Sen̓áḵw (Squamish Nation) | 11 Towers | 171m | 58fl | U/C

[officedweller]

It'll be a good kickstart for the streetcar which will feed over to the Canada Line (and service Granville Island while they are at it).

[fredinno]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by csbvan

The Census.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...Text=vancouver

It's because homes with suites are classified, rightfully, as a duplex, as they consist of two attached dwellings.

I meant the "leader in attached dwellings claim". Not the majority of people live in duplexes part, I know that.

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?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

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 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.

3,000 units is still as much as the rest of the area put together though, and much of that is already multi-family as it is. 4-5k might work, but any more is going to start being a problem without a streetcar, a B-Line (replacing the 44), and road upgrades.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The issue with Pennyfarthing is that I want that icing on the cake.

----

Why?

Heh, fair enough.

Because last time, the nonexistent Burrard train ROW thing went on for about four pages.

[WarrenC12]

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.

What that area needs is a mall!

What makes walking unpleasant is actually traffic. I purposefully go out of the way to walk down a quiet street to avoid it.

And really, if you can't be out in the rain, find another place to live... Sometimes I look outside and take the car instead, but only when it's really pouring/windy/etc.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Please don't let this be true. I don't want the rental units to be dropped to luxury condos.

Westbank don't only develop condos. They're currently building market and non-market rental in the DTES with BC Housing. They've also got four market rental towers in the West End for their own portfolio, three currently under construction.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What makes walking unpleasant is actually traffic. I purposefully go out of the way to walk down a quiet street to avoid it.

And really, if you can't be out in the rain, find another place to live... Sometimes I look outside and take the car instead, but only when it's really pouring/windy/etc.

YMMV on that one - depending on the time of day, I might prefer the feel of a busy street.

Yeah, walking in the rain is inevitable... however, walking in the rain for over ten minutes, with a uniform grey background, is going to make a drive or bus ride across Burrard much more appealing than a stroll (to say nothing of a trip down 6th or Broadway). Need appropriate increases in transit/road capacity for opening day.

[Vin]

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.....

Build it, and you will see an increase in 2 and 22, plus even a new line going up and down Burrard street. When's the last time Vancouver has had a new non-express bus line? It's about time.

[retro_orange]

It would be great if the Squamish had the brewery lands to develop as rental as well. With the same density it might actually make a dent in our low vacancy rate, too bad it wasn't part of the reconciliation deal. it's time for Kits to grow 'up', literally and figuratively.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Indeed. Then they could develop the whole thing as one Olympic Village-sized neighbourhood.

Originally Posted by Vin

Build it, and you will see an increase in 2 and 22, plus even a new line going up and down Burrard street. When's the last time Vancouver has had a new non-express bus line? It's about time.

This is the complete opposite of your arguing to keep the viaducts. You feeling okay?

Literally next year, (or the one after that) Surrey and Marine Drive get four routes. All of them will run at half-hour frequency, and as with all of Vancouver, will get even less than that in the evening. Understandably so - TransLink's got much bigger problems than throwing resources all over the place for random unsustainable highrise plans.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Indeed. Then they could develop the whole thing as one Olympic Village-sized neighbourhood.

That's what I had in mind. How many units did the original OV include?

3000 seems like it might require more density or height than what OV accomplished, but I may be wrong.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

That's what I had in mind. How many units did the original OV include?

3000 seems like it might require more density or height than what OV accomplished, but I may be wrong.

1,104 units. So yes, it looks as if 3,000 units would imply a lot more density than the original 17 acre Olympic Village part of Southeast False Creek.

Edit - The Squamish land is 11 acres in total. In comparison, the 21-acre Heather Lands, which are being developed by Musqueam Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Development Corporation and Canada Lands Company, will feature more than 2,300 homes in buildings from three to 24 storeys.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

1,104 units. So yes, it looks as if 3,000 units would imply a lot more density than the original 17 acre Olympic Village part of Southeast False Creek.

Edit - The Squamish land is 11 acres in total. In comparison, the 21-acre Heather Lands, which are being developed by Musqueam Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Development Corporation and Canada Lands Company, will feature more than 2,300 homes in buildings from three to 24 storeys.

Wow, that's a lot more density.

6 acres less land and nearly 3 times the amount of housing units. Even with smaller units, that's still a lot more height that will be required no matter what.

Will be interesting to see the renders come out!

[Denscity]

Whereabouts is the Heather lands? I'm guessing Heather street is a clue

Edit: found it. Between 33rd and 37th.

[rxp]

what is the proposed height?

assuming they can go and build something that is 50 or 70 stories?

[Metro-One]

I really really doubt we are going to get some real height out of this project.

As much as we wish some parcel owned by the province, first nations, feds, etc... would give the finger to some of the more ridiculous City of Vancouver policies and throw up a major development, most seem to stick within the unspoken rule of good neighbours.

There may be a little penetration into the view cones, but odds are against anything substantial.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

It would be great if the Squamish had the brewery lands to develop as rental as well. With the same density it might actually make a dent in our low vacancy rate, too bad it wasn't part of the reconciliation deal. it's time for Kits to grow 'up', literally and figuratively.

Am I the only one who wanted to see the Molson stay there? It is kind of an icon in the area (even if built on the former reserve lands).

I don't think anyone expected Molson to get up and leave the site to Concord; honestly, I didn't.

I mean, if the Squamish get a similar sort of treaty deal to the Tsawwassen, they could theoretically buy out nearby lots and add it to their lands. The Parkview Towers, for example, or parks of False Creek South (once the leases expire). Say, an agreement is signed where those government-owned lands (I think Parkview is owned by the city?) are given preferential treatment over their eventual sale to the Squamish (over private developers).

Originally Posted by Changing City

1,104 units. So yes, it looks as if 3,000 units would imply a lot more density than the original 17 acre Olympic Village part of Southeast False Creek.

Edit - The Squamish land is 11 acres in total. In comparison, the 21-acre Heather Lands, which are being developed by Musqueam Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Development Corporation and Canada Lands Company, will feature more than 2,300 homes in buildings from three to 24 storeys.

Yeah, Olympic Village is kind of underbuilt.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I really really doubt we are going to get some real height out of this project.

As much as we wish some parcel owned by the province, first nations, feds, etc... would give the finger to some of the more ridiculous City of Vancouver policies and throw up a major development, most seem to stick within the unspoken rule of good neighbours.

There may be a little penetration into the view cones, but odds are against anything substantial.

With Westbank at the helm, and the leniency they have at City Hall this is hopefully something pretty ambitious, if not in height then in design.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yeah, Olympic Village is kind of underbuilt.

I dont know if I agree.

OV has turned into a brilliant hood, with a nice human scale. I think its turned out fantastic 9 years on.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Indeed. Then they could develop the whole thing as one Olympic Village-sized neighbourhood.

(1)This is the complete opposite of your arguing to keep the viaducts. You feeling okay?

(2)Literally next year, (or the one after that) Surrey and Marine Drive get four routes. All of them will run at half-hour frequency, and as with all of Vancouver, will get even less than that in the evening. Understandably so - (3)TransLink's got much bigger problems than throwing resources all over the place for random unsustainable highrise plans.

(1)I don't see how it's a complete opposite. What does keeping the viaducts have to do with increasing transit services? The viaducts are perfect for dedicated bus lanes yo.

I don't get you at all.

(2) FYI, Surrey isn't Vancouver ok? And now many does Marine Drive get? 1 new route?

(3) And pray tell us why a highrise neighbourhood is "unsustainable", as opposed to a huge vacant lot overgrown with weed and brush? Please don't throw words around without defining what you mean.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rofina

I dont know if I agree.

OV has turned into a brilliant hood, with a nice human scale. I think its turned out fantastic 9 years on.

You just agreed that it's underbuilt. It should have been fantastic since 9 years ago.