Hey Vancouver, can you spare some change for the meter?
Thought of The Day
"Love and Marriage,
Love and Marriage,
They go together,
Like a Horse and Carriage,
This, I tell you brother,
You can't have one,
Without the other…"
Aaaah, the indistinguishable smell of fresh manure in the air, the clippity-clop of the horse and carriage tandem on the cobbled street, the dimmed gas lamp post on the corner, the noise coming out from some stale booze smelling tavern with clientèle older than the pyramids, the flower lady watering her evening lilac, the postman on his bike, covered in mud from head to toes from the many potholes full of tepid water that he had to cross over, here and there butt naked kids, still out, playing with loose chicken beyond their bed time, vagabond Shih Tzus running after imaginary cars … aaaah, life was sweet and smog free in the City of Vision in 1912…
Move over tranquil past, here comes the year 2012…
The year of the Living Car.
Disturbing news from inside the development community, as some are thinking of applying for a change in rules in regards to… Development & Parking. Parking stalls, that cost anything from $20,000 to $50,000 a piece to be more precise, are the main culprits. Developers say that if they cannot transfer the costs to the new owners they would rather eliminate them, making the units more… “affordable”.
Interesting.
It appears to me, that some people in this city want to turn the clock backwards on us.
After years during which some kooks have continuously vilified the personal auto vehicle, to the point where they embarrassed themselves, the reality is this… they don't know what they are talking about!
As if it wasn't enough that most new condos are built for “little people”, with sliding doors, with kitchens where you could only prepare one sandwich at a time, with bathrooms where… when your butt sits on the loo, your feet are in the hallway, where only Post-it furniture is possible, well now, the dear developers are trying to squeeze out parking stalls either by eliminating them altogether, building less of them, or selling them separately to third parties.
Terrific!
With so many “good” things doing the rounds in Vancouver, with Task Forces studying Housing Affordability, with Vancouver Urban Forums taking place, and VeloCities coming to town, with all this excitement, I kind of got lost in translation.
Good times!
Or as my realtor friends would say, “it's never been a better time to get into debt for a shoe box, especially when YOU own it!”
Here's the thing.
Allocating for parking is good policy. Parking gives people options. They rely on it. They travel more, they see more, get engaged more, they can have people over. For some, cars are their only means of transportation.
Eliminating parking as a requirement is a very bad idea, just look at some of the former communist countries, who's day to day vehicular/ pedestrian traffic are a living hell, the devastating result of bad policies of the past, when they built buildings with no underground parking, having only the mass public transit in mind, fast and cheap, and with no provisions for the unexpected rise in auto consumption.
Bad planning.
Watch this parking ballet on an abandoned lot (notice that there are no parking markings), an act of random beauty:
Oh, and don't get me started, the argument that the reduced parking will reduce pollution does not fly.
Reducing parking below one space per unit is borderline idiotic. As they age or have kids, residents need to have alternatives. In some instances they may need a car because they work shifts, and taking transit may not be an option.
IMHO the reason why so many parking stalls are empty in many of these buildings, is because the suites they are allocated to… sit empty, or perhaps, there is a crime problem left unaddressed.
Complicated.
If we are really serious about reducing pollution, and want to do something, we better start making better cars, electric cars, instead of eliminating them.
Here's some open minded scientists, like myself, who are asking themselves the question: "How can we make the car a better citizen to the city?":
And by the way, hypothetically, when there will be only electric cars on the roads and no parking allocated for them, what would we do then?
Let's talk about Vancouver's Street Parking formerly known as Free Parking for All, for a moment!
Now that Vision Vancouver managed to transform it into the right arm of Ridgewater Casino, in the form of Pay Parking Slot Machines, do we feel better? Are we building better neighborhoods acting this way? The more I look at it, I see that all this has nothing to do with reducing pollution, or traffic, but everything to do with social engineering, eliminating parking from busy streets, and replacing them with bike lanes have nothing to do with reducing pollution or encouraging more bike travel, but with “Milgram Experimenting" on Vancouver citizens.
One day, the “Vancouverism” meme will be brought into discussion for all the wrong reasons.
We still have choices, we better be careful, or we'll turn into this:
Vision Vancouver: helping people become “friendlier”, since November 2008!
Thing is, we cannot go back to 1912, we have to look forward to 2013!
Cars are here to stay, gas, electric, hybrid, or pushed. Don't kid yourselves…
“Cars and Parking,
Cars and Parking,
They go together,
Like Dogs and Barking,
This, I tell you brother,
You can't have one,
Without the other…"
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
- post by Glissando Remmy
Print 
PDF
Really?
Again with communism?
Dear boohoo,
I’ve traveled extensively throughout Eastern Europe, Russia… and Glissando Remmy’s example is absolutely correct. I’d back his statement to the moon!
Long boulevards, lined with 8-10 stories, and cars parked everywhere they could. On the sidewalks, around fire hydrants, double parked (you had to be lucky the person blocking you would leave the same time as you did), even in the middle of the street, I am not kidding.
And as everyone have explained to me, in their rush to build the “Socialism” they build fast by not providing deeper, costlier foundations to incorporate garages and such.
There are no traffic rules in those countries, or if they are I don’t know what they are!? Main thing is not to hit anybody.
Driving in a taxi is riskier than bungee jumping.
I think, my dear boohoo, that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Seriously!
We should be grateful to our previous planners here for foreseeing the need for parking. The “subsidy” thing played by Steven is just pitiful and self serving.
One other thing, hmm, tearing down the viaducts and more bike lanes to clog the streets, basically reducing the vehicular traffic to a standstill is going to be part of this two times politicians legacy. Even the city staff have caved in and are playing ball (they must be that frightened for their jobs), even the fired staff like the former Director of Planning seemed to have lost their common sense in the name of trying to look Green. Too green if you ask me.
I would have linked a clip with a short from George Carlin, that I’ve seen here before Re. Saving the Earth from… “environmentalists” ha, ha, but I don’t know how to do it. (I wold appreciate if anyone could help)
That’s about it, nice talking to you,
Dr. Richard Unger MD (Ret)
Dr,
I’ve also traveled in E. Europe, Russia and yes N. Korea. So what? We don’t live in a dictatorship or communist state as much as you’d like to pretend a municipal government could possible be in anyway on par with that. The situations and scenarios you, GR and others are trying to compare are apples to orangutans.
Boohoo,
Good for you to have traveled to Eastern Europe, as I am doubtful for that… I lived there when the Wall came down! I have friends and relatives that I visit every two years! I don’t go there as a tourist most of the times that’s home away from home!
Glissy writes:
“Eliminating parking as a requirement is a very bad idea, just look at some of the former communist countries, who’s day to day vehicular/ pedestrian traffic are a living hell, the devastating result of bad policies of the past, when they built buildings with no underground parking, having only the mass public transit in mind, fast and cheap, and with no provisions for the unexpected rise in auto consumption.”
I don’t know him, I don’t know who he or she really is, and I read his comments and posts for a long time, yet I still can’t go over how “right on” and well informed he is on the majority of subjects.
Kuudos to him!
Regarding the above paragraph that I inserted… boohoo, I worked in the residential construction industry over there for almost a decade, and Glissando’s assertion is pure fact, and correct 100%!
Unfortunately boohoo,, your arguments are pure fluff 100%!
End of discussion.
You doubt I’ve traveled as in I’m lying? Why do you post if you just dismiss me as a liar?
Boohoo Ignore Unger’s diatribes. He is someone who maybe lived in a communist country or near to one and now believes that any regulation will turn us into East Germany. The Retired suggests that arthero-sclerosis set in a long time ago.
It’s funny. I work with young professionals few of whom choose to own cars. They want to live in the city core if they can; they like and use the concept of shared cars/coops. They can barely afford housing in Vancouver and they would be quite happy to pay $20,000 less for a condo without parking.
Just spent two weeks in Paris where most people don’t own cars, have excellent metro, tons of bicycles and are quite happy. But I guess I forgot that they are now socialist and therefore bad.
Waltyss, or shall I call you… pitiful wuss?
How do you know me?
I was born in Sudbury, Ontario 72 years ago, served in the Canadian military, you prick, and for over 40 years provided medical care in this province.
“I work with young professionals few of whom choose to own cars.”
Good for them.
That’s their choice, and god bless them they can walk and bike, and enjoy life to the fullest. But they’ll hit 70 sooner or later.
For me owning a car is a matter of survival, not a luxury.
“They want to live in the city core if they can; they like and use the concept of shared cars/coops. They can barely afford housing in Vancouver and they would be quite happy to pay $20,000 less for a condo without parking.”
So that’s my fault? Pick on the seniors, disadvantaged, disabled, you jerk. You are probably talking about your parents right now. I wonder what they might be thinking if they would read your rant.
“Just spent two weeks in Paris…”
So how was it? Working with kids that cannot afford living, but you throw this mini vacation in my face? Ha.
What a double faced hypocrite.
You and your ilk, is what’s wrong with this cvountry, in particular this city our day. You all saw a free ride life style in your Vision Vancouver American invention, and jumped on it!
Looking back, I’m really sorry to realize that my parents, people from my generation, and young people overseas right now are risking their lives to let jerks like you enjoy the democracy that a bunch of leeching American expats are teaching you it’s OK to have, all from behind money-laundering charities, and tailored to wear political parties.
“The Retired suggests that arthero-sclerosis set in a long time ago.”
You disgust me!
PS. To Glissando, Mike, City Caucus,
Please accept my apologies! But this feckless wuss had it coming. I’ve seen blood, and guts in my times! I am rarely intimidated.
Waltyss,
ROTFLMAO!
You’ve got punched by Grandpa!
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I2foD5elEI4/T757SVbICRI/AAAAAAAAAeE/j81qJGo0Kos/s1600/punch.jpg&imgrefurl=http://toms-trash.blogspot.com/&h=401&w=604&sz=41&tbnid=VmradcHPLWJhsM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=147&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpunched%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bface%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=punched+in+the+face&usg=__yjkNGMI5HMIQKa-UDlhN7vr9PFQ=&docid=dZUAou7DdNHuJM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_t_TT67cJIe16gGw_tGeAw&ved=0CG0Q9QEwAg&dur=1410
You didn’t see that coming, eh?
Good riddance.
Richard 1 – 0 Waltyss
Dr. Unger,
I assume you were talking about this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
This was great comedy. George Carlin was a genius with words and a very, very, very observant individual, like Glissy here
I think he talks about boohoo and Forth from 1:50min to 2:20 min Perfect match!
What’s the matter Glissy, you afraid of the market? I thought you were against over regulation and forcing decisions on people top down. If parking spaces are as important as you say then the market will provide them. This is just another massive subsidy for the car adled that you are trying to inflict onn us. None of my kids have cars and one of them is forced to pay for a parking space that she cannot even lease out becuase of the kind of brain dead subsidy you insist on.
WOW Steven again with his hate on cars and on everyone who enters his public/private domain!
Everyone needs to know from what direction you are coming from,when you post here, Steven!
“I feel the same way, only about cars. Why should I be prevented from riding to down town with my grand children? Why should I have to live in a city clogged by cars, choking on their exhaust? Why should my office be required to subsidize drivers by providing parking? Why is so much land taken up by roads and parking that could be put to community use? Why is there any on street parking at all? You want to drive down town and park pay for it. Etc. I have as much right to my views as you to yours only I have to pay the cost of yours. I am tired of free loaders and people who think they are entitled to impose their values on others. And that is what car drivers in urban areas are.”
This comment defines who you really are… 100%.
A pitiful NIMBY close to the beach dweller in the third degree.
Nuff said.
Mira, once again the venom in your system betrays you. No-one is advocating the total elimination of cars. People are advocating however that cars and their drivers pay their fair share. Why is your desire for a car driven culture (or the hashish smoker’s) any more legitimate than Steven’s or people who think like him.
Maybe you should look up what nimby means and it does not mean trying to reduce the hegemony of cars.
What elicited the hashsmokers column appears to be that the market (I thought you far righters worshipped the market) is looking at condominiums with reduced spaces for cars. That got the hashsmoker and people like you all in a knot.
I work with a lot of young professionals; my daughter is one. They are all, almost without exception, content to walk, bus or skytrain or use carpooling/car coops. And these are people with well above average incomes. Are their views illegitimate. What is wrong with offering them the alternative of purchasing a condominium that is cheaper because it does not provide parking and saves them $20,000 in the purchase price. What gives you the right to dictate what the market offers them?
You are worried that maybe you will have to think twice about each time you take out your gas guzzler because there may not be enough parking for it. I live in Dunbar and my neighbourhood is full of those gas guzzlers and people who believe that they have the god given right to spew pollution in my face from their oversized Suv’s and that no-one, no-one should have any alternatives lest it interfere with their selfishness. Half of them are driving their offspring to St. George’s from the other side of Dunbar because their 16 year olds are simply are too delicate to walk 7-8 blocks to school
I drive a car, probably more than I should including to work. However because of a foot injury I am currently taking the bus to work and have realized that it is actually quite relaxing. I may not go back.
So, Mira, put away the vitriol, put away the selfishness and try to think of our community as a whole Walk your kid to school. You might actually feel better.
Yes, the issue is that people should have choices and be willing to pay the cost of their choices. My daughter is in the same position – decent job, cycles to work, has an empty parking spot in her building as neither she nor the girl she shares an apartment with own a car.
Ah and I was hoping you were serious when you said you would not read my comments anymore. Oh well. Yes, I personally do not like cars and minimize my use (but sadly still own a car and use it from time to time). But I have no problem with your using a car as long as you are willing to pay the true costs and it does not prevent me from using a bike and from walking.
Well written article Glissando Remmy. I really think people seem to forget that other people in this city really do depend on their car and taking transit, biking, or walking is just not an option. Even carpooling can be very difficult option for working parents. There has to be a balance here in Vancouver and all too often idealist feel that their view should be the be all and end all for everyone.
Just the other day on CKNW Bill Good had a guest on who felt that all cars should be banned on Granville island. If that was to happen, I know many families or people have disabilities will not be going there anymore, I know I can’t, and many parents and people with disabilities phoned in and said the same. This would hurt businesses there more, than what is perceived as us being a green city.
I have friends who live in the West End and they are always asking us over for dinner, we rarely go because of lack of parking. If there is parking we can go, take our child, so no need for a babysitter and have a wonderful evening with friends. On the drive home my child can fall asleep in the car seat then we just carry him to bed when we get home…easy and simple. But with this city’s demand to reduce parking and hike up the limited parking rates so high, then us paying for a babysitter, it is just not worth it. Not to mention taking transit at night with children is not safe.
In the US they recognize that families need cars and have even set up programs to help low income families with access to cars.
http://save.lovetoknow.com/Free_Cars_for_Low_Income_Families
The reality is if you want a vibrant city then you must have balance and that includes people who depend on their cars and more lower cost parking.
So I should subsidize your car parking but you are opposed to a few bike lanes? Think how wonderful the streets and sidewalks could be if there were wider sidewalks with more people walking on them. We could do this if some of the space dedicated to parking were given over to sidewalks. And without so much on street parking it would be easier for cyclists and cars to share the streets.
But that is not the question GR is addressing. It is weather developers should be forced by government regulators to build parking or if we should free them respond to market forces.
Steven – I have NEVER said that I was against Bike Lanes – but that there needs to be a balance. AND right now people who rely on their cars are treated as the evil selfish villains.
Let’s see who they are:
- Parents who have to drive their kids to school(s) seeing the transit system to the school terrible
- Parents to have to dive their sick kids to the doctors or emergency
- Parents who need to take their kids to extracurricular activities – many times to multiple locations
- Families who need their car for grocery shopping – and a bike basket is not going to fit a weeks’ worth of food for a family of 4
- Seniors and Disabled people who depend on their car for mobility seeing Handi-dart is a limited service
- People with dogs who need to drive to off leash parks seeing there is limited green space and this city seems to be very anti-dog owner
- Businesses and professionals who need to deliver products and produce
- People who have to go for medical treatment like chemo then have to hit with a $25 parking fee, because if they take public transit they could die if they get sick from catching a cold from someone.
Boohoo you talked about tipping the balance – I honestly feel that this tipping to going the other way too far without looking at the consequences.
It seems that Vision and their followers only wants young abled-bodied people with no kids living in Vancouver – just so that they can walk or take their bike everywhere.
Sure, some people have made choices that force them to use cars. And our city has developed to make such choices seem natural. We have made it difficult for many people to live and work without cars and we need to address the huge over investment in infrastructure for cars and the under investment in infrastructure for bicycles, pedestrians, transit users.
On the other hand, we raised three kids in Vancouver with minimal use of cars and are surrounded by people with children (one of them my grand child) who do not rely on cars. Yes, one reason we can afford this choice is that we are well off. In Vancouver it takes a lot of money to operate a car, but it also takes money to live in a place where one does not need a car – this is part of the affordability crisis.
“The reality is if you want a vibrant city then you must have balance and that includes people who depend on their cars and more lower cost parking.”
I agree entirely that vibrant cities must have a balance. The problem is North American cities are incredibly imbalanced at the moment. That’s what people who advocate for bikes, walking, transit are asking for. Not the banning of cars, banning of parking or other nonsense–just a tilt towards a more balanced transportation system.
If you have 10 oranges, 1 apple and 1 pear but you want to eat a more balanced meal, you increase the number of apples/pears and decrease the number of oranges. It doesn’t mean a ‘war on oranges’, it just means you want a more balanced meal. (Yes that is simplistic but you get the point I hope?)
But Boohoo – That is my point – As an “orange” I feel like war as been waged on me and that my choice is being eroded away. Which in turn has a serious negative effect on my family.
Like a well balanced meal – EVERYTHING has a purpose – but some people don’t see it that way and expect everyone to have a vegan diet and that just don’t work for some.
WM,
If a few bike lanes is a war, what has been being waged against cyclist/pedestrians/transit for the past 60 years? You say yourself you want a balance, but seem unwilling to give up anything to achieve that balance. If you have only 10 pieces of fruit and 9 are oranges, how can you have a more balanced meal without taking out an orange? Don’t forget you still have 8 oranges vs 2 apples…
No one (other than extremists) is arguing get rid of cars or ‘everyone go vegan’. If that’s the argument you’re trying to counter, well that’s dumb. That’s like me arguing against you and implying you want to abolish all cycling lanes and build highways everywhere.
finally acknowledgement that cars will actually exist past next week! Well said GR.
Bless your heart, Glissy!
Another down to earth post. In true speak you touched my person in more ways than you can imagine. You really speak on behalf of the working people, and not of the select self entitled few, like Steven or boohoo above.
Who needs NDP and their hypocrites after all? Thanks for that.
I am a cyclist, walker, car driver, and professional Bus Driver. We need a balance, and the current selfish narrow minded cycling fanatics do not understand that Downtown Vancouver is NOT solely for their use. Can you deliver a large commercial package on a bicycle? Can you transport more people at once on a bicycle than a bus? Can someone who barely walk ride a bicycle? We need space for automobiles to travel and park or all business will cease, and many people will have no way of moving. I cycle downtown but if I need a car to transport something I drive. However with such little and expensive parking, I now conduct most shopping elsewhere. I know that many merchants are suffering, and this is one of the main reasons shops are closing down. Go look at all the empty stores. The pollution issue is irrelevant and will disappear in time with fuel advancements.
I think you are saying we need to allocate more road space to transit and deliveries and less to cars. I agree with that. We should have a lot more dedicated bus lanes, and those could possibly be integrated with goods distribution. An idea worth investigating.
Steve – well said. One Percenters(*) on bikes are in the way of public transit in bus lanes. Only a Mayor Moonbeam can be dense enough to place bikes in dedicated bus lanes during rush hour. Look at the Burrard st bridge and notice how narrow traffic lanes are – buses do not fit in them. We have translink buses full of passengers playing chicken with oncoming traffic.
(*) As for the entitled One Percenters on bikes – look at the City stats from the Burrard Br. Less than 5% of traffic on that bridge are bikes – the same as it was in the 1990′s. Adjust for dozens of passengers on buses and multiple passengers in independent commuting devices (politically correct speak for “cars”) and taxis, and you will get the obvious (to 99% of us) fact that 99% of commuters do not commute by bike.
Oops!
Bless your heart, Glissy!
Another down to earth post. In true speak you touched my person in more ways than you can imagine. You really speak on behalf of the working people, and not of the select self entitled few, like Steven or boohoo above.
Who needs NDP and their hypocrites after all? Thanks for that.
Totally Mira,
The working people don’t walk or ride a bike or take transit, I’m so selfish and entitled for wanting a more balanced transportation system.
Dear Glissando,
I liked your insight… as always. It’s very astute, and raises many very good questions. If we all are so worried about the planet, why don’t we try to adapt our forms of transportation to pollution free modes of transportation, right now?
I still remember the street car – electric! Trolley buses are electric/ hybrid. Sky train is electric. I totally agree with you, cars are here to stay. I don’t see myself without one. If an electric one, one hundred percent electric, would come on the market I’d buy it even if I’d have to borrow money in order to do that. But there is no infrastructure for now, am I right? And what’s on the market are not that efficient/ reliable. (I absolutely loved the middle video re. City Car, hopefully I live to see one on the streets of Vancouver!)
I am way beyond the age for riding a bicycle safely, and I am not against bicycles, that would be just silly. I am against the way some people are trying to force the rest of us to adapt to their selfish self centered life style. I don’t mind if the road is shared by all means of transportation, in harmony.
I too live in Kits, and in all honesty I had enough of people who “Work from Home”, meaning they don’t need to beat the traffic, go to a midnight appointment, attend to an emergency, or commute ’cause not all of us can afford to live by the beach right, Steven?
Stroller pushing yoga mamas, that are running over you on the pathways, let their kids to scream in your face, let their dogs off leash in all parks and on the beach, don’t pick after their dogs, because as one told me “dog shit is biodegradable” and they are not going to pick it up and put it in a plastic bag and ruin the planet. Can anyone believe that? This is where we are right now, In a city where there are no leaders that work for the whole city but only for a select few.
Apropos, what better way to show how much you don’t care about the city that elected you in office, and basically gave you bread and butter on the table but the latest announcement from Meggs and Barnes that they are abandoning ship if a bigger ship comes along. Shameful!
In conclusion, what this city needs is leadership. Someone who sees things the way this man here sees them. Glissando, yes I am talking about you.
Have a good afternoon everyone,
Dr. Richard Unger MD (Ret)
Part of this issue is the disconnect within City planning (not just Vancouver but the lower mainland). As more TODs come on line, there needs to be a shift in the parking requirements. If you want people to live near transit and use it, you need to allow for the fact they won’t need as many cars as a development located away from transit.
As an example, projects near the future Evergeen line have trouble selling two stalls to two bedroom units. People buying these units usually have a single car for shopping etc but will/are using transit most of the time. They rightfully expect the cost of the unit to be decreased by the cost of the stall. We are probably 50-75% on the one bedrooms/studios who take stalls. The end result is an increase cost to build and an increased cost for the strata to maintain as renting them is about as easy as selling them.
I could debate with planner over the visitor stall requirements as well but….
Glissy, do you think the mad folks at City Hall are listening? If there is an intention to kill the downtown stores and businesses they sure are making a good job of it. Soon, Vancouver will be like Atlanta was a few years ago, when no one went there, creating a void for the criminals to take over. And then slums appeared. Maybe the reason this V V gang wants such huge towers plonked into neighbourhoods is that they need the “land lift” to pay for their foolish projects – bike lanes for a start!
When will they start to do the jobs we elected them to do and that is to ensure there is maintenance of roads, bike lane planters full of garbage and dead plants, live weeds, lighting etc? Shame on them.
Roads for everyone, not just for a few!
Keep up the great work.
Glissando, my man,
I don’t know how you do it but this was another great post. And man, it was right on the money!
Of course the Visionistas are getting agitated because the fox is again inside their chicken coop.
Cheerio.
Hey good people of vancouver, I have a great idea. Now that tattoes are such commonplace, let’s do this: The people that hate and think of cars as the Devil’s means of transportation will be happy cycling all the way around the city, but to be 100% compliant with their “hate machine” dogma, it will be illegal for them to purchase, rent, or eat anything that has been brought to the city by truck, car, motorcycle, etc.
As for the tattoe thing? easy! they will get a beautiful tattoe of a bicycle in their forehead (they can choose the style, color, size) . . . Ta-da! Problem solved, thank you very much, now send me flowers and candy as a thank you gesture.
Hey does any one remember our Mayor moved his business to Burnaby a few years back? I guess that city is good for business, just sayin’
Listen to you guys…hate machines, car haters, communists, Vancouver is basically Pyongyang, branding cyclists….you are what you hate…
Glissando Remmy misses an important point. Vancouver’s bike engineer used to be a portly person. People would mock him for this even though it was not his fault. He worried about diabetes. “Soon there will be to much of me in the coming bye and bye,” he must have thought.
The bike lanes enabled him to become very thin and handsome.
Jeff Lee described in his blog a week or so ago how the engineer lost 50 pounds. He peddled it off as he rode to work. You may belittle this but the bike lane enabled him to commute from New Westminster and become as fit as a fiddle.
Our engineer is more to be admired than censured.
Glissando Remmy. You may think that your name hides your identity but I can reveal that you are an opera diva. You are overweight and can only be cast as Brunhilda.
Now that you have been outed as a fat soprano, start peddling it off like the Engineer instead of these incessant arias of complaint.
@Jonathan Baker:
Wow. So you can’t attack the message so you attack the messanger.
Sounds familiar…oh, right – the Visionistas are in full swing after Vivian Krause. First Magee and now the long Solomon arm via the ‘Vancouver Observer’.
What a sad lot you are.
Yes Max, they are after Vivian because she put in jeopardy their only source of income and subsistence. Sucking at the charity & public teats. It must be terrifying for them to be exposed and lose their leaches status.
Max,
I think baker is trying to be sarcastic here!
Tough cookie.
Geez, as I was about to go, there’s Johnny!
“Now that you have been outed as a fat soprano, start peddling it off like the Engineer instead of these incessant arias of complaint.”
Really?
Who are you and what did you do with the real JB?
The issues aside, does anyone else find this guy’s writing style to be incredibly difficult to follow? Poor structure, jumping around all over the place, generally weird delivery.
He does seems to be mostly there and manages to get the point across eventually, but perhaps a slightly loose screw or two up there… Just get a bit of a crazy vibe from his writing style.
Glissando Remmy good writer. Transportation planners bad bureaucrats.
There, is that clear enough.
Glissando is an… Acquired Taste!, Mark. have you read any of his posts and gazillion of comments? ? before passing judgement please do that. Many people who read Coty Caucus but never comment here told me how much they appreciate this anonymous guy’s intakes. And so doI. I too am curious of who Glissy is, Johnatan, but I don’t think you’ll find an opera diva behind his pseudonym. BTW , anyone knows where is the first clip video from? .
I really liked this story, Glissy.
For whomever says they can’t follow… Probably because they don’t have the intellectual capacity… Mark!
I didn’t understand what’s with Johnaton Baker. He used to be a nice guy. Anyways, everything said, I think Glissando Remmy is in a league way above the pay grade of many of his main complainers!
Loved this. In the present format. I think the ideas are out there clearly. The cars are here to stay. bring the electric cars… yesterday. follow the City Car. Look at the mistakes the Eastern Europe planners and architects made in their planning. Avoid if possible the mess brought on to ourselves by this Vision Vancouver gang, that caters to their own , and promote their biking agenda. And I loved the clip with George Costanza and the parking argument … that’s where we are going. When I see comments like that of the one called “Mark” I don’t get it. It’s so easy, but like Max said before me, it’s easier to shoot the messenger than to address the issue.
Viaducts study? Check! New separated bike lanes? Check Anmd that’s about it. They know nothing else, they care about nothing else. I’m talking about the ship jumping Vision fellas, bringing this city to a paralyzing gridlock, their specialty! Thinking that we pay them do this to us Vancouverites, the word Masochism comes to mind. If I never hear about this pitiful gang ever again it would be too soon.
Great work Gliss. I also always enjoyed your brilliant comments. Thanks. Great weekend ahead!
Hey!
Loved this. In the present format. I think the ideas are out there clearly. The cars are here to stay. bring the electric cars… yesterday. follow the City Car. Look at the mistakes the Eastern Europe planners and architects made in their planning. Avoid if possible the mess brought on to ourselves by this Vision Vancouver gang, that caters to their own , and promote their biking agenda. And I loved the clip with George Costanza and the parking argument … that’s where we are going. When I see comments like that of the one called “Mark” I don’t get it. It’s so easy, but like Max said before me, it’s easier to shoot the messenger than to address the issue.
Viaducts study? Check! New separated bike lanes? Check Anmd that’s about it. They know nothing else, they care about nothing else. I’m talking about the ship jumping Vision fellas, bringing this city to a paralyzing gridlock, their specialty! Thinking that we pay them do this to us Vancouverites, the word Masochism comes to mind. If I never hear about this pitiful gang ever again it would be too soon.
Great work Gliss. I also always enjoyed your brilliant comments. Thanks. Great weekend ahead!
I second your comment Heather! Glissy’s posting was clear enough for me. Good job., keepsake thème coming!
Vision membres Will ne glad to se emporte of this.
Bang on, Glissando!
Thank you for saying it out loud. Cars are not the enemy. They are progress, technology, software, helping us move around. Iagree the non polluting cars are the answer for the future. great take.
That city car video was amazing, thanks for posting it.
JJ
Whoa Glissando Remmy is back! And he kicks ass, my friends. I see some usual suspects in here… including myself, no harm in that, but whoa, Vision Scientologists, the truth is out, cars and parking are an item, baby!
Too bad that the suckers in Vancouverville gave them another shot at fame and what they do best… incredible stupid things.
This paragraph did it for me:
“Allocating for parking is good policy. Parking gives people options. They rely on it. They travel more, they see more, get engaged more, they can have people over. For some, cars are their only means of transportation.”
As my mother uses her car to visit her nephews downtown. Thank God they still have Visitor Parking free of charge at their building… where is MLA’s Chondra Spencer Henry of West End, the most affected part of the city, comment on the issue? Eh? Just because he is working from the NDP barricades , isn’t he the MLA for ALL West Enders? Well as long as he might overstep on Geoff Meggs’ coattail he ‘s probably going to stay mum.
Have to go.
Waltyss you just pretty much embarrassed yourself completely. I will keep this nice and simple. How does someone like YOU, who drives a car except for the last two Weeks, subsidize someone else who drives. Before you patronizingly condescend and try to paint me with a right winged brush, just answer that one question. Why does everyone feel they subsidizE everyone else, have they forgotten how a so called democracy with taxation for social services, medical, roads, sewers, water, police and so on is NOT A FREAKING USER PAY SYSTEM SO THAT ARGUMENT NEEDS TO GO, NOW. If you take your head out of your bhole, you may understand that you don’t just decide whO subsidizes who. Unlearn that word. God I miss the VancouveR that wasn’t just waiting to clutch it’s pearls over the next easily judged thing.
jenables, If I could understand what you were carrying on about, I would respond in greater detail.
Often people feel that they are subsidizing someone else because they are. Is that simple enough for you?
If your point is that we all subsidize someone else and that in any community, we will pay taxes to support things we do not use, then I agree. I no longer have children in public school, why should I pay school taxes; that type of argument. With regard to that, I agree with you completely. In terms of the public good, we all do and should pay for things we do not necessarily use when those we elect to represent us decide they are for the public good. If we disagree, we can vote them out in the next election.
However, the whingers on this site have their knickers in a knot because some money has been spent on encouraging other forms of transportation. Enemy #1 for these people appears to be bicycles and those who promote them. Most people support bike lanes (even Suzanne Anton when she wasn’t opposing them); so based on your argument, shouldn’t the whiners and complainers be content to pay for them. As you say, we all pay for stuff we do not use. Those elected to represent us have decided they are good thing. We had an election where the NPA made its opposition clear and they go trounced. That is all part of being in a community and all part of democracy.
The whingers continue to carry on as is their right but most of the community has moved on and ignores them.
However, the argument has to be different when we move into the private sector. When I go go purchase something like a car, I have a choice between a plain Jane and a super duper model with every gadget imaginable. That is a choice that i have and I should have.
So too when it comes to housing. Should people, particularly young people who have a very difficult time obtaining housing in our fair city, not have the choice of purchasing or renting condominiums without parking stalls, especially when those condo’s are near Sky Train stations and many of those young people don’t own cars. The evidence is that is many of these buildings a significant number of the parking stalls sit empty. No is saying take cars off the road. We are saying share the road.
No-one is saying allow for condominiums without parking. However, reducing the ratio of parking stalls to units will prevent waste and decrease cost of housing for those who want it.
This proposition which is eminently sensible in my view has been portrayed by the nutters on this site (including Glissy the hasheater) as imposing communism, forcing people out of cars and all sorts of other nonsencical things. That is what I have been having great enjoyment making fun of.
Thought of The Night
“Heeeeeree’s Waltyss!”
W,
Here’s what you don’t understand.
It may appear simple yet… it’s not.
The idea that you would get a great deal from a developer because they would remove the current allocated parking from the equation, is a great gimmick.
You are going to get burned just like all the suckers that get burned on Boxing Day!
Before Boxing Day the advertised price is $100, right?
On Boxing Day the new mark up is $200 but the discount is 50%. You just got “lucky”!
Same here only with condos, pal!
You don’t believe me? Big deal, don’t have to, just go ask around. See how much the current profit for Concord or Aquillini or Holborn or Bosa or ONNI or Concert or Bastion or Polygon is… on any project, and you’ll be flabbergasted.
Having parking allocated to the units is good policy.
Cars are here to stay. You can’t turn back the clock.
I already mentioned that, one day they will all be pollution free, same principle, steering wheel, or joystick if you wish, and four wheels, able to carry people, haul goods, and take you and your whole family, places!
Enjoy!
In an earlier comment you threw a punch at Richard saying that he must be one of those people from a communist country or from a one nearby. Which to me, it could only mean that he would have more knowledge, wisdom than you would ever have, as him, having seen both worlds, would be able to point out the similarities, which you… can’t!
Oh!
Over the weekend I went downtown… by car. I know, bad Glissando! Guess what? As I approached the Burrard/ Broadway intersection I happened to see an elderly neighbor of mine, waiting for the bus, and with no bus in sight, for… 15-20 min. judging by the lineup. Anyhoo, I stopped abruptly as if I drove over a skunk, and invited her in. Not only that, but her chit-chat companion, a complete stranger to her as I found out, got a free ride too! I delivered both, right at the door, at their destinations. Voila! My good karma for the day.
Question for you wise guy… can you do that on… your bike?
My point, exactly!
Last but not least, Waltyss, call me a nutter hash-eater, one-more-time, and I’ll tell you a joke, with you, in it!
Till we meet again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic
We live in Vancouver and this keep us busy.
Glissy, did I hurt your feelings. I am sooooo sorrry.
I just love it when the NPA and their ultra right followers distrust the market and tthe developers who fund them. When an argument is made that one way to reduce the cost of housing is to reduce the number of parking spaces, the response is those sleazy dishonest developers will suck the money out of you somehow. Love it, love it, love it!
The right tells us how the market should be the ultimate arbiter except of course when it comes to allowing the market to provide something the right wing nutters (yes, you Glissy) is just, well, wrong. It’s a bit like heads i win, tails you lose.
The evidence that in a lot of buildings near to public transit there are already significant proportion of empty parking spaces is well because of empty units or perhaps flying saucers swallowing up the cars. Hasheaters know these visions well.
And then of course, Glissy old pal, you argue that just because Unger has been to a communist country I haven’t and therefore cannot know the situation there. A complete non sequitur and wrong in any event. The drugs must have really kicked in at that point.
And Glissy gave a ride to a neighbour who was waiting at a bus stop. Neighbourly, yes. Helpful, yes. Irrelevant, yes.
You seem to push the argument that because the car is here to stay, we can do nothing to reduce the number of cars ro the spaces we allocate to them. Thank God you do not make public policy. What a sad defeatist policy. Glissy, you should not post late at night after the bongs have done their job.
Thought of The Day
“Only people I respect can hurt my feelings.”
Waltyss, you are not one of them so…
Now as promised, here’s the joke for you:
…………………………………………………………………..
Waltyss, Mr.Yours & Mr. Up meet in front of the
elevator bank.
Waltyss: Gentlemen!
Mr.Yours: “Up!”
Mr.Up: “Yours!”
Mr.Up and Mr. Yours in unison: “Waltyss!”
…………………………………………………………………..
Now that was fun, wasn’t it?
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
Glissy, have you ever been to a party where you arrive cold sober and everyone is well into their cups and they are telling jokes that they think are absolutely hilarious. But to someone cold sober they are not.
Okay, Glissy, substitute “stoned” for well into their cups and you will get it.
And here I thought that you were only into hash nightcaps. Now I see the rush sets in early in the evening.
Poor public policy and childish jokes. What will you bless us with next?
Thought of The Night
“Some righteous might say The Vesper,
Is the sunset evening Prayer,
But I’ll say it in a whisper,
Vesper… is a Martini cock-a-tail!”
And that’s why we are here.
To do both,
See if I care!
I want to thank you all contributors to a great debate, pros and cons, let them fly, I say, set them free!
We are not shy in here, this is not a children’s playground..
Nobody’s offended and nobody’s offending.
Disagreement is good.
Think of the time when the first caveman wanted to introduce the Fire to the rest of his cavemen.
“I have this fire…”
They probably beat him into a stupor.
Some people in here are behaving like cavemen afraid of the fire. To them I say, don’t be afraid, you’ll “warm” up to it!
Again thank you all for your comments. I loved them all. Thank you, Richard, Higgins, Boohoo, Steven, Ned, Mira, Jon, Max, jenables, Terry, Heather, JJ, Natalie, Mark, Mario, Victor, Paul, Steve, Andrew, Working Mom…
Last but not least, for my dearest Waltyss…
“I understand!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVkWONQeYcY
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
“Like” Good to disagree!
@Steven Forth
Steven, your argument that cars are heavily subsidized loses its relevance when you consider a high proportion of the population either owns or directly benefits from the use of cars. If drivers benefit from a subsidy, they are also bearing those costs as taxpayers and the higher the proportion of drivers (or those who benefit from cars) are of the population, the more the subsidy issue becomes irrelevant. In effect, the receiver and the payer of the benefit are substantially the same group of people.
That is a good point. But it also reflects the degree to which we have structured our economy to favour certain options and to disadvantage other options. Aren’t we better off with a more balanced approach? I think your argument works better for roads than it does for parking. The other argument you could make is that the government should invest in public goods. Again, I think you have a strong argument for road infrastructure and maybe even for on street parking (not that I agree with the argument, but I think it can be made). I don’t see that this carries over to forcing developers to include parking or to forcing people who do not own cars to rent or buy units that have parking included. If there is real demand on this then the private sector is well positioned to fill it.
My first reaction was to agree with you – why should someone who does not own a car be required to purchase a parking spot that they will not use. The problem is that it is not just the non car owners that will purchase units that do not come with parking but car owners will as well and then end up parking on the street. This is a subsidy to those car owners since they are basically appropriating a piece of public space for their own. No doubt this is occurring now but only becomes an issue when the streets are crowded with cars that do not have offstreet parking. Isn’t this the rationale for requiring the provision of offstreet parking?
Isn’t the solution here to enforce on-street parking regulations? Allowing developers to make choices and seperating owenship of a dwelling from ownership of a parking spot seems like a simple way to let the market drive availability of parking.
I don’t think so. Most residential streets do not have parking restrictions so residents can park there as long as they want (as long as the car is not abandoned). Streets that are restricted to residents only parking will not solve the problem either since, if there is insufficient off street parking, it will be the residents that are causing the congestion which they are entitled to do.
So we need to tighten up how we think about on-street parking. And as on-street parking gets congested off-street alternatives become more attractive and people who want them will pay for them. If there is a real demand, and the city does not prevent it through zoning and planning regulation, the developers will fill the demand.
What’s with all these people who drive getting on a self righteous high horse as though they practice what they preach? Waltyss, why not practice reading comprehension and read your comments. you started slinging the mud first, then acted as though everyone was arguing against condos having a few less parking spaces. You don’t have a point, you are a troll who underestimates everyone around you, for your own sad reasons.
“and your bum buddy Ned”
Not cool.
Mike, if we are going edit “fluffer”, this kind of homophobic crap should go as well.
I would challenge you Waltyss, to post to the point and leave all the name calling, insults and personal attacks at home.
I agree, Paul. I’ll snip it. Without singling out just one commenter, I’ll remind everyone about our commenting policy and refraining from personal attacks.
Mike having trouble with understanding your posting policy, even if i could find it on your site. So far, i have discovered that while fluffer and bum buddy are verboeten, it is okay to use prick and jerk to describe someone.
What about Glissy the hasheater to describe someone whose posts read like they are produced by someone in a drug induced haze? Okay or verboeten?
What about calling someone a communist? Okay or verboeten?
Or my favourtie, ‘eco-facist’ inspired to respect the environment by the Nazi’s in the 1930s. I kinda like these comments though, as they say a lot about the people posting them. And then there are Max and gman desperately trying to say I am a sock puppet associated with Renewal etc. when 15 seconds work on their part would have shown that this is a different Steven Forth, one who lives in Toronto and works for Indigo. Oh well.
Challenge only walt? Strange, didn’t think calling someone a prick was cool but hey, live and learn.
Wrong
1. Parking is not unused because suites/buildings are empty – some significant demographics…young, green, outstanding walk locations etc. happily choose to walk.
2. Parking on streets should be charged at market rates. What fair tax or subsidy policy can justify drastic discounts for resident and particularly location designated valuable West Side parking permit and meter fees?
IMHO,as the proud owner of a car and a bike and a bus pass, this idea of “lowering” the costs for future condo buildings/ homes by NOT providing the parking on site it is really stupid. Really, really stupid.
Not only that the whole thing could end up being a racket with the developer getting all the spoils, but the future owners could face big inconveniences in the eventuality they want to, surprise surprise… start a family and need to have a car (of course, only of the kind that runs on pure oxygen!)
So, what then? They will end up parking on the street as Bill above have suggested.
I’ve seen this too many times, especially around the Renfrew/ PNE area… during busy events, PNE, Skating championships, Hockey games, Playland… the locals, 100% asian btw, park their cars on the street in all the city allocated 2h FREE parking spaces, and than the whole family, literally, gather at street corners, agitating signs with “PARK HERE! $10″ and of course pointing towards their … empty car porch.
Imagine the same thing happening in a more dense area… trouble!
Thanks Glissando! Well said.
Yeah whenever I hear prices will be reduced I get pretty cynical. I had a conversation with the city regarding permit parking- I do think it serves a purpose such as in the west end – one shouldn’t have to go through that daily. when I called about unnecessary and unused allocation of permit parking to residents who had alternatives they were still using, I was told we were going to see a lot more of that. I was also told the streets were for everyone. Well, residents of xxxx blk of xth ave really doesn’t sound like everyone to me. 2 hr except residents doesn’t sound like everyone. I would really like someone to address the sad and simple fact that increasing costs of parking does hurt business and it affects those who don’t have much to live off. (please no lecturing here, it is an increase to the cost of living and I do understand no car is much cheaper) if we are trying to make this city more affordable how does that help? I am not counting on developers to do this for us.
Agree with you. And I also forgot to mention in my comment that I do not own a car, am lucky enough to work few blocks from where I live due to pure luck (I didn’t move here to be close to work when I did).
I do have a parking stall that I do not use( unless when I have friends). Sometimes neighbors ask me if they can have one of their visitors park in there… and I never said NO! That’s what good neighbors do. Most of the people in my bldg are young professionals and when they have family over they ALL come by CAR people! Yes your parents are older than you, duh, and probably live in the suburbs…!
Oh, I also am totally pissed off to see all this righteous Kits/ Dunbar chosen ones that are preaching BS to the rest of us, from the comfort of their homes, where they live-work, whatever…
Prices for housing is not going to go down because of No Parking stalls anytime soon.
As a West End resident, and owner of a small 1Bdr.. in about 15 years… all I’d comment is that Glissando is Right ON! First if you are an owner the payments spread out for 20-25 years are really insignificant considering the asking price for an apartment these days. By the time you end up owning the condo you’ll need the parking, old bones and osteoporosis…
, if you are a female.
If you rent, don’t make me laugh! The developer/ owner… your landlord will squeeze all they could out of you regardless. Renovictions are the best example I could think of. You’ll end up paying for “parking” regardless! Steven’s “people subsidize the car” comments are stupid in the highest degree as the roads are used and shared by everyone, not only by cars. Under the streets all the city utilities are hiding, water, communications, electrical, sewage… you are paying for it whatever …
Never traveled to Eastern Europe to see first hand the impact of “no parking planning” if anyone has some interesting videos, or articles on this please post.
What’s with this city and bikes I have no idea. It’s getting really ridiculous. I bike few times a week but I’m not calling people to Amsterdamize or Copenhagenize Vancouver like some do on Twitter recently. I read a few tweets by Toderian the former DofP and I couldn’t stop giggling. Trying so hard to get some attention! More bikes , no viaducts. Geez.
Here we are talking about requiring developers to provide parking and separating ownership of a dwelling from ownership of a parking spot, not about competition for use of public space (an important but separate issue). If having a parking space is as important as you claim, and for many people it is, then the market will provide for it. No need for top down government control. The Eastern Europe example is a red herring as it is an example of the government forcing its views on people and preventing the market from operating. Exactly what GR is advocating here.
Sorry Steven, but I think Glissando raised an interesting point (an excellent point I might add) , and I am inclined to find out more about the subject as it affects me. You saying that he is comparing government control to development self-control is completely wrong. He was saying that the planning for parking in a growing population area full of cars is good policy… look at Eastern Europe where they did not plan for that, whatever their reasons, not the subject of this discussion.
Because you opened it up, FYI if those governments build the way they did, fast and cheap, it was so they could provide the most of their population with affordable housing, where here we have… profit, nothing to do with affordability.
As for your Free market shtick, we should thank that idiot Milton Friedman for his advice on free markets, just look how nicely his markets were wiped out by the banking crooks, all pals of his. Remember the “free market” bailout of four years ago. Yeah thank you for that Steven, but no thank you!
You’ve got nothing!
Given that this particular free market would be affecting developements where a large portion of the population has vehicles there’s no way that there wouldn’t be enough parking.
I know I wouldn’t buy a place without a parking stall. Heck, if I had the option I would buy two. Others may choose to buy none.
There’s no reason why developers shouldn’t be allowed to respond as best as they see fit to their potential clients.
If for some reason you started not having nearly enough you can simply zone for more parking. (Or in a policy of no parking rules period simply lower the mill rate on parking.)
Why is it that a city needs to force people to have a percentage of their property as parking?
The scare scenarios of eastern european double parking is just that – that’s why we have tow trucks.
Like many things what we need are less regulations, parking requirements being a key one.
Street parking should be looked at as a revenue source that should be maximised. Clearly that would mean that it’s not so high that the spots aren’t nearly full but it should nonetheless be made to generate as much money as possible. That’s just simple business sense.
And speaking of business, no reason that some should be unfairly subsidised with street parking while others are not. If they want parking for their clients they should be providing it on site. You can even revenue neutral it if you want by offsetting the additional income by lower business taxes. That would be fair.
While were at it, since parking generates traffic, and surface parking is unsightly and a waste of land space, go ahead and tax parking spots. You can reduce the rate for underground parking to take into account it’s higher cost. You can then once again offset that revenue with even lower business taxes.
Let the market control how much parking their is. Demand and parking revenues will be the carrot, and taxes can be the stick. You can adjust the taxes to make sure you have the correct amount of parking and then let the market determine how best to provide it.
I expect that most downtown cores will have some form of dynamic pricing in place in the next ten years. Our phones will tell us what slots are open and the current rate for parking in that spot. In some cases we will even be able to bid on spots. Should lead to some interesting land use allocation decisions by cities trying to maximize revenues.
Yep I live in White Rock and I would love to see how much we could charge for the beach parking on a summer long weekend!
Thought of The Day
“Why did academic economists fail to foresee the crisis? You tell me that, Cassandra!”
Same reason why you seem to not see what I’m saying here. Free Market, Shmarket! Give me a break.
Let me be the Robert Shiller of Yale University, who regularly argued that house prices were unsustainable, as proof that the truth was ignored… on this carrot/stick car & parking thing.
“… that’s why we have tow trucks.”
Seriously, Ron?
Inflict more pain and suffering, and milk some more dollars from the ones that cannot afford the luxury of going around the town walking or biking?
Geeezzzzz!
I do not know of anyone in business that after getting a break from some taxes, or having awarded some relaxations, or getting some subsidies/ sponsorship/ donations set to share this savings with their customers. Not one!
And you want to tell me that the developers are going to give their clients a break, according to the … market? LOL.
Having said that, everybody is free to believe in Santa Clause if they want to, it’s a free country. I said what’s on my mind, you said what’s on yours, now let’s wait and see…
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
I see what you are saying there needs to be a method to control the total amount of parking which is why in an unregulated parking environment you would have taxation that could be increased or decreased in order to affect the total amount and it’s cost.
While there’s all sorts of nanny states rules on minimum parking (which is totally contradictory to every other policy, right or wrong, in Vancouver) there’s also a whole bunch of parking maximums as well. Why group everything together under one umbrella when not every development needs the exact same amount of spaces?
Pretty sure that if they could install some pay public underground parking that pretty much every development would want to add as much as they think they could sell. It’s like printing money. But much like there’s mins the max stops that. Rather than micromanage use taxation to control it.
Of course, you know I must be a believer in Santa Clause if I think that this would work in Vancouver (or anywhere in the Lower Mainland). It would put too many nanny state micromangers out of work!
And no I don’t expect developers to give people a break but I don’t expect people to give them a break if they want parking and they don’t provide it.
Sigh.. Remember when we were all in this together? Remember when people could be in public without being so offended by everything? we all use the streets and roads. parking should not be viewed as a money tree in expensive Vancouver. Nor should anyone feel that they are not using the roads.. We all do. When we drive out of a space, someone else drives in. maybe it isn’t you. Maybe it is your parents, your friends with kids, a garbage truck, a customer in a hurry, a delivery man, Canada post, police. On street parking should be public, and people really and truly need to understand that it takes a village… Also it is really cruel to business to think some complicated taxation scheme will offset the decrease in business which jacking parking will cause. people feel as though they are being punished for wanting to patronize a restaurant they used to love. Perhaps your office job doesnt depend on people having money to spend to thrive. Good for you. People just aren’t spending as much In the community, because cost of living eats up so much. This has been very apparent on the last three years. Please understand what you are really advocating for. Trust me, parking is huge for so many people, and it plays a massive role in choice. jacking parking rates hurts business and believe you me, businesses are paying insanely more property tax etc to the city of Vancouver and receiving increasingly poor treatment. And small businesses always show it first. don’t pretend your ideals make so much sense that they will be adopted by everyone. You must account for people who think and do differently in reality. Not what they “should” do.. People are negatively suggestible as well! But that’s why we are here, right?
To those who are super keen to make it really expensive to park; perhaps you think, I don’t drive so I don’t care! The city can use that extra revenue to fund things that benefit me! Enjoy paying a LOT more for shipping, deliveries AND goods because business will invariably pass those costs to you. clearly money is no object to you. Oh, and taxis, this could be a nice cash grab for them too.
You’re all hilarious. It’s like watching crows and seagulls fight over breadcrumbs. If I ever feel too happy with humanity a quick check in at City Caucus quickly brings me back down to grim reality.
Thought of The Night
“Crows and seagulls, we are all contenders, we might fight over breadcrumbs, but despite that, we have something in common. Both species take great pride in crapping all over you, humans.”
I’d say that in a real fight the seagull would win, because they are mean. And that would be a very small seagull.
Also seagulls are mob behavior driven.
Crows are shy, cautious, quite gracious, highly intelligent.
Being more intelligent, crows would flee away from a fight. There will always be other rodents around. Despite what Alfred Hitchcock made you believe, crows do not attack, they run.
Seagulls, on the other hand, are tough cookies. Klepto-parasitic just like Vision in Vancouver.
Crows rarely attempt to bite, or attack. The seagulls turn and fight, using their wings and beak.
Crows:
Talons/ nails and individual toes great for gripping prey when they catch it (crows often hunt squirrels and in cities, pigeons) cca. 500g/ 3 ft wingspan/ top flight speed: 30 mph
Biggest predator: Humans.
Seagulls:
Webbed feet/ no individual toes
Eat mostly on the beach at Cactus Cafe and Raincity Grill… and small rats.
3 ft Wing span/ cca 500g to 2 kg
Biggest predator: Humans.
While in flight, it gives us great pleasure to do it all over your sparkling clean windshield, on your best Panama Hat, or on your nested coiffure. People call us wankers, but boy, oh boy, you don’t know a thing. What do you think that white stuff we splash you with, is?
So… I see you came in here to tell us you are human, Andrew, isn’t that so?
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
When I was a kid, I thought that the red on the seagulls beaks was ketchup from all the concession fries they ate. Not only that, I was once eating coughmcdonaldsbreakfastcough with a friend in her car, and this obese seagull landed on the hood of her little civic hatchback and was angrily JUMPING UP AND DOWN. I was thinking jeez, I thought their bones were hollow..it was shaking the hood! Jerks. I’ve always been more of a crow than a seagull, more ninja than pirate. Glissy, if you haven’t watched this disturbing video, you must.
http://youtu.be/BuKu2exx8xQ
Off topic but confirmation on new age distrust. Shudderz!
Glissando,
I wasn’t going to post but this little anecdote opened the door for me. Forget about cars, parking, bike lanes, partisanship for a moment. As long as people in this city are going to be aware that they share the space with all God’s creatures we’ll be just fine.
I don’t care much a about the fear mongering global warming alarmists, the oil spilling disaster of the future,that’s only a PR exercise by the powers that be so they could have some photo ops and public attention. If you didn’t know there is a place in North Burnaby toward Lougheed Ave. where the crows gather every evening, the noise is unbelievable, they are in the thousands, and sometimes they are so many in one tree that you could call it a… Crow Tree!
As for Andrew’s previous remarks, instead of coming in here and stamp your superiority on the writer and commentators, rather wipe that bird poo-poo off your face.
It’s pretty obvious how many people here are actual political insiders used to years of the war.
When you have the right (or in Vancouvers case centre left) advocating for regulation and the left (radical left) advocating for market regs you know something is wrong.
While the rhetoric on this one case (reducing parking in a residential building) is off the market one would simply need to look at what would happen if say an adjacent commercial development going in (do they still maket those in Van?) wanted to put in oodles and oodles of parking to handle the rush at Xmas and to rake in parking fees the rest of the year. Then you would have the “right” once again asking for the free market and the Vision types once again abhoring it.
Either way squabble away and continue to loose market share in everything to the burbs.
And whatever you do don’t be smart and jack the parking up while providing residents with cheap yearly passes (gotta love taxing those from outside the municipality.)
I wonder if the right-left distinction is useful any longer? How does one describe a person that thinks there is such a thing as a public or social good, that there should be reasonably high levels of investment in such goods supported primarily by taxation and not by user fees, that environmental and other externalities need to be accounted for, but that otherwise the market should be left to allocate resources with a minimum of regulation and subsidy? And who generally favours balanced budgets as well, and thinks that decisions should be pushed as close to the people affected by them as possible.
I assume I am a “Vision type” in that I voted for the mayor and several other Vision councilors, I think Hollyhock sounds like a wonderful place that I would like to spend some time at, I believe that Tides and Renewal partners do valuable work, and that I much prefer to ride my bike, and when I have to get downtown in formal attire I am more likely to take the bus than to drive a car.
But I have no problem letting commercial developments provide as much parking as they feel optimizes their revenue – just so long as they don’t use public space to do this as that is a subsidy. I don’t believe a municipal planner, who has little direct accountability, can make this kind of decision for a developer.
In general the less regulation the better, and what regulation there is should be outcomes based and not process based. Rules should be simple, modular and generative.
Exactly.
And while it might be on their property you have to recognise that the more parking there is the more traffic it will generate, which means that it’s reasonable to put a tax on it.
Given how much a money maker parking can be if left to the market there would be no shortage of it for sure. So the doom and gloom of not regulating it causing a total lack of parking is baseles. In fact it’s the regulations and hate for parking that has it at such a premium.
As such what I propose is to lower the restrictions on (or as it turns out not) providing parking as part of developements and then simply control how much is out there and it’s pricing by means of a tax.
Simple and effective with all the power to switch from a pro business parking bonanza to a vision vancouver war on cars with a simple tweak of a number.
I agree, the left-right distinction is no longer very descriptive. How about “Maker-Taker” instead?
So the takers would be large corporations able to extract monopoly rents and subsidies and able to push risk and costs onto the public while internalizing profit, right? Or perhaps companies that refuse to pay a living wage and let social services and/or parents pick up the costs this entails. Or maybe it is people who feel entitled to take the largest share of the transportation budget and road space.
Nope, don’t think any one-dimensional scheme works.
Didn’t take much to cause that free market mask of yours to slip. “Companies that refuse to pay a living wage?”. Developers should be allowed to listen to the market to decide whether or not to provide parking but employers should not listen to the market in setting wage rates?
And perhaps the reason the largest share of the transportation budget goes to one form of transportation is because that is what the market (ie the public) desires.
Progressives are happy to embrace market economics – when it gives them the result they want.
Coming here and reading this after the “ballet” reference to Bill Tieleman is quite a change in repertoire, Glissy!
Great post as it shows by the number of people interested in the topic. Lack of parking and the cost associated with it affects all of us…. Well, not exactly the Visionistas like Steven above or his many sidekicks. Good to live close to the beach guys. But what about the rest of us, eh?
Kudos!
What about the rest of you going to the beach?
I would recommend copying White Rock and charging an arm and a leg to park at the beach but sell stickers to residents to park for cheap.
If I want to go to the beach there’s plenty outside of Vancouver and the only time I go downtown it’s to Canucks games. Given that parking downtown even kind of close is going to run you over 20 bucks yet the place is still very busy goes to show that if you charge alot for parking then people either pay it or find a way not to.
I personally don’t care how much you charge to park in Vancouver on account of I never park there. Heck, if they relocate the canucsk I would never go there.
Ron ,
“If I want to go to the beach there’s plenty outside of Vancouver and the only time I go downtown it’s to Canucks games.”
What a jerkish remark. Could not describe your ilk better.
I live in Vancouver just not next to Spanish Banks, Jericho, Kits, English Bay or Second beach.
WTF are you going to treat me like they treat others in some parts of the world?
Put walls around the best parts of their cities, instruct me where to go, what roads to take, where to bath…What do I need your permission or a passport or something, do you want to change my lineage, to see if I am a waterfront “chosen one”?
Please take your advice and shove it …
I don’t go to Canucks games as I can’t afford to.
But I like to enjoy the parks and the beaches that are in Vancouver for ALL of us, which by the way I am paying though my taxes .all over Vancouver. This Vision gang are like vampires, they bite you, and you’re it! You are one of them. Shame on you.
If Vancouver followed my advice you (a Vancouver resident) would have an inexpensive parking pass on your windshield and lol at the people filling the meters when you went to the beach.
I lived in Vancouver for a long time but no longer too. And I am so far from being a Vision supporter that perhaps I have wrapped the political meter the whole way around and my suggestion of how to make Vancouver some money is somehow taken as leftwing! (I am thinking foolishly of running City of Van like a business!)
You can go wherever you want. Heck, come out to Whiterock and enjoy OUR beach! Just be ready to pay three bucks an hour for parking!
I’ll leave this message here because it is most relevant to transportation, parking , war on cars…
Just heard it on the news. Vision dominated Vancouver Clownship voted UNANIMOUSLY to keep the Hornby/ Dunsmuir (not sure aboutBurrard though) bike lanes. What a travesty! What a joke! The surprise would not have been so big if not hearing that NPA and Green Affleck, ball, Carr voted in favor. The A, B, C seeing that the motion will pass they voted safe, their minds at future reelection… I’m saying it right now, Affleck, Ball, Carr … in your dreams!
There you go the Brutuses in Council putting another knife in the car owner’s back. Life in this city is really starting to stink.
Main reason I usually don’t drive to Vancouver. Even if I know where to find parking there’s still the horrendous traffic.
My old commute of Kits to Burnaby is almost as bad as my commute from White Rock to Burnaby, and that’s saying something!
Heard that one Ned!
Quite disgusting, IMHO it was fait accompli… Next… Viaducts! Bringing the traffic into this city to a standstill since 2008 and more LOL!
After developers shoved so much money in Vision and NPA ‘s coffers now they behave like good children. Any more pain they could inflict on Vancouver?
Please let me know what else shall I expect from these bozos?
Poor poor Ned.
City council unanimously voted to keep the bike lanes. The means even the 2 NPA councillors. Even Anton was for the bike lanes when she wasn’t against them.
Ned, I see you are so upset that “Life in this city has really started to stink.” I have a wonderful solution. Move! How about Langley where people elect liars like Jordan Bateman. You can be in your car all day and have plenty of right wingers to vote for. i am even prepared to throw in a 3 zone bus ticket. Just don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
A very modest start for Vancouver. I look forward to a 10X increase in seperated bike lanes over the next decade. To bring it back to this thread, if we let developers decide how much to invest in parking we may be see a lot more private parking provided (at market rates). We could then begin to reduce on-street parking and use the space for (i) wider sidewalks with more life on them, (ii) vehicle traffic and (iii) bike lanes where they make sense.
Older cyclists and people with young children need bike lanes, young fit people are often comfortable with vehicular cycling. I have to force myself to use the bike lanes as they are comparatively slower than cycling in traffic. But several of my neigbours stopped cycling downtown once they were in their 70s as they felt they no longer had the strength or reflexes to ride in traffic.
If they put the bike lanes in logical spots (on roads that are primarily residential that are offset a block or two from major arterials, parralelling rail and rapid transit corridors, following the countours of parks) instead of illogical ones (on major arterials and or busy commerical streets full of pedestrians, cars, buses, and parking) then you could have ten times as much and probably wouldn’t even have the current fights that exist over them.
Dear Glissando,
Congratulations for getting this post over the 100th comment threshold. Great to see that!
Well deserved.
Also thanks for your follow up comments which made this post so much more!
By the way, this could be an example to be followed by all contributing writers to City Caucus.
IMHO I find it a bit arrogant when I see no response or no involvement from any of the many writers in here aside from Glissando and Mike Klassen, thank you Sirs!
I know you all conduct busy lives but I think it’s your duty to monitor and intervene on your own postings.
Again, IMHO.
On a different, but related topic, I also found out that the terribly useless separated bike lanes are here to stay, what a surprise coming from City Hall!
How hypocritical for councilors like Geoff Meggs to vote this in with no remorse, knowingly jeopardizing the livelihoods of so many little bicycle rental and repair businesses, already operating successfully in Vancouver, but on a very tight budget… while he is pampering himself for double dipping – municipally and provincially, I’ll pray to God he’ll lose them both!
No remorse from the politician who is taking the bread and butter from other’s table only for him to stuff himself with three times the amount he’s making now, from the Public Trough.
What a despicable group of people this city have let in… phew!
Nice day ahead everyone,
Dr. Richard Unger MD (Ret)