Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Stingray2004]

FWIW, some Stats from Metro Vancouver/City of Vancouver for the 10-year period from 1999 - 2009:

Population Growth:

Metro Vancouver - 12%
City of Vancouver - 14.7%

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publ...ancouverPopulationEstimates1996-2008.pdf

Registered Vehicle Growth:

Metro Vancouver - 26.3%
City of Vancouver - 15.1%

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publ...-NumberofRegisteredVehicles1988-2009.pdf

Metro Vancouver Transit Ridership Growth:

Passenger Trips (Number of System Users) - 42%
System Boardings (Number of Trips) - 33.6%

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publ...s/KeyFacts-TransitRidership1989-2008.pdf

[junius]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

We already have an extensive and high-quality pedestrian and road network with adequate capacity within the City of Vancouver. Focusing attention and the weight of the office of mayor on the two areas where we are lacking in Vancouver, namely bicycle and rail public transit, is emminently appropriate.

Moreover there is ample, ample evidence that improving public transit, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian connectivity results in reduced congestion, improved public health outcomes, raises property values, and results in more vibrant and economically resilient cities through denser and more complete forms of urban development. Example: Yaletown.

Now the region as a whole does need transportation improvements and a variety of projects are being undertaken now by the Province and Translink. None of them are the sole purview of the Mayor of Vancouver and I think he, and mayors throughout the region, are entirely in their right to weigh in on their merits from the perspective of their city and as a party to the region as a whole.

We know full well that additional road infrastructure will find use. In fact it will induce use. There are absolutely valid places where new road infrastructure is required and redesign of existing infrastructure needed. However we have also discovered in the City of Vancouver that traffic calming works. It reduces vehicle speed on side streets, increases the opportunities for greenspace and landscaping in neighbourhoods, curb bumps makes intersections safer for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing crossing distance and improving vehicle sight lines, and, yes, it does limit the ease with which vehicles are able to travel from point A to point B at speed. Quite simply traffic calming helps make roads better neighbours.

Moreover, the argument that traffic calming is bad for the environment is faulty since it is premised upon an assumption that the number of vehicle trips remains constant, which is not true. The number of vehicle trips in the City of Vancouver has not matched the rate of population growth, nor is it positively correlated to population density. Quite to the contrary, the greater a neighbourhood's density of population and jobs, the lower the per capita rate of vehicle trips. People adjust their driving behaviour to the road infrastructure that is available. When adequate pedestrian, cycling, and transit options exist they are utilized.

The built environment is critical to this, of course. That is why places like downtown Vancouver, Kits, Mount Pleasant, Fairview Slopes, etc., have had their populations steadily grow and their rates of cycling, walking, and transit use climb, while a place like Surrey has had its population climb but those non-vehicle modes barely register since they barely exist and everything is too spread out. It's no wonder that the collective south-of-the-Fraser area is clamouring for more roads, bridges, and highways, as well as transit, since there are really no alternatives to the car and the place has been built up for decades based on that assumption.

What we need now is a committment to traffic calming in our built-up areas, and more importantly, a concerted and permanent investment in transit, walking and cycling infrastructure and land-use planning that does not assume everyone will drive. It will take decades to fix the stupidity of the last half-century of unrestrained, poorly planned automobile-centric growth and in the mean time some people will be unhappy having to live with the consequences of all the poor planning. But if we want to genuinely improve and, arguably, fix the automobile-centric parts of our cities we will have to do it.

As for the matter at hand, a left turn bay on Pacific Blvd, I say keep it until the streetcar is built.

Well said.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

We already have an extensive and high-quality pedestrian and road network with adequate capacity within the City of Vancouver. Focusing attention and the weight of the office of mayor on the two areas where we are lacking in Vancouver, namely bicycle and rail public transit, is emminently appropriate.

Moreover there is ample, ample evidence that improving public transit, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian connectivity results in reduced congestion, improved public health outcomes, raises property values, and results in more vibrant and economically resilient cities through denser and more complete forms of urban development. Example: Yaletown.

Now the region as a whole does need transportation improvements and a variety of projects are being undertaken now by the Province and Translink. None of them are the sole purview of the Mayor of Vancouver and I think he, and mayors throughout the region, are entirely in their right to weigh in on their merits from the perspective of their city and as a party to the region as a whole.

We know full well that additional road infrastructure will find use. In fact it will induce use. There are absolutely valid places where new road infrastructure is required and redesign of existing infrastructure needed. However we have also discovered in the City of Vancouver that traffic calming works. It reduces vehicle speed on side streets, increases the opportunities for greenspace and landscaping in neighbourhoods, curb bumps makes intersections safer for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing crossing distance and improving vehicle sight lines, and, yes, it does limit the ease with which vehicles are able to travel from point A to point B at speed. Quite simply traffic calming helps make roads better neighbours.

Moreover, the argument that traffic calming is bad for the environment is faulty since it is premised upon an assumption that the number of vehicle trips remains constant, which is not true. The number of vehicle trips in the City of Vancouver has not matched the rate of population growth, nor is it positively correlated to population density. Quite to the contrary, the greater a neighbourhood's density of population and jobs, the lower the per capita rate of vehicle trips. People adjust their driving behaviour to the road infrastructure that is available. When adequate pedestrian, cycling, and transit options exist they are utilized.

The built environment is critical to this, of course. That is why places like downtown Vancouver, Kits, Mount Pleasant, Fairview Slopes, etc., have had their populations steadily grow and their rates of cycling, walking, and transit use climb, while a place like Surrey has had its population climb but those non-vehicle modes barely register since they barely exist and everything is too spread out. It's no wonder that the collective south-of-the-Fraser area is clamouring for more roads, bridges, and highways, as well as transit, since there are really no alternatives to the car and the place has been built up for decades based on that assumption.

What we need now is a committment to traffic calming in our built-up areas, and more importantly, a concerted and permanent investment in transit, walking and cycling infrastructure and land-use planning that does not assume everyone will drive. It will take decades to fix the stupidity of the last half-century of unrestrained, poorly planned automobile-centric growth and in the mean time some people will be unhappy having to live with the consequences of all the poor planning. But if we want to genuinely improve and, arguably, fix the automobile-centric parts of our cities we will have to do it.

As for the matter at hand, a left turn bay on Pacific Blvd, I say keep it until the streetcar is built.

So I will ask again. Whats so wrong with cars?

Nothing is constant and in 50 years when the pressure on cities reverses because of technological and cultural changes then what are you going to do then. Suburbs and cars and car centric developments might be the way to go again, infact I think its safe to say at some point they will be the way to go again. Its good to have variety, variety in built forms, variety in cities and city planing.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

As for the matter at hand, a left turn bay on Pacific Blvd, I say keep it until the streetcar is built.

Agreed.
Look at Main & Terminal - heavy pedestrian traffic, a SkyTrain Station and fully accuated left turn bays in all directions.

Originally Posted by TZTag

Governor's Plaza tower nearing completion and showing off its new color. Believe this one was a leaky building, used to be blue. The majority of the brick is gone, replaced with panels and new paint. It's the building that is central to the view from David Lam park, and I think it looks better than it used to. Lower part of the complex is still wrapped.

I liked it better when it was blue - now it just blends into the blah biege background.

[junius]

Originally Posted by cornholio

So I will ask again. Whats so wrong with cars?

Nothing is constant and in 50 years when the pressure on cities reverses because of technological and cultural changes then what are you going to do then. Suburbs and cars and car centric developments might be the way to go again, infact I think its safe to say at some point they will be the way to go again. Its good to have variety, variety in built forms, variety in cities and city planing.

It is not so much right or wrong but a matter of how we prioritize their use and place in the transportation hierarchy. The biggest problem with cars is that they use up far more resources and space then other forms of transportation. Over the past 70 years or so we have prioritized them ahead of other forms of transportation and many people are now questioning the wisdom of that.

The environmental considerations along with the realities of peak oil are new issues that have tipped the scales against prioritizing the car in many people's minds.

Even if we had environmentally friendly vehicles there are still many reasons to question the wisdom of prioritizing single occupant vehicles over more efficient forms of transportation. Again, it is not about no cars versus cars everywhere but how resources and space is allocated.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by junius

He is someone who understands that the best cities are ones where the four options of transportation - walking, biking, public and private car - should all exist in a relatively equal arrangement. This is true of the great European cities such as London and Paris, the great Asian cities such as Tokyo and Hong Kong along with US cities such as New York and Chicago.

The terrible US planned cities such as Los Angeles and Houston have given themselves up SOLEY to the car. It is a recipe for disaster. Good for him and the rest of our planning department for recognizing this.

AMEN! We have a comprehensive road network - time to beef up the cycling, transit, and pedestrian-oriented spaces in Vancouver.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by junius

It is not so much right or wrong but a matter of how we prioritize their use and place in the transportation hierarchy. The biggest problem with cars is that they use up far more resources and space then other forms of transportation. Over the past 70 years or so we have prioritized them ahead of other forms of transportation and many people are now questioning the wisdom of that.

The environmental considerations along with the realities of peak oil are new issues that have tipped the scales against prioritizing the car in many people's minds.

Even if we had environmentally friendly vehicles there are still many reasons to question the wisdom of prioritizing single occupant vehicles over more efficient forms of transportation. Again, it is not about no cars versus cars everywhere but how resources and space is allocated.

Exactly. Even if they were all electric and zero emissions, single occupancy vehicles would still be the most efficient usage of the limited public right-of-ways that we call our roads. One need look no further than New York to see thousands of pedestrians squished on 10% of the street, while a couple dozen drivers take up 90% of the road. Not quite balanced. Not at all efficient mobility.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Exactly. Even if they were all electric and zero emissions, single occupancy vehicles would still be the most efficient usage of the limited public right-of-ways that we call our roads. One need look no further than New York to see thousands of pedestrians squished on 10% of the street, while a couple dozen drivers take up 90% of the road. Not quite balanced. Not at all efficient mobility.

ummm... did you mean to say "...single occupancy vehicles would still be the most EFFICIENT usage..."

or

"...the most INEFFICIENT usage..." ?

[junius]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

ummm... did you mean to say "...single occupancy vehicles would still be the most EFFICIENT usage..."

or

"...the most INEFFICIENT usage..." ?

I said it correctly. However I am speaking from the point of view of society as a whole.

Single occupant vehicles are more expensive at every stage of their existance on a per capita basis from manufacturing to operating to the road and parking infrastructure necessary to maintain them. Next presumably would be public transit followed by biking and finally pedestrian. From the perspective of society as a whole they are therefore a less efficient use of resources.

I am not an econmist but the point being made now by many people is that the individual motor vehicle infrastructure is A LOT more expensive than the alternatives when you factor in environmental considerations and energy issues. Furthermore there are very real and negative social costs in the how this infrastructure impacts on city design and lifestyle. In my opinion, less cars and more public options brings more energy and vitality to a city. I don't know of a single example of a city that defies this general observation.

The only values I can think of in favour of the car are convenience and freedom of mobility. They are important - no question - but they are need to be balanced against other civic priorities. Certainly we need to stop thinking of these as rights as opposed to choices.

Or were you refering to Paradigm4's comment?

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

FWIW, some Stats from Metro Vancouver/City of Vancouver for the 10-year period from 1999 - 2009:

Population Growth:

Metro Vancouver - 12%
City of Vancouver - 14.7%

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publ...ancouverPopulationEstimates1996-2008.pdf

Registered Vehicle Growth:

Metro Vancouver - 26.3%
City of Vancouver - 15.1%

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publ...-NumberofRegisteredVehicles1988-2009.pdf

Metro Vancouver Transit Ridership Growth:

Passenger Trips (Number of System Users) - 42%
System Boardings (Number of Trips) - 33.6%

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publ...s/KeyFacts-TransitRidership1989-2008.pdf

Pat on the back, us.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by cornholio

So I will ask again. Whats so wrong with cars?

In a word: scale.

When buildings, blocks, neighbourhoods, and whole cities are designed to complement the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the automobile over all other forms of mobility it produces an urban landscape that is widely spaced out and, thus, too inconvenient for people to travel around by other modes of transportation. Inconvenience leads to low rates of use, which is in turn used as evidence that automobile-oriented planning is all that is required to meet the needs of the super majority. It is a self-fulfilling cycle.

We all know that vehicles excel at carrying passengers in comfort at high speeds over long distances. The inertia and control characteristics of automobiles leads to a design of roads, blocks, and intersections that prioritizes the unimpeded movement of the automobiles at speed over the safety, convenience, and general experience of people walking and on bicycles.

The car-oriented urban landscape reflects that people cannot read numerous small signs or appreciate fine architectural detail while driving. As a result a language of large signage, simple shapes, and plain, repetitive, and often cartoonish architecture has emerged. Visible parking is typically located close to the street for the convenience of people driving and an overriding expectation of arrival by car leads to a host of architectural and site planning decisions that often ignore completely the experience, or existence, of people arriving by other modes of travel. Distances between buildings on a street grow due to parking lots and since the purpose of roads is viewed almost solely as a tool for transporting automobiles to the parking lots the result is that many buildings do not even bother facing the street at all, and instead face inwards to the parking lots.

The land-use planning of automobile-oriented cities and neighbourhoods emphasizes the separation of uses and this is possible to achieve because of the expectation that nearly everyone will travel by automobile. Based on this assumption it is not unreasonable to expect that people will have no reluctance to travel anywhere between hundreds of meters and tens of kilometres over relatively short periods of time between their homes, workplaces, errands, school, and recreation. Of course the assumption is based on the expectation of free-flowing vehicles moving at speed over a comprehensive road network.

When the roads get congested with everyone driving from point A to Z, and everywhere in between, the ability to conveniently travel between these points in a reasonable amount of time begins to erode. The road network is viewed as the problem, not group behaviour and land-use. Expansion of the road network temporarily alleviates the problem and increases the accessibility of all places along it but this increased accessibility then encourages more road use and more development, which further spurs demand for the roads. As congestion increases mobility decreases and the bedrock assumption, the inherent contract of this form of land-use planning and development which is that one can get to where they want to go quickly and easily by automobile, cannot possibly be maintained. In that environment any move to reallocate road space, truncate access, or introduce new road users is vociferously fought.

It all comes back to the core assumption that the super-majority will travel by automobile. From that flows an incalculable number of policies, cultural norms, built forms, and rules. It is a flawed assumption and in time it proves to be self-defeating. Moreover this form of land-use planning is not an inevitability. It has been a choice, made incrementally by hundreds of millions of people over scores of decades. However it has been a choice that was made without fully understanding, or even being aware, of the consequences it would have down the line.

Now that we know we have to start making changes, and fortunately we are.

[SFUVancouver]

Fairmont Pacific Rim | October 19th 2009


Taken by SFUVancouver, October 19th, 2009


Taken by SFUVancouver, October 19th, 2009


Taken by SFUVancouver, October 19th, 2009


Jameson House | October 19th 2009


Taken by SFUVancouver, October 19th, 2009

[Delirium]

some updates from this morning. all photos by me

CBC renos are almost done. They were paving the sidewalk. notice the trees on the roof..




new public stage


i like the use of dark stone


love these waterfalls! (at TV towers)

[Metro-One]

Those waterfalls are awesome! I really like the TV Towers. Thanks for the pics.

[junius]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

In a word: scale.

When buildings, blocks, neighbourhoods, and whole cities are designed to complement the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the automobile over all other forms of mobility it produces an urban landscape that is widely spaced out and, thus, too inconvenient for people to travel around by other modes of transportation. Inconvenience leads to low rates of use, which is in turn used as evidence that automobile-oriented planning is all that is required to meet the needs of the super majority. It is a self-fulfilling cycle.

We all know that vehicles excel at carrying passengers in comfort at high speeds over long distances. The inertia and control characteristics of automobiles leads to a design of roads, blocks, and intersections that prioritizes the unimpeded movement of the automobiles at speed over the safety, convenience, and general experience of people walking and on bicycles.

The car-oriented urban landscape reflects that people cannot read numerous small signs or appreciate fine architectural detail while driving. As a result a language of large signage, simple shapes, and plain, repetitive, and often cartoonish architecture has emerged. Visible parking is typically located close to the street for the convenience of people driving and an overriding expectation of arrival by car leads to a host of architectural and site planning decisions that often ignore completely the experience, or existence, of people arriving by other modes of travel. Distances between buildings on a street grow due to parking lots and since the purpose of roads is viewed almost solely as a tool for transporting automobiles to the parking lots the result is that many buildings do not even bother facing the street at all, and instead face inwards to the parking lots.

The land-use planning of automobile-oriented cities and neighbourhoods emphasizes the separation of uses and this is possible to achieve because of the expectation that nearly everyone will travel by automobile. Based on this assumption it is not unreasonable to expect that people will have no reluctance to travel anywhere between hundreds of meters and tens of kilometres over relatively short periods of time between their homes, workplaces, errands, school, and recreation. Of course the assumption is based on the expectation of free-flowing vehicles moving at speed over a comprehensive road network.

When the roads get congested with everyone driving from point A to Z, and everywhere in between, the ability to conveniently travel between these points in a reasonable amount of time begins to erode. The road network is viewed as the problem, not group behaviour and land-use. Expansion of the road network temporarily alleviates the problem and increases the accessibility of all places along it but this increased accessibility then encourages more road use and more development, which further spurs demand for the roads. As congestion increases mobility decreases and the bedrock assumption, the inherent contract of this form of land-use planning and development which is that one can get to where they want to go quickly and easily by automobile, cannot possibly be maintained. In that environment any move to reallocate road space, truncate access, or introduce new road users is vociferously fought.

It all comes back to the core assumption that the super-majority will travel by automobile. From that flows an incalculable number of policies, cultural norms, built forms, and rules. It is a flawed assumption and in time it proves to be self-defeating. Moreover this form of land-use planning is not an inevitability. It has been a choice, made incrementally by hundreds of millions of people over scores of decades. However it has been a choice that was made without fully understanding, or even being aware, of the consequences it would have down the line.

Now that we know we have to start making changes, and fortunately we are.

Just brilliant.

[officedweller]

Thanks.
No pics of the aboriginal pavillion on the Queen E plaza?

***********

BTW - the older awning on the Granville side of 701 West Georgia is coming down (the original one clad in white marble aggregate). Presumably its replacement will match the awning that they installed along the H&M frontage of the mall.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks.
No pics of the aboriginal pavillion on the Queen E plaza?

***********

BTW - the older awning on the Granville side of 701 West Georgia is coming down (the original one clad in white marble aggregate). Presumably its replacement will match the awning that they installed along the H&M frontage of the mall.

yes I noticed that the other day and was so happy to see it go. Is there still some of that awning left by the canacord tower? If so does anyone know if they will be taking that down too

[officedweller]

Yeah, there is some by the Canaccord Tower - presumably it will go too.

[SpongeG]

vancouver is not alone in the regiont - they can't just become an exclusive playground for downtown residents - which seems to be what they want to happen

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

When buildings, blocks, neighbourhoods, and whole cities are designed to complement the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the automobile over all other forms of mobility it produces an urban landscape that is widely spaced out...

There is one problem with your hypothesis.

The grid system and shape of city blocks, the prohibitive distance between even the earliest of neighbourhoods, and the spread-out nature of the urban landscape of most North American cities, including Vancouver, were well-established prior to the invention of the automobile.

Thus, the automobile did not create the problem of urban distance; it solved it. The automobile allowed us to traverse the pre-existing distances with unprecedented speed and convenience, raising our productivity and standard of living to undreamt levels.