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.
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.
I bet that if he gives a speech in Vancouver he would use the term "our Skytrain system".....
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****.
And from other writings, this guy seems quite knoledgeable about urban development...
This guy sounds like a complete radical. Vancouver doesn't need anymore buildings? Madness, unless we go to the communist system he seems to be proposing where everyone lives in dense villages and works the land without industrial, carbon intensive farming equipment, not building buildings just makes the price of real estate go even higher and puts even more burden on the working poor he claims to care about. Yeah, maybe an urban growth boundary + densification isn't as Green as some insane scheme that no one would ever agree to live in without it being imposed by some totalitarian order, but it is Green in all of the scenarios which are plausible and not misanthropic.
This guy sounds like a complete radical. Vancouver doesn't need anymore buildings? Madness, unless we go to the communist system he seems to be proposing where everyone lives in dense villages and works the land without industrial, carbon intensive farming equipment, not building buildings just makes the price of real estate go even higher and puts even more burden on the working poor he claims to care about. Yeah, maybe an urban growth boundary + densification isn't as Green as some insane scheme that no one would ever agree to live in without it being imposed by some totalitarian order, but it is Green in all of the scenarios which are plausible and not misanthropic.
...and his tendency to exaggerate is off - putting. I have NEVER seen homeless sleeping in entrance ways of million dollar condo's. I have never been to Melbourne and I hear it's nice, but like anyplace it has it's detractors. I tried to find stats on how many homeless there are in both places. For Melbourne some of the stats numbers were really low...100. Really? Some where saying 4000, but that is a 2004 stat.
Vancouver puts it's number at 1,602 for 2012.
I'm guessing they are probably close. Regardless I do know the homeless in Vancouver can be quite visible, I don't know about Melbourne. City layouts can have an effect on what someone sees when it comes to poverty.
I agree, the " urban planner " sounds angry and therefor that anger has clouded his judgement.
Both are great, or should I say, fantastic cities separated by about 2 hours via I-5 (longer if the peace arch crossing is clogged). Living in Seattle, I make that drive about 3-4 times a year (twice as often as I visit Portland which is roughly the same travel time away) simply because of the "cosmopolitan vibe" that pervades in Vancouver. It truly embodies the definition of an international city with over half of all Vancouverites born abroad, and this is reflected in the myriad of ethnic restaurants and specialty themed shopping centers found throughout the city.
The new Canada Line subway runs under Robson Street and interchanges/transfers with the Sky Train and (future) UBC lines. This is one metro transit aspect that we lack down in Seattle and contributes to many of our traffic problems.
Moreover, Vancouver is very close to Whistler/Blackcomb, which is arguable the BEST ski area in the world. Seattle has much smaller resorts of lesser quality.
Still, Seattle offers many more big box shopping centers like the Walmart Super Center in Tulalip, Babies R Us in Lynnwood, and the Seattle Premium Outlets also in Tulalip. Vancouverits know this and often make day trips down to do thier shopping and visit friends at the same time. All said, Seattle has more of a "big city feel" whereas Vancouver has more of a resort destination appeal.
I think the two cities more or less compliment one another, rather than compete with eachother.
I'm from Vancouver, and I largely agree with you. Nevertheless, despite Vancouver's more cosmopolitan (and I would say "speedy") vibe, your cultural scene, most notably in music, is vastly superior to ours. Seattle is known as a "music city" and that's not counting grunge rock, either. The people who make up Seattle, and perhaps the strong Scandinavian emphasis on education, make Seattle a deeper, more culture-oriented place, even if Vancouver may have a "finer texture" to it, at last to look at, if nothing else.
I'm from Vancouver, and I largely agree with you. Nevertheless, despite Vancouver's more cosmopolitan (and I would say "speedy") vibe, your cultural scene, most notably in music, is vastly superior to ours. Seattle is known as a "music city" and that's not counting grunge rock, either. The people who make up Seattle, and perhaps the strong Scandinavian emphasis on education, make Seattle a deeper, more culture-oriented place, even if Vancouver may have a "finer texture" to it, at last to look at, if nothing else.
While the two cities are roughly the same size population wise, Seattle is actually twice the size due to the much larger suburban aggregation there. Therefore a lot of things happen in the suburbs instead of the city itself.
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.
