Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

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?

From earlier:

"2016 census puts Mount Pleasant Industrial with O. Vill (247.10 acres) which is about 35.52 person an acre.

Since Southeast False creek is only 79 acres and is planned to house about 13,000 people... it's density could be 164.56 persons an acre. I'm optimistic about the higher population density due to many rezonings are going for higher heights and densities in the actual plan. Even know it's like 100 per acre.

In summary, for Broadway we can build smart like in OV for the whole corridor and make it really liveable and walkable."

Currently, OV is at the same level as Metrotown and OV in this data includes all the industrial area and the vacant cop parking lot and all the park space and roads. Apples to apples. The benefit of Broadway Corridor neighbourhoods is not only its residential density but its employment density, which is key to maintain and enhance in this plan.

[misher]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...tough-on-municipalities-ties-provincial/

B.C. Premier Horgan gets tough on municipalities over transit, housing

A tough-talking Premier John Horgan warned B.C. civic politicians Thursday that if they want expensive transit lines in their cities, they need to be ready to zone for significant amounts of housing along those lines.

“The challenge is some municipal councils want to have it both ways. They want to demand provincial participation, provincial dollars, to meet their objectives, whether it be on transit – SkyTrain or other forms of transit – but not make the same choices about how do we take advantage of those significant transit investments to building housing around that transportation corridor,” Mr. Horgan said.

His comments come in the wake of two recent incidents. One was a statement from Vancouver’s chief planner, Gil Kelley, that the city does not need to accommodate massive amounts of density along the planned Broadway subway line because it is already packed with apartments. As well, Mr. Kelley said the city doesn’t need the density to generate money for the line’s construction because Vancouver is already contributing $100-million in land and other needed services for the line.

Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart said, however, that his city does want to increase the amount of low-cost housing along the Broadway line and staff are exploring how that can be done without leading to the demolition of the thousands of cheap apartment units already along the line. However, it’s not going to consider the type of dense clusters of towers that Burnaby has allowed or any project that requires the removal of existing affordable apartments.

“Displacement is a no-go for this council,” he said.

The tussle over density around transit is likely to heat up over the next several years, with Surrey’s new mayor, Doug McCallum, fighting to get a $2.9-billion 16-kilometre SkyTrain line from the central city to Langley, instead of the light rail that had been planned there for years. At the same time, Mr. Stewart has started lobbying to see the Broadway subway, which already has an extension approved and funded that will go partway across the city, get money to go all the way to the University of British Columbia on the far western edge.

The early projection is that it would cost almost $4-billion for that second extension.

In both cities, local politicians have to deal with residents who are wary about massive amounts of new development being unleashed along the new transit corridors.

But other mayors, along with the Premier, are concerned that Vancouver seems to be indicating it doesn’t have to do anything more. And they will also be demanding that Surrey and Langley prove that there will be enough housing built along the line to justify spending billions for that SkyTrain line.

“I think the Vancouver approach would be unacceptable,” said Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, whose city has been transformed since the Canada Line opened there in 2009, with thousands of new apartments all along the route.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The benefit of Broadway Corridor neighbourhoods is not only its residential density but its employment density, which is key to maintain and enhance in this plan.

That's a key difference: in the Mount Pleasant Industrial Area there's over 800,000 of office space added or proposed in the past three years. That's in addition to the industrial space built on the main floor of those buildings - and it's more than the big office at Gilmore that's just been proposed. No doubt once the plan is clear there will be more along West Broadway too.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...tough-on-municipalities-ties-provincial/

Why are you reposting stuff published over 2 months ago?

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Why are you reposting stuff published over 2 months ago?

If this was posted here previously I apologize as I missed it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

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.

Then in that case, please count Central Park in, as that is also part of the Metrotown neighbourhood. All-in-all, Metrowtown still has denser residential housing development compared to Mt Pleasant, lot-to-lot.

Metrotown:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Metrot...5ed5a206!8m2!3d49.2276257!4d-123.0075757

Mt Pleasant:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+...226fe506!8m2!3d49.2582663!4d-123.1081802

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 🞵🞵🞵🞵 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.

Again, the direction it is heading is what we are talking about. Mt pleasant is a century-old neighbourhood. Metrotown isn't. Again we're talking about the rate of improvement, so please focus on that.

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

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

Burnaby may be replacing some commercial lots with residential housing, but they make it up by stacking new commercial or job spaces up in the form of tall office buildings. Given the number of residential units coming online over the past decade in Metrowtown, are you saying that there is no huge increase in the population number there? Definitely no hyperbole in what I said.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by misher

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...tough-on-municipalities-ties-provincial/

B.C. Premier Horgan gets tough on municipalities over transit, housing

A tough-talking Premier John Horgan warned B.C. civic politicians Thursday that if they want expensive transit lines in their cities, they need to be ready to zone for significant amounts of housing along those lines.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Why are you reposting stuff published over 2 months ago?

Because it applies to what we are talking about here.

[GenWhy?]

Asking around now I beleive "Mount Pleasant", in the census includes OV and MP Industrial which gives me the number I got. So, for kicks I took out the industrial neighbourhood and police vacant lot for Mt. Pleasant and Central Park for Metrotown.

Metrotown: Area - 528acres, Population (2016) - 29,000, Density - 54.92/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: 810.40 acres, Population (2016) - 32,955, Density - 40.67/acre

Fact is, if we keep lot assembly to a minimum and develop the corridor as we have been but with more along Broadway itself, we're in pretty good shape as a City with less displacement than other cities.

[GenWhy?]

I rag on this neigbourhood all the time but even it pulls its weight even with all the industrial.

Grandview-Woodlands: Area - 1099 acres, Population (2016) - 29,175, Density - 26.54/acre

Shows how modest heights and smart density are all over Vancouver.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I rag on this neigbourhood all the time but even it pulls its weight even with all the industrial.

Grandview-Woodlands: Area - 1099 acres, Population (2016) - 29,175, Density - 26.54/acre

Shows how modest heights and smart density are all over Vancouver.

This may be useful to the discussion.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Again, the direction it is heading is what we are talking about. Mt pleasant is a century-old neighbourhood. Metrotown isn't. Again we're talking about the rate of improvement, so please focus on that.

Almost 74 acres in Mount Pleasant from inception to the 1950s was a residential area and was turned into industrial. SE False Creek made the opposite switch from industrial to residential, adding currently about 8,000 with the potential for 13,000.

Mount Pleasant has seen a 24.8% population increase from 2011-2016, and 11.8% in the 5 years prior.

Metrotown had a 3.7% population increase from 2011-2016 and 9.5% in the 5 years prior. Both are from Stats Canada.

[GenWhy?]

^^Definitely. I know lots of singles that can afford and love the area. Even if you just concentrate on a few sites along Broadway the density would greatly increase because curently Broadway is home to mainly commercial-only buildings.

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby may be replacing some commercial lots with residential housing, but they make it up by stacking new commercial or job spaces up in the form of tall office buildings. Given the number of residential units coming online over the past decade in Metrowtown, are you saying that there is no huge increase in the population number there? Definitely no hyperbole in what I said.

I'd ask you for numbers on the commercial/job space being made up...either jobs or square footage. Would love to see you produce something that backs up your case. Til then, I'm done trying to engage. Someone could show you a picture of an elephant and you could swear its a horse just cause that's all you want it to be.

[misher]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

I'd ask you for numbers on the commercial/job space being made up...either jobs or square footage. Would love to see you produce something that backs up your case. Til then, I'm done trying to engage. Someone could show you a picture of an elephant and you could swear its a horse just cause that's all you want it to be.

There’s no numbers but this was discussed during the walkthroughs last week. The city and general crowd was in agreement that mixed residential commercial buildings were best suited for Broadway. Since most of Broadway is 2 stories of commercial this should mean that little commercial is lost.

Also the city seemed really happy when someone mentioned a hotel so I assume that implies they want a hotel.

[GenWhy?]

JObs in the Metrotown Town Centre boundary were about 18,000 in 2006 (stagnant over the years and concentrated in the existing developments), and grew to about 24,000 in 2011, which equals 17% of the City's jobs.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

JObs in the Metrotown Town Centre boundary were about 18,000 in 2006 (stagnant over the years and concentrated in the existing developments), and grew to about 24,000 in 2011, which equals 17% of the City's jobs.

The Metrotown Profile in the Metro Vancouver centre profiles document says jobs are expected to increase in Metrotown Centre from 24,000 in 2011 to 41,000 in 2041 - so 17,000 more jobs in 30 years.

Vancouver's Metro Core is expected to add 71,000 jobs in the same 30 years.

I'd be surprised if Vancouver doesn't easily beat that, given that there is more office space under construction there at the moment than ever before, and plenty more in the development pipeline. Metrotown might struggle to reach the total unless there are some serious proposals for employment space. The two small office components at King's Crossing and Sun Towers are strata and 100% sold. Is anything else under construction, or planned in the near future?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

I'd ask you for numbers on the commercial/job space being made up...either jobs or square footage. Would love to see you produce something that backs up your case. Til then, I'm done trying to engage. Someone could show you a picture of an elephant and you could swear its a horse just cause that's all you want it to be.

You sound like you have numbers to back up your claim that job spaces had been taken away when they built up Metrotown, but how come I don't see any? I suppose you made it all up then.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Metrotown Profile in the Metro Vancouver centre profiles document says jobs are expected to increase in Metrotown Centre from 24,000 in 2011 to 41,000 in 2041 - so 17,000 more jobs in 30 years.

Vancouver's Metro Core is expected to add 71,000 jobs in the same 30 years.

I'd be surprised if Vancouver doesn't easily beat that, given that there is more office space under construction there at the moment than ever before, and plenty more in the development pipeline. Metrotown might struggle to reach the total unless there are some serious proposals for employment space. The two small office components at King's Crossing and Sun Towers are strata and 100% sold. Is anything else under construction, or planned in the near future?

Considering the fact that this is only a suburb city, I would say the numbers are quite impressive.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Asking around now I beleive "Mount Pleasant", in the census includes OV and MP Industrial which gives me the number I got. So, for kicks I took out the industrial neighbourhood and police vacant lot for Mt. Pleasant and Central Park for Metrotown.

Metrotown: Area - 528acres, Population (2016) - 29,000, Density - 54.92/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: 810.40 acres, Population (2016) - 32,955, Density - 40.67/acre

Fact is, if we keep lot assembly to a minimum and develop the corridor as we have been but with more along Broadway itself, we're in pretty good shape as a City with less displacement than other cities.

I rest my case. It even has a couple of huge non-residential malls, public library with parkland to boot!

[GenWhy?]

Agreed. Lots of people now live in Burnaby's downtown. 13% of the City's total, about.

As with Broadway, it's a good planning initiative to make sure we don't have 75% of our population that lives in the City commuting outside of its city limits to get to work, as Burnaby does. The best function to improve is Broadway study area's local live/work relationship, bringing those commutes down and increasing local employment for area residents (old/new).