Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[mezzanine]

NEFC planned passed. Lots more discussion to be had, and undoubtedly subject to future changes, but it's a matter now of how the viaducts will come down, not if. A tough choice, but IMO ultimately a better one.

Not surprising how the NPA refused support, but i was surprised how adrienne carr voted for most of the motions. and no elizabeth ball?

Council voted on 14 separate recommendations and amendments to approve the plan, with NPA councillors Melissa De Genova, Hector Bremner and George Affleck arguing unsuccessfully to defer a vote until more consultation was done with the public.

City staff emphasized an implementation plan, along with a financial strategy, still have to go before city council for approval. Rezoning applications for the various properties at Northeast False Creek also have to be heard by council.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

NEFC planned passed. Lots more discussion to be had, and undoubtedly subject to future changes, but it's a matter now of how the viaducts will come down, not if. A tough choice, but IMO ultimately a better one.

Not surprising how the NPA refused support, but i was surprised how adrienne carr voted for most of the motions. and no elizabeth ball?

Hopefully Vision will be history before any concrete steps can be taken.

[logan5]

Yeah, let's drag this out for another 5 years. Good plan.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by logan5

Yeah, let's drag this out for another 5 years. Good plan.

Line the NDP with the GMB?

[mezzanine]

Who is a natural constituency for keeping the viaducts up? not "needs more consultation" but want to keep them? I didn't see anything on my feed about them.

OTOH, NEFC has chinatown, False CReek residents association, hogans alley advocates and strathcona mostly onboard.

even business types at the DVBIA are on the NEFC train:

But with any change, regardless of the positive impact it may have on a community, there will inevitably always come hesitation. There will always be individuals who have the mentality of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I simply don’t agree. Just because a space functions relatively well and without major issue is no reason for us to settle into complacency. Our city is truly an amazing place, but there is potential for growth and opportunity almost everywhere we look.

The Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association tapped into this potential in 2015 when we launched our Re-Imagine Downtown Vancouver Initiative. Re-Imagine Downtown Vancouver is the only initiative that enables individuals to collaborate in creating a compelling vision of what the downtown Vancouver experience could become over the next 25 years.

We wanted to hear what people loved about Vancouver, what they wanted to see more of, and how they envisioned downtown in 2040. The response was overwhelmingly positive, and included ideas about community, commerce, creativity, and culture. Vancouverites imagined a city that welcomes art, music, play, and meaningful interaction with their neighbours. They saw green spaces nestled into a thriving urban destination. And overall, they saw their city as a healthy, inclusive community.

The changes proposed for Northeast False Creek are a transformative step in accomplishing the vision that we saw emerge from Re-Imagine Downtown Vancouver. It will promote livability and sustainability and help to make this community one of the best in the world in which to live, work, play and learn. It will accelerate the City’s 2040 Transportation Plan initiatives to increase mode share, in particular, for cycling and walking — which are so important to a vibrant and healthy downtown. It’s the next evolution in making downtown more easily accessible by all modes of transportation.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

They can redevelop the area with the viaducts in place and generate just as much revenue

No, as mentioned the removal of the viaducts frees up city owned land in the most expensive area in Vancouver.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Who is a natural constituency for keeping the viaducts up? not "needs more consultation" but want to keep them? I didn't see anything on my feed about them.

SSP Forumers who are convinced that they will cause carmageddon.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, as mentioned the removal of the viaducts frees up city owned land in the most expensive area in Vancouver.

No, as mentioned the city can actually develop the land in and around and over the viaducts as is. There is no need to remove them in order to develop the land.

I don't get why people keep thinking that they can't develop the area with the viaducts in place.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

No, as mentioned the city can actually develop the land in and around and over the viaducts as is. The isn't no need to remove them in order to develop the land.

Development of Parcel 6D would not be possible. Parcel 6C would not be the same size.

And if you're advocating for some kind of development straddling the viaducts between Carral and Quebec, it's just not feasible.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Development of Parcel 6D would not be possible. Parcel 6C would not be the same size.

And if you're advocating for some kind of development straddling the viaducts between Carral and Quebec, it's just not feasible.

Why would it not be feasible? The fourth tower at rogers arena seemed more than feasible And they could increase the fsr. They could also develop less park space, it's over built as is. They could have commercial/light industrial under the viaducts which has a way higher tax revenue for the city versus residential.

Not sure how building a massive park will increase revenue

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why would it not be feasible? And they could increase the fsr. They could also develop less park space, it's over built as is. They could have commercial/light industrial under the viaducts which has a way higher tax revenue for the city versus residential.

Not sure how building a massive park will increase revenue

LOL take a walk around that area, there's no way any of what you're suggesting is possible.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL take a walk around that area, there's no way any of what you're suggesting is possible.

LOL wtf? what does that area have to do with making anything I suggested impossible?

You honestly think it's not possible to have a building built over the viaducts?! Lol and why can't that area have commercial/industrial?!

You may wanna get out of your Vancouver bubble and take a walk around other cities

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

LOL wtf? what does that area have to do with making anything I suggested impossible?

You honestly think it's not possible to have a building built over the viaducts?! Lol and why can't that area have commercial/industrial?!

You may wanna get out of your Vancouver bubble and take a walk around other cities

You know the viaducts are two separate structures right? And they aren't straight, so there are awkward shaped gaps everywhere.

Footings for anything built overtop of them would impact existing roadspace below them. Since they are so narrow, there's very little real usable space underneath each section.

I think you need to get out of your fantasy bubble that somehow building around them would be more efficient in any way. Wiping the slate clean and having a gigantic area to redevelop is a far better way to go. You can argue that there is too much park space or whatever in the final design, but the freedom of options and increased land space available to build without the viaducts is a simple fact.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You know the viaducts are two separate structures right? And they aren't straight, so there are awkward shaped gaps everywhere.

Footings for anything built overtop of them would impact existing roadspace below them. Since they are so narrow, there's very little real usable space underneath each section.

I think you need to get out of your fantasy bubble that somehow building around them would be more efficient in any way. Wiping the slate clean and having a gigantic area to redevelop is a far better way to go. You can argue that there is too much park space or whatever in the final design, but the freedom of options and increased land space available to build without the viaducts is a simple fact.

Yes of course it would be easier to start from scratch but that's not what we were talking about.

You do remember the fourth tower proposed at rogers arena right? A 30 something floor tower built with the the viaduct running through the middle of it. There are many things that could be done.
It's also possible to rebuild/reinforce the viaduct foundations. Again, go look at other cities at what has been done

[jlousa]

You could build out the same fsr with the viaducts as without them. You don't even have to be as creative as Vancouver House or the Vancity building at Main st station to do so either. I don't believe I've ever stated there will be carmageddon, just feel tearing down good existing infrastructure does not make sense, a compelling case would need to be made to justify it and I haven't seen one made. I personally feel the super road will create an area much worse then what could've been done with the viaducts in place. Imagine for a minute that we were talking about knocking down the skytrain tracks and rebuilding them in a different form to allow private developers an easier go at making condos, would anyone think that would be a good idea?
Anything built is going to be an improvement over the status quo, sure, but that's only because it's an intentional wasteland now. We only needed to look at the proposals that left the viaducts in place to see how good things could've been, cars and people in their own spaces and less conflict making it more enjoyable to all parties.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You could build out the same fsr with the viaducts as without them. You don't even have to be as creative as Vancouver House or the Vancity building at Main st station to do so either. I don't believe I've ever stated there will be carmageddon, just feel tearing down good existing infrastructure does not make sense, a compelling case would need to be made to justify it and I haven't seen one made. I personally feel the super road will create an area much worse then what could've been done with the viaducts in place. Imagine for a minute that we were talking about knocking down the skytrain tracks and rebuilding them in a different form to allow private developers an easier go at making condos, would anyone think that would be a good idea?
Anything built is going to be an improvement over the status quo, sure, but that's only because it's an intentional wasteland now. We only needed to look at the proposals that left the viaducts in place to see how good things could've been, cars and people in their own spaces and less conflict making it more enjoyable to all parties.

Thank you. Totally agree

And yes I'd rather have a separated space for cars than a big road shared with pedestrians. Anyone like hanging out on knight, oak, Granville? It's horrible!

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why would it not be feasible? The fourth tower at rogers arena seemed more than feasible And they could increase the fsr. They could also develop less park space, it's over built as is. They could have commercial/light industrial under the viaducts which has a way higher tax revenue for the city versus residential.

Not sure how building a massive park will increase revenue

I'd think you'd get a lot of intense local resistance to an alternate plan of building less park space and increasing densities in the area than the current plan.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, as mentioned the removal of the viaducts frees up city owned land in the most expensive area in Vancouver.

That's not the most expensive land in Vancouver: it's a highly toxic and polluted former industrial land. The most expensive land, IMO, is already built out in the CBD, Coal Harbour and Yaletown. Next would be Yaletown, West Broadway and Kitsilano, and the City is slow to rezone them to accommodate a lot more housing and allow other city centre uses.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You could build out the same fsr with the viaducts as without them. You don't even have to be as creative as Vancouver House or the Vancity building at Main st station to do so either. I don't believe I've ever stated there will be carmageddon, just feel tearing down good existing infrastructure does not make sense, a compelling case would need to be made to justify it and I haven't seen one made. I personally feel the super road will create an area much worse then what could've been done with the viaducts in place. Imagine for a minute that we were talking about knocking down the skytrain tracks and rebuilding them in a different form to allow private developers an easier go at making condos, would anyone think that would be a good idea?
Anything built is going to be an improvement over the status quo, sure, but that's only because it's an intentional wasteland now. We only needed to look at the proposals that left the viaducts in place to see how good things could've been, cars and people in their own spaces and less conflict making it more enjoyable to all parties.

You deserve high praise for saying this.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I'd think you'd get a lot of intense local resistance to an alternate plan of building less park space and increasing densities in the area than the current plan.

Local resistance didn't seem to matter to city hall when Concord dragged their ass for 20 years on building the park. Or that they did so when collecting rent on non-commercial zoned property.