Suburban Updates - Page 224

logan5 · #**4461** Posted **Jul 3, 2018, 7:20 PM**

The dt peninsula is by far the closest thing we have to looking like São Paulo. I Don’t think Burnaby will ever come close to Vancouver in density and mass. The upcoming Broadway Corridor plan will make the Metro Core even more dense, not to mention the dtes which will eventually be redeveloped. São Paulo isn’t all high rises.

Vin · #**4462** Posted **Jul 3, 2018, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

The dt peninsula is by far the closest thing we have to looking like São Paulo. I Don’t think Burnaby will ever come close to Vancouver in density and mass. The upcoming Broadway Corridor plan will make the Metro Core even more dense, not to mention the dtes which will eventually be redeveloped. São Paulo isn’t all high rises.

We're not talking about the next 5 years here. Assuming the current Vancouver policies remain in place for the next few decades (viewcones, shadowing, nothing taller than City Hall, SFH, Nimby power, shopping "villages", downtown "dome" shape, rejection of malls, ethnic chauvinism like Chinatown, etc.), the suburbs will become more like Sao Paolo, but a more modern version with parks dotted here and there of course. Much of Vancouver will still look like the burbs with run-down Vancouver Specials and 4-storey walkups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofina

Would be pretty funny sight to see... Burnaby creeping up on Vancouver border with Sao Paulo like density, meanwhile Vancouver still has SFH neighbourhoods.

If there is any place this absurd image could become a reality, its here.

That's pretty interesting to imagine! Kinda like how the tall buildings butt up against Central Park in NYC's Manhattan, but here we will have Burnaby towers line up along Boundary Road.

BTW, Burnabian towers are already creeping up towards Vancouver!

logan5 · #**4463** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

We're not talking about the next 5 years here. Assuming the current Vancouver policies remain in place for the next few decades (viewcones, shadowing, nothing taller than City Hall, SFH, Nimby power, shopping "villages", downtown "dome" shape, rejection of malls, ethnic chauvinism like Chinatown, etc.), the suburbs will become more like Sao Paolo, but a more modern version with parks dotted here and there of course. Much of Vancouver will still look like the burbs with run-down Vancouver Specials and 4-storey walkups.

Land use policies are pretty much the same Metro wide, ie, leave detached homes alone and only develop industrial lands and huge parking lots.

Are you even aware of what is planned for the Oakridge area? And the continued development of Collingwood, which, by the way, has towers lined up along Boundary Road (that seems to mean something to you). The West End continues to grow under its most recent plan (lots of tall towers too), and the continued push of the downtown core eastward and southward.

If anything, Vancouver is pulling away from all other municipalities.

Sheba · #**4464** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

It's amazing how many towers are slated for development all over the Lower Mainland. I do worry about the Lower Mainland looking like Sao Paulo in 30 years if it keeps up the development:

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Land use policies are pretty much the same Metro wide, ie, leave detached homes alone and only develop industrial lands and huge parking lots.

Burnaby is only allowing towers in their downtown and town centres - everything else will be lowrises and houses. Surrey is only allowing towers in their downtown and a few in Guildford - the other town centres and the main corridors will be lowrises and everything else will be houses. I'm too lazy to look up the land use policies for the rest of the region but they'll all be pretty similar. Vancouver is the exception to the rule with opportunistic land assembly / zoning.

Metro-One · #**4465** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Land use policies are pretty much the same Metro wide, ie, leave detached homes alone and only develop industrial lands and huge parking lots.

Are you even aware of what is planned for the Oakridge area? And the continued development of Collingwood, which, by the way, has towers lined up along Boundary Road (that seems to mean something to you). The West End continues to grow under its most recent plan (lots of tall towers too), and the continued push of the downtown core eastward and southward.

If anything, Vancouver is pulling away from all other municipalities.

Where Vancouver policies definitely fail though are the height / density restrictions imposed around their transit hubs.

The tallest towers in our entire metro theoretically should exist / be built around Waterfront, Granville - VCC, Commercial - Broadway, and the future Cambie - Broadway Hub. Furthermore the remainder of Broadway should be built to heights at least tpvthose seen in Yaletown.

Commercial - Broadway and Cambie - Broadway are especially embarrassing / neutered by pointless height restrictions.

logan5 · #**4466** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 3:44 AM**

Tall buildings make for a more interesting city, but so far, the ones in Burnaby are fairly generic. I would rather have a shorter Kengo or Vancouver House type towers than the taller green monsters sprouting up in Burnaby. Also, mid-rise towers tend to have a brick facade, so shorter has it's advantages.

----

There is going to be a height review for Broadway/Cambie. If the City is trying to create an "Uptown Office District" around this intersection, I expect there would be decent heights allowed. That's not a given though.

Metro-One · #**4467** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Tall buildings make for a more interesting city, but so far, the ones in Burnaby are fairly generic. I would rather have a shorter Kengo or Vancouver House type towers than the taller green monsters sprouting up in Burnaby. Also, mid-rise towers tend to have a brick facade, so shorter has it's advantages.

----

There is going to be a height review for Broadway/Cambie. If the City is trying to create an "Uptown Office District" around this intersection, I expect there would be decent heights allowed. That's not a given though.

The Kengo Tower and Vancouver House are giants compared to what is permitted at Cambie - Broadway now. I would be ecstatic if such towers / heights were permitted along Broadway (again, especially around the future hub).

As for Commercial - Broadway a Brentwood approach would be more fitting in heights.

rofina · #**4468** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Kengo Tower and Vancouver House are giants compared to what is permitted at Cambie - Broadway now. I would be ecstatic if such towers / heights were permitted along Broadway (again, especially around the future hub).

As for Commercial - Broadway a Brentwood approach would be more fitting in heights.

The Broadway decision so far I find the most perplexing.

Broadway density and height should be nearly unlimited. This will be the dominant East/West line in the region.

How does it make any sense to limit height?

The only way to justify this is truly because it has the potential to block views for West Side residents - which undeniably is an absurd measure of a viable policy.

CanSpice · #**4469** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 4:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofina

The Broadway decision so far I find the most perplexing.

Broadway density and height should be nearly unlimited. This will be the dominant East/West line in the region.

How does it make any sense to limit height?

The only way to justify this is truly because it has the potential to block views for West Side residents - which undeniably is an absurd measure of a viable policy.

I think it makes sense to limit it now, but when the SkyTrain comes in to loosen those limits. Transportation is a big crunch along Broadway and I suspect that the city is waiting for that project to come in before allowing taller buildings there.

Sheba · #**4470** Posted **Jul 4, 2018, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofina

The Broadway decision so far I find the most perplexing.

Broadway density and height should be nearly unlimited. This will be the dominant East/West line in the region.

How does it make any sense to limit height?

The only way to justify this is truly because it has the potential to block views for West Side residents - which undeniably is an absurd measure of a viable policy.

VGH - because there's the helicopter pad (or do you want it to be downgraded and no longer a Level 1 trauma hospital).

osirisboy · #**4471** Posted **Jul 5, 2018, 3:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

VGH - because there's the helicopter pad (or do you want it to be downgraded and no longer a Level 1 trauma hospital).

It's a helicopter pad not a landing strip. That wouldn't limit height all around the area

officedweller · #**4472** Posted **Jul 5, 2018, 7:30 PM**

VGH flight paths etc. were discussed in the General Vancouver Thread a couple of weeks ago in relation to the Central Broadway Plan.

The flight paths are shown in purple on this map:

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Broadway Corridor Planning

From VancouverMarket.ca:

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2018/0...es-into-focus/

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2018/0...es-into-focus/

Full report here:
http://council.vancouver.ca/20180620/pspc20180620ag.htm

SpongeG · #**4473** Posted **Jul 6, 2018, 7:46 PM**

Granville and Burrard could densify, the area around Burrard and Broadway especially could gain some height.

Vin · #**4474** Posted **Jul 6, 2018, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Granville and Burrard could densify, the area around Burrard and Broadway especially could gain some height.

Anywhere along the south shore of False Creek ought to be able to gain height, but alas, I don't think anyone here wants downtown to expand, or it would've long time ago, starting from OV, Chinatown, etc.

Vin · #**4475** Posted **Jul 6, 2018, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofina

The Broadway decision so far I find the most perplexing.

Broadway density and height should be nearly unlimited. This will be the dominant East/West line in the region.

How does it make any sense to limit height?

The only way to justify this is truly because it has the potential to block views for West Side residents - which undeniably is an absurd measure of a viable policy.

I think I suggested this about 6-7 years ago and I thought I was going to be murdered by forumers here.

POCO · #**4476** Posted **Jul 7, 2018, 8:27 AM**

Onni is having a hard time finding commercial tenants at it's Fremont development in Poco. Currently a third of it's commercial space there is unleased. They want to decrease the commercial space by 13000 sqft and add four more six story mixed use residential buildings. This would add 473 residential units in addition to the 294 apartments currently under construction. The city council is pushing for more two and three bedroom units that are better for families.

http://www.tricitynews.com/real-esta...age-1.23360326

officedweller · #**4477** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 10:38 PM**

Another Burquitlam tower from vVancouverMarket.ca:

Highpoint
Clarke Rd & Smith Ave.
by Ledingham McAllister

Quote:

Details of the proposal include a 50-storey mixed use tower with a podium and includes:
◾415 residential units:
◾295 market condo units;
◾97 one-bedrooms,
◾168 two-bedrooms;
◾30 three-bedrooms;
◾105 purpose built rental units;
◾15 below / non-market rental units ;
◾7 commercial retail units (16,000 SF);
◾a total density of 6.1 FAR;
◾a building height of [Edit: 161M];
◾15,900 SF of market condo common amenity space;
◾8,900 SF of rental unit common amenity space; and
◾527 parking spaces.

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2018/0...rquitlam-site/

officedweller · #**4478** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 10:43 PM**

SOCO
Coquitlam Inn site
(North Rd @ TCH)
by Anthem

We've seen this before:

Quote:

The first phase of the project is located along North Road, and includes two towers (27 and 31 storeys) with condo units above a podium with a large restaurant space, commercial retail units, indoor and outdoor amenity space, and office space.

The other three towers, to be built in three further phases, include tower heights of 24, 34 & 44 storeys.

Phase 1:

Details of the first phase include:
◾494 condo units;
◾50 studios, 192 one-bedrooms and 252 two-bedroom units;
◾7,501 SF of restaurant space;
◾7,990 SF of retail space;
◾50,316 SF of office space;
◾a total site density up to 4.5 FAR;
◾843 parking spaces;
◾a new East-West collector and North-South Road;
◾$45.9 Million in density bonus funds and CACs.

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2018/0...tlam-inn-site/

Metro-One · #**4479** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 11:00 PM**

50 stories and only 406 feet?

Something is wrong there.

LeftCoaster · #**4480** Posted **Jul 11, 2018, 12:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

50 stories and only 406 feet?

Something is wrong there.

It's a type-o.

The submitted documents show the height at 161M (264M ASL) on the elevations.