Jay, consider that the issue, much like the last one we discussed a few comments back ACTUALLY AFFECTS PEOPLE. I would hate it regardless of which party made the decision. If vision was doing something I held no opinion on, I wouldn’t say anything. Talk about marginalizing you’re basically not even responding to anything valid I have to say and reducing it into a petty dislike for vision. Reminds me of the way that Gregor treated the WEN.

@Jay #92:

“Even if it were true that for some reason the public wanted to keep the viaducts in place, the correct move is to remove them. ”

Oh, well then… if you say so. 😉

“I don’t follow municipal politics (or any for that matter)”

I see.

But seriously, I disagree with you on this, but have no desire to rehash past debates on this blog. For the purpose of this discussion, while I would love a referendum on this, I think the better way to proceed would be for this to be an election issue. IMO, that’s the better way to go.

@jenables #102. Outcome or end use will affect how a referendum goes. So-called unanimous opinion that the viaduct should be removed could easily sway to outright rejection if the end use is a glut of ugly condo towers, poor rerouting of traffic, and park space that is only development landscaping.

No doubt some of the public probably suspects all of the above. And the city knows that too, so no polls or referendums for us.

#106 I’m so sorry your sunshine is choking on the clouds of negativity here. Oddly enough, I note that your comment #13 was the first one to get personal, being directed solely at me and teri. Onwards and upwards though, right?

There may not be water but there is an escarpment, and even you cannot deny it is a heavily used piece of infrastructure.

So boohoo, given the number of respondents in the City’s viaducts consultations only numbered around 650 (on par with the Rize and Grandview sessions), would it be fair to use your often-repeated mantra that the support for removal of the viaducts was spearheaded by a handful of loudmouths?

Or do you only dismiss the results of consultations as being hijacked by loudmouths when the majority of respondents vote differently than you do on an issue?

How convenient.

*

Spartikus, I still humbly await an explanation for your befuddling remark.

I wrote: “I’ve shown before that the City proper has a rapidly declining rate of population growth”

You replied: “No, you haven’t. Stop making things up, unless you are prepared to prove StatsCan is in on a conspiracy with Vancouver real estate developers.”

Wow, you even stooped to playing the conspiracy nut card! And never missing an opportunity to call someone out, boohoo piled on too.

Just to clarify, here are the CoV growth rates reported by StatsCan, which I think clearly prove Vancouver’s “rapidly declining rate of population growth”:

1991-96: 43,364 (9% growth rate)
2001: 31,663 (6.2%)
2006: 32,370 (5.9%)
2011: 25,461 (4.4%)

So, according to StatsCan, the COV’s population growth rate is now 50% less than it was in the early-mid 90s. And with such a precipitous drop-off in the rate, real population growth has also dropped significantly – nearly18,000 less people moved into the City in 2006-11 (25,461) compared to 1991-96 (43,364).

And yet condo mania (new unit construction) has ramped up considerably since EcoDensity TM was minted nearly a decade ago, bullying its way into successive neighbourhoods. And this is justified, ad nauseum, by the claim that population growth demands it?

I hope no-one calls me a “loudmouth” for pointing out this common fallacy.

Of course, with $4 million+ in campaign donations to be spent between NPA/Vision, I guess “openness and transparency” takes on a whole new meaning for the party faithful, eh? With that kind of dough behind you, and a penchant for branding the opposition as negative loudmouths who fear change, there’s no question which version of truthiness will prevail for the next four years.

Spartikus, I still humbly await an explanation for your befuddling remark.

Really? Ok.

Jenables has clearly been talking about displacing people living in affordable rentals

Jenables has been talking about lots of things. Here’s their comment directed at me:

A small, provincial city, where the housing was affordable if you had a job, where nice neighborhoods included families with children, where people didn’t talk wistfully about becoming a world class city because they already liked where they lived, and didn’t require global validation for living there.

I don’t think I see a phrase restricting it to “affordable rental”, do you?

Making things up? I followed your link to a web site.

This is semantic and silly, but you wrote…

Sparty your link led me to the “20 Most Expensive Buildings in North America” list

I think anyone could be forgiven in thinking you were claiming my link was not what it seemed. Regardless, it was a non-sequitor response to the point I made.

Are you disputing that StatsCan numbers clearly show the City of Vancouver’s growth rate has declined significantly since the early 1990s? Please do explain.

Yes, I’m disputing that. One, the 2001 Census showed a growth rate of 6.2%. The 2011 Census, 4.4%. Here’s something to think about: When you add a number to something, it gets bigger. When you add the same number to this new amount, it gets bigger but at a lower rate than before even though you are adding the same number. 1991 and 1996 had growth rates of 9.4% and 9% respectively, but as anyone can see, these are outliers in the post-war era, driven by uncertainty of the Hong Kong handover. Once settled, things returned to the historical norm.

Second, you haven’t linked to anything, but merely assumed your conclusion. The population of Metro Vancouver is projected by government statistic agencies to grow by 1.2 million people by 2041. To achieve that requires a growth rate of only 2-3% / yr.

I don’t see how any of the arguments regarding the proportion of high-rises to population undermines the fact that Vancouver is an outlier on these lists.

Other than undermining the argument that Vancouver is an outlier on these lists, you’re right.

To the audience at home, you patience is appreciated.

#32 is by a different Chris.

#108…. All I was originally asking was for people to acknowledge that access to information has worsened in recent years and that it would be easy to improve. All that other stuff is coming from you, not me.

I actually enjoy conversations with people who hold different points of view, provided they can realistically address or at least acknowledge that issues such as viaducts removal can have a significant effect on others. If you were asking why I thought what I did, or challenging my assertions, or were clear and obvious on what your beliefs were, I might be enjoying this. However, this is not the case. It is clear that no matter what evidence or questions are brought forth you will continue to split hairs, accuse others of cheap politicking, of being ignorant, of being negative, and so on. Yes there is an escarpment, no it is not a gentle incline. The report you linked to does not provide any solutions that address vehicle traffic at its current rate and certainly doesn’t consider that building more shoeboxes means more cars no matter how much active (and ableist) transportation you promote. It specifically says that it should not be done without substantial investment in transit such as a hastings b line or new skytrain. It does not provide real solutions nor does it address what would actually happen, it instead chooses to assume that if there is (limited) capacity on the bus, then former drivers will fill it. Again, malkin avenue is not in any way appropriate as an arterial. There are so many semis backing into loading bays, all day long on malkin. Traffic lines up on both sides and will try to get around at first opportunity with limited vision on the other side. There are no sidewalks. Why don’t you respond to these things?

Spartikus.. You just quoted the same statistics as Dr F. so why are you arguing? This may sound hmm, elementary but it sounds like your argument is not considering people who leave Vancouver or die.

@Jenables – “Talk about marginalizing you’re basically not even responding to anything valid I have to say and reducing it into a petty dislike for vision. Reminds me of the way that Gregor treated the WEN.”

Your support of the viaducts goes against the grain for you. It doesn’t add up when you’re arguing against towers and any further development in order to keep your neighbourhood human scale, pedestrian friendly. But at the same time you support retaining one of the biggest blights in the city?

The Powell Street closure has demonstrated that people still effectively move around despite the loss of a major artery. The new street alignment around Pacific would add capacity (whereas the Powell st closure had no extra capacity added) with a widened Pacific and better flow with the Malkin Connector. I would think that the Kingsway Connector would get consideration again as this would also increase capacity.

Do you see why I might think it’s more of an anti Vision thing as opposed to “let’s build a great city” thing? By the way I;m not a Vision supporter, or NPA, or Green or anybody. They’re all one big pile.

Boohoo that was indeed confusing, thanks for the clarification. The report I read was the pdf on the page you linked to.

You can safely assume if I’m addressing what you are saying and that sentence ends with a question mark that I am, in fact, asking you. Whether or not you answer is your perogative, naturally. Please, next time you find yourself in my neck of the woods in a car, drive down malkin instead of prior. (if coming off the viaduct, turn right at Jackson /malkin) You’ll see exactly what I mean by semi trucks, limited visibility and blind corners. Also, I can’t seem to find information on the height of the escarpment but found estimates for it to be at about 20 meters, that sounds about right.

Almost the entire single family area of strathcona is traffic calmed between prior and hastings, which works well because of the two arterials. Remember these structures will last another forty years with minimal (I guess) cost. There is no reason why the surrounding area is so bland and ugly other than the tax avoiding, income collecting property owner swindling the residents out of a park that is long overdue.

Alright.. Wait a minute. How did we end up talking about this again?

Jay, how often are you driving in this area of the city? When is the last time you used the viaducts? I think you are trying to typecast me, but nope, it is possible to want to keep the viaducts and not lose housing for low income individuals without it being a political stand against everything vision does. There you go again. Funny you should mention blight. Blight is the exact reason why the projects in strathcona were built, as the reasoning went. Goodbye houses, hello projects. Not everyone thinks like you do, buddy.

Frances

Jen, you mention the escarpment that the road will have to climb up to. Whatever the height of it is, the ramp to do so would be no different that the ramp that currently exists at Main St, since the viaducts run level from the top of that ramp to the escarpment, more or less. What we would save is the blight of that elevated roadway for that length.

We don’t have to worry much about the waste created by removing them. They are concrete. Crush them, recover the rebar and recycle it, and use the crushed material to build roads. The province seems to be doing enough of that to require roadbed materials.

I use them. I also use the roads underneath them, driving walking and cycling (although I’ve never walked over the viaducts in recent history). When I first heard about removing them, my thought was “Why?” So I read the reports. I studied them. That caused me to reconsider, to change my mind, and to see the benefits of removing them. I support removing them. They are an artifact of a failed plan to implement highways through the city. They lead from surface roads to other surface roads. We can do better. I think the discussion should not be about whether or not we remove them, but what we do with the space we reclaim. That is more important. We have the ability to do all sorts of things, if we choose.

“Are you disputing that StatsCan numbers clearly show the City of Vancouver’s growth rate has declined significantly since the early 1990s?”

“Yes, I’m disputing that.”

Thank you, for clarifying you’re position, Spartikus. That tells me all I need to know. Namely, that you don’t understand basic math.

“When you add a number to something, it gets bigger. When you add the same number to this new amount, it gets bigger but at a lower rate than before even though you are adding the same number.”

Gawd. You sound like a climate change denier in your desperate attempts to belittle me and undermine facts that are staring you in the face. Surely you realize this only affects the growth rate by a fraction of a percentage point?
That is obvious to anyone looking at these numbers. The fact is, the actual population gain (not just the growth rate) has also declined significantly, from 43000+ in 1996, to 25000+ in 2011.

1991-96: 43,364 (9% growth rate)
2001: 31,663 (6.2%)
2006: 32,370 (5.9%)
2011: 25,461 (4.4%)

Any guesses at to the number of new units built per year over this same period, or the number of towers built per year? Do you believe it has been increasing, or decreasing?

Condo mania is not being fuelled population demand, but by investor demand. It’s a dirty little secret that neither the NPA or Vision (or the development/real estate industry) wants Vancouverites to know.

And Spartikus, you seem oddly desperate to perpetuate this fallacy, too. I wonder why that is?

Jeff @ 127,

Please have a look at the wall of massive towers that are being proposed by Vision Van and Concord after the viaducts removal.

I’m not talking about massive towers, I’m suggesting a combination of Habitat like stepped massing combined with some mid-rise higher components. This concept could include neighbourhood shops and cafe’s, perhaps even along a couple of at grade and mid-level pedestrian and bike “streets for all users”.

@126“The fact is, the actual population gain (not just the growth rate) has also declined significantly, from 43000+ in 1996, to 25000+ in 2011.

1991-96: 43,364 (9% growth rate)
2001: 31,663 (6.2%)
2006: 32,370 (5.9%)
2011: 25,461 (4.4%)

Condo mania is not being fuelled population demand, but by investor demand. It’s a dirty little secret that neither the NPA or Vision (or the development/real estate industry) wants Vancouverites to know.”

Would it be fair to say investor demand is also fueled by the cities increasing population? These investors rent these units out to people. Just off the top of my head, the empty unit rate in Vancouver is only 2% higher than Calgary (from the Andy Yan report), so whether they’re owner occupied or renter occupied, who cares as long as they are occupied.

The frantic rate at which southeast false creek is being built, and all these new projects coming up in Chinatown tells me that there is still high demand for this city.The growth rate isn’t as high because we are simply running out of land, and with a shrinking supply of land, the most logical use of land becomes high density in the form of towers. The city proposed rowhouses for Marpole. Marpole said no, so we’re left with towers on industrial or large parking lots. For decades now we have been building on industrial land but it’s gotten to the point where we have to preserve what industrial land we’ve got left, which means redeveloping existing residential areas. An arduous process.

Vancouver is only 44 sq miles, but we still managed to grow by 25 000 people during the last census cycle. Surrey grew by 73 000 people but over a much larger area – 122 sq. miles. When you recognize how much more land Surrey has than Vancouver then both cities are growing at the same rate on a per sq mile basis.

Jenables – I didn’t say building only towers was smart. High density transit nodes make sense because we’ll see transit ridership as high as 50%, such as is the case around Metrotown. The problem is all the resistance to any changes in single detached areas. People want these neighbourhoods untouched, so the areas where the city gets the least amount of pushback are in the industrial areas (which we’re running out of and trying to preserve), and Safeway parking lots. If we’re forced to confine the construction of new housing to these small areas, you have to drastically increase density. All that tower density could easily be spread out with the construction of row-houses, but as we see in Marpole, not even row-houses are acceptable.

Tower neighbourhoods suck, but so do these more supposedly humane 4-6 story developments. There’s quite a few along Main St., and just like tower with their podium, you get these continuous walls of expressionless glass that create a dead zone.

People need to accept that we need to rebuild some neighbourhoods with row-houses and stacked town-houses, because while the population increase substantially in Metro Vancouver, the amount of family appropriate housing has gone up very slowly. This has to be the biggest cause of our ridiculous housing prices.

PS – In the city of Vancouver, the rate of empty dwellings stood at 7.7 per cent overall, with some parts of the downtown as high as 23 per cent. In the city of Toronto, the rate was 5.4 per cent; in Calgary, 5 per cent.

Take away Coal Harbour, and Vancouver is more in line with the rest of Canada.

When they say “special to the sun” does it mean I’m reading a newsvertorial? Because I really felt like vancity and every real estate shillperson came together to promote the fallacious supply and demand, “it’s affordable because it’s more affordable than a house”, “you see, a lot of people want to live here ” and of course, ” buy a tiny shoebox somewhere where you won’t need a car”. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am capable of understanding the logic behind these statements in a broader sense but they completely ignore the actual cause of our housing cost and in fact exacerbate it. Sigh… Let me put it this way. After what has happened here in regard to housing cost, does no one ever doubt their methodology? Do people honestly think the reason “it’s so desirable here” is natural beauty and not the calculated business of whoring out that beauty while selling out the people who live here? And hey, maybe someone will finally answer this question: since more supply totally lowers prices, (no, it doesn’t) why would you want to buy a condo that is guaranteed to depreciate?

@ Jeff 29,

You are not understanding me correctly. I said nothing about subterranean. One of the streets could be at grade and be of a local neigbourhood high street character. The other, say, half way up, integrated with the stepped housing so that there are horizontal as well as vertical linkages.

Apparently the drivers that use it daily think it’s important. Traffic during rush hour is backed up and has become worse since the bike lane was installed. I believe the City has plans to upgrade Malkin and my suggestion comes from there as well as the application of transportation planning principles that establish a grid system, separate incompatible transportation from adjacent uses, ie: trucks along a residential neighbourhood and parks.

http://strathcona-residents.org/files/2012-07-07-Prior_Proposal-FINAL.pdf

As well it’s there. Removing it will be very expensive, create massive landfill and in the process will consume large amounts of energy. Not very green.

‘Imagining the street we want and starting from there…’ is nice, but in the real world of downtown Vancouver, we don’t have that luxury. And, often when one takes the approach of turning obstacles into opportunities, the results are far better.

I put this forward as what might prove to be a viable alternative. It’s not on the table and should be.

@134, 135

Did you catch the ‘news’ story about private schools in the weekend sun? Sad state of affairs.

@boohoo 138
I didnt read the Sun. But, I read the Sunday Province. And, it had an entire section with multiple articles about independant schools. It was indistinguishable from real articles. I completely agree that it’s a sad state of affairs, especially since it comes from something we’re supposed to trust. How am I as a reader going to give them any credibility on reporting on public education, knowing they are essentially a PR firm for private schools now?

@Kirk #140.

….”credibility on reporting on education”…

I guess we extend the same amount of credibility when they report on that issue as we have to when it comes to reporting on housing, housing affordability, and how foreign/investor ownership affects the local market. Given, of course, the ad revenue that they receive from the RE industry.

Oh yes, I know. I just really wanted to share that. Do you think the qualifier for newsvertorial is the “special to” at the top? I wonder when that will disappear..

@Jen #144

“Do you think the qualifier for newsvertorial is the “special to” at the top?”

No, that appears to simply indicate the home base of the responsible reporter. Other stories are tagged “by xx of the Times Colonist” or similar. “Special to the Sun” appears to indicate that either the writer is on staff, or the article is exclusively published in this paper.

Advertising features are normally indicated as such, although not necessarily in large obvious print. And the story about the two couples who want to buy a house was in the business section, not a section by itself.

But back to that article, how come four working thirty somethings can only pull together 5% down payment as it says in the article? Maybe they should revisit that figure if they want to reduce their mortgage payment.

@Bill

I would be surprised if there was any added travel time because of the bike lane. What is the vehicle capacity of Prior Street and the left turn lane off of Main that feed onto the viaduct vs the capacity of a 2 lane viaduct. The viaduct has more capacity, so explain to me how the bike lane has created added travel time.

There’s Union st. as well, but it is relatively inconsequential.