HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


View Poll Results: Would you support amalgamation?
Yes - Burnaby only 16 11.11%
Yes - Burnaby and New Westminster 30 20.83%
Yes - Burnaby, New Westminster and the NE 6 4.17%
Yes - Burnaby, New Westminster and Richmond 7 4.86%
Yes - All of the above mentioned communities 32 22.22%
No - I like things just the way they are! 44 30.56%
Other (Please specifiy) 9 6.25%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted May 25, 2016, 11:59 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Yuck, I kind of voted without thinking....

I think that I like the idea of keeping each city with their own mayors because it does tailor each city to suit its residents better with their own municipal budgets.

New Westminster, for example, is not going to have the same kind of problems or goals as Burnaby or Vancouver does. Not by a long-shot. And even then, Burnaby doesn't have the same kind of problems as Vancouver.

I think that keeping each city separated, at this point, is a good thing because it really tailors each city to a specific niche. And it encourages each city to be competitive to attract certain industries. This in turn creates a MORE unique pattern to the Metro Vancouver fabric and it gives people in those areas stronger voices. I say it's fine to keep it the way it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted May 26, 2016, 12:36 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
Yuck, I kind of voted without thinking....

I think that I like the idea of keeping each city with their own mayors because it does tailor each city to suit its residents better with their own municipal budgets.

New Westminster, for example, is not going to have the same kind of problems or goals as Burnaby or Vancouver does. Not by a long-shot. And even then, Burnaby doesn't have the same kind of problems as Vancouver.

I think that keeping each city separated, at this point, is a good thing because it really tailors each city to a specific niche. And it encourages each city to be competitive to attract certain industries. This in turn creates a MORE unique pattern to the Metro Vancouver fabric and it gives people in those areas stronger voices. I say it's fine to keep it the way it is.
This can also cause a race to the bottom. What if every city wants to attract the film industry. So each city provides incentives to attract a new sound stage. Then each city has to out attract each other by providing better and better incentives, until there is almost no economic gain for the city and it is pretty much only prestige.

Same with industrial property management. It is hard for the region to maintain a proper industrial footprint if each city acts in their own interests. For example, you have New Westminster turning prime industrial land into Port Royal because they are seeking the development fees. Then you have Langley, Richmond, or Delta open up tracts of ALR land to industry because other cities are shrinking their land which is in a better position.


And even with the cities the way they are, it is arbitrary anyway. Do residents in Dunbar have the same concerns as residents in the West End? Or the residents in Kits have the same concerns as those in Mount Pleasant or Coal Harbour? What does Shaughnessy have to do with the DTES? Yet, somehow Vancouver keeps itself functioning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted May 29, 2016, 11:39 PM
Kisai Kisai is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,133
Amalgamation should never be done simply to "reduce costs", because that is not what happens. It's about control. Reduce the number of inputs before a decision with long-term consequences can be made.

The way Translink is run now, isn't great, but it's preferable to the Mayors trying to bend Translink's arm in 20 different directions to get vanity projects put ahead of ones that we actually need.

What we need is anything that crosses a municipal border be done at the Regional District level. That includes the Transit Police, Translink, recycling, garbage, water and sewage. A city shouldn't be able to build nothing but Luxury condos and no rental/low-income properties in each city center, as that pushes people out of the city and makes everything even more expensive inside the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 2:28 AM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
This can also cause a race to the bottom. What if every city wants to attract the film industry. So each city provides incentives to attract a new sound stage. Then each city has to out attract each other by providing better and better incentives, until there is almost no economic gain for the city and it is pretty much only prestige.
I think that each city pays more attention to what the other is doing in terms of development though. Otherwise something like this would have already happened. See I never got the impression that each city in the Lower Mainland acted like a rebellious step-child to the region and just did their own thing no matter what the consequences were. I feel that the cities do act cohesively.


Quote:
And even with the cities the way they are, it is arbitrary anyway. Do residents in Dunbar have the same concerns as residents in the West End? Or the residents in Kits have the same concerns as those in Mount Pleasant or Coal Harbour? What does Shaughnessy have to do with the DTES? Yet, somehow Vancouver keeps itself functioning.
Hey the same could be said for Metro Vancouver . Just semantics IMO.

I could see Burnaby and maybe New Westminster amalgamating into Vancouver in the far future. But definitely not Surrey; you remember that rebellious step-child of the Lower Mainland family? Well that's Surrey.

But at the moment I think that things in the Lower Mainland work cohesively enough as it is and that there really is no NEED for them to amalgamate. Overall I'd be open to it IF there is a need for amalgamation and IF there was more to gain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 3:37 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
I think that each city pays more attention to what the other is doing in terms of development though. Otherwise something like this would have already happened. See I never got the impression that each city in the Lower Mainland acted like a rebellious step-child to the region and just did their own thing no matter what the consequences were. I feel that the cities do act cohesively.
While I'd like to agree, the "Me First" attitude we're seeing among the city councils and their pet projects undermines that argument. It's the same reason why we don't simply bring TransLink down to the municipal level and let our mayors "share."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2016, 12:47 AM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 449
I made a few maps if all the cities in Metro Vancouver merged and then were divided into different boroughs. Much like how New York has it.







I personally like the last one more, since the boroughs aren't too big but not too small. The names can be argued over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2016, 12:55 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
Interesting maps. Thanks for posting. I like the last one the most, too. That most closely matches my mental map of the region.

Small note, Richmond's population is ~190,000 (as of the 2011 census), as opposed to the 125,000.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2016, 7:26 AM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 449
I think I meant to say 225 000, in 2016 estimations, with Queensborough as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 8:41 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,600
The 2 North Vancouvers Looking to Join Up?

A formal letter from the district to the City of North Vancouver asking it to join the study was discussed at the city’s council meeting last week.

Council referred the idea to staff, but attached a stringent set of conditions — including that the city’s lower tax rate, surpluses and service levels be protected in any study of amalgamation.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4148812/n...-amalgamation/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 8:43 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
.

Last edited by Pinion; Apr 18, 2018 at 1:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 10:20 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
I've always liked the idea of Burnaby and Vancouver being one unit, personally. It would give that region the largest population over the burgeoning SurDel region.

Vancouver/North Vancouver has more in common with any of the others, to be honest... despite what West & North Vancouverites may think of themselves. If it weren't for the water, they'd already be merged imo.

The North shore, would be the North shore of Vancouver.

I don't think Burnaby would go for it, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 10:23 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
Council referred the idea to staff, but attached a stringent set of conditions — including that the city’s lower tax rate, surpluses and service levels be protected in any study of amalgamation.
Well then that's pretty much a non-starter then isn't it? Two separate tax rates and different service levels for different areas of the new city kinda ensures that much of the overlap that people want to eliminate will have to remain in order to administer these "protections". I think the only way that we can see this happen is if the District is able to get themselves into a better financial position and raise service levels, or if the City finds themselves running deficits and needs to either raise taxes or cut some services. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this happen but think it will probably be another decade or so until it is more likely to be achieved once the build-out of the city centres in the District is further along.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 5:07 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Victoria and Saanich considering amalgamation; wonder if that'll trigger any additional conversation here (they do mention North Vancouver in the article)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...2018-1.4619531
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2018, 5:10 AM
rpvan rpvan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog View Post
I made a few maps if all the cities in Metro Vancouver merged and then were divided into different boroughs. Much like how New York has it.

I personally like the last one more, since the boroughs aren't too big but not too small. The names can be argued over.
Quite like the middle one, except Richmond shouldn't still be separate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2018, 5:44 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,829
The top one; to me it has the most logic to it. Vancouver, Burnaby & New West fit well together, the middle plan has boroughs that are too big to be manageable, IMO.
The bottom diagram is ok, but I'd prefer Vancouver, NW, and Burnaby to be fused, as I said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2018, 7:01 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
The top one is the closest to the one I made. It could either be new municipalities, or all a giant "Vancouver" with the individual places as boroughs as you suggested. The difference is I split Surrey up, cause Surrey doesn't make much sense to me.

North Delta is Surrey.
South Surrey is White Rock.
Cloverdale/Clayton is Langley.

At least in my head. Basically because of the way the ALR sets those urban areas apart from each other.

So I made an amalgamation plan that reflects that.

Other changes include Richmond taking Annacis Island and Queensborough, Vancouver consolidating with UBC, Burnaby and New West, the North Shore consolidating, the Tri-Cities + Belcarra & Anmore consolidating, and Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge consolidating.

The one thing I don't know is what to do with Aldergrove. It really belongs with Abbotsford, but its existing membership in Metro Vancouver complicated that I think.

Amalgamation Proposal by Glass_City, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2018, 7:10 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
The top one is the closest to the one I made. It could either be new municipalities, or all a giant "Vancouver" with the individual places as boroughs as you suggested. The difference is I split Surrey up, cause Surrey doesn't make much sense to me.

North Delta is Surrey.
South Surrey is White Rock.
Cloverdale/Clayton is Langley.

At least in my head. Basically because of the way the ALR sets those urban areas apart from each other.

So I made an amalgamation plan that reflects that.

Other changes include Richmond taking Annacis Island and Queensborough, Vancouver consolidating with UBC, Burnaby and New West, the North Shore consolidating, the Tri-Cities + Belcarra & Anmore consolidating, and Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge consolidating.

The one thing I don't know is what to do with Aldergrove. It really belongs with Abbotsford, but its existing membership in Metro Vancouver complicated that I think.

Amalgamation Proposal by Glass_City, on Flickr
Yeah, Surrey isn't giving up Cloverdale. Honestly, it's pretty culturally connected to the rest of Surrey, despite the ALR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2018, 7:14 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
^Damn you were quick haha.

Yeah I know Cloverdale is part of Surrey's history, but none of these are serious proposals anyway. I'm personally fine if everything stays as it is. Just if I was organizing our municipalities based on my own psychological understanding of them, that's how I'd do it. When I'm on highway 10 and drive into Cloverdale I still get a feeling of "here's Langley" even though I obviously know that's not true.

And even if Surrey wants Cloverdale, Surrey doesn't really have a say in any of it. If the Province wanted to change municipal boundaries, it could, in any way it wanted
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2018, 6:44 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
And even if Surrey wants Cloverdale, Surrey doesn't really have a say in any of it. If the Province wanted to change municipal boundaries, it could, in any way it wanted
really?
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2018, 9:29 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmk View Post
really?
I'm genuinely not sure what you're objecting to here.

It's not like I'm cheering for this to happen, nor do I expect it to ever. Just that it's technically possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.