Waterfront Hub v2.0

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by griswold

Very cool project. Doubt council has the fortitude to pursue making it happen though. Even if they do it probably wouldn’t be finished until 2044

Well they aren't going to build it so it has more to do with figuring out if the landowners want to invest in the project or not.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The only landowners that actually matter are CP, CN and the Port - if they don't want to give up that part of the yard, everything else is dead on arrival.

[jollyburger]

I wonder if finding building insurance for construction over the train yards will even be possible. I guess find some space to fit a new train yard (behind Centerm or N/S somewhere near the Ballantyne Pier building) could be a long shot alternative?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

the original proposal was 2009. 15 years ago. this one probably wont happen either.

[madog222]

^There was no proposal, you are referencing a policy framework.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Guess who's back... back again...

Any attempt at redevelopment is doomed to failure, at least aesthetically, in my opinion. The problem is that the land is too valuable for low density, and high density will overwhelm the heritage railway station. I just hope we don't get something like the previously proposed monstrosity, which reminded me way too much of the dissonant glass shards that they grafted onto the Royal Ontario Museum...


Image from: Curiocity - 10 Unique Buildings in Canada

[s211]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I wonder if finding building insurance for construction over the train yards will even be possible.

Have them talk to the consortium that built Hudson Yards?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by s211

Have them talk to the consortium that built Hudson Yards?

They pulling hazardous loads behind passenger commuter lines?

[Metro-One]

This is never going to happen. If in Japan, Taiwan or many places in Europe, sure, it would happen. Vancouver? No. Everything is too disorganized with too many special interest groups.

I'm sure they will do a few more studies on it though! Got to love those studies.

Hey, how about instead of initiating the plan laid out in the last study, we study it again!

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by madog222

^There was no proposal, you are referencing a policy framework.

and it went nowhere. just like the one after 2009. and just like this one will.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by migrant_coconut

the only landowners that actually matter are cp, cn and the port - if they don't want to give up that part of the yard, everything else is dead on arrival.

city staff participated in a landowner-initiated design charrette in december 2022 and january 2023. Convened by two of the major landowners in the area - carrera and cadillac-fairview - the charrette brought together landowners, key agencies, architects and engineers, the downtown waterfront wor11ing group (dwwg), indigenous representatives, and city staff, amongst others. unfortunately the port and cp rail declined to participate.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Hah! Well, that's that... see you all a decade from now for Waterfront Hub 3.0?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The only landowners that actually matter are CP, CN and the Port - if they don't want to give up that part of the yard, everything else is dead on arrival.

Only the Port are landowners. The railtracks are now leased from Carrera. It's the operating arrangement with the railways under the lease, that limits development. The fact that the Port and CP didn't get involved in a design charrette a year ago doesn't signify anything, if they've now agreed to participate in this new governance group. I wouldn't speculate what the outcome might be - if the railways are intransigent on the question of dangerous cargo, then we probably have the status quo, and the only developable site is Cadillac's "ice pick" parking lot.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Only the Port are landowners. The railtracks are now leased from Carrera. It's the operating arrangement with the railways under the lease, that limits development. The fact that the Port and CP didn't get involved in a design charrette a year ago doesn't signify anything, if they've now agreed to participate in this new governance group. I wouldn't speculate what the outcome might be - if the railways are intransigent on the question of dangerous cargo, then we probably have the status quo, and the only developable site is Cadillac's "ice pick" parking lot.

THis might be a stupid question....

why does the port and CP even need these lands? The trains can't go west from here. Are they just storing rail cars here? Why can't they just use the tracks at Heatley Ave instead?

I don't understand why there would be ever hazardous loads in this specific space.

Or why even have hazardous loads come into Vancouver in the first place? We have Delta we can easily ruin and no one will miss

[s211]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They pulling hazardous loads behind passenger commuter lines?

I'm sorry but where did you limit your question to just environmental insurance?

And yes environmental insurance is SOP for any project, be it under construction or complete.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm sorry but where did you limit your question to just environmental insurance?

And yes environmental insurance is SOP for any project, be it under construction or complete.

I'm not talking about environmental insurance but was just pointing out there might be a difference in the terrorism/accident risk from the type of trains.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by djmk

THis might be a stupid question....

why does the port and CP even need these lands? The trains can't go west from here. Are they just storing rail cars here? Why can't they just use the tracks at Heatley Ave instead?

I don't understand why there would be ever hazardous loads in this specific space.

Or why even have hazardous loads come into Vancouver in the first place? We have Delta we can easily ruin and no one will miss

Rail cars, as well as cargo - it effectively doubles their capacity over just using the Port rail yard alone.

Deltaport is BCR/CN, not CP, and it itself has railway and capacity bottlenecks (thus the recent expansion proposals).

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by djmk

Or why even have hazardous loads come into Vancouver in the first place? We have Delta we can easily ruin and no one will miss

I've felt this way for years. It's absolute fantasy since it would require a lot of governments working together for the greater good, but I think it's high time that the "Port of Vancouver" got out of downtown Vancouver. RBT2 is fully approved now, and all it would take is a small further expansion (DP4? RBT3?) to be able to relocate Centerm and Vanterm (or at least Centerm) down to Delta.

It's always been said that the main reason why passenger rail is unfeasible in the downtown core is because of the conflicts with freight rail so if the freight rail can simply be redirected elsewhere then perhaps it can become a bit more viable. Also it's probably for the best if international shipping was relocated away from the DTES to potentially help contain the illicit drug supply and all that land available in the downtown core is surely better used for other purposes.

Other major port cities have had their docklands gradually moved further and further away from the city core; New York, Rotterdam, Shanghai, London, and of course Toronto, to name a few. Vancouver has slowly been moving port traffic off of the downtown peninsula for decades, there's no reason why we can't continue.

[jollyburger]

There is zero chance they give up port land let alone container capacity. Even if it made sense (larger ships or something) to use Deltaport they would find some other marine industrial use for the land.

Passenger rail is infeasible because there's zero track expansion between Port of Vancouver and anywhere you would want to run commuter rail. Unless you are planning of getting rid of all the North Shore docks as well. Vancouver port traffic has increased in the past decades with new grain elevators and container capacity. It's not gone down.

It's only going to happen if there's some financial incentive for them to move the rail yards. Or give permission to build over it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

There is zero chance they give up port land let alone container capacity. Even if it made sense (larger ships or something) to use Deltaport they would find some other marine industrial use for the land.

Passenger rail is infeasible because there's zero track expansion between Port of Vancouver and anywhere you would want to run commuter rail. Unless you are planning of getting rid of all the North Shore docks as well. Vancouver port traffic has increased in the past decades with new grain elevators and container capacity. It's not gone down.

It's only going to happen if there's some financial incentive for them to move the rail yards. Or give permission to build over it.

We've been gradually reducing marine industrial in the downtown core since the 60s. All of False Creek used to be marine industrial, so was Coal Harbour and all of the Vancouver waterfront up to Centerm. I would never recommend reducing port land in Metro Vancouver, but if we could create an abundance of space in Delta and transition away from the Vancouver waterfront I think that would be a good thing.

Talking about the North Shore docks is a bit of a non-sequitur as far as I'm concerned because the North Shore docks are served by the CN line branching off the CN main line in Burnaby. That has little to do with the CP and CN lines serving the Vancouver Waterfront. I guess I wasn't clear but I was specifically talking about the WCE route along the CP line which conflicts with the rail traffic serving the Vancouver waterfront.