Feb 21 comment sheet analysis 2

Pnlfj

Description

Southeast False Creek – Official Development Plan Supplement Feb 2004 Summary of Comment Sheets – February 21, 2004 Vancouver Public Library, Promenade 18 comment sheets submitted Sustainability Measures: 1. In the previous stage of consultation, the public supported all proposed environmental, social, and economic sustainability measures, but also wanted further measures, particularly in the area of energy use and the transportation network. The proposal suggests further investigation of energy supply options, such as geothermal heat applications and also fuel cell applications for emergency power generation in the Village Centre (also site of the Athlete’s Village for the 2010 Olympics). The proposal also adds more pedestrian focused lanes to increase connectivity through the site. Do you support the “New Base Case Sustainability Package” (see Proposed Sustainability Package Board and handout) proposed for the SEFC ODP? YES: 56% NO: 22% blank: 22% YES: Why/Why Not? • Strong support for going further with the proposed base case sustainability package, especially in the areas of building materials, energy sources, green roofs, and ongoing stewardship. NO: Why/Why Not? • Concern that there is not enough proposed on shoreline restoration. • at there is not enough being proposed for alternative transportation. • Concern that it will be difficult to ensure a full 20% of development is non market with no government programs ...

Informations

• Publié par: Mezat
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

Southeast False Creek – Official Development Plan Supplement Feb 2004 Summary of Comment Sheets – February 21, 2004 Vancouver Public Library, Promenade 18 comment sheets submitted Sustainability Measures: 1.In the previous stage of consultation, the public supported all proposed environmental, social, and economic sustainability measures, but also wanted further measures, particularly in the area of energy use and the transportation network. The proposal suggests further investigation of energy supply options, such as geothermal heat applications and also fuel cell applications for emergency power generation in the Village Centre (also site of the Athlete’s Village for the 2010 Olympics). The proposal also adds more pedestrian focused lanes to increase connectivity through the site. Do you support the “New Base Case Sustainability Package” (see Proposed Sustainability Package Board and handout) proposed for the SEFC ODP? YES: 56%NO: 22%blank: 22% YES: Why/Why Not? •Strong support for going further with the proposed base case sustainability package, especially in the areas of building materials, energy sources, green roofs, and ongoing stewardship. NO: Why/Why Not? •Concern that there is not enough proposed on shoreline restoration. •Concern that there is not enough being proposed for alternative transportation. •Concern that it will be difficult to ensure a full 20% of development is non market with no government programs currently in place. Development Parcel Pattern: 2.The public supported smaller parcel sizes and site “permeability” through lanes and pedestrian walkways.  Theproposal introduces smaller development parcels, more pedestrian focused lanes, mews, and interior courtyards. Do you support the Revised ODP development parcel pattern? YES: 78%NO: 17%blank: 5% YES – Why/Why Not? •Support for the changes made to the preliminary ODP proposal •Increase the safety and promote the sense of community while reducing the amount of traffic.

•Need to ensure the development parcels are small and go to different owners. •Support to make it as walkable/bikeable as possible. NO – Why/Why Not? •Would like to see that mews and courtyards be used as public gardens. Recognizing History & Character 3.The public wanted to further recognize and retain the history and character of the site. The proposal retains and relocates the Salt Building, and additionally relocates the “Sawtooth” building (City Works Yard machine shop) to the community gardens for reuse, the Wilkinson steel building structural and façade components to the Village Centre, marks the Canron building footprint, and suggests boardwalks, decks, and piers which recall the character of the site. Do you support the Revised Proposal’s approach to remembering the history of the site? YES: 73%NO: 22%blank: 5% YES – Why/Why Not? •Support for retaining and relocating the heritage buildings on site where they can be used for public activities and strengthen the idea of a central "market". NO – Why/Why Not? •Concern that the proposed highrises are a big shift from the current industrial landscape. •Concern about moving the heritage buildings from their original location. Waterfront: 4.The public wanted a more varied, more animated waterfront. This proposal has piers, a dock for boat launch, a boardwalk, a small ferry terminal, many viewpoints, and a variety of landscaping along the water, also numerous commercial and community uses in the Village Centre directly adjacent to the Seawall bicycle and pedestrian route. * These proposals will be subject to federal approvals which are prerequisite for redevelopment of the Public Lands site. Do you support the Revised ODP waterfront proposals? YES: 61%NO: 33%blank: 6% YES – Why/Why Not? •Support variety in the waterfront area, especially the access to the waterfront.

NO – Why/Why Not? •Concern for creating another LegInBoot Square. •Concern for too much allocation to commercial uses •Concern that there are too many piers and too much use of an already crowded waterway. •A more sustainable approach to waterfront development would consider the environment first, and then let the amenities be wrapped around selected natural areas. •There needs to be more obvious connections for cyclists and bladers with fewer conflicts. Park: 5.The public was strongly in favour of a large park along the water, but also wanted the park to extend into the neighbourhood more and also wanted to see some smaller parks in the development. . The Proposal keeps that large park, but also introduces “green fingers” and suggests opportunities for private green spaces within development parcels. Do you support the Revised ODP park location? YES: 67%NO: 17%maybe: 6%blank: 10% YES – Why/Why Not? •The proposal should include an area for dogs •Support for the green fingers & smaller green spaces that will likely afford more privacy. NO – Why/Why Not? •Not so necessary to have such a large park, smaller parks through the neighbourhood would be preferable. •Most of it should be park space. •There should be an increased number of low rise residential & less high rises by using some large park space for built form. MAYBE – Why/Why Not? •Support for sacrificing + 3 acres for more lowrise buildings. Overall Design: 6.Considering the above, do you support the overall ODP concept design for the SEFC Public Lands? YES: 56%NO: 28%blank: 16%

YES – Why/Why Not? •recycling, roof top gardens,Pleased with proposed features such as greywater stormwater management, reduction of impervious surface areas, and in building design with attention to airflow and passive solar features. •Support for density as it creates street life & vibrancy. •Support for developing all the existing undeveloped urban areas in Vancouver, including False Creek Flats. •Support for the progress in promoting sustainable communities. NO – Why/Why Not? •Buildings near the water should be lower, and buildings further away from water should be higher. •Support for making the park smaller. •Concern about the “wall” around False Creek. •Concern that there will be interrupted bike travel through the area. •Concern that SEFC will be too much like False Creek North. •Support for low rise buildings, green with village style would be a much better approach. Other: 7.Do you have any further suggestions for improvement/modification? Concerns: •Concern for intrusions on the waterway and soil contaminants. •Concern about vehicle traffic on the Ontario Greenway, and that the bikeway seems interrupted. •Strong concern that the full 20% of the development reserved for non market and low income housing will not be met. •Concern that the publicity & strong sustainability image will drive up housing costs at SEFC. •Concern for the highrise buildings around False Creek Support: •Support for retaining the heritage buildings and recognition of the character of the area. •Support for the direction the plan is going, but is it going far enough? Miscellaneous: •Few would say "smaller parks",Questions are geared toward a positive response. "no animated waterfront", "don't preserve character or history".There are no questions about cutting tower heights, expanding green space, restricting marina expansion, etc.