# World-famous planner trashes Vancouver...



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

vancouver is full of some ugly

but its getting better - problem is this "but we have the mountains" - who needs night clubs or bars - "we have the mountains" kind of thing that gets annoying

even w-s can't make this building any better

before:









after:









theres too much of this kind of ugly










new amongst the old ugly










nothing too inspired














































typical broadway


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

philadweller said:


> if you can find a single building along this corridor that is worth saving, I'll take a picture of myself kissing the side of the building and post it for all to see.


While I agree the Broadway corridor doesn't have a ton in the way of nice architecture, there are at least a few gems along it quite worth saving in my opinion. 

Like the 1929-completed "Dick Building" at Broadway and Granville. I think it's a gorgeous building:









by 'ritasmeeta' at flickr.com









by 'bob_2006' at flickr.com









by 'specs1' at flickr.com









by 'jakeinvan' at flickr.com

Or the 1912-completed Lee Building at Broadway and Main:









by bob_2006 at flickr.com

Or the 2005-completed(?) BC Cancer Research building at the VGH Medical Precinct spanning multiple blocks off Broadway:









by '604 plonker' at flickr.com









by 'entheos_fog' at flickr.com (and SSP)









by 'entheos_fog' at flickr.com

and I always liked the old building at Broadway and Vine with the Higher Grounds Coffee House in it:









by 'freedryk' at flickr.com









by 'idbensted' at flickr.com

Next time I travel down Broadway I'll have to be on the lookout for nice buildings.

Anyways, I agree there are a lot of ugly buildings along Broadway but it seems to have had the misfortune of being largely developed during the 'function over form' architectural decades. A lot of the corridor will get redeveloped over the coming decade or two though. It has already started to and will only accelerate once the M-Line is extended. I don't think the architecture will be much better than what's going on in the rest of the city though (save for the VGH Medical Precinct which has some great upcoming projects). The city in general needs to start taking some more risk when it comes to architecture though.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

at least a lot of broadway is being replace by nice newer buildings

but there is a lot to replace

there are a few gems as your pics show

i think the worst has to be the toys r us thats covering the bow mac sign


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

Can anyone tell me (or better still, show me) why Vancouver's suburbs are allegedly so ugly? 

Wankers like that make a lot of money, but they don't leave a trail ...


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

vancouver suburbs arent so bad... at least they have real transit and density... more than most suburbs have. the architecture isnt great overall but there are some buildings/areas that stand out.


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

Yardmaster said:


> Can anyone tell me (or better still, show me) why Vancouver's suburbs are allegedly so ugly?
> 
> Wankers like that make a lot of money, but they don't leave a trail ...


I don't know, I find them generally much better than the typical suburb. Here is one...

White Rock:








by buckyhermit at flickr.com









by lana jones at flickr.com









by lana jones at flickr.com

And the rest are random ones of mine:






























































































































And why they call it White Rock :


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

And some of the suburb of North Vancouver: (all my own)




































































































*Not much in the way of award-winning architecture but it's dense, urban, livable, has good access to transit etc.*


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

Another suburb... New Westminster:









by DennisSylvesterHurd at flickr.com

Skytrain access and plenty of condos sprouting up:








by Pablo Aerial at flickr.com









by d.a.m. at flickr.com









by Bob_2006 at flickr.com









by jmv at flickr.com









by paradigm4 at flickr.com









by DennisSylvesterHurd at flickr.com









by bob_2006 at flickr.com









by bob_2006 at flickr.com









by DennisSylvesterHurd at flickr.com









by rebelcan at flickr.com









by DennisSylvesterHurd at flickr.com


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

And here is a map of the three suburbs I just posted in relation to downtown Vancouver:


----------



## Vanman (May 19, 2004)

Yardmaster said:


> Can anyone tell me (or better still, show me) why Vancouver's suburbs are allegedly so ugly?
> 
> Wankers like that make a lot of money, but they don't leave a trail ...


I hardly understand how Vancouver's suburbs can be considered worse than anything else in North America.

Here are some pics of Burnaby that I've taken over the last few years.




































































































(this one wasn't taken by me)








Coquitlam






















New West














































Surrey


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

They look so much better than 90%+ of U.S suburbs.


----------



## Canuck514 (Oct 12, 2007)

So, Philadweller is at it again. Give it up, bro. We know you have a personal vendetta against Vancouver - so elementary.

Vancouver's suburbs are WAY better than almost every city in the U.S. and Canada, so you an stop your campaign...have you looked at your own city's suburbs? Bleh!


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

raggedy13 said:


> the Broadway corridor doesn't have a ton in the way of nice architecture
> >>>
> there are a lot of ugly buildings along Broadway


Neither E nor W Broadway possesses an ounce of -- errrrr -- architecture, which you seem to be concluding anyhow . . .





raggedy13 said:


> Another suburb... New Westminster:


Cheesh, didn't it start out the other way around, i.e., Van being New West's suburb?!?

At any rate, I don't see this town as being a suburb to Van -- d'après moi, the two communties amount to being satellite cities to each other . . .





Puertalian said:


> i love downtown van citys look and feel


Sadly, your remarking the above at quoting me shan`t sway me from the hollowed-out impression its downtown made on me . . . the N American habit of scaling up its city centres has been over for decades now, folks: Wake up!! That is, I wouldn`t be the least bit surprised if population density were less downtown nowadays before that city there scaled upwards . . .

Anyhow, does anybody _*really*_ live in the pair of communities, coz their dang sidewalks are devoid of life let alone people -- blehhk.....

Plus, how come everybody`s gardens around temperate regions of that province mimic their neighbours', huh? Talk about *super* boring . . . *eh?*


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

trainrover said:


> Plus, how come everybody`s gardens around temperate regions of that province mimic their neighbours', huh? Talk about *super* boring . . . *eh?*


Wow, you know you're really grasping at straws when you sink to the level of critiquing people's gardens. How about offering an ounce of intelligent discussion rather than just blatantly trolling?


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ Well, careless recollections being shared by you locals there remind me of the state of affairs back there . . . the same for some keynote speaker too....like I'd allude, clever ain't a modifier that could be applied to gardeners all about you there....

Master Silliness, most city centres harbour no space for gardens while YOURS (_most?_) easily does: Do you get it now?!? Although, you're right about straws: they're prettier than the (uhm) gardens there!


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

^Is any of that supposed to make sense? It looks like you tried using an online translator and all that came out was nonsensical gibberish. :dunno:


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ Yessiree! just for your very own haplessness....


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Canuck, I don't have a personal vendetta against Vancouver. I like the city and I love Canada. It is a progressive city with lousy architects and some terrible 1980's bands. I am just sick of all the goddamn travel magazines overpraising it like its some sort of untouchable utopia. I could show you hideous places here as well just ask me. 
I'm surprised that you don't agree being from the glorious metropolis of Montreal.

Get real! There is no excuse for this slipshod piece of crap. Look how uneven the windows are. Is the building made of rubber? The aesthetic of Vancouver is very questionable.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ Reviewing this thread reveals my never addressing you here . . . I agree with much you've written.
(The crookedness you're drawing our attention toward is of some seaside _playlandish_ 'burb there; being about one half mile from the border with the U.S.; while many, many more's worth from either city centre over there . . . )


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Philadweller... does any city other than Philly meet with your approval? :lol: It is not my kind of town to live in, but I think you might be jumping the gun a bit on it. You would be surprised how vibrant, liveable, and_ safe_ this city is.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ Vanman, I'd like you to meet Nana I Mo Bahz, coz you two Georgia-Strait neighbours write in facsimile to each other . . . copycatting must be all the more rage over there in BC, eh?



Nanaimo Bars said:


> Vancouver is a very young city. Much younger than both Montreal and Philadpehia.


Yeah? Try --uhm-- prooving _that_ to somebody like me whose shooling was done in a schoolhouse that's now seen the dawns of two millenia.

Just like the remainder of _all_ of your pompous shorings-up, there's truly no difference in any of the contrasts that, typically, you lazily try to relate back here, period. As far as I`ve been able to tell, all three cities you've mentioned above are really just as young as each other . . .


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Vanman said:


> From what I've seen I think Toronto got the shit end of the stick when it comes to Concord Neighborhoods. Aside from Montage the buildings are taller and grayer with less going on at the street level. Either way I'm dissatisfied with most of Concord's projects in both Vancouver and Toronto.




Aside from the fact the Toronto project is still in the middle of construction, it would be physically impossible to have "less going on a the street level" than in the Concord development in Vancouver. Because there is virtually nothing happening. People drive down the street past empty sidewalks, and into the underground parking units of their condos. The Concord development in Vancouver seems overwhelming as it takes such a big part of the downtown area, and the towers do all pretty much look the same. The Toronto one is part of a much, much larger downtown and fills up a grass and garbage strewn brownfield that had no redeeming qualities. In order to compare the two projects, it might be wise to wait four years till the Toronto one is completed. I think the real culprits in Vancouver were the Design Approval board of the City of Vancouver, whose narrow and iron fisted approach to project approval resulted in a sea of cookie cutter projects.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

^^_ "The Toronto one is part of a much, much larger downtown and fills up a grass and garbage strewn brownfield that had no redeeming qualities."_
<<< False Creek north, pre Concord developments wasn't too charming either. 

The neighborhood was put up pretty fast, turned out rather dull at street level, but that can always change. I'd imagine anyone living there can simply walk the few blocks to Granville, Robson St., or wherever. Every street in the city doesn't have to be hopping with activity.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Plumber73 said:


> ^^_ .
> 
> The neighborhood was put up pretty fast, turned out rather dull at street level, but that can always change. I'd imagine anyone living there can simply walk the few blocks to Granville, Robson St., or wherever. *Every street in the city doesn't have to be hopping with activity*._


_

I agree, but was simply countering the argument that there was more "going on at street level" in the Vancouver Concord development. That is where I stay when I go to Vancouver, and I am always a bit shocked how utterly deserted the sidewalks seem to be. Also there doesn't seem to be much retail, or podiums in the condos. This is the area in Vancouver that I am referring to:










As for any assessment of aesthetics...that is a personal judgement I suppose. Rather than getting
the "shit end of the stick", I would personally say Concord is working considerably harder on the designs of the condos going up in CityPlace than it did on the Vancouver project. Here is a snap of it last August by our member 401 King:








_


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

CityPlace in Toronto is no wonder, just ugly green and blue steel and glass towers. I prefer Vancopuver's Concord.........atleast it is in a nice location.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

Taller said:


> I agree, but was simply countering the argument that there was more "going on at street level" in the Vancouver Concord development. That is where I stay when I go to Vancouver, and I am always a bit shocked how utterly deserted the sidewalks seem to be. Also there doesn't seem to be much retail, or podiums in the condos. This is the area in Vancouver that I am referring to:


It's a bit strange, but when you think about it... would you be hanging around there, outside the pet food stores, salons, barbers, and grocery stores, or would you go somewhere else more exciting in the downtown area? There are better places to go. That's my theory. 

Pretty much all the residential areas are quiet at street level. Coal Harbour, West End, and Yaletown. Even Gastown is pretty tame other than Water St. There's really just a handful of streets downtown that have anything going on at street level, the rest are just streets with tall residential buildings. 

That picture is near David Lam Park. You should find quite a few people walking (perhaps with a dog), jogging, biking along the sea wall there assuming it's a decent day.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

ssiguy2 said:


> CityPlace in Toronto is no wonder, just ugly green and blue steel and glass towers. I prefer Vancopuver's Concord.........atleast it is in a nice location.


It's like fighting over which underwhelming bland boring soul less place is better than the other. Both are seriously lacking. Thankfully, other Canadian cities haven't been unfortunate enough to have Concord come to town.


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

trainrover said:


> As far as I`ve been able to tell, all three cities you've mentioned above are really just as young as each other . . .


Well, Montreal and Philadelphia are about 3x older than Vancouver but you're right, that has absolutely no impact on population/form of development/architecture/culture etc. How could we have been so naive.


----------



## algonquin (Sep 24, 2004)

I'm not sure how Vancouver's suburbs are any worse than the average NA city.

You wany ugly? Drive around suburban Toronto.. the dense vistas are impressive, but there's hundreds of slab apartments, many clad with that nasty brown steel cladding when the brick needs work. In Montreal you'll see suburban density on a much moe human scale, but many neighbourhoods are so run down and gritty.

Honestly, at least with Vancouver, suburban blight is countered with lush vegitation, undulating terrain, and a mountain backdrop. I'd take Vancouver ugly over most cities 'good'. I'm actually in Burnaby right now (Metrotown). The architecture is horrible; it's basically Mississauga. But it's Mississauga squished between the mountains and the sea, drenched with coniferous and pink cherry blossoms. It's hard not to like it.



> Housing here is so expensive because Canadian planners are inheritors of the British tradition of elite planners who negotiate projects in a fantastically inefficient way. And trying to build high-density projects in non-urban settings just doesn't work.


I have a big problem with these two points.


----------



## Vanman (May 19, 2004)

> Vanman, I'd like you to meet Nana I Mo Bahz, coz you two Georgia-Strait neighbours write in facsimile to each other . . . copycatting must be all the more rage over there in BC, eh?


I'm seriously way too lazy to ever create a second profile just to argue over the internet with someone I don't even know so no.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

ssiguy2 said:


> CityPlace in Toronto is no wonder, just ugly green and blue steel and glass towers. I prefer Vancopuver's Concord.........atleast it is in a nice location.


Don't take this the wrong way, but.._ have you actually seen it?_ I mean had a look at it in person? The only blue/green buildings I know of in it were the ones built at the very beginning when Concord thought they would just come in and recycle all their dated-looking designs from the Vancouver project. An avalanche of criticism made them sit up and resharpen their pencils. I don't think City Place is beautiful, and it is definitely not a nabe that I would care to move to.... but the architecture going up is quite similar to other structures that are getting rave reviews. People adore 18 Yorkville, or Spire and in the same breath trash City Place. In my opinion people are allowing their previously held snap decisions to blind them from reality. If a person has made up their mind that they hate a project, hell or high water is not going to make them see it through fresh eyes. I am trying to keep an open mind on the project and am hoping that when it is finished in a number of years from now, and the landscaping is in place that it will be a viable part of downtown. The mind is the easiest thing in the world to close.


----------



## valantino (Sep 11, 2002)

> I'm not sure how Vancouver's suburbs are any worse than the average NA city.
> 
> You wany ugly? Drive around suburban Toronto.. the dense vistas are impressive, but there's hundreds of slab apartments, many clad with that nasty brown steel cladding when the brick needs work. In Montreal you'll see suburban density on a much moe human scale, but many neighbourhoods are so run down and gritty.
> 
> Honestly, at least with Vancouver, suburban blight is countered with lush vegitation, undulating terrain, and a mountain backdrop. I'd take Vancouver ugly over most cities 'good'. I'm actually in Burnaby right now (Metrotown). The architecture is horrible; it's basically Mississauga. But it's Mississauga squished between the mountains and the sea, drenched with coniferous and pink cherry blossoms. It's hard not to like it.


I do wonder if by suburbs he ment inner city outside of downtown as I do think this is one area Vancouver could certianly improve upon. My impression was the city felt thoroughly suburban a half dozen blocks outside of the downtown peninsula


----------



## valantino (Sep 11, 2002)

> CityPlace in Toronto is no wonder, just ugly green and blue steel and glass towers. I prefer Vancopuver's Concord.........atleast it is in a nice location.


The actually neighbourhood part opposed to filling up Skydome parking lots has barely begun construction. I'm sure the six storey podiums with continuous retail , the mixing of incomes with 1300+ units to be built by the TCHC, and a landscaped Fort York Boulevard with LRT down the middle will end up a nice urban enclave for those that aren't up to real downtown living.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

ssiguy2 said:


> I prefer Vancopuver's Concord.........atleast it is in a nice location.


Soooo, you`re grading your preference by --uhm-- merit of its setting?!? Hmmmm, your comment might go to show why people off their bitchings here about repetitiousness predominating yer delta over there....I dunno, is any architectural course on how to best design shhhhtuff to suit pretty topography out there even offered for hundreds of miles around there ('doubt it!!!)?!?





raggedy13 said:


> so


^^ yet an additional token of lazy contrasting


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

i think coal harbour and yaletown serve their purpose, even though i wouldnt want to live in either of those places. theres still many other nice urban neighbourhoods to cater to peoples preferences.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

valantino said:


> I do wonder if by suburbs he ment inner city outside of downtown as I do think this is one area Vancouver could certianly improve upon. My impression was the city felt thoroughly suburban a half dozen blocks outside of the downtown peninsula


yeah when they had that big UN conference here a number of european delegates pointed that out 

they said leave the downtown which they all raved about and loved and said go over the bridges and its not dense at all

and that the city is goining in the right direction but it has a long way to go

unfortunately most Vancouver citizens are against any change and densification and want things as is


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

valantino said:


> the city felt thoroughly suburban a half dozen blocks outside of the downtown peninsula


You do mean _within_ the peninsula, right? At any rate, I'm glad somebody else recognizes how clusters of highrises do not necessarily signify urban fabric . . . Van`s WE is ultra-suburban, a `hood that lacks --uhm-- *BALLS*.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"Every street in the city doesn't have to be hopping with activity."

This should be the goal of every city. Quiet time is for those in their glassy towers perched above the street. All urban streets with retail should be a river of people for most of the day well into the night.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

this is a typical street outside the downtown core

it really doesn't call for retail and flowing people


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

trainrover said:


> You do mean _within_ the peninsula, right? At any rate, I'm glad somebody else recognizes how clusters of highrises do not necessarily signify urban fabric . . . Van`s WE is ultra-suburban, a `hood that lacks --uhm-- *BALLS*.


:nuts:


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

philadweller said:


> "Every street in the city doesn't have to be hopping with activity."
> 
> This should be the goal of every city. Quiet time is for those in their glassy towers perched above the street. All urban streets with retail should be a river of people for most of the day well into the night.


It really depends on what retail is there and how much of it.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

trainrover said:


> Van`s WE is ultra-suburban, a `hood that lacks --uhm-- *BALLS*.


You're joking.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

philadweller said:


> "Every street in the city doesn't have to be hopping with activity."
> 
> This should be the goal of every city. Quiet time is for those in their glassy towers perched above the street. All urban streets with retail should be a river of people for most of the day well into the night.


I'm not entire sure that I agree with that. In my experience, through my travels, well rounded cities have areas of high activity, areas of mid activity, and residential areas/ streets that are actually quiet. I, for one, find my street quite noisy enough as it is, and wouldn't crave for it to be noisy 24-7. I don't want more retail on my street.. it is residential, but downtown and sandwiched between two busy retail streets. I can easily walk 500 feet in either direction for all the action I could ask for.. but I don't want it invading my residence!


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Plumber73 said:


> You're joking.


Unh-uhn.

The joke there lies --uhm-- squarely with its WE.....e.g., compared to the rest of its enveloping `burbs out there, believe me, WE`s residents`d be the first to be dialing up the police to complain of noise.....even before midnight (imagine!).....bettah have yerself anudda coffee . . .


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

^^You'd just sit there and take the noise eh? If a guy is outside my building honking his horn all night, you better believe I'd complain. There are bylaws to be followed and if people feel they're above the law and couldn't care less about the residents, then they're idiots.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

I was asked ealier if I had ever seen CityPlace and the answer is yes. 
It just a clump of blue and green glass held together by steel. The buildings are OK and some are decent but i don't like these McDevelopments. They are boring and bland. Ya, they add density and people to the core of the city which is good but that's about the only thing I can see positive about the things. I would much rather have a liveable, diverse, and community area like the Westend in Vancouver, Toronto's mid-town and Church/Yonge area, or Montreal's inner area. 
They look and fell like true urban areas with the urbanity that goes along with it. Like I said I really don't care much of the designs in general but some are decent but they would add to the city if they were built individually thru the downtown/inner city area than just a clump. The developments suchas CityPlace just seem so artificial and bland.


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

trainrover, you obviously dont know whats going on at all, the WE is a really nice urban neighbourhood, its more coal harbour and yaletown to a smaller extent that are somewhat "suburban" if you could even call it that.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

ssiguy2 said:


> . I would much rather have a liveable, diverse, and community area like the Westend in Vancouver, Toronto's mid-town and Church/Yonge area, or Montreal's inner area.
> .


Ah yes, but that was not the point you were making, was it? No one in their right mind is saying it is going to be a superior neighbourhood to the Annex, or the Plateau, or have a cosier feel than Cabbagetown. Neighbourhoods that are one or two centuries old have a certain advantage over one that is basically a muddy construction site now, less than half complete, wouldn't you say? My point was your comparison to the Concord development in Vancouver did not jive with my experience.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"I'm not entire sure that I agree with that. In my experience, through my travels, well rounded cities have areas of high activity, areas of mid activity, and residential areas/ streets that are actually quiet. I, for one, find my street quite noisy enough as it is, and wouldn't crave for it to be noisy 24-7. I don't want more retail on my street.. it is residential, but downtown and sandwiched between two busy retail streets. I can easily walk 500 feet in either direction for all the action I could ask for.. but I don't want it invading my residence!"

I totally agree as long as retail is within a block from the residential. 11th street between 6th and 7th in Manhattan is a perfect example.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I like the idea of residential pockets...islands of calm and peace, with easy walking distance to retail areas. We have a street in Toronto called Bay Street, that is becoming 
a canyon of condominiums as people flock downtown to live. This street is one city block away from Yonge Street, the main street in the city. People fret that there won't be all that much retail on Bay Street, but I think that is just fine. Residents can walk one block over to Yonge Street. Exercise is good for the legs!


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

worldwide said:


> the WE is a really nice urban neighbourhood


Eight years later, you just might be right about my not knowing wuss gawun awn -- mind you, as suburban as it looked back in the day (and, trust us, there were already a lot of home tower blocks missing the 3rd, 13th, 23rd and 33rd floors, or whatever the bloody sequence considered too jinxing was), that whole district -- plus a couple of its adjacent remergent ones -- boasted the hallmarks of y'all keepin' it suburban now, pleez....

To you it's urban; to me, all of it should go back into the box....


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

That "expert" critic of Vancourver was unfair. True once you get out of the downtown, the west end, & other in-town neighborhoods, much of the regular house architecture of Vancouver, especially in the suburbs looks rather basic. But then that many decades ago, Vancouver used to be a rather small city, with a mostly blue-collar economy largely based on lumber & the port. Even today its just about the same size metro as Portland or Sacramento yet it feels a lot bigger. Suburban Vancouver may not be a model of "New Urbanism". But Vancouver's overall planning, especially the high-rise, high-density residential development has become a model to be envied by most cities.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

how can one thread go so far off course? 

the west end and yaletown might not be perfect, but they're two of the very best examples of 'good' urban planning in vancouver, and should be recognized as such. if you're not fond of a particular place's vibe, it's your opinion. but at least realize that the two high-density, mixed use, areas right by downtown allow their residents to cut down on auto use. 

sure yaletown is full of annoying yuppies, but that's a reflection of the economic disparities of our post-industrial area. 

as for the ugliness of the rest of the city; the city was mostly built in the postwar era, when construction costs had already begun their climb. no one in his/her right mind should compare vancouver's residential architecture with that of chicago or detroit in their early years. but 1960s era vancouver bungalows are similar to those built in other cities.

duany overlooks these facts, but he's made a living out of hawking bad advice, and getting big commissions from those aesthetically pleasing yet sprawling greenfield developments. i'll post some more about him later.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

at any rate, *do not take andres duany seriously!* his objectivity and ethics are questionable at best. andres duany isn't about good planning. he's about making money and finding any intellectual justification for the uber-sprawling, unsustainable yet picturesque new urbanism developments for his big-money developer patrons. 

duany is arguably the most disliked person in all of architecture and urban planning. he's disliked because he extols the incremental positives of sidewalks and streetside cafes, while conveniently ignoring/marginalizing the more urgent goals of curbing the development of virgin land, increasing density, public transit usage, lowering automobile usage/dependency/etc. his firm, DPZ's 3 largest and famous developments are in suburban orlando, toronto, and dallas. sure they're a LOT prettier than the typical tract houses in the city of vancouver, but they're also more expensive, isolated, socially stratified, and COMPLETELY car dependent. 

duany reserves special invective for places like portland and vancouver. sure, these two places are filled with less than impressive vernacular architecture (both are relatively new cities, and were not beneficiaries of the industrial boom, and were relatively small until very recently). but portland and vancouver are also examples of places which have tried valiantly to limit sprawl. duany, via his big-developer patrons, makes his money from large-plot greenfield developments. go do the math.

http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0800/rev.htm


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

I've read Suburban Nation by Duany and was very impressed by it. But yes I can understand some of the above critiques of his work. Seaside seems very theme-park like, but even Duany accepts that, and has done work in urban revitalisation projects as well. 

But I can't really understand him criticizing Vancouver that much. Surely if one city in the world (that was largely built in the 20th century) has "got" urban planning right more than any other, it would be Vancouver.


----------



## Vanman (May 19, 2004)

particlez said:


> at any rate, *do not take andres duany seriously!* his objectivity and ethics are questionable at best. andres duany isn't about good planning. he's about making money and finding any intellectual justification for the uber-sprawling, unsustainable yet picturesque new urbanism developments for his big-money developer patrons.
> 
> duany is arguably the most disliked person in all of architecture and urban planning. he's disliked because he extols the incremental positives of sidewalks and streetside cafes, while conveniently ignoring/marginalizing the more urgent goals of curbing the development of virgin land, increasing density, public transit usage, lowering automobile usage/dependency/etc. his firm, DPZ's 3 largest and famous developments are in suburban orlando, toronto, and dallas. sure they're a LOT prettier than the typical tract houses in the city of vancouver, but they're also more expensive, isolated, socially stratified, and COMPLETELY car dependent.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the insight. So basically in other words this Andres Duany character is just another Randal Otoole (cato institute) proclaiming the great attributes of sprawl while at the same time lamenting any "real" planning whatsoever. I think it was a few months ago that Otoole wrote an article in the Vancouver Sun proclaiming the "fact" that Vancouver has got urban planning all wrong. According to him the majority of people in Vancouver want to own a single family house but because of high land prices in the city due to the Agricultural Land Reserve they are denied the right. His solution was to open up the ALR completely to suburban development to lower housing prices.(completely retarded idea)


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

a bit more than half of DPZ's work consists of greenfield development. no one connected with DPZ will ever admit it, but it's common knowledge that greenfield developments benefit from economies of scale, more easily marketed, are more aesthetically consistent, and along with a bunch of other facts, are heavily favored by larger developers. duany's rival in NU, peter calthorpe is more intellectually consistent, but he isn't as influential.

seaside is an anomaly because it's not built close to any existing area. no one calls it sprawl because it's a hamlet in the middle of nowhere. the commercial areas of seaside work because there are no big box stores (with their streamlined supply chain and lower prices) within driving distance. those little houses right by the beach are beautiful. but it's not representative of most development. the vast majority of new construction is taking place on the fringes of metro areas. the more common and much larger developments, like celebration in orlando, cornell in toronto, and legacy in dallas, all share certain characteristics. basically they're expensive new subdivisions with consistent historicist aesthetics with a smattering of retail in the center. unfortunately its retail is limited to either the most utilitarian items or very high margin luxury items (designer coffee, retro diners, etc.). the residents of these places still have to head to the nearest big box stores for everything else. as with all other metro residents, jobs are scattered all around.

granted, DPZ isn't the devil incarnate. its developments do have incremental advantages over other suburban developments with cul de sacs and strip malls. but duany presents himself as the messiah, with plenty of press coverage (celebration has a bookstore owned by disney, with an entire row devoted to leon krier's NU marketing material). yet the NU espoused by DPZ is a very flawed development at best. duany dislikes greenbelt portland and vancouver because they contain a lot of postwar era houses? 

o'toole and duany form two extremes of the developer-driven false dichotomy. o'toole is for development everywhere, in every form, and all backed up with... roads. duany says that straight roads, small blocks, and quaint shops in the middle of new developments will be the salvation. neither of them really makes much sense. unfortunately they're also two of the highest profile urban planning celebs. local politics and media are dominated by the development community. as such, developers want to have their mouthpieces in the spotlight. thus o'toole and duany rarely if ever touch upon other issues like non market rate housing, public transit, preservation of virgin land, etc.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

for those of you who haven't been to vancouver;

it's difficult to get zoning changes done, but that's more a function of the power of various NIMBYs than anything. yaletown is an anomaly, as it was built on redundant industrial/warehouse land. 

think of vancouver's streetcar burbs as something similar to the stuff you'd find in san jose or north york. the streets are generally laid out in a grid with alleys, with relatively small 33x120 lots on the eastside, with the traditionally wealthier westside areas ranging from standard 33' lots to a swathe of mansion-sized lots for the 1920s era robber baron estates. there's decent bus transport and an expanding yet still noncomprehensive skytrain rapid transit being built. in the streetcar burbs of vancouver, most retail is based around the arterial routes. so far, everything conforms to duany's NU ideal. 

'cept duany dislikes the aesthetics.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Pah! I gather from some recent interview that Larry from Vegas who planned Van's W End and is now casting his
--ahem-- 'spells' on Abu Dhabi actually believes Van's a dense city. What an audacious fool. As soon as I heard that, I immediately took to doing something else.

The only *seemingly* dense part of that city proper is its small turf being home to the city centre and the W End.

No wonder Van gets ripped off so easily! Useless, trying to marvel at that city's 'dreams'....


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

um...yeah. 

there's plenty of bad urban planning in vancouver. but it doesn't make sense to continually criticize the west end and yaletown. those are 2 of the areas which best exemplify good urban planning. 

if you dislike some quiet residential streets (all of which are within a short walk to commercial arterials), it's hard to find any place which fulfils your criteria. even ultra high density hong kong does not have every single street bustling with activity. 

and back to the original article.... andres duany simple wants to score some points for his own developer-driven model of suburban development. his credibility as an academic is similar to that of a doctor whose studies have been funded by the tobacco industry.


----------

