EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Hm, Doesn't that look just like the Olympic Village? Although South East False Creek overall is denser than that. (As you well know!)

Maybe a bit. Green space is really important. The China version has some green too, but a forest of towers like that is overkill. A few is fine.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Maybe a bit. Green space is really important. The China version has some green too, but a forest of towers like that is overkill. A few is fine.

Agreed. The best build form we have been able to achieve, in my opinion is around the OV. However, the OV obviously has the benefit of False Creek and the seawall - this provides openness and amazing potential for views.

That being said the general build form is most pleasing to me - scale/height is super important.

Likewise for Yaletown - Hamilton and Mainland are great because of scale and character.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

Agreed. The best build form we have been able to achieve, in my opinion is around the OV. However, the OV obviously has the benefit of False Creek and the seawall - this provides openness and amazing potential for views.

That being said the general build form is most pleasing to me - scale/height is super important.

Likewise for Yaletown - Hamilton and Mainland are great because of scale and character.

OV is good, and the seawall is a big part for sure. When the park space at the Creek is completed that will help.

Yaletown is great around David Lam for similar reasons. Central downtown is not so good IMO. I considered Telus Garden around the presale but walking around that neighbourhood, no thanks, I couldn't be that far from water and decent green space.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

The USA one looks like a walled prison. Oh wait: it must be!

Must be nice in China to have huge playfields and parks, not to mention the views from the well spaced structures.

In Canada, we should build double the heights of those in China, so we get a higher density than all of the above.

Yes, China cities look like an earthly paradise. We should all aspire to such elegance.

[IMG]ghost-cities by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
Image: https://www.unsw.edu.au

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, China cities look like an earthly paradise. We should all aspire to such elegance.

[IMG]ghost-cities by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
Image: https://www.unsw.edu.au

The Metro 2050 plan called for us building 80% of our density near transit (maybe in different words than I said) because this shortens commute times to work and bigger buildings are a lot less pollutive per a unit. Economies of scale for construction, insulation and heating systems. Mega buildings like in Judge Dredd are the future of environmentalism and reducing our impact on the environment.

[Migrant_Coconut]

First Avatar, now Judge Dredd? Dystopia movies are supposed to be a warning.

90% of the CoV already lives near frequent public transit; the solution only needs to be more capacity plus OV/West End-sized upzoning. Vertical cities in Japan I can understand (though the resulting city-within-a-city creates its own problems), but North America? Problem in search of a solution.

[West22]

I don't see any discussion of the new zoning proposal to be debated at city council tomorrow. It could allow for four-storey apartment buildings on a whole bunch of currently single-family zoned properties. The criteria are if you are a) 150m from an arterial and b) 400m from parks, school and shopping then upzoning would be considered. I think only rental would be allowed, with FSR up to 1.75 compared to a max of 0.75 today.

Seems to me like a really big step (in the right direction), and something that I expected we would have to wait until the end of the barely announced city plan process. I haven't figured out how to post photos yet, so here is the 280 page proposal:

https://council.vancouver.ca/20191126/documents/p1.pdf

and a tweet:
https://twitter.com/ahvancouver/stat...87490680143873

[WarrenC12]

^^^ Looks very reasonable to me. We should be doing more of this instead of being mired in the City Plan. No doubt this will fail as Councillors point to the City Plan process.

NPA and Greens will vote against. That's my bet.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

OV is good, and the seawall is a big part for sure. When the park space at the Creek is completed that will help.

Yaletown is great around David Lam for similar reasons. Central downtown is not so good IMO. I considered Telus Garden around the presale but walking around that neighbourhood, no thanks, I couldn't be that far from water and decent green space.

Imagine OV's build-form further inland: not so exciting anymore, is it? Central downtown is actually still highly liveable because of all the conveniences.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

^^^ Looks very reasonable to me. We should be doing more of this instead of being mired in the City Plan. No doubt this will fail as Councillors point to the City Plan process.

NPA and Greens will vote against. That's my bet.

Maybe, maybe not - Bligh, Wiebe, Dominato and Kirby-Yung tend to vote progressively.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Imagine OV's build-form further inland: not so exciting anymore, is it? Central downtown is actually still highly liveable because of all the conveniences.

Did you even read what I wrote? Closer to water good, further bad. I didn't say anything about built form. OV inland would be similar to towers central downtown: not as good. Nothing to do with building height.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

OV is good, and the seawall is a big part for sure. When the park space at the Creek is completed that will help.

Yaletown is great around David Lam for similar reasons. Central downtown is not so good IMO. I considered Telus Garden around the presale but walking around that neighbourhood, no thanks, I couldn't be that far from water and decent green space.

Yeah, it depends on your lifestyle.
If you jog or cycle, then being deeper inland makes it hard to find easy access to pleasant running routes.
You need to be a real urbanite to enjoy it - i.e. more like living in downtown Toronto.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

^^^ Looks very reasonable to me. We should be doing more of this instead of being mired in the City Plan. No doubt this will fail as Councillors point to the City Plan process.

NPA and Greens will vote against. That's my bet.

In a surprising move, perhaps, that's not how it came out. They amended the proposals slightly, and voted on it in separate parts, so different Councillors supported different parts. Everything passed. Councillor Hardwick was opposed to more elements than anyone else. Councillor Swanson opposed a few elements, so did Councillors Bligh, Weibe, Fry, De Genova. Some parts passed with nobody voting against them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

In a surprising move, perhaps, that's not how it came out. They amended the proposals slightly, and voted on it in separate parts, so different Councillors supported different parts. Everything passed. Councillor Hardwick was opposed to more elements than anyone else. Councillor Swanson opposed a few elements, so did Councillors Bligh, Weibe, Fry, De Genova. Some parts passed with nobody voting against them.

I'm still claiming victory.

Good that it passed, what changed?

[GenWhy?]

Agreed on what amendments were made. Didn't feel like watching at home after Council's dinner break - and wouldn't mind avoiding re-watching the video stream. Can't for the life of me dig up the amendments.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm still claiming victory.

Good that it passed, what changed?

They took 12 hours to hear from speakers, propose amendments and debate and vote, and the video playback doesn't necessarily explain what the changes were, so like GenWhy notes, we'll have to wait a day or two for the minutes, but I don't think any changes substantially altered the proposition. Staff have to draft the new bylaw, and then it has to be approved, so there could still be some changes.

CBC helpfully reproduced the map of the locations that rentals can be built once it's adopted.

[WarrenC12]

That's a ton of "eligible blocks" way out on West Broadway past MacDonald. It seems to me this slipped quickly under the radar a bit (as designed I'm sure).

But we'll still get project-by-project protests from NIMBYs I imagine.

[LeftCoaster]

Fantastic it was approved. I hope the economics work and we see a bunch of underbuilt SFH torn down and replaced by well designed 4 floor rentals.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Did you even read what I wrote? Closer to water good, further bad. I didn't say anything about built form. OV inland would be similar to towers central downtown: not as good. Nothing to do with building height.

Of course I read what you wrote. OV is just a terrible build-form, and is only nice at the moment due to its proximity to the waterfront. Without that, it would be a rather drab place. That's why I asked you to imagine how the community would be like if built further inland. The downtown podium/tower form is still a good model even if it is inland, especially since it allows more light to go through between the towers, and residents don't feel as claustrophobic being higher up.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Fantastic it was approved. I hope the economics work and we see a bunch of underbuilt SFH torn down and replaced by well designed 4 floor rentals.

Should be way more than 4 storeys, because if it is only around 4, it won't make a huge dent on the population density increase in Vancouver, especially since many developers would not even bother.