All the more reason to face reality. VPD is a luxury the city can no longer afford . . . QED

There are no “identifiable neighbourhoods” either!

FCN demonstrates thoughtless planning and bad architecture, a deficiency replete throughout the city . . .

That is my point. There is not ” a significant number of families in the area”

Why the pretence?

“in FCN, on the northern quadrant there is a very pretty multi-coloured children’s’ play set. Last time I looked it was still in mint condition, brand new: it hasn’t been used. There are no kids within blocks to enjoy it. ”

and then, when you find out there is a significant number of families in the area, you huff that the area is “hardly kid friendly”.

And remember that taking an angry tone in response does not constitute cogency.

Time to disband the Vancouver Planning department.

Are you listening Mr. Mayor and Council?

But just because a kid is claimed as a dependent by a parent who has a mailing address in Yaletown doesn’t necessarily mean that the little tyke actually lives there. As a divorced parent, I find that both Stats and Rev Can have serious gaps in accounting for amicable joint custodies, weekender arrangements, second marriages, non-traditional families, etc. that are often the case these days (and maybe more so in Yaletown than other places?). Only one parent can claim a dependent, so tax time expedience may skew these numbers quite a bit. It’s damn hard to imagine a neighbourhood of 1000 kids that never go out and play on the nearest playground. How do the stats explain this?

Hmmn, I guess that reinforces Urbanismo’s point about the shortcomings of statistical absolutism.

And thanks for the link, Urbanismo, hadn’t heard that in a while. I took a long weekend away rather than “end up drunk on Robson Street” acting even more foolish than usual in public. I still think you are missing my point – If there’s a good way to leverage more amenities like affordable housing (9.5 on your scale of importance), then why ignore it? – but I don’t disagree with yours or MG’s main points, despite my caterwauling. In fact, none of what any of us is saying excludes or disproves the others’ points; they can all coexist for the good of better planning.

On another side note: the city of Austin, Texas got so sick of the recent condo tower boom and its homogenizing effect on architecture and commerce in their downtown that they developed a campaign to “Keep Austin Weird”. Maybe Vancouver needs to adopt a similar mindset?

Even at 10% kids of pop it is hardly kid friendly. Likely, too, when they become huge teens they’ll move on.

FCN is not a place for families QED

You certainly have command of the subject . . . problem is, if I (Michael too) may respectfully point out, it is the wrong subject.

Oh dear here we go again “world class.”

Wall over height eh! Does it really matter? It’s street level that counts:

. . . “without considering any other approach.” May I suggest, again respectfully, you use your urban erudition, and evident entré, to make the big change from statistical to conceptual, or Michael’s preferred “Dynamic” zoning. It’ll be along haul but the current zoning by numbers just isn’t producing desired results, according, that is, to your own views!

Comparing Vancouver to San Fran, or indeed any city, is pointless. There are so many differences; politics economics to say the least.

Didn’t some one try that with Seattle last week? Pointless . . .

. . . in the mean time . . .

. . . enjoy one great things the come out of Vancouver . . . turn up your speakers and dig . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwkFySJmEJY