David A
Senior Member
Perhaps more is needed, but isn't there already a daycare for a long time in a building about a block away on 103rd and 100 Ave, the one with the brand new bar/restaurant?
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Greenspace
Senior Member
$10/day daycare there's huge demand across the city.
NicolBolas
New Member
More is needed for that.
Downtown isn't all that attractive for families with young kids. As a person with a young family who lives in a single family home way in the far north east here would be my barricades.
- My perception of safety downtown for my kids still isn't the greatest.
- Our LRT system is not efficient, nor is it safe for me to make my commute worth it.
- It lacks vibrancy, if downtown is about as active as a suburban neighborhood then my desire to give up a yard for it is greatly diminished.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Making our DT attractive for families to live in still feels like a red herring. Not a bad goal at all, and the 8 80 principle for building cities is wise to follow.
But realistically, Vancouver can only get 5-10% of households in the core to have kids (source) and they have:
1. astronomical house prices compared to us
2. significantly less housing with backyards/3+ bedrooms within 10mins or downtown (vs us having glenora, westmount, inglewood, prince rupert, Queen Mary, blatchford, highlands, Alberta ave, forest heights, etc all offering “family sized” housing) with basically no commute).
3. Way nicer areas downtown in terms of parks, waterfront, schools, walkable and quiet streets
4. They have milder weather, which makes life with kids easier for urban living vs pushing strollers in the snow, dealing with snowsuits on transit, the need for a car vs biking/walking
5. More “safe” parts of their downtown (with many that of course aren’t safe or are only perceived as safer).
If families regularly leave Vancouver for Langley, Abbotsford, tri cities, etc, we will have a hard time keep many in our true core.
I think instead, we should focus on:
1) incredible attractions for kids (DT library, museum, Churchill fountains, etc are awesome). Our recent park designs leave room for improvement though.
2) safe and efficient transit, biking, and even yes, parking. One improvement for biking is more secure storage for cargo bikes, e-bikes, and kids bikes. Having a manned security, camera covered, parking area as part of Churchill or the library makes the most sense to me here.
3) Developing adjacent areas to be as family attractive as possible. More townhomes with 3+ bedrooms in Wihkwentowin for example. Investment into schools and parks on these areas. Rebuild Oliver pool/rink/playground into a multi story rec centre.
4) family events. Disney symphony is a real hit. Different festivals get families out, which is great to see. More ways to get families from the suburbs to come into the core, even if just a few days a year, brings money into our local businesses and gives chances for people to see and discover changes in the core (hopefully positive ones…)
Barnaby
Active Member
Happy New Year!
I think Langham did a good job with the ground level. The southmost CRU is setback nicely to allow for a generous patio. Like everything else of theirs on 104th, it's inviting to those on foot.
I'm hoping for a successful 2025 for Langham. Looking forward to Falcon 2.
I think Langham did a good job with the ground level. The southmost CRU is setback nicely to allow for a generous patio. Like everything else of theirs on 104th, it's inviting to those on foot.
I'm hoping for a successful 2025 for Langham. Looking forward to Falcon 2.
Last edited:
whattheheck
New Member
This building is ok. But the developer should have gone with black trimmed windows and deck railings. It would have made it look so much more urban and sophisticated. (and not really added to the cost) Such a shame, really. :/
Greenspace
Senior Member
Podium turned out better than I expected. White swoopy thing is unnecessary but the windows are transparent and the way the entry is articulated and space given outside is nice. I assume this is mirrored with tower two. (originally there was a courtyard between the two buildings sadly is not there anymore)
yeggator
Active Member
It is absolutely necessary. It looks like a falcon wing, which gives the tower a distinct identity.
Greenspace
Senior Member
Just facadism. It doesn't have anything to do with the architecture. But I'm glad you like it.
EtoV
Active Member
This isn't facadism. Facadism is the preservation of a historical facade.
This could loosely be considered ornamentation. Imo architectural ornamentation is a crucial part of interesting architecture that is seldom used these days unfortunately. Otherwise you're depending purely on materials and massing to create visual interest.
This could loosely be considered ornamentation. Imo architectural ornamentation is a crucial part of interesting architecture that is seldom used these days unfortunately. Otherwise you're depending purely on materials and massing to create visual interest.
David A
Senior Member
It is an embellishment, so perhaps technically not necessary, but it does add to the character and identity of the building which I agree is a good thing.