HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 8:36 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
That's utopia to me.

This needs to be approved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 4:35 PM
city-dweller's Avatar
city-dweller city-dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 357
Thanks for posting the model photos. I am really interested how they will handle the extended cover over Cambie from a legal standpoint.

Funniest comment i heard at the open house was regarding the tallest 3 towers. Someone said "it looks like they took a cat's scratching post and added trees".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 7:03 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,593
The project will be at Urban Design Panel tonight at 6:45pm in "workshop" status
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 7:25 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by city-dweller View Post
Funniest comment i heard at the open house was regarding the tallest 3 towers. Someone said "it looks like they took a cat's scratching post and added trees".
Actually this has also crossed my mind...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 8:14 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,351
Great pics Built Form! You managed to cover just about every conceivable angle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 11:26 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
The Oakridger rezoning is going to council this week regarding issues and directions. I'll cut and paste some of the details out of the 32page report.

Quote:
RECOMMENDATION *
A. THAT Council indicate it is willing to consider an intensification of the Oakridge Centre site beyond density envisaged in the 2007 Oakridge Centre Policy Statement to include additional residential, office, and retail space as generally outlined in this report, noting that the final density will be refined and analysed through the rezoning process, which will include additional public consultation and a Public Hearing.

B. THAT Council indicate it is willing to consider tower height of up to 45 storeys for the tower closest to the intersection of 41st Avenue and Cambie Street, with heights decreasing as distance from the intersection increases, noting that the final built form will be further refined and analysed through the rezoning process, which will include additional public consultation and a Public Hearing.

C. THAT Council direct staff to work with the applicant to revise the rezoning application to better address the City’s inclusionary housing policies, with a focus on maximizing the number of social housing units that can be achieved within the development.

D. THAT Council accept payment-in-lieu of park land to satisfy the outstanding obligation to provide 1.15 ha (2.83 acres) of park space on the Oakridge Centre site;

E. THAT Council endorse in principle the use of the rooftop of Oakridge Centre as public space for the community, noting that all obligations for operation, ongoing maintenance and capital renewal will be the requirement of the owner of Oakridge Centre;
FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to report back at time of Public Hearing on programming options for the public space as part of the public benefits package for Oakridge Centre, informed by additional public consultation.

F. THAT Council endorse its commitment to prioritizing walking, cycling, and transit as transportation options for Oakridge Centre;
FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to continue to work with the applicant to determine appropriate parking supply, measures to reduce the required parking, and methods to manage parking spill-over onto nearby residential streets.

G. THAT Council endorse in principle the proposed public benefits package for Oakridge Centre, including a City-owned civic centre and affordable housing, noting that the ultimate configuration and location of the public benefits will be further refined and analysed through the rezoning process;
FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to develop a comprehensive funding strategy for public benefits associated with the Oakridge Centre redevelopment.

H. THAT the passage of the above resolutions will in no way fetter Council’s discretion in considering any rezoning application for Oakridge Centre, and does not create any legal rights for any person or obligation on the part of the City; any expenditures of funds or incurring of costs is at the risk of the person making the expenditure or incurring the costs.
Quote:
Affirmation of the mix of land uses and overall density on the site, including the amount of commercial floor space on site, noting that there are still built form issues to be resolved that may affect the ultimate density of the Oakridge Centre proposal;
- A maximum tower height of 45 storeys for the tower closest to the intersection of 41st Avenue and Cambie Street, with heights decreasing as distance from the intersection increases, noting that there are still built form issues to be resolved that may affect the ultimate density and massing of the Oakridge Centre proposal;
- Resolution of the outstanding obligation for 2.83 acres of open space resulting from a 1983 subdivision and a 1993 rezoning of the site;
- Affirmation of the City’s policies to prioritize walking, cycling, and transit over automobile use, including parking ratios for the residential and commercial density proposed on the Oakridge Centre site, which support Transportation 2040 goals of improving environmental impacts, the economy, people, and sustainable transportation choices (including transit); and
- A public benefits strategy for Oakridge Centre which includes a mix of affordable housing, open space provided on site, and a co-located civic centre comprised of a community centre, seniors centre, expanded library, and child care.
Quote:
The rezoning application for Oakridge Centre proposes over 4,500,000 square feet of development.

Uses Current Uses Proposed Rezoning
Retail (sq. ft.) 620,000 1,430,600
Office (sq. ft.) 126,000 424,259
Amenity (sq. ft.) 26,000 45,000
Residential (sq. ft.) 50,000 2,697,700
TOTAL (sq. ft.) 822,000 4,597,559

Oakridge Centre is designated as a Municipal Town Centre in the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. Municipal Town Centres are intended to be the among the region’s primary focal points in terms of concentration of residential density, job space, civic/cultural facilities, and transit service. Noting that Downtown is identified as the metropolitan core of the region, Oakridge Centre is the Municipal Town Centre identified within the City of Vancouver.

One of the target strategies contained in Vancouver’s Economic Action Strategy is to protect, enhance, increase, and densify employment spaces. The application for Oakridge Centre proposes to increase the amount of retail floorspace from 620,000 square feet to over 1,400,000 square feet. Combined with the additional 300,000 square feet of office space proposed, staff estimate that the number of jobs accommodated on the site would increase from 2,000 to over 5,000 jobs following redevelopment. The 2007 Metro Core Jobs and the
Economy Plan identified the need to accommodate approximately 24,000 additional jobs outside the Downtown and Broadway areas by 2031. The additional jobs provided at Oakridge Centre would help the City meet its job targets and would constitute approximately 3000 jobs toward this total (12.5%).
Staff support the land use and overall density proposed at Oakridge Centre based on its unique role and prominence in the City and region. While staff is seeking an indication from Council that it is willing to consider the proposed land use mix and overall density, it is important to note that the exact floorspace figures are subject to change based on revisions to the form of development. This may result in some variation in the density proposed in the application.

2. Built form and Height
The rezoning application for Oakridge Centre proposes a variety of building forms ranging from low and mid-rise buildings of 6 to 12 storeys, to towers and terraced buildings of 18 to 45 storeys.
As noted above, Oakridge Centre is designated as a Municipal Town Centre in the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. Therefore, in assessing the proposed height and form of development, Oakridge Centre should be considered in the context of Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver as a whole, development along the Canada Line, and the immediate local surroundings.
In Vancouver and the region as a whole, planning policy emphasizes greater levels of development intensity and height at rapid transit and in key urban centres, reflecting the increasing sustainability of locations that offer high walkability and decreased automobile reliance. Vancouver has recently approved developments up to 31 storeys at Joyce- Collingwood on the Expo Line, and up to 35 storeys at the Cambie and Marine Station on the Canada Line. Regionally, recent approvals at rapid transit locations are trending upwards to approximately 50 storeys, with up to 70 storeys at Burnaby’s Brentwood Town Centre.

The Cambie Corridor Plan identifies Oakridge as the “centre” of both the city and the Canada Line which should represent the most significant concentration of urban uses and density. The importance of Oakridge as a Municipal Town Centre, its location at an important crossroads (noting that 41st Avenue is a priority for future rapid transit), and the singular scale of theOakridge Centre site places it at the top of the hierarchy of Vancouver station areas outside the downtown. As such, staff consider that the building height range proposed for Oakridge Centre is consistent with directions in transit-oriented development in Vancouver and elsewhere in the region.
Staff analysis suggests that the patterning of height and massing proposed is generally consistent with the principles in the 2007 Policy Statement, and that the expanded height range gives greater ability to meet the principles of the policy for massing and transitions to the local neighbourhood while carrying a density appropriate to this significant transitoriented site. Additionally, the height range and building forms proposed are important to achieving residential and job-space density without compromising the functioning and viability of the retail mall which is the economic engine of the site.
The surrounding properties adjacent to the site were analyzed based on their existing and future context within the Cambie Corridor. Staff believe the proposed built form provides an appropriate transition to the evolving neighbourhood. While the taller buildings in the proposal cast longer shadows on the local neighbourhood, the impact on immediately adjacent areas is minimized based on the proposed tower forms and placement on site.
The existing residential development most impacted is the Terraces, a 32 unit strata residential building at the northeast corner of the Oakridge site immediately adjacent to the Canada Line station. Its context will be significantly altered by the proposed redevelopment. While acknowledging the degree of change, staff believe that the shadowing impacts and adjacencies are acceptable. However, staff will be looking to further improve solar access and reduce visual impact of upper level massing along Cambie shopping street and boulevard.
While staff is seeking an indication from Council that it is willing to consider the proposed building height range at Oakridge Centre, it is important to note there are still significant built form issues to be addressed in further evolution of the application. The built form and pedestrian experience along 41st Avenue and Cambie Street, the setting back of buildings from the property line to retain existing mature trees, building sculpting, variety in building forms, reduction in mass of some buildings, and the building forms along the high street are just some of the topics that require further discussion with the applicant. This may result in a variation in the density contained in the application.
Should Council indicate that it is willing to consider the building heights as proposed, staff will utilize the objectives of the General Policy for Higher Buildings to achieve Council’s direction for architectural excellence and green building performance. While these are normally reserved for buildings in the downtown, staff recommend that buildings over 114 metres (375 feet) in height be subject to an augmented Urban Design Panel, with two additional architects with experience in mixed use building design and green building practices.
Quote:
To fulfil the requirements of the 2007 Policy Statement, as well as future demand in the Oakridge area, staff is recommending a new co-located civic centre be developed on the Oakridge Centre site. This civic centre would be comprised of the following:
- A community centre of approximately 36,000 square feet, including a gymnasium, multi-purpose rooms, a dedicated seniors centre space, community kitchen, and circulation space;
- An expanded branch for the Vancouver Public Library of approximately 25,000 square feet, including expanded programming, work and study spaces, which will help meet existing and future demand in the area; and
- A 69 space child care facility with adjacent outdoor play space

Staff project that future population increases at Oakridge Centre and within the Cambie Corridor as a whole will be in the order of 26,000 to 30,000 additional people over the next 30 years
Quote:
Oakridge Centre Proposed Affordable Housing Mix
Units % of Res Units Gross Area % of Res Area
Market Condominium 2123 75% 2,224,600 82%

Spectrum of Affordable Units
Market Rental 391 14% 264,000 10%
Affordable Home Ownership 100 4% 68,700 3%
SAFER Housing 54 2% 27,000 1%
Social Housing (seniors) 90 3% 51,900 2%
Social Housing (families) 60 2% 61,500 2%

Sub‐total Affordable Units 695 25% 473,100 18%

Total Residential Units 2818 100% 2,697,700 100%
Quote:
8. Canada Line Capacity
Through the public processes for Oakridge Centre and other developments along the Cambie Corridor, residents have regularly expressed concerns about the ability of the Canada Line to accommodate the additional demand that Oakridge and other development along the corridor will create. Staff is working closely with the applicant and TransLink to understand the impacts on the transit system. There are two Canada Line capacity issues that will be addressed through this process – the line capacity and the station capacity.
The line capacity is the ability of the system to carry passengers in the peak direction in the peak hour. TransLink is working to identify the level of passenger demand along the line with the level of proposed development along the entire corridor. The initial review suggests that there is potential for significant growth in capacity on the Canada Line – currently the line can accommodate approximately 6,500 people per hour per direction (pphpd) and carries about 5,500 pphpd at the busiest point on the line. This is based on the current operation of two-car trains with a frequency of 3 minutes and 20 seconds between trains at the peak period.
This capacity can be expanded to 10,000 pphpd by increasing the frequency of two-car trains to 90 seconds between trains at peak periods. By upgrading to three-car trains at the maximum frequency of 90 seconds between trains, the number can be further expanded to 15,000 pphpd. It should be noted that some station modifications will be required to accommodate a three-car train operation.
The station capacity is the ability of the station to allow enough pedestrian flow to meet the demand of people travelling to and from the trains. Analysis of station capacity has been initiated by the applicant’s consultant. Staff recommend that the review of the line and station capacity be a condition of rezoning and that any upgrades required to the Oakridge- 41st Avenue station to meet the increased demand that the development will be creating will be the sole obligation of the applicant.
Lots more of details and some massing examples in the docoument.
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...ents/ptec3.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 2:43 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,377
I like how the report refers to heights at Brentwood and Metrotown - i.e. sort of a note that Vancouver is falling behind...

Also note on page 12 - the desire to remove the vehicle tunnel to westbound 41st to allow LRT on 41st in future...

Page 1 of Appendix A:

Quote:
Oakridge Centre is designated as a Municipal Town Centre in the Metro Vancouver Regional
Growth Strategy (Fig 1). Municipal Town Centres are intended to be the among the region’s
primary focal points for concentrated growth and transit service. Outside of downtown
Vancouver, the metro core of the region, Oakridge is the only urban or Municipal Town Centre
identified in Vancouver.

Brentwood on the Millenium Line in Burnaby is also identified as a Municipal Town Centre.
The approved masterplan for the Brentwood mall site (similarly sized to Oakridge Centre at
27 acres, and situated adjacent to single family housing to the north) supports a range of uses
and building forms including residential towers of 45 to 70 storeys. Other developments in
the Brentwood area currently under construction range from 39 to 49 storeys. Recent
approvals in Surrey’s transit-oriented City Centre range from 24 to 48 storeys, and 35 to 57
storeys in Burnaby’s Metrotown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 3:49 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
I like how the report refers to heights at Brentwood and Metrotown - i.e. sort of a note that Vancouver is falling behind...
They even throw Surrey in there, I suppose as well to site examples of what is considered the new norm in Metro Van. Some people living in the west side of Vancouver may not have a clue about what's happening east of Cambie. I think the 45 stories is the opening volley in what will be a hard negotiation with the neighborhood regarding height. I predict a final height (for the tallest tower) to be around 26 stories.

If the developer offers something other than the usual cookie cutter design, they might have a chance of achieving something close to 35 - 40 stories (imo). I'm not holding my breath though.

Quote:
Also note on page 12 - the desire to remove the vehicle tunnel to westbound 41st to allow LRT on 41st in future...
LRT along 41st would be awesome, even full on BRT (going to Metrotown not Joyce).

Last edited by logan5; May 28, 2013 at 4:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 4:11 AM
TwoFace's Avatar
TwoFace TwoFace is offline
Dig-it
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Downtown
Posts: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I like how the report refers to heights at Brentwood and Metrotown - i.e. sort of a note that Vancouver is falling behind...
Falling behind Metrotown could be considered a step in the right direction I don't think they have a community plan, it's a free for all.

This one is going to be interesting, I wonder if every unit is actually going to get it's own full size cedar tree
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 4:57 AM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
I have also wondered how the increasing heights of buildings in the suburbs will affect Vancouvers building policies in the near future. Very soon many buildings outside downtown will be as tall or taller then everything aside from the tallest building in Vancouver (I'm not counting the "turn" because.....) I can only hope it will spark a bit of interest in building taller within Vancouver city limits imo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 6:06 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster View Post
I have also wondered how the increasing heights of buildings in the suburbs will affect Vancouvers building policies in the near future. Very soon many buildings outside downtown will be as tall or taller then everything aside from the tallest building in Vancouver (I'm not counting the "turn" because.....) I can only hope it will spark a bit of interest in building taller within Vancouver city limits imo.
One would hope those formulating building policies are motivated by something more than "whose is bigger".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 6:47 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
I agree with whatnext, we shouldn't be chasing others to build higher for the sake of being higher, we should be building better. In some cases it might make sense to go higher, in others it doesn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 6:50 AM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
One would hope those formulating building policies are motivated by something more than "whose is bigger".
It is very clear that is already the case within Vancouver (proper).

For some reason you seem to think that suggesting that perhaps Vancouver could build taller, means that its going to be a piece of crap just because its taller? Why does this have to be the case? My feelings are the tallest buildings in a city should be located downtown, and I feel most cities operate on this premise. Wherever or whatever motivates Vancouver to build taller I feel is a good thing, as I feel the city underperforms in this department (for its population). If having buildings in the suburbs that are taller then the buildings downtown is what it takes to make this happen, then its a positive thing imo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 6:55 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,377
WRT London, UK, didn't it take the migration of jobs to bigger buildings at Canary Wharf (Tower Hamlets) to change the City's mind to build taller in The City?
Unfortunately, here whe're dealing with largely residential uses...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 10:24 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Here is the presentation from yesterdays council meeting.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...esentation.pdf

Be patient it's a large file.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 10:41 PM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
I saw a few articles about this today, namely how some people like this Linda Leong whining and complaining. They are crying doom and gloom for their neighbourhood and all.

I looked at the rendering from News 1130 and the development is no bigger than what you already see in some places like Port Moody's NewPort and Sutterbrook areas (though I think Oakridge will have more office space). So this is typical village by the sea mentality of these self righteous creme de la creme.

Hey, the Canada Line was built with great expense and have hindered transit expansion to much of the region, where majority of taxpayers who paid for it still continue to suffer from this hinderance. It became a subway when a more cheaper elevated skytrain would have easily suffice, mainly because of these whiners like Linda Leong. The least they can do is suck up and let these high density development push through so the transit line, which taxpayers from outside Oakridge paid dearly for, gets utilized even more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 10:56 PM
rsxstock rsxstock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 274
the plans look quite good but i think they still need to somehow come up with more parking spaces and find an alternative than simply "paying market value in lieu of park space"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 11:34 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,193
Are they really expecting troubles getting through with their plans? I mean, that is one very profound document trying to sell this great project.

I have no issues with project and although not the highest of the town center projects I may like it the most as the whole complex will be re-built (unlike Metrotown). Looking very much forward to seeing this being built one day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 12:09 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,848
The taller buildings rather resemble tall pagodas, only without pointed roofs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 9:08 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,377
IN my view, if the City really wants Oakridge to be a Municipal Town Centre, it needs to densify (ie towers) beyond the triangle occupied by the mall. Even with the mall build-out, I'll guess that over density is still lower than Kerrisdale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.