Cambie Corridor Updates

[djh]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Interesting - hiding the highrises a couple blocks off the arterial.
That's not a bad idea.

I mean, in terms of urban planning, it is a very bad idea.

Increasing the road and pavement traffic on minor residential roads due to the sudden jump in density; stretching the utility network will probably require upgrading water and sewer mains and electrical sub-stations for those areas which would otherwise have been shared with commercial upzoning on arterials; massive change to neighbourhoods with their own character (might be good or bad, but it's definitely dramatic); increased noise and air pollution in residential areas; dramatic changes to demographics possibly leading to local resources being overwhelmed or priorities changed (e.g., family-based areas might want more schools, now suddenly the huge number of singles with no kids means people are petitioning for more bar zoning, etc.).

I like the idea of higher density in every neighbourhood, but starting on the main arterials and working inwards at a gradual reduction in scale should be the way. We always have to respect any neighbours and neighbourhoods that already exist, because we wouldn't want to live there if not for those early residents that have given the place a character.

[GenWhy?]

You mean in general or in this area specifically along Heather St? Or say, the West End?

[idunno]

Originally Posted by djh

I mean, in terms of urban planning, it is a very bad idea.

Increasing the road and pavement traffic on minor residential roads due to the sudden jump in density; stretching the utility network will probably require upgrading water and sewer mains and electrical sub-stations for those areas which would otherwise have been shared with commercial upzoning on arterials; massive change to neighbourhoods with their own character (might be good or bad, but its definitely dramatic); increased noise and air pollution in residential areas; dramatic changes to demographics possibly leading to local resources being overwhelmed or priorities changed (e.g., family-based areas might want more schools, now suddenly the huge number of singles with no kids means people are petitioning for more bar zoning, etc.).

I like the idea of higher density in every neighbourhood, but starting in the main arterials and working inwards at a gradual reduction in scale should be the way. We always have to respect any neighbours and neighbourhoods that already exist, because we wouldn't want to live there if not for those early residents that have the place a character.

Respectfully, I disagree. What you're describing is as if the Heather Lands project is taking place in a vacuum. You point out issues with traffic and utilities, but those have all been taken into consideration in the Cambie Corridor Plan.

The 'massive change to neighbourhoods with their own character?' I'd be shocked if someone living in the CCP area by now didn't notice that there is already massive change going on.

And 'increased noise and pollution in residential areas?' How about this. Almost the entirety of non-SFH development in the City over the past 50 years has taken place on or very close to arterial roads. This means that if you can't afford a SFH, and you are interested in living in a building or a part of the City that wasn't developed pre 1970, you have to put up with a LOT of increased noise and pollution. Because the only residential area you can afford to live in IS along an arterial road.

One of the best aspects of the Cambie Corridor Plan is that it allows for off-arterial infill housing of many types, from low-rise strata to high-rise below income rental housing, to townhomes and rowhomes. And it's tough to feel bad for the existing (or rather former) residents around 33rd/41st/49th who will experience the most significant change, because most of those lots have already sold to developers for much more than market value!

[officedweller]

Yeah, I think that having density off (but near) the arterials would be good to distribute traffic and create a new denser sense of neighbourhood that a busy arterial-oriented area may not be able to do.

A lot of the megablock redevelopments have smaller streets within their areas that end in cul-de-sacs and have green space and pathways.
Not everyone wants to step out their front door onto a busy commercial sidewalk.

[djh]

To be clear for @idunno and @GenWhy's sakes; I wasn't saying this project was a bad idea. I was saying plonking huge towers in the middle of low-rise neighbourhoods is a bad idea (I was literally addressing @officedweller's comment about sticking a tower behind residential off an artery).

In the case of the Heather Lands, this works for many reasons. The whole area around the project is being upzoned, so we can assume all of the local utilities will also get upgraded, for one. There's also tonnes of parkland and open space included in the project, plus existing park space, so people will not feel too densely-packed. The proximity to a couple of major or mid-level arteries is good, so increased traffic on neighbourhood streets should be mitigated. And I really hope there is some neighbourhood retail included - even if it's just a friendly neighbourhood corner shop to grab milk from - just to make the development feel like a positive inclusive addition to the area, not a wall where The Others live and The We don't ever enter. I also hope that they have plans already in place to handle the change in demographics that such an increase in an area will bring. E.g., will they expect more k-12 residents --> let's set aside some land and petition government for a daycare and an elementary school.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by djh

To be clear for @idunno and @GenWhy's sakes; I wasn't saying this project was a bad idea. I was saying plonking huge towers in the middle of low-rise neighbourhoods is a bad idea (I was literally addressing @officedweller's comment about sticking a tower behind residential off an artery).

Then we're all on the same page. It's not like anybody's pushing a tower complex in Southlands.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with the racist history of the building.

There's a big political can of worms that may open just for the privilege of spending more money to save a building.

Safest choice is to knock it down.

Prime Minister Trudeau:

“There are many institutions that we have in this country, including that big building right across the street from us, Parliament, that has and is built around a system of colonialism, or discrimination or systemic racism.”

The activist complex succeeded in getting every institution deemed racist - better tear down our national heritage!

[Migrant_Coconut]

The "national heritage" in question is a private school from 1912 that's probably 75% asbestos by now. If the First Nations want to scrap it so badly, they can have it.

[s211]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Prime Minister Trudeau:

“There are many institutions that we have in this country, including that big building right across the street from us, Parliament, that has and is built around a system of colonialism, or discrimination or systemic racism.”

The activist complex succeeded in getting every institution deemed racist - better tear down our national heritage!

And at the risk of going seriously off-topic, did you know that lawns are colonial too? I wish I was joking.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with the racist history of the building.

There's a big political can of worms that may open just for the privilege of spending more money to save a building.

Safest choice is to knock it down.

That building was designed by Samuel MacLure one of BC's foremost early architects. It was never a residential school as some have mistakenly stated. Have any specific incidents been referenced with regards to that building or is it's removal just a "gotcha" moment from those involved?

[GenWhy?]

The building in question was initially built as a private school then purchased and used by the RCMP until recently.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The building in question was initially built as a private school then purchased and used by the RCMP until recently.

But not a "residential school".

[GenWhy?]

No it was intended for rich kids.

[s211]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

No it was intended for rich kids.

(let me preface by saying this is not directed at Gen Why)

Rich kids must then by definition be the worst racists I suppose. Or rich kids are somehow colonists? Frankly, it feels like a broad-based agenda being cut to fit the real estate.

Or is half-timbering colonial?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with the racist history of the building.

There's a big political can of worms that may open just for the privilege of spending more money to save a building.

Safest choice is to knock it down.

Have we ever walked too far down the wrong path.

Racist history of a building.

Wow - that's a concept.

We should probably just begin to round up all colonizers and ship them back.

But immigration is progressive, so would this be regressive?

Thankfully one cant be racist toward white people, sounds progressive enough.

[officedweller]

Taken to its extreme, the Legislative Building in Victoria is where all the abhorant policies of the past were passed into law -
should those be torn down (?)

[WarrenC12]

I'm sure it's because of the RCMP history of the building. Does MST land governance have to care about heritage status?

The building condition is of course, tear down. Who cares about preserving it? I don't.

[Feathered Friend]

https://shapeyourcity.ca/906-982-w-18-ave-and-907-969-w-19-ave


- Google Earth

City Duo @City_Duo
It’s often said gentle density proposed under a community plan would be warmly welcomed across Vancouver. Perhaps some near Douglas Park missed that memo, as they’re vehemently opposed to this mix of strata, market & moderate income rental homes
https://shapeyourcity.ca/906-982-w-18-ave-and-907-969-w-19-ave
2:41 PM · Mar 22, 2021·Twitter Web App

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Taken to its extreme, the Legislative Building in Victoria is where all the abhorant policies of the past were passed into law -
should those be torn down (?)

In the unlikely event that the Province decided to build a new Legislature Building in Colwood and abandon the old site, then there would probably be a process to reach an accommodation with the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations (and perhaps others).

In the case of the former RCMP site in Vancouver it's a 50/50 Canada Lands and First Nations ownership. Once the decision was taken to move to Surrey, the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh became 50 per cent owners of the land, with the nations given 28 per cent of the value as beneficial interest, and purchasing another 22 per cent.

In Victoria it would be a Provincial Agency that would be involved - maybe BC Housing? And it seems entirely likely if the site was abandoned that the building might not get repurposed. After all, Sir John A. Macdonald no longer stands outside City Hall as part of the painful process of Reconciliation.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Sheesh, you'd think the MST were trying to tear down the Art Gallery and set up a bonfire space. It's a Tudor. We can always build more Tudors.