I didn’t make it last night to the forum that West End Neighbours organized on Vancouver’s proposal to allow some taller new buildings on the downtown peninsula, an issue that council is going to vote on Jan. 20. However, others did. Here is one review, from architect and development consultant Michael Geller. I’d like to hear from others what their take on this was.
Well, since I promised I’d attend the ‘citizens forum’ if Brent Toderian attended, I did attend. Sadly, Brent was not afforded an opportunity to speak, but I heard on CBC that he might be organizing a briefing soon.
While I believe that Randy Helton and his colleagues are well intentioned, (they want to save the environment) I must say I found the presentations very naive and uninformed
(Mr. Helton expressed shock and dismay re: the Metro regional growth management study…why haven’t we heard about this, he asked…referencing some comments on the UDI website.. The fact is, this has been one of the most publicized consultative initiatives over the past few years, with literally hundreds, yes, hundreds of presentations and consultations….)
As for the analysis of building heights, views and capacity, what seemed like an ‘anti all high rise’ presentation by a landscape architect was simplistic, rambling, and terribly naive.
Jean Swanson’s tirade against any more condominiums in the DTES was misguided, and I won’t comment on Ned Jacob’s presentation other than to say after about two minutes, the organizers started manoevering to get him away from the mike.
All in all, a most disappointing effort. That being said, there is a need for more understanding and discussion on this most important topic.
And a response from Randy Helten, of West End Residents and CityHallWatch. It was CHW that organized the event — apologies from me for confusing the two.
Randy Helten here. (Mr. Geller, please note spelling.)
1. The “landscape architect” is Steve Bohus, with professional experience in view protection studies.
2. I think Mr. Geller left early, so may not know that Director of Planning Mr. Toderian declined to speak when offered the chance. It was his choice to decline, but he did announce an event to correct “misinformation.” We encourage all independent thinkers (including academics and professionals) to attend that meeting when it does come up, to participate actively, and to hold the Planning Department accountable for every word. Let us hear exactly what misinformation is out there, and have a chance to respond. He said it would be in Q&A format, but I hope that there will be opportunities for a fair discussio, so that this does not just become a controlled message to set the stage for the dominant group on Council to pass two policies. What gets presented there should be for the public record, as a part of an increase in scrutiny of the performance of the Planning Department. The Planning Department should not be able to simply cut discussions off after they make their point. Bottom line, everyone should watch to see if the event is held in good faith for the public benefit. Note that Mr. Toderian was not able to announce the date or venue of the event, so we all look forward to hearing more.
3. At issue in all policies being discussed is not the number of meetings or number of months elapsed, but the quality of the discussion. In all of these policies, I think the public should be asking for independent third-party expert reviews of Planning Department recommendations (and even presentations) to Council.
4. Submissions from speakers were limited to two minutes, so Ned Jacobs had two minutes.
5. The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy is something that many members of the public do not understand, regardless of whether there have been “hundreds, yes hundreds” of presentations. The fact is that the impacts of this legislation are poorly understood. And the focus of last night was the height review, not the RGS. Watch for more on the RGS, with a media briefing on Thursday night, 7 pm. The general public has not idea what our elected officials are about to decide on the citizens’ behalf at 9 am on Friday.
7. This meeting was set up as a community discussion with short notice and almost no resources. To classify it as a “disappointing effort” is unfair, unless someone else is ready to organize something better. The fact that this kind of discussion happened at all is thanks only to eleventh-hour action by citizens last month after the Views policy was released late on a Friday. Council deferred the decision on the views policy to January 20th. Great, but no other outreach or effort was made by the City to promote public dialogue on the topics, or even to provide more information.
8. The event was hosted by CityHallWatch.ca and completely run by volunteers. The host was made clear in all announcements and media releases, and in the opening statement. WEN was invited to have a banner on the wall, as the West End is affected by the Vancouver Views policy, despite what the Planning Department has told our elected officials.The main point of the meeting last night was to raise awareness and give the public a chance to learn and speak on the issues. We are dealing with an electoral organization at City Hall that has absolute power, with 8 of 11 votes. They know it and wield it strongly. They can do anything they want while in power. I think we showed that there are a lot more factors involved in the Vancouver Views and Heritage Area Height Review Policies before Council on Jan 20. Even just the issue of environmental impacts of tall buildings alone requires more discussion. The one minute in council on Jan 16 dedicated to this topic, in which the Planning Department satisfied Council that about 64 stories is the optimum height, was insufficient depth of analysis for a city that wants to be the Greenest City in the World by 2020. The Greenest City Action Team and other independent experts should be allowed to analysis this topic further. There are many studies on this topic. Council needs to show some more sophistication on the topic of environmental impacts of buildings. And that’s just one example.
Bottom line is that I don’t think any elected officials could in good conscience pass the two proposed policies on January 20. They don’t have enough information on all the issues raised. For such important policies, why the rush? Answer: There is no reason rush, if these decisions are to be made in the public interest. The Jan 20 meeting will be a test for Council.
Finally, are there things to be learned from last night? Probably. The intent was to raise awareness and encourage people to do their own thinking and research.
64 responses so far ↓
1 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“One of the objectives in Vancouver is to provide a variety of housing types – if we become completely anti-lower density, and replace every spec of space with a tower, what variety will there be in the future, and what will Vancouver look like in 75 years?”
You didn’t say ‘too many towers’, you said ‘replace every spec of space with a tower’.
Big difference. 🙂
2 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:53 pm
@boohoo – out with it – who are you?
3 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Does it matter Jo-Anne? I’m a concerned citizen, just like you.
I fail to see how that has anything to do with you arguing you didn’t say something you clearly said.
4 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm
@boohoo – I’ve explained both my comment and my thinking quite clearly.
5 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:11 pm
If ‘too many’ and ‘replace every spec’ is the same thing, then yes you did.
As an aside, I asked a planner at the first open house why the initial starting point was the corridor only and not based on nodes around the stations. He said ‘good question’ and mumbled off. It didn’t provide much confidence in the process…
6 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:17 pm
@boohoo – agreed – on both points.
7 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 13, 2011 at 4:07 pm
JJJ, I’m not sure if this planned mass migration of condo dwellers will be a good or bad thing either? But the point is, we all know what the outcome of 15000 condo dwellers will have on this low income community: Hard Gentrification and Displacement.
But social implications aside, I also think from heritage, cultural, and urban design considerations, it is a very slippery slope, and represents a major shift from the post-Project 200 by-laws that have mostly protected the area for 40 plus years, and made it one of the most interesting places in the city to live. It seems we are, again, in the process of erasing our own history.
And let’s face it, folks, the endless focus on “height” and “density” is a bloody joke no matter which neighbourhood these mass landings are taking place. It is a deliberately narrow, pig-headed focus that is only one small part of developing a sustainable, livable and viable neighbourhood. Furthermore, it has precious little research or precedent to back up the claims of “community amenity” development, “revitalization”, integrated infrastructure, and “footprint” or “CO2” reduction, etc.
On the other hand, there is plenty of research and best practices that underscore the need for integrated planning to ensure that all legs of the stool are in place. In this day and age, integrated planning should be a no-brainer, and not come AFTER the by-laws are already changed! What is the rush here?
If our planners and politicians wish to continue on with this old paradigm, ad hoc approach, substituting goals like “density” and “punctuation point” and “gateway” wank-jobs in place of “livable community” goals, then so be it. I guess developers will just have to live with the fact that neighbourhood groups will continue to organize and protest and fight for their neighbourhood livability, forcing costly delays, endless redesigns, and major political fallout. Sounds like a horribly uncertain environment to do business in, though.
8 Don Buchanan // Jan 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Hi all,
What has been missing from the discussion so far is the work the City did on financing growth. Here is the link to the documents, see the bottom of the page for the Financing Growth Review:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/financinggrowth/documents.htm
The important part for me is that the costs of growth appear to be underestimated and that existing Development Cost Charges don’t come near to paying for the costs of growth. The report estimates DCLs will pay for 26% of the cost of growth, with current levels of Capital Plan funding covering about 25% more. page 13
So for every new housing unit, the new Vancouver resident will pay for 26% of the extra services they use, and existing taxpayers will pay 25%, and the remaining piece will be covered by ever more crowded facilities.
Basically from what is on the website it appears that if Vancouver were to be built all over again, based on the revenues collected from new development and borrowing for capital expenses based on property taxes, we’d have the same city we have now population wise but with only half the services.
While the report is out of date it notes that at the time Vancouver had the lowest DCLs in the GVRD with Richmond, the Langleys, NV District, being twice the Vancouver rate and Surrey being four times our cost recovery.
9 Westender1 // Jan 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Good point Don Buchanan (#58)…with one clarification. For STIR development applications, the DCL’s are even lower than low – they are zero. Instead of paying 26% of the cost of growth, these projects pay 0%. Vancouver taxpayers are left to make up the missing revenue.
10 Claudia // Jan 13, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Re: Clarifying the Cambie Line Station vs entire Corridor planning issue (subject of posts #55 & #56). Please refer to the link below re: initial Council approval for a Marine Drive Station (only) Plan process, in June 2006.
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20060627/documents/rr1.pdf
Several things happened after this report was passed, which I believe may clarify how the planning process went from one station plan to an entire corridor plan (list not in chrono order):
a. Civic Strike – 3 months
b. Election of New Council
c. Retirement of Planning Dept Co-Directors & most of the Senior Planning Staff
d. New Planning Director & New Staff
By the time things resumed and new folk got up to speed, it was 2008 – two years behind schedule – and the Line was scheduled to open by late 2009. The pressure to get things going was enormous.
I would assume, but do not know as fact, that many (if not all) of the above factors contributed to the internal decision to shift the planning work from one station towards a Corridor approach.
11 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 14, 2011 at 8:45 am
The quality of the discussion here is proving the worth of the CHW effort. It is also proving that providing criticism (I prefer analysis) is not an easy thing to do well. Neither is writing urban design codes.
I’ve re-read the HAHR document ostensibly written by the “new staff” (Claudia 60), and the design guidelines where I recognize handwriting and drawing styles of the retired “Senior Planning Staff”(Claudia 60). To no one’s surprise, they are both old paradigm planning.
The key difference between the documents is that the former was not bold enough to impose 120 and 150 foot buildings on the very narrowly defined Vancouver historic area footprint, but the HAHR is ready to trash it.
Anyone who believes that four towers is the last act, rather than the beginning of the end, has already drunk the Kool-Aid.
Thus, the very core of our social heritage is on the chop block. In this light, it becomes very difficult to provide insightful comment, much less do it in blog-post bites.
What the documents clearly reveal is a lack of understanding of the structure of urbanism. Since these are visual conceptualizations, the problem is magnified on those pages where the text piles up with fewer and fewer diagrams to show what the words are trying to describe. Urbanism is a visual language. This is more so the case with the HAHR document than the guidelines. But let’s not kid ourselves that the meagre presentations in the guidelines show much more than the first tentative steps taken towards understanding urbanism all over again in the decades following the onslaught of “Ground Zero” Modernism.
Two examples will have to suffice.
First, focusing on the architectural object is the tell tale mark that the principles of urbanism are not understood, much less in use. The HAHR “Urban Design Provisions” for example, are no more than a prescription for the subject building itself written in words that can mean anything you please. For example, at BC Electric Building (1929) at 425 Carrrall, “Ensure no further shadowing of Pideon Park” or “Respect the culturally important sites along Pender and Carrall Streets”. The first way to “respect” cultural heritage it to build in the same vein. What are we to expect from the Tower masters let loose in our midst? The urban fact is built from the collectivity of individual buildings, and it is this meta-architectural reading that separates the two disciplines (architecture & urbanism—planning is here relegated to administrative & political functions, and engineering to traffic management).
Second, the vision of both guidelines and HAHR is all about zoning as “bubble diagram”. There is not a single attempt I can find where a diagram or a plan is trying to understand the effects of the urban construction on the imagination or experience of a single human being, much less the collective of the resident population, and those that will come, visit, and stay. The pictures they draw and the city I know occupy two different worlds.
If you want the low water mark in Vancouver Urbanism mark this date down: 20 January 2011 when this document goes to Council for a rubber stamp.
12 Nelson100 // Jan 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm
To Mr. Geller’s comment,
“The speakers seemed to be advocating that Vancouver should be more like Paris. It is too late to try and turn Vancouver into Paris. Furthermore, I don’t think we should.”
WHY NOT??? Why on earth would we not want to model Vancouver on arguably the most desirable city on the world? On basis does he argue that it is too late to plan our young city on European urban planning m0dels? European cities significantly outperform N. American cities on environmental statistics and many would argue they are significantly more livable. What is our model, Houston? Shanghai? Dubai?
I also challenge Sean Bickerton’s and Geller’s assertions that high rises have the lowest ecological footprint. Buildings with poor R valves that require air conditioning to be habitable have no hope of being considered green in any sense, LEED or not. The endless attempt to spin tall glass boxes as green is wearysome. I challenging anyone making these claims to provide evidence from a credible source. The city’s own studies do not support this claim.
13 Deacon Blue // Jan 16, 2011 at 11:47 pm
“I also challenge Sean Bickerton’s and Geller’s assertions that high rises have the lowest ecological footprint.”
Nelson100
What are you going to say next, Nelson? That Vancouver cannot become the Greenest City In the Globe if we keep building glass towers??
14 Nelson100 // Jan 17, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Deacon Blue – Vancouver has no hope whatsoever of meeting “greenest city in the world” goals if we focus on building glass towers in the style of recent years.
If we were to amend the Vancouver building code to require that that towers:
have non-glass insulated surfaces for say 65% of exterior wall space, require that windows be shaded, require windows be openable to provide airflow, and eliminate air conditioning (obviated by these design features and our mild climate) then high rises could certainly be a component in the city achieving greenest city goals.
I invite all to comment on whether they would support these proposed amendments. Let’s see who genuinely advocates high rises for ecological reasons from those who might have other motivations (and tend to make green claims to speed project approvals and marketing).
Here’s an example of a shaded window design from Chicago.
http://inhabitat.com/solstice-on-the-park-shimmering-chicago-high-rise-made-for-shade/