Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

What are you quoting? You mean the number of Nimbies in action? That I believe.

And provide source please.

Logan5 is quoting population. The number of people that were added to the municipality. There are these awesome things on the internet called 'search engines' that let you find information, but here's a source for you - Metro Vancouver Census Bulletin - Table 2 on page 4. You'll see Vancouver's growth has speeded up, and Burnaby's slowed down.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Logan5 is quoting population. The number of people that were added to the municipality. There are these awesome things on the internet called 'search engines' that let you find information, but here's a source for you - Metro Vancouver Census Bulletin - Table 2 on page 4. You'll see Vancouver's growth has speeded up, and Burnaby's slowed down.

Of course I know what it is, if you can't see I was toying with logan5. I've only been saying that the suburbs have been catching up with Vancouver, and nowhere have I said the suburbs are growing more than Vancouver. City of Vancouver's lead in growth is expected for obvious reasons, but it is losing ground due to bad policies lately.

The census report is only till 2016. Show me something more convincing, like from 2017-2019. There had been massive built-up in downtown Vancouver previously, but it is definitely slowing down. Take the downtown factor away and see how much growth Vancouver is getting. West Broadway is an area outside downtown, and that is what we are focusing on.

Anyway, the census shows that 74% of population growth from 2006 to 2016 occurs outside the City of Vancouver. If the city itself has the first two highest employment areas of the entire province, wouldn't it still prove that housing provision is a failure?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

The census report is only till 2016. Show me something more convincing, like from 2017-2019. There had been massive built-up in downtown Vancouver previously, but it is definitely slowing down. Take the downtown factor away and see how much growth Vancouver is getting. West Broadway is an area outside downtown, and that is what we are focusing on.

Anyway, the census shows that 74% of population growth from 2006 to 2016 occurs outside the City of Vancouver. If the city itself has the first two highest employment areas of the entire province, wouldn't it still prove that housing provision is a failure?

Uh, the census only happens every five years. And 74% is the population (not growth) spread out over all the suburbs; Surrey's at 21%, Burnaby's at 9%, Richmond's 8%, 36% is everyone else.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Of course I know what it is, if you can't see I was toying with logan5. I've only been saying that the suburbs have been catching up with Vancouver, and nowhere have I said the suburbs are growing more than Vancouver. City of Vancouver's lead in growth is expected for obvious reasons, but it is losing ground due to bad policies lately.

The census report is only till 2016. Show me something more convincing, like from 2017-2019. There had been massive built-up in downtown Vancouver previously, but it is definitely slowing down. Take the downtown factor away and see how much growth Vancouver is getting. West Broadway is an area outside downtown, and that is what we are focusing on.

How come you can't look things up for yourself? The census is only 5 years, so the next one in 2021. In the meantime, CMHC publish monthy data on Housing Starts. 2017, 2018 and 9 months of 2019: Burnaby 10,559 starts, Vancouver 17,631. And yes, most of that is not in Downtown, it's everywhere else in the city. Check it all for yourself [source]

Originally Posted by Vin

Anyway, the census shows that 74% of population growth from 2006 to 2016 occurs outside the City of Vancouver. If the city itself has the first two highest employment areas of the entire province, wouldn't it still prove that housing provision is a failure?

No - it would be ridiculous to expect the almost completely developed municipality, with only 5% of the Metro land area, to take a very high proportion of the region's growth. Achieving 19% of regional growth is pretty remarkable. The fact that, for historical reasons, the two highest employment areas of the entire province are in Vancouver is why we have rapid transit, and why we're now seeing it extended to Broadway (better late than never).

Check out the Regional Plan Projections published in 2011. Vancouver's already nearly reached their 2021 target in 2016. Burnaby isn't close. (Note that you have to add 4% undercount to generate the Regional Plan numbers - so Vancouver would be at 656,000 in 2016, with a projected 2021 population of 673,000. Burnaby in 2016 were at 242,000 population - a long way short of their 277,000 projection).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

How come you can't look things up for yourself? The census is only 5 years, so the next one in 2021. In the meantime, CMHC publish monthy data on Housing Starts. 2017, 2018 and 9 months of 2019: Burnaby 10,559 starts, Vancouver 17,631. And yes, most of that is not in Downtown, it's everywhere else in the city. Check it all for yourself [source]



No - it would be ridiculous to expect the almost completely developed municipality, with only 5% of the Metro land area, to take a very high proportion of the region's growth. Achieving 19% of regional growth is pretty remarkable. The fact that, for historical reasons, the two highest employment areas of the entire province are in Vancouver is why we have rapid transit, and why we're now seeing it extended to Broadway (better late than never).

Check out the Regional Plan Projections published in 2011. Vancouver's already nearly reached their 2021 target in 2016. Burnaby isn't close. (Note that you have to add 4% undercount to generate the Regional Plan numbers - so Vancouver would be at 656,000 in 2016, with a projected 2021 population of 673,000. Burnaby in 2016 were at 242,000 population - a long way short of their 277,000 projection).

Vancouver must have a pretty low target and that's why it can be easily achieved, especially when they factor in the SFH neighbourhoods which will never change. Fact is large parts of Vancouver are still drastically underbuilt, and no one can discount that. I can say 75% of the 5% land is underutilised. The city can go much denser.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Vancouver must have a pretty low target and that's why it can be easily achieved, especially when they factor in the SFH neighbourhoods which will never change. Fact is large parts of Vancouver are still drastically underbuilt, and no one can discount that. I can say 75% of the 5% land is underutilised. The city can go much denser.

Then you're not mad at the city or its planners, you're mad at 50+ years of highway culture. So's everybody else; the rest of us simply realize that expecting the place to transform into Shanghai overnight is unreasonable.

As it is, the CoV has the population of O.K. City, yet more density than Chicago. We're punching well above our weight right now.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

Vancouver must have a pretty low target and that's why it can be easily achieved, especially when they factor in the SFH neighbourhoods which will never change. Fact is large parts of Vancouver are still drastically underbuilt, and no one can discount that. I can say 75% of the 5% land is underutilised. The city can go much denser.

Why are you confusing Vancouver with Burnaby?

Keep on going Vin, your logic and 'facts' never cease to amaze me.

[trofirhen]

Numerous posts have been made about the height restrictions that exist on the Broadway Corridor; that is, the part to be served by the first extension of the new subway to Arbutus.
Additionally, several posts have - legitimately, IMHO - asked whether this newly redeveloped stretch of Broadway could be Vancouver's answer to Bloor St. in Toronto.
In the sense of shopping and entertainment; personally, I don't really think it can, in that Bloor St. is adjacent to downtown TO, and is an epicentre of Toronto wealth: "Mink Mile," Yorkville, and other stratospherically opulent residential areas and hotels, (and a couple of supertalls). Vancouver just isn't quite 'there' yet, either in population, head offices or bottom-line $$$$.

BUT .... what I think is necessary, and something that would enhance this roadway ENORMOUSLY is linear continuity; a sleek streetwall of buildings of similar height, if only 22 +/- floors.
If the buildings are pleasing to the eye, if their massing and grouping has a homogeneous symmetry, and if it continues on for four blocks ++ then I think elegant shopping and restaurants could be located there, as well as the spiffy offices (upper-bracket white collar, no doubt) in a crisp, smart, elegant streetscape, with courtyards perhaps, elegant patios and entrances.. *
*A note to Metro-One: remember how so many buildings in Stockholm were 18 storeys tall, yet the city looked so elegant? A similar effect could be achieved here, I think.

[misher]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Numerous posts have been made about the height restrictions that exist on the Broadway Corridor; that is, the part to be served by the first extension of the new subway to Arbutus.
Additionally, several posts have - legitimately, IMHO - asked whether this newly redeveloped stretch of Broadway could be Vancouver's answer to Bloor St. in Toronto.
In the sense of shopping and entertainment; personally, I don't really think it can, in that Bloor St. is adjacent to downtown TO, and is an epicentre of Toronto wealth: "Mink Mile," Yorkville, and other stratospherically opulent residential areas and hotels, (and a couple of supertalls). Vancouver just isn't quite 'there' yet, either in population, head offices or bottom-line $$$$.

BUT .... what I think is necessary, and something that would enhance this roadway ENORMOUSLY is linear continuity; a sleek streetwall of buildings of similar height, if only 22 +/- floors.
If the buildings are pleasing to the eye, if their massing and grouping has a homogeneous symmetry, and if it continues on for four blocks ++ then I think elegant shopping and restaurants could be located there, as well as the spiffy offices (upper-bracket white collar, no doubt) in a crisp, smart, elegant streetscape, with courtyards perhaps, elegant patios and entrances.. *
*A note to Metro-One: remember how so many buildings in Stockholm were 18 storeys tall, yet the city looked so elegant? A similar effect could be achieved here, I think.

I like having a large 1-2 storey commercial base and a skinny tower ontop so we get views to the left and right of the tower. I hate what they did in Olympic village with the large blocks that just completely block the sky. I much prefer squishing density up than going wide, this is what creates a great city and it worked well downtown.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by misher

I like having a large 1-2 storey commercial base and a skinny tower ontop so we get views to the left and right of the tower. I hate what they did in Olympic village with the large blocks that just completely block the sky. I much prefer squishing density up than going wide, this is what creates a great city and it worked well downtown.

If it worked well downtown, and if that is your preference, so be it. Among other things, I had thought there ws a height limit along Broadway.
My goal, whichever "schema" is used to redevelop Broadway, was just to make it feel sleek, slick, and "big city urbane," that's all. However they'll do it, that's te way they'll do it.

[misher]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

If it worked well downtown, and if that is your preference, so be it. Among other things, I had thought there ws a height limit along Broadway.
My goal, whichever "schema" is used to redevelop Broadway, was just to make it feel sleek, slick, and "big city urbane," that's all. However they'll do it, that's te way they'll do it.

Personally was hoping PCI was going to combine its sites at South Granville to create a shopping mall, no luck unfortunately.

Possibly a combination of 2331 Granville and 1525 west 8th as those are two large sites could have a small mall with towers ontop. Extremely unlikely though, it doesn’t seem like Vancouver wants another mall.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

I like having a large 1-2 storey commercial base and a skinny tower ontop so we get views to the left and right of the tower. I hate what they did in Olympic village with the large blocks that just completely block the sky. I much prefer squishing density up than going wide, this is what creates a great city and it worked well downtown.

Because that's how they do it in the Old World: compact, mid-density and wall-to-wall. A lot of North American planners like to imitate Europe.

IMO a combination of wide and narrow forms would be nice. Skinny and spaced-out can be equally dull.

Originally Posted by misher

Personally was hoping PCI was going to combine its sites at South Granville to create a shopping mall, no luck unfortunately.

Possibly a combination of 2331 Granville and 1525 west 8th as those are two large sites could have a small mall with towers ontop. Extremely unlikely though, it doesn’t seem like Vancouver wants another mall.

Well, what's South Granville or Robson, if not a stretched-out, open air mall?

Thing about too many shopping centres, they end up with more stores than customers, and then they end up poaching off each other - my experience with Orchard Road is a nasty cycle of openings, renovations, ghost towns, demos and replacements as consumers constantly move on to the next big thing. Perhaps we should wait for the population to catch up before building another Pacific Centre, if at all.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Then you're not mad at the city or its planners, you're mad at 50+ years of highway culture. So's everybody else; the rest of us simply realize that expecting the place to transform into Shanghai overnight is unreasonable.

As it is, the CoV has the population of O.K. City, yet more density than Chicago. We're punching well above our weight right now.

It's not about transforming into Shanghai overnight, but rather utilizing our earlier strengths like when neighbourhoods such as Yaletown & Coal Harbour were created, then improving on the concept and exporting it to other areas of downtown and beyond (within Vancouver I mean). We are not even doing that anymore but seem rather stagnated due to the crippling policies we have. Therefore for Vancouver to leap forward, the West Broadway plan needs to be bold and avant garde, and not more of the same lame ones at Mt Pleasant, or Cambie corridor.

I am all for Vancouverism: just not the viewcones part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism

Vancouverism is an urban planning and architectural phenomenon in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It is characterized by a large residential population living in the city centre with mixed-use developments, typically with a medium-height, commercial base and narrow, high-rise residential towers, significant reliance on mass public transit, creation and maintenance of green park spaces, and preserving view corridors.

To me, Cambie corridor, OV, Kerridale and Kitsilano are failed neighbourhoods. Marine Gateway has potential but the success is only limited by it's size. The East Fraser Land neighbourhood has potential but is physically too far from downtown to render the core any good. Therefore the West Broadway corridor is a chance for us to shine again.

[SpongeG]

why do you hate the OV so much, that's one of my faves.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

why do you hate the OV so much, that's one of my faves.

I don't hate it: I just think it is under-achieving.

Scathing words from 2012, unfortunately still true today:

Former Vancouver planning directors say city ill-prepared to deal with growth
JEFF LEE, VANCOUVER SUN 07.16.2012


VANCOUVER -- Three former Vancouver planning directors say the Metro region, and Vancouver in particular, are ill-prepared to deal with the inevitable growth expected over the next 40 years.

With as many as seven million people expected to be living in Metro Vancouver by 2050, Larry Beasley, Ray Spaxman and Brent Toderian say city politicians are not doing a good enough job planning for future growth, and instead are engaged in "Easter egg hunts" and "ad-hockery and crisis management" by focusing on single issues such as bike lanes and laneway houses.

Speaking at an Urban Land Institute series looking at Vancouver in 2050, Beasley said the city's growth has come to a standstill and that no effort is being made to create a city-wide plan necessary to direct growth over the next 40 years. The city is not creating enough supply to meet demand for various forms of housing, he said.

"The plans have to stay about 10 years ahead of the market or else there's going to be ad-hockery and a sense of crisis management and doesn't that sound like Vancouver city council dealing with planning issues in the last few years? I think it does. I think we are about 10 years behind," said Beasley, who retired from the city in 2006. "That economic engine, that civic economic engine we represented has come to a stall."

Toderian and Spaxman, who were both fired by Vancouver councils for differences of opinion over planning, said they worry the city is putting too much emphasis on solving here-and-now issues at the expense of long-term growth.

"I feel as if I am on an Easter egg hunt. Council is rushing off after density, they're rushing after lane housing, they're rushing after cycle paths. They're all rushing after the latest panacea that happens to offer some solution but isn't," said Spaxman, who was Vancouver's director of planning until he was fired under Mayor Gordon Campbell's term in the late 1980s. "There has to be a major shift in the way our municipalities are managed. The management cannot just be solely bottom line. There has to be a whole reorganization of the principals of management."

Toderian said he's worried "we are replacing a city by design with a kind of urbanism by checklist or urbanism by paint-by-numbers."

"Increasingly the discussion is about design being something that's nice to have as long as it doesn't stand in the way of achieving a certain number of social housing units or a checklist kind of approach," said Toderian, who was fired in February by the Vision Vancouver council.

Vancouver is now just trading on its good looks, said Beasley, who teaches at the University of B.C.'s urban planning institute as well as works in Moscow and Abu Dhabi.

The institute's series last week was the first time the three former directors shared a stage together talking about their individual and collective concerns.

"I come back to Vancouver and more and more I worry that here we have become incredibly complacent about the future we are going to face," said Beasley. "To me there is no question. I don't feel vague about it, I don't think it is unknowable, we are going to have a big affordability problem in this city. That affordability could in fact be the defining reality and image in this city by 2050. It is already becoming the alternate image of this city that goes along with the beauty and all that."

He said the region needs a "brand new" metropolitan plan, "a plan that thinks about the issues of the future, a plan that is not shy, a plan that does not have parameters and you can't talk about this and you can't talk about that. And until we get that plan, we are not going to solve the problems of the inner city, the affordability, our heritage program, our culture, whether we have enough office space. We just are not going to solve it unless we get a much broader concept of our metropolitan core and we get a plan for it."

Toderian said in his term as planning director he tried to start a new citywide plan but could not get past "obsolete" local neighbourhood plans that have only made the problem worse.

"I did my part when I was director and didn't vilify them but fundamentally they are dysfunctional planning mechanisms. They are recipes for inaction. They are both inflexible and unclear," Toderian said.

Perhaps in reference to his own trouble under the Vision Vancouver administration, Toderian also decried the replacement of what he called "competent failure" for a get-it-right-first attitude at City Hall.

"I think one of the things cities lose when the budgets get tight and pressures are high and maybe morale is shifting at City Hall is the loss of that creative edge. I worry that City Hall is losing that willingness to experiment, that willingness to take risk ... that idea of embracing it and not being afraid to fail. I think there is an increasing fear of failure, which I have seen in the middle and lower ranks at City Hall. It is not their fault, it is a product of a lot of pressure.

"So how do we foster a culture in our city hall that applauds what I call "competent failure", that thing where failure is just before you succeed. I think that is a culture Vancouver has had in the past, certainly at City Hall departments, and I worry that it is under threat right now."

[email protected]

Twitter.com/sunciviclee

Blog: www.vancouversun.com/jefflee

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

It's not about transforming into Shanghai overnight, but rather utilizing our earlier strengths like when neighbourhoods such as Yaletown & Coal Harbour were created, then improving on the concept and exporting it to other areas of downtown and beyond (within Vancouver I mean). We are not even doing that anymore but seem rather stagnated due to the crippling policies we have. Therefore for Vancouver to leap forward, the West Broadway plan needs to be bold and avant garde, and not more of the same lame ones at Mt Pleasant, or Cambie corridor.

I am all for Vancouverism: just not the viewcones part:

So "no, but yes." Yaletown and Coal Harbour all over the city proper is essentially what Shanghai and Hong Kong are.

What we need to become is San Fran - Fairview/Mount Pleasant turns into the West End, the rest of the city turns into Fairview/Mount Pleasant. That's happening as we speak, and comfortably meets our end of the plan.

Originally Posted by Vin

To me, Cambie corridor, OV, Kerridale and Kitsilano are failed neighbourhoods. Marine Gateway has potential but the success is only limited by it's size. The East Fraser Land neighbourhood has potential but is physically too far from downtown to render the core any good. Therefore the West Broadway corridor is a chance for us to shine again.

That's your bias against midrises again. Townhouses from Oak to Ontario, 6-8 floors along the arterials, and Yaletown spandrel around Oakridge Station is just as much density as any town centre, and in a bolder form.

Yes, bolder. The whole reason for 60+ floor towers is that Burnaby and Surrey are even more scared than Vancouver to touch their low-density neighbourhoods, just like Toronto is - instead of townhouses and lowrises all along Willingdon and Gilmore and Hastings and KGB and 104, all they do is convert greyfields... and when their councils try to move on the low density, they gets booted from office. Horrible planning all around.

The 'burbs should learn how to shine like Vancouver - grow slowly but steadily, creeping new growth into old suburbs, yet retaining the vital parts. Most of the suburbs is still SFH and warehouses and trees - that's the opposite of surpassing the city core.

[whatnext]

You have to wonder how soon Aoyuan is planning on going ahead with their Granville development, as they 've just levelled off the land adjacent to their old sales centre, rather than prepare it for excavation. Looks like a parking lot to me!

[IMG]IMG_4822 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[officedweller]

What a Liberal minority government means to Vancouver real estate
Provincial, municipal policy will have a more direct effect
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/liberal-minority-vanre-mark-ting-1.5336596

[misher]

Latest development meetings were taken over by groups of older residents from Broadway neighborhoods who were against the skytrain or any densification of Broadway. They requested the city restore Broadway to its former multiple village feel and knock down areas to create more parks between areas. Anyone who tried to speak out got shouted down and some people pushing for density left in disgust.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Alive for the decision-making, dead for the consequences. How convenient.