ronthecivil Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 If you're about efficiency and density, you should be championing 10 30 story buildings rather than 1 80 storey building. You can fit more people in several high rise buildings rather than 1 skyscraper. No, I should be championing 10 80 storey buildings. You know, the option with the most floor space? If it wasn't economically to build the buildings the developers want to build then they wouldn't propose these tall buildings. And sure they might want to do one at a time, but if we work with them instead of always shutting them down many will come out of the woodwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 You guys are missing the point. The footprint of 1 skyscraper is about the same as 1 high rise. Yet developers are wasting time and money fighting to get 1 skyscraper when they could be building 30 less controversial yet still dense high rise towers. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Definitely more efficient for capacity. The problem with sideways seating is that there is an increase in motion sickness of passengers. And somehow, being seated either in the opposite direction doesn't, because 1/2 the seats on the RAV are not facing the direction that the train is headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Someone who complains about everything. Right, that's me. I complain about everything. You guys are too funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Right, that's me. I complain about everything. You guys are too funny. I have yet to see you not complain about anything. But then again, that's a very Vancouver attitude anyway. Edited February 9, 2010 by ahzdeen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 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. Yeah, but there's nothing wrong with a 40 story building. and it gets units on the ground. I mean hell, why not just apply for a bunch of burj towers? they are the most efficient right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I have yet to see you not complain about anything. But then again, that's a very Vancouver attitude anyway. well then maybe you should open your eyes and read what I write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 i see this thread has derailed, so in the interest of derails (and since this is the Transit thread), I'll post some pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 i see this thread has derailed, so in the interest of derails (and since this is the Transit thread), I'll post some pictures. Posted images failing like Inane's logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Someone who complains about everything. ...everything and anything pretty much. Anyhow, it has been confirmed: the Canada Line will run at a 30% increased capacity from this week forward. That means the max. 18 trains will be used. Definitely more efficient for capacity. The problem with sideways seating is that there is an increase in motion sickness of passengers. True...motion sickness could be a problem on the Expo and Millennium, but not so much on the Canada Line - those trains are smooth. Edited February 9, 2010 by nitronuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/Design/091231_Preliminary_Design_Summary.pdf baaaaa i'm complaining. i think this is a good move just like my previous post about the ubc line. waaaaaaahhhhh more skytrain. look at me whine. you guys need to stop with the childish bs and actually discuss. otherwise why are you here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 http://www.evergreen...ign_Summary.pdf baaaaa i'm complaining. i think this is a good move just like my previous post about the ubc line. waaaaaaahhhhh more skytrain. look at me whine. you guys need to stop with the childish bs and actually discuss. otherwise why are you here? Now you're whining about "childish BS" etc... If you stopped whining long enough for there to be a discussion maybe there'd be one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Now you're whining about "childish BS" etc... If you stopped whining long enough for there to be a discussion maybe there'd be one. Now you're whining about my posts. Why not reply to the link I posted instead of just whining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Because you asked..... Anyways.... for your link, yes build it. Also build some more trains connecting the more southern parts of say Langley/Surrey/Delta and Richmond. Extend the existing Surrey line down say King George Boulevard ( ) all the way to Whiterock and intersecting with a line starting in Langley down maybe Highway 10 to highway 99 then down to maybe Steveston linking up with the Canada line. Trains everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Because you asked..... Anyways.... for your link, yes build it. Also build some more trains connecting the more southern parts of say Langley/Surrey/Delta and Richmond. Extend the existing Surrey line down say King George Boulevard ( ) all the way to Whiterock and intersecting with a line starting in Langley down maybe Highway 10 to highway 99 then down to maybe Steveston linking up with the Canada line. Trains everywhere! what do you mean by trains? skytrain to those destinations will not work. skytrain needs to be in dense areas. that broadway line was recognized as being needed 20 years ago. it MIGHT be in the ground in 10-15 years? probably something like 2030. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Yeah, but there's nothing wrong with a 40 story building. and it gets units on the ground. I mean hell, why not just apply for a bunch of burj towers? they are the most efficient right? If a contractor wants to build one and it's not in a flightpath or view corridor then why not? Let them bite the bullet on the cost and the public can enjoy the benefit. Or not. Who cares? As long as it meets the requirement of density (which a huge building would) and doesn't go against existing policies then it should be no big deal. Mind you, all of downtown seems to be in a view corridor or overlooking some garden or be risking the living space of low income people or who know's what reason is next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Because you asked..... Anyways.... for your link, yes build it. Also build some more trains connecting the more southern parts of say Langley/Surrey/Delta and Richmond. Extend the existing Surrey line down say King George Boulevard ( ) all the way to Whiterock and intersecting with a line starting in Langley down maybe Highway 10 to highway 99 then down to maybe Steveston linking up with the Canada line. Trains everywhere! Na, just extend it down fraser highway (aka the direct route) with stops at 152nd, 160th, 168th, cut down on 176th and follow the power right of way and put a stop in Cloverdale then end it somewhere in Langley. For white rock just build bus lanes on King George and run express buses up it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 If a contractor wants to build one and it's not in a flightpath or view corridor then why not? Let them bite the bullet on the cost and the public can enjoy the benefit. Or not. Who cares? As long as it meets the requirement of density (which a huge building would) and doesn't go against existing policies then it should be no big deal. Mind you, all of downtown seems to be in a view corridor or overlooking some garden or be risking the living space of low income people or who know's what reason is next. Because it's not just about what contractor's/developers want. They want whatever will net them the most profit. That's it. That's the driving motivation. There are more important things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Because it's not just about what contractor's/developers want. They want whatever will net them the most profit. That's it. That's the driving motivation. There are more important things. But without the motivation of profit, why would they build it? Hell, why would they build anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 what do you mean by trains? skytrain to those destinations will not work. skytrain needs to be in dense areas. that broadway line was recognized as being needed 20 years ago. it MIGHT be in the ground in 10-15 years? probably something like 2030. There will be dense developements fitting a skytrain like solution in surrey before you see something in the ground out to UBC! I would say to just build it if Surrey agrees to building density. There's an off chance that they will actually do it, unlike our favorite hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now