Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

jlousa · #1 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 5:00 AM**

For all that were getting a bit envious of Burnaby and their mall redevelopment, Vancouver has it's own version.

Quote:

enriquez Partners Architects has applied to the City of Vancouver to amend the existing CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District By-law for 650 West 41st Avenue (Oakridge Centre). The proposed amendment would change the CD-1 (1) By-law to develop a 45-storey mixed-use development consisting of 110 889 m² of commercial, 39 418 m² of office, 4 181 m² of amenity, and 250 646 m² of residential, with a total floor space ratio (FSR) of 3.54. The proposal includes 2,818 units with a maximum height of 125.6 m (412 ft.), and 6,694 parking spaces.

This will be a large development. It will be interesting to watch this one work it's way thru the city. Definitely a project that could use the support of forumers speaking to council when the time comes.

sacrifice333 · #2 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 5:30 AM**

Some really cool initial conceptual designs there!

No doubt, it'll get toned down, but 45 stories at Oakridge. I likey.

SpongeG · #3 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 5:46 AM**

wow so they will demolish the bay and zellers and move both of them to front on 41st? did i understand all that right?

Metro-One · #4 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 6:19 AM**

Isn't 125.6 meters really short for 45 floors? 45 X 3 is 135 meters. Unless they mean floor # count (excluding all the 4s knowing it will be Chinese buying all these units again, honestly, with how many condo they buy one would think metro-Vancouver's population is 90% Chinese now).

Overall a great looking concept. I see some of the original buildings will be retained.

Also, in the models the tallest tower looks much shorter than 125.6 meters.

phesto · #5 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 2:58 PM**

Overall looks great.

I don't see them getting 45 storeys, but I'm guessing their strategy is to ask for it and expect ~35 storeys.

The office component is a little disappointing. Wasn't expecting highrise or anything, but it would've been nice to see one or two self contained lowrise office buildings rather than just tacked-on podiums.

6,700 parking spaces seems like a ton of parking at first glance but I guess it makes sense given all the density and retail. For reference, Metropolis at Metrotown has 8,000 stalls apparently...

Glad the design was given to Henriquez and not JKMC!

TwoFace · #6 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 3:37 PM**

Very impressive, a city within a city.
All they need is a pool and a park and I'm in.

jlousa · #7 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 4:15 PM**

8'6" is the standard height for a residential floor.

Obviously buildout will depend on market conditions and due to the need for phasing around an operational mall, it would be safe to assume ~10yr buildout, could be even quicker.

This is still at the high level and I'm sure we'll see some additional fine tuning before we see things started. It will certainly increase ridership along the Canada Line.

Smooth · #8 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 4:33 PM**

Too bad that it looks like they'll be keeping the mid-rise brown-brick building at the corner of 41st & Cambie. It would be nice if that entrance was more grand.

Metro-One · #9 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

8'6" is the standard height for a residential floor.

Obviously buildout will depend on market conditions and due to the need for phasing around an operational mall, it would be safe to assume ~10yr buildout, could be even quicker.

This is still at the high level and I'm sure we'll see some additional fine tuning before we see things started. It will certainly increase ridership along the Canada Line.

Still seems short, there seems to be many residential towers with 45 to 50 floors that are considerably taller.

Anyways, 10 year build out for a project this large seems pretty optimistic...would be great, but I am not holding my breathe.

LeftCoaster · #10 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 2:54 PM**

Finally! I've been waiting so patiently for these to be released. That looks absolutely spectacular.

Any idea on the buildout and timing? I'm guessing phase 1 will begin within a few months, but the bulk of this project looks to be a 10 - 15 year buildout.

wrenegade · #11 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 5:46 PM**

Nailed it. Some of the architectural elements may need a little finessing but the overall concept is amazing. As I look down on Park Royal every day from my office and shake my head at how half-assed their current expansion is, this plan for Oakridge makes me smile (and cry a little, at what could have been at Park Royal). Looking forward to seeing this project move along. This may well be the best project in the city, better even that BIG's Beach and Howe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

Too bad that it looks like they'll be keeping the mid-rise brown-brick building at the corner of 41st & Cambie. It would be nice if that entrance was more grand.

They didn't really have too much of a choice there as there is a 50 unit residential strata project on top of the office portion. It would have meant dealing with and trying to buy out 50 individual owners. Obviously Westbank/Cambridge thought that they would be able to work around then (they have). And the proposed roof that covers part of the 41st & Cambie intersection reminds me of the Metropol Parasol in Seville (although probably made of glass), and I figure that will make the entrance quite grand.

More info: Architizer: Metropol Parasol

Metro-One · #12 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 9:30 PM**

Seems like with that much vegetation on a building it would require a lot of upkeep and structural monitoring. Trees are amazingly good at cracking rocks apart over the years

s211 · #13 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 11:17 PM**

It's amazing how daft the landscape consultants can be. There's a new living wall at a condo in town here that's about 6-7 storeys tall, and the only way to maintain it is with a huge cherry picker that involves having to hire multiple flag-persons for pedestrians and traffic to be re-routed. If that were my wall, I'd personally poison it and shut it down.

officedweller · #14 Posted **Oct 30, 2012, 11:22 PM**

Geez, I looked at my calendar to see whether it was April Fool's Day - but it wasn't....

Those point towers must be the cleanest Henriquez design I've ever seen. Nice mix of styles and massings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

wow so they will demolish the bay and zellers and move both of them to front on 41st? did i understand all that right?

All the more of a shame that there won't be continuous streetfront retail on the north side of 41st Ave.

mr.x · #15 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 2:59 AM**

Amazing! I hope this gets approved....and yes, those 40+ towers included.

One thing I'd like to see changed: I hope all of the outdoor pedestrian mall areas are completely covered to protect from wind and rain.

trofirhen · #16 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 8:35 AM**

In terms of aesthetics, this project seems a cut above just about any other in Vancouver. Hopefully, it will set a new standard for future developments in the Metro Vancouver area. Urban designers in other cities - especially regional ones, such as Seattle and Portland - may well sit up and notice this. Hurray for our side

whatnext · #17 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 12:20 AM**

When this goes ahead the underbuilt nature of the Canada Line is going to become really apparent. What was the max expansion they could add, wasn't it just one more car?

bardak · #18 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

When this goes ahead the underbuilt nature of the Canada Line is going to become really apparent. What was the max expansion they could add, wasn't it just one more car?

There is room for a smaller C car that could probably increase the capacity by at least a third. Then we can still double the frequency doubling the the capacity on top of that. Then the layout within the cars are rather poor and seating could be change to increase capacity by another 10-20%. So probably around a 250% theoretically but I would think that somewhere along the line I would think that dwelling times would throw a wrench into the works.

mr.x · #19 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

When this goes ahead the underbuilt nature of the Canada Line is going to become really apparent. What was the max expansion they could add, wasn't it just one more car?

It certainly will be apparent.

Right now, the Canada Line runs 5,000-6,000 pphpd of its 12,000 pphpd capacity. It would have its ultimate 15,000 pphpd design capacity with that 10-metre extension of its platforms from 40 metres to 50 metres to accommodate that middle section mini-third car.

I'll say this again, platform doors are going to be needed for the Canada Line to increase the usability of the platform area for passenger circulation in the stations. With the Canada Line eventually running frequencies that could be 90-secs like the Expo Line, it's going to be needed with so many boarding and disembarking the trains.

The upper limit of the Canada Line's train system is 300,000 per day, but the question is whether the small and narrow station circulation spaces could handle that kind of traffic: number of people on platforms at any one time, staircase/escalator traffic, walkways/halls, etc.

As for Oakridge-41st Station, isn't there a knockout panel in the ticketing concourse to allow for a future direct entrance into the mall and a new entrance across the street?

West22 · #20 Posted **Nov 18, 2012, 12:20 AM**

Went to the Open House at Oakridge Mall today. There were quite a few city people and development team people answering questions. It was fairly busy, with mostly local representation. The model is quite nice and helps to give a better indication of the scale and massing. In the renders I've seen in the online presentation, the towers look shorter due perhaps to the variation in floorplate/balcony size in many of them.

I think it is a pretty bold and progressive plan for this part of Vancouver, and generally supportive. High retail density (~2.5 x the current retail), with 2800+ residential units and only 1300 residential parking spots. I think offering the choice of a unit with good transit connectivity and no parking stall is one good way to increase affordability. My impression is that this option is still rare in Vancouver.

The vision for the pedestrian high street is to have an active, lively environment with restaurants and community amenities in addition to retail, all with residences above. Hopefully this can work, but I can imagine people moving in and complaining about noise and activity levels.

Unfortunately a cycling and pedestrian plan was completely absent. Even though the city boards emphasized "Prioritizing Cycling and Walking" in the Cambie Corridor plan (see section 1.4 of http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Cambie-Corridor-Plan.pdf ) it was a complete miss from the project team. They talked about a bike-share and a valet bike parking for residents (interesting concepts), but nothing about how the residents would cycle within and outside the development.

The project boards did not indicate any bike paths on the New Street (two reps gave 2 different opinions), and did not show any connectivity to Heather and 45th Ave bikeways (which are adjacent) nor Yukon and Ontario bikeways (which are nearby).

Accessing the Canada Line Station by bike from Heather St is impossible to do safely today. I asked the project reps about this and got a variety of 1980s-ish answers:
- "you can ride down the High Street" - a 50' wide pedestrian mall with sidewalk cafes and shoppers criss-crossing between shops? not safely.
- "you can ride through the mall if it isn't busy"
- "just ride on the sidewalk" I don't even like to walk on that sidewalk with all the low visibility entrances to the pkg lot.
- "what's wrong with the bike lane on 41st Ave?" You mean the bike painted in the middle of the right lane, sharing that lane with a high volume express bus, a local bus route, high speed traffic, and cars turning into and out of the mall? Everything is wrong!

Oakridge is currently an obstacle in the cycling network, diverting N/S traffic on Heather St and blocking safe access to the Canada Line Station. To get to even this early stage of planning with apparently no thought of improving cycling infrastructure, which is one of the top priorities of the corridor plan, is absurd.