Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C - Page 2

cornholio · #21 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Still seems short, there seems to be many residential towers with 45 to 50 floors that are considerably taller.

Anyways, 10 year build out for a project this large seems pretty optimistic...would be great, but I am not holding my breathe.

I looked at this the other day but from what I remember one of the documents said the floor counts count each floor of the mall as 2 floors, and there will be 3 mall floors. That means that 45 story tower is 39 stories of residential over 3 stories of mall space. Then on top of this like some have mentioned they may actually be taking out the 4th, and 13th floor's, and maybe even the 14th, 24th, 34th as well. Not sure what the benefit would be in inflating the floor counts at this point in the game? Unless someone just didnt think it through and used the numbers their salivating marketing team has been throwing around (which would actually make sense when you think about it).

The other options is that they did this assuming residents would complain one way or another and their intention is to knock off one or two floors, and then deflate the floor count to the real floor count to make their compromise look bigger then it really is. So their response to residents would be that they shortened the one tower, it is now 32 floors over 3 floors of mall space at 119m's. When in reality all they did was knock 2 floors off but it looks like they knocked 13 floors off at first glance (counting each mall floor as one and grouping them separately, and counting the 4th and 13th floors which would reduce the residential tower count by another 2. At least thats what I would do as I think the end result would be for them getting more height through then they would have otherwise because people focus in on floor counts instead of actually metric heights. (dont fight the residents, flow with them, show them what they want to see). So I say let them focus on the floor counts and take them for a bit of a ride, obviously you dont lie and say you reduced the floor count, you just highlight the accurate floor count, that is all. (by the way I hate developers and realtors for these things, but I dont blame them if no one is willing to put out some standards to follow)

officedweller · #22 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 6:36 AM**

I haven't had time to check out the details -
but Retail Insider mentions a new anchor tenant at the south end of the mall -
speculation is either Simons or Bloomingdales since downtown Nordstrom and Holt Renfrew
are too close for another large nearby location.
The plan doesn't show an escalator - sio I wonder if it's just one level?
I wonder if it could be an hr2? Or would that be too downmarket for Oakridge?
Interesting stuff...

http://www.retail-insider.com/#!/201...re-to-get.html

GMasterAres · #23 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 7:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Wow this will completely transform Oakridge from the dull and uninteresting place it is now.

Those Earthwork towers must've been inspired by Milan's vertical forest towers.

They wouldn't need those if they hadn't cut down every tree in Milan... makes me glad we do have a side of our city that jumps up and down even when they want to top off trees on little mountain. Can be a bit on the crazy side, but at least we don't need to be building forest high-rises to see a tree in person...

trofirhen · #24 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 8:35 AM**

In terms of aesthetics, this project seems a cut above just about any other in Vancouver. Hopefully, it will set a new standard for future developments in the Metro Vancouver area. Urban designers in other cities - especially regional ones, such as Seattle and Portland - may well sit up and notice this. Hurray for our side

Retail-Insider · #25 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I haven't had time to check out the details -
but Retail Insider mentions a new anchor tenant at the south end of the mall -
speculation is either Simons or Bloomingdales since downtown Nordstrom and Holt Renfrew
are too close for another large nearby location.
The plan doesn't show an escalator - sio I wonder if it's just one level?
I wonder if it could be an hr2? Or would that be too downmarket for Oakridge?
Interesting stuff...

http://www.retail-insider.com/#!/201...re-to-get.html

Good catch, noticing the lack of escalator! The planning documents suggest that this will be just one anchor store, but the lack of escalator could mean otherwise. It might just be a way to provide 'flexibility' for whatever retailer(s) might lease the space. We're not aware of hr2 moving into Oakridge at this time.

This is the plan for the second level of Oakridge Centre and as you've noted, there is no escalator in the diagram either: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...oorplan_up.pdf

LeftCoaster · #26 Posted **Oct 31, 2012, 9:05 PM**

As far as I know HRs existing radius restrictions do not allow them to open a HR2 at Oakridge.

I'd imagine the space does not yet have a signed tenant but I would bet they are targeting Simons.

whatnext · #27 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 12:20 AM**

When this goes ahead the underbuilt nature of the Canada Line is going to become really apparent. What was the max expansion they could add, wasn't it just one more car?

bardak · #28 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

When this goes ahead the underbuilt nature of the Canada Line is going to become really apparent. What was the max expansion they could add, wasn't it just one more car?

There is room for a smaller C car that could probably increase the capacity by at least a third. Then we can still double the frequency doubling the the capacity on top of that. Then the layout within the cars are rather poor and seating could be change to increase capacity by another 10-20%. So probably around a 250% theoretically but I would think that somewhere along the line I would think that dwelling times would throw a wrench into the works.

mr.x · #29 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

When this goes ahead the underbuilt nature of the Canada Line is going to become really apparent. What was the max expansion they could add, wasn't it just one more car?

It certainly will be apparent.

Right now, the Canada Line runs 5,000-6,000 pphpd of its 12,000 pphpd capacity. It would have its ultimate 15,000 pphpd design capacity with that 10-metre extension of its platforms from 40 metres to 50 metres to accommodate that middle section mini-third car.

I'll say this again, platform doors are going to be needed for the Canada Line to increase the usability of the platform area for passenger circulation in the stations. With the Canada Line eventually running frequencies that could be 90-secs like the Expo Line, it's going to be needed with so many boarding and disembarking the trains.

The upper limit of the Canada Line's train system is 300,000 per day, but the question is whether the small and narrow station circulation spaces could handle that kind of traffic: number of people on platforms at any one time, staircase/escalator traffic, walkways/halls, etc.

As for Oakridge-41st Station, isn't there a knockout panel in the ticketing concourse to allow for a future direct entrance into the mall and a new entrance across the street?

SpongeG · #30 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 8:19 PM**

i have yet to see a crowded platform on the canada line, during a major event maybe but most other days/times its no worse than the expo line

anyway as for oakridge - when will they start this all? how soon until hudsons bay moves?

wrenegade · #31 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 8:47 PM**

It is still a ways off. They have to be approved first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by City of Vancouver

Rezoning Process - Timeline
The rezoning process will take approximately 12 months from application to public hearing. If it’s approved by Council, it will be nine to 12 months before construction begins.

During the process, the City will be holding open houses and other public engagement opportunities to meet with members of the community and stakeholders to get feedback.

Fall 2012 Rezoning application submitted
Public open house #1 and workshop
Winter 2013 Incorporate feedback, analysis of application
Spring 2013 Public open house #2
Summer 2013 Incorporate feedback, analysis of application
Fall 2013 Present to City Council at public hearing

City of Vancouver Oakridge Redevelopment

SpongeG · #32 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 8:49 PM**

so maybe 2018 or beyond basically

vanman · #33 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 9:34 PM**

Somehow it slipped my mind that Westbank is behind the redevelopment of Oakridge. I'm basically a fan of everything they've ever built in Vancouver. To me they are the most consistent developer when it comes to quality and design. Oakridge could very well turn out iconic in their hands.

On another note, with all the greenroofs, green walls, and extensive landscaping that is being put into new developments these days Vancouver looks headed for quite the Ecotopian future.

huenthar · #34 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 10:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Somehow it slipped my mind that Westbank is behind the redevelopment of Oakridge. I'm basically a fan of everything they've ever built in Vancouver. To me they are the most consistent developer when it comes to quality and design. Oakridge could very well turn out iconic in their hands.

On another note, with all the greenroofs, green walls, and extensive landscaping that is being put into new developments these days Vancouver looks headed for quite the Ecotopian future.

Westbank is doing the Beach & Howe project right?

jlousa · #35 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 10:27 PM**

Correct

s211 · #36 Posted **Nov 1, 2012, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Somehow it slipped my mind that Westbank is behind the redevelopment of Oakridge. I'm basically a fan of everything they've ever built in Vancouver. To me they are the most consistent developer when it comes to quality and design. Oakridge could very well turn out iconic in their hands.

On another note, with all the greenroofs, green walls, and extensive landscaping that is being put into new developments these days Vancouver looks headed for quite the Ecotopian future.

Westbank can't design a kitchen to save their lives, consider two treadmills and a cross trainer a suitable fitness facility for 200+ residents, and from what I'm told, the 6-7 storey green wall they put at 700 West 8th is going to cost 3-4 times the original budget to service and maintain, because there's no physical way to maintain it without a huge cherry picker team. From what I hear, the condo board is ready to tear a new porthole for Westbank, given the design deficiencies and thoughtless attention to detail.

I've also been told that the green wall at Woodwards has been allowed to die because if insane maintenance issues.

dleung · #37 Posted **Nov 2, 2012, 3:29 AM**

Proposal is meh. Aren't we just about done with point towers by now? And putting them among single detached houses? How many times have we seen renders of unrealistically-lush balconies, only to be disappointed?

The tower placements looks almost random. With such a large site, they could have done something much more interesting to taper the edges

http://www.designbuild-network.com/p...dweillings.jpg

http://www.architecturenewsplus.com/.../t/nmtwr3k.jpg

officedweller · #38 Posted **Nov 2, 2012, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

The tower placements looks almost random. With such a large site, they could have done something much more interesting to taper the edges

That's because the existing mall is largely staying in place and being built around - only another level of shopping is being built on top the existing mall. The towers are all being built on the periphery.
The same pattern is happening at Brentwood.