# Vancouver Parking Lots - The Last of a Dying Breed



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

Below you will find a map of the downtown Vancouver core. Pictured in this map you will see purple highlights which represent all remaining surface level parking lots/car parks/parkades.

Adjacent to these coloured plots you will also notice a number which represents the maximum building height in feet for each specific parcel as zoned by the Vancouver view cone and higher buildings policy. Land in the downtown core is becoming increasingly scarce due to stringent height limit standards imposed by city planning officials. These height limits and view cones are designed to preserve views of the surrounding scenery as well as to limit street shadows. Due to the fact that building heights in Vancouver are restricted, more buildings are then required to be constructed in order to meet office and residential demands, thus contributing to the expedient loss of parking space. On the upside, urban density is increased by having numerous smaller towers rather than a handful of taller ones. 

Based on current and historical rates of construction in Vancouver, it is my estimation that all remaining parking lots will be fully built out in the next 12-15 years. This is in addition to ongoing and upcoming developments which will see the demolition of current buildings to make way for new developments.


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

Plots have been updated.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

A riveting topic it seems. 

Vancouver has done well in this regard. Not a lot of wasted space downtown.


----------



## SydneyCity (Nov 14, 2010)

Sydney's city centre has two that I can think of, two more were recently closed to make way for new high rise developments. Surface level parking lots are a blight on the city, look at places like Houston.


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

The less the better provided public transport is decent.


----------



## fetg_ (May 29, 2007)

There is no lack of space in Vancouver, only in the downtown which covers a tiny fragment of the big metro. The solution must be to expand the city eastwards and southwards by building more dense cores and increasing the density of the existing ones.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

KingNick said:


> The less the better provided public transport is decent.


They have underground parking, which is a good solution.

The bad solution is this "war on cars" view that want to artificially restrict the use of cars to force and almost coerce people into using slower public transportation (let alone cycling and walking).


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> The bad solution is this "war on cars" view that want to artificially restrict the use of cars to force and almost coerce people into using slower public transportation (let alone cycling and walking).


Suburbanites often don't grasp the concept of public transport, frequently viewing it as being "bad". Sometimes their idea of the ideal downtown is one that is identical to their windswept suburbs.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Taller said:


> Suburbanites often don't grasp the concept of public transport, frequently viewing it as being "bad". Sometimes their idea of the ideal downtown is one that is identical to their windswept suburbs.


On the other hand, we don't always display an understanding of the suburbs either, often calling them bland, generic, and windswept (I don't quite get that one).  I think the "bad" concept goes both ways.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Taller said:


> Suburbanites often don't grasp the concept of public transport, frequently viewing it as being "bad".



I didn't say public transportation is _bad[/b].

I said forcing people to use public transportation that can't attract passengers because it is slow/infrequent/dangerous/filthy by waging "war" in its competition (car) is bad.

If you have a good (clean, frequent, safe, modern, not crowded) public transportation system AND large amounts of underground parking, people then have a choicep about how they want to move to the central areas. And choice is always important._


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

The urban vs. suburban argument sounds high and mighty, but it's ultimately as meaningless as that east coast vs. west coast rap feud. The development community wields power with both politicians and media, so it's hard to hear dissenting perspectives. I've been (un)lucky enough to work for a developer in Vancouver. All the (bought) attention to supposed urbanism is simply a justification for windfall profits from upzoning. Mind you, this occurs in most every post industrial society. This subject is compounded by the fact that there are indeed benefits to intensifying downtown cores.

DT Vancouver's parking lot to glass condo metamorphosis' *greatest beneficiaries are the development industry*. Land that was used to generate parking rent is suddenly sold to mortgage-slavery homeowners--easy money from the appreciation of the land. That's not to say the condos themselves aren't a good thing, as they provide housing in the very core of the city. That's the crux of the argument in favor of the present system, but it also ignores related issues.

Ideally the disappearance of parking space would coincide with a wholesale expansion of transit and densification and curtailing sprawl. Unfortunately reality is different, and Vancouver isn't an exception. 

There's been some progress in transit, but it's been outrun by the continual expansion of development in the suburban, auto-centric realm, e.g. development in the mountainous regions outside of the Agricultural Land Reserve, or way out in the valley. Again, more profits for the development community while the home owners get a slightly lower purchase price AND no hope of escaping car dependency. Thus there are people in the metro Vancouver region who still drive downtown, despite its lack of parking and its consequent exorbitant parking costs. 

More commonly, the boon in DT residential development has led the traditional company offices to seek cheaper pastures elsewhere in the region. Oftentimes, cheap yet car-centric suburban office parks have replaced all but the most prestigious offices. 

And folks, don't take suburbanist too seriously. He takes a few nuggets of wisdom from the Von Mises/Von Hayek/Ayn Rand school of social Darwinism, then applies it to urban development.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

WeimieLvr said:


> On the other hand, we don't always display an understanding of the suburbs either, often calling them bland, generic, and windswept (I don't quite get that one).  I think the "bad" concept goes both ways.


It depends on which type of suburbs. The auto-centric ones tend to be bland and generic.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

LtBk said:


> It depends on which type of suburbs. The auto-centric ones tend to be bland and generic.


Yes some suburbs are not desirable places, but often they are all characterized in the same way - bland and generic - and that is nowhere near the truth. Some central cities are bland and generic too, but I never hear ALL cities discussed as such.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

More often than not it's true. I live in one, so I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

LtBk said:


> It depends on which type of suburbs. The auto-centric ones tend to be bland and generic.


A better question is: for majority of people, how much "blandness" is a factor they consider relevant, and to what extent, comparing to space and price, for instance.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

LtBk said:


> More often than not it's true. I live in one, so I know what I'm talking about.


You live in ONE - my point exactly. They are not even close to being all alike, and I am pretty sure we all know this to be true.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

As I said before, the auto-centric crap that composes 90% or so of most metropolitan areas in the US is bland and generic. The pre-WWII ones like Somerville, MA and Evanston, IL or the ones that was build around modern transit like Bethesda, MD are interesting suburbs.


----------



## Mornnb (Dec 26, 2010)

WeimieLvr said:


> Yes some suburbs are not desirable places, but often they are all characterized in the same way - bland and generic - and that is nowhere near the truth. Some central cities are bland and generic too, but I never hear ALL cities discussed as such.


Auto-centric cities seem to generate blandess! Their downtowns become huge business parks. Everyone is shopping and eating in the malls not the downtown. A city that has more cars on the downtown streets than pedestrians is not healthy.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

LtBk said:


> As I said before, the auto-centric crap that composes 90% or so of most metropolitan areas in the US is bland and generic. The pre-WWII ones like Somerville, MA and Evanston, IL or the ones that was build around modern transit like Bethesda, MD are interesting suburbs.


That is a gross generalization...but I agree that the historical suburbs are much more interesting. I'm sure you consider Atlanta "auto-centric crap", but the vast majority of it's suburbs are historic towns that pre-date Atlanta and have walkable downtowns - some even with transit stations. It's not all black and white regarding suburbs any more than it is any other subject...that was my point.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Mornnb said:


> Auto-centric cities seem to generate blandess! Their downtowns become huge business parks. Everyone is shopping and eating in the malls not the downtown. A city that has more cars on the downtown streets than pedestrians is not healthy.


But I'm sure you're not going to call cities in general "bland and generic" just because some of them are that way. There are plenty of suburbs that are beautiful/walkable/historic/interesting/etc. that do not fit the tired old stereotypes constantly spewed on this site. '

I'm not pro-suburb or anything, it just gets old and it's kinda silly. Enough said.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

WeimieLvr said:


> That is a gross generalization...but I agree that the historical suburbs are much more interesting. I'm sure you consider Atlanta "auto-centric crap", but the vast majority of it's suburbs are historic towns that pre-date Atlanta and have walkable downtowns - some even with transit stations. It's not all black and white regarding suburbs any more than it is any other subject...that was my point.


I might be generalizing, but a look at Google Maps shows that 90%+ of Metro Atlanta is auto-centric sprawl including parts of Atlanta. It has suburbs with small downtowns, but again a tiny amount in the overall region, and they are only walkable if you live near by. The situation could be much better if MARTA expanded their rapid transit system, and follow the steps Washington D.C did to build TOD along metro lines to make the suburbs more urban orientated, but it's difficult given the region's(and state of Georgia) historic hostility towards urbanity and transit.


----------



## flake50 (Jul 26, 2012)

One thing which quite impressed me that is the strategy of public transport.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

LtBk said:


> I might be generalizing, but a look at Google Maps shows that 90%+ of Metro Atlanta is auto-centric sprawl including parts of Atlanta. It has suburbs with small downtowns, but again a tiny amount in the overall region, and they are only walkable if you live near by. The situation could be much better if MARTA expanded their rapid transit system, and follow the steps Washington D.C did to build TOD along metro lines to make the suburbs more urban orientated, but it's difficult given the region's(and state of Georgia) historic hostility towards urbanity and transit.


The point was not whether an entire metro area is auto-centric or not (it isn't 90% sprawl - I'm not sure how you could tell that from looking at a map), but whether all suburbs are bland and generic. Of course most of them aren't, but some people actually believe it.

If you read up on Atlanta transit you might find out something besides the "ifs" that are always regurgitated here.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

:nuts: You must be denial or something.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

LtBk said:


> :nuts: You must be denial or something.


Because I don't agree with you? It's funny that you would assume it must be a problem _with me_. :lol:

Anyway, I don't wanna argue about this. We're both obviously free to feel however we fee.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

less cars in the center of a city is ALWAYS better


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

009 said:


> less cars in the center of a city is ALWAYS better


Preemptive, baseless affirmation. Cars are not good or evil on themselves (like any other mean of transportation).


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Commuting into Vancouver must be a pain, there isn't a real freeway connection to the city center and its a pretty dense city. I can see why people would rather stay in or near the city center.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

WeimieLvr said:


> Because I don't agree with you? It's funny that you would assume it must be a problem _with me_. :lol:
> 
> Anyway, I don't wanna argue about this. We're both obviously free to feel however we fee.


Whatever man.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

We had a urban planning professor say at our collage that urban parking lots in the city is kind of like farming in that you can collect parking fees from letting people park there but when the land prices go up or you get that good offer you can sell it and cash in.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> Commuting into Vancouver must be a pain, there isn't a real freeway connection to the city center and its a pretty dense city. I can see why people would rather stay in or near the city center.


Driving in Vancouver is easy peasy imo. Coming off the Trans-Canada Highway, it probably only takes 15 to 20 minutes to get into the downtown core. Coming from the Oak Street Bridge (highway 99), maybe 20-25 minutes. It can get congested, but it's not like you'd be able to go any faster if the signs simply read 90km/h rather than 50km/h. You'd get as much congestion at that point.


----------

