Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

If landing one Amazon is a big deal for you, then I digress.

Please explain how the Fraser Institute "got us into demovictions, foreign-owned condos and the housing crisis in the first place". Your statement does'nt make any sense. The article pointed out the fact that Canadian cities are not in the least dense like many here like to think, so what does that have to do with what you just said?

Disagree, you mean? "Digress" means going off-topic. If we were so anti-business, we wouldn't have Microsoft or Amazon or Apple or EA or the largest VFX sector on the planet - they'd have all left.

Full quote: "The same kind of Victorian crony capitalism" that got us into it. The Fraser Institute's been cheerleading the Liberals and their policies and ideology since forever (and the Libs in turn seem to get their ideas from them), so anything they say should be viewed through that lens. It's hard to be as dense as Paris when it's almost as populous as half of Canada. Let's get to Metro Vancouver: population 6,000,000, then we can compare numbers.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by misher

Perhaps North of Broadway on the slope 40+ may be viable to match downtown. As downtown has two entrance towers on the Granville Bridge, two matching ones on the South side would make sense. I don't expect it along Broadway itself though. Broadway is generally higher than most of the surrounding land so you'll get complaints as the 40 storey towers will look massive.

West Broadway is high ground that's for sure. But the buildings there, low they may be, are already blocking all the views from Shaunessey of the mountains in the first place, so there is no reason for not letting the towers here go higher. I've stated before that the region can be a new growth centre or a second CBD of downtown Vancouver, so it doesn't matter if towers there seem taller than the peninsula. I don't get the fear of heights for so many folks here.

At least Melbournites are not as closed-minded, noting that Southbank neighbourhood, a new downtown extension of Melbourne's CBD across the Yarra River, saw its 80+ storey tower built, way taller than anything on the old city centre, when it was first constructed. But that led to the old CBD building more talls to compete with Southbank. I call that healthy competition.

Southbank, Melboune:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.820...7i13312!8i6656

Turning around: the old CBD:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.820...7i13312!8i6656


Melbourne Building heights:

• Crown Queensbridge Tower 90 proposed (1)
• Australia One-O-Eight 101 under construction (3)
• Eureka Tower 91 built 2006 (9)
• 21-35 Power Avenue 70 proposed
• Freshwater Place Tower 4 70 proposed
• 640 Bourke Street 85 proposed
• 180 Russell Street 70 proposed
• West Side Place Tower B 81 under construction (1)
• Aurora Melbourne Central 88 under construction (1)
• 295-309 King Street 83 proposed
• 120 Collins Street 52 built 1991 (4)
• 101 Collins Street 50 built 1991 (3)
• Pearl Tower 72 built 2014 (3)
• Rialto Towers 63 built 1986 (7)
• Queens Place North Tower 79 under construction
• Premier Tower 78 under construction (2)
• Victoria One 76 built 2018 (3)
• 350 Queen Street Tower II 78 proposed
• 51-65 Clarke Street 73 proposed
• Elysium 75 proposed
• 383 Latrobe Street 70 proposed
• West Side Place Tower 2 75 proposed
• Swanston Central 71 under construction (1)
• 556-558 Lonsdale Street 69 proposed
• Sapphire by the Gardens 62 under construction
• West Side Place Tower 4 69 proposed
• Tower Melbourne 69 proposed
• 568 Collins Street 65 built 2015 (1)
• Bourke Place 53 built 1991 (5)
• Vision Apartments 69 built 2016 (1)
• The Falls 66 proposed
• 272-282 Queen Street 57 proposed
• Light House 69 built 2017 (1)
• 380 Melbourne 67 under construction
• 97 Franklin Street 62 proposed
• West Side Place Tower B 65 under construction
• Melbourne Central 54 built 1991 (1)
• 478-488 Elizabeth Street 68 proposed
• Freshwater Place North 63 built 2005 (4)
• 63 Exhibition Street 58 proposed
• Eq. Tower 63 built 2017 (1)
• Empire Melbourne 62 built 2017 (1)
• Telstra Corporate Building 47 built 1992 (1)
• 256-260 City Road 60 proposed
• 80 Collins Street 50 built 1977 (3)
• Collins House 60 under construction (1)


And for our W. Broadway, we are merely talking about 40+ tall buildings....

[Migrant_Coconut]

Protip: get everything you want to say out in one go, THEN edit.

Originally Posted by Vin

Downtown Vancouver and West Broadway would easily have been filled out already if not for all the stupid mumbo jumbos like viewcones, shadowing, setbacks, and other nimby policies in the first place.

If landing one Amazon is a big deal for you, then I digress. Go to a major city around the world and see what types of companies or corporations are headquartered there, or at least hold significant real estate there to function as regional headquarters, research/training centres, etc., and when you realize how small we really are, then we will resume our conversation regarding this.

We've already made it, LOL *face palm*

I guess you rather the "Sim City" be built far from downtown Vancouver, which is happening this instance. Again, wonderful! Well, get ready for more commute time, traffic congestion, packed trains/buses, and way more transit related costs in the future.

And yet despite the viewcones, we're already denser than Toronto and Montreal. Like it or not, we're growing fast already.

See above. For a city in the least developed part of North America - one that doesn't even have a stock exchange, at that - we're punching well above our weight.

Compared to the warehouses and infill that make up most of Burnaby, Surrey, and Coquitlam (and pretty much Canada and the US in general), we most definitely have made it. We've still got further to go in comparison to Europe or Asia, yes, and we'll make it there in time. Rome wasn't built in a day.
The problem is that you want to turn Vancouver into a giant megalopolis overnight like China did, and that's not how it works - hell, China's already about to crash hard.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

West Broadway is high ground that's for sure. But the buildings there, low they may be, are already blocking all the houses the views of the mountains in the first place, so there is no reason for not letting the towers here go higher. I've stated before that the region can be a new growth centre or second CBD of downtown, so it doesn't matter if towers there seem taller than the peninsula. I don't get the fear of heights for so many folks here.

At least Melbournites are not as closed-minded, noting that Southbank neighbourhood, a new downtown extension of Melbourne's CBD across the Yarra River, saw its 80+ storey tower built: way taller than anything on the old city centre, when it was first constructed. But that led to the old CBD building more talls to compete with Southbank. I call that healthy competition.

Southbank, Melboune:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.820...7i13312!8i6656

Turning around: the old CBD:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.820...7i13312!8i6656

Yet there are still nice views in between and north of the buildings. Agree or disagree with the NIMBYs, you can hardly blame them for wanting to save at least a couple of good ones.
Downtown's the CBD and always will be. Expanding downtown means the expansion should complement it, not compete with it and lose.

Reposting the same crap over and over again doesn't make it less crappy. Southbank is geographically Melbourne's Yaletown. Melbourne's Broadway would be all the way out near Dorcas or Richardson, and that area basically looks like Kitsilano.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Disagree, you mean? "Digress" means going off-topic. If we were so anti-business, we wouldn't have Microsoft or Amazon or Apple or EA or the largest VFX sector on the planet - they'd have all left.

Full quote: "The same kind of Victorian crony capitalism" that got us into it. The Fraser Institute's been cheerleading the Liberals and their policies and ideology since forever (and the Libs in turn seem to get their ideas from them), so anything they say should be viewed through that lens. It's hard to be as dense as Paris when it's almost as populous as half of Canada. Let's get to Metro Vancouver: population 6,000,000, then we can compare numbers.

That's the most ridiculous statement ever made.

It's hard to be as dense as Paris when it's almost as populous as half of Canada Quote by Migrant_Coconut

[logan5]

Vin you're spiraling.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's the most ridiculous statement ever made.

Population of Canada (2016): 35,151,728
Population of Metropolitan Paris (2012): 12,532,901

Check. Your move.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

(1)Expanding downtown means the expansion should complement it, not compete with it and lose.

Reposting the same crap over and over again doesn't make it less crappy. Southbank is geographically Melbourne's Yaletown. Melbourne's Broadway would be all the way out near Dorcas or Richardson, and that area basically looks like Kitsilano.

(1) Well, at least you get something right: not having faith for downtown Vancouver to win on a competition.

(2) Again you are so wrong in this. Old Melbourne's CBD measures around 3km on its widest section and 1.5km north-south. South Bank is outside that. Guess what? Vancouver's downtown has pretty much the same dimensions. Edge of Stanley park to the viaducts is around 3km, and from Waterfront station to granville bridge is 1.7km. So yeah, OV would be equivalent to Southbank. But since OV is a sleepy residential neighbourhood, W. Broadway can be the new equivalence.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Population of Canada (2016): 35,151,728
Population of Metropolitan Paris (2012): 12,532,901

Check. Your move.

The numbers have absolutely nothing to do with how dense a city should be. If Paris were to adopt Vancouver's urban sprawl strategy to build out its city from the get-go, with NIMBYs resisting high-density development 24-7, it certainly wouldn't be as dense as it is today.

Checkmate, your move.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) Well, at least you get something right: not having faith for downtown Vancouver to win on a competition.

(2) Again you are so wrong in this. Old Melbourne's CBD measures around 3km on its widest section and 1.5km north-south. South Bank is outside that. Guess what? Vancouver's downtown has pretty much the same dimensions. Edge of Stanley park to the viaducts is around 3km, and from Waterfront station to granville bridge is 1.7km. So yeah, OV would be equivalent to Southbank. But since OV is a sleepy residential neighbourhood, W. Broadway can be the new equivalence.

The plan seems to be for density rivaling downtown North from Burrard and 12th to Main by 2040 with the rest of Vancouver left to be low to mid rise (except Oakridge). But who knows if the current city council will follow the Metro 2040 plan.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) Well, at least you get something right: not having faith for downtown Vancouver to win on a competition.

(2) Again you are so wrong in this. Old Melbourne's CBD measures around 3km on its widest section and 1.5km north-south. South Bank is outside that. Guess what? Vancouver's downtown has pretty much the same dimensions. Edge of Stanley park to the viaducts is around 3km, and from Waterfront station to granville bridge is 1.7km. So yeah, OV would be equivalent to Southbank. But since OV is a sleepy residential neighbourhood, W. Broadway can be the new equivalence.

Read it again. Downtown beats Broadway, no matter how big it gets.

Nope, nada, nyet, nein. Melbourne's CBD - translated to Vancouver - ends at Davie. That makes Southbank Yaletown. It doesn't matter what side of the river it's on, not if said river is less than a block wide. A new CBD in Albert Park would be a dumb idea.

Originally Posted by Vin

The numbers have absolutely nothing to do with how dense a city should be. If Paris were to adopt Vancouver's urban sprawl strategy to build out its city from the get-go, with NIMBYs resisting high-density development 24-7, it certainly wouldn't be as dense as it is today.

Checkmate, your move.

One, you don't understand how chess works. Two, the numbers have everything to do with density: the equation is literally population divided by city area. Drop everybody in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto into one city, and of course the density goes up. Athens, as a general rule, bans anything over twelve floors so that everybody can see the Parthenon, but is still denser than Vancouver because of its larger population.

Same goes for for Paris. Outside of La Defense and the thirteenth arrondissement, there's about a dozen or so commercial or residential towers in the entire city; almost all of its density comes from the same kind of six-floor "infill" you detest. That means we could put a ten-storey viewcone over the entire metro, still get a European level of density as more and more people move in, and have the NIMBYs partying in the streets until they collapsed.

[misher]

Latest update:

We hope to have our Emerging directions open houses for the Broadway Plan over the summer.

Our current focus is planning the upcoming spring events. We are planning the next series of walking tours and workshops now. We will send additional details over the coming weeks.

Sounds like the first stage (Early 2019) will have a few more events before it concludes with the 2nd stage (Mid 2019) in summer.

I really do wonder if these events have any effect on what the city is planning or if there just going to use selected parts of what we submit as justification for their own decisions.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Read it again. Downtown beats Broadway, no matter how big it gets.

(1)Nope, nada, nyet, nein. Melbourne's CBD - translated to Vancouver - ends at Davie. That makes Southbank Yaletown. It doesn't matter what side of the river it's on, not if said river is less than a block wide. A new CBD in Albert Park would be a dumb idea.



(2)One, you don't understand how chess works. Two, the numbers have everything to do with density: the equation is literally population divided by city area. Drop everybody in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto into one city, and of course the density goes up. Athens, as a general rule, bans anything over twelve floors so that everybody can see the Parthenon, but is still denser than Vancouver because of its larger population.

Same goes for for Paris. Outside of La Defense and the thirteenth arrondissement, there's about a dozen or so commercial or residential towers in the entire city; almost all of its density comes from the same kind of six-floor "infill" you detest. That means we could put a ten-storey viewcone over the entire metro, still get a European level of density as more and more people move in, and have the NIMBYs partying in the streets until they collapsed.

(1)Do you just come up with stuff? I showed you the dinensions of Melbourne's CBD & Vancouver's. Bothered to measure it, and you just claim it without showing any proof. Not convinced. Many parts of downtown Vancouver in the West End may well be the suburbs, to be honest. That makes Melbourne's CBD way bigger and more urban. Southbank is still the equivalence of OV or W.Broadway. Most important thing is, Melbourne's CBD is expanding a lot more than Vancouver's and there is no doubt about it, making the city a lot more vibrant, day and night.

(2)Understanding about chess is irrelevant in our discussions, like who cares. Athens, Paris and other European cities allow high density everywhere, like literally spread throughout the whole city without single family homes in sight. Vancouver can't even allow mid-density on the major streets, so the only way to increase the density is to go really tall in selected neighbourhoods as a start. Like it or hate it, it's the only way to massively increase density in a relatively short time.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1)Do you just come up with stuff? I showed you the dinensions of Melbourne's CBD & Vancouver's. Bothered to measure it, and you just claim it without showing any proof. Not convinced. Many parts of downtown Vancouver in the West End may well be the suburbs, to be honest. That makes Melbourne's CBD way bigger and more urban. Southbank is still the equivalence of OV or W.Broadway. Most important thing is, Melbourne's CBD is expanding a lot more than Vancouver's and there is no doubt about it, making the city a lot more vibrant, day and night.

(2)Understanding about chess is irrelevant in our discussions, like who cares. Athens, Paris and other European cities allow high density everywhere, like literally spread throughout the whole city without single family homes in sight. Vancouver can't even allow mid-density on the major streets, so the only way to increase the density is to go really tall in selected neighbourhoods as a start. Like it or hate it, it's the only way to massively increase density in a relatively short time.

I could ask you the same – the portion of downtown Melbourne that’s actual highrise is about 2x1 klicks wide, so your “dimensions” apparently include their botanic gardens and stadiums. Those analogues are Stanley Park and NEFC, not Broadway.
Compare and contrast with downtown Vancouver. If the West End counts as suburbs, so do the Docklands and everything north of Melbourne’s Victoria Street. St Kilda is future Cambie. That leaves a CBD that fits comfortably between Coal Harbour and BC Place, and Southbank is Yaletown.

Once again, Athens and Paris have a population that can sustain midrises everywhere. Vancouver doesn’t. Try that here with our 2.4 million residents, and we’ll overshoot the housing crisis and end up with a Chinese ghost district like Yujiapu. Cities take time to grow; as it is, there's plenty of midrises coming up on the arterials if one is paying attention; the closest analogues of Vancouver in terms of size are Amsterdam, Seattle and Portland, and both our city and metro are already denser than they are, so we’re already ahead of the curve.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I could ask you the same – the portion of downtown Melbourne that’s actual highrise is about 2x1 klicks wide, so your “dimensions” apparently include their botanic gardens and stadiums. Those analogues are Stanley Park and NEFC, not Broadway.
Compare and contrast with downtown Vancouver. If the West End counts as suburbs, so do the Docklands and everything north of Melbourne’s Victoria Street. St Kilda is future Cambie. That leaves a CBD that fits comfortably between Coal Harbour and BC Place, and Southbank is Yaletown.

Once again, Athens and Paris have a population that can sustain midrises everywhere. Vancouver doesn’t. Try that here with our 2.4 million residents, and we’ll overshoot the housing crisis and end up with a Chinese ghost district like Yujiapu. Cities take time to grow; as it is, there's plenty of midrises coming up on the arterials if one is paying attention; the closest analogues of Vancouver in terms of size are Amsterdam, Seattle and Portland, and both our city and metro are already denser than they are, so we’re already ahead of the curve.

Again not true, Vancouver can sustain the densities, but planners pushed and is still pushing the people far out to the outskirts. If they were successful to get higher densities in Vancouver proper from the get-go, there won't be Surrey Central, Coquitlam Centre or Richmond Centre like we know them today. Everything would be more centralized rather than spread out, making us lose more industrial and agricultural lands.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Again not true, Vancouver can sustain the densities, but planners pushed and is still pushing the people far out to the outskirts. If they were successful to get higher densities in Vancouver proper from the get-go, there won't be Surrey Central, Coquitlam Centre or Richmond Centre like we know them today. Everything would be more centralized rather than spread out, making us lose more industrial and agricultural lands.

Have you run that idea past Surrey, Coquitlam or Richmond City Councils? I don't think they share your view, and it doesn't really reflect GVRD/Metro Vancouver plans for many decades. In fact, I'm not sure anybody shares it, except perhaps EA Games - "SimCity 2013 was criticized for its very small maximum city size of 4 km2, one quarter the size of previous versions".

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

Again not true, Vancouver can sustain the densities, but planners pushed and is still pushing the people far out to the outskirts. If they were successful to get higher densities in Vancouver proper from the get-go, there won't be Surrey Central, Coquitlam Centre or Richmond Centre like we know them today. Everything would be more centralized rather than spread out, making us lose more industrial and agricultural lands.

Totally true but also no one wants to be a suburb and Vancouver let that out of the box when they began outsourcing density making everyone around cities instead of the suburbs they would have been in another city.

Now we have Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey and others competing to take the crown from Vancouver.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

West Broadway is high ground that's for sure. ..... towers there seem taller than the peninsula. ...... I don't get the fear of heights for so many folks here.

At least Melbournites are not as closed-minded, noting that Southbank neighbourhood, a new downtown extension of Melbourne's CBD across the Yarra River, saw its 80+ storey tower built, way taller than anything on the old city centre, when it was first constructed. But that led to the old CBD building more talls to compete with Southbank. I call that healthy competition.

Southbank, Melboune:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.820...7i13312!8i6656

Turning around: the old CBD:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.820...7i13312!8i6656

And for our W. Broadway, we are merely talking about 40+ tall buildings....

I'm not all that into Melbourne architecture. While it's true that much of it is impressive and tall, it has kind of a Dallas-Houston look in some places, and bizarre twists in others.
I think that 40-storey buildings are fine, if they are sleek, even, elegant and make a good streetwall, "sleek big-city" feeling. No need to go hog wild. Just do it right.
Good street permeability helps too; retail; mini-parks and treed arches and entranceways. There's a real potential here. Don't throw it away on mediocrity, please.

[misher]

Normally would not include a sale in this thread but this is a significant one that will likely influence Broadway Development. It prices it per a buildable sqft while noting its zoned for less density than neighbouring lots. Given the FSR will likely change I suggest looking at per sqft of land which is about $1550, more than most land around Cambie was going for a few short years ago. I note that the Wendy's is assessed at $1,900/sqft of land which makes me wonder if properties North of Broadway are worth more or if theres another reason that increases the Wendy's development potential?

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city...vancouver-sold

City Square Mall, at the northwest corner of the intersection Cambie Street and West 12th Avenue, immediately west of Vancouver City Hall, recently changed hands under a significant deal.

he mixed-use commercial complex, designed with a European village flair, is comprised of both heritage and contemporary structures, with approximately 250,000 sq. ft. of leasable floor area, including about 50 retail spaces and two six-storey office buildings. Underground levels contain 650 vehicle parking spaces.

The lot size, spanning much of the city block, is 145,484 sq. ft. (3.3 acres). A CBRE retail market report for the second half of 2018 indicates the shopping centre, located at 555 West 12th Avenue, was sold to Richmond-based Sun Commercial Real Estate Group for $225 million — well over its latest assessed value of $102.7 million – with the identified value of the land and structures almost evenly split.

It was one of the most expensive property acquisitions in Vancouver last year.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Again not true, Vancouver can sustain the densities, but planners pushed and is still pushing the people far out to the outskirts. If they were successful to get higher densities in Vancouver proper from the get-go, there won't be Surrey Central, Coquitlam Centre or Richmond Centre like we know them today. Everything would be more centralized rather than spread out, making us lose more industrial and agricultural lands.

Then your real grievance isn't with NIMBYs or viewcones or closed minds or anything like that. It's with Harland Bartholomew, Robert Moses, the BC Liberals, and a hundred years of North American commuter suburb culture that made it even easier than usual to build out before building up - just look at Houston or L.A. The cat is well out of the bag by now.

As it is, Vancouver (despite our relatively tiny population) is as compact as Amsterdam, is the densest city in Canada, and is one of the top ten densest on the continent. To repeat myself, we are WELL ahead of the curve.