BC Political Discussion: Election 2020 and Beyond

[djmk]

Every single town in this province has a housing crisis. How hard is it for the government to identify buildable lots, build something, fill it with tenants and the sell the whole development at a potential profit.

start with somewhere easy with lots of space.... let say Trail BC whatever.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Again, that's not the Signapore or Vienna Model.
That's not what they're talking about.

Six of one, half a dozen of another. It doesn't matter if 80% or 18% of Vancouver is actually government-owned, it's the same principle.

Originally Posted by whatnext

- snip -

It's relevant only to how it strongly implies you don't actually mean what you're saying (or worse, don't care). And I dunno, why is every other lot in the city becoming four floors or higher?

Even the small-time developers don't have to worry about not being able to raise rents by 10-20% every year.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The governments are also really slow in actually developing public lands (again, the largest owner of surface parking lots in DT Vancouver is CoV)

Where?

I can think of two on Seymour, owned by developers, one on Richards, owned by a developer, three on Pacific, owned by Concord and London Metropolitan, two on Granville, both privately owned, and 105 Keefer, owned by Beedie. The only City surface lots were the Granville Loops, and those are being developed, one on West Pender, being developed, and the Coal Harbour community centre, also being developed.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Where?

I can think of two on Seymour, owned by developers, one on Richards, owned by a developer, three on Pacific, owned by Concord and London Metropolitan, two on Granville, both privately owned, and 105 Keefer, owned by Beedie. The only City surface lots were the Granville Loops, and those are being developed, one on West Pender, being developed, and the Coal Harbour community centre, also being developed.

Denovian Harbour and Vanier Park parking lots. Also a bunch of empty lands in SEFC as well as the Viaducts and the lands they made a deal with Concord with over social housing (ok, the Concord lands aren't really the City's fault.)
Also, the Gastown and Pender St Parkades.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Denovian Harbour and Vanier Park parking lots. Also a bunch of empty lands in SEFC as well as the Viaducts and the lands they made a deal with Concord with over social housing (ok, the Concord lands aren't really the City's fault.)
Also, the Gastown and Pender St Parkades.

Do you ever consider why your comments are not taken seriously? You claim, in the context of potential development sites, "the largest owner of surface parking lots in DT Vancouver is CoV" and when asked where those are, you come up with a park (that couldn't be developed) and Vanier Park (not DT), SEFC (not DT), the Viaducts (still there, not developable yet) Concord's sites (so not CoV) and two parkades (not surface parking, and used as 'parking in lieu' for heritage buildings that can't provide parking).

So, to recap, not a single CoV surface parking lot Downtown that could be developed. There is one, at Larwill Park, owned by the City, but it has temporary modular housing for now, and is going to have the new VAG start construction, supposedly before the end of the year. And then there were none.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do you ever consider why your comments are not taken seriously? You claim, in the context of potential development sites, "the largest owner of surface parking lots in DT Vancouver is CoV" and when asked where those are, you come up with a park (that couldn't be developed) and Vanier Park (not DT), SEFC (not DT), the Viaducts (still there, not developable yet) Concord's sites (so not CoV) and two parkades (not surface parking, and used as 'parking in lieu' for heritage buildings that can't provide parking).

So, to recap, not a single CoV surface parking lot Downtown that could be developed. There is one, at Larwill Park, owned by the City, but it has temporary modular housing for now, and is going to have the new VAG start construction, supposedly before the end of the year. And then there were none.

Why not develop the large surface lot in Devonian Park? After all, Vision Vancouver proposed development on actual green space on civic golf courses. They could actually expand the green area of Devonian by developing a few buildings with underground parking for residents and the businesses/marinas in Coal Harbour. That lot is big.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why not develop the large surface lot in Devonian Park? After all, Vision Vancouver proposed development on actual green space on civic golf courses. They could actually expand the green area of Devonian by developing a few buildings with underground parking for residents and the businesses/marinas in Coal Harbour. That lot is big.

Absolutely! You should run for Council on that idea. I guess you'd be NDP? (No Damn Parking). Can we build on any of the parking lots on English Bay too? How about in Stanley Park. After all, it's not Stanley Parking.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Absolutely! You should run for Council on that idea. I guess you'd be NDP? (No Damn Parking). Can we build on any of the parking lots on English Bay too? How about in Stanley Park. After all, it's not Stanley Parking.

I’m not sure why you’re so attached to a paved lot in Devonian Park. As you know, the parking lots on English Bay are much more prominently sited on the water side of the major street (Beach) and would create fierce opposition. Though of course Kennedy Stewart’s reign of error made a couple of those lots virtually useless with Beach bike lane. Just as you know any development in Stanley Park would be a ridiculous suggestion. The lot at Devonian is right across from development on the Bayshore side and the Denman side. And let’s face it, Devonian is already a pretty underused, anonymous space. Who’s going to get upset about preserving it while losing a paved surface lot?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do you ever consider why your comments are not taken seriously? You claim, in the context of potential development sites, "the largest owner of surface parking lots in DT Vancouver is CoV" and when asked where those are, you come up with a park (that couldn't be developed) and Vanier Park (not DT), SEFC (not DT), the Viaducts (still there, not developable yet) Concord's sites (so not CoV) and two parkades (not surface parking, and used as 'parking in lieu' for heritage buildings that can't provide parking).

So, to recap, not a single CoV surface parking lot Downtown that could be developed. There is one, at Larwill Park, owned by the City, but it has temporary modular housing for now, and is going to have the new VAG start construction, supposedly before the end of the year. And then there were none.

I have not found a single person who hates me with more venomous poison than you.
Seriously.
What is wrong with you?

Oh yeah, someone is 'wrong on the internet'.
Get over it and touch grass.

---

Downtown is usually considered either the CBD, the DT Peninsula, or City Center (ie. including Broadway).

...I never said that necessarily meant they needed to be developed.


My statement is true.
Misleading, yes (purposely so), and the CoV has its reasons (or are holding them as reserve for something else), but I use that as an argument to point out that railing against the private sector for not developing fast enough is a bit hypocritical.

The government is just as bad at this, if not worse, especially because no one's pressuring them to make money or are forcing them to pay extra taxes for keeping land vacant.


Also, you can put the parkades underground and develop on top of them. No reason to have above-ground parking, which is treated the same as surface lots nowadays by developers. (BTW, both parkades and surface parking has a purpose in the same sense (excess parking for buildings without enough parking) you treat the city-owned parkades.)
No idea why you're giving them a pass on that one.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm not discussing my opinion. My questions is: if developers don't want to build for numerous reasons will the NDP force them too?

Perhaps they believe it will "just happen", like waving their magic wand to limit rent increases to below inflation and assuming there are no downstream consequences.

Why would they have to force developers to do anything? There are hundreds of thousands of units in the backlog of municipalities across the province.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I have not found a single person who hates me with more venomous poison than you.
Seriously.
What is wrong with you?

Oh yeah, someone is 'wrong on the internet'.
Get over it and touch grass.

Hate is too strong, but I think plenty of people on this forum have expressed frustration not with your opinions, but with you presenting opinions as facts. Changing City is doing the lord's work and actually taking the time to disprove your erroneous statements while the rest of us can't be bothered.

It is very annoying when someone makes up facts. Being blissfully incorrect is one thing, but being "misleading" on purpose is even worse.

[WarrenC12]

Hey maybe we found Vin's alt account.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Hate is too strong, but I think plenty of people on this forum have expressed frustration not with your opinions, but with you presenting opinions as facts. Changing City is doing the lord's work and actually taking the time to disprove your erroneous statements while the rest of us can't be bothered.

It is very annoying when someone makes up facts. Being blissfully incorrect is one thing, but being "misleading" on purpose is even worse.

The statement that the city owns the largest number of parking lots in DT is a true statement.
This is a true fact (though lacking complete context), and I stated it to make a point.


This is not an opinion, this is a fact.



I swear, the biggest problem was admitting there was more nuance to the situation.
I should have just held my 🞵🞵🞵🞵.



I wonder why I keep sticking to this place when anyone who states an alternate opinion gets mocked.
Like all you guys want is confirmation bias.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Citation needed. Without official numbers, it's fair to say that EasyPark and Impark are at #1 and 2.

The old joke comes to mind:

A woman called her husband and said, “Be careful on your drive home. I heard on the news that there’s someone driving on the wrong side of the highway.” The husband replied, “It’s not just one, it’s everybody!”

I've disagreed with CC, Farmer, Warren and many other Vancouver regulars on multiple occasions, and yet have never come to blows with any of them over it. As with the rest of the internet, if one is willing to play the ball, so's the rest of the forum.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Citation needed. Without official numbers, it's fair to say that EasyPark and Impark are at #1 and 2.

The old joke comes to mind:

I've disagreed with CC, Farmer, Warren and many other Vancouver regulars on multiple occasions, and yet have never come to blows with any of them over it. As with the rest of the internet, if one is willing to play the ball, so's the rest of the forum.

Maybe because you don't get into so many disagreements?
That's probably why I get targeted. I didn't even do or say anything wrong here. Some people just really like being right, especially if it involves government.


Yeah, if I kept my mouth shut as much as possible, I'd probably not get into so much 🞵🞵🞵🞵 either, like I did before.
After all, the 'experts', like Changing_City, are always right, which we all know and should never question.

But then I'd probably just end up leaving like I did last time.




Also, I wasn't the only one here criticizing City of Vancouver for keeping so many parking lots this time. Funny, that.
Not to mention, as I told you earlier, dogpiling isn't really productive in any manner whatsoever.

Wikipedia (for example) has rules against doing this in edit wars - for the simple reason that you can usually mobilize some random group of people to agree with you and dogpile someone to 'win' an argument by 'making them feel like they're on the opposite side of the road' to shut them up.


Consensus is even less meaningful on a small forum like this.


Honestly, this entire thing is completely pointless and should have ended several posts ago. Just give it up.

I don't even have time to respond to Transit Fantasies for more meaningful conversation if stupid things like this keep being dredged out and dumped onto the sidewalk.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Nope, a large part of my post history is basically just arguing with you or 2-4 other people, and exclusively those people... who, judging by their post history, seem to provoke these kinds of arguments all over the forum pretty often. It's not about dogpiling, it's about not being difficult for no reason; if there were still mods around, they'd've stepped in a long time ago, and probably not in your favour.

CC usually demonstrates that they know what they're talking about, and so posters like to shut up and listen to what they have to say. You usually don't; so far, your only proof for the CoV parking monopoly thing is Google Maps. And whatnext is usually one of the posters arguing for as much parking as possible, so their support might not be your most solid argument here.

You're the one who started this entire tangent, so feel free to stop any time you want - just write it off as another hot take and call it a day.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Nope, a large part of my post history is basically just arguing with you or 2-4 other people, and exclusively those people... who, judging by their post history, seem to get into these kinds of arguments pretty often.

I don't have a problem with being wrong, getting into debates (as I said earlier to you, I kind of do it on purpose to an extent, so...) or getting people calling me out (I will definitely rephrase the parking lot thing next time), I just have problems with people being toxic.

TBF, literally anyone can go to the CoV website and see what properties they own.
It really doesn't take an expert cataloguing every property to prove that the CoV has a ton of parking lots.

[Migrant_Coconut]

You have a very flexible definition of "toxic," and a very poor way of responding to such - that's going to create trouble for you no matter which site/s you decide to frequent.

Hot takes are best created and discarded quickly (unless, of course, one is looking for a fight). The CoV does own much of downtown's parking; private owners like Impark own much more, and at last check, aren't under any pressure to reserve them for future amenities such as parks or art galleries.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I don't have a problem with being wrong, getting into debates (as I said earlier to you, I kind of do it on purpose to an extent, so...) or getting people calling me out (I will definitely rephrase the parking lot thing next time), I just have problems with people being toxic....

To me, the issue is that you don't appear interested in listening to other people and respecting their opinions, even if they differ from yours. I certainly don't recall any "toxic" behaviour directed toward you and would have reported it if I did. As for "dogpiling", I spent rather a long time as an admin on Wikipedia and what's happening here is certainly not that.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

To me, the issue is that you don't appear interested in listening to other people and respecting their opinions, even if they differ from yours.

Dunno, I often feel the same about Migrant and some other people here. I guess it’s mutual.