Cambie Corridor Updates - Page 53

osirisboy · #**1041** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't think I'd want 40 storey towers all the way down Cambie, but definitely more than they're doing now. 12 would be good I think, with 15+ at stations as wayfinders. I like highrises as landmarks, but I wouldn't want to limit our density typology to just point towers. For arterials outside the peninsula, I think block-style developments like in Paris would would provide good density along with a grand urban vibe.

Highrises don't have to mean point towers.

WarrenC12 · #**1042** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't think I'd want 40 storey towers all the way down Cambie, but definitely more than they're doing now. 12 would be good I think, with 15+ at stations as wayfinders. I like highrises as landmarks, but I wouldn't want to limit our density typology to just point towers. For arterials outside the peninsula, I think block-style developments like in Paris would would provide good density along with a grand urban vibe.

I agree with this, or even 8-10 stories generally.

Also, it's not about lining Cambie St. with towers, density should be spread 360 degrees around the Canada Line stations.

idunno · #**1043** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 4:45 PM**

I agree with others here stating that it was too bad about King Edward Station, but the Oakridge Metro Town Centre is going to be fantastic when it's built out. One of the great things about Cambie Corridor Phase 3 is that it allows for high rise (affordable/rental) density off of the arterials.

I would much rather have another West End or Kerrisdale than a Yonge Street. It's not fair to make everyone who doesn't live in a SFH live on a busy arterial (tower or not).

Hmoob · #**1044** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I agree with this, or even 8-10 stories generally.

Also, it's not about lining Cambie St. with towers, density should be spread 360 degrees around the Canada Line stations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by idunno

I agree with others here stating that it was too bad about King Edward Station, but the Oakridge Metro Town Centre is going to be fantastic when it's built out. One of the great things about Cambie Corridor Phase 3 is that it allows for high rise (affordable/rental) density off of the arterials.

I would much rather have another West End or Kerrisdale than a Yonge Street. It's not fair to make everyone who doesn't live in a SFH live on a busy arterial (tower or not).

Maybe if we say it enough the city staff and council will start to get it. Or at least they could explain why the left side of street in each of these images supports high-rise development, while the right side is inappropriate for anything greater than 0.7 FSR. It sure isn't distance to amenities and transportation.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2338675,-...A-zNikqneZVSkpj-g4gEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.209448,-1...K4DQ2eZwNUNrah4FSabrg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Does this look like admirable city planning to anyone? The SFHs in each image are built to their maximum allowable density under current zoning.

officedweller · #**1045** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 10:38 PM**

Agreed that towers off the arterials can still happen and having the midrises along the arterials would allow more sunlight down to those main streets.

GlassCity · #**1046** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 5:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I agree with this, or even 8-10 stories generally.

Also, it's not about lining Cambie St. with towers, density should be spread 360 degrees around the Canada Line stations.

Density radiating out from SkyTrain stations in circles, rather than one lot deep along the corridor, is one of my major regional planning dreams. So much land that is so well served by transit wasted on bungalows. A continued reflection of the whole Grand Bargain concentrate-everything-but-SFHs-on-arterials thing, that just makes no sense whether from the region's own stated policies or broader planning principles. We're always talking about getting more housing near quality transit in walkable neighbourhoods - this is how to do it!

Vin · #**1047** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Density radiating out from SkyTrain stations in circles, rather than one lot deep along the corridor, is one of my major regional planning dreams. So much land that is so well served by transit wasted on bungalows. A continued reflection of the whole Grand Bargain concentrate-everything-but-SFHs-on-arterials thing, that just makes no sense whether from the region's own stated policies or broader planning principles. We're always talking about getting more housing near quality transit in walkable neighbourhoods - this is how to do it!

Question is what takes the City so long to start realizing the potential, and urgency now.

Vin · #**1048** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

In fairness a lot has changed since 2014. The affordability crisis has pushed density up in a lot of peoples view points.

I am glad to see more density landing on the Cambie corridor and only wish other stations were't so neglected. Not necessarily towers on every node, but the 3FSR at King Edward is just painful.

A few could already see this coming a long time ago, yet people were stubbornly holding on to their 6-8 storey arterial boondoggle.

Still fairly satisfied that Vision had a last-minute change of heart and massively upzoned Oakridge area before they were booted out, although it came about too late as many of the low-rise buildings were already built or under construction at the more transit-convenient locations, as well as the timing coinciding with the slow-down in real estate sales to discourage the larger scale developments. If this area was upzoned much earlier, a lot of larger developments need not be happening in the suburbs, but more centrally located in the Vancouver area.

misher · #**1049** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Density radiating out from SkyTrain stations in circles, rather than one lot deep along the corridor, is one of my major regional planning dreams. So much land that is so well served by transit wasted on bungalows. A continued reflection of the whole Grand Bargain concentrate-everything-but-SFHs-on-arterials thing, that just makes no sense whether from the region's own stated policies or broader planning principles. We're always talking about getting more housing near quality transit in walkable neighbourhoods - this is how to do it!

Just like Joyce did, its simple and easy.

Vin · #**1050** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 9:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by misher

Just like Joyce did, its simple and easy.

To me, Joyce is never property planned. Allowing one or two more highrises to be built around the station area only occurred when Metrotown's progress is increasingly getting too stark in contrast to what is existing at a rather backward and sleepy Joyce. It was all about Vision's ego rather than a serious get-together of minds to make Joyce area a more liveable town centre. At present, there is no central commercial zone for the residents there to hang out or shop. Everything had been haphazardly built and located. Joyce is like an extended suburb residential area of Metrotown, where the main hive of activities takes place.

Hmoob · #**1051** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by misher

Just like Joyce did, its simple and easy.

Triple the radius of those circles and we're getting started. 60 m radius for high rise, 165 m for mid rise, 250 m for low rise? Anything further than 250 m from high speed transit is too far to allow for greater than single family build form and densities?

How are we supposed to get out of this housing crisis if the city won't do anything more than painfully slow, selective spot rezonings?

GenWhy? · #**1052** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

To me, Joyce is never property planned. Allowing one or two more highrises to be built around the station area only occurred when Metrotown's progress is increasingly getting too stark in contrast to what is existing at a rather backward and sleepy Joyce. It was all about Vision's ego rather than a serious get-together of minds to make Joyce area a more liveable town centre. At present, there is no central commercial zone for the residents there to hang out or shop. Everything had been haphazardly built and located. Joyce is like an extended suburb residential area of Metrotown, where the main hive of activities takes place.

The goal of Joyce in the Precinct Review Plan was to maintain it as a localized shopping area and not to compete in a regional commercial role with Kingsway a few blocks south, and Metrotown (Burnaby's downtown core). Vision's 2016 plan allows commercial at-grade from Archimedes to Wellingdon (about a 6 block stretch). The plan examines similar radial density as the Cambie Corridor Plan around the same time (page 24).

GenWhy? · #**1053** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 11:08 PM**

The above image under "Low Rise" refers to a 250m radius and is for townhomes and rowhomes, similar to that of Cambie Corridor, with Joyce, south of Euclid, having 4-6 storey mixed-use and all residential apartment buildings.

Hmoob · #**1054** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The above image under "Low Rise" refers to a 250m radius and is for townhomes and rowhomes, similar to that of Cambie Corridor, with Joyce, south of Euclid, having 4-6 storey mixed-use and all residential apartment buildings.

Right, but what about all of the houses in Archimedes, Cherry, and Church, Cecil, and McKinnon Streets? Good city planning requires they be limited as single family homes while some of them are directly across an alley from what will soon become 6 story buildings? Whose interests does this serve?

GenWhy? · #**1055** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 11:58 PM**

You can blame The Renfrew-Collingwood Community Vision
(2004) and the failed / not completed planning that came out of this exercise across the City as well as the Vanness old industrial area rezonings.

officedweller · #**1056** Posted **Feb 8, 2020, 12:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

To me, Joyce is never property planned. Allowing one or two more highrises to be built around the station area only occurred when Metrotown's progress is increasingly getting too stark in contrast to what is existing at a rather backward and sleepy Joyce. It was all about Vision's ego rather than a serious get-together of minds to make Joyce area a more liveable town centre. At present, there is no central commercial zone for the residents there to hang out or shop. Everything had been haphazardly built and located. Joyce is like an extended suburb residential area of Metrotown, where the main hive of activities takes place.

That's because the Joyce area was another example of opportunistic redevelopment. The entire Collingwood Village project was built on the site of former light industrial warehouses. Only later did the City turn its mind to rezoning of adjacent areas.

Klazu · #**1057** Posted **Feb 8, 2020, 1:45 AM**

Interesting to know. I always though it's a bit odd how the mid-rise towers around Joyce are placed here and there.

The whole area is almost completely unnoticeable from afar. It never catches my eye when I am on North Shore mountains or at any lookout. I guess it's due to Metrotown catching the eye with its ever more impressive skyline, so some mid-rises don't really register...