HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3641  
Old Posted May 25, 2009, 8:36 PM
martinishaker's Avatar
martinishaker martinishaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 212
How out of place does the Penthouse look these days.
I wonder when the No 5 orange and Brandy's will be the only 2 gentlemens clubs around?
I believe the Cecil is almost done.
     
     
  #3642  
Old Posted May 25, 2009, 8:40 PM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
that glass looks pretty neat. thanks for the photos!
     
     
  #3643  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 3:46 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Update on Emery Barnes Park, looks like it's about to proceed, but the two phase park has now become a three phase park.

Quote:
The City/Park Board has assembled land for the purpose of developing Phase Two of Emery Barnes Park in Downtown South, bordered by Seymour, Davie and Helmcken Streets. Phase Two of the park will encompass the entire block with the exception of the existing development at the corner of Seymour and Helmcken Streets. Phase Two of the park, including the closed lane will be 5334.63m2. Total park area will be 8971.67m2.
On July 17, 2001 City Council authorized construction of Phase One of the park fronting on Richards and Davies Streets. Prior to park construction of Phase Two the Park Board and City are undertaking closure and consolidation of the lane, conversion of all existing overhead utility services within the lane corridor to underground, demolition of buildings along Seymour Street and an environmental site investigation of the Seymour Street properties.
Funding in the amount of $5.5 million for Phase Two of the park was approved by the Board on July 21, 2008 and by Council July 22, 2008. The Park design was approved by the Board on July 21, 2008.
Phase Two of park development needs to be implemented in two stages due to the presence of an occupied building on Lots 17, 18 and 19, at the corner of Davie and Seymour Streets. The City owns the property; however, the two tenants (Money’s Dry Cleaners and American Nails) have leases valid until May 31, 2010 and October 1, 2010 respectively. Despite numerous efforts to negotiate an early termination to the leases the buildings continue to be occupied. Therefore the completion of the park is to be undertaken as two separate projects. The tender documents provided for this eventuality. Staff have reviewed the submitted tenders and recommend that Cedar Crest Lands (BC) Ltd. be retained. Cedar Crest has successfully completed a number of projects for the Vancouver Park Board including: Ebisu Park, Nelson Park, Columbia Park, Moberly Park, Fraser & Seventh, and Charleson Park. The acquisition and development of Emery Barnes Park is funded out of the Downtown South Development Cost Levy reserve.
     
     
  #3644  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 3:56 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Some additional info on the light the city program the city is proposing for the games, looks like about a quarter of the budget is being requested for Yaletown Park. I've attached a link to the pdf if anyone wants to read it. Interestingly there's another reference to "The World is Welcome Here"

http://vancouver.ca/parks/board/2009/090601/yaletown_park_light_the_city.pdf
     
     
  #3645  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 6:03 AM
Chikinlittle Chikinlittle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
Some additional info on the light the city program the city is proposing for the games, looks like about a quarter of the budget is being requested for Yaletown Park. I've attached a link to the pdf if anyone wants to read it. Interestingly there's another reference to "The World is Welcome Here"

http://vancouver.ca/parks/board/2009/090601/yaletown_park_light_the_city.pdf
That's excellent. Great to see that some of the installations are considered 'permanent' (Library, Granville/Cambie bridges, for example).
     
     
  #3646  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 3:55 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,119
Some of the systems sound very cool, lighting the steel lattice network of the Granville st bridge for instance. I just wonder why we spent more on boring street banners than permanent lighting effects? It would have been the other way around if I had my way.
     
     
  #3647  
Old Posted May 27, 2009, 1:53 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
The reason is the city plans on selling the banners after the games to recoup money.

Not sure how big of a market there will be for it, mind you I have a couple of the street banners from when we had the NHL Allstar game. Anyone doing up a rec room of men's den and want to buy one???
     
     
  #3648  
Old Posted May 27, 2009, 2:06 AM
VanHowe VanHowe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 98
I am an Olympic nerd so I will admit that I have a Vancouver Olympic Bid City Banner on the inside of my bedroom door. I'll buy the official ones too. Ha Ha.
     
     
  #3649  
Old Posted May 27, 2009, 4:21 AM
ckkelley's Avatar
ckkelley ckkelley is offline
Bridge Walker!
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Forest City
Posts: 1,037
Oh yeah, I'll be all over that as well.

Sign me up!
__________________
Just chimin' in.
     
     
  #3650  
Old Posted May 27, 2009, 6:57 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,371
I have a banner from the 1980s showing the funnel of the Princess Patricia passing under Second Narrows Bridge. Had it in my dorm room at UBC.

*********

More glass is up on L'Atelier (esp. on the alley side).
Still lots of spandrel panels and on the southwest corner it looks like there's an area that is solid spandrel floor to ceiling. There is also a bright blue spandrel stripe on the west side (alley side) - visible from Seymour Street.

Taken by me on Sunday (May 24th) - will try to get a pic of the back later:



Yaletown Brewing office expansion (looks a bit dated - I would have preferred a cleaner modern look):
Taken by me on Sunday (May 24th):

Last edited by officedweller; May 27, 2009 at 7:12 PM.
     
     
  #3651  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 8:37 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,371
New Street Banners:



Quote:
Committee Statement: The Susan Point Banners, 2009 “Into the Light.”

Susan Point is one of our most accomplished and innovative First Nations artists. A master of Coast Salish Art, she has developed a joyous and inspiring design vocabulary that is uniquely her own. The Street Decoration Committee is especially pleased to have Susan design the Banners this year, leading up to the Olympic Winter Games in early 2010. As a Musqueam First Nations artist, her Banners will announce and strikingly celebrate the culture and peoples of the Four Host Nations, the Musqueam, Squamish, Lil‘wat and Tsleil-Waututh. Equally as important, is that her innovative craftsmanship and artistry - in all expressive mediums - truly represents a powerful “spiritual” connection between all Salish peoples from the coastal regions of Washington State, through southern British Columbia and among the interior Salish communities.

Susan Point acknowledges the sources of her inspiration, from her mother and uncle as mentors, from Elders, through oral traditions and understanding her unique Salish heritage. At the same time, she is very much part of a cultural renaissance that is taking place in First Nation’s art today. Her own words suggest that new design interpretations stem from “a deeply rooted knowledge originating from the land, from Mother Earth”.*

Found in her work are many references to nature; motifs regarding animal, sea and bird life – even from grasses and flowers encountered near her studio, close to the mouth of the Fraser River. Susan Point’s banners this year are powerful visual abstractions taken from a serigraph titled “Into the light”. They are compositions of form, color and light that celebrate freedom and interconnectivity. Beautiful in execution, they captivate and reinstate for us all, art forms that are rich in Salish tradition.

Barry Downs, Member.
The Street Decoration Committee.
May, 2009.

* Susan Point, “The First Peoples”, 2008.
     
     
  #3652  
Old Posted May 28, 2009, 9:52 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,119
Cool, I like those.

Pretty funky.
     
     
  #3653  
Old Posted May 30, 2009, 3:51 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Huge news for those in the industry. City council is looking at reducing parking requirements by a sizable amount and providing more options to developers. I've condensed most of it but there is still a bit to read, I've also included a link for those that want to read the whole thing. Cheers

Quote:
In addition to the changes to the Parking By-law for non-residential uses, staff are also proposing changes to the By-law for residential uses Downtown. These changes reflect Council policy of reviewing residential parking standards on an on-going basis to ensure they encourage lower levels of car use and ownership with the objective of promoting walking, cycling and transit, ahead of cars. The new standard lowers the Downtown standard by up to 65% and the Downtown South standard by more than 50%. The changes proposed are summarized as follows:
• Reduced and simplified residential parking requirements including a maximum for all Downtown peninsula residential uses;
• Increased incentive to provide car share vehicles and spaces for new residential developments;
• Provision to allow payment-in-lieu for residential in the heritage areas; and • Provision to allow pay-in-lieu funds to be directed to a fund to support walking and cycling downtown.

Staff are also proposing a reduced non-residential standard in the Central Broadway C-3A and Mount Pleasant industrial I-1 areas in order to reflect increasing transit service.

DISCUSSION
Downtown Commercial
The City has strong parking and transportation policies which recognize the importance of the control of non-residential parking supply in creating a liveable, sustainabe, and economically viable Downtown. The cap on commuter parking spaces Downtown has been one of the contributing factors to reduced vehicle trips and increased use of transit, walking, and bicycling. While overall trips have increased by 23% over the past 10 years, vehicle trips to Downtown have decreased by 7%. New policies in the City, such as the Metro Core Jobs and Economy results for the Downtown recently approved by Council, will accommodate future growth of commercial development. If this continues under the current Parking By-law, we will see an increase in overall parking supply, counter to our transportation and sustainability goals.
Currently the City has three main parking standard zones Downtown, plus a number of smaller areas with different standards as shown in Table 1. The standards for each zone were historically based on the relative level of transit accessibility of the particular area. This report proposes that the different non-residential parking standards be reduced and replaced with one maximum and one minimum standard. Calculation of the new standard is driven by the increases in commercial floor area projected through the Metro Core study. Between 2006 and 2031, the study projected an increase of 400,000 m2 to 930,000 m2 of gross floor area. In combination with this, it is projected that up to 5770 commuter parking spaces will be deleted from the inventory Downtown as old surface parking lots or parkades are displaced by new commercial spaces. In order to replace the parking and ensure that no additional parking is constructed, the maximum parking that can be allowed is 1 space for every 115 m2 of new commercial floor area (see Table 1). This number is a direct calculation of the projected average floor area increase divided by the lost parking spaces. Not only will this ensure that there remains a cap on parking, it will also provide an incremental decrease in parking for the different areas of Downtown. As stated above, the other goal of the new standard is to amalgamate all of the existing standards parking, the minimum standard is set based on a goal of further reducing employee vehicle trips Downtown. Using estimates of floor space per worker (number of employees per square meter according to the Metro Core study), the maximum parking standard will provide one parking space for every 3.5 to 4 employees whereas minimum standard proposed will provide one parking space for every 4.5 to 5 employees. In comparison, the current standards provide a range of one space for every 2.5 to 3.5 employees. The minimum commercial standard proposed will facilitate sustainable leadership in commercial developments while still providing for minimal employee needs.

However, some concern has been expressed that Downtown may not have adequate parking to serve all the different needs. In particular, concern has been raised about the adequacy of transient (short stay) parking for retail and entertainment uses. In response to these concerns, staff have reviewed both retail and entertainment uses, as well as institutional uses.
Retail, entertainment and institutional uses generally rely on transient parking, made up of the spaces provided Downtown that are surplus to the employees’ needs or are available once the employees no longer need them (after hours). The peak time for employee parking is at mid-day while the peak time for the transient uses is at 4 pm. It has also been observed that the large demand on parking spaces during entertainment event times is accommodated by the empty parking spaces left behind at the end of the traditional week day or on weekends. The sharing of parking spaces at different times of the day is further helped by an increase in mixed use buildings, allowing parking to be shared within individual buildings as well as the downtown as a whole. Considering all these factors, a separate parking standard for different uses is not needed at this time. The non-residential parking standards proposed in this report are set at levels that are designed to ensure that there remains zero growth in employee (commuter) parking spaces. The reduced standards will meet Council’s transportation and sustainability policy objectives and the challenges of the future, while supporting continued growth of commercial development.

Downtown Residential Uses (Including Incentive for Car-Share)
In addition to the reduced Parking By-law requirement for non-residential uses, staff are also proposing reductions to the Parking By-law standards for residential uses Downtown. There has not been a major update to the residential parking standards downtown in over 20 years despite the significant population increase and land use changes that have happened during that time. Recent rezonings or Director of Planning building approvals, both area wide and site specific, have instead relied upon customized standards, negotiated with staff having regard to Council’s sustainability objectives, that generally result in a reduction in the parking standard on a case-by-case basis. This approach is both time-consuming and inefficient. The standard should instead be updated to better reflect the reduced reliance on automobiles downtown. Past and current analysis suggests that residential parking supply is not as directly linked to vehicle trip generation as non-residential supply, although this may change over time. Implementing strong controls on residential parking supply may not necessarily have a significant impact on reducing vehicle trip generation, as the number of vehicle trips from a residence is more directly determined or influenced by land use, density, the quality of other modes and the quality of urban design. To illustrate this, there has been a large increase in Downtown residents, with most having access to at least one parking space, and yet the vehicle mode share for trips within Downtown has decreased. Nevertheless, residential parking supply may have an impact on affordability of residential units and reduced residential standards can lead to reductions in the cost to own or rent housing. In particular, the cost of building parking in rental units can have a greater impact on housing affordability.
Parking in rental buildings will be examined further as part of the Short Term Incentive for Rental (STIR) program being reported to Council in a separate report. Further, the reduction of parking spaces constructed would have significant environmental benefits relating to reduced energy and GHG emissions from materials and construction. It is also possible that as factors continue to change, a more direct connection between parking spaces provided and car ownership may be seen. The City has a policy of periodically reviewing residential parking standards to ensure they are encouraging lower levels of car ownership with the objective of promoting walking, cycling and transit ahead of cars. Although the intent is to reduce not only car use, but ownership over time, it is recognized that currently many Downtown residents still own cars, even when their use is infrequent. This may change over time, facilitated through various City initiatives such as “unbundling” parking space ownership from housing unit ownership. In the meantime, however, parking for residents to store their vehicle when it is not in use can have a neighbourhood impact if sufficient parking is not provided for on-site and if other methods of discouraging street parking are not in place.One recently made change to the By-law allows developments that provide a car-share space and an accompanying vehicle are given a credit of 3 spaces towards building the required number of parking spaces. Supporting shared vehicles is a City policy and is a complement to other sustainable modes of transportation. Shared vehicle companies provide a membership program intended to offer an alternative to car ownership under which persons or entities that become members are permitted to use vehicles from a fleet on an hourly basis. In order to further encourage this practice, staff are recommending that the credit be increased from 3 to 5 spaces. The parking space and shared vehicle must be managed by a shared vehicle organization and the parking space would be assigned by the strata on a monthly contract basis. The standard proposed in this report balances all of the factors described above. The proposed new residential standard lowers the general Downtown standard by more than 65% and the Downtown South standard by more than 50%. The new standard also proposes a maximum to the number of parking spaces that can be built and combines all of Downtown into one area similar to the non-residential standard. As illustrated in Table 3, the new standard sets a parking space maximum that is just slightly below average car ownership rates in order to balance the needs of residents with the City policy of lowering parking standards.

EasyPark’s Transient Parking Study

Concurrent with the City’s review of parking, EasyPark commissioned a study of transient parking needs Downtown (“Downtown Vancouver Transient Parking Study” provided by Bunt and Associates Engineering Ltd. with the Mustel Group Market Research). The EasyPark study complements the City work, and provides important information about the public’s and business’s perceptions about Downtown parking and its availability. A copy of this report is available through EasyPark.
EasyPark’s study on transient parking has a number of important observations and conclusions based on a count of parking supply and observed occupancy Downtown:
• There are approximately 27,500 off-street commercial public transient parking spaces and 6,500, mostly metered, street parking spaces Downtown, with 67% of the transient parking spaces occupied during the peak daytime period. This leaves potentially over 11,000 available parking spaces at the observed daytime peak periods.
• During weekends and evenings there is a greater availability of parking, even though there are fewer parkades open to the public.
Despite the data summarized above, the report also included a public opinion survey that summarized public and business perceptions that, “Both the public and Downtown businesses feel that the supply of short-term parking is insufficient for their needs and is a deterrent to traveling Downtown …”. The survey also observed that:
• The majority (65%) of Metro Vancouver adults travel Downtown at least once a month with 4 out of 5 of these trips not work related;
• The perception of parking availability is important in vehicle trip determination;
• 43% indicate they travel Downtown less often than 5 years ago with 10% of these due to insufficient parking, and 21% due to traffic concerns;
• Street parking is highly used and is generally the first choice of most transient parkers; and
• 9% to 29% of vehicle drivers would definitely or probably change from driving with most, 91% choosing transit as an alternative.

Based on the data collected through the parking count, as well as from the public opinion survey, the report recommends that:
• Although there are some localized areas where the parking supply is stressed, there is no current need for additional transient parking Downtown;
Downtown will continue to have enough transient parking up to the point when approximately 6.2 million square ft. of new development is added to the Downtown commercial office space supply. This is in approximately 20 years based on the Metro Core study average projections;
• In the longer term, based on the upper end projected increase of 10 million square ft. of Downtown commercial development, up to 1385 new public transient parking spaces should be constructed to ensure adequate parking for this potential future need;
• On-street: extend the hours for metered parking to deter evening resident parking, and continue to use market pricing to ensure street parking availability;
• Off-street: EasyPark could reduce the allocation of monthly parking, and adjust day parking rates to reduce all day employee parking in parking stressed areas; and
• The areas particularly noted for increased transient supply are the Downtown core and Gastown.

Although the report recommends that additional transient spaces may be needed in the longer term (2031), staff believe reductions in automobile use into Downtown will continue leading to an even lower need for parking. The study notes that up to 29% of those surveyed were likely to shift from private vehicle use even though the proposed future parking need was based on a conservative 10% shift. A large expansion of transit through Canada Line, new SkyTrain cars, and an added SeaBus will support this shift from private vehicle use. Added transient parking Downtown, at this time, would detract from the City’s zero road capacity growth and emphasis on walking, cycling and transit. However, City staff will continue to monitor and periodically report to Council with updated parking standards should any future need for additional parking arise as contemplated in the conclusions in the EasyPark report.
Source
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090602/documents/ttra7.pdf
     
     
  #3654  
Old Posted May 30, 2009, 7:05 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,896
that hotel on granville is really changing - looks good - big windows, really opens it up to the street

blenz is also being remodelled
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #3655  
Old Posted May 30, 2009, 8:26 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,575
Tower concept raises Chinatown's ire
John Mackie

Sun

Saturday, May, 30, 2009

Cam Watt is spending $9 million converting a 1908 building in Chinatown into Vancouver's snazziest boutique hotel, the Keefer. When it opens in September, its four 2,400-square-foot suites will rent for "north of a thousand bucks per night."

So imagine his surprise when he found out that the city of Vancouver had recently floated the concept of building a 30-storey condo tower next door at Keefer and Columbia, right in the middle of the historic neighbourhood.

"I think it's a terrible idea," said Watt, whose building is five storeys.

"I'm doing a rooftop deck with a swimming pool and it's becoming a little boutique hotel. The idea of a 30-storey building beside me . . . the whole thing would be in a shadow. I think that my little building is such a nice statement at the entrance of Chinatown, to have it covered up by some big tower would be a shame."

Watt isn't alone in his concerns. As part of its recently released Historic Area Height Review, the city proposed an additional three "special sites" that could possibly take 300-foot towers: on the Chinese Cultural Centre site at 8 East Pender, in the parking lot of the old BC Electric building at 21 West Pender and beside Victory Square at 300 West Hastings.

Many long-time Chinatown backers are aghast.

"That's the core of Chinatown, the historical area," says architect Joe Wai, who was part of a protest movement in the 1960s that saved Chinatown from being demolished for a freeway.

"There's the French Quarter in New Orleans, the old city in Quebec -- think about putting a highrise in the middle of those. Good grief, Charlie Brown."

Real estate tycoon Bob Rennie is spending upwards of $10 million restoring Chinatown's oldest building at 51 East Pender into his offices, a museum and an art gallery. He can't believe the city would even consider building a tower on the Chinese Cultural Centre site, which is beside Chinatown's biggest tourist attraction, the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Classical Chinese Garden.

"Sun Yat-Sen Gardens is a park," he said. "I don't see the city, who also owns Stanley Park, looking at putting a row of townhouses around the seawall."

Oddly, the city owns the land where Sun Yat-Sen Garden is located, but didn't talk to Garden officials about the tower idea before it went public.

"No one spoke to the Garden about this, and I don't know that anyone spoke to the Chinese Cultural Centre about this," said Doug Halverson, president of the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden Society. "It just suddenly appeared on these maps at a public meeting."

Halverson said a tower at Pender and Carrall would destroy the serenity of the garden.

"The principle of a Chinese garden is that the walls provide separation from the noisy city," he said.

"That separation from the city would involve having the city loom up 300 feet immediately outside the walls, so it's not difficult for us to say we do not want a tower on the Chinese Cultural Centre site. Because if we lose a quarter of our sky -- and by the way, there's a second tower on Columbia and Keefer, so maybe we'd lose half the sky -- that will so damage the garden that you may as well abandon it."

To some people the idea of building a skyscraper on the Chinese Cultural Centre site is so ludicrous the city might be using it as a red herring to drum up opposition to any towers in the neighbourhood.

But city planning director Brent Toderian said the four "special sites" were selected because there has been developer interest in towers in the historic neighbourhood. Developer Rob McDonald, for example, has looked at a 40-storey tower at 21 West Pender, although Toderian thinks it may have not been a formal application. He stresses the special sites are just a concept for discussion, not a city or developer plan.

The Historic Area Height Review was initiated by the previous Non-Partisan Association council. The main proponent was Coun. Suzanne Anton, who argues there is a lack of "receiver sites" for heritage density transfer the city has already approved.

Under the now-suspended program, developers received a density bonus to help offset the cost of restoring heritage buildings. Basically, highrise developers would buy the bonus density so they could add a floor or five to their towers.

Anton said there is 1.4 million square feet of unused heritage density transfers, which at 6,000 square feet per floor works out to 230 floors.

"I don't think we're going to start putting tall buildings in the middle of Chinatown," she said.

"The idea is [to find] sites around Chinatown, Gastown or Victory Square, not in the middle of a heritage block but in the vicinity, which could take some of this density."

Albert Fok thinks some residential towers could be integrated into the neighbourhood.

"Sometimes creating a contrast is better than having one giant block of heritage buildings," said Fok, president of the Chinatown Business Improvement Area Society.

Fok thinks a good model would be the historic Xintiandi neighbourhood in Shanghai, which has a core of old buildings surrounded by skyscrapers.

"They preserved the buildings, but they injected new ideas into it, putting hip restaurants in there, hip clubs and everything," Fok says.

Fred Mah isn't as sold on the merits of towers. Mah is president of the Chinatown Society Heritage Buildings Association, which recently helped to put together a proposal to have Chinatown designated a National Historic Site.

"The people who want to put in towers, their argument is that you'll get more people living in there," he notes.

"But building towers doesn't necessarily mean there's going to be people shopping in Chinatown. All you have to do is look at what's happened to the City Gate development [nearby on Main]. There's about six towers there. Look at Main Street in that section: Nobody is renting there.

"Another example is International Village [on Pender]. There are several towers there, but business [in the mall] is not that great. Some of the stores are empty and so on. People just drive in and drive out.

"To me [the problem is] there are a lot of social problems around Chinatown, and you cannot resolve the social problems just by putting in a tower."

Joe Wai doesn't think Vancouver's Chinatown should mimic Shanghai, Hong Kong or anywhere else.

"There is character in our Chinatown that is unique anywhere," he said.

"It is not Chinese entirely, and not western. The situation in history [has resulted] in the kind of unique buildings we have. If we don't want that, then wipe it out. But up to this point I haven't really heard too many people who would [want to wipe it out], including the city of Vancouver, and a whole bunch of people who stopped the freeway, [such as] those of us who were young hotheads at the time."

He laughs.

"Now we're old hotheads."

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
     
     
  #3656  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2009, 2:18 AM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,380
928 main street - The Old American Hotel site.....

any idea whats going on there? Been boarded up for what 2 maybe 3 years now? Any idea who owns the site?

Also across the street at Milross and Main the empty lot Bosa owns was trimmed up and cleaned up nicely....also a new lock was put on the fence so it the lot didn't turn into a waste pit like other lots have.
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
     
     
  #3657  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2009, 4:05 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Well the Source was approved in having it's rooms removed from the registry so I wouldn't be surprised if something is proposed for that site.


New renders of the English Bay Bistro, the Vancouver Parks board is starting to get a taste for $$$ now.

I recommend d/l them before opening, one of them is 11mb.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1790beach/notificationltr.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1790beach/openhouse.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1790beach/designrationale.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1790beach/beachandstreetelevations.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1790beach/nselevations.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1790beach/landscapesite.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1790beach/landscape.pdf
     
     
  #3658  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2009, 4:20 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,119
Hmm the structure looks alright and the patio looks great, but my one gripe is with the landscaping. The city had a good theme going with this area with all the palms and tropical looking florae and yet with this proposal they are proposing boxwood hedges and deciduous trees. I always liked how this one corner of downtown with the beach and mature palms had a serious tropical feel to it in the summer.... i sure hope they alter the landscaping plans to keep this going.
     
     
  #3659  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2009, 4:46 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,575
Planners shift stance on False Creek shoreline
City council to be presented with new proposal for mix of residential development

Rebecca Tebrake

Sun

Tuesday, June, 02, 2009


City planners are presenting Vancouver city council with a dramatically changed proposal to develop the northeast shoreline of False Creek.

Their report, which goes to council today, calls for two-decade-old plans for strictly commercial development of the area -- the last major undeveloped piece of False Creek shoreline -- to be abandoned.

Instead, it proposes a mix of residential development -- four million square feet to house about 7,200 people -- along with recreational space, entertainment venues and commercial space that could include hotels, retail, and even a casino.

The city launched a land-use review after coming under pressure from land owners in the area -- which stretches from the Cambie Street Bridge to Quebec Street -- including Concord Pacific and other major developers, to zone it for housing.

The provincial government added to the pressure by announcing plans last year to upgrade BC Place Stadium and the surrounding area, prompting developers to ask for clarification of future land-use policies.

As well, Premier Gordon Campbell announced last May that a new Vancouver Art Gallery would be located on northeast False Creek.

"We have recognized this is a reasonable place for residential, but it's going to have a very different type of livability," Brent Toderian, the city's director of planning, said in an interview Monday.

"It's going to have congestion and traffic challenges, noise issues and a very high activity level."

New housing could surround BC Place and GM Place and line Pacific Boulevard and the Carrall Street Greenway.

Developers will be required to advise prospective buyers about noise from vibrating bass at concerts, rowdy football fans and honking cars leaving hockey games.

There will be no major new road access into or out of the area; planners are proposing population increases be served by transit.

The report suggests leaving 1.8 million square feet for commercial development. Toderian said that is reasonable, even in a recession.

"Job space is built on seven-year cycles. It assumes ups and downs in the market," he said.

The proposal includes a nine-acre extension to Creekside Park, a new sports park for teenagers, and open space along the water. However, even with these features, it falls short of the city's goal of 2.78 acres of park for every 1,000 people.

The report says landowners PavCo, Canadian Metropolitan Properties and Aquilini Development all support the new plan and want to move on rezoning.

Concord Pacific, the largest landowner, has expressed concerns about the amenities each landowner would be required to provide to the city as part of the development.

"[Concord] wants to avoid being burdened with expectations or additional requirements on its land that is generated by individual rezoning, ahead of a comprehensive plan," it said in a letter to the city.

A second report on residential mix and community facilities is expected in July.

"We've got many important questions about this," Coun. Geoff Meggs said Monday. "There will be a lot of opportunity for public comment."

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
     
     
  #3660  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2009, 8:01 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,371
BIV reports that Telus has taken the Robson & Richards parkade site off the market because conditions aren't right for the type of development it wanted - commercial (including hotel) and retail.

Also, a developer has taken over The Hills (KIngsway & Nanaimo) and will relaunch soon.

It also mentions that Concord's Greta Ranch project in the Okanagan is stalled due to failure to negotiate a sewage treatment deal with neighbouring municipalities.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:18 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.