The Official Transit Thread

[inane]

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

There will still be profit. But just because they can make x dollars doesn't mean y dollars is shiate.

I see it all the time. Developers come in with garbage designs, garbage layouts and then they 'negotiate' to something that, if they'd come in with it in the first place would probably be rejected, but because they've been fighting so long they get it. It's horrible.

[ronthecivil]

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.

Sure there are more important things. That's why you negotiate with them and do a little give and take. As an excellent example, if a contractor wants to build and overheight structure (take) but the presentation shows that it's an architectual masterpeice (give) and is converting much of the developed area into greenspace (give) then perhaps that should at least be a good start towards getting something done. However, it seems that the city of Vancouver has little to no interest in giving, and as a result not nearly as much gets done, housing prices stay sky high, and Surrey plans for another 300k residents. There's nothing wrong with wanting nice things that fit into the entire city, and as I mentioned time and time again, some places could do a lot more of that (hello Langley), while some places go way over the top (Vancouver). Wanting a happy medium is a far cry from advocating a "contractors can do whatever they want" policy. Finding new and inovative ways to turn down developements (shading the garden, really?) is not a far cry from advocating a "contractors, go elsewhere" policy though. It can't be, because that's exactly what they are doing, going elsewhere, with elsewhere being sprawled suburbs in the valley. People are going to live somewhere, and if it's not in one of these downtown developements that continue to get squashed, well it only leaves one other place to go, and it's not like people are willing to wait either.

[ahzdeen]

There will still be profit. But just because they can make x dollars doesn't mean y dollars is shiate.

I see it all the time. Developers come in with garbage designs, garbage layouts and then they 'negotiate' to something that, if they'd come in with it in the first place would probably be rejected, but because they've been fighting so long they get it. It's horrible.

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.

[aGENT]

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.

Surrey's population is expected to surpass Vancouvers by 2020... And they have the time and space to actually plan for such things. I was exaggerating a bit with my "trains everywhere" post but really why not start planning for these things now. I will agree that we'd likely bet better off with say light rail and/or dedicated transit lanes etc to service South Surrey, Panorama Ridge, North/South Delta and South Richmond. They should extend Skytrain down Fraser to Langley though.

[ronthecivil]

There will still be profit. But just because they can make x dollars doesn't mean y dollars is shiate.

I see it all the time. Developers come in with garbage designs, garbage layouts and then they 'negotiate' to something that, if they'd come in with it in the first place would probably be rejected, but because they've been fighting so long they get it. It's horrible.

You must work in the burbs. By all means give 'em hell.

If only there was more housing available in dense developements downtown the market for these hastily put together designs would be diminished and they would be required to have complete communities with amenities and nice designs if only to remain competitive. I know, I am dreaming, the dense dvelopement people will never compete, they will never be able to build enough to keep the prices low.

[inane]

Sure there are more important things. That's why you negotiate with them and do a little give and take. As an excellent example, if a contractor wants to build and overheight structure (take) but the presentation shows that it's an architectual masterpeice (give) and is converting much of the developed area into greenspace (give) then perhaps that should at least be a good start towards getting something done. However, it seems that the city of Vancouver has little to no interest in giving, and as a result not nearly as much gets done, housing prices stay sky high, and Surrey plans for another 300k residents. There's nothing wrong with wanting nice things that fit into the entire city, and as I mentioned time and time again, some places could do a lot more of that (hello Langley), while some places go way over the top (Vancouver). Wanting a happy medium is a far cry from advocating a "contractors can do whatever they want" policy. Finding new and inovative ways to turn down developements (shading the garden, really?) is not a far cry from advocating a "contractors, go elsewhere" policy though. It can't be, because that's exactly what they are doing, going elsewhere, with elsewhere being sprawled suburbs in the valley. People are going to live somewhere, and if it's not in one of these downtown developements that continue to get squashed, well it only leaves one other place to go, and it's not like people are willing to wait either.

You keep going on about all these developments that are getting squashed...what examples do you have of that other than the skyscrapers?

[ronthecivil]

Surrey's population is expected to surpass Vancouvers by 2020... And they have the time and space to actually plan for such things. I was exaggerating a bit with my "trains everywhere" post but really why not start planning for these things now. I will agree that we'd likely bet better off with say light rail and/or dedicated transit lanes etc to service South Surrey, Panorama Ridge, North/South Delta and South Richmond. They should extend Skytrain down Fraser to Langley though.

And in 20-30 years it should be light years ahead. Just ask Surrey if they would be willing do to some rezoning and then sell the property to developers to help fund it, and voila, you build density at the same time as the line, and none of them can complain about the train line since it was there first. In a lot of ways expanding to the middle of nowhere in Surrey makes more sense than trying to ramrod something through Vancouver, which handles it's existing traffic good enough (apparently) and is likely to have little to no growth.

[inane]

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.

It's a lot more complicated than that, especially when you get retarded political pressures involved.

And one of the problems is just as you describe it--minimum requirements. So the City has a policy for this and that, developers cry and moan during the policy writing process about how it will screw their business, so the City relaxes their minimum requirements. And then, the developers come in with a plan that doesn't even meet those now lower minimum requirements and 'negotiates' to a point where their development may or may not meet some of the minimum requirements that are in fact all lower than what the City originally wanted.

[ronthecivil]

You keep going on about all these developments that are getting squashed...what examples do you have of that other than the skyscrapers?

Well, there is the redevelopement of the expo land where half the land area is being dedicated as public space but was rejected for not having a high enough green space ratio. If that proposal was brought into any other municipality in the Lower Mainland (or for that matter any major city on the continent with a run down former industrial area bordering the slums) would be bending over backwards to accomidate THAT.

Are you trying to tell me that skytrain stations that have residential single family housing steps away from the stations having had at least one contractor come in with a proposal to build something more dense in the last 30 years????

It doesn't have to be skyscapers, it can be any developement, period. Clearly things are getting squashed, look at how much more it being built in other municipalities compared to Vancouver! I seriously doubt they are building units in the middle of nowhere because it's easier to market them....

[ahzdeen]

It's a lot more complicated than that, especially when you get retarded political pressures involved.

And one of the problems is just as you describe it--minimum requirements. So the City has a policy for this and that, developers cry and moan during the policy writing process about how it will screw their business, so the City relaxes their minimum requirements. And then, the developers come in with a plan that doesn't even meet those now lower minimum requirements and 'negotiates' to a point where their development may or may not meet some of the minimum requirements that are in fact all lower than what the City originally wanted.

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?

[Buggernut]

I look forward to the day something gets planned in yours, or jr's or nitro's neighbourhood you disagree with and you become the grossly simplified stereotypical 'nimby's' you all so clearly despise.

Aren't you supposed to be the ultimate Mr. Pro-Mass Transit, Pro-Good Of Greater Society Over The Individual?

[inane]

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?

Yeah but look at Ron's point--if you try to hold the developers accountable to any standard he complains that the rules are too tough and blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

[ahzdeen]

Yeah but look at Ron's point--if you try to hold the developers accountable to any standard he complains that the rules are too tough and blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

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.

Edited February 9, 2010 by ahzdeen

[inane]

Well, there is the redevelopement of the expo land where half the land area is being dedicated as public space but was rejected for not having a high enough green space ratio. If that proposal was brought into any other municipality in the Lower Mainland (or for that matter any major city on the continent with a run down former industrial area bordering the slums) would be bending over backwards to accomidate THAT.

Are you trying to tell me that skytrain stations that have residential single family housing steps away from the stations having had at least one contractor come in with a proposal to build something more dense in the last 30 years????

It doesn't have to be skyscapers, it can be any developement, period. Clearly things are getting squashed, look at how much more it being built in other municipalities compared to Vancouver! I seriously doubt they are building units in the middle of nowhere because it's easier to market them....

I don't know why they haven't densified some areas but there are a lot of assumptions in there.

The expo lands were designated as green space 20 years ago. They are already being chipped away at but why should that plan be squashed just cause developers can profit from it?

[inane]

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.

Tell that to Ron then as you're making my point to him for me.

But it is still more complicated than you would like to think. The city can be looking at hundreds of applications in varying stages of completion--all with developers phoning every day cause they want theirs to be done first. They all want to relax this setback, or pave over this stream, or cut this corner here, and the City tries to keep up, but of course there's not enough planners/urban designers/landscape architects/etc... to do all the work that's required to do and heaven forebid you try and hire more people cause taxes might go up and on and on and on. It's much more complicated than you know.

It's not like the city isn't partly responsible, but the love affair for developers here is funny--if you knew some of the shiate they try and pull

Edited February 9, 2010 by inane

[inane]

Aren't you supposed to be the ultimate Mr. Pro-Mass Transit, Pro-Good Of Greater Society Over The Individual?

ok... and...?

[ronthecivil]

I don't know why they haven't densified some areas but there are a lot of assumptions in there.

The expo lands were designated as green space 20 years ago. They are already being chipped away at but why should that plan be squashed just cause developers can profit from it?

I would say that my assumptions have pretty good odds of being true the majority of the time.

If they expo lands are a greenspace the city has been doing a pretty poor job of turning it into one. 24 years later and that greenspace is mostly concrete.

However, even if it WAS a greenspace (which it certainly doesn't appear to resemble in any shape of form) there wouldn't be any proposals from contractors. If the city wants it as greenspace they should buy it and turn it into a park.

But of course, that would be pretty stupid. I love greenspaces as much as the next guy, but I would have to say that toxic waste dump is probably the worst place to have one in the entire city.

[ahzdeen]

Tell that to Ron then as you're making my point to him for me.

But it is still more complicated than you would like to think. The city can be looking at hundreds of applications in varying stages of completion--all with developers phoning every day cause they want theirs to be done first. They all want to relax this setback, or pave over this stream, or cut this corner here, and the City tries to keep up, but of course there's not enough planners/urban designers/landscape architects/etc... to do all the work that's required to do and heaven forebid you try and hire more people cause taxes might go up and on and on and on. It's much more complicated than you know.

It's not like the city is partly responsible, but the love affair for developers here is funny--if you knew some of the shiate they try and pull

Love affair? Hardly. It's just simple logic. Those that are approving the plans should have ultimate responsibility for those approved plans. Does that not make logical sense to you? Screw pressures, that's part of the job description. Dealing with those sorts of things is their job. You're supposed to uphold regulations against these pressures. Do you think developers would even ask if there was a strict guideline? Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk.

[ronthecivil]

Yeah but look at Ron's point--if you try to hold the developers accountable to any standard he complains that the rules are too tough and blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

No, I simply say that the standards in Vancouver are too rigid. Your once again confusing less standards with no standards. Try to keep up.

If cities were understaffed and harrassed by contractors like you claim then why isn't Vancouver awash in skyscrapers? Why doesn't every skytrain station have density like Joyce?

Oh, and of course developers try to cut corners, and cities ask for more amenities. That's called negotiation. Don't get grumpy at contractors because your city is bad at it. Some places are clearly good (too good!) at it.

[inane]

I would say that my assumptions have pretty good odds of being true the majority of the time.

If they expo lands are a greenspace the city has been doing a pretty poor job of turning it into one. 24 years later and that greenspace is mostly concrete.

However, even if it WAS a greenspace (which it certainly doesn't appear to resemble in any shape of form) there wouldn't be any proposals from contractors. If the city wants it as greenspace they should buy it and turn it into a park.

But of course, that would be pretty stupid. I love greenspaces as much as the next guy, but I would have to say that toxic waste dump is probably the worst place to have one in the entire city.

Do you know why that concrete jungle is still concrete and not green space??? Because concord, as part of their multi-phase development is responsible for building the green space--but only after their final tower is built. So, 24 years later, they are sitting on their last piece of development and are holding the park space hostage. Now, they are coming back with new plans, with significantly less green space but saying they will now build it--what great guys!!