See final paragraph - set to be the tallest building in Western Canada. The article focuses on the 14 stories of underground parking that will be included, which does seem excessive given that the SkyTrain is literally across the street.
See final paragraph - set to be the tallest building in Western Canada. The article focuses on the 14 stories of underground parking that will be included, which does seem excessive given that the SkyTrain is literally across the street.
I’m not sure what the skytrain being there in a literal sense makes as a difference, but the absolute lack of parking at or around the skytrain stop would definitely not help the situation, suggesting that 14 levels may be the best way of achieving 2400 parking spots. Tall buildings hold a lot of people.
But what do your engineering numbers say?
They could introduce a car-share service instead of being reliant on personal car ownership.
One Evo can replace a fair number of parked cars…
A rep from Evo told me once that their data suggests each Evo takes 7 privately owned cars off the road. (I know that’s worded badly and yes I’ve seen the way some people drive Evos…)
That’s pretty crazy. There’s an Evo right outside of my apartment and sometimes it’s better to take the Evo than my own car just to avoid parking and dodging traffic on the way back.
I know right? Sure, the Evo concept is not a solution to every traffic/vehicle related problem but there are so many use cases where it’s hellishly handy. I’ve definitely done the same - an Evo into town and no worries about parking… lock and WALK AWAY :)
I’m only saying that proximity to the SkyTrain would seem to this layperson to reduce the need for so many spots relative to the number of units planned for the development (1612 spots for 1466 units, along with 1000+ more for businesses). Councillors are asking the same question, so I don’t think it’s out of bounds to speculate that this much parking may be a bit excessive.
No need to be a jerk. BTW, the article says that a parking analysis for the project has not yet been completed.
They’re second-guessing the engineer too? It’s like when I tell my cab driver how to steer or recommend suture style to my doctor.
Agreed. ;-)
They aren’t “second-guessing the engineer.” Again, no parking analysis has been completed. They’re asking questions that are appropriate to ask.
You don’t feel that councillors asking experts questions about decisions made following their expertise are actually perfect exemplars of second-guessing?
The Senakw proposal shows that you don’t really need to develop that much parking and that developers are happy to include less parking when city bylaws permit it.
There’s a lot wrong with the Senakw proposal. But I’m not surprised when developers are told they don’t have to do something that they jumped at the idea. Developers would happily exclude water and power if they only had the opportunity.
The Senate development is funded by the Squamish, designed for the Squamish, and plans to house the Squamish. You’re saying that somehow the developer got more say in the project and proposed things actively against the interests of the Squamish nation… And the Squamish just rolled over and accepted it?
Isn’t that the point of transit, that you don’t have to drive? There’s a plethora of options for people who want to drive elsewhere.
I love how you assume everywhere we need to come from and go to has a transit stop within range of someone with potential mobility issues. We didn’t even have that in Manhattan! Market forces quickly pushing people to relocate services close to transit stops, which I suspect you’ll bring up next, can also be informed by Manhattan’s setup, which has 200 years of history where that hasn’t happened yet. Soon, though, right?
If you have mobility issues, why are you buying an apartment in a 50-storey building where, if there’s ever an emergency requiring evacuation, you’re super duper extra fucked?
It’s not like 90% of Vancouver isn’t already SFH. What a stupid argument.