Vancouver Amalgamation

[berrypicker]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Hmm... I split them up based on if there was already a natural dividing line as is seen on Google Maps. For example:

- White Rock and Cloverdale are separated from Surrey by farmland
- Cloverdale and Langley City I think are still distinct cities with historical town centres. They could be merged though.
- Langley Township is split in two, as Walnut Grove and Fort Langley are separate from Aldergrove. The same could be said for WG and FL but I kept them together due to their low populations. In return Aldergrove takes up a whole swath of borderline suburban-rural development in the East Langley area.
- Delta and Tsawwassen are separate, but Delta retains a western stretch of land due to some boathouses near the bridge to Reifel Island (also some waterfront industry in the area)

* The key idea behind the boundaries is to mainly limit or slow suburban growth by placing more farmland outside of municipal boundaries (and instead in the hands of the regional district). Keep in mind though that they still have a lot of room to expand suburbs if they wish even with the new arrangement... the boundary zig-zags through some farmlands as it's hard to distinguish between suburbia and farmland, especially if the suburbia looks more like rural development (e.g. large plots but many houses in blocks).


- Coquitlam and Malliardville are also distinct, with Mundy Park and the power lines acting as the division place. The same can be said for the northern and southern halves of Port Coquitlam (split by the rail yard). However instead of splitting into 4 municipalities I joined the northern half of Port Coquitlam into Coquitlam.

The end result is messy but it may help in allowing more local interests to be heard and also help in preserving some pieces of farmland.

We already have the ALR and the green zone. Neighbourhoods are always unique even houses are unique in their neighbourhoods. Almagation isn't all bad it's not like Gastown, Yaletown, Kits, Lonsdale, Steveson, Clayburn, Matsqui Village, Huntington, Cloverdale etc. lost their unique character so I doubt Port Moody would loose it's character from joining Coquitlam. We should have wards for the muncipalties that join vancouver each ward elects a certain number of councilers who work on neighbourhood plans. Here are some almagations to conider and boundary changes.

Vancouver: Vancouver, Burnaby, New West. North Van City and district, West Van, UBC, Sea Island (Just because)

Wards: West Van, East Van. Burnaby, New West., North West Van, North Van
University Edowent Lands

Coquitlam: Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Belcarra, Anmore

Surrey: North Delta, North Surrey

White Rock: White Rock, South Surrey

Langley: Cloverdale Langley City Langley Township

Maple Meadows or Maple Ridge: Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows (They share a hospital, rcmp, a downtown, newspapers, big box retailers and jointley together operate the Pitt Meadows Airport.)

Can you tell Abbotsford was three sperate and distnict muncipalties like the Tri-Cities? The previous muncipalties used to be the largeley suburban District of Matsqui (also now known as West Abbotsford and Clearbrook), the more urban Distrct of Abbotsford and the more rual District of Sumas (like the tri cities). People usually complain that the rich suburbs take away from the core or the core takes away from the suburbs neither was the case for Abby before downtown Abby was rundown place with no one going their (like downtown Maple Ridge) that started to chage with the almagation suburbs came closer to the core with loosing any services, services were increased with things like a new rec centre in East Abby and still about 60-70% of Abby's land is still used for agriculture. All these things were able to happen because Abby was able to to work together and you know what the district of matsqui largely voted no but now no one complains.

[David]

The previous muncipalties used to be the largeley suburban District of Matsqui (also now known as West Abbotsford and Clearbrook), the more urban Distrct of Abbotsford and the more rual District of Sumas (like the tri cities).

Have you ever been to the Tri Cities? I don't see how they are analagous with Abbotsford. None of the three Tri cities are rural.

[berrypicker]

Originally Posted by David

Have you ever been to the Tri Cities? I don't see how they are analagous with Abbotsford. None of the three Tri cities are rural.

What I meant was the municipalities that Abbotsford amalgamated with were different then itself like the tri cities are different Coquitlam is more suburban while Port Moody is small town like. Of course their different then Abbotsford no one city can be the same. I also was showing how no one was left out or ignored the abbotsford people started to get a better downtown, suburbanites still got their amenities and sumas had their land remain largely agricultural.

[dennis1]

Vancouver would have a pop of 1 million if the merged with richmond and burnaby.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by dennis1

Vancouver would have a pop of 1 million if the merged with richmond and burnaby.

We know.

[trofirhen]

It might be worthwhile to look at examples of amalgamation.
Toronto is familiar to many of us.
It ranks today as one of the world's more livable large cities,
and ranks, according the Loughborough University world city classification,
in the Beta series. Beta- precisely. Like Melbourne.
Sydney and San Franciso are ranked Beta+.

Vancouver is the Delta (or lower) scale, but shows signs of a major
categorization leap.

In 1954, it might be hard to categorize the city then on the widely recognized Loughborough scale of today. (the study though by no means a Bible on the subject, is neverthess the normative measurement
for cities in Wikipedia, a widely accepted info source.))

The city then had a core city of Toronto, similar to the City of Vancouver, and a hodge podge of small communities stitched together.
There was the usual clash of interests and an inability to really get it together,
so Metroplitan Toronto was created>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>that big rectangle on the lake we knew for so many years, the the original
city of town Toronto for anyone not familiar, and I know most of you are,
there was a two-tiered level of government: Toronto city government, and The government of Metropolitan Toronto including the five extra boroughs;
Etobicoke, North York, York, North York, and Scarborough)

It continued, seemingly successfully until all the boroughs and the city was merged into One solid unit in 1998: The city of Toronto, a combination of the rectangur city, including the western lakeshore regions, and municipalities primarily to the north and west, Pickering and Oshawa on the east.

(yes I know most of you know this )

(The western expanses of Mississauga and Hamilton are, in effect, extensions of the city at medium density, and the Norther strings and clusters of places like Thornhill, Woodbrige, Vaughan etc, make it a large city pushing 6 million. (Bigger, in fact, that Houston Texas, although Houston is ranked bigger only because the surface area is over twice as large. The inner city designations of Houston are all smaller than Their Toronto counterparts)

(The greater Vancouver Regional District is the closet political structure corresponant this at present, and then only loosely,. It is mostly a population reference guide)
______________________________________________________________________________________

When Toronto merged in 1954, it had a Metropolitan population of less than 2 million. Although Vancouver has a long and winding road to travel to get to the size and importance Toronto is now, it is larger than Toronto was in the 1954 Metropliton Toronto instigation.

Like it or no, this is a tipping point for Vancouver.

Isn't it time to think about something now? There's the future to think of, and infrastructure and services are essential to have on a co-ordinated scale. (No, not that they're under-co-ordinated now, we just don't want to lose what we got)

Amalgamation is a serious option to consider

[Millennium2002]

I'm more reluctant in saying that amalgamation will solve our issues.

Surely, there are areas that need more regional oversight. The police force and transit are a good example of this, and in the case of TransLink, it's already in place.

However, I worry about other effects of amalgamation. What will it do to recreation centres? Will there be cutbacks as the city has to focus elsewhere? And how efficient and accountable is a bigger government over a bigger area? =S

[LeftCoaster]

Was bored at work today so cooked up some charts based off BCstats 2010 numbers.

Here are some ideas of sizes of amalgimated cities






Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Not to rehash an old discussion or anything, just thought it was interesting.

I personally prefer the second one and think it makes a lot of geographic sense. That being said I dont see it happening any time in the near future, possibly never.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Was bored at work today so cooked up some charts based off BCstats 2010 numbers.

Here are some ideas of sizes of amalgimated cities ->(refer to post, please)
[/URL]

Not to rehash an old discussion or anything, just thought it was interesting.

I personally prefer the second one and think it makes a lot of geographic sense. That being said I dont see it happening any time in the near future, possibly never.

I think it's a great idea. Not impossible if the idea gains steam and people vote and push for it. (the trickle-down approach will not work, as you say)

[DKaz]

I never really supported amalgamation but there is one reason to support it...



To make Derek Corrigan irrelevant.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by DKaz

To make Derek Corrigan irrelevant.

Haha well that's exactly what rehashed this idea in my mind. All the talk about Corrigan pulling his usualy nonsense in the evergreen line thread got me thingking about how Burnaby should really just be part of Vancouver... then I decided to run a couple other scenarios just out of curiosity.

Any amalgamation would be nearly impossible though, but its fun to speculate about.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Haha well that's exactly what rehashed this idea in my mind. All the talk about Corrigan pulling his usualy nonsense in the evergreen line thread got me thingking about how Burnaby should really just be part of Vancouver... then I decided to run a couple other scenarios just out of curiosity.

Any amalgamation would be nearly impossible though, but its fun to speculate about.

So why is it nearly impossible? montreal, ottawa, and toronto all amalgamated? why hasnt vancouver done it? Ive always thought it would make so much sense if we did it.

[incognism]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

So why is it nearly impossible? montreal, ottawa, and toronto all amalgamated? why hasnt vancouver done it? Ive always thought it would make so much sense if he do.

I can't see Burnaby (both council and citizens/residents) going for it. As annoying and counterproductive Corrigan is on the regional level, he runs a pretty tight ship locally. (And this is coming from a provincial & federal Liberal).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by DKaz

I never really supported amalgamation but there is one reason to support it...

To make Derek Corrigan irrelevant.

That's funny, I was just think to make Gregor Robertson irrelevant.

[Chadillaccc]

Amalgamate Vancouver and Richmond, so that the city of Vancouver would have economic control over the airport (I think?) and leave Burnaby out of it. Burnaby doesn't need to take on the debt and all other crap that Van and Rich have.

But if you're gonna do Van and Burn, might as well Amalgamate everything out Coq and Delta... kinda pointless if not.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Amalgamate Vancouver and Richmond, so that the city of Vancouver would have economic control over the airport (I think?) and leave Burnaby out of it. Burnaby doesn't need to take on the debt and all other crap that Van and Rich have.

But if you're gonna do Van and Burn, might as well Amalgamate everything out Coq and Delta... kinda pointless if not.

Geographically it makes way more sense to amalgamate Vancouver and Burnaby. Richmond, by virtue of being an island and the unique challenges that brings with it, has a better claim at being a stand alone city.

[jlousa]

The airport is on federal land and even if we amalgamated with Richmond it would not be under our jurisdiction.
Leftcoaster do the numbers you listed include the UBC lands?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The airport is on federal land and even if we amalgamated with Richmond it would not be under our jurisdiction...

Does that include Burkeville?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The airport is on federal land and even if we amalgamated with Richmond it would not be under our jurisdiction.
Leftcoaster do the numbers you listed include the UBC lands?

No I'm prettys ure they don't. The census report I pulled the data from only had Vancouver listed and then "unincorporated lands" which I think includes UBC, but also some other areas north of the city so I didnt bother trying to seperate them.

I guess 90% of the population of the unincorporated lands would be UBC land so maybe I should just include it. It would add nearly 25,000 people to Vancouver's pop.

[trofirhen]

Someone in the streetcar thread mentioned amalgamation with Richmond, and a moderator said that it belonged in THIS amalgamation thread, not under streetcar thread. So ... if one wishes to re-open the discussion ... on your mark ... get set .....