The Vertical City

I love Vancouver. How can you not? Ocean, mountains, mild winters, awesome snow just minutes away, green all year round - and most of all amazing neighbourhoods like the downtown and West End. Cities around the world are looking to Vancouver to learn how to make great communities.

But there is one thing I hear many people say, and I can't argue with them - Vancouver's buildings are on the boring side. It doesn't help that this is such a young city (just over 100 years old), so it doesn't have the beautiful, old character buildings of cities like New York or Montreal. But that's no excuse for us to be living in a homogenous sea of concrete and glass. Chicago is a great example of a city known for it's verticality yet it also fosters great diversity in the design of tall buildings. It probably helps that Chicago was the birthplace of the modern skyscraper, but that tradition of pushing the envelope remains intact.

Now I'm not suggesting Vancouver start learning from Chicago, as I think both cities are amazing. I do think that city hall needs to start encouraging better design - so I've spent some time putting together a group of buildings that I think are excellent examples for Vancouver developers to look to for inspiration - some complete, some under construction, some just designs. It's a shame that the Ritz Carlton tower has been put on hold, as it was a unique design, but even it was still relatively simple. Here are my examples:

Aqua Tower, Chicago
http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/AQUA/home.html

What I love most about this tower is how simple it is to achieve this design - the floor slabs just vary in size at each level - the structure of the building never changes.

World Trade Centre, Bahrain
http://www.bahrainwtc.com/

Windmills between the two towers help power the building!

Dubai Towers, Dubai
http://www.dubaitowersdubai.com/

There are dozens of great buildings being built in the United Arab Emirates, this is just one. The Sheik of Abu Dhabi has even hired Vancouver's former city planner, Larry Beasley, to help them start developing more sustainably.

Jupiter Mills and Elphinstone Mills Towers, Mumbai
http://indianskyscraperblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/mumbai-jupiter-mills-tower-75-floors/

The picture says it all - follow the link to learn more.

Puerta de Europa, Madrid
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/cx/?id=puertadeeuropa-madrid

These two towers make a huge statement and really do feel like a "gate to Europe". The City of Vancouver is currently working on plans to redevelop the area at the north end of Granville Street bridge (including the removal of the "loops") and a project similar to this would be an amazing gateway into downtown.

Waves, Mumbai
http://indianskyscraperblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/mumbai-waves-80-fl/

Chicago Spire, Chicago (formerly Fordham Spire)
http://www.thechicagospire.com/

It's unfortunate that due to the recession they have temporarily stopped construction on this building. But the foundation is done, so there is no doubt this tower will be completed eventually. Architect and Engineer Santiago Calatrava is probably better known for his bridges, but in recent years has been designing some amazing buildings. (Personally, I think Arthur Erickson took cues from this building and another of Calatrava's projects in his design of the Ritz Carlton - Vancouver).

These are just a few examples of well designed tall buildings that I like - I could go on for pages. I also like the Shangri-La tower here in Vancouver, which I know some don't. I like it for it's simplicity and also, no doubt, because there is finally a tower that the city has allowed to break the otherwise flat skyline. Being the first at anything often has it's advantages. But we do need more diversity in design of new towers here in Vancouver before the city really does become too bland.

Olympic protestors: relax and enjoy the show already!

I don’t know about you, but I’m amazed at how many people are still protesting against the Olympics. Aside from the fact that it’s far too late now, they don’t see what an amazing event this will be for the city. (They also don’t seem to realize that they are half the reason the security costs will be $1 billion…but I won't get into that).

Ask anyone that lived in or visited Calgary during the 1988 Olympics and they will tell you what an amazing experience it was and the incredible legacy it left after the games. The same is sure to happen here. Our downtown is going to be alive with people and excitement. Businesses should see big increases in sales, (if not, they are doing something wrong). The eyes of the world will be on our city drawing more tourists in the years that follow. World class facilities will be left to serve for decades and continue to bring events to the city. To those that want to include the Convention Centre, Canada Line and Highway 99 in the Olympic cost, fine. But realize that all of those projects had to be done eventually – the Olympics was the catalyst that got them done now. Anyone who has done any travelling realizes what an amazing project the Canada Line is – Vancouver now becomes one of the few cities in the world with a direct link from the airport to downtown.

The biggest complaint from the protestors seems to relate to housing of the homeless and the Downtown East Side in general. Every city has such a neighbourhood (or several) – don’t think Vancouver is alone. The reason it is so visible here is because the poorest live right next to some of the wealthiest. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that the reason there are so many homeless here is the climate. I mean let’s face it – where would you rather spend the night on a sidewalk; Vancouver or Winnipeg? These protestors don’t seem to realize that the approximately $2 billion that will be spent on the Olympics would never have been spent on helping the poor anyways. You can’t say the Olympic money could have been better spent, because fact is it's being spent on a great cause. Has the government said even once that they can’t afford to build more homeless shelters because of the cost of the Olympics? If they have, I missed it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not completely against helping the less fortunate. There are people out there that do need help and I think we can do a lot more with less money than we already are. We can make a difference in helping people get back on their feet. There are also those out there that have had their chance (maybe even numerous times) and we can’t just keep giving handouts. In the end, protestors cannot expect the public to feel guilty for hosting an event that will benefit the entire city, region and even country. The Olympics are one of the few events that brings the entire world together, and we should feel honored to have been chosen to be their host in 2010 and make it the best celebration ever!

Can we get real and improve the Lion's Gate crossing already?

That's right, me, Mr. Sustainability, is sick of being stuck in traffic crossing the Lion's Gate bridge and is advocating more roads. It really makes no sense right now. The direction that has two lanes open to them is always fine, only a minor slowdown at most. But the other direction, particularly heading south during afternoon rush hour is a nightmare. It's not unusual to creep slowly along for 30 minutes or more, spewing emissions all the while.

Here's the way I look at it, and it seems obvious that something should be done. From West Vancouver to Georgia at Denman takes about 5 minutes when everything is flowing. I find it hard to believe that 5 minutes of driving creates more emissions than 30 minutes of idling...even 20 minutes. So why hasn't the government done anything here? What's frustrating is that when you look at how everything flows, one more lane would have solved the problem - that's all!

Normally I'm against widening and adding roads - study after study shows that when road capacity is increased, the amount of traffic eventually increases MORE than the capacity that was added. In the end the situation is worse than it was. The situation here is very different. West Vancouver is not about to stop growing and any environmentalist that thinks that limiting the amount of traffic will slow that growth is mistaken. The city is too beautiful and too well-off. And really, there is no alternative to driving for anyone that has a schedule to keep. Buses just won't work. Besides which, as I said, this is a major highway to the north. We can't keep looking at this as a local commuter issue alone. This is Highway 99 - the primary link between the airport and the sea-to-sky corridor and one of only 2 crossings to the north shore. The sea-to-sky corridor is growing rapidly and will continue to do so - the population is expected to nearly double in the next 25 years. Much of the corridor is closer to Vancouver than outlying cities like Langley and Abbotsford (and I'd argue is much more beautiful), making it very attractive.

So enough going on about the why...what about the how? There's no doubt that we'll keep the existing and beautiful Lion's Gate bridge. Adding a single lane to the bridge (which I'm certain would solve the problem) is an unlikely option and building a new single lane crossing makes no sense, so those ideas I'm throwing away. Here are my suggestions:

• Build a new 3-lane bridge adjacent the existing. Two lanes for traffic and one dedicated to transit, possibly for Sky Train, and include wide bicycle lanes. The existing bridge would also become 2 regular lanes plus a transit lane and maintain the existing pedestrian walkways. A big challenge here would be the design of the new bridge - it has to take into account the existing bridge so they look great together.
• Tunnel it. There are countless options here, but one I like would be to build a 4-lane underground tunnel from Georgia/Denman right up to Highway 1, avoiding the jog through West Van. The existing bridge would be for transit, bikes and pedestrians only. This would remove a ton of traffic from Stanley Park.

Any combination or variation on the above could work, and in all cases should coincide with a significant improvement in transit through the sea-to-sky corridor. There is a rail line there, let's use it - much like the West Coast Express, give people a viable option and they'll use it. The right rail system would do that here as well and would be huge for tourists as well, particularly if they could go from YVR to Whistler direct by train.

Colin Szasz

PS - I also agree that the Port Mann bridge needs to be expanded (have you ever tried to drive westbound across it any time during the day?) But, 10 lanes and over $3 billion? I think that's far more than is needed and really will just cause the traffic to get worse in the long run. Those against it because they think that means Vancouver's streets will also get that much busier need to relax - the streets in this city are already at capacity at rush hour, so how can it get any worse? :)

Electricity - fuel of the future

I've been thinking a lot lately about the development of the fuels that we will use in the future. Oil and gas are on their way out, if for no other reason than the fact that we are no longer finding more new sources of fuel than we are using. We have passed so-called "peak oil". There are really two "future fuels" being developed: electricity and hydrogen. I have no doubt that electricity is going to win hands-down.

Think about it this way: the process to get hydrogen to our cars and homes is basically the same as that of oil because the main source of pure hydrogen is natural gas. Yes, there are other ways, but there doesn't seem to be any significant development on that front. So, like oil, the product is extracted, refined, transported, and stored - well to tank. Hydrogen can't be stored easily - it has to be kept under high pressure in a special tank. All-in-all, a very energy intensive process. Hydrogen can also be produced using electricity, but isn't that just adding an unnecessary step? Also, there is no distribution network in place for hydrogen - a huge amount of investment would be required just to make it possible for people to fuel their cars with it.

Electricity makes so much more sense, mainly because the long process from "well to tank" is almost eliminated. We already have an electrical grid delivering electricity where we need it, all we need to do is plug in. Our electrical grid is overdue for expansion and improvement, so this should help spur that investment - but it can be also produced locally, eliminating transmission over the electrical grid. You could charge your car from solar panels on your roof and never pay fuel costs again. It can be generated in numerous ways, many of which are zero-emission - solar, wind, hydro, etc. Battery and charging technology is advancing in leaps and bounds so any concerns about range of cars are virtually a non-issue. There are now systems in testing that can fully charge a car battery in about 10 minutes! That's really no longer than it takes to fill your tank with gas. These charging stations aren't everywhere yet, but they are much easier to roll out than volatile hydrogen storage tanks. And the car can still be charged in a plain old household receptacle if need be - it just takes longer.

So basically, here's why my next car will be electric:

• The delivery system is already in place - you can plug in everywhere!
• Improvements in battery technology are quickly extending the range of electric cars.
• Charging technology enables complete recharges in the same amount of time as it takes to fill a gas tank.
• I could generate the power myself and never pay a fuel bill again.

In closing, I heard an incredible statistic yesterday - the energy from the sun that hits the earth each day is greater than the total amount of energy we have used since the beginning of mankind. Amazing, huh?

PS: 2009.04.13: A great article on why Hydrogen just doesn't make sense as a power source.
http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/Bossel_E13.pdf