Rupert - Renfrew Area Updates

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by scottN

I'm curious how anyone thinks they are going to grade separate the railway crossings. There's clearly insufficient space for a roadway to go over the rail line and under the skytrain. Perhaps you could pull off an underpass at Renfrew, but Rupert would be much more challenging. A huge tall overpass? That would cut off the skytrain station from Rupert Street.

Originally Posted by GMD

Even at Renfrew, Hebb crosses so close to the tracks, I don't know how you could make it work.

I guess where there is a will, and a lot of money, there is a way, but I think even if there was money to spend on grade separations, there are much better options to target first (Holdom overpass, closure of the Douglas road crossing, some of the crossings in Port Coquitlam/Pitt Meadows near the main CP yard, etc.)

Isn't there still a level crossing at Boundary Road?
As long as that one stays, then Rupert and Renfrew will also stay.

One option would be to constuct a long railway viaduct, but I don;t know how the grades would work leading to the Grandview Cut.
I suspect that the land is too swampy in the area to dig a cut/trench for the railway.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Isn't there still a level crossing at Boundary Road?
As long as that one stays, then Rupert and Renfrew will also stay.

One option would be to constuct a long railway viaduct, but I don;t know how the grades would work leading to the Grandview Cut.
I suspect that the land is too swampy in the area to dig a cut/trench for the railway.

Biggest problem is figuring out a way to do it without interrupting the line.

[hollywoodnorth]

I am in support of this obviously but the bigger question is why is this not being done for Nanaimo and 29th Avenue stations as well?

the lack of density is flat out disgusting at Nanaimo more than anything. When there is 20+ story towers going up at Kingsway and Nanaimo and then a neighbourhood full of 1940's and 50's SFH housing stock surrounding the station .... its whacky.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Because Rupert and Renfrew are industrial areas - note the lack of entitled residents in the warehouse areas where most density will be. Same reason why Burnaby can get away with Metrotown, but Royal Oak will remain flat for decades.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because Rupert and Renfrew are industrial areas - note the lack of entitled residents in the warehouse areas where most density will be. Same reason why Burnaby can get away with Metrotown, but Royal Oak will remain flat for decades.

Royal Oak's plan is still from 1999 I think.

Starting this year, the city is also expected to begin reviewing the Royal Oak, Edmonds and Sunset community plans.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...oadmap-3433015

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Single family homes sell for 2M everywhere in Vancouver and it has nothing to do with the appeal of the location or the house on the lot. It's all due to our ridiculous and bankrupting housing market, where even teardowns are worth a few million.

I would also argument that people living net to their job is a pipedream for the most and this is because most people change jobs every few years, so their commute does change regularly. You want to live somewhere central enough so that you have commuting options when your job changes in few years' time.

You mean, like living next to a skytrain station?

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Royal Oak's plan is still from 1999 I think.



https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...oadmap-3433015

any idea where the Sunset Neighbourhood is in Burnaby? I know of it in Vancouver .... but not Burnaby....? anyone?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

any idea where the Sunset Neighbourhood is in Burnaby? I know of it in Vancouver .... but not Burnaby....? anyone?

There's a Sunset Street near Canada Way so I assume somewhere around there.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

There's a Sunset Street near Canada Way so I assume somewhere around there.

I'm not entirely sure the city knows - it's not on the Community Plans page and it lists Burnaby's town centres, urban villages, suburban multi-family areas, mixed-use areas and parks & conservation areas.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'm not entirely sure the city knows - it's not on the Community Plans page and it lists Burnaby's town centres, urban villages, suburban multi-family areas, mixed-use areas and parks & conservation areas.

I checked the agenda for the meeting and it's listed as Sunset so it must be new or something.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

I am in support of this obviously but the bigger question is why is this not being done for Nanaimo and 29th Avenue stations as well?

the lack of density is flat out disgusting at Nanaimo more than anything. When there is 20+ story towers going up at Kingsway and Nanaimo and then a neighbourhood full of 1940's and 50's SFH housing stock surrounding the station .... its whacky.

It's an existing plan area. So this path is the easiest while the rest is tied into the City Plan

[Vin]

I think it is way more crucial for the neighbourhoods around Broadway Station, including Commercial Street, or even Nanaimo Station area like hollywoodnorth pointed out, to have future land-use planning than the Rupert/Renfrew area. The City doesn't feel there is an urgency simply because there is no motivation for that. Lots of City initiatives here aren't so much based on logic and practicality, but more so to boost ego and dumb pride.

Another example is Marine Gateway. Why did it go high-rise way earlier than the Oakridge or Broadway neighbourhood? It was haphazardly approved to go high-density as a showcase to foreign tourists coming in from the Airport or the Ferries that this city isn't so bad compared to Richmond.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think it is way more crucial for the neighbourhoods around Broadway Station, including Commercial Street, or even Nanaimo Station area like hollywoodnorth pointed out, to have future land-use planning than the Rupert/Renfrew area. The City doesn't feel there is an urgency simply because there is no motivation for that. Lots of City initiatives here aren't so much based on logic and practicality, but more so to boost ego and dumb pride.

Another example is Marine Gateway. Why did it go high-rise way earlier than the Oakridge or Broadway neighbourhood? It was haphazardly approved to go high-density as a showcase to foreign tourists coming in from the Airport or the Ferries that this city isn't so bad compared to Richmond.

The council or staff wouldn't create a new local station plan while their elected mandate was to create a City-wide plan.

If you see what was at Marine Gateway before it would all make sense.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Any time Metro Van gets something thirty floors or higher, there's a 99.9% chance it used to be a strip mall or warehouse with little to no adjacent residential.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think it is way more crucial for the neighbourhoods around Broadway Station, including Commercial Street, or even Nanaimo Station area like hollywoodnorth pointed out, to have future land-use planning than the Rupert/Renfrew area. The City doesn't feel there is an urgency simply because there is no motivation for that. Lots of City initiatives here aren't so much based on logic and practicality, but more so to boost ego and dumb pride.

The Grandview-Woodland Community plan covers Commercial-Broadway Station, but not Nanaimo Station.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...nity-plan.aspx

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Biggest problem is figuring out a way to do it without interrupting the line.

Metrolinx's Davenport diamond grade separation project could be a precedent.
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread....9001/page-111

They built a temporary parallel track in order to build the viaduct.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because Rupert and Renfrew are industrial areas - note the lack of entitled residents in the warehouse areas where most density will be. Same reason why Burnaby can get away with Metrotown, but Royal Oak will remain flat for decades.

Technically, they're not allowed to do this either (at least the way you guys seem to think this will go). Both the Rupert and Renfrew areas (as well as Royal Oak) are covered by the RGS's 'mixed employment' designation, which means a mix of office space, institutional, and industrial (eg. False Creek Flats).
It's speculative whether residential would even *be allowed* here.
Brentwood isn't that far from here anyways, not sure if more homes would even be that necessary for this area right now. Brentwood right now has a severe lack of employment spaces; the two would be complimentary.


Considering this is closer to the periphery (hence office demand will be lower than in the Flats), I would expect to see something like in Mt. Pleasant. Offices above industrial, mid-rises, mostly up to 5-6 stories.


Also, outside the mall area itself, Metrotown was never industrial- it was always a denser section of apartments. You're describing Brentwood.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Technically, they're not allowed to do this either (at least the way you guys seem to think this will go). Both the Rupert and Renfrew areas (as well as Royal Oak) are covered by the RGS's 'mixed employment' designation, which means a mix of office space, institutional, and industrial (eg. False Creek Flats).
It's speculative whether residential would even *be allowed* here.
Brentwood isn't that far from here anyways, not sure if more homes would even be that necessary for this area right now. Brentwood right now has a severe lack of employment spaces; the two would be complimentary.

Well, Aquilini thinks it'll happen - their plan for 3200 West Broadway includes rentals. And I believe the Metro 2050 planners want to allow mixed-use R in the I-zones so long as there's a warehouse under it. Vancouver's done it everywhere else, after all.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, outside the mall area itself, Metrotown was never industrial- it was always a denser section of apartments. You're describing Brentwood.

Yes and no. It describes Brentwood too, but notice how the older buildings are all on vacant lots or the commercial strip, and they give the lowrise residential areas a wide berth? They've expanded redevelopment to the walkups south of Beresford only recently... and doing so cost Derek Corrigan his job.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, Aquilini thinks it'll happen - their plan for 3200 West Broadway includes rentals. And I believe the Metro 2050 planners want to allow mixed-use R in the I-zones so long as there's a warehouse under it. Vancouver's done it everywhere else, after all.



Yes and no. It describes Brentwood too, but notice how the older buildings are all on vacant lots or the commercial strip, and they give the walkups a wide berth? It's only recently that they've expanded south of Beresford... and it cost Derek Corrigan his job.

Nowhere there does it say it WILL definitely include rentals, just that it can. They obviously have contingencies.

Sure, but there's the issue with residential causing land values to rise too much to make industrial viable. The main goal here is the preservation of the *industrial* part. We'll have to wait and see.

Plus, the term 'Mixed Employment' doesn't really evoke 'residential' in the name...


The image gives me 403 Forbidden.
There's also some development on SFHs in Lougheed. As well as Oakridge.

Yes, it's less popular. But turns out there's also only so many parking lots around, and the industrial lands are blocked, so the municipal governments are gradually being forced to move to residential for redevelopment.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Nowhere there does it say it WILL definitely include rentals, just that it can. They obviously have contingencies.

Sure, but there's the issue with residential causing land values to rise too much to make industrial viable. The main goal here is the preservation of the *industrial* part. We'll have to wait and see.

Plus, the term 'Mixed Employment' doesn't really evoke 'residential' in the name...

I believe we've all had this conversation before in the Mount Pleasant thread. Yeah, you probably won't see anything above six floors.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The image gives me 403 Forbidden.
There's also some development on SFHs in Lougheed. As well as Oakridge.

Yes, it's less popular. But turns out there's also only so many parking lots around, and the industrial lands are blocked, so the municipal governments are gradually being forced to move to residential for redevelopment.

Fixed. Lougheed, sure, but it's slight, piecemeal development; Oakridge, see below.

Correct. Point is, Burnaby and all the others have only been building tall so that they keep inside the C and I zoning or demovict "mere" renters, and won't have to touch the SFHs (Grand Bargain and all that). The height's got nothing to do with urbanism or affordability or any crap like that, and everything to do with them not having the balls to challenge suburbistan like Vancouver's doing.