Cambie Street corridor increases density
More than two years ago, when the Canada Line was still under construction, urban planner Art Cowie envisioned new communities rising along the route of the new rapid-transit system.
The now-deceased former Vancouver city councillor was pleased that a portion of the line passed below Cambie Street, where he had been a long-time resident. That meant, according to him, easy access by riders to areas like the Broadway corridor, Oakridge Centre, and Langara College.
“They put it in the right spot,” Cowie told the Georgia Straight in an interview in October 2007. “Now the question is, let’s do higher density along there. Let’s do some social housing, let’s do some rental housing, and let’s do a lot of privately owned homes.”
Cowie died last year without seeing this vision become a reality. But there are others who share the idea of building compact communities connected by transit. These include Brent Toderian, director of planning for the City of Vancouver. Toderian has coauthored a staff report to council on the first phase of the Cambie Corridor Planning Program.
“This is really a rather special corridor in the city,” Toderian told the Straight in a phone interview. “It has the potential to be the third significant area of urbanism after downtown and the Broadway corridor.”
In July 2009, council approved the terms of reference for the Cambie Corridor Planning Program, which will deal with the area between West 16th Avenue and Southwest Marine Drive. The first phase will define planning principles and an interim rezoning policy.
“We’ve done transit area planning in the city of Vancouver, but this is definitely a new and more sophisticated approach to it,” Toderian said. “We’ve tended to think about transit area planning as a ”˜one station at a time’ exercise, but it could have taken about eight years or so to do the Cambie corridor.”
Toderian’s report identifies seven planning principles “based on the premise that the successful integration of land use, renewable energy, and sustainable transportation, particularly a density of uses and activities around key nodes and corridors, is a vital and necessary component of an environmentally sustainable city”.
Topping the list of these principles is supporting land uses that optimize a shift from car travel to walking, biking, and using transit. This means “high employee and residential densities, recognizing that the highest densities will be focused at stations and other areas with strategic opportunities for sustainability”.
In conversation, Toderian acknowledged that there’s always some level of tension in the city about increasing population densities. But he noted that the vast majority of the people staff consulted last fall were supportive of adding more people to the Cambie corridor.
The staff report identifies different heights for future buildings located near four Canada Line stations. For example, buildings located in the area of King Edward station may reach six storeys. Higher ones, of up to eight storeys, may be considered close to the station.
At the Oakridge–41st Avenue station, proposed buildings may be between six and 12 storeys. Next stop, at the Langara–49th Avenue station, developers may put up structures that are six to 10 storeys high. At Southwest Marine Drive, future buildings are “expected to be in higher forms”, or high-rise towers.
Activist Ned Jacobs has observed the development of the first phase of the Cambie Corridor Planning Program. Jacobs is a member of the Riley Park/South Cambie CityPlan Committee, a citizens’ group that participated in public-information events organized by the city last fall.
On Friday (January 22), Jacobs will address council regarding some of his concerns about the redevelopment of Cambie Street.
For one, he’s worried that developers will focus on desirable areas like those across from Queen Elizabeth Park. These areas are also near West 33rd Avenue and Cambie Street, the location of one of two future Canada Line stations.
“We’re concerned that instead of developing around the existing stations, developers will flock to this area and that this policy would open the door for that,” Jacobs told the Straight by phone.
He also said that many residents want to be assured that amenities will accompany the population increase along Cambie Street and that existing businesses won’t be pushed away.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Google
Comments
Densification enriches property developer's and land owners, nothing more, nothing less.
Such an undertaking has many additional community & environmental benefits to numerous for this venue. But, what a magnificent contribution to this neigbourhood & to the city as a whole. Such an example would no doubt spur citizens to realize other similar opportunities in other parts of the City as well.
What if all those new residents, who move into the Cambie Corridor, do not travel to Vancouver or Richmond? Yes, that's right, they take the car. it's why this mantra for densification is as phony as a $3 dollar bill; that's why car ownership is increasing in Vancouver as well as the region.
=====================================
I couldn't agree more, but I don't think that problem would be solved by using a different transit technology, say LRT or trams or whatever. The point, and it's been made by Anthony Downs, is that people do NOT choose their place of residence based solely or even primarily on their place of work, or on distance to work, so as to minimize commuting times and costs.
The Greater Vancouver planners continue to peddle the "live close to work" doctrine because its a convenient rationale for minimizing transportation infrastructure, and therefore avoiding the political problem of announcing a plan that would necessarily involve major property tax increases.
Avoiding a discussion of ANY system of highways and transit routes that would involve significant costs was, in fact, the whole rationale behind the LRSP/Transport 2021 gig, and the real reason why it excluded any increase in capacity at Port Mann. The local planners who took part knew very well that increased capacity there would become urgent, but they were not going to be the first to say that for fear that the BC Govt would then turn around and ask their local government to pick up a share of the costs.
Rod Smelser
Notice no one actually states what density is needed to support SkyTrain. Why? Because the whole density game is a sham and everyone who preaches density, density, are complete charlatans!
There is a point of logic: If SkyTrain needs (X) density and if LRT can be built for one third the cost of SkyTrain, then LRT would need (1/3 X) density than SkyTrain.
I don't know if the Transport 2021 papers are stilll available at the GVRD/Metro Vancouver site, but reading them will clearly show that the planners knew damn well that capacity on Hwy 1 would become choked and that either more capacity or extremely severe levels of demand management would be needed. They were also aware of local political pressures around costs and property tax increases and were at pains to show, in tablular form, that the schedule of transport investments they did endorse was less costly that the investments of the previous decade, the implication being that tax hikes would be less than in the past.
Rod Smelser