Testing Ideas – Feedback:

The two public open houses and stakeholder meeting on June 23rd, 24th and 25th provided an opportunity for the Cypress Village Planning Team to hear from residents and stakeholders about specific attributes of the future village including:

  • Programming priorities for uses and civic amenities
  • Neighbourhood scale and character options
  • Target populations and resulting density options
  • Supportable commercial services based on population and market orientation (i.e. local service retail versus a destination retail experience for the region)
  • Trail and recreation connectivity
  • Transit and transportation opportunities
  • Upper Campus recreation and community benefit option

The forums were structured around subject-specific information clusters organized in presentation boards, with illustrations and data relating to the assumptions and options being studied. The intention was to help facilitate discussion around the key components needed to create a sustainable and desirable village. The renderings and precedent photographs are intended to represent the scale and character of neighbourhoods and public spaces being considered as the program is refined throughout the engagement process.

The following summary reflects the general clustering of comments and rankings around each of these specific topic areas.

The Big PictureBOARDS [PDF]

This station illustrated over-arching infrastructure elements and program options for different levels of population, number of units and the associated commercial and civic programs envisioned for the village. 

What We Heard:

  • It was well understood that critical population mass was necessary to generate sufficient levels of commercial services. The need to meet frequent transit thresholds was a generally agreed upon element.
  • Many individuals communicated that higher populations would be important to the success of Cypress Village, while some others noted their surprise with the upper ranges of the population and unit counts as high as the projected 7,200 residents and 3,800 units.
  • Respondents generally stated that solving the through-traffic congestion and local traffic pressure on existing roads was fundamental and would dictate acceptable levels of program and development intensity.
  • There was a lot of dialogue on the need to develop a management plan for trail networks as Cypress Village is developed and provides access to the new network.
  • Achieving residential diversity within the village was generally viewed as difficult to attain given prices and historic focus on expensive, single-family houses.

The Design and Development Team asked participants to rank priorities for community amenities and services within the village. Participants had three votes for top priorities. The results of the community voting are as follows:

1. Affordable Housing

2. Transit Service

3. Community Centre

4. Library

5. Playgrounds and Neighbourhood Parks

6. Enhanced Recreational Trails

7. Rental Housing

8. Sustainable Design and Emissions Reduction

9. Neighbourhood House for Community Groups

10. Gondola Access to Upper Lands

11. Child Care Facility

12. Ice Arena

13. Cypress Mountain Shuttle

14. Elementary School

15. Multipurpose Field

16. Public Art

17. Supportive Housing

18. Community Gardens

Village CoreBOARDS [PDF]

This station featured illustrations of different possibilities for the mixed-use centre of the new village. Criteria featured feedback from the May workshops with the public regarding preferences as well as associated programming and scale of development identified in the Big Picture assumptions.

What We Heard:

  • In terms of scale of development, many appreciated the main street precedents of Dundarave and Edgemont as many West Vancouver residents are very familiar with these villages.
  • Positive response was given to the concept of a pedestrian-focused area based in part on Whistler-type spaces that are car-free. Participants were briefed on the assumption that a pedestrian-focused environment would only be possible with a stronger regional draw for destination retail experience versus a smaller neighbourhood service centre such as the one in Caulfeild Village.
  • The urban character of the High Street scale received mixed reviews and questions on whether this character is appropriate for the mountainside. However, many understood that to achieve population levels, a more urban character would be required.
  • There was general support for the two to four storey scale of the commercial centre.
  • Participants responded positively to the five minute walking radius catchment area for the village in all scenarios.

Neighbourhood CharacterBOARDS [PDF]

This station was designed to give people a sense of how different neighbourhoods within the village could have a diverse range of character depending on the location, building types and assumed densities. The illustrations included two to four storey attached housing on steeply sloped sites; a broader view of the village with a mix of housing types and heights calibrated to reflect the middle densities anticipated in the projections; a more urban character based on six (or more) storey apartment buildings as the fabric of buildings and blocks.

What We Heard:

  • General consensus that the projection of “middle densities” for most buildings (up to six storeys in height) with taller buildings in specific locations, was consistent with expectations.
  • A number of long-time residents perceived the village neighborhoods as too urban and not consistent with the character above the Upper Lands Highway.
  • Participants recognized that diversity would only be achieved through offering broader building and unit type options.

Upper Campus OpportunitiesBOARDS [PDF]

Illustrations in this station were designed to foster conversation about the role of the Upper Lands within the site. A series of recreational concepts and programmatic concepts were presented as ideas that may have appropriate community contributions and provide assets now not being considered. These included recreational destinations and linkages; education uses; research and development; employment campus; and hospitality and wellness uses, all founded in a strong sense of mountain identity.

What We Heard:

  • Many acknowledged the concept of an Upper Campus as ambitious.  Some believed it would be a great addition to West Vancouver. Many noted the location above 1200ft. and while not necessarily providing personal concerns about a campus on the plateau in the variation area, they acknowledged that others may have concerns.
  • Many believed that the employment uses and mountain institute uses could be a benefit to the community as a whole.
  • Caution was raised about creating an exclusive use with a Hospitality hub.
  • Access by alternative transportation options, such as a gondola, received general support from participants as a way to preserve natural areas and eliminate additional automobile traffic on the mountain.

Happy City Workshop

On June 21st, Charles Montgomery led a group of over 60 community members through a “Happiness Workshop” to further explore the eight key principles of happiness and wellness for West Vancouverites. The workshop was organized into eight separate teams, each tasked with developing a key happiness principle to guide the planning process for Cypress Village. The principles produced at this workshop include:

Happiness Principles[2]
  • Core Needs: The village should facilitate opportunities for cooperation and sharing of resources, such as food and gardens, among residents.
  • Joy: The village should stimulate the senses and promote interactions among people, and between people and nature.
  • Health: The village should promote and support physical and mental health and wellbeing.
  • Equity: Design in the village should enable access for people of all ages, as well as socio-economic and cultural backgrounds.
  • Ease: The village should provide comfortable, accessible movement systems for all.
  • Meaning & Belonging: The village should design opportunities for social interaction.
  • Sociability: The village should provide a variety of shareable and accessible space for serendipitous, formal and informal encounters.
  • Resilience: The village should foster a strong sense of community through social and economic diversity.

< WEEK 1

Understanding | May 2016

WEEK 3 >

Plan Alternatives | Sept 2016

Stay Informed

We’ll email you information on upcoming events and ways to join the conversation

By completing and submitting this form, I consent to receive information from British Pacific Properties relating to Cypress Village including project updates and event notifications. I understand I can unsubscribe at any time. E.&O.E.