this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

Vancouver

1403 readers
7 users here now

Community for the city of Vancouver, BC

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not sure what the skytrain being there in a literal sense makes as a difference

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.

But what do your engineering numbers say?

No need to be a jerk. BTW, the article says that a parking analysis for the project has not yet been completed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Councillors are asking the same question

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.

No need to be a jerk.

Agreed. ;-)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They aren't "second-guessing the engineer." Again, no parking analysis has been completed. They're asking questions that are appropriate to ask.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You don't feel that councillors asking experts questions about decisions made following their expertise are actually perfect exemplars of second-guessing?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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?