The Official Transit Thread

[Galvatron]

Your running out of space

Another left wing conspiracy. There is no shortage of space to expand into the forests and mountains

A prime spot is along the maple ridge/mission corridor and then north of that

Not to mention north, south, and east of chilliwack

The need for density in BC is a fallacy. We've only developed less than .5% of BC's land

[Galvatron]

Did you not notice the extensive list I gave of road projects recently completed, being constructued, or about to get going? The 3 billion dollar gateway program? Anyone? Anyone?

That "extensive" list of projects is about 30 years late

We'll still need 10X more upgrades even after the projects on that list is completed

[inane]

Another left wing conspiracy. There is no shortage of space to expand into the forests and mountains

A prime spot is along the maple ridge/mission corridor and then north of that

Not to mention north, south, and east of chilliwack

The need for density in BC is a fallacy. We've only developed less than .5% of BC's land

South of Chilliwack? That's a different country.

North of Chilliwack? That's a river.

You're right about the only a fraction of BC being developed, you should go move into the bush and build yourself a nice cabin.

[Common sense]

Another left wing conspiracy. There is no shortage of space to expand into the forests and mountains

A prime spot is along the maple ridge/mission corridor and then north of that

Not to mention north, south, and east of chilliwack

The need for density in BC is a fallacy. We've only developed less than .5% of BC's land

So what do you consider "just right" to be then? Would it be when we've taken out all the trees from the Metro Vancouver hills and replaced it with homes that might collapse due to mudslides?

Would it be when we don't have any clean drinking water from the Capilano reservoir because the homes' wastes are polluting the water system?

[Buggernut]

So what do you consider "just right" to be then? Would it be when we've taken out all the trees from the Metro Vancouver hills and replaced it with homes that might collapse due to mudslides?

Would it be when we don't have any clean drinking water from the Capilano reservoir because the homes' wastes are polluting the water system?

A small price to pay to keep the auto industry going, no?

[ronthecivil]

Would you call this a case of "slamming the door after you get in"?

Yep. It's much like telling the people on commie drive that they have such a good transit hub we should redevelope the whole shebang into high density housing and office buildings. See how that goes over.

[ronthecivil]

That "extensive" list of projects is about 30 years late

We'll still need 10X more upgrades even after the projects on that list is completed

The same could be said about just about any infrastructure in the province. Hell, Victoria is still dumping pretty much raw sewage right into the ocean! If there isn't something seriously done, the putello bridge is going to be washed down the river. The main rail crossing of the fraser (we are a port city right?) is over 100 years old. And all these so called pie in the sky skytrain extensions were supposed to be done by now.

For someone who is upset with the lack of progress and the building of infrastructure you sure like to champion their detractors.

[ronthecivil]

Another left wing conspiracy. There is no shortage of space to expand into the forests and mountains

A prime spot is along the maple ridge/mission corridor and then north of that

Not to mention north, south, and east of chilliwack

The need for density in BC is a fallacy. We've only developed less than .5% of BC's land

True enough. The only place with a need for density is in the lower mainland, and MAYBE in Victoria. The other 99% it's not a problem. However, in Vancouver, there are enough people in a constrained enough space that it's a pretty good idea.

By all means, head out to Kamloops and sprawl away. I support Kamloops sprawling. You have to sprawl out before you build up. Or build a brand new town, mabye somewhere along the coquihalla, already has a big donkey highway to server it. That's fine.

But, all this talk happens to be in the lower mainland. But I tell you what. Since you have such political aspirations and say you get the approval to pave Golden Ears park, then by all means you can have your new city charter. I just would expect the residents to foot the bill for your highway connections so to not clog up traffic in the region. The bill for that would be a couple billion dollars.

[ronthecivil]

So what do you consider "just right" to be then? Would it be when we've taken out all the trees from the Metro Vancouver hills and replaced it with homes that might collapse due to mudslides?

Would it be when we don't have any clean drinking water from the Capilano reservoir because the homes' wastes are polluting the water system?

Mudslides wouldn't be a problem. The cost of building in remote and difficult terrain would be. Never mind opposition of the community to pave over the natural reserve areas in their commuinity. Or if you build way outside their boundaries (electoral area A ftw) then you would have rediculous costs getting there and providing services. Also much of these areas he is speaking of are either designated parks or ALR land. If it's north of the ALR land, how you gonna get there, take the dinky farm roads?

[Buggernut]

Yep. It's much like telling the people on commie drive that they have such a good transit hub we should redevelope the whole shebang into high density housing and office buildings. See how that goes over.

This is what the West End used to look like in 1957:

If they managed to push density through into what it is today there, why can't they be a little more forceful with the Commie Dr. bastards?

[ronthecivil]

This is what the West End used to look like in 1957:

If they managed to push density through into what it is today there, why can't they be a little more forceful with the Commie Dr. bastards?

Those would all be declared heritage houses these days. In the old day you could damn rivers and demolish neighbourhoods to your heart's content. A little harder now.

[Buggernut]

Those would all be declared heritage houses these days. In the old day you could damn rivers and demolish neighbourhoods to your heart's content. A little harder now.

But I thought the trend towards densification and the social pressures pushing for it was greater now than it was back then.

Seems to me like what we need is a more powerful overriding hand from higher levels of government (BC, GVRD) if the CoV doesn't have the balls to make these changes. Burnaby, NW and Surrey all have managed to densify their stations.

[inane]

True enough. The only place with a need for density is in the lower mainland, and MAYBE in Victoria. The other 99% it's not a problem. However, in Vancouver, there are enough people in a constrained enough space that it's a pretty good idea.

By all means, head out to Kamloops and sprawl away. I support Kamloops sprawling. You have to sprawl out before you build up. Or build a brand new town, mabye somewhere along the coquihalla, already has a big donkey highway to server it. That's fine.

But, all this talk happens to be in the lower mainland. But I tell you what. Since you have such political aspirations and say you get the approval to pave Golden Ears park, then by all means you can have your new city charter. I just would expect the residents to foot the bill for your highway connections so to not clog up traffic in the region. The bill for that would be a couple billion dollars.

[inane]

But I thought the trend towards densification and the social pressures pushing for it was greater now than it was back then.

Seems to me like what we need is a more powerful overriding hand from higher levels of government (BC, GVRD) if the CoV doesn't have the balls to make these changes. Burnaby, NW and Surrey all have managed to densify their stations.

You want MORE heavy handed, top down government? I bet you would think differently if they wanted to densify your house.

[Buggernut]

You want MORE heavy handed, top down government? I bet you would think differently if they wanted to densify your house.

Not if I could sell the lot at a premium.

Can you justify not forcing density to maximize return on the Skytrain investment?

[inane]

Not if I could sell the lot at a premium.

Can you justify not forcing density to maximize return on the Skytrain investment?

Densifying around skytrain stations is a good idea, forcing it is not.

Who says you'd get to sell the lot at a premium? Why wouldn't the government just expropriate you at market value?

[Buggernut]

Densifying around skytrain stations is a good idea, forcing it is not.

The province, and not just the City of Vancouver, is paying for the Skytrain. It should have some say.

Who says you'd get to sell the lot at a premium? Why wouldn't the government just expropriate you at market value?

"Market value" for a highrise lot would be much higher than it would be for a single lot house, wouldn't it?

[inane]

The province, and not just the City of Vancouver, is paying for the Skytrain. It should have some say.

"Market value" for a highrise lot would be much higher than it would be for a single lot house, wouldn't it?

Well this is the thing, for your single family house to have a highrise designation it would need to go through some kind of planning process to develop a neighbourhood plan or community plan or whatever you want to call it. Then the highest and best use would be some kind of multi-residential building that would have a higher value.

But you're suggesting forcing density, to me that means no planning just the prov/feds telling the city what to do. If that's the case and I'm the province, I just expropriate your land now at single family designation (lower market value) then rezone to a higher density. There are numerous reasons why that won't work without serious political/lega ramifications.

[ronthecivil]

Well this is the thing, for your single family house to have a highrise designation it would need to go through some kind of planning process to develop a neighbourhood plan or community plan or whatever you want to call it. Then the highest and best use would be some kind of multi-residential building that would have a higher value.

But you're suggesting forcing density, to me that means no planning just the prov/feds telling the city what to do. If that's the case and I'm the province, I just expropriate your land now at single family designation (lower market value) then rezone to a higher density. There are numerous reasons why that won't work without serious political/lega ramifications.

Just do the middle ground. The city comes up with the plan, and basically lets everyone know that they don't have to sell THEIR house, but if you do, it's eligible for rezoning. And sure they might not like it, but they can stay. And evidence of that is still found in the west end, where you do see the odd house hanging around the highrises.

[ronthecivil]

What do you have against Kamloops growing? Would you rather dump more people into the lower mainland, home of the best agricultural land in the province? Kamloops could create a lot more subdivisions before it became a problem, but it does have appartment buildings and condos downtown. Why should a small town have to work on the same principles as the big city?