Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[osirisboy]

i think its great the build towers on the northern section of the park

[djh]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

i think its great the build towers on the northern section of the park

Why is it "great?" If what s211 said turns out to be true, it means that those people who bought across the creek (for a premium price) based on the fact that they were under the impression there would be a park opposite their new homes, would be in a bait-and-switch situation, and would then have a massive intrusion to their view and a change to their expected living conditions. Yes, you run risks when you buy before construction, but if the city has zoned a park, it is reasonabe to expect a park, not towers.

And that's the least of the problems. If the city sets precedents for major zoning changes based on developer pressure, residents will fee destabilised, not knowing what the city will drop into their neighbourhoods. A detox centre across the alley? A sewage treatment centre? A bus depot? A chemical treatment plant? And if they complain "But we thought that empty lot was zoned for a park!" the city would just say "well the developer offered us some public art" - no, I don't think that is so "great".

Lastly, those poor old people in the citygate development are perfect illustrations of what I'm saying. They bit the bullet and bought into that neighbourhood back in 2000 or so, when it was a really scummy area. I remember it well - I looked at buying there too. The prices were great, there was a great masterplan for the area, and the suites were well-designed. The city promised them a pretty large park. Nearly a decade later, they still don't have the park, and still the land owners are trying to avoid building the park in exchange for more condos. Not fair at all. That neighbourhood would still be full of DTES-type pubs and flophouses if it wasn't for those first investors in the area, so I think they deserve the parkland that has been zoned and planned all these years. No bait and switch in exchange for yet more condos.

[s211]

Originally Posted by djh

Why is it "great?" If what s211 said turns out to be true, it means that those people who bought across the creek (for a premium price) based on the fact that they were under the impression there would be a park opposite their new homes, would be in a bait-and-switch situation, and would then have a massive intrusion to their view and a change to their expected living conditions. Yes, you run risks when you buy before construction, but if the city has zoned a park, it is reasonabe to expect a park, not towers.

And that's the least of the problems. If the city sets precedents for major zoning changes based on developer pressure, residents will fee destabilised, not knowing what the city will drop into their neighbourhoods. A detox centre across the alley? A sewage treatment centre? A bus depot? A chemical treatment plant? And if they complain "But we thought that empty lot was zoned for a park!" the city would just say "well the developer offered us some public art" - no, I don't think that is so "great".

Lastly, those poor old people in the citygate development are perfect illustrations of what I'm saying. They bit the bullet and bought into that neighbourhood back in 2000 or so, when it was a really scummy area. I remember it well - I looked at buying there too. The prices were great, there was a great masterplan for the area, and the suites were well-designed. The city promised them a pretty large park. Nearly a decade later, they still don't have the park, and still the land owners are trying to avoid building the park in exchange for more condos. Not fair at all. That neighbourhood would still be full of DTES-type pubs and flophouses if it wasn't for those first investors in the area, so I think they deserve the parkland that has been zoned and planned all these years. No bait and switch in exchange for yet more condos.

And several years ago, Concord bullied the City to accept delayed construction of the park. The park agreement now states that the park doesn't have to be ready until occupancy permits are granted for the condo towers that are (supposed) to be built to the west of the park. What this means is we won't see the park for at least another three years.

When you look at Concord's past record in the immediate area: no permit for the junk-yard they're running to the west of Abbott; tearing down the trees along the waterfront without permission; delaying the park; one certainly gets the impression that they run with a certain level of arbitrary arrogance.

Now Concord wants to make $$$$$$$ during the Olympics by whoring the park site out to Party Central. My instructions to the City: if you allow them to do that, then in return demand that the park be built immediately after the Olympics. No negotiations. Only ultimatums.

[quobobo]

Seriously? I might agree with you two if this was about the use of the park, but a view of the park?

I agree with you in principle that zoning shouldn't be arbitrarily changed when it has big impacts on people's investments, but a view of a park changing to a view of a smaller park is just not that big a deal.

[Canadian Mind]

yea, but it is the concept of 20+ story builds blocking views from 10 story penthouses, which as pricey as they are I could understand the problem.

Maybe some super-dense mid-rises ala SEFC inbetween a viaduct and park, with one or two short narrow towers for some height without severely impacting views?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by s211

Also, instead of moving the contaminated fill off-site when they excavate for tower construction, they want to pile the fill on the parklands!

Both David Lam Park and Andy Livingstone Park are repositories for comtaminated soil - it was too expensive to move such large volumes of soil offsite (to Swan Hills in Alberta the closest hazardous waste disposal facility) so it is managed in situ. There is an undergound barrier in place to prevent contaminated groundwater from leaching into False Creek near the current presentation centre location - the blue building next to the SkyTrain tracks is a pumping station that pumps the contaminated water into the municipal sewage system for treatment.

********

There's no guarantee of views anywhere.
Even if a site is an existing park (let alone a planned park), there's no guarantee it will remain a park forever.
For example, a massive new community centre was built in Sunset Park on Main Street. The Olympic curling facility was built in Hillcrest Park. The City may be reconsidering building the park at Richards & Smithe since Yaletown Park's park is a couple blocks away.
As for the CityGate residents - they've bought in an "up and coming" area. The park that was delivered in conjunction with the CityGate projects has been delivered - it's next to Science World. The "expansion" of that park is unrelated to their development, even if it is planned for the area.
Concord Pacific could sell the property and then you'd be back to square one with what a new developer wants to negotiate with the City.
Personally, I think that residential buildings (towers or otherwise) along Pacific Boulevard near the viaducts would do well to "connect" CityGate to the rest of the city.

[s211]

Originally Posted by quobobo

Seriously? I might agree with you two if this was about the use of the park, but a view of the park?

I agree with you in principle that zoning shouldn't be arbitrarily changed when it has big impacts on people's investments, but a view of a park changing to a view of a smaller park is just not that big a deal.

To be clear, when I speak of views I mean views of the mountains from the Olympic Village site.

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Both David Lam Park and Andy Livingstone Park are repositories for comtaminated soil - it was too expensive to move such large volumes of soil offsite (to Swan Hills in Alberta the closest hazardous waste disposal facility) so it is managed in situ. There is an undergound barrier in place to prevent contaminated groundwater from leaching into False Creek near the current presentation centre location - the blue building next to the SkyTrain tracks is a pumping station that pumps the contaminated water into the municipal sewage system for treatment.

I realize that. What Concord wants to do is take all of the condo "excavations" and build a hill on the parkland, not leave something flat like the other parks.

[officedweller]

I guess they'd have to do that since the remaining parcels are built out. Not sure, but I think the pedestrian bridge abuttments over Carrall Street (in Andy Livingstone Park) probably do the same thing.
Interesting, though, as that would kill the view from the first floor townhouses that would invariably be built there (assuming the park is on the water side and the condos on the Pacific Boulevard side).

[fever]

I agree that lining Pacific with condos/townhouses could be an improvement over the previous plan.


posted by od a few pages back from http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...onceptplan.pdf

The northeast corner of the concept is especially weak. I think it would be underused. Placing condos on the northern edge of the site would put some more eyes in the area. Removing the condo from the foot of Carrall would open up the foot of Abbott as well.

[officedweller]

Mounding up the soil would also provide a good bowl-shaped amphitheatre for viewing the dragon boat races.

[jlousa]

To be honest I have heard no such proposal, the only idea I've heard is Concord infringing slightly into the the Westen borders of the "parkland" in order to compensate for the giving up additional public space elsewhere on their site. But that only consisted of shifting Carrall St to the east a bit.

Who knows with this new rumour plus the talk of an additional 10 floors on Comso maybe they plan on paying to continue the Carrell St greenway across to the Olympic Village. .

I don't see that happening though.

[SFUVancouver]

The NEFC high level review, which includes the precincts massing strategy, does not include towers lining Pacific Blvd east of the Carrall Street Greenway.

[s211]

Originally Posted by jlousa

To be honest I have heard no such proposal, the only idea I've heard is Concord infringing slightly into the the Westen borders of the "parkland" in order to compensate for the giving up additional public space elsewhere on their site. But that only consisted of shifting Carrall St to the east a bit.

The "condos along Pacific Blvd" proposal that was presented to a working group narrowed the Creekside Park extension from its full "Pacific Blvd to False Creek" 140m depth to 70m. Basically a variant on Cooper's dogpoop strip.

[Delirium]

wow.. so you loose 70m of park. big deal. citygate residents already have access to three large parks so give me a break. how much parkland do you people need? there's able room for more housing along pacific.

photo from www.globalairphotos.com

besides, no one would even sit near pacific street anyway because of the traffic. people inherently move closer towards the water.

try living in yaletown where everyone is squeezed into emery barnes park.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Delirium

wow.. so you loose 70m of park. big deal. citygate residents already have access to three large parks so give me a break. how much parkland do you people need? there's able room for more housing along pacific.

photo from www.globalairphotos.com

besides, no one would even sit near pacific street anyway because of the traffic. people inherently move closer towards the water.

try living in yaletown where everyone is squeezed into emery barnes park.

Why don't you instead look into parkland per capita? Once built out, this area will be seriously underserved. Think about all of the new residents in International Village, and all of the additional density being talked about around BC Place... rumblings of additional density being allowed in Chinatown, etc. It all adds up.

The park across from the train station is a craphole, serving no purpose except to fitfully convert carbon to oxygen. The soccer fields north of the Dunsmuir viaduct serve a very specific user, the vast majority of which are not from the area.

I agree with you about Yaletown. I've lived there. It's a joke, and one that the City is trying to correct elsewhere. What we are trying to preserve is what Concord committed to build when it got its rezoning.

[Smooth]

Wasn't there talk of also creating a new park to the east of the new St. Paul's Hospital site if/when that's built? That'll be easy walking distance from Citygate.

[osirisboy]

sorry s211 I dont agree with you. for being downtown we are pretty lucky with the amount of park space and the citygate ppl have a hell of a lot more closer access to parks then I do. also I hardly think having a few more hundred condos in that area would overcrowd the one of like 4 parks in that area.

I would like to see condos and retail/restaurants on facing pacific so theres more interaction with the street and park.

[agrant]

I don't agree with you osirisboy. It is not about being close enough, it is the amount of park space per person in that area serving thousands of people. People are talking about Citygate as if they're the only people who'll use it. And I'll say this again... half of Andy Livingstone is turf playing fields. It doesn't count. Adding a few more condos, taking up that little extra space... I just don't see the benefit. And retail simply doesn't seem like a good fit in the area.

[osirisboy]

i know you guys are talking per capita but my impression is that the parks can certainly take the added population from the condos. they arent that busy