ahzdeen

The city is there to uphold standards. Now whether those standards are correct or not is up to debate. But whatever those standards are, they are the problem of those making them. In this case, the city. Don't blame developers for building crappy buildings. Blame the cities for allowing them. Blame the cities for making stupid regulations that disallow good developments and allow crappy ones. That's not the developers fault, they just work within the system laid out by the city.

Then that's the city's fault for not holding their ground, not the developers. Back to the salesman example. Is it the salesman's fault for selling the TV below cost, or the customer's?

it's like going in a low-balling someone on a house... it's part of the business. The person getting low-balled must have a minimum requirement ($ or specs) that need to be reached before a deal will be made. If it's really that bad, then they shouldn't be accepted in the first place. That's like a salesperson saying "it's not my fault I sold that TV at a loss, they low-balled me and I had to sell it at that price." ridiculous.

But without the motivation of profit, why would they build it? Hell, why would they build anything?

I have yet to see you not complain about anything. But then again, that's a very Vancouver attitude anyway.

This is exactly why the logic escapes me. So you want density, but are saying that they should build 30 high rises instead of 1 skyscraper? Then you come and say that the footprint of both buildings would be the same. I'm not championing skyscrapers, it's just that the logic is horrible. It's easier to build a single detached home in the suburbs, does that mean all houses in the suburbs should be single detached homes? Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's right. You, of all people, should know that.

Someone who complains about everything.

You would be a whiner. As I'm sure you know, NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard". Therefore, if you don't live there, how can it be in your backyard? You're just the guy who likes to stick his hand in everything.

The logic here escapes me. So, you can fit more people in 100 single floor bungalows than in 1 30 story building. What's the logic here?

I think what differentiates NIMBYs from those that just complain is the constant whining about "me first, screw everyone else". What I'm trying to say is that just because you complain, doesn't make you a NIMBY. What makes you a NIMBY is the inability to see the bigger picture.

That would require chairs. I think the better solution is take out all the chairs and make everyone stand. They can lean on each other for support if necessary.

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad...

train conductor?

It still amazes me every time I realize that not everyone knows this.

of course, like how unmoving cement barriers are safer than those that deform.

Even then, I've driven to a lot of places in the states where the roads are horrible. There's a reason why my donkey loves driving in Canada (other than the fact we use asphalt) rather than driving through the states.

Weren't u the "American cement barriers are better because they don't move" guy?

Or maybe that's the reason we like tourism.

With the added bonus of taking you to where you actually need to go.

dam vague wording

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256190/synopsis See link for why I hate the woo.

I was waiting for someone to drive into it.

Not really that hard. Number of riders after - number of riders before - expected growth = number of new riders due to perceived safety. I'm sure there has to be other cities that have done this that we can draw examples from. Irrational fear is irrational fear. Turnstiles aren't going to fix that. Do the turnstiles in NY fix the perceived problems/safety concerns there? My mom was still scared to ride the subway in Korea (which has turnstiles and is relatively well lit, and i admit her fear is irrational). I don't think turnstiles themselves increase perceived safety. I think having cops around increases perceived safety.

But you just put a monetary value on it right here. Wouldn't it be the increase in revenues from the people who will ride the skytrain more because they feel safer? Because if people are riding the skytrain even if they feel unsafe, it's obviously not enough of a hindrance to sway their decision. Maybe I'm just biased. I want my damn evergreen line.