Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[scryer]

Instead of having grown men lose their 🞵🞵🞵🞵 over petty metrics, why don't we focus on what we would like to see? You know, be focused on solutions and opportunities?

Regardless of how we compare to other cities, the Broadway corridor is a great opportunity to densify and really grow downtown off the peninsula (which I think is a great thing).

Coming from the average tax paying citizen that is facing a housing crisis:


1. Broadway needs to be dense and tall(er). And these are not necessarily the same thing. Broadway needs to be have a minimum height of the average height in OV (if that makes any sense lol). Personally I think that it would be totally acceptable to see a significantly taller tower clusters at Broadway-City Hall station, Commercial-Broadway, and at Main Street-Kingsway stations for obvious reasons.

2. Broadway needs to have a significant amount of rental housing stock added to it. In my fictional world, the government would subsidize construction costs and tax breaks to developers to encourage the construction of rental units alongside condos.

3. We all know that I have this very romantic idea of placing a couple of Burj-Khalifas in downtown but I am willing to compromise: we can totally do mountain-style townhouse complexes (google-image it, I think it's suiting for Vancouver) for more sensitive neighbourhoods nearby transit. I honestly do think that there is something to be learned from Europe and how they achieve density without the height. And these complexes could also be mixed use with ground-level retail. Hell these mid-rise (6+ floors) complexes could be condo/rental mix if we really wanted. This would be where the rezoning city-wide plan that our newly elected city council would help bring in these denser developments without overwhelming a neighbourhood.

That's my thoughts on the Broadway corridor.

Now can we move on from these damn metrics and start focusing on the future we want to create for Vancouver? Hell if we did the Skytrain on our own then this is nothing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

1: Agreed. I think most of us can get behind Broadway having a minimum of 5-10 storeys and average of 20-25 - that's the kind of density that makes MIRHPP sustainable.

3: Like these? Yeah, they'd be more than fine for 12th all the way to 16th.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1: Agreed. I think most of us can get behind Broadway having a minimum of 5-10 storeys and average of 20-25 - that's the kind of density that makes MIRHPP sustainable.

3: Like these? Yeah, they'd be more than fine for 12th all the way to 16th.

What is MIRHPP, anyway? Please excuse my ignorance. Thanks

[officedweller]

From the general thread:

Same "concept" design we've seen before...

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

[squeezied]

Vin logic... tall must equal dense. Look at him praising Burnaby for being so progressive. Little does he realize how spaced apart the towers are thus making the overall density not as impressive as he thinks. But obviously that doesn't matter to him... it's the height of the tower that really counts for him.

And malls.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What is MIRHPP, anyway? Please excuse my ignorance. Thanks

Moderate Income Rental Housing Program. Four-fifths of the development is market level housing that subsidizes another fifth of below-market.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

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

Cherries picked. Cities proper is no meaningful measure in metropolitan regions.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

Correction: If Vancouver amalgamates Burnaby and Richmond, we will be even denser.

Only at the beginning.

In the long run, the City would start enacting viewcones all over the place, and all buildings above 4 stories would be banned in the suburbs of Richmond and Burnaby.

Then Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Mission and Hope would start going really tall and have new town centres.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

Correction: If Vancouver amalgamates Burnaby and Richmond, we will be even denser.

Only at the beginning.

In the long run, the City would start enacting viewcones all over the place, and all buildings above 4 stories would be banned in the suburbs.

Then Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Mission and Hope would start going really tall and have new town centres.

Hillarious...but true.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Vin logic... tall must equal dense. Look at him praising Burnaby for being so progressive. Little does he realize how spaced apart the towers are thus making the overall density not as impressive as he thinks. But obviously that doesn't matter to him... it's the height of the tower that really counts for him.

And malls.

Going tall allows more green spaces, parks, and better views from the windows of residence units. You can perhaps perhaps pact 5 to 6 stories taking up whole lot sizes but u will be starring onto a brick wall or someone else's living/bed room. A lot of tall buildings already have podiums equating the density of a mid-rise, especially those with 6 to 8 storey podiums. Add on the towers and they definitely provide way more density than a low-rise does, even if it occupies the entire lot. You can try proving me wrong on that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

Cherries picked. Cities proper is no meaningful measure in metropolitan regions.

The debate was about increasing density along the Broadway corridor. It then diverted into a wider discussion about density of different georgraphical locations. Metropolitan regions aren't 'meaningful' in the sense that they don't determine what density can be built - cities do. So the existing density of the City of Vancouver, and the density that the citizens of the city are willing to contemplate (or not) is relevant. The existing density sets the context - and Portland and Seattle are both far less dense - as cities - as the City of Vancouver (which also has the highest population density of all Metro Vancouver municipalities).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Correction: If Vancouver amalgamates Burnaby and Richmond, we will be even denser.

Six of one, half a dozen of another. A good chunk of both suburbs is farms and woodland and warehouses, and most of the rest is SFH. That would drag Vancouver down.

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.

Originally Posted by Vin

Only at the beginning.

In the long run, the City would start enacting viewcones all over the place, and all buildings above 4 stories would be banned in the suburbs of Richmond and Burnaby.

Then Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Mission and Hope would start going really tall and have new town centres.

You're contradicting yourself. With one big city, an average of six storeys in the core could and would be sustained. Density can be achieved in spite of viewcones - that's an aesthetic argument. Four stories everywhere would create much more density than Metrotown or Brentwood.

Much of Abbotsford is an oversized rest stop, and they like it that way. If Chilliwack decides to push past local opposition and build 40+ towers in a motown without any of the necessary infrastructure to sustain them, that's their problem. So long as they don't all drive into Vancouver for work.

Originally Posted by Vin

Going tall allows more green spaces, parks, and better views from the windows of residence units. You can perhaps perhaps pact 5 to 6 stories taking up whole lot sizes but u will be starring onto a brick wall or someone else's living/bed room. A lot of tall buildings already have podiums equating the density of a mid-rise, especially those with 6 to 8 storey podiums. Add on the towers and they definitely provide way more density than a low-rise does, even if it occupies the entire lot. You can try proving me wrong on that.

Didn't you just argue last year that close-knit towers make the place feel more urban? And a few years before that about how we have too many parks and need more urban spaces?

At any rate, Metrotown's got plenty of urban parks, and Yaletown has even more. Their tower spacing comes from how they still think of themselves as a suburban centre instead of a downtown.

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by Vin

Going tall allows more green spaces, parks, and better views from the windows of residence units. You can perhaps perhaps pact 5 to 6 stories taking up whole lot sizes but u will be starring onto a brick wall or someone else's living/bed room. A lot of tall buildings already have podiums equating the density of a mid-rise, especially those with 6 to 8 storey podiums. Add on the towers and they definitely provide way more density than a low-rise does, even if it occupies the entire lot. You can try proving me wrong on that.

Vin logic... Paris is a miserable place to live. Mississauga is the crown jewel of urban glory.

Everyone here knows you don't really care about green spaces, parks and better views for the residents. All you care about is the view of the towers. Higher must be better!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Six of one, half a dozen of another. (1)A good chunk of both suburbs is farms and woodland and warehouses, and most of the rest is SFH. That would drag Vancouver down.

You're contradicting yourself. (2)With one big city, an average of six storeys in the core could and would be sustained. Density can be achieved in spite of viewcones - that's an aesthetic argument. Four stories everywhere would create much more density than Metrotown or Brentwood.

(3)Much of Abbotsford is an oversized rest stop, and they like it that way. If Chilliwack decides to push past local opposition and build 40+ towers in a motown without any of the necessary infrastructure to sustain them, that's their problem. So long as they don't all drive into Vancouver for work.



Didn't you just argue last year that close-knit towers make the place feel more urban? And a few years before that about how we have too many parks and need more urban spaces?

At any rate, Metrotown's got plenty of urban parks, and Yaletown has even more. Their tower spacing comes from how they still think of themselves as a suburban centre instead of a downtown.

(1)We don't count the woodlands and parks, or industrial lands, just residential and commercials areas. Burnaby has way more parks now because of high density town centres that curtail the SFH sprawl over there.

(2)Perhaps you forget that 6 storeys are deemed too tall for all the SFH neighbourhoods in Vancouver. Having them lining major streets will not improve densities whatsoever. You are being idealistic that 4 stories can be built everywhere. This is not even happening in downtown Vancouver, and not on West Broadway, so what makes you think it can be achieved universally?

(3)True, but only because neighbouring cities like Surrey, Coquitlam, New West, Burnaby are going tall. If those municipalities belong to City Of Vancouver with viewcones and other restrictions in place, Abby and Chilliwack won't be a truck stops no more.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Krissy

Vin logic... Paris is a miserable place to live. Mississauga is the crown jewel of urban glory.

Everyone here knows you don't really care about green spaces, parks and better views for the residents. All you care about is the view of the towers. Higher must be better!

Did I ever say that? Au contraire! Paris is beautiful with awesome architecture. It also has really wide boulevards and plazas that make living in close quarters tolerable. You won't be staring into spandrels and drab walls like if OV were to be done in the scale of Paris, but more interesting architectural features that you would be looking at, as well as parklets, treed boulevards, etc. If Vancouver can be built like that through and through, oh yeah then go for it: I will totally be in support of that.

Still, Paris is going really really tall in its newer financial district.
la defense:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8866445,...LvD2lo1kzCT_uiEuCIlJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's progress for you.

In addtition, Mississauga is a crown jewel now compared to when it was a purely SFH neighbourhood/farmland.
2007:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5935109,...euKw!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i3328!8i1664
2018:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5935331,...kwrMVgBri0rDeNPx8zvyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Krissy logic:
Vancouver's Kingsway is the crown jewel of urban glory, especially with nothing much happening:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2551117,...0_GAqQt-qvzRVnvr_461X!2e10!7i5376!8i2688

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1)We don't count the woodlands and parks, or industrial lands, just residential and commercials areas. Burnaby has way more parks now because of high density town centres that curtail the SFH sprawl over there.

Do you even think about what you write?

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by Vin

Did I ever say that? Au contraire! Paris is beautiful with awesome architecture. It also has really wide boulevards and plazas that make living in close quarters tolerable. You won't be staring into spandrels and drab walls like if OV were to be done in the scale of Paris, but more interesting architectural features that you would be looking at, as well as parklets, treed boulevards, etc. If Vancouver can be built like that through and through, oh yeah then go for it: I will totally be in support of that.

Still, Paris is going really really tall in its newer financial district.
la defense:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8866445,...LvD2lo1kzCT_uiEuCIlJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's progress for you.

La Defense is not in Paris. Evidently you like La Defense more than Paris. Who cares about La Defense when there's Paris.

By extension, who cares about Burnaby when there's Vancouver? Not much except tall tower fanatics like Vin.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1)We don't count the woodlands and parks, or industrial lands, just residential and commercials areas. Burnaby has way more parks now because of high density town centres that curtail the SFH sprawl over there.

(2)Perhaps you forget that 6 storeys are deemed too tall for all the SFH neighbourhoods in Vancouver. Having them lining major streets will not improve densities whatsoever. You are being idealistic that 4 stories can be built everywhere. This is not even happening in downtown Vancouver, and not on West Broadway, so what makes you think it can be achieved universally?

(3)True, but only because neighbouring cities like Surrey, Coquitlam, New West, Burnaby are going tall. If those municipalities belong to City Of Vancouver with viewcones and other restrictions in place, Abby and Chilliwack won't be a truck stops no more.

And yet most of it is still SFH. Burnaby's overall density is 2,568.7/km2, which is less than Victoria and half of Vancouver.

Hence multiple rezonings, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, if you'd ever bothered to read the community plans. An amalgamated city that wants to keep the suburbs low would also raise the core higher.

The same Chilliwack that has a controversy over one six-storey? No, they're too far away and too quiet even if both residents and developers were interested. What would happen is that the developers would just squeeze under Burnaby's viewcones like they're already doing in Vancouver, and nothing would change except the shape of the skyline.

[squeezied]

Omg all this Vin logic galore... So much entertainment to take in so little time...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Omg all this Vin logic galore... So much entertainment to take in so little time...

I agree...