Sign in or 
Location: Fact checking: who is the densest?
Discussion: West End Vancouver density
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 5 posts
|
Stuart_de_Stael |
West End Vancouver density
Sep 18 2006, 8:17 PM EDT
Councillor Pam Madoff claims density in the West End actually decreased when single family homes replaced by highrises in the 1960s due to the large grassy setbacks. I would like to see the stats that back up this remarkable claim.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Yule |
1. RE: West End Vancouver density
Sep 18 2006, 10:09 PM EDT
I was at a presentation when the councillor made that statement (Fernwood community association sponsored history/ heritage talk), and was stunned both to hear this claim, and that it was accepted by the audience at face value. Of course, it might be argued, "you were part of the audience -- did you accept it, and if not, why didn't you say anything?" To which I would have to admit that I failed to rise to the occasion, letting the neighbourhood momentum convince me to keep my mouth shut. It's a learning process, at least for me it is. Even at this firmly entrenched stage of middle age, I still have to learn that it's ok to speak up, even in an environment that has closed ranks around a presenter, as the Fernwood faithful were certainly doing... At any rate, it defies logic to think that a SFH with 4-8 people in it, times 8 for a total of 32 to 64 people, could equal the density of a 20-storey tower (whose footprint would occupy the space formerly occupied by 8 SFHs). And when I look out my window, and count 8 lots for a tower, I am deleting pretty much the block, which would allow for a nice-sized podium, tall tower, and still plenty of grassy setback. Furthermore, while the West End may have had plenty of SFHs with up to 8 people (counting secondary suite occupants), there were probably quite a few (as here) where a SFH only had 2 or 3 or so people living in it. I lived in the West End for 5 years, in both a walk-up lowrise and in several elevator highrises -- no way will I ever believe that its density was greater when it was comprised of SFHs. The low-rise had the footprint of a SFH, and around 30 people living in it. As for the highrises: fergitaboutit. Tons of folks. People believe what feels comfortable to them. Other people close ranks around that, because it confirms their preconceptions. Asking questions helps to get everyone back on track, thinking critically. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
2. RE: West End Vancouver density
Oct 11 2006, 10:03 PM EDT
James Bay is the place council put buildings they don't know where else to put! The density is so dense here, it absolutely reeks! Add to that the profound lack of services, all the elderly, poor bus service, and James Bay is NOT the place to be. *Sigh*, it used to be so pleasant.
James Bay needs help quickly, and it isn't from more condos, apartments or residential approvals. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
3. RE: West End Vancouver density
Oct 11 2006, 11:23 PM EDT
I have a James Bay friend who complains about density there ("they're filling us up!"), but her main beef is that JB doesn't have services for all those people: grocery stores, pharmacies, whatever -- bus service! -- all the stuff that people need where they live. Some observations about the plaint: It's not helpful to talk of "they" (as she & so many others do), as if there's some evil agency actually orchestrating this. If you can identify a subject (credibly), please do so -- & don't say "the City" as if that were a monolith, either. Or "the developers," as if they weren't a pretty diversified lot. No, it's really important to differentiate, & thus to NAME the forces responsible, so that they can then be lobbied effectively. Otherwise, we'll be stuck in the amorphous "they" & "we" forever. When my friend says "they're filling us up," who exactly does she mean? Does she really understand it herself? And could it be "legislated" away? (See, there's the rub: it probably can't be unless you're dealing with a Comintern, which is another reason that it's crucial to identify agents & actors & their conditions. Services, buses, etc.: that's a big one, but it's not just JB that's suffering under crummy bus service. Is that a "city" issue or a "development" issue though? No. "Transit" has squirreled itself away into its own bureaucracy where it can shift blame and action. Entrepreneurship -- maybe we need more of that. Eg.: Instead of all those bloody kabuiki cabs going nowhere, how about a monthly pass for kabuki cab services for residents? Business niche? Maybe. But no, we're Canadian: we sit on our backsides & squawk. Which is encouraged by "them"... Lastly: geography. JB is not some buccolic outpost. It is butt-side against the ocean, its other side against downtown. "Pleasant" isn't an option sometimes. What do you want to do? Throttle & kill d/t so JB can remain pleasant? Stunt Victoria's growth? Sorry, JB isn't that special. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Yule |
4. RE: West End Vancouver density
Oct 11 2006, 11:38 PM EDT
Sorry, I wasn't signed in before: that comment above is from me (Yule). I want to add something, though: you write "James Bay is the place council put buildings they don't know where else to put." What exactly do you think "council" is -- an omnipotent force or something? A "they"? Do you really think "council" is orchestrating development with some sort of unseen hand? Look, no one is sitting around council table saying, "ok guys, let's spare Rockland and dump this next condo in James Bay." It doesn't work that way. Council is reactive, and you're reacting to the reaction. Great. Nor is it the case that there's this evil cabal of developers sitting around in some backroom smoking cigars, saying, "ok guys, lets rodger JB till it bleeds." You write, "James Bay needs help quickly." By whose lights? According to whose criteria? A friend of mine (Victoria native) moved out of JB because it was too parochial -- don't assume that you speak for everyone when you say "we want to keep it the way it was before it was," because chances are you're just representing one minority view. Also, the idea that "James Bay needs help" is insulting. Help from whom? If the people who actually live there aren't on the barricades making a difference, maybe it's the case that your view is a minority view. Maybe you shouldn't be living in JB. Cities change. It might be sad, but consider the alternative: a place like the village of Portmeirion in North Wales, where the 60s cult classic "The Prisoner" was filmed, maybe? Believe it or not, I have friends from high school (Oak Bay High) who consider OB a PERFECT setting for the prisoner, which is why they left. Who needs to be a prisoner -- who wants to be a prisoner? Cities are made up of many different kinds of people, including non-prisoners, including people who won't agree with your point of view. Do you find this valuable? |
