Burnaby 2050 sets the city’s long game

 https://www.straight.com/burnaby/burnaby-2050-sets-citys-long-game 

While Burnaby is smaller in area and population compared to Vancouver, its a lot bigger than tiny NW.

https://www.straight.com/burnaby/how-burnaby-approached-public-engagement-in-creating-its-latest-plan 

Unlike Vancouver, Burnaby can build taller than Vancouver, because it isn't bound by Vancouver's imposed height restrictions.

https://www.straight.com/burnaby/what-burnaby-builds-next-depends-on-urban-design-getting-it-right 

Unlike Vancouver, Burnaby has more than just a few kilometers of freeway going through it. The highway right of way was acquired when Burnaby was still mostly undeveloped. That's the same case for Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Langley & Abbotsford. 

https://www.straight.com/burnaby/in-defense-of-burnaby-middle-child-of-metro-vancouver 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Highway_1#Lower_Mainland_section There should eventually be an elevated, high-capacity interregional commuter train along BC_Highway_1. However, BC takes a very slow approach towards dealing with congestion and mobility.

Yaletown–Roundhouse station's fare gate capacity increased by 66%

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-yaletown-roundhouse-station-additional-fare-gates-completed 

The Canada line is such a watered down version of what should have been a proper big city airport and ferry rapid transit link. Just because this infrastructure project had to be scaled down during its first phase, the stations still could have been designed to eventually accommodate 5-6 car trains. Unfortunately, the stations were only designed to accommodate a 2.5 car train. While this perfectly fits in with the inept urban transportation mentality and especially fits in with the BC congestive transportation agenda, this is another sad result. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-yaletown-roundhouse-station-fare-gate-expansion

Despite being downtown with several condominiums around, the Yaletown-Roundhouse_station is too small for an inner-city station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaletown-Roundhouse_station#Station_information 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Yaletown_Roundhouse_Stn.jpg/1280px-Yaletown_Roundhouse_Stn.jpg 

There is barely enough level clarence beyond the short platform for another car. To remedy this inadequate situation, this line needs to have three full-size cars, not just some eventual 2.5 car joke of a train. 

https://www.eke-electronics.com/automatic-selective-door-operation-asdo 

Then eventually, once people got used to a 3 car train, an extra car could be added at each end, resulting in a 5 car train. Its a workaround that can eventually enable the 3rd line or the C Line to run 3-5 cars trains to meet demand. 

Then the Exp. Line and Mil. Line, or what could become A & B lines with standard 5 car trains. However, during the busy times, a 7 car train could be possible with selective-door-operation technology. 

It would have been better to have just built all of the Skytrain stations long enough for 5 car trains in the first place, with enough level track clearance for 10 car trains eventually.

Vancouver 450 ft and Fahrenheit 451

Was a 450 foot height restriction just a chance, or was it intentionally made to be very close to 451 Fahrenheit? Honolulu is still stuck around that maximum, while San Diego is at 500 feet.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 (1953) By the 1950s, so many things were already banned, watered down or scaled back in provincial Vancouver. Generations later, there was the No Fun Vancouver mind virus that further tried to cancel out things in such a small city with so much red tape and other ridiculous obstacles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(1966_film) By the mid and late1960s, the city made sure that its first office tower to have more than 29 floors wouldn't be until the 1970s. Its highly doubtful that Vancouver will have an office tower over 40 stories by 2030. However, Burnaby and Surrey could, because they aren't under the extreme restrictions of Vancouver. 

It wasn't until 1973 when Vancouver allowed its first building to be taller than the Los_Angeles_City_Hall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_City_Hall 

The Scotia_Tower (stump) is a good reference point to visualize the small scale of backwater Vancouver, as its about the same height as the Los_Angeles_City_Hall at 453'. 

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/scotia-tower/4396 453'

https://skyscraperpage.com/b65/vancouver/the-scotia-tower 452'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(2018_film) By 2018 it was quite apparent that Vancouver was in the process of allowing for more buildings over 450 feet. However, nothing has been permitted to reach 700 feet, so far. A tower over 1000 feet would help to water down its provincial mindset. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Vancouver_panorama_%2849988799796%29_%28cropped%29.jpg/3840px-Vancouver_panorama_%2849988799796%29_%28cropped%29.jpg

SF, Sydney & Auckland are just as scenic as Vancouver & warmer throughout the year. They all have taller building than what Vancouver currently permits. Seattle is just as scenic as Vancouver, but its allowed to function like a proper big city, because it doesn't have the imposed restrictions like Vancouver has. While its cold, damp & depressing like Vancouver during the fall & winter, Seattle usually gets noticeably hotter summers than Vancouver, BC. The tallest building in Seattle is the 76 story B of A office tower. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/LA_Skyline_Mountains2.jpg/1280px-LA_Skyline_Mountains2.jpg While the L.A. City Hall looks like a stump there, in Vancouver it would still be one of the prominent buildings.

Everything is so small or scaled back in Vancouver. Even the Greater Vancouver mountains aren't allowed to be as tall as the ones in L.A. While the San_Francisco_Bay & Port_Phillip Bay by Melbourne are big next to their cities, English_Bay in_Vancouver is so much smaller. Its even smaller than Elliott_Bay by Seattle. 

Vancouver really needs to have bus and HOV bridges built next to its mostly narrow & congested bridges. Only a 5 car Skytrain is the max on the first 2 lines and ultimately, just a 2.5 car joke of a train on the YVR-Canada Line. 

Selective+Door+Operation can allow a short train to have an extra car at each end, despite a shorter platform. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Vancouver_sunset_%28J%29.jpg/3840px-Vancouver_sunset_%28J%29.jpg 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg/3840px-Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg

Australia like the USA, has some big & tall cities on the Pacific Rim. However, Vancouver symbolically kept watering down its size, because that's how you demonstrate a reluctance towards proper urban planning & growth. 

Oddly enough, the small scale Vancouver mentality & agenda wasn't adopted by most cities around the world. Officially, there is no Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV), but somehow it keeps manifesting, just like the BCMV. 

Despite its size, Canada has less than 1% of the worlds population.

Golf courses and LARGE AI data server facilities

 https://www.reddit.com/r/nanaimo/comments/1t6spq5/about_that/ 

While the BC part of Canada is notoriously heavy on various restrictions and especially reducing the scale of things, golf courses and AI server farms might be in a special category. As land in urban areas continue to rise, several urban golf courses could be repurposed for housing or parks. Thus, golf courses might be better suited to be farther away from urban areas.

An AI_data_center can be problematic if its too close to an urban area. However, if its even out in the wilderness, an AI_data_center can cause environmental damage and other problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_data_center#Environmental_footprint 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_AI_data_centers 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_data_center#AI_data_centers_in_space

The urban trifecta of backwards Vancouver

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trifecta 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifecta#History 

Ideally, for some small thinking cities, the plan is to symbolically have mostly short buildings and short trains and mostly narrow bridges.

That seems to have been the goal of Vancouver over the past several decades. In contrast, Brisbane after its Expo 88, was able to really go into big city planning mode, because it doesn't have anything like the excessive Vancouver restrictions holding it back. 

1 The+Typical+Vancouver+Size+Stump+Building No office tower has been permitted to have a 40th floor. https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=The+Stumpy+Post+building+in+Vancouver Never-mind 40 or 50 stories, it wasn't even allowed to have 25 floors.

2 YVR-Canada+Line A 2 car joke of a train. 

3 Lions+Gate+Bridge A 3 lane joke of a bridge.  

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=backwards+Vancouver

Urban Tech Links:

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Urban+Tech+Links 

They are counterparts.

https://jf-databits.blogspot.com/search?q=Urban+Tech+Data ::

Old Pattullo Bridge and its Still Narrow Replacement

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_mNfn4zjcI 

Even in the 1930s there should have been some type of a big city vision, but with NW being so small and Surrey being so out of the way, this part of BC was on the urban periphery. Apparently, there was no concept of an emergency lane on the Pattullo Bridge. Still, in addition to the 2 narrow lanes each way, there should have been 2 lane for horses and wagons. Then, by the 1950s the PB could have had 3 wide lanes each way, pulse a strong traffic divider. Instead, the narrow PB was stuck with only two lanes each way, no safety divider and only 1 narrow sidewalk.

For most of its history, NW just saw it self as a provincial backwater. The lack of a big city vision in the early 1900s meant that it never bothered to absorb what would become the Tri-Cities. For most of its history, Surrey never considered that it could eventually become the largest city in BC. Of course now that has changed.

Despite being so small, NW has become a Metro Vancouver regional transit hub, because of the New_Westminster_station. 

Scott_Road_station is a transit hub for the South_Westminster area.

Surrey and NW really should have had a proper big city size bridge.

This is how the new road configuration could have gone for what should have been a 10 lane bridge, not another 4 lane BC joke. Even if it can eventually have 6 lanes, there is no provision for a lower deck for trains and busses.

This shows how existing key roads could have linked into a 10 lane bridge, all without having to widen the surrounding roads. Thus, no need for any major land expropriation.

2 lanes from Royal Avenue onto the new bridge and 2 lanes from the bridge onto Royal Avenue in New+Westminster.   

One lane onto and one lane off linking the bridge to the South_Fraser_Perimeter_Road in Surrey.

2 lanes onto McBride boulevard and 2 lanes onto the bridge from McBride in New+Westminster.  

From Columbia_Street_in New_Westminster, 1 lane onto the bridge, as well as 1 lane off the bridge. 

2 lanes from King_George_Boulevard onto the new bridge and 2 lanes from the bridge onto KGB in Surrey. 

2 lanes from Scott Road onto the new bridge and 2 lanes from the bridge onto Scott_Rd in Surrey.  

Things weren't properly explained to the public as to how important a wide big city bridge could have been possible and without having to widen the roads connecting to it.

Unfortunately, all of this is being funneled into just 2 lanes each way. Its as if someone symbolically wanted the new bridge to open without any bus and HOV lanes. That's how BC bottleneck and chokepoint planning works. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Vancouver_Regional_District  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Valley

Some day, the BC Lower_Mainland should be planned and developed to function more like a proper big urban area. 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Pattullo+Bridge+replacement

Value for Money – Vancouver-Style

 https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026/04/09/ucs-93-value-for-money-vancouver-style/ 

This Vancouver ME$$ is the result of generations of inept urban planning.

40 years after Expo 86

 https://bcanuntoldhistory.knowledge.ca/1980/expo-86 

Unlike Brisbane, Vancouver doubled down on its various restrictions. Ideally, any tall building in Vancouver had to be shorter than what Brisbane allows. The bridges kepet narrow and unduplicated than what Brisbane allows. The trains are to be shorter than what Brisbane and most cities allow. 

It was almost as if since Vancouver couldn't build a wall around the city to keep people out, a strong level of symbolism was imposed instead. This urban symbolism was all about keeping things small & backwards whenever possible.

Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey have all started the process to allow for taller buildings than what Vancouver permits. That's because they are bound by the same restrictions that Vancouver imposes.

RAPID Regional Transit in the Sea to Sky: Connecting Vancouver to Squamish, Whistler, and Pemberton

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE_W5Vj6OeQ With Greater Vancouver having so many narrow bridges, there must be a regional network of bus and bike bridges, otherwise it all just remains a sad joke.

How bike lanes has affected Vancouver's urban infrastructure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkifuIjq9I Many cities don't have to remove traffic lanes, because they build proper bike bridges. 

Bike Lanes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oez4TTpIQWg With Vancouver being so obsessed with removing lanes from bridges, it becomes much more difficult to have bus lanes on the narrow bridges. 

A bike bridge should be built next to the Burrard, Granville and Cambie bridges. Then there would be enough room for each of them to accommodate 2 bus lanes. Things are so mixed up in backwards Vancouver.

YVR-Canada Line and REM Train

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1ouk0VifwM&t=42s Even if the YVR-Canada Line had to initially be built as a symbolically small city train, urban transportation infrastructure can be designed in ways that can double or even triple capacity to meet future demand. Unfortunately, its very difficult to build anything in BC with significant future capacity in mind.

Ultimately, the YVR-Canada Line should have had level station clearances to eventually be able to accommodate 10 car trains. Unfortunately, in typical backwards BC planning the stations weren't even designed with enough level clearance to accommodate 5 car trains. The joke that is the Canada Line only has a level station clearance of 50m to eventually accommodate just a 2.5 car train. 

Most other cities actually build long stations to accommodate long trains right in the first place. Or, at least allow for enough level clearance so that the stations can eventually be doubled or tripled in length. 

The YVR-Canada Line should have started with the Vancouver & Richmond segment, then the Vancouver and Horseshoe+Bay+ferry+terminal segment. Then finally, the YVR to Delta and the Tsawwassen+ferry+terminal. 

The SkyTrain Stations in Greater Vancouver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qg78Bmf1fk

Unfortunately, proper big city transportation planning is very difficult to achieve in backwards BC. So much is watered down in Vancouver.

Montreal’s Biggest REM Expansion Yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G1oeIAfxDU&t=106s 

The Montreal REM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9O6RzsXIqQ 

While the REM was designed to help the Metro, it should have the capability to be gradually expanded. Eventually, REM trains should be lengthened from 4 car trains to 6 and even 8 car trains. 

In contrast, every Skytrain line should have been designed with enough level future station clearance to eventually accommodate a train as long as a 152.5 (500 ft.) long Montreal Metro train. The first 2 Skytrain lines have 80m stations and the joke that is the Canada Line only has 50m stations. 

While the first 2 lines can accommodate 5 car trains, the C Line wasn't designed to accommodate 5 car trains. Just 2.5 car trains, someday. 

Despite there being such a symbolic push for Vancouver to keep having short trains, narrow bridges and stumpy buildings, things are gradually changing in backwards BC. The Vancouver or BC Mind Virus should have been challenged decades ago, but too many loud people wanted to perpetuate the, KEEP THINGS SMALL AND INDEQUATE agenda.

Given how most of the bridges in Greater Vancouver are so narrow, there isn't enough room for proper bus and HOV lanes, or even wide emergency lanes. One would think that at least the trains & stations would have been designed to eventually be doubled or tripled in length. But that would go against the mutigenerational congestive planning agenda. That's why there still is only a 3 lane LGB when there should have been at least a parallel bus, HOV and train tunnel. The Pattullo+Bridge replacement didn't open with 2 bus and 2 HOV lanes, not even wide shoulders or emergency lanes. NW really likes the congestive planning approach. Of course the new tunnel between Richmond and Delta won't have an additional provision for a train tube. This will also help to perpetuate the congestive transportation mandate. 

Fortunately, Selective_door_operation technology can eventually allow more sensible transportation planners to enable longer trains. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_door_operation#International_variations , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdH5d1ZthmM 

This means that a 5 car Skytrain (85m) could eventually become a 7 car train, despite the 80m stations. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)_rolling_stock#Alstom_Mark_V Thus, an 80m train can become a 117m train.

A two car and 2.5 car (50m) train on the multibillion dollar Canada Line is so absurd and inept! With some slight station modifications, there could be a potential to eventually accommodate three, 20m cars at such short platforms. Then, once 3 car trains could become possible, its just a matter of having an extra 20m car at both ends of each train. A 5 car train of 100m is so much better than a 50m joke of a train. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#Alstom_Mark_V_fleet 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain-Canada+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=REM

The Early Spring in Cold Canada

 https://weather.gc.ca/data/wxoimages/wocanmap0_e.jpg 

In late March, most of urban Canada is still freezing overnight.

https://weather.gc.ca/canada_e.html

The narrow Pattullo Bridge Replacement

https://www.pattullobridgereplacement.ca/construction/current-works Its a nice 4 lane bottleneck choakpoint. There should have been a provision for a lower deck for bus lanes, HOV lanes and LRT, but that would help to alleviate some transportation congestion.

It wasn't designed with that much future capacity in mind, just like the absurd Canada+Line. The SkyTrain-Canada+Line is still only running 2 car trains. The New stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge is only 2 lanes each way. This is congestive urban planning in BC at its best. Narrow bridges and short trains are some of the best ways to symbolically demonstrate a reluctance to accommodate future growth capacity. 

People aren't suppose to wonder where all the money went over the past several generations, because it seems that not enough funds have gone towards proper big city infrastructure.

 

Why the Widest Freeway on Earth still Made Traffic Worse in Houston

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMwKgT4ZUvQ It is utterly foolish to not have enough space for a commuter train to run above, or in the middle or underneath the widest highways. 

https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/houstons-15-year-growth-three-charts Simply building wide roads like in Houston, L.A. and Toronto is just as bad as having mostly narrow bridges in Greater Vancouver.  

Whether its 10 lanes or 20 lanes wide, there should always be 2 dedicated bus lanes and 2 HOV lanes. While the highway will get clogged up during the day, at least the buses and trains can still get through quickly. 

The Pattullo+Bridge+replacement is only 2 lanes each way with narrow shoulders. It should have opened with enough space for 2 bus lanes and 2 HOV lanes, but that would go against the congestive urban planning mentality of BC.

The Samuel-De+Champlain+Bridge in Montreal is just as good as similar wide highway and train bridges in Seattle+and+Perth. All were possible, simply because they aren't limited by anything like the Vancouver and BC Mind Virus.

The narrow-minded Vancouver and BC approach is to try to funnel everything into just 2 or 3 lanes each way. Then there just isn't enough space to have 2 bus lanes and 2 HOV lanes. Greater Vancouver has certainly gone in the extreme opposite direction of Houston, L.A. and Toronto...

A wide Greater Houston highway has lots of space, but without 2 bus lanes and 2 HOV lanes, everything gets plugged up. In contrast, Greater Vancouver has most of its bridges and highways so damn narrow, there isn't enough space to accomodate a proper express bus and HOV network. 

This deliberate backwards BC bottleneck-chokepoint planning approach is totally absurd. 

There is no commuter train tunnel near the Lions+Gate+Bridge or even for the Massey+Tunnel+replacement. Thus, they are the best examples of BC choke-point urban planning. Despite having twice the lanes as the inept 3 lane LGB, the newer Iron+Bridge never had any emergency lanes. A bus and HOV bridge was never built next to it. Plus, no commuter train bridge. It's another fine example of BC choke-point, bottleneck planning. 

A north and south Boundary+Road bridge system would provide direct access between the North+Shore, Richmond+and+Delta, but that's what a proper big city would do. Backwards BC has quite a problem with thinking and building big. The 2 car Canada+Line is another example. Don't build it to at least have a 5 car train, just design it to only have 2.5 car trains, someday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston#Transportation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_610_(Texas)#Lane_configurations There is a point when simply adding more lanes won't provide long-term improvement. However, when combined with dedicated bus and HOV lanes, other options become available. Especially, if there is rail rapid transit and commuter rail as well. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METRORail While not as extentise as DART_rail, it still works like a tram-train. 

Of course longer streetcars or tram-trains are still slow on the actual surface street segments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Melbourne#System_upgrades 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_streetcar_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muni_Metro SF

Major expansion of B.C. Highway 1 in Fraser Valley to begin soon

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-highway-1-fraser-valley-expansion Ideally, the section from Horseshoe Bay to Hope shouldn't be a hopeless joke. A main highway in an urban region of over 3 million people should have at least 3 general lanes each way. Plus, a rapid bus lane and a HOV lane each way, but that would be at least 5 lanes each way. 

https://transcanadahighway.com/british-columbia/bc-highway-itinerary-horseshoe-bay-to-hope When a highway is only 2-3 lanes each way, it's too damn narrow to accomodate 2 bus lanes and 2 HOV lanes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Highway_1#Lower_Mainland_section 

BC Hwy 1 - Trans-Canada Highway, Vancouver, BC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf9QTmnxkqw

Seattle, Calgary and Edmonton are all allowed to have residential floors higher above the street than what stumpy little Vancouver permits

 Seattle's Tallest Luxury Residential Tower: The Residences @ Rainier Square https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2DivRATcg 

2022 OCEA Award Winner - Rainier Square Redevelopment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HegSZiVNQx0 

New Rainier Square Tower becomes Seattle’s second tallest building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5yKXkCeAGg  

At 60-storeys, TELUS Sky is the leading example of a dynamic community of urban living and working. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qWRYwK8z_E

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sRpGYPQY3RY The 3rd tallest in Calgary  

Telus Sky top floors view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HirkgwyphUk

Delays out of North Shore continue after truck stalls for hour on Lions Gate Bridge

 https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/02/24/stall-on-lions-gate-bridge-causing-massive-delays-out-of-north-shore/ 

The LGB bottleneck is indicative of how some people don't want Vancouver to become a properly planned functioning big city.

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1mehud6/theres_a_single_car_stopped_in_the_only/

Unfortunatly, Vancouver still isn't allowed to function like a real proper big city. For several decades, so many key people, especially urban planners don't want to have a wider structural crossing to at least match what Prince George and Kamloops have. Or, to match what Kelowna has and especially don't want to have what Ft. McMurray has. 

Indeed, most proper major cities by now would have had a 6-8 lane tunnel right under the park and close to the LGB. Georgia Street is already 7 lanes wide in the first few bloks closest to the park, so the potential for a 7-8 lane tunnel should be possible.

An 8 lane tunnel would be best in that the 3 & 4 lane counterflow on Georgia could easily feed into an 8 lane tunnel. Then once in the tunnel there world be 3 standard lanes each way, plus a bus lane each way. 

A commuter train tunnel or an extension of the YVR-Canada Line should also run close to where the LGB is. Unfortunatly, some key people for several decades don't seem to want or understand the benefits of having a train connecting YVR with both of the regional bc-ferries terminals. That's because it could actually help to relieve transportation congestion. https://www.bcferries.com/current-conditions/TSA-SWB

It's always amazing to see what other cities around the world can do, simply because they aren't trapped within the backwards Vancouver mindset or don't have a backwater BC mentality to thwart them. 

https://www.th.gov.bc.ca/atis/lgcws/index.html 

This has to be one of the worlds best examples of bottleneck-chokepoint planning around. 

https://www.translink.ca/schedules-and-maps/skytrain A rail rapid transit connection to both ferry terminals and YVR would be a huge improvement, but it's still not likely in the foreseeable future.

Why Greater Toronto Has Several Skylines

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9WJa9Q8dA 

Of course many large urban areas around the world have more than 1 or 2 skylines or tower clusters. 

For the longest time, no building in Vancouver or BC, was allowed to be as tall as the 1930s CIBC tower, which is now a stump.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2017/05/toronto-lost-observation-deck-commerce-court-north/

https://www.torontojourney416.com/canadian-bank-of-commerce-building/ 

https://www.25king.ca/the-history 

It wasn't until the early 1970s when stumpy, Vancouver allowed a building to be taller than the L.A. City Hall, or the Smith Tower in Seattle. 

The 1930s CIBC tower, the L.A. City Hall and the Smith Tower, would still be prominent towers in Vancouver, but stumps in their own cities. 

Despite Vancouver being divided by an inlet and a river, the city wasn't able to build a huge wall along Boundary Road. Thus, the KEEP THEM OUT agenda was a little thwarted. The various White city councils tried to do the next best thing. That was to symbolically impose various restrictions as a reluctance to think, plan and build on a BIG city scale. The time especially from 1960 to 2000 had predominantly White City Hall and its councils continually impose several overlapping restrictions. 

Since Vancouver can't control immigration or the movements of non-white people, keeping things small and backwards, means that less people will move there than to Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. However, with a mild winter climate, more and more people want to move to backwards BC, especially small-minded Vancouver and provincial Victoria. 

In spite of immigration and Multiculturalism, Vancouver was to perpetually promote its small scale agenda. 

While the first Skytrain line can finally run 5 car trains, the stations weren't designed to become long enough to eventually accomodate 9 car trains like the big city Montreal Metro has. 

The 2nd and 3rd Skytrain lines are still only running 2 car joke trains. Running 8-10 car trains is what a proper big city would do, but not backwards Vancouver. 

Narrow bridges provides strong symbolism of the cities narrow-mindedness. When bridges are too narrow, its difficult to have a proper express or rapid bus system. The reluctance to build parallel bus and HOV bridges helps to maintain the congestive planning approach that is vancouver and the Greater Region. 

Vancouver's refusal to build parallel bike bridges has meant that 2 lanes were removed from the Burrard Bridge, 1 lane from the Cambie Bridge and 2 lanes from the Granville Bridge. 

Keeping buildings symbolically short when compared to what scenic Sydney, Auckland, SF and Seattle allow, also helps to maintain Vancouver's reluctance to enter the big and tall urban scale. In fact, the scenic setting that Vancouver is in has been used as the main excuse to continually scale the city down. Yet, several scenic cities around the world are either able to have wider bridges, wider roads, longer trains or taller buildings. 

The world is mostly composed of non-white people. Canada has less than 1% of the world's population and stubborn Vancouver symbolically remains as a small provincial backwater on the Pacific Rim. 

https://centralparktower.com.au Unlike Perth, Vancouver forbids 50 story office towers and Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne size residential towers. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108_St_Georges_Terrace In fact, no office building in Vancouver has been permitted to have a 40th floor. However, since Burnaby and Surrey aren't under the restrictive controls of Vancouver, they will eventually allow office towers over 40 stories. 

Despite Australia having less people than Canada, Perth is allowed to have taller buildings, wider bridges and longer trains than Vancouver. Taller buildings, wider bridges and longer trains are even less likely in Halifax than whats in Brisbane or Queensland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q1_(building) To see buildings on a similar scale of what Brisbane allows, one has to get to Greater Toronto. Brisbane is allowed to have some buildings that would even be impressive in Melbourne and Sydney. 

While Montreal is allowed to have taller buildings than Vancouver, Montreal isn't allowed to have Sydney size towers. Especially not on the scale of what Melbourne and Toronto permit. 

Inside Boston's $25 Billion Urban Transformation

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGqzokWYaTg

San Francisco is attempting one of the most ambitious urban recoveries in the United States

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6VU3h5j2z8 

SF