Should Vancouver build over the 1200 ft development limit?

[fredinno]

Ok, I can now make a proper response now that I've actually returned.

Originally Posted by cornholio

If Maple Ridge would be in Austria it would have a 90-100kmph commuter rail and a 160-200kmph express line. You would be at Waterfront station in 15 min by express or 30 min by standard rail with 10 or more stops in between. Maple Ridge wouldn't be a far flung suburb, it would be just a extension of downtown and equivalent to say east Vancouver to live in. Mission would then be a suburb and Hope would be a Maple Ridge.

But anyways these comparisons bother me. Back on topic. I would much rather develop the ALR then the mountains which are a amenity to the growing region. Vancouver isn't self sufficient and never will be, the importance of the ALR is overblown even if I think not all should be developed. Having said that if you want to build up the mountain higher, I suppose go for it so long as you increase the accessibility to other similar areas (something that has absolutly not been happening for decades now). We doubled the people in the region but built almost zero trails and zero parking lots and zero access points to the near city parks/forests/lakes/mountains etc. Make them accessible. There is plenty of wild BC left that is nowhere near Vancouver and it will for ever be wild and hardly visited.

Thank you, someone actually gave a response I was looking for. I've already pretty much gave the response to the rest of the post before.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's an infographic - give all the information, even the irrelevant stuff. Pretty sure that part is basically just "well, there's technically land available, but we don't recommend it."

What makes Fleetwood or Cloverdale different from other 'burbs? I'm not talking about zoning or definitions, I'm talking about how that is literally the land area required for a hundred thousand houses - and stuff like the DNV's Innovation District isn't even limited to SFHs (still think it's a bad plan, but what the hell, looks like the woodlands are goners anyway). Whether that and Langley's expansions - Walnut Grove, etc - count toward the 7,330 hectares or have already been subtracted, I do not know, but put them all together and you more or less have something the size and population of one of Surrey's towns.

True, Vienna's not really a 1:1 comparison; seems like it'd be what would happen if you kicked everybody out of the North Shore and SoF and shipped them into Richmond or Burnaby. Point remains, it's a whole lot more compact than what we're used to.



That's kind of the point. If Surrey and Maple Ridge were in Austria, they'd be ten little Aldergroves instead of Detroit.

They're not that different (other that Cloverdale is horribly under-dense). The boundaries are pretty much layed out like Burnaby's Town Center Quadrants, though, and I didn't want to use the measurements because doing so doesn't account for things like Industrial Land Greenfield consumption (which will be a high portion of sprawl in terms of land area, and IS needed).

Why if the Innovation District bad again?

The # is updated for 2017, and the RGS was implemented in 2011. I accounted for that in my numbers.

Yes, but Vienna is also not a city with a perpetual housing crisis and difficulty fighting NIMBYs, both historically and nowadays. It also doesn't have the problem of an expanding Industrial Land inventory competing with everything else (which seems to be a problem largely unique to Vancouver in the developed world for the most part still).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

They're not that different (other that Cloverdale is horribly under-dense). The boundaries are pretty much layed out like Burnaby's Town Center Quadrants, though, and I didn't want to use the measurements because doing so doesn't account for things like Industrial Land Greenfield consumption (which will be a high portion of sprawl in terms of land area, and IS needed).

Why if the Innovation District bad again?

The # is updated for 2017, and the RGS was implemented in 2011. I accounted for that in my numbers.

Yes, but Vienna is also not a city with a perpetual housing crisis and difficulty fighting NIMBYs, both historically and nowadays. It also doesn't have the problem of an expanding Industrial Land inventory competing with everything else (which seems to be a problem largely unique to Vancouver in the developed world for the most part still).

SoF seem to have the most potential and actual expansion of industrial... and there's little to no motive for warehouses in the mountains.

Because we should be holding onto our greenfields, especially the ones with lousy transit coverage. We don't have any plans for a B-Line to Deep Cove in the near future... and the places that will get a B-Line are inexplicably untouched SFH.
If 20% of growth involves giving up more woodlands, then fine, but it should be a gradual process instead of a quick, opportunistic one.

Got it.

See above; I don't think West Van is a big factor in solving the industrial land shortage. And we're pushing back on the NIMBYs (many of whom will no longer be with us by 2040), so Vienna-like density isn't improbable for the metro.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

SoF seem to have the most potential and actual expansion of industrial... and there's little to no motive for warehouses in the mountains.

Because we should be holding onto our greenfields, especially the ones with lousy transit coverage. We don't have any plans for a B-Line to Deep Cove in the near future... and the places that will get a B-Line are inexplicably untouched SFH.
If 20% of growth involves giving up more woodlands, then fine, but it should be a gradual process instead of a quick, opportunistic one.

Got it.

See above; I don't think West Van is a big factor in solving the industrial land shortage. And we're pushing back on the NIMBYs (many of whom will no longer be with us by 2040), so Vienna-like density isn't improbable for the metro.

Non industrial land sprawl dominates the current sprawl though in terms of
land so far, though, and making more room for that makes it much easier to prevent a Flavelle Mills 2.0 from happening.
More of the urban area of Brookswood, Ioco, or Port Kells could theoretically be converted to more industrial instead of the Upper Lands, and money from the Upper Lands transferred to them if they need more convincing.

Did I say it was going to be quick and opportunistic?

Well, If nothing else, San Fran would like to have a word with you about outlasting NIMBYs... and we’re going to have to probably still deal with them for the short to medium term.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Non industrial land sprawl dominates the current sprawl though in terms of
land so far, though, and making more room for that makes it much easier to prevent a Flavelle Mills 2.0 from happening.
More of the urban area of Brookswood, Ioco, or Port Kells could theoretically be converted to more industrial instead of the Upper Lands, and money from the Upper Lands transferred to them if they need more convincing.

Did I say it was going to be quick and opportunistic?

Well, If nothing else, San Fran would like to have a word with you about outlasting NIMBYs... and we’re going to have to probably still deal with them for the short to medium term.

Are you upset at Flavelle from an industry-->mixed-use perspective or from a controversial megaproject perspective? Either way, it's a large, abandoned site just six minutes from a SkyTrain station, so it's pretty hard to justify a factory/warehouse-only zoning.
I can see the other two, but Ioco - or anything beyond Eagle Ridge - is going mean a lot of industrial traffic on what amounts to residential side streets; that's not going to be fun for either party.

Did you? Don't think so - I'm just calling it as I see it.
Another good example is Keith and Mountain: mid/highrises next to an already choked interchange, on the opposite end from Phibbs. Plenty of run-down SFHs in-between that they could be redeveloping instead, but noooo. Doesn't seem like there's a lot of long-term thinking involved in West Van or the DNV, just cash grabs.

IIRC, most of California's problems also involve ignorant old people blocking everything; the new generations seem to alternate between supporting housing and protesting techies. Not only are we starting to ignore the boomers (in part because of what's happening in San Fran) in the short/medium term, but they're also starting to leave this plane of existence - I for one don't picture much of Kits Point living past 2035.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cornholio

As I said Vienna stretches farther then its "metropolitan area". The fact is they have all housing forms and they have sprawl. It's not just Vienna city or Vienna metro, it's a much larger connected economic region thanks to continually improving infrustructure that brings more and more people closer together without changing the distance.

People always bring up some European city or Vienna and try to use it to support some view and ignore the fact these regions are much larger and very different from North America. There is more to them then the cities, more to them then the metros.

Sure, and their opposites usually bring up some Asian city as a justification as to why Vancouver needs to build over everything with monolithic skyscrapers. Equally unapplicable.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Are you upset at Flavelle from an industry-->mixed-use perspective or from a controversial megaproject perspective? Either way, it's a large, abandoned site just six minutes from a SkyTrain station, so it's pretty hard to justify a factory/warehouse-only zoning.
I can see the other two, but Ioco - or anything beyond Eagle Ridge - is going mean a lot of industrial traffic on what amounts to residential side streets; that's not going to be fun for either party.

Did you? Don't think so - I'm just calling it as I see it.
Another good example is Keith and Mountain: mid/highrises next to an already choked interchange, on the opposite end from Phibbs. Plenty of run-down SFHs in-between that they could be redeveloping instead, but noooo. Doesn't seem like there's a lot of long-term thinking involved in West Van or the DNV, just cash grabs.

IIRC, most of California's problems also involve ignorant old people blocking everything; the new generations seem to alternate between supporting housing and protesting techies. Not only are we starting to ignore the boomers (in part because of what's happening in San Fran) in the short/medium term, but they're also starting to leave this plane of existence - I for one don't picture much of Kits Point living past 2035.

Yes, the former. The GVRD already made massive industrial dezonings in response to the Evergreen Extension before the Flavelle rezoning, basically covering all the land directly next to Port Moody station. Yes, it was 'abandoned'- ie vacated for a new tenant. The site is plenty large enough for a new, modern warehouse. If they want to play Concord and keep the site empty forever in hopes of a rezoning, no one's stopping them. That's my point though- Concord is tenacious enough to try that no matter the costs, but not many other developers. Waiting decades for a rezoning that never comes isn't cheap, and you discourage that by making it as unprofitable as possible. True, there are other ways you can do that.

It's also not 6 minutes, it's 10-15, though that's also partially because of the terrible connection to the other side of the rail tracks. But that's also why you shouldn't build on the other side of the rail tracks.

In my opinion, they should have done what was done at Sapperton and just left all the land on one side of the rail yard alone. Flavelle is next to an oil terminal and rail yard, for crying out loud. It's better as a buffer than a TOD.

I'd have used the Fraser Lands and Fraser Mills sites as the hills to die on, but those messes were made before the RGS, so I couldn't. Flavelle isn't that bad.



Ioco kind of has the problem where they literally can't develop anything on it right now aside from a couple of country mansions without new roads into the area. Problem is that extending David Ave (the preferred option) goes through a park... and industry isn't that job intensive for surface area. Thus, industry. Plus, there's a rail spur there. May as well encourage people to use it, and no one other than new industrial likely will. David Ave isn’t exactly a quiet residential street.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/port-moody-ioco-lands-connector-road-june-2018


I don't get it. The Innovation District is light industrial-mixed offices-residential, something difficult to get on a redevelopment site (call me when they rezone SFH to industrial). 6-8 Stories is also unusually dense for greenfield.


Also, the Interchange area is actually part of a FTDA. Since the new interchange needed a lot of eminent domain to accomplish, I guess the idea was "Hey, since we have some land left over, may as well make money off it". The towers also seem to be moving south from the interchange, with new land assembly and demolition between Hunter and Fern. Can't confirm if it's a consistent trend without DNV providing good, up-to-date zoning maps, though.

I was actually referring to this: https://newrepublic.com/article/154028/racist-origins-san-franciscos-housing-crisis
The more things change...

There is one advantage for us though- there's not much land as accessible from the edges and people like living in cities and towers again. So you never know.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sure, and their opposites usually bring up some Asian city as a justification as to why Vancouver needs to build over everything with monolithic skyscrapers. Equally unapplicable.

??? You mean Vin? That's not really so much opposite, though.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yes, the former. The GVRD already made massive industrial dezonings in response to the Evergreen Extension before the Flavelle rezoning, basically covering all the land directly next to Port Moody station. Yes, it was 'abandoned'- ie vacated for a new tenant. The site is plenty large enough for a new, modern warehouse. If they want to play Concord and keep the site empty forever in hopes of a rezoning, no one's stopping them. That's my point though- Concord is tenacious enough to try that no matter the costs, but not many other developers. Waiting decades for a rezoning that never comes isn't cheap, and you discourage that by making it as unprofitable as possible. True, there are other ways you can do that.

It's also not 6 minutes, it's 10-15, though that's also partially because of the terrible connection to the other side of the rail tracks. But that's also why you shouldn't build on the other side of the rail tracks.

In my opinion, they should have done what was done at Sapperton and just left all the land on one side of the rail yard alone. Flavelle is next to an oil terminal and rail yard, for crying out loud. It's better as a buffer than a TOD.

I'd have used the Fraser Lands and Fraser Mills sites as the hills to die on, but those messes were made before the RGS, so I couldn't. Flavelle isn't that bad.



Ioco kind of has the problem where they literally can't develop anything on it right now aside from a couple of country mansions without new roads into the area. Problem is that extending David Ave (the preferred option) goes through a park... and industry isn't that job intensive for surface area. Thus, industry. Plus, there's a rail spur there. May as well encourage people to use it, and no one other than new industrial likely will. David Ave isn’t exactly a quiet residential street.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/port-moody-ioco-lands-connector-road-june-2018


I don't get it. The Innovation District is light industrial-mixed offices-residential, something difficult to get on a redevelopment site (call me when they rezone SFH to industrial). 6-8 Stories is also unusually dense for greenfield.


Also, the Interchange area is actually part of a FTDA. Since the new interchange needed a lot of eminent domain to accomplish, I guess the idea was "Hey, since we have some land left over, may as well make money off it". The towers also seem to be moving south from the interchange, with new land assembly and demolition between Hunter and Fern. Can't confirm if it's a consistent trend without DNV providing good, up-to-date zoning maps, though.

I was actually referring to this: https://newrepublic.com/article/154028/racist-origins-san-franciscos-housing-crisis
The more things change...

There is one advantage for us though- there's not much land as accessible from the edges and people like living in cities and towers again. So you never know.

In that context, yeah, it's kind of opportunistic. Though I'd point out that without a rail spur or easy barge access, heavy industrial uses are limited anyway.

YMMV - I can cover about 100m a minute. And it's not like they can't build additional overpasses. And the oil terminal's separated by a mudflat. Much less than ideal, but not terrible either.
It's the same thing with West Van - the city wants to grow, residents don't, so the city takes the easy money and develops "empty space" instead. At least with Flavelle the plan calls for 178,000 square feet of light or creative industrial and 99,000 of offices.

David Avenue isn't exactly busy west of Johnson... and there isn't a route to the rail spur without removing houses or a salmon hatchery, either of which'd be a whole new can of worms. If they can widen Ioco Road and manage to only add SOV/semi traffic, then maybe.

Yet why on the greenfield? Especially when the B-Line ends at Phibbs; if the area around the exchange is an FTDA, that part should be the first to get converted to 6-8 floor light industrial/mixed-use.

Not the last time I checked. Seylynn Village ends at Fern, and there's only one or two developments near the exchange. One'd think there'd be For Sale signs everywhere like Cambie if there was a rezoning plan; an Innovation District on top of Phibbs would be much better, but it seems the DNV's also going for the easy money.

Absolutely. And at last check, most of San Fran's NIMBYism comes from people over fifty. Pushing back should get easier and easier over the coming years; they've got even less time than we do.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In that context, yeah, it's kind of opportunistic. Though I'd point out that without a rail spur or easy barge access, heavy industrial uses are limited anyway.

YMMV - I can cover about 100m a minute. And it's not like they can't build additional overpasses. And the oil terminal's separated by a mudflat. Much less than ideal, but not terrible either.
It's the same thing with West Van - the city wants to grow, residents don't, so the city takes the easy money and develops "empty space" instead. At least with Flavelle the plan calls for 178,000 square feet of light or creative industrial and 99,000 of offices.

David Avenue isn't exactly busy west of Johnson... and there isn't a route to the rail spur without removing houses or a salmon hatchery, either of which'd be a whole new can of worms. If they can widen Ioco Road and manage to only add SOV/semi traffic, then maybe.

Yet why on the greenfield? Especially when the B-Line ends at Phibbs; if the area around the exchange is an FTDA, that part should be the first to get converted to 6-8 floor light industrial/mixed-use.

Not the last time I checked. Seylynn Village ends at Fern, and there's only one or two developments near the exchange. One'd think there'd be For Sale signs everywhere like Cambie if there was a rezoning plan; an Innovation District on top of Phibbs would be much better, but it seems the DNV's also going for the easy money.

Absolutely. And at last check, most of San Fran's NIMBYism comes from people over fifty. Pushing back should get easier and easier over the coming years; they've got even less time than we do.

They can definitely get easy barge access. Rail Spurs can be built by the customer if and when they need it- Flavelle Obviously never did. It was an excuse.

The oil terminal's comparatively far from Flavelle as Flavelle is from Skytrain. The mudflat may or many not also become another issue for any potential residents, depending on mosquito density.

The CoV is preserving 'Less than Ideal' TOD industrial development sites from development, as is Burnaby and Langley (though forced in this case). But Port Moody? Free pass.

At least 2 of the houses in the area will have to be demolished upon any David Ave extension. It's literally 2 more. The fact David Ave isn't busy and yet an arterial is kind of why you want the extension in the first place. Again, the houses aren't the sticking point here and are miniscule compared to the problems relating to building through a park or widening Ioco.

...There's a RGS map with the FTDAs on the OP... North of Fern IS on the map. Problem is that it may be too good for the industrial there to survive on the long run without protection from the RGS (of which there isn't). They definitely should though- the area was actually originally zoned that way when the RGS was put in by the looks of things.
Yes, the fact that North Van won't bother trying to save the industrial land there and get an amendment to rezone it back is dumb. Though the answer is probably to do both, rather than just one or the other.

Also, putting new industrial near a TOD zone is kind of... not a great idea, even if you could here (you can't). Plus, if you wait too long, the nearby FTN might just try to snatch it from you. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tsleil-w...ovation-district-north-vancouver-reserve

The rest of the land is either just as far or is reserve or Port land.

Looks like spot rezoning, not mass rezoning.

The point was that the NIMBYs were recycled at least once before in San Fran, rearing their ugly head using different excuses.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

They can definitely get easy barge access. Rail Spurs can be built by the customer if and when they need it- Flavelle Obviously never did. It was an excuse.

The oil terminal's comparatively far from Flavelle as Flavelle is from Skytrain. The mudflat may or many not also become another issue for any potential residents, depending on mosquito density.

The CoV is preserving 'Less than Ideal' TOD industrial development sites from development, as is Burnaby and Langley (though forced in this case). But Port Moody? Free pass.

At least 2 of the houses in the area will have to be demolished upon any David Ave extension. It's literally 2 more. The fact David Ave isn't busy and yet an arterial is kind of why you want the extension in the first place. Again, the houses aren't the sticking point here and are miniscule compared to the problems relating to building through a park or widening Ioco.

...There's a RGS map with the FTDAs on the OP... North of Fern IS on the map. Problem is that it may be too good for the industrial there to survive on the long run without protection from the RGS (of which there isn't). They definitely should though- the area was actually originally zoned that way when the RGS was put in by the looks of things.
Yes, the fact that North Van won't bother trying to save the industrial land there and get an amendment to rezone it back is dumb. Though the answer is probably to do both, rather than just one or the other.

Also, putting new industrial near a TOD zone is kind of... not a great idea, even if you could here (you can't). Plus, if you wait too long, the nearby FTN might just try to snatch it from you. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tsleil-w...ovation-district-north-vancouver-reserve

The rest of the land is either just as far or is reserve or Port land.

Looks like spot rezoning, not mass rezoning.

The point was that the NIMBYs were recycled at least once before in San Fran, rearing their ugly head using different excuses.

Barge access is just fine - getting the barge to a depot like Second Narrows, that's going to be a problem.

Mudflats also attract things that eat mosquitoes, so it evens out. Fair point about relative distance (though SkyTrain accessibility can only improve), but overall it's still a useful mixed-use site; the River District's industrial neighbours haven't killed its desirability.

Fair enough, but I'd still question the need for additional heavy industry in what's practically the middle of nowhere when Surrey/Langley is both easier to build on and much better connected to the road/rail network.

Let's get this out of the way: light industrial is things like commercial printing, food packing, repair, carpentry and distribution centres; creative industrial is white collar like marketing, architecture, design, film/art/music studios and publishing.
Either way, you want that kind of industry near a TOD zone. That's why Vancouver/Burnaby/Langley is fighting to keep them; large factories like Molson are probably going to leave anyway, but there's a lot of smaller stuff important for a city that might stay if given enough protection.

I'm not contesting that Seylynn's part of the FTDA, I'm contesting the need to stop there and settle for spot-zoning low/midrises on the rest of it. Whether or not the Tsleil-Waututh get the greenfield and/or develop immediately (bad idea, given the lack of transit/amenities access), density could easily happen around Phibbs, but it isn't happening - if it were Vancouver or Burnaby, the entire area'd be either for sale, sold or under construction.

That's the case for the entire continent. First it was top-down racism, now it's bottom-up fear of change; this time around there's YIMBYism at the top AND bottom and a housing crunch.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Barge access is just fine - getting the barge to a depot like Second Narrows, that's going to be a problem.

Mudflats also attract things that eat mosquitoes, so it evens out. Fair point about relative distance (though SkyTrain accessibility can only improve), but overall it's still a useful mixed-use site; the River District's industrial neighbours haven't killed its desirability.

Fair enough, but I'd still question the need for additional heavy industry in what's practically the middle of nowhere when Surrey/Langley is both easier to build on and much better connected to the road/rail network.

Let's get this out of the way: light industrial is things like commercial printing, food packing, repair, carpentry and distribution centres; creative industrial is white collar like marketing, architecture, design, film/art/music studios and publishing.
Either way, you want that kind of industry near a TOD zone. That's why Vancouver/Burnaby/Langley is fighting to keep them; large factories like Molson are probably going to leave anyway, but there's a lot of smaller stuff important for a city that might stay if given enough protection.

I'm not contesting that Seylynn's part of the FTDA, I'm contesting the need to stop there and settle for spot-zoning low/midrises on the rest of it. Whether or not the Tsleil-Waututh get the greenfield and/or develop immediately (bad idea, given the lack of transit/amenities access), density could easily happen around Phibbs, but it isn't happening - if it were Vancouver or Burnaby, the entire area'd be either for sale, sold or under construction.

That's the case for the entire continent. First it was top-down racism, now it's bottom-up fear of change; this time around there's YIMBYism at the top AND bottom and a housing crunch.

Barge access is just fine - getting the barge to a depot like Second Narrows, that's going to be a problem.

?


The River District's industrial neighbors are both farther away and pretty inconspicuous. Warehouse/offices in Burnaby and light industrial trailer rental/repair and small ship repair (like Yachts and fishing boats) shops on the other side of the Fraser.


Brookswood is just as middle of nowhere. The problem with the lands that ARE easily accessible now, aside from Port Kells, is that they're pretty much already doomed or Indian Reserve (you can't make them do anything).

Problem is that there's no protection for the industrial/strip mall parts of Phibbs FTDA to be industrial under the RGS. That has to be secured first. The lack of mass rezoning in DNV is indeed a concern. That and the Marine Drive one is the closest they have to a DT zone, since I don't take Lynn Valley T. Center seriously. Interestingly, redevelopment is starting around their SFH districts first.

Langley I will reject and say that they wanted to remove all the industrial that was zoned in Willoughby due to the Carvolth Exchange, only to get slapped multiple times in the face by the RGS (TOL is responsible for a ridiculous # of proposed and completed RGS amendments and was one of the last to join the thing. It's the pissy child of the Metro Van club, and I say that as a person who lives in the thing. )

Well, Seylynn (near the interchange or not) is part of the FTDA, all right. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/600-mountain-highway-north-vancouver-seylynn-village

Yeah, San Fran is just the best case study because it's been best documented due to its infamy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

?


The River District's industrial neighbors are both farther away and pretty inconspicuous. Warehouse/offices in Burnaby and light industrial trailer rental/repair and small ship repair (like Yachts and fishing boats) shops on the other side of the Fraser.


Brookswood is just as middle of nowhere. The problem with the lands that ARE easily accessible now, aside from Port Kells, is that they're pretty much already doomed or Indian Reserve (you can't make them do anything).

Problem is that there's no protection for the industrial/strip mall parts of Phibbs FTDA to be industrial under the RGS. That has to be secured first. The lack of mass rezoning in DNV is indeed a concern. That and the Marine Drive one is the closest they have to a DT zone, since I don't take Lynn Valley T. Center seriously. Interestingly, redevelopment is starting around their SFH districts first.

Langley I will reject and say that they wanted to remove all the industrial that was zoned in Willoughby due to the Carvolth Exchange, only to get slapped multiple times in the face by the RGS (TOL is responsible for a ridiculous # of proposed and completed RGS amendments and was one of the last to join the thing. It's the pissy child of the Metro Van club, and I say that as a person who lives in the thing. )

Well, Seylynn (near the interchange or not) is part of the FTDA, all right. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/600-mountain-highway-north-vancouver-seylynn-village

Yeah, San Fran is just the best case study because it's been best documented due to its infamy.

The problem isn't barge access, it's barge commuting time; nautically speaking, these days Port Moody is a port in name only. At least Brookswood has easy highway access and a preexisting "wide" road.

The River District's industry is still somewhat noticeable if you're actually there and looking at the container yards across the river. The Marine Gateway-Capstan area and Maplewood has even more, so I don't see one oil terminal as a property-killer.

Right, Langley Township seems to be in full SimCity mode, which is why I'm concerned about the DNV. The smart move would be to have Park & Tilford and everything west of Mountain Highway start going for mixed-use commercial/industrial, but for some reason they'd rather knock down the trees instead.

[jollyburger]

Here's the development plan for Lynn Creek Town Centre.

https://www.dnv.org/property-and-development/lynn-creek-town-centre

[Migrant_Coconut]

Thanks. Guess that's what I get for skipping over the North Shore threads.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The problem isn't barge access, it's barge commuting time; nautically speaking, these days Port Moody is a port in name only. At least Brookswood has easy highway access and a preexisting "wide" road.

The River District's industry is still somewhat noticeable if you're actually there and looking at the container yards across the river. The Marine Gateway-Capstan area and Maplewood has even more, so I don't see one oil terminal as a property-killer.

Right, Langley Township seems to be in full SimCity mode, which is why I'm concerned about the DNV. The smart move would be to have Park & Tilford and everything west of Mountain Highway start going for mixed-use commercial/industrial, but for some reason they'd rather knock down the trees instead.

The area is historically industrial anyways, and there's barge/shipping terminals in Albion- shipping distance doesn't seem to be as big deal as you're making it sound- not to mention the growth area isn't mills, it's warehousing and logistics. Port Moody isn't that bad. I'd like to ask what wide road you're referring to- everything into Brookswood is 2 lanes. Really, the big important logistical connection is Hwy 1 (and maybe SFPR), and that's as long to get from Brookswood or Campbell Heights as it is from Ioco.

Well, yeah, you could put houses next to a sewer plant in Vancouver and get plenty of takers. That's not the problem, the problem is that it's a bad place to put it. They could have just built all the towers they wanted if the towers from the oceanfront built all the way out to the tree line instead and get far more housing easier to access, live in, and service. For crying out load, by all indications, development anywhere was going to piss off Port Moody NIMBYs.
https://metrovanwatch.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/moody-centre-bulletin/

https://www.portmoody.ca/en/business-and...chapter15----Neighbourhood-Plan-Area.pdf

Thing is, DNV can't sprawl much beyond the current plans they have because all remaining development lands are outside its control, the CMHC lands in particular, which the DNV has sued them several times for.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...ptly-closed-to-mountain-bikers-1.3812935
It's the North Shore's version of the Salmon River Uplands. When that changes, I will agree with you that we need to pay more concern to DNV's actions. Right now, it's redevelop or become West Van 2.0 (trying to live solely on greenfield and opportunistic upzoning). And not even West Van really wants to be West Van anymore.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Here's the development plan for Lynn Creek Town Centre.

https://www.dnv.org/property-and-development/lynn-creek-town-centre

Thanks. Strange how the RGS doesn't protect the industrial in the T. Center and DNV somehow does (the RGS updates to keep consistent with specific details of municipal land use plans). Guess that puts a wrench into the 'cash grab' theory? Otherwise the industrial would be under the chopping block.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The area is historically industrial anyways, and there's barge/shipping terminals in Albion- shipping distance doesn't seem to be as big deal as you're making it sound- not to mention the growth area isn't mills, it's warehousing and logistics. Port Moody isn't that bad. I'd like to ask what wide road you're referring to- everything into Brookswood is 2 lanes. Really, the big important logistical connection is Hwy 1 (and maybe SFPR), and that's as long to get from Brookswood or Campbell Heights as it is from Ioco.

Well, yeah, you could put houses next to a sewer plant in Vancouver and get plenty of takers. That's not the problem, the problem is that it's a bad place to put it. They could have just built all the towers they wanted if the towers from the oceanfront built all the way out to the tree line instead and get far more housing easier to access, live in, and service. For crying out load, by all indications, development anywhere was going to piss off Port Moody NIMBYs.

IIRC the Albion and Fort Langley docks belonged to a now-defunct passenger ferry service. The logrolling days are long gone.

Much of 208th, including one stretch of Brookswood, is four lanes; whether or not David has the same potential, it seems like much less of a headache to get trucks and SOVs in and out of countryside than North Shore suburbia.

Port Moody is definitely showing all the classic symptoms of Grand Bargain-itis, I'm not contesting that. Yet that doesn't mean that Flavelle is a bad location; hell, at one point we'd've all said Yaletown should be kept as a buffer zone. Nothing that an overpass or two can't fix - and again, it's set to have light industrial space, just not heavy industrial. Lowrise mixed-use with warehousing/distribution on the bottom is still entirely possible for the site.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Thing is, DNV can't sprawl much beyond the current plans they have because all remaining development lands are outside its control, the CMHC lands in particular, which the DNV has sued them several times for.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...ptly-closed-to-mountain-bikers-1.3812935
It's the North Shore's version of the Salmon River Uplands. When that changes, I will agree with you that we need to pay more concern to DNV's actions. Right now, it's redevelop or become West Van 2.0 (trying to live solely on greenfield and opportunistic upzoning). And not even West Van really wants to be West Van anymore.

Thanks. Strange how the RGS doesn't protect the industrial in the T. Center and DNV somehow does (the RGS updates to keep consistent with specific details of municipal land use plans). Guess that puts a wrench into the 'cash grab' theory? Otherwise the industrial would be under the chopping block.

True, the DNV's kind of boxed into a corner here. Definitely reassuring to know that their Council has an actual vision and isn't just zone-happy.

As for West Van, I'm genuinely wondering if "continue to shrink" is the better option over "towers on Cypress..."

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC the Albion and Fort Langley docks belonged to a now-defunct passenger ferry service. The logrolling days are long gone.

Much of 208th, including one stretch of Brookswood, is four lanes; whether or not David has the same potential, it seems like much less of a headache to get trucks and SOVs in and out of countryside than North Shore suburbia.

Port Moody is definitely showing all the classic symptoms of Grand Bargain-itis, I'm not contesting that. Yet that doesn't mean that Flavelle is a bad location; hell, at one point we'd've all said Yaletown should be kept as a buffer zone. Nothing that an overpass or two can't fix - and again, it's set to have light industrial space, just not heavy industrial. Lowrise mixed-use with warehousing/distribution on the bottom is still entirely possible for the site.



True, the DNV's kind of boxed into a corner here. Definitely reassuring to know that their Council has an actual vision and isn't just zone-happy.

As for West Van, I'm genuinely wondering if "continue to shrink" is the better option over "towers on Cypress..."

I was referring to the small mill there, on Fisherman Road. Even if we say that's too small, there's massive concrete production facilities with barge facilities in Walnut Grove. Even if we exclude that, that doesn't change the fact I originally meant light industrial for Flavelle.

Yes, instead you go through Langley Suburbia- at least all the sections with wide roads. The ones with narrow roads are all 2 lane country roads, and are coincidentally actually overall better options to get to Hwy 1 with. Road expansions are still necessary.

...when exactly? Certainly not after Expo '86, as in OTL. The only remaining industries by then seem to have been CANRON Steel and Ocean Concrete. Even then, the city was pressuring CANCRON to leave, which they eventually did.
Barring Pacific Coast Terminals leaving (not likely, they process sulfur and potash as well), the buffer space will hold valid here. Not to mention any further expansions of the Terminal would have to bring the terminal closer to Flavelle. Whoops.

Yes, light industrial, on like 10% of the site.


Yep.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I was referring to the small mill there, on Fisherman Road. Even if we say that's too small, there's massive concrete production facilities with barge facilities in Walnut Grove. Even if we exclude that, that doesn't change the fact I originally meant light industrial for Flavelle.

Yes, instead you go through Langley Suburbia- at least all the sections with wide roads. The ones with narrow roads are all 2 lane country roads, and are coincidentally actually overall better options to get to Hwy 1 with. Road expansions are still necessary.

...when exactly? Certainly not after Expo '86, as in OTL. The only remaining industries by then seem to have been CANRON Steel and Ocean Concrete. Even then, the city was pressuring CANCRON to leave, which they eventually did.
Barring Pacific Coast Terminals leaving (not likely, they process sulfur and potash as well), the buffer space will hold valid here. Not to mention any further expansions of the Terminal would have to bring the terminal closer to Flavelle. Whoops.

Yes, light industrial, on like 10% of the site.


Yep.

Burnco, Eagle West and the others have a rail spur; don't know the logistical details of green water lumber, but Point A -> barge -> Point B is likely better than Point A -> barge -> train -> Point B. And Flavelle's new light industrial would require neither barge nor train.

Yet the roads in Langley already exist, and they're flat, straight, and void of any hills/trees/suburbs. I'm no trucker, but I know which one I'd find easier to drive on.

Well, Port Moody's pressured Flavelle to leave, just like Vancouver and CANRON. The point is that there was an era where Yaletown was 100% industrial and you'd have to be a lunatic to see it as high-rise residential. Only time will tell, but Flavelle doesn't seem any more horrible a location than Marine Gateway or River Rock.

Mathematically, 178,000 square feet is anywhere between twenty inner-city warehouses and two big ones. That's more than enough for the mocap studios, developers, tradespeople et al that Port Moody seems to want to attract.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Burnco, Eagle West and the others have a rail spur; don't know the logistical details of green water lumber, but Point A -> barge -> Point B is likely better than Point A -> barge -> train -> Point B. And Flavelle's new light industrial would require neither barge nor train.

Yet the roads in Langley already exist, and they're flat, straight, and void of any hills/trees/suburbs. I'm no trucker, but I know which one I'd find easier to drive on.

Well, Port Moody's pressured Flavelle to leave, just like Vancouver and CANRON. The point is that there was an era where Yaletown was 100% industrial and you'd have to be a lunatic to see it as high-rise residential. Only time will tell, but Flavelle doesn't seem any more horrible a location than Marine Gateway or River Rock.

Mathematically, 178,000 square feet is anywhere between twenty inner-city warehouses and two big ones. That's more than enough for the mocap studios, developers, tradespeople et al that Port Moody seems to want to attract.

There was a reason SEFC and NEFC were the last parts of the area to develop, and one of them was probably CANRON. Condos weren’t even supposed to BE in NEFC originally, and SEFC only really started planning once CANRON shut down. Unless you can get Pacific Coast Terminals to shut down... and CANRON only left because their facility burned down. If it didn’t, SEFC might never have gone through.

Pretty sure the “75,000 square feet of live/work space for artists and other creative industries” is actually a subsection of the 103 000 sq ft Industrial, but whatever. Vancouver added 3.2 MILLION sq feet in 2014-2015 alone. https://www.avisonyoung.com/fileDownload...couver_IndustrialOverview_Spring2015.pdf

You mean the River Rock and Marine Gateway DIRECTLY connected to Skytrain (as in physically connected)... Really? Also, again with the rail spur?

Yes, I know Port Moody doesn’t want the industrial to stay but neither does it want density anyways. Just money grabs.

[Tetsuo]

Fraser Mills deserve to stay industrial over Flavelle tbh

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Fraser Mills deserve to stay industrial over Flavelle tbh

I agree, but it was far too late to save it by the RGS’s day.