Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[jlousa]

I'm still surprised people fail to comprehend hidden density. Just because certain stations around Vancouver's station look underdeveloped does not mean they necessarily are. Here's an interesting fact to drive home the point, Strathcona which doesn't look like all that much has 25% more people per sq km then the poster child of density North False Creek. The Broadway station area is way up there as well. Feel free to compare the Vancouver stations to the other cities and you'll be surprised to see how well Vancouver fairs against other so called hubs. Towers in the park has some of the lowest density around.

As per Stats Canada population/square km

Strathcona: 19,748
North False Creek: 15,813

[agrant]

But that would include the empty NEFC, yes? And the land around BC Place etc.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Feel free to compare the Vancouver stations to the other cities and you'll be surprised to see how well Vancouver fairs against other so called hubs. Towers in the park has some of the lowest density around.

Good point!
What webpage (source) I can look up these data? I would like to see around 29th Avenue station, which I remember have higher boarding counts than the average of the four Surrey stations!

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by CLC

Good point!
What webpage (source) I can look up these data? I would like to see around 29th Avenue station, which I remember have higher boarding counts than the average of the four Surrey stations!

I definitely want to see a source for that because I don't believe that for a second.

[jlousa]

Some one posted the data on Frances Bula's blog last week, the data is from the last census data provided by Stats Canada, it's all explained in the post and easily verifiable.

Source:
http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized...on-heights-views-and-chinatown/#comments

[satishreddy]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm still surprised people fail to comprehend hidden density. Just because certain stations around Vancouver's station look underdeveloped does not mean they necessarily are. Here's an interesting fact to drive home the point, Strathcona which doesn't look like all that much has 25% more people per sq km then the poster child of density North False Creek. The Broadway station area is way up there as well. Feel free to compare the Vancouver stations to the other cities and you'll be surprised to see how well Vancouver fairs against other so called hubs. Towers in the park has some of the lowest density around.

is no doubt that Vancouver is much denser than most suburbs and most cities it's size in North America. I think your figures of about 20,000 per square km for Strathcona is too high. 20, 000/km^2 is about 50,000/mile^2. The city of Vancouver has population of about 600,000 in 44 sq miles, which is about 13,500/mile^2.

Can you provide a link to the source? I couldn't find the info on the Statcan website. Thanks.

[satishreddy]

The following website shows station boarding data for Expo and Millenium line stations in 2007. I believe that the figures include people getting on and off at a station, so they are twice the usual boarding figures. Nanaimo and 29th Ave have about 4600 and 5100 boardings, respectively (I divided the numbers in the plots by 2). These are less than the average for the Surrey stations, but not by a huge amount.

See

http://www.paulhillsdon.com/?p=550\

[SpongeG]

when the arbutus corridor is used for streetcar or whatever it is - it will help take pressure of the Canada Line

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

when the arbutus corridor is used for streetcar or whatever it is - it will help take pressure of the Canada Line

Why?

I don't think people living/working along this corridor use the Canada line to go to the city centre (in other word, Canada line has no impact on this community)...

But probably the arbutus streetcar will make a nice feeder to the UBC line

[Zassk]

^ My thoughts exactly...

The only thing that would steal riders off of Canada Line would be a new commuter rail connecting Delta/WhiteRock directly to downtown.

[SpongeG]

theres loads of people who get on in between oakridge, broadway, marine drive, langara etc

its not just richmond people or commuters

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

theres loads of people who get on in between oakridge, broadway, marine drive, langara etc

its not just richmond people or commuters

True enough, but the Arbutus corridor will be built out last of the new rails (evergreen, and UBC). Leaving the Canada Line the sole N-S connector, and the one with the lowest capacity at that.

[officedweller]

I don't think of the Concord Lands as transit-oriented development.
It may be considered high density, but with the tower on podium form and all of the parks and open space and preservation of views demanded by the City, its label as a livable/suburban high density neighbourhood somehow fits.
Look at the CityGate residents clamouring for more park space.
Downtown South would be significantly denser than the Concord Lands (which n turn would be denser than the south side of False Creek).

Vancouver doesn't provide good examples of transit-oriented development
- at least not consistent ones. It only allows opportunistic rezonings of light industrial sites or already consolidated large sites to residential, not upzoning of existing single family residential to allow consolidation and densification.

WRT Strathcona - I'd venture to guess that there are a lot of single room occupancy hotels in the mix bumping up the population there - especially along Hastings Street. A more interesting example may be the population density of Mount Pleasant.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

The COV has to be the most hypocritical bunch of all municipal governments in the Lower Mainland. They made and call the most shots on the need to densify and advocate for TOD, but they made the least progress on densification and redevelopment of properties close to Skytrain stations. This still really baffles me to this day. . I think this in itself is partly contributing to suburban sprawl.

The only areas in COV that I consider to be remotely a properly densified area with condos outside of the downtown core are Joyce-Collingwood and Kerrisdale. The areas I would hope to see become a second Brentwood Town Centre would be Commercial-Broadway (they should really concentrate more public and rental housing in this area) and Oakridge areas.

First off I do agree that Vancouver could be more dense. But I also understand the reasons behind it not having condo towers around certain stations.

The biggest sticking point is the fact that you need to kick someone out of there home in order to build a condo tower where there house sits. So it is a lot easier to convert old industrial land or commerical land to residential and build a tower. So while it is all well and good to say for example there should be some towers around 29th ave station. Who are you going to kick out of there home to build one?.

Also I wonder in did any of the other cities convert some of there detached homes to higher density homes. In all cases where a tower has gone up it was in an area that was empty, or industrial, or commercial.

Also as Jlousa pointed. I think you would be surprised at how dense vancouver really is even when it is covered by detached homes. There are a lot more people living in extra suites that one might imagine. Case in point they are building a new house a few lots from me on a typical standard 122x33 foot loot. The house is about 1000 sq ft / floor. Top floor is one living quarter. Downstairs is split into two separate suites 500 sq ft for each one. Plus there is a lane way house of I'm guessing 250 sq ft. Basically a garage for one car. And small living room, bathroom and a bedroom upstairs.

[officedweller]

Rezoning for higher densities wouldn't be "kicking someone out of their home" unless they decide to sell (at higher prices due to the upzoning) - you're not having government expropriate land to build social housing.

Sure, developers may "swoop in" and buy blocks of houses - but if they can't get all of the houses they want, they may hold them for a while until they get all the properties they want or their purchases may be contingent on being able to assemble a suitable frontage. Then there are always tales of homeowners not selling and projects being built around them.

[jlousa]

It's not that simple though, once you rezone the land to allow for higher density, the property value jumps enormously. So although no one is forcing you to sell, your property taxes have increased significantly and in many cases people end up forced to sell because they can't afford the new taxes. I know some people would argue that it's okay as they can sell their house for a lot of money and move somewhere else, well not everyone wants to move. There are lots of people that would prefer to stay where they are. Being involved in the process personally has been much different then being involved in it on a business front and I've gained respect for the other side of the coin.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jlousa

There are lots of people that would prefer to stay where they are. Being involved in the process personally has been much different then being involved in it on a business front and I've gained respect for the other side of the coin.

This reminds me of the movie "UP!"

Perhaps rezoning could be contingent upon a majority vote in the neighborhood. In the meantime, property values go up slightly because of speculation. Developers who are interested buy up lands, but there is no rezoning until a certain % vote is met. When large parcels of land become available they are developed piecemeal through rezoning.

This is off the top of my head thinking and it's definitely difficult if not impossible to please everyone.

This stretches the process out over quite a few years, during such time as some have passed away, some have moved away, some have changed their mind.

[vanlaw]

I was on a 6 car Mark-I train today. Haven’t seen one of those in quite some time.

Also, the announcement for Commercial-Broadway has a new addition - something to the effect of "for UBC Thunderbird Arena Olympic venue, transfer to the 99 B-Line bus”.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

I was on a 6 car Mark-I train today. Haven’t seen one of those in quite some time.

Also, the announcement for Commercial-Broadway has a new addition - something to the effect of "for UBC Thunderbird Arena Olympic venue, transfer to the 99 B-Line bus”.

That's good. I was thinking they would do that.

It's amazing how quickly all the announcements changed within a short period of time. To think that TransLink had all the time to at least changed Stadium to Stadium-Chinatown and Joyce to Joyce-Collingwood, but only changed it recently (essentially for the Olympics).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jlousa

It's not that simple though, once you rezone the land to allow for higher density, the property value jumps enormously. So although no one is forcing you to sell, your property taxes have increased significantly and in many cases people end up forced to sell because they can't afford the new taxes. I know some people would argue that it's okay as they can sell their house for a lot of money and move somewhere else, well not everyone wants to move. There are lots of people that would prefer to stay where they are. Being involved in the process personally has been much different then being involved in it on a business front and I've gained respect for the other side of the coin.

The other side of that coin is that the cities are losing out on an enormous potential increase in revenue and are in effect subsidizing owning a house in a central, urban location. IE: some people get to own a well located house at the cost of a higher average tax rate for the rest of us.

As well, if large swaths of land around stations were pre-rezoned from single family to multi family, that would have an effect on the market price. If there was lots of supply for developers (IE every house) then that would bring down the price.

Now you might say, that will bring down the tax rates and thus decrease revenue for the city. However, if you believe in supply side economics, then having an increase in supply will encourage it's consumption. If it were cheaper, easer, and faster to redevelop land, then there would be more of it happening. Which would help stabilize market prices at an affordable level (we ARE the most unaffordable city in the world at the moment) and at the same time increase city revenues due to the fact there are more properties to asses.

One of the reasons property values are so high in Vancouver is because of this phantom potential value of the land IF it were rezoned for redevelopment because of the limited supply of rezoned land. Any property has potential to be multi family at some point, which makes it have a high potential income from it's value, which drives up the assessment, which drives up the selling price, which then drives up the market value of nearby homes. However, with the current rezoning process, which takes forever, most properties will never, ever realize this potential value and income, which means most people are paying for something they will never realize. It's ridiculous. If all well located land were rezoned, it would bring down the value of land that will most likely remain single family, making it more affordable for people to live there, while increasing the tax base by having more people live in the city (and having more people live in a city also increases revenue from business taxes quite a bit).