Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[misher]

Originally Posted by 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).

This is called for in the Green City 2020 Action Plan.

Vancouver is rising to meet the green transportation challenge by creating compact neighbourhoods with higher density to provide easy access to work, shopping and recreation. The City has shifted investment to walking, cycling and transit infrastructure instead of building new roads.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest-city-action-plan.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

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

If Burnaby actually persuades developers to build space to add 17,000 jobs in 30 years, it will be impressive. I see no evidence of that happening though. The City of Vancouver don't have the same problem - and the Broadway Plan will presumably add more capacity.

Broadway, Downtown and the rest of the Metro Core are far more attractive development locations for commercial space. A recent Metro Vancouver Report on office space says notes "the Metro Core (downtown Vancouver and the Broadway Corridor) dominates with a total of 37 million sq ft (67% of Urban Centres); the next largest centres (at less than one-tenth the size) are Metrotown, Surrey City Centre, and Richmond City Centre.

The 17 Municipal Town Centres contain relatively limited amounts of office space (6% of the region’s total), with an average of 290,000 sq ft of office space each."

The report notes 4.3 million sq. ft. of space to be completed Downtown by 2022, and also strong demand and development in the Broadway corridor. In contrast, it says "Burnaby, the second largest office market in Metro Vancouver, has only a single project completing in the last half of 2018 with no other deliveries until 2022".

[report here]

[goldenboi]

Would someone kindly remind me why we are comparing Mount Pleasant to Metrotown? This seems like the most useless conversation.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

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

This is not an apples to apples comparison though. Mt. Pleasant covers a much wider area than metrotown. If you were to expand Metrotown to 810 acres, that would bring the density figure way down.

With the anticipated developments after the Broadway Corridor Plan is finalized, Mt. Pleasant will likely keep pace with Metrotown. Besides the high density developments along Broadway, there are a lot of strata buildings mixed in with the rental buildings that will be redeveloped. We'll see developments in the range of 3.5 to over 5 FSR in Mt. Pleasant, which is similar to the Metrotown plan. There is likely to be a lot more employment density too. Even without the Broadway subway, there is a lot of offices being built. That will only accelerate in the future.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Would someone kindly remind me why we are comparing Mount Pleasant to Metrotown? This seems like the most useless conversation.

Good question.

Well he was all, like "well, it had better be at least 40 storey towers or else" and we were, like, "no, see it's already as dense as Metrotown already, it's just a different form, not towers" and he was "no it isn't, see" and we were like "tis, too - here's some numbers, and some more numbers, and some facts" and he was like, "I don't care because Metrotown's got parking lots and a park so it's denser really and I don't care because it's got towers which is all I really care about, and Broadway 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵..."

So yeah, back to Broadway - one day there will be a plan. And it probably won't have big towers, and some people won't like that and make negative comments. Or maybe they won't wait for the plan - they'll just make the comments anyway.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Good question.

Well he was all, like "well, it had better be at least 40 storey towers or else" and we were, like, "no, see it's already as dense as Metrotown already, it's just a different form, not towers" and he was "no it isn't, see" and we were like "tis, too - here's some numbers, and some more numbers, and some facts" and he was like, "I don't care because Metrotown's got parking lots and a park so it's denser really and I don't care because it's got towers which is all I really care about, and Broadway 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵..."

So yeah, back to Broadway - one day there will be a plan. And it probably won't have big towers, and some people won't like that and make negative comments. Or maybe they won't wait for the plan - they'll just make the comments anyway.

Lol, thanks.

What if... we had different built forms in different areas. Like in one area we can have lots of towers, and in another area we can have midrises. Woah, now that's an idea.

Subject change: How would we all feel about narrowing Broadway while building the subway? It could be such a grand street with wide sidewalks and a double row of trees.

[TheTerminalCity]

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.

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.

Really appreciate the data and information provided by both of you. The Metro Van document profiling each of the regional centres is interesting...so many jobs landing along the rail network, hopefully

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Good question.

Well he was all, like "well, it had better be at least 40 storey towers or else" and we were, like, "no, see it's already as dense as Metrotown already, it's just a different form, not towers" and he was "no it isn't, see" and we were like "tis, too - here's some numbers, and some more numbers, and some facts" and he was like, "I don't care because Metrotown's got parking lots and a park so it's denser really and I don't care because it's got towers which is all I really care about, and Broadway 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵..."

So yeah, back to Broadway - one day there will be a plan. And it probably won't have big towers, and some people won't like that and make negative comments. Or maybe they won't wait for the plan - they'll just make the comments anyway.

This thread has devolved into what essentially can be considered the makings of an SNL skit! As long as in the end Broadway changes for the better post completion of the subway I will be happy. I just don't want to have the new stations and the neighbourhood not to have any change like what happened around Broadway/Commercial, Nanaimo, 29th Station to name a few bad examples of good infrastructure with ...

Back to you guys and the regularly scheduled forumers Vs Vin entertainment...

[misher]

Walkthrough and survey is up. Please if you want density down Broadway go push for it
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/broadway-plan-get-involved.aspx

[Rico]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Lol, thanks.

What if... we had different built forms in different areas. Like in one area we can have lots of towers, and in another area we can have midrises. Woah, now that's an idea.

Subject change: How would we all feel about narrowing Broadway while building the subway? It could be such a grand street with wide sidewalks and a double row of trees.

It would be a huge wasted opportunity if they don't use the opportunity to expand and enhance the pedestrian realm when they put in the Skytrain...but that would be a politically costly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Rico

It would be a huge wasted opportunity if they don't use the opportunity to expand and enhance the pedestrian realm when they put in the Skytrain...but that would be a politically costly.

Doesn't even have to be anything drastic - slightly narrower lanes, a treed median, and swapping the parking lanes for wider sidewalks & bus bulbs, that would go a long way.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If Burnaby actually persuades developers to build space to add 17,000 jobs in 30 years, it will be impressive. I see no evidence of that happening though. The City of Vancouver don't have the same problem - and the Broadway Plan will presumably add more capacity.

Broadway, Downtown and the rest of the Metro Core are far more attractive development locations for commercial space. A recent Metro Vancouver Report on office space says notes "the Metro Core (downtown Vancouver and the Broadway Corridor) dominates with a total of 37 million sq ft (67% of Urban Centres); the next largest centres (at less than one-tenth the size) are Metrotown, Surrey City Centre, and Richmond City Centre.

The 17 Municipal Town Centres contain relatively limited amounts of office space (6% of the region’s total), with an average of 290,000 sq ft of office space each."

The report notes 4.3 million sq. ft. of space to be completed Downtown by 2022, and also strong demand and development in the Broadway corridor. In contrast, it says "Burnaby, the second largest office market in Metro Vancouver, has only a single project completing in the last half of 2018 with no other deliveries until 2022".

[report here]

Exactly. Like I mentioned before, the main reason why suburbs are building so much, including really high density and commercial spaces, is because CoV keep dilly dallying what they want to do with the major corridors and possess bad development policies. Being the financial and cultural hub of this region, it would make perfect sense for businesses to seek Vancouver and downtown addresses, but the fact that office and many residential towers, as well as malls are built outside downtown show that Vancouver is really inefficient when it comes to attracting businesses and people to live here. Not sure why so many are in denial though.

West Broadway area has a lot of potential to allow downtown's CBD to expand there. I hope the City does not continue to implement lame policies and restrictions that handicap its potential like before.

Originally Posted by Rico

It would be a huge wasted opportunity if they don't use the opportunity to expand and enhance the pedestrian realm when they put in the Skytrain...but that would be a politically costly.

Before doing that, they should at least have an alternative plan to allow better flow of traffic before narrowing the road. You don't want businesses and commuters to suffer during the construction process, which can be as long as 3 to 4 years.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exactly. Like I mentioned before, the main reason why suburbs are building so much, including really high density and commercial spaces, is because CoV keep dilly dallying what they want to do with the major corridors and possess bad development policies. Being the financial and cultural hub of this region, it would make perfect sense for businesses to seek Vancouver and downtown addresses, but the fact that office and many residential towers, as well as malls are built outside downtown show that Vancouver is really inefficient when it comes to attracting businesses and people to live here. Not sure why so many are in denial though.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm in denial because it's weird, and wrong. I understand that you think Vancouver - The City of Vancouver - should take 75% or more of the regional growth. I just think it's such a ridiculous idea that I sometimes try to explain why I disagree. I'm not going to bother in future because you don't accept any evidence, history or economic explanations for why that won't, and probably shouldn't happen.

Vancouver last had 70% of the region's population in 1921. It went down to 50% in the mid 1960s. It's around quarter of the region's population today, and by 2041 it's expected to be 20%. That will still add nearly 200,000 more people, and that'll be achievable but for many residents it'll be an uncomfortable exercise in changed built form and density in some locations.

There's a regional plan for more housing, and jobs to be in other municipalities, especially in municipal and town centres. That's where the growth is happening, for the most part, and our transportation plans are based around that plan.

Vancouver adds density in ways some other municipalities don't, and at higher densities than many of the 'point tower on a big lot' model adopted in those places. It aims to strengthen the existing pattern of arterial streets with linear retail, (like Main Street in Southeast False Creek and up to Broadway) with a modest increase in commercial space to create local centres, especially where they're missing (Coal Harbour, under Granville Bridge). It also tries to protect most existing rental buildings, and their tenants, and to add more non-market housing, and childcare, which many other municipalities have not had as a priority (until recently, in some cases).

I understand you don't agree with many of those policies, and you want higher densities and heights and more retail especially malls. I'm pretty certain that's unlikely to happen, you're not going to like it not happening, and you'll repeat that ad nauseam as you have for years. History is against it changing dramatically, Politics (especially local politics) won't change it, Economics (especially development economics) won't change it, and the aspirations of all those other municipalities, and the Regional Plan will ensure that they grow significantly, and perhaps dramatically, in the next 25 years.

In the meantime the planning for Broadway after the transit is extended will be a difficult balancing act between residents who want no change of any sort, those that can tolerate some bigger moves around transit stations, and some developers (and a few residents) who would love to be able to build much taller. My guess is that it'll end up with something similar to the densities of South East False Creek, with maybe some modestly higher buildings (say 20 storeys) right on (some of the) station locations. It'll be interesting to see where it all lands in a couple of years.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm in denial because it's weird, and wrong. I understand that you think Vancouver - The City of Vancouver - should take 75% or more of the regional growth. I just think it's such a ridiculous idea that I sometimes try to explain why I disagree. I'm not going to bother in future because you don't accept any evidence, history or economic explanations for why that won't, and probably shouldn't happen.

Vancouver last had 70% of the region's population in 1921. It went down to 50% in the mid 1960s. It's around quarter of the region's population today, and by 2041 it's expected to be 20%. That will still add nearly 200,000 more people, and that'll be achievable but for many residents it'll be an uncomfortable exercise in changed built form and density in some locations.

There's a regional plan for more housing, and jobs to be in other municipalities, especially in municipal and town centres. That's where the growth is happening, for the most part, and our transportation plans are based around that plan.

Vancouver adds density in ways some other municipalities don't, and at higher densities than many of the 'point tower on a big lot' model adopted in those places. It aims to strengthen the existing pattern of arterial streets with linear retail, (like Main Street in Southeast False Creek and up to Broadway) with a modest increase in commercial space to create local centres, especially where they're missing (Coal Harbour, under Granville Bridge). It also tries to protect most existing rental buildings, and their tenants, and to add more non-market housing, and childcare, which many other municipalities have not had as a priority (until recently, in some cases).

I understand you don't agree with many of those policies, and you want higher densities and heights and more retail especially malls. I'm pretty certain that's unlikely to happen, you're not going to like it not happening, and you'll repeat that ad nauseam as you have for years. History is against it changing dramatically, Politics (especially local politics) won't change it, Economics (especially development economics) won't change it, and the aspirations of all those other municipalities, and the Regional Plan will ensure that they grow significantly, and perhaps dramatically, in the next 25 years.

In the meantime the planning for Broadway after the transit is extended will be a difficult balancing act between residents who want no change of any sort, those that can tolerate some bigger moves around transit stations, and some developers (and a few residents) who would love to be able to build much taller. My guess is that it'll end up with something similar to the densities of South East False Creek, with maybe some modestly higher buildings (say 20 storeys) right on (some of the) station locations. It'll be interesting to see where it all lands in a couple of years.

Funnily enough we already have 18-20 storey buildings in select places along Broadway. I hope that 28 storey one on Denny’s is approved as it will help set a precedent and raise the max to 28.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Funnily enough we already have 18-20 storey buildings in select places along Broadway. I hope that 28 storey one on Denny’s is approved as it will help set a precedent and raise the max to 28.

An average height of 20+ from Commercial to Arbutus would indeed be nice.

[Feathered Friend]

The Mount Pleasant North Broadway Plan walk revealed a community proud of its central location, diversity & generally eager for new growth. It's too late to grab a skewer, but all 12 Broadway Walks are now online & ready for your input.

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1137843433756692485

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm in denial because it's weird, and wrong. I understand that you think Vancouver - The City of Vancouver - should take 75% or more of the regional growth. I just think it's such a ridiculous idea that I sometimes try to explain why I disagree. (1)I'm not going to bother in future because you don't accept any evidence, history or economic explanations for why that won't, and probably shouldn't happen.

Vancouver last had 70% of the region's population in 1921. It went down to 50% in the mid 1960s. It's around quarter of the region's population today, and by 2041 it's expected to be 20%. That will still add nearly 200,000 more people, and that'll be achievable but for many residents it'll be an uncomfortable exercise in changed built form and density in some locations.

There's a regional plan for more housing, and jobs to be in other municipalities, especially in municipal and town centres. That's where the growth is happening, for the most part, and our transportation plans are based around that plan.

Vancouver adds density in ways some other municipalities don't, and at higher densities than many of the 'point tower on a big lot' model adopted in those places. (2)It aims to strengthen the existing pattern of arterial streets with linear retail, (like Main Street in Southeast False Creek and up to Broadway) with a modest increase in commercial space to create local centres, especially where they're missing (Coal Harbour, under Granville Bridge). It also tries to protect most existing rental buildings, and their tenants, and to add more non-market housing, and childcare, which many other municipalities have not had as a priority (until recently, in some cases).

I understand you don't agree with many of those policies, and you want higher densities and heights and more retail especially malls. I'm pretty certain that's unlikely to happen, you're not going to like it not happening, and you'll repeat that ad nauseam as you have for years. History is against it changing dramatically, Politics (especially local politics) won't change it, Economics (especially development economics) won't change it, and the aspirations of all those other municipalities, and the Regional Plan will ensure that they grow significantly, and perhaps dramatically, in the next 25 years.

In the meantime the planning for Broadway after the transit is extended will be a difficult balancing act between residents who want no change of any sort, those that can tolerate some bigger moves around transit stations, and some developers (and a few residents) who would love to be able to build much taller. My guess is that it'll end up with something similar to the densities of South East False Creek, with maybe some modestly higher buildings (say 20 storeys) right on (some of the) station locations. It'll be interesting to see where it all lands in a couple of years.

(1)I think you need to come up with better evidence, and not like those who take pot-shots at me every opportunity they get, coming up with all kinds of half-truths: arguments that can be easily countered and disproved. Have you seen those numbers that GenWhy came up with, regarding population densities in Mt Pleasant vs Metrotown? One guy even went on to say that Mt Pleasant has a way higher population density than Metrotown, but got summarily shut down after realizing that his argument included a zero-population density Central Park, with the size almost as large as the built-up area there. Like you, he claimed that I did not accept "evidence", but what evidence, may I ask?

(2) Wow, that sounds really boring: exactly the kind of stuff that is happening (or not even happening due to little interests) in Vancouver for the past few decades.

Great cities around the world always start with the core, meaning the city centres are never neglected, and they are allowed to grow organically, especially when lots of demand calls for such a growth. When we impose all the restrictions and drive growth elsewhere, we are in fact paralyzing the city and let other areas grow. I may always call for tall building and new malls to be built in Vancouver, as I sincerely believe that these anchor city centre and its peripheral area growths, and are the fastest way to gain the density we want for more amenities to make this an even more vibrant city. What others propose, like having 6 to 10 storey buildings along main commercial streets, do not work in Vancouver, which has been evident for decades, as this type of city building only creates automobile-centric sprawls. In Vancouver, developers can be seen shunning building such projects. The process is therefore way too slow and retailers along many of those corridors do not do well, as compared to more concentrated form of retail in town centres. West Broadway west of Burrard has been allowing 6-10 stories to be built along the entire stretch all the way to Alma for decades, but until now there are only a handful of those buildings built, and retailing along the entire stretch is pretty abysmal. Vancouver's Kingsway retail scene is also in shambles, and the neighbourhoods are pretty tired-looking without much renewal. We need something that makes Vancouver grow and become more vibrant, and if it means more highrises and malls, then so be it.

West Broadway cannot remain as it is. Planners need a huge shift in their thinking of what works there. The area is the only real commercial neighbourhood that can be similar to the current CBD on the peninsula for the City of Vancouver, and if they continue imposing height and other restrictions, then the growth there in the future will only be mediocre, and Vancouver as a whole will continue to be lacklustre, while the suburb cities continue their more forward-thinking growths. I am always amazed that people think CoV has done wonders in this City when it has obviously not. They even see newer residential neighbourhoods like OV as a wonderful and exciting neighbourhood. To me, it is an area which will only become the new Fairview slopes or Kerrisdale: high-density but boring retirement village without the wow factor that Vancouverites of the past could create. OV will increasingly be just a place where people pass through: devoid of any real attractions, and with the direction the area is going through, more shuttered storefronts in the future with all the bad planning that do not provide good retail synergy or job growths happening there.

[GenWhy?]

Facinating commentary.

[GenWhy?]

"(2) Wow, that sounds really boring: exactly the kind of stuff that is happening (or not even happening due to little interests) in Vancouver for the past few decades."

Land and costruction became so expensive that even at 14-stories we couldn't build anything for rental even well outside the core. That's how crazy things got.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"(2) Wow, that sounds really boring: exactly the kind of stuff that is happening (or not even happening due to little interests) in Vancouver for the past few decades."

Land and costruction became so expensive that even at 14-stories we couldn't build anything for rental even well outside the core. That's how crazy things got.

Ever thought about where people can afford to live if even those 14 storey buildings had never been built? Problem is the selective re-zoning of lots, leading to high demands for the few, thus driving prices up so much.