Spencer: I think the buildings you’re referring to are outside the boundaries of Collingwood. But in any case, yes, there is no doubt that large buildings block views. It would be impossible for a city to grow without this sort of conflict. But to me, Collingwood looks to be a pretty good example of how it can done with a relatively high level of sensitivity.

But my major question is about this statement:

“Much of the success Collingwood can be attributed to Vancouver’s strong government planning culture. But back here in the U.S., the balance of power tends to be more weighted toward individual property rights.”

I assume you mean the rights of single-family property-owners. I think that the real problem is that so many people in Seattle (consider Knute Berger) really don’t want to live in a city.

I think this is pretty key here unfortunately, and not just cultural. The actual city government structure is much better set up to acquire land and mandate it’s use. With the False Creek area (and probably this one as well) the government was actually able to say exactly what part of land parcels developers where allowed to build and exactly how wide the buildings could be.

I do agree there is some cultural aspects to the difference as well. I would argue that some of the doom and gloom about the NEED for density puts a lot of power into the hands of developers. The city is too scared that developers will leave if they put any pressure on them and they feel, as all too many do, that any density is good. Therefore we get ugly, inefficient density that is built haphazard throughout the city with no coherence of TOD at all.

The other neat thing with TOD is that the Surrey Central Station condos are affordable to average people, but still right at a SkyTrain station and on a major bus loop.