Jump to content

      



























Photo

Suburban sprawl in the CRD


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#21 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 30 September 2010 - 06:01 PM

Fair enough, but who decides what the common good is? and is it good only for the moment or in perpetuity?

Is it local societal values within a particular demographic? Just because I live in a house and have 3 cars, and someone else lives in a condo and rides a bike, so you think they both pay a fair share for their use of the common infrastructure or does one pay more than the other?

#22 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 07:40 PM

The gas tax takes care of that. You pay more for your lifestyle. I pay if I buy goods that require transportation on that infrastructure.

How much the externalities cost is harder to decide.

#23 mysage

mysage
  • Member
  • 515 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 08:23 PM

@mysage: yes, that is what I'm advocating. adding more and more roads to alleviate congestion makes NO SENSE. we need to instead encourage people to take public transit, bike, walk, and densify areas that are already built. read this: http://en.wikipedia..../Induced_demand

I agree, some people need cars to help them do their daily activities. however, what if you lived in a place where you could walk a block to get groceries, and take public transit 10 blocks to your kids soccer game? what would you need a car for then? so yes, people are being selfish and lazy. they are putting their own ridiculous need for space and extragavance over being sensible and living in a compact urban area.

I agree with the part about the rezoing process and community leagues, but that's why more people need to be educated on the benefits of true urban living. They need to stop being afraid of everything and realize that density will only improve things in the long run. it will make neighbourhoods safer, more diverse, and much more convenient.

Again, education. People don't understand how this adversely effects the local economy and environment.

Victoria has nowhere near the demand or size of those places and won't EVER. if there are benefits for developers to develop affordable MFD's we will be able to fit a lot more people int he sapce we have. The Victoria metro could easily double it's population without increasing it's border or building out.

Good luck with a toll? thats your arguement?

You sound like you're living in the 60's still where people weren't able to grasp the idea that we don't have unlimited resources and land. I suggest you should go back to one of the fine institutions in this city and take a basic geography class and realize just how naive you and most in this thread sound.

@Maverick: first off, learn how to form proper sentences. what are you even trying to argue? your post is barely comprehensible. you don't understand that developments like Skirt Mountain NEGATIVELY effect your taxes because of the maintenance of new roads, sewers, etc. The people who are accountable for this awful mess are those who started it in the first place.

@guyinthesky/mysage in regards to the gas tax: this is riduculous. you can't afford to drive your kids soccer team to Nanaimo but I'm sure you can afford a TV, cable, a computer, internet, a house, etc. maybe think about how many things we have and don't need and then see if you can afford it. guyinthesky, maybe a gas tax would encourage companies to start looking at buying more fuel efficient vehicles or using the vechicles only when necessary or a few million less dollars for some CEO's salary. business wouldn't be hurt by a gas tax, it would only hurt some greedy tyrants wallet.

@rjag: first off, do you have any idea who Karl Marx is? what was that even a reference to? Yes, it is those people fault. They insist on living out there, driving their cars, and living very materialistic. the jealously comment is unbelievable. you're a sad, pathetic person if you think that the "things" someone has its what important. materialistic and pathetic.


Ok I will respond to those areas that you have addressed to me:

- to advocate the building of no more roads is simply naive.No one is advocating building more roads to simply ease congestion. More roads are needed to handle the traffic that is generated by more people living in any given area. Mass transit is needed even more but have you ever been to London ,New York, or Paris? Mass transport is used by milllons daily but the roadways are still clogged. That will not change as Vancouver Island is a desirable place to live no matter what. Move on to something that will actually work and drop this "theory".

_ I have lived in Gastown, Yaletown, and downtown Victoria. Your Utopian version of density,convenience and urban living is flawed by human nature. Living in those areas for years,my kids and I were exposed to graffiti/vandalisim, drugs, drunkeness, serious crime and the like on a daily basis. Living in a dense urban setting may be your version of heaven but it is not mine. Who are you to tell me my version of life for my family is based upon my " ridiculous need for space and extravagence over being sensible and living in compact areas"? Your statement is arrogance in its purest form.

- If you think that Metro Victoria could double its density without building out you are probably right. In fact it could quadruple its density and then we would start to look like Hong Kong,or New York, or other areas where people want to live but can't find the space without going up. Have you checked out the social ills in those areas? Have you checked out the size, style and price of properties in those areas? Is this your version of life for the future of Victorians? Have you actually gone out to the Western Communities and seen the style and size and price of the vast majority of the housing being built. With the exception of Bear Mountain and more affluent neighbourhoods such as those the vast majority of new housing is in small single family homes and four story condominium buildings. To service these homes Langford has done an excellent job of providing social support by way of activity infrastructure, shopping access and the like. You may call it "urban sprawl" but the vast majority call it community building.

- I should go back to "one of the fine institutions in this city " and take lessons? It seems to me that you should get out of whatever "fine institution" you are attending and get some real life experience. You seem like a student who has attended some rallies and listened to some theories but really has no life experience. Once your spouse wants to feel safe when out walking the dog at night, once your kids want to play in their own back yard and once you want to send them to safe playgrounds and good schools you will change your tune about the Utopia of living in dense,diverse, and "convenient" areas. Until this happens you are welcome to live downtown and enjoy its ambiance but don't try to tell me that I should do the same.

- Your statement lumping TVs, internet, a computer and a house as perhaps things that I can afford but need to rethink whether they are necessary or not is ridiculous. I hope that you have a job and work hard to pay for the computer and the internet you are using to post on this forum. If not, then maybe they are a "luxury" you can't afford.

- Finally your statement that "business wouldn't be hurt by a gas tax, it would only hurt some greedy tyrants wallet" exposes either your naive views on how the world really works or exposes your political leanings that view all those who work and or succeed as the enemy. Which is it?

To wrap this up why don't you go to the "Housing Bubble" section on this forum. There you will find many articulate, and intelligent people who have diverse views but are able to present their arguments in a coherent and reasoned manner. I suggest that you take some lessons.

#24 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 08:43 PM

Density does not equal crime. There is no correlation.

A dense area that works is in fact most beneficial to raise a child. It teaches them diversity. It gives them stimulation and balance. Higher ratio of parks, sports facilities, educational facilities than suburban areas.

Being within walking distance of a childhood friends, schools, even the disenfranchised makes for a more balanced, happier, healthier child.


And doubling or quadrupling Victoria`s density would not increase houses prices. What school of economics did you extrapolate this idea?

#25 mysage

mysage
  • Member
  • 515 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 08:59 PM

Density does not equal crime. There is no correlation.

A dense area that works is in fact most beneficial to raise a child. It teaches them diversity. It gives them stimulation and balance. Higher ratio of parks, sports facilities, educational facilities than suburban areas.

Being within walking distance of a childhood friends, schools, even the disenfranchised makes for a more balanced, happier, healthier child.


And doubling or quadrupling Victoria`s density would not increase houses prices. What school of economics did you extrapolate this idea?


BS. Density does equal more crime. I have seen it and lived it.

My children have a diverse group of friends. I do not need to have them forced upon them by proximity.

My children are within walking distance of friends, and schools now. They weren't in those other areas and even if they were I question the quality of raising children in those areas

The school of reality. I have also lived in London and New York (in my much younger days!) and had to pay far more for far less than when I was living farther out of the downtown cores.

#26 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 30 September 2010 - 09:18 PM

@rjag: first off, do you have any idea who Karl Marx is? what was that even a reference to? Yes, it is those people fault. They insist on living out there, driving their cars, and living very materialistic. the jealously comment is unbelievable. you're a sad, pathetic person if you think that the "things" someone has its what important. materialistic and pathetic.


OMG how old are you? Err yes I am aware of Mr Marx as well as Engels with their little book, Manifest der kommunistischen Partei, the influence of Feuerbach over him, Lenin and his little story called State and Revolution, Stalin and a few of his compatriots. My reference to the poster was in regards to the comment that the fault of this lies with the people in the big houses and the big lots and they should be taken out behind the outhouse and whipped until they understand the errors of their ways.

"They insist on living out there" that is a completely ignorant statement. Lots of people that are working class have lived in these outlying areas for many many years before all the development took place. So is it alright for them to have their 5 acres because they bought there in the 70's?

So when you grow up and experience the real world not your fantasy utopia lets have an adult conversation....k?

#27 North Shore

North Shore
  • Member
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 10:56 PM

WRT a gas tax negatively affecting businesses, contractors, deliveries etc.. How so? If you require gasoline to run a vehicle in support of a business, then it's a tax-deductible expense, no?
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

#28 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 03:30 AM

The school of reality. I have also lived in London and New York (in my much younger days!) and had to pay far more for far less than when I was living farther out of the downtown cores.

Sure, and if those cities were all low density, "farther" would have been 80 miles away. I offer you LA as the alternative to NY. I doubt crime is lower and, weather aside, I can certainly tell you where I'd rather live.

#29 mysage

mysage
  • Member
  • 515 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 04:22 AM

WRT a gas tax negatively affecting businesses, contractors, deliveries etc.. How so? If you require gasoline to run a vehicle in support of a business, then it's a tax-deductible expense, no?


We aren't really going to have to debate a simple point such as this are we? I have read some of your other posts on this forum (particularly in the Housing Bubble section) and it is obvious that you have grasp on economics. So why such a simplistic statement here?

From the business side of things it is a tax deductable expense but if you have no income what are you deducting that expense from? The point is any time that you increase a businesses expenses that business has to pass on that expense to the consumer or they reduce their profitability. Reduce your profitability enough times and you are out of business. Simple.

#30 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 06:47 AM

BS. Density does equal more crime. I have seen it and lived it.

My children have a diverse group of friends. I do not need to have them forced upon them by proximity.

My children are within walking distance of friends, and schools now. They weren't in those other areas and even if they were I question the quality of raising children in those areas

The school of reality. I have also lived in London and New York (in my much younger days!) and had to pay far more for far less than when I was living farther out of the downtown cores.


The benefits of urban density

[...]Mention the idea of increasing urban density at a dinner party in New Zealand and a look of horror comes across most faces. When people think of “high density” living” or even “higher density” living they seem to envision third-world squatter camps with open sewers, one tap shared among 500 people, and rampant crime.

This is what high urban density is associated with in some countries. Unfortunately, this is also a very narrow, and often uninformed, view of urban density.

Unplanned, hit-and-miss moves toward higher densities, or higher density born of necessity may yield unattractive results. But well thought out, carefully implemented changes in density can have far better economic and social outcomes for New Zealand than the current general trend of extending urban sprawl.

Research by BERL suggests that higher residential and workplace densities (i.e. more people living and working in each hectare of an urban centre) is associated with higher labour productivity, greater public transport (PT) and active mode (walking and cycling) use, and higher land values and yet lower cost per resident.

Other benefits include reduced carbon emissions, greater access to goods and services for residents, and reduced crime. Economically speaking, perhaps the greatest benefit of higher densities is that it is not a zero-sum game; spurring economic d

evelopment in one area due to increasing density need not thwart efforts at economic development elsewhere.[...]

Building More Sustainable Cities (Scientific American)

[...]The sprawling North American city in particular is a product of the cheap energy and profligate consumption of a materially exuberant age that is rapidly coming to an end. Cities may well confront a triple specter of climate change, scarcity of energy and resources, and broken supply lines. Even the generally conservative U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) recently predicted that global demand for energy, food and water could easily outstrip supplies over the next decade or so, triggering trade-disrupting international conflicts.[...]


New Yorker:

[...]“Anyplace that has such tall buildings and heavy traffic is obviously an environmental disaster—except that it isn’t,” John Holtzclaw, a transportation consultant for the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “If New Yorkers lived at the typical American sprawl density of three households per residential acre, they would require many times as much land. They’d be driving cars, and they’d have huge lawns and be using pesticides and fertilizers on them, and then they’d be overwatering their lawns, so that runoff would go into streams.” The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. Manhattan’s population density is more than eight hundred times that of the nation as a whole. Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful, and forces the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings. It also frees huge tracts of land for the rest of America to sprawl into.[...]


Myths & Facts About Affordable & High Density and Housing(pdf)

Myth #8
High-density and affordable housing increase crime.
Fact #8
The design and use of public spaces has a far more
significant affect on crime than density or income levels.



I could go on and on.

I'll just conclude a streetview of my neighbourhood. The densest area in the CRD.
Notice all the people living in squalor. People are living in fear in these crime ridden streets. ;)

#31 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 07:00 AM

^Yeah, I think that "low-density=safe" has been thoroughly busted. A major factor is that in small towns there is simply nothing to do. Kids are bored into mischief.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#32 mysage

mysage
  • Member
  • 515 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 08:00 AM

The benefits of urban density
evelopment in one area due to increasing density need not thwart efforts at economic development elsewhere.[...]

Building More Sustainable Cities (Scientific American)


New Yorker:


Myths & Facts About Affordable & High Density and Housing(pdf)



I could go on and on.

I'll just conclude a streetview of my neighbourhood. The densest area in the CRD.
Notice all the people living in squalor. People are living in fear in these crime ridden streets. ;)


You can trot out all of the "studies", "papers" and "theoretical posturing" that you want. The facts are than in Gastown my car was broken into 7 times in 9 months, I was constantly awoken in the middle of the night by people yelling and fighting after exiting the bars, my building was broken into and the lobby furniture stolen and countless other " urban inconveniences " happened. The same litany of problems occurred in Yaletown albeit a little less. I was then transferred to Victoria and moved to a condo overlooking the inner harbour. My neighbours were partying all night long (and were eventually busted for selling drugs) my daughter was given a Corona bottle with a syringe in it by a "nice man" that approached her while she was walking home from school a number of the "disenfranchised" have had to be escorted off of the property on a number of occasions and sirens can be herd all long long -the list goes on. Before you think that I am living in the slums I can tell you that my buildings "entry level" price range started in the 500,000 +/- range and travelled up to 1 mil.

I now live in Langford in a new small single family home. My kids have a safe place to play and can safely walk to school. I know most of my neighbours, shopping is just around the corner and Langford has parks, arenas, playing fields, and and a safe "downtown". I do have to put up with the commute but that is why I work with a number of concerned citizens to lobby for light rail transit to downtown.

And guess what -my car is safe, my kids love their school, their activities and their friends, my sleep is never disturbed and call me selfish but thats the way I like it. Urban studies be damned.

#33 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 08:13 AM

^The oldest and cheapest forum trick in the book. Discount all scientific studies and papers backed by data and replace it with circumstantial, personal experiences. Not any less important, but it's not looking at the big picture. Nor is it addressing the information that I posted - all of which can is very informative and enlightening if you care to actually read it.
Victoria's core is far from perfect, but it not the fault of its density, the argument at which is on the table. It's the fault of design.

But if you're not going to even read my post, then I might as well go home.

#34 mysage

mysage
  • Member
  • 515 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 08:23 AM

OK - go home.

If you think my personal experiences are being used by me as a "trick" to discount your studies that's too bad. I am not about to agree to "theories" when my experience shows differently.

Oh, by the way, the picture of your "urban core neighbourhood" carries no weight whatsoever. It is far different than living in the downtown core. Good for you that you have such a nice place to live but I looked there and couldn't afford a house in Fairfield. I am more than happy in Langford.

#35 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 08:39 AM

Once again, not reading my post. I said yours wasn't any less important, but it didn't take into account the information that I posted, nor does it take into account the big picture. My car was broken into in Langford once. I was a victim of road rage once in Colwood. Are these personal experiences a valid enough argument to conclude that the suburbs are crime ridden hell-holes?

I didn't want to pay the premium in Fairfield, but I knew I would be saving a lot of money in other ways over the long term. I made a few sacrifices as far as size of house was concerned, but interior space is overrated.

But if you could afford a condo worth over half a million a few years ago, you could have afforded a house here.

#36 mysage

mysage
  • Member
  • 515 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 09:01 AM

Once again, not reading my post. I said yours wasn't any less important, but it didn't take into account the information that I posted, nor does it take into account the big picture. My car was broken into in Langford once. I was a victim of road rage once in Colwood. Are these personal experiences a valid enough argument to conclude that the suburbs are crime ridden hell-holes?

I didn't want to pay the premium in Fairfield, but I knew I would be saving a lot of money in other ways over the long term. I made a few sacrifices as far as size of house was concerned, but interior space is overrated.

But if you could afford a condo worth over half a million a few years ago, you could have afforded a house here.


No - you didn't read my post. Allowing that you gratefully gave some credence to my experiences I am telling you that position papers, theories, etc mean nothing to me when my experiences tell me differently. Not once , not twice and not three times -but countless times in different neighbourhoods, in different cities in different economic and social eras.

The facts are that theories are just that and do not allow for human or circumstantial differences. The Titanic was in theory unsinkable, and hell the bunnies in theory were moved to Coombs to save them form impending doom. Ooops - how did that theory work out?

As far as where I can or cannot afford to liveyour theory again does not hold water. One child and I could have bought in Fairfield - two children and the wife on long term disability and no way. Nice theory tho I wish it was valid.

#37 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 10:37 AM

^The point that I was making when I brought up Fairfield was this.

You said density equals crime. And showed you a dense neighbourhood that works - the best example I could think of. Design plays the biggest part in the health of a neighbourhood, not density.

And it's not a theory. It's fact:


Density does not cause crime.
For many years social scientists
have asked whether highdensity
housing causes crime. Not
one study has shown any relationship
between population or housing density
and violent crime rates; once residents’
incomes are taken into account, the
effect of density on non-violent crime
decreases to non-significance.
After studying housing and
neighborhoods throughout the country,
Oscar Newman concluded that the
design and use of public spaces, and
particularly the sense of ownership and
control that residents have over these
areas, has far more significant affect
on crime than density or income levels.



#38 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 10:47 AM

Thanks for the breath of reasonable and informative argument Gumgum. You'll find tho, and once again this is based on studies by actual experts rather than gut-reactions and anecdotes so it may not be true, but humans tend to stick to their initial gut opinions on things no matter how much direct evidence to the contrary is given. In fact not only do they stick to their opinions, but often the incorrect opinion is is made STRONGER when presented with iron-clad evidence to the contrary. The mental gymnastics, denial, and rationalizations we come up with to defend our incorrect opinions end up entrenching those views. You often have to trick the mind into not realizing an opinion is being challenged or changed for it to actually change, otherwise the brain tends to dig in its heals and prepare for trench warfare to defend its opinion. Humans are odd things!
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#39 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 10:53 AM

^I write not only for mysage. There are others sitting on the fence.

#40 bicycles

bicycles
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 12:31 PM

gumgum, thank you for articulately summing up the point I've been trying to make. some good reading there.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users