Live data from Hacker News

Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

macleans.ca

311–320 of 362 posts

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#311
post #87
post #66

Moderately dense development - good High rise developments enclosed in glass - bad Plants on the skyscraper terraces - sheer stupidity and bullshit, used only for pretty marketing 3D art If they made those high rises a 5-6 floor buildings instead, with no b/s trees on the balconies but instead planted them in the ground, that would be much more boring, cheaper and much more comfortable to live there.

What's wrong with plants on the terraces and balconies? How would their presence make it less comfortable to live there? And high rise developments "enclosed in glass"? As the article mentions, that's sort of what Vancouver is known for. Is it the material you object to or the building height? I genuinely don't understand your comment. Particularly as a Vancouverite (who can't afford a home).

Not any plants and not any balcony. I'm talking specifically about these newfangled skyscrapers playing pretend that they are vertical forests. So main differences are a) building is big and tall, b) there are dedicated "balconies" for a big plants - shrubs, small trees etc., whole nano garden in every spot, c) these spots are mandatory, not like you are putting some potted plants on your own balcony.

Disclaimer - these play pretend forests are NOT bad per se (the plant part at least). They are just hilariously inefficient way to spend money and space.

The issues I see with them:

1. This additional horizontal space costs money. The plants cost money. The maintenance of the whole thing costs even more money.

2. There needs to be access to them from the apartments (violating privacy), or they are only accessed from the outside, multiplying maintenance costs.

3. What if the plant dies? Who pays for replacement?

4. Unless these islands of plants are hermetically sealed from the apartments, who will pay and deal with water leaks from the plants to the inside of the building, who will deal with mold, insects and so on?

5. What if the wind blows the heavy plant or tree down on something or someone?

6. The space usage is very bad, it's like tens of trees per whole building. A small park beside the building can beat that number by 100 times.

Vertical forests is a case of looks nice on the 3D render, but in practice is a waste of money plus unsafe.

And skyscrapers are simply bad for individual living. Price, infrastructure, related issues. My home city has an issue with chaotic development and there are several parts of the city with 25+ floor housing. Those are cheap, but the are mercilessly mocked by the whole city and no one voluntarily wants to live there if they have a choice and money. Also those are places with the worst traffic jams and parking issues in the whole city, except for the inner center.

PS: I very much like plant in my apartment, small and big. I've lived for years with half of my own room taken by a potted coffee tree growing into the ceiling, so I'm not some plant hater or something.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#312
post #105

I say this all as a YIMBY who is very happy to see 20k new units added to vancouver: something feels off about the plans for the Jericho lands but I can't describe it. I feel like when you have these mega developments where 10 condos go up all at once in the space of a few blocks, they end up as "bedroom neighborhoods", where people sleep but don't do anything else. There are a lot of these happening in Canada right…

I think you're basically describing a typical suburb and I agree those suck. However I live pretty close to the Jericho lands and there's plenty going on here. Both 4th & broadway are nearby with lots of shopping/dining etc. and there are big parks/beaches nearby. I think the neighbourhood will get even better with more residents.

Yeah it's hardly an inactive place; I'm sure as the towers go up some of the single story houses will sell and Broadway will expand. Especially as the new skytrain stations go in

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#313
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is could someone build a similiar structure beside or does zoning prevent this. If so parent has a valid point

The answer is that no, there is no zoning in that area because that parcel of land is not subject to City of Vancouver zoning laws, being not part of the City of Vancouver. The adjacent properties are part of the City of Vancouver, and therefore are subject to zoning that the City of Vancouver chooses to impose upon them. That zoning could be removed if city hall so chooses, but Kitsilano NIMBYs would oppose it. But…

And hopefully the massive towers push the council to start rezoning those single story residential areas into something more realistic

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like it had othe problems apart from being discontinuous from the city. There are lots of areas like this in the US which are contiguous with the city, that still end up as dead zones. Did anyone really believe this was a good idea? I feel like the developers' need to turn a profit and the government's need to impose itself don't leave any good ideas on the table. Instead they focus on packaging up the same…

I think the lack of organic place making is hard, but certainly not impossible. The example I listed suffered from insufficient place making (which one day may yet appear). The pedestrian and shopping areas are linearized instead of polycentric as you would see in an urban core limiting mobility and discovery of the local businesses that make an urban landscape thrive. Additionally a limited variety in offerings of r…

If the old city centers are crowded and expensive because they're so desirable, then why do we need any new solution? Can't we just copy paste the old stuff outward in every direction in concentric circles from the old downtown?

I've never understood all the headscratching on this topic. Everyone likes charming little streets, plazas, coffee shops, locally owned restaurants. Just let people have it!

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

"Unceded land" means that because 100+ years ago the British settled as they wanted without asking for permission, the land actually still belongs to indigenous people, and not to Canadians, not to the people who currently live on it. "Unceded land" isn't exactly a legal concept, it's more of an activist slogan from people who want to see all public land (e.g. >90% of BC) privatized based on race, or want to hold the…

> "Unceded land" isn't exactly a legal concept, it's more of an activist slogan from people who want to see all public land (e.g. >90% of BC) privatized based on race, or want to hold the threat of that over our heads to get more special treatment based on race.

This is a terrible misrepresentation of how “unceeded land” is used.

To characterize it as a call to privatize 90% of the land based on race is bonkers. Nobody means that. Even “land back” movement people aren’t talking about that. And even if some land is returned to indigenous nations, that would not be privatization.

And to call it special treatment based on race is ignoring the reality that indigenous people were for decades, and still are to some degree, systemically disenfranchised and devalued in society. A call for reparations, yes. A call for “special treatment” - nope.

> Legally, Canada does have title to the land

In much the same way that legally I have title to your house if i write “I own that house” on a piece of paper.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to > I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others The reason for this is because they are using their rights from signed treaties that define how resources are used on their lands. Persons that are part of First Nations like the Squamish and the Haida are not just "some citizen…

> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

Well, for that to work, you’d have to get a court to rule that the land you committed your crime on was indeed indigenous land and not part of canada. Good luck with that.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#317
post #308
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstood me because you didn't read what I wrote carefully but I don't care to convince you of your biases. I don't have time for this BS anymore. Listen my neighbour just died. He was a struggling renter. I'm deeply saddened by this and everybody struggling. I know its even harder to leave behind what's familiar but it's not going to get better but the longer you stay in a financially strapped situation and…

> The Canadian government is taking 60% of my income. The top tax bracket is 33% in Canada. You should fire whoever's doing your taxes.

That's for federal income tax. In BC the top provincial income tax bracket is 20.5%, so a total 53.5%. I assume the person is also including property tax, EI, MSP premiums or other vaguely government related payments, or rounding up pretty generously to get to 60%.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#318
post #311
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with plants on the terraces and balconies? How would their presence make it less comfortable to live there? And high rise developments "enclosed in glass"? As the article mentions, that's sort of what Vancouver is known for. Is it the material you object to or the building height? I genuinely don't understand your comment. Particularly as a Vancouverite (who can't afford a home).

Not any plants and not any balcony. I'm talking specifically about these newfangled skyscrapers playing pretend that they are vertical forests. So main differences are a) building is big and tall, b) there are dedicated "balconies" for a big plants - shrubs, small trees etc., whole nano garden in every spot, c) these spots are mandatory, not like you are putting some potted plants on your own balcony. Disclaimer - th…

Oh come on. The rendering shows plants growing on the balcony railings. That's it. Obviously it's way overdone to make the rendering more appealing but none of the other things you said are present. Number 4 is particularly off-base because Vancouver is literally in a rain forest.

>And skyscrapers are simply bad for individual living.

Also bad for individual living: homelessness. Besides, what alternative do you suggest in a city blocked on two sides by mountains while the third and fourth are blocked by an ocean and an international border respectively?

It sounds like your city has some major problems and that is colouring your opinion. Vancouver is widely regarded as one of the most livable cities in the world [0]. That's in large part due to the density afforded by apartment buildings in the downtown core.

As an aside, the city also has stunning views. I'm in a low rise right now, but I wake up to spectacular views of snow capped mountains every day. It's the primary reason I chose this apartment. The people on the other side of my building get to see the Pacific. While the people on the north side of the building get both!

I'll give you the traffic argument though. That needs to be planned for properly and that is one of my concerns with this particular development. It's located squarely at one of the city's major bridge bottlenecks.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/travel/worlds-most-liveable-cities-2023/...

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed several other locations such as Uganda were considered and were leading candidates beforehand. It originated as a colonial project, not a "land-back" initiative. > Herzl approached Britain because, he said, it was "the first to recognize the need for colonial expansion." According to him, "the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily and quickly understood in England.38 In 1902 Herzl approac…

This comment makes it sound like the formation of Israel in the chosen territory was more or less random. Uganda was not chosen for a reason, don’t you think? Are you trying to say that the millenial history of the Jews has nothing to do with the chosen territory?

The history is why jews wanted that specific land for Isreal but the US and Britain didn't enter WW2 to help jews so it's not that much of a stretch for them to support territory for jews that isn't their first choice. It's not like the rest of europe liked jews either, there's a reason jews disproportionately died from _poland_; the other european countries already killed many of the jews within their borders. Even some of the Allied countries exported jews to the Axis when hitler asked them to.

Britain even wanted to avoid Isreal's current location [1] namely because jews and palestines have never gotten along.

As well as US and Britain both but an embargo of arms to isreal prior/during the 1948 war to appease the Arab states. Quite a different response than the current UA one where US/Britain have a vested interest in UA winning so they're a lot of support while in 1948 they'd prefer the Arabs winning.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#320
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair the PNW still has pretty good weather, gorgeous nature, good infrastructure (natural and man-made) and a varied economy. It'd be weird if it _wasn't_ expensive.

artificially more expensive because of outdated and backwards zoning laws keeping housing expensive

Also that, but bad zoning laws exist all over the place, and the PNW is still pretty expensive (on both sides of the border).
Post reply on HN