The city’s report on the Vancouver Art Gallery and its request to build on the empty Georgia Street block next to the QE Theatre came out yesterday, with a recommendation that the gallery get two years to come up with a viable plan for the land.

It also said the gallery would only get access to two-thirds of the block, had to come up with a solid business plan, and should think in terms of a cultural precinct instead of just one building.

According to messages that went out to members just now, it’s all good news, as per the message below

[Read more →]

The Economist sums up our little Olympic village problems (in its section on “the Americas”) with this story, where apparently people on city council are worried that the village’s financial troubles may cost them the November election.

You know, just when you think life is getting dull, some wacky thing happens that makes you realize you never know what’s around the corner.

The fun news today was the announcement that former Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell came out endorsing Kevin Falcon. Campbell, if you’ll recall, once called Conservatives “barbarians at the gates.” Falcon is widely seen as carrying the Conservative flag into this particular battle.

Tweets and quotes in various news stories ranged from aghast to bemused, as you can see here and here.

He won’t have much company from his former fellow travellers in Vision Vancouver, the party he helped found. I’ve been checking around about who from the civic scene is doing what.

Here’s the body count so far:

– Vision campaigner Greg Wilson is with Christy Clark, as is FD Elements’ Don Millar. Interestingly, people say they have also spotted Daniel Fontaine, former Sam Sullivan chief of staffer and founder of political blog Citycaucus.com, at Clark events. I’ve tried checking with Daniel on whether this is true, but haven’t heard back.

The story is causing some amusement, though, since Fontaine and his blog partner, Mike Klassen, spent part of last year blasting Vision for giving contracts to FD and making various allegations about the level of work provided for the level of pay.

– Brad Zubyk, who also helped Vision get elected in 2008, is with Christy Clark.

– The mayor is staying out of the race, saying he’s not endorsing anyone. So is Non-Partisan Association councillor Suzanne Anton.

– Marcella Munro, one-time board member for Vision Vancouver and still a part of the inner circle, is working with Mike Farnworth.

– Vision councillor Kerry Jang, who was Adrian Dix’s constituency president at one time is, surprise, supporting Adrian, as is Vision park-board commissioner Raj Hundal, who also lives in that east-central area of Vancouver.

– Geoff Meggs say that he will confirm he supports Adrian (who was one of the tight circle around former premier Glen Clark, along with Meggs) if asked, but he is staying out of it because his wife is the NDP provincial secretary.

That’s all I had the time for. Please pass on any other interesting sightings.

–

For weeks, I’ve been ranting to anyone who would listen to me (fortunately, there aren’t that many) that the BC Place roof was an architectural blight on Vancouver, with giant struts in heavy gray industrial steel going up that looked like some kind of homage to Dominion Bridge.

Every time I went over the Cambie Bridge, I’d be aghast all over again at the heavy look of the couple of dozen prongs sticking up — a weird contrast to the glassy towers all around them — and wonder why the people in those condos weren’t protesting in the streets.

I have to say that I talked to a few planners and architects who were equally appalled, couldn’t get over the way the earlier illustrations looked so different from the reality. The renderings made the roof supports look delicate and slim; the reality was like industrial scrap.

Well, as it turns out, the current reality is sort of industrial scrap. What’s here now on this website is mostly scaffolding that will be removed, leaving behind something less oppressive. I’m attaching the BC Place website here as an illustration because I can’t seem to upload anything better that I have.

The city has been on a tear the last week, with city manager Penny Ballem and fire chief John McKearney talking about what they are doing to boost inspections, bring landlords of unsafe buildings into line and more. (Including almost a million for firehall upgrades.)

Some of this is just reporters discovering ongoing activities, a typical process that follows a startling news event. In this case, it was the Pandora Street fire where three young men died just before Christmas after a fire broke out in a house that had been turned into a rooming house. (Apparent cause, a faulty extension cord and some Christmas lights.)

That has prompted a run of reporting on city inspections, fire codes and the rest.

Last week, the chief evacuated a whole apartment building. Now here’s a news release about all the charges, plus a notation that the city has shut down 12 buildings in the last five years, plus it will be inspecting more buildings in the very near future.

It would be nice to sort out somewhere how much of this was already in the works, how much was prompted by the tragic deaths (yes, sad to say, that seems to be what it takes so often), and how much by the ensuing criticism.

[Read more →]

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.

As the leadership competitions ramp up, candidates are starting to fling more and more promises: holidays, money, pledges to listen, really listen, this time.

Being the urban wonk, I’m the most interested in the promises affecting cities. Which are starting to trickle in.  Kevin Falcon put out the idea today of giving municipalities half of any proceeds of crime. (A nice thought, when you think of the grow-op house they sold off for $1.3 million, according to today’s news.)

Christy Clark talked about looking again at the way casino money is being distributed — a sore point among charities, which have seen their share decline since they helped make casinos palatable to the public by arguing that the share of profits being distributed for good causes made it all worthwhile.

Obviously, both of those ideas are attractive to cities, strapped for money to pay for policing or to help community groups.

But I have a feeling a lot of people who actually run cities are feeling the way you or I do when we make a Christmas list filled with practical suggestions (new gardening gloves, pyjamas, coffee maker, toolbox, vacuum cleaner) and instead get Starbucks gift card. Okay, having $100 worth of free lattes could theoretically help you save up for the gloves or toolbox, but why do we have to go through the contortions?

If you want to know what cities would really like from the provincial government, they already have a Christmas list sitting and waiting for potential leaders.

Here, free from me, all campaign teams the next time you have a slow day and need something to announce, is the list of resolutions passed at the most recent Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, where politicians everywhere from Fort St. John to Sooke asked the province to help them out with various desperately needed items.

What they’d like:

– more help dealing with mental health and addictions (Sechelt District, Williams Lake, Dawson Creek)

– more help dealing with crime through community justice programs (Sechelt) or getting more money for the RCMP from the HST (Invermere) or getting more help dealing with summertime resort populations (Cowichan Valley) or getting more money for victim services (Richmond) or making sure smaller communities won’t be hit with giant investigation bills or court costs (Dawson Creek)

– some of the carbon-tax money that the province is collecting to help pay for the new environmental standards that it imposed on cities as part of its green plan (Metro Vancouver)

– more efforts on recycling (Whistler,  Delta, Central Kootenay)

– more for libraries, more for arts, more for schools.

And, if that’s not enough, here’s a couple more:

– A solution for the transit-funding mess at TransLink, where the province actually comes up with something besides more property taxes to pay for the system.

– Changes to campaign-spending rules in time for this November’s election.

For those who haven’t seen the coverage so far, there’s been a series of stories percolating out of Mission after some residents there got irate about being charged $5,000-plus for property inspections by the city when they were suspected of running grow-ops.

As it turned out, some of them weren’t — just had problems with their hot-tub wiring or were growing cucumbers, not marijuana, indoors, but they had to pay the inspection fees anyways.

Now, they’re fighting back. This could have wider implications if they are successful in beating this, since many municipalities have turned to this tool as a way of fighting grow-ops.

Robert Matas at the Globe took a bigger picture look at this story today.

City engineers used to rule the world. Now they never get any attention. It’s the planners who typically get all the glory.

That’s changed at Vancouver city hall in the last couple of years. The planning department is tangled in knots, as its members struggle with the Vision council’s imperfectly-thought-out plans to create rental housing or densify around transit lines.

Instead, it’s the engineering department — a department that has as many people as the city’s police force — that is steaming ahead under a green council that seems far more interested in bike lanes, composting, recycling, and other things engineering than in land-use issues.

My latest Vancouver magazine column takes a look at the guy who’s at the head of the revitalized engineering division, Peter Judd.

Gastown has changed so many times in my life. When I was a teenager, I loved it for all the strange little hippie shops where I could buy scraps of fake fur, beads, and the weird jewelry that I imagined at the time made me look cooler than Joni Mitchell.

In my 20s, it was the place we went to sit in dark, noisy bars, occasionally screaming a few incomprehensible things at each other during the evening over the music.

In later years, I avoided it religiously, unless I felt a deep need for a T-shirt that said “Vancouver, B.C.” on it. Only Inform, the city’s outpost of modern furniture, could entice me down.

This Christmas season, it turned into my go-to neighbourhood. I bought shirts and tuques and jackets for the style guys in my life at hipper-than-thou men’s stores like Inventory and Roden Grey. I got cheap blankets at Nood, the emporium of low-cost modernism, and trolled through Nood’s upscale neighbours, Parliament and Orling and Wu.

And when I needed a break, I stopped for lunch at Peckinpah’s, the latest in the empire of restaurants down there run by a collection of young men who have turned Gastown into an interesting-food station of the cross for Vancouver, including The Diamond, Cobre, Monstr Sushi, etc.

That’s all possible because, back in 1967 or so, another group of then-young men decided that Gastown wasn’t just some rundown Skid Road that had no further use, even though it was the historic birthplace of the city. Those guys started buying buildings and scrapping with the city to invest in the area again.

I talked to one of them, Bob Saunders, yesterday as he is preparing to retire this week, and packing up his memorabilia of the area as he goes. After I’d filed my story, I also ended up talking to Robert Fung, the developer who has picked up the torch from that earlier group.

He now owns the set of buildings that Bob and company first bought back in 1968 — a set of buildings that has now been transformed into the home for the places I shopped and ate, along with condos at the Garage and Cordage.

It was thanks to those guys, says Robert, that there were buildings left for him to start restoring when he came along in the 1990s.

Of course, the question is: What does the future bring? When the original newcomers moved into Gastown, they talked about enjoying the area in spite of its large population of drunks and panhandlers. In fact, they said the mix was what made the area interesting.

The first wave of developers also created a lot of low-cost studios and apartments for local artists and whoever wanted to live down there — something that hasn’t happened in quite a while.

So what will Gastown be in another 40 years?