False Creek South Planning

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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

The Lagoons are condos - though they are on leasehold land.

They need to be careful about heights on the south side of the Creek,
otherwise they'll end up with a dark and shadowy Coal Harbour scenario.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Lagoons are condos - though they are on leasehold land.

They need to be careful about heights on the south side of the Creek,
otherwise they'll end up with a dark and shadowy Coal Harbour scenario.

Gotcha.

Well, the co-ops are generally 3-5 floors high; even twice that amount gets you Olympic Village, which is hardly overbearing most of the time.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Lagoons are condos - though they are on leasehold land.

They need to be careful about heights on the south side of the Creek,
otherwise they'll end up with a dark and shadowy Coal Harbour scenario.

I’ve never been in Yaletown’s False Creek shore and believed the towers were overbearing on False Creek.

[fredinno]

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.

That’s kind of the case for all redevelopment on residential land to begin with though. Those people are already pissed off. The city is just a bit more direct in this case, though obviously they also reap more of the benefits ($$$).





Though one part everyone is missing is that after doing some research, I found that the rail ROW between Anderson and Fir is pretty much non- existent (it’s blocked off by a Starbucks, lol) All options for the streetcar only work without demolitions if they skip the Squamish reserve area entirely, regardless of if they keep the excess ROW or not.


Red is the Fir-3rd Ave path- Both Fir and 3rd would be closed off.

Orange is the Granville Loops path, which would close off the remainder of the Granville South Loop and Anderson St.



Is it feasible to remove the other Granville Street Bridge exit/approaches that connect to Fir, Hemlock, and 4th without causing too much issues with traffic? They take up a LOT of space. The latter 2 connect to W. 4th/6th, which is a major arterial (but so do the Granville South Loops). The Fir approach looks like it could definitely be removed no problem.

[Migrant_Coconut]

City Hall's teams already took a look at closing off that ramp and adding it to the Granville Bridge greenway; apparently, it's an important access point for City vehicles like ambulances and street sweepers, so it's staying.

The Starbucks on 2nd is legally obligated to pack up and move if the streetcar gets the green light.

[Feathered Friend]

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/false...ember-2019.pdf


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/false...ember-2019.pdf

A Neighbourhood Betrayed – Vancouver Fails To Respond To The Squamish Nation’s Generational Gift

Arbutus Greenway (planning update) – False Creek ODP Amendment – 1595 West 2nd Ave (1700 Fir St)
As it was designed in the 1970s by many of the architects, city planners and politicians who call it home today, False Creek South is a rather unique community. From our experiences during its recent neighbourhood planning process, Darren and I know these individuals understand the impact of public engagement. Which is why we were not surprised over 100 people turned out to see what was proposed for a piece of city-owned land at the north end of the Arbutus Greenway.

A few people were unaware of this corridor’s complicated history, which reached the Supreme Court of Canada in 2006. After CP Rail tore out its gardens in 2016, the city agreed to purchase this rail line for 55 million dollars. However, that agreement had several conditions, including one that required rezoning guidelines be created within four years. Any parcels not needed for a streetcar or greenway could be repurchased for 1 dollar or sold for a share of the profits.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/1...rational-gift/

[officedweller]

Thanks - that's how I figured they'd route the streetcar.

Hopefully they engineer that the curvature on that corner to allow for longer articulated streetcars in future if demand on the line increases.

If they are installing a wye, they may as well install a triangle junction to allow streetcars from Senakw to head straight south to the future Arbutus Station on the Broadway Extension.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I’ve never been in Yaletown’s False Creek shore and believed the towers were overbearing on False Creek.

Not really talking about the towers looming overhead, more about the dark shadows cast by the towers.
There should be gaps between if they have towers.

Concord is on the north side of the creek so the sun from the south will always hit the seawall there.

Coal Harbour is the opposite - the towers shade the seawall there and it often feels cold. Even at Olympic Village, the seawall isn't "bright and sunny" except at the open plazas and green space.

[Feathered Friend]

For those interested, here's a map of the land tenure of city owned properties in False Creek South. It should be noted that the limited dividend rental projects, and controlled leasehold developments have been converted to market rental, and market leasehold condos.


http://www.falsecreeksouth.org/wp-co...-V3.3-copy.pdf

[fredinno]

Eh, if they built more than 8 stories they’d be a riot due to the reserve land developments already getting them pretty upset.

Good on them for keeping a single-track ROW through the northern part of the site though, even thought that’s not preferred. I don’t think double tracks are needed unless they plan to route the streetcar under Burrard Bridge.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks - that's how I figured they'd route the streetcar.

Hopefully they engineer that the curvature on that corner to allow for longer articulated streetcars in future if demand on the line increases.

If they are installing a wye, they may as well install a triangle junction to allow streetcars from Senakw to head straight south to the future Arbutus Station on the Broadway Extension.






Not really talking about the towers looming overhead, more about the dark shadows cast by the towers.
There should be gaps between if they have towers.

Concord is on the north side of the creek so the sun from the south will always hit the seawall there.

Coal Harbour is the opposite - the towers shade the seawall there and it often feels cold. Even at Olympic Village, the seawall isn't "bright and sunny" except at the open plazas and green space.

Yeah, that’s what I meant with the comparison to Concord Yaletown. Towers in the Park style developments allow for more sunlight to get in. OV is packed pretty much in a way that maximized density without increasing height above the viewcones, meaning no sunlight pours between the ‘towers’.

[officedweller]

Agreed, but we also don't really have a towers in the park situation on a north-facing (south side) shore yet.
Coal Harbour has the tower podium form, but the rest of downtown fills in shadow for what would otherwise be sunlight.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Personally, OV seems a lot brighter than Coal Harbour.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Good on them for keeping a single-track ROW through the northern part of the site though, even thought that’s not preferred. I don’t think double tracks are needed unless they plan to route the streetcar under Burrard Bridge.

It's a setback - they don't want the new apartments crowding each other. I asked and it's definitely not a ROW.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Good on them for keeping a single-track ROW through the northern part of the site though, even thought that’s not preferred. I don’t think double tracks are needed unless they plan to route the streetcar under Burrard Bridge.

I think it would make sense to extend it to the Vancouver Museum/Vanier Park which would involve traversing underneath the bridge.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Personally, OV seems a lot brighter than Coal Harbour.



It's a setback - they don't want the new apartments crowding each other. I asked and it's definitely not a ROW.

The area currently is ‘Apartments in the park’- All they need to do is op build more tower- podiums towers on the current apartment/condo land. 6th Ave and the streetcar ROW would probably avoid the worst of the park and seawall shadowing.

OV being less shadowed than Coal Harbour probably has something to do with not being next to the dense towers of the CBD and Georgia.

It’s at least wide enough to be a ROW if the traffic disruptions/streetcar slowdown gets bad with the on-road route. Or at least it’d make a safe ped/bike pathway to the reserve lands if it’s never used.

[Feathered Friend]

False Creek South Lands: Opportunities for the future

We want to hear your views about options for the future of False Creek South Lands
We are seeking public input about how 80 acres of City-owned lands in False Creek South could be used to help address the housing crisis, and contribute to achieving other priorities such as accelerating action on climate change, increased focus on equity and critical social issues and protecting and building the local economy.

How you can share your views:
Complete our survey
Attend an online information session and Q&A period:
Wednesday, February 17 at 6:00pm, or
Thursday, February 25 at 6:00pm
Email us with your thoughts: FalseCreekSouthLands@vancouver.ca

https://shapeyourcity.ca/fcslands


Looks like the planning process for this is starting back up, I wonder how much can be done before the next civic election cycle starts.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://shapeyourcity.ca/fcslands


Looks like the planning process for this is starting back up, I wonder how much can be done before the next civic election cycle starts.

Bureaucrats span generations, and they're the real policy drivers.

[Feathered Friend]

Vancouver agrees to terms to renew leases for co-op housing on city land
Framework gives Vancouver ability to renegotiate leases at below-market rates for 57 co-ops representing 3,700 units around city with intent of avoiding rent shocks.

Author of the articleerrick Penner
Publishing date:Jul 09, 2021 • 24 minutes ago • 3 minute read •

The framework approved Thursday would allow for new leases where rents for higher-income co-op members would be set at 25 per cent of the median Vancouver renters’ income, or 15 per cent below average area rents, whichever is less. And it would allow the city to offer subsidies for lower-income, rent guaranteed income units in co-ops, based on the benchmark of 30 per cent of household income. Both will require annual income testing.

Chungath said city staff will also be reporting back to council on possibilities to increase the number of co-op units, either through densification or redevelopment with an eye to creating more accessible and family housing.

Co-ops don’t have to renew their leases under the framework.

More at
https://vancouversun.com/business/va...box=1625877056

[Migrant_Coconut]

Hope they realize that "status-quo for the next few decades" also means "everybody else in False Creek goes taller to meet housing targets."

[Feathered Friend]

Shaped by public input, instead of a city councillor’s rushed motion, here’s the 20+ year plan for the city owned land that makes up 80 acres of #FalseCreek South. Even if city council approves, Phase 2 isn’t expected until at least 2040 #Vancouver #VanRe
https://council.vancouver.ca/2021102...esentation.pdf

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/...902376450?s=20

[Migrant_Coconut]

Well, Council had to throw the NIMBYs a bone eventually. Edit: Unless the graphic is showing existing density, not planned?

[whatnext]

LOL, the pretentiousness of cloaking their oversized strata tower as some sort of artistic “counterpoint” to anything. Did they consult Westbank? Nice how it overshadows the public space of Granville Island too.