From VancityBuzz.com …
“On Wednesday evening, Vancouver City Council unanimously approved the Oakridge Transit Centre Policy Statement, which provides the overall guide to the rezoning and redevelopment of the 13.8-acre asphalt-paved property.”

  • 1,000 to 1,200 units (c. 1,800 to 2,500 new residents)
  • 70 to 80 units/acre is reasonably intense – could be higher with a more orthogonal street pattern?
  • Density is 2.1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the whole site (Gross Floor Area / Total Site Area). Remove the 2.3 acre park and the net density goes up to 2.5 FAR, and remove the streets and the site density goes up to 3.5 FAR, densities typical for sites on Vancouver’s arterial roads.
  • The plus here is that many of these higher density forms front a beautiful new park rather than a busy arterial road – a good idea for selling the idea of multi-family housing to families.
  • interesting to see how the buildings organized “on the bias” impact views north to the mountains  (we wrestled with this in the Oakridge Centre Policy plan in 2005)

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/12/oakridge-transit-centre-redevelopment/
Oakridge Pic 2
 
Oakridge Pic
 

Comments

  1. Interesting point about views to the north (and likewise, sunny south exposures).
    The midrise blocks flanking the park won’t really have views to the north – just east and west – some of which will overlook the park (but since this site is below the Little Mtn rise, I’m not sure how many (if any) floors would be able to see the mountains).
    The highrise cluster may have towers blocking each other, but there look to be enough angles that there would still be views. On the flip side, you wonder if the towers will cast shadows on the park.
    I suppose they didn’t want to put the [noisy] childcare centre backing onto the Oak St. townhouses or the single family houses to the east, and they wanted it to be in a sunny location across the park (rather than at the south end of the park). The 38th Ave. frontage would provide easy access for parents driving their kids there.

  2. I’m surprised they took up so much land with a park when Oak Meadow Park is just a block away, QE Park a short walk and Van Dusen Gardens (admittedly a charge) a stone’s throw away.

    1. Took up so much land? Parks are critical to neighbourhoods. They add value financially, socially, environmentally, spiritually, etc…I can’t believe how little new parkland is planned for in Vancouver.

        1. ‘No less than’ is key there. Unfortunately, all too often no less than is misconstrued as a hard number. I agree with MB, different parks serve different purposes.
          It is a huge flaw in the Cambie corridor plan that no new neighbourhood level parks are proposed. I get that QE park is right there, but first you have to cross an arterial to get there, and second it doesn’t provide the neighbourhood focal point that your local park does.

      1. Parks are great but that neighbourhood is already well served by them. It would have been more appropriate to encourage green space within the developments so the stratas could bear the cost of upkeep rather than the taxpayer.

    2. the area to the north of the site is park-rich, but I believe the area south of the site has a very low ratio of parkland to overall land for the city. They might be trying to compensate a little for that.

    3. Parks, like neighbourhoods, are not just amorphous green blobs to be plunked down in accordance with some formula or broad area calculation. This park, though small, could become a highly treasured gem and a delightful, well-used space, especially considering the child care facility. It will be arguably one of the most important components to this development’s urban design and shouldn’t be lumped in with parks offering a regional attraction.

  3. By the way, really disappointing the way the last comment thread went. It seems to me that the provincial government is borrowing online discussion moderation techniques from more authoritarian nations abroad.

    1. Indeed. It was revealing in many ways. Interesting that citizens are unlawfully denied “unfiltered” information from the now deleted public record, while government PR people are are free to anonymously infiltrate blogs and post their positions as they feel free. Put me in a bit of a quandary – keep the thread open, or save my energy for other channels. I opted for the latter.

        1. @Don-Apparently anyone who disagrees with the echo chamber is open to accusationof being a government plant. Michael seemed to think that because I dared offer a small defense of the Massey Bridge consultation that I worked for the BC gov’t! Which is far from the truth.

          1. More the issue of the annon. nature of the site Bob. I don’t mind intelligent debate – just want some idea of where people are speaking from. Fair game.
            Michael.

        2. There were three apparently independent commenters (unique names) posting the same script on previous threads. I don’t know if they were from the government, but our hosts can check the ip addresses so they would know better than us.

  4. Some good elements of the plan including the protected bike lanes on 41st and on the main street in the development.
    What is rather puzzling is the surface road between the park and the homes on either side. Even worse, the road is lined with parking which makes the street unsafe especially for children crossing to the parking. On street parking increases driving and congestion as people cruise looking for cheap or close parking. A much better idea would be to put the vehicle access underground. More greenspace and or more space for development. The parking could even be build partly under the park likely lowering costs.

  5. Richard – kneejerk opposition to curb side parking is rather tedious. It is useful in many ways, not the least in buffering the pedestrian realm, providing visitor access and even traffic calming. This is to be a neighbourhood, people will live, visit, play – and park – there.

  6. If the park has a playing field that is programmed for soccer games, ultimate, volleyball, etc., then you will need on-street parking, since park users will not have access to condo visitor parking (which are usually need a resident’s parking pass).
    An underground parking lot would likely entail a fee, and park users probably wouldn’t pay for parking, but would instead park on nearby residential streets and walk over.

Leave a Reply to Don Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *