Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered Usurper
Joined
·
8,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)



Below you will find a map of the downtown Vancouver core. Pictured in this map you will see purple highlights which represent all remaining surface level parking lots/car parks/parkades.

Adjacent to these coloured plots you will also notice a number which represents the maximum building height in feet for each specific parcel as zoned by the Vancouver view cone and higher buildings policy. Land in the downtown core is becoming increasingly scarce due to stringent height limit standards imposed by city planning officials. These height limits and view cones are designed to preserve views of the surrounding scenery as well as to limit street shadows. Due to the fact that building heights in Vancouver are restricted, more buildings are then required to be constructed in order to meet office and residential demands, thus contributing to the expedient loss of parking space. On the upside, urban density is increased by having numerous smaller towers rather than a handful of taller ones.

Based on current and historical rates of construction in Vancouver, it is my estimation that all remaining parking lots will be fully built out in the next 12-15 years. This is in addition to ongoing and upcoming developments which will see the demolition of current buildings to make way for new developments.

 

·
I need coffee.
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
A riveting topic it seems. :)

Vancouver has done well in this regard. Not a lot of wasted space downtown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
Sydney's city centre has two that I can think of, two more were recently closed to make way for new high rise developments. Surface level parking lots are a blight on the city, look at places like Houston.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
There is no lack of space in Vancouver, only in the downtown which covers a tiny fragment of the big metro. The solution must be to expand the city eastwards and southwards by building more dense cores and increasing the density of the existing ones.
 

·
on the road
leptokurtic
Joined
·
35,062 Posts
The less the better provided public transport is decent.
They have underground parking, which is a good solution.

The bad solution is this "war on cars" view that want to artificially restrict the use of cars to force and almost coerce people into using slower public transportation (let alone cycling and walking).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
79,203 Posts
The bad solution is this "war on cars" view that want to artificially restrict the use of cars to force and almost coerce people into using slower public transportation (let alone cycling and walking).
Suburbanites often don't grasp the concept of public transport, frequently viewing it as being "bad". Sometimes their idea of the ideal downtown is one that is identical to their windswept suburbs.
 

·
Love me, love my dog...
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
Suburbanites often don't grasp the concept of public transport, frequently viewing it as being "bad". Sometimes their idea of the ideal downtown is one that is identical to their windswept suburbs.
On the other hand, we don't always display an understanding of the suburbs either, often calling them bland, generic, and windswept (I don't quite get that one). :) I think the "bad" concept goes both ways.
 

·
on the road
leptokurtic
Joined
·
35,062 Posts
Suburbanites often don't grasp the concept of public transport, frequently viewing it as being "bad".

I didn't say public transportation is bad[/b].

I said forcing people to use public transportation that can't attract passengers because it is slow/infrequent/dangerous/filthy by waging "war" in its competition (car) is bad.

If you have a good (clean, frequent, safe, modern, not crowded) public transportation system AND large amounts of underground parking, people then have a choicep about how they want to move to the central areas. And choice is always important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
The urban vs. suburban argument sounds high and mighty, but it's ultimately as meaningless as that east coast vs. west coast rap feud. The development community wields power with both politicians and media, so it's hard to hear dissenting perspectives. I've been (un)lucky enough to work for a developer in Vancouver. All the (bought) attention to supposed urbanism is simply a justification for windfall profits from upzoning. Mind you, this occurs in most every post industrial society. This subject is compounded by the fact that there are indeed benefits to intensifying downtown cores.

DT Vancouver's parking lot to glass condo metamorphosis' greatest beneficiaries are the development industry. Land that was used to generate parking rent is suddenly sold to mortgage-slavery homeowners--easy money from the appreciation of the land. That's not to say the condos themselves aren't a good thing, as they provide housing in the very core of the city. That's the crux of the argument in favor of the present system, but it also ignores related issues.

Ideally the disappearance of parking space would coincide with a wholesale expansion of transit and densification and curtailing sprawl. Unfortunately reality is different, and Vancouver isn't an exception.

There's been some progress in transit, but it's been outrun by the continual expansion of development in the suburban, auto-centric realm, e.g. development in the mountainous regions outside of the Agricultural Land Reserve, or way out in the valley. Again, more profits for the development community while the home owners get a slightly lower purchase price AND no hope of escaping car dependency. Thus there are people in the metro Vancouver region who still drive downtown, despite its lack of parking and its consequent exorbitant parking costs.

More commonly, the boon in DT residential development has led the traditional company offices to seek cheaper pastures elsewhere in the region. Oftentimes, cheap yet car-centric suburban office parks have replaced all but the most prestigious offices.

And folks, don't take suburbanist too seriously. He takes a few nuggets of wisdom from the Von Mises/Von Hayek/Ayn Rand school of social Darwinism, then applies it to urban development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,549 Posts
On the other hand, we don't always display an understanding of the suburbs either, often calling them bland, generic, and windswept (I don't quite get that one). :) I think the "bad" concept goes both ways.
It depends on which type of suburbs. The auto-centric ones tend to be bland and generic.
 

·
Love me, love my dog...
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
It depends on which type of suburbs. The auto-centric ones tend to be bland and generic.
Yes some suburbs are not desirable places, but often they are all characterized in the same way - bland and generic - and that is nowhere near the truth. Some central cities are bland and generic too, but I never hear ALL cities discussed as such.
 

·
on the road
leptokurtic
Joined
·
35,062 Posts
It depends on which type of suburbs. The auto-centric ones tend to be bland and generic.
A better question is: for majority of people, how much "blandness" is a factor they consider relevant, and to what extent, comparing to space and price, for instance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,549 Posts
As I said before, the auto-centric crap that composes 90% or so of most metropolitan areas in the US is bland and generic. The pre-WWII ones like Somerville, MA and Evanston, IL or the ones that was build around modern transit like Bethesda, MD are interesting suburbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,735 Posts
Yes some suburbs are not desirable places, but often they are all characterized in the same way - bland and generic - and that is nowhere near the truth. Some central cities are bland and generic too, but I never hear ALL cities discussed as such.
Auto-centric cities seem to generate blandess! Their downtowns become huge business parks. Everyone is shopping and eating in the malls not the downtown. A city that has more cars on the downtown streets than pedestrians is not healthy.
 

·
Love me, love my dog...
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
As I said before, the auto-centric crap that composes 90% or so of most metropolitan areas in the US is bland and generic. The pre-WWII ones like Somerville, MA and Evanston, IL or the ones that was build around modern transit like Bethesda, MD are interesting suburbs.
That is a gross generalization...but I agree that the historical suburbs are much more interesting. I'm sure you consider Atlanta "auto-centric crap", but the vast majority of it's suburbs are historic towns that pre-date Atlanta and have walkable downtowns - some even with transit stations. It's not all black and white regarding suburbs any more than it is any other subject...that was my point.
 

·
Love me, love my dog...
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
Auto-centric cities seem to generate blandess! Their downtowns become huge business parks. Everyone is shopping and eating in the malls not the downtown. A city that has more cars on the downtown streets than pedestrians is not healthy.
But I'm sure you're not going to call cities in general "bland and generic" just because some of them are that way. There are plenty of suburbs that are beautiful/walkable/historic/interesting/etc. that do not fit the tired old stereotypes constantly spewed on this site. '

I'm not pro-suburb or anything, it just gets old and it's kinda silly. Enough said.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top