Provincial Government Wants On the Towers-and-Skytrain Milk Train
I welcome guest author Lewis N. Villegas.
Lewis N. Villegas has over 35 years of experience working as an urban design specialist in Canada and the U.S. He completed revitalization projects in British Columbia, and New Urbanism projects in California, Utah, Oregon and Alaska. In Vancouver he designed Chinatown Square, and provided the Concept Plan for the Olympic Village pro bono to the City. Lewis is working on a book detailing how to end housing crises by building human scale urbanism, out next spring, “The Death and Life of Human Scale Urbanism.”
Just a note: The name SkyTrain came from a radio contest before the Expo line was opened and was not the name of the proprietary transit system was marketed by. MK.1 cars were the UTDC’s ICTS/ALRT cars and the MK.2 were Bombardier’s rebuild using their Innovia bodyshell. Mk. 3 and Mk.5 cars are Translink’s in-house name for the trains to pretend they are a new design; they are not as the basic Innovia design goes back to the late 1990’s.
When Alstom bought Bombardier’s rail division, they were known as Movia Automatic Light Metro.Both Bombardier and Alstom cannot use the SkyTrain name for the cars because that trademark is owned by a Brazilian company with their SkyTrain system which is not related to Vancouver’s. In fact there are several proprietary and non proprietary transit systems that use the name SkyTrain.
Provincial Government Wants On the Towers-and-Skytrain Milk Train
The provincial legislature is voting on a bill to give developers the right-to-build-towers inside a 10-minute walking radius from every Skytrain station.
It’s just so Vancouver. We build a 5 km tunnel, and call it a ‘subway’. We pass blanket approval for spec buildings, and call it ‘good urbanism.’ Thegovernment of non-elected Premier David Eby, a lawyer from Point Grey, is about to vote on this wacky proposal: Pre-approve at the provincial legislature in Victoria—sight unseen —building towers at each of 69 Skytrain stations on the Lower Mainland.*
Worse yet, even if the towers build, and real people move in—which is typically not the case, 50% of tower product is dark, or empty—they won’t be able to ride the Skytrain, no matter how close they live to the station.*
Reason? The Skytrain is full*
The system is operating at maximum capacity. It cannot take on any new riders because it cannot add any more trains, or any more cars. Five car (Mk. 5) trains are the limit—Period. Because there is no space on the Skytrain Loop to support Langley trains crossing the Fraser River, the Langley extension will be built with crossover track switches allowing turn backsat Surrey*
Here’s the provincial proposal:• 20-storey towers within a 3 minute walking distance of any Skytrian station;
• 12-storey towers within a 5 minute walking radius; and
• 8-storey towers within a 10-minute walk*
Ultimately, this means towers will build next door to single family bungalows. Meanwhile, adding more product risks exerting upward pressure on house prices, rather than fixing the problem.*
Here is even more wackiness: The 10-minute walking radius describes an area measuring 500 acres, or 2 square kilometers. A footprint equal to…
• Vancouver’s West End (bounded by Georgia , Burrard, Stanley Park and English Bay), or
• Half the size of Stanley Park (1,000 acres).*
In other words, Eby is looking to fund his government, and purportedly End the Housing Crisis, by building 69 more Vancouver West Ends. To understand this madness we must enter the Skytrain-and-Towers rabbit hole.(1) ‘WE NEED MORE SKYTRAIN STATIONS’
Speaking at an audience microphone, at an SFU Housing Affordability lecture, Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart put it this way: “What was [it] that was causing this challenge that we are facing now? Is it a shortage of land? I don’t think so. I think it is actually a shortage of Skytrain stations.”
[SFU Continuing Studies, April 21, 2017, Housing Affordability Redux Lecture Series, at 1 hr 41 mins.https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mRexc_XABqw].
Stewart would solve the Housing Crisis by building more towers. Yet, the real reason the mayors want skytrain stations is to “extract” revenues from tower developers using Community Amenity Charges (in Vancouver), or Development Cost Charges (in Metro).*
In 2012, the City of Vancouver ‘extracted’ $5.4 million from the 21-storey Rize tower at Broadway and Main. It became the basis for the new Broadway Corridor Plan: A tower zone 5-miles long, and 1 mile wide, stretched over the Broadway Skytrain tunnel. The plan’s sole purpose is to attract towers and extract revenues. Community making cannot be found on its pages.*
In the Bizzarro world of Skytrain-and-Towers urbanism, revenues flowing to government are driving the trains. This would appear now to the case in Victoria—where all other considerations will be given short shrift.(2) THE STREETCAR|LRT—SKYTRAIN COMPARISON
What if the Skytrain turned out to be the less optimal transportation choice? For example, modern Streetcar|LRT—demonstrated during the 2010 Olympics—is now operating in Kitchener-Waterloo and Edmonton. Costing 13-times less than the Broadway tunnel, its passenger capacity is double:Broadway Tunnel • $600 million per km • 6,852 pphpd.[1]
Langley Extension • $300 million per km • 7,538 pphpd.[1]
Skytrain upgrade • cost unknown • 26,880 pphpd (5-car train set).[1][2]
Flexity Streetcar|LRT • $54 million per km (Kitchener-Waterloo) • 71,400 pphpd (Edmonton, 5-car).[3]
Above, the most expensive systems top of the list, while the greatest passenger capacity obtains at the bottom. Represented is the total inversion of transit goals and social values.
(3) PUTTING OUT THE FIRE WITH GASOLINE
Priced 10-times over a median income household’s ability to finance, houses in Vancouver are now beyond the reach of most Canadians. Meanwhile, the Skytrain reaches less than 9% of Metro:
• 49,900 pphpd—combined passenger capacity of the Expo, Millennium, Canada Line, WCE and Langley extension.
• 21,600 pphpd—total passenger capacity exiting the Lower Mainland on 10 highway lanes and one HOV lane.
• 71,500—total mobility per hour, in-or-out of the regional core.
The bitter lesson learned after 45 years of building the Skytrain is this: Restricting the reach of transit has the effect of constricting the land supply, thus triggering land price inflation.Economists agree: Ending the housing crisis lies in the opposite direction—expanding supply by extending the reach of transit. It’s ‘good urbanism’ 101.
(4) THE GAHP IN THEIR THINKING
Given overheated markets, adding product around Skytrain stations won’t lower prices, yet risks having the opposite effect. According Canada’s banker, CMHC: “[T]he only way to ensure that units retain affordability over time” is to restrict resale values by putting contracts on title.*
Essentially, we apply the co-op formula to individual houses, row houses, courtyard houses, and walk-ups. The units sell, rather than rent, as ‘guaranteed affordable houses in perpetuity (GAHP).’ With the condo developer—the middle man—out of the picture, prices will normalize:*
Without contracts on title limiting resale values, “The first purchaser; having bought affordably, receives a financial lift on resale. Without [resale] price restrictions, the benefit of an affordable unit to the community is lost.”A Guide for Canadian Municipalities for the Development of a Housing Action Plan, CMHC 2011, p. 16.
(5) UNMASKING THE CRISIS
The choice between Streetcar|LRT and Skytrain is crystal clear: in one, exorbitant costs restrict operations inside a constricted area of service, triggering crises in housing affordability; in the other, GAHP doors build in sufficient quantity to meet or exceed demand, crises in housing affordability end as neighborhoods infill, and new tram-towns build along 200 km commuter corridors—every new GAHP door hardwired to the regional core.*
Here are three possible Streetcar|LRT lines delivering 3 million GAHP doors:
(1) Horse Shoe Bay to Hope (197 km) • $8.9 billion • 1 million GAHP supported;
(2) North Shore to Chilliwack (136 km), including a Burrard Street subway, and a Burrard Inlet tunnel) • $9.3 billion • 1 million GAHP supported;
(3) YVR to Whistler (120 km) • cost hinges on track lease/use from the province(!) • $1 million GAHP supported • GAHP Winter Olympics supported.
In the new math, adding supply increases ridership, putting downward pressure on prices. Furthermore, significant economic synergies result from hardwiring three regions, and 3 million Canadians:
• Squamish-Lillooet Regional District • 6,300 sq. mi. • 51,000 population
• Fraser Valley RD • 5,150 sq. mi. • 296,000 population
• Metro Vancouver RD • 2,880 sq. mi. • 2,643,000 populationToday, the Skytrain has reached optimum capacity, and will continue to serve as a world-class People Mover inside the regional core. However, moving forward, all efforts at extending the Skytrain will cost billions. That treasure will be better spent elsewhere. Streetcar|LRT is by far the better option for adding local trips (Streetcar), and regional capacity (LRT). Expect ballooning ridership as GAHP inventories rise, and house prices fall. Packing Canadians like sardines into ill-conceived Skytrain station precincts is inhuman, anti-social, and much less productive.
*
NOTES
[1] Surrey Langley SkyTrain Business Case Update—Ridership Report—Revision#2, 15 Mar 2022, p. 19.
[2] All about SkyTrain expansion: Interview with TransLink’s head of SkyTrain. Kenneth Chan, Urbanized, Sep 27 2023, 6:50 pm.
[3] Flexity Freedom Brochure. Bombardier, 2011
I want to than Rail for the Valley for this. And commit to its loyal readers to answer questions and respond to all comments in a timely manner.
Let’s keep the discussion rolling: good urbanism begets good transit and vice versa. We cannot have good urbanism without good transit.
You folks provide the transit know-how. I’ll share all I can about how to make great cities, one neighborhood and one Streetcar|LRT stop at a time.
Lower mainland is restricted by other Meniscipalities or green way or the agricultural reserve. Pushing the Freeze a Valley as a simple solution. Has its own problems with Land availability and Farmland. Most people would like to live in a single family woodframe house. But we cannot supply enough people with that type of housing. towers or mid rises are more economical and quicker to build For the demand or that is coming.
1 a Skytrain extensions will be adding a few more stops.
B North Shore skytrain line?
C Hastings street skytrain?
2 a 71,400 pphpd I think you’re out of your mind!! Level of service and equipment needed to run at that specified amount of 71,400 pphpd?
B 26,880 pphpd of the Expo LINE AT IT limit. Station Extensions met by 2040 Or sooner
C. Projected numbers For the extensions, they may change once the line has opened or closer to the opening day.
3.
Flexity Streetcar/ION or ETS train 3 x 251 x 4 min = max 11,295 pphpd
Edmonton has underground tunnels that limit the length of a train 90 Meters
Ion As limited by the amount of available streets in between 2 intersections Under 100 m.
Current day numbers.
WCE max 7,128 pphpd seated 5 train existing all cars
Expo max 16,380 pphpd
M max 5,390 pphpd
Canada max 6,260 pphpd
to day all 35,158 pphpd
2035 or Demand for service increase
WCE max 7,290 pphpd seated* 5 train 9 car
Expo max 20,400 pphpd
M max 7,920 pphpd
Canada max 8,600 pphpd
to 2035 all 44,048 pphpd
2050 No platform extension.
WCE max 8,910 pphpd seated* 5 train 12 car
X max 22,680 pphpd
M max 7,920 pphpd*
Canada max 13,320 pphpd
to 2035 all 40,830 pphpd
West Coast express no expansion plan*
4. A Great that the Province has stepped in Recording zoning.
B. Permitting and approval of new construction is the limiting factor on meeting the demand now!
C. Towers allowed to cater for multiple different Income levels.
5 A. Regional rail has been a difficult one for the province and translink. Canadian Pacific(CPKC) unwilling to budge the time slots for all day services. CN Spare track it not of passenger train.
B.RER or REM of Lower mainland to Fraser Valley?
C. Better communication between BC TRANSIT, Translink and BC Ferries On projects and connections.
No guaranteed transfers between the major vessels(Naimo or Victoria ferry) and local bus services. This means that the bus or the ferry is Late you miss your connection. 1 to 2 hours delay depending operational service for the season.
You are lost in the land of fantasy. The reality is quite different.
As a planner we need big time density in our cities, I don’t disagree with 20 and 30 story towers beside rapid transit stations. It’s the best place to put it. The whole concept in North America of the low density suburbs is the main problem. We need much higher density right now. We need more taxpayers in the same amount of built up land. Low density just doesn’t produce enough money to make our cities self sustaining financially. The suburban infrastructure bills are coming due and no one has enough taxes to support them. Several reasonably large suburban American cities have already gone bankrupt in Texas and Georgia. The low density 3 bedroom, 2 and half bath, finished basement, 2 car garage ponzi scheme, known as the suburbs is finally collapsing.
HOWEVER, and its a big however, all that being said, the reason cities originally let developers go higher was to make the individual apartment/condo units more affordable for average person or family! Which is the exact opposite reason developers are doing it. They keep the price far too high, so only reasonably monied people can even afford the units. Then produce more of them and line their own pockets with the extra profit. When confronted by cities and people in general about not providing housing for 3/4 of the population, developers will look at you square in the face and say, “that’s not my job, that’s the government’s job!”
As for Skytrain (aka Light Metros) or Subways (aka Heavy Rail, Metros) vs. anything else I’m not against the technology I’m against really bad implementation.
The reason Metros or Light Metros have issues especially, if they go into below grade and above grade, rights of way and become relatively rare (trains in tunnels and or on viaducts) because tunnels and viaducts are expensive to build and maintain, in the long term. They not only require higher building density but a lot more basic ridership to financially make sense. There are fewer and fewer places in Europe or North America that can realistically do that. Vancouver has hit the limit, there just aren’t enough places where super tall towers and enough basic transit customers exist to have sensibly designed and built Skytrain lines going over what are really, regional distances. Metros and Light Metros just aren’t designed to travel those distances in the North American or even the European context, while continuing to operate affordably.
The main problem for me comes down to the scalability of the rail or transit operating technology used. You can’t start a Metro or Light Metro affordably unless you build a lot of infrastructure. Infrastructure you may not currently be able to support with enough passengers realistically.
The problem comes around again, if you build too much high density. The cost of actually putting in those Metros or Light Metros or God forbid, extensions to those lines, when even a few of those towers already exist, can greatly drive up the price of the line (it makes construction of any kind more difficult). Project costs go very high when a lot of people can block or slow down a political process to a crawl. New York, Montreal and London are recent examples. One reason many places are cheaper to build in than the english speaking world, is exactly because they purposely limit the amount of debate around a project, which can dramatically shorten a project’s time scale.
Zwei, I have something about scalable rail technology for you, I will send it soon. Many thanks.
To Legoman
1. Lower mainland is restricted by other Meniscipalities or green way or the agricultural reserve.
That is the reason why the way to end the Housing Crisis depends on building hybrid Streetcar|LRT lines. They can push where cars can’t go.
2. Pushing the Freeze a Valley as a simple solution. Has its own problems with Land availability and Farmland.
The syntax is not exactly clear, so let’s say ‘simple solution to go to the valley’. Sure. What’s wrong with ‘simple’? The ROW is there. So is the population. So are the infill sites to add density. What you are positing as a negative is exactly what my calculations return as a competitive advantage.
3. Most people would like to live in a single family woodframe house. But we cannot supply enough people with that type of housing. towers or mid rises are more economical and quicker to build For the demand or that is coming.
As an architect, building technologist and urbanist, I cannot agree with that. Though I will say this, you are quoting the mantra that is being sung everyday. If you re-read my post you will find: bungalows, row houses, courtyard houses, and walk ups… as the building types I am using in my work instead of ‘towers’. Why? Because the resulting quality of place is so much better. Because social functioning is supported rather than dysfunction. Because the wealth stays in the community rather than fly off somewhere else around the globe. Just so many reasons you really need to consider more carefully.
4. Skytrain extensions will be adding a few more stops. North Shore skytrain line? Hastings street skytrain?
Sure. Service to the North Shore—after 45 years you’d think we’d have figured out a way to do that—but we can’t ‘cause it’s just too expensive using the Skytrain! Time to switch technologies to the Olympic Tram (2010 demonstration in South False Creek—what I term: Streetcar|LRT). Service to Hastings Street (and up to SFU instead of a Gondola?)—just another way to build GAHP in quantities sufficient to meet or exceed demand. Streetcar|LRT can do that SOOOO cheap we won’t need to build the towers to pay for it! (You are missing that in your analysis) So, government is just trying to ‘add stations’ to ‘sell towers’. It is an insane, object-focused methodology that will bankrupt us—rather than create new wealth.
5. 71,400 pphpd I think you’re out of your mind!!
No, that is the math. If you total up all the ‘maximum capacity’ that the Skytrain can deliver… that is what you get. And it does not get you farther out that about 1/10 of the footprint of Metro. So what are the rest of the 9/10s going to do? Drive on 2, 3 and 4 lane freeways? As I pointed out in the article, the pphpd for cars and modern tram just don’t compare. Relying on cars! Now that is really good planning isn’t it? NOT.
6. 26,880 pphpd of the Expo LINE AT IT limit. Station Extensions met by 2040 Or sooner?
It is too expensive to retrofit the Skytrain stations. Period. Money is better spent on hybrid technologies that can get the REAL job done. Besides, even if you made every station handle 10x more passengers, you’d still be in a ‘People Mover’ mode, where the Skytrain can only supply less than 1/10th of the region. Face facts: we built a ‘world class’ (read: way too expensive) People Mover. When what we really needed was a hybrid local/regional system like was demonstrated at the 2010 Olympics. Time to change trains…
7. Projected numbers For the extensions, they may change once the line has opened or closer to the opening day.
Smoke and mirrors. The numbers can’t lie: the Broadway tunnel is meant to relieve congestion on the transfer from the Millennium Line at Commercial & Bway to the Expo line. It will push fares to the Canada Line at Broadway-City Hall, that is…. Already full. Some planning. Skytrain brass is openly admitting that they never looked ahead. Time to pay the Piper. Project all the numbers you like. The Skytrain Loop is full. The Canada Line is at capacity. These ‘light metros—as Zweigh likes to point out—cannot do more of a job than they are already doing. So… It’s time to change the channel. BTW… not just here. But Canada wide. The housing crisis is not just a West Coast thing. It will infect EVERY urban footprint that relies on Subways-and-Towers (as you suggest we should be build). Locally, of course, we have to speak in terms of Skytrain-and-Towers because somehow Vancouver is ‘special’.
8.Flexity Streetcar/ION or ETS train 3 x 251 x 4 min = max 11,295 pphpd
Edmonton has underground tunnels that limit the length of a train 90 Meters. Ion is limited by the amount of available streets in between 2 intersections Under 100 m.
I find those numbers really interesting. I’ve often wondered why the Edmonton Valley Line came in so much higher in build costs that ION Line. You are providing insight into that. The 4-minute headways I question. Streetcar|LRT can operate at 90 second headways. The BCER ROW would not limit trains to 330 feet (sorry to go Imperial on you, but all Canadian cities were platted in chain measure). We can run trains of ANY length on the BCER ROW, mainly because it is independent from the road system, and because the trains would trip the traffic lights. So, cars on flanking streets would be stopped at a red light. Does it really matter if a train is parked across the intersection taking up passengers? Or rolling by at 30 mph? No. Not one whit. What do we get for it? Toronto subway passenger capacity (44,000 pphpd). And this would only happen in the morning rush. Every other hour of the day, the Streetcar|LRT trains would be significantly smaller. In fact, about streetcar size. Go figure… I hold out the hope that we could run express trains on the system at rush hours.
9. Current day numbers. WCE max 7,128 pphpd seated 5 train existing all cars Expo max 16,380 pphpd M max 5,390 pphpd Canada max 6,260 pphpd to day all 35,158 pphpd
2035 or Demand for service increase WCE max 7,290 pphpd seated* 5 train 9 car Expo max 20,400 pphpd M max 7,920 pphpd Canada max 8,600 pphpd to 2035 all 44,048 pphpd
2050 No platform extension. WCE max 8,910 pphpd seated* 5 train 12 car X max 22,680 pphpd M max 7,920 pphpd* Canada max 13,320 pphpd to 2035 all 40,830 pphpd
West Coast express no expansion plan*
Look, I provided my sources in the notes. I am not a transit engineer. But I am able to read the tea leaves. What I am being told is that—without gigantic costs—the Expo line is maxed out at the new (very expensive) Mk 5 trains with 5 car train sets. I believe that. I am told the Canadian Line cannot add capacity without incurring penalties on the P3 contract. WCE? I would like to have numbers on what we are paying the CPR to rent their track.
10. Great that the Province has stepped in Recording zoning. B. Permitting and approval of new construction is the limiting factor on meeting the demand now! C. Towers allowed to cater for multiple different Income levels.
It is not good urbanism. However, we are all entitled to our opinions. The Skytrain-and-Towers urbanism is responsible for the housing crisis. So, rather than get into a pissing match about that, I provided my fix for the problem with 3 new Streetcar|LRT lines supporting 3 million GAHP doors. What is your solution? O… and BTW… I get us a GAHP Winter Olympics in the bargain. You?
11. Regional rail has been a difficult one for the province and Translink. Canadian Pacific(CPKC) unwilling to budge the time slots for all day services. CN Spare track it not of passenger train. RER or REM of Lower mainland to Fraser Valley?
On the North Shore to Chilliwack run, we own 30% wheelage on the Fraser River Railway Bridge. Stop. The Pratt-Livingston corridor in Langley will upgrade to passenger rail, double track standard, as terms of lease (free of charge) when commuter service is approved. Stop. We can support 44,000 pphpd on the North Shore-Chilliwack line and 1 million GAHP doors. That is, ‘guaranteed affordable housing’ for 2.2 million Canadians. I’m not trying to pic a fight… Please tell me, and I will try to answer, what part of that doesn’t make sense to you?
12. Better communication between BC TRANSIT, Translink and BC Ferries On projects and connections.
I agree. And fairies (not ferries) will fly. We can make improvements there. But first we need to replace Skytrain-and-Towers urbanism with Streetcar|LRT human scale urbanism. Or we can keep on selling Canadian cites by the pound. Like we are doing right now.
13. No guaranteed transfers between the major vessels (Naimo or Victoria ferry) and local bus services. This means that the bus or the ferry is Late you miss your connection. 1 to 2 hours delay depending operational service for the season.
I have another chapter in my book that is called the “Sunshine Coast Super Highway.” It details how by building the equivalent of the Island Highway along the east shore of the Straight of Georgia, we would be able to connect Victoria with Campbell River, with Powell River, wth Gibsons, with Squamish, with North Van and with the Downtwon.
At the lower densities we still need to build highways. It makes good economic sense. Super highways? EVs charge for fee. Trucks and buses at a discount.
I’m glad you took the time to write. I think you are asking the right questions. By injecting ‘good urbanism’ I come up with different answers.
We have to find common ground.
Havacow #1
1. As a planner we need big time density in our cities, I don’t disagree with 20 and 30 story towers beside rapid transit stations. It’s the best place to put it.
As a planner I hope you have a good deal of admiration for the New Urbanism. There is no need to build higher than the ‘missing middle densities’ in Canada. We are the largest democracy on the globe by land area. It’s not like we will be running out of land anytime soon. But we do seem to have run out of imagination.
Towers suck the social functioning out of our neighborhoods. Sure, we’re a democracy. Allow tower zones like Paris did with La Defence–after they made the lamentable error at Mont Parnasse (a subway station with a tower that is giving the ‘middle finger’ to the rest of the city). In Vancouver we have the West End. That should be enough. It is the prime piece of geography in the city.
As a colleague put it to me this morning over coffee, block the moutains and the water, and Vancouver is no different from Saskatoon.
Shirley, we don’t want that.
2. The whole concept in North America of the low density suburbs is the main problem. We need much higher density right now.
You are making lots of good points so let’s take them one at a time. The low density (post WWII) suburbs met a need. We are facing a similar need right now: affordable housing in the hundreds of thousands of doors. Build them as towers, and see the 1% of 1% take over our governance, our democratic way of life, lording it over our governments. It was called ‘fascism’ when government and private sector interests aligned in the early 20th century in Europe. Not sure what it will be called next. But I would like to stop it.
3. We need more taxpayers in the same amount of built up land. Low density just doesn’t produce enough money to make our cities self sustaining financially. The suburban infrastructure bills are coming due and no one has enough taxes to support them.
Well, that is not the ’gospel’ I get when I talk to civil engineers at the municipalities I am dong infill and intensification strategies with. They tell me that the infrastructure is ‘all in’ for densities up to 3 stories. Beyond that, they’ll have to rebuild the whole system, one redevelopment site at a time. Which is exactly what is going on in Vancouver—right in my neighborhood—right now. I see it every day I drive my son to high school. That is the way to bankruptcy.
4. Several reasonably large suburban American cities have already gone bankrupt in Texas and Georgia. The low density 3 bedroom, 2 and half bath, finished basement, 2 car garage ponzi scheme, known as the suburbs is finally collapsing.
You say ‘Ponzi’ I say ‘Potemkin.’ HALF of the Vancouver condos are dark. Built for the global investment portfolios. And this has been going on for 20 years. We hosted my after-wedding party on Coal Harbour, on a late December night, back two decades ago. All the towers were dark, they are still dark today. Nobody home. The empty homes taxes at 46% backs up the anecdotal data. But you know there are home owners getting around paying the tax, so that 46% is more like 50% or higher. Meanwhile government is feeding at the troth and they want more. More, at EVERY Skytrain station—I’ll have you know.
5. HOWEVER, and its a big however, all that being said, the reason cities originally let developers go higher was to make the individual apartment/condo units more affordable for average person or family! Which is the exact opposite reason developers are doing it. They keep the price far too high, so only reasonably monied people can even afford the units. Then produce more of them and line their own pockets with the extra profit. When confronted by cities and people in general about not providing housing for 3/4 of the population, developers will look at you square in the face and say, “that’s not my job, that’s the government’s job!”
Yeah… we are finding common ground here. Bring over them cows to roam! Look, it’s always been a lie. Towers DO NOT make affordable housing. Tramtowns do. And towers DO NOT support high level of social mixing, tramtowns do. Towers never made ‘good urbanism,’ human scale buildings do…etc. Towers just pile the rents high so a select few private interests reel it all in.
I spent 10 days in Greenwich Village this March. Wonderful. Walked by Jane Jacobs house every day on my way to the new Whitney to see the Hopper exhibit about his New York sold out to towers from 1920 to the mid 1960s. It was all there in his canvasses if you just knew where to look. Sort of like our condition now. Greenwich Village, where Hopper lived all his life, was not without its problems with Elevated Trains (1880s) and subways (1920s) and towers (1920s to 1980s). But it is still by far the best place in Manhattan… a modern city that has lost most of its lustre and shine for me since I first went in 1980.
Why? The history is clear: They built subways-and-towers. Nearly went bankrupt in the mid 1970s until a pension fund bailed them out (I think). Subways still smell lie warm garbage. Streets are designed like traffic sewers. And the one building I now admire most—Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum—puts a giant beehive right in the middle of it al,l asking the question, “Where did our common sense go in this mad rush to maximize profits?”
Won’t we go further if we aim to invest just a little bit more in the public realm? Or does it have to be all ‘private profit and public squalor? Aren’t the bungalows, row houses (Greenwich Village), courtyard houses (LA), and walk-ups more productive to our economy in the overall scheme of things? More mom-and-pop shops supplying furniture, appliances, fittings, carpets, curtains, linens, flooring, walk paper & paint, roofing, siding, lawns & plants, you name it. More small construction companies building it from renewables. Less big monied interests meeting with our politicians and planners at city hall. I got here in 1970… how soon after that did Canada lose its soul?
10 years? Skytrain was being planned by then….
Havacow #2
1. As for Skytrain (aka Light Metros) or Subways (aka Heavy Rail, Metros) vs. anything else I’m not against the technology I’m against really bad implementation.
I confess I am losing my religion when it comes to remaining agnostic about ‘technology’. Here’s my beef… and I am not speaking as anything more than a bystander. You all are the transit experts, not me.
Subways and Skytrains cost a LOT to build and maintain. Streetcar|LRT takes road space away form cars. I still LOVE the automobile, but I am okay with restrictions. Take the road space and reap the savings!
I believe, based on ION and Valley Lines, that we can support 44,000 pphpd with streetcar technology. Add a café car and we have LRT with a 200 km range. I CAN DELIVER GAHP on tramtowns along those corridors…
Well, until the cows come home, no pun intended.
Boston is probably my best example, with their street system around the Commons always claimed to have been laid out by cows. Beacon Hill, like Greenwich Village, has built out too much beginning in the 1960s. Maybe the same can be said for some neighborhoods in Montreal and Toronto. But I still recommend Place Roy, near St. Denis and St. Catherine’s, and Cabbagetown, as examples of middle-densities in Canadian urbanism. Ask Cabbagetwon residents where they park their cars at night and get a lesson on ‘good urbanism’ told by just everyday Canadians.
2. The reason Metros or Light Metros have issues especially, if they go into below grade and above grade, rights of way and become relatively rare (trains in tunnels and or on viaducts) because tunnels and viaducts are expensive to build and maintain, in the long term. They not only require higher building density but a lot more basic ridership to financially make sense. There are fewer and fewer places in Europe or North America that can realistically do that. Vancouver has hit the limit, there just aren’t enough places where super tall towers and enough basic transit customers exist to have sensibly designed and built Skytrain lines going over what are really, regional distances. Metros and Light Metros just aren’t designed to travel those distances in the North American or even the European context, while continuing to operate affordably.
Totally on the same page. But we have to be able to ‘dumb it down’ so that just plain folks can follow the methodology. Broadway tunnel (and it’s not a subway) is estimated to cost $600 million/km. Langley Skytrain (all viaducts) is estimated at half the cost or $300 million/km (viaducts used to be much cheaper). ION line in Kitchener-Waterloo, after cost overruns, cost $45.7/km.
You explain that to the readers… I can’t.
What I am going to say is that the ONLY way to fix Canada’s housing crisis is to extend the ION lines from 15 or 20 km, to 200 km. Then let me build infill GAHP buildings and GAHP tramtowns all along those corridors and watch Canada be owned and sold by Canadians again.
3. The main problem for me comes down to the scalability of the rail or transit operating technology used. You can’t start a Metro or Light Metro affordably unless you build a lot of infrastructure. Infrastructure you may not currently be able to support with enough passengers realistically.
I agree. And someone explain to me why, since the last time I was there, Paris has built 4 Streetcar|LRT lines? Because the metro/light metros do not pencil out? Not even in the City of Lights?
4. The problem comes around again, if you build too much high density. The cost of actually putting in those Metros or Light Metros or God forbid, extensions to those lines, when even a few of those towers already exist, can greatly drive up the price of the line (it makes construction of any kind more difficult). Project costs go very high when a lot of people can block or slow down a political process to a crawl. New York, Montreal and London are recent examples. One reason many places are cheaper to build in than the english speaking world, is exactly because they purposely limit the amount of debate around a project, which can dramatically shorten a project’s time scale.
Yes, but we are through the looking glass now in BC with the provincial government stepping in to zone Skytrain station precincts as right-to-build-towers. Writing this piece, the line came to me, “Its so Vancouver. We build a 5 km tunnel and call it a subway. We pre-approve spec buildings at Skytrain station precincts and call it ‘good urbanism.”
That is 35 years experience in urbanism put in a capsule. There has been a sea change in Canadian politics that we have to recognize: Governments are building metro and light metro ’stations’, not transit systems anymore. Why? For the tower revenues. It doesn’t matter if the towers remain empty, government still gets a revenue flow.
This is truly a Bizzaro urbanism that is greeting us now.
5. Zwei, I have something about scalable rail technology for you, I will send it soon. Many thanks.
Scalable rail… I first read it as ‘sociable rail’… coffee cups and laptops!