Granville island plans unveiled

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Probably not, because to access the median from the overpass, you'd need stairs that take up width and/or an accessible ramp (or another elevator).

Sorry, let me rephrase that: keep the proposed raised section/bus stop as-is (perhaps raise or cantilever the entire thing to reduce the footprint/improve the view?), but migrate the elevators over to the southbound side. Then just build a disembarking platform that's level with the raised section and bridge the two.

GI gets their elevators, GB keeps its structural integrity, everybody's happy; now the design team just needs to make sure people use it before and after the sunny months...

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by teriyaki

We think we can replicate Brooklyn Bridges success in this rainy city? Guaranteed that elevator goes completely unused for 8 months of the year with homeless people taking shelter there every night since it'd be hard to police on what is effectively a thoroughfare into downtown...

Fun fact: At 1268mm of annual rainfall, New York gets ~300mm more precipitation than Seattle (958mm) but admittedly ~200mm less than Vancouver (1468mm)

New York's a pretty wet place.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Fun fact: At 1268mm of annual rainfall, New York gets ~300mm more precipitation than Seattle (958mm) but admittedly ~200mm less than Vancouver (1468mm)

New York's a pretty wet place.

That's maybe a Metro Wide average.

Burnaby and the City of Vancouver are closer to 2,000 mm/yr.

Parts of the North Shore are closer to 3,000mm/yr.

Delta and South Surrey are closer to 1,000mm/yr.

As you can see, proximity to the mountains makes a huge difference. Metro Van also gets a lot more days of rain than NYC does. Rain here tends to be diffuse.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sorry, let me rephrase that: keep the proposed raised section/bus stop as-is (perhaps raise or cantilever the entire thing to reduce the footprint/improve the view?), but migrate the elevators over to the southbound side. Then just build a disembarking platform that's level with the raised section and bridge the two.

GI gets their elevators, GB keeps its structural integrity, everybody's happy; now the design team just needs to make sure people use it before and after the sunny months...

I think a lot of the proposed scope for the bridge is good, just not the proposed design of it. Plenty of people use Granville Island all year round, and plenty of people walk the bridge all year; including through the colder rainier months. The elevator is a good idea. A stair beside it would also be good. Instead of in the middle, raised up awkwardly, they could cantilever/hang over the west side so that the walkway is below the road and so the experience need not include the noise, pollution or danger of cars.

[Sheba]

I wish I could find it now - there used to be an image (and the model to go with Vancouver House if I remember correctly) that showed the walkway elevated. It would have been higher up than cars so there wouldn't have been 'cars whizzing past' to worry about.

This is the closest I could find (and is from 2012!)

Vancouver Sun

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sorry, let me rephrase that: keep the proposed raised section/bus stop as-is (perhaps raise or cantilever the entire thing to reduce the footprint/improve the view?), but migrate the elevators over to the southbound side. Then just build a disembarking platform that's level with the raised section and bridge the two.

Ah, the outside of the median platform, not the outside of the bridge deck.

That could work.

[PopYourColla]

It looks like the original walkways would still remain.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Fun fact: At 1268mm of annual rainfall, New York gets ~300mm more precipitation than Seattle (958mm) but admittedly ~200mm less than Vancouver (1468mm)

New York's a pretty wet place.

However, there's a big difference. NY gets its rain over an average of 75 days each year, Vancouver gets 161 rainy days. That's right, double the amount of rainy days.

[dleung]

Stupid proposal. They forget the main attraction of crossing the bridge on foot is the view, not some tree-lined median boulevard. They should just split these goodies and put them on both sides of the bridge where the existing sidewalks are. Put a simple pedestrian underpass where the elevators/stairs will be, so that people can cross from one side to the other and experience both views on a round-trip walk.

[logan5]

On the last page there is a diagram showing 2 options for an elevated platform. One looks like it's about 2 feet high, and the other option (which would be my choice) is about 5 feet high. You would get a nice view on that elevated platform, i presume.

A lot of people are complaining about bike lanes, but all these new pieces of cycling infrastructure are going to start to add up to a strong network of grade A bike lanes that will attract more riders, taking more cars off the road. Door to door, your trip to work is likely even faster than taking Skytrain so imo, build as many traffic separated bike lanes as possible. Ultra cheap to build too compared to transit and freeways.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by logan5

On the last page there is a diagram showing 2 options for an elevated platform. One looks like it's about 2 feet high, and the other option (which would be my choice) is about 5 feet high. You would get a nice view on that elevated platform, i presume.

A lot of people are complaining about bike lanes, but all these new pieces of cycling infrastructure are going to start to add up to a strong network of grade A bike lanes that will attract more riders, taking more cars off the road. Door to door, your trip to work is likely even faster than taking Skytrain so imo, build as many traffic separated bike lanes as possible. Ultra cheap to build too compared to transit and freeways.

The bike infrastructure will add up to nothing. Metro Vancouver is too spread out with way too little infrastructure over all (transit/highways/bike/rail etc.). Bike lanes in the region can only handle a few percent of trips, and that will not change unless infrastructure improves 100 fold. Vancouver as a region is in trouble, big trouble, I see it now and bike lanes wont help. Vancouver would need to slow its growth and invest untold 10's and 10's of billions in to infrastructure just to catch up. I have come to the conclusion the region will become increasingly unlivable moving forward, and things will get worse at a increasingly rapid pace.

Back on topic, this entire project again does absolutely nothing to improve infrastructure and commuting, heck it makes things worse. It is unfortunate the city is heading down a dark dark path. Don't say I didn't tell you so in 30 years. Expand the path on the outside of the bridge, oh but that would be adding / improving infrastructure. Cant do that.

[SpongeG]

besides the granville bridge what do yall think about the new pedestrian bridge idea

[WarrenC12]

I like the new pedestrian bridge. Access to Granville Island needs to be massively improved. Alternatives to the car are very welcome. I was at GI yesterday and it's just a mess of cars and people stuck in traffic.

And somebody ran a red light and hit 3 people there last night, yet again. No fatalities fortunately.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The bike infrastructure will add up to nothing. Metro Vancouver is too spread out with way too little infrastructure over all (transit/highways/bike/rail etc.). Bike lanes in the region can only handle a few percent of trips, and that will not change unless infrastructure improves 100 fold. Vancouver as a region is in trouble, big trouble, I see it now and bike lanes wont help. Vancouver would need to slow its growth and invest untold 10's and 10's of billions in to infrastructure just to catch up. I have come to the conclusion the region will become increasingly unlivable moving forward, and things will get worse at a increasingly rapid pace.

I'd say a bigger biking problem goes back to the topic of rain. When you have a stretch of great weather like we've had everyone says, "oh this is great, people biking everywhere". Check back later this week when it starts to rain and all but the hardcore riders evaporate. It's the same issue with programming the outdoor space at GI, unless you cover them they'll go unused at least half of the year.

Originally Posted by cornholio

Back on topic, this entire project again does absolutely nothing to improve infrastructure and commuting, heck it makes things worse. It is unfortunate the city is heading down a dark dark path. Don't say I didn't tell you so in 30 years. Expand the path on the outside of the bridge, oh but that would be adding / improving infrastructure. Cant do that.

As someone who uses Granville Bridge quite a bit, I'd say it's the one that could lose lanes and be the least affected. Banning left turns on Granville from the bridge to 16th, and making motorists take the Hemlock loop instead would cure most traffic issues. Cambie is more worrisome. It looks like Gregor & Co are going to try and take out a lane for bikes, and that bridge is frequently backed into downtown.

[Feathered Friend]

For those who are interested

In May 2017, CMHC-Granville Island released Granville Island 2040: Bridging Past and Future, a comprehensive, long-range planning report for Granville Island.
One of the key recommendations in the Granville Island 2040 report is to “expand the public market and create a market district.” Towards this, CMHC-Granville Island has retained the Project for Public Spaces (PPS), internationally recognized experts in placemaking and public markets, to help create a strategy for how to expand the Granville Island Public Market and create a Market District. An important part of this project will include an examination of the existing and potential future public spaces at and near the Public Market.
You are invited to participate in a Public Market Placemaking Workshop to be facilitated by PPS that will look for your input on how the public spaces at and near the Granville Island Public Market can be improved.
DETAILS
Date and time: Thursday July 20, 2017 5:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Studio 1398 (3rd floor of Festival House – 1398 Cartwright St, Granville Island)
Light refreshments will be provided.
The agenda of this session will include a brief presentation from PPS on public markets and placemaking, followed by facilitated discussion and participation in PPS’ “place game” aimed at identifying key opportunities for enhancement of the public space associated with the Public Market and future Market District.
Space is limited. Please RSVP by the end of day Friday July 14.

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/granvill...ts-35985847639

[Feathered Friend]

I took the time to attend this event hosted by the CMHC and facilitated by Project for Public Spaces. I was surprised to see who made up the attendees, one of them being Richard Henriquez. Perhaps everyone came for the food offerings?

That said, there was a lot of representation from within the Island community, and I worry that it derailed the chance for outside voices to be heard. Overall, the meeting was rather high level planning, with people asked to form into 12 groups and visit 1 of 6 sites. At this point, a bit of confusion took place with some groups taking a consensus approach to what they would like to see changed, while others were allowed to have their individual members input reflected.

After a period of time, the groups were returned to the meeting area to present a group consensus on improvements they would like to see. As mentioned, as this was mostly internal voices, the views I heard boiled down to more green space, no cars, and protect/promote local business that are already on the Island. Surprisingly, one item that drew negative comments was the proposed elevators, with some CMHC staff eventually going on the defensive, admitting that no feasibility studies have been done, and that the elevator proposal will likely happen closer to the 2040 date than anytime soon. I'm not sure why local interests were negative in regards to creating a connection to the bridge deck, as if one removes cars from the island you would think they would want better connections elsewhere.
With that all said, between the confusion on how to provide feedback, and that the data could have been gathered with a survey rather than a 3 hour meeting, I feel that the time/resources could have been better spent.

The areas under study:


This is the consensus list for one of the two groups looking at Area 5

The questions included on the list were:
1. What are the groups feelings on the space currently?
2. What could be in the near future to improve the space at a low price point?
3. What long term improvements could be made to the area?
4. Sample a random person in the area. Ask what would they like about the area currently and what they would want to see improved.
5. What are some organisations that CMHC should considerpartnering with to improve the area

[Metro-One]

Some pretty generic Vancouver style comments there...

Seriously, why don't they just write "Green" with a big marker next time.

With a little asterisks that says the obligatory, *and native.

[twoNeurons]

Just thinking... why put the bus bays right beside the elevator. Why not stagger them 50m north and south of the elevator.



You snake the center median to the west side to give the north bound bus bay room, nudge the elevator to the west side of the center median, and then after passing the south-bound bus bay north of the elevator go back to the median.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Just thinking... why put the bus bays right beside the elevator. Why not stagger them 50m north and south of the elevator.



You snake the center median to the west side to give the north bound bus bay room, nudge the elevator to the west side of the center median, and then after passing the south-bound bus bay north of the elevator go back to the median.

Because the co-op student they had come up with this scheme didn't think of that...

[whatnext]

Why do people even write stupid stuff like "remove vehicle traffic"? Why not just write 'remove customers"!? The fact is without that customer from outside the local area the Island would wither. The only way you could remove traffic would be to build a parking structure immediately adjacent to the island.