The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread! - Page 8

LeftCoaster · #**141** Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 4:32 PM**

Its not an option becuase the whitecaps can't afford the rents to play there... BC place charges alot of money to rent its space out and Kerfoot obviously feels as though he cannot break even playing in such a rediculiously large space. That being said I dont know how the sounders can afford to play in Quest stadium... are the stadium owners and the Sounder's owners partners or something?

And as for the MLS, well alot of us here are soccer fans, and would like an alternative to paying $100 per ticket to go see a Canucks game from the nosebleeds. Don't get me wrong, im a canucks fan first and foremost, but Im also a student... effectively cutting me down to a few nuks games per year at best. Having the option of going to a Major League Soccer game every once in a while would be great.

mr.x · #**142** Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Personally, I dont think we need the MLS. Vancouver is a world class city without it, we dont need somebody telling us that we need a soccer specific stadium yet at the same time letting Seattle get away with playing at a football stadium.

I honestly dont really see what you guys have such a hard on about being in the MLS. And I certainly dont understand why the MLS has such a hard on for a soccer specific stadium before they'd come here.

If it was so great, then they could play at BC place. Why is it 'NOT AN OPTION???'

leftside · #**143** Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 5:37 PM**

- We need a soccer stadium
- We need the MLS
- There is no point in sharing a stadium with the Lions. The soccer stadium needs to be much smaller. There is nothing worse than watching games in a half empty stadium. The English team I support are only in the Championship (one below the Premiership) and their ground is only 25,000, but they regularly sell it out and the atmosphere is fantastic.
- The location.... well, if you've been reading other threads you'll know I'm opposed to the current proposed location next to Crab Park, but I'm in favour of the location over the Seabus terminal.

Any chance the mods can move all of these Whitecap related discussions to one thread?

jlousa · #**144** Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 7:03 PM**

I'll try to find the old rendering, the quality was garbage (MS paint) and done by myself. You'll understand when you see it. It had the stadium/seabus/new cruiseship terminal all intergrated over the current seabus location. Canada Place way extended as a pedestian/emergency vechile street wrapping back via the landing parkade to Richards. Another office tower next to 200 Granville, crab park extended to the new stadium (no more cruisepark) the tracks are covered with a green roof and pedestrian access continued along Cambie/Abbott/Carrell, over the tracks would be a number of restaurants/bars with great views, while not blocking any views from existing gastown residents.

But I've learned the reason for this to be impossible now is because Translink shot down having the stadium integrated with the seabus terminal. What a shame, and I can't figure out why.

officedweller · #**145** Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 8:50 PM**

Well, if Translink introduces additional services in the future (i.e. ferries to West Vancouver or Deep Cove), they would need the flexibility of building additional berths at the Seabus Terminal. Integrating it with the stadium would probably prevent them from doing that..

jlousa · #**146** Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 9:27 PM**

If that's the case wouldn't it be easier to intergrate that flexiablity into a new design then having to either rebuild the seabus terminal later, or live with a makeshift fix.
Don't forget there will be a new seaplane terminal attached to the expanded convention centre, it would be very easy to use the floating piers for water taxis, should a private company want to provide the service ala false creek.

officedweller · #**147** Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 9:37 PM**

If Translink implements a service, it would make sense to have it integrated at their hub at the seabus terminal.
WRT flexibility, it probably depends what was proposed. There would be a lot of flexibility if the seabus terminal was pushed out to north of the stadium, you could add as many berths as the width of the stadium. But that makes the walking distance too long for commuters. If you have the seabus terminal under the stadium to keep the walking distance short - the columns and pilings would have to be predesigned to allow for future expansion - and if you don't know the size, height or capacity of the ships that you'll need to house, that could be a problem, plus it might add cost to the stadium, which Translink would not want to pay for in advance because it wouldn't be in their budget since the project doesn't yet exist.
Translink is also ordering a 3rd seabus too. I remember when Concert proposed its convention centre on the site, they wanted to reduce the seabus terminal to one berth, but it had to be two berths. That could have been an issue this time too.

mr.x · #**148** Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Translink is also ordering a 3rd seabus too. I remember when Concert proposed its convention centre on the site, they wanted to reduce the seabus terminal to one berth, but it had to be two berths. That could have been an issue this time too.

wow, didn't know about the Concert berth thing.

btw, what will the third SeaBus look like? A replica of the old sea turtles we have today or sea stallions?

Lee_Haber8 · #**149** Posted **Nov 16, 2007, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'll try to find the old rendering, the quality was garbage (MS paint) and done by myself. You'll understand when you see it. It had the stadium/seabus/new cruiseship terminal all intergrated over the current seabus location. Canada Place way extended as a pedestian/emergency vechile street wrapping back via the landing parkade to Richards. Another office tower next to 200 Granville, crab park extended to the new stadium (no more cruisepark) the tracks are covered with a green roof and pedestrian access continued along Cambie/Abbott/Carrell, over the tracks would be a number of restaurants/bars with great views, while not blocking any views from existing gastown residents.

But I've learned the reason for this to be impossible now is because Translink shot down having the stadium integrated with the seabus terminal. What a shame, and I can't figure out why.

If the seabus terminal was under the stadium, the playing surface of the stadium would have to be 21 metres above sea level. Waterfront Station is only 10 metres above sea level. Then you have to build stands at a level above the playing surface. In the end you end up with someone that could end up being be as much as 50 m high (for the second level of stands) right on the waterfront. And this is after people complained about the first proposal being too visually imposing. I'm sure there could be ways to mitigate this problem, but it would certainly be a challenge.

excel · #**150** Posted **Nov 16, 2007, 7:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x2

btw, what will the third SeaBus look like? A replica of the old sea turtles we have today or sea stallions?

SunCoaster · #**151** Posted **Nov 16, 2007, 9:08 AM**

What is that the 'fast ferry' of the seabus world?

mr.x · #**152** Posted **Nov 16, 2007, 9:47 AM**

does that fly too?

excel · #**153** Posted **Nov 16, 2007, 8:31 PM**

Yea its the fast ferry seabus and because its wake is too big they made it so it could fly from the north shore to downtown.

raggedy13 · #**154** Posted **Nov 22, 2007, 8:18 AM**

So... this isn't exactly related specifically to the city of Vancouver, nor does it have to do with development but I didn't think it was worthy of starting a new thread about just yet.

I heard today from my brother, who heard from his wife (who heard from who knows), that within the last day or two, a study by an independent group came out that projects the population of the metro to increase by 1 million in the next 12 years (so 2019/2020)

Sounds pretty insane. Also, apparently either the City of Vancouver, or more likely the Metro Vancouver board or whatever it is called now, held an emergency meeting regarding it. I'm not all that sure why an emergency meeting would be held regardless. I can't yet find anything online about it however.

My brother said he'd get his wife to email me more info about it. I'm very interested in finding out if any of this news is true.

Anybody know anything about this?

cornholio · #**155** Posted **Nov 22, 2007, 9:11 AM**

^That would require a growth rate of around 3.0%. Certainly we are not even close to that right now and although our rate is supposed to increase in the coming years and probably has already I doubt it will reach that high. Personally I would think we might add 500,000-600,000 if we are lucky and thats around 2% per year. Anyways the projections have always said 1mill by 2030 and thats with a healthy and impressive growth of around 1.5% a year which by the way we haven't recently been reaching, not sure about this year though.*im not using a calculator so i hope my numbers are accurate.

Stingray2004 · #**156** Posted **Nov 22, 2007, 9:17 AM**

No, Metro Vancouver ain't gonna grow THAT fast. Sounds a bit like hearsay that went a bit outta control.

I imagine what you are referring to is the current round of community meetings, organized by Metro Vancouver, to discuss regional growth challenges, the first meeting of which took place November 19th.

Here's a blurb on the matter from CKNW:

_________________________________________________________

Mountains and ocean do provide some challenges

Nov, 19 2007 - 11:50 PM

METRO VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - It's a question dogging regional planners. How can a growth in population be accomodated on a limited land base?

Metro Vancouver is reviewing its regional growth strategy and has organized a series of meetings for public input.

Metro Vancouver's Chris Demarco says projections show Metro Vancouver will hit three-million people by the year 2031, "And that means probably about another 400-thousand jobs and probably over 400-thousand new homes that are needed to accomodate that growth."

Another challenge is climate change, "How do we grow but use a lot less energy than we are using right now."

For a listing of community meetings, log on to www.gvrd.bc.ca.

Hot Rod · #**157** Posted **Nov 22, 2007, 11:30 PM**

I think that is a low ball estimate ^. I'd say 3M by 2015, and that is considering the old Metro Vancouver def.

agrant · #**158** Posted **Nov 22, 2007, 11:53 PM**

"Old" metro? What's that? The current metro population is around 2.2 million, give or take. I'm pretty sure it's written in wiki and other places. Going from 2.2 to 3 million in 7 or 8 years is impossible, unless a lot of us start making babies. I'd like to try, but I wouldn't count on it.

Canadian Mind · #**159** Posted **Nov 23, 2007, 1:14 AM**

I could make a few by then, I'm 18 now.

I wouldn't say 3 million people until 2020 or 2025.

raggedy13 · #**160** Posted **Nov 23, 2007, 1:41 AM**

I really don't know the whole story and it probably is something related to the Metro Vancouver review that got exaggerated through my brother. He has a tendency to do that. I know it is quite off from the usual projections. If I hear anything more I'll let you know but I agree with most of you that it seems a little farfetched and is probably just exaggerated second-hand news.