Other Cities, and and what they can tell us

[trofirhen]

I'd like to start this thread, with the permission of the moderators, simply as a "jumping off point" for such a thread that someone once suggested, in fact.

The thread statement, the preferable focus, is simply and widely a look at how urban issues of any sort, but with a preferable focus on central issues such as infrastructure, transportation, housing, economy, building density, green space, and such, are handled in other urban centres. Some are smaller, some are larger, but hopefully, if this thread continues, people will pull out ideas of their own and post them.
(Yes I know the thread title is a bit schoolbookish, but I couldn't thing of much else.)

The adjoining point of this thread is, of course; could, should, and if so how, could other cities' solutions or adaptations or construction found in addressing pertinently the bolded lines above - plus any additional ideas and examples people might have - be translated to Vancouver.

Please pardon the rather corny (as is often the case) introduction I'm putting into this post, but to get it going with ease, I'm posting a list of city LINKS and, to show examples.

This will NOT at first a torrent of images of buildings and trains. Image content is always welcome, and may eventually come if this thread generates enough interest.

These links will largely be Wikipedia links people can comment on, if they're so inclined - "quickie" overview (with a bit of focus I hope) to have an "easy-access" look at a few cities, then hopefully, develop interest and ideas and continue to research and post, and , hopefully, discuss.
A kick-off, if you will. Thank you for your time.

The first two cities are Milan and Brisbane, with a link each to the main city site. Other cities follow.

MILAN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Metro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan

BRISBANE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Brisbane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane#Bris_Vegas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisban...iness_district


TORONTO and SYDNEY (compare city size and transportation system size)

SYDNEY
http://www.cityrail.info/stations/network_map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sydney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parks_in_Sydney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buildin...ture_of_Sydney

TORONTO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Toronto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Toronto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_parks


SAN DIEGO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_San_Diego
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_San_Diego
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo...n_in_San_Diego


STOCKHOLM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_...t_in_Stockholm

OSLO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Metro

find the striking infrastucture contrast in this city pair:

KANSAS CITY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Missouri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_in_Kansas_City

PERTH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth,_Western_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transperth

[trofirhen]

This one went down like the Titanic!! Oh well, I tried !! (good thing I can swim)

[Echowinds]

The problem is that this thread is not focused enough. It's a bit too broad and compares too many cities.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Echowinds

The problem is that this thread is not focused enough. It's a bit too broad and compares too many cities.

Yes, I can appreciate that fact. I just thought I'd use the cities as a "jumping off point." As an example, compare the transit systems of Perth and Kansas City ... or the Evergreen Line and the satellite suburbs of Stockholm .....(though I doubt anyone will bother) ... oh well, I tried.

[Alon]

Okay, so re other cities, the Vancouver transit planning is based on a core network of subway lines with intense densification around stations. This is different from transit investment in cities that are already dense and build rapid transit to serve existing destinations. The main way this is done is by using the fact that the metro area has fast population growth, which can be partly channeled to existing TOD.

The other first-world cities I know of that are in the same situation are Washington, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Of course Vancouver doesn't have Hong Kong and Singapore's transit mode share, but the pattern of high-rise towers on top of subway stations is similar. Washington, in contrast, has some good examples of TOD in Arlington, but not as much TOD growth elsewhere, and both its transit mode share and the recent increase in its transit mode share are below those of Vancouver.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Alon

Washington, in contrast, has some good examples of TOD in Arlington, but not as much TOD growth elsewhere, and both its transit mode share and the recent increase in its transit mode share are below those of Vancouver.

Ah, interesting! I am off to Washington for six weeks end of this month, so I am interested to see this myself. Panning the map today, I was impressed by the extensiveness of subway in the Downtown area! Very... European!

[mezzanine]

two things:

1) with your posts i notice that you are quite opinionated about metro vancouver, and often compare it to other places, yet I am not sure how often you come here, or when the last time you were here, as with the other places you aim to compare it to above.

2) your sig says you reside in paris, one of the world's alpha cities and with probably some things to learn from, but i cannot recall any opinions you have made WRT your experiences in Paris and reflecting them to vancouver.

------

don't take this personally. If anything, i think you might get more hits and responses if you comment on what you see paris doing rightly or wrongly and things that we in vancouver might find useful.

I fing voony very good with this. from his blog, one gets the impression he knows paris intimately. this post about paris boulevards with a nod to vancouver is especially informative:

http://voony.wordpress.com/2011/12/1...an-boulevards/

my 2 cents. i'd like to know what you think works and not works in paris.

[Architype]

It's more my impression that other cities are looking to Vancouver for inspiration, at least in regards to our planning for the past two decades.

[Alon]

I have lived in Vancouver for six months. I lived for several years in Singapore in the past, but that was before my interest in transit and urbanism started (in fact, the contrast between Singapore's unwalkable streets and New York's walkable ones is part of what stoked this interest). I haven't even visited Washington, but several of the people I know through New York/Northeastern urbanist blogging are from Washington and I've read enough of Greater Greater Washington to know the basics of the local successes and failures.

I wish more cities looked to Vancouver for inspiration. In the US and also among American-influenced people in Israel, I hear much more talk about Portland, which I've never visited but which on the basic statistical attributes is a poor man's Vancouver (130,000 people ride MAX per day vs. 400,000 on SkyTrain, metro area transit mode share is 6% vs. 21%, the projected Milwaukie MAX construction cost is $60,000 per rider vs. $20,000 for the Evergreen Line and the UBC extension).

[alchemist redux]

^Portland is slightly better than Vancouver at accessibility-related design (eg. short blocks, bike network, having a streetcar service as a circulator - which I think is a bit of a financial boondoggle, but urbanists seem to like it - and other stuff like that), although we are not far behind them. They certainly have a lot more to learn from us about transit planning.

To me, the only real elephant in the room in Vancouver boils down to NIMBYism. I think this is a huge contributor to all of the urban problems we face, whether it's housing affordability, increasing density and height, inertia on transportation expansion of any kind (rapid transit, roads, bikeways, even pedestrian infrastructure), etc. The high housing prices are partly to blame for NIMBYism since you're much more motivated to oppose a project on property value grounds if you own a house (and all your life savings are sunk into) a $1 million home rather than a $300,000 home, but I also lay some blame on our community-focused planning system which provides ample venues for people who foam at the mouth to come and attack plans. It's ironic, because citizen engagement in planning is supposed to lead to more democratic outcomes, and instead it's basically used by NIMBYs to hijack the planning process and result in less equitable outcomes then if these things were discussed behind closed doors and local citizens had much less say in what went on.

So, I guess my 2 cents is that we could learn from cities or cultures where the planning system is a lot more autocratic and top-down. These places aren't necessarily dictatorships or places where human rights are trampled upon. Many of these places don't even have necessarily poor qualities of life. I think we'd be able to get a lot more done if this were the case, but this is just my opinion.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

two things:

1) with your posts i notice that you are quite opinionated about metro vancouver, and often compare it to other places, yet I am not sure how often you come here, or when the last time you were here, as with the other places you aim to compare it to above.

2) your sig says you reside in paris, one of the world's alpha cities and with probably some things to learn from, but i cannot recall any opinions you have made WRT your experiences in Paris and reflecting them to vancouver.

------

don't take this personally. If anything, i think you might get more hits and responses if you comment on what you see paris doing rightly or wrongly and things that we in vancouver might find useful.

I fing voony very good with this. from his blog, one gets the impression he knows paris intimately. this post about paris boulevards with a nod to vancouver is especially informative:

http://voony.wordpress.com/2011/12/1...an-boulevards/

my 2 cents. i'd like to know what you think works and not works in paris.

Thank you for your feedback. In fact, I just noticed your post, as it seemed my thread attempt had been abandoned. I can't answer right off the cuff; will think it through and try to post a synthesised response in the near future. There are some interesting, ongoing developments here.

[Alon]

Originally Posted by alchemist redux

To me, the only real elephant in the room in Vancouver boils down to NIMBYism. I think this is a huge contributor to all of the urban problems we face, whether it's housing affordability, increasing density and height, inertia on transportation expansion of any kind (rapid transit, roads, bikeways, even pedestrian infrastructure), etc. The high housing prices are partly to blame for NIMBYism since you're much more motivated to oppose a project on property value grounds if you own a house (and all your life savings are sunk into) a $1 million home rather than a $300,000 home, but I also lay some blame on our community-focused planning system which provides ample venues for people who foam at the mouth to come and attack plans.

Yes... and this feeds into transit issues; one of the arguments I've seen in favor of terminating the UBC SkyTrain extension at Arbutus is that the western parts of Kits and Point Grey are hostile to upzoning. Kits in general is dense, but its density is fairly uniform and it doesn't have the intense SkyTrain-adjacent TOD of the Expo Line.

[memememe76]

Where in the world does NIMBYism not exist?

[twoNeurons]

More low-rises and fee-simple row housing.

Though you can look at many European cities for great examples of this, I think many of the larger eastern cities do a much better job. Look at Montreal. It's FAR easier and far cheaper to find a rental building in that city.

There are FAR too many illegal basement suites in this city and it's joke when it comes to enforcement of any kind. In fact, when I point out to people that Vancouver houses are only legally allowed to have 1 basement suite (and now one laneway house), they are shocked.

Allowing these has meant purchasing a single-family-house is almost impossible unless you want to become a landlord.

If zoning, especially around stations, were zoned for row-housing and small developments, the market would take care of the situation and the whole city would become far more livable and affordable without having to live in someone else's mouldy basement suite. There was been far too much focus on point towers in the city. Sure, they're glamorous, but they're far from practical for a healthy city, and more suited to very small families or young couples.

[logan5]

The Norquay Village plan includes a row house/townhouse zone, as well as apartments that step down from Kingsway. The city indicated (I believe) a few months ago that the Norquay Village plan would be a template for other parts of the city.

The process is so slow though, it's hard to say when we'll actually see row-houses in Norquay, or anywhere else. Maybe never.

For now, basement suites are the only affordable form of housing for most families living in Vancouver.

[trofirhen]

Speaking of Vancouver seeking an identity, wanting to win the title of the World's Greenest City, and sometimes liking to liken itself to Stockholm, here's an article that looks at the Swedish capital, and asks how Vancouver measures up against it. Interesting read, if you're so inclined

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/11/02...-to-Vancouver/


http://thetyee.cachefly.net/Opinion/.../02/PHOTO3.jpg

[Klazu]

What's with all these recent comparisons? Stockholm vs. Vancouver, New York vs. Vancouver, ... These are all very different cities, so I don't understand the need to be comparing them.

Stockholm surely has some beautiful parts with old buildings, lush parks and nice waterfront, but all their high-rises are simply hideous. Also thanks to their over-generous asylum policy, there are nowadays numerous suburbs where a native Swede needs to be careful after dark. Something that was completely unheard of just 20 years ago.

[trofirhen]

Useful as a parallel in many ways, due to metro size to Vancouver, and of finding challenging transportation methods in difficult terrain of water and islands between a north side and south side; Stockholm too is dreaming up new freeways (often under the city centre) as you'll note if you look at the renderings.

I am simply stating that, based on what I read on the SFPR system thread, and the observations of bad, heavy traffic conditions there, it forces me to believe (and I don't like to believe it), but that Vancouver, for many years, was grossly underbuilt when it came to lane space.

Sure, Seattle had big downtown and crosstown freeways, but they were ugly, choking things, as the Main Street-Chinatown freeways would no doubt have been.

Yet cars are a reality, even in dream cities like Stockholm, and they have the sames issue to deal with as we do, (yet we seem to try and deny it): cars and trucks will be around as long as there's oil in the earth.

I guess I'm just saying that even in a cultured, historic, heritage-aware city like this, even the Swedes have to deal with it like anyone else.
(freeway, rail, and car tunnel, from left to right)

(One poster here recently stated that transit in Stocholm "was like being a kid in a candy store," there were so many options. True! True! But they still have vehicle - and rail - traffic to build for, big time)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mDSniT1Rr4...sen+bild+5.jpg

http://www.thepolisblog.org/2010_10_01_archive.html

[Kapten]

A recent Op-Ed was published in Portland's Oregonian that had a bit to say about why residential towers in particular and Vancouver in general are bad examples for Portland to follow.

I wrote a detailed response on my blog here: http://metrothought.blogspot.ca/2013...owers-and.html

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Kapten

A recent Op-Ed was published in Portland's Oregonian that had a bit to say about why residential towers in particular and Vancouver in general are bad examples for Portland to follow.

I wrote a detailed response on my blog here: http://metrothought.blogspot.ca/2013...owers-and.html

How can you believe the 1-4% foreign ownership thing from the real estate board? Go to any high rise condo sales centre opening and it is 99% non-Canadian Chinese people milling about. Look at these building at 7pm, five years after they're sold out, and they're still dark. You have to ignore what your eyes see to believe a board that has a vested interest in continuing foreign sales.

I like the look of Vancouver's towers but I can't deny anything else the Portland article said, besides maybe the environmental impact angle.

Portland is basically Vancouver 20 years ago and I'm not sure we've become a better city in that time.