Thursday, September 2 2010 | Vancouver smart city living magazine: events, lifestyle, restaurants, shopping, fashion, arts and more

Downtown Vancouver’s condo ghetto increases car use

By Stephen Rees for Granville Online | Image: Flickr / footloosiety | Published: August 26, 2009
downtown vancouver condo ghetto

As office spaces gets pushed out of Vancouver's downtown core by more-profitable condo development, car trips and commutes only get longer



Much attention is paid to the success of Vancouver's downtown, but most of Vancouver does not look like that, nor will it. Even so, in most people's perception, density means high-rise towers. In fact, similar density can be achieved with a much wider variety of structures. And if you look at the area as whole, there’s enough open green space and parks to make the place tolerable.

But from the point of view of function, downtown is not really that successful—because it still generates huge numbers of motorized trips. Not that you would know it from the transit system, but downtown's role as the key destination for morning peak period trips (the journey to work) has in fact been declining steadily. That is because offices are being overtaken by condos: office developers could not compete with the profits made from condo developments. The West Coast Energy building was actually converted to residential condos. And many of the residents of downtown now travel to suburban office parks to work. That's because we did not build complete communities. And our regional town centres are just about shopping.


 


Stephen Rees on transportation


Read more in this series of guest blog posts by transportation expert Stephen Rees.



Mixed land use is also an idea that seems foreign to North American planners.

The theory was always that residential, commercial and industrial uses needed to be physically separate—which is understandable given that was back in the days of heavy industrial pollution. But with modern technologies and much better regulation, it is no longer necessary. And separating out land uses creates the need for longer trips.

For most of human history, we lived and worked in the same place. We either walked out to the fields or downstairs to the shop. Now we drive from where we sleep and spend time in front of one video screen to where we work—in front of another video screen. And the places where we live have been, since 1950 or so, designed to be driven to and from. The suburbs are actually designed to make drives within subdivisions longer, to deter through-traffic from residential streets. This has the effect of also deterring walking and cycling, as routes are too long and indirect.

So even if you can see Wal-Mart from your back garden, you can't walk there. Not easily anyway.

That has been the other big change in how we live. We used to shop locally; now we drive out to a big box, lured by lower prices. Of course, for many things, by the time you add the real cost of driving, the big remote store may not actually be that much of a bargain, but if your local store has closed because it could not compete, that is academic. Essentially the big retailers have downloaded the cost of delivery onto their customers. Now you have to make the trip to get the goods.

Actually while a lot of the City of Vancouver is not dense, it is also not exactly like the post-war suburbs either. That is because the growth of the city started in the streetcar era. The electric streetcars had a lot of impact in the first part of the 20th century—before Detroit hit its stride.

And you can still see what Gordon Price calls “the urban DNA” of the streetcar villages—the commercial, retail centres than grew up along the streetcars' routes and which now are often the most desirable communities. Kitsilano or Kerrisdale for example. When people first moved there they did not own cars and they travelled to work on the streetcars. And the front yard of the house next to the streetcar stop became a store.

Along streets like Broadway or 4th Avenue, you can see how development is now recognizing the greater accessibility of a street with frequent transit service. For example, the low-rise, walk-up apartments over the stores at street level—a pattern of building seen on main streets in cities all over the world. Most of Central Paris was rebuilt that way in the late 19th century—with streetcars and the Metro to get around on.

In real estate, there is an old saw that the three most important things are location, location and location. And what changes our perception of location is its accessibility. They ain't making any more waterfront, but it’s not hard to make a place easier to get to and from. The one thing you want to avoid though is making it only about transportation. No one wants to live along the El tracks—or where trucks thunder through every day. And there are usually much better views than that of a parking lot.

Comments

Stephen, you can't make a

Stephen, you can't make a statement like this: "but downtown's role as the key destination for morning peak period trips (the journey to work) has in fact been declining steadily. That is because offices are being overtaken by condos..." with absolutely no facts to back it up be surprised when people rebut you. You are stating things as facts. If they are just opinions, or guesses on your part then you need to phrase it that way. You're doing a disservice by spreading opinions disguised as informed, researched information. Perhaps you could look at some of the information other commenters have provided and do a followup piece or an update, or even a detailed comment. I'm curious to know if, with that data at hand, you're opinions have changed at all.

Thanks for the interesting

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

Find the numbers and a dandy little PDF in Stephen's post on downtown Vancouver's dwindling job market. —Hilary Henegar, Granville Online editor

I find it very curious that

I find it very curious that not one of the commenters so far has had the confidence ti state their own name. Secondly the comments that refer to the census do not discuss the data on people who live downtown and work elsewhere. Indeed in 2001 it was first noticed that more people work in Richmond and live in Vancouver than the other way round. This is a blog and not an article in an academic peer reviewed journal. I could selectively quote statistics, but that would lead to a very dry discussion. Stephen Rees

You lost me at the first

You lost me at the first sentence. "Much attention is paid to the success of Vancouver's downtown"??? Only if we continue to ignore and deplore my neighbourhood, the DTES. To have a clear idea of the success or failure of Vancouver as a whole, you can't give in to the fatal temptation to shove all the bad stuff into one corner and then pretend it's not part of our society. And I use the word "fatal" deliberately.

This city was destroyed the

This city was destroyed the moment they built the skytrain. When they started pushing the buses to train stations and developing condos around the stations with NO real thought to community building, all we did was feed the crowds into ONE route instead of spread out and increase crime in these corridors. The downtown condo development has been a joke too..ever since the expo lands were sold cheap. The schools and lower income/mixed income housing NEVER showed up. The focus of urban planning in Vancouver has been nothing BUT condo development and the rest of Vancouver and the needs of a community have been totally forgotten. Greed has over seen all...this city is a shadow of its former pre 1986 self. it is one small group of vocal peeps who bike or use transit...transit is a mix of the people who HAVE to use it and the people who think they are clever by using it. Families do not bike. Unless for recreation. We don't all bike to work. I can't carry shopping for 5 on a bike. i cannot take my children to the dentist on a bike. And now, thanks to the skytrains we can't even find a bus half the time that goes ANYWHERE near where we want to go. We do not all live in kits as seems to be the impression that city hall has.

How do you define success

How do you define success Stephen? You present no data, no facts, yet the tone of your article is one of confidence and knowledge. The City of Vancouver counts vehicles crossing the entering the downtown on an annual basis. The data shows that the number of vehicles crossing the downtown screenline on a 24 hour basis has been steadily declining over the past ten years, from 255,000 vehicles per day in 1995 to 240,000 vehicles a day now. This fact is not consistent with the title of your article. You quote “journey to work”, yet you use no data. However, this data is available from Census at Statistics Canada and it shows that the number of people working downtown increased from 115,000 to 129,000 between 1996 and 2006. How did these people get to their jobs? In the same period the number of people driving to work downtown decreased from 49,000 to 46,000. That alone, sounds like success. Better yet, all the sustainable methods commuting to downtown increased significantly. Transit increased from 44,000 to 54,000 commuters, the number of people cycling to work downtown went from 2,300 to 4,000, and walking to work downtown increased from 13,000 to 18,000 people. The fact that much of the new housing downtown is high end luxury hasn’t affected a trend to more walking in the downtown. Between 1996 and 2006, the number of people that both live and work downtown has increased from 15,000 to 21,000 and the percentage of those that walk to work has increased from 68% to 74%. Apparently the millionaires that chose to move downtown walk as much or more than the non-millionaires that live downtown. Those are the facts, Stephen and that sounds like a success to me.

I agree. It seems like this

I agree. It seems like this is a knee-jerk blog with little understanding of the real dynamics of downtown Vancouver. I keep wondering if you're talking about "Vancouver" or "Metro Vancouver".

"downtown's role as the key

"downtown's role as the key destination for morning peak period trips (the journey to work) has in fact been declining steadily. That is because offices are being overtaken by condos." Stephen, what's the evidence you use to conclude that declining car trips to downtown are a result of increased condo development (on land previously zoned office)? Does the data not also show an increase in walking, biking, transit... meaning another explanation could be that people are just not driving to work as much? According to this data: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/corejobs/pdf/research/mythfact.pdf the downtown office market has continued to grow, despite increased residential development.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.