False Creek South Planning

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, I remember that, but it makes much more sense to have a dedicated RoW rather than in-street, especially when the Option Lands cut the corner, avoid a 90 degree turn and line up exactly with the proposed access road into Senakw.
Also, at that time, the scope of the Senakw development was not known and the possibility of an extension into Senakw was not necessarily as much of a priority as it may be now.
That Policy deals with the "Arbutus Greenway" - which probably focuses on the route turning to the south, not to the west.

The report deals with the Option Lands of the Arbutus Greenway, just as the notice fredinno posted above says. That's where the housing is proposed. The report says that the Engineers are not looking to use that route for either Greenway or streetcar purposes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, I remember that, but it makes much more sense to have a dedicated RoW rather than in-street, especially when the Option Lands cut the corner, avoid a 90 degree turn and line up exactly with the proposed access road into Senakw.
Also, at that time, the scope of the Senakw development was not known and the possibility of an extension into Senakw was not necessarily as much of a priority as it may be now.
That Policy deals with the "Arbutus Greenway" - which probably focuses on the route turning to the south, not to the west.

In fairness, that part of the ROW is of minimal benefit. The current plan is to put the streetcar on Fir and 2nd, which are pretty quiet and unlikely to get louder (aside from the 50, which would be replaced anyway).

[officedweller]

The notice posted by Fredinno references the triangle shaped piece of land which is currently zoned for transportation.

In order to conclude planning work for the Option Lands, further planning is needed for the triangle shaped site at West 2nd and Fir St. This site is currently included within the False Creek ODP area but is identified for transportation use only. The ODP has no direction for redevelopment of the site.

That's the site at the top of this map.
I've drawn on the map the on-street and Options Lands routings of a potential streetcar line to Senakw. All I'm saying is that using the Options Lands triangular site for a streetcar RoW will provide a more efficient system - no additional intersection to navigate with cars and no slowing down to a crawl for a 90 degree turn.

Conceivably, they could preserve an RoW across the north side of the triangular piece of land while allowing some development on the corner.


https://council.vancouver.ca/20180724/documents/p4.pdf

The relationship of the triangular site to Senakw is shown in this map (Senakw is in gray).


https://council.vancouver.ca/20180724/documents/p4.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Ah, that one. Eh, most of that alignment isn't going to happen anyway - it cuts through all the Senakw tower footprints!

IIRC the triangle is being renegotiated with the Squamish for the sake of a rail connection; what could happen is that it gets developed, but with an easement at the back for the streetcar.

[officedweller]

The Daily Hive diagram shows a road entering from that location (or is it Pennyfarthing Drive?),
so once on the Senakw site, it could follow the curved road and stop in the middle of the site or at the seawall
(as opposed to continuing through to Vanier Park or Kits Beach).
A streetcar could be in the median of a widened Pennyfarthing Drive.

The original streetcar RoW would have been along the south edge of the site and travelled
under the bridge approach ending up south of the Vancouver Academy of Music (VAM on the map).


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/squa...nakw-kitsilano

[Migrant_Coconut]

If you Ctrl-scroll in, that is indeed a rebuilt Pennyfarthing Drive.

Wonder if the Squamish/Westbank would be okay with the tram going between the towers and under the bridge?

[officedweller]

Cool, didn't know about that zoom fcn.
I guess it would depend where it comes out and what facilities (ball courts, etc.) are under the bridge.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hopefully City staff working on the streetcar extension know about that proposal and can stop it.

The problem with that land is that it only permits 1 way turns due to its shape.
In this case, it actually makes sense to use a road ROW instead.

The rezoned lands do not seem to include the East-West rail ROW, which were not part of the CP agreement.

[officedweller]

I'm talking about an east-west route to and from Senakw
- whether single track or double track.
The turn south to the Arbutus corridor can be on the street,
that's separate and is going to be a sharp turn in any event.

The triangle shown in Figure 1 is the former rail RoW (that's why CP owned it).

[fredinno]

Is it feasible to close off Fir St entirely into a linear park for the streetcar?

[officedweller]

Probably not.
It's currently the main street from the south that leads to the Pennyfarthing development and would also lead to Senakw.
But if the RoW corridor properties "behind" the east side parcels was consolidated with each street-facing property,
then the street frontage could be pulled back to widen Fir Street(?)

Personally, I think they could use the old RoW corridor for the streetcar instead of on-street.

[Migrant_Coconut]

There was a suggestion at the open house to close off Fir and make Pine the new road arterial for the area (cutting into Molson, intersecting with Pennyfarthing?). Could be worth a look.

Either way, the City's dead set on removing the ROW because they want to integrate the lot with the soon-to-be rezoned co-ops northeast of it.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There was a suggestion at the open house to close off Fir and make Pine the new road arterial for the area (cutting into Molson, intersecting with Pennyfarthing?). Could be worth a look.

Either way, the City's dead set on removing the ROW because they want to integrate the lot with the soon-to-be rezoned co-ops northeast of it.

what are they rezoning the co-ops to?

[Migrant_Coconut]

TBD. Probably more mixed-use apartments.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Either way, the City's dead set on removing the ROW because they want to integrate the lot with the soon-to-be rezoned co-ops northeast of it.

Ah, that explains the motivation.
So the co-ops would be demolished and redeveloped?

Here are the co-ops from GoogleMaps:


https://www.google.com/maps/place/So...!4d-123.140897

[Feathered Friend]

Soon to be rezoned might be a little optimistic. The False Creek South lease negotiations are still dragging on, and until that issue is settled, there's no appetite for change from either side.

Also, it was great to see some friendly faces at the event

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Soon to be rezoned might be a little optimistic. The False Creek South lease negotiations are still dragging on, and until that issue is settled, there's no appetite for change from either side.

Also, it was great to see some friendly faces at the event

There is coops and strata's throughout Vancouver that also are facing the same rezoning and new market lease rates.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Ah, that explains the motivation.
So the co-ops would be demolished and redeveloped?

Correct, though I'm hoping they keep the water features. They're a nice part of the seawall experience.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

There is coops and strata's throughout Vancouver that also are facing the same rezoning and new market lease rates.

The optics for any politician to be seen throwing families or grannies out of their homes is terrible. It will be interesting to see how it plays out when push comes to shove.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The optics for any politician to be seen throwing families or grannies out of their homes is terrible. It will be interesting to see how it plays out when push comes to shove.

True my gf coop is looking at a 200% increase to there lease. They just paid off the mortgage and were planning to do start a half life upgrade. With the proposed lease rates this now makes the building un-affordable for many of the tenants.