Ok, I can now make a proper response now that I've actually returned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio
If Maple Ridge would be in Austria it would have a 90-100kmph commuter rail and a 160-200kmph express line. You would be at Waterfront station in 15 min by express or 30 min by standard rail with 10 or more stops in between. Maple Ridge wouldn't be a far flung suburb, it would be just a extension of downtown and equivalent to say east Vancouver to live in. Mission would then be a suburb and Hope would be a Maple Ridge.
But anyways these comparisons bother me. Back on topic. I would much rather develop the ALR then the mountains which are a amenity to the growing region. Vancouver isn't self sufficient and never will be, the importance of the ALR is overblown even if I think not all should be developed. Having said that if you want to build up the mountain higher, I suppose go for it so long as you increase the accessibility to other similar areas (something that has absolutly not been happening for decades now). We doubled the people in the region but built almost zero trails and zero parking lots and zero access points to the near city parks/forests/lakes/mountains etc. Make them accessible. There is plenty of wild BC left that is nowhere near Vancouver and it will for ever be wild and hardly visited.
|
Thank you, someone actually gave a response I was looking for. I've already pretty much gave the response to the rest of the post before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
It's an infographic - give all the information, even the irrelevant stuff. Pretty sure that part is basically just "well, there's technically land available, but we don't recommend it."
What makes Fleetwood or Cloverdale different from other 'burbs? I'm not talking about zoning or definitions, I'm talking about how that is literally the land area required for a hundred thousand houses - and stuff like the DNV's Innovation District isn't even limited to SFHs (still think it's a bad plan, but what the hell, looks like the woodlands are goners anyway). Whether that and Langley's expansions - Walnut Grove, etc - count toward the 7,330 hectares or have already been subtracted, I do not know, but put them all together and you more or less have something the size and population of one of Surrey's towns.
True, Vienna's not really a 1:1 comparison; seems like it'd be what would happen if you kicked everybody out of the North Shore and SoF and shipped them into Richmond or Burnaby. Point remains, it's a whole lot more compact than what we're used to.
That's kind of the point. If Surrey and Maple Ridge were in Austria, they'd be ten little Aldergroves instead of Detroit.
|
They're not that different (other that Cloverdale is horribly under-dense). The boundaries are pretty much layed out like Burnaby's Town Center Quadrants, though, and I didn't want to use the measurements because doing so doesn't account for things like Industrial Land Greenfield consumption (which will be a high portion of sprawl in terms of land area, and IS needed).
Why if the Innovation District bad again?
The # is updated for 2017, and the RGS was implemented in 2011. I accounted for that in my numbers.
Yes, but Vienna is also not a city with a perpetual housing crisis and difficulty fighting NIMBYs, both historically and nowadays. It also doesn't have the problem of an
expanding Industrial Land inventory competing with everything else (which seems to be a problem largely unique to Vancouver in the developed world for the most part still).
Threaded Mode