Waterfront Station Transportation Hub | Proposed

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Washington took over the United Kingdom [Building]???

^ Revenge for losing the War of 1812.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Go Falcon Go!

Too much credit.

[cc85]

Originally Posted by raggedy13

^I'm guessing Granville Square (home of the Vancouver Sun/Province - 'Pacific Press')

I don't see why they couldn't do something a bit taller (like 160m at least?). I mean those development sites look sizable enough for something taller. A pair of tall twins would be pretty cool.

not everything is about height . there is more to a city than having tall buildings, concentrate your height in one area and sacrifice the life of another area in return.

[raggedy13]

^I'm not all about height. The transit hub alone will be a much better addition to the city than any tall tower could be, but with a couple of taller Vancouver buildings (ie not even close to 'tall' by international standards) we would have a bit of something to make everybody happy (on this forum anyways). And on the plus side, taller towers in that location would have a pretty limited impact in terms of shadowing since they would be on the far north side of downtown. Wouldn't be too ideal if the stadium was built over the seabus terminal though. And I don't want tall just for the sake of tall - Vancouver is lacking in iconic, internationally recognizable landmarks. A site like that could provide an opportunity to do something really special. You might say who needs recognizable landmarks, but such an icon really helps in terms of international branding, marketing, and most importantly adding to the identity of a city. I think most people here would agree that NYC just wouldn't be the same without the Empire State Building, or Paris without the Eiffel Tower, or even Toronto without the CN Tower.

I don't really see why some people have such an issue with adding a taller building or two to Vancouver. I agree that the city is great, tall buildings or not, but I don't see the harm of adding a few architectural landmarks. Aside from extra shadowing, a tall tower can be just as great an asset as any other development if done right - ie respecting the street-level pedestrian environment by adding to it rather than taking away from it, adding a significant city amenity, drawing more pedestrian activity to an area through increased employment/housing density, providing a useful reference point in the city (particularly for tourists), and of course adding to the architectural landscape and the city's collective identity/sense of place.

Just my opinion though.

Whether tall towers would 'fit' well and create a balanced skyline there is another question though.

[mr.x]

^ i couldn't agree more.

Some may say our city looks great because of its natural beauty, which has influenced our built form quite a bit. But natural beauty and geography was a gift to us from nature, we didn't create it and we sure as hell don't deserve it, and it's all merely a coincidence (with a lot of luck involved) that we decided to plot a city here. My point is, how cool would it be to have both natural beauty and man-made architectural wonders?

Not to mention....I find that tall and architecturally-unique buildings in a city represents the power, wealth, determination, strength, and progress of a city and its people.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

^ i couldn't agree more.

Some may say our city looks great because of its natural beauty, which has influenced our built form quite a bit. But natural beauty and geography was a gift to us from nature, we didn't create it and we sure as hell don't deserve it, and it's all merely a coincidence (with a lot of luck involved) that we decided to plot a city here. My point is, how cool would it be to have both natural beauty and man-made architectural wonders?

Not to mention....I find that tall and architecturally-unique buildings in a city represents the power, wealth, determination, strength, and progress of a city and its people.

Yup. But we must also strike a balance. We don't want a tower to be TOO tall, looking odd in the skyline.

[agrant]

So many billions of dollars in plans floating around now. Even if they don't get constructed immediately, it's nice to see there is some thought towards the future.

Love to see something special done with the concourse, especially the roof. Also believe double tracking the WCE line should be a priority if they want to continue taking on more users. They said there are 9000 people per day using it? What's the capacity now?

As for really tall buildings within the hub... Not sure if I'd want to see something that close to the waterfront.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by deasine

Yup. But we must also strike a balance. We don't want a tower to be TOO tall, looking odd in the skyline.

I know this is heresy around these parts, but if you ask me the economic considerations here are a lot more important than "How does this affect the symmetry of our skyline?"

The skyline is something that most people hardly ever see except in pictures, and on top of that it's completely subjective. Some people would think that the tall buildings accent our skyline, some people would hate them, and the majority of Vancouverites wouldn't care at all.

I'll take 20 extra floors of downtown office space over a relatively flat skyline any day.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

Yup. But we must also strike a balance. We don't want a tower to be TOO tall, looking odd in the skyline.

Well we certainly wouldn't want a CN Tower in Vancouver that is 4x the height of everything else, I'm thinking along the lines of a 750-800 footer.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by agrant

Also believe double tracking the WCE line should be a priority if they want to continue taking on more users. They said there are 9000 people per day using it? What's the capacity now?

I believe each train has a capacity of 1,300 passengers? And they run five trains in the morning and five trains at night. So that's 13,000 available spaces, and 9,000+ are filled each day.

[cc85]

Originally Posted by raggedy13

^I'm not all about height. The transit hub alone will be a much better addition to the city than any tall tower could be, but with a couple of taller Vancouver buildings (ie not even close to 'tall' by international standards) we would have a bit of something to make everybody happy (on this forum anyways). And on the plus side, taller towers in that location would have a pretty limited impact in terms of shadowing since they would be on the far north side of downtown. Wouldn't be too ideal if the stadium was built over the seabus terminal though. And I don't want tall just for the sake of tall - Vancouver is lacking in iconic, internationally recognizable landmarks...I don't really see why some people have such an issue with adding a taller building or two to Vancouver. I agree that the city is great, tall buildings or not, but I don't see the harm of adding a few architectural landmarks.

You dont have to have a tall building or a set of tall buildings to create an iconic city, you just need to have well-designed buildings in the appropriate places, regardless of height. think the lourve, sydney opera house, arc de triumph, chance des liseis, etc.

[Rusty Gull]

Props to SFU Vancouver and JLousa for this document. Very good stuff.

A couple comments:

- Intercity Passenger Rail Services is cited for Seattle/Vancouver. Why would Waterfront Station be vying for this, when we have a perfectly suitable train station already servicing Amtrak?

- there's also mention of future Seabus/ferry services (to West Vancouver, Bowen Island). Wasn't this killed off by TransLink already?

[leftside]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I've updated the photoshop I did last year, hopefully we'll get something like this.

I like the look of that with the stadium further west and closer to the transport hub.

[yesheh]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

- Intercity Passenger Rail Services is cited for Seattle/Vancouver. Why would Waterfront Station be vying for this, when we have a perfectly suitable train station already servicing Amtrak?

While Pacific Central station is certainly a nice building, Amtrak would do well to move operations to Waterfront because
a) Short haul service and potential for high speed means (relative to VIA operations) less tourists and therefore more traffic that will rely on transit system.
b) convenient location for Cruise ship passengers to transfer from and to.
c) the location means that there is potential for the Canada customs office that services the cruise ship passengers to also service the train passengers, thus cutting federal costs and allowing more flexibility in placing people.

[twoNeurons]

and how would they get trains from Seattle to Waterfront Station?

[officedweller]

I'll bet the main reason for having a tower on the site would be to help pay for the cost of the transportation hub.
I think Phesto mentioned that Cadillac Fairview has right to the air space above the tracks behind the CP Station (as well as the CP Station itself) - even though the amenity may not benefit solely the City of Vancouver (i.e. it would benefit Translink) the City may be instrumental in getting perks from Cadillac Fairview.

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

- Intercity Passenger Rail Services is cited for Seattle/Vancouver. Why would Waterfront Station be vying for this, when we have a perfectly suitable train station already servicing Amtrak?

- there's also mention of future Seabus/ferry services (to West Vancouver, Bowen Island). Wasn't this killed off by TransLink already?

Intercity could also mean Rocky Mountaineer. They operate out of their own station now (behind Home Depot) and if those yards are eventually developed, they may favour Watefront.

The route would be pretty much the same as now, just cutting over to the waterfront via that Venables crossing.

As for express boat services - they are thinking very, very long term for capacity. Also, the hydrofoil to Nanaimo will probably come back sooner rather than leter.

[Pinion]

I wish they had this planned for 2010. I ride the seabus every day and it's an embarrassing looking terminal on the south end (north is not much better). So many tourists take it and love the seabus itself but the rest is completely underwhelming.

My question is where would the seabuses dock while this is being built?

[raggedy13]

Originally Posted by cc85

You dont have to have a tall building or a set of tall buildings to create an iconic city, you just need to have well-designed buildings in the appropriate places, regardless of height. think the lourve, sydney opera house, arc de triumph, chance des liseis, etc.

I fully agree. Unfortunately Vancouver is still lacking in these shorter sorts of iconic facilities as well.

However, I don't see the harm in taller buildings. Perhaps those of you who are not such fans of them can enlighten me as to what you dislike about them. I realize they aren't necessary to make a great city (as you've said), but what's the harm in having them?

As far as I can see they provide the same opportunity to make iconic landmarks as the shorter ones you mentioned yet can have much more of a visual impact as they can be seen from afar, providing a visual reference point as well as solidifying their position in the collective identity of the city as they can be seen more often and by more people at any given time. In this sense they have the potential to be more iconic because they are more likely to be regularly seen than those buildings potentially buried behind walls of condos and as they say, "out of sight, out of mind".

I think this sort of reasoning may explain why out of the landmarks you mentioned, the Sydney Opera House is by far the most visually iconic - it is in a great open spot on the harbour with largely unobstructed sight lines. So basically every postcard-perfect shot of Sydney can include it (and the Harbour Bridge of course). The same can't necessarily be said of the Paris landmarks you mentioned. The Eiffel Tower however is little more than an observation deck, not as great a cultural facility as the Louvre, and is not even as old as the Louvre, yet it is the icon of Paris. Why? Because it is architecturally significant and is one of the most visually conspicuous structures in the city.

For Vancouver I'm not talking ridiculous heights here, merely heights that are nothing more than standard in other cities (and even shorter than standard in some cities).

Anywho, I respect your view cc85, but I'm just curious what it is some people have against taller buildings in our downtown that is already a forest of highrises.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Don't expect anything taller then the pacific press building, otherwise you'll be let down.

Well not that I'm expecting or wanting anything 750-800 ft on the waterfront, I was hoping for something along the lines of 160-175m. I think this would be a reasonable height for this area, considering its neighbours shaw and pacific rim, and the height of the buildings behind it. This height allows for the architect to have enough of a pallet to play with in terms of a visually pleasing dedign, while still remaining economically viable and does not look out of place,

Regarding the construction of something as tall as 800+ feet, I think it will happen some time in our lifetimes (next 50 years or so), but not anytime soon, there just isn't the political will or economic necessity. What I think a prudent move would be, is to allow a developer(s) to build moderately sized buildings in the central/eastern CBD, with phasable designs, so that when demand and the public decide they are necessary down the road, central locations for large office towers will still be available. As it stands now there are a great deal of low and mid sized aging office sites in the NE, some of these could be easily demoed and built up to current height limits or current demand limits, but they could be ready for the eventuality of more commercial density needed in the DT core.

This is what I am talking about regarding the 'NE CBD'


Here is a pic showing the relative lack of density compared to the NW CBD

[officedweller]

The BC Hydro Building is supposed to be the model for towers on that side of downtown - hasn't taken off though - maybe because of difficulties in consolidating parcels. There are also several social housing complexes and SROs in that area that would hamper consolidation.
If Trilea had been allowed to move ahead with its Woodward's based mall north of The Bay in the early 1990s, I think the spread of office space to the east would have happened faster than it is. Instead, those parcels (which had been consolidated except for the then CIBC Building) were sold off piecemeal (including The Hudson, St. Regis, Gotham, BCIT, etc. sites) where the smaller scale use in some ways acts as a partition from the rest of the CBD. I think the Bay Parkade site will be the turning point - but if it has a lot of residential, it could also act as a divding line.