Should Vancouver build over the 1200 ft development limit?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Question is, why stretch West Van bus service even thinner than it already is, when the Hollyburn/Cedardale/Dunderave area (with existing upgradeable bus routes) would suit the same kind of lowrises and townhomes just fine?

I think we all know the answer, but it's worth asking anyway.

It would cost too much to acquire properties in those areas is the most likely answer for the kind of density they could develop.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Question is, why stretch West Van bus service even thinner than it already is, when the Hollyburn/Cedardale/Dunderave area (with existing upgradeable bus routes) would suit the same kind of lowrises and townhomes just fine?

I think we all know the answer, but it's worth asking anyway.

That's not how that works. TransLink, not West Van, provides bus service (for all practical purposes, I know about the Blue Bus, but they're contracted for TransLink).

Same with development demand- people will live wherever they can buy a decent home they can afford, not just West Van.

Yes, NIMBYs, but the thing is that densification and sprawling out isn't likely an either/or. (One of TransLink's Transit 2050 Scenarios (Automation-Derived Growth, I think it was?) has the population growing by 90% by 2050 (unlikely, but that's pretty much the upper possible boundary- after that I'd be worried about genetic engineering, but I'm getting off track) - and I'd like to point out that Vancouver is already falling vastly short of previously-made dwelling construction projections.
https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.ne...s_actual-1.png
https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog...n-projections/
My worry is that something WILL break and the current Urban Growth Boundary isn't enough to keep Vancouver's RE situation turning to SF levels of bad.
I may be wrong, (I live next to Willoghby, and have witnessed its transformation first-hand - just off Google Earth Historical View I'd suggest we've eaten through 2/5th of it since 2003, without doing any measurements)

Redevelopment is most likely to be focused on Ambleside due to the "Grand Bargain" problem (and as West Vancouver is planning). For West Vancouver, distrupting the hornet's nest too much could kill the YIMBY goose, so you have to be careful to only step on the ones that provide the most cost-benefit ratio.

If Point Grey accepts Townhomes and Lowrises in the future city-wide plan outside the arterials, I will concede that the NIMBY parts of the North Shore may be worth a 2nd look.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

No it's filtered there it doesn't come from another dam.

Yeah, you're right. You learn something new every day. The plant would have to be shut down if development encroaches on the Eagle Lake watershed. Maybe they could build a new park to encompass the Lake and watershed (about 1.71km2), considering the steep land it encompasses, but building up that far would inevitably bring some people in.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

That's not how that works. TransLink, not West Van, provides bus service (for all practical purposes, I know about the Blue Bus, but they're contracted for TransLink).

Same with development demand- people will live wherever they can buy a decent home they can afford, not just West Van.

Yes, NIMBYs, but the thing is that densification and sprawling out isn't likely an either/or. (One of TransLink's Transit 2050 Scenarios (Automation-Derived Growth, I think it was?) has the population growing by 90% by 2050 (unlikely, but that's pretty much the upper possible boundary- after that I'd be worried about genetic engineering, but I'm getting off track) - and I'd like to point out that Vancouver is already falling vastly short of previously-made dwelling construction projections.
https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.ne...s_actual-1.png
https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog...n-projections/
My worry is that something WILL break and the current Urban Growth Boundary isn't enough to keep Vancouver's RE situation turning to SF levels of bad.
I may be wrong, (I live next to Willoghby, and have witnessed its transformation first-hand - just off Google Earth Historical View I'd suggest we've eaten through 2/5th of it since 2003, without doing any measurements)

Redevelopment is most likely to be focused on Ambleside due to the "Grand Bargain" problem (and as West Vancouver is planning). For West Vancouver, distrupting the hornet's nest too much could kill the YIMBY goose, so you have to be careful to only step on the ones that provide the most cost-benefit ratio.

If Point Grey accepts Townhomes and Lowrises in the future city-wide plan outside the arterials, I will concede that the NIMBY parts of the North Shore may be worth a 2nd look.

"West Van bus service" as in "bus service for West Van overall" - doesn't matter if it's TransLink, Blue Bus or CMBC, there's always going to be a finite amount of buses and/or drivers. Headways beyond Dunderave are only every 30 minutes as it is.

A big part of TOD is being on the way: the main transit corridor is Marine, so build on Marine and gather more and more ridership until there's cause to expand to 7-15 minute service. The new suburb can be as transit-friendly as possible, but it won't matter so long as it requires TransLink to waste resources on brand new Upper Lands lines instead of improving Marine... and then everybody is stuck with crappy 30-minute service.

Well, at least Point Grey has actual growth - it's a certain kind of achievement, being the only municipality in the metro to be shrinking in the middle of a housing crisis.
I'd argue that the Lower Mainland's sprawled as much as it needs to for the next century, that West Van's hardly going to make or break the supply problem on its own, and that by the time Ambleside's all built out and we have even 145% of 2020's population (let alone 190%) many of the NIMBYs will no longer be with us.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

"West Van bus service" as in "bus service for West Van overall" - doesn't matter if it's TransLink, Blue Bus or CMBC, there's always going to be a finite amount of buses and/or drivers. Headways beyond Dunderave are only every 30 minutes as it is.

A big part of TOD is being on the way: the main transit corridor is Marine, so build on Marine and gather more and more ridership until there's cause to expand to 7-15 minute service. The new suburb can be as transit-friendly as possible, but it won't matter so long as it requires TransLink to waste resources on brand new Upper Lands lines instead of improving Marine... and then everybody is stuck with crappy 30-minute service.

Well, at least Point Grey has actual growth - it's a certain kind of achievement, being the only municipality in the metro to be shrinking in the middle of a housing crisis.
I'd argue that the Lower Mainland's sprawled as much as it needs to for the next century, that West Van's hardly going to make or break the supply problem on its own, and that by the time Ambleside's all built out and we have even 145% of 2020's population (let alone 190%) many of the NIMBYs will no longer be with us.

The reasons for West Van shrinking have a lot to do with electoral attitudes. City Council doesn’t really want to keep the city shrinking for obvious reason, and that was part of what spurred Cypress Village- it’s either accept a city without a long-term future, or go against your own people to try to build one.

Well, a piece of land ether size of New West is not small.

I would be sceptical that they NIMBYs would all die out and don’t just get replaced with new ones. Maybe reduce. Willowgbhy as a whole is about as large (~15 Km2), so it’s not exactly not going to make a dent either. I don’t think the housing situation would be any better if not for Willowgbhy.

Maybe there is the potential for a Density Only solution, but I don’t see it. Even Tokyo sprawls out slightly. http://atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Tokyo

I guess East Maple Ridge and Silverdale are ‘in the way’ of bus services and WCE to Mission, as few as there are. But the distances are also much greater both to Vancouver and to anywhere else, with the developable area spread out between ALR land. Unless we get rid of that.

Pretty much nowhere else significant is really ‘in the way’.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The reasons for West Van shrinking have a lot to do with electoral attitudes. City Council doesn’t really want to keep the city shrinking for obvious reason, and that was part of what spurred Cypress Village- it’s either accept a city without a long-term future, or go against your own people to try to build one.

Well, a piece of land ether size of New West is not small.

I would be sceptical that they NIMBYs would all die out and don’t just get replaced with new ones. Maybe reduce. Willowgbhy as a whole is about as large (~15 Km2), so it’s not exactly not going to make a dent either. I don’t think the housing situation would be any better if not for Willowgbhy.

Maybe there is the potential for a Density Only solution, but I don’t see it. Even Tokyo sprawls out slightly. http://atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Tokyo

I guess East Maple Ridge and Silverdale are ‘in the way’ of bus services and WCE to Mission, as few as there are. But the distances are also much greater both to Vancouver and to anywhere else, with the developable area spread out between ALR land. Unless we get rid of that.

Pretty much nowhere else significant is really ‘in the way’.

Sometimes leadership involves making unpopular decisions. While I can sympathize with the politicians for once, politically convenient decisions like density in the mountains will cost the town (I hesitate to call it a "city") in the long run.

It's entirely possible that NIMBYs are recycled instead of replaced, but it's worth noting the vocal minority of West Van's young adults that came out in support of the B-Line. Whether they keep that attitude or they turn into senile reactionaries over time is anybody's guess, but there's hope.

Yeah, but Tokyo's also got the population of all of Canada. Personally I'd wait for the 3.5M or 4M mark (or at least a North Shore SkyTrain) before we consider building up the mountains.

I wouldn't call either suburb "transit-oriented." Cypress Village planners may be using TOD as a selling point, but that's not going to work in practice - the geometry is all wrong for buses and trains. Maybe a gondola.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Let’s be honest, it’s not going to just stop because we want it to, even with more liberal regulations. There could be another Great Recession and there’d still be a booming RE sector due to backed up demand.

After Willoughby/Clayton/Port Kells, all the prime developable land will be gone, and that’s going to force people who are buying that land into more marginal land, go further into the Valley, or the ALR. Or all of the above. We’re already seeing Industrial land do that, since it has nowhere else left to go.

The only thing that’s stopping a lot of the North Shore and Ioco/Belcarra from being developed is bad road connections.

They don't have to if there are better policies to upzone many of the current lower density neighbourhoods. West Vancouver is particularly notorious for stubbornly not changing their current zonings.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by misher

I'm usually pro density but it already takes a long time to drive up there filled with a bunch of loops and I feel like West Van lacks a lot of the restaurants and jobs needed to support more people (bridge traffic!). Until we increase infrastructure or shift jobs to West Van more housing in West Van seems problematic.

I would be open to perhaps a vacation/cabin resort or restaurants up there? Something that doesn't screw with traffic.

I don't think it should be developed, environmental concerns not withstanding, have any of y'all ever lived or driven through mountains? It's extremely time consuming, dangerous and higher altitudes have more miserable weather.

Where I used to live at one one point in the Kootenays, driving up or down one of the benches (basically places where the river used to crest back in the ice age) had a steep grade, and (school buses) had a hard time climbing them, totally gutless propane buses eventually got replaced with Diesels that could climb the hill at more than 10km/h. When it was snowy, entire portions of the bus route would just be skipped because it was too dangerous or difficult for the bus driver to go down the mountain.

To put it another way, there are plenty of other spaces that should be developed "upwards" before even considering this. We don't have 110 story towers in Vancouver, we have no reason to to consider more sprawl. Surrey sprawls because it's goal is to be "bigger than Vancouver" without the services of Vancouver. One major sign that a city is doing something very wrong is that there are any portable classrooms. Vancouver has vacancy problems causing them to consider closing the schools. Gee I wonder why that is, maybe because couples who want to have children have been priced out of the city.

Building up the mountain doesn't solve that. You'll be adding an additional hour to drive, and emergency services will simply not show up if the roads are treacherous.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sometimes leadership involves making unpopular decisions. While I can sympathize with the politicians for once, politically convenient decisions like density in the mountains will cost the town (I hesitate to call it a "city") in the long run.

It's entirely possible that NIMBYs are recycled instead of replaced, but it's worth noting the vocal minority of West Van's young adults that came out in support of the B-Line. Whether they keep that attitude or they turn into senile reactionaries over time is anybody's guess, but there's hope.

Yeah, but Tokyo's also got the population of all of Canada. Personally I'd wait for the 3.5M or 4M mark (or at least a North Shore SkyTrain) before we consider building up the mountains.

I wouldn't call either suburb "transit-oriented." Cypress Village planners may be using TOD as a selling point, but that's not going to work in practice - the geometry is all wrong for buses and trains. Maybe a gondola.

Considering not that many Asian Cities are Vancouver's size- other cities with >2-3% sprawl per year that are fairly dense already:
http://atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Vienna
http://atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cit...int_Petersburg


Well, neither East Maple Ridge nor the Upper Levels can be called places with decent services as is. I guess my main question would be what the worse poison would be. Closely-spaced homes on an area with likely inevitably windy roads or father-spaced ones with a better grid system and father from the city center?
Unless I guess you start dezoning ALR the underused/subdivided East Maple Ridge ALR parcels (most of them).

West Van still has a bit of (admittedly really low-quality land) above Horseshoe Bay. It might be a good enough Western Anchor to justify a Town Center on... Maybe. I don't even think the land is quality enough for that though, REALLY rugged.

Originally Posted by Kisai

I don't think it should be developed, environmental concerns not withstanding, have any of y'all ever lived or driven through mountains? It's extremely time consuming, dangerous and higher altitudes have more miserable weather.

Where I used to live at one one point in the Kootenays, driving up or down one of the benches (basically places where the river used to crest back in the ice age) had a steep grade, and (school buses) had a hard time climbing them, totally gutless propane buses eventually got replaced with Diesels that could climb the hill at more than 10km/h. When it was snowy, entire portions of the bus route would just be skipped because it was too dangerous or difficult for the bus driver to go down the mountain.

To put it another way, there are plenty of other spaces that should be developed "upwards" before even considering this. We don't have 110 story towers in Vancouver, we have no reason to to consider more sprawl. Surrey sprawls because it's goal is to be "bigger than Vancouver" without the services of Vancouver. One major sign that a city is doing something very wrong is that there are any portable classrooms. Vancouver has vacancy problems causing them to consider closing the schools. Gee I wonder why that is, maybe because couples who want to have children have been priced out of the city.

Building up the mountain doesn't solve that. You'll be adding an additional hour to drive, and emergency services will simply not show up if the roads are treacherous.

Originally Posted by Vin

They don't have to if there are better policies to upzone many of the current lower density neighbourhoods. West Vancouver is particularly notorious for stubbornly not changing their current zonings.

See my earlier posts. I just don't believe Vancouver isn't going to sprawl at all now, or at 4M people. Maybe the Upper Levels are too important to remove (the viewcones exist for a reason...).

@Kisai: Surrey and Langley are sprawling and densifying in their town centers at the same time. Take a look around at the gentrification measures and new Apartment blocks in Langley City, or towers and SFU in Surrey Central.

Bad services very often happen in areas being densified. When are we getting that OV Elementary School? Remember how long it took to get a new school in International Village?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Considering not that many Asian Cities are Vancouver's size- other cities with >2-3% sprawl per year that are fairly dense already:
http://atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Vienna
http://atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cit...int_Petersburg

Vienna's half the area of Vancouver though, and Saint Petersburg's over twice our population. Again, not saying we won't need to grow out ever, just not anytime soon - if we do, it'll be a want, not a need, and it'll mean that somebody goofed.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, neither East Maple Ridge nor the Upper Levels can be called places with decent services as is. I guess my main question would be what the worse poison would be. Closely-spaced homes on an area with likely inevitably windy roads or father-spaced ones with a better grid system and father from the city center?
Unless I guess you start dezoning ALR the underused/subdivided East Maple Ridge ALR parcels (most of them).

West Van still has a bit of (admittedly really low-quality land) above Horseshoe Bay. It might be a good enough Western Anchor to justify a Town Center on... Maybe. I don't even think the land is quality enough for that though, REALLY rugged.

Option C: rework the windy streets and develop from there. Surrey's in the process of straightening out their road network as they redevelop (Richmond too, though less intelligently); it's at least physically possible to convert Hammond or Cottonwood into a grid full of townhomes, if not politically.

Yeah, there's not a lot of good options for West Van if they don't want to take the nuclear option or wait the boomers out. But they have to know that building towers further and further up the mountains is worse than doing nothing.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vienna's half the area of Vancouver though, and Saint Petersburg's over twice our population. Again, not saying we won't need to grow out ever, just not anytime soon - if we do, it'll be a want, not a need, and it'll mean that somebody goofed.



Option C: rework the windy streets and develop from there. Surrey's in the process of straightening out their road network as they redevelop (Richmond too, though less intelligently); it's at least physically possible to convert Hammond or Cottonwood into a grid full of townhomes, if not politically.

Yeah, there's not a lot of good options for West Van if they don't want to take the nuclear option or wait the boomers out. But they have to know that building towers further and further up the mountains is worse than doing nothing.

Yeah, it’s not really feasible to find something that’s a perfect analogue for Vancouver. My point is that it’s not uncommon for major amounts of sprawl to happen even if you densify.

The RGS never tried to stop sprawl entirely, only slow it and redirect it. They keep moving the containment boundary outwards. http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...mendments.aspx
But the RGS is overall very pro- density.


Yes, but now you’re ignoring my question. I’m not disagreeing with you that we should densify further. I’m asking what’s the worse poison.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yeah, it’s not really feasible to find something that’s a perfect analogue for Vancouver. My point is that it’s not uncommon for major amounts of sprawl to happen even if you densify.

The RGS never tried to stop sprawl entirely, only slow it and redirect it. They keep moving the containment boundary outwards. http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...mendments.aspx
But the RGS is overall very pro- density.


Yes, but now you’re ignoring my question. I’m not disagreeing with you that we should densify further. I’m asking what’s the worse poison.

Sure, but that's because Vienna and St Pete are relatively full; Vancouver isn't.

Think I'm looking at the motions wrong, because I'm seeing a lot of rezoning of existing space inside the boundary; the overall ALR and greenspace bordering the metro is still intact.

Re: Maple Ridge, that was my answer to the question - nobody should need to pick poisons at all. It's entirely possible to rebuild the town with grids near the centre AND further out.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, but that's because Vienna and St Pete are relatively full; Vancouver isn't.

Think I'm looking at the motions wrong, because I'm seeing a lot of rezoning of existing space inside the boundary; the overall ALR and greenspace bordering the metro is still intact.

Re: Maple Ridge, that was my answer to the question - nobody should need to pick poisons at all. It's entirely possible to rebuild the town with grids near the centre AND further out.

Yes, yes you are. There's maps in the actual reports if you need something more visual. The expansions range from very small to fairly large.

Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1285, 2019.
The amendment includes revisions to regional land use designation boundaries in the Cities of New Westminster and Vancouver, and the Village of Anmore; the addition of three new Frequent Transit Development Areas in New Westminster; and a change to the Urban Containment Boundary in Anmore.

Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1283, 2019.
On October 4, 2019, the MVRD Board adopted a Type 3 minor amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future for the subject property located at 7969 Highway 91 Connector, to change the regional land use designation of the subject property from ‘Agricultural’ to ‘Industrial’ and to include the subject property within the Urban Containment Boundary.

Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1203, 2014
On June 27, 2014, the GVRD Board adopted a Type 2 amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future’s Regional Land Use Designation maps to redesignate portions of the area called “Southlands” from Agricultural to General Urban and extend to the Urban Containment Boundary to include these areas, and to redesignate portions of the site from Agricultural to Conservation and Recreation.

That's just 3. There's more as you go down, but you get the idea.

Also:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/metro2...s/default.aspx

About 20-25% of the region’s growth [to 2040] is anticipated to occur on greenfield lands. The other 75-80% of growth will occur through infill and redevelopment in existing urban areas."

The current containment boundary is expected to hold development to 2040."

(though it somehow also contains large portions of the Upper Lands... )

But I guess, if you had to?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vienna's half the area of Vancouver though, and Saint Petersburg's over twice our population. Again, not saying we won't need to grow out ever, just not anytime soon - if we do, it'll be a want, not a need, and it'll mean that somebody goofed.



Option C: rework the windy streets and develop from there. Surrey's in the process of straightening out their road network as they redevelop (Richmond too, though less intelligently); it's at least physically possible to convert Hammond or Cottonwood into a grid full of townhomes, if not politically.

Yeah, there's not a lot of good options for West Van if they don't want to take the nuclear option or wait the boomers out. But they have to know that building towers further and further up the mountains is worse than doing nothing.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone here ever lived in Vienna or a European city. Vienna has large sprawl, the city is only just over 400 square kms but the metro is significantly larger and the city in the 21st century stretches much much further then the metro. Half or more of the people who work in Vienna actually live in detached or row houses. Vienna has a fantastic transportation network that gets you to the city from upto 150 kms in any direction in a hour or less. Deffenitly within a 100 kms of Vienna those are all defacto suburbs and even crossing borders there is alot of back and forth movement. Those are the Surreys and Maple Rdges. Only difference is that Maple Ridge is a hour plus from downtown but only 35kms. Vienna stretches with its network and connects people 3 to 4 times as far in equal or less the travel time. There is a huge amount of villages and towns and cities that link to Vienna via rail and highways. These towns and cities and villages ARE the sprawling suburbs of Vienna and where many live. Yes Vienna is dense and has a lot of of apartments, but there is way more to Vienna then the core city. And that's the case for most European cities.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yes, yes you are. There's maps in the actual reports if you need something more visual. The expansions range from very small to fairly large.





That's just 3. There's more as you go down, but you get the idea.

Also:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/metro2...s/default.aspx

(though it somehow also contains large portions of the Upper Lands... )

But I guess, if you had to?

Got it, thanks. Though that same infographic goes on to say that "The Remaining Urban Lands in West Vancouver have limited development potential due to topographical constraints," so they aren't seriously considering the Upper Lands either.

At any rate, 20% of 1.1+ million (growth projected by 2040-50) is 220,000 people, or about 80-100k units/homes built on greenfield; Fleetwood or Cloverdale on their own have about 60k each. Sure looks like infill in Langley, the DNV, et al would be more than enough.

Originally Posted by cornholio

Sometimes I wonder if anyone here ever lived in Vienna or a European city. Vienna has large sprawl, the city is only just over 400 square kms but the metro is significantly larger and the city in the 21st century stretches much much further then the metro. Half or more of the people who work in Vienna actually live in detached or row houses. Vienna has a fantastic transportation network that gets you to the city from upto 150 kms in any direction in a hour or less. Deffenitly within a 100 kms of Vienna those are all defacto suburbs and even crossing borders there is alot of back and forth movement. Those are the Surreys and Maple Rdges. Only difference is that Maple Ridge is a hour plus from downtown but only 35kms. Vienna stretches with its network and connects people 3 to 4 times as far in equal or less the travel time. There is a huge amount of villages and towns and cities that link to Vienna via rail and highways. These towns and cities and villages ARE the sprawling suburbs of Vienna and where many live. Yes Vienna is dense and has a lot of of apartments, but there is way more to Vienna then the core city. And that's the case for most European cities.

Farmland, small towns and interspersed woodland =/= North American suburbistan. Roughly half of metropolitan Vienna's population is within the city limits, as compared to a quarter of Vancouver's.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Got it, thanks. Though that same infographic goes on to say that "The Remaining Urban Lands in West Vancouver have limited development potential due to topographical constraints," so they aren't seriously considering the Upper Lands either.

At any rate, 20% of 1.1+ million (growth projected by 2040-50) is 220,000 people, or about 80-100k units/homes built on greenfield; Fleetwood or Cloverdale on their own have about 60k each. Sure looks like infill in Langley, the DNV, et al would be more than enough.



Farmland, small towns and interspersed woodland =/= North American suburbistan. Roughly half of metropolitan Vienna's population is within the city limits, as compared to a quarter of Vancouver's.

I know, except the 'Special Study Area' marker means they ARE seriously considering the idea. That's the point of being a special study area. It's just kind of interesting how that piece of land got there. One'd think they'd remove it and thus prevent it from bonking up their 'remaining land' numbers.

You forget that Fleetwood and Cloverdale by Surrey (I assume that you got your information from Wikipedia) are different than what the neighborhoods are usually defined as.

A better estimate is from the Metro Vancouver infographic page. Extrapolating the loss of remaining Urban Lands (and removing West Van's remaining lands, because other than Cypress Village, most of the Land is either undevelopable due to the 1200ft limit or very low quality- technically developable but likely low density only-ie. I don't trust them), there's 2570 ha left by 2050, assuming their numbers are correct, or about a 3rd.

That doesn't even account for the composition of those lands. Much of the Surrey Lands are reserved for industrial, for instance, or are extremely difficult to access (Maple Ridge, Brookswood).

Either way, you're starting to get to the point where by 2050, you want to probably start making big expansions to the UGB going forwards to keep things under control.

Side Note: The City of Vienna is also 4.5x the City of Vancouver in Area. It's actually LESS dense (4,326.1/km2 vs 5,492.6/km2 for Vancouver) because of that.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Got it, thanks. Though that same infographic goes on to say that "The Remaining Urban Lands in West Vancouver have limited development potential due to topographical constraints," so they aren't seriously considering the Upper Lands either.

At any rate, 20% of 1.1+ million (growth projected by 2040-50) is 220,000 people, or about 80-100k units/homes built on greenfield; Fleetwood or Cloverdale on their own have about 60k each. Sure looks like infill in Langley, the DNV, et al would be more than enough.



Farmland, small towns and interspersed woodland =/= North American suburbistan. Roughly half of metropolitan Vienna's population is within the city limits, as compared to a quarter of Vancouver's.

As I said Vienna stretches farther then its "metropolitan area". The fact is they have all housing forms and they have sprawl. It's not just Vienna city or Vienna metro, it's a much larger connected economic region thanks to continually improving infrustructure that brings more and more people closer together without changing the distance.

People always bring up some European city or Vienna and try to use it to support some view and ignore the fact these regions are much larger and very different from North America. There is more to them then the cities, more to them then the metros.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I know, except the 'Special Study Area' marker means they ARE seriously considering the idea. That's the point of being a special study area. It's just kind of interesting how that piece of land got there. One'd think they'd remove it and thus prevent it from bonking up their 'remaining land' numbers.

You forget that Fleetwood and Cloverdale by Surrey (I assume that you got your information from Wikipedia) are different than what the neighborhoods are usually defined as.

A better estimate is from the Metro Vancouver infographic page. Extrapolating the loss of remaining Urban Lands (and removing West Van's remaining lands, because other than Cypress Village, most of the Land is either undevelopable due to the 1200ft limit or very low quality- technically developable but likely low density only-ie. I don't trust them), there's 2570 ha left by 2050, assuming their numbers are correct, or about a 3rd.

That doesn't even account for the composition of those lands. Much of the Surrey Lands are reserved for industrial, for instance, or are extremely difficult to access (Maple Ridge, Brookswood).

Either way, you're starting to get to the point where by 2050, you want to probably start making big expansions to the UGB going forwards to keep things under control.

Side Note: The City of Vienna is also 4.5x the City of Vancouver in Area. It's actually LESS dense (4,326.1/km2 vs 5,492.6/km2 for Vancouver) because of that.

It's an infographic - give all the information, even the irrelevant stuff. Pretty sure that part is basically just "well, there's technically land available, but we don't recommend it."

What makes Fleetwood or Cloverdale different from other 'burbs? I'm not talking about zoning or definitions, I'm talking about how that is literally the land area required for a hundred thousand houses - and stuff like the DNV's Innovation District isn't even limited to SFHs (still think it's a bad plan, but what the hell, looks like the woodlands are goners anyway). Whether that and Langley's expansions - Walnut Grove, etc - count toward the 7,330 hectares or have already been subtracted, I do not know, but put them all together and you more or less have something the size and population of one of Surrey's towns.

True, Vienna's not really a 1:1 comparison; seems like it'd be what would happen if you kicked everybody out of the North Shore and SoF and shipped them into Richmond or Burnaby. Point remains, it's a whole lot more compact than what we're used to.

Originally Posted by cornholio

People always bring up some European city or Vienna and try to use it to support some view and ignore the fact these regions are much larger and very different from North America. There is more to them then the cities, more to them then the metros.

That's kind of the point. If Surrey and Maple Ridge were in Austria, they'd be ten little Aldergroves instead of Detroit.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's an infographic - give all the information, even the irrelevant stuff. Pretty sure that part is basically just "well, there's technically land available, but we don't recommend it."

What makes Fleetwood or Cloverdale different from other 'burbs? I'm not talking about zoning or definitions, I'm talking about how that is literally the land area required for a hundred thousand houses - and stuff like the DNV's Innovation District isn't even limited to SFHs (still think it's a bad plan, but what the hell, looks like the woodlands are goners anyway). Whether that and Langley's expansions - Walnut Grove, etc - count toward the 7,330 hectares or have already been subtracted, I do not know, but put them all together and you more or less have something the size and population of one of Surrey's towns.

True, Vienna's not really a 1:1 comparison; seems like it'd be what would happen if you kicked everybody out of the North Shore and SoF and shipped them into Richmond or Burnaby. Point remains, it's a whole lot more compact than what we're used to.



That's kind of the point. If Surrey and Maple Ridge were in Austria, they'd be ten little Aldergroves instead of Detroit.

If Maple Ridge would be in Austria it would have a 90-100kmph commuter rail and a 160-200kmph express line. You would be at Waterfront station in 15 min by express or 30 min by standard rail with 10 or more stops in between. Maple Ridge wouldn't be a far flung suburb, it would be just a extension of downtown and equivalent to say east Vancouver to live in. Mission would then be a suburb and Hope would be a Maple Ridge.

But anyways these comparisons bother me. Back on topic. I would much rather develop the ALR then the mountains which are a amenity to the growing region. Vancouver isn't self sufficient and never will be, the importance of the ALR is overblown even if I think not all should be developed. Having said that if you want to build up the mountain higher, I suppose go for it so long as you increase the accessibility to other similar areas (something that has absolutly not been happening for decades now). We doubled the people in the region but built almost zero trails and zero parking lots and zero access points to the near city parks/forests/lakes/mountains etc. Make them accessible. There is plenty of wild BC left that is nowhere near Vancouver and it will for ever be wild and hardly visited.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Having said that if you want to build up the mountain higher, I suppose go for it so long as you increase the accessibility to other similar areas (something that has absolutly not been happening for decades now). We doubled the people in the region but built almost zero trails and zero parking lots and zero access points to the near city parks/forests/lakes/mountains etc. Make them accessible. There is plenty of wild BC left that is nowhere near Vancouver and it will for ever be wild and hardly visited.

Make some gondolas too for people who can't walk.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Make some gondolas too for people who can't walk.

I mean, TBF, even the Provincial Parks Board wants to do that sort of thing to reduce overcrowding at the existing parks and infrastructure- the problem is money. Same thing with the Metro Parks Board. How in the world Surrey Bend still isn't anywhere near finished, and Pinecone Burke is actually LESS accessible than it used to be (due to trail degradation) is amazing.

But the issue is really money. I guess using some CACs for parks isn't a bad idea.