[towerguy3]

interesting:

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/whitecaps/reports.htm

[Riise]

I hope everything goes well! This stadium will easily be the best SSS in North America.

[skrish]

I would be so jealous if this stadium gets built. Like Rise said, this will be one of the best soccer specific stadiums in North America.

[tintinium]

Very interesting. All the documents are showing the over-the-tracks proposal.

I guess the over-the-seabus proposal was only a suggestion, anyhow.

[jlousa]

No those documents are dated April 2006, the new proposal is north of Waterfront Rd. The new plan has dealt with alot of the issues by the public and the city.
Anyone heading down to the open house today at waterfront station

[vanman]

I wonder if the whitecaps stadium is built over the seabus terminal that the project would include a new seabus terminal. The current one is dull and outdated. In exchange maybe the city would then give the whitecaps owner a density bonus that he could then sell to another developer to help cover the costs.

[Smooth]

No those documents are dated April 2006, the new proposal is north of Waterfront Rd. The new plan has dealt with alot of the issues by the public and the city.
Anyone heading down to the open house today at waterfront station

I was planning to walk over there after I get off work at 5:00. I forgot my camera at home so if there's anything worth taking pictures of then I'll have to use my camera-phone.

[mr.x2]

I would be so jealous if this stadium gets built. Like Rise said, this will be one of the best soccer specific stadiums in North America.

You have Encana and all of your oil to roll around in.

[marmorek]

Did anyone go to the open house? If so, please post info and pics if possible.

[jlousa]

If you didn't make it out then don't waste your time. I am in favour of the project but very dissappointed by the open house. They tied it in with the transportation hub plan which although they are related they are two seperate projects. The downtown transportation plan booklet they have has an intro from Vancouver's mayor Larry Campbell *looks at calendar*:shrug:
There are no renderings of the new stadium, just a plotted line on where is could be located. I have been to a lot of these events but this one was not well planned. The only insite they provided is that the sea bus terminal could either be part of the stadium at the north end, or moved west right next to Canada place, hence taking up space which is now used to dock a second cruiseship on the elongated east side of Canada Place. They should get Heriquez and Partners to design this thing as they understand the area and could do a better job then whoever threw this stuff together.

[jlousa]

Here's a scan of the only documentation I could get of the stadium

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/CWHopenhouse.jpg

The transportation hub plan booklet they are giving out is dated Spring 2005.

[mr.x2]

^ obviously the SeaBus terminal should still be located at its same location, maybe a little farther into water because of the new stadium. it doesn't make any sense to sacrifice a cruise ship berth.

if it's too far for passengers to walk they could have movable walkways like at airports.

[marmorek]

^ obviously the SeaBus terminal should still be located at its same location, maybe a little farther into water because of the new stadium. it doesn't make any sense to sacrifice a cruise ship berth.

if it's too far for passengers to walk they could have movable walkways like at airports.

Moving walkways would be a good idea. The cruise ship berth should be preserved. Too bad that there isn't any new information though.

[Smooth]

I went and didn't find the actual displays that useful. I did take advantage of Bob Lenarduzzi and the architect being there and was able to get the interesting info from them.

I rattle off what I can remember...

Apparently they were interested in getting the lions on board but the lions didn't publicly want to show any interest because they were happy with their lease at BC Place and didn't want to give BC Place the opportunity to give them the boot. Looks like the Lions will be the only thing saving BC Place from being torn down after the Olympics.

I asked if 15,000 was the magic number for a MLS franchise and Bob smiled and said it was around that number.

The Whitecaps would still like to have the Stadium build for the Olympics and has talked with VANOC about using the Stadium as a festival site.

Apparently the retractable roof was only just an option they wanted to look into but even if it was in place then then it probably wouldn't cover the full pitch.

There would be a seawall that would go around the entire stadium and then connect with the Carrall greenway waterfront access bridge.

I can't remeber exactly what I looked at on the map but I think it looked like the plan was to extend Canada Place Road infront of the stadium then connect it to near Richards and Cordova.

South of the stadium there was mention of either a hotel or new office tower.

The stadium's height is down from 150' to 130' because it's not over the railway tracks anymore. I think the architect said that was about the same height as the sails of Canada place.

The architect was pretty vague on design details but said that the concept drawing that we've seen so far are probably nothing like what the final design will be. He mentioned that some options being floated were elements of the building that could look like cranes from the port that could support the roof. He said some of the building materials could be timber, glass, and steel.

I can't remember much else right now but I'm sure there was more. I'll post it if I remember.

[marmorek]

^ Sounds good. It would be great if it could be ready for the Olympics but that would be difficult if they're building over the water.

[jlousa]

Don't see why they would say they'd like it built in time for the olympics. Construction is set to begin Jan/09. I can't see this complete till late 2011 possibly 2012. Even if they started this summer I don't see how they would finish. They will need to build a temp seabus terminal before they even begin construction of the stadium.

[Distill3d]

South of the stadium there was mention of either a hotel or new office tower.

so i'll start the rumour (without any factual evidence), but it would be a good site for a Ritz-Carlton...

[leftside]

> There would be a seawall that would go around the entire stadium
> and then connect with the Carrall greenway waterfront access bridge.
Sweet. It's already a nice bike ride along Carrall heading south to Pacific, along the waterfront through Yaletown/English Bay/Stanley Park/Coal Harbour and back to Gastown through Crab Park - but this extra extension will finish it off nicely. Well, the current Carrall Street section isn't so nice... but I'm hoping it will be when the Greenway is complete...

No way will this be ready by 2010! I think it's good that it won't be ready in time by 2010 though. People will see the construction site and will be asking "what are they building there"?

[LeftCoaster]

so i'll start the rumour (without any factual evidence), but it would be a good site for a Ritz-Carlton...

Umm no, we already know the Ritz Carlton is planning to occupy the hotel portion of 1153 West Georgia (The twisty tower). Maybe a mandarin oriental or something rediculious like that.

[Distill3d]

Umm no, we already know the Ritz Carlton is planning to occupy the hotel portion of 1153 West Georgia (The twisty tower). Maybe a mandarin oriental or something rediculious like that.

whats wrong with two Ritz's like Atlanta? :shrug:

[LeftCoaster]

haha I stand corrected

[officedweller]

Even if the Seabus Terminal is relocated between Canada Place and the Stadium, the berth would still be long enough for a cruise ship berth.
When Canada Place was extended a few years back, the east berth was made very very long - probably in anticipation of the filling in of the land side of the berth - i.e. for a Portside (Concert convention centre) type proposal.
There could be clearance issues for the seabus to pass by the cruise ship, but that's probably not a big issue if they dock the cruise ships at the north end of the berth.
I don't think they actively use the east berth for two smaller ships, though they may do so on occasion.

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2006/vch2006_285.jpg

[Distill3d]

this is the way i see it (in crude Paint format):

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j155/starfcuk/waterfrontplans.jpg

i'd have no issue with relocating the seabus to anywhere in this area.

[jlousa]

Acutally they dock 2 ships on the eastern side quite regularly. They can dock 2 large ships on the eastern side, 2 small ones on the west side and a medium one on the north side. Mind you they have never had 5 ships docked at the same time at Canada place usally they'll have one at Ballentyne, but they do have 4 ships docked there a few times each session.
I don't think they would need a walking sidewalk if they move it to the north end of the stadium, it is already a bit of a walk now, an extra 125-150 metres won't be too bad, especially if there is retail along the way it will liven up the walk and make it seem shorter.

[Distill3d]

I don't think they would need a walking sidewalk if they move it to the north end of the stadium, it is already a bit of a walk now, an extra 125-150 metres won't be too bad, especially if there is retail along the way it will liven up the walk and make it seem shorter.

Agreed. thats the one thing the SeaBus terminal at Waterfront has been missing. that skywalk is amongst the more boring ventures in all of Vancouver.

[officedweller]

I don't think retail would survive along a seabus/stadium walkway.
TO's Skywalk to the Dome is pretty much closed up. People walking to the seabus are more occupied with catching the next sailing (and not waiting 15 minutes for the next one) than shopping (i.e. retail may work on the dock, not along the corridor).
If the corridor also provides a connection from the CP Station (WCE) to Waterfront Centre and Canada Place, there may be added pedestrian traffic (Skytrain already has a direct connection to Waterfront Centre), but I don't know if there would be enough to sustain retail.
Even streetfront retail near BC Place (Wilson's, Courtnalls's/Copper Pot/Doghouse/Pound) has trouble staying in business.

[Distill3d]

I don't think retail would survive along a seabus/stadium walkway.
TO's Skywalk to the Dome is pretty much closed up. People walking to the seabus are more occupied with catching the next sailing (and not waiting 15 minutes for the next one) than shopping (i.e. retail may work on the dock, not along the corridor).
If the corridor also provides a connection from the CP Station (WCE) to Waterfront Centre and Canada Place, there may be added pedestrian traffic (Skytrain already has a direct connection to Waterfront Centre), but I don't know if there would be enough to sustain retail.
Even streetfront retail near BC Place (Wilson's, Courtnalls's/Copper Pot/Doghouse/Pound) has trouble staying in business.

thats when you put in soccer or sports specific retail along the way. i mean seriously, even some historical pictures of the growth of downtown Warburg Alberta would be more interesting to see then staring at nothingness for that distance.

[officedweller]

I think the sports oriented retailers were there in TO only because they couldn't get general merchandise retailers to lease the space. The sports retailers were the last resort.

The view of the railyards is pretty interesting along the current walkway - they could do the same for the new walkway - views of the yards and of the water (i.e. build it along the side of the stadium, not directly underneath it).

[Distill3d]

I think the sports oriented retailers were there in TO only because they couldn't get general merchandise retailers to lease the space. The sports retailers were the last resort.

you'd think it would be a first resort considering your building a connection to a stadium. sports related retail and maybe a sports restaurant/bar near the stadium would be the way to go.

[officedweller]

Yeah, but then you're catering to a limited market. It's probably bad enough that you are dependent on the flows generated by stadium traffic, but then during off hours limiting your appeal to sports fans may not be the way to go. I think ideally, you'd go for a business that appeals to both crowds.
The issue here is really the isolation of the location. An extreme example of that would be the failed food fair that used to be at the end of (pre-expansion) Canada Place - or even International Village.
If and when an office tower is built above the tracks, then that would probably provide enough lunch hour pedestrian traffic to sustain retail businesses.

[Distill3d]

Yeah, but then you're catering to a limited market. It's probably bad enough that you are dependent on the flows generated by stadium traffic, but then during off hours limiting your appeal to sports fans may not be the way to go. I think ideally, you'd go for a business that appeals to both crowds.
The issue here is really the isolation of the location. An extreme example of that would be the failed food fair that used to be at the end of (pre-expansion) Canada Place - or even International Village.
If and when an office tower is built above the tracks, then that would probably provide enough lunch hour pedestrian traffic to sustain retail businesses.

some of the lunch crowd is already served by the Waterfront Station building on Cordova (many times when i was working in downtown Van i would stop in the subway there for lunch, and the starbucks for my morning coffee), but i can totally understand that retail shouldn't only be limited to the likes of sports fans.

problem is though, you're having a stadium built right there. the direct needs of the general population tend to be neglected when that happens. everything is gearred more towards the stadium patrons then the businessman. which is understandable given the circumstances.

the area in question here is not hurting for the lunch crowd and retail.

[SFUVancouver]

I went to the Whitecaps stadium open house and I too agree it was a botched job. If it weren't tacked onto the CoV's HUB area transportation study the Whitecaps component of the open house would have been laughable. I spoke to a few people, including one of the development managers for the Whitecaps about the revised plan and was met with very few solid answers. -What will happen to the Seabus terminal? -Will there be new parking incorporated into the stadium? -What will the stadium look like? -Has anyone considered the impact on the new site if open-air events take place while a cruise ship idles away for hours on end? (the answer is no, nobody she knew of had even considered it)

I was interviewed by CTV and CKNW and made it clear that I like the idea of the stadium and I like its proximity to transit but I just don't know enough to make up my mind of how it will fit into the area or what will happen to the rest of the developable land along the waterfront.

[officedweller]

Probably depends on the impact of the extra distance involved (i.e. at the stadium would be a fair distance, whereas immediately behind the CP Station would be convenient), whether its underground or at grade, in a "fare-paid" area and whether there are alternate access points (i.e. from an extended Canada Place Way).
I wonder whether they still plan on having Abbott Street cross the railway tracks?

[jlousa]

The cruise ship idling factor will soon be a non-issue, VPA (Vancouver Port Authority) is inacting new regulations that prohited the cruise ships/cargo/container ships from running their engines while moored. They will connect to the grid and use electric power. The grids have already been upgraded, Delta ports just finished up also. Not sure when the regulations take place though.
I think retail could work along that walkway, I'm picturing a walkway covered in glass with retail to the eastside and a glass wall on the west side, the fare paid zone would only apply at the very end so not to limit the traffic. It would probably have limited traffic unless they find a way to connect to Canada Place and Granville 200. Maybe they could sell mooses wearing RCMP uniforms and t-shirts that say I love Vancouver. Enableing gastown to open additional interesting retail. Heck it would be a better location for tourism Vancouver then where they are now.
Haven't heard of any plans for an Abbott crossing, just the Carrall greenway crossing.

[Distill3d]

I think retail could work along that walkway, I'm picturing a walkway covered in glass with retail to the eastside and a glass wall on the west side, the fare paid zone would only apply at the very end so not to limit the traffic. It would probably have limited traffic unless they find a way to connect to Canada Place and Granville 200. Maybe they could sell mooses wearing RCMP uniforms and t-shirts that say I love Vancouver. Enableing gastown to open additional interesting retail. Heck it would be a better location for tourism Vancouver then where they are now.

finally someone else who sees the point here... :cheers:

[towerguy3]

Interesting new renderings below. Is the proposal to increase to 30,000 still on the table cause looking at the design I can't see where the other 15,000 seats would go other than building another tier of seats on top, but this location doesn't seem to allow much room. It's a bit like GM Place sandwiched between the two viaducts:

http://www.whitecapsfc.com/stadium/waterfront/renderings/

[Canadian Mind]

not alot of room for further development... I'm wondering about the possibility of building a tower out on the water, and have a tunnel leading to it for parking, and a walkway to the stadium or Crab park for pedestrians.

[mr.x2]

Interesting new renderings below. Is the proposal to increase to 30,000 still on the table cause looking at the design I can't see where the other 15,000 seats would go other than building another tier of seats on top, but this location doesn't seem to allow much room. It's a bit like GM Place sandwiched between the two viaducts:

http://www.whitecapsfc.com/stadium/waterfront/renderings/

actually, that rendering shows two tiers on the west and east stands...meaning this rendering could be a revised proposal to build a 30,000 seat stadium right from the start.

and the plan to increase capacity from 15,000 to 30,000 has always been to add a second tier on the east and west stands.

[leftside]

I was walking in Gastown today along Water Street and mentioned to my friend how much Gastown had improved the last 4 years - especially Water Street. Lots of small designer stores, high quality restaurants and low-rise heritage buildings restored. What's the last thing a historic area such as Gastown needs? A huge friggin stadium plonked on the waterfront with no consideration of the surroundings.

I've supported every development in Gastown, but I'll be opposing this one. I'm a big soccer fan, but don't want the stadium in Gastown. There must be better locations? Why not east of Main, south of Terminal? Great Skytrain access and great vehicle access. If you take the Skytrain from Main to Commercial you`ll see there are plenty of good locations for a stadium.

This would also be a waste of prime waterfront. I`d love to see another Granville Island type market down there instead. That would complement Gastown much better.

[Lee_Haber8]

I was walking in Gastown today along Water Street and mentioned to my friend how much Gastown had improved the last 4 years - especially Water Street. Lots of small designer stores, high quality restaurants and low-rise heritage buildings restored. What's the last thing a historic area such as Gastown needs? A huge friggin stadium plonked on the waterfront with no consideration of the surroundings.

I've supported every development in Gastown, but I'll be opposing this one. I'm a big soccer fan, but don't want the stadium in Gastown. There must be better locations? Why not east of Main, south of Terminal? Great Skytrain access and great vehicle access. If you take the Skytrain from Main to Commercial you`ll see there are plenty of good locations for a stadium.

This would also be a waste of prime waterfront. I`d love to see another Granville Island type market down there instead. That would complement Gastown much better.

With all due respect, the Whitecaps stadium is being built in an area that is nothing more than a parking lot right. It is not in gastown, there is a big railyard that makes a very clear distinction between the two.

It's too early to say what the stadium surroundings will look like, these are very early renderings. These are just to give an idea how the stadium will fit into the site. I think that any final design will have retail and life and street level to make the area more lively. As for potential other uses, nobody else besides the Whitecaps has come up with a concrete proposal for the area so thinking about projects which might be better there is pointless. For your specific example, it doesn't make sense to have a public market in a location which is isolated right now - it might make more sense right in the middle of Gastown.

There's a reason why the Whitecaps are so determined to build in this area, because it is absolutely the best location for a stadium in terms of geography and accessibility to public transport. Unlike previous proposals this one isn't right up against Gastown and poses few real technical challenges like building on top of a railyard or seabus terminal did. This is a no-brainer for city-council , now let's build it!

[djh]

^ here-here.

Also, the area by False Creek Flats has already been rejected by the city (even though it initially made sense), and then they subdivided it into parcels too small for a stadium by putting roads in. So it would never happen there now anyway.

[tintinium]

Yeah, I don't see how anyone can say this is in Gastown.
http://www.whitecapsfc.com/files/Images/Stadium/renderings/footprint.jpg

If that's the case, W. Hastings is in Gastown.
And Granville Street is the same distance away (actually way closer, if you account for the massive rail yard in the way)

Main is also a good location.

If anything, this location could be an anchor for further development or a catalyst for eventually burying the rail yard and building on top of it (just like Penn Station in New York)

[raggedy13]

I'd like to see this project get moving as well. I don't think it will interfere at all with the character and function of Gastown. It is quite physically removed and if you're on the street in Gastown you won't even be able to see it for the most part.

Sorry for the ridiculous size of this rendering but at least it's easier to see any details.
http://www.whitecapsfc.com/files/Images/Stadium/renderings/renderingsouthlarge.jpg

[mr.x2]

^ OMG! that close up rendering is amazing....and for sure, with that second tier, they must be planning to fast track the stadium design to 30,000 seats right away rather than starting from 15,000.

and that new triangular shaped building atop the stadium, must be one of Kerfoot's works too - an entry to the stadium (possible a combination of office, hotel, retail, restaurants/bars?).



if only this was our Olympic Stadium in 2010...

[Hot Rod]

^^ I agree, the Whitecaps should be at False Creek instead of the waterfront.

We should keep that space for expansion of the CBD, new gleaming Hong Kong style 800'+ towers and a new shopping/retail/hotel arcades. Actually, down there you could build 800' and not tower too significantly above the rest of downtown due to it being just above sea level.

Please, dont waste the last best spot for expansion of office grade superskyscrapers, with what I think is a subpar and underwhelming soccer stadium (although I am happy with them going with 30,000 instead of making it expandable; in fact, they should just build it at 40 or 50K, why shoot so small?? Just build it at false creek, surely that area needs some attractions and downtown needs space for monster office towers.!!)

[djh]

^^ I agree, the Whitecaps should be at False Creek instead of the waterfront.

We should keep that space for expansion of the CBD, new gleaming Hong Kong style 800'+ towers and a new shopping/retail/hotel arcades. Actually, down there you could build 800' and not tower too significantly above the rest of downtown due to it being just above sea level.



If the Gastown residents have complained about the stadium because it blocks their waterfront views, how likely is it that an 800' tower is going to be built in the same location? Exactly.

[Canadian Mind]

hey, there is no Viewcones. and by the time some developer is gutsy enough to put an 800+foot tower there, I'm sure we'll have a more tower friendly city with people like SFUVancouver on board. :D

Stadium, should build it 30K with possible expansion to 50K. I would love to see the whole world cup of soccer to come to Vancouver someday, and we better have the facilities to handle it.

[leftside]

If the Gastown residents have complained about the stadium because it blocks their waterfront views, how likely is it that an 800' tower is going to be built in the same location? Exactly.
I don't think it's the views that are the problem. I think it's more to do with the amount of vechicle traffic and the overall fit of a large stadium in a traditionally lowrise heritage neighbourhood. The character and function of Gastown would completely change when 20,000 people arrive for an event. I'd have no problems with office developments along that waterfront - as long as tenants could be found.

The stadium is only one block from Abbott/Water and Cambie/Water so this would most definitely be part of Gastown. The Carrall Street Greenway is meant to cross the railway tracks to become a walking/rollerblading/cycling link to Crab Park with the rest of Gastown.

> I would love to see the whole world cup of soccer to
> come to Vancouver someday, and we better have the facilities to handle it.
You need quite a few stadiums to hold a World Cup. There were worries that BRAZIL wouldn't have the stadiums/facilities to hold a World Cup when they were recently announced to hold an upcoming one.

[jlousa]

Let's not get carried away, we will never see 800ft towers in that location in any of our lifetimes, you can quote me on that. Also while I don't like this current location, I prefer the one intergrated with the seabus terminal, I beleive it is still much better then False creek flats, that space should be reserved for job creation (Tech park on the South side) St Pauls on the North Side.

Ideally I'd love the VPA to step up and help pay for this stadium by adding two cruise ship terminals to itm there by being able to remove Ballentyne as a cruise ship terminal and converting it to another cargo terminal. Even get translink to throw in some money as they would get a new seabus terminal at the same time. Crab park/Portside should be extended all the way to the stadium, the existing cruisepark could be under the stadium.
Unfornately I don't beleive we'll see it happen.

[Canadian Mind]

lol, no strings you can pull jlousa? :P Shame. I like your idea's though.

[Rusty Gull]

For those of you who advocate for a stadium in False Creek Flats, I ask... Why? The soccer stadium is a tourist, entertainment and recreation amenity as much as anything, and while I have nothing against FCF per se, I would argue that the area is quite dreary for this kind of project.

I know that piece of waterfront quite well. It's quite under-utilized, if not rundown. Crab Park is currently the domain of a few dog walkers, and some of the drug scene run-off from the DTES. There's the cruiser park facility, and the Helijet pad. In other words, this area needs a shot of life, and the soccer stadium could be just the thing to do it.

The fact that stadium will border an office district, a tourist district and an industrial district (the port) makes the location all that much more appealing. There are few residents who truly will be affected by this development.

[vitc]

Rusty Gull is absolutely correct in his statement. Plus the fact it will be a catalysis for further development around that area...

[mr.x2]

There are few residents who truly will be affected by this development.

Not to mention they already live next to the Port of Vancouver and a railyard...how much of a difference can it make?


I would think Kerfoot is also offering to renovate the existing Seabus terminal.

[leftside]

Not to mention they already live next to the Port of Vancouver and a railyard...how much of a difference can it make?


I would think Kerfoot is also offering to renovate the existing Seabus terminal.

You don't get 20,000 people arriving at once to visit the railyard or Port of Vancouver.

BTW - the Gastown residents had no problems with the location that jlousa mentions.

[Rusty Gull]

One in the win column as stadium inches closer
Becks fever proves high level of support

David Pratt
The Province


Tuesday, November 06, 2007


In a perfect world, Neil McRae would smear on red lipstick before sucking up to Brian Burke.

In a perfect world, athletes would be forced to read a book before writing one.

In a perfect world, Vancouver would already have a waterfront stadium.

Tomorrow night, close to 50,000 soccer fans are expected to fill B.C. Place to watch David Beckham and the L.A. Galaxy play the Whitecaps.

Yes, this is about Beckham but it's also a statement of how much this city needs and will support a world-class downtown outdoor facility.

Greg Kerfoot, the owner of the Whitecaps, began this journey more than four years ago.

He offered to spend $70 million of his own money to build a 15,000-seat stadium near Gastown.

Every special-interest group, drug dealer and pinhead within a 50-mile radius was opposed, and unfortunately the lumps of dandruff that run City Hall listened and listened and listened.

The plan was to have the stadium ready for the FIFA U-20 tournament this year, a golden opportunity to showcase this city to a worldwide audience.

The opportunity was wasted and instead when the world tuned in it saw Swangard Stadium.

The Canadian Soccer Association was also hoping to use the stadium as a strong selling point for this country to host the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup.

Another swing and another miss.

Last week Canada's bid lost out to Germany. No stadium, no tournament.

"It was a factor," admits Whitecaps president Bob Lenarduzzi. "No question."

Fortunately, 2007 appears to be a turning point in this battle.

In January, Kerfoot agreed to shift the location of the stadium 150 metres west to minimize the impact on the Gastown district and in July city council approved the plan, provided five key concerns -- from an adequate street network to the risks of dangerous goods in the rail lands -- were addressed.

Next stop is the Vancouver Port Authority.

Talks are already under way and an agreement is expected to be signed before the end of the year.

Then back to City Hall, which will conduct public consultations and deal with rezoning.

The red tape could take another 18 months but the Vancouver Whitecaps are optimistic both can be done much sooner. It means the waterfront stadium could be finished as early as 2010. There is no good reason for it not to be. A recent Mustel survey shows 71 per cent of Vancouverites support it.

It would also open the door for Major League Soccer to move to this city. If Toronto FC can average more than 20,000 fans per game at the new BMO Field, what can the Whitecaps do with the right facility in the right league?

"This is a soccer town," insists Lenarduzzi. In a perfect world that wouldn't need to be said.

David Pratt can be heard Monday-Friday, 3-7 p.m. on The TEAM 1040 AM.

© The Vancouver Province 2007

[leftside]

Looks like David Pratt isn't very good at keeping up to date with the facts... The article mentions:
> In January, Kerfoot agreed to shift the location of the stadium 150
> metres west to minimize the impact on the Gastown district and in
> July city council approved the plan, provided five key concerns -- from an
> adequate street network to the risks of dangerous goods in the rail lands --> were addressed.
Not too many people opposed that location. It's the location on the Whitecaps site that I and others have a problem with.

So, if the stadium was moved 150 metres west (the second location) to minimize the impact on Gastown district, then surely moving it 150 metres EAST (the third location - that is currently on the Whitecaps site) will surely have a very LARGE impact on the Gastown district?

[Canadian Mind]

I think it is a case of bad reporting.

[tintinium]

In addition, Seattle is probably going to the MLS. So, in order to get our rivals back, we have to up the ante and go MLS too!

[tintinium]

You don't get 20,000 people arriving at once to visit the railyard or Port of Vancouver.

BTW - the Gastown residents had no problems with the location that jlousa mentions.

But if you think about from which direction they'll come from, they'll either be coming from the west of Gastown (Skytrain) or driving from the east of Gastown. Comparatively few will actually travel through Gastown to get to the stadium... apart from those who are already downtown and are on foot.

[raggedy13]

I went to the Whitecaps vs. Galaxy game tonight. Was pretty good. Unfortunately nobody scored but the Whitecaps dominated the game by far. The highlight of the game was probably when this streaker ran into the field and was prancing around for like a full minute before any security even started to chase him. The crowd loved it.

A feminine roar would surge from the crowd whenever Beckham had the ball or was shown on the big screen. Was pretty funny. And at the end of the game the announcer came on and said how Beckham donated his game shirt for auction where the proceeds would go to the BC Children's Hospital (or something like that) and then at the end of the game he takes off his shirt and throws it to somebody in the crowd (apparently was the terminally ill girl from the news?). I hope he wore two shirts during the game otherwise the hospital won't have much to make money with.

The announcer and screen said the game attendance was 48,1XX (I forget the last 2 digits).

Anyways, I'm all the more for a new Whitecaps stadium.

[mr.x2]

Stadium slow, but 'Caps look at MLS
By BOB MACKIN, 24 HOURS

The Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium proposal won't return to Vancouver city council until the new year.

Whitecaps president Bob Lenarduzzi said the city council update is "on the backburner" until a land deal is reached with the Vancouver Port Authority.

"We're hoping by the end of the year that deal can be done," Lenarduzzi said.

Two years ago, the Whitecaps announced their intention to build a 15,000-seat stadium atop railway tracks north of Waterfront Station.

New plans were revealed last January showing the stadium site extending over the SeaBus terminal and into Coal Harbour.

City council gave unanimous, conditional approval in July 2006 to the project, which would be privately financed by media-shy Whitecaps' owner Greg Kerfoot.

The B.C. Major Projects Inventory lists the estimated cost at $75 million.

Meanwhile, Lenarduzzi said the Whitecaps could host another international match at B.C. Place Stadium with a high-profile box office draw.

Wednesday's scoreless exhibition with David Beckham and the Los Angeles Galaxy drew 48,172.

"What this game has done for us is it's resulted in us perhaps seeking out those kinds of opportunities that we might not have done," he said. "We've heightened our credibility, if it needed heightening, in North America."

The possibility of the Whitecaps joining the Galaxy in Major League Soccer, which may expand to Seattle for 2009, hinges upon the new stadium being built, Lenarduzzi said.

For now, the club is committed to the United Soccer Leagues' First Division.






Waterfront stadium proposal still sits
Vancouver Whitecaps could have a shot at a better league

Kent Gilchrist, The Province
Published: Friday, November 09, 2007

The burning question is what weighty decisions could the port authority have on its plate that might be more important than addressing the question on the soccer stadium that Vancouver Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot is willing to build without public funding?

Then there's this one. Is there anyone awake at city hall to give a boot in the ass to whomever at the port authority is holding up a decision for someone willing to spend $70 million of his own money to transform a piece of industrial property into a waterfront jewel?

So far it has taken four years and endless hoop-jumping by the Whitecaps and their interminably patient owner. Me thinks if Larry Campbell, who was running the city when the Whitecaps began the process in 2003, was still the mayor of Vancouver some kind of decision would have been reached a long time ago. But four inordinately long years, several world class soccer events and who knows what other kinds of glorious opportunities to make use of a waterfront stadium to show off the city in a very good light have passed by since then.

While the Whitecaps aren't as concerned about the extraneous stuff -- surely it could be put to some kind of use if it's built in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, for instance -- there is some anxiety with the knowledge that Seattle and one other city will become the 15th and 16th MLS franchises in the next year or so. And they will expand to a total of 18 teams by 2010 or 2011.

If, for some inexplicable reason, the city hasn't completed its public consultation and rezoning before the MLS governors are deciding which cities to award the last two franchises, there's concern the expansion door will be closed for several years. (Some of you might have noticed that no matter how the NHL tries to change the rules to juice up the offence in the game, the quality of play is still suffering nearly a decade after its runaway expansion of the late 1990s.)

The proposed waterfront stadium is next to the Seabus terminal, but it's not as if you miss one you only have to wait a few minutes for the next. For the Whitecaps, it could be a real long time if they aren't in on this wave of expansion.

The port authority and the city of Vancouver should certainly be aware after Wednesday night's turnout of 48,000 to see David Beckham and the Los Angeles Galaxy at B.C. Place Stadium and the complete sellouts last summer at expanded Swangard Stadium for the FIFA Under-20 World Cup that there's a strong appetite for the game here. If that point ever needed reinforcing. Or perhaps the fact that the best players this country produces might be able to stay and play on this continent might be a bone on which city fathers can chew.

Following the current council's unanimous approval for the Whitecaps proposal last summer and the four points of contention that the team dealt with, the only one remaining is for the port authority to give its approval. Then it goes back to the city for final public consultation. The Whitecaps have been told that after port authority approval, it could still take up to two years. They have shovels poised just in case it's less.

Too bad Kerfoot couldn't jump up and down and threaten to walk away. Sadly, nobody would believe him since he's been so quietly patient and accommodating all this time.

hkgilchrist@yahoo.com


© The Vancouver Province 2007

[djh]

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Can anybody explain why the city and/or the port authority would deliberately drag their feet in helping this project happen? What would they have to gain by *not* turning the land into a revenue-generator?

[jlousa]

The VPA's job is to look after the long term well-being of the port and industry associated with the port, The stadium does not really help the VPA meet those goals at all, the money obtained from the stadium might help them with other goals. I'm sure that's what they are weighing.

The city's job is to ensure peoples needs/wants are met, there is some vocal opposition to this stadium, hence the city has to weigh it's options to see if this stadium is right for the people.

The issue is the speed at which this is progressing.

[mr.x2]

Vancouver excluded from Major League Soccer expansion
Dan Stinson, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Vancouver Whitecaps won't be included in Major League Soccer's expansion plans - at least in the foreseeable future - unless the team has a proper stadium in which to play, says MLS commissioner Don Garber.

Speaking from Seattle, where he announced earlier today that a still-to-be-named Seattle expansion franchise will join MLS in 2009, Garber said that until the Whitecaps have a stadium plan in place "we are unable to make any commitments to Vancouver."

As things stand now, the Whitecaps may already be out of the running to join North America's premier soccer circuit.

Garber, who has visited Vancouver and met with Whitecaps officials including team owner Greg Kerfoot, described the city as "a wonderful soccer market that has had a lot of success in soccer."

But he stressed that Vancouver must have a proper stadium to be considered for MLS expansion.

"The key for Vancouver is being sure they have a stadium plan," Garber said. "It's the third leg of the stool to give the city an opportunity to be part of the mix in future MLS expansion."

MLS will add a 14th franchise, the reborn San Jose Earthquakes, in 2008. Garber said the league hopes to add a 16th franchise by the end of this year before Seattle comes aboard in 2009.

MLS has long-range plans for 17th and 18th franchises, but Garber said no timeline has been place on that expansion.

"Many cities across the United States, plus Montreal, have indicated interest in becoming the 17th and 18th franchises," Garber said.

"We would give priority to the cities that have proper stadiums and the right business plans. Vancouver can only get into that mix with a proper stadium."

The Whitecaps announced in October 2005 their plans to build Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium, a planned 15,000-seat facility on Vancouver's waterfront in the Gastown area.

The cost of the stadium will be covered by Kerfoot.

But Whitecaps president Bob Lenarduzzi said the stadium project has been delayed by slow-moving negotiations with the Vancouver Port Authority on "a number of issues."

"We're not moving along as quickly as we need to be on this project," said Lenarduzzi. "A proper stadium here is the issue with MLS. I don't know how it can be put any stronger than Don Garber did today."

Lenarduzzi said that negotiations have been so slow with the Port Authority that the Whitecaps can't put a firm timeline on completion of the stadium.

"The best-case scenario now is sometime in 2011," he said.

Garber said that might be too late for the Whitecaps to be considered as an MLS expansion team. "Two of the many cities that Vancouver is competing with for an expansion franchise are Portland and Montreal," said Garber. "Both of those cities are in the mix because they have stadium plans in place. It's hard to imagine Vancouver being part of MLS without a proper stadium."

The stadium project will go to Vancouver city council for final approval after the Whitecaps' negotiations with the Port Authority have successfully concluded.

City councillor Suzanne Anton said she will urge council to act quickly on final approval. "Negotiations with the Port Authority are primarily centred on where the stadium will be located," said Anton. "It's not resolved yet, but the process needs to be speeded up. We have a wonderful opportunity here for a first-class facility that will serve many, many purposes, including soccer. I will urge council to move forward quickly on this project."

The Whitecaps currently play in the second-tier United Soccer Leagues First Division at 5,200-seat Swangard Stadium in Burnaby.

Swangard Stadium doesn't come close to meeting MLS seating requirements.

"Ideally, we want 18,000 to 27,000-seat stadiums in MLS," said Garber. "That's the appropriate size. But we'd rather be closer to 18,000 because of the intimacy those stadiums have."

The Seattle Sounders will play their final USLFD season in 2008 before the Seattle MLS entry moves into 72,000-seat Qwest Field in 2009.


Qwest Field will have a capacity of about 25,000 for MLS games. Lenarduzzi said moving into 60,000-seat BC Place Stadium is not an option for the Whitecaps, even on a temporary basis as negotiations continue on the waterfront stadium.

"BC Place Stadium is not an option, both financially and as a proper facility," he said. "First impressions with the public are very important. We want a stadium that our fans can identify with, and be comfortable with, from the very first game."

danstinson@shaw.ca




and what did i tell ya?....well, i told you so.

[\/^~<0(_)\/{9]

If this city weren't so retarded, the stadium would be well under construction or even built by now, and we'd have an MLS team by 2010 at the latest. (I'm sure based on Toronto FC's success, they would waive their Canadian exclusivity rights allowing us to have a team earlier if the stadium was in place).

But as it is, the window of opportunity has most likely already passed. However, should it eventually get built around say 2011 or 2012 and MLS already has 18 teams, based on the success of Toronto, I can't see MLS turning down the whitecaps if they have a committed owner, stadium, and a solid existing fan base in place when teams like New England can only draw 10,000 fans for a playoff game and teams like Colorado barely fill up half of their new 18,000 seat stadium. Nevermind horrible markets like Kansas City and Salt Lake.

The best thing for MLS would be to get a strong rivalry like the old Vancouver-Seattle-Portland one, or Toronto-Montreal. So hopefully Garber's comments will encourage city council to finally get the ball rolling or we can forget about MLS for a long while and the Whitecaps will be left as most likely one of the only west coast teams in a dying 2nd tier league.

[Stingray2004]

Councillor Peter Ladner recently sent out an e-mail to his supporters with the following snippet regarding the stadium. Looks like a number of hoops to go through on this one:

_________________________________________________________________

"Stadium tedium

The downtown waterfront Whitecaps stadium proposal is still limping along, moving through legal and financial negotiations between the Whitecaps and the Vancouver Port Authority (VPA).

The Whitecaps want to swap their rail lands for the stadium site on port waterfront property by the heliport, closer to Crab Park. To accomplish this, they have to:

1. Secure federal and VPA board approval, then

2. Complete a technical and public review process with the City of Vancouver (expect Downtown Eastside pushback), then

3. Secure approval from the City Council to rezone the property, then

4. Complete a 12-month rezoning process, then

5. Complete a 4-month development permit process and then

6. Greg Kerfoot could start construction of this great gift to the city.

All members of the NPA Caucus are strong supporters of this initiative and will be working hard to shorten the City's timelines."

[Courtesy: Publiceyeonline]

[\/^~<0(_)\/{9]

All members of the NPA Caucus are strong supporters of this initiative and will be working hard to shorten the City's timelines."



LOL. so what they're saying is instead of taking 15 years to get this thing done they might be able to do it in 13 or 14? great....

[Trantor]

There were worries that BRAZIL wouldn't have the stadiums/facilities to hold a World Cup when they were recently announced to hold an upcoming one.

Brazil doesnt have the facilities to hold one World Cup. But we will build them all of course. In fact, we were waiting such opportunity to use as an excuse to update our OLD stadiums.

In 1950 we had an World Cup and we built stadiums for it, including several of the BIGGEST and most MODERN stadiums of the time. If we did in 1950, we can do in 2014.

[mr.x2]

Assessment under way of land swap between Whitecaps, port authority

Lora Grindlay, The Province
Published: Tuesday, December 04, 2007

An independent financial assessment is under way of a land swap between the Vancouver Whitecaps and the Vancouver Port Authority to make way for a $75-million waterfront stadium.

Port authority spokeswoman Anne McMullin said it could take months to determine whether the land exchange proposed by the soccer team is of "comparable market value" and to determine whether land obtained by the authority can be used for shipping and navigation purposes. Both factors are required by federal legislation, she said.

The exchange involves Whitecaps-owned land over rail yards along Waterfront Road and vacant port land close to the Helijet terminal.

McMullin said any deal would have to be approved by Transport Canada.

The proposed stadium was on the table yesterday in a meeting between Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan and Transport and Infrastructure Minister Lawrence Cannon in Ottawa.

'Caps president Bob Lenarduzzi was encouraged that the stadium was a topic of discussion in Ottawa.

"It is frustrating that it has taken this long but we have another meeting with [the authority] this week and we hope to make some headway at that time."

Discussions between the city and the Whitecaps regarding a new stadium began in January 2003.

Once a location and an agreement with the port authority is finalized, the team faces a rezoning and development process with the city that could take up to 18 months.

"Our desire, our hope is that it would take far less than that," Lenarduzzi said.

Timing is important, Lenarduzzi said, if the 'Caps have a hope of clinching a Major League Soccer expansion franchise.

"There are a number of cities that are in the mix right now, us being one of them, but without having a confirmation of our venue we wouldn't be in the mix," he said.

lgrindlay@png.canwest.com



i really have doubts that they can build what they're planning for $75 million. I'd say it would cost in excess of $100 million....given the overruns with projects across the region, including the convention centre (half of the stadium will be built on pilings).

[osirisboy]

[B][SIZE="4"]



i really have doubts that they can build what they're planning for $75 million. I'd say it would cost in excess of $100 million....given the overruns with projects across the region, including the convention centre (half of the stadium will be built on pilings).

hahaha yea i was thinking in my head while reading this that it would be aprox 275 million. i dont know where they get 75 million from. although, im not an expert in construction prices.

[\/^~<0(_)\/{9]

http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature12110701.aspx

Vision 2011
December 11, 2007

The Whitecaps organization dates back to 1974. The Club has been known as the Whitecaps and the 86er’s at various times during its lifespan, but regardless of which name it carried, it has always made a unique and important contribution to professional sport and entertainment in Vancouver and British Columbia. In the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s, the Club experienced years of on-field success, winning the 1979 NASL Soccer Bowl and four consecutive CSL championships.



Since 2002, under the ownership of Greg Kerfoot, Vancouver Whitecaps FC has taken on a new life, with clarity of vision not seen in earlier incarnations. Over the past two years, the Club has engaged in an increasingly integrated and planned approach, guided by three organizational goals which form our mission:


1. To be one of the best small (market) sports franchises in the world


2. To grow the game of soccer in British Columbia & Canada


3. To be a significant community asset



With four United Soccer League Championships in the past three years (one First Division; two W-League; and one Super-Y); an established Super-Y affiliate program; Prospects training programs for elite youth development; improving on-field product; rising attendance; increased exposure through international exhibition matches; and the development of North America’s first elite youth development Residency program, the foundations of a Club philosophy have been firmly established. With planned facilities (stadium, fields, and training centre) also underway to support these endeavors, the Club is now in a position to move forward with Vision 2011.



Vision 2011 is the Whitecaps’ four-year plan, incorporating milestone goals for all aspects of the Club, including player development, fan loyalty, ticket sales, facilities, youth development, and community relations, among other things. Vision 2011 is about connectivity, integration of various teams and programs under a true Club philosophy, and steering the Club towards a sustainable future.



The four-year timeframe, leading to year-end 2011, was chosen specifically with thought towards several critical internal and external events:



· Anticipated completion of proposed Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium


· Window of opportunity to align men’s first division team with best North American league available


· Building momentum for the 2010 and 2014 Men’s World Cup


· Legacy planning for Vancouver and British Columbia post 2010 Olympics


· Two major men’s tournaments (U-17 and U-20 World Cups)


· Potential to host 2011 Women’s World Cup (N.B.; this opportunity was recently awarded to Germany)



Goals for each piece of business have been aligned with overall organizational goals, with an aim that the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts.



Goals for success by the completion of Vision 2011 include:


· Economic sustainability of all major lines of business, with net revenues redirected to Whitecaps Foundation for investment into Club programs and other community initiatives


· 75% fan loyalty as measured by a combination of on-going surveys and ticket renewal rates


· Completed construction of new facilities throughout the Lower Mainland including Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium; a National Training Centre; and six Community Fields


· 90% year over year employee retention



On the way to reaching these goals, some key milestones that the Club is actively pursuing for 2008 include:

Grow awareness of Whitecaps brand by 10%
Develop and implement phase II of “Whitecaps FC University” training programs for staff, volunteers, and vendors
Continuing to build youth programming through affiliations and regional partnerships
Increase Season Tickets by 40%


We will continue to unroll Vision 2011 as part of major announcements throughout the year, and look forward to reporting on the achievement of milestone goals as they happen.

[wrendog]

Did someone just refer to Salt Lake City as a "horrible" MLS market??????????? LOL!!! SLC is a great MLS market.

[agrant]

:previous: How are the attendance figures for the Salt Lickers?

[Lee_Haber8]

:previous: How are the attendance figures for the Salt Lickers?

Salt Lake actually has one of the better attendances in the MLS, despite the quality of their current stadium. That's why they are building a new one which will be complete next summer.

The teams that is terrible in attendance is Kansas City (7000 a game)

[tintinium]

I think it should be called: kerfoot stadium.

[wrendog]

LA 24,437
TFC 19,864
DC 16,903
Hou 16,137
RSL 15,949
Chiv 15,340
Dal 15,082
CR 14,568
NE 13,616
Chi 13,058
CC 12,989
NY 9,756
KC 8,335


RSL draws very well despite playing in a pointy ball stadium. Their new stadium will draw even better.

[leftside]

Those are not bad attendences. They are fairly similar to the attendences in the English Championship (league below the Premiership) and I'd argue the level of football in the English Championship is better than the level in the MLS.

[tintinium]

Wow... Toronto FC draws a big crowd. I'm a big fan of their traditional name, too.

[towerguy3]

And if the Whitecaps are not able to successfully complete negotiations with the Port Corporation...

does Kerfoot just walk away?

[towerguy3]

One would think that if BC Place gets a Retractable roof installed next February, that could foster more interest in having the Whitecaps play in BC Place until their Stadium is completed.

Which would boost our chances of an Major League Soccer franchise in 2011. Seattle is in next year.

Does a Retractable roof open up possibilities of a grass turf inside BC Place? Though just a square opening in the roof may not be enough to get a sufficient amount of sunlight down onto the grass surface.

The maximum altitude of the Sun at this latitude is only 64 degrees and that is in June.

[Overground]

That would be fantastic! But I don't think they would use natural turf if they did put in a retractable roof because it's easier to have conventions and the like with fake turf. The lack of sunlight also.

All that matters is we get the Whitecaps Stadium built which will have real turf. God I hope they sort this out soon 'cause MLS isn't going to be offering us a franchise forever.

[jo67sh]

just curious how the stadium on the new proposed site is going to ruin the view from residents of the yet to be completed woodwards project?

we dont need a new stadium in the gastown area,

upgrade swangard and put a skytrain stadium at boundary and scrap the new stadium idea.

[jo67sh]

i meant put in a skytrain station at boundary and upgrade swangard stadium.

[jlousa]

The stadium won't affect the views at Woodwards too bad, as it stands now you'd have to be above the 11th floor for any kind of view, With the Stadium in place it would block part of the view up until around the 16th floor so not too many units acutally affected.

[Overground]

we dont need a new stadium in the gastown area,

upgrade swangard and put a skytrain stadium at boundary and scrap the new stadium idea.

i meant put in a skytrain station at boundary and upgrade swangard stadium.

The Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium would be at the epicentre of every form of public transport the city has to offer. I couldn't think of a better location and in fact Vancouver could probably have one of the most accessible stadiums for transport in the world. Commuter rail(WCE), 3 Skytrain lines, Seabus, streetcar, bus. Hell, even float planes. Downtown is the central part of the region for entertainment including the Canucks and Lions. Why shouldn't the Whitecaps also be there? They used to be.

You realise also that the owner of the Whitecaps is paying for the whole thing. He wants it downtown.

[towerguy3]

I'd like to better understand why this process has drawn out for so long and I hear a lot of conflicting info. First there was apparently a purchase of land by Greg Kerfoot. Along the line, the proposed site moved over the Seabus Terminal but there were some issues there.

Now apparently the process is bogged down in negotiations with the Port. And it's complicated by the Federal Marine Act which prohibits the building of a Stadium that close to the water.

We have the Whitecaps blaming the City, but the City says the Whitecaps don't even have a site agreement, which is true. However, the City seemed to stand in the way of the first two proposals.

Did Greg Kerfoot actually purchase the land or has he withdrawn that purchase?

[Rusty Gull]

Surely someone needs to be accountable for the endless red tape and blockades. The City has not, in my opinion, been pro-active in the least bit about moving this process along. Considering there is an election coming up, I think this would make a good issue for any of the leading candidates.

Sam Sullivan, sadly, has not taken a strong leadership role insofar as the stadium is concerned. It has not been a priority of his. Which is a shame... because the cost of building the stadium four years ago is probably half of what it would cost to build today.

[jlousa]

*sigh* lets rehash this again because someone doesn't want to read the previous 5 pages. Kerfoot bought the land over the tracks, he still owns the airspace for now. The city rejected that proposal due to opposition from the residents in the area. The 2nd proposal was over the seabus terminal, the city was in favour of that, Translink was not, nor does that property belong to Kerfoot. The 3rd proposal in kinda where helijet is, again the city is okay with it, again Kerfoot does not own that property the VPA does. There is nothing in the Marine act preventing the stadium there due to being too close to the water, what is preventing it is the VPA is not allowed to sell land, it can only exchange it for an equal property, this is where the hang up is. We can't really blame the city on this as they have no control on these issues.

[towerguy3]

so Kerfoot got his money back on the land that was turned down?

[jlousa]

Why would he get his money back? He still owns the airspace, he just can't do anything with it. The VPA could just laugh all the way to the bank if they wanted. Luckily they are quite pleasant to deal with and will most likely work a deal out with him (part of the deal for the land he needs) or buy it back from him.

[towerguy3]

JLousa, you also have to understand that we're not as close to City Council goings on as you are so a lot of what we hear is spin from the media, and that includes Bob Mackin's endless stories and rumours about Retractable roofs at BC Place.

Sam Sullivan has not shown any leadership in this issue or in the garbage / city workers stike and this will ultimately be his downfall regardless of how impressive his flag waving and 360 degree spinoramas with his wheelchair on the stage were in Turin.

You say proposal # 1, the one where Kerfoot purchased space above the tracks, was shot down because of public opposition. That is not what I understood. The City asked the Whitecaps to address 5 specific concerns and key issues the City had and that once that was done, the process, which included rezoning, could continue.

Then as that process of addressing the 5 key issues was going forward, the Whitecaps suddenly changed their site proposal to a spot over the Seabus terminal.

I heard nothing about the City at that point outrightly rejecting the Whitecaps proposal.

You see what I mean about conflicting information? I commend the efforts of Stadium Now and Friends of Soccer, but speaking with representatives of each at the David Beckham game, while I support their efforts and signed their petition, I came away more confused than ever about why the City is dragging its feet.

Everything I heard is that the Business Association in the Gastown area and many residents were supportive of the original site. While some residents may have voiced concerns, the majority consensus was positive, the Whitecaps felt the consensus was positive, and I was not aware of any overwhelming movement to have the entire thing blown up.

Now you're telling us that that's not the case. Show us evidence, show us some sort of City Directive, some decision from City Council, that explicitely informed the Vancouver Whitecaps to look elsewhere for a new site, show a link to that directive, and explain why the Whitecaps are pointing their fingers at City Council when they seem to feel they've done no wrong.

I saw and heard Bob Lenarduzzi address 48,000 fans at BC Place at the Beckham game. He's very passionate about this project and I get the impression he's totally pissed off with everything about City Council right now.

Again, provide a link to the Directive from City Council telling the Whitecaps that the original proposal was a nonstarter. I never heard this from the media. Provide some evidence please.

[officedweller]

Now you're telling us that that's not the case. Show us evidence, show us some sort of City Directive, some decision from City Council, that explicitely informed the Vancouver Whitecaps to look elsewhere for a new site, show a link to that directive, and explain why the Whitecaps are pointing their fingers at City Council when they seem to feel they've done no wrong.

.....

Again, provide a link to the Directive from City Council telling the Whitecaps that the original proposal was a nonstarter. I never heard this from the media. Provide some evidence please.

The decision to move the site from over the tracks would not have been made in response to an official "decision" by Vancouver City Council ordering them to move it - so there would be no publicly available record of it. As with any development in the City of Vancouver, the project is discussed informally with City staff and the project is massaged into a form that is likely to be acceptable to the City - even before the project is taken to the UDP and DBP (i.e. the project proponent puts out feelers to test the waters). In the case of the stadium, the City and proponents misjudged the level of opposition from Gastown and the project was reanalysed and reworked to address concerns expressed by the City as a result of public opposition (read stories below) (i.e. the solution was to move it).
Remember that the reason that the stadium project made its way to the waterfront is because City staff informally told the Whitecaps that it preferred a waterfront location more than the False Creek Flats location that the Whitecaps were considering - and that's not in any City Council minutes either.

**********

Business in Vancouver June 20-26, 2006; issue 869

Grandstanding: The great stadium debate

Vancouver’s Gastown business community is at a crossroads as competing visions for the city’s central waterfront go to council June 27

Bob Mackin

Corner kicks or condos?

That’s the basis for the great stadium debate of 2006.

Will media-shy, tech-millionaire Greg Kerfoot get a chance to build his privately financed 15,000-seat stadium for soccer and more by Burrard Inlet’s shore?

Or will Reliance Holdings’ real estate developer Jon Stovell’s dream of Concord Pacific-style condo towers next to Gastown’s red-brick historic buildings entice council? The answer could come as soon as June 27 when city council examines the high level review of the Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium proposal. Like many a soccer match, it’ll require plenty of time added on. The speakers’ list could be as long as a soccer pitch.

Kerfoot bought the Canadian Pacific railyard last summer for $20 million, and the Whitecaps announced plans for the 15,000-seat stadium – expandable to 30,000 – last October. It would be built to open in 2009 on a platform above the railway tracks using the latest in sustainable B.C. building products. Soccer is the most-played game in Canada, and the Lower Mainland is the nation’s soccer hotbed. But the park won’t be for soccer alone. Rugby, tennis and concerts would find a home there. Vanoc wants to use it as a sponsor or national Olympic committee venue during the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Not so fast, said Stovell. He has likened the stadium proposal to the aborted Project 200 of the 1960s, which envisioned three-dozen low-rises and towers above the tracks. He’s spearheading a campaign by the ad hoc Gastown Neighourhood Coalition and Gastown Residents Association to thwart the stadium. It’s all stage-managed by Reputations Corporation, the spin doctors who helped elect NPA Mayor Sam Sullivan last fall.

“It’s just a bad, disrespectful type of development,” Stovell said. “It’s rail land as long as it needs to be rail land, but if it’s going to be something else, it should be developed properly, and this part of the city should have the same opportunity to reconnect to the waterfront as others.”

The Gastown Business Improvement Society paid an architect to devise three alternatives that don’t look dissimilar to Project 200.

It shows a future without railway tracks. In their place, low-rises. On the waterfront, condo towers.

A stadium could fit, Stovell said, on ground level only.

GBIS did not consult the Vancouver Port Authority, CP Rail or the Whitecaps and conceded that the railway tracks may remain for decades.

Public open houses, opinion polls and architecture studies yielded city hall planner Kevin McNaney’s report on the high level review.

It will be council’s guide as it comes to a decision.

McNaney raised red flags about inadequate vehicle access, movement of dangerous goods in the railyard, the design’s relationship with historic Gastown and its impact on area livability.

All the issues, he wrote, can be resolved with “very large financial investments, additional site area and co-operation or partnerships with key landowners.”

Whitecaps president John Rocha said the club is eager to fix the problems and proceed with a formal application to build the stadium.

It would, he said, be a rare privately financed public asset and, as such, deserves to proceed on a schedule instead of being studied ad nauseam and hampered by delays.

Gastown resident John Kostiuk said if Stovell prevails, it would send a bad message to anyone wanting to invest in Gastown.

“Every year the Whitecaps are not allowed to develop the stadium is a loss of a Major League Soccer franchise, lost revenue, lost opportunity to the city of tax revenue the city is not generating. The neighborhood needs it.”

Kostiuk lives in a loft at Water Street’s Taylor Building where he’s also strata council president.

He runs a home-based Cuban cigar mail order company and dabbles in Web design.

Kostiuk said he couldn’t continue to sit on the sidelines, so he started the independent Stadium Now pro stadium group and its stadiumnow.org website.

He said the opposition groups didn’t exist before the stadium was proposed and don’t truly represent Gastown residents or their interests.

“We have huge issues with dumpster fires in the alley, panhandling, drug use. They did a porno shoot in our alley this last week. There are real issues facing the neighborhood,” Kostiuk said. “What is your position on them?”

Anti-stadium groups won’t say precisely how many members or supporters they have.

GBIS president Paul Ardagh would only say “a majority” are opposed.

Kostiuk has 26 supporters and said he would have more if people weren’t afraid to alienate Stovell, whose company is a major Gastown landowner.

“Gassy Jack [Deighton, Gastown’s namesake] was a saloon owner. The first business down here on the waterfront was a lumber mill.

“The neighbourhood has residences in it, it’s got social housing, it’s got retail, it’s got office space, it’s got industrial uses,” Kostiuk said.

“That’s why people like myself live in Gastown. I don’t want to live in Yaletown. I don’t want to be surrounded by condo towers.”

bmackin@biv.com

Business in Vancouver July 18-24, 2006; issue 873

Whitecaps mull 2-year stadium game plan

Numerous strings attached to city council approval of downtown venue that could host 2010 and FIFA events

Bob Mackin

The Vancouver Whitecaps are a step closer to playing soccer by the sea.

But Vancouver city council’s July 11 unanimous decision to allow the soccer club to proceed with its plan to build a stadium above railway tracks behind Waterfront Station comes with many strings attached.

The vote begins a 24-month process with quarterly reports by the planning department to council. The Whitecaps may have to buy or lease additional land from the Port of Vancouver for a road network around the stadium and to make it fit with historic neighbouring Gastown. City planning director Larry Beasley said the costs of resolving the flaws in the proposal could rival the cost of the stadium itself.

Yet club spokesman Bob Lenarduzzi, director of soccer operations, is confident all concerns can be resolved.

“We still want to try to make the project a priority. We have an identified timeline now of 24 months,” Lenarduzzi said. “All the issues that need to be resolved can be resolved within that 24 months. Once we’ve done that, we can ideally get the shovel in the ground.”

Lenarduzzi wouldn’t estimate the cost of the project, though Toronto’s $65 million soccer stadium, which is under construction, is funded mainly by taxpayers.

Whitecaps’ owner Greg Kerfoot, who met privately with councillors but did not speak publicly during the entire process, bought the Canadian Pacific railyard on the city’s central waterfront last year for $20 million.

Kerfoot, who sold his Crystal Decisions software company to Business Objects for $800 million in 1998, plans to finance the rest of the project. Whitecaps’ president John Rocha has told BIV that federal, provincial or civic funding would be welcomed, but not essential.

Whitecaps originally wanted a new stadium in time for next year’s 2007 FIFA Under-20 World Cup and had examined the False Creek Flats near Pacific Central Station.

A Kerfoot numbered company bought the waterfront land instead, apparently on advice from city hall. When the stadium was announced last fall, a 2009 completion date was mentioned. After a six-month high-level review, staff now estimates it could take until 2011 for the 15,000-seat stadium – expandable to 30,000 – to be built because of the planning and permits process. Whitecaps are hoping to prove it’s worthy of being fast-tracked so it can at least be built in time to act as a venue for the 2010 Winter Olympics sponsors’ village.

Reliance Holdings general manager Jon Stovell led the ad hoc Gastown Neighbourhood Coalition to oppose the project. Despite his hiring NPA-allied public relations and lobbying firm Reputations Corporation, no councillors voted against the project. Councillors Heather Deal, Raymond Louie and Tim Stevenson were promoting an amendment to force the Whitecaps and city hall to look for alternate sites.

When their proposal was defeated, they joined the majority and voted for Coun. Suzanne Anton’s motion supporting the Whitecaps.

“The Whitecaps have a lot of very technical and difficult issues to resolve,” Stovell said. “It’s really up to them to satisfy the community’s expectations.

“We would’ve liked council to ask them to participate in a much more cautious process, but in the end, the stadium might defeat itself because of the obstacles they face.”

If it does get built by 2011, the stadium could host matches in the FIFA Women’s World Cup. Canada is bidding on the tournament, which will be staged in China next year.

Canada was a frontrunner to host 2007’s event, but plans for a bid evaporated when international soccer governing body FIFA moved the 2003 event to United States, which hosted the 1999 tournament, because of the SARS outbreak, and automatically awarded 2007 to China.

Meanwhile, the Whitecaps begin the countdown to the 2007 Under-20 World Cup this week with their first Nations Cup tournament at Swangard Stadium. China’s under-20 national team, India’s senior national team and Wales’ Cardiff City FC are playing in the international exhibition, which will be carried live on Shaw TV and beamed to China and India.

Swangard will be enlarged with temporary seating and facilities to host first-round matches next June for FIFA’s second biggest stand-alone tournament. A worldwide TV audience of 600 million is expected to tune into matches, which will include future stars of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics and the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Though it’s doubtful it will generate TV viewership numbers to rival the 2006 World Cup on CTV, TSN and Rogers Sportsnet, the international exposure will dwarf the 2006 International Ice Hockey Federation World Junior Hockey Championship that was hosted last winter in B.C.

bmackin@biv.com


Business in Vancouver August 8-14, 2006; issue 876

At Large: Peter Ladner

Proposed stadium looms over Gastown buildings

It’s hard to say whether Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot got the go-ahead or got whistled to the sidelines after Vancouver City Council’s recent decision on the downtown soccer stadium. Council unanimously said “go ahead, but…” any future rezoning application for Whitecaps lands over the tracks just east of the SeaBus terminal would be subject to:

a street network to open up more than the two proposed south-side exits from the stadium

dealing with risks from dangerous goods on the rail lands underneath the elevated platform

making the stadium “fit” better with Gastown

reducing the impact on residents in Gastown

making sure it didn’t clash with future Port Lands development plans.

Those are not easy conditions to meet. The street network alone – think of ramps from Cordova down to the waterfront east of Waterfront Station – could cost as much as the stadium itself.

Who knows what would be involved in reducing (eliminating?) the risks from dangerous goods that already threaten the entire area, but which might be made more dangerous by putting a roof over the railyard?

The scale of a stadium, even at the initial configuration of 15,000 seats, looms over heritage-renovated buildings in Gastown that have height restrictions well below the proposed stadium’s top tier. The only way to reduce the crowd impacts on Gastown’s narrow streets is to divert thousands of the spectators away from Water Street. That means opening up access onto the road along the waterfront on the north side of the tracks.

And that puts the stadium traffic right in the way of port uses on this last piece of undeveloped downtown waterfront. Traffic isn’t the only issue with the port. To give Gastown some breathing room, the stadium would have to be pushed north onto port lands, thereby becoming part of the port’s plans for redevelopment of that property. Those plans have been underway for a decade and, according to outgoing city planning director Larry Beasley, would take another decade to be fully and completely resolved. In the meantime, the Whitecaps have to get tangled up in the city’s ongoing Central Waterfront Hub and Rail Lands Study.

The toughest challenge will be reconciling the stadium with port plans. Port representatives have expressed a willingness to work with the stadium, but the port has a lot of other ideas for that land.

Their latest plan, never formally made public, was for two million or so square feet of commercial, retail, hotel and cruise-ship related development. Those non-port uses were being justified because they would pay for a new cruise ship terminal on the site, something the port now says won’t work there. As recently as two months ago, a delegation from the port brought up the issue of relaxation of land use with federal port officials in Ottawa. “We were told in no uncertain terms, by senior policy advisors, that they would not allow non-port uses on port lands,” said port spokesperson Duncan Wilson.

The only way around that might be for the Whitecaps to mobilize a public outcry for an exception to federal port policy, and to guarantee a significant payback to the port for the stadium encroachment.

Potential alternative sites are equally challenging. B.C. Place won’t be coming down at least until 2010, if then. Hastings Park, aside from being too far from transit and corporate offices, already went through a huge neighbourhood fight to get rid of Empire Stadium. Main and Terminal is still available, but it’s small for a stadium, and is also in the sights of residential and commercial developers.

There are very few people who don’t want a new soccer stadium in the city, and many people appreciate the once-in-a-lifetime offer of a privately-financed one.

Fitting it in will require even more determination and imagination and patience than the Whitecaps have expended getting it this far. That’s not an easy task, but it’s not impossible.

Peter Ladner (www.peterladner.ca) is a Vancouver city councillor and vice-president, Business in Vancouver Media Group, pladner@biv.com. His column appears every two weeks.


Business in Vancouver June 19-25, 2007; issue 921

Team takes another run at soccer stadium plan

Opposition to Whitecaps proposal dwindling as new proposal addresses community and city concerns

Andrew Petrozzi

A retooled plan for Vancouver’s controversial waterfront stadium is alive and well and promising to include a host of additional area business opportunities.

Originally planning to go before Vancouver council this month, Vancouver Whitecaps FC COO Rachel Lewis confirmed to BIV that the soccer club will instead appear before council in the fall to show that it has addressed five key requirements for its rezoning application.

They include:

• resolving railyard dangerous goods risks and liabilities;

• reconfiguring the stadium to ensure a better fit with Gastown;

• resolving impacts on the livability of residential areas south of the rail lands;

• resolving impacts on future port development; and

• providing an adequate street network.

In February, the soccer club presented a revised stadium plan it felt addressed many of the city’s and community’s concerns.

Bob Lenarduzzi, president of football operations, said all the issues had yet to be resolved. He added that the club remained in discussions with the city, the port authority and the regional transit authority, TransLink.

The new plan locates the waterfront stadium slightly west of the previously proposed site, just north of the CP Rail tracks near the SeaBus hub.

Instead of being over the railroad tracks, it would be built in part on port lands administered by the Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) and would extend out over Burrard Inlet.

The stadium would be separate from Gastown, and its height would be reduced compared with its predecessor.

Lewis said the Whitecaps organization is finalizing the stadium’s location with the VPA and working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. She confirmed that the SeaBus terminal might also need to be moved.

The new site has eliminated most of the original opposition to the stadium proposal and, in the minds of the Whitecaps, dealt with four of the five city concerns, leaving only an adequate street network to be determined.

Lewis said that creating space between Gastown and the stadium brought former opposition groups onside.

She confirmed that the new proposal still includes 140,000 square feet of multi-use space that could be used for convention and meeting rooms, child-care facilities or for retail and restaurant. Lewis pointed out that there has never been a defined retail component in either the current proposal or the original.

Lenarduzzi has likened the proposed waterfront stadium to Toronto’s new BMO Field, which opened in April. He said the stadium generated strong public and corporate interest and support for the city’s new Toronto FC Major League Soccer team.

Lenarduzzi believes that experience would be repeated in Vancouver.

Lewis said both the Gastown Business Improvement Society (BIS) and the Vancouver Heritage Commission have been positive in meetings about the revised site. She added that the groups now recognize the benefits the Whitecaps saw from the outset.

Leanore Sali, executive director of the Gastown BIS, confirmed the society had supported the revised location when it came before council in February and still does. The Central Waterfront Coalition, which had opposed the stadium, did not respond to e-mails seeking comment for this story.

Lewis said that all groups involved, including the port, the city and TransLink, are working together to make the stadium work.

But VPA planning director Patrick McLaughlin said two significant issues remain for the port:

• Obtaining support and approval for the waterfront stadium proposal from Transport Canada – a process, according to McLaughlin, that will take until this fall.

The port supports the stadium proposal providing it can be developed and incorporated into the central waterfront transportation hub.

• Ensuring that the stadium plans consider the port’s transportation needs, including its impact on the nearby railyard, cruise terminal, SeaBus and HeliJet operations and a potential future regional ferry terminal.

Discussions are also continuing over who would own the land the stadium is built on.

McLaughlin said the port is considering exchanging the port land used in the construction of a new waterfront stadium in return for the balance of the rail land yards acquired earlier by Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot.

apetrozzi@biv.com

[jlousa]

So you can take a guy in an orange vest word as truth but you feel the need to question me?
Tell me if the original proposal was viewed as favourable as you put it, (not to mention he owns that site) why is it that they suddenly decided to look at the new sites?
Also while Bob Lenarduzzi is passionate about soccer doesn't mean he knows much about development and what's involved. Do you really believe the city could issue a development permit tomorrow if they wanted to?

[towerguy3]

JLousa, I'll tell you this much. If Greg Kerfoot had've realized what a bunch of overpaid city bureaucrats and city planners you all are, he would've never started this process in the first place.

He purchased that land in the understanding that this would be a relatively smooth process with few bumps.

Instead what this circus has turned out to be is you City Councillors and City Planners just look stupid in the eyes of the media and sports fans.

[bils]

:previous:

hey mr.x2, can you do us all a favour and ban this guy?

[jlousa]

So now I'm a city Councillor/planner/bureaucrat? I'll agree with you that I'm overpaid though. :tup:

I wouldn't be speaking for Kerfoot either, he hasn't complained about the process nor would he.

If you want to learn more about how things work, spend some more time reading, there is a large amount of information here and on SSC. Read the city council minutes, attend a few open houses, public forums. You'll gain some insight and will learn to spend less time talking to orange pylons.

[officedweller]

He purchased that land in the understanding that this would be a relatively smooth process with few bumps.

That would be "assumption" - not understanding (and if you don't know the difference, consult a lawyer!)

And Wal-Mart did the same thing and has had to bear the costs of the City's process as well. It may not be "fair", but the City can do it if it acts in good faith within the scope of its jurisdiction.

[mr.x2]

:previous:

hey mr.x2, can you do us all a favour and ban this guy?

*This forum and its server are private property. You're here only because you're invited to be here. We can revoke that invitation at any time for any reason, or no reason at all.

*No posting deliberately misleading information, such as in thread titles, articles posted, and data cited...This is especially important of development news threads.

*No Spamming...repeated posts or threads, just because one can.


I shall now wind the timer.

[towerguy3]

I solemnly promise to never again read 24 Hrs.

[Rusty Gull]

--> lets rehash this again because someone doesn't want to read the previous 5 pages. Kerfoot bought the land over the tracks, he still owns the airspace for now. The city rejected that proposal due to opposition from the residents in the area.

JLousa, I agree with your synopsis of what happened.

However, many of us felt deep down this project was dead-on-arrival as soon as the City rejected the first location over the tracks.

I won't get into the area Nimby-ism (related to views from the nearby condos), as well as opposition from some of the DTES groups. Or the bizarre involvement of a public relations firm (Reputations Inc) that was representing the anti-stadium group and also had links to the NPA (this was documented by Business in Vancouver at the time).

One thing that bothered me, and still does, though, is the information spread about the risk of a cargo mishap on the railway tracks -- and the danger it would pose to soccer fans.

At the time, I actually consulted a prominent transportation intelligence research institution in Western Canada to check up on these claims -- and found out that this "threat" was blown way out of proportion, and was small enough that it didn't even warrant being part of the public debate on the stadium.

I am getting a bit long-winded here, but what I'm getting at is that this process has been murky, frustrating and at times just plain weird. Not to mention the secrecy from various parties, including the Whitecaps themselves and the Port of Vancouver.

This should have been our waterfront jewel. Sadly, it may be a write-off at this point.

[\/^~<0(_)\/{9]

They still are in negotions with the port. Bob Lenarduzzi stated this in the Province just yesterday, so it's far from a write off just yet.

bcsoccerweb.com is urging anyone in support of the stadium to contact the minister responsible for Transport Canada, Lawrence Cannon to inquire about the progress and voice your support. http://www.tc.gc.ca/minister/contact.htm

[TwoFace]

[quote=Rusty Gull;3337495]-->
One thing that bothered me, and still does, though, is the information spread about the risk of a cargo mishap on the railway tracks -- and the danger it would pose to soccer fans.
quote]

I put more thought to picking out a shirt to wear on a given day than some here to the potential health risk to some 15K people.
Let's see, trains carrying flammable and dangerous materials under a stadium full of people....what could go wrong.:koko:

[Rusty Gull]

Let's see, trains carrying flammable and dangerous materials under a stadium full of people....what could go wrong.

By your reasoning, we should shut down Waterfront Station and the Seabus terminal because of their proximity to the rail tracks. Heck, let's just shut down the city.

Living in 24/7 fear, are we? Say, I know of a country you might like... :psycho:

[EastVanMark]

:previous: Ya no kidding. There are people both living and working spitting distance from those tracks. The risk would be the same to them.

[cornholio]

[quote=Rusty Gull;3337495]-->
One thing that bothered me, and still does, though, is the information spread about the risk of a cargo mishap on the railway tracks -- and the danger it would pose to soccer fans.
quote]

I put more thought to picking out a shirt to wear on a given day than some here to the potential health risk to some 15K people.
Let's see, trains carrying flammable and dangerous materials under a stadium full of people....what could go wrong.:koko:

Part of my job im actually responsible for the loading of hazardous goods in to containers which then travel by rail and used to load them not to long ago. I can assure you that there never was a problem, after all you have just as hazardous goods traveling by road, around the city, by plane above the city a via pipeline below the city. The rail cars below the stadium are not opened or unloaded, the goods on them aren't handled and all they are is shunted around while closed and sealed. It is virtually impossible for anything to go wrong or happen....seriously, infact ill go as far as to say that it is impossible for anything to go wrong to actually threaten the lives of the people in the stadium above in any way what so ever. Infact there are many stadiums around the world built above tracks that handle dg goods, many building built above tracks that handle dg goods, many warehouses next to dense residential areas that handle dg goods etc.

This was nothing more then pure ignorance on the part of the city council to actually listen to this bull crap.

[tintinium]

http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/titanic-2.jpg
Nothing could possibly go wrong. <<chuckle>> just kiddin'...
:-D

[leftside]

*sigh* lets rehash this again because someone doesn't want to read the previous 5 pages. Kerfoot bought the land over the tracks, he still owns the airspace for now. The city rejected that proposal due to opposition from the residents in the area. The 2nd proposal was over the seabus terminal, the city was in favour of that, Translink was not, nor does that property belong to Kerfoot. The 3rd proposal in kinda where helijet is, again the city is okay with it, again Kerfoot does not own that property the VPA does. There is nothing in the Marine act preventing the stadium there due to being too close to the water, what is preventing it is the VPA is not allowed to sell land, it can only exchange it for an equal property, this is where the hang up is. We can't really blame the city on this as they have no control on these issues.
- The city rejected the first proposal due to opposition from the residents in the area and a bunch of other reasons such as dangerous cargo
- The 2nd proposal was over the seabus terminal, the city was in favour of that, local residents were also in favour of that, Translink was not, nor does that property belong to Kerfoot
- 3rd proposal is kinda where helijet is, again the city is okay with it, again Kerfoot does not own that property the VPA does. Local residents are opposed to this, as it is an even worse location than the first.

[jlousa]

Anyways proposal 2 is the lead one again, the 3rd one is no longer on the table. Translink will work with the Whitecaps should they finalize the deal with the VPA. This was the best one anyways.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/hub2.jpg

[LeftCoaster]

^ Giggity

[\/^~<0(_)\/{9]

who are you hearing this from? I haven't heard anything official from the whitecaps or even any speculation from any of the 'soccer insiders'.

I take it they've given up on negotiating with the port? I agree this location is the best however I think it'll probably be more complicated then the 3rd option and will require a longer time to plan and build than had the 3rd site got the go ahead, especially if they plan on integrating it with translink/waterfront station...etc However with the previous location seemingly going nowhere I guess this is somewhat of a step forward (even if it's really a step backwards)

[mr.x2]

Anyways proposal 2 is the lead one again, the 3rd one is no longer on the table. Translink will work with the Whitecaps should they finalize the deal with the VPA. This was the best one anyways.


That's awesome, i liked this location much better as well. But I do hope that the SeaBus stays at that same location, the previous proposals to move it weren't all that practical and would probably have resulted in a lost in SeaBus ridership.

[Jacques]

Anyways proposal 2 is the lead one again, the 3rd one is no longer on the table. Translink will work with the Whitecaps should they finalize the deal with the VPA. This was the best one anyways.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/hub2.jpg

That is the is the most favourable by Gastown residents and I do agree this si the best of choice, but it is still up in the air, the project seemed to have grown spider web by now
LOL

[Yume-sama]

Please get built, please get built :P

I'd probably actually GO to a soccer game if this was built. Once, perhaps. :P

[towerguy3]

JLousa, what is your occupation?

[officedweller]

Thanks for the info - this site has more potential to be intergrated with the City than the 3rd one.

[Lee_Haber8]

Anyways proposal 2 is the lead one again, the 3rd one is no longer on the table. Translink will work with the Whitecaps should they finalize the deal with the VPA. This was the best one anyways.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/hub2.jpg

What's your source?

As far as I knew, the only problem with proposal 3 was getting VPA approval. The stadium above the the seabus means the pitch level has to be 20 meters above sea level, which means the the stands (especially with the expansion) will be quite high up. Waterfront Station is only 10 meters above sea level. All those people who thought the first proposal was too imposing are going to have a big problem with the 2nd proposal

[LeftCoaster]

I doubt they could raise a very convincing case. Sure it is higher off the ground but look at its location in relation to the first option; this location is not only further out on the water, but further west. With the stadium situated here it does not block the street views of either Abbot or Carroll Streets, and only partially blocks the views from Cambie. I don't think nearly as many people will have an issue with this location. My only issue with this location is it blocks future cruise ship port expansion, however with the shape of the industry now that may not be much of an issue.

And don't expect Jlousa to tell us what his source is, if he could tell us im sure he would have. As it stands I bet he can't.

[jlousa]

Can't release anything else, but there will be news on this issue before Spring.

[towerguy3]

When are we hearing something official about plans for BC Place?

[towerguy3]

What exactly is the Vancouver Port Corporation? Who is it the Whitecaps are dealing with here? Is the Vancouver Port Corporation made up of reps from the Federal government and City of Vancouver?

Is the Vancouver Port Corporation and Port of Vancouver the same?

[Smooth]

What exactly is the Vancouver Port Corporation? Who is it the Whitecaps are dealing with here? Is the Vancouver Port Corporation made up of reps from the Federal government and City of Vancouver?

Is the Vancouver Port Corporation and Port of Vancouver the same?

http://www.google.ca

[djh]

When are we hearing something official about plans for BC Place?

stuck record

[mr.x2]

^ more like trying to play a dvd on your computer, and then it freezes and you hear the same four words again and again 1000 times.

[mezzanine]

Jesus, I'm away from the forum for a while and Towerguy3 takes over?

This guy is a troll. He's been warned before about his behaviour. If you have something to say, support it with evidence, data or a well-laid out arguement, like jlousa or officedweller. Towerguy has a guy in an orange vest.

It used to be funny, but now good dicussions are way-laid by his stupid comments - yes, they are stupid, because towerguy, you use same the same lines without any evidence to back you up. Jlousa posted a flyer for the penthouse for shangri-la in another thread, and you ask him for proof to support *your* arguement.

the sooner this mook is banned the better!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell:

JLousa, I'll tell you this much. If Greg Kerfoot had've realized what a bunch of overpaid city bureaucrats and city planners you all are, he would've never started this process in the first place.

He purchased that land in the understanding that this would be a relatively smooth process with few bumps.

Instead what this circus has turned out to be is you City Councillors and City Planners just look stupid in the eyes of the media and sports fans.

[officedweller]

Ports fall under Federal jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution - therefore they are Federal authorities. The City (which derives power from the Province) is not involved (other than through contractual agreements), nor would the City have jurisdiction over port affairs (since the Province cannot legislate with regard to powers it does not have).

www.vfpa.ca

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
On January 1, 2008 the three Lower Mainland port authorities Fraser River Port Authority, North Fraser Port Authority and Vancouver Port Authority amalgamated to continue as the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA). To learn more about the VFPA, please visit www.vfpa.ca - posted January 1, 2008

Note that the former Vancouver Port Authority was the same entity as the Vancouver Port Corporation. The Federal legislation changed in the past so the name changed as well. i.e. The North Fraser Port Authority was, I think, previously known as the North Fraser Harbour Commission.

The Port of Vancouver is the physical facility, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is the corporate/legal entity.
Common sense stuff.

[nathan6969]

Ports fall under Federal jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution - therefore they are Federal authorities. The City (which derives power from the Province) is not involved (other than through contractual agreements), nor would the City have jurisdiction over port affairs (since the Province cannot legislate with regard to powers it does not have).



Although it's conceivable that since the stadium has nothing to do with port activity, the province (ie. the city) may be able to legislate...its a vague area.

[vanlaw]

The Port of Vancouver is the physical facility, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is the corporate/legal entity.
Common sense stuff.

lol...ya, common sense for those with legal training or a business background, but necessarily "common sense" in the true form of the phrase.