Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin
(1) Vancouver's downtown grid and compact plan was designed from the 1800s. I laud the planners of the past, and will always do so. The city has had more than a century of headstart to get to what it is today. The current generation is riding on the glory of the past, but slowly ruining it as the suburb cities today have better long-term visions.
(2) Numbers please? Which areas are you comparing? West side? East side? I've said before that Burnaby started out as a SFH suburb, but the City has been taking great steps in improving their density, and the results are showing today. Besides, Burnaby's SFH neighbourhoods do not occupy the entire city, leaving lots of parklands, woodlands and even agricultural lands, unlike Vancouver's. If Burnaby did not embark on the town centre developments, SFH would have engulfed all the available green and industrial spaces by now.
(3) Again see point (1). Other than downtown, where else is Vancouver really "walkable"? The city is blessed with a lot of coastal land which makes it rather walkable, but that's no excuse for the inability to improve the inland areas. At least Burnaby town centres are increasingly walkable as compared to 10 years ago, and will get more compact in the coming years.
(4) I think you are the one not looking at it. Either that or you fail to interpret it properly. I've already explained about it numerous times, but you and Squeezied could only utter "you are not looking at the map".
|
Well, since you brought up my name... Give it up Vin, you sound like a 12 year old. Your Vin logic is just getting worse and worse.
(1) So you think Vancouver is ruining itself by densifying its SF neighbourhoods by building a variety of compact housing types: townhomes, midrises and highrises? Are you so narrow minded that you think only highrises are the way to go? Again, you're fooling yourself if you think neighbourhoods with modest heights cannot be dense. Collingwood, Marpole, Kitsilano and especially the West End have modest heights but high densities. So what's my point? Stop pretending you actually care about density and just say you just like tall buildings, nothing more.
(2) Obviously obvious facts aren't obvious to you... Here's another density map with the numbers you so desire (yet you yourself aren't able provide any real facts other Vin facts).
source:
https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2017/09/08/the-vienna-model/
Burnaby's town centres are surrounded by low density SFH, with similar densities to Vancouver's SF West Side neighbourhoods. There's no comparison the much denser East side.
To save youself embarrassment, those grey areas are undeveloped/underdeveloped not because of Burnaby decided to build town centres to curb SFH development (which is seriously one of the most ridiculous things coming from you), they're grey because of geographical and land zoning reasons. Starting from the north, there's Burnaby mountain, Burnaby Lake, HWY 1 right-of-way, Deer Lake and the low-density industrial and office parks of south Burnaby. So applying Vin logic, you think if Burnaby didn't build high rises in its town centres they would instead build SFH on steep mountains or swampy grounds next to a lake?
Put some logic into your thinking please. If Burnaby didn't build highrises in its town centres people would just live elsewhere. Would it cause sprawl in some outlying areas of the region? Probably. Would it cause a SFH to sprout out in the marshlands of Burnaby Lake? Get real.
(3) You really have no idea what walkability is. What does 'coastal' lands have anything to do with walkability? Inland areas can't be walkable? You make it sound as though only highrises allow neighbourhoods to be walkable, which is ludicrous. Again, Collingwood, Marpole, Kitsilano and the West End... all walkable. Even most of the SF neighbourhoods in Vancouver are very walkable with the grid layout with retail and shops lining a good portion of the arterial roads, particularily in the northern half of the city. Burnaby, as well as most other suburbs, has large-scale blocks with windy curvy streets and its arterials are just lined with more SFH. There's a good reason why people drive more in the suburbs than in Vancouver, because that's how it was designed. And frankly, while it's great that Burnaby is building high rises in its town centres, don't fool yourself into thinking these are in the same walkability level as you'd find in Vancouver. These towers are still very suburban in design with surface parking, driveways and empty lawn. Google Vantage in Brentwood if you have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't see much pedestrians there, for a good reason. Before you respond, look up what walkability is, because evidently you have no idea what it means.
(4) I think I've said enough. Clearly you're the one who doesn't look at maps or read up on facts. Instead you rely on your own misguided Vin logic and misinterpret things to suit your narrow ideals, namely 'taller is better, no argument!'. I would suggest that you get outside of your Yaletown bubble and really see the rest of the region for what it really is instead of coming up with this flawed logic of yours. Because seriously, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
Prev
.
Linear Mode
