Great Northern Way Campus and Area Updates

[officedweller]

Maybe the supports are shaped like big Lululemon logos?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Height limits and uses are in place to stem and hold land costs and taxes from going through the roof for industrial / businesses.

I can appreciate the intent.

How well has this actually worked in practice? Both land costs and taxes are astronomical for business in Vancouver.

At least let them build to the size they actually need, its a business that provides plenty of good jobs in Vancouver.

Logically, height restrictions in the Downtown core have caused an escalation in property values adjacent to Downtown.

If we were able to accommodate our CBD by going as high as necessary in Downtown it wouldn't put pressure to expand outside of it.
Ditto for the flats - let it go high to increase supply.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by rofina

I can appreciate the intent.

How well has this actual worked in practice? Both land costs and taxes are astronomical for business in Vancouver.

At least let them build to the size they actually need, its a business that provides plenty of good job in Vancouver.

Are we talking about industrial zoned lots or mixed-use lots that can take giant towers where there is an existing 2-storey retail building?

It works as best in can in the industrial areas. Whatever M-1 or I-2 allows that's what you'll get taxed for. As opposed to being a light industrial building that's now allowed to be rezoned to a 40-storey mixed-use building.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by rofina

I can appreciate the intent.

How well has this actually worked in practice? Both land costs and taxes are astronomical for business in Vancouver.

At least let them build to the size they actually need, its a business that provides plenty of good jobs in Vancouver.

Logically, height restrictions in the Downtown core have caused an escalation in property values adjacent to Downtown.

If we were able to accommodate our CBD by going as high as necessary in Downtown it wouldn't put pressure to expand outside of it.
Ditto for the flats - let it go high to increase supply.

As to your last few comments... a little bit of yes and a little bit of no.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, too bad there wasn't a creek to daylight on West Georgia St.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Technically, neither does this location. Rewilding would mean dropping all of the Flats back into the ocean; what City Council proposes is more of a naturalistic canal to give Trout Lake some much-needed drainage.

Wait, I'm confused, what? Daylighting what? Are you guys talking about the China Creek easement? There's no way to actually connect it to Trout Lake, or anything for that matter, and I don't know any realistic canal proposals into the Flats.

Originally Posted by officedweller

That map also shows all the stream beds that the Broadway subway will have to deal with. I recall that the original plan for tunneling the M-Line along Broadway to VCC was going to be problematic because of the soft soils from the stream bed - but I think that would have been cut and cover.

Source?

The original route to VCC-Clark on Broadway would have been nice. Emily Carr would have to be located elsewhere (maybe on the VCC parking lot backlot, or next to the space for the Expo Line- Clark Station. )

It would have been more interconnected and have more development potential for mid-rise offices, overall than what we got. (though maybe slower)

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Source?

Recollection reading somewhere (probably in report approving M-Line diversion to the Flats) - I'll look when I have time.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

More pull than Bosa? I don't think LLL's going to get very far on this one.

Much MUCH more.

This one will likely get the relaxation they are looking for, unless community backlash is immense.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Wait, I'm confused, what? Daylighting what? Are you guys talking about the China Creek easement? There's no way to actually connect it to Trout Lake, or anything for that matter, and I don't know any realistic canal proposals into the Flats.

Staff report, page five. Combine it with the Lost Streams map, and you get a creekbed stretching from Trout Lake (possibly further south or east) to the Flats, then morphing into a canal to Science World.

Probably a politically-motivated daydream, but at least a harmless one.

[officedweller]

The City has been discussing daylighting China Creek (to the south) for years:

Creek Daylighting and Green Infrastructure Opportunities
The “False Creek Flats Area Plan” (Appendix A – False Creek Flats Plan, May 2017) indicates
China Creek North Park as a possible link in part of an ecological corridor connecting existing
green spaces together through “long term opportunities for linear storm water connections
and biofiltration wetlands” that are compatible with public use.
Park Board and Engineering staff gave early consideration to the potential for daylighting
China Creek in the park. A daylighting project based on current sewer pipe alignments and
depths would require removing all sports fields and dedicating the majority of the park to a
restored creek. Furthermore, historic contamination is an issue in China Creek North Park,
and this poses a risk of leaching into any restored open watercourse, which can be a safety
concern.
In addition, the storm water main that bisects China Creek North Park can contain combined
sewage during wet weather. Separation of the China Creek sewer catchment will continue in
future capital plans identified through asset management principles, project coordination
opportunities, and through the redevelopment of aging properties.

Despite the barriers for creek daylighting, the Engineering Department’s Green Infrastructure
Branch has identified an opportunity for a biodiversity project in the park in collaboration
with Park Board staff. Toward the high point of the park along East 7
th Avenue there is
existing infrastructure that could be embraced as a source of rainwater to achieve a number
of objectives. Flows from along East 7th Avenue could be diverted into the Park to create a
wetland for habitat creation, water quality treatment, or stored for non-potable uses like
drip irrigation. The scope and scale of this opportunity can be tailored to fit within the
existing park uses; this will be further explored in the detailed design phase.

https://parkboardmeetings.vancouver....n-20170710.pdf



https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain...20-%202013.pdf

[Feathered Friend]

Canada’s Second Largest Mass Timber Office Building Wins the Hearts of Vancouver’s UDP

339 East 1st Avenue
One of the biggest misconceptions many have about Vancouver’s rezoning process is that the building’s appearance is set in stone. Granted, objections to the look of a building are often only raised by those who are already opposed to its height, density, or the perceived affect of it on the neighbourhood’s character. In reality, the rezoning stage is more about the height, general shape, and the type of building that will be allowed.

That’s not to say Hannah and I love the look of every building. Rather, we understand that architecture is an art, open to individual interpretation. Obviously this means we sometimes disagree with each other. For instance, at this office building’s 2017 open house, I supported the building’s colourful appearance, but Hannah wasn’t as much of a fan. Now two years later, her opinion has won out, as the project has a new look, new owners, and a new design team.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...ancouvers-udp/

[LeftCoaster]

I hadn't even noticed this was a mass timber proposal until I read your post this morning. Very excited for this project now.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Recollection reading somewhere (probably in report approving M-Line diversion to the Flats) - I'll look when I have time.

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...ancouvers-udp/

I don't get it. Too much parking space? This building looks built out to the edges of the site's area!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Curious to see a rendering of the proposed design
- hard to see how a 11-13 storey building is 250 ft in height (unless that's just a spire or other architectural feature).
Office building don't have 20ft ceiling heights.

City Council unanimously supported the potential height increase exploration exercise for the Lululemon office proposal.

As I understand it, the exercise doesn't add any additional floorspace beyond the 500,000+ sq. ft. already approved in the CD-1 that approved the building illustrated on the previous page. It looks like it's rather a design massing exercise to test what that floorpace would look like up to 250 feet tall. Currently it looks like Lululemon were thinking about 11 to 13 storeys, but don't forget the planners encouraged the Nature's Path building nearby to add an extra two floors to their original proposal.

So it's not necessarily a 250 foot high 13 storey building, but rather 500,000+ sq. ft. in a building up to 250 feet high. Of course, they might conclude that 250 feet would be too tall. And Lululemon might prefer fewer floors and larger floorplates. We'll wait and see the outcome.

It raises some interesting questions for the longer term about the potential redevelopment of the converted Coca Cola bottling plant in Kitsilano that Lululemon currently occupy, and also the office building on Pacific at Burrard, which looks like a candidate for a residential tower.

[Migrant_Coconut]

This is a nice change of pace. Vision would've screamed "viewcones" and killed it on the spot.

[SpongeG]

walking around the area last week I really cant understand how the tunnel entry is going to work. The red building beside emily carr has "save this building" type banners on it, I imagine it has to go to make way for the skytrain and station.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

walking around the area last week I really cant understand how the tunnel entry is going to work. The red building beside emily carr has "save this building" type banners on it, I imagine it has to go to make way for the skytrain and station.

They'll be torn down for construction.

[SpongeG]

yes. I don't know why there is a movement to save it though, its nothing special.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

City Council unanimously supported the potential height increase exploration exercise for the Lululemon office proposal.

As I understand it, the exercise doesn't add any additional floorspace beyond the 500,000+ sq. ft. already approved in the CD-1 that approved the building illustrated on the previous page. It looks like it's rather a design massing exercise to test what that floorpace would look like up to 250 feet tall. Currently it looks like Lululemon were thinking about 11 to 13 storeys, but don't forget the planners encouraged the Nature's Path building nearby to add an extra two floors to their original proposal.

So it's not necessarily a 250 foot high 13 storey building, but rather 500,000+ sq. ft. in a building up to 250 feet high. Of course, they might conclude that 250 feet would be too tall. And Lululemon might prefer fewer floors and larger floorplates. We'll wait and see the outcome.

It raises some interesting questions for the longer term about the potential redevelopment of the converted Coca Cola bottling plant in Kitsilano that Lululemon currently occupy, and also the office building on Pacific at Burrard, which looks like a candidate for a residential tower.

I'm pretty sure both have other tenants, though- otherwise this new site wouldn't be so much larger than their current HQ. Will they become like the CRA building without Lululemon? We'll see.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This is a nice change of pace. Vision would've screamed "viewcones" and killed it on the spot.

There's no viewcones on this site.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yes. I don't know why there is a movement to save it though, its nothing special.

It looks decent. If it works, maybe we'll see it relocated to elsewhere in the flats. Oh yeah, and it's being used for an Art Gallery, though I'm not sure if it's been emptied out.

[LeftCoaster]

I highly doubt Lululemon will multi-tenant their new HQ. This will be purely for their use.

They may build it in phases as needed to account for not needing 500,000+ on day one though.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

City Council unanimously supported the potential height increase exploration exercise for the Lululemon office proposal.

As I understand it, the exercise doesn't add any additional floorspace beyond the 500,000+ sq. ft. already approved in the CD-1 that approved the building illustrated on the previous page. It looks like it's rather a design massing exercise to test what that floorpace would look like up to 250 feet tall. Currently it looks like Lululemon were thinking about 11 to 13 storeys, but don't forget the planners encouraged the Nature's Path building nearby to add an extra two floors to their original proposal.

So it's not necessarily a 250 foot high 13 storey building, but rather 500,000+ sq. ft. in a building up to 250 feet high. Of course, they might conclude that 250 feet would be too tall. And Lululemon might prefer fewer floors and larger floorplates. We'll wait and see the outcome.

It raises some interesting questions for the longer term about the potential redevelopment of the converted Coca Cola bottling plant in Kitsilano that Lululemon currently occupy, and also the office building on Pacific at Burrard, which looks like a candidate for a residential tower.

Thanks for the info.
I suppose they might be considering a stepped tower.