Population growth predicted to double
Vancouver rate to hit two per cent by 2009 with immigration fuelled by Games, Conference Board says

Michael Kane
Vancouver Sun

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Vancouver's population growth will double over the next five years with the 2010 Olympics fuelling strong immigration, the Conference Board of Canada predicts.

And growth could be even stronger if the pace of interprovincial migration picks up more than expected, said Mario Lefebvre, director of the non-profit research organization's metropolitan outlook service.

Vancouver's population growth is expected to reach two per cent by 2009, up from 0.9 per cent in 2004, boding well for the economy, retail sales and housing starts.

The economy is forecast to grow by three per cent this year and by an average of 3.3 per cent per year over the medium term, according to the spring edition of the board's metropolitan outlook released Wednesday.

As a result of Olympic-related projects, non-residential construction will remain healthy over the next several years, and employment growth is expected to come in at a robust 1.8 per cent per year.

"Vancouver was losing people to Alberta, the land of opportunity. But Vancouver has turned that around by creating roughly 55,000 new jobs over the past three years," Lefebvre said in a telephone interview from Ottawa.

"You're heading into net migration gains now because once you create those opportunities, it snowballs on you. You have in-migration and immigration."

The board's forecast was characterized as "on the optimistic side" by Andrew Ramlo, director of Vancouver's Urban Futures Institute, which anticipates slower growth rates.

For example, the conference board expects Vancouver's population to grow by 46,000, or 2.0 per cent, in 2009, while the Urban Futures Institute anticipates 31,000, about 1.5-per-cent growth that year. BC Stats is even more conservative, at 26,000 people, or 1.3-per-cent growth.

Migration to Vancouver is now relatively steady, but the Olympics are expected to lead to very strong immigration figures over the medium term, the board says.

"I don't think we are being optimistic," Lefebvre said. "I think there could be room for more because we are not so big on inter-provincial migration and we could turn out to be wrong on that. It could be stronger."

High international immigration and an economy that is outperforming the national average are both contributing to population growth, said Jock Finlayson, executive-vice president of the Business Council of B.C.

However, he does not expect the Lower Mainland to return to the growth rates of three per cent recorded in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the pending handover of Hong Kong to China and a brutal recession in central Canada sent people fleeing to Vancouver.

He noted that population growth is not an unalloyed good, although the business community tends to like it because it means the market is expanding.

"It will put more stress on the living environment. On the other hand, the Vancouver area is viewed internationally as a place that has been very successful in managing growth, and presumably that will continue."

mkane@png.canwest.com

FAST PACE:

Vancouver's population growth rate is expected to nearly double by 2009.

Population:

2005

2,184,000

2009

2,343,000

Source: Conference Board of Canada

Ran with fact box "Fast Pace", which has been appended tothe end of the story.
© The Vancouver Sun 2005

Thats great for Vancouver, but I still bet it would have reached 2,343,000 anyway..

nice. and 3 million people by 2020 and maybe 5 million by 2050?

Even optimistically Vancouver is only forcast to be 3.0 to 3.2 million by 2030 not 2020.
Also if current trends continue Calgary and Vancouver will have nearly the same population of 3.6 and 4 million respectivly by 2050 as by 2030 Calgary's population is estimated between 2.2 to 2.4 million.
What puts a wrench in all of this is the immigration rates which is strickly political.
Vancouver has alwas had significantly higher immigration than Calgary but according to recent figures some of those are leaving due tyo extremly high housing and cost of living.

Calgarys population by 2033 will be around 1.6 million not 2.4 million, and by 2050 it would be around 2.0 million. Whereas Vancouver will be at 3 million or close to by 2020-2022.

Double post. sorry.

Even optimistically Vancouver is only forcast to be 3.0 to 3.2 million by 2030 not 2020.
Also if current trends continue Calgary and Vancouver will have nearly the same population of 3.6 and 4 million respectivly by 2050 as by 2030 Calgary's population is estimated between 2.2 to 2.4 million.
What puts a wrench in all of this is the immigration rates which is strickly political.
Vancouver has alwas had significantly higher immigration than Calgary but according to recent figures some of those are leaving due tyo extremly high housing and cost of living.

Please provide a source that says Calgary's population will more than double in 25 years.

Well, I went looking, and the best article I found was this one:

http://west.stanford.edu/events/edge_conference/papers/CALGARY.doc


“Nice City: Wonder What It Will Look Like When It’s Finished.”
A Case Study of Calgary, Alberta – Past, Present and Future

^ LOL :)

...
Stelfox’s Calgary 2050 projection (2.25 million people on 1,800 square kilometers)
...


^ Supposedly this is a very conservative estimate based on minimal growth trends. That also goes for the land area, which they say will be over 4x the current size. The article gives Calgary the title of 'Los Angeles of the North in 2050'.

EDIT: Good on Vancouver BTW

In the last census Calgary gre by 16.6% over 5 years. That's about 3% a year. In order for a city to double its population it must grow at about 2.5% a year to double it in 25 years.
When you talk about Calgary's 1.6 million that is the CITY of Calgary NOT Metro Calgary.

^^^not at all its the metro. If current growth trends continue, Calgary grew by 81 000 over four years.

Is this expected population growth seen as good news or bad news by you people?

I say it's bad news, with all the increased property values, pollution, congestion and sprawl. Call it paradise lost.

I don't know how you would look at it in BC, but here in Alberta, with our unemployment so low (3.5%) we are going to start having serious labour shortages if we don't get this growth.

Is this expected population growth seen as good news or bad news by you people?

I say it's bad news, with all the increased property values, pollution, congestion and sprawl. Call it paradise lost.

The city's economy would be stunted if population growth does not occur.

If Vancouver plays its cards right, pollution, and sprawl can be controlled.

Stop sprawling into Surrey, Coquitlam, and the rest of the Fraser Valley, and build more highrise, high density communities that mirrors the success of Downtown, Lonsdale, and/or Metrotown.

People just have to give up the idea that the perfect home is one with a big backyard on a cul-de-sac. If they don't higher densities, tough luck.

People just have to give up the idea that the perfect home is one with a big backyard on a cul-de-sac. If they don't higher densities, tough luck.

Nope...if they want a spacious suburban home...it's not tough luck, it's let me show you a spacious lot.

Sprawl is good. Sprawl works :)

The city's economy would be stunted if population growth does not occur.
What good is a bigger economy, if there are going to be more people to split it up between?

Let them go to Alberta, where they can use the extra hands.

What good is a bigger economy, if there are going to be more people to split it up between?

Let them go to Alberta, where they can use the extra hands.

Not really. I see where you're going at, but you've got to consider that population increases generates increased demand, and that spurs economic growth. What BC and Vancouver should worry about is not population increases, but about how to make the best of this population growth and translate it into employment and economic growth. Of course, I hope that BC's "growth" is spurred by highly qualified professionals who are locating to Vancouver in search of a better quality of life. Naturally, if people can't find a job in Vancouver, they will relocate, so I wouldn't really worry about the smaller distribution of wealth to each person in Vancouver. BTW, the extra sets of hands keeps salaries in the GVRD competitive, and that in turn attracts business. Key reason why IT companies are relocating to Vancouver from Silicon Valley is that its costs are much lower up here.

Of course, Alberta needs people too, and Immigration Canada should do more to attract new-Canadians to settle there once they land in Canada as PRs.

I also understand that you're worried about Vancouver's inability to catch up in infrastructure if it is faced with explosive growth (Well, 2% isn't that bad ;) ), but if the GVRD plans smart enough, it will not have to endure these growing pains.

Nope...if they want a spacious suburban home...it's not tough luck, it's let me show you a spacious lot.

Sprawl is good. Sprawl works :)

lol, sprawl might work in the Twin Cities, where there's attractive flat lands surrounding all four corners of the city. But Vancouver is land-tight, with mountains to the North, ocean to the West, and the US border to the South. Land is not plentiful in the GVRD, and therefore they can't be as sprawl happy as the Twin Cities. :D

Vancouver is facing the same land problems that Hong Kong has to face, though of course Hong Kong has 5 times the people.

lol, sprawl might work in the Twin Cities, where there's attractive flat lands surrounding all four corners of the city. But Vancouver is land-tight, with mountains to the North, ocean to the West, and the US border to the South. Land is not plentiful in the GVRD, and therefore they can't be as sprawl happy as the Twin Cities. :D

Vancouver is facing the land problems that Hong Kong has to face, though of course Hong Kong has 5 times the people.

So sprawl east!

It's already reached Chilliwack. Head for Osoyoos! For Grand Forks! :banana:

So sprawl east!

It's already reached Chilliwack. Head for Osoyoos! For Grand Forks! :banana:

lol. ooh, the horror, the TCH will be traffic jammed like hell. :runaway:

Sprawl never works, I thought all those problems in the states should have told you guys that. Sprawl is uncontrolled, unplanned growth which leads to huge transportation problems and environmental destruction. It is time to grow up!

Nope...if they want a spacious suburban home...it's not tough luck, it's let me show you a spacious lot.

Sprawl is good. Sprawl works :)
Support Bush and kill a bunch of Arabs to get the fuel necessary to commute long distances and sustain the suburban sprawler way of life if you have to. ;)

Not really. I see where you're going at, but you've got to consider that population increases generates increased demand, and that spurs economic growth. What BC and Vancouver should worry about is not population increases, but about how to make the best of this population growth and translate it into employment and economic growth. Of course, I hope that BC's "growth" is spurred by highly qualified professionals who are locating to Vancouver in search of a better quality of life. Naturally, if people can't find a job in Vancouver, they will relocate, so I wouldn't really worry about the smaller distribution of wealth to each person in Vancouver. BTW, the extra sets of hands keeps salaries in the GVRD competitive, and that in turn attracts business. Key reason why IT companies are relocating to Vancouver from Silicon Valley is that its costs are much lower up here.
So what you really want is more of a change in the kinds of people here than the total number of people?

So what you really want is more of a change in the kinds of people here than the total number of people?

I've always advocated a brain gain type of policy for Vancouver and British Columbia (and even Canada) to adopt. If the Lower Mainland is a mass congregation of the best and brightest in the world, what businesses would pass the chance of relocating to Vancouver? :D

Population growth wouldn't matter if employment, smart growth and economic stability comes along with it. Calgary is benefiting greatly from its own boom, and so should Vancouver.

^^^^^^^^Couldn't agree more but you are missing one thing............it leads to rotting urban cores. The further people are away from the city, the less likely they will go especially when US cities don't densify their downtowns but go further afield making them even more car dependent.
US cities exemplify bad urban planning and rotting cores.

I agree that Alberta should receive more immigrants. It has worked very well in Manitoba and the population is growing faster now than at any point in the last 20years.

One thing that will really hurt Vancouver and will continue to do so. Most people don't want to live in a tiny 250,000 condo if they have kids. It forces them to move farther afeild and further from their places of work so more commuting and car dependcy.
Vancouver already has more cars percapita than the city of L.A. and it will get worse as property values and home prices continue to rise at the rate they are now.
8% ayear doesn't sound to bad til you realize that the average price of a home {inc condos} is $325 .........8% is roughly 25k a years....big money forcing people further itno the valley.

Is this expected population growth seen as good news or bad news by you people?

I say it's bad news, with all the increased property values, pollution, congestion and sprawl. Call it paradise lost.

No offense, but i suggest you move to a small city, so you wont have to deal with these issues.

No offense, but i suggest you move to a small city, so you wont have to deal with these issues.
On the other hand, you could go to New York or Los Angeles.

Atleast NewYork has a great transit system.

There is nothing wrong with living in a large city on that basis alone. I don't see anything wrong with families living in apartments and then having amenities like parks and restaurants nearby instead of homogeneous suburban housing with a backyard and with amenities that can only be accessed by using a car. Sprawl is not an answer and there are many reasons for it. I think what Vancouver is doing is great. Perhaps to ease things property tax should not be assessed on property value, but instead on land value. That would remove additional costs of making a property and area nicer.

Support Bush and kill a bunch of Arabs to get the fuel necessary to commute long distances and sustain the suburban sprawler way of life if you have to. ;)

Funny...I thought suburban sprawl predated the Bush administration. Both of them actually :)

We'll see about the actual population counts in 2010 census. :P I would be suprised that Vancouver would surpass Seattle, but I'm sure it already surpassed Seattle recently. :D

We'll see about the actual population counts in 2010 census. :P I would be suprised that Vancouver would surpass Seattle, but I'm sure it already surpassed Seattle recently. :D :? It hasn't and it won't. Vancouver would have to take in about 300,000 people per year over the next five years. That's just silly. You must be confusing population growth with total population.

:? It hasn't and it won't. Vancouver would have to take in about 300,000 people per year over the next five years. That's just silly. You must be confusing population growth with total population.

I think he is talking about city proper.

HABER
You are right, there is nothing wrong with families growing up in condos. The problem is is that a 3 bedroom condo in Vancouver will set you back nearly half a mill.
Most want a backyard, a spacious home, more room, aroom where friends and relatives can stay, storage.
The city of Vancouver offers none of that for middle income earnings so the higher the prices go, the further into the valley they will be forced and I don't blame them.

HABER
You are right, there is nothing wrong with families growing up in condos. The problem is is that a 3 bedroom condo in Vancouver will set you back nearly half a mill.
Most want a backyard, a spacious home, more room, aroom where friends and relatives can stay, storage.
The city of Vancouver offers none of that for middle income earnings so the higher the prices go, the further into the valley they will be forced and I don't blame them.

Exactly!

HABER
You are right, there is nothing wrong with families growing up in condos. The problem is is that a 3 bedroom condo in Vancouver will set you back nearly half a mill.
Most want a backyard, a spacious home, more room, aroom where friends and relatives can stay, storage.
The city of Vancouver offers none of that for middle income earnings so the higher the prices go, the further into the valley they will be forced and I don't blame them.

Why does everyone need a yard?? Why not have better public parks instead????

If everyone has a yard, Vancouver would end up being as sprawly as the Twin Cities. :bash:

Why does everyone need a yard?? Why not have better public parks instead????

If everyone has a yard, Vancouver would end up being as sprawly as the Twin Cities. :bash:

Why must someone need a yard to want a yard?

Funny...I thought suburban sprawl predated the Bush administration. Both of them actually :)
But with current gas prices, the sprawlers can use his help now more than ever, I guess.

Why must someone need a yard to want a yard?

...because this kind of greed will ultimately cost the region tens to hundreds of billions of taxpayers money(instructure costs) & turn it into an environmental wreck. :) Afterall, this isn't the Twin Cities, and land is actually valuable in the GVRD. :D

Videos on Urban Sprawl:

http://vancouver.ca/Greaterdot/video/03-vansprawl.wmv

http://vancouver.ca/Greaterdot/video/03-seasprawl.wmv

http://vancouver.ca/Greaterdot/video/OLR-04-HeliTour.wmv

http://vancouver.ca/Greaterdot/video/OLR-04-TownCentresOverview.wmv

People want a house.......not an apartment for their 2.1 kids.
If they don't then why are they building them all?
They don't want to be these monster lots like the 60s but parents want a place where their friends can ver. A spare room for family/friends. Not just a livingroom. Storage.
Quiet areas unlike the city. They want to be near where they work and most don't work downtown....especially in a decentralised city like Vancouver.
They want to actually go play tennis or golf or hockey.
They want to have barbecues with their friends. They want to have a garden, a fireplace, a cat, a dog.
None of these things are options in a $400,000 condo of just 1000sq feet. People don't wan to pay that kind of money for an apartment that is smaller than the one they shared going to university.
Vancouver, due to its prices will continue to spread out because buying in the city is out of the question.
The average price of a single detached in Vancouver, including the cheaper EastSide is $550,000........way out of reach for any family making less than 100k/year.

^^It's not about want anymore... you can't think in those terms considering that the GVRD is squished by the mountains to the North, Ocean to the West and border to the south. This is not Toronto, where you can gobble all the farmland up to Hudson Bay for sprawl.

I'm not asking that everyone should be forced to live in an apartment, but it's just not appropriate when these people choses en mass to buy a 60+ft' lot in the burbs so they drive their guzzling SUVs to work everyday.

Townhouses, houses with tiny lots, low rises, highrises, mixture of commerical and residential spaces (e.g. Kitsilano), easy acess to alternative forms of transit are what this region needs to substain itself.

They want to actually go play tennis or golf or hockey.
?? People living in Kitsilano-Downtown can go the local golf course by UBC. Hockey arenas are available in community centres across the city.

Quiet areas unlike the city. They want to be near where they work and most don't work downtown....especially in a decentralised city like Vancouver.
You can have quiet areas that are smart growth + transit friendly.

They want to have a garden, a fireplace, a cat, a dog.
Why not a community garden? Great place for socializing.

Why not a community garden? Great place for socializing.Many people value privacy, and a yard can be your private sanctuary.

Also, a lot of people take great care for and pride in their yards. Both care and pride could be diminished in a community garden, since its no longer only your own.

Many people value privacy, and a yard can be your private sanctuary.

Also, a lot of people take great care for and pride in their yards. Both care and pride could be diminished in a community garden, since its no longer only your own.

That's why the GVRD is at a crossroads... it can either chose substainability or rapid suburb growth. You can't have it both ways, and even people in Toronto, with all the land in the world, has recognized this issue.

In the end, it depends on what's more important to perserve, and what can be sacrificed.

The GVRD just can't end up looking like another version of sprawlsville, aka Twin Cities.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/minneapolisstpaul.asp

Many people value privacy, and a yard can be your private sanctuary.



We have a winner!

Many people value privacy, and a yard can be your private sanctuary.

Also, a lot of people take great care for and pride in their yards. Both care and pride could be diminished in a community garden, since its no longer only your own.
If you want to live selfishly, be prepared to pay for it.

No sympathy for you if you have to pay through your nose for gas, or take 3 hours to commute through gridlocked traffic.

We have a winner!

For our buddies at Sprawl friendly Minnesota...:)

To all these people arguing for sprawl...I realize WHY people want big houses and big yards and "privacy" (does that really exist anymore, anyway?). The bottom line is, you can't always have what you want. Because you see, I, and lots of people like me, want farmland, countryside and natural areas to remain intact. I, and lots of other like me, want an environment that has not been dessecated by human development. And I, and lots of others like me, don't want you building your fugly garage-with-a-front-door house subdivision on what used to be forested land. So you can take your dreams of privacy and spacious backyard barbecues and shove them up your ass.

To be fair, I have a question for the anti-sprawlers though.

Where would you rather raise your kids?

Where do you feel they would be safer and grow up in a healthier environment? In an urban core amid highrises, ghettos, downtown traffic, pimps, prostitutes, junkies, homeless people, etc., or out in the 'burbs among wide open fields and parks, quiet neighbourhoods, cleaner air, safer streets, lower crime, etc.?

Where do you feel they would be safer and grow up in a healthier environment? In an urban core amid highrises, ghettos, downtown traffic, pimps, prostitutes, junkies, homeless people, etc., or out in the 'burbs among wide open fields and parks, quiet neighbourhoods, cleaner air, safer streets, lower crime, etc.?

I think Kits is a great place to raise kids. .. :), that's the kind of anti-sprawl neighourhood I'm looking for.

I agree though that Vancouver needs to clean up downtown eastside, else, its problems will seriously hinder development in the surrounding area.

Seriously though, isn't the air in Vancouver better than in Surrey, or the Fraser Valley suburbs? :D

Also, no need to sit in traffic jams = more time for kids.

I think Kits is a great place to raise kids. .. :), that's the kind of anti-sprawl neighourhood I'm looking for.
Who can afford a place in Kits now though?

Who can afford a place in Kits now though?

That's why Vancouver needs more neighbourhoods that mirrors the success of Kits... instead of all that detached stucco crap & Vancouver specials we see littering the city & the suburbs. Midrise 4-8 storey neighbourhoods would be the best.

They would start by trying to clean up Strathcona and Hastings, that area is the most undervalued land due to its many problems

They would start by trying to clean up Strathcona and Hastings, that area is the most undervalued land due to its many problems

...you can take your dreams of privacy and spacious backyard barbecues and shove them up your ass. :applause: David Suzuki would be proud.

Regarding housing prices in the Lower Mainland... someone should do a bit of research and show comparisons between different regions. I'm a bit curious about the differences in value, but too lazy to do the work at the moment. :cheers: :)

Regarding Kits... fantastic place to live if you can afford it. Lot's of property crime, but as clean and safe as anywhere else. There are still a lot of detached single unit homes, especially in the area south of Broadway. North of Broadway, I'm seeing a lot of these getting turned into two, three, or four unit dwellings. You'll need a doctors salery to afford the $500,000+ price though. For low income families who want to live in a place like Kits, they may have no choice, but to cram into an apartment, Japan style...

^^^^^^^^^
That's the point. People earning 100k a year want a bigger apt than where they were living while going to university.
Vancouver's housing prices are going to be the death of her. All this live near you work bullshit. Who the hell has to be told that?? Everyone wants a shorter commute but for most that's simply not an option. Its simply too expensive and for the money they have spent mortgaging their future they want to actually be able to live in a place that you can't spit across.
Big parks, schools, storage, garage, basement, spare bedroom, a cat, dog, a backyard, a den, a real size kitchen, a nice pation, not having to take an elevator, your kids can be in your yard as opposed to being on a 8ft long balcony.
These are the things people want. I can't imaging having spouse with 2 kids in the glorified walk-in-closets they call condos in Vancouver.
They don't have to be huge lots, even those smaller "new urbanism" houses. Cute but with space, small lots but privacy, front porches, garages in the back. Many people want even that but even those are getting out of reach for many.

Astronomical housing prices backed up with incredibly poor urbane planning has left Vancouver in a real pickle.

Sprawl never works, I thought all those problems in the states should have told you guys that. Sprawl is uncontrolled, unplanned growth which leads to huge transportation problems and environmental destruction. It is time to grow up!
/\ fact is, most suburban growth is 'controlled' and 'regulated' through municipal community plans, land use plans, bylaws, etc.

That's why Vancouver needs more neighbourhoods that mirrors the success of Kits... instead of all that detached stucco crap & Vancouver specials we see littering the city & the suburbs. Midrise 4-8 storey neighbourhoods would be the best.
/\ but not everyone wants to live in multi-family development. Some want their own single family home with a yard, attached garage.

You all have to remember that the market is diverse.

/\ but not everyone wants to live in multi-family development. Some want their own single family home with a yard, attached garage.

You all have to remember that the market is diverse.

You also have to consider the limited amount of land in the GVRD. People move into the Vancouver area to appreciate nature and all that's around us, and that'll dissapear if you pave over it & turn it all into suburban lots.

Vancouver's no Toronto. In Toronto, we can sprawl North, East, West all we want & spread out all the way up to Hudson Bay if we wanted. In Edmonton, even better, you can sprawl in all four directions down to Calgary, West to Jasper, North to the territories and East to Saskatchewan. Vancouver doesn't have this luxury. All it has is the narrow Fraser Valley, and pretty much everything else is mountainous terrain.

If Vancouver had more land, then maybe it could cater to the diverse market, but given its population growth, there's no way it could substain itself via detached-subdivisions & car dependent growth anymore.

/\ fact is, most suburban growth is 'controlled' and 'regulated' through municipal community plans, land use plans, bylaws, etc.

Not really. Take Toronto for example. The 905 is a traffic mess right now, and this is due to a lack of planning. Driving down Hwy. 7, Yonge (North of Steeles) or Rutherford Rd. is crazy during rush hour. The 905 is a giant sprawling mess, and it would take years to fix it up. Viva is a nice step forward, but given the car dependent nature of the 905, I doubt its ridership levels will even meet expected projections.

And traffic is just one of many problems in which these suburbs cause...

Suburbs are an economic and tax drain...

^^^^^^^^^
That's the point. People earning 100k a year want a bigger apt than where they were living while going to university.
Vancouver's housing prices are going to be the death of her. All this live near you work bullshit. Who the hell has to be told that?? Everyone wants a shorter commute but for most that's simply not an option. Its simply too expensive and for the money they have spent mortgaging their future they want to actually be able to live in a place that you can't spit across.
Big parks, schools, storage, garage, basement, spare bedroom, a cat, dog, a backyard, a den, a real size kitchen, a nice pation, not having to take an elevator, your kids can be in your yard as opposed to being on a 8ft long balcony.
These are the things people want. I can't imaging having spouse with 2 kids in the glorified walk-in-closets they call condos in Vancouver.
They don't have to be huge lots, even those smaller "new urbanism" houses. Cute but with space, small lots but privacy, front porches, garages in the back. Many people want even that but even those are getting out of reach for many.

Astronomical housing prices backed up with incredibly poor urbane planning has left Vancouver in a real pickle.

New urbanism might work, but only if the development can become transit friendly, and be able to serve as a real community (e.g. mix of commerical, residential and institutional land uses that can be easily accessed by pedestrian traffic)... instead of a car dependent suburb.

The sad reality is, is that there are no new urbanism developments in all of greater Vancouver. There are some homes like that in concentrated areas but not true example of it.
For all its talk Vancouver has a lot to learn about urban planning.
Look at the city of Vancouver. South of broadway nearly the entire city is zoned for low density residential all the way from main to UBC. They are building a 1.74billion$ RAV line down a low density road which the city has guaranteed the residents that the zoning will not change. No corridors left for transit.
Considering people think Calgary is for cars atleast they had the forthought to set aside transit corridors and bike paths.
Please don't say its because Calgary is a newer city. Montreal and Toronto are a lot older and have far better bike and transit systems.
The GVRD tells everyone to try to live where they work........gee......I guess if I work at UBC or VGH or Downtown or CityHall I better whip out the cash for my 700-1mill$ house.
People want to live in a decent place with some room and thats why they are moving into the valley and it won't stop. Vancouver prices give most no choice.....you have to move further away if you ever hope to buy.

The sad reality is, is that there are no new urbanism developments in all of greater Vancouver. There are some homes like that in concentrated areas but not true example of it.
For all its talk Vancouver has a lot to learn about urban planning.
Look at the city of Vancouver. South of broadway nearly the entire city is zoned for low density residential all the way from main to UBC. They are building a 1.74billion$ RAV line down a low density road which the city has guaranteed the residents that the zoning will not change. No corridors left for transit.

I tend to agree. NIMBYs are destroying Vancouver, & their grip on city hall leaves much to be desired. It's ridiculous how valuable areas surrounding downtown are squandered off to low density stucco crap. The RAV line doesn't make any economic sense either. If density's not going to increase, why build the line? 1 Billion+ just for a suburban commuter line?!?... what a waste of public dollars! I say, merge Vancouver and Burnaby together, and dilute the political influence of Vancouver's Westside. Only when the NIMBYs are trampled on, will Vancouver thrive.

People want to live in a decent place with some room and thats why they are moving into the valley and it won't stop. Vancouver prices give most no choice.....you have to move further away if you ever hope to buy.

I guess this depends on how much "room" people want. I don't want Vancouver turning into a giant, car-dependent sprawled mess, that's for sure.

^ Well, if that is the case, then you better kick your Transportation Minister's ass. I hear he is hell bent on building freeways in Vancouver or something like that even though the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminister, and Coquitlam are against it. And he wants to twin the Port Mann bridge so more sprawl will be encouraged in the Fraser Valley.

"If density's not going to increase, why build the line? 1 Billion+ just for a suburban commuter line?!?... what a waste of public dollars! "


Yes it is...but it only makes sense....the Greater Vancouver area is almost all suburban in nature...and one agency controls the transit for the whole area. So how do you think they are going to spend most of their money? Obviously on something that is going to appeal to the vast majority of people...which happen to live in less transit-friendly suburban areas, which also happen to have the political majority.









"merge Vancouver and Burnaby together, and dilute the political influence of Vancouver's Westside. Only when the NIMBYs are trampled on, will Vancouver thrive."


You are right. If Vancouver has a chance in hell (and it might not) of developing a more urban fabric (with transit to match), it needs to divorce itself of agencies that are thinking along different lines. Only then can they concentrate on what only the inner city can accomplish. The real serious transit cities all concentrate on their inner cities, and are completely separate of the suburban mess around them....NYC, Toronto, Montreal, etc.






KGB

RAV line requires blasting
Critics claim popularity of project has plummeted because of cut-and-cover method

William Boei
Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

VANCOUVER - Construction of the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line will require blasting of volcanic rock where the route curves around Little Mountain, Ravco confirmed Monday.

Ravco, a TransLink subsidiary overseeing development of the RAV line, did not specify in an information bulletin Monday how much blasting might be needed in the vicinity of Little Mountain, which is the remnant of a long-extinct volcano.

The need for blasting had not been confirmed until now, RAV line critic Rand Chatterjee said, but it came as no surprise.

"They did not specify blasting in their noise study, but everyone expected it," Chatterjee said, noting other construction projects as far north as Cambie at 16th Avenue have run into volcanic rock near the surface.

Also Monday, the Do RAV Right Coalition released poll results suggesting support for the RAV line has fallen to under 60 per cent, and that nearly half of Greater Vancouver residents disagree with the proposed use of the controversial "cut and cover" method of tunnel-building.

As well, Gregor Robertson, the NDP candidate in Vancouver-Fairview, called on Ravco and Premier Gordon Campbell to reveal much more information about RAV line costs and contracts so the public can judge whether the cut-and-cover approach is necessary.

Early plans for the RAV line showed it running through a tunnel bored deep underground all the way from downtown Vancouver to Cambie and 37th Avenue. But the environmental approval process revealed earlier this year that surface trench-digging (cut and cover) would be used from Cambie and Second Avenue to 37th.

Merchants and residents along the route have been up in arms ever since, and recently won an extension of a public comment period on the line's environmental impact until May 16, the day before the provincial election.

The Do RAV Right poll found 34.2 per cent of respondents strongly support the RAV line and 23.4 per cent somewhat support it. It found 20.7 per cent were strongly opposed and 14.4 per cent somewhat opposed, for a total of 57.6 per cent for the line and 35.1 per cent opposed.

But 49.2 per cent were either strongly or somewhat opposed to cut-and-cover construction, while only 26.7 per cent supported it.

Strategic Communications asked 300 Greater Vancouver residents for their views, for a margin of error of 5.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Chatterjee, who speaks for the coalition, said he has little doubt the RAV line's popularity has plummeted -- it was reported at 70 to 80 per cent several years ago -- because of the controversy over construction methods.

"A sizable plurality of folks are against the RAV line because of the cut-and-cover," he said.

Chatterjee said he thinks the project can be built on time if a second tunnel-boring machine is used south of False Creek, rather than just the one proposed to bore from Granville and Dunsmuir to Cambie and Second.

Robertson said he would like the project to revert to the original deep-tunnel plan, but added the NDP doesn't want budget overruns and "We're not going to rip up contracts like Gordon Campbell has done."

If cost or contracts bind the project to cut-and-cover, the emphasis will have to be on mitigating the impacts, he said, but Ravco has not made enough information public to make that judgment.

"There are a lot of documents still not available to the public, and transparency is what's needed to understand all the costs related to construction," Robertson said.

"If there are privacy issues related to the contracts, then let the attorney-general do a full review of this. But there needs to be scrutiny as to how all the costs were arrived at."

bboei@png.canwest.com

i hate DoRAVRight

they are liars and hypocrates and they know it.



if the line was constructed using boring, those same people would still be protesting because it's costing too much to the taxpayers. You will never please those people no matter what you do.

rt 0891

You don't want Vancouver to become a car dependent sprawling urban mess........................well to late. Vancouver is a sprawling mess.
This is why Translink gets nowhere near the transit ridership of Toronto/Montreal or even Ottawa/Calgary.
Vancouver is a sprawled out mess made worse by the fact that it was the last major city in Canada to get rapid transit.
Vancouver has gotten itself into a real mess and it will take a lot of years and political will {which is lacking} to fix things.
Vancouver is an urban transit nightmare and now made much worse by high home prices which are forcing people further into the valley so they can even afford a small house on a small lot.

^ Well, if that is the case, then you better kick your Transportation Minister's ass. I hear he is hell bent on building freeways in Vancouver or something like that even though the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminister, and Coquitlam are against it. And he wants to twin the Port Mann bridge so more sprawl will be encouraged in the Fraser Valley.
Do we have the spirit for a freeway revolt, much like the San Franciscans did in the 50's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_Revolt

So my question is, and I'm sure nobody knows what will happen, when will the sprawl end? There has to be a breaking point, but when? In other words, how much more land are we going to eat up? What about the farmland, what will happen to that?

Ok, so that's a few questions, but you get the gist. You'd think someone would have a well thought out plan for the Lower Mainland, for the next 50+ years. Maybe I should write a letter to the Transportation Minister, but I doubt I'd get any response. Maybe there is a web site with the info :) .

I see things continuing in the same direction for quite some time. More sprawl into the Valley, while transporation infrastructure is patched in reaction to existing problems. Traffic is going to continue to get worse, as they'll never keep up with the current rate of population growth. Tempers will get worse...

None of this really affects me, as I live in the west side of Vancouver, but I still see it (transportation) as the major issue for people in Greater Vancouver.

Regarding the Port Mann bridge... it looks like there are twice as many lanes funneling into it. So, I'm not that against expanding it at this stage, even though it will encourage quicker sprawl on the other side. It seems the sprawl is going to happen no matter what, and you have to keep traffic moving.

I'm in agreement with those who think the zoning should be more dense in Vancouver. I think it is changing, but at a molassis pace. There will be a day when streets like Cambie are re-zoned, I'm sure. It has to happen at some point.

:soapbox: :2cents:

So my question is, and I'm sure nobody knows what will happen, when will the sprawl end? There has to be a breaking point, but when?
When the world's population starts to decrease.

Regarding the Port Mann bridge... it looks like there are twice as many lanes funneling into it. So, I'm not that against expanding it at this stage, even though it will encourage quicker sprawl on the other side. It seems the sprawl is going to happen no matter what, and you have to keep traffic moving.
At the very least, toll the cocksucker to discourage needless traffic and sprawl as much as possible.

rt 0891

You don't want Vancouver to become a car dependent sprawling urban mess........................well to late. Vancouver is a sprawling mess.
This is why Translink gets nowhere near the transit ridership of Toronto/Montreal or even Ottawa/Calgary.
Vancouver is a sprawled out mess made worse by the fact that it was the last major city in Canada to get rapid transit.
Vancouver has gotten itself into a real mess and it will take a lot of years and political will {which is lacking} to fix things.
Vancouver is an urban transit nightmare and now made much worse by high home prices which are forcing people further into the valley so they can even afford a small house on a small lot.

lol, Vancouver is not a sprawling mess, why dont you think before you type. Tell me how it is a sprawling mess??? You want a definition of a sprawling mess look at Los Angelas, or even Toronto which has a lot of sprawl, but i wouldnt say its a mess. The only significant sprawl(if you want to call it that) is in Surrey, other than that the strategy and planning of the GVRD is working to curb "substantial" sprawl.


Do we have the spirit for a freeway revolt, much like the San Franciscans did in the 50's?

There would be one, if freeways were proposed again i guarantee you that. The nature lovers are making a big fuss about upgrading a existing freeway, imagine what it would be like if a new freeway through the city was forced in.

At the very least, toll the cocksucker to discourage needless traffic and sprawl as much as possible.

Exactly. Except for trucks & commerce, I don't see why any Vancouver resident needs to rely on the car for their daily needs... it's these car-dependent suburbs that is killing the region, and they should be forced to pay the price. Tolls may have a residual effect and actually force Vancouver to zone denser areas. Again, the NIMBYs living at Vancouver's Westside need to be crushed and trampled on if Vancouver city hall will ever have the will to make proper decisions.

When the world's population starts to decrease.Oh that. You bring up an even bigger issue. Maybe we should hope for a '28 Days Later' (a bad ass movie...) scenario or castration. :jk:

rt 0891

You don't want Vancouver to become a car dependent sprawling urban mess........................well to late. Vancouver is a sprawling mess.
This is why Translink gets nowhere near the transit ridership of Toronto/Montreal or even Ottawa/Calgary.
Vancouver is a sprawled out mess made worse by the fact that it was the last major city in Canada to get rapid transit.
Vancouver has gotten itself into a real mess and it will take a lot of years and political will {which is lacking} to fix things.
Vancouver is an urban transit nightmare and now made much worse by high home prices which are forcing people further into the valley so they can even afford a small house on a small lot.

We haven't reached the stage where it's unreversable yet. With adequate rezoning of Vancouver's low density areas, we can gradually turn Vancouver back into a pedestrian-cycling-public transit friendly city.

Well SSIGUY im still waiting for you to explain how Vancouver is a sprawling mess?

FYI - here is a link to a pdf map showing Vancouver City zones.

Zoning Map (http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/coloured_zoning_map.pdf)

I can see the yellow areas (multiple family dwellings) slowly expanding south and east in spots. Other zoning will follow. All happening over many years of course :). That's my prediction.

Interesting how they've got a special zone for the downtown eastside. The number of affordable housing units still seems to be lacking apparently.