Mayfair West (Oakridge Transit Centre Redevelopment) | Proposed

[Galaxy]

What would be nice is to have the park/green space on the roof of affordable rental units and or commercial/other uses. The green space would, therefore, be higher up and get more sunlight plus space underneath would serve a greater purpose.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

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.

That's a dumb mandate. It's not like they're building a new School on these sites or anything.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What would be nice is to have the park/green space on the roof of affordable rental units and or commercial/other uses. The green space would, therefore, be higher up and get more sunlight plus space underneath would serve a greater purpose.

Might be too expensive for the site and social housing.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

you're against more park space when a place introduces a ton of units that have no yards?

[whatnext]

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.

What do you expect when unit sizes keep shrinking? Residents need outdoor space otherwise it is no better than a 19th century tenement, just with granite countertops.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Might be too expensive for the site and social housing.

It doesn't need to be social housing it could be a school/community center/retail/ fire hall/ community police detachment/ daycare etc and the park or green space would sit on top. The idea is to maximize the space while also providing as many amenities that the people living there need. The city has a ton of land and what we really need to do more of is to make better use of the land we have. The housing can, therefore, be built filling spaces that otherwise would be parking or used a few hours a day.

In regards to cost the value in land compared to the cost to build out a green space on top probably is about the same plus or minus depending on different factors but I think the long term ROI is probably still making this idea a good one.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What would be nice is to have the park/green space on the roof of affordable rental units and or commercial/other uses. The green space would, therefore, be higher up and get more sunlight plus space underneath would serve a greater purpose.

But then that green space is smaller and exclusive to the residents of that building. The City wants one big central space for the whole neighbourhood to get together - they're at least correct about that.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But then that green space is smaller and exclusive to the residents of that building. The City wants one big central space for the whole neighbourhood to get together - they're at least correct about that.

Eh, if it's only a story or two, (like the Oakridge Park), it won't be a big deal.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you're against more park space when a place introduces a ton of units that have no yards?

There's literally 3 public parks within 3 blocks, Oak Meadow, Montgomery, and the Oakridge park built into the mall redevelopment.

4 if you include the one built into the Heather Lands, which also is surrounded by much larger and more appealing and useful parks than the grassy field being built into both of these plans.

Most other suburban town centres have far lower park/people ratios, mind you.

It's like how there's too many parking spaces put in place now because people were worried that no one will use transit and there won't be any parking spaces.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by fredinno

There's literally 3 public parks within 3 blocks, Oak Meadow, Montgomery, and the Oakridge park built into the mall redevelopment.

4 if you include the one built into the Heather Lands, which also is surrounded by much larger and more appealing and useful parks than the grassy field being built into both of these plans.

Most other suburban town centres have far lower park/people ratios, mind you.

It's like how there's too many parking spaces put in place now because people were worried that no one will use transit and there won't be any parking spaces.

true, and without the thousands of new units and residents moving in, those 3 parks existed.

there is a ratio of park space to residents in a certain area the city wants to keep. and i have to say that more park space the better. all these places going in have no green space at all so it needs to be offset with new green-space. the current number of resident are served but with all the new ones, you need new park space.

also, parks on a roof is a terrible idea for usability from a neighbourhood stand point. i know Oakridge is some big new thing, but i am leery if people who use it will actually be from outside the development.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But then that green space is smaller and exclusive to the residents of that building. The City wants one big central space for the whole neighbourhood to get together - they're at least correct about that.

There are tons of green space roofs around Vancouver that are not exclusive to the people living in the area. Examples include the roof at the VPL, the green space at Cathedral Place, Robson square, The trade and convention centre West and others. I would and they should mandate that the space on the roof is or would be equal to park/green space on the ground which I don't see as a problem.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

also, parks on a roof is a terrible idea for usability from a neighbourhood stand point. i know Oakridge is some big new thing, but i am leery if people who use it will actually be from outside the development.

Works just fine in Tokyo. And there's ramps from Cambie and 41st leading up to the park, and likely signs and escalators in the mall, so I doubt anybody'll think it's closed to the public.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

There are tons of green space roofs around Vancouver that are not exclusive to the people living in the area. Examples include the roof at the VPL, the green space at Cathedral Place, Robson square, The trade and convention centre West and others. I would and they should mandate that the space on the roof is or would be equal to park/green space on the ground which I don't see as a problem.

Sorry, misinterpreted "affordable rental units" - rooftop gardens on an apartment or office tower would likely be private property.

A 1-2 storey high green roof ramping up from ground level would indeed be nice.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Works just fine in Tokyo. And there's ramps from Cambie and 41st leading up to the park, and likely signs and escalators in the mall, so I doubt anybody'll think it's closed to the public.

i am aware of that, but humans are creature that do the easiest things all the time; we are lazy by design. this would be a new concept here, never before seen. so it may work over there, doesn't mean it will work here. this is North America.

it may work, and i will be curious to see if it does. but i am skepitcal if it will work for the general public, or will work for the residents living there. i am a firm believer parks shouldn't be boxed in by a development but appear to be open for everyone, even just walking by for a few mins.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i am aware of that, but humans are creature that do the easiest things all the time; we are lazy by design. this would be a new concept here, never before seen. so it may work over there, doesn't mean it will work here. this is North America.

it may work, and i will be curious to see if it does. but i am skepitcal if it will work for the general public, or will work for the residents living there. i am a firm believer parks shouldn't be boxed in by a development but appear to be open for everyone, even just walking by for a few mins.

Oh, I know. But lazy or not, many Vancouverites are either from or have been to three-dimensional Asian cities, and it's pretty dummy-proof for everybody else.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Oh, I know. But lazy or not, many Vancouverites are either from or have been to three-dimensional Asian cities, and it's pretty dummy-proof for everybody else.

don't under estimate the stupid and dumbness of people of society.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

also, parks on a roof is a terrible idea for usability from a neighbourhood stand point. i know Oakridge is some big new thing, but i am leery if people who use it will actually be from outside the development.

To be honest I feel like Oakridge mall park is going to end up like the city in the Park development's "Versailles" park behind Edmonds St.

Fountain and all is nice, but is seldom used by people outside the development, except for wedding photos in the summer it seems.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

To be honest I feel like Oakridge mall park is going to end up like the city in the Park development's "Versailles" park behind Edmonds St.

Fountain and all is nice, but is seldom used by people outside the development, except for wedding photos in the summer it seems.

It's also attached to a Community Centre. Sure, it's shaped like a courtyard, but it should become obvious to anyone after living there a few years the park is intended for the public use. If not...so sad.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

true, and without the thousands of new units and residents moving in, those 3 parks existed.

there is a ratio of park space to residents in a certain area the city wants to keep. and i have to say that more park space the better. all these places going in have no green space at all so it needs to be offset with new green-space. the current number of resident are served but with all the new ones, you need new park space.

also, parks on a roof is a terrible idea for usability from a neighbourhood stand point. i know Oakridge is some big new thing, but i am leery if people who use it will actually be from outside the development.

No, only 2- One of them is Oakridge T. Centre Park. There's also mini-parks going into the Heather Lands. Oakridge is not an area lacking in green space.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

To be honest I feel like Oakridge mall park is going to end up like the city in the Park development's "Versailles" park behind Edmonds St.

Fountain and all is nice, but is seldom used by people outside the development, except for wedding photos in the summer it seems.

Yes, but not really. IMO Edmonds is kinda one of those "neither here nor there" areas of Kingsway, whereas Oakridge is a mall and town centre and literally atop the SkyTrain station.

[Feathered Friend]

Rezoning Application - 949 West 41st Avenue & 5469-5507 Willow Street (Oakridge Transit Centre)


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...-and-stats.pdf


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...hasingplan.pdf

The City of Vancouver has received an application rezone 949 West 41st Avenue & 5469-5507 Willow Street (Oakridge Transit Centre) from RS-1 (One-Family Dwelling) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal consists of 17 buildings between 3 and 23 storeys, a childcare facility, a public park, retail space, and social housing units. It includes:

a maximum building height of 70.1 m. (230 ft.);
1,149 market residential units;
180 secured market rental units, including 45 Moderate Income Rental Units;
300 social housing units in two buildings;
a childcare facility (8,500 sq. ft.);
a new 2.34-acre public park; and
a total gross floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.30.


The area will now be called "Oak Green" as per

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...-rationale.pdf

[Bdawe]

Do my eyes deceive me, or is the central road way in this project nearly as wide as 41st Avenue?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Rezoning Application - 949 West 41st Avenue & 5469-5507 Willow Street (Oakridge Transit Centre)


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...-and-stats.pdf


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...hasingplan.pdf

The City of Vancouver has received an application rezone 949 West 41st Avenue & 5469-5507 Willow Street (Oakridge Transit Centre) from RS-1 (One-Family Dwelling) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal consists of 17 buildings between 3 and 23 storeys, a childcare facility, a public park, retail space, and social housing units. It includes:

a maximum building height of 70.1 m. (230 ft.);
1,149 market residential units;
180 secured market rental units, including 45 Moderate Income Rental Units;
300 social housing units in two buildings;
a childcare facility (8,500 sq. ft.);
a new 2.34-acre public park; and
a total gross floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.30.


The area will now be called "Oak Green" as per

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...-rationale.pdf

oh good, more traffic signal on a main E/W arterial.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Do my eyes deceive me, or is the central road way in this project nearly as wide as 41st Avenue?

West 41st

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...s-sections.pdf

Central Road

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...s-sections.pdf