Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin
Oh dear squeezied, I guess you can never get away from the curse of having such a foul mouth.
(1) Vancouver IS still losing out to the suburbs when it comes to creating density. How else can the suburbs squeeze so many people in at such a short time frame, as compared to Vancouver?
(2) Let me ask you this: If Burnaby, or other municipalities, never built those high rises, where do you think those people would go then? 
(3) Have we ever talked about "walkability", and who is scrambling to change directions now huh? FYI, Brentwood, Metrotown, Kingsgate area, and many other high density town centres have improved on their walkability over the years, more so than you can imagine. How much has Vancouver improved on its walkability in recent times, especially areas outside downtown? Seems about the same to me since the 60s.
(4) Of course those town centres are a lot denser than anywhere in Vancouver outside downtown proper. Don't you see the darker patches? It doesn't matter the highrises are surrounded by SFHs, because if mid-rises and townhomes were built instead and these surrounded by SFHs, the density would be reduced. Vancouver isn't massively turning SFH neighbourhoods into high density sites like you claim. Cambie Street corridor does not represent the whole of Vancouver.
(5) Of course the rate of population increases have to do with density creation, especially for municipalities that do not have any more land for SFH neighbourhood growths, such as New Westminster and Burnaby. Geez. Where else do you think so many additional residents can be squeezed into? Laneway housing or perhaps chicken coops? |
Vin, do you even bother reading what I posted before? I’ve explained in quite detail but evidently you either choose to ignore it, glance over it, misinterpret it or your mind is just too dense with your flawed logic to absorb any rational thinking.
(1) You claim that Vancouver is losing out and ruining itself by not densifying or adding enough population. What you fail to understand or choose to acknowledge time and time again is that highrises are not the only vehicle for adding density effectively. If you actually look at the density map which you’ve claimed to have done so, you would see neighbourhoods of modest heights in Vancouver having higher densities than the majority of suburban town centres with highrises. The reason why suburban town centres are not as dense as you seemingly believe is because the towers are spaced far apart from each other, lowering the effective density. You can argue that it is much more ‘liveable’ for residents to have distance from neighbouring towers and whatever reasons you have to support highrise towers but that is not the point. The point is Vancouver has continued to densify in no insignificant amount, albeit not in the form you envision.
(2) If Burnaby didn’t build highrises, people would likely live further away and exacerbate sprawl in outlying suburbs. But that is not the point. Your original point was that was that Burnaby was able to preserve lands for parks and recreation within the city because highrises curbed single family housing in these parks and natural reserves. You fail to understand that whether or not Burnaby builds highrises or not those parks would remain as parks. Do you honestly think that the construction of highrises was the reason there is no single family housing development on the steep mountainside of Burnaby Mountain, the marshlands of Deer Lake or construct float homes in Burnaby Lake?
(3) You’re the one arguing how Vancouver isn’t walkable aside from downtown. Do your words have no substance that you couldn’t be bothered remember what you say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin
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.
|
I’m just going to paste the exact thing I wrote previously because evidently you couldn’t be bothered to read or understand things:
“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) Refer to (1). Your claim that town centres are a lot denser than anywhere in Vancouver outside downtown proper is just outright false. Kitsilano is denser than Brentwood, Lougheed or Edmonds. Only Metrotown is denser. Even so, the Olympic Village is denser than Metrotown. Yes humble mid-rise neighbourhoods can be denser than highrise neighbourhoods so don’t fool yourself into thinking only highrises can accommodate high densities.
(5) Clearly you don’t understand the point. Surrey increased in population the most by turning its agricultural and forested lands into SF housing. Do you think Surrey is the most progressive then? Population itself says nothing about the type of development that occurred in a municipality. And don’t kid yourself, Burnaby was still subdividing larger lots into smaller single family houses in the past 30 years. You claim that suburbs have added large populations to their municipality. The fact is Vancouver is less than 5% of the metro area and added 20% of the regional growth in the last 30 years. That is impressive for a city that has already built out; they are clearly not ‘losing out’, whatever that means.
Now stop scrambling to change directions and actually address the core of my comments, not just bits that you can take the topic off to a tangent.
p.s. I like how you think I’m fouled mouth by calling you arrogant and ignorant. When you continue to subscribe to flawed logic you will get call out for that.
Prev
Linear Mode
