1780 E Broadway | 144m, 125m, 122m | 44fl, 38fl, 37fl | Proposed

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Reading this more closely my hunch seems correct that they designed the main level with no small scale retail or retail activations as they're putting their eggs into the possibility of temporary "pop-up" CRUs on the plaza. Their design principles even detail this out. They address that dead spaces will be an issue, and then essentially say we're proposing an "alternative" to what is typically recommended and done... which is to not provide small scale retail (as per policy) or activate the edges and corners.

"The proposal presents an alternative recommendation, where the
smaller scale retail is clustered along the public plaza with the
Broadway elevation at grade being dominated by a glazed elevation
for the grocery store. "

This is a big cop out. They're intending to use square footage from the public plaza space to install pop up businesses so they don't have to put them into the design of their building floorplate on their mainfloor.

I agree. This plan looks pretty poor at street level.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I agree. This plan looks pretty poor at street level.

Yup.
It's a bit odd, too given that other Safeways have had shallow retail on the street fronts (Davie) or been upstairs (Robson).

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Just going off City policy and precedents and interactions with Staff and Council lately, this mainfloor design doesn't seem to fit.

There is no mall. There is only 1 CRU on lvl2 which is restaurant. There are no retail units at the street. The one CRU at street level on the drawings is labelled as "lobby". All the entrances on the street level are lobbies. Broadway is unactivated, and 10th Ave is essentially a blank wall with bike parking. Something is out of place from Staff and through this being proposed in a formal rezoning to end up with a street level design like this with a major uplift in FSR, mix of uses, and a major tenant.

I'd like to see some Letters of Intent for activations of the plaza before it goes ahead as a bare paved surface with no CRU's opening up into it. Even if the Safeway had an ancillary use like a bistro / cafe would work. The landscape plan is almost zero for the public plaza which is concerning too.

all the new Safeways have a starbucks with their own area and seating. They also have a much better hot food setup also with seating. The Burquitlam one has a sushi place. They have a nice outdoor seating area too. New Westminster station is a good example of how the seating outside the store can look.

I don't think they need more retail in there. Sometimes it's nice just to have a breathing space, I know I liked them in Tokyo just a place to step away from the madness within the madness.

Do we really need more of what is acrss the street? pizza slices and bubble tea shops?

[Changing City]

Is it possible for a mod to update the title? The new scheme has towers of 24, 27 and 30 floors.

[vanman]

Not a fan of the rats nest in the courtyard.

[red-paladin]

Title updated.

[logan5]

I thought they reduced the heights to appease the neighbourhood group. Now it's back up to 30 stories?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

all the new Safeways have a starbucks with their own area and seating. They also have a much better hot food setup also with seating. The Burquitlam one has a sushi place. They have a nice outdoor seating area too. New Westminster station is a good example of how the seating outside the store can look.

I don't think they need more retail in there. Sometimes it's nice just to have a breathing space, I know I liked them in Tokyo just a place to step away from the madness within the madness.

Do we really need more of what is acrss the street? pizza slices and bubble tea shops?

All internal activations, however. The Burquitlam one is aesthetically pleasing, yes, but aside from the lifestyle photos ventilation louvers and glass walls that feature the blank sides of stairwells... it's an urban design missed mark for the area and intersection.

While developers dislike the insertion of small scale retail with their major leasees, the large format retailers as their major development partners (think Crosstown and Rise at Cambie and Broadway - we developers hear this every step of the way because they want to maximize square footage - but from an urban design POV, the City policy on the so called "chicklet retail frontages" adds great resiliency and activation at the street level. It's a well worth and long term vision compromise. Architects and large format retailers hate it because it forces them to re-think their typical business and floorplan models, but the community benefits.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by vanman

Not a fan of the rats nest in the courtyard.

The giant trellis? True, I can see where they're going with it, but they need to clean up the design a little.

[officedweller]

Yeah, seems really ambitious to try for a 10 storey vine, unless there are plant pots along the cabling - which would be a maintenance nightmare.

[mcminsen]

I often exit the Skytrain station onto 10th Avenue and had just gotten used to it being all done and tidy lately.



Sept.27 '19, my pics

[scryer]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

I often exit the Skytrain station onto 10th Avenue and had just gotten used to it being all done and tidy lately.

Lol, you better savour every second of the peaceful commute for the time being.

Because everyone was asking, I just thought that I would like to share my thoughts on the project....

This project is at a significant connection between two Skytrain lines. There should be no excuses that it isn't 40+ stories. But we already know that; in fact I am hopeful that this project will end up encouraging bolder developments. However projects like these are long over-due at Commercial/Broadway. Coquitlam is seeing more development than this area has in the last 10 years.

I'm also not fooled by the green-washing of it all. But I also think that the project will turn out being a very nice addition to the neighbourhood and a great step in dragging downtown off of the peninsula.

The only thing that has kind of got me questioning it all is the social housing aspect. I have to wonder how much social housing takes away from the 160 rental units being added that are available to the general working public? I am open to listening to other opinions on this.

Overall, this project gets my complete support as it is a change much needed in this corner of Vancouver.

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by scryer

The only thing that has kind of got me questioning it all is the social housing aspect. I have to wonder how much social housing takes away from the 160 rental units being added that are available to the general working public? I am open to listening to other opinions on this.

The social housing appears to be part of the 160 rental units, though that is based on parsing the development statistics which aren't particularly clear on that. Basically, it looks like rental housing is a quarter of all the housing provided (with strata being the bulk). Of the rental, another quarter of that is "non-market rental"...presumably the same as social here.

To me, questioning how much the social housing/non-market rental takes away from the general rental is not the issue. Rather, I wonder how on a site that is nearly 6 FSR, Westbank gets away with 75% market housing that will almost certainly be beyond the means of most of us.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, seems really ambitious to try for a 10 storey vine, unless there are plant pots along the cabling - which would be a maintenance nightmare.

Maybe they're planning on it being pot plants...

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The giant trellis? True, I can see where they're going with it, but they need to clean up the design a little.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, seems really ambitious to try for a 10 storey vine, unless there are plant pots along the cabling - which would be a maintenance nightmare.

It needs refinement for sure.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by logan5

Yeah I don't think anybody here is going to fall for the old bait and switch trick.

So if they are building that plaza as shown in render, does that mean that they aren't building the Grandview Cut plaza?

The city did a survey on the grandview cut plaza (near commercial drive) as a follow up on the original 2017 proposal. It was quite strongly opposed in the survey results, as it was seen as the private developer hijacking public space. I think many folks in Grandview-Woodland are expecting the developer to provide a plaza on the Safeway site, and for a separate publicly funded (or CAC funded) plaza over the cut at Commercial Drive (let's call it Skytrain turning plaza, since that's the only thing anyone will be able to hear).

[Sheba]

...and in news that will surprise no one here

More than three years after the City of Vancouver approved a contentious development plan for the area around the Commercial-Broadway SkyTrain station, developers have proposed a new project that could reshape the neighbourhood.

The proposal, submitted by Architecture firm Perkins & Will on behalf of developer Westbank, would see three residential towers built, including 520 condo units and 160 rental units built on the site that currently holds a Safeway.

The towers would be 24, 27, and 30 storeys tall.

...

Dorothy Barkley, a board member with the Grandview Woodland Area Council said it’s early yet in the process, but that residents already have major concerns about the project.

“Scale, height, massing, lack of size of the proposed plaza, public access to spaces,” said Barkley in an email.

“We simply need to see much more. We are also concerned about the effect of this on the surrounding neighbourhood, and how it will work when beside the busiest transit hub in the region which is already operating at capacity.”

The project wouldn’t be alone in the neighbourhood in facing opposition.

Residents have pushed back against both a new five-storey rental project on Grant Street and a large detox and social housing complex at 1st Avenue and Clark Drive.

The City of Vancouver also scrapped a proposed 12-storey tower at Commercial Drive and Venebles Street in the wake of a sustained “no towers” campaign.

But in the time since the original battle over the Safeway site, the public mood towards development may have shifted.

The city’s sustained housing crisis has prompted housing advocates like Riley Wood with Abundant Housing Vancouver to become more vocal.

Wood suggested the Commercial-Broadway project might not be big enough, considering its transit-hub location.

“Those towers are pretty skinny, there’s not actually as many condos and apartments as you would expect there, so yeah, it could be a little bigger,” he told Global News.

Wood acknowledges the project will be controversial and said he expects support or opposition to the development to split between more established single-family homeowners and younger renters or first-time homebuyers.

...

[Migrant_Coconut]

I like how she's complaining about the increase AND decrease of property values in another article. Jeez, pick a lane and stick with it.

[logan5]

Wood suggested the Commercial-Broadway project might not be big enough, considering its transit-hub location.

“Those towers are pretty skinny, there’s not actually as many condos and apartments as you would expect there, so yeah, it could be a little bigger,” he told Global News.

I guess we are getting accustomed to much bigger towers now because 520 units in 3 towers does seem miniscule. I think just 1 single Brentwood tower has around that many units. Density should have been 7 or 8 FSR, with more focus on rental units.

[scryer]

The density of this is anything but sustainable in this climate emergency we are in! Building denser is exactly what we need to do along the Broadway Corridor and this is an example of underbuilding for the future.