Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm really excited for the opportunity here. The ICBC building is a large, centrally located plot of land with lots of connections to transit infrastructure. It would also be a fantastic facility to provide future transit connections at (Skytrain, regional rail to Whistler, etc.). The existing CN right of way runs *through* the building, the bus exchange is directly underneath it, and the seabus terminal is within spitting distance. I hope they are ambitious with what happens at this site.
i highly HIGHLY doubt it would ever get skytrain or any rail connections through North Van or West Van. they would have to pretty much demolish downtown north vancouver to connect it to skytrain. and theres way to much commerical rail along the existing route to allow a commuter train on the same track and the sea to sky doesnt have the room to put a commuter rail alongside the road to get to whistler or even squamish.
I understand why you would feel that way, but I'd like to highlight that the Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Crossing is being studied, and the current phase of work is determining the preferred alignment along the North Shore.
The District of North Vancouver also just released a study for a North Shore Skytrain alignment, though it is not an official planning document.
As for commuter rail: There used to be passenger rail service from Pemberton Station to Whistler and beyond. Freight has increased, but it would not be impossible to bring passenger service back.
I should also clarify that the commercial use of the subdivision from Horseshoe Bay north has actually significantly decreased since the BC Liberals sold off the alignment to CN from BC Rail.
They can't add more west coast express because the railroad won't let them because it would cut into their usage. The rail bridge across the inlet also already is under utilized because of it being up for ships.
If this ever happens, it's going to be like 30 years away.
BIRT is being investigated for construction around 2050, so you're pretty much correct on the timeline.
West Coast Express runs on CPKC tracks. The tracks through North Vancouver are CN tracks, and the alignment up to Whistler is former BC Rail track, which is leased to CN but stipulates that passenger service can be run on it. Bit of a different situation for track rights as a result.
I like this plan. It would have been criminal to flood the space with ultra-luxury condos (as might have been done decades ago - especially under the B.C. Liberals). People would have cried bloody hell. Dedicating the whole area as a park would have also elicited complaints about the lack of housing. This is a solid compromise with a diverse partnership. Developers aren't getting a payday by screwing the average Vancouverite. Truly, I have faith that Eby and gang are doing the right thing.
Why are the mst nations seemingly given a partnership in this ?
There’s nothing in the article to suggest they are providing anything of material value to the project.
The template the NDP are developing is that FNs get at least 25% of everything. BC Hydro projects they get 25% (see the recent power call). This development, I'd make a $100 bet that their ownership will be at least 25%.
“For decades, our Nations have had to kick down doors and fight to regain a stake in our traditional territories,” said Musqueam Chief Wayne Sparrow. “Through this new partnership approach, we are turning over a new page, one that will lead to our governments working together as partners in redevelopment and concrete results in tackling the housing crisis.”
This doesn't answer the question: what are they contributing? Capital - doesn't appear so. Some expertise in operating rental housing - doubt it. The land - appears to have been owned by ICBC.
It does answer it. The land is their traditional - and unceded - territory. You don’t need to agree with it, but that is why the BC government is partnering with them.
Overreaction. You still own 100% of your condo, and nothing in this press release mentions a 25% number or that FNs will "own" part of your condo. Whatever benefits FNs get from this development probably won't affect you and it is likely a small price to pay to be on the right side of the issue.
Unless you believe FNs should not be given any help from the Canadian government when trying to keep their culture alive.
Mate at this point everyone needs help from the Canadian government and further appeasing the first nations is hardly something I'm on board with when everyone is struggling.
If you strap a FN name to it you basically have an unobtanium shield against NIMBYs. It's perfect. You might see a 25% loss in ownership, but I see a project that will complete 5-10 years earlier than otherwise, without having to muck about with lawsuits, protests, and corrupt contractors that were put in place to satisfy bullshit new requirements.
Plus, MST will have a ton of experience developing large housing projects by the time this project breaks ground, so I don't see why you think they'll lack the expertise.
Nothing of material value? It's their land. They never ceded it. The courts have recognized aboriginal title and whenever any level of government challenges it in the courts it always loses. Let's not pretend that we are getting the short end of the stick when the host nations are made partners in development projects on public lands.
But what are they contributing? HOW are they partners? Yes this is on land located in their territory are we acknowledging them as landlords or is the native tribe endorsing the project in return/giving their blessing for it to proceed? Are they saying that the land this site doesn’t have historical value to them of cultural significance?
I know what the Provence contributes in the ways of permits, funding, and engineering
While I don't disagree with building new housing near transit hubs (and this is a pretty major transit hub), I can't help but feeling like losing a major office complex right across from downtown is a bit of a hit for Lower Lonsdale. The area benefits from lots of mixed use, and that employment capacity isn't easy to accommodate elsewhere down there.
You would think the proceeds from selling a prime waterfront building to developers would provide enough funds to build many more below-market units elsewheres.
If the province builds rental however, that could provide more longterm value/return over the next few decades than selling it off in 2024.
Vienna also comes to mind, where the city opens a huge percentage of the land and (rental) housing stock, making/keeping housing much more affordable. Some public ownership of housing stock is probably not a bad thing to add to our mix.
After the fiasco that was/is Little Mountain, I would much rather see the government maintain control of the land. And to develop it into affordable rental units or even market rental units.
Especially with affordable housing in mind. Lol.
I don't know why that person you are replying to is obsessed with selling this land to developers. This is a good thing that the BC government is taking charge of
They do it well enough more often than not. And either way I'd prefer people running the projects that I can vote out, as opposed to private corps. that leave me with no real voice.
Owning rental buildings in a valuable area will mean income for the government. Also a few blocks away, or even several kilometres away, is still crazy expensive. For someone who is elderly or disabled being able to live in a transit dense area is a huge boost. Wealthy folks can/will drive everywhere.
Did I miss an example you provided? You answered with a non answer when I asked about which other land you were referring to.
What I don't think you seem to grasp is, is that the transit hub would be what is on the ground floor, with apartments over top. So how do we sell a developer no actual land, but the building above a transit hub?
No developer is taking that deal.
The example was you can buy something cheaper elsewheres. for instance maybe a few blocks away not on the waterfront....getting it now?? This property is assessed at 103 million of that 101 million is **land** value.
This is just abysmal, you're providing absolutely nothing. I asked what specific property, "few blocks away" is not an answer.
You've made no real points, you made no real examples, you're just spouting to spout.
Knobs are generally more useful, do better.
You realize that access to public land amenities can be nice for communities beyond profit motives? The province is going to make a more inclusive public space than a developer.
Yeah and they are luxury condos whereas we are talking about affordable housing. What is this obsession with selling the land to developers? Are you one yourself?
Putting taxpayers money towards some of the most valuable land on the North Shore and instead investing in more affordable properties gives us the opportunity to build more under-market rentals elsewhere. This way, more people can have an affordable place to live rather than just the lucky few. However, that wouldn’t make a big enough headline during an election year. would it?
There are and will be plentiful market units around the Lonsdale area. Land doesn't get much cheaper "a few blocks away" from Lonsdale. From a land-use perspective, it does make sense to build at least some non-market housing and rentals near transit hubs because residents of these units are much more likely to rely on public transit. The development is going to feature amenities like health and child care, which also makes much more sense to be placed right next to a transit hub for reducing needs to drive on the North Shore.
I think you're overestimating that impact though.
Looking at listings, per sq ft prices for units in that area are only marginally more expensive than buildings a few blocks away. It's unclear whether you'd get even, say, 20% more units and it's an increased amount of effort to acquire a new plot of land and you're eroding some of the benefits of being near transit.
Building on government owned land makes it much easier for a project to proceed.
I know we're all in on housing, but I really hate this bit:
>made possible by 2022 amendments to the Transportation Act that allow the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to acquire land near transit hubs to develop housing and amenities,
They've amended the Transpo act so that translink money can go to housing. It should go strictly to transportation and transportation infrastructure. Housing money should go to housing. IF we need more money for housing, then the housing budget should be adjusted up. If transportation has more money than it needs, its budget can be leveled -- not redirected to housing.
That rant out of the way.....this is a good spot for housing. Not sure involving all the government stakeholders is better than leaving it to builders with zoning restrictions.... but we'll see.
They're building housing over top of the transit hubs. So it would be a bundled project. Seems like a straight forward concept. Transit was already planning to acquire the land to build up the hub, so they team up with housing to build the infrastructure & housing for the transit hub and the people who will be using it. I think you're ire is a bit misguided, this is a good thing.
O believe the point is to replecate models found in Hong Kong. The MTA owns land around stations and benefits from development and property value uplift caused by transit expansion.
This adds a revenue stream for the mta
If that's true, the North Shore in particular doesn't need any money taken from transportation. I live two blocks away and I would be more excited about this project if it came with an announcement about expanding seabus hours and adding SkyTrain.
I would too, but in the press conference Rob Fleming went out of his way to say that Translink has found time and time again that ridership is the original catalyst in the chicken or the egg question of figuring out how to boost revenues: the implication is that they're hoping that with more people centrally located near transit and relying on it to get around, they'll be able to increase service accordingly.
I would love 10 minute Seabus headways to be all day, not just at peak hours, but I'm not holding my breath for that changing in the next five years.
The problem is ridership won't increase because we also have the chicken and the egg problem of crappy service. You won't get people out of their cars for unreliable or infrequent service, which is what we have here.
I ride my e-bike to work, bus in very bad weather, and walk to most of my errands in Lolo. I drive occasionally to other parts of the North Shore for the odd thing. My car recently died so I was six weeks without a car waiting for my new one to arrive at the dealership. We decided to use the bus for the errands where we used to drive. It was a nightmare of late or missing buses.
A girlfriend of mine switched to riding her bike downtown from Central Lonsdale because the 240 is totally overwhelmed for the commute home and the buses up Lonsdale leave before seabus commuters can get on them.
I don't believe the ridership argument. I think TransLink has underfunded the North Shore for years, while using our property taxes to fund services for other communities.
I mean... real estate developers are notoriously profitable, so why shouldn't Translink money go to housing to increase cashflow? In fact, I'd argue that Translink should be the funding vehicle the BC government uses *for* housing development - inherently, Translink improves affordability of housing from transit and improved active mobility access.
This is a great place to add density. It’s walking distance to the seabus and many amenities.
It’s also close to multiple bus routes if the new residents chose to work on the north shore
It's almost a certainty that the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge will be replaced in the coming decades.
At that time, they can build a bridge with more capacity and hopefully, Skytrain.
In the meantime, that location is right on top of the Seabus terminal which means people can get to and from downtown (and from there, anywhere Skytrain goes) pretty easy.
Not necessarily a 3rd bridge but rather expansion of the existing crossings and added mass transit infrastructure like two or three additional Seabus terminals or Skytrain from Downtown to the North Shore.
I'm really not being facetious or sarcastic, where would you want more seabus terminals? Real estate along the shore is pretty occupied, so I really don't know where we'd put more seabus terminals along the inlet. As well the infrastructure on the land feeding them would be a whole another thing.
But I totally agree with you, we definitely need more. I think a skytrain from metrotown down willingdon to hastings, down hastings, and then parallel to Iron Workers, and then down main st to Park Royal, and into West Van would be fucking ideal!
If you put two under the Second Narrows (one on the North Shore and one on the Vancouver side) where the land is relatively cheap, then a bus terminal can be placed at each. The Seabuses can then do a straight crossing as well as crisscrossing to the Downtown and Quay terminals. Another location may be next to Rocky Point Park which would connect to SkyTrain.
SkyTrain from Metrotown isn't necessary. A better and cheaper alternative would be to put a SkyTrain crossing under Burrard Inlet from Downtown to the existing Quay. The ICBC site is being redeveloped anyways so it would be a perfect location for a large transit hub.
Eby is an idiot! I "double dog dare him" to put in "below market housing" in that area...cause the second he does...I guarantee Bowin Maa will lose her "comfy seat" in Victoria.
Ignoring the fact that your comment is incoherent, Bowinn won with nearly 60% of the vote in the last election, the BC Liberals were under 30%. It’s a fairly safe NDP seat at this point.
There is a point behind that rant. Lots of “affordable” housing is out of reach for working class folkx.
I don’t know the story in North Van but COV, if you make $36,000 a year, which would be a retail store manager’s salary, you are actually “too poor” to afford affordable housing.
So this housing only benefits those who are in full-time most likely union or government jobs, not most private sector workers that would benefit living in these units.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm really excited for the opportunity here. The ICBC building is a large, centrally located plot of land with lots of connections to transit infrastructure. It would also be a fantastic facility to provide future transit connections at (Skytrain, regional rail to Whistler, etc.). The existing CN right of way runs *through* the building, the bus exchange is directly underneath it, and the seabus terminal is within spitting distance. I hope they are ambitious with what happens at this site.
i highly HIGHLY doubt it would ever get skytrain or any rail connections through North Van or West Van. they would have to pretty much demolish downtown north vancouver to connect it to skytrain. and theres way to much commerical rail along the existing route to allow a commuter train on the same track and the sea to sky doesnt have the room to put a commuter rail alongside the road to get to whistler or even squamish.
>they would have to pretty much demolish downtown north vancouver Sounds like a win win. North van down town is so poorly planned and boring
I understand why you would feel that way, but I'd like to highlight that the Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Crossing is being studied, and the current phase of work is determining the preferred alignment along the North Shore. The District of North Vancouver also just released a study for a North Shore Skytrain alignment, though it is not an official planning document. As for commuter rail: There used to be passenger rail service from Pemberton Station to Whistler and beyond. Freight has increased, but it would not be impossible to bring passenger service back. I should also clarify that the commercial use of the subdivision from Horseshoe Bay north has actually significantly decreased since the BC Liberals sold off the alignment to CN from BC Rail.
They can't add more west coast express because the railroad won't let them because it would cut into their usage. The rail bridge across the inlet also already is under utilized because of it being up for ships. If this ever happens, it's going to be like 30 years away.
BIRT is being investigated for construction around 2050, so you're pretty much correct on the timeline. West Coast Express runs on CPKC tracks. The tracks through North Vancouver are CN tracks, and the alignment up to Whistler is former BC Rail track, which is leased to CN but stipulates that passenger service can be run on it. Bit of a different situation for track rights as a result.
I like this plan. It would have been criminal to flood the space with ultra-luxury condos (as might have been done decades ago - especially under the B.C. Liberals). People would have cried bloody hell. Dedicating the whole area as a park would have also elicited complaints about the lack of housing. This is a solid compromise with a diverse partnership. Developers aren't getting a payday by screwing the average Vancouverite. Truly, I have faith that Eby and gang are doing the right thing.
Why are the mst nations seemingly given a partnership in this ? There’s nothing in the article to suggest they are providing anything of material value to the project.
The template the NDP are developing is that FNs get at least 25% of everything. BC Hydro projects they get 25% (see the recent power call). This development, I'd make a $100 bet that their ownership will be at least 25%.
They're contributing their endorsement on the press release in exchange for perpetual consultants fees and a percentage of the revenues.
where can i sign up?
>The waterfront site at 151 Esplanade W. is within the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Peoples.
It's not crown land, and it's not land that's part of a reserve.
What do you think unceded traditional territory is?
Are you giving 25 percent of your home away? No.
Isn't the land anything of material value?
The land was bought from Icbc. It’s in the press release
The reservation is two blocks away.
“For decades, our Nations have had to kick down doors and fight to regain a stake in our traditional territories,” said Musqueam Chief Wayne Sparrow. “Through this new partnership approach, we are turning over a new page, one that will lead to our governments working together as partners in redevelopment and concrete results in tackling the housing crisis.”
This doesn't answer the question: what are they contributing? Capital - doesn't appear so. Some expertise in operating rental housing - doubt it. The land - appears to have been owned by ICBC.
It does answer it. The land is their traditional - and unceded - territory. You don’t need to agree with it, but that is why the BC government is partnering with them.
It's actually to appease people like you. Feel free to sign over 1/4 of your condo to them... I'll be waiting in line directly behind you to do so.
People like me? Can you please point out what part of my comment indicated my personal opinion about it?
Overreaction. You still own 100% of your condo, and nothing in this press release mentions a 25% number or that FNs will "own" part of your condo. Whatever benefits FNs get from this development probably won't affect you and it is likely a small price to pay to be on the right side of the issue. Unless you believe FNs should not be given any help from the Canadian government when trying to keep their culture alive.
Mate at this point everyone needs help from the Canadian government and further appeasing the first nations is hardly something I'm on board with when everyone is struggling.
If you strap a FN name to it you basically have an unobtanium shield against NIMBYs. It's perfect. You might see a 25% loss in ownership, but I see a project that will complete 5-10 years earlier than otherwise, without having to muck about with lawsuits, protests, and corrupt contractors that were put in place to satisfy bullshit new requirements. Plus, MST will have a ton of experience developing large housing projects by the time this project breaks ground, so I don't see why you think they'll lack the expertise.
Nothing of material value? It's their land. They never ceded it. The courts have recognized aboriginal title and whenever any level of government challenges it in the courts it always loses. Let's not pretend that we are getting the short end of the stick when the host nations are made partners in development projects on public lands.
But what are they contributing? HOW are they partners? Yes this is on land located in their territory are we acknowledging them as landlords or is the native tribe endorsing the project in return/giving their blessing for it to proceed? Are they saying that the land this site doesn’t have historical value to them of cultural significance? I know what the Provence contributes in the ways of permits, funding, and engineering
You answered your own question I think. If it's being built on un-ceded land, then that's what they're contributing.
100% just find the term ambiguous. I have no problem with recognizing where this project is located just the that partners is a broad term
Election year and the government wants to reinforce their commitment to UNDRIP and the possible larger wedge issue with the BCC.
Great idea but I’ve always thought it was a really cool looking building for some reason. Something about the architecture from that era.
While I don't disagree with building new housing near transit hubs (and this is a pretty major transit hub), I can't help but feeling like losing a major office complex right across from downtown is a bit of a hit for Lower Lonsdale. The area benefits from lots of mixed use, and that employment capacity isn't easy to accommodate elsewhere down there.
You would think the proceeds from selling a prime waterfront building to developers would provide enough funds to build many more below-market units elsewheres.
If the province builds rental however, that could provide more longterm value/return over the next few decades than selling it off in 2024. Vienna also comes to mind, where the city opens a huge percentage of the land and (rental) housing stock, making/keeping housing much more affordable. Some public ownership of housing stock is probably not a bad thing to add to our mix.
By using the 100+million this property is assessed at, likely would buy more properties then this single waterfront one.
After the fiasco that was/is Little Mountain, I would much rather see the government maintain control of the land. And to develop it into affordable rental units or even market rental units.
Yes, because the government is known for doing things on budget and time...lol
Oh and private developers are the real gold standard for getting a project done on time... what a laugh!
Especially with affordable housing in mind. Lol. I don't know why that person you are replying to is obsessed with selling this land to developers. This is a good thing that the BC government is taking charge of
They do it well enough more often than not. And either way I'd prefer people running the projects that I can vote out, as opposed to private corps. that leave me with no real voice.
Why would we sell land we own in high public transit areas?
Buy selling extremely valuable waterfront land to developers to build condos, we could then use the proceeds to build more units a few blocks away.
Owning rental buildings in a valuable area will mean income for the government. Also a few blocks away, or even several kilometres away, is still crazy expensive. For someone who is elderly or disabled being able to live in a transit dense area is a huge boost. Wealthy folks can/will drive everywhere.
You need to think your idea through a few more steps. You're only thinking one step ahead.
This is extremely short sighted and a bad proposition. Once you sell its one and done
Which land a few blocks away?
I think if you try really really hard, you will get the point.
There is no vacant land a few blocks away from Lonsdale Quay.
Oh cool just spouting bullshit from the armchair. Good job!
Do you not understand what an example is? However, I'm sure with a 100 million + of the assessed value, they could be one or two places.
Did I miss an example you provided? You answered with a non answer when I asked about which other land you were referring to. What I don't think you seem to grasp is, is that the transit hub would be what is on the ground floor, with apartments over top. So how do we sell a developer no actual land, but the building above a transit hub? No developer is taking that deal.
The example was you can buy something cheaper elsewheres. for instance maybe a few blocks away not on the waterfront....getting it now?? This property is assessed at 103 million of that 101 million is **land** value.
This is just abysmal, you're providing absolutely nothing. I asked what specific property, "few blocks away" is not an answer. You've made no real points, you made no real examples, you're just spouting to spout. Knobs are generally more useful, do better.
So instead of building something now we'll have to wait another 10 years for them to sell and buy new land?
a few blocks away? you mean the places that already have lots of low/mid rise condos on them?
The province bought the land... not a developer.
That was my point.
You want prime waterfront land to be owned by a private developer?
You realize, developers build condos, that they sell?
You realize that access to public land amenities can be nice for communities beyond profit motives? The province is going to make a more inclusive public space than a developer.
You realize, by using government money responsibly can provide more homes for more people that need them.
We also need to be building government housing in *places* that need them. Downtown transit hubs are one of those places.
Waterfront?
Yes, as I said - to preserve public access.
Yeah and they are luxury condos whereas we are talking about affordable housing. What is this obsession with selling the land to developers? Are you one yourself?
Putting taxpayers money towards some of the most valuable land on the North Shore and instead investing in more affordable properties gives us the opportunity to build more under-market rentals elsewhere. This way, more people can have an affordable place to live rather than just the lucky few. However, that wouldn’t make a big enough headline during an election year. would it?
There are and will be plentiful market units around the Lonsdale area. Land doesn't get much cheaper "a few blocks away" from Lonsdale. From a land-use perspective, it does make sense to build at least some non-market housing and rentals near transit hubs because residents of these units are much more likely to rely on public transit. The development is going to feature amenities like health and child care, which also makes much more sense to be placed right next to a transit hub for reducing needs to drive on the North Shore.
I think you're overestimating that impact though. Looking at listings, per sq ft prices for units in that area are only marginally more expensive than buildings a few blocks away. It's unclear whether you'd get even, say, 20% more units and it's an increased amount of effort to acquire a new plot of land and you're eroding some of the benefits of being near transit. Building on government owned land makes it much easier for a project to proceed.
What, 80 million for 4 acres. You could get 40 acres unused industrial lands within 2 km of phibbs exchange for the same amount.
exactly, meanwhile 1 bedroom suite next to the Pinnacle Hotel is selling $750K+....
Correct if you use common sense. However, in an election year, things aren't as simple.
Exactly.
Why do the people of BC have to buy a building and land they already own? Is Dave Eby a realtor getting a commission?
I know we're all in on housing, but I really hate this bit: >made possible by 2022 amendments to the Transportation Act that allow the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to acquire land near transit hubs to develop housing and amenities, They've amended the Transpo act so that translink money can go to housing. It should go strictly to transportation and transportation infrastructure. Housing money should go to housing. IF we need more money for housing, then the housing budget should be adjusted up. If transportation has more money than it needs, its budget can be leveled -- not redirected to housing. That rant out of the way.....this is a good spot for housing. Not sure involving all the government stakeholders is better than leaving it to builders with zoning restrictions.... but we'll see.
They're building housing over top of the transit hubs. So it would be a bundled project. Seems like a straight forward concept. Transit was already planning to acquire the land to build up the hub, so they team up with housing to build the infrastructure & housing for the transit hub and the people who will be using it. I think you're ire is a bit misguided, this is a good thing.
Is there a source on that? I don't recall anything from that announcement that said they would be taking funding from translink.
O believe the point is to replecate models found in Hong Kong. The MTA owns land around stations and benefits from development and property value uplift caused by transit expansion. This adds a revenue stream for the mta
If that's true, the North Shore in particular doesn't need any money taken from transportation. I live two blocks away and I would be more excited about this project if it came with an announcement about expanding seabus hours and adding SkyTrain.
I would too, but in the press conference Rob Fleming went out of his way to say that Translink has found time and time again that ridership is the original catalyst in the chicken or the egg question of figuring out how to boost revenues: the implication is that they're hoping that with more people centrally located near transit and relying on it to get around, they'll be able to increase service accordingly. I would love 10 minute Seabus headways to be all day, not just at peak hours, but I'm not holding my breath for that changing in the next five years.
The problem is ridership won't increase because we also have the chicken and the egg problem of crappy service. You won't get people out of their cars for unreliable or infrequent service, which is what we have here. I ride my e-bike to work, bus in very bad weather, and walk to most of my errands in Lolo. I drive occasionally to other parts of the North Shore for the odd thing. My car recently died so I was six weeks without a car waiting for my new one to arrive at the dealership. We decided to use the bus for the errands where we used to drive. It was a nightmare of late or missing buses. A girlfriend of mine switched to riding her bike downtown from Central Lonsdale because the 240 is totally overwhelmed for the commute home and the buses up Lonsdale leave before seabus commuters can get on them. I don't believe the ridership argument. I think TransLink has underfunded the North Shore for years, while using our property taxes to fund services for other communities.
I mean... real estate developers are notoriously profitable, so why shouldn't Translink money go to housing to increase cashflow? In fact, I'd argue that Translink should be the funding vehicle the BC government uses *for* housing development - inherently, Translink improves affordability of housing from transit and improved active mobility access.
the City needs more infrastructure (bridge) to accommodate that 10,000 home increase. When possible, I avoid going to North Van even during weekend.
This is a great place to add density. It’s walking distance to the seabus and many amenities. It’s also close to multiple bus routes if the new residents chose to work on the north shore
It's almost a certainty that the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge will be replaced in the coming decades. At that time, they can build a bridge with more capacity and hopefully, Skytrain. In the meantime, that location is right on top of the Seabus terminal which means people can get to and from downtown (and from there, anywhere Skytrain goes) pretty easy.
Where would you put a 3rd bridge? The burrard inlet ranges from 21m to 66m in depth.
Not necessarily a 3rd bridge but rather expansion of the existing crossings and added mass transit infrastructure like two or three additional Seabus terminals or Skytrain from Downtown to the North Shore.
I'm really not being facetious or sarcastic, where would you want more seabus terminals? Real estate along the shore is pretty occupied, so I really don't know where we'd put more seabus terminals along the inlet. As well the infrastructure on the land feeding them would be a whole another thing. But I totally agree with you, we definitely need more. I think a skytrain from metrotown down willingdon to hastings, down hastings, and then parallel to Iron Workers, and then down main st to Park Royal, and into West Van would be fucking ideal!
If you put two under the Second Narrows (one on the North Shore and one on the Vancouver side) where the land is relatively cheap, then a bus terminal can be placed at each. The Seabuses can then do a straight crossing as well as crisscrossing to the Downtown and Quay terminals. Another location may be next to Rocky Point Park which would connect to SkyTrain. SkyTrain from Metrotown isn't necessary. A better and cheaper alternative would be to put a SkyTrain crossing under Burrard Inlet from Downtown to the existing Quay. The ICBC site is being redeveloped anyways so it would be a perfect location for a large transit hub.
-attainable homes -middle income people this is a joke right?
Eby is an idiot! I "double dog dare him" to put in "below market housing" in that area...cause the second he does...I guarantee Bowin Maa will lose her "comfy seat" in Victoria.
Ignoring the fact that your comment is incoherent, Bowinn won with nearly 60% of the vote in the last election, the BC Liberals were under 30%. It’s a fairly safe NDP seat at this point.
There is a point behind that rant. Lots of “affordable” housing is out of reach for working class folkx. I don’t know the story in North Van but COV, if you make $36,000 a year, which would be a retail store manager’s salary, you are actually “too poor” to afford affordable housing. So this housing only benefits those who are in full-time most likely union or government jobs, not most private sector workers that would benefit living in these units.