City of Vancouver ODP

[Changing City]

This seems to be worth a thread of its own? The City's draft ODP (which has to be adopted by next June) has been published. City webpage.

The City of Vancouver is inviting public feedback on the draft Official Development Plan (ODP), a city-wide policy document that will be adopted by by-law to guide how the city grows and changes over the next 30 years and beyond. Under new Provincial legislation, Vancouver must adopt a city-wide ODP by June 2026.

The draft ODP outlines land use policy for the whole city, mapping out space for housing, jobs, parks and schools as the city grows. It builds on the Vancouver Plan (2022), which was created after years of engagement with residents, equity-denied groups, businesses and community organizations.

The draft ODP includes all the content of the Vancouver Plan, adding only the necessary information to meet Provincial legislation, updates to reflect Council direction since Vancouver Plan and minor updates to improve clarity.

[officedweller]

Note the City's desire for SkyTrain passing tracks or double guideways.
Nice to see the streetcar still on there.


https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/od...p-eng-full.pdf

[madog222]

Am I understanding this correctly in that the GLUs replace the current zoning districts?

Originally Posted by officedweller

Note the City's desire for SkyTrain passing tracks or double guideways.
Nice to see the streetcar still on there.

I belive that's basically taken straight from Translink's Transport 2050 plan, though perhaps separare parallel lines.

Also interesting to note their interest in grade separating the Commercial Drive line north of Broadway.

[officedweller]

Thanks.
I didn't even know there was a Victoria/Commercial line planned.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by madog222

Am I understanding this correctly in that the GLUs replace the current zoning districts?


I belive that's basically taken straight from Translink's Transport 2050 plan, though perhaps separare parallel lines.

Also interesting to note their interest in grade separating the Commercial Drive line north of Broadway.

I that's a misinterpretation of the arrow. To my understanding, TransLink has been pondering a Rapid Bus line from Hastings down Commercial / Victoria for a decade (?) but has yet to determine an alignment and how to use the roads efficiently (like do they eliminate parking on Commercial and but ion bus lanes), or do they use Clark.

[jollyburger]

The grade alignment is probably talking about something beyond any near-term plans for 20X or RapidBus?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by madog222

Am I understanding this correctly in that the GLUs replace the current zoning districts?

GLU = Generalized Land Use I presume? That's new terminology for me.

Transit planning and transit maps are always super interesting to examine, as they have so much influence on land use policy and how the city will look and feel.

Really disappointing to see so little density being planned along the Arbutus Corridor, and while these maps aren't written in stone, it is a mistake to not envision the Arbutus Line not heading directly across False Creek into downtown.

With this plan being finalized by June '26, I presume that means developers can start rezoning applications at that time as well, as this is an ODP.

I ask that because there are huge areas of potential high density - the 41st/49th major transit corridor covers an area of around 18 sq km's, and then the Hastings corridor is seen as a major transit corridor, and most interestingly of all, the West Broadway corridor, out to UBC.

If this plan takes effect as soon as next year, the NIMBY's in that area must be extremely upset.

[jollyburger]

Seems like the GLU is just a future roadmap to the development of the city but all the zoning districts remain that might need to be updated to reflect the GLU.

Page 52 of the ODP

[madog222]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I that's a misinterpretation of the arrow. To my understanding, TransLink has been pondering a Rapid Bus line from Hastings down Commercial / Victoria for a decade (?) but has yet to determine an alignment and how to use the roads efficiently (like do they eliminate parking on Commercial and but ion bus lanes), or do they use Clark.

There is an at-grade, dedicated ROW, Major Transit Network (so BRT at minimum) line shown down Commercial/Victoria and across the Fraser into Richmond in the Transport 2050 plan.

[Migrant_Coconut]

There's very few ways for a streetcar on 6th to get onto Granville Bridge without severely disrupting existing users (pedestrians, bikeways and buses too, not just general road traffic).

As for Commercial, note that Hastings, Willingdon, 41st/49th and Marine all have definitive straight lines, while the other lines are just "whatever." Seems less like grade separation and more like they can't decide whether to put the BRT's north end down Clark instead.

[djh]

Wait, I'm going through this document page by page for the first time.
Page 11:
"Stage 4 - Draft and Final Plan - December 2021 - July 2022"

...What happened?!
And don't tell me "The Pandemic". The document says that Phase 1 - Listen and Learn was 2019 - 2020. There's no way they needed 5 years to finish that phase.

Seriously, am I missing something obvious because this is still only a Draft, right? How much longer until it gets adopted?!



EDIT: Oh I see...proceeding pages explain - the "Vancouver Official Development Plan" is not the same as the "Vancouver Plan"...sheesh, confusing names. But one precedes the other and takes its learnings and adds to them.
I hope the extra..."consultation" was actually beneficial and not just an excuse to spend more money on paperwork without actually doing anything. Still reading...now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[logan5]

Well, suppose to be adopted by June 2026.

Looking at the colour coded land use map shows that most of the CoV is eligible to be upzoned to at least 3 FSR, with a huge percentage (like 20%?) of the City eligible for high density towers (12 story+). The City is going to grow very quickly.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There's very few ways for a streetcar on 6th to get onto Granville Bridge without severely disrupting existing users (pedestrians, bikeways and buses too, not just general road traffic).

The best way would be from the greenway across the loop to an underpass curving to the middle of Granville and emerging from a portal in the centre lanes where the road is still on dirt.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The best way would be from the greenway across the loop to an underpass curving to the middle of Granville and emerging from a portal in the centre lanes where the road is still on dirt.

Slightly out of date; the current plan is to run the tram straight down 6th itself (page 10), and the loop redesign is very much one-way (page 45), so 5th seems to be off the table.

And there's no preexisting ROW, so you're talking about cutting across at least two traffic lanes, the crosswalk and possibly the "bus" lane. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying it's probably more trouble than it's worth.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Slightly out of date; the current plan is to run the tram straight down 6th itself (page 10), and the loop redesign is very much one-way (page 45), so 5th seems to be off the table.

And there's no preexisting ROW, so you're talking about cutting across at least two traffic lanes, the crosswalk and possibly the "bus" lane. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying it's probably more trouble than it's worth.

I think the tracks are planned to go along Fir. If there'd be an underpass and portal, I'd expect the whole loop would be redesigned.
I was just thinking that the route and curve onto Granville across the loop area would be more gentle than from 6th to Granville if an underpass were to be built. If it's a sharp turn. it'll probably end up being an on-street turn.

[Wooster]

GLU is reflection of existing area plans, area ODPs, rezoning policy, various zoning in place, etc

The ambition is the Vancouver Plan Land Use Framework. As an area plans (e.g Villages) finishes, the GLU in the ODP is amended to reflect the change. So it’ll change over time.

Then, for example if a future rezoning happens (where a City initiated rezoning has not happened) and it is aligned with the ODP, a public hearing is prohibited (where it meets criteria like >50% residential).

[logan5]

This plan renders the DTES Plan pretty much null and void. For example, the Oppenheimer District is now considered a "Rapid Transit Area". The density and height are increased very substantially. Same with the rest of the DTES - Chinatown, Hastings Corridor, etc.

There's also implications for Grandview/Woodlands.

This plan also creates quite a large uplift on Vancouver's Secured Rental Policy, which allows for new rental apartments, up to six stories, along major arterial routes and in adjacent parallel streets.

A lot of the same streets that are covered in that plan will be eligible for mid rise towers up 12 stories, under "Neighborhood Centre's" in the Vancouver ODP. Obviously, that would make rental projects along arterials such as Main, Fraser, Victoria Drive, a lot more viable for development.

A lot to absorb.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

This plan renders the DTES Plan pretty much null and void. For example, the Oppenheimer District is now considered a "Rapid Transit Area". The density and height are increased very substantially. Same with the rest of the DTES - Chinatown, Hastings Corridor, etc.

There's a report on updating the DTES Plan going to Council in November, with up to 32 storeys in some locations, so the ODP reflects those proposed changes (which have already had their consulatation period). As we've seen with a number of recent proposals, there are already taller and denser buildings proposed under a variety of existing policies, so the DTES Plan already allows the possibility for the sorts of heights and densities the ODP suggests. I don't think existing policy on required rental or SRO replacement are affected by the ODP.

[officedweller]

Arguably, the concentration of social housing in the DTES means that high densities of market housing are needed in the DTES to balance out the demographics to support local businesses there. The question is, are there enough people willing to buy or rent there to fill the towers?

[logan5]

The game changer here is the reduction of the social housing requirement from 60 percent (at graduating subsidy), to a much more reasonable and developer friendly, 20 percent.

I believe there will be a demand for the dtes if you start from the edges and work your way in. The Woodwords block is completely functional, so the next block over is the next logical step.

The Bronx did it. So can the DTES.