Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
movingwiththewinnd, an interesting reading for you from a born and raised Vancouver expatriate to Melbourne....
The Vancouver Myth Debunked
__________________________________________________ ____________
Premier Bligh's "showcase" for "green development" in Vancouver
I went to the "De-growth" Conference in Vancouver in early May. I met with Conrad Schmidt of the "Work Less Party", and others, who had a ring side seat to the farce which was the Olympics. I was intent upon writing a summary of the conference, but as usual, was sidetracked by other issues. That Vancouver is held up as a shining beacon of sensible planning is an outrage equivalent to the International Red Cross giving a Nazi concentration camp a five star hotel rating. I was born there and left six years ago, and made my second trip back in 3 years to attend the conference. My impression of the place was only re-inforced. As I commented, it is a city built on an imported slave labour caste where the slaves, too exhausted by long hours and subsistence pay, are on the one hand, celebrated by the chic left and business class alike as agents of diversity, and on the other hand, blamed for not assimilating into our society by the resentful residents who feel their competition. The truth is, the working immigrant poor, have neither the time nor the energy to do so, and it is there children who must interpret mainstream culture for them. Same old con job. My great grandparents were caught in the same vice at the turn of the century. Today 38% of Vancouverites fail to earn the $18 per hour necessary to live a decent living. And 38% of city residents are foreign born. That correlation carries a message. Most newcomers are poor, and as elsewhere in Canada, take a decade to catch up with the hindmost Canadian working poor. They cannot earn the $25,000 per year necessary to pay enough taxes to reimburse governments for the services that are provided for them. In effect, "cultural diversity" is a corporate welfare scam where Canadians pay for the services of cheap labour and employers, landlords and realtors reap the reward. Nothing new about that script. Yet it is one that travel writers and eminent tourists from Brisbane never read.
Yes, Vancouver has invested billions in monorails. But owing to open-ended growth, that transportation network has not displaced car traffic but only supplemented it. Driving about the city is an even greater nightmare now than it was when I left. And in the shadow of this grand monuments there sleeps the homeless, who can be seen by day begging for money or dashing between cars to wipe windshields. Some find shelter by the entrances of million dollar condo highrises. Vancouver is a glowing testament to the truth that growth never closes the income gap, but widens it. It may reduce unemployment, but not the unemployment rate.It may increase the GDP, but not the per capita GNP. Growth may grow the but the forces that profit from it will will ensure that its benefits are not equitably shared by buying city elections and electing pro-development politicians to the provincial legislature. Even the social democratic NDP failed to arrest the widening disparity of wealth during its eight year reign. In fact, evidence suggests that it worsened. Yet leftist politicians still remain faithfull to the credo that to meet the need for affordable housing, education and health care, they must "grow" the revenues. That can only be done in two ways. One is the traditional way of "taxing the rich". But capital is a moving target, and won't live in a tax regime that is much higher than in other jurisdictions. The second way is to pursue economic growth, which the social democratic leadership has picked up as its banner too. The two party system is in reality, a one party growthist state with two competing factions whose differences can only be calibrated in nuances. But spout the same cant about cultural diversity and sustainability and employ common buzzwords. Every initiative is "green" and all growth is "smart".
A roomate of mine in the early eighties said it best. "Those who advocate more density will get more density without any end to sprawl." Jack Marshall said that smart growth was necessary but not sufficient. It is only necessary as a growth-enabler and a means to line developer pockets. Renegade urban planner Rick Belfour made it clear at the De-growth conference. There are no "green" buildings. We already have TOO MANY buildings and houses. In our post carbon future---if we have one--- cities of Vancouver's size will not be capable of being "fed or energized". Densification does not conserve energy---quite the contrary(see attachment). More energy is needed to transport food in and waste out. Energy is needed for highrise elevators and heat (ever seen a clothes line outside the 11th floor?). So rather than pack them in, as the soft green establishment keeps arguing, we need to disperse people fast. "It is not about the number of buildings", Belfour said, "but where they are situated". They need to situated close to farmland. We need to relocalize and re-ruralize, and depopulated the megalopolis.
I wrote the following upon my return:
This portrait of Vancouver will disabuse you of your illusions about my hometown. It is a story that is being played out across the world----the making of cities that mimic John Kenneth Galbraith’s description of America: affluence co-existing with squalor. In Vancouver (and elsewhere) we now have a two-party system. The “Work Less Party” , and the incumbent “Care Less Party”.
It would be instructional for Australians to see that. I am made sick by these recurrent tales of "Vancouver, the model city". Bull****.
It's an opinion piece. He lost some credibility with "Yes, Vancouver has invested billions in monorails" Vancouver DOES NOT have a monorail.
Of course is an opinion piece....by defintion...I think he used the terms "monorail" to generically describe the Skytrain system....I do not think he loses credibility because of this...
People in Melbourne dos not know the Skytrain, the word "monorail" help people create a common mental image of an above ground rail public transportation system.
Australians, for example, can immediately mentally associate with the Sydney monorail.
Of course is an opinion piece....by defintion...I think he used the terms "monorail" to generically describe the Skytrain system....I do not think he loses credibility because of this...
People in Melbourne dos not know the Skytrain, the word "monorail" help people create a common mental image of an above ground rail public transportation system.
Australians, for example, can immediately mentally associate with the Sydney monorail.
Horse hockey. A good urban planner knows the terms and the variety of public transportation systems and would not use the word monorail when the system is not a monorail. Give the Australians some credit for being able to understand the difference. Also the systems new line, the Canada Line is mostly underground.
You edited out the part about Skytrain be tiny compared to Sydney's monorail : ) since it isn't. Sydney monorail 8 stations, 3.6 K's of track, Skytrain 48 stations and 68.6 K's of track. Isn't learning fun?
Horse hockey. A good urban planner knows the terms and the variety of public transportation systems and would not use the word monorail when the system is not a monorail. Give the Australians some credit for being able to understand the difference.
....probably many do not know the difference......this does not take anything from the article which mention real problems that for some reasons you seem to ignore.
"Colloquially, the term "monorail" is often used erroneously to describe any form of elevated rail or people mover. In fact, the term refers to the style of track, not its elevation."
Monorails are often but not exclusively elevated, sometimes leading to confusion with other elevated systems such as the Docklands Light Railway, Vancouver SkyTrain (although not a monorail by definition since it runs on conventional steel dual rails http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/WhatIs.html) and the JFK AirTrain. Monorail vehicles are often at first glance similar to other light rail vehicles, and can be both manned and unmanned."
Yes, general public tend to confuse the two and use the terms intechangeably, frankly I think you are nitpicking....
....probably many do not know the difference......this does not take anything from the article which mention real problems that for some reasons you seem to ignore.
"Colloquially, the term "monorail" is often used erroneously to describe any form of elevated rail or people mover. In fact, the term refers to the style of track, not its elevation."
Monorails are often but not exclusively elevated, sometimes leading to confusion with other elevated systems such as the Docklands Light Railway, Vancouver SkyTrain (although not a monorail by definition since it runs on conventional steel dual rails http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/WhatIs.html) and the JFK AirTrain. Monorail vehicles are often at first glance similar to other light rail vehicles, and can be both manned and unmanned."
Yes, general public tend to confuse the two and use the terms intechangeably, frankly I think you are nitpicking....
Perhaps the general public, but not a professional urban planner of any worth. Also wiki is not always the best source for correct information.
Perhaps the general public, but not a professional urban planner of any worth. Also wiki is not always the best source for correct information.
He's writing an opinion piece in a blog with a general public focus, not even a slightly technical paper, probably someone reading it has never been in Vancouver but are familiar with the concept of monorail as an whole above ground light train system....so how you want him to write that generic sentence "Yes, Vancouver has invested billions in monorails." or "Yes, Vancouver has invested billions in an above ground light rail system similar a monorail but it is not a monorail".....????
Now you tell me, in the context of that sentence (the money spent), what is the functional difference between the two???
Stop nitpicking....and focus on the issues
As much as now you do not like the source, Wikipedia, about the Skytrain:
Vancouver had plans as early as the 1950s to build a monorail system, with modernist architect Wells Coates pencilled in to design it; that project was abandoned.[SIZE=2][citation needed] The lack of a rapid transit system was said to be the cause of traffic problems in the 1970s, and the municipal government could not fund the construction of such a system.[48] During the same period, [/SIZE]Urban Transportation Development Corporation, then an Ontario crown corporation, was developing a new rapid transit technology known as an "Intermediate Capacity Transit System".[SIZE=2][49][/SIZE] In 1980 the need for rapid transit was great, and Ontario needed buyers for its new technology. "Advanced Rapid Transit" was selected to be built in Vancouver to showcase the Ontario project at Expo 86."
In the context of that sentence for the Australian general public, it does not matter what terminology he used to express the concept"
If you realy want to nitpick, actually from a strictly urban planning point of view, it does not matter one iota if a planned above ground light rail system is technically a monorail or not....not one bit.
...actually from a strictly urban planning point of view, it does not matter a iota if a planned above ground light rail system is technicall a monorail or not....not one bit.
I agree on that point, but still think an urban planner should be using the correct terms for what they are talking about.
I'm sure most Vancouverites, it they attended a talk that this urban planner gave and he used the term monorail for our system, he would be corrected...and probably a little suspect about his knowledge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
