The next big development…
City council unanimously endorsed a plan Tuesday night to create a high-density, mixed-use neighbourhood of about 7,000 people around BC Place Stadium and GM Place on the final undeveloped section of the former Expo lands.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=99d209cf-02b9-4a4f-aca4-4abc8f7fb86a
The controversial concept includes a new civic plaza plus four million square feet of residential space and 1.8 million square feet of office space.
What it doesn’t include is the 2.75 acres of park space per 1,000 people that city council holds as a goal.
So less parkland, but parks are green right, and city council wants Vancouver to be the “greenest city” right? …few parks in this development sadly.
As proposed, densities in northeast False Creek will be among the highest in the downtown peninsula, the report said, noting the high-density push is being driven by the city’s goal of becoming the greenest city in the world by 2020.
Will this be a success? Will it result in a Vancouver’s first ghetto thus making us truly an international city complete with concrete all rental ghetto?
RSS 2.0 comments feed. leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
guys ease off it was me who claimed calgary was more dense. Well not exactly, I claimed when looking at Calgary we should compare it to van metro which everyone’s stats do show to be less dense. I am pointing out that there is a lot of industry in the city limits. I don’t think anyone is saying that is good urban planning. But houses are on average on smaller footprints. In the inner city almost all 50ft lots have been rezoned to be split into infills. compare this to 70′ lots common in places like coquitlam. And I do think calgary could use more condos downtown. But that will come in time.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
@patriotz
OK your claiming that Calgary is more dense than Vancouver and to support your point you assert that Guildford mall (IN SURREY) is 30km from downtown. You’ve been around a while so I’m going to assume you name has been hijacked.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Sorry, apparently the Seattle LINK ridership is only 12,000 per weekday. Must be like a ghost train.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:01 am
The Canada Line is among the most successful lines in terms of ridership so far. Consider for $2b we already have over 80,000 people riding every day.
The Seattle LINK system (total cost $3.6b) has yet to extend to the airport, but what is built so far (over $2b) is lucky to attract 20,000 riders per day.
I would have liked to see the Canada Line built with Skytrain technology, but it’s not the end of the world. The politically driven “hodge-podge” is more the result of classic Vancouver NIMBYism than anything else.
The fact that this is the first rapid transit link to the airport in any Canadian city is an example of forward thinking, not some “Olympic driven mistake”.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:56 am
@Purp:
No, I’m claiming that the rapid transit link to the airport was in no way required to host the Olympics, and therefore building it during a time of high construction costs was a bad choice in itself, whatever the link’s other merits, which I’m not convinced of either.
I’m also not critical of the bid timing, I’m critical of the bid itself. I’m opposed to the Olympics, period, and voted against it in 2003.
And I’m not engaging in Calgary-worship, just pointing out that it has a rationally planned rapid transit system that is suited to the density of the city and is more cost-effective and comprehensive than the politically driven hodge-podge that Vancouver has ended up with.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:44 am
@Purp:
No I’m not. I’m saying that both compactness and density matter for transportation issues. That should be self-evident.
According to Yahoo Maps the Guildford Mall is 30 km from downtown. That’s not as the crow flies, but commuters don’t fly.
Also of course the GVRD (or Metro Vancouver as it’s now called) is not the whole metro de facto. But just within the GVRD, the two Langleys, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge have about 200K people, and that’s not counting South Delta, South Surrey, and White Rock. So I don’t think the areas you’ve noted comprise 90% of GVRD population.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:24 am
73 X Hogtown Hozer Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“….to the airport for the 1988 Winter Olympics, even though it was only a few km way from the end of the existing line across empty prairie. In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.”
Hmmm, I think Sydney did.
——————
Err, Sydney did not host the WINTER Olympics.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:15 am
@patriotz
Calgary is less dense than Vancouver it is a fact. I’ve been following this blog since VHB was around and I have to say the level of discussion has fallen pretty low. Is it the fact that the market hasn’t dropped like we feel it should that is driving you guys to make (and defend) flat out false points? You know you make us all look bad when you cling to simply false (and easily verifiable) facts.
It seems every time Vancouver is compared to another city a couple of people take it on them selves to praise the other city and heap scorn on Vancouver. I understand this insofar as it is true but when you start holding up Halifax as anything but a hellhole and Calgary as a model of urban planning you have simply lost the plot. Vancouver has its faults but a lack of density and low livability (compared to Halifax) arn’t among them.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:47 am
@Patriotz: “In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.” – Is this implying that building a passenger rail link to the airport is a bad idea and Calgary was smart for not doing it even when they were only a couple of km short????
“Compare with Calgary which held the Olympics and built its NW and NE LRT legs during the 80’s oil and construction bust.” – Huh? So you’re also claiming that Vancouver didn’t time it’s bid correctly for the Olympics to co-incide with an economic downturn to reduce construction costs????
No doubt that Vancouver has made a lot of mistakes along the way, but trying to hold Calgary up as a model of urban planning is laughable. You need to take off the Calgary-coloured glasses, these are some really incredulous claims….
November 24th, 2009 at 8:41 am
@Patriotz: You always have some really insightful comments about the economy, but you’re dead wrong on this one.
Now you’re claiming that it’s not the density that matters, but the ‘compactness’, ie more dense in the middle than the fringes. Are you trying to say that DT vancouver, and burnaby are somehow ‘less compact’ than Calgary? Nonsense.
“How many people in metro Vancouver live over 20*1.4 = 28 km (17.5 miles) away from downtown?” – Not very many, since this radius would encompass all of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, North Van, West Van, North Delta, North Surrey. In other words 90% of the population of the GVRD. And this despite the fact we’ve chosen the center point in downtown at the very Western end of development (due to the water constraint), not smack in the middle of the population center like Calgary.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:19 am
@Warren : #55 was not me.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“….to the airport for the 1988 Winter Olympics, even though it was only a few km way from the end of the existing line across empty prairie. In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.”
Hmmm, I think Sydney did.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:54 am
While we’re talking about Calgary, note that the city did not see fit to extend the LRT system to the airport for the 1988 Winter Olympics, even though it was only a few km way from the end of the existing line across empty prairie. In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.
In addition to the questions of just how cost-effective it will be, the timing of the construction of the RAV – during BC’s biggest RE bubble and construction boom – could not have been more wrong from a macroeconomic perspective. Compare with Calgary which held the Olympics and built its NW and NE LRT legs during the 80′s oil and construction bust.
http://www.calgarytransit.com/....._stop.html
November 24th, 2009 at 4:36 am
@spectrum:
Just did. The furthest out built up area of Calgary, 194 Ave SE, is 20 km (12 miles) from downtown (and just a km past the end of the LRT system). The other two legs of the LRT extend almost to the limits of development in the NW and NE as well. How many people in metro Vancouver live over 20*1.4 = 28 km (17.5 miles) away from downtown? That’s what I mean by more compact.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl.....CA0Q8gEwAA
November 24th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Technically Sid the Kid is from Cole Harbour, not Hakifax. And hell yeah I’ll play me some hockey sucka!!
What’s the matter, don’t you play? I guess what with the lady boy nails and hair it’s pretty impractical. Still i’d recommend you not hang out by the locker room offering to love him long time Supra. It probably wouldn’t go over as well on the East Coast as it does in Richmond.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:07 am
@patriotz:
Still, I have little doubt occupancy per SFH in Vancouver city is higher than Calgary. The difference in Calgary is how long you need to travel from DT before you’re in a morass of true SINGLE family dwellings, not the “SFHs” that are actually multi-unit dwellings common in Vancouver and its near-burbs.
Vancouver, as you mention, is constrained by geography that will tilt its density to be less but its geography may lend itself to plan for more density sooner. Plowing an LRT through Cambie Village and over Broadway would have been difficult; it is as busy as stretches of Yonge St. They should, however, have brought it above ground after 33rd IMO. Oakridge and south is LRT material and will remain so for the next several generations.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:32 am
@realpaul:
We may get a hint on interest rates tomorrow, as the US Treasury is scheduled to sell $42 Billion of 5 Year US treasuries. On Wednesday, they will sell $32 Billion of 7 Year Treasuries.
Then again, last week the Fed bought up $75 Billion of treasuries, while foreigners bought only $11 Billion. So the Fed will probably manipulate the interest rate… again.
“My unsecured credit line is going up a full point in January to prime + 2%. Still ridiculously low, but a true sign of what is to come.” « Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
[...] November 2009 · Leave a Comment This from RennieWhereRU? at vancouvercondo.info 23 Nov 2009 10:33 pm [...]
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
@scullboy:
STFU, you don’t belong in Vancouver, go play some hockey in Halifax, perhaps you can buy a property when you become the next Sidney Crosby.
“In my neighbourhood, for the last 3-4 years, the amount of housing which is unavailable due to renovation is about 10%” « Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
[...] resulted in a larger ‘reservoir’ of off-market renos? A very interesting idea from Drachen at vancouvercondo.info 23 Nov 2009 4:51 pm [...]
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
@spectrum: I still think that the push will happen eventually. I don’t see the problem moving all the way to White Rock but the areas just east of Main out to around Victoria are at risk. Recall, Yaletown used to be just warehouses and gay prostitutes in the early nineties. What will foil the developer plans will be if the boom ends and there is no further gentrification. Then all the buildings (Woodwards, Espana etc) will get orphaned just like the first wave of condos that were built in old buildings on Alexander street in the early to mid-nineties.
My personal hope is that the gentrification will fail as it will just push a problem onto a new neighborhood. That said, I also said the same thing about Yaletown and that didn’t exactly work out the way I hoped. Go figure.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
And the early adopters are still waiting for gastown to improve and it’s been 30 years.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
@Rent-o-rama:
Thing is all the services are down in the woodwards area.
I am in the area everyday and see entire block long lineups of really miserable people. It’s not like they can move elsewhere, there are no support services for them in White Rock….
Putting in some really expensive condos ,with fast internet connections, won’t solve the highest rate of Hep C and HIV in the developed world, being the poorest postal code etc.
The current asking rents of $1500 for woodwards aren’t very tempting when new buildings in yaletown can be had for $1350, with pets.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
@patriotz: Are you kidding? Look at Google maps your claim is flat out false. Not even close to true.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@spectrum: I agree with your port.
The question becomes whether or not the poorest postal code is going to get kicked down the road to the east side of main street as the condo gentrification continues.
If the gentrification takes hold, the quality of tenants will increase, if not, a ghetto is almost inevitable as the early adopters bail-out
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@Drachen: Yes we agree my complaint is that he is getting downvoted when stating an obviously true fact and providing a citation.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Got lovely letter today from my RBC. My unsecured credit line is going up a full point in January to prime + 2%, still ridiculously low but a true sign of what is to come. Why cant CMHC insure my credit line so I dont have to get this increase in rate and go up to my tits in debt. Not fair.
Will call RBC to see if that means the interest rate on my shitty TFSA will go up 1% also, to a whopping 1.75%! Whoo hoo. Was starting to lose patience with all this debt crap but inflation is a coming big time so buckle up big spenders. Gold at $1,200 very soon. Can someone tell me what high interest rates do to real estate values? But my mortgage broker said rates wont go up. HA HA HA, this is going to be good folks. Glad that the market is way bigger than any stupid government, which we cant blame, as they represent the people and clearly majority of the people in Canada and particuarly vancouver are absolute morons.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
that area is under-represented in greenspace
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
It’s not a tiny square, so who knows what marcello is talking about. Clearly they are representative of the bitter NIMBYs in the area. Take a look at a satellite image from google maps and compare it to other areas of Vancouver. Anybody who says that area is under-represented in greenspace is a complete idiot.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@Warren:
Warren, are illiterate?
“a tiny square near the astroturf soccer fields”
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Warren, Spectrum;
You’re both saying the same thing. You AGREE read carefully, you’re both saying Calgary has a less dense population than Vancouver (in the pop.-geo. sense anyhow).
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
@marcello 50:
You’re forgetting Andy Livingston Park. Granted this is mostly sports field, you could argue the same of many parks. Plus the kids’ play area to the west of it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Clearly Calgary is less dense in their urban area and the whole urban/suburban sprawl. No surprise as nothing limits their growth.
Check them both out on wikipedia. It is true that most of Calgary’s population is in what is defined as “Calgary city”, bur even that is relatively sparse in urban terms. Vancouver City is extremely dense, even Toronto is less at 3972 people/sqkm.
Arguing with facts is like trying to talk down a wall, you look pretty stupid doing it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
However Calgary is more compact than Vancouver. That is, the average distance of the population from downtown (or from each other), normalized by population (i.e. radius increasing with the square root of population), is smaller in Calgary. That is, Vancouver being about twice as populous as Calgary, a smaller % of people live within a circle of radius 1.4*x as opposed to x in Calgary.
This is due to Vancouver’s highly off centre downtown and physical discontiguity, which of course is a big factor in why its transportation problems are so intractable.