Here’s a fabulous animated swoop (7:09, silent, and worth every second of your time) through the waterfront entertainment district of NEFC. It starts with an overall aerial view of the project, giving a look and feel that is, frankly, exciting; then moves through the District at street level. Many thanks to Joseph Hruda of CIVITAS Urban Design & Master Planning and Concord Pacific.
The Entertainment District: a part of the massive NEFC development.
- SITE AREA: 5.3 Hectares
- DENSITY: 4.9 FAR
- RESIDENTIAL: 230,550 sq.m. (3,550 Units)
- RETAIL: 21,000 sq.m.
- OFFICE: 4,200 sq.m.
Not even built yet and so many pedestrians on the bike lane.
I think one big flaw is that Georgia Plaza needs a building to define its western edge. At two stories it would be tall enough to create the enclosure so desperately lacking in all of our squares but low enough not to block views to False Creek and Science World etc. from Georgia Street. As is, at night the constant sweep of car headlights making the turn onto Pacific Boulevard will be annoying. And why do we want to see cars at all?
So, is it good or bad that there’s actually less waterfront park space with the current plan than in the original plan (pre-viaduct demolition)?
It’s nice though, that we get an active commercialized waterfront with cafes and the like.
Comparison here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8061260&postcount=1016
There is a comparison of the park border in the original plan with that proposed in the new plan, on page 26 of the linked staff report (figure 11). It doesn’t look like the Park has less space, or that there is less waterfront in the park.
There’s some manipulation on that map (Figure 11, Staff Report).
Through the dark green you can see the proposed curving roadway.
I’ve marked it with a thin red line on this version:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/ECF4bD9.jpg[/img]
https://i.imgur.com/ECF4bD9.jpg
I.e. a lot of the area shaded dark green is really sidewalk, roadway and median (albeit with benches) and a triangular “corner plaza which you’d expect a large scale development to provide from its own lands, not from public park.
There is no roadway along the red line you mark. It is a pedestrian path and bike lane. Both are part of the park. Unless you think bikes and pedestrians and plazas for people to gather don’t belong in parks?
BTW, There is no park there now. Concord owns the land along the water from Plaza of Nations to Quebec to the current Pac Blvd. All the open space within that area is ‘being provided from its own lands.’
Compare the dark green “New Park” areas with this drawing.
Note that the legend of Figure 11 has a beige colour for “New Open Space”,
but some areas slated for new open space (sidewalks, roadways, bike paths), are marked dark green.
http://i.imgur.com/UtbZtZ8.jpg
I don’t have a detailed map handy, but I would rely on a map over an artist’s conception.
Also, parks aren’t just grass fields. Hard surface walking paths, bike lanes, seawalll structures, and access roads are all a part of our parks. The good news here IMO is that unlike many other Vancouver parks, this one doesn’t appear to have large parking lots.
Yeah, but you don’t find developers claiming that the sidewalk setbacks in front of their buildings are “park space”.
My point is that the beige colouring (New Open Space) that starts near the Georgia Plaza should wrap around the Concord buildings as a bikeway seawall pathway extension.
Instead, they have coloured it dark green.
Alternatively, I suppose all the sidewalks and seawall to the Georgia Plaza could have been coloured dark green.
It’s not the size of the park so much as how the planners utilize it. If we decided to go with the old plan, we’d be replacing a big, empty concrete lot with a big, empty grass lot; gardens, plazas, even pathways work a whole lot better in terms of “activating” the area.
Nice but somewhat unrealistic; too few cars, not much cover for a rainy day-or is it always sunny in Vancouver. Could be very cold and deserted without some cover. Lots of young people walking/cycling but where are the demographics that need transit? Where is transit shown? Where is the Pacific Boulevard long planned streetcar system of city planning department connecting with south False Creek, Telus Science World, SkyTrain,Main street station, Gastown, and Waterfront Station?
Remember that this is basically an advert – they’re showing the district at its prettiest, not its worst.
As for transit, it seems that they’re counting on Stadium-Chinatown to do all the heavy lifting for now. The streetcar down Quebec (and hopefully a Hastings SkyTrain) will come later… also, if the planning team still wants the Pacific branch of the line to operate straight down the road in mixed traffic, they might as well not build it at all.
‘Where is transit shown?’
There’s a Skytrain line running through the middle of this new community with stations at Stadium/Chinatown and Science World/Mains street. Both within a 5-7 minute walk from the park and new neighbourhood.
High density within a 5-7 minute walk of rapid transit is the very definition of a transit oriented community.
yes, there is a problem with this Pacific boulevard design and the streetcar
Not so long time ago, the City hired at great expense Allan Jacobs to lay some design guideline for this Boulevard. The current boulevard layout West of Cambie is done assuming a future streetcar in its own ROW, justifying the median(*), which was envisioned to be continued east of Cambie:
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/cambiealignmentjacobs.jpg
The question is where disappear the streetcar ROW and why?
(*) it could be a lot to say about the design of Pacific bd, and noticeabily the width of the median unable to accomodate a two way railtrack, but at least there is a basis to work from