Waterfront Station Transportation Hub | Proposed

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

That whole area around the False Creek Flats should become a concentration area for museums. I'd also like to see the Royal BC Museum relocated from Victoria and setting up in the neighbourhood, combined with the Museum of Anthropology's collection. It's bound to be a lot more convenient and attract a lot more visitors than having it out in Victoria or Point Grey, don't you think?

Try not to go off-topic please...

My last post on the issue: the Royal BC Museum belongs in Victoria. It's a key attraction for the city, and it would be quite selfish of us to want it moved here. And with the Museum of Anthropology, it belongs to UBC.

[Rusty Gull]

Originally Posted by deasine

Vancouver has many sculptures just like that: just scattered across the city parks.

Yes, but the scattering of them seems to have diluted their impact. The Seattle park is a destination in its own right.

Back to Waterfront Station: If this is indeed moving forward, we have an opportunity to create an incredible focal point for public transportation in this country. Heck, even Union Station can't boast the inclusion of ferry and helicopter traffic.

And recent rumours of the Whitecaps returning to their #2 proposal (over the Seabus terminal) could create the mother of all opportunities here.

I'm still not sold on bringing the Seattle train to Waterfront, however. Pacific Station is one of the crown jewels of this city. If anything, I would like to see that site further leveraged for more rail linkages -- and dream the dream, ultimately a high-speed rail link connecting to Seattle (and eventually Portland).

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

If they move this to Waterfront, what'll become of Pacific Central?

I think each railway - VIA, Amtrak and Rocky Mountaineer decides where its own station will be.
I doubt that VIA would move locations, as I think (not sure) it must have continue to have some sort of an ownership interest in Pacific Central (the former CN Station) - and costs would be lower as a result.
It's interesting that Rocky Mountaineer set up a wholly separate station.
I'll bet that Amtrak contracts with VIA to handle its luggage, et.
Anyone know?

[vanlaw]

.....and even if Via did move to WF, there wouldl still be Greyhound at PC station.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

.....and even if Via did move to WF, there wouldl still be Greyhound at PC station.

Wouldn't they also natually follow to where all the other transportation modes converge?

[jlousa]

Pacific Central will stay where it is, The tracks at Waterfront are for cargo and will continue to be so for an indefinate time.

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

Wouldn't they also natually follow to where all the other transportation modes converge?

It just woudlnt make sense for GH to move back downtown - they have all of their cargo and passanger service amalgamated at PC station.

[yesheh]

While it is true that the port rail lands will probably stay devoted to cargo for some time, it is arguable that if new rail lands can be found in which some yard work can be done (preferably nearer to the port) CP may be willing to give up some of its interests (probably at some cost) to the city and/or other jurisdictions in order to allow for passenger rail service to the CP station. However, this would require investment in yards for the passenger rail equipment (currently located at Strathcona by Pacific Central) which will probably not happen without government intervention. In short, if the provincial government or the City of Vancouver takes action to encourage the providers to relocate their services to Waterfront station, it is likely that change will occur. However, until then, the status quo is likely to remain.

[Hot Rod]

Sorry guys, I joined this thread late (was in Japan)_.

So I just HAD to comment on whoever posted the comment that Tokyo/Osaka dont have skyscrapers. B!S!

Both cities have MULTIPLE CBD's, each with wall to wall skyscrapers. While there are not many supertalls, both cities have a significant number of towers much taller than ours.

Since someone commented on Tokyo's CBD's (Shinjuku, Tokyo Central, etc), I will name those for Osaka (since I just came from there).

Umeda (in Kita, aka North): this is the MAIN NEW downtown and is FULL of skyscrapers that radiate around the MAIN Osaka Station (rail, subway) and underground/above ground shopping complexes.

Namba (in Chuo, aka Central): this is the older downtown area where buildings are shorter but nonetheless significant. This is definitely much more street oriented (where Dotomburi, Ebisaibashi, Shinsaibashi, etc etc shopping districts are). Namba is at the end of Mido-suji Avenue (the MAIN N-S street).

Tennoji (in East): This is a old area becoming new with skyscrapers.

Osaka Business Park: Also in East, it is near the Osaka Castle and looks like Century City in LA.

Minami (aka South): This area is a very new downtown highrise district near the waterfront and has a decent mix of highrise residential and office.

There are more, yet smaller business districts of course.

POINT IS, Osaka is amazing. If you ever get the chance (and guts) to drive [or take a cab], go on the Hanshin Expressway loop around the central city and all you see is wall to wall skyscrapers. It is an awesome sight at night, where the buildings are lit up with neon signs, it's simply amazing yet still Japanese!

Tokyo has more buildings in general but Osaka definitely kicks butt. I think Osaka is a little more 'authentic' in a way (whereas Tokyo is quite a bit Westernized). I prefer Osaka personally - it's more managable, whereas Tokyo is way over the top.

Osaka is Vancouver's sister city. If there is ANY city we should be looking to for urban planning downtown (density), we SHOULD BE LOOKING TO THEM. Osaka has a very nice mix of height and Density in multiple CBD's. I'd say we should definitely try to take some pointers on Umeda/Osaka Station - which is complete with the HEP 5 multi-level department store and FERRIS WHEEL!!

Wouldn't it be nice if we had something similar at Waterfront?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Wouldn't it be nice if we had something similar at Waterfront?

Personally, I have never been to Japan before but I do watch documentaries on them, such as the ones on National Geographic, and it's amazing how efficient and urban planning policies they have there.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Sorry guys, I joined this thread late (was in Japan)_.

So I just HAD to comment on whoever posted the comment that Tokyo/Osaka dont have skyscrapers. B!S!

Both cities have MULTIPLE CBD's, each with wall to wall skyscrapers. While there are not many supertalls, both cities have a significant number of towers much taller than ours.

Since someone commented on Tokyo's CBD's (Shinjuku, Tokyo Central, etc), I will name those for Osaka (since I just came from there).

Umeda (in Kita, aka North): this is the MAIN NEW downtown and is FULL of skyscrapers that radiate around the MAIN Osaka Station (rail, subway) and underground/above ground shopping complexes.

Namba (in Chuo, aka Central): this is the older downtown area where buildings are shorter but nonetheless significant. This is definitely much more street oriented (where Dotomburi, Ebisaibashi, Shinsaibashi, etc etc shopping districts are). Namba is at the end of Mido-suji Avenue (the MAIN N-S street).

Tennoji (in East): This is a old area becoming new with skyscrapers.

Osaka Business Park: Also in East, it is near the Osaka Castle and looks like Century City in LA.

Minami (aka South): This area is a very new downtown highrise district near the waterfront and has a decent mix of highrise residential and office.

There are more, yet smaller business districts of course.

POINT IS, Osaka is amazing. If you ever get the chance (and guts) to drive [or take a cab], go on the Hanshin Expressway loop around the central city and all you see is wall to wall skyscrapers. It is an awesome sight at night, where the buildings are lit up with neon signs, it's simply amazing yet still Japanese!

Tokyo has more buildings in general but Osaka definitely kicks butt. I think Osaka is a little more 'authentic' in a way (whereas Tokyo is quite a bit Westernized). I prefer Osaka personally - it's more managable, whereas Tokyo is way over the top.

Osaka is Vancouver's sister city. If there is ANY city we should be looking to for urban planning downtown (density), we SHOULD BE LOOKING TO THEM. Osaka has a very nice mix of height and Density in multiple CBD's. I'd say we should definitely try to take some pointers on Umeda/Osaka Station - which is complete with the HEP 5 multi-level department store and FERRIS WHEEL!!

Wouldn't it be nice if we had something similar at Waterfront?

Cool. I love Osaka.

However, I believe Yokohama is Vancouver's Sister City although Osaka has some Business Ties with Vancouver.

Osaka does certainly have Skyscrapers as well as Tokyo... but I was referencing that it's not wall to wall super-talls, as some may have envisioned it, but still very dense. I didn't mean to imply that there are no skyscrapers... but rather that height is not always equal to density.

In many ways, the higher a building is the more disconnected it can become from the street as you need to set them back further too.

Downtown is quite dense, but imagine we had 10-story density along major arterials and transit routes round the city? Something like Joyce station is nice... but shorter towers like the west end are nice too... and very livable.

If you flew out of Kankuu you went through Sakai to the south. There's a LOT of people in Sakai alone, and it's like a Richmond/Surrey of Osaka. The Midosuji line (Red line) ends there and if you get off at Shinkanaoka and walk around you see lots of low and mid-rises, but the population of Sakai alone has a population density of : 5,556/km according to wikipedia (5.5x Surrey). That includes two huge parks and Large Mall (Diamond City Centre) and despite being on the edge of the urban area.

If we want to increase density, we should concentrate more on mid-rises outside the core and infill, as opposed to going taller and taller and taller.

One thing Japan does VERY VERY well is densify around Train stations. officedweller has mentioned this a few times, but why doesn't the city institute a policy like this around stations like Rupert, Renfrew, Nanaimo, 29th... and arguably... Commercial Drive (could have taller mid-rise buildings here)

[quobobo]

I agree with your sentiment almost completely, tintinium. More (LOTS more) 5-10 story buildings outside the core would be perfect if we could sneak it past the NIMBYs, as unlikely as that is. I'd like to do that in conjunction with taller buildings in the downtown core though.

I also completely agree re: density near transit hubs. I cringe every time I go to Commercial/Broadway and think that this dilapidated 2-3 story area is our region's transit hub. AFAIK there's one condo project going in near there, but that's hardly enough.

Neat to see that there's so many other ex-Osaka people here.

[twoNeurons]

To be fair I never lived in Osaka... but my wife grew up there.

大阪大好き！(I love Osaka

[deasine]

Originally Posted by tintinium

One thing Japan does VERY VERY well is densify around Train stations. officedweller has mentioned this a few times, but why doesn't the city institute a policy like this around stations like Rupert, Renfrew, Nanaimo, 29th... and arguably... Commercial Drive (could have taller mid-rise buildings here)

Vancouver will adapt that policy soon: EcoDensity.

[Rusty Gull]

Originally Posted by deasine

Vancouver will adapt that policy soon: EcoDensity.

Yeah, but they are behind other municipalities on this issue. Burnaby has a huge head start in terms of densifying around the Skytrain stations. Heck, New West and even North Van's Lonsdale Quay have a better track record of station densification than the usual Skytrain station suspects in Vancouver (ie, 29th, Rupert, etc)

I hope we see better density action around the new RAV stations, but something tells me it won't happen anytime soon (besides possibly Oakridge)

[cornholio]

All the stations regardless of the city they are in densified only when the area around them was industrial land. The stations in Vancouver were all established single family neighborhoods, just like 22nd street in new west, or Royal oak in Burnaby(mius the old industrial lands that now have 3 story townhouses(hardly significant densification). Or there is all the single family neighbourhoods around Production way, Lake, Sperling etc that wont get redevelped. Anyways my point is that no single family neighborhoods in the entire region ever got redeveloped and densified around skytrain stations. The only area that has seen some single family homes replaced by townhomes is edmonds station, and that area is poor and full of crack houses which makes it much easier to buy up properties and rezone them since almost none of the owners live there and only own there for profit. Im just tired of hearing about how Vancouver doesnt densify around the stations and how all the other cities do, well thats completely not true, though all the cities could do a much better job. I also agree it would be nice to see some more density around commercial, but the commercial area was also a estabelished low rise/townhome neighborhood and like all other estabelished neighborhoods around skytrain staions there has been no significant change in zoning. So all the cities have done a equally bad job, Burnaby just happend to have more staions located in industrial areas that could be rezoned to highdensity or near towncenters that were already dense with highrises.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by cornholio

All the stations regardless of the city they are in densified only when the area around them was industrial land. The stations in Vancouver were all established single family neighborhoods, just like 22nd street in new west, or Royal oak in Burnaby(mius the old industrial lands that now have 3 story townhouses(hardly significant densification). Or there is all the single family neighbourhoods around Production way, Lake, Sperling etc that wont get redevelped. Anyways my point is that no single family neighborhoods in the entire region ever got redeveloped and densified around skytrain stations. The only area that has seen some single family homes replaced by townhomes is edmonds station, and that area is poor and full of crack houses which makes it much easier to buy up properties and rezone them since almost none of the owners live there and only own there for profit. Im just tired of hearing about how Vancouver doesnt densify around the stations and how all the other cities do, well thats completely not true, though all the cities could do a much better job. I also agree it would be nice to see some more density around commercial, but the commercial area was also a estabelished low rise/townhome neighborhood and like all other estabelished neighborhoods around skytrain staions there has been no significant change in zoning. So all the cities have done a equally bad job, Burnaby just happend to have more staions located in industrial areas that could be rezoned to highdensity or near towncenters that were already dense with highrises.

I guess in this reasoning, the most extensive rezoning, redeveloping and densification that will be conducted around the Skytrain lines anytime soon will be Richmond and Surrey. The Canada Line in Richmond runs through mostly old industrial lands (Bridgeport), farmland waiting to be redeveloped (Capstan), old and torn-down warehouses on the west side of No.3 Rd (Aberdeen and Lansdowne). As for Surrey, Scott Rd area and big-box stores close to Surrey Central will see rezoning.

[worldwide]

i bet those townhomes are actually significantly dense, they have a much higher site coverage than most high rise complexes outside of downtown.

density is not all about height, and we need more of these townhomes as a viable alternative to single family homes. not everyone wants to be in a highrise condo

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

I guess in this reasoning, the most extensive rezoning, redeveloping and densification that will be conducted around the Skytrain lines anytime soon will be Richmond and Surrey. The Canada Line in Richmond runs through mostly old industrial lands (Bridgeport), farmland waiting to be redeveloped (Capstan), old and torn-down warehouses on the west side of No.3 Rd (Aberdeen and Lansdowne). As for Surrey, Scott Rd area and big-box stores close to Surrey Central will see rezoning.

most of what is in vancouver along the expo line is/was established houses etc

its much easier to rezone where collingwood is to what it has become

but you can't kick out families and replace their homes with highrises and stuff

eventually as they sell off their homes it can happen but its gonna take a long time and developers aren't gonna hold onto one house in the hoped that the whole hood decides to sell at the same time

as for surrey - that old strip mall across from surrey central had a rezoning sign up last year - plans for highrises and more housing as well as retail and office space

no idea if it passed but anything is better than that ugly site

[jlousa]

Update on the Hub proposal, due to the scope of the project and the amount of interest in it, Translink has extended the deadline from Mar 4th to the end of the month.