Broadway Corridor Development Plan & Project Updates

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True, but some are willing to reexamine their goals, or to compromise. 40+ is just as ridiculous as >5 (both actual comments tonight).



You want toddlers running through the post-its? 'Cause without somewhere to park the kids, that's what'll happen.

Protip: "workshop" or "panel" or "town hall" usually means sitting down and talking. "Open house" usually means walking, infoboards and arguing with the reps.

I don't share your view that 40+ is ridiculous. We will have 60+ in the suburbs soon.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

I don't share your view that 40+ is ridiculous. We will have 60+ in the suburbs soon.

Good for the suburbs. Vancouver, having an existing downtown core, actual views of the mountains, and no need to prove anything, should consider 60+ towers in a location because it makes sense (in said downtown core, for example), not because City Hall's gotten caught in the dick tower-measuring contest their neighbours are having.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Good for the suburbs. (1)Vancouver, having an existing downtown core, actual views of the mountains, and no need to prove anything, should consider 60+ towers in a location because it makes sense (in said downtown core, for example), not because (3)City Hall's gotten caught in the dick tower-measuring contest their neighbours are having.

(1) Broadway is part of the existing downtown.
And you make it sound like the suburbs do not have any mountain views.

Yup, absolutely no "actual views of the mountains" in the suburbs.....

Originally Posted by Klazu

As seen from Metrotown.

(2) 40+. 60+ ...I'm sure you'd say the same thing about Metrotown back when it was still only a mall, a bus terminal and a skytrain station. Does it make sense to have a tall in Marine Gateway? Oakridge mall? Coquitlam Centre? In fact, developers don't even have to build tall so far away if lands around the downtown core are allowed to grow with higher densities.

(3) Oh, no need for a peeing contest. The burbs are already winning big time given the direction they are heading. If you prefer insignificant phallic structures to be on a major commercial street, it's your prerogative, but it doesn't mean everyone has to share that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) Broadway is part of the existing downtown.

It isn't, it never has been, and I'll bet it never will be.

Some of it is part of the Municipal Town Centre - but that's not the same as Downtown.

Getting higher density into some of the Broadway corridor will get nasty. Nobody much cares about old low-density commercial areas in the suburbs, or even large surface-parked malls, but that's not the case for residential neighbourhoods. This is the area where a new building can be described as "a six-storey tower".

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) Broadway is part of the existing downtown.
And you make it sound like the suburbs do not have any mountain views.

Yup, absolutely no "actual views of the mountains" in the suburbs.....

(Klazu's photo taken from a tower - best of luck trying to get that kind of shot from the street, like one can on half of Broadway)

(2) 40+. 60+ ...I'm sure you'd say the same thing about Metrotown back when it was still only a mall, a bus terminal and a skytrain station. Does it make sense to have a tall in Marine Gateway? Oakridge mall? Coquitlam Centre? In fact, developers don't even have to build tall so far away if lands around the downtown core are allowed to grow with higher densities.

(3) Oh, no need for a peeing contest. The burbs are already winning big time given the direction they are heading. If you prefer insignificant phallic structures to be on a major commercial street, it's your prerogative, but it doesn't mean everyone has to share that.

1) Broadway's part of the future "downtown" municipal centre; 60+ should first fill up the downtown core.

They do not, not like Broadway's. Brentwood, Lougheed, Oakridge, especially Metrotown, all have tiny slivers of the North Shore; most of the ground view south of Hastings is trees, asphalt and infill. Coquitlam Central has a decent panorama, which could be why their highest is forty floors.

2) Marine Gateway is 35, which is a good fit for Broadway. Oakridge has 44 and averages 30, they'll need it in order to see over Broadway. I've already mentioned Coquitlam. 30-40 is plenty tall for the next few decades, at which point it'll likely be the 10+ on the chopping block.

3) You just proved my point. Towers should be complementary to the skyline and to the neighbourhood around them, not just out of a base preoccupation with size. Leave that to the first orange president.

You most certainly do not have to share that opinion. Neither does most of the city and forum to yours.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1) Broadway's part of the future "downtown" municipal centre; 60+ should first fill up the downtown core.

They do not, not like Broadway's. Brentwood, Lougheed, Oakridge, especially Metrotown, all have tiny slivers of the North Shore; most of the ground view south of Hastings is trees, asphalt and infill. Coquitlam Central has a decent panorama, which could be why their highest is forty floors.

2) Marine Gateway is 35, which is a good fit for Broadway. Oakridge has 44 and averages 30, they'll need it in order to see over Broadway. I've already mentioned Coquitlam. 30-40 is plenty tall for the next few decades, at which point it'll likely be the 10+ on the chopping block.

3) You just proved my point. Towers should be complementary to the skyline and to the neighbourhood around them, not just out of a base preoccupation with size. Leave that to the first orange president.

You most certainly do not have to share that opinion. Neither does most of the city and forum to yours.

Downtown is already pretty full, the city isn't planning to touch those cheap lowrise rentals which includes the houses which have usually been converted into rental condos.

For Broadway I do like the idea of large towers however I think Broadway is also higher than most of Vancouver so those towers will "tower" which we will have to figure out to ensure they fit in well. I think 10-20 stories is going to just be a given, higher is unlikely. You just can't build tall towers outside downtown in Vancouver, the city won't go for it. You may see a few like Oakridge and Marine but I suspect not given that if they planned that we'd have likely seen them on Cambie and Broadway.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Downtown is already pretty full, the city isn't planning to touch those cheap lowrise rentals which includes the houses which have usually been converted into rental condos.

For Broadway I do like the idea of large towers however I think Broadway is also higher than most of Vancouver so those towers will "tower" which we will have to figure out to ensure they fit in well. I think 10-20 stories is going to just be a given, higher is unlikely. You just can't build tall towers outside downtown in Vancouver, the city won't go for it. You may see a few like Oakridge and Marine but I suspect not given that if they planned that we'd have likely seen them on Cambie and Broadway.

I dunno, City Council's "touched" lowrise rentals all over the city, despite the best efforts of Swanson and Fry.

Yeah, Broadway has to be at least 10+. Remember that the Birch tower proposal is 28 floors; it got a lukewarm reception at the open house, so mid/high-density is at least somewhat acceptable to the public.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It isn't, it never has been, and I'll bet it never will be.

Some of it is part of the Municipal Town Centre - but that's not the same as Downtown.

Getting higher density into some of the Broadway corridor will get nasty. Nobody much cares about old low-density commercial areas in the suburbs, or even large surface-parked malls, but that's not the case for residential neighbourhoods. This is the area where a new building can be described as "a six-storey tower".

You are starting to sound ridiculous! Where in the world do you get a municipal town centre flanking its own downtown? Name me one that is under the banner of one city?

By the way, West Broadway has never been, and I'll bet it never will be, just a "residential neighbourhood".

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1) (A)Broadway's part of the future "downtown" municipal centre; 60+ should first fill up the downtown core.

(B)They do not, not like Broadway's. Brentwood, Lougheed, Oakridge, especially Metrotown, all have tiny slivers of the North Shore; most of the ground view south of Hastings is trees, asphalt and infill.
(C)Coquitlam Central has a decent panorama, which could be why their highest is forty floors.

2) (D)Marine Gateway is 35, which is a good fit for Broadway. Oakridge has 44 and averages 30, they'll need it in order to see over Broadway. I've already mentioned Coquitlam. 30-40 is plenty tall for the next few decades, at which point it'll likely be the 10+ on the chopping block.

3) (E)You just proved my point. Towers should be complementary to the skyline and to the neighbourhood around them, not just out of a base preoccupation with size. Leave that to the first orange president.

You most certainly do not have to share that opinion. Neither does most of the city and forum to yours.

(A) That is totally not for you to decide. Downtown is pretty filled up as it is.

(B) What do you call that? Are those not mountains?
View taken from Burnaby south of Brentwood:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2338...7i13312!8i6656

(C) Haven't you also read the most suburb thread that they may be putting a 50+ tower or possibly 60+ in Coquitlam Central?

(D) Again you are just agreeing with the presence of those towers at Gateway only because they are already there. How come you don't consider that they are blocking the mountains views of Richmond residents?

(E) I don't think I proved your point, whatever it may be. My own opinion is that 40+ to 60+ towers on the Broadway to Kitsilano side will complement the skyline of downtown. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative, and I can't argue with that. See Melbourne for an example of how the new Southbank towers complement the old CBD (Please refrain from saying "We are not Melbourne".)

Melbourne Southbank neighbourhood(left) vs CBD:
http://www.theopustower.com.au/aerial.php

if Melbournites are anything like our local backwater mentality, Southbank will never ever happen.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It isn't, it never has been, and I'll bet it never will be.

Some of it is part of the Municipal Town Centre - but that's not the same as Downtown.

Broadway between Burrard and Clark is included in the Vancouver Regional City Centre (or Vancouver Metro Core), which also includes the entire downtown peninsula. It's roughly a square centred on False Creek, bordered by Stanley Park, Burrard Inlet, Clark, 16th Avenue, and Burrard. You can see it (and the other regional city centres) in this document.

[officedweller]

Yeah, "downtown" versus "metro core" - to me, that's just semantics. Broadway could be like Bloor St. in Toronto (uptown) is to Toronto's CBD.
I know people at work who walk to work (@ TD Tower) from Fairview, so it's not that far away.

The preservation of NIMBY residential areas is probably why Kerrisdale is not a designated Municipal Town Centre - even though it should be, already being built up and on a potential future rapid transit corridor.

Same applies to Broadway & Commercial and the Commercial Drive area - largely (but not exclusively) residential and the NIMBYs are up in arms over anything over 4 storeys (i.e. Kettle Boffo)

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, "downtown" versus "metro core" - to me, that's just semantics. Broadway could be like Bloor St. in Toronto (uptown) is to Toronto's CBD.
I know people at work who walk to work (@ TD Tower) from Fairview, so it's not that far away.

The preservation of NIMBY residential areas is probably why Kerrisdale is not a designated Municipal Town Centre - even though it should be, already being built up and on a potential future rapid transit corridor.

Same applies to Broadway & Commercial and the Commercial Drive area - largely (but not exclusively) residential and the NIMBYs are up in arms over anything over 4 storeys (i.e. Kettle Boffo)

Well said: nothing but semantics. It is just old school North American style town planning rhetoric: something which encourages urban sprawl and proven not to work in the long run. It includes the confinement of "downtown" to a small district, and the "dome-style" placement of tall buildings in the area. Many still subscribe to this outdated city-building style.

Nimbys are a by-products of folks brought up in this methodology of town planning.

[misher]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, "downtown" versus "metro core" - to me, that's just semantics. Broadway could be like Bloor St. in Toronto (uptown) is to Toronto's CBD.
I know people at work who walk to work (@ TD Tower) from Fairview, so it's not that far away.

The preservation of NIMBY residential areas is probably why Kerrisdale is not a designated Municipal Town Centre - even though it should be, already being built up and on a potential future rapid transit corridor.

Same applies to Broadway & Commercial and the Commercial Drive area - largely (but not exclusively) residential and the NIMBYs are up in arms over anything over 4 storeys (i.e. Kettle Boffo)

Sorry officedweller but looks like Kerrisdale won't see much density increases.

The below should give some insight into CoV's planning as it was presented at their most recent Council meeting. It appears that Vancouver CBDs are at Downtown, Broadway between Burrard and Main, Main Street between 12th and Hastings, and Oakridge. Interestingly enough it appears a section of 41st and 49th East of Oakridge is planned to be a CBD. The goal is that 40% of future housing needs and 50% of future employment space will be in these areas by 2040. It gives hints into whats likely planned for sections of Broadway.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, "downtown" versus "metro core" - to me, that's just semantics. Broadway could be like Bloor St. in Toronto (uptown) is to Toronto's CBD.
I know people at work who walk to work (@ TD Tower) from Fairview, so it's not that far away.

The preservation of NIMBY residential areas is probably why Kerrisdale is not a designated Municipal Town Centre - even though it should be, already being built up and on a potential future rapid transit corridor.

Same applies to Broadway & Commercial and the Commercial Drive area - largely (but not exclusively) residential and the NIMBYs are up in arms over anything over 4 storeys (i.e. Kettle Boffo)

I guess you might call it semantics, but I think there's a significant distinction. The last change to zoning along West Broadway was to downzone the commercial-only stretch of the street, from Oak to Cambie, many years ago. I assume there was a public, or Council dislike of the higher density commercial buildings. Whatever the reason it was introduced, it hasn't been revisited until now, although the Metro Core Jobs Plan did allow rezoning to higher density, which is what the Neelu Bachra Centre and the new Bosa office at Oak took advantage of. All the new industry/office buildings being built in Mount Pleasant are part of the Metro Core Plan, but they didn't raise the density, just tweak the zoning, which has opened up a significant volume of development.

In the Downtown, and the CBD in particular, the base zoning density was raised, and rezonings are encouraged and supported. That's the distinction I would draw. The West End Plan also allowed a significant amount of redevelopment - even if some commentators here don't think it was enough.

The residential neighbourhoods - in the minds of the residents - are those areas on either side of that commercial only 'Uptown' area. There was huge pushback against higher densities even at Main and Broadway, and The Independent, for example, was strongly objected to, at 21 storeys.

I'm not suggesting that the Broadway Plan won't result in higher building heights and densities than currently allowed, and I'm certainly not supporting the status quo. I'm suggesting that residents along Broadway - West Broadway, maybe at Arbutus, and especially in Kitsilano and West Point Grey, are almost certainly not going to engage in the planning process saying 'bring it on, 40 storeys isn't nearly enough'.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm suggesting that residents along Broadway - West Broadway, maybe at Arbutus, and especially in Kitsilano and West Point Grey, are almost certainly not going to engage in the planning process saying 'bring it on, 40 storeys isn't nearly enough'.

I said this in the survey and will say it if theres an opportunity to in person!

There are some taller towers North of Broadway, at Granville and Cambie we have this 18 storey tower going up on west 8th https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1495...masonic-centre

The 19 storey Verona on West 7th https://bccondos.net/1483-w-7th-av

There's that giant 18-20 storey looking concrete monster at 805 W. Broadway. N. Broadway seems to get more density than South Broadway. Possibly because its closer to downtown?


So I assume this area will see towers of up to 20 stories at a minimum. Given that W. Broadway property is selling for up to $2400/sqft and BC Assessment is assessing around $1800/sqft for C3-A land sites there likely will be towers.

[logan5]

Whether referred to as downtown or not, the Broadway Line is going to bring a huge demand for office space to the corridor. More specifically Cambie and Broadway. There's already a significant number of office jobs along Central Broadway, so if you add to that a node of office towers, you will really start to have that downtown feel.

The Broadway Line will be flanked by dense neighbourhoods and will be anchored by a relatively large employment district. The potential for the Broadway Corridor is quite large.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(A) That is totally not for you to decide. Downtown is pretty filled up as it is.

(B) What do you call that? Are those not mountains?
View taken from Burnaby south of Brentwood:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2338...7i13312!8i6656

(C) Haven't you also read the most suburb thread that they may be putting a 50+ tower or possibly 60+ in Coquitlam Central?

(D) Again you are just agreeing with the presence of those towers at Gateway only because they are already there. How come you don't consider that they are blocking the mountains views of Richmond residents?

(E) I don't think I proved your point, whatever it may be. My own opinion is that 40+ to 60+ towers on the Broadway to Kitsilano side will complement the skyline of downtown. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative, and I can't argue with that. See Melbourne for an example of how the new Southbank towers complement the old CBD (Please refrain from saying "We are not Melbourne".)

Melbourne Southbank neighbourhood(left) vs CBD:
http://www.theopustower.com.au/aerial.php

if Melbournites are anything like our local backwater mentality, Southbank will never ever happen.

It's not up to either of us. It's up to City Council and the people who voted them in. Both favour limiting skyscrapers to north of False Creek, and within the viewcones (with exceptions).

I said "most of the views." Few of the City Centres have that kind of backdrop, and even then Broadway's blows them out of the water.
And the Garden Village area is not up for rezoning, nor is the one north of it. Jump ahead a couple decades when they will be, and watch all those NIMBYs pour out of the woodwork, invoking the views.

Good for them if that gets approved. Again, we shouldn't need to prove anything. It's not a contest.

Because if you look at them from over a kilometre away (River Rock for example), they blend in with the mountains. I suspect that Marpole residents, living nearby, might feel differently.

Again, one shouldn't want tall towers just because they're compensating for something. "Insignificant phallic structures?" Really?
We are not Melbourne. Southbank is right across the river from their CBD. Vancouver's closest geographical analogue is NEFC or Yaletown, and those have plenty of towers and retail. Broadway is Albert Road - not a good aesthetic or practical choice.

Originally Posted by Vin

Well said: nothing but semantics. It is just old school North American style town planning rhetoric: something which encourages urban sprawl and proven not to work in the long run. It includes the confinement of "downtown" to a small district, and the "dome-style" placement of tall buildings in the area. Many still subscribe to this outdated city-building style.

Nimbys are a by-products of folks brought up in this methodology of town planning.

The dome works. All we need to do is grow the dome, and encourage sub-domes all over the region.

So ChangingCity is a NIMBY now? Congratulations, you've out-dumbed your "previous generation" comment in the viaducts thread.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm not suggesting that the Broadway Plan won't result in higher building heights and densities than currently allowed, and I'm certainly not supporting the status quo. I'm suggesting that residents along Broadway - West Broadway, maybe at Arbutus, and especially in Kitsilano and West Point Grey, are almost certainly not going to engage in the planning process saying 'bring it on, 40 storeys isn't nearly enough'.

Most people on Broadway and east of Arbutus do seem pretty receptive to at least some density, if not 40+.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True, but some are willing to reexamine their goals, or to compromise. 40+ is just as ridiculous as >5 (both actual comments tonight).

40+ is fine for South False Creek or as 'Gateway' or 'Landmark' towers on Broadway/Granville or Broadway/Main, both outside the viewcones, and on major destination points.

40+ would also be fine for False Creek South, being at sea level, and having to 'integrate' with Yaletown/False Creek North. Even the ~15 story Olympic Village looks underbuilt compared to the structures across the water. I don't even know why- the viewcones now should allow for 20+ stories. Is it a legacy of a view cone that was removed, and no one bothered to rezone to higher density, or...?

Unlikely for the general density on Broadway though.

Originally Posted by misher

Downtown is already pretty full, the city isn't planning to touch those cheap lowrise rentals which includes the houses which have usually been converted into rental condos.

For Broadway I do like the idea of large towers however I think Broadway is also higher than most of Vancouver so those towers will "tower" which we will have to figure out to ensure they fit in well. I think 10-20 stories is going to just be a given, higher is unlikely. You just can't build tall towers outside downtown in Vancouver, the city won't go for it. You may see a few like Oakridge and Marine but I suspect not given that if they planned that we'd have likely seen them on Cambie and Broadway.

20 stories is minimum. Remember, Broadway/South False Creek is the last part of Vancouver not already covered by a recent city plan and inside the Metro Core. Oakridge's Town Centre (as designated by the RGS, not by COV) is literally just the mall site.

The West End Plan did not rezone enough to last Vancouver 20+ years- the areas it upzoned are already being in the proposal stage for redevelopment or under construction. The existing 'Downtown'/Yaletown area are also basically running on infill at this point.

Merging Broadway into Downtown is the logical choice, as much as merging Yaletown or Downtown South/East with Downtown proper was. Not to mention we've spent more money on a single RT project than any other single RT project to build this line. Better squeeze that investment hard.

30-40 stories should be the general goal, with densities decreasing when restricted by view cones, or towards 16th Ave. (the historical boundary of the COV, the boundary of the Metro Core, and it's honestly more logical to densify further eastwards than southwards, where we're more likely to see better RT.)

Does the Jim Pattison Centre at Vancouver General tower over Vancouver?

Originally Posted by Changing City

I guess you might call it semantics, but I think there's a significant distinction. The last change to zoning along West Broadway was to downzone the commercial-only stretch of the street, from Oak to Cambie, many years ago.

Source?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We are not Melbourne. Southbank is right across the river from their CBD. Vancouver's closest geographical analogue is NEFC or Yaletown, and those have plenty of towers and retail. Broadway is Albert Road - not a good aesthetic or practical choice.

The equivalent for Vancouver is South False Creek, as the CBD is expanding East/Southwards, and will soon touch BC Place.

[Feathered Friend]

Broadway Corridor Planning Events Reveal Deeply Divided Community

Broadway Plan – Spring 2019 Open House
It is not surprising that major infrastructure upgrades, like new hospitals, roads and mass-transit, generate both a large turn out, and deeply divided opinions. When these badly needed community services take years for seniors levels of government to fund, will generate significant long term benefits, and last for decades or even centuries, what other result could there be?

The Broadway Subway (an expansion of the Millennium Line) has done exactly this. Several decades ago, our region chose to embrace a green way of urban living, rather than the widespread sprawl of other North American cities. Unfortunately, this means whenever a new transit system is proposed, it often results in a backlash from those who are afraid of the changes it will bring....

....These included people I have spoken with previously who are normally quite reasonable when it comes to improvements in other parts of our city. In this case, my acquaintance believed there was no need for new growth in the area, as all the existing homes are actually empty. When I pointed out we know many people in the area, our relationship soured, and they labelled us fools for not realizing people are simply paid to make these vacant homes appear lived in.

More at : https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...ded-community/