Burnaby: 2,750.7/km2
Metrotown: 7,907/km2
Vancouver: 5,749.9/km2
Fairview: 10,281.3/km2
West End: 23,838.4/km2
It's not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamusmcduff
There's more to being a core/center to the region than just population. Most suburban cities have been building their town centres to be bedroom communities, and they lack the amenities and destinations that Vancouver has, and likely always will. The cost of land now makes the value proposition of building things like the PNE, BC Place, Seawall, aquarium, or even the concentration of jobs, unobtainable for Surrey or Burnaby. No one is going to build those things when the ppsf of residential is so much higher than any other use. The suburbs have enough trouble getting retail space, let alone job centres or cultural uses. Both Burnaby and Surrey had to scale back the commercial and office plans/requirements for their City/town centres because no one was building those spaces, and developers were demanding they let them build more residential. The suburbs can't become hubs if there's no reason to go there.
|
Surrey
might be able to break out of that trap. It's far enough away from downtown (also separated by a river) and the future population high enough that jobs and amenities could eventually concentrate around Whalley and Fleetwood.
Burnaby, however, is caught in Vancouver's orbit, if not future Surrey's as well. It's always going to be a place where residents go somewhere else for the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spr0ckets
Some people prefer the 'bedroom' communities outside the core, despite it meaning long commutes for work or other stuff. So what if they don't have the stadiums, the beaches, the tourist traps and whatnot?
|
Nothing wrong with it - the world needs both. But when some poster boasts that their bedroom community of choice is set to become the heart of the city, the rest of the forum gets to call that ridiculous.
Threaded Mode