Rogers Arena Complex | 104M,100M, 97M | U/C & Proposed - Page 17

EastVanMark · #**321** Posted: **Jun 5, 2012, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

why can't this be like LA live again? Northeast false creek is pretty much Vancouver's ONLY chance at having some semblance of an urban waterfront (not the quiet residential mews with the odd starbucks or urban fare a-la Marinaside Crescent or Coal Harbour). The first 3 stories of every building in this area should be business/commercial/retail/entertainment

Exactly! Just like was done in Toronto http://www.mapleleafsquare.com/home.html

The development plays host to a hotel, restaurants, sports bars, large-scale retail, as well as about 900 condo units. (all built well above the commercial portion of the project making it win-win for everybody).

BodomReaper · #**322** Posted: **Jun 6, 2012, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

But that's just it; they won't add any of those things. It will be 99% residential with maybe a coffee shop on the bottom floor. Look no further how they handled all the development around the arena since its construction. The arena is completely invisible from the dt core with only a pair of narrow walkways leading to it. Entertainment/arena/stadium districts have been constructed in several cities that have transformed those areas into thriving areas filled with vibrancy used by many in the community.
Vancouver instead chose to construct a quiet residential community

Story of this city.

hollywoodnorth · #**323** Posted: **Jun 23, 2012, 5:17 AM**

photo update by me ... excavation is now underway!

golog · #**324** Posted: **Jun 30, 2012, 5:47 PM**

At the Canucks' season ticket holder summit the other day, they apparently mentioned the first 5 floors will go towards Rogers Arena and as part of that they'll expand the concourse/concession area (which is desperately needed). I wasn't there, and am not sure if the expansion would be for both the lower and upper bowl

wrenegade · #**325** Posted: **Jul 11, 2012, 3:32 PM**

This project didn't make it to the vote last night and the public hearing has been rescheduled to Thursday night (July 12th) at 6pm.

Jebby · #**326** Posted: **Jul 14, 2012, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

This project didn't make it to the vote last night and the public hearing has been rescheduled to Thursday night (July 12th) at 6pm.

So none of this project has been approved yet?

How much site prep/digging can they do without final approval?

wrenegade · #**327** Posted: **Jul 14, 2012, 7:54 PM**

The West building was already approved. Part of the application that went to vote on Thursday revolved around changing part of the use. I wasn't able to make it to the public hearing though so I don't know how it went.

Jebby · #**328** Posted: **Jul 14, 2012, 10:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

The West building was already approved. Part of the application that went to vote on Thursday revolved around changing part of the use. I wasn't able to make it to the public hearing though so I don't know how it went.

Thats what I thought. Thanks for the info.

Locked In · #**329** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 3:48 AM**

From Frances Bula's article in the Globe from July 15 - this doesn't sound like a promising start for the entertainment district...

Quote:

Rental units proposed for Rogers Arena
FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER — Special to The Globe & Mail
Published Sunday, Jul. 15 2012, 7:48 PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Jul. 15 2012, 8:28 PM EDT

The Aquilini company’s unusual decision to put hundreds of rental apartments in three towers pressed up against its Rogers Arena will force the city to change its financial plans and noise bylaws for the area.

...

But Aquilini Development president David Negrin said the company, owned by the Aquilini family, has advantages over other developers, who usually see rentals as high risk and lacking the immediate profits that condos produce.

“The family has been in rental a long time and they know what it takes,” he said. “And our cost of land is lower.”

As well, Negrin said, that arrangement will ensure that the company doesn’t put on too many events at the arena that would disturb the nearby tenants.

“We will lose some concerts, we know that. But we need to rent the places. It is in our best interests to control [the noise],” Mr. Negrin said.

Metro-One · #**330** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 4:15 AM**

OK, honestly, can we just drop the "entertainment" district designation around the stadiums now, because it is pretty obvious that such a designation means nothing in how this area is being developed.

jhausner · #**331** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 5:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked In

From Frances Bula's article in the Globe from July 15 - this doesn't sound like a promising start for the entertainment district...

So blatenly ridiculous. You want to live in a major city, EXPECT NOISE! It's like moving next to the Airport and complaining about planes landing. Or moving next to a hospital and complaining about the Ambulances at night.

You move into an entertainment district, THERE WILL BE NOISE. We have to start telling people to shut up and use their brains. Just makes me cringe. For once I want a city council to stand up and tell those types of people to "grow the F up" or to move out to Chilliwack if they want quiet.

I was in London recently and they were jack hammering a major road at 2am in a residential neighborhood. If I called to complain what do you think the local government would have told me? "We need to fix the road, if you don't like it wear ear plugs."

wrenegade · #**332** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 3:51 PM**

Is the amendment to the noise bylaw to increase the allowable limit from 70 decibels to 82 decibels? Isn't that a good thing?

Also, this was never going to be an office hub in this area, and residential condos would have brought a lot of problems with them (re: noise), so rental does make sense. I also think it's ridiculous that there is all this reference to the city "losing" $35M. Council acts like it was entitled to this money, it's disgusting. The city is not losing anything, they are just not getting a $35M cheque, however they will be getting a very large DCL cheque (and DCLs were originally supposed to pay for the same sorts of things that CACs do, although it seems like it all goes in the general revenue now). Council complains about a lack of rental in the city and then a developer comes along and offers to build 614 units of dedicated rental and all of a sudden council complains they aren't getting their CRAC...sorry CACs.

I witnesses the same thing at the public hearing for the small STIR project at 1388 Continental. Councillor Affleck (and councillors Stevenson and Carr to a lesser extent) couldn't let it go that they were forgoing $1.8M in CACs (and $640k in DCLs). That CAC money was never there. They project was never even proposed to be condos, it was a rental project from the start. Compare that to just a DP application under current zoning and all the city would get would be a small DCL cheque. No rental units, no LEED Gold, just a handful of condos. Council is speaking out of both sides of their mouth here.

osirisboy · #**333** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 4:51 PM**

Then why did they say that they will loose some concerts regarding the change in noise bylaw if it's to increase decibel from 70 to 82

s211 · #**334** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Is the amendment to the noise bylaw to increase the allowable limit from 70 decibels to 82 decibels? Isn't that a good thing?

Isn't the decibel scale logarithmic? I would imagine that going from 70 to 82 is a measurable increase.

Prometheus · #**335** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

As well, Negrin said, that arrangement will ensure that the company doesn’t put on too many events at the arena that would disturb the nearby tenants.

“We will lose some concerts, we know that. But we need to rent the places. It is in our best interests to control [the noise],” Mr. Negrin said.

This city is a total joke. So, going forward, there will now be less major events and concerts in The No Fun City's primary (and most natural and appropriate) venue for major events and concerts in the heart of the city.

My God. Where are we going as a city?

Spoolmak · #**336** Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 9:22 PM**

So every Vancouverite loses out because a few hundred people want to live close to an arena that, in the long run, will be absolutely pointless because there will be LESS activity? What the actual fuck? Vancouver is the only major BC city. If Vancouver loses concerts, BC loses concerts.

Klazu · #**337** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 12:16 AM**

Why can't they just build those buildings with better sounds proofing? That should be obvious in such a location. I am sure all problems can be solved if people are just ready to pay.

I must also agree with other posters that if someone moves into such a building, he needs to expect to have some noise. I was expecting when I moved next to Burrard and Nelson. Fortunately in my case the building has windows that shut pretty much all the noise outside.

p78hub · #**338** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoolmak

So every Vancouverite loses out because a few hundred people want to live close to an arena that, in the long run, will be absolutely pointless because there will be LESS activity? What the actual fuck? Vancouver is the only major BC city. If Vancouver loses concerts, BC loses concerts.

Yup. In Vancouver, the majority doesn't rule, and the vocal minority always gets their way. Just look at what happened with the SkyTrain by CityGate...

DKaz · #**339** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 12:58 AM**

This is a serious face palm moment.

quobobo · #**340** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 2:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Why can't they just build those buildings with better sounds proofing? That should be obvious in such a location. I am sure all problems can be solved if people are just ready to pay.

Agreed. I've stayed in low-end hotels in Tokyo just a few metres from insanely busy train tracks, and the trains are barely noticeable. It's hard to understand why these buildings wouldn't be adequately soundproofed - perhaps someone with more knowledge about modern construction methods can comment?