https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro , https://www.sydneymetro.info/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InYZw4mIWGA
https://www.sydneymetro.info/citysouthwest/project-overview
| Train length |
|
|---|---|
| Headway | 4 minutes (peak) 5-7 minutes (intra-peak) 10 minutes (off-peak) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro#Operations
"The Metro North West Line currently operates with 6-car trains running on 4-minute headways. After the addition of the Stage 2 extension to Bankstown, the stations’ platforms will be configured to allow for future use of 8-car trains and the signalling system designed to allow for 2-minute headways, both of which are planned to be introduced once increased patronage demands it. Eight-car trains have a design capacity of 1,539 customers and increasing the running frequency to ultimately 30 trains per hour (2-minute headway) would provide a maximum capacity of 46,170 passengers per hour per direction." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro#Capacity
Unlike backward Greater Vancouver, Sydney makes it easier to have longer trains to better handle future capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro_Metropolis_Stock
Fortunately, Sydney builds to NSW standards, not the backwater standards of backwards BC.
The Greater Toronto Area has been the only place in Canada where some Australian size residential towers have been permitted. So far, Montreal & Vancouver won't allow any residential towers to even reach 65 stories.
If Montreal were to ever allow something like a La_Defense, Parramatta or a Canary_Wharf on the London_Docklands, then some Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto size towers would potentially be allowed.
Extremely restrictive Vancouver can't stop Burnaby, Coquitlam & especially Surrey from eventually having some Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto size towers.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/3200-east-broadway-vancouver-rupert-station-mst-aquilini Since these buildings would be within the small city linmits of Vancover, they won't be allowed to be on the scale of what Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto permit.
No residential or office tower within the city limits of little Vancouver is allowed to be as tall as the Telus_Sky tower at 222.3 m (729 ft) in Calgary and Seattle's Rainier_Square_Tower at 850-foot (260 m).
The Living_Shangri-La tower, at 200.86 metres (659 ft) and the Paradox_Hotel_Vancouver at 188-metre (617 ft) are the tallest within Vancouver.
Unfortunatly, Montreal can't quite be included into the category with, Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne-Toronto (BSMT). That's because their tallest buildings still have to be shorter that what Paris & Melbourne allow. However, the Greater Montreal transportation infrastructure is at a level of what you would expect for a big city to have. Fortunately, Québec has never been thwarted by anything like a BC Mind Virus (BCMV).
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane%2C+Sydney%2C+Melbourne+and+Toronto
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=GTA
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane+Airport+Railway+Line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney#Urban_structure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quay_Quarter_Tower
https://www.arup.com/projects/quay-quarter-tower
https://www.bvn.com.au/project/quay-quarter
https://www.buildaustralia.com.au/projects/keys-handed-over-for-new-quay-quarter-tower-in-sydney/
https://www.multiplex.global/ca/projects/quay-quarter-tower/
https://www.bvn.com.au/article/qqt-its-a-wrap
https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/quay-quarter-tower/17753
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sydney#Tallest_buildings
The Sydney+Harbour+Bridge (SHB) is a nice wide structurer with high traffic volume, but there are some safety issues.
All & all, the SHB is a much larger & better structure than the very narrow, dangerous & inept Pattullo+Bridge in BC.
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Sydney+Harbour+Bridge
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quay_Quarter_Tower
https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=290
https://www.quayquartersydney.com.au/quay-quarter-tower
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/australia-quay-quarter-tower-skyscraper/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMP_Building,_Sydney
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/senakw-squamish-first-nation-vancouver-towers-construction-july-2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Vancouver
The tallest buildings in this Vancouver development should have been taller than the tallest building in NW, Burnaby, Coquitlam or Surrey.
https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/pier-west-1/30319
178 m / 584 ft https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/complex/3304
Senakw should have had at least 2 or 3 towers much taller than the Living_Shangri-La, the tallest in Vancouver at 200m. Something like the Crown_Sydney scale, is banned in Vancouver, but it's no problem for big thinking cities like Sydney & SF.
| Tip | 271.3 metres (890 ft) |
|---|---|
| Observatory | 250 metres (820 feet) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Sydney#Approval
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Vancouver#Tallest_proposed_and_under_construction Most of BC is a backwater wildernes that is unapealling for people, but great for wildlife & vegetation.
The plan was to continually thwart Vancouver, Victoria & Kelowna for as long as possible. That in turn slows down the few key areas of urban grown in BC. NSW & California, just never had the same, KEEP THEM OUT MENTALITY. Thus, they were able to think & properly plan for growth. There seems to be an unwritten rule, that as long as Vancouver can do things which are impressive to Kelowna-Victoria-Prince+George-and-Kamloops, that's good enough.
Sydney, NSW & SF, California just were never under the extreme restrictions that Vancouver has. Plus, Syd & SF haven't been under a multigenerational agenda to keep holding those scenic cities back.
Sydney and SF aren't afraid to build taller next to a bridge, like Vancouver is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sydney#Tallest_buildings_(150m+)
"The taller tower, One Rincon Hill South Tower, was completed in 2008 and stands 60 stories and 641 feet (195 m) tall.[A][B] The shorter tower, marketed as Tower Two at One Rincon Hill, was completed in 2014 and reaches a height of 541 feet (165 m) with 50 stories." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Rincon_Hill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Francisco#Tallest_buildings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_central_business_district#Transport This is what you are able to do when you aren't bound by the limiting mentality & backward agenda that Vancouver has. For some reason, Vancouver hasn't been able to get established big cities to emulate its congestive & inept planning standards. That's because most major cities want to plan & implement good transportation infrastructure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Public_transportation
Fortunately, Sydney & SF never wanted to take the backwards Vancouver approach to things.
Canada is far off from even containing 1% of the world's human population & BC has yet to have the population of 1 Switzerland. Proper infrastructure planning like in Japan & S. Korea, the UK, CH & Germany, has already been able to accommodate many more people. However, most of the world is non-white & some parts of Canada still want to hold onto the old White British Colonial mentality for as long as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpEoJia-4ns Fortunately, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth don't have similar restrictions as Sydney. However, NSW still has less imposed restrictions and impediments as backwater BC.
Backwards+Vancouver B$ logic should never make it to Sydney, or any other properly functioning city. Fortunately overall, NSW never was overtaken by anything like the BC Mind Virus (BCMV). Otherwise, Sydney would also have narrow bridges, short trains and mostly short buildings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Martin_Place Over 60 levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia_Tower Not even 40 levels.
Vancouver still won't allow any office tower to have 40 floors, let alone 50 or 60.
_V2.jpg)
SF is just as scenic as Sydney. They allow taller buildings, longer trains and wider bridges than backwater Vancouver. Unfortunatly, backwards Vancouver keeps going in the opposite direction, despite more people wanting to move to SW BC.
The longstanding argument is that since Vancouver is in a scenic setting, every excuse should be used to scale back or water down the urban prescience.
.jpg)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/False_Creek%2C_Vancouver_%282025%29.jpg
Fortunately, this watered down approach hasn't made it to Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, SF, LA and Seattle. Thus, all of them are able to have taller buildings, longer trains and wider bridges. The Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV) or the Backwards Vancouver Mentality (BVM) is an intertwined horrible concept.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Vancouver_Skyline_and_Mountains.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_San_Antonio 10,064 ft (3,068 m)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lions_(peaks)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Mountain_(North_Shore_Mountains)
Fortunately, Sydney_Ferries never took the backwards Vancouver approach to things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Ferries#Network
https://transportnsw.info/routes/ferry
https://transportnsw.info/sydney-ferries-network-map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_Quay_ferry_wharf
https://www.sydney.com/articles/best-ferry-trips-in-sydney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_Quay_ferry_wharf#Transport_links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_Quay#Transport
NSW is about as far away as you can get from the backwater BC mentality.
The proposed 27-storey hotel tower at the edge of Stanley Park is drawing pushback from West End residents over its scale https://vancouversun.com/news/proposed-west-end-tower-that-aims-to-fill-vancouvers-hotel-shortage Parking lots and almost delapadeted buildings should be selected first. This building still seems to be in reasonable shape.
https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/vancouver-needs-10k-more-hotel-rooms-says-report-10508458
https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-major-hotel-policy-overhaul-room-shortage
Lots of people in some parts of the West_End end are still accustomed to stumpy buildings, despite the very high land costs.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Vancouver-stanley-park.jpg/960px-Vancouver-stanley-park.jpg Many other cities aren't afraid to build tall close to the water or parks.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Vancouver_west_end.jpg/960px-Vancouver_west_end.jpg People shouldn't be displace just becaus of a new development. An agreement should be reached so that they can still remain in the new structure. However, it's the height issue that usually keeps popping up. A lot of people that still remember Vancouver as a provincial backwater of a city want it to remain that way for as long as possible.
https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/2030-2038-barclay-st , https://stop2030barclay.ca
https://henriquezpartners.com/projects/2030-barclay The height proposal is at lest a dozen floors too short, it should be about 20 stories taller.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2030-barclay-street-vancouver-stanley-park-hotel-tower
https://storeys.com/marcon-barclay-street-vancouver-hotel The issue here is that a lot of people don't want a stump replaced with an atempt of a taller building. The people that live there should have the option to live in the new building. If the city and the developer could reach an agreement to allow the current residents to move into the lower floors of the tower. Then remain there at a reasonable rental rate for as long as they want. Then eventually after all the former residents have moved on or passed on, the lower floors could be repurposed into hotel rooms. If a developer in such a situation could agree to that, then the city should allow them to build 15-20 floors higher than 27 stories.
That gets back to the height restriction issue in Vancouver. Other cities have allowed tall buildings right up to the edge of a park. It seems that no one from Vancouver was able to ever stop Sydney. Rather, the Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV) never made it there to thwart big, bustling Sydney.
.jpg/960px-Global_Citizen_Festival_Central_Park_New_York_City_from_NYonAir_(15351915006).jpg)
Fortunately, Sydney, Melbourne, SF and Toronto were never under anything like a Vancouverization agenda. Somehow that backwards mentality was never adopted in most real cities.
https://bcbusiness.ca/industries/real-estate/land-values-how-the-hotel-shortage-in-vancouver-is-coinciding-with-a-boom-in-tourism The BC Mind Virus is so firmly entrenched that its still very difficult to properly upgrade things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUuy94brhLI Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, GC City & Perth, are all allowed to have taller buildings than little stumpy provincial Vancouver, Canada.
How Sydney´s Skyline Will Change by 2030 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzz6aXvTZko Unfortunatly, the AI voice nation wasn't set to an Australian standard.
So far, Vancouver hasn't had the same scale of urban development that's common in several other cities. The buildings, roads, trains & bridges are half the size of many of the big cities.
Vancouver#Incorporation 1886
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/320-granville-bosa-faria-flooding-dispute
It's a nice looking building, but once again, it's only a half-size figurine, or a stump.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bosa-waterfront-centre-320-granville-street-vancouver-office-tower
Unlike scenic Auckland, NZ & especially Sydney, Australia or SF, California, Vancouver continues to cut off the top 15-30 floors of any office tower development.
https://bosadevelopment.com/project/320-granville , https://320granville.com/
https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/320-Granville-St-Vancouver-BC/27653032/
https://storeys.com/vancouver-bosa-waterfront-office-complete/
Even no residential tower within little Vancouver has been allowed to be as high as the tallest condo tower in Seattle, Calgary, Edmonton & Toronto. Especially, Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane.
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne-Toronto-SF
Auckland, NZ, along with Perth, WA and Seattle, WA have no problems with taller buildings and wider bridges than what Vancouver allows. Established cities like London & Paris, NYC & Chicago, big L.A. and even smaller Singapore, all seem to plan, spend & build more infrastructure than backwards Vancouver does.
Cities like Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne-SF-Boston-and-Toronto are all on a much larger scale, simply because they don't have anything like the overlapping restrictions that backwards Vancouver & BC has imposed for itself.
https://x.com/CityHallWchVAN/status/1517347123225718785?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Escreen-name%3Acityhallwchvan%7Ctwcon%5Es1 What seems big in little Vancouver is small or just average in many other cities.
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne-Toronto
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane+Airport+Railway+Line
The BC part of Canada has been engrossed by a backwater and backward mentality since its inception.
Victoria,_British_Columbia is still a sleepy backwater, while Melbourne is a mighty city in Victoria_(state), Australia. Sidney,_British_Columbia is another classic BC backwater, while Sydney is the mighty capital of NSW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_central_business_district
Due to an extremely slow growth mandate & agenda, Greater_Victoria is a far cry from reaching the scale of Sydney and Montreal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Montreal
Victoria and SW BC are the mildest parts of Canada during the horrible winter. It just so happens that a series of various overlapping restrictions were imposed so as to hold back the scale & progress of backwater BC. Most of BC remains as a wilderness, but it's been very difficult to establish a half-dozen major cities in BC.
While Montreal is big by small Vancouver's standards, Montreal is small when compared to the scale of Melbourne. Despite bing in Canada, Toronto was gradually allowed to become a proper big city. Toronto has some taller buildings than Sydney, NSW, but no 100 story towers like Melbourn & Chicago have. However, Toronto was eventually allowed to have its own 100+ story building.
Why "Nobody" Lives In The VAST MAJORITY Of British Columbia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdeZV_caT78
.jpg)
_deck_of_the_south_east_pylon_of_the_Sydney_Harbour_Bridge.jpg)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/hullo-ferries-vancouver-nanaimo-high-speed-ferry-service-statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Ferries NSW can do so much, because it was never under anything like the Vancouver restrictions & the backward BC mentality in general.
https://transportnsw.info/travel-info/ways-to-get-around/ferry#/
https://www.myfastferry.com.au/destinations/circular-quay/
https://www.sydney.com/articles/best-ferry-trips-in-sydney
https://www.transdev.com.au/solutions/sydney-ferries/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Ferries#Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferries_of_San_Francisco_Bay How can the SF+Bay+Area do so much? That's because it never had anything like the backward BC mentality to thwart it.
https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Ferries_on_the_Bay
https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/
http://calurbanist.com/san-francisco-bay-ferries/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferries_of_San_Francisco_Bay#Current_ferry_routes
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
