Wow, lots of work here Brian. Don't forget to mention that there are no schools, no parks, no community centres, no libraries, no pools, no rinks, no playing fields and a biggy often overlooked, no dog pooping areas. Also, I've noted on many of these developments, no discussion or analysis of how hundreds of vehicles access underground parking and loading areas, garbage trucks etc, and how it interfaces with the massive Granville Street traffic, the increased bike lanes, surface buses, drop off areas for the subway, etc etc.
Details, details! Oh yes, as the famous architect Mies van der Rohe, said, "God is in the details."
Regarding the (lack of) amenities, staff did say they had allocated a budget for amenities in the BP area...I guess that passes for planning these days.
As for dog pooping areas, that would have been a natural follow-up by Councillor Swanson, who seems very interested in dog-friendly buildings.
On the topic of 'passing for planning', have you read the new City Plan outline being published for initial comment? I know they are busy busy with other plans, social programs and developments, but this looks suspiciously like something wanting to be deep 6ed. I think it was given to students as an introductory project, or no, not even that if my mentees at UBC SCARP are any indication. I don't think they would have handed this in for grading. It's almost to the level of a direct 'spite-plan' at Councillor Hardwick for initiating it.
Definitely not the city I want. But I am having trouble telling the difference between white redlined and gray redlined boxes. They all look the same colour to me. What am I missing?
Wow, lots of work here Brian. Don't forget to mention that there are no schools, no parks, no community centres, no libraries, no pools, no rinks, no playing fields and a biggy often overlooked, no dog pooping areas. Also, I've noted on many of these developments, no discussion or analysis of how hundreds of vehicles access underground parking and loading areas, garbage trucks etc, and how it interfaces with the massive Granville Street traffic, the increased bike lanes, surface buses, drop off areas for the subway, etc etc.
This is city planning for DEVELOPERS ONLY, not for COMMUNITY OCCUPATION AND INTERACTION!
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2022/05/05/rally-city-hall-megaplans-may7/
Details, details! Oh yes, as the famous architect Mies van der Rohe, said, "God is in the details."
Regarding the (lack of) amenities, staff did say they had allocated a budget for amenities in the BP area...I guess that passes for planning these days.
As for dog pooping areas, that would have been a natural follow-up by Councillor Swanson, who seems very interested in dog-friendly buildings.
Thanks for your thoughtful reading.
On the topic of 'passing for planning', have you read the new City Plan outline being published for initial comment? I know they are busy busy with other plans, social programs and developments, but this looks suspiciously like something wanting to be deep 6ed. I think it was given to students as an introductory project, or no, not even that if my mentees at UBC SCARP are any indication. I don't think they would have handed this in for grading. It's almost to the level of a direct 'spite-plan' at Councillor Hardwick for initiating it.
Definitely not the city I want. But I am having trouble telling the difference between white redlined and gray redlined boxes. They all look the same colour to me. What am I missing?
Just heard you speak re 1477—great words, especially, "What will these towers spawn." Thanks from a fellow citizen.
Thank you!
Fair comment. The difference is very subtle, mainly the light grey boxes around 1477 show that the applicant wants even more density there, is all