Mayfair West (Oakridge Transit Centre Redevelopment) | Proposed - Page 2

Migrant_Coconut · #21 Posted **Dec 27, 2016, 9:37 PM**

Crud, now we have to define "spectacular;" I always thought those parks looked dull. Not very beautiful, but not necessarily ugly - just mediocre. Function over form and all that.

Fair point though. The future residents need a multi-purpose grass field for sports and exercise.
... And since they've already got one four blocks (3-4 minutes) due north of them, perhaps The Powers That Be should put something else in that spot.

Large Cat · #22 Posted **Dec 27, 2016, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Crud, now we have to define "spectacular;" I always thought those parks looked dull. Not very beautiful, but not necessarily ugly - just mediocre. Function over form and all that.

Fair point though. The future residents need a multi-purpose grass field for sports and exercise.
... And since they've already got one four blocks (3-4 minutes) due north of them, perhaps The Powers That Be should put something else in that spot.

A 24/7/365 goat petting zoo!

Or, an indoor/outdoor sheltered cat cafe! It could be the city's biggest central cat cafe, a kind of public amenity. There is certainly a latent demand.

Migrant_Coconut · #23 Posted **Dec 27, 2016, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Large Cat

A 24/7/365 goat petting zoo!

Or, an indoor/outdoor sheltered cat cafe! It could be the city's biggest central cat cafe, a kind of public amenity. There is certainly a latent demand.

I was thinking "public square with a garden or water feature," but that works waaay better.

BobLoblawsLawBlog · #24 Posted **Dec 27, 2016, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

As someone born in a well planned non overpopulated central European city with ample park space, who also lived in Sao Paulo, a overpopulated unplanned city with virtually no park space.

You can never ever have too much park space. Once its gone its gone. Build up if you want. Never sacrifice public open space. Ever.

And don't get me wrong unplanned overpopulated cities with no park space are fun to visit because their chaotic shit holes and interesting. But their not fun to live in.

I'm more of a fan of large parks like Manhattan's Central Park, Hyde Park, Prospect park etc, that are very large and landscaped rather then a boring patch of grass that is sitting on land worth 5 million dollars. If this development was in Los Angeles I'd be completely fine with it but there are FOUR large open green spaces nearby, more then enough, even if the entire neighbourhood was filled with 10 storey tall buildings.

SpongeG · #25 Posted **Dec 27, 2016, 11:40 PM**

is it a green space for everyone in the city? or the elite few who get to buy into this development?

MIPS · #26 Posted **Dec 28, 2016, 1:20 AM**

I can tell you firsthand that when you and your buddies are wobbling home absolutely drunk and you get split up those green spaces sprinkled about really help with getting you a place to pass out for a few hours and for the most part nothing's gonna disturb you aside from a raccoon wondering if there's food in your pocket.

trofirhen · #27 Posted **Dec 28, 2016, 4:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

I'm more of a fan of large parks like Manhattan's Central Park, Hyde Park, Prospect park etc, that are very large and landscaped rather then a boring patch of grass that is sitting on land worth 5 million dollars. ....

Yes, yes, and yes! Making greenspace alluring and beautiful is so important.

csbvan · #28 Posted **Dec 28, 2016, 5:18 PM**

The thing with ample green space (same with green roofs) it that it helps with stormwater management. The more permeable land around a building, the less rainwater that needs to be managed through municipal infrastructure.

djmk · #29 Posted **Dec 28, 2016, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

is it a green space for everyone in the city? or the elite few who get to buy into this development?

good question.

djmk · #30 Posted **Dec 28, 2016, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Depends on one's definition of "green space."

This is a green space.

This is also a green space.

And this.

---------

It's entirely possible to have a park that's natural and urban, rather than one or the other. Simply putting up a grass field and manicured trees (the lazy way out) achieves neither, and makes the area look MORE suburban, not less - hence the suggestion of a plaza/pond/fountain centred or adjacent to said field.

Where do the soccer nets go?

casper · #31 Posted **Dec 29, 2016, 4:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIPS

I can tell you firsthand that when you and your buddies are wobbling home absolutely drunk and you get split up those green spaces sprinkled about really help with getting you a place to pass out for a few hours and for the most part nothing's gonna disturb you aside from a raccoon wondering if there's food in your pocket.

I think we have a new use case for the parks board to use for planning purposes.

Changing City · #32 Posted **Dec 29, 2016, 6:59 AM**

It will be a public park, and will no doubt be subject to a consultation process, as other recent new parks have gone through. If it had a name today, it would be "Placeholder Park" - that render just illustrates where it will be located. There's an extensive adopted policy report you can look at on the City's Planning website.

On the future park it says "The OTC will incorporate a new park that is prominently located in the centre of the site, with one edge fronting 38th Avenue. The development plan illustrates a 2.3 acre park, which include a childcare centre and associated outdoor play space. The park is to have highly-public edges and will facilitate views across the site to the North Shore Mountains, while maximizing the number of residences overlooking the park. It will be configured to provide flexibility for a variety of park programming (active and passive activities) while contributing to a larger network of parks that include sensitive ecological areas in Queen Elizabeth Park, VanDusen Botanical Garden, and Oak Meadows Park. A linear green open space connects from 41st Avenue to the new park, inviting the public into the site and reinforcing the ecological connections in the neighbourhood."

Feathered Friend · #33 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Oakridge Transit Centre Comes to Life with Proposed Expansion of Affordable Housing

949 West 41st Avenue (Oakridge Transit Centre)
For almost seven decades these 13.8 acres of lands have played a key role in Vancouver’s transit network, serving as the main operations centre (pg 14) from its opening in 1948, to 2006 when a modern facility opened near the Arthur Lang Bridge. Finally, in 2015 a new planning policy was approved for the site, and it was shuttered a year later when it was sold for 440 million dollars. Since then, not much has changed.

However, communities take time to plan, design, and build. This is especially true considering the policy called for over 1,000 new homes, 250 more at non-market social housing rates, daycare, retail stores, and a 2-acre park. Only a few years ago, before the approvals of the rezoning of the Jewish Community Centre, the reconciliation envisioned for the Heather Street Lands, and Phase 3 of the Cambie Corridor Plan, these changes must have seemed massive.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...dable-housing/

whatnext · #34 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 10:33 PM**

It's getting McChenged?

officedweller · #35 Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 10:53 PM**

The rest of Cambie is being GBL'd...

fredinno · #36 Posted **Mar 29, 2019, 7:24 PM**

000

Feathered Friend · #37 Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Community Support Blooms for Growth of Affordable Housing Options at the Oakridge Transit Centre

949 West 41st Avenue (Oakridge Transit Centre)
After a couple rough civic engagement events last month, Darren and I were glad for the pause that came with Spring Break. With April here, already the meetings have begun and the weeks ahead look busy. Thankfully, this proposed expansion of moderate income rental and social housing at the Oakridge Transit Centre lands was a very positive start.

We were not the only ones to share those views, as the room at the beautiful Van Dusen Gardens was already full of people when we entered, and over 100 in total came through before we left. Despite that, we quickly noticed a crowd had gathered around one of the boards, and we soon realized why.

One of Vancouver’s most famous architects, James K.M. Cheng, was doing what he does best, wowing a crowd with his expertise. Darren has told me of the many times he witnessed this professional hold the attention of the Urban Design Panel with relative ease, and it was fascinating to see it. Though this time that skill did not seem very necessary.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...ransit-centre/

Migrant_Coconut · #38 Posted **Apr 6, 2019, 5:05 AM**

James Cheng? Sure hope nobody was expecting an architectural masterpiece from this project...

fredinno · #39 Posted **Apr 6, 2019, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...ransit-centre/

Is it just me, or does EVERY single one of these large-site developments nearby have a park in the centre? Especially here, why is that even necessary? NIMBYism? They could probably raise the density to 3 FSR if they removed it, and built streetfront retail and/or rental housing.

TheTerminalCity · #40 Posted **Apr 6, 2019, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Is it just me, or does EVERY single one of these large-site developments nearby have a park in the centre? Especially here, why is that even necessary? NIMBYism? They could probably raise the density to 3 FSR if they removed it, and built streetfront retail and/or rental housing.

The City targets 10% of all these big sites as park space...in line with the expectations from subdivision as well. Easier to mandate now than try to buy it later.