River District (East Fraserlands) Updates

[Spork]

There are already quite a few floors of this thing built (6?). There is also a road to the East that is being built that looks like it will go into the treed area on the North side of Marine - it is currently preloading.

[Vanelevatorman]

Looks decent.

[Klazu]

I wonder how this low-lying land is faring with the current king tide and strong winds?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I wonder how this low-lying land is faring with the current king tide and strong winds?

I stare at the river all day when I am in the office (right next to this development). The river was fine, though high and the sections of trail east of there that are not behind or above the dyke were flooded. However this development (beautiful as it may be) should never have been approved. The area is a flood plain, it is irresponsible and downright mental to allow for high density residential development on that land. It should have remained industrial or been converted to parkland. There is no excuse for this in today's age, you simply don't build housing on flood plains, no excuse for it.

BUT it will be a very nice development... Hope the city gets sued once the area floods.

[Homeowner]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Wow it's pretty suburban looking, guess that's what people want. I wouldn't

It's not fully built out yet. Once the whole project is complete it will be completely different. Think of what EDMUNDS / Kingsway area (Highgate village) looked like before they built condos there.

[osirisboy]

No. I'm talking about how that building interacts with street. Ie the grass and bushes that surround it. Why do all new developments all look the same. Looks like more Olympic village stuff. Which is fine. It would just be nice if there were something different offered

[Jebby]

The design standard for developments like this should be River Green in Richmond.

[Jebby]

Is the rail line that runs through this still in use?

[Chris City]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Is the rail line that runs through this still in use?

It is, a couple times a week.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I stare at the river all day when I am in the office (right next to this development). The river was fine, though high and the sections of trail east of there that are not behind or above the dyke were flooded. However this development (beautiful as it may be) should never have been approved. The area is a flood plain, it is irresponsible and downright mental to allow for high density residential development on that land. It should have remained industrial or been converted to parkland. There is no excuse for this in today's age, you simply don't build housing on flood plains, no excuse for it.

BUT it will be a very nice development... Hope the city gets sued once the area floods.

But, but, folks love waterfront properties.......

[deasine]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I stare at the river all day when I am in the office (right next to this development). The river was fine, though high and the sections of trail east of there that are not behind or above the dyke were flooded. However this development (beautiful as it may be) should never have been approved. The area is a flood plain, it is irresponsible and downright mental to allow for high density residential development on that land. It should have remained industrial or been converted to parkland. There is no excuse for this in today's age, you simply don't build housing on flood plains, no excuse for it.

Much agreed. Ironically we have the City of Vancouver also studying about developing resilience in its zoning for natural disasters. This comes in complete contradiction to that.

[officedweller]

Rendering form the GBL website.

Looks good - looks like a UBC project.

11 Dec 2014

The River District project, comprising of 250,000sf of residential area and 60,000sf of retail space, was unanimously approved by the Vancouver Urban Design Panel on Wednesday.

http://www.gblarchitects.com/river-d...-design-panel/

[Homeowner]

Good. The area could use some retail space for residents living in there so they don't have to always drive the car to run errands.

[vanciti]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I stare at the river all day when I am in the office (right next to this development). The river was fine, though high and the sections of trail east of there that are not behind or above the dyke were flooded. However this development (beautiful as it may be) should never have been approved. The area is a flood plain, it is irresponsible and downright mental to allow for high density residential development on that land. It should have remained industrial or been converted to parkland. There is no excuse for this in today's age, you simply don't build housing on flood plains, no excuse for it.

BUT it will be a very nice development... Hope the city gets sued once the area floods.

by that logic and comments 90% of Richmond should never have been built on. A lot Calgary should never have been built on...Actually, well I'm at it, half of Winnipeg too and the list goes on and on and on...I'm confused too, its ok to build industrial on a flood plain in your view, but not a new community? It doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

EFL is by no means high density either, it is medium density at best.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by vanciti

by that logic and comments 90% of Richmond should never have been built on. A lot Calgary should never have been built on...Actually, well I'm at it, half of Winnipeg too and the list goes on and on and on...I'm confused too, its ok to build industrial on a flood plain in your view, but not a new community? It doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

All of this makes perfect sense. Older cities didn't know any better re: flooding, we knew Richmond will flood and built there anyway. It should be farm land and is a complete waste as anything else.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Pinion

All of this makes perfect sense. Older cities didn't know any better re: flooding, we knew Richmond will flood and built there anyway. It should be farm land and is a complete waste as anything else.

Vancouver, LA, Seattle, etc are all in earthquake zones. Guess those cities should never have been built or developed further.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Pinion

All of this makes perfect sense. Older cities didn't know any better re: flooding, we knew Richmond will flood and built there anyway. It should be farm land and is a complete waste as anything else.

There have been villages in Richmond for thousands of years, so that's going a bit far. It would be more accurate to say that some sections of the river delta were subject to flooding, and they have all been lumped together with the previously inhabited areas by dyke work.

But it's true that it didn't make sense to build a city on top of prime farmland. Sadly, that ship has sailed. We can be glad that the focus is now on high density earthquake-resistant redevelopment, rather than pushing back the ALR even further.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Vancity

Vancouver, LA, Seattle, etc are all in earthquake zones. Guess those cities should never have been built or developed further.

Like I said, there's a huge difference between a guy saying "this place looks nice" in the 1800s and someone building on the edge of the Fraser today.

Originally Posted by Zassk

There have been villages in Richmond for thousands of years, so that's going a bit far.

See above. Since when has "we did it in the past when we were ignorant" been a valid reason for anything?

[Klazu]

This is the latest rendering used in marketing this project. They marketing is quite interesting, focusing on making an example how Yaletown used to be industrial waste land, but look at it now! As if this area would ever really be anything like Yaletown.


http://www.wesgroup.ca

[WarrenC12]

Looks great, but very much in isolation. No transit, no real job sources nearby. There's the mall area towards New West, but not walkable.