Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As it is, Vancouver is as compact as Amsterdam, is the densest city in Canada, and is one of the top ten densest in North America. To repeat myself, we are WELL ahead of the curve.

True. Though the studies can be a bit flawed as some cities claim large areas where things aren't built like mountains. Metro Vancouver should be considered a city when you compare it to other major cities as just comparing Vancouver to say Seattle is difficult.

[GenWhy?]

Are you calculating psf buildable or just the land?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

As it is, Vancouver 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.

Overall folks here have a constant "seige" mentality. Everyone is operating in an atmosphere that someone better would come and replace them. Even City Hall is forever weary of a neighbouring structure taller than it is, Nimbys are scared of their neighbours outdoing them in house sizes....and the list goes on. Then they put in all these silly rules and regulations to impede others from creating something better than theirs. GO figure. We only appear to be well ahead of the curve in this country because we have limited area to grow, unlike other Canadian cities. But why compare internally when we can compare externally? We should try to become the best in the world, not just in Canada.

BTW, being ahead of the curve in Canada isn't attributed to Vancouver's ability to create density, but more because of the suburb municipality efforts.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by 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-square-mall-vancouver-sold

Doesn't really surprise me - lots a fraction of the size are valued at $18 million and sell for $46.

[Feathered Friend]

Proposed development at Vancouver MEC property to tower above neighbourhood
Highrise towers built on property along bustling Broadway corridor would loom over heritage homes

Rafferty Baker · CBC News · Posted: May 09, 2019 3:00 AM PT | Last Updated: 10 hours ago

Jean Campbell and her family moved into a heritage home in the 100-block of West 10th Avenue in Vancouver 15 years ago.

The turquoise house with burgundy trim and canary yellow details was built in 1894. It's set back from the tree-lined street, surrounded by larger heritage houses from roughly the same period.

"What drew me to the neighbourhood is that it's very leafy and green — and I especially like that — but also the heritage buildings give you a feeling of nostalgia for the past and times gone by," said Campbell.

But soon, the neighbourhood will see a major change. A highrise development is being planned for the block on Broadway, one street to the north....


....Stovell said the artist's renderings shouldn't have been released, and may not accurately show the design of the development Reliance plans to put forward. But for neighbours like Campbell, they came as a shock.

"It's just the towers that I resent," said Campbell. "They encroach on the privacy of the residents, as well as losing the heritage feel."

More at:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...evelopment-heritage-neighbours-1.5125615

[GenWhy?]

25,000 sf of land for a potential 10+ storey building seems about right.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

More at:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...evelopment-heritage-neighbours-1.5125615

Heard that lady on the radio this morning which was just sloppy storey all around. 2 blocks east and west from here is a 10+ storey building.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Overall folks here have a constant "seige" mentality. Everyone is operating in an atmosphere that someone better would come and replace them. Even City Hall is forever weary of a neighbouring structure taller than it is, Nimbys are scared of their neighbours outdoing them in house sizes....and the list goes on. Then they put in all these silly rules and regulations to impede others from creating something better than theirs. GO figure. We only appear to be well ahead of the curve in this country because we have limited area to grow, unlike other Canadian cities. But why compare internally when we can compare externally? We should try to become the best in the world, not just in Canada.

BTW, being ahead of the curve in Canada isn't attributed to Vancouver's ability to create density, but more because of the suburb municipality efforts.

NIMBYs exist all over the planet. The scale and focus and legitimacy varies from protest to protest, but let's not pretend we're the only ones that fear change.

As you can expect, the plan has not gone down easily in low-rise Amsterdam. “Have we forgotten who we are?” architect and planner Sjoerd Soeters asks aloud in magazine Groene Amsterdam. “We are a flat country with a flat society,” he continues, going on to raise the specter of J.G. Ballard’s High Rise as a possible dystopian future for Amsterdam in which rich and poor are rigidly segregated in vertical neighborhoods. Others have pointed out that the high level of subsidized housing may in fact make it difficult to achieve the sort of green, well-connected neighborhood that planners are striving for, as there will be relatively less money to spend on careful landscaping.

Vancouver proper has 5,493 people packed into one square klick; Toronto proper has 4,149. We don't have to "try," we already are best in Canada (density-wise) even without the suburbs.

Thing is, a wannabe athlete may think he's hot sh*t because he was the high school champion and won a couple trophies, but he's still got a long way to go before he even gets drafted professionally. Let's get another couple million residents and then we can talk about densifying the whole city. This right now is the ignition sequence.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Are you calculating psf buildable or just the land?

Land. Based on buildable sqft seems wrong given that people are basing prices on development potential of the land rather than the pre Broadway freeze buildables. Pre-Broadway zoning rules may be a factor in post Broadway plans, but they may not too.

PS: Holy cow 2145 West Broadway sold for 76 million, breaking the $2000/sqft land value mark https://www.collierscanada.com/25700

I've noticed an increase in Broadway sales in late 2018 when I thought the taxes had killed development, I wonder if there's something we don't know afoot.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Heard that lady on the radio this morning which was just sloppy storey all around. 2 blocks east and west from here is a 10+ storey building.

And that block she lives on has 60's era 3 sory walk-up apartments. The West End is a fantastic neighbourhood, and it has a mix of 1800's heritage homes, low-rise and high-rise.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vancouver proper has 5,493 people packed into one square klick; Toronto proper has 4,149. We don't have to "try," we already are best in Canada (density-wise) even without the suburbs.

Vancouver is dense but Toronto is quite a bit denser when you calculate its density using the same area as the CoV. Just wanted to clarify that. Sorry

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

Vancouver is dense but Toronto is quite a bit denser when you calculate its density using the same area as the CoV. Just wanted to clarify that. Sorry

Genuinely curious, how'd you get those numbers? 2,731,571 over 630.21 gets me 4,334.4/sq km (Toronto), and 631,486 over 114.97 gets me 5,492.6/sq km (Vancouver). Comparing a downtown to a city as a whole isn't quite apples to apples.

[logan5]

I'm comparing Toronto density over a similar area as Vancouver 's 114km2. Old Toronto is 37 sq miles vs CoV which is 44 sq miles. A similar sized area where Toronto has 21 000/sq mile vs Vancouver's 14 000/sq mile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Toronto

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm comparing Toronto density over a similar area as Vancouver 's 114km2. Old Toronto is 37 sq miles vs CoV which is 44 sq miles. A similar sized area where Toronto has 21 000/sq mile vs Vancouver's 14 000/sq mile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Toronto

Is it though? Old Toronto's analogue is downtown Vancouver to Broadway, and that's slightly less than 11,577/km2 to OT's 8,210.4/km2.

[misher]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm comparing Toronto density over a similar area as Vancouver 's 114km2. Old Toronto is 37 sq miles vs CoV which is 44 sq miles. A similar sized area where Toronto has 21 000/sq mile vs Vancouver's 14 000/sq mile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Toronto

Goodjob. Yes Vancouver's density numbers are a bit deceptive.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Goodjob. Yes Vancouver's density numbers are a bit deceptive.

See above. Anywhere else in Canada or the US, a city of this size would look like Portland... but we don't.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

See above. Anywhere else in Canada or the US, a city of this size would look like Portland... but we don't.

The cities of Vancouver, Seattle and Portland have roughly equivalent population. Seattle is twice the size, and Portland three times the size (so Seattle has half the population density and Portland a third of the density). San Francisco is almost exactly the same size as Vancouver - 44 square miles in US measurement, and has 200,000 more people - so it's quite a bit denser. It was incorporated in 1850, 36 years earlier than Vancouver. Vancouver adds over 50,000 people every decade (217,000 in the past 35 years) so we're on track to be a very similar size population to San Francisco when we're the same age as that city. Of course, they could be over a million people by then (assuming we both avoid earthquakes in the meantime).

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The cities of Vancouver, Seattle and Portland have roughly equivalent population.

The Vancouver CMA is about 2.5M people, while Seattle's MSA is around 3.8-3.9M. Seattle has roughly 50% more population than Vancouver, which makes "roughly equivalent" a rather broad statement.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Genuinely curious, how'd you get those numbers? 2,731,571 over 630.21 gets me 4,334.4/sq km (Toronto), and 631,486 over 114.97 gets me 5,492.6/sq km (Vancouver). Comparing a downtown to a city as a whole isn't quite apples to apples.

You shouldn't forget the fact that Toronto amalgamated a lot of surrounding low-density municipalities not too long ago, otherwise the city itself would have even higher density than ours.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

The Vancouver CMA is about 2.5M people, while Seattle's MSA is around 3.8-3.9M. Seattle has roughly 50% more population than Vancouver, which makes "roughly equivalent" a rather broad statement.

Which is why I said 'cities' - not CMAs. Each around 650,000 people.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

You shouldn't forget the fact that Toronto amalgamated a lot of surrounding low-density municipalities not too long ago, otherwise the city itself would have even higher density than ours.

And if Vancouver amalgamated Burnaby and Richmond and North Van, we'd still be denser. Forget apples to oranges, now you're comparing apples to cucumbers.