HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Politics


View Poll Results: Should the B.C. government explore amalgamating Metro Vancouver's municipalities?
Yes 81 71.05%
No 33 28.95%
Voters: 114. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2011, 10:44 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,744
That is exactly how i have envisioned how metro Vancouver should be divided Go_Leafs_go02. Love it

Anyways, there really would not be any need for amalgamation if the province / translink and other such regional forces were a little more strong in regards to getting regional wide services built.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2011, 10:52 PM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808 View Post
He's just saying that Vancouver should speak for Vancouver, Surrey for Surrey, etc. Is there a political voice within Vancouver that could be drowned out by amalgamation? Duh... Yes. This may not bother you in particular since your views tend to sway in that direction but for a great many other Vancouverites this would not be a positive direction for our city. That's all.
It's not just Toronto either (which I think everyone - most Torontonians included - agrees is a complete embarrassment). Hamilton has been having similar problems - so much so in fact that almost everyone who weighs in on the issue, urban and suburban alike, agrees that amalgamation was a mistake.

The fiscal incentive for amalgamation is, generally speaking, supposed to be two-fold: Cost-savings stemming from more efficient governance (didn't happen), and a larger pool of tax revenue (which leads to suburbanites resenting higher property taxes to support city transit they'd never use, urbanites resenting the fact that they generally foot the bill for suburban greenfield development and infrastructure, and civic political representation skewed heavily in favor of the less densely populated suburban districts). Much like their neighbours to the northeast, an amalgamated Hamilton is a relatively paralyzed Hamilton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2011, 10:54 PM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
That is exactly how i have envisioned how metro Vancouver should be divided Go_Leafs_go02. Love it

Anyways, there really would not be any need for amalgamation if the province / translink and other such regional forces were a little more strong in regards to getting regional wide services built.
. . .Or if they had the political say-so to implement a sustainable revenue model.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2011, 1:10 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
That is exactly how i have envisioned how metro Vancouver should be divided Go_Leafs_go02. Love it

Anyways, there really would not be any need for amalgamation if the province / translink and other such regional forces were a little more strong in regards to getting regional wide services built.
Good points, and thanks for the compliments. It actually was pretty easy to do. Separate most using strictly geographical or zoning boundaries. Most are separated by water or a small creek, and the rest are separated with a swath of forest or agricultural land, or in a few cases, where residential backs up to industrial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2011, 5:16 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Home to YLW Summer 2020 (currently YEG)
Posts: 3,592
The suburbs are fine thanks, us Tri-cities and Ridge Meadows guys are pretty moderate, it's Surrey and Langley I'm worried about.

go_leafs_go02 I also like your idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2011, 1:49 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808 View Post
Does it bother me that I don't get a vote or say in Surrey's municipal affairs while living in Vancouver? No. Surrey can speak for Surrey and that doesn't bother me. Their voice is no less than mine, it's just not as relevant to Vancouver-specific issues and vice versa.

If you prefer a suburban political mentality over an urban one, then why don't you just move there?
Because there are plenty of people in the City of Vancouver who feel the same. For some reason there tend to be a lot of single people in the downtown core who feel their views represent the majority of the city, when in fact they don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2011, 2:18 AM
invisibleairwaves's Avatar
invisibleairwaves invisibleairwaves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
The suburbs are fine thanks, us Tri-cities and Ridge Meadows guys are pretty moderate, it's Surrey and Langley I'm worried about.

go_leafs_go02 I also like your idea.
Half of Surrey's ridings went NDP in the last federal election, and it's hard to imagine Langley being included with Vancouver in any amalgamation. Even if it is, that's not nearly enough votes to overthrow the left-wing majority in Metro Van.

Your fears are totally baseless.
__________________
Reticulating Splines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2014, 3:38 AM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver-False Creek
Posts: 2,263
I'd like to see Vancouver amalgamate it's surrounding municipalities in a way that makes the "city" of Vancouver Larger than Calgary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2014, 6:26 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is online now
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,549
It is unlikely to ever happen as regional identities and interests are pretty loud, and all those municipal governments will fight it. Also, Vancouver really doesn't want to be 'diluted' by a bunch of suburban people that will overrule their interests, like has happened in Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2014, 9:53 AM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver-False Creek
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
It is unlikely to ever happen as regional identities and interests are pretty loud, and all those municipal governments will fight it. Also, Vancouver really doesn't want to be 'diluted' by a bunch of suburban people that will overrule their interests, like has happened in Toronto.
I'd think burnaby would be a relatively easy sell.

Regional identities can still exist if they are amalgamated. Also Vancouver as a region is more socially and politically liberal than the greater Toronto Area so I doubt we'd see a dramatic difference in politics if burnaby, new west, University endowment lands, and richmond were amalgamated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2014, 11:17 PM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
I'd think burnaby would be a relatively easy sell.
Actually, Burnaby would be the toughest to amalgamate. The current system benefits Burnaby the most, and this is why Derek Corrigan holds his powerbase so well. The city essentially has none of the problems that the rest of the region is facing when it comes to transportation, jobs location, and so on, despite its extremely left wing government. They have the advantage of geography, critical educational institutions, some big name high tech firms and two Skytrain lines. Why would they want to give up control over that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2014, 6:38 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,861
I don't think it will ever happen especially for the reason of "we want our population to be larger than Calgary." The main reason is that it doesn't actually benefit anyone. We already have Metro Vancouver that is supposed to see the 'greater regional good' for things like sewage, transportation, utilities, and emergency services. So what benefit would it serve?

All I can see it doing is making bigger less functional government. Cities like Toronto and New York have councils that rival our Provincial legislature in size and we know how dysfunctional that level of government is.

You also have an example like Delta where it is really 3 small towns together as one and politically it is nearly always a North Delta vs Tsawwassen vs Ladner fight because each area has distinct characteristics. Spend money in one area and the others cry foul. Imagine that 10 fold.

Services wise too it doesn't help anything because it the majority of Metro Cities, sizes of departments are directly proportioned to the population they serve. So if you have an Engineering in Burnaby with 100 people in it and one in Vancouver with 200, you merge the two cities together, and due to the increase land size and complexities, you'll probably need 300 engineers so you'd reduce no jobs as people often state is a major benefit of amalgamation.

You still need the same fire truck count, police officers, etc. because the size of the cities hasn't changed. And even at a council level, you need a larger council to govern such a larger area.

So there is absolutely no benefit to the region. I think separate cities with Metro Vancouver as an over-arching authority on regional things works perfectly fine. Our only real issue regionally is having a Provincial Government that doesn't want to govern aka tell New Westminster to suck an egg about the NFPR several years ago and state "Sorry, it is for the greater regional good." Or come up with a funding source for Translink the regional transportation authority THEY are in charge of. Or how about getting to finally replacing some of our 900 year old Hospitals they constantly promise to do things about like St. Paul's Downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2014, 6:59 AM
spaceprobe spaceprobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CalTorVan
Posts: 123
i think the main metro vancouver needs to do as a region is to have a regional approach to attracting business. It should not be Vancouver vs burnaby vs surrey, etc....and each council shouldn't be conducting separate trade missions. As one large economic unit...vancouver could be more successfull in attracting business...and there wouldn't be any poaching from one city to another.

the other regional thing we need is a more integrated police force, and probably a more integraded education system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2014, 1:03 AM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver-False Creek
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceprobe View Post
i think the main metro vancouver needs to do as a region is to have a regional approach to attracting business. It should not be Vancouver vs burnaby vs surrey, etc....and each council shouldn't be conducting separate trade missions. As one large economic unit...vancouver could be more successfull in attracting business...and there wouldn't be any poaching from one city to another.

the other regional thing we need is a more integrated police force, and probably a more integraded education system.

I seriously don't understand why north america splits it's cities up like they do.

Toronto realistically has 6 million but the city is only 2.8 million.

Vancouver realistically is 2.5 million people, not 600k like the census states.

Why do we have a metro area instead of one large city? What purpose does that serve?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2014, 1:24 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
I seriously don't understand why north america splits it's cities up like they do.

Toronto realistically has 6 million but the city is only 2.8 million.

Vancouver realistically is 2.5 million people, not 600k like the census states.

Why do we have a metro area instead of one large city? What purpose does that serve?
Its not a North America only phenomenon. All population centres around the world have this city / suburb / metro relationship. Its just part of the modern way of life, ever since the Indusrial Revolution, with the invention of trains, cars and modern day freeways.

The existence of several cities within a metro was because at the time those towns, cities and villages were formed, they were not only done by separate founders, but because back in the day, they really were separated from each other due to geography and distance.

Advances in transporation systems allow the movement of goods and people between those cities seem like shorter distance. I betcha 100 years ago, going from Gastown to Surrey by horse was quite a trek, no different than a plane ride from Vancouver to San Francisco today. But no one is saying Vancouver and San Francisco is the same city just because they can be accessible by a plane ride, same when Vancouver and Surrey can be accessible by car.

Vancouver DOES NOT have 2.5 million. Metro Vancouver, which consist of Vancouver and its suburbs, do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2014, 3:12 AM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver-False Creek
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by queetz@home View Post

Vancouver DOES NOT have 2.5 million. Metro Vancouver, which consist of Vancouver and its suburbs, do.
I meant the metro area. To me the entire GVA = Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2014, 2:29 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
I meant the metro area. To me the entire GVA = Vancouver.
GVA =/= Vancouver. There is no disputing that. So by definition, Vancouver has a population of 600k. Metro Vancouver = Vancouver and its suburbs = population of 2.5 million. That's the way it is legally, politically, economically and geographically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2014, 4:29 AM
andasen andasen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by queetz@home View Post
GVA =/= Vancouver. There is no disputing that. So by definition, Vancouver has a population of 600k. Metro Vancouver = Vancouver and its suburbs = population of 2.5 million. That's the way it is legally, politically, economically and geographically.
Economically... no.

Culturally and economically Vancouver == Metrovancouver.

In terms of identity those mean a lot more than abstract legal boundaries. Mind you those have important political implications but for everyday purposes your point is 100% disputable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2014, 6:06 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is online now
As seen in Winnipeg
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lower Mainland
Posts: 5,170
Yeah, I don't get that. It's not like if someone asked you how many people live in Vancouver you'd say 600,000. Go to downtown Vancouver and tell me that that city is the same size as Madison, Wisconsin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2014, 8:18 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by andasen View Post
Economically... no.

Culturally and economically Vancouver == Metrovancouver.

In terms of identity those mean a lot more than abstract legal boundaries. Mind you those have important political implications but for everyday purposes your point is 100% disputable.
Economically...yes. For example, Electronic Arts Canada is based in Burnaby, not Vancouver, despite what the media makes you think (they even go far as saying EA itself is Vancouver based even though the company is based in Redwood City, a suburb of San Francisco). At the same time, Lululemon is based in Vancouver, not Burnaby.

Culturally, in a way yes as well even though I didn't bring it up. I think its pretty obvious that Vancouver has a little bit of subculture that is distinct from those in Surrey or Delta. Though its a bit of a grey area since its possible to go from one burb to another and still practice the Vancouver subculture.

Regardless, the population count for the city of Vancouver should not include the population count for the whole metro if one were to ask, "How many people live in Vancouver?" Those boundaries exist for a reason, and is properly recorded as such. You may think that just because you live in a suburb of Metro Vancouver (i.e. Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam), and you tell outsiders that you're "from Vancouver", doesn't make it techically true. I'm sure your property tax bill or driver's license will say otherwise....and those ultimately govern over whatever perception you may have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Politics
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:53 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.