SkyTrain Station Renovations

[Migrant_Coconut]

You hoped that they "don't kill the feel" and "keep the towers elsewhere," which in Vancouver usually means "don't build anything." Apologies for the preemption, but a simple "redevelop, sure, but don't go overboard with it" would help clarify your position.

We're not talking about underbuilding the mall though, we're talking about waiting a while. Guildford can develop the parking lots in the meantime; the other malls are also doing it in phases, not all at once.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As for Newton, the problem is that they haven't updated their neighbourhood plan. Nobody's stopping them. If the real problem turns out to be that they aren't a desirable location without a train, well, that's not really anybody else's fault.

The same thing can be applied to Fleetwood as well. TBH, I'm not sure why people outside of the Fleetwood area would commute there. However I do understand that a lot of people in Fleetwood commute to Surrey Central.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

The same thing can be applied to Fleetwood as well. TBH, I'm not sure why people outside of the Fleetwood area would commute there.

You're not wrong. The point is that if we start looking at this mainly as a growth issue instead of a transportation issue, we've taken our eye off the ball.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You hoped that they "don't kill the feel" and "keep the towers elsewhere," which in Vancouver usually means "don't build anything." Apologies for the preemption, but a simple "redevelop, sure, but don't go overboard with it" would help clarify your position.

We're not talking about underbuilding the mall though, we're talking about waiting a while. Guildford can develop the parking lots in the meantime; the other malls are also doing it in phases, not all at once.

...Didn't you say to keep it OV density?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The MTR pays Hong Kong for the land based on pre-railway values, they get the land, they sell it or partner with a developer at post-railway values. Methinks you're splitting hairs here.

It shouldn't be too hard to find. Try "Denny's" if you're really having trouble.

Again, I doubt TransLink wants a side gig as a landlord.
You DID start off with the rumours that TransLink's in the pocket of for-profit gentrification, and that's got a lot to do with the unaffordability of prior TODs. And not really - if you look at the MTR's website, even 9,800 square foot lots and 250-unit developments can turn a profit, which is right up the aforementioned 28-floor rental's alley.

There's a lot to unpack here. Bottom line, 104th would NOT have been six lanes, it would've been two lanes plus the streetcar, plus the newly-built 105th (also two lanes). That's not nearly enough for an Oakridge redevelopment.

As for Newton, the problem is that they haven't updated their neighbourhood plan. Nobody's stopping them. If the real problem turns out to be that they aren't a desirable location without a train, well, that's not really anybody else's fault.

MTR also gets over a billion HK$ in revenue from 'Rent, Management, and Other' http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/corporate/file_rep/PR-08-026-E1.pdf, and owns malls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Square). Same thing with Tokyo. Point is, diversifying into rental/commercial properties is part of the RE business models of other transit agencies anyways, and may avoid criticism from building unaffordable condos (Hong Kong RE, both rental and condo, is a bad target to set for sustainable prices).


https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...ore-vehicle-lanes-on-much-of-104-avenue/
I thought you were referring to the post-Surrey First plan, in my defense.
Surrey First also planned a 2-lane 102-103rd Ave Arterial in the Guildford plan.

The Newton Plan is actually progressing at a similar pace as the Guildford Plan. Technically neither is actually in effect, yet (though they will be this year). It seems like developers are abiding by the as-so-far plans, ie. they're just one step ahead of the actual completion. Newton just is less attractive.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

...Didn't you say to keep it OV density?



MTR also gets over a billion HK$ in revenue from 'Rent, Management, and Other' http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/corporate/file_rep/PR-08-026-E1.pdf, and owns malls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Square). Same thing with Tokyo. Point is, diversifying into rental/commercial properties is part of the RE business models of other transit agencies anyways, and may avoid criticism from building unaffordable condos (Hong Kong RE, both rental and condo, is a bad target to set for sustainable prices).


https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...ore-vehicle-lanes-on-much-of-104-avenue/
I thought you were referring to the post-Surrey First plan, in my defense.
Surrey First also planned a 2-lane 102-103rd Ave Arterial in the Guildford plan.

The Newton Plan is actually progressing at a similar pace as the Guildford Plan. Technically neither is actually in effect, yet (though they will be this year). It seems like developers are abiding by the as-so-far plans, ie. they're just one step ahead of the actual completion. Newton just is less attractive.

Keep it OV density with the Surrey First plan, because OV-sized streets and trams can't support anything larger. Four lanes and a SkyTrain? Guildford has a blank cheque.

Hold up, so we are worried about unit affordability. Sure, and I'll restate that MIRHPPs are still viable at post-speculation prices, given adequate FSR... and TransLink will definitely want to have a revenue stream from Marine Gateway/NEFC/Brentwood-type projects.

If so, good thing they didn't - that one would've been even more of a doozy than 105th.

Like I said, TransLink needs to be thinking of the whole region, not just one or two strip malls. Newton's already the terminus for two busy bus corridors and a RapidBus (possibly more in the future), so it's not exactly like they're undesirable due to a lack of transit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Like I said, TransLink needs to be thinking of the whole region, not just one or two strip malls.

Translink is pretty good at understanding what the region needs, but it's constantly kneecapped by politicians who dictate zoning regulations and compete to get their own pet transit projects pushed to the front of the line.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Keep it OV density with the Surrey First plan, because OV-sized streets and trams can't support anything larger. Four lanes and a SkyTrain? Guildford has a blank cheque.

Hold up, so we are worried about unit affordability. Sure, and I'll restate that MIRHPPs are still viable at post-speculation prices, given adequate FSR... and TransLink will definitely want to have a revenue stream from Marine Gateway/NEFC/Brentwood-type projects.

If so, good thing they didn't - that one would've been even more of a doozy than 105th.

Like I said, TransLink needs to be thinking of the whole region, not just one or two strip malls. Newton's already the terminus for two busy bus corridors and a RapidBus (possibly more in the future), so it's not exactly like they're undesirable due to a lack of transit.

Yes, and I said TransLink should have a more active role in the actual RE as a form of vertical integration, instead of just flipping the land. I'm not against RE w/ TransLink, we're literally arguing over how it should be done.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Translink is pretty good at understanding what the region needs, but it's constantly kneecapped by politicians who dictate zoning regulations and compete to get their own pet transit projects pushed to the front of the line.

Exactly.

It's... still there. https://www.surrey.ca/files/GuildfordTownCentre104AvenueStage1Plan.pdf
It's not even a proper complete connector. They're eventually likely going to have to move the Turf Fields to Green Timbers or something.

I was replying to this:

As for Newton, the problem is that they haven't updated their neighbourhood plan.

That's not true. It's not just lack of transit, but also lack of good access. There's no fast way to get around.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yes, and I said TransLink should have a more active role in the actual RE as a form of vertical integration, instead of just flipping the land. I'm not against RE w/ TransLink, we're literally arguing over how it should be done...

... It's... still there. https://www.surrey.ca/files/GuildfordTownCentre104AvenueStage1Plan.pdf
It's not even a proper complete connector. They're eventually likely going to have to move the Turf Fields to Green Timbers or something.

I was replying to this:
That's not true. It's not just lack of transit, but also lack of good access. There's no fast way to get around.

Again though, vertical integration doesn't really work for TransLink. They'd already be making a profit selling the land, but then any additional profit from building on it will probably come with the additional logistics of analysis, architecture, construction, unit sales, UDP meetings, renting/leasing, et al. That stuff isn't exactly a transport company's comfort zone.

Right. Sure, it's a thing, but it's more like a bunch of street segments, and that limits its usefulness as an arterial. A through road like 105th is going to require a whole lot of eminent domain that I doubt Surrey Council wants to bother with.

But you could say that about basically everywhere in the SoF outside of Whalley - most of which doesn't even have a B-Line/RapidBus. What makes Newton worthy of additional special treatment?

[officedweller]

Guildford, Newton, Fleetwood and Cloverdale are Municipal Town Centres under the Regional Growth Strategy.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again though, vertical integration doesn't really work for TransLink. They'd already be making a profit selling the land, but then any additional profit from building on it will probably come with the additional logistics of analysis, architecture, construction, unit sales, UDP meetings, renting/leasing, et al. That stuff isn't exactly a transport company's comfort zone.

Forgive me for my lack of development expertise, but can't they just farm all that out to some contracting group without having to sell the land?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Forgive me for my lack of development expertise, but can't they just farm all that out to some contracting group without having to sell the land?

I know roughly as much as you do, but if I were TransLink, I'd probably be very wary of contractors after the whole Cubic mess.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I know roughly as much as you do, but if I were TransLink, I'd probably be very wary of contractors after the whole Cubic mess.

While building development doubtless has its uncertainties, I'm pretty sure it's a much better understood and quantifiable process than the development of large cutting edge IT systems. And I say that as an guy with an IT background.

[Migrant_Coconut]

No doubt. My concern isn't so much the process as the processors: as with the Compass Card and others, the blame for any cut corners or shady deals or botched jobs will pass right over the contractor and fall on TransLink.

[red-paladin]

Sorry for my inaction, I've been in self isolation. I'm better now. Please let's keep these threads on topic.

[SpongeG]

Nanaimo station looks almost completed. They have done the landscaping, they planted trees almost three weeks ago, finishing touches now.

...................

New Tim Hortons locations opening inside three SkyTrain stations

Kenneth Chan | Jun 16 2020


Tim Hortons now open inside Rupert Station. (Kenneth Chan / Daily Hive)

Tim Hortons is making a very big expansion onto SkyTrain with the opening of three new retail locations inside stations this year.

TransLink told Daily Hive Urbanized the fast-food restaurant chain’s new locations are at Rupert Station, Stadium-Chinatown Station, and Surrey Central Station.

...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-tim-hortons

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Nanaimo station looks almost completed. They have done the landscaping, they planted trees almost three weeks ago, finishing touches now.

Wow, could they pick a worse place for a lineup?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Wow, could they pick a worse place for a lineup?

IMO, all transit stations should have a food/drink/minimart kiosk of some sort

The easiest solution is to take advantage of what used to be the ground-level entrances at the old workstations and build a restaurant with one window facing the fare paid area, and one facing the outside, or an actual seating area (most of the stations were re-oriented to have the entrances and the fare gates at the far end of the station.)

It can then double as an emergency escape through the restaurant from the station, or from the restaurant to the station.

What I would love to see is a unified "station" fare paid area between the Canada Line, Expo Line, WCE and Seabus at the same grade. But I don't see a way to fix this that wouldn't result in building a new station behind the existing one.

[MIPS]

I still advocate for more self-serve food and drink dispensing options in the system. Vending machines are smaller and their expense margins are easier to manage not to mention the cost to install them are significantly cheaper. There's nothing "wrong" about buying a hot sandwich from a machine.
Though in defense of your suggestion, Automat-style locations would be great for cheap, fresh food while on the go, plus they are typically quite compact.


Alamy Ref. C02R9D

IMO, all transit stations should have a food/drink/minimart kiosk of some sort

All the downtown stations in some form used to have small convenience stores in them if I recall. Can anyone tell if they closed because of lack of business or the leases were not renewed?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by MIPS

There's nothing "wrong" about buying a hot sandwich from a machine.

I appreciate the points you made, but food from a machine is never going to be as fresh as made to order. It's just a different point on the service/quality/cost triangle.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I appreciate the points you made, but food from a machine is never going to be as fresh as made to order. It's just a different point on the service/quality/cost triangle.

But even then everyone is setting up self order kiosks so he's essentially dedicating a giant wall of lockers that need to be filled with food that will get wasted if no one buys it right away.