Cambie Corridor Plan and Project Updates

[Feathered Friend]

Neighbours Blame Developer Shills for Damaging the Development Potential of Their Transit-Orientated Homes

582-588 West King Edward Avenue
After almost a month without going to a City of Vancouver led event, Darren and I thought this open house for a simple four story building on the Cambie Corridor would be a nice way to ease into what should be a busy year of community consultation. Given the proposal is less than a block away from King Edward Station, we assumed the worst we would see is some individuals complaining there should be far more housing offered at this location.

We could understand that viewpoint; after all, providing only 36 strata homes at a Canada Line Station, which is only a couple stops away from our region’s central business district, seems shortsighted. That is only made worse by the Cambie Corridor Plan‘s requirement for the proposal to provide 39 parking spaces for a project that offers no retail space.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...entated-homes/

[GenWhy?]

That 20 foot courtyard minimum doesn't look very wide... and damnit we're sick and tired of poorly maintained and run fountains with potable water! Since they'd be doing extensive water management anyway, grey water in this climate and systems of management and collection seem like a cost savings and efficiency.

[GenWhy?]

I'm also really liking how new developments are making a property-adjacent treed boulevard along King Ed.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...entated-homes/

I disagree that 39 parking spots for 36 units is excessive, given what these will likely cost. One only has to look at the increased use of street parking along that stretch of Cambie to 33rd to see that there are more cars than spots in these buildings.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I disagree that 39 parking spots for 36 units is excessive, given what these will likely cost. One only has to look at the increased use of street parking along that stretch of Cambie to 33rd to see that there are more cars than spots in these buildings.

I don't see a problem with the developer wanting to build 39 spots, but the post says that is the minimum requirement for the Cambie Corridor Plan, which is silly IMO.

[Feathered Friend]

Like A Bad Romance – UDP Infatuated by Elegant King Edward Mid-Rise, but Refuses to See it Ever Again
582-588 West King Edward Avenue

Despite the restrictions and overly prescriptive design regulations of the Cambie Corridor Plan, every once in a while a proposal manages to really shine through. Sadly, some who attended the open house were more concerned about how they could make a profit in the future by opposing it. Of course, the volunteers at the Urban Design Panel have different priorities, and easily recognized the high quality of this proposal.

The words of praise from every panellist were stunning, calling the proposal well presented, elegant, amazing, and well thought out and considered. Several panellists even went as far as to thank the design team for bringing forward such a well done project.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...it-ever-again/

[SFUVancouver]

The details of the Cambie Corridor Phase 3 plan sort of flew under my radar when was approved by Council last year, but in taking a more in-depth look, I'm pleasantly surprised by the Oakridge Municipal Town Centre sub-area of the plan.

Worth refreshing one's memory in a spare moment.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...idor-plan.aspx

PDF pg 63 / doc page 60.

http://vancouver.ca/images/web/cambi...ridor-plan.pdf (110MB file)

I still shake my head at the lack of continuous retail at grade along the entirety of Cambie Street. Setting aside the paltry 6-8 storey heights for most of the corridor, and inexplicable townhouse-focused infill within a block of several stations, it's the overall failure of imagination that bugs me to no end.

I do applaud the City's courage to rezone a fair amount of single family home sites to townhouse, but that should be done across the entire city as a blanket policy. Townhouses, even stacked townhouses, just aren't acceptable as the primary form of development within a 400m catchment area of rapid transit station. It's ludicrous, really. I know the founding principles and urban structure concept of the Cambie Corridor was laid down almost a decade ago, but it was crazy then and moreso now. My hope is that the city-wide plan will open the door to revisit the Cambie Corridor plan before too much of it builds out and we lock-in poor structural decisions for a century. The scope and scale of the Oakridge Municipal Town Centre sub-area should extend the full length of the Cambie Corridor, from Oak to Columbia, and preferably to Main to put Cambie Street in the actual centre of the plan. Such an approach would result in a more gradual rate of change in any given area than what is on the books since normal population growth will saturate a block of townhouses far faster than a range of low-, mid-, and high-rise redevelopment. For what the end result could look like, imagine the West End laid down between Oak and Main with the Canada Line at the centre. The natural build-out over time and market-based fragmentation of land assemblies will result in a far more organic and pleasant range of densities, height, and scale than the highly prescriptive plan as proposed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Two million dollar condos aside, Oakridge is indeed going to be sweet.

[misher]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I still shake my head at the lack of continuous retail at grade along the entirety of Cambie Street. Setting aside the paltry 6-8 storey heights for most of the corridor, and inexplicable townhouse-focused infill within a block of several stations, it's the overall failure of imagination that bugs me to no end.

Want to bet Broadway will be the same if not worse?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

Want to bet Broadway will be the same if not worse?

I sure hope not, especially since it's already a major commercial hub. Don't know if the NPA is more or less NIMBY than Vision.

And also because if they stay on the course with medium-density rentals everywhere, they need to balance it out with new Towers in the actual town Centre to meet Metro's RGS guidelines.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The details of the Cambie Corridor Phase 3 plan sort of flew under my radar when was approved by Council last year, but in taking a more in-depth look, I'm pleasantly surprised by the Oakridge Municipal Town Centre sub-area of the plan.

Worth refreshing one's memory in a spare moment.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...idor-plan.aspx

PDF pg 63 / doc page 60.

http://vancouver.ca/images/web/cambi...ridor-plan.pdf (110MB file)

I still shake my head at the lack of continuous retail at grade along the entirety of Cambie Street. Setting aside the paltry 6-8 storey heights for most of the corridor, and inexplicable townhouse-focused infill within a block of several stations, it's the overall failure of imagination that bugs me to no end.

I do applaud the City's courage to rezone a fair amount of single family home sites to townhouse, but that should be done across the entire city as a blanket policy. Townhouses, even stacked townhouses, just aren't acceptable as the primary form of development within a 400m catchment area of rapid transit station. It's ludicrous, really. I know the founding principles and urban structure concept of the Cambie Corridor was laid down almost a decade ago, but it was crazy then and moreso now. My hope is that the city-wide plan will open the door to revisit the Cambie Corridor plan before too much of it builds out and we lock-in poor structural decisions for a century. The scope and scale of the Oakridge Municipal Town Centre sub-area should extend the full length of the Cambie Corridor, from Oak to Columbia, and preferably to Main to put Cambie Street in the actual centre of the plan. Such an approach would result in a more gradual rate of change in any given area than what is on the books since normal population growth will saturate a block of townhouses far faster than a range of low-, mid-, and high-rise redevelopment. For what the end result could look like, imagine the West End laid down between Oak and Main with the Canada Line at the centre. The natural build-out over time and market-based fragmentation of land assemblies will result in a far more organic and pleasant range of densities, height, and scale than the highly prescriptive plan as proposed.

A very rational plan that absolutely should have been implemented originally, or at the very least, readjusted, given how dire home and apartment prices are throughout the city. Townhouses next to a transit station along Cambie is just.......stupid.
I'm constantly disappointed in the City's city planning outside of the downtown core. Oakridge is a bright spot, but because this type of development is so rare outside of downtown, it becomes cost prohibitive, and therefore basically useless to most local residents.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by giallo

A very rational plan that absolutely should have been implemented originally, or at the very least, readjusted, given how dire home and apartment prices are throughout the city. Townhouses next to a transit station along Cambie is just.......stupid.
I'm constantly disappointed in the City's city planning outside of the downtown core. Oakridge is a bright spot, but because this type of development is so rare outside of downtown, it becomes cost prohibitive, and therefore basically useless to most local residents.

Oakridge T. Centre in actuality is tiny compared to other town centres
Yes, Vancouver signed off on the agreement, so it's technically partially their fault, but the Cambie Corridor/Oakridge was always meant to be overshadowed.

Broadway and the Flats were where the big stuff were supposed to happen, and is that COV agreed on.

At least we GOT townhomes and apartments around Skytrain, which wasn't a guarantee. Ask the SFHs near Renfrew. Or 29th Ave Stn. It could have been worse.

(side note that the homes north of QE park are limited in height due to the viewcones, which get highly restrictive around here, basically banning towers as a result. The only option for better densification would be to put apartments on the back streets.)

[misher]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Broadway and the Flats were where the big stuff were supposed to happen, and is that COV agreed on.

At least we GOT townhomes and apartments around Skytrain, which wasn't a guarantee. Ask the SFHs near Renfrew. Or 29th Ave Stn. It could have been worse.

(side note that the homes north of QE park are limited in height due to the viewcones, which get highly restrictive around here, basically banning towers as a result. The only option for better densification would be to put apartments on the back streets.)

I like what your saying. I hope you come to the Broadway meetings starting March 7th! https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...dway-plan.aspx

Right now there not even talking about increasing density which should be the main idea behind these meetings.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

I like what your saying. I hope you come to the Broadway meetings starting March 7th! https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...dway-plan.aspx

Right now there not even talking about increasing density which should be the main idea behind these meetings.

I know about that, and I do want to go; I'm not sure if I'll be able to go though.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by misher

I like what your saying. I hope you come to the Broadway meetings starting March 7th! https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...dway-plan.aspx

Right now there not even talking about increasing density which should be the main idea behind these meetings.

They've been talking about increased height an density within the corridor for years. The Plan will increase both, and rezonings will allow it too.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

They've been talking about increased height an density within the corridor for years. The Plan will increase both, and rezonings will allow it too.

The question is how much, though- 'up to the viewcones' in this case means the formation of a 'curved' skyline, because the viewcones get most restrictive around VGH, which might be rejected.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The question is how much, though- 'up to the viewcones' in this case means the formation of a 'curved' skyline, because the viewcones get most restrictive around VGH, which might be rejected.

Any chance you and Misher will take this debate to the Broadway Corridor thread, and leave the Cambie Corridor thread to Cambie corridor discussion?

[red-paladin]

Good idea, we need to stay on topic.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The details of the Cambie Corridor Phase 3 plan sort of flew under my radar when was approved by Council last year, but in taking a more in-depth look, I'm pleasantly surprised by the Oakridge Municipal Town Centre sub-area of the plan.

Worth refreshing one's memory in a spare moment.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...idor-plan.aspx

PDF pg 63 / doc page 60.

http://vancouver.ca/images/web/cambi...ridor-plan.pdf (110MB file)

I still shake my head at the lack of continuous retail at grade along the entirety of Cambie Street. Setting aside the paltry 6-8 storey heights for most of the corridor, and inexplicable townhouse-focused infill within a block of several stations, it's the overall failure of imagination that bugs me to no end. .

Why would you want to recreate another Kingsway-like strip of bland and underused retail down Cambie? Vancouver needs to break free of the streetcar development pattern in favour of village-like nodes. More walkable and creates a better sense of community.

[fredinno]

00