[New Westminster] Pier West | 180M / 149M | 53 / 43 fl | U/C

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

So many brilliant ideas about sinking the railway tracks, elevating the tracks, building concrete walls etc etc.....just wonder who is paying for such improvements.
The tracks have been there right from the beginning, yet people choose to develop close to them. Now declare them hazardous, noisy, blocking vehicular traffic. Precedence is that developers pay for such improvements. Onni opt to pay for skytrain station at 37th/Cambie, Concord Pacific said to pay for Capstan Station at Richmond , developers also parttially pay for Willingdon Linear park.

correct myself: Onni proposed development is 57th/Cambie , not 37th

[retro_orange]

uh, trolling much? I was being realistic. Also making any area near a rail yard a no go exclusion zone for development is completely out of line with regional realities. We do not live on the prairies.

Who would pay for a concrete structure? Government grant to revitalize the area in tandem with developers building condos above to cover the cost.

Again, this type of thing gets done in other places around the world. I do not understand the belligerence of some to not make anything better and live with the status quo.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I've been thinking a bit about this. The most logical scenario I could think of is replacing the bridge with a tunnel, then moving the lead-ups to the tunnel underground, so you would end up with a Y shaped tunnel. $$$ though...

[madog222]

Bosa is constructing a presentation centre at Columbia and McKenzie, where the large fire was a few years ago. Looks like this project is happening sooner than latter.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

So many brilliant ideas about sinking the railway tracks, elevating the tracks, building concrete walls etc etc.....just wonder who is paying for such improvements.
The tracks have been there right from the beginning, yet people choose to develop close to them. Now declare them hazardous, noisy, blocking vehicular traffic. Precedence is that developers pay for such improvements. Onni opt to pay for skytrain station at 37th/Cambie, Concord Pacific said to pay for Capstan Station at Richmond , developers also parttially pay for Willingdon Linear park.

In the real world land use development is not static but rather very dynamic and thus in need of holistic modifications in order to accommodate ongoing spatial socioeconomic based need/changes. Hence, even if private sector railroads were there first such realities (from the 19th century) in the area don't preclude or exclude a contemporary quest for rationalization/reordering of (outdated/dysfunctional) land use priorities,...does it??

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

In the real world land use development is not static but rather very dynamic and thus in need of holistic modifications in order to accommodate ongoing spatial socioeconomic based need/changes. Hence, even if private sector railroads were there first such realities (from the 19th century) in the area such realities doesn't preclude or exclude a contemporary quest for rationalization/reordering of (outdated/dysfunctional) land use priorities,...does it??

Those rail tracks are still heavily used and much more important than another suburb. Poor planning/greed by New West.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

By your analogy:

Translink = rail operator (pays to mitigate potential nuisance)

New Westminster is not the freight rail operators (not sure which ones, exactly) so it is not their responsibility.

I don't really care who pays for it - the railways, developers, or New West - it's just a shame that the towers and the rail tracks are so close to each other and there's been (next to) nothing done about the inevitable noise. The whistle cessation has been a start. I've been at the Pier Park with a train travelling past and it was headache inducing. Sometimes at night I've heard the rumble of trains - and I live by Edmonds Station (way uphill from the tracks along Marine Way).

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

In terms of the safety factor I was also thinking of the danger that the moving trains pose to pedestrian and vehicular traffic traversing the at grade tracks.

There's an overhead pedestrian crossing at the River Market / 8th St and they added one for the Pier Park at 4th St. There's the planned connection for Riversky over by 10th and the renders on the first page show another one at 6th St. Somehow I doubt people walking will have much to worry about. Drivers only have overpasses by Riversky and further over at 3rd Ave.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Sheba

There's an overhead pedestrian crossing at the River Market / 8th St and they added one for the Pier Park at 4th St. There's the planned connection for Riversky over by 10th and the renders on the first page show another one at 6th St. Somehow I doubt people walking will have much to worry about. Drivers only have overpasses by Riversky and further over at 3rd Ave.

Yes, I have noticed the overhead pedestrian walkways you've mentioned but I wonder if walking up and down long stairs is as spatially accommodating (especially to the old/infirmed etc.) as seamlessly walking at grade level from stores/shops on say Columbia Street to the soon to be developed apartments, the riverfront restaurants and parks across the railroad tracks. Maybe elevators on either side of the elevated walkways might help.

[Metro-One]

Love the towers, but the at grade road crossing is a real short sighted move, even for things such as bike and emergency vehicle access.

The railways are not going away in this part of the city, it is one of the key ROW.

Also the park could use a little more landscaping. These big patches of green grass are starting to look a little dull, just a square patch of nothing. At least make the bordering areas around it more interesting and fluid.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Yes, I have noticed the overhead pedestrian walkways you've mentioned but I wonder if walking up and down long stairs is as spatially accommodating (especially to the old/infirmed etc.) as seamlessly walking at grade level from stores/shops on say Columbia Street to the soon to be developed apartments, the riverfront restaurants and parks across the railroad tracks. Maybe elevators on either side of the elevated walkways might help.

There's an elevator on one of the walkways further east. And if you ever walked anywhere in New West then I think they would be unable to navigate most streets in the city if they they have trouble going up stairs.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

In the real world land use development is not static but rather very dynamic and thus in need of holistic modifications in order to accommodate ongoing spatial socioeconomic based need/changes. Hence, even if private sector railroads were there first such realities (from the 19th century) in the area don't preclude or exclude a contemporary quest for rationalization/reordering of (outdated/dysfunctional) land use priorities,...does it??

Exactly this. Also if you look at that older birds eye view i posted, several tracks have been removed since and there are now large open and unused areas in the railyards now. There could be a new community of apartments and condos built above with minimal impact if any long term impact to rail traffic.

I also never implied the trains should be removed, that's why I suggested covering them. Reading comprehension please...

Lemonade from lemons people...

[towerseeker101]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Who's the architect for this project?

I believe that it might be Amanat Architecture, from what​ I could find. (The daily hive credited the rendering to them) The same architect designed the towers right next to Holdom Skytrain Station.
http://www.amanatarchitect.com

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I also never implied the trains should be removed, that's why I suggested covering them. Reading comprehension please...

Lemonade from lemons people...

....Of course I never contended that the rail tracks shouldn't be covered,...in fact that was also a suggestion I made via sinking the tracks in a covered trench.

[rickvug]

On Front Street notice how Pier Park is slightly elevated around the 4th Street pedestrian overpass (see Street View). Was this done for park design purposes or if there was any planning for how encapsulation might be accomplished in the future? I wonder about the possibility of the tracks entering an encapsulated tunnel here and continuing a gentle slope downwards to the point where they would be completely underground at the Begbie crossing. From there start to climb again to be back at ground level at the rail yards around the bottom of 10th Street.

Personally I think this would make a lot of sense. It would cost a ton of money though. The only potential source of cash I'd see for this is Front Street being widened to four lanes. Something would need to be done with the tracks to make that possible as the width just isn't there for two extra lanes.

[SpongeG]

this project was posted on facebook and 99% of the comments are against it, they really don't want it to happen, one person said she was ok with 15 storeys and nothing higher

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by rickvug

On Front Street notice how Pier Park is slightly elevated around the 4th Street pedestrian overpass (see Street View). Was this done for park design purposes or if there was any planning for how encapsulation might be accomplished in the future? I wonder about the possibility of the tracks entering an encapsulated tunnel here and continuing a gentle slope downwards to the point where they would be completely underground at the Begbie crossing. From there start to climb again to be back at ground level at the rail yards around the bottom of 10th Street.

Personally I think this would make a lot of sense. It would cost a ton of money though. The only potential source of cash I'd see for this is Front Street being widened to four lanes. Something would need to be done with the tracks to make that possible as the width just isn't there for two extra lanes.

The rise was a design reaction to reduce the impact of the railway on the park while creating an orientation towards the river. It begs further treatment to lessen the railway's impact, but it was not a decision with anything further in mind.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

this project was posted on facebook and 99% of the comments are against it, they really don't want it to happen, one person said she was ok with 15 storeys and nothing higher

Unfortunately for those people this project is pretty much going ahead. The current plan is to have three towers: one 29 storeys, one 38 storeys, and one 47 storeys. Bosa wants to change it to the one that's being shown off here, adjusting those heights to 43 storeys, 3 storeys, and 53 storeys, respectively. This requires a Special Development Permit and a Development Variance Permit that Council has to approve.

Basically that site is going to get a 47 storey building or a 53 storey building. Odds are that those Facebook commenters would be against a 47 storey building too, even though that's already approved and could be built tomorrow.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

this project was posted on facebook and 99% of the comments are against it, they really don't want it to happen, one person said she was ok with 15 storeys and nothing higher

I think the right to develop whatever an owner wants should not be questioned by others who never contribute a single penny to the land. If such projects are questionable, like having negative environmental impacts, then professionals have the right to wade in to object. Other than that, without any good reasons, nobody else should object, especially those protesting for the sake of protesting.

Like the person who said she's ok with 15 stories rather than 50 stories...what's the rationale? A tall tower has a higher chance of falling on her little shack a mile away and flatten her while she sleeps?

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think the right to develop whatever an owner wants should not be questioned by others who never contribute a single penny to the land. If such projects are questionable, like having negative environmental impacts, then professionals have the right to wade in to object. Other than that, without any good reasons, nobody else should object, especially those protesting for the sake of protesting.

Like the person who said she's ok with 15 stories rather than 50 stories...what's the rationale? A tall tower has a higher chance of falling on her little shack a mile away and flatten her while she sleeps?

People who objects may reflect the sentiment of potential buyers who ultimately determine success of the project. Developer can developer whatever...
Buyers may hesitate due to various reasons, after all there all so many other locations they can consider all over metro Vancouver right now.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think the right to develop whatever an owner wants should not be questioned by others who never contribute a single penny to the land. If such projects are questionable, like having negative environmental impacts, then professionals have the right to wade in to object. Other than that, without any good reasons, nobody else should object, especially those protesting for the sake of protesting.

Like the person who said she's ok with 15 stories rather than 50 stories...what's the rationale? A tall tower has a higher chance of falling on her little shack a mile away and flatten her while she sleeps?

Ah, no. That's not how our society works.