Broadway Corridor Updates

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Spoiler alert: 80% of the visible SFHs in Trish Jewison's photo belong to Surrey, New West and Burnaby, but nobody wants to build an airport there either;

Well not exactly nobody, Harland Bartholomew thought it was a great idea:

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The suburbs are still protecting the SFH millionaires; all their towers are going up on malls, warehouses, diners and walkup apartments. The province had to step in and legalize laneways just last month - the horror.

Missing the point: if that was the best Surrey could manage during the office boom, the bust is going to be even worse for them.

I'm not disagreeing with you that they still have a long way to go.

But at the very least at the moment even they have come to the realization that they can't afford to protect the ones around the major transit hubs anymore and are aggressively pushing to upzone and densify those (....even if it could be argued, it's partially so they don't have to go farther into the SFH areas away from the transit hubs and stop protecting those.)

That's one area at least in which they're ahead of the game of Vancouver themselves as Sim himself noted.


But yeah,......still nowhere near enough.
And even with this they were like 10-15 years too late.
And Hurley's whining recently that the province was forcing these recent changes on them without even consulting them is peak tone-deaf "not-reading-the-room"-ness comical - which would be funny if it weren't so tragic and serious.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Even then, I wonder how much of the current plans are "realization" rather than greed - town centres get the 'burbs all the revenue with none of the political fallout. That's why Watts and Hepner wanted the streetcars: to trigger a condo rush and attract a lot of money to Surrey, fast; urbanism was never the actual goal.

It's partly because of how Hurley got into office back in 2018. Corrigan thought he was untouchable and forced his Metrotown demoviction plan through massive backlash; all Hurley had to do is say he'd listen more, and that's why he's mayor now.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The suburbs are still protecting the SFH millionaires; all their towers are going up on malls, warehouses, diners and walkup apartments.

This isn't really true any more, but what most of the suburbs *are* doing is concentrating growth in areas near transit (regardless of whether those areas near transit are SECH or strip malls or whatever). Coquitlam upzoned Oakdale, Port Moody finally went ahead with Coronation Park, Surrey is mass upzoning the Expo line extension route, and so on.

Which makes sense, broadly, but they could still stand to allow more densification of the areas away from transit, which is why the provincial intervention to allow 4-plexes is welcome.

[vanman]

^Not to mention all the single family homes that have been upzoned within the suburban town centres. By no means were they all just parking lots and warehouses and strip malls. Metrotown, Edmonds and Surrey City Centre come to mind.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by vanman

^Not to mention all the single family homes that have been upzoned within the suburban town centres. By no means were they all just parking lots and warehouses and strip malls. Metrotown, Edmonds and Surrey City Centre come to mind.

I also mentioned walkup apartments, yes? Look up the Metrotown Development Plan, and you'll find that almost none of it was SFH to begin with; almost all the density gains have been at the expense of the old low-rises south of the mall.

Granted, they're falling apart anyway, but it's pretty telling that A) no provisions were made by Corrigan's council to protect evictees, B) below-market units in the towers replacing them were almost nonexistent until recently, C) there's no density, not even Missing Middle, planned for the houses outside the boundaries, and D) nor is there any planned within the boundaries (i.e. it'll jump straight from SFH to midrise as soon as you cross the street), indicating that they weren't concerned with NIMBY sensitivities. Put all of those together, and you've got a pretty blatant cash grab using "urbanism" as a buzzphrase.

Ditto Edmonds, which again seemingly goes out of its way to avoid most detached homes while targeting the multiplexes and rowhouses; ditto Royal Oak, Bainbridge and all the other urban villages. Were it Vancouver, it'd be a contiguous black box with everything inside automatically rezoned for some kind of multifamily.

TBF Surrey does seem to not care as much about gerrymandering around the homeowners, so maybe it's a Burnaby thing.

[jollyburger]

If SFH are up for grabs then get rid of golf courses while you're at it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Parks Board says no.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If SFH are up for grabs then get rid of golf courses while you're at it.

no

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Parks Board says no.

as they should.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by GMD

Which makes sense, broadly, but they could still stand to allow more densification of the areas away from transit, which is why the provincial intervention to allow 4-plexes is welcome.

I think you mean away from rapid transit. There are a lot of areas in the suburbs that are fairly well served by frequent bus service that could upzone without triggering carmageddon. E.g., Burnaby could upzone all of Willingdon from Metrotown to Hastings. Even without a Skytrain line, north-south bus service connecting to the R5 and Expo and Millennium lines is frequent.

Getting more ridership on Translink's busses by not waiting for Skytrain, BRT, or Rapid Bus before upzoning would be a great way to improve farebox recovery.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If SFH are up for grabs then get rid of golf courses while you're at it.

I think I am in favour of getting rid of municipal golf courses, because even if the sport was affordable (which it isn't) a golf course can only host a few hundred players a day. Compare this to a standard public park which could host the same number of people per hour.

What I am not sure of is whether the golf courses should be turned into housing. I.e., how much of the golf courses should be reserved as green space?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I think I am in favour of getting rid of municipal golf courses, because even if the sport was affordable (which it isn't) a golf course can only host a few hundred players a day. Compare this to a standard public park which could host the same number of people per hour.

What I am not sure of is whether the golf courses should be turned into housing. I.e., how much of the golf courses should be reserved as green space?

City owned courses are still the cheapest to use by far. I'd be ok with turning 18 hole courses into 9 and having park space for the rest.

Turning it to dense housing is a joke when they are across the street from SFHs.

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" energy here.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

City owned courses are still the cheapest to use by far. I'd be ok with turning 18 hole courses into 9 and having park space for the rest.

Turning it to dense housing is a joke when they are across the street from SFHs.

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" energy here.

Most of the people who play on golf courses live in SFH. Think outside the box

[Migrant_Coconut]

On the one hand, sacrificing greenfield when there's plenty of RS-1 surrounding it? Definitely a bad idea.

On the other hand, to quote another commentor, "Vancouver could still use nine holes' worth of habitat space, rec centres, zoos, sports fields, lakes, fountains, or other things that aren't dedicated to a few dozen people hitting balls with sticks." Most Vancouverites apparently play only half the course anyway.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

On the one hand, sacrificing greenfield when there's plenty of RS-1 surrounding it? Definitely a bad idea.

On the other hand, to quote another commentor, "Vancouver could still use nine holes' worth of habitat space, rec centres, zoos, sports fields, lakes, fountains, or other things that aren't dedicated to a few dozen people hitting balls with sticks." Most Vancouverites apparently play only half the course anyway.

Sure, keep it park space 100%.

[GenWhy?]

Speaking of parkspace... I've yet to see the City's park space growth strategy for this Area Plan with a few more thousands and thousands of residents. Which is concerning.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

City owned courses are still the cheapest to use by far.

Yes, they are. If you're a lower- or middle-class individual hoping to pick up the sport, you're most likely to play at a municipal course.

However, golf, like other equipment intensive sports like ice hockey or American football, has incredibly high entry costs. Sure, you can rent clubs but that's a good way to double the cost of a round. A far more approachable public amenity would be a landscaped lake with trails (most people already own shoes and know how to walk, run, or roll), a baseball diamond (kids have been known to play ball with a broom stick and most beer league teams are happy to welcome beginners), or a soccer pitch (there's a reason soccer is still played by millions of people in some of the poorest countries on earth). I am sure a playground would be welcomed by the surrounding neighbourhoods' residents too.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Moved to park thread.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Spoiler alert: 80% of the visible SFHs in Trish Jewison's photo belong to Surrey, New West and Burnaby, but nobody wants to build an airport there either; Surrey and Burnaby can't even attract an office tower over twenty-five floors.

They can build as high as they want, they're still stuck as bedroom communities for the rest of the decade.

Spoiler alert: But of course, they're always considered to be the boonies.....but the trend is pointing towards rapid high-density urbanization now.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

On the one hand, sacrificing greenfield when there's plenty of RS-1 surrounding it? Definitely a bad idea.

On the other hand, to quote another commentor, "Vancouver could still use nine holes' worth of habitat space, rec centres, zoos, sports fields, lakes, fountains, or other things that aren't dedicated to a few dozen people hitting balls with sticks." Most Vancouverites apparently play only half the course anyway.

Greenfields in New West and Burnaby? You must be kidding.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Spoiler alert: But of course, they're always considered to be the boonies.....but the trend is pointing towards rapid high-density urbanization now.

Greenfields in New West and Burnaby? You must be kidding.

In Burnaby's case, only in the town centres - boonies with a few tall towers in the middle are still boonies, especially if everybody living in those towers is still commuting downtown.

Go to Google Maps. See all the green fields? But we weren't talking about golf courses in either one of those towns, so IDK what you're trying to do other than lose the plot again.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I also mentioned walkup apartments, yes? Look up the Metrotown Development Plan, and you'll find that almost none of it was SFH to begin with; almost all the density gains have been at the expense of the old low-rises south of the mall.

Granted, they're falling apart anyway, but it's pretty telling that A) no provisions were made by Corrigan's council to protect evictees, B) below-market units in the towers replacing them were almost nonexistent until recently, C) there's no density, not even Missing Middle, planned for the houses outside the boundaries, and D) nor is there any planned within the boundaries (i.e. it'll jump straight from SFH to midrise as soon as you cross the street), indicating that they weren't concerned with NIMBY sensitivities. Put all of those together, and you've got a pretty blatant cash grab using "urbanism" as a buzzphrase.

Ditto Edmonds, which again seemingly goes out of its way to avoid most detached homes while targeting the multiplexes and rowhouses; ditto Royal Oak, Bainbridge and all the other urban villages. Were it Vancouver, it'd be a contiguous black box with everything inside automatically rezoned for some kind of multifamily.

TBF Surrey does seem to not care as much about gerrymandering around the homeowners, so maybe it's a Burnaby thing.

Metrotown is probably a poor example however there still are pockets of single family homes that have been replaced on Nelson, Beresford and Kathleen.

Much of the townhomes and new walk ups around Royal Oak replaced single family homes. Especially on Nelson.

As for Edmonds blocks and blocks of duplexes and single family homes have made way for townhomes and even highrises over the past few decades. Probably moreso than any other town centre In Burnaby. Their proposed OCP shows nearly all single family homes within the town centre boundaries being upzoned.