quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations and im saying your point is not valid bike paths allow hundreds more bikers to easily be on the streets without bothering cards sure in suburban areas your ideas might work, but downtown the volume is just too high

I have yet to see more cyclists downtown with all those bike paths... time will tell.

In suburbs no one bikes because people can actually afford a car

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek I have yet to see more cyclists downtown with all those bike paths... time will tell.

now you really have nothing left in your argument

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations now you really have nothing left in your argument

well they are are built for a purpose right?

I say we should go one step further and fine those cyclists who are biking in the street where those paths exists without using them.

Guys i'll run for office, vote for me.

(skateboarding will be banned first)

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek I have yet to see more cyclists downtown with all those bike paths... time will tell. In suburbs no one bikes because people can actually afford a car

where would you bike to in the burbs? Costco? You need to hug a tree



Some of the most affluent ppl are choosing to live downtown. You should see Vancouver's downtown.. they actually reduced auto traffic in the last decade, an impressive feat that other cities are trying to emulate.

Vancouver is the most expensive city to live in Canada, there's no highways, reduced sprawl, meaning reduced housing offer, which creates higher prices. On average a house cost just under a million, A million! still no one makes insane salaries to afford that kind of estate.

Offices have to move out of downtown because of the lack of space. (Promoters make more money building condos than office towers). Some Vancouverites are now forced to commute to the burbs to get to their jobs... insane.

Vancouver streets are dull, yes there's always people walking around because they have dense condo canyons, but that is all. There's very little mixity in the streets, with shops, restaurants, coffees places or office not taken into account when building all those rat sized condos.

Density is not a goal to achieve at all costs.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

By the way Montreal is much more denser than Vancouver and Toronto in its central core. Actually it comes second to Manahattan in North America.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek Vancouver is the most expensive city to live in Canada, there's no highways, reduced sprawl, meaning reduced housing offer, which creates higher prices. On average a house cost just under a million, A million! still no one makes insane salaries to afford that kind of estate.

you also don't have the shit winters (and sometimes humid summers) we have, plus its scenery is second to none. Granted, the downtown core isn't the best for cycling either (or driving for that matter), its pedestrian traffic is crazy.

Its transit system is also decent too, subway isn't as extensive as Toronto or Montreal (Greater Van is only 2.2M) but it's gonna be the first of those three cities to have a subway running all the way to the airport (2009).

Toronto is undergoing the same condo proliferation too, same company predominately (Concorde). You'll have to get used to bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly downtown cores. Cars won't be entirely unwelcomed, it's going to be more of a balance, that's all. Driving a car is a 'luxury' that's bad for the body and for the environment, imo.

The only negative to me is that this condo development kills the nightlife. Vancouver's sucks, Guv in TO has probably only a few years left too.

quote:

Originally posted by malek By the way Montreal is much more denser than Vancouver and Toronto in its central core. Actually it comes second to Manahattan in North America.

I didn't know that. Always thought it was Mexico City, NYC then Vancouver but you may be right.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Laden I didn't know that. Always thought it was Mexico City, NYC then Vancouver but you may be right.

i may be wrong on Mexico City (stats you see on NA always exclude Mexico for some reason), but Montreal is defienitly denser than Vancouver in its central boroughs.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek i may be wrong on Mexico City (stats you see on NA always exclude Mexico for some reason), but Montreal is defienitly denser than Vancouver in its central boroughs.

yeah, I pulled the Mexico city one out of my ass

but I've often heard NYC and Van being one and two. This article has Van as no 1, but you may find other conflicting stuff..

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature177.htm

Here is a small animation of density for Montreal and Vancouver, they are not to scale, Vancouver should be smaller. Also the mauve color is from 6000 to 11999, a pretty wide range there.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/cen...s/Vancouver.swf

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/cen...As/Montreal.swf

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]