Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[GenWhy?]

I'd add, the viewcone is not preventing the vacant sites in SE False Creek from being built.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Agreed. Viewcones do not restrict redevelopment (per say, and I would note only the QE viewcone is wretched on potential development) because they are "known knowns". We calculate them from the get-go. They prevent a few sites around the downtown peninsula from having a few extra storeys, but not from existing at all - not to mention those units at the top of those buildings are — expensive anyway.

Yes, I've seen some comments that suggest certain sites aren't able to be built on because they can't get enough density for the development to be profitable due to the viewcones. No one buys a property within a viewcone site for a price that assumes you can get say 30 floors if the viewcone allows for 20.

Maybe some property owners will hold a property with the hope that the cones disappear and they can get more money for the site in the future, but that type of speculation happens everywhere in the City for a variety of reasons.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I'd add, the viewcone is not preventing the vacant sites in SE False Creek from being built.

Or NE False Creek.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Agreed. Viewcones do not restrict redevelopment (per say, and I would note only the QE viewcone is wretched on potential development for the Broadway Corridor in some areas) because they are "known knowns". We calculate them from the get-go. They prevent a few sites around the downtown peninsula from having a few extra storeys, but not from existing at all - not to mention those units at the top of those buildings are — expensive anyway.

As far as viewcones and the Olympic Village is concerned it's largely not affected at all. The ones I love (pretty much the only ones) are #22 (Main St) and G, H, & J.

I think all of the QE ones need an adjustment but not removed altogether, and QE doesn't impact this area under existing height restrictions anyway.

It won't stop development completely, but it certainly lowers the overall density and does not encourage more sectors including hotels and other commercial developers to come build here. Viewcones hamper the growth potential of downtown as well as the fringes. Compared to the suburb city centres, there is really not much going on at OV.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Compared to the suburb city centres, there is really not much going on at OV.

Still not sure how viewcones impact the uses at or above grade in OV compared to say Metrotown or Lougheed. I think most of OV is in policy for residential and not hotel.

[skisk8er00]

What If Vancouver?

[GenWhy?]

I think those are actually CURRENTLY realistic, if you just nixed one "box" off each tower. That might be a 30-storey building (tenure pending, of course). I'm still not sure what the lowest portion of viewcone 3.2.4 is preserving.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Viewcones are aesthetically bad. They barely make a dent in the economy or housing supply.

[officedweller]

Off-topic for the OV thread, but I think the biggest issue with viewcones is how they affect the massing of projects.
The obvious examples are The Post and the Hudson's Bay redevelopment which are/will be very blocky and dominate the street and the heritage building below them. Slimmer, taller, towers would allow more light to reach the street.
Add in the crystal tower at Waterfront Station to a view cone impacted tower (ie fatter, needing to cantilever over the station, rather than taller).
and the Deliotte Summit, 450 West Georgia and Telus Garden tabletop.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by skisk8er00

What If Vancouver?

That would be ideal!

If a Native Nation were to claim that area as an Aboriginal fishing waterway and the reclaimed land given to them, then this could be possible. Otherwise I would not see this ever happening here.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Off-topic for the OV thread, but I think the biggest issue with viewcones is how they affect the massing of projects.
The obvious examples are The Post and the Hudson's Bay redevelopment which are/will be very blocky and dominate the street and the heritage building below them. Slimmer, taller, towers would allow more light to reach the street.
Add in the crystal tower at Waterfront Station to a view cone impacted tower (ie fatter, needing to cantilever over the station, rather than taller).
and the Deliotte Summit, 450 West Georgia and Telus Garden tabletop.

I agree with everything you stated here.

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I was joking about Viewcones. I do wonder what the city is waiting for with their land though. That parking lot is even poorly laid out, I think there are foundations of an old gas station or something there.

Also across Main St south of Terminal and the modular housing building is more bare city land. It was used by Sole Farms for their fruit trees but those moved close to the Cambie St bridge at least a few years ago.

Yes, the parking layout is about as haphazard and lacking in design as they come. Looks like there were two previous properties and were turned into parking lots separately, with little effort.

Reviews for eastern part mixed. Reviews for western part almost all negative.


Source: Google Maps

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Yes, the parking layout is about as haphazard and lacking in design as they come. Looks like there were two previous properties and were turned into parking lots separately, with little effort.

The western half was a parking lot in the 1970s. The eastern half was an Esso gas station, and there was another on the other side of Quebec on the corner of Terminal Ave, (Gulf Oil in the 1980s - see Changing Vancouver for the gas station there in the 1940s).


[City of Vancouver Archives]


[City of Vancouver Archives]

[Jimbo604]

Thanks for the info, CC.


Photo source: COV Archives

Wow, on the eastern parking lot you can still how it hasn't changed at all compared to the recent Google satellite maps image above. White curbs, concrete pad for the station operator booth and concrete support pads (1 for western smaller cover and 2 for larger eastern cover) all still in place.

I'm assuming they don't want to do anything here because it was a gas station...? I didn't see a date on the archives, but it was some time ago, kinda nutty how it hasn't changed in all this time except for removing the booth, covers and painting some parking spot lines.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Thanks for the info, CC.


Wow, on the eastern parking lot you can still how it hasn't changed at all compared to the recent Google satellite maps image above. White curbs, concrete pad for the station operator booth and concrete support pads (1 for western smaller cover and 2 for larger eastern cover) all still in place.

I'm assuming they don't want to do anything here because it was a gas station...? I didn't see a date on the archives, but it was some time ago, kinda nutty how it hasn't changed in all this time except for removing the booth, covers and painting some parking spot lines.

That was some time in the 1970s. The City are still deciding when / what to build on the site - it will have some contamination to deal with, but no different from any former gas station site. It's held for development, as is the land on the other side of Main (including the Alfa Romeo / Fiat dealership). There was a request for proposals a while back, but nothing was ever published about the result. There's a tension between holding an asset that's got development potential and selling it, getting the cash, and limiting future development to whatever the Council of the day approves as a framework and then rezoning, so there's been no rush to sell it off, although I understand it has been considered over the years. There are constantly changing expectations every 4 years too - different Councils have different priorities.

That location should see a mix of both commercial (office most likely, given the station across the street) and residential, and current Council priority seems to be for market and below market rental. There will be a discussion 'in camera' if Council instruct the City's real estate services to sell it off - or find a development partner to get it developed. It might be a process like the Pinnacle tower next to Granville Bridge. Council have to be careful to make it clear they aren't guaranteeing to rezone the site, so there might be a site development guideline first so expectations of what could be developed will all be clear to everyone. The City don't carry out development themselves - they don't have a development department.

(The western half may have been the City's impound lot in those days?)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

I'm assuming they don't want to do anything here because it was a gas station...? I didn't see a date on the archives, but it was some time ago, kinda nutty how it hasn't changed in all this time except for removing the booth, covers and painting some parking spot lines.

Yeah they haven't even cleared some of the bushes and dirt to pave some more parking spots. It's comically bad asset management.

[WarrenC12]

Why wouldn't the city rezone it themselves and then sell for top dollar? If Kennedy and Co wanted tons of social housing or whatever, do it and throw it on the open market? Or come to an arrangement with the Province? Or ABC makes it full market and pulls in some huge money.

The snails pace of this stuff is frustrating.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yeah they haven't even cleared some of the bushes and dirt to pave some more parking spots. It's comically bad asset management.

Or even just close off one of the Main St. exits to add spaces.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why wouldn't the city rezone it themselves and then sell for top dollar?

Conflict of interest.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Conflict of interest.

How so? The city already creates regional plans, then allows rezoning apps based on those. I don't see what the difference is.

[GenWhy?]

As far as I know couldn't they (whatever City entity) rezone it to conform to the Area Plan then sell?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How so? The city already creates regional plans, then allows rezoning apps based on those. I don't see what the difference is.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

As far as I know couldn't they (whatever City entity) rezone it to conform to the Area Plan then sell?

Yup, they should be able to do that, just not piecemeal.