Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[jollyburger]

They should remove all the street parking from West 4th and make that into a new East/West route.

[Feathered Friend]

After numerous attempts by the Greens, Swanson, and Hardwick to kill the Broadway Plan through various amendments, it has now been approved largely intact.

Votes against;
Councillors De Genova, Hardwick, Swanson, and Wiebe

Votes in support;
Councillors Bligh, Boyle, Carr, Dominato, Fry, Kirby-Yung, and Mayor Stewart.

[logan5]

So now we go through the appeal process. Lol.

Would like to see the full list of amendments. Glad to see the change in the number of towers per block go from 2 to 3.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

So now we go through the appeal process. Lol.

Would like to see the full list of amendments. Glad to see the change in the number of towers per block go from 2 to 3.

Appeal process?

The Plan is not going to be published until September 1, (an amendment suggested by the mayor), so that staff have time to revise the document in light of all the amendments that were passed. There were apparently 27, although some weren't adopted.

[jollyburger]

They should paint scary faces on the sides of the buildings to make it more jarring for people.



https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2022/06/22/broadway-plan-debate-wednesday-june-22/

[Vin]

Trying too hard to appease way too many factions in society will result in the Broadway Plan to become a complete ugly disaster.

That rendering truly shows what 21st century Vancouver is all about:

* Embracing table-topping due to a fear of tall buildings, and being afraid of shadows cast by buildings, but not trees;

* Micro-managing city growth, resulting in the formation of ugly featureless neighbourhoods with hardly any urban vibrancy;

* Worshipping the worst of Vancouver's architecture ala West End commie blocks & walk-ups: thinking they provide the most affordable forms of housing and should be built en masse;

* Considering beautiful architecture and ornate features a crime in humanity as they are only meant to attract "overseas speculators";

* Maintaining the status-quo: making it so difficult for developers to build that there is simply no growth;

* Having few retail spaces in neighbourhoods for fear of noise, light, people, vehicles, as well as the City unwilling to take any responsibility in law-enforcement, cleanliness, etc, despite happily taking taxes from residents and the few businesses with over-bloated taxes

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

After numerous attempts by the Greens, Swanson, and Hardwick to kill the Broadway Plan through various amendments, it has now been approved largely intact.

Votes against;
Councillors De Genova, Hardwick, Swanson, and Wiebe

Votes in support;
Councillors Bligh, Boyle, Carr, Dominato, Fry, Kirby-Yung, and Mayor Stewart.

The biggest amendment that could drastically affect rental construction was Swanson's amendment around the 20% below-market rental requirement. Previously, the "Right of First Refusal" section stated that any units that were being allocated to returning tenants would be included in that 20%. Now, those units are not included in the 20%, which means if you have an existing rental building that you want to redevelop, you need to provide not only the 20% below-market units, but also provide rental units at the same rate that the existing tenants are at.

The discussions I've seen around this seem to suggest that this could:

• cause landlords to do whatever they can before redevelopment to get existing tenants to end their leases, or
• cause the costs for redeveloping buildings with existing rental to increase to make redevelopment unfeasible.

...which would ultimately result in fewer housing units being constructed.

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by logan5

So now we go through the appeal process. Lol.

Would like to see the full list of amendments. Glad to see the change in the number of towers per block go from 2 to 3.

Appeal process is city election this Oct 15th when policies and plans are put to the voters.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Trying too hard to appease way too many factions in society will result in the Broadway Plan to become a complete ugly disaster.

That rendering truly shows what 21st century Vancouver is all about:

* Embracing table-topping due to a fear of tall buildings, and being afraid of shadows cast by buildings, but not trees;

* Micro-managing city growth, resulting in the formation of ugly featureless neighbourhoods with hardly any urban vibrancy;

* Worshipping the worst of Vancouver's architecture ala West End commie blocks & walk-ups: thinking they provide the most affordable forms of housing and should be built en masse;

* Considering beautiful architecture and ornate features a crime in humanity as they are only meant to attract "overseas speculators";

* Maintaining the status-quo: making it so difficult for developers to build that there is simply no growth;

* Having few retail spaces in neighbourhoods for fear of noise, light, people, vehicles, as well as the City unwilling to take any responsibility in law-enforcement, cleanliness, etc, despite happily taking taxes from residents and the few businesses with over-bloated taxes

The West End is a pretty good (and vibrant) neighbourhood to pattern other neighbourhoods by. And that’s a pretty apt comparison for neighbourhoods along the Broadway corridor like Mt. Pleasant, because in 20 years it will look a lot like the West End, with a mixture of towers, walk-ups, and turn of the century houses. Main Street will be Mt Pleasant’s version of Davie, East Broadway will be Denman, and Cambie will be a shopping street like Robson. Plus there will be other small pockets of restaurant and retail, like that cool little stretch at 16th and Fraser.

Mt. Pleasant is definitely going to take a major step forward in vibrancy (it is already quite vibrant). Maybe not Metrotown level vibrant, but still very vibrant. The next 20 years are going to be very interesting to watch as these neighbourhoods grow at a quick pace.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

The West End is a pretty good (and vibrant) neighbourhood to pattern other neighbourhoods by. And that’s a pretty apt comparison for neighbourhoods along the Broadway corridor like Mt. Pleasant, because in 20 years it will look a lot like the West End, with a mixture of towers, walk-ups, and turn of the century houses. Main Street will be Mt Pleasant’s version of Davie, East Broadway will be Denman, and Cambie will be a shopping street like Robson. Plus there will be other small pockets of restaurant and retail, like that cool little stretch at 16th and Fraser.

Mt. Pleasant is definitely going to take a major step forward in vibrancy (it is already quite vibrant). Maybe not Metrotown level vibrant, but still very vibrant. The next 20 years are going to be very interesting to watch as these neighbourhoods grow at a quick pace.

Mt Pleasant will be more vibrant than Metrotown because of the large amount of jobs. Downtown Burnaby needs more jobs, and I think Mount Pleasant will be a great model of why cities should encourage "industrial" zoning.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Trying too hard to appease way too many factions in society will result in the Broadway Plan to become a complete ugly disaster.

That rendering truly shows what 21st century Vancouver is all about:

* Embracing table-topping due to a fear of tall buildings, and being afraid of shadows cast by buildings, but not trees;

* Micro-managing city growth, resulting in the formation of ugly featureless neighbourhoods with hardly any urban vibrancy;

* Worshipping the worst of Vancouver's architecture ala West End commie blocks & walk-ups: thinking they provide the most affordable forms of housing and should be built en masse;

* Considering beautiful architecture and ornate features a crime in humanity as they are only meant to attract "overseas speculators";

* Maintaining the status-quo: making it so difficult for developers to build that there is simply no growth;

* Having few retail spaces in neighbourhoods for fear of noise, light, people, vehicles, as well as the City unwilling to take any responsibility in law-enforcement, cleanliness, etc, despite happily taking taxes from residents and the few businesses with over-bloated taxes

Possibly one of your dumbest comments (although I admit, there are so many to choose from)

That render isn't from the The Broadway Plan - it's from an anti-development group opposed to the Plan. It totally misrepresents the likely development which won't be table-top (that's Richmond, for perfectly valid reasons). Describing walkup blocks in the West End as "commie" is just weird. Many of them are heritage, and if someone proposed to redevelop them you'd be the first to shout about it. As for "simply no growth", The City of Vancouver has had the most housing starts of any municipality in Metro Vancouver over the past 5 years, 10 years and 20 years.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The biggest amendment that could drastically affect rental construction was Swanson's amendment around the 20% below-market rental requirement. Previously, the "Right of First Refusal" section stated that any units that were being allocated to returning tenants would be included in that 20%. Now, those units are not included in the 20%, which means if you have an existing rental building that you want to redevelop, you need to provide not only the 20% below-market units, but also provide rental units at the same rate that the existing tenants are at.

The discussions I've seen around this seem to suggest that this could:

• cause landlords to do whatever they can before redevelopment to get existing tenants to end their leases, or
• cause the costs for redeveloping buildings with existing rental to increase to make redevelopment unfeasible.

...which would ultimately result in fewer housing units being constructed.

It's not like there aren't plenty of commercial spaces and ad hoc duplexes (i.e. only 0-2 households) that can be redeveloped. This likely just means the walkups get replaced last.

[GenWhy?]

Ya in 10 years the 1st tower might get Occupancy.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are vacant stores immediately opposite MEC, and there are other buildings planned within a block or two that will have retail. There's been no sign so far of any of the other outdoor stores up on Broadway following MEC to SEFC.

They aren't following because the rent is considerably more down in that area. These old buildings on broadway (except where the newer stores next to sport check are) are still relatively cheap. That said I can see a lot of them leaving or closing down as their leases expire as it will hard to justify a demo clause when the eventual land assemblies start (which should be interesting considering its a patchwork of people that own it all not wanting to sell thinking they will wait out the other).

I am still trying to wrap my head around the 2 lanes thing. The city realizes this road connects to lougheed highway right? And there is no easy route off broadway if you come in via lougheed. Initially when the sky train was proposed the city lauded how many jobs and light commercial there was in that area had. No need for commercial transport or anything of that nature?

For the separated bike lanes are they just going to close off the blocks of side streets or put lights at each block (which works really well on cambie between 25th and the bridge).

I am not expert but how the city is building things out is not conducive to growing one of the "main" cities in Canada.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by theKB

I am still trying to wrap my head around the 2 lanes thing. The city realizes this road connects to lougheed highway right? And there is no easy route off broadway if you come in via lougheed. Initially when the sky train was proposed the city lauded how many jobs and light commercial there was in that area had. No need for commercial transport or anything of that nature?

For the separated bike lanes are they just going to close off the blocks of side streets or put lights at each block (which works really well on cambie between 25th and the bridge).

I am not expert but how the city is building things out is not conducive to growing one of the "main" cities in Canada.

It's been brought to my attention that the bike lanes aren't actually a thing yet. What City Council's done is vote to investigate how such a thing can be done; TransLink has to sign off on having only two lanes, and it's unlikely they will.

[GenWhy?]

Lots to play with as far as bus pull-over and que-jumps go with bike lanes and added pedestrian space. I think the last round of roadway sections being shared were disingenuous as they showed 3 and 2.5 metres sidewalk dedications.

I think the City has a desire for 7 metres of pedestrian space. Current policy is for 5.5 metres all over town on arterials. So new developments would / are already granting 5.5m from current curb and onto their land, so only an additional 1.5 would be taken from roadway.

I think the latest developments with the new setbacks grants almost 33 metres of dedication (105-108 feet?). Might really come down to median widths between bike and traffic lanes, minimum width for a lane with a bus route, etc.

[GenWhy?]

They wouldn't apply the same design for the whole of Arbutus to Clark.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Really don't see how it'd work. At the very minimum, they'd need bus bays and turning lanes at the arterials (Granville, Cambie, etc), and the bike lanes can't be shifted into the pedestrian area because that's where the station vents are.

[GenWhy?]

With the already mandated 5.5 metre setback from building front to curb I'd imagine the City only taking 1 lane (I assume it's the standard 10 feet) and reallocating that to either side for 7 metres total.

In most sections that'll give you 5 lanes to play with, 6 lanes at the intersections with turn lanes already if they kept sidewalks at 5.5 metre at some intersections. Bike lane eats up 2, so now you have 3 lanes.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by theKB

I am still trying to wrap my head around the 2 lanes thing. The city realizes this road connects to lougheed highway right? And there is no easy route off broadway if you come in via lougheed. Initially when the sky train was proposed the city lauded how many jobs and light commercial there was in that area had. No need for commercial transport or anything of that nature?

I believe most people who're used to navigating this area East-West already know to divert north to GNW at Clark, or south to Grandview/12th before then. I know that Google Maps is a firm believer of this. If I were a city planner, my first instinct would be to redirect Broadway between Commercial and Clark to connect with 6th/GNW now that the major transit infrastructure down this corridor is being moved to underground Skytrain.