Suburban Updates

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Yeah no it's super smart to build on land that won't exist in a few decades.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Yeah no its super smart to build on land that won't exist in a dew decades.

Not going to respond to your wise, insightful comment.

However, out of genuine interest, is this really how the rest of the region perceives Richmond? Because I've heard it a handful of times, but having lived in Richmond for years it never comes up there. Sure people worry about the Big One, but there's no sense that the city is living on borrowed time the way I've seen implied elsewhere. Its sea level status really isn't taken into account as an issue at all.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Not going to respond to your wise, insightful comment.

However, out of genuine interest, is this really how the rest of the region perceives Richmond? Because I've heard it a handful of times, but having lived in Richmond for years it never comes up there. Sure people worry about the Big One, but there's no sense that the city is living on borrowed time the way I've seen implied elsewhere. Its sea level status really isn't taken into account as an issue at all.

I think the comment was regarding the inevitable global warming and sea level rise from melting snow and ice on the poles. Much easier to predict than the big one and it's ensuing tsunami.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Those Richmond proposals look spectacular, but as always everything will depend on execution. Great to see some office space in that second proposal too, it's much needed in Richmond's city centre. Hoping these get approved!



Absolutely. Buildings don't need to be tall to be interesting, or be part of good urban form. Richmond's city centre development is textbook smart growth, and the resulting landscaping and street interaction results are superb. Its downtown won't be nearly as tall as others' for obvious reasons, but its services will easily match anybody in its weight class.

After all the current projects are done, the next layer is going to cause Richmond to become a very interesting place. Eventually that kind of density is going to attract increasingly interesting non residential components: services, cultural facilities and even things that are destination scale attractions. Imagine the restaurants, clubs, arts facilities, parks and urban spaces, the built structure and improvements to the public realm. All of these things are bound to follow the number and density of residents central Richmond is accomplishing.

(How about a permanent, intensified, expanded and richer version of the night market. What could it be in 10, 15, 20 years?)

The flat building height limited form should be exciting to people on this forum. Here, in Vancouver, home of the clustered and endless highrise, we have this unique example of a mid-rise, on a small scale of older Milan, Vienna, etc., centre with which we can witness a different kind of growth . . . it is and will be fascinating.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I think the comment was regarding the inevitable global warming and sea level rise from melting snow and ice on the poles. Much easier to predict than the big one and it's ensuing tsunami.

Even if that were to happen (we've had a couple decades of alarmist predictions that haven't materialized), there's no reason why Richmond would cease to exist.

Half of the Netherlands is under sea level, same with New Orleans. If you have over a hundred thousand people living in Richmond, the dykes will be strengthened to make sure the land is kept dry just as the Netherlands and New Orleans are.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Even if that were to happen (we've had a couple decades of alarmist predictions that haven't materialized), there's no reason why Richmond would cease to exist.

Half of the Netherlands is under sea level, same with New Orleans. If you have over a hundred thousand people living in Richmond, the dykes will be strengthened to make sure the land is kept dry just as the Netherlands and New Orleans are.

Haven't materialized? These things don't happen on a quarterly or yearly financial schedule. It's well known and accepted about sea level rise and it's implications. Right wing ideology and environmental/geographical awareness are like oil and water and ignorance isn't a replacement for unbiased scientific evidence.

Plus building and maintaining a dike system on an alluvial deposit is difficult and expensive, especially as it gets higher. Who will pay for that? We don't have the same cash flow as the Netherlands.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Haven't materialized? These things don't happen on a quarterly or yearly financial schedule. It's well known and accepted about sea level rise and it's implications. Right wing ideology and environmental/geographical awareness are like oil and water and ignorance isn't a replacement for unbiased scientific evidence.

Plus building and maintaining a dike system on an alluvial deposit is difficult and expensive, especially as it gets higher. Who will pay for that? We don't have the same cash flow as the Netherlands.

...don't even get me started on this right-wing (anti environmental science stance as a function of pro profit/big business defence) craziness. Further point to consider here is the potential for liquefaction (in Richmond) during severe earthquakes......and the Vancouver region is due for such an event!

[Skygazer]

Yeah, the concern over Richmond's fate in the event of a Cascadia earthquake is definitely not unfounded. In addition to being built in a soil liquefaction zone it's pretty much right at sea level, and the coastal parts of the North American plate are expected to drop several feet in elevation if Cascadia goes, so there's definitely some real concern there, both short and long term.

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

...don't even get me started on this right-wing (anti environmental science stance as a function of pro profit/big business defence) craziness. Further point to consider here is the potential for liquefaction (in Richmond) during severe earthquakes......and the Vancouver region is due for such an event!

Besides loosing the Airport, I think the entire region would benefit after such a thing (ie loosing the monsters that shop that Costco)...

Richmond was never really a noble place to live in the 60's ... and possibly still to this day. Only it's relative closeness to the CBD of Vancouver has it's value increased(to some people).

Still design is sacrificed (although less now) in terms of building design,functionality and community due to strong environmental factors.

[jlousa]

Wow. Such ignorance on display. Richmond is not going anywhere in our lifetime nor our kids nor theirs. Liquification is not much of an issue around 3 road today and becomes less of an issue the more it is built out, and the dykes will take care of the questionable science of raising sea levels.
But hey no one is making anyone buy in Richmond, if you think you know better then by all means buy elsewhere. I'm not invested there but for other reasons, but personally feel the built form there is some of the best anywhere in the region.

[GlassCity]

Richmond's got some of the best urban planning going on in any of the suburbs right now, along with maybe Surrey. But it looks like for many of our forumers knowledge or caring about planning starts and ends with how tall the towers are.

I was already confused about Richmond's low visibility on here, but I had no idea outright hostility to it as exemplified by ryanmaccdn's post above existed at all. Very difficult to understand to say the least.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by jlousa

wow. Such ignorance on display. Richmond is not going anywhere in our lifetime nor our kids nor theirs. Liquification is not much of an issue around 3 road today and becomes less of an issue the more it is built out, and the dykes will take care of the questionable science of raising sea levels.
But hey no one is making anyone buy in richmond, if you think you know better then by all means buy elsewhere. I'm not invested there but for other reasons, but personally feel the built form there is some of the best anywhere in the region.

lol.........I'm from Los Angeles. I've been through major quakes that would make you poop in your pants. You have noooo idea about the devastation that even a small 6.0 quake could wreak and what such could do to Richmond! How old are you anyway???

[Caliplanner1]

Anyone here old enough to remember the devastation of the 1964 Good Friday Earthquake up the coast from Vancouver in Anchorage understands the danger of such events. Japan and even Mexico City quakes are also salient/sobering reminders.

[libtard]

Why is Richmond the 3rd most expensive city to live in after Vancouver and West Van?

The "big one" argument about Richmond basically translates into "I live in Slurrey and I'm jealous"

[urbancanadian]

I think jlousa is generally right that Richmond is safe. When he mentions increased development being safer, I think he means that all the high-density development essentially hardens the structural integrity of the core area. The more that is built, the more resilient it is to liquifaction. I'm not sure I'd call the science of rising sea levels "questionable" though (at least in terms of whether sea levels are actually rising or not). But the dykes will be strengthened over time.

I think if the "Big One" strikes south/west of Vancouver Island as expected then Downtown Richmond will be fine. The SFH areas are likely at much higher risk.

But if the "Big One" has an epicentre directly below Metro Vancouver and the city is directly hit with a 9.5 earthquake, then yeah, it's going to be ugly. But if that were to happen the devastation would be so severe that the region would be unrecognizable. The shaking would be so violent, most of the development on the North Shore (or other steep areas) would probably come crumbling down to the ground. That scenario can't really be prepared for though, and thankfully it's very unlikely.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

I think jlousa is generally right that Richmond is safe. When he mentions increased development being safer, I think he means that all the high-density development essentially hardens the structural integrity of the core area. The more that is built, the more resilient it is to liquifaction. I'm not sure I'd call the science of rising sea levels "questionable" though (at least in terms of whether sea levels are actually rising or not). But the dykes will be strengthened over time.

I think if the "Big One" strikes south/west of Vancouver Island as expected then Downtown Richmond will be fine. The SFH areas are likely at much higher risk.

But if the "Big One" has an epicentre directly below Metro Vancouver and the city is directly hit with a 9.5 earthquake, then yeah, it's going to be ugly. But if that were to happen the devastation would be so severe that the region would be unrecognizable. The shaking would be so violent, most of the development on the North Shore (or other steep areas) would probably come crumbling down to the ground. That scenario can't really be prepared for though, and thankfully it's very unlikely.

First off, are you a geologist or soil specialist/engineer? Further,...we don't necessarily need the "big one" to wreak havoc any where,...especially in the Vancouver/Richmond area. If you experienced the 94 quake in L.A. (for example) you'd appreciate how a relatively smaller quake can shift ground levels and topple well built structures that lie on fairly solid ground (compared with what's in Richmond). If in doubt of what I say just visit Earthquake Park up in Anchorage, Alaska and view the serious drop/rise in coastal land levels which has created a mini cliff. Any such vertical land movement will be devastating to coastal areas around Vancouver.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Wow. Such ignorance on display. Richmond is not going anywhere in our lifetime nor our kids nor theirs. Liquification is not much of an issue around 3 road today and becomes less of an issue the more it is built out, and the dykes will take care of the questionable science of raising sea levels.

Oh, jlousa. You and your anti-science far-right nonsense. (yes, this is sarcasm)

Even the most alarmist climate change activists claim a rise of less than 1m in sea levels by 2100. Most of Richmond is over 4m above sea level with many parts being 5 to 6m above sea level.

http://elevation.maplogs.com/poi/ric...ada.21095.html

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

I'm not sure I'd call the science of rising sea levels "questionable" though (at least in terms of whether sea levels are actually rising or not). But the dykes will be strengthened over time.

No one has called it questionable. What I said was that the global warming alarmist claims from the past 4 decades haven't materialized. Sure, the sea will probably rise, but even the most alarmist cases project a 1m rise by 2100. The more probable projections claim somewhere around half a meter rise in average sea levels.

Richmond will be safe for a very long time.

[Metro-One]

A lot of simple sea level rise models also do not account for the Coriolis effect.

Sadly for others, but better for us, more of the added water will bulge in the tropics, reducing how fast sea levels rise in the mid and polar latitudes.

Also, water is warmer and less dense in the tropics, further adding to the differential in sea level rise between the lower and higher latitudes.

I have always wanted to see a good model showing all of these factors, but sadly most public ones are just overly simplified that show a false equivalent rise over the entire Earth.

[red-paladin]

I think the main concern with Richmond is not an eventual sea level rise in hundreds of years from now, but the potential for liquefaction during 'the big one'
Please see the pdf here, it's a government map of Richmond by liquefaction potential: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/MINING/GEO...es/2010-3.aspx