Central Waterfront District | Waterfront Station - CRAB Park

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by gaviscon

Oh hooray, more unfeasible fantasy exercises for Urban Planners to justify their 6-figure salary.

I hope they pack the site with cheap-looking, rental and social housing towers with ugly protruding elevator bulkhouses on top so that it's actually realistic for this city.

I don't understand your comment. The reporting confirms what we knew, that the city, province, Port Authority, CPKCR and land owners are all, for the first time ever, talking together about how the Waterfront Lands could be developed. That's never happened before, and it's the only way anything will ever happen to most of the area. It's the opposite of an 'unfeasible fantasy exercise ', it's a reality check.

If you are referring to the illustrations the Sun added to the story, they're the unsolicited schemes that various architectural firms have drawn up. They have nothing to do with the process of working out what could be realistically developed, given the current limitations that have been explained here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Well, unless the Port Authority and/or CP agree to move the hazmats off the tracks, then this one's as much of a non-starter as the previous couple decades' worth of talks.

[gaviscon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, unless the Port Authority and/or CP agree to move the hazmats off the tracks, then this one's as much of a non-starter as the previous couple decades' worth of talks.

exactly

[jollyburger]

I mean it's easy to be dismissive of it since it is so complicated with lots of groups involved. ie. the only way it makes any sense is with funding and ways for those interest groups to make money in the process. The provincial/municipal government seem to be committed though on the federal side the Sinclair Centre project seems to be stalled..

Earlier in the thread there was a Peter Meiszner meeting Sidara. But he also met with Perkins Will back in June about the waterfront planning.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, unless the Port Authority and/or CP agree to move the hazmats off the tracks, then this one's as much of a non-starter as the previous couple decades' worth of talks.

It's not necessarily a wasted exercise. It would finally clarify what is, and is not, possible. I think it's entirely CPKCR who control what happens on the tracks, not the Port Authority. If they're adamant that they can't/won't change their practices, then we know the track area can't be developed. That clarifies what Cadillac should be able build on their parking lot, because it couldn't be included in a bigger scheme to the north.

Equally, it ought to be clearer whether the Port Authority have any interest in development on their land to the north of the tracks. Up to now I'm not aware that they've ever indicated whether, and how they see that being developed. It's interesting that the Sidara design assumes the tracks can't be developed, but the Port Authority land could (with an extra cruise ship berth, it appears).

The previous City exercise for the Waterfront Lands could be reasonably characterized as unfeasible, and the soccer station turned out to be fantasy, but neither The Port or CP as they were then got involved. At least this time thay are - as well as Transport Canada.

It may just confirm that nothing can happen there any time soon - and at least, if that's the case, it might stop any more wasted design exercises.

[officedweller]

Yeah, CP's involvement could facilitate Port developments to the north, like allowing viaduct footings on its lands to extend Canada Place [Way] to the east.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, CP's involvement could facilitate Port developments to the north, like allowing viaduct footings on its lands to extend Canada Place [Way] to the east.

CPKC don't own ny land. I guess the terms of their lease might limit how development could occur, but that seems unlikely as Kerfoot bought the land with the idea of building his stadium over the top. It's the railway's operating practices that is the problem.

[jollyburger]

They only sold the entire rail yard for $22 million so I wonder what kind of payment if anything they need to make to Kerfoot.

The requirements for building over the rail yard are addressed in an agreement initiated in 1985 between CPR and Marathon Developments which established a statutory right-of-way for rail operations within the yard. This is referred to as the "Front Yard Agreement" and the rights and responsibilities contained within it have been transferred to the current owner, the Vancouver Whitecaps. In summary, the Front Yard Agreement allows for development to occur over the rail yard (at least 7.2m above the top of the rails) including the necessary foundations and columns placed within the
yard, provided that there is no loss in the quality of the rail facility. This implies that any rail capacity that is lost due to column placement or other disruption caused by the development would need to be replaced.

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-plan-central-waterfront-hub-framework.pdf

There was also some proposed land swap for the stadium back in the 2000s as well but they Port/Whitecaps couldn't agree on the valuation.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The structural feasibility study included a preliminary investigation of the impacts on the rail yard likely to result from the development anticipated in this framework document, using the Illustrative Concept Plan as a basis for the analysis. It was initially thought that some portions of the rail tracks would be able to pass below the development sites, however on further exploration it was determined that the required structural components for earthquake resistance would preclude
the ability to maintain rail lines under the buildings. The study concluded that there would be a loss of up to one third of the existing rail track length within the yard to accommodate the development in the Illustrative Concept Plan.

It may be possible to offset some of this loss through the provision of additional tracks to the north of the yard, however, these additional tracks may be required just to address additional demand for yard capacity resulting from the anticipated increase in container throughput at the port terminals. Further work will need to be undertaken to examine ways to maintain the capacity of the yard, including:
• Further analysis to explore the potential to reduce the impact of development on the rail yard e.g. through alternative structural design and/or reduction in building footprint.
• A comprehensive study of options for offsetting capacity losses within the yard and increasing capacity at other locations within the Burrard Inlet South Shore rail system.

This work will need to involve the developer(s) of the sites over the rail yard in close collaboration with CPR and PMV, and will need to include the development of a workable operating plan for the yard. Further work will also be required to determine how to mitigate temporary impacts on the rail operations during construction. Addressing these issues to the satisfaction of all parties is expected to be a major challenge.

What I'm seeing is that the railyard is much less negotiable than the Port buildings.