Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My understanding is this was proposed on 65' wide ROW streets. That's not a family friendly street - that's highway width. Turning that into a sane 35' wide ROW street in a dense urban city makes perfect sense.
Tax burden is lessened because there is more property to tax, therefore more money coming in to coffers and less is needed from each individual parcel.
More options for the people who move into the spaces of course. Who did you think I mean?
Frankly the post smacks of NIMBYism (oh, I'm all for density, really, just, could you not do it near me)
I don't know how familiar you are with Vancouver, but the actual streets are not 65' wide. The city may own that much of the width going down a street, but to create a 33' roadway and add housing they would have to cut into existing city own green boulevards, in most cases. Also I'm wondering if that 65' includes city own sidewalks. Certainly there may be a street or two in some areas that may fit that description of actually being 65' feet wide but they are major roadways for an already congested traffic flow.
One of the areas they propose was the west end. I couldn't find exactly where in the west end they proposed to do this, but look at this link.
I've zoomed into an average street in the west end to 50 ' . Most streets are so narrow they only allow parking on one side of the street, even then it is very difficult for two cars to pass each other at the same time.
Here is Ash Street, one of the areas that was proposed. As you can see, it's a quiet residential street, not a highway.
As for taxes, they never go down. What will most likely happen is current property taxes will remain the same, and new housing taxes will flow. However as I said it will take thousands of new homes to make a difference. Remember Vancouver is on a peninsula hemmed in by rivers, ocean and mountains.
Regarding options, the whole point of this proposal was to create affordable housing, I and many others believe that this will not be affordable. In one area an average single house is around 1 million. What do you think the new, albeit, smaller house next door will cost?
I think this idea could work in many other cities, just not Vancouver.
Minimum lane size is 11', so that's 22 feet. That means you've got 13 feet for the rest. Side walks are 7.5' here (including gutters). 35' won't cut it and it allows for zero on-street parking. I'll pass on that street. 50' works well. Plenty of room, but not too big. There's a reason 80% of cities use 50-60' ROW for residential streets and no one uses the (in)sane 35'.
I don't know how familiar you are with Vancouver, but the actual streets are not 65' wide. The city may own that much of the width going down a street, but to create a 33' roadway and add housing they would have to cut into existing city own green boulevards, in most cases. Also I'm wondering if that 65' includes city own sidewalks. Certainly there may be a street or two in some areas that may fit that description of actually being 65' feet wide but they are major roadways for an already congested traffic flow.
One of the areas they propose was the west end. I couldn't find exactly where in the west end they proposed to do this, but look at this link.
I've zoomed into an average street in the west end to 50 ' . Most streets are so narrow they only allow parking on one side of the street, even then it is very difficult for two cars to pass each other at the same time.
Here is Ash Street, one of the areas that was proposed. As you can see, it's a quiet residential street, not a highway.
As for taxes, they never go down. What will most likely happen is current property taxes will remain the same, and new housing taxes will flow. However as I said it will take thousands of new homes to make a difference. Remember Vancouver is on a peninsula hemmed in by rivers, ocean and mountains.
Regarding options, the whole point of this proposal was to create affordable housing, I and many others believe that this will not be affordable. In one area an average single house is around 1 million. What do you think the new, albeit, smaller house next door will cost?
I think this idea could work in many other cities, just not Vancouver.
The proposal wasn't for average streets or all streets, it was for the highway width 65' streets.
The proposal wasn't for average streets or all streets, it was for the highway width 65' streets.
Sorry, but you are simply incorrect. Ash street is an average street. The west end only has average streets. There are no " highways" in Vancouver proper. The widest streets are full of traffic and are not part of the proposal. As I said in a previous comment, the actual road is not 65' wide, but have to include the sidewalks and boulevards then yes you get 65'. So if this went through ( it's been put on the back burner since opposition against it was strong ) the street would lose, parking, existing green grassed boulevards and increase traffic etc.
It just is NOT the solution for Vancouver.
Minimum lane size is 11', so that's 22 feet. That means you've got 13 feet for the rest. Side walks are 7.5' here (including gutters). 35' won't cut it and it allows for zero on-street parking. I'll pass on that street. 50' works well. Plenty of room, but not too big. There's a reason 80% of cities use 50-60' ROW for residential streets and no one uses the (in)sane 35'.
50 feet sounds rather wide. I think my street is below 30 feet (excluding gutters and sidewalks), we have street parking on one side of the road. The city law is that 12 feet must be left open for traffic on streets. Higher widths would encourage faster traffic on residential streets
You could have a narrow shared space roadway (10-18ft), either one way (one lane) or two way, and then have maybe a 7-8 ft grass or gravel shoulder on each side for on street parking, with trees in between the on-street parking spaces. It could be a problem if the on street parking is heavily utilized though and you'd be walking in between two constantly full rows of parked cars. You coul probably fit a sidewalk in there if it's one way though (12ft + 8ftx2 + 7ft) on one side of the parked cars.
Alternatively, maybe a one way one lane street with angled parking on one side and a boulevard on the other? So 16-18ft angled parking, 10-12 ft travel lane, 5-9ft boulevard.
Of course if the existing trees are quite far from the center of the existing street, that means they would likely have to be cut down which I think might be the biggest problem. With new streets, you could easily have these kinds of 35ft ROWs - or much narrower, especially with off street parking.
And how important is it to have on-street parking on both sides in Vancouver? Vancouver has back lanes where a lot of homes have garages.
By the way, how dense can you build in a typical residential street like Ash Street, can you build any duplexes, townhouses, triplexes, small walk-ups? What are rules like for setbacks and parking requirements? I think you're allowed single unit laneway housing and basement apartments in most neighbourhoods, but how about additional units?
I live on 35. Room for travel lane in each direction and parking lane on each side of the street. It's not a free way, but traffic is nice and calm and the street perfectly safe and appropriate for an urban neighborhood.
Sorry, but you are simply incorrect. Ash street is an average street. The west end only has average streets. There are no " highways" in Vancouver proper. The widest streets are full of traffic and are not part of the proposal. As I said in a previous comment, the actual road is not 65' wide, but have to include the sidewalks and boulevards then yes you get 65'. So if this went through ( it's been put on the back burner since opposition against it was strong ) the street would lose, parking, existing green grassed boulevards and increase traffic etc.
It just is NOT the solution for Vancouver.
Look, 65 or 66 is really wide for a neighborhood I don't understand the objection to narrowing such corridors which are not really appropriate for neighborhoods.
You could have a narrow shared space roadway (10-18ft), either one way (one lane) or two way, and then have maybe a 7-8 ft grass or gravel shoulder on each side for on street parking, with trees in between the on-street parking spaces. It could be a problem if the on street parking is heavily utilized though and you'd be walking in between two constantly full rows of parked cars. You coul probably fit a sidewalk in there if it's one way though (12ft + 8ftx2 + 7ft) on one side of the parked cars.
At least around here, and in older urban streets in Massachusetts in general, there are a lot of driveways so the street parking has breaks even if it's full. A few fire hydrants also add to the breaks.
My street looks to be about 25 ft on google satellite view (just the street portion, not the sidewalk and grassy median between sidewalk and street). It's two ways, but it's often safer for one car to pull over in the street parking breaks when one in the opposite direction is comming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
