Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

8,000? per 2016 census.

Not quite. Using the very useful Census Mapper, you can actually add up the blocks that had population resident at the time of the census, and there were 5,894 people. The blocks that people were living in add up to 46 acres, as the areas to the west have yet to be developed, and there are 25 acres of park.

Given how many building have been built and occupied since then, the population would be over 8,000 today.

Even with 5,894 on 46 acres, that's a density already of 128 people per acre. If all the parks are included as part of the development then it drops to 83 people per acre - which as the population is about half the anticipated final buildout will see around 128 per acre on completion.

As for Misher not liking squat buildings - doesn't he live in Richmond? There was a long debate about whether the are should be developed as more towers, like Downtown, or a more 'European' approach to creating the same density in a different form. Europe won.

I agree that I think something like this density, and maybe some of the building form, is likely to be what we'll see on Broadway.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not quite. Using the very useful Census Mapper, you can actually add up the blocks that had population resident at the time of the census, and there were 5,894 people. The blocks that people were living in add up to 46 acres, as the areas to the west have yet to be developed, and there are 25 acres of park.

Given how many building have been built and occupied since then, the population would be over 8,000 today.

Even with 5,894 on 46 acres, that's a density already of 128 people per acre. If all the parks are included as part of the development then it drops to 83 people per acre - which as the population is about half the anticipated final buildout will see around 128 per acre on completion.

As for Misher not liking squat buildings - doesn't he live in Richmond? There was a long debate about whether the are should be developed as more towers, like Downtown, or a more 'European' approach to creating the same density in a different form. Europe won.

I agree that I think something like this density, and maybe some of the building form, is likely to be what we'll see on Broadway.

I thought Richmond doesn't go higher than about 14 stories because of the fear that they will tipover in earthquakes?

Btw Richmond's Olympic Development compared to OV is a huge improvement, the oval+separating into smaller+taller buildings and the diversity of design just makes it look a lot better:

[GenWhy?]

Correct on the pop count. I meant by using the 2016 census I estimateed about 8,000 today but that included the Pinnacle and the Pullman Porter Lane buildings.

Don't worry Vin, Mishner, there are towers in OV and north of it and more to come.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Correct on the pop count. I meant by using the 2016 census I estimateed about 8,000 today but that included the Pinnacle and the Pullman Porter Lane buildings.

Don't worry Vin, Mishner, there are towers in OV and north of it and more to come.

Great - glad our numbers match. There were several buildings near Switchman only partly occupied in May 2016, too. I also skipped the block with Maynards as it's technically not part of SEFC.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

More are coming and better looking (fingers crossed) but depends on the City for some relaxations.

But where? I can't imagine the city will allow taller towers between Hinge Park and the Cambie St. bridge.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As for Misher not liking squat buildings - doesn't he live in Richmond? There was a long debate about whether the are should be developed as more towers, like Downtown, or a more 'European' approach to creating the same density in a different form. Europe won.

I agree that I think something like this density, and maybe some of the building form, is likely to be what we'll see on Broadway.

I think Richmond's height limitations are due to the proximity to YVR.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Great - glad our numbers match. There were several buildings near Switchman only partly occupied in May 2016, too. I also skipped the block with Maynards as it's technically not part of SEFC.

Having lived in the area since late summer 2016, it feels noticeably busier every year (especially in nice weather). The pace of development in the area and the Main St. corridor is impressive, though I'm sure there will be a pause if RE keeps sliding. It's too bad the final Creek building didn't get started.. that prime space is a bit of an eyesore.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But where? I can't imagine the city will allow taller towers between Hinge Park and the Cambie St. bridge.

Terminal & Quebec, 2nd Ave & Ontario, 2nd Ave & Columbia I quite like (under construction), Next to Hinge Park (depending on view cones).

All depends if these lots want to push the height limits set in the Plan with goodies and the City allows them. I know of 2 sites that depend on council pushing an OCP type amendment or thumbs up to Planning.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Terminal & Quebec, 2nd Ave & Ontario, 2nd Ave & Columbia I quite like (under construction), Next to Hinge Park (depending on view cones).

All depends if these lots want to push the height limits set in the Plan with goodies and the City allows them. I know of 2 sites that depend on council pushing an OCP type amendment or thumbs up to Planning.

Sure, 2nd Ave I can see.

Terminal and Quebec - is that lot for sale?

Hinge Park I kind of doubt, but I guess we will see.

Glad to hear things are still going forward at the planning stage.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think Richmond's height limitations are due to the proximity to YVR.

Your right, brain fart on my part for forgetting this. Being below water on sediment and earthquake risk are also factors.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Krissy

Vin's point was that Vancouver is a failure for not having enough density outside of downtown and that Burnaby's town centres is leading the way in dense development. This is false. As squeezied has pointed out, the Olympic Village is even denser than Metrotown. See squeezied's point #1, if the Olympic village were to emulate Burnaby's town centres there will be less density as these suburban towers are spaced far apart, a large part due to surface parking/driveway and empty lawns as part of their development. I know as I live in one of these developments.

Vin is critizing Vancouver for no apparent reason other than the fact that they aren't building as many tall buildings as he wants. (I'm pretty sure he's taking out his anger on Vancouver for not building mega malls as well) It's clear to me he actually doesn't care about density given all his flawed logic on the matter.

Don't try to explain so hard if people don't see anything your way.

Since you are so intimately entwined with Squeezied logic, would you like to show us numbers as to OV being denser than Metrotown? You know you should take away the space of parking and mall space in Metrotown because those are not residential, right? Comparing the high residential-density plot to plot, please I implore you to show us that OV has a higher density. If you are going to consider open parking and the older strip mall space, then we should also consider the industrial space next to OV, shouldn't we? Or perhaps even include that empty piece of land right next to Cambie bridge.

With that out of the way, what about retail density? Is OV higher? Or perhaps work space density, please please also show us that OV is higher. I bet you can't, so stop parroting Squeezied and spread false information will you?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Metrotown: Area - 730 acres, Population (2016) - 29,000, Density - 36.73/acre

Broadway: Area - 2,125 acres, Population (2016) - 78,000, Density - 36.70/acre

Downtown: Area - 914.29 acres, Population (2016) - 78,000, Density - 85.31/acre

West End: 489.27 acres, Population (2016) - 47,000, Density - 96.06/acre

Fairview: 808.03 acres, Population (2016) - 33,620, Density - 41.61/acre

Mount Pleasant: 904.40 acres, Population (2016) - 32,955, Density - 36.44/acre

I think I rest my case. Metrotown, despite having so much commercial and other non-residential space, still beats Mount Pleasant hands down. OV should be considered part of Mt Pleasant. The best thing is that all the parking lots and commercial spaces are quickly turning into residential buildings, further proving my point that the suburb town centres are adding way more residential density than Vancouver low-rise areas are.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

More are coming and better looking (fingers crossed) but depends on the City for some relaxations.

I like your confidence. We shall see. So far it hasn't happened.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think I rest my case. Metrotown, despite having so much commercial and other non-residential space, still beats Mount Pleasant hands down. OV should be considered part of Mt Pleasant. The best thing is that all the parking lots and commercial spaces are quickly turning into residential buildings, further proving my point that the suburb town centres are adding way more residential density than Vancouver low-rise areas are.

I see this the other way around. In spite of having no highrises, with some low to medium density housing, Mt Pleasant seems to be doing quite well with population density.

Metrotown is boring as shit too. Walk around there any evening, what do you do? Go to a mall? Mt Pleasant has a vibrant restaurant, nightlife, and retail scene. I'll take that over Metrotown and it's boring mall and highrises any day.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think I rest my case. Metrotown, despite having so much commercial and other non-residential space, still beats Mount Pleasant hands down. OV should be considered part of Mt Pleasant. The best thing is that all the parking lots and commercial spaces are quickly turning into residential buildings, further proving my point that the suburb town centres are adding way more residential density than Vancouver low-rise areas are.

Hold everything Vin! Since you say that non residential areas don't count towards density, then you have to subtract the MT. Pleasant industrial area in the density calculation. Metrotown takes up a way smaller area than the Mt Pleasant industrial zone so that puts Mt. Pleasant ahead of Metrotown.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

I see this the other way around. In spite of having no highrises, with some low to medium density housing, Mt Pleasant seems to be doing quite well with population density.

Metrotown is boring as shit too. Walk around there any evening, what do you do? Go to a mall? Mt Pleasant has a vibrant restaurant, nightlife, and retail scene. I'll take that over Metrotown and it's boring mall and highrises any day.

Very much this. One big building is important - all the buildings around it, much more so.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Btw Richmond's Olympic Development compared to OV is a huge improvement, the oval+separating into smaller+taller buildings and the diversity of design just makes it look a lot better:

I'd argue that it's more to do with the photogeny (and greening) of the render. All I'm seeing in terms of building form is that OV is urban and New Richmond suburban.

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think I rest my case. Metrotown, despite having so much commercial and other non-residential space, still beats Mount Pleasant hands down. OV should be considered part of Mt Pleasant. The best thing is that all the parking lots and commercial spaces are quickly turning into residential buildings, further proving my point that the suburb town centres are adding way more residential density than Vancouver low-rise areas are.

Metrotown density is 36.73 people/acre...Mount Pleasant is 36.44. Both, despite your omission, have non-residential areas, though Burnaby is busy transitioning those to residential instead of preserving job space in the region. However nothing in the data provided by GenWhy proves your case...it is all 2016 data and says nothing about the change you purport, eg adding "way more residential density". You've just proven you are the best at providing way more hyberbole

[GenWhy?]

The great thing about Mount Pleasant's density is that 50% of its housing is pre-1980, making it a relatively affordable neighbourhood next to Downtown, and this is a key component of the Broadway Plan.

The data I gave for Mount Pleasant density did not include OV, and I am unsure about the industrial area. If it was using the same area as in the Mount Pleasant Plan... then it is just really the residential areas and Broadway/Main shopping area.

Metrotown should be more dense than the Broadway areas because it's a City's downtown.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The great thing about Mount Pleasant's density is that 50% of its housing is pre-1980, making it a relatively affordable neighbourhood next to Downtown, and this is a key component of the Broadway Plan.

The data I gave for Mount Pleasant density did not include OV, and I am unsure about the industrial area. If it was using the same area as in the Mount Pleasant Plan... then it is just really the residential areas and Broadway/Main shopping area.

Metrotown should be more dense than the Broadway areas because it's a City's downtown.

I feel like it’s hard to measure density in a commercial/residential hub. Shouldn’t office towers and retail also raise the number? Maybe a better measure is sqft of space per sqft of land? Or something around those lines.