Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext
I searched and couldn't find a thread on this. I remmeber it was discussed here somewhere a long time ago, but it looks like the Squamish are finally getting ready to move forward. Great to see this will likely be rental, a smart decision that will ensure long-term, stable cash flow for them.
The Squamish Nation plans a massive housing project encompassing as many as 3,000 apartments on prime land next to a Vancouver city park, marking the first large-scale urban development by an Indigenous group in Canada.
The ambitious project next to the Burrard Bridge and Vanier Park on the False Creek waterfront in central Vancouver would occupy the last of their reserve land in the city. It is likely to spark controversy in the tony Kitsilano neighbourhood nearby, where in recent weeks residents have been protesting the development of a couple of low-rise apartment buildings.
Development of so many apartments, which the Squamish are considering restricting to all rental, could help Vancouver alleviate its housing crisis, but the city does not have jurisdiction over the Squamish land.
As a result, the city will have little legal authority over the project, unlike the relationship the city will have with two other Indigenous-led megaprojects in a more long-term roll out. The Jericho lands in the west and Heather lands in central Vancouver are being developed jointly by the federal government and a consortium of the three local First Nations...
....Squamish leaders are favouring the idea of building all rental apartments in the project, he said. That’s not decided, though. The development, which could potentially be almost the same size as the Little Mountain housing site in central Vancouver, would also include commercial spaces, public squares and arts spaces, he said.
Khelselim said the council doesn’t want to name the developer partner yet, but that the company was chosen from five proposals after the nation asked 16 local builders to apply.
He did confirm that the Aquilinis, the powerhouse local family-run developers who have developed strong relationships and built projects for both the Tsleil-waututh and Tsawwassen bands, are not the partners.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...velopment-for/ |
Is there a space reserved for streetcar in the plans? Just 2 rails wide (about as much as an average residential street) is enough. The 2010 proposal's street bordering the Molson's site could be converted into a future streetcar spur IF the main/parking entrance was located on Pennyfarthing Dr. instead of the new road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Great news. That part of the seawall's been about as useful as kosher bacon.
I wonder if this'll affect the streetcar plan?
|
Honestly, that's partially why I'm against this plan. If it was possible, it would be better for the FN to get partial management/ownership of Vanier Park (you know, the original Reserve location), but
This (along with the Fir St. sale) basically kills any chance of the streetcar
mainline making a detour to Kits. There's simply not enough space.
The Streetcar would have to go under the Granville Bridge/loops, using a ironically more direct route into the South False Creek rail spur.
I still wish the proposal had space reserved for a streetcar, though. A direct stop into these lands would be pretty useful for getting into Vanier Park, would provide transit for the residents, and could be extended onto Cornwall Ave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
There's a pretty wide buffer between this development and Kits, and in fact, this development is happening in Fairview, an entirely different neighbourhood. No "consultation" required.
I put consultation in quotation marks because consultation is code for "you're going to do everything our way". I hope they are politely asked to talk to the hand.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan
Vancouver's large-scale density has generally taken place on low-hanging fruit, politically easy greyfield and brownfield sites, which is pretty standard. But it has led North America in densifying single-family neighbourhoods. It is easily the North American leader in accessory dwelling units and laneway housing. Because of that, Vancouver has more duplex households, by Statscan definitions, than single-family homes.
|
Source? Most of the duplex development is in the suburbs, not Vancouver City proper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Not entirely disagreeing, but somehow I don't think that 5-7k more drivers living at the foot of Burrard Bridge is a good idea.
|
This lot is so tight and long, I don't even think getting big is possible. You'd have to fill in the center courtyard site in the 2010 plan.
I think overall the site can fit 3 towers. 2 on the centre courtyard, 1 on the other side, and maybe one straddling the streetcar where the Burrard Trestle bridge used to start.
But even then, I think 10,000 people is very precedent-setting, dense, and possibly a bit too ambitious considering the geometrical limitations of the site. It's denser than a lot of Downtown, that's for sure. If it gets there without turning into the Kolwoon Walled City, I'd support it.
On a side note, is anything going to happen to the Squamish-owned site on the foot of the other bridge (Lions Gate)?:
Hopefully more industrial land? (especially considering how isolated that site is).
Prev
Linear Mode
