Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
Frances Bula is reporting that the development partner is Westbank. Khelsilem (an elected councillor with Squamish Nation Council) says that the City's Director of Transportation has already suggested that the streetcar might service the location.
|
Please don't let this be true. I don't want the rental units to be dropped to luxury condos.
At least Concord would be contiguous with Molson (especially makes sense since Molson is part of the original Squamish Reserve as well.)
Though, it's not a guarantee Concord Molson will actually get developed, since it's under the RGS and City industrial zoning. Concord will either have to play the long game, enter the industrial/office mixed use business, or flip the site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram
if the proposed arbutus streetcar line runs under burrard running north from the former cpr row along 6th ave, it can also make use of the designed and planned-for (but never built) streetcar line rail space under the burrard bridge. Crossing over false creek, the line can continue north under burrard to a terminal at the convention center.
having a station at cornwall (one of many along burrard) will serve this redevelopment and the molsons redevelopment, as well as the other existing communities either side of burrard
|
TBF, a swing bridge on Burrard would be impossible unless you limited streetcar service, or build the bridge high enough that the majority of high-masted sailboats and the barges from that cement plant in Granville Island could pass through. Meaning you're effectively building a new bridge under the Burrard Bridge at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan
|
I meant the "leader in attached dwellings claim". Not the majority of people live in duplexes part, I know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Warren, quit hacking Vin's account!
The 2 and 84 aren't always reliable and sometimes crowded - thousands of new residents are going to compound on that; ditto the 44, which also has the disadvantage of being a peak-hour bus that stops after the evening rush; the 50 is mostly for tourists.
As Vin's said often, our high amount of rain and infrequent sunlight often lowers walkability. We all know he'd prefer half a dozen 60+ towers, yes, but even so, let's be practical here.
Nothing's a done deal yet; even if there's no room to keep the ROW (maybe they could collab with Concord developing Molson next door?), running the streetcar along Pennyfarthing should work out fine... and yes, I know I usually hate mixed-traffic, but SFC is mostly calm, and if done right should stay calm. Either way, it gets them under Burrard and into Vanier and Kits Beach, which is basically the objective of using that spur. Any connection further out to Kitsilano or UBC is kind of icing on the cake.
Agreed. I think the 2010 density (maybe with a few extra floors on the shorter ones) is a good middle ground.
(groan) Not this again.....
|
Eh, most of Fairview is presumably (hopefully) going to be densified to actually being part of Downtown. 10,000 people (6,000 units? or double the 2010 proposal) is pretty much downtown. And as people have already mentioned, all the more incentive to actually build the streetcar/brt. (they can run articulated trolleys in the meanwhile.)
The issue with Pennyfarthing is that I
want that icing on the cake.
The 2010 density was 3,000 units, or ~5,000 people assuming a ratio of 1.7 people per unit.
10,000 people is about 5800-6000 units by that estimate, or double the 2010 density. Which is a lot, especially on such a narrow site.
Why?