vanpolimorphus.bsky.social
Commenting on politics and other issues, primarily related to Vancouver, but it's all connected, so I stray.
106 posts
233 followers
6 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Thanks for your gross oversimplification. In fact, no one is suggesting we don't add massive density, but like any project, people have views about how it should best be done. I know residents caring about their community is antithetical to the YIMBY doctrine, so it must be hard to watch.
comment in response to
post
Wow! One of your very best.
comment in response to
post
These theories do not accurately capture the high cost of not providing needed parking. They only consider one side of the issue. Like saying we could build more housing if we didn’t waste space with kitchens.
comment in response to
post
No, we have to get away from this binary approach. I believe we can reasonably and respectfully do both.
comment in response to
post
As I say, I support more options as you describe, but to do so in ways which also respect the feel of the hood and existing residents, which is totally doable.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, this is good, but how much of this is being encouraged?
My only issue is where a single house gets sandwiched between two much larger buildings. I think it needs to be sensitive to that, as you have pictured here. It’s why I prefer land assemblies or at least end of block.
comment in response to
post
Do you not think that 1 bed demand will be met with the many thousands of units in the works right now? Do we really need to be planning for so many more?
comment in response to
post
Yes, we are ignoring this vital need and instead building so much which is not designed for long term family living. We need the full range. How do we make policy which helps create that?
comment in response to
post
Sorry, you lost me.
comment in response to
post
Exactly. These are not long term homes. They are for a certain time in life and then people need to move on as they grow. We need some of that, but not the amount which is being built. People need space and if they don't get it, they will move further out.
comment in response to
post
Your clients idea of more compact homes are not the micro suites in the towers Danny is referring to, believe me. I fully support the kind of "compact" homes you are building for your clients.
comment in response to
post
That's like saying Disneyland gets loads of visitors so we should make our city like Disneyland. Venice is amazing, but not how people want or can live here. We are not going to change Vancouver into Venice or Disneyland. Reality does not support your wishes. Car ownership is trending up, not down.
comment in response to
post
Nope. People want cars. No evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm saying to study how much parking is truly needed and reduce accordingly because yes, there are some like you, but who are not. You only have to look around you or at the actual data.
comment in response to
post
The winner for most eye rolling line, "people who prefer more compact homes". 😅
Anyway, I am advocating for considerable density increases on quiet streets, just not towers. We can add more housing than we can possibly need without towers everywhere.
comment in response to
post
There is so much nonsense in Danny's article my head is spinning, but I note that he refers to a community group view from over 20 years ago. This is a tired habit of drudging up some ridiculous thing someone once said a long time ago and acting like it is policy today.
comment in response to
post
Sure, but reality is public transit. Bike use is so tiny and it's already very easy to get around on a bike here, but building bike storage is easy and good. Car ownership is not going down. That's reality and as I say, if you even own one...
comment in response to
post
Can you point to a single current policy online which demonstrates this?
comment in response to
post
As I say, not against revising the minimums as appropriate.
comment in response to
post
So do real analysis and build the parking which is needed. Build less if it is found that many stalls sit empty, and if you think people should not have cars, then start with yourself and get rid of your car. Hard to take the comment seriously when you yourself continue to have one.
comment in response to
post
"Towers to shield SFH" is one of those nonsense ideas blown up because maybe someone once said it 50 years ago. It's not why we build towers.
3 sides of a tower do not face arterial and they can also be set back. Most units are not subject to noticeable pollution or noise.
comment in response to
post
You say "revisit the BP when...", so sure, but there are a whole host of other reasons to pause and reconsider the way the Plan is designed. It should't be about one single building code adjustment.
comment in response to
post
I find it odd that you do not want densification on arterials. So nothing? Keep it one story?
comment in response to
post
Thanks. I think there is some common ground and room for discussion. You want no parking in buildings and I don't see how so many cars can just fit on the street. Kits streets are already jammed with cars, so where do they go? You might wish no one had a car, but people have them. Don't you?
comment in response to
post
Absolutely, but I mean at the time, because as regards the Broadway Plan, we are now at this time.
comment in response to
post
I look forward to your comments on page 2. And sorry for not leaving you space. I had to create space for yours using Photoshop.
comment in response to
post
Could be, but some would have argued that roads are the life blood of economic progress contributing many $$ to the economy by enabling commerce. I know that would be argued, but I believe it would have been presented as a sound business case.
comment in response to
post
I disagree. Towers do not serve families who are forced out to get more affordable ground oriented space they crave, so they commute in, in their car. I know of so many people doing exactly that. It's one of the biggest failures of all this urbanism. It's not family friendly for so many.
comment in response to
post
I do, in the broad sense at least, but I await their official policy which I am told is coming soon.
comment in response to
post
That's one out of six in the Venn diagram.
Developers believed that freeways were the answer to progress and sound urban planning.
Developers believe that towers are the answer to progress and sound urban planning.
comment in response to
post
I did not say "3 storeys or less". I gave examples of the type of housing I would encourage. I said 6 everywhere was not right, but I am including higher density in various forms in more places than we can possibly build and a lot more options than allowed right now.
comment in response to
post
Otherwise, sounds like we agree on a number of things, but some are discussion points as to how. I think that's a far more constructive dialogue than you implied when you said "no ideas". I don't think my ideas are that different to what TEAM stands for.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for your comments. Very much disagree that there is no commonality with freeways and towers.
comment in response to
post
You should look into this if you want to be a politician.
comment in response to
post
Indeed it has been debated! I don't know the cost, but the point is that it was meant to be temporary and many, including many cycling groups, did not want that lane there at all.
Can we stick to housing? You have yet to reply to the particulars of my housing statement.
comment in response to
post
The fact is, there was a loss of revenue associated with the closures. How you feel about the changes is another thing.
comment in response to
post
The cost to install was about $750k, not including over $3 million in lost parking revenue when vehicle access was restricted. The cost to remove was estimated to be about $300k.
comment in response to
post
It was meant to be a *temporary* response to the pandemic. How much to install it, and did you object to the cost then? How much would it cost to make it permanent? Surely we don't want hundreds of orange cones in the park forever. There are costs associated with all options.
comment in response to
post
"Removing a temporary bike lane", you mean. Hundreds of orange cones removed from a park is a good thing (but perhaps we should stick to housing!)
comment in response to
post
That's really what I'm asking. The other stuff are other topics, however I will say that there are some counter issues to the whole banning gas in houses thing. Namely, that we are currently buying excess electricity from coal fired generators. Hardly green. thenarwhal.ca/clean-b-c-is...
comment in response to
post
We need more of that. We need industry pros to tell the city what pisses them off about process and get it changed. ABC promised that. Do you feel they have been delivering?
comment in response to
post
It's about respecting what we have because both character and heritage are of value to residents and visitors alike.
They certainly can be one and the same. The home I posted above is both. So is the Marine Building downtown, etc... It's what I love when I visit other places too.
comment in response to
post
Sure, but as I keep saying, it's absolutely not the only option, but it has to be a big part of the options, which it is not now. As you say, you do it, so clearly you believe in it.
comment in response to
post
I've seen it. That's what you are referring to. I'm not an expert in that aspect of building design, but if it makes sense and makes housing better, I'm for it. I'm not for windowless bedrooms or unit sizes which are insanely small.
comment in response to
post
Right, so that can be done with low rise, ground oriented homes, so we agree. Nice.