I too have been silenced by those who peddle fables about transit.
Banned from CKNW, Post Media, and most media outlets and now the Tyee, the reason is simple. I write about what the real experts say about our regional transit system and the decades of extremely bad transit planning.
Recently, Thales"s news release announcing the major re-signalling of the Expo and Millennium Light Metro Lines, gives some very interesting numbers. The following is from Thale's News Release.
"When the programme is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to accommodate 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line will be able to handle 7500 passengers per hour per direction, a 32% and 96% increase respectively."
Wait a minute, isn't the Millennium Line the Broadway subway and in North America are not subways only built on routes with traffic flows in excess of 15,000 passenger's per hour per direction?
Some further history reveals that Toronto's streetcars were offering capacities in excess of 12,000 pphpd on select routes?
Certainly goes against the gospel of TransLink and the CoV and the rest of the mainstream media.
Being threatened by Libel several times and documenting what I said was indeed true, TransLink and the rest of the SkyTrain lobby (which includes the cycle lobby) have worked hard to get me banned and in doing so, the Province, TransLink, the coV and the SkyTrain lobby are banning the truth.
Sadly, honesty and free thought are no longer welcome by the province, the CoV Metro Vancouver, and the mainstream media.
Brian, thank you for your service and every word you have written. It is a shame (and a sham, quite frankly) that these cowards are attempting to silence you. Best wishes for a successful outcome.
Very sorry indeed to read this Brian!! Your informed analysis based on your training and years of experience is sorely needed in Vancouver and beyond. Good luck with winning the complaint!
I appreciate all the articles that have been written by you. Hopefully you will be able to resume writing them in the future. It seems that those with deep pockets waste no time in shutting down opposing voices. It seems greed by a select few have usurped our democracy a long time ago. Unfortunately the average Canadian pays little attention to politics and consistently votes for politicians they know if anything about.
I have found your articles interesting and enlightening. If there are architects with other opinions, why don't they write rebuttals. I would be very interested to read why other professionals may disagree with you. Complaining to your professional body just seems childish.
This is very sad. I cannot understand what is happening in Vancouver.
Using a professional association to get back at a writer and semi-retired planner seems use of excessive force. Shameful in fact, but somehow normal in this environment.
While respecting the importance of professional ethics, this seems to be a clear case of someone taking your words/illustrations out of context. I wonder if the slowness of the Investigation is a reflection of the lack of substance to the complaint. Anyway, keep writing.
Others made comment which conveyed that they didn't understand that there are rules in play that Architects must follow, I intended only to give reference for people to find said.
Let me first say that I do not agree with lodging complaints against folks' employment due to political disagreements, which I feel this falls under.
That being said, I think you've pretty much invited this complaint.
AIBC's Code of Ethics states:
"Registrants must undertake work and documentation with due diligence and in accordance with any AIBC guidance developed to standardize professional documentation. "
I think it would be reasonable to consider the renders that you took co-responsibility for them in your post #49 as architectural work. The fact that you reference your credentials as an architect in that post reinforces that point. Similar considerations would apply to your other posts where they touch on the field of architecture.
So then the question becomes one of due diligence.
I have seen many posts (including from Architects such as Marianne Amodio) questioning whether your renderings and posts ignored issues like setbacks and FSR limits, resulting in false and misleading information being produced and published for public consumption. It is difficult to independently verify their accuracy without you providing dimensions, but if these concerns are well founded then I think it would be reasonable to say your work on the rendering lacked due diligence, and at the least you should have re-checked the renderings and issued a correction if they were not completely accurate.
Did your renderings reflect 20 storey buildings with a 6,000 sf floorplate on 20,000 sf lots (as your post #51 describes)?
I too have been silenced by those who peddle fables about transit.
Banned from CKNW, Post Media, and most media outlets and now the Tyee, the reason is simple. I write about what the real experts say about our regional transit system and the decades of extremely bad transit planning.
Recently, Thales"s news release announcing the major re-signalling of the Expo and Millennium Light Metro Lines, gives some very interesting numbers. The following is from Thale's News Release.
"When the programme is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to accommodate 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line will be able to handle 7500 passengers per hour per direction, a 32% and 96% increase respectively."
https://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/the-1-47-billion-solution/
Wait a minute, isn't the Millennium Line the Broadway subway and in North America are not subways only built on routes with traffic flows in excess of 15,000 passenger's per hour per direction?
Some further history reveals that Toronto's streetcars were offering capacities in excess of 12,000 pphpd on select routes?
Certainly goes against the gospel of TransLink and the CoV and the rest of the mainstream media.
Being threatened by Libel several times and documenting what I said was indeed true, TransLink and the rest of the SkyTrain lobby (which includes the cycle lobby) have worked hard to get me banned and in doing so, the Province, TransLink, the coV and the SkyTrain lobby are banning the truth.
Sadly, honesty and free thought are no longer welcome by the province, the CoV Metro Vancouver, and the mainstream media.
Brian, thank you for your service and every word you have written. It is a shame (and a sham, quite frankly) that these cowards are attempting to silence you. Best wishes for a successful outcome.
All your writings are very good. I wosh other professionals will start writing.
Very sorry indeed to read this Brian!! Your informed analysis based on your training and years of experience is sorely needed in Vancouver and beyond. Good luck with winning the complaint!
Brian,
I appreciate all the articles that have been written by you. Hopefully you will be able to resume writing them in the future. It seems that those with deep pockets waste no time in shutting down opposing voices. It seems greed by a select few have usurped our democracy a long time ago. Unfortunately the average Canadian pays little attention to politics and consistently votes for politicians they know if anything about.
I have found your articles interesting and enlightening. If there are architects with other opinions, why don't they write rebuttals. I would be very interested to read why other professionals may disagree with you. Complaining to your professional body just seems childish.
My God. What rubbish. So if an architect is involved (100% of projects) you can't critique the project??
Fight the good fight!
This is very sad. I cannot understand what is happening in Vancouver.
Using a professional association to get back at a writer and semi-retired planner seems use of excessive force. Shameful in fact, but somehow normal in this environment.
While respecting the importance of professional ethics, this seems to be a clear case of someone taking your words/illustrations out of context. I wonder if the slowness of the Investigation is a reflection of the lack of substance to the complaint. Anyway, keep writing.
This is a bloody SLAPP suit. I hope your professional organization recognizes this complaint for what it is. Good grief.
It seems to just be a way to stop your professional views being disseminated. Keep us up to date on this dreadful attempt to silence you.
https://aibc.ca/wp-content/uploads/files/2023/06/Schedule-A-Code-of-Ethics-and-Professional-Conduct.pdf "Registrants should avoid imprudent gossip or generalized comments about other Registrants, their work or reputation, or type of project. The proliferation of digital and social media
facilitates immediate and influential commentary. Registrants are reminded that the
convenience, reach, and power of such platforms must be balanced by the expectations set by
this and other relevant standards."
Others made comment which conveyed that they didn't understand that there are rules in play that Architects must follow, I intended only to give reference for people to find said.
Let me first say that I do not agree with lodging complaints against folks' employment due to political disagreements, which I feel this falls under.
That being said, I think you've pretty much invited this complaint.
AIBC's Code of Ethics states:
"Registrants must undertake work and documentation with due diligence and in accordance with any AIBC guidance developed to standardize professional documentation. "
I think it would be reasonable to consider the renders that you took co-responsibility for them in your post #49 as architectural work. The fact that you reference your credentials as an architect in that post reinforces that point. Similar considerations would apply to your other posts where they touch on the field of architecture.
So then the question becomes one of due diligence.
I have seen many posts (including from Architects such as Marianne Amodio) questioning whether your renderings and posts ignored issues like setbacks and FSR limits, resulting in false and misleading information being produced and published for public consumption. It is difficult to independently verify their accuracy without you providing dimensions, but if these concerns are well founded then I think it would be reasonable to say your work on the rendering lacked due diligence, and at the least you should have re-checked the renderings and issued a correction if they were not completely accurate.
Did your renderings reflect 20 storey buildings with a 6,000 sf floorplate on 20,000 sf lots (as your post #51 describes)?
I think you gentlemen should take your debate offline. It does not appear to relate to my original post. Thanks