Amazon Seeking 2nd Headquarters: Canadian Cities Pitch Interest

[SpongeG]

Seattle is working on the new eastlink LRT which will hook up Bellevue. They also have expanded the streetcar system pretty fast, what a decade ago was just a touristy thing is now a really popular way to get get around from capital hill to downtown.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by someone123

Vancouver (city, not metro area) has done a bad job of facilitating development around transit stations. Burnaby and New West have been much better

Yes I definitely meant the metro, City proper of Vancouver has been, and continues to be, abysmal developing around its transit stations and it is a contributing factor to the lack of housing options in the city.

Originally Posted by Doady

Do you think 416 Toronto has worse transit ridership than Vancouver? I'm guessing the average resident in 416 Toronto is better connected to transit than average resident in Vancouver.

You promote density in areas with less transit so that they will have more transit. Good transit requires high density.

Not at all what I am saying, I don't know the transit ridership in the 416 vs metro vancouver but I'd imagine its much higher in the 416 as the 905 is excluded whereas metro Vancouver includes its hinterlands.

What I am saying is that having SFH in areas poorly served by transit while there is a lot of develop able lands surrounding transit stations is the right call. Toronto has a lot of towers isolated from any meaningful transit and I think it is not the right decision from an urban planning and transit planning perspective.

Plopping down a dense development at Kerr and E 54th would be a terrible idea for example.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Doady

Do you think 416 Toronto has worse transit ridership than Vancouver? I'm guessing the average resident in 416 Toronto is better connected to transit than average resident in Vancouver.

You promote density in areas with less transit so that they will have more transit. Good transit requires high density.

A lot of Vancouver proper seems not actually that old so maybe it is not fair to expect it be redeveloped to higher density.

Vancouver has too many physical barriers to development like oceans, rivers, mountains, US border so I will not be too critical. The city and urban area is in much tougher situation than Seattle or Toronto.

I'd argue Seattle is just as constrained as Vancouver is, if not more so. There is more then enough farmland in the Lower Mainland for Vancouver to look like Toronto or Calgary in terms of suburbia. It just chooses not to use it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Why would Vancouver promote density in areas not served by transit? It makes sense to have large density in few areas that are well served by transit and the SFH/lowrise fill out the areas in between that have poor transit. The real problem is that the density around transit stations is just only now starting to take off and is miles behind where it should be.

The alternative is 416 Toronto which has random high density everywhere and the crippling traffic is a result. Vancouver's model to me seems the much more logical, current home prices not withstanding, as they find their root in multiple issues, not just lack of density.

Depends on the definition of "good transit" though. If you're (you being the general you) the kind of person that only thinks rapid transit counts, then sure. But within the City of Vancouver, local bus routes are frequent enough to be relied on, yet they're still surrounded by single family homes, including the arterials.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not at all what I am saying, I don't know the transit ridership in the 416 vs metro vancouver but I'd imagine its much higher in the 416 as the 905 is excluded whereas metro Vancouver includes its hinterlands.

I was talking about Vancouver city proper. Toronto city has a transit mode share of 37.0%, Vancouver city 29.7%, but you criticize Toronto...

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What I am saying is that having SFH in areas poorly served by transit while there is a lot of develop able lands surrounding transit stations is the right call. Toronto has a lot of towers isolated from any meaningful transit and I think it is not the right decision from an urban planning and transit planning perspective.

These are among the most transit-dependent places in North America, hardly "isolated from any meaningful transit" and causing "crippling" traffic congestion.

TRANSIT MODE SHARE, 2016
District		Total	Transit	%
Scarborough-Agincourt	42095	12975	30.8
Scarborough Centre	48100	18995	39.5
Scarborough-Guildwood	41185	14765	35.9
Scarborough North	41210	11670	28.3
Scarborough-Rouge Park	46055	13685	29.7
Scarborough Southwest	47705	20085	42.1
Scarborough		266350	92175	34.6
Etobicoke Centre	52705	13605	25.8
Etobicoke-Lakeshore	37725	20520	54.4
Etobicoke North		49410	14680	29.7
Etobicoke		139840	48805	34.9

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Plopping down a dense development at Kerr and E 54th would be a terrible idea for example.

Kerr and E 54th already has high density, does it not? Those look like apartment buildings, not SFHs.

Actually, I was looking at the census data for Vancouver and found that only 14.6% of dwellings in the city are single-detached houses and only 29.3% are apartments in buildings 5 storeys or more. 50.8% are apartments in a duplex or other building 4 storeys or less. Vancouver South (where Kerr and E 54th is located) is 67.4% apartments. Seems like the people of Vancouver have already moved on from SFHs, even if the city officially has not.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Still 50% larger than Metro Vancouver and same order of magnitude as Montreal. Tiny?

I meant the city-proper, not the sprawl.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Doady

Do you think 416 Toronto has worse transit ridership than Vancouver? I'm guessing the average resident in 416 Toronto is better connected to transit than average resident in Vancouver.

You promote density in areas with less transit so that they will have more transit. Good transit requires high density.

A lot of Vancouver proper seems not actually that old so maybe it is not fair to expect it be redeveloped to higher density.

Vancouver has too many physical barriers to development like oceans, rivers, mountains, US border so I will not be too critical. The city and urban area is in much tougher situation than Seattle or Toronto.

Good transit also requires a large fortune to build which doesn't exist. The alternative is to improve densities in the catchment areas of existing good transit connections. Vancouver does remarkably better than Toronto in that regards but, it's still nothing to gloat about as you may see at times in the transit thread. The buildable densities and built forms aren't optimal in terms of affordability.

[mistercorporate]

Shopify moves it's annual conference from SF to Toronto due to uncle Trump, ch-ching!

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canada-i...home-1.1071991

I wish Oxford moves forward its Toronto Convention Center expansion! Oxford Place.

[kwoldtimer]

It was recently announced that the Collision tech conference will be moving from New Orleans to Toronto, starting next year. This year's conference is expected to draw 25,000 attendees.

https://collisionconf.com/

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'd argue Seattle is just as constrained as Vancouver is, if not more so. There is more then enough farmland in the Lower Mainland for Vancouver to look like Toronto or Calgary in terms of suburbia. It just chooses not to use it.

I used to think that Vancouver was too hemmed in to ever be a metro of 10 million+ but there's quite a bit of land there. The Lower Mainland is 36,303 km2. That's larger than Belgium (32,545 km2) and only slightly smaller than the Netherlands (41,526 km2). Vancouver could protect all that farmland and easily quadruple in population. It all depends on how Vancouver grows.

The Lower Mainland


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Mainland

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I used to think that Vancouver was too hemmed in to ever be a metro of 10 million+ but there's quite a bit of land there. The Lower Mainland is 36,303 km2. That's larger than Belgium (32,545 km2). Vancouver could protect all that farmland and quadruple in population. It all depends on how Vancouver grows.

For sure. I think the "constrained by geography" thing is so popular because the city's (externally influential) planners promote it as such, but really it's just not true. In the satellite image you just posted, it's very easy to see that the urban area doesn't even cover half of the potentially developable land there is.

It irks me a little because a) it takes away credit from the very real trade-offs the region's made to achieve the form that it has and b) it takes for granted these successes, that could be switched over with a simple change in legislation. The Lower Mainland's urban form is one that was decided by people, not geography.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I used to think that Vancouver was too hemmed in to ever be a metro of 10 million+ but there's quite a bit of land there. The Lower Mainland is 36,303 km2. That's larger than Belgium (32,545 km2) and only slightly smaller than the Netherlands (41,526 km2). Vancouver could protect all that farmland and easily quadruple in population. It all depends on how Vancouver grows.

The Lower Mainland


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Mainland

Based on the article you linked to, the outlined area in that image is only the "core area" of just under 5000km2. So the area that's "larger than Belgium" is mostly mountains.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Based on the article you linked to, the outlined area in that image is only the "core area" of just under 5000km2. So the area that's "larger than Belgium" is mostly mountains.

indeed, it's just a tad larger than the GMA.

[libtard]

Just to get back on track...

This is what economic muscle looks like

[vid]

It's amazing what Amazon was able to do with its winnings as a result of depriving its employees of living wages! I wonder if the people working in that office also deprive themselves of fluids so they don't have to take bathroom breaks, for which the warehouse employees are punished?

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by vid

It's amazing what Amazon was able to do with its winnings as a result of depriving its employees of living wages! I wonder if the people working in that office also deprive themselves of fluids so they don't have to take bathroom breaks, for which the warehouse employees are punished?

You know it! That cutthroat business culture is one reason I'm still torn on Toronto being selected for HQ2. I'm leaning towards hoping not.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I used to think that Vancouver was too hemmed in to ever be a metro of 10 million+ but there's quite a bit of land there. The Lower Mainland is 36,303 km2. That's larger than Belgium (32,545 km2) and only slightly smaller than the Netherlands (41,526 km2). Vancouver could protect all that farmland and easily quadruple in population. It all depends on how Vancouver grows.

The Lower Mainland


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Mainland

That number is wildly off when describing Metro Vancouver or even the entire Lower Mainland.

The link seems to describe an 'economic region' and I'm still not sure how it manages to hit 36,303 km2. What is outlined above is nowhere near 36,000 km2.

The Metro Vancouver Regional District, which encompasses a considerable portion of the area outlined above is 2,882.68 km2. That's only 8% of the 36,303 km2 in the alleged Lower Mainland economic Region.

2,463,431 (2016) people live in Metro Vancouver Regional District, and a further 295,934 in the 13,361.74 km² area of the Fraser Valley Regional District which is far, far larger than what is outlined above. Combined, we've accounted for the entirety of the 2,759,365 population of the Lower Mainland Economic Region but still have 20,059 km2 of totally uninhabited land for which to account outside of Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

What's the point of quoting 36,303 km2 when more than half of that is totally unpopulated and essentially all economic activity occurs within Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley?

[edit]

Here is Belgium superimposed at the same scale over Metro Vancouver:



Source

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Gresto

You know it! That cutthroat business culture is one reason I'm still torn on Toronto being selected for HQ2. I'm leaning towards hoping not.

Let me relieve your fears - 0% chance Amazon chooses Toronto

HQ2 will be in Austin

[vid]

Originally Posted by Gresto

You know it! That cutthroat business culture is one reason I'm still torn on Toronto being selected for HQ2. I'm leaning towards hoping not.

"Cutthroat business culture"!

One wonders why we don't use the incentives we're offering Amazon to attract other businesses. Imagine how many banks would move to Toronto if the city offered to not tax them? Imagine how many factory jobs we'd have if we lowered our minimum wage to 50 cents per hour and got rid of safety regulations? I can't tell if the bottom of this hole is lined with corporate profits or communism but we're falling headfirst into it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Here is Belgium superimposed at the same scale over Metro Vancouver:



Source

Yeah, it's crystal clear it's impossible to fit Belgium into any definition of lower whatever in the SW corner of the BC mainland. To get anywhere near Belgium in area, you have to include tons of mountaintops/uninhabited wilderness.