Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Vin is right about the overall amount of change happening out towards areas like Surrey/Langley/New West/Abbotsford. I grew up in those areas and remember a whole lot more trees and farmland and much smaller roads with a whole lot less traffic. The rate of change out there has been mind-boggling. Way more traffic/ Way more building/ way more retailers/ even within the City proper of Langley has been demoing large numbers of single-family homes and redeveloping them into midrise dense condos and apartments. The growth is reflected in why the schools are busting at the seams literally.

The housing market and sales out there are still very strong and people are still putting offers down and others are still loosing out on housing because someone else is offering a better price.

False Creek south is growing also and reflective of that growth though is the continuing protest of people in that area for the Vancouver School Board to build them a school because their kids want to go to the school that was part of the development plan.

Same thing can be said about all the urban centres outside Vancouver. The changes had been tremendous. Vancouver, on the other hand....Kerrisdale, Kitsilano, West Broadway, Oakridge, Kingsway, etc. don't see a lot of changes, and are still as quaint as ever. The only notable changes have been occurring at Marine Gateway and Olympic Village: but these are way too small to accommodate large populations.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Right - it's not a good guess because it doesn't take into account where growth might occur in Vancouver (for example). It significantly underestimates Cambie Corridor, it has no growth along East Hastings, but now there's a plan, and a whole series of higher density residential proposals that will see more growth than they indicate. I have no idea how good it is in suburban predictions, but it's not that good in Vancouver.

And to drag this back (again) to Broadway - it doesn't assume a plan for more density along Broadway because five years ago, when they made their guess, there wasn't a plan. In a couple of years there will be a plan, and by 2041 there's almost certain to be a lot more density than their guess shows.

Those places you mentioned are just sputtering along, as compared to what is happening in the burbs, and changes are just being implemented in recent years after Vancouver feels that it is fast losing out to other municipalities. Remember when Vision was about to be kicked out, they suddenly changed the OCP of Oakridge Town Centre from up to 6 storeys to 20+ to 30+?

West Broadway had been ignored way too long. There were simply way too many missed opportunities. It's not too late for them to do something sensible this time. Mid-rise buildings are fine, but that means swathes of blocks need to be upzoned: including 6th to 8th, W. Broadway, and 10th to 12th Avenues to achieve the kind of density we want. If upzoning is to occur only along West Broadway adjacent streets: 8th and 10th Ave, then they better allow taller towers of up to 40 stories.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

I bet a big proportion of the 199,101 population in the growth went into the downtown highrises. Would be nice to see a distribution map of that.

Great, I can't wait to see it when you've made it.

Less than a third of the growth was Downtown (including the West End).

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

Those places you mentioned are just sputtering along, as compared to what is happening in the burbs, and changes are just being implemented in recent years after Vancouver feels that it is fast losing out to other municipalities. Remember when Vision was about to be kicked out, they suddenly changed the OCP of Oakridge Town Centre from up to 6 storeys to 20+ to 30+?

West Broadway had been ignored way too long. There were simply way too many missed opportunities. It's not too late for them to do something sensible this time. Mid-rise buildings are fine, but that means swathes of blocks need to be upzoned: including 6th to 8th, W. Broadway, and 10th to 12th Avenues to achieve the kind of density we want. If upzoning is to occur only along West Broadway adjacent streets: 8th and 10th Ave, then they better allow taller towers of up to 40 stories.

City staff indicated that during phase 2 of the Broadway consultation in mid 2018 they will have proposed density numbers. Given the enthusiasm of the crowd its likely the areas around station will have large density increases. Looks like everything North of 6th will be pretty frozen though, most people including those who were pro density agreed to keep it low density as a tourist attraction.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But it's gotta have a mall!!!

Exactly. Just like every growth area in the Lower Mainland. They all seem have a mall smack in the middle.
Malls seem to promote population increases and downtown core creation in the modern times, don't you think so?

[logan5]

I'm not sure what you're complaining about Vin, the CoV is doing the exact same thing as Burnaby. Redeveloping shopping malls and industrial lands into dense tower neighbourhoods. On top of that Vancouver is upzoning detached home neighbourhoods, so a pretty good case could be made that Vancouver is doing more for the density cause. The Cambie Corridor is going to add 50 000 people. Then there's NEFC and SEFC, Jericho Lands, and the added density provided by other OCP 's like the West End, DTES, MT. PLeasant, and the upcoming Broadway Corridor, and whatever else I missed.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I do. Rate of growth isn't really meaningful - amount of growth is. If somewhere has a large population already, adding 5% to the population could be more people than 25% of a small municipality.

As Vin said 80s, 90s, here's 30 years change for the larger Metro Vancouver municipalities (1986-2016). No surprises, Surrey has the most. But then...

Surrey +336,440
Vancouver +199,101
Richmond +89,817
Burnaby +87,594
Coquitlam +70,018
Langley City +63,851
Maple Ridge +46,233
New Westminster +31,024
Port Coquitlam +29,497
Delta +22,628.

All other municipalities added under 20,000 in 30 years.

I couldn't find a comparison for dwellings built in each city to compare the population growth numbers to. Do you happen to know where one is? Thanks.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm not sure what you're complaining about Vin, the CoV is doing the exact same thing as Burnaby. Redeveloping shopping malls and industrial lands into dense tower neighbourhoods. On top of that Vancouver is upzoning detached home neighbourhoods, so a pretty good case could be made that Vancouver is doing more for the density cause. The Cambie Corridor is going to add 50 000 people. Then there's NEFC and SEFC, Jericho Lands, and the added density provided by other OCP 's like the West End, DTES, MT. PLeasant, and the upcoming Broadway Corridor, and whatever else I missed.

Are they? If that is true you should be arguing with Squeezied, Krissy and Migrant_Coconut because they don't think so. On the surface it may seem to be so, but the City is missing the boat in the most crucial neighbourhoods, such as West Broadway, Kitsilano, Falsecreek, Arbutus corridor, Commercial/Broadway, Kerrisdale, etc. In fact, most of the OCPs are still up in the air, which is why we are arguing what is best for the West Broadway corridor. Even in your own hood, it is a hoo-hah for a mere 20+ storey building to be built. That is totally the opposite of what suburb cities are doing.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

I couldn't find a comparison for dwellings built in each city to compare the population growth numbers to. Do you happen to know where one is? Thanks.

No, sorry, I don't know a data source for that. The population data is on the Metro website, but not development data.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Are they? If that is true you should be arguing with Squeezied, Krissy and Migrant_Coconut because they don't think so. On the surface it may seem to be so, but the City is missing the boat in the most crucial neighbourhoods, such as West Broadway, Kitsilano, Falsecreek, Arbutus corridor, Commercial/Broadway, Kerrisdale, etc. In fact, most of the OCPs are still up in the air, which is why we are arguing what is best for the West Broadway corridor. Even in your own hood, it is a hoo-hah for a mere 20+ storey building to be built. That is totally the opposite of what suburb cities are doing.

If Vancouver's missing the boat, then Burnaby is as well, because Vancouver added a lot more people than Burnaby between 2011 and 2016, and projections show Vancouver will add more people than Burnaby up to 2041.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

If Vancouver's missing the boat, then Burnaby is as well, because Vancouver added a lot more people than Burnaby between 2011 and 2016, and projections show Vancouver will add more people than Burnaby up to 2041.

That would appear to be true. While Surrey is expected to keep growing the most, BC Stats Projections show Burnaby and Richmond together would add 169,000 more people in 25 years from 2016 to 2041. Vancouver would add 172,000.

[GenWhy?]

Expect less displacement from the CofV's plans than Burnaby... that's a good thing.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

If Vancouver's missing the boat, then Burnaby is as well, because Vancouver added a lot more people than Burnaby between 2011 and 2016, and projections show Vancouver will add more people than Burnaby up to 2041.

Burnaby is a suburb, not a prime city. The rate it has been expanding compared to the major city next door is impressive to say the least. Ideally, 75-85%% of the population growth should be in Vancouver proper, not expanding outwards in the typical North American fashion of urban sprawl. Burnaby, Richmond, New West and Surrey are taking up way more than their share as suburb municipalities. We don't want to keep building more roads and transportation systems so far out: they are not sustainable at all. The reason why we have Canada Line and Evergreen lines coming online first before Broadway-UBC line says a lot: Vancouver is underbuilt. Otherwise the Broadway line would've been built long time ago. The low density along the corridor just doesn't justify its construction, yes, even now. Hence the West Broadway corridor plan to massively increase its built density.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby is a suburb, not a prime city. The rate it has been expanding compared to the major city next door is impressive to say the least. Ideally, 75% of the population growth should be in Vancouver proper, not expanding outwards in the typical North American fashion of urban sprawl. Burnaby, Richmond, New West and Surrey are taking up way more than their share as suburb municipalities.

The Metro Van plan agrees with this opinion. Vancouver is not pulling its weight.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby is a suburb, not a prime city. The rate it has been expanding compared to the major city next door is impressive to say the least. Ideally, 75-85%% of the population growth should be in Vancouver proper, not expanding outwards in the typical North American fashion of urban sprawl. Burnaby, Richmond, New West and Surrey are taking up way more than their share as suburb municipalities. We don't want to keep building more roads and transportation systems so far out: they are not sustainable at all. The reason why we have Canada Line and Evergreen lines coming online first before Broadway-UBC line says a lot: Vancouver is underbuilt. Otherwise the Broadway line would've been built long time ago. The low density along the corridor just doesn't justify its construction, yes, even now. Hence the West Broadway corridor plan to massively increase its built density.

I wouldn't even constitute the latest developments in the Metro cities as vertical sprawl, even, but it is close, which is just as dangerous as "urban sprawl", which is tied to mono-culture development and SF homes and car culture but not exclusively. Mono culture design, which is typically inherently suburban, is bad for many reasons. Hence Coquitlam's big desire for the tax goodies and design goodies that come with non-residential development, as opposed to Port Moody, for instance.

That's why the Broadway Corridor Plan is so important for it has to retain employment as well as include residential, but the key is mixed-use neighbourhoods. Something that planners are really trying to get a handle with while still keep property prices from skyrocketing. The "industrial" components of the corridor area are very important and should not be replaced by simple commercial at-grade and residential above. The recent 1st Ave and Main proposal is an emblem of good healthy density.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby is a suburb, not a prime city. The rate it has been expanding compared to the major city next door is impressive to say the least. Ideally, 75-85%% of the population growth should be in Vancouver proper, not expanding outwards in the typical North American fashion of urban sprawl. Burnaby, Richmond, New West and Surrey are taking up way more than their share as suburb municipalities. We don't want to keep building more roads and transportation systems so far out: they are not sustainable at all. The reason why we have Canada Line and Evergreen lines coming online first before Broadway-UBC line says a lot: Vancouver is underbuilt. Otherwise the Broadway line would've been built long time ago. The low density along the corridor just doesn't justify its construction, yes, even now. Hence the West Broadway corridor plan to massively increase its built density.

Vancouver is only 44 sq miles and you want 75 to 85% of the 35 000 people who come here annually to move into Vancouver proper? Name a city that size that grows that fast.

Your Skytrain logic is way off.

That's enough of this debate., Peace out. LOL.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

The Metro Van plan agrees with this opinion. Vancouver is not pulling its weight.

That is absolutely the opposite of accurate. Back in 1993 the Regional Plan was called the Liveable Region Strategic Plan had 'targets' - which were later downgraded to something more like aspirations. Only one municipality - Vancouver - significantly added population more than the Plan suggested - from 1991 to 2006 Vancouver and UEL were expected to add only 60,000, and actually added nearly 114,000 - almost double the Plan's expectation.

Burnaby on the other hand was expected to add 93,000, but actually only saw 45,000 more people. Surrey was expected to see 232,000 more, but saw 154,000 more. Richmond had 13,500 more than expected, and Langley Township 18,500 more, so like Vancouver they grew more than the Plan expected, but not by nearly as much. (Something similar happened with employment; Vancouver and Langley Township saw much greater growth than the plan anticipated; Surrey and Burnaby underperformed).

Now check out the current Regional Plan, Metro 2040. That shows a target of 110,000 dwelling in Vancouver's Metro Core by 2021. But look at page 7 of the Progress Report - Vancouver hit that target in 2016. Surrey's Metro Centre has a 2021 target of 27,000 dwellings - in 2016 it had less than half that (11,300), and had added only 2,100 in the previous five years (while Vancouver added 11,500).

So it looks as if Vancouver is, once again, outperforming the Regional Plan expectations.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

Vancouver is only 44 sq miles and you want 75 to 85% of the 35 000 people who come here annually to move into Vancouver proper? Name a city that size that grows that fast.

Your Skytrain logic is way off.

That's enough of this debate., Peace out. LOL.

Correct on both counts.

---

For the statisticians in the room, 26-30k new residents a year over five years is a 21-23% growth rate for the City of Vancouver; by contrast, the City of Toronto had a rate of 4.5% between 2011-16. One can only conclude that "75-85% of population growth" comes from Housing Increase Supporters Against Sound Sustainability.

As for the Broadway SkyTrain, there's been a case since 1995. Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark instead opted to shut it down for the last twenty years in favour of other projects, or in the latter's case, just out of pure spite. There's plenty of existing growth, and plenty of ridership; the Plan's purpose is to manage future growth once the SkyTrain is built, instead of having a haphazard condo rush.

Really, Metrotown had even less density in '86. Should we have waited until the Nineties to build the Expo Line?

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

Say what you want, and do continue with your insults, as those seem to be the only things you are good at anyways. I always maintain what I say, and that the direction suburb municipalities are heading is way better than Vancouver's in creating density. They can manage to increase their population by having compact city centres, and the only way at the moment to achieve that fast is to go tall. See the article below to see the rate of population increase in the Lower Mainland. If your argument is true, how come Vancouver does not attract the people to move in?

https://www.abbynews.com/news/surrey-port-moody-fastest-metro-vancouver-growers-in-new-census/

You just want to keep arguing that many parts of Vancouver are denser when compared to the suburbs, true, but if if the same map you just showed us exist for one showing what the 80s or 90s were like: it would probably show Burnaby and other municipalities to be almost entirely yellow, and Vancouver similar to what it is today. It's the rate of increase we are talking about today, and outside downtown, Vancouver is definitely is definitely falling behind compared to the burbs.

Oh dear Vin... I do feel sorry for you sometimes. I see you cannot address my points and so you have to scramble to change directions.

As it stands, you...

(1) have the false thinking that Vancouver is 'ruining' itself by densifying its SF neighbourhoods by building a variety of housing types (townhomes, midrises and highrises).

(2) have no clue about the geographical and land zoning reasons why Burnaby has left large patches of its land undeveloped. You have the illogical thinking that by building town centres, Burnaby curbed SF development in these undeveloped areas. Please prove to me that if Burnaby didn't build highrises in its town centres they would build SF houses instead on a lake or steep mountainside.

(3) You haven't a clue what walkability is. Apparently tall towers = walkable to you. Look at suburban towers with their spaced out buildings, large surface parking and driveways and empty lawns.

(4) You misinterpret maps. You only seem to think that only tall tower can efficiently enable compact city centres. Look at the density map again. And actually read what I wrote, because your mind seems too dense to understand things. Those town centres aren't as dense as you think it is. And Burnaby's town centres are surrounded by low density SF housing. Don't kid yourself thinking Burnaby is so progressive. Is Burnaby rezoning those SF neighbourhoods in the same scale as Vancouver is? No, but evidently that doesn't matter to you as long as Vancouver is not replacing SF houses with 60 story towers. Your bias is very obvious.

And lastly what does population increase have anything to do with good development? You're just frantically scrambling to find new stats to satisfy your notion that Vancouver isn't heading in the right direction. Population increase doesn't say much about the type of development. Surrey increased in population the most by turning its agricultural and forested lands into SF housing. Is Surrey the most progressive by adding the most population then? Even if it were highrises like in Burnaby does it say anything about the walkability of the development or if it's spread out or compact in design? Metro Vancouver is a very young city and you should understand that Vancouver is effectively built out (although not up, yet) and that suburbs will naturally expand at a faster rate than the inner regions like any other metropolitan region. So stop throwing out meaningless stats thinking that they'll support your flawed logic.

Again, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. But you certainly do make good entertainment.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Oh dear Vin... I do feel sorry for you sometimes. I see you cannot address my points and so you have to scramble to change directions.

As it stands, you...

(1) have the false thinking that Vancouver is 'ruining' itself by densifying its SF neighbourhoods by building a variety of housing types (townhomes, midrises and highrises).

(2) have no clue about the geographical and land zoning reasons why Burnaby has left large patches of its land undeveloped. You have the illogical thinking that by building town centres, Burnaby curbed SF development in these undeveloped areas. Please prove to me that if Burnaby didn't build highrises in its town centres they would build SF houses instead on a lake or steep mountainside.

(3) You haven't a clue what walkability is. Apparently tall towers = walkable to you. Look at suburban towers with their spaced out buildings, large surface parking and driveways and empty lawns.

(4) You misinterpret maps. You only seem to think that only tall tower can efficiently enable compact city centres. Look at the density map again. And actually read what I wrote, because your mind seems too dense to understand things. Those town centres aren't as dense as you think it is. And Burnaby's town centres are surrounded by low density SF housing. Don't kid yourself thinking Burnaby is so progressive. Is Burnaby rezoning those SF neighbourhoods in the same scale as Vancouver is? No, but evidently that doesn't matter to you as long as Vancouver is not replacing SF houses with 60 story towers. Your bias is very obvious.

(5)And lastly what does population increase have anything to do with good development? You're just frantically scrambling to find new stats to satisfy your notion that Vancouver isn't heading in the right direction. Population increase doesn't say much about the type of development. Surrey increased in population the most by turning its agricultural and forested lands into SF housing. Is Surrey the most progressive by adding the most population then? Even if it were highrises like in Burnaby does it say anything about the walkability of the development or if it's spread out or compact in design? Metro Vancouver is a very young city and you should understand that Vancouver is effectively built out (although not up, yet) and that suburbs will naturally expand at a faster rate than the inner regions like any other metropolitan region. So stop throwing out meaningless stats thinking that they'll support your flawed logic.

Again, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. But you certainly do make good entertainment.

Oh dear squeezied, I guess you can never get away from the curse of having such a foul mouth.

(1) Vancouver IS still losing out to the suburbs when it comes to creating density. How else can the suburbs squeeze so many people in at such a short time frame, as compared to Vancouver?

(2) Let me ask you this: If Burnaby, or other municipalities, never built those high rises, where do you think those people would go then?

(3) Have we ever talked about "walkability", and who is scrambling to change directions now huh? FYI, Brentwood, Metrotown, Kingsgate area, and many other high density town centres have improved on their walkability over the years, more so than you can imagine. How much has Vancouver improved on its walkability in recent times, especially areas outside downtown? Seems about the same to me since the 60s.

(4) Of course those town centres are a lot denser than anywhere in Vancouver outside downtown proper. Don't you see the darker patches? It doesn't matter the highrises are surrounded by SFHs, because if mid-rises and townhomes were built instead and these surrounded by SFHs, the density would be reduced. Vancouver isn't massively turning SFH neighbourhoods into high density sites like you claim. Cambie Street corridor does not represent the whole of Vancouver.

(5) Of course the rate of population increases have to do with density creation, especially for municipalities that do not have any more land for SFH neighbourhood growths, such as New Westminster and Burnaby. Geez. Where else do you think so many additional residents can be squeezed into? Laneway housing or perhaps chicken coops?