983 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Extremely busy? Let's not go overboard now.

 

It'll be fine. It's not hard to expand the sidewalk if it's warranted.

[shoeflack]

Yup, take a stroll up Vancouver between Fort and Pandora sometime, Mike. I do it about 8-10 times a day at all hours and there's always pedestrian traffic. Harris Green is heavy residential and it shows on the sidewalks.

 

I know you get your bread and butter from pumping developers' tires, Mike, but this one is just poor planning. It's ok to critique an otherwise great project.

[Mike K.]

Oh c'mon, shoe, that's kinda weak.

 

There's hardly a soul in your photos, is all I'm saying. Across the street the sidewalk is exactly the same width. It's not a big deal.

[Jackerbie]

Perhaps this was something requested by the city, given the increase in dog ownership among downtown residents?

 

 

This is a lovely building and I'm thrilled to have it join the neighborhood, but this is definitely an oversight on whomever gave it the green light. Would love to hear the rationale.

 

CoV Engineering and/or Transportation Department/s would be my guess. Developer would have almost zero say in what the City-owned sidewalk and boulevard looks like, they'd just be on the hook to build it as part of their BP (hopefully... I'm speaking from my development experience in CoRichmond).

 

I agree that the rationale is probably to encourage larger tree growth, since Vancouver is destined to be a traffic calmed street.

[shoeflack]

Across the street the sidewalk is exactly the same width. It's not a big deal.

 

And there's a reason why there's a desire path in the boulevard, as well as footprints in the mulch bed between the sidewalk and parking lot.

 

The sidewalk on that side of the street is a prime example of why this one should have been wider. Just my opinion as someone who lives in the area and uses those sidewalks daily. Again, whoever made the decision here to stick with a narrow sidewalk, be it the City of the developer, made a bad call. Simply put.

[Nparker]

...Again, whoever made the decision here to stick with a narrow sidewalk, be it the City of the developer, made a bad call. Simply put.

I would better be able to accept the "logic" of this design if the CoV itself, barely a year ago, hadn't re-built the wider sidewalk and narrower boulevard on the SW portion of this block. Of course when it comes to pretty much anything to do with the Vancouver Street corridor, logic is not on the city's agenda.

That wide section of grass adjacent to 989 is going to have a "desire path" trampled into it within a year.

[aastra]

 

...the rationale is probably to encourage larger tree growth, since Vancouver is destined to be a traffic calmed street.

 

Sounds about right. The calmest downtown street is targeted for traffic calming, many of the street's existing mature trees have earned the Victoria chop, narrow sidewalks are being awkwardly introduced in order to facilitate new trees, and the new trees will (hopefully) lend the street some calm.

 

Now every Victorian just needs to conveniently forget how we all extolled and enjoyed the inherent calmness of Vancouver Street for decades prior to today.

 

Even if we accept the contradictory premises of this mission, how the heck could wide (or even normal-width) sidewalks not be an essential ingredient of the calming blend? Shouldn't pedestrians be consideration #1 in any legitimate crusade to calm an area? Or are we saying the pedestrian traffic was so intense along there that it also needed to be calmed?

[G-Man]

This is terrible. I expect this was a mistake.

[Rob Randall]

I assume the point is to have it match up with the extra-wide boulevards just south of here. And at some point the Atlas property will be redeveloped. But in the meantime it's an awkward transition. The concrete planter abutting the sidewalk means it's a real pinch point. 

[G-Man]

Ugh. The city has to stop doing this. Just take a walk on Caledonia and see how well having future developments match a preferred design esthetic works. The 900 block has been a mess for more than a decade.

Sidewalks should always be designed for current use.

[G-Man]

Also if that were the plan then the new sidewalk should be better than the one beside Atlas but the new one restricts pedestrians to 1960s suburban sidewalk width. This is actually beyond terrible.

[Mike K.]

But you’ve got 2019 separation from cars, plus healthier trees.

[aastra]

 

I expect this was a mistake.

 

Every time the city botches a sidewalk it's a mistake. Do my eyes deceive me or do the renderings for this project show a proper sidewalk all the way along on that side?

 

[Nparker]

...plus healthier trees.

So why didn't the CoV insist on a wide grassy boulevard along Johnson Street so the newly planted trees could be healthier there? Or if it's a "Vancouver Street thing", why didn't Bosa have to create a wide grassy boulevard adjacent to its new development along Vancouver Street barely 2 blocks north?

[Mike K.]

You’ll want to ask the City why.

[Jackerbie]

Every time the city botches a sidewalk it's a mistake. Do my eyes deceive me or do the renderings for this project show a proper sidewalk all the way along on that side?

 

 

Never go off of the renderings, they aren't approved drawings and even if they were the number of post-DP revisions at Building Permit stage can be significant. If CoV does things the same way as CoRichmond, then off-site works are designed at the BP stage based on City specifications. The current standard for Vancouver is 1.5 m sidewalk, based on the City's road classification system and the development servicing bylaw. The City can always ask for more, but 1.5 m should be the minimum.

[IPH]

If CoV does things the same way as CoRichmond, then off-site works are designed at the BP stage based on City specifications.

yes, City of Victoria does this the same way.

[MarkoJ]

Completion notices have been sent out for lower floors starting Sept 23rd, 2019.

[ovovov]

there is going to be, at least 10 units, listed soon... same realtor and a group- buy from foreign buyers now trying to dump them...

[aastra]

Dump them for significantly more than they paid, or for only slightly more?