Canadian Architect Compares Tulsa and Vancouver

[SpongeG]

http://www.gtrnews.com/images/1193.jpg
HEARTLAND CITY: Alan Hart sees Tulsa as a city located in the middle of the tall grass prairie, founded on the shores of a river with few noticeable developmental constraints. The result is urban sprawl as compared to Vancouver, which has a densely populated downtown.

Tulsans interested in downtown redevelopment gathered in September at the Tulsa County Library’s Aaronson Auditorium to hear renown Canadian architect Alan Hart talk about Vancouver, the city he helped evolve from a blighted community into the most livable city in North America. He was here to provide insights into the challenges and opportunities of inner-city redevelopment and speak on the unique challenges of Vancouver and Tulsa. He came at the invitation of Tulsa Now and Sustainable Tulsa, two non-profit civic organizations devoted to raising the quality of life for all Tulsans. The title of his presentation was “Time to Twilight Zoning? Building the Beautiful Back into Tulsa.”

Hart’s presentation began by exploring the similarities and differences in Tulsa and Vancouver by sighting the unique elements specific to each city. Vancouver is a coastal community located on the western edge of Canada. It is boxed in by mountains to the north, a river and other regions to the east and the United States boundary to the south. Tulsa is geographically located in the middle of the vast tall grass prairie, founded on the shores of a river and consequently serves as a crossroad community with seemingly few noticeable developmental constraints. Vancouver’s geological constraints resulted in vertical development of high-rise, mixed-use structures while Tulsa has become a typical midwestern American city of horizontal development, suburban sprawl and the accompanying expressway infrastructure supporting it all. Vancouver covers a total of 43 square miles while Tulsa covers 200 square miles. While both downtown areas cover approximately the same 1.35 square miles, Vancouver’s hosts 58,000 residences and Tulsa’s residences number less then 1,500.

A topographical map of Tulsa showing the flood plane of area creeks and rivers reveals an important fact, according to Hart. He says, “If the city restricts development on the flood plains of all the area tributaries it becomes apparent that the city has many hidden constraints to horizontal development.” This was a lesson learned in the 1980s, as residential overdevelopment of flood-prone areas culminated in Tulsa’s traumatic Memorial Day flood of 1984. The resulting storm water management master plan that came about from that event has become an exemplary model for other cities and Hart believes provides proof the community can come together to address major issues facing the city.

Whatever the circumstances confronting the revitalization of a community, Hart contends the plan of action must include a long-term vision for land use and transportation, protection of natural assets and farmland and must include identifying what he calls areas of smart growth defined by economic, environmental and human considerations. And finally the community must establish and adhere to consistent rules of engagement and governance that encourages and respects citizen input and participation.

Building code issues are always paramount to the infill development associated with inner-city revitalization. Throughout its rise to prominence as a leading quality of life city, Vancouver adhered to what Hart termed comprehensive or performance based codes for development as opposed to the traditional use based zoning found in Tulsa and most cities in the United States. It is a building code protocol based on simplified categories defining what one can build by complying with well defined aesthetic standards and addressing the visual impact on the cityscape rather than the more complicated, quantitative-use-based zoning system defining what one can’t do, and specifically how the property must be used. A view of the Vancouver skyline is all one needs to see the beneficial effect realized from embracing performance- based building Codes.

As for the conflict that inevitably arises from different factions involved in the revitalization of a community, Hart has ample advice. “To be successful, a community must maintain the ability to address changing issues and priorities by adopting a way of planning that involves total civic engagement—a community driven by “loving the question.” The questions must be seen as providing opportunities to come together and solve rather then factionalize the citizenry. Citizens and developers must learn to look beyond their property boundaries and see a planned vision defining a mutually beneficial future.” Other factors must also be nurtured. According to Hart it is essential to provide certainty and protection for both community and developers by providing continuity and cohesive development policies for public and private spaces. In addition most important is the fostering of a collaborative, trusting relationship among citizens and developers.

Tulsa has a good start with the same kind of incremental development that drove the Vancouver revival. “Cherry Street, Brookside, Blue Dome District, Pearl District, Brady District and the promise of the East Village are all initiative components of what can become Tulsa’s inner-city renewal,” says Hart.

http://www.gtrnews.com/greater-tulsa-reporter/1526/canadian-architect-compares-tulsa-and-vancouver

[trueviking]

Vancouver covers a total of 43 square miles while Tulsa covers 200 square miles. While both downtown areas cover approximately the same 1.35 square miles, Vancouver’s hosts 58,000 residences and Tulsa’s residences number less then 1,500.


1500 is unbelievable...there is a single building in downtown winnipeg with almost that many people living in it.

doesnt downtown vancouver have almost 90k people now?

it is interesting that when a foreigner pictures an image of the U.S. they think of a shining city and when they think of canada, they think of wilderness...we need to celebrate the urban quality of our cities to the world.

[squeezied]

yea i thought the downtown pop was btwn 90-100,000

and btw where exactly is tulsa

[1ajs]

Tulsa is located in the northeastern quadrant of Oklahoma

[Architype]

1500 is unbelievable...there is a single building in downtown winnipeg with almost that many people living in it.

doesnt downtown vancouver have almost 90k people now?

it is interesting that when a foreigner pictures an image of the U.S. they think of a shining city and when they think of canada, they think of wilderness...we need to celebrate the urban quality of our cities to the world.
It says 58,000 residences (dwellings), not residents.

[hollywoodnorth]

http://www.osu-ours.okstate.edu/report01/tulsa/aerialview.jpg

wow what a Dense city........so many appartments in Tulsa!....its crazy! Vancouver should be copying them! :haha:

[Canadian Mind]

we need bigger condo towers. ;ets tear down anything built in the 70's and 80's and make em 100 feet taller. we could use the space.

[trueviking]

It says 58,000 residences (dwellings), not residents.

ah...thanks.

[ReginaGuy]

Canadian downtowns always seem to be denser than American cities of comparable size, I'm not sure why though

[Kilgore Trout]

Canadian downtowns always seem to be denser than American cities of comparable size, I'm not sure why though


tulsa is not comparable in size to vancouver -- it has about 700,000 people, the same as quebec city, winnipeg and hamilton.

you're right, though. if you compare tulsa to those three cities, it still fails miserably in the downtown dwelling count.

[Baro]

It's cold so the buildings have to huddle together for communal warmth. It's the buddy system!

[LordMandeep]

Canada is more liberal, so there is more oppostion to sprawling here. So urban sprawl exist while our downtowns stay healthy.

Wow only 1500 residents, there are like that many poeple in two apartments nearby in suburban Brampton.

[mackeast]

Several reasons why Canadian cities are denser:


For the most part,freeways did not cut into the heart of downtowns like American cities back in the 50's and 60's during the freeway construction process
Canadian cities invest much more into public transportation, thus supporting a denser lifestyle for its citizens
Canadian municipalities are not fragmented to the extent that American cities are. The more fragmented, ie the more independent municipalities within a metro. region, the worse off the downtown and the city is
Immigrants arriving to Canada almost always go to the major cities. And out of the major cities, most of them go to Toronto or Vancouver. Immigrants are usually not as mobile, as well as more use to living in high density conditions, and provide a market for urban residential development


Wow, university is really paying off...

[excel]

Canada is more liberal, so there is more oppostion to sprawling here. So urban sprawl exist while our downtowns stay healthy.

Wow only 1500 residents, there are like that many poeple in two apartments nearby in suburban Brampton.

once again, its "residences" not "residents"

[fever]

Several reasons why Canadian cities are denser:


Canadian municipalities are not fragmented to the extent that American cities are. The more fragmented, ie the more independent municipalities within a metro. region, the worse off the downtown and the city is



How would you explain Boston, San Francisco, and Vancouver? They are all about the same size, and in fragmented metropolitan regions. San Francisco isn't even the largest city by population in the Bay Area. Toronto makes up about half of the GTA, and it's doing quite well. Although a fair chunk of its metropolitan region itself, the rest of Chicago is fragmented. otoh, the City of Calgary isn't much different from its metropolitan region.

I just don't see any correlation. There aren't all that many American cities with really strong downtowns. I've named maybe a bit less than half of them, depending on how you count it, in relatively fragmented regions. I'm sure there are more. Do you have any data to support this?

[LordMandeep]

Simple people are not fleeing those big cities. There are people moving in out of big cities. For example in Toronto people leave and come to the city but it is growing by 25-30 K a year. The Suburbs have grown faster however Toronto still grows at that rate of 25-30k a year.

I think our cities are considered good places to live. They are considered to be fun, the "It" place for anything relating to entertainment for a lot of people. Plus people are willing to live in the cities more. That explains the condo booms across the big cities in North America.

[mackeast]

How would you explain Boston, San Francisco, and Vancouver? They are all about the same size, and in fragmented metropolitan regions. San Francisco isn't even the largest city by population in the Bay Area. Toronto makes up about half of the GTA, and it's doing quite well. Although a fair chunk of its metropolitan region itself, the rest of Chicago is fragmented. otoh, the City of Calgary isn't much different from its metropolitan region.

I just don't see any correlation. There aren't all that many American cities with really strong downtowns. I've named maybe a bit less than half of them, depending on how you count it, in relatively fragmented regions. I'm sure there are more. Do you have any data to support this?

Do I!

Basically what im arguing is that fragmentation, for the most part, weakens the central city of the metro. San Francisco, Chicago, some other US cities, exceptions for sure. And regarding Toronto, remember the City of Toronto as it stands today used to be fragmented itself, it amalgamated with Scarburough, Etibicoke, North York, and something else. So The city is doing well becasue it un-fragmented itself. Vancouver does well because of the power of the GVRD, as well as the support of the province. In the US, its unthinkable as to how much control the province can have over the state of municipal affairs.

Basically, in the US,local government has a greater degree of autonamy, and this weakens the plannings systems implemented by highly fragmented local governments (Buniting, T; Fillion, F. 2006). Goldberg and Mercer did a study in 1986, and found that the amount of fragmentation inthe US is 2.5 times greater than in Canada. And since then, the number of local governments per US metropolitan regions has INCREASED. In comparison, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec City - all DECREASED the amount of municipal governments in their metro.

They're arent many cities in the US with strong downtowns, your right, and thsts what im saying. Fragmented municipal governments weaken the central city.

[aastra]

Old Tulsa had a pretty good downtown core, if you don't mind my saying:

http://mayohotel.com/albums/skylines/PhotoTulsaSkylineAerial1928.sized.jpg

Here's a much bigger pic:
http://www.tulsahistory.org/learn/photos/1980.63.28.jpg

[fever]

Do I!

Basically what im arguing is that fragmentation, for the most part, weakens the central city of the metro. San Francisco, Chicago, some other US cities, exceptions for sure. And regarding Toronto, remember the City of Toronto as it stands today used to be fragmented itself, it amalgamated with Scarburough, Etibicoke, North York, and something else. So The city is doing well becasue it un-fragmented itself. Vancouver does well because of the power of the GVRD, as well as the support of the province. In the US, its unthinkable as to how much control the province can have over the state of municipal affairs.

Basically, in the US,local government has a greater degree of autonamy, and this weakens the plannings systems implemented by highly fragmented local governments (Buniting, T; Fillion, F. 2006). Goldberg and Mercer did a study in 1986, and found that the amount of fragmentation inthe US is 2.5 times greater than in Canada. And since then, the number of local governments per US metropolitan regions has INCREASED. In comparison, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec City - all DECREASED the amount of municipal governments in their metro.

They're arent many cities in the US with strong downtowns, your right, and thsts what im saying. Fragmented municipal governments weaken the central city.

You already pointed out a few reasons for why there are differences between American and Canadian cities, including transportation and immigration. It's not enough to show that there's a correlation between the number of downtown residences in Canadian cities relative to American cities and the degree of fragmentation of Canadian metros relative to American metros. There are too many other factors that could cause this.

What I'm looking for is a comparison that eliminates the dependence on country. For example, Vancouver has y downtown residences per metro population and has x municipalities in its metro. Compare with Calgary, Chicago. Even better would be a plot of y with x for each large city in North America. Is there a line, approximately, or is it all over the place. I'm guessing it's all over the place.

edit (maybe i'm quick enough): I agree that things like the GVRD make a difference. and there will obviously be exceptions

[CCF]

Several reasons why Canadian cities are denser:


For the most part,freeways did not cut into the heart of downtowns like American cities back in the 50's and 60's during the freeway construction process
Canadian cities invest much more into public transportation, thus supporting a denser lifestyle for its citizens
Canadian municipalities are not fragmented to the extent that American cities are. The more fragmented, ie the more independent municipalities within a metro. region, the worse off the downtown and the city is
Immigrants arriving to Canada almost always go to the major cities. And out of the major cities, most of them go to Toronto or Vancouver. Immigrants are usually not as mobile, as well as more use to living in high density conditions, and provide a market for urban residential development


Wow, university is really paying off...

What are you studying?

[mackeast]

So fever, what you are looking for then is if Canada has a greater number of residents in its central city in comparison with its metro, than in the US? That i dont know. I would assume so, but I havnt seen anything to back that up.

CCF - Im studying Urban Planning at the University of Waterloo.

[fever]

So fever, what you are looking for then is if Canada has a greater number of residents in its central city in comparison with its metro, than in the US? That i dont know. I would assume so, but I havnt seen anything to back that up.

CCF - Im studying Urban Planning at the University of Waterloo.

No. The claim was that there is a correlation between the fragmentation of a metro and health of its downtown. I'm looking for evidence to support this claim.

There aren't that many downtowns in North America that I would say are very healthy. The standards are of course arbitrary, so if I compiled a ranking of say the 12 healthiest downtowns in large NA cities there's little chance it would exactly agree with anyone elses. But still, most rankings would include the following cities, in no particular order. You could use different one's. I'm not sure it would matter. Then rank them according to how fragmented they are from 1 to 10 (I'm not trying to be thorough here). Let 1 be more fragmented.

Vancouver
New York
Toronto (now and 10 years ago)
Boston
San Francisco
Chicago
Montreal (now and 10 years ago)
Philadelphia
Washington
Miami
Seattle
Milwaukee
Los Angeles
Baltimore
Seattle

This is just comparing the top end, of course. I think you'll see pretty quickly that fragmentation has little to do with health, or at least that there isn't a correlation between very healthy downtowns and how fragmented their metros are.

[murman]

and btw where exactly is tulsa

Are these the same Canadians that loosen their bowels in anger every time an American doesn't know where any Canadian cities are located? :(

[LordMandeep]

Tulsa is an unknown compared to the big 5 or 6 here.

[Canadian Mind]

Are these the same Canadians that loosen their bowels in anger every time an American doesn't know where any Canadian cities are located? :(

I can tell you where 8 of your citys; New york, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, San Diego, Washington, Seattle, Chcago, and Detroit are. I actually know of more, but those are the ones that came out and for the most part are the biggest or most major cities.

You do the same for 8 of ours; Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, and Quebec city. Most americans can't. Mind you, many canadians can't find the 8 citys of america I mentioned; however, in my personal experiance, the americans new where less of the canadian cities were than canadians new of American citys.

[LordMandeep]

Canada has cities??

[Canadian Mind]

let me tell ya, I was sure suprised when i found out

[squeezied]

Are these the same Canadians that loosen their bowels in anger every time an American doesn't know where any Canadian cities are located? :(

no im not one of those who gets infuriated simply because an american wouldnt know where... say windsor is located. and theres no reason y i should be angry; windsor isnt that well known is the states, nor is tulsa here.

on contrary, i'd be more than happy to inform them the whereabouts.

[Urban Zombie]

^Windsor is in Detroit...everybody knows that.

[squeezied]

i honestly cant tell if ur being sarcastic or not

[Canadian Mind]

he isn't, Windsor is in all fairness a suburb of Detroit, just its in another country.

[Surrealplaces]

Personally I don't get annoyed at American's that don't know where our cities are. People forget that we've had an information advantage over them for years. We've had cable with american stations for over 40 years. Most of the shows we watch are american, naturally we are going to know more about them, than they are of us.

[Canadian Mind]

most the shows we watch are canadian with an american sticker over the top. Sortta like taking a blackberry and burnign a made in america hole into the back. :p

[Urban Zombie]

i honestly cant tell if ur being sarcastic or not

I don't think it should be too hard to figure out...;)

Do I have to put a damn smiley on everything?

[Phil McAvity]

Several reasons why Canadian cities are denser:


For the most part,freeways did not cut into the heart of downtowns like American cities back in the 50's and 60's during the freeway construction process
Canadian cities invest much more into public transportation, thus supporting a denser lifestyle for its citizens
Canadian municipalities are not fragmented to the extent that American cities are. The more fragmented, ie the more independent municipalities within a metro. region, the worse off the downtown and the city is
Immigrants arriving to Canada almost always go to the major cities. And out of the major cities, most of them go to Toronto or Vancouver. Immigrants are usually not as mobile, as well as more use to living in high density conditions, and provide a market for urban residential development


Wow, university is really paying off...

I mostly disagree with this, expect the part about the freeways, that's a good point, but the part about Canadians putting more money into public transportation would add to sprawl not density, so i think he has that point backwards. I believe that Canadian cities are denser for three main reasons. As he said, more freeways in the US makes for more sprawl, keeping people from living downtown. White flight also keeps many Americans from living downtown, while higher taxation levels in Canada make houses less affordable to Canadians, thus many Canadians live in apartments and condos closer to downtown. I'd stay in university a little longer Mack. :D

[eemy]

Do I!

Basically what im arguing is that fragmentation, for the most part, weakens the central city of the metro. San Francisco, Chicago, some other US cities, exceptions for sure. And regarding Toronto, remember the City of Toronto as it stands today used to be fragmented itself, it amalgamated with Scarburough, Etibicoke, North York, and something else. So The city is doing well becasue it un-fragmented itself. Vancouver does well because of the power of the GVRD, as well as the support of the province. In the US, its unthinkable as to how much control the province can have over the state of municipal affairs.

Basically, in the US,local government has a greater degree of autonamy, and this weakens the plannings systems implemented by highly fragmented local governments (Buniting, T; Fillion, F. 2006). Goldberg and Mercer did a study in 1986, and found that the amount of fragmentation inthe US is 2.5 times greater than in Canada. And since then, the number of local governments per US metropolitan regions has INCREASED. In comparison, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec City - all DECREASED the amount of municipal governments in their metro.

They're arent many cities in the US with strong downtowns, your right, and thsts what im saying. Fragmented municipal governments weaken the central city.

I think you are vastly exaggerating the importance of amalgamation of the shape of cities. I agree that centralized control can positively influence the development of cities, but pretty much every Canadian city you mentioned there already had most of the planning controls already centralized with regional governments. Amalgamation was principally an attempt to operate multiple redundant municipal services at a larger and therefore cheaper scale. That said, it is hardly a said deal that one large municipality is better than several small ones. Look at Houston v. Boston. The shape of our cities really is influenced by so many things, but I think the size of the constituent cities is far less important than you make it out to be. If the people value a strong central city, that will happen regardless of there being 500 municipalities or 1 municipality. If they like one acre suburban lots, that will happen regardless as well. Ultimately, I think the political formation of the city has far less importance than the political colour of the city.

OK, that didn't come across well. Toronto benefited from strong politicians and advocates (ie. John Sewell and Jane Jacobs) who managed to halt a lot of the harmful plans that were proposed at the time and were helpful in turning around what was largely a 'science' oriented planning atmosphere toward the modern concept of planning centered on the community with planners largely acting as facilitators. Houston seems to have a strong libertarian bend and when it comes to applying restrictions on property - through zoning, for example - they aren't all that receptive.

Personally, I think a lot of it comes down to good timing. Canada's booming population and economy happened later than the US's, and so we managed to avoid most of the worst planning ideas that hit US cities.

BTW, I'm studying planning at UW too. I'm guessing you've probably taken at least one course with Filion by now. He's a great prof. I also had the privilege to work with him and Trudi Bunting (mostly with Trudi) on a research project awhile ago. Next term will be my first taking one of her classes though.

[Daver]

http://www.osu-ours.okstate.edu/report01/tulsa/aerialview.jpg

wow what a Dense city........so many appartments in Tulsa!....its crazy! Vancouver should be copying them! :haha:

Vancouver should! Tulsa has taller buildings :haha:

[Daver]

once again, its "residences" not "residents"

He's talking about amount of people, not volume of dwellings. A resident is the occupier of a residence.

[someone123]

I find it odd how people talk as if sprawl and large downtown populations are mutually exclusive. Only a very small number of Vancouver's residents live in glass highrises on the downtown peninsula. On top of this, it is mostly certain types of people who live in these highrises so it would seem that they are only a viable solution for a certain portion of the population.

The whole definition of "downtown" is also suspect. What makes a district part of a "downtown"? Vancouver's West End is mostly housing and has relatively few stores. Many of the sidestreets are very quiet and look nothing like traditional downtown areas.

The "downtown" terminology is misleading and high "downtown" populations are not the Holy Grail of urban planning that they are made out to be. They tend to make core neighbourhoods busier and more interesting (maybe) but they are not very significant when taking entire metropolitan areas into account.

[j4893k]

...but the part about Canadians putting more money into public transportation would add to sprawl not density, so i think he has that point backwards.

Oh please, please explain.

I think you are the one that should stay in university a little longer!

[LordMandeep]

IN canada we have lots of sprawl in the suburbs but the main city still grows very strongly.

[Edmonchuck]

Any of you ever been to Tulsa?

[eemy]

Oh please, please explain.

I think you are the one that should stay in university a little longer!

Things are rarely so black and white.

It all depends on how the money is spent. Remember, before we ever had expressways, streetcar lines drew development out of the city. Commuter rail, park n' rides, and suburban rapid transit are all transit services that allow greater access to the core of a city and therefore permit greater sprawl. Incidentally, most of the current capital investment in transit is focused on these particular areas. Regardless if things like GO Transit facilitate greater sprawl, I still think their good qualities far outweigh the bad ones.

[Jared]

Things are rarely so black and white.

It all depends on how the money is spent. Remember, before we ever had expressways, streetcar lines drew development out of the city. Commuter rail, park n' rides, and suburban rapid transit are all transit services that allow greater access to the core of a city and therefore permit greater sprawl. Incidentally, most of the current capital investment in transit is focused on these particular areas. Regardless if things like GO Transit facilitate greater sprawl, I still think their good qualities far outweigh the bad ones.

"Streetcar suburb" development style is a hell of a lot denser than the huge houses/power center/16 lane highway style development.

[eemy]

"Streetcar suburb" development style is a hell of a lot denser than the huge houses/power center/16 lane highway style development.

That's beside the point; it's still sprawl. One of the benefits of sprawl related to transit is that it is usually more dense than auto-centred sprawl. That said, I'm not terribly convinced that a GO Transit station with a park 'n ride would influence development any better than an expressway. It is cars off the road, and it focuses employment centrally (which is good or bad depending on your perspective). Would it encourage dense development? Except for downtown, I doubt it.

[eemy]

Speaking more on sprawl. Any form of transportation that eases and speeds travel over a certain distance allows people to live further from where they work. At one time, people had to walk to work, or ride a horse. Rail was developed in the 19th century that allowed the development of commuter railroads, subways, and streetcars. This allowed people to move out of the cities and clear their lungs, while still being able to get to work in decent time. Now we have expressways and car-oriented suburbs.

So what's sprawl? It's hard to extricate the car from this, but I think a decent definition would be the physical growth of the city at a significantly greater rate than the population growth. I think it would be difficult to argue that transit systems don't facilitate this to a degree. Usually that affect would be far overshadowed by a neighbouring expressway or arterial, but one excellent illustration would be the N-S LRT in Ottawa that would see the LRT line providing the needed downtown connection to some greenfield sites that would facilitate further sprawl. I say excellent, let's see how this influences the form of the developments to be more pedestrian friendly. Regardless, even if it's better sprawl, it's still sprawl. Also, although it can produce sprawl itself, transit also has the redeeming quality of inducing intensification. (ie. Yonge Subway) That alone makes it a far better investment than freeway development.

[Jared]

Well, it depends on what you define sprawl to be, I guess. As cities increase in population, they're obviously going to have to grow outwards; you can't keep getting higher forever.
Hong Kong could be said to sprawl, even though it's super-dense, with many people living in 40 story apartment towers, and transit has 95% or so market share of transportation modes.

When I refer to "sprawl", I mean this:

http://www.wiscities.org/sprawl.jpg

[Architype]

The whole definition of "downtown" is also suspect. What makes a district part of a "downtown"? Vancouver's West End is mostly housing and has relatively few stores. Many of the sidestreets are very quiet and look nothing like traditional downtown areas.
The West End is really an inner city neighbourhood, not actually part of downtown.

[Canadian Mind]

It will be in a few years

btw - any viewcones over west end? might be potential for 500-600 footers there in the future.

[squeezied]

i dunno how likely that is since i havent seen/heard of viewcones over the west end. but it's highly unlikely because the city wants a "dome" shaped skyline. a 500-600 footer sticking out of a bunch of shorties will definitely not achieve that.

anyways just a thought. looking towards the future, it's inevitable that the cbd will shift east, thus pulling the skyline that direction with taller buildings(think of the proposed tower adjacent to hotel georgia). imo it's gonna look really weird with tall towers east of the current core of the cbd contrast to shangri-la and 1133/1153 west georgia in the west. in other words, our skyline will look like an uncomplete dome unless a 700-800footer sprouts out in the current cbd.

[smasher000]

http://www.osu-ours.okstate.edu/report01/tulsa/aerialview.jpg

wow what a Dense city........so many appartments in Tulsa!....its crazy! Vancouver should be copying them! :haha:

Huh? Are you being sarcastic? I cant tell! :yuck:

[Hot Rod]

i dunno how likely that is since i havent seen/heard of viewcones over the west end. but it's highly unlikely because the city wants a "dome" shaped skyline. a 500-600 footer sticking out of a bunch of shorties will definitely not achieve that.

anyways just a thought. looking towards the future, it's inevitable that the cbd will shift east, thus pulling the skyline that direction with taller buildings(think of the proposed tower adjacent to hotel georgia). imo it's gonna look really weird with tall towers east of the current core of the cbd contrast to shangri-la and 1133/1153 west georgia in the west. in other words, our skyline will look like an uncomplete dome unless a 700-800footer sprouts out in the current cbd.

Ding Ding Ding Ding,

I think you're on to something! :tup:

Oh, and Shangri La will be taller than Tulsa's tallest.

[Rye $ingh]

The whole definition of "downtown" is also suspect. What makes a district part of a "downtown"? Vancouver's West End is mostly housing and has relatively few stores. Many of the sidestreets are very quiet and look nothing like traditional downtown areas.


It is downtown, the the entire round thing is considered downtown. Even areas surrounding are considered downtown, such as chinatown by some.

The "downtown" terminology is misleading and high "downtown" populations are not the Holy Grail of urban planning that they are made out to be.


Of course they are, would you rather have those people living in single detached houses in the suburbs? High density downtowns are vibrant, transit oriented, pedestrian friendly, its the heart of any city.


They tend to make core neighbourhoods busier and more interesting (maybe).


Yeah well thats life in the big city. You have to find housing for people, especially in a region that grows a lot every year. And if they are moving into the city rather than the suburbs than thats great.

[hollywoodnorth]

Huh? Are you being sarcastic? I cant tell! :yuck:

hehehe you caught me :cheers: :notacrook: :jester:

[SpongeG]

downtown vancouver is transit oriented?

i don't get that impression

it seems it has a lot of feeder routes but getting around downtown can be a pain on transit - other than the main serviced areas od robson, denman and davioe the rest is poorly underserved

[vanman]

The size of Vancouver's downtown is not that big, and it is very walkable. I personally would rather walk from point A to point B downtown rather than take a bus. (unless it's raining)However there should be a streetcar that rings the core and connects with stanley park/waterfront/stadium/science world/yaletown/english bay. The 3 Canada line Stations should make a major difference in transit accesibility downtown

[Jay in Cowtown]

Any of you ever been to Tulsa?

Yes

[Jay in Cowtown]

Oh, and Shangri La will be taller than Tulsa's tallest.

According to Emporis...

Shangri La - 197m
Williams Tower - 203m