local businesses are already struggling. If the taxes don’t kill them, the business interruption from over a decade of subway construction will ensure most do not survive. It will also make commuting to UBC a nightmare.

A Broadway subway would make the Canada Line construction disruption on the Cambie corridor look like a dress rehearsal.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by misher

Pressure mounting on the CoV to give up its plan to make Broadway rental/social housing.

https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/a-bro...bc-is-not-a-regional-priority-1.23784368

A Broadway subway line to UBC is not a regional priority
Most cost-effective electric transit option is to expand the existing trolley system
Elizabeth Murphy / Business in Vancouve

Please note the title and author of the opinion piece next time.

This isn't news, or increased pressure, it's just a rehashing of creative thoughts from people who are using every tactic they can think of to stop the Broadway Subway.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Please note the title and author of the opinion piece next time.

This isn't news, or increased pressure, it's just a rehashing of creative thoughts from people who are using every tactic they can think of to stop the Broadway Subway.

Correct. The NIMBYs that Murphy represents would like the City to give up everything over four storeys; if "pressure" from them starts mounting, misher, you should be seriously worried.