35 responses so far ↓

• 1 Deacon Blue // Jan 25, 2011 at 10:24 pm

  “Mr. Harcourt said he doesn’t agree with activists who say no market development should be allowed and the whole area should be preserved for low-cost housing. He also doesn’t agree with those who say the market should be allowed to do whatever.

  “I don’t want to have a ghetto. I don’t want gentrification. I want a balance.””

  Good for Mr. Hardcourt.

  “But Mr. Drury said that’s impossible. If the city allows taller buildings, which mean more profit per site for developers, it will kick off a market rush that makes low-cost housing impossible to preserve.”

  Only half the horror story from Mr. Drury.

  We’ve heard twice already from the Director of Planning that the reason for the HAHR (Hackneyed Attempt at Revisionist History) was that the Woodward’s had triggered an unprecedented frenzy of tower applications.

  So, there is another part of Mr. Drury’s tale to tell. Towers will make it hard to hang on to the good units, as he well states, and will make it hard to buy land to build new social housing.

  Permitting more towers risks land speculation and driving up the price of land that will net fewer units/$million spent on social housing.

  The total area population following either model will be about the same. However, both the price of housing, and the price of social housing will be higher. The taxpayer ends up picking up the bill for both.

  Therefore, the result from permitting towers will be: that we will build fewer social units; and that the form of social housing (also tower) will be of a type less desirable for support programs in mental illness and addiction.

  A gem of an urbanist tradition flowering here for a mere few decades upon the shores of Burrard Inlet will have been buried once and for all along with all it may have to teach us about urban sustainability.

  Further, the totality of the place needs to be saved, including those neighbourhoods that were home to immigrant families that came and stayed and were maltreated.

  There is a conflict between two interests here, to be sure. But it is a conflict between those who will profit from loosening land speculation in the Historic Area, and those who will benefit from the more sustainable approach.

  Crisp reporting, Frances.

• 2 ThinkOutsideABox // Jan 26, 2011 at 1:33 am

  Somehow the topic brought me to this channel on youtube that documents daily life in the DTES by an individual who lives in the area.

  http://www.youtube.com/user/confabulicious#p/u/5/5YhKCSCOj0Q

  Compelling videos of people doing the Hastings shuffle, arrests, aggressive panhandling, out in the open drug deals and usage, in one video one woman pours herself a bowl of cereal on top of a canada post relay box. Thought provoking.

• 3 Roger Kemble // Jan 26, 2011 at 3:06 am

  Thanqu Deacon Blue #1 for your attempt to elucidate a complexity of issues that are bedeviling societies the world over: i.e. affordable/sustainable.

  In response to Mr. Harcourt . . . “But Mr. Drury said that’s impossible. If the city allows taller buildings, which mean more profit per site for developers, it will kick off a market rush that makes low-cost housing impossible to preserve.”

  Yup, impossible!

  Since 1913 the US$ (the world reserve currency) has lost 95% of its value due to fractional reserve banking: the C$ tracks the US$.

  Four facts stand out: we need a new monetary system (1), we cannot consume in perpetuity at current rates, (2), we need shelter (3), and we need it now (4) . . . all pretty heavy stuff to be gossiping about on Madame Bula’s blog.

  And as with all scarce commodities if we do nothing the unit cost of shelter in the HAHR will still rise.

• 4 Roger Kemble // Jan 26, 2011 at 3:35 am

  PS . . .

  “Time is money, you know Surtees . . . time is money: The Will 1913, J.M. Barrie.

• 5 Roger Kemble // Jan 26, 2011 at 8:07 am

  http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/01/robert-shiller-argues-that-rising.html

  Et tu Canadus . . .

• 6 Morven // Jan 26, 2011 at 8:12 am

  Our elected representatives are risk managers (though they might not like that description).

  If they advance a development policy that has marked negative social and physical impact, they have to ensure that some of the gains to the developer offset the negative impacts to the community.

  If the developer is the only one gaining from the project, then it is the community and the citizens at large in Vancouver who bear the cost.

  We would not want to think that our elected representatives do not understand the concept of planning balance and merely favour special interests without regard.

  Would we?
  -30-

• 7 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 26, 2011 at 7:25 pm

  Yesterday, I took my uncle (who grew up here and is very familiar with the area, but has lived out of town for 5 years now) on a lengthy walkabout in the Historic Area. He was absolutely floored by how much the area west of Main has changed in just a handful of years, and just how up-market pockets of it have become. After seeing Chinatown’s $5,000/night hotel, its $20 million real estate office, large new condo developments like V6A and Ginger, and the bustling Everything Café, you’d have a tough time convincing him that Chinatown revitalization is not already in full swing, and that gentrification isn’t marching steadily east. According to him, these new businesses and developments would have been “inconceivable” a mere five years ago.

  So, is Chinatown really “struggling”, as Frances’ article states? Maybe a distinction should be made between “old” Chinatown with its traditional shops and restaurants (which probably are struggling, mainly due to competition in Richmond), and the “new” Chinatown, with places like the Everything Café, Bao-Bai, etc. (which seem to be thriving).

  But a large influx of multicultural tower residents will likely patronize the “new” Chinatown far more than the “old”, and demand more and diverse services and shops. If towers bring rampant speculation and skyrocketing business rents (as they did in Gastown as a result of the Woodwards towers), and a whole new demographic to the area, it’s quite likely that the HAHR and towers will actually end up hastening the demise of the more traditional businesses the BIA claims to be trying to help. Be careful what you wish for…

• 8 Ron // Jan 26, 2011 at 9:57 pm

  That’s a good point.
  In large part whether or not Chinatown becomes “over-gentrified”/”trendified” will depend on whether or not the Chinatown clans sell their traditional buildings or not.
  I think that many of the buildings are clan-owned.
  I think that Bob Rennie’s building was sold to him by the Yip Sing family.
  If others are also willing to sell, then that would certainly hasten the change. If they aren’t willing to sell, then only limited parcels will be available for redevelopment.
  Then there’s the issue of high rents in new buildings.
  The ground floor of INternational Village was supposed to be “the new Chinatown” – with grocery stalls and a bustling market (take a look at the brass silhouettes of food items embedded in the flooring the next time you’re through). That never happened, possibly because of hgh rent demands (or maybe the T&T in the building next door).

• 9 Bill McCreery // Jan 26, 2011 at 11:13 pm

  Gassed up, I also agree. One has to think this whole matter through, completely.

  However, I am also aware that at least 2 Chinatown committees have endorsed this proposal. It is my understanding they have done so as a last desperate attempt because of the City’s inability to resolve the heritage density transfer problems. From what I know to date I am not convinced that the Chinatown representatives on these committees would support this spot rezoning proposal if there were other alternatives.

  I spoke to a member of one of the committees last week, and he acknowledged that the new residents of the high building condos would mostly not be of Chinese origin. So how is this going to strengthen Chinatown and the very wonderful Chinese businesses there?

  IMO, as I’ve said before, the only benefactors will be the property owners and developers of these higher building sites.

  I have 3 suggestions:

  1) fix the heritage density bank, if it can be, but that is only part of the solution;

  2) continue the revitalization (I did not say ‘gentrification’, why can’t the street people’s lives be improved?) of Hastings Street so both social housing and the inevitable gentrification can coexist. If the DTES is going to actually do something to improve the lot of the street people there, sufficient supportive housing must be provided to allow them to live with dignity, and even turn their lives around. Perpetuating the status quo is not acceptable, and it is having a devastating effect on Chinatown;

  3) If necessary, as I’ve also said before, as a short term solution, adjust the property taxes for the businesses and perhaps the residences to reflect their current value, not their potential market value. If slum landlords can be given tax holidays for community gardens, surely struggling businesses in Chinatown, a very significant and culturally important heritage area, can also be assisted.

• 10 Michael Geller // Jan 27, 2011 at 6:58 am

  “But when a final staff report appeared last week with more specifics, including recommendations for 120-foot buildings along Main in south Chinatown, building-height increases of 20 feet around Main and Hastings, and two 150-foot buildings between Chinatown and Woodward’s, a coalition of opponents emerged.”

  Frances, my understanding is that the staff report recommended another five sites for 150 buildings along Main Street in response to “Council’s direction for staff to report on options for a limited number of carefully and strategically located additional sites for higher buildings up to 150 feet”.

  Now, I admit, some might question whether it really matters whether there are two buildings, or five buildings, or seven buildings around 150 feet. And some might wonder why I would get up at 6 am in the morning to write about this!

  However, I am doing so because I am troubled by this situation.

  I am troubled by the notion that we should consider taller buildings because some businessmen in the Chinatown community think this will lead to economic revitalization.

  Conversely, I am troubled by the claims of 30 ‘learned’ academics that we should not allow taller buildings since they will result in a loss of affordable housing for the poor, and gentrification in the area.

  So what’s really happening here?

  As I have previously noted, I believe, like Gassy Jack’s father, that a form of revitalization is already happening in Chinatown and in a limited number of DTES locations. I appreciate that some of the Chinatown merchants may not like the changes being brought about by V6A and Ginger and the new restaurants and professional offices, which are bringing a new demographic into the area, but the reality is that our Chinatown has changed forever, as a result of Richmond’s ‘Chinatown’.

  In my opinion, there will continue to be new condominium developments catering to hip young buyers in Chinatown regardless of whether the height limits allow 10 storeys or 16 storeys. But I fear that allowing 5 new buildings up to 16 storeys along Main Street, (as staff are suggesting might be possible), will ultimately lead to a very different character for the area. It’s not just the five buildings…it’s the five more buildings in 10 years, and another 5 in 20 years.

  Moreover, I doubt these taller buildings will result in the kind of Chinatown revitalization that the merchants appear to want.

  So this begs the question, why should I worry about a few buildings in a part of the city where I don’t live?

  I worry that these taller buildings along Main Street will likely detract from the heritage character of the area. One reason I worry is that I don’t know what the new buildings will look like. That is why I have suggested to staff that they prepare drawings illustrating what 16 storey buildings might look like from different angles.

  Now I admit I might be wrong. So please show me, and others the pictures. Then we’ll be in a more informed position to comment.

  I also admit that some of my concerns are rooted in the above mentioned notion that taller buildings are necessary for economic revitalization. To me this is nonesense. I just don’t believe it.

  So what’s the solution, In addition to seeing some illustrations, I would like to hear from Architect Joe Wai, who has been working in Chinaotwn for four decades, and knows the area much better than me, and also understands what tall buildings can, and cannot do.

  And although we have heard from 30 ‘learned academics’, I would also like to hear from other academics, especially those who are knowledgeable about architecture and planning.

  I am troubled by the silence of professors from the School of Community and Regional Planning and the Faculty of Architecture at UBC. I would like to hear their views on the staff report.

  I would also like to hear from more professionals in Vancouver’s architectural and planning community. I know some are conflicted, and some may be reluctant to speak out since they worry doing so might compromise their ability to get approvals from staff or Councils in the future. But the planning of important heritage areas in the city are at stake.

  I think we all deserve second or third opinions on these important planning propositions.

  (And while the professors and architects/planners are at it, I hope they will comment on the building heights/views/capacity report for the downtown.

  And then they can comment on other current proposals for taller buildings and higher densities around the city.)

  To be honest, I don’t know what they will say. They may completely disagree with my concerns, but I think it is important for staff and Council to hear from these people….not just from caring sociologists and related academics who might have been asked by activists concerned about the potential gentrification of the DTES (or by other colleagues who were approached by activists concerned about the potential gentrification of the DTES).

  I would like to conclude on the subject of gentrification, which along with ‘revitalization’ seems to be at the root of this discussion,

  I understand gentrification to mean the eviction of lower income households by the ‘gentry’ who move into an area as it is being revitalized and improved.

  In the case of the DTES, a lot of the lower income households are living in affordable housing stock that is protected…since it is owned by governments and non-profits, or covered by anti-demolition bylaws.

  I acknowledge that some of the housing may be deliberately allowed to run-down, but the city can take steps to prevent this from happening too.

  Furthermore, whether the building heights are 10 storeys or 16 storeys, we are going to see condominium development in both the DTES and Chinatown….and I think this is a good thing….they will result in healthier, more interesting and diverse communities.

  The current situation in the DTES and Chinatown is not acceptable…there is a need for a broader social and income mix, and yes revitalization. But let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

• 11 F. H. Leghorn // Jan 27, 2011 at 9:27 am

  Chinatown is not restricted to downtown or Richmond. My family moved to Vancouver in 1960 and bought a house in Kerrisdale ($36,000). My mother sometimes said she wished they had bought in Chinatown. My father would say “Just wait. Chinatown will come to us”.

  “revitalize”, “gentrify”, “save”. Armchair quarterbacks with tenure poking their big white noses into other people’s business. It’s easy when you don’t have to put your money where your mouth is. If anyone proposed six 15-story condos at 41st and West Boulevard they’d probably break out the torches and pitchforks (unless they owned the property).

  Welcome to the Asian century. Asian cities are nothing but towers oozing with ethnic charm and wall-to-wall people and businesses. They don’t want to turn the clock back to 1870. Hong Kong or Guangzhou would have imprisoned the addicts, hospitalized the lunatics and bulldozed the pathetic eyesores called DTES Heritage years ago. Their place would be taken by thousands of hard-working, ambitious, productive citizens who like to shop and understand that politicians and bureaucrats are all for sale.

  My solution? Build another railroad with a new generation of Chinese immigrant workers. Re-create that history for which the ivory-tower All-Stars have so much respect and nostalgia.

• 12 Morven // Jan 27, 2011 at 9:41 am

  F.H. Leghorn # 15

  I am not sure what point you are making. There are already 15 story condos close to 41st and West Boulevard.

  I think the point that Michael Geller is making that there is or should be a transparent process for the decision makers to assess the physical and social risks of a large scale development.

  We are, as citizens, entitled to know just how the planning decisions are arrived at, even if we disagree with the decision.

  What we are faced with is at present, seemingly, a murky planning process where, or so it seems, might is right.

  Sorry, but that is not how a city should plan and develop.
  -30-

• 13 Roger Kemble // Jan 27, 2011 at 9:54 am

  Re:linked by popular demand . . .

  http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/Atrium.pdf

  Of course you are right F.H.Leghorn #11

  Good luck . . .

• 14 Joe Just Joe // Jan 27, 2011 at 10:28 am

  Here’s an interesting read, not completely on topic but certainly related. Perhaps Frances could do an entry on the following document as there’s so much to discuss.

  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110201/documents/a2.pdf

• 15 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 27, 2011 at 12:55 pm

  Fog Horn, in a sense, I agree with many things you say, but:

  1. Vancouver’s historic, heritage Chinatown is ONLY in downtown Vancouver. There is no place like it anywhere else in the lower mainland, and it is one of the most important historical sites on the West Coast. There are other initiatives under way, including an application for UNESCO World Heritage status, that are “made in Chinatown” solutions designed to help “revitalize”. This alone should quash any talk of towers in the area.

  2. I recognize that, despite the fact that I live a mere 3 blocks away and shop, bank or eat in Chinatown several times a week, I will still be viewed as an “outsider” or an “armchair quarterback” (though certainly not an academic!) sticking my white nose into other people’s business. I should probably just shut up already.

  But I view the Historic Area and all its sub-areas as part of the Public Trust – the original five neighbourhoods of Vancouver and the historic and cultural heart of our city. That is what is embodied in these old buildings, pre-automobile platting, and human-scaled streetscapes. As part of our built heritage, ALL Vancouverites have a stake in preserving the integrity of this area (what’s left of it, at least) and ALL Vancouverites deserve to have a voice in how that is accomplished.

  3. I believe that there is enormous potential and value in protecting the integrity of the Historic Area (and there is plenty of research from around the world – even China – that demonstrates the “multiplier effect” of heritage preservation and promotion in depressed city cores). The cultural and historical uniqueness can become a highly sought after commodity and have exciting and creative economic possibilities (we are already seeing that in Gastown and with the “new” Chinatown entrepreneurs). Right now, that renewal is happening incrementally and organically under the old by-laws. To continue to claim that growth, revitalization and change has stagnated because of the old by-laws is utter hogwash, and ignores reality. The pace of change recently has been phenomenal.

  4. Due to the limited remaining tower sites in downtown, there are a lot of hungry eyes looking East now at the last under-developed patch of our downtown core. The main outcome of supporting the HAHR and these first few towers is very simple: the new by-laws push the door wide open to condo tower development, and give what those hungry eyes want – a whole bunch of new megaproject sites to exploit close to the core. But we were told, not so long ago, that the Woodwards towers would be the exception, not the new precedent. The HAHR tower proposals shows that to be an empty promise, and I agree with Michael that the pressure to develop more and more towers in the future will be immense if these ones get approved.

  The lowest common denominator, the easy way, the get-rich and get-out paradigm, the course that lacks any creativity or respect for our history, is to start building towers and worry about the consequences later. Our Historic Area deserves better that what is being proposed under the HAHR.

• 16 Roger Kemble // Jan 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm

  “Vancouver’s historic, heritage Chinatown is ONLY in downtown Vancouver.

  There is no place like it anywhere else in the lower mainland . . . ”

  True GJ’s G . . . but check out Victoria’s Fisgard Street anyway . . .

  http://theyorkshirelad.ca/3sailing/gulf.islands.2006/gulf.islands.2006.down.town.html

  “. . . and it is one of the most important historical sites on the West Coast.” . . . except Grant Avenue San Francisco!

  Such indiscriminate hyperbole makes us look like such fools . . .

• 17 F. H. Leghorn // Jan 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm

  Xenophobic meddling dressed up as museum-piece collector’s mania at public expense. The face-saving flip-side of total economic dependence. Either way it’s a choice between licking a Yankee or a ChiCom boot.

  And Spartikus wants to join the safety cadre at the Cambodian Minsitry of Transportation. It’s not just right-wing corporatist fascists who want to tell people in this and other countries how they ought to live. It was hard-left ideologues who visited Hell on their fellow citizens in the name of their vision of a perfect ordered egalitarian society. And it wasn’t the first time.

• 18 spartikus // Jan 27, 2011 at 3:47 pm

  @Leghorn: The idea that traffic lights and crosswalks = Pol Pot is an interesting, if unconventional, perspective. Especially when talking about a place where traffic accidents are considered “the second largest catastrophe in the country after AIDS”. Or so says the World Health Organization. But they are probably keeping Pol Pot’s disembodied head alive deep in some bunker under Geneva, next to Hitler’s.

  But besides all that, one should probably respond to specific comment made by particular individuals on the thread they made them. Rather than, you know, somewhere else.

• 19 Deacon Blue // Jan 28, 2011 at 1:59 am

  “4. Due to the limited remaining tower sites in downtown, there are a lot of hungry eyes looking East now at the last under-developed patch of our downtown core.”

  G J Ghost 15

  BTW Foghorn Leghorn is one of my favorite Warner Bros. characters. Him and that Frenchie Skunk.

  On the lack of tower sites downtown…

  Ghost, I heard about it a while back, and the thought that ran through my head was, “lack of ‘cheap’ towers sites downtown”. There is room there to build, it’s just not as easy as it was 10 years ago, or as it will be 10 years from now.

  Thus, another reason to restrict towers to one zone is to have market competition drive up the price and the quality of the product.

  If we want better towers, limit the number of sites. If we want cheaper towers, let them sprawl.

• 20 Sean Bickerton // Jan 28, 2011 at 10:21 am

  Doing nothing leads to gentrification, which is what’s happening now on Carrall Street and as mentioned above is now spotted throughout Chinatown.

  New trendy bars and restaurants at street level are profitable because they carry a liquor license.

  In tarting up those low rise storefronts, they will then increase rents above them, gradually over time completely changing the nature of the neighbourhood in the DTES and Chinatown.

  In the DTES what will be lost low-cost housing. In Chinatown, what will be lost are the traditional businesses and culture that make Chinatown Chinatown, as a merchant selling dried fish in a run-down storefront can’t possibly compete with the profits from a bar.

  We’ll be left with a nice tourist area like Gastown, and maybe that’s the plan everyone wants to see realized, but if so, let’s be honest about the consequences of inaction.

  Alternately, as some of us hoped, new non-tower housing would provide new social housing, new services, new jobs, and provide money to renovate heritage buildings and generate more street life.

  And to allay misplaced concerns, the number of SRO units is already protected by legislation, so new development is no danger to the old housing – it would only add new social housing – while doing nothing and letting it crumble into the ground is exactly the danger that exists today.

  Beyond this is a paternalism I find quite breathtaking. Why is that only outsiders know what’s best for the Chinatown merchants?

• 21 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm

  Sean, do you mean the social housing units in the area are “protected” in the same way the height by-laws were put into place to protect the “scale and character” of the Historic Area?

  Or do you mean “protected” as in, whenever it becomes expedient (ie. when land and property values skyrocket), we will propose changing all the existing by-laws and grant a number of really big exceptions?

  Do you mean protected as in the subsidized housing at Little Mountain, which will soon be a massive condo development?

  I admit, I’m pretty naïve about a lot of things, but not quite so much about this.

  If you own an SRO and your neighbour is suddenly allowed to cash out millions by throwing up a tower next door, vaulting your own assessed value through the roof, my guess is you’re going to raise a heck of a stink if you aren’t allowed to cash in too. It’s only a matter of time…

• 22 Sean Bickerton // Jan 28, 2011 at 6:10 pm

  A question for you, Mr. Ghost – are you in favour of doing nothing and allowing the existing housing stock to decay while allowing Carall street gentrification to take place?

  Or would you prefer to create new housing in the nature and character of the existing buildform that would also provide more social housing?

  To answer your question, every existing SRO room has been inventoried by the city, and is protected. If one is taken down, it must be replaced one for one as established policy.

  The city has had a target of creating 10,000 social and supportive units, of which 7000 have already been built. 2400 of those were built during the NPA’s last term, four times more social housing than during any other administration in the city’s history.

  I’m for housing over vacant lots, I’m for homes over homelessness, and I’m for vibrant streets, not the chaos we see now on Hastings.

  If you want to support the status quo, Mr. Ghost, at least be honest about the result it will create.

  To do nothing is also a conscious decision, and in my own view reprehensible when it means turning over Hastings Street to violent gangs whose only priority is to maximize their harvest of money from the human ATMs they’ve addicted and now control.

• 23 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm

  Sean, as I’ve been saying all along, I “prefer to create new housing in the nature and character of the existing buildform.” That means not changing the by-laws or granting exceptions for towers.

  Preserving the “scale and character” of the heritage district is not the same as doing nothing or supporting the social status quo — a distinction that seems lost on you.

• 24 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm

  “Beyond this is a paternalism I find quite breathtaking. Why is that only outsiders know what’s best for the Chinatown merchants?”

  Sean Bickerton 20

  When my art school buddy and I won the commission to design Keefer Triangle/Chinatown Square being on site and talking to the merchants, and the merchant’s association, and hosting a Saturday morning display in Chinatown Plaza Mall, was our modus operandi.

  If you know what you’re doing in urbanism, talking to the locals is #1 priority because when it comes to getting the skinny, to getting the inside scoop on the story of place, there is nowhere else to go.

  However, I find somewhat disingenuous the concept that sometimes floats about that we should ask the people of the place “what to do”.

  That is another cutting issue in urbanism, and the greatest level of skill from practitioners is required to both educate and consult on options available going forward.

  It is a great dilemma you pose, Sean, because if this is done right, it will feel like a new breeze of hope blowing through all our neighbourhoods, not just the Historic Area.

  PS

  It’s “built form” and “built form & density”, gents, rather than “buildform”.

  Someone should give Ghost a spot at a stand-up comedy club, he’s cracking me up. Humour helps. But, Shaun, this is one Ghost not sitting on his hands (if he has any).

• 25 Michael Geller // Jan 30, 2011 at 9:49 am

  I d ont’ think Ghost and Sean really have much of a disagreement…both want to see more new condominium development; both want to see the existing social housing and affordable rental housing protected; and both want to see more economic development in the area. The only disagreement seems to be whether taller buildings, and in particular tower forms in the order of 150 feet, should be allowed to proceed on selected sites, as a sort of compromised to those who wanted to see some really tall towers.

  I agree with the need for new development; not just social housing as the activists proclaim, but condominiums, market rental, and housing for local and international artists. I see no reason why this type of housing should not proceed now…there’s no need to wait for an overall planning study…but I’m not troubled by a possibly delay on whether to allow towers until further work on an overall planning concept for the area.

  In the past I have suggested an intensive community planning charrette, involving city staff, community representatives, Vancouver architects and planners, and yes, maybe some of the 30 learned academics as a way to develop an intial planning vision for the area…it would examine where new buildings could be added, without demolition; where heritage buildings might be retained; where new parks and community facilities might be located; where retail and office uses might be permitted, and yes, where towers might be appropriate…

  It could build on the dozens of city planning studies that have previously been completed and city in planning department libraries…

  Maybe Harcourt’s group can now get something like this started…and in the meanwhile, I would urge Vancouver architects and developers to prepare plans for new market housing in the area….there is a real demand and a real need for new projects, like 60 West Cordova and what Concord has built on Alexander.

  Finally, if you are interested in the question of whether it is a good idea to socially engineer communities to ensure social and economic diversity , you might want to head out to UBC on Friday morning where this will be a key topic for discussion at the 3rd School of Community and Regional Planning Symposium. I’ll be there arguing in favour of more condos, more social mix in the DTES and in other large scale communities on public land like South East False Creek….

  http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2011/01/third-annual-scarp-symposium-metropolis.html

• 26 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 31, 2011 at 10:15 pm

  The problem with Modern Urbanism can be boiled down to a single object: the tower.

  That message has been driven home to me by reviewing the Colin Rowe literature over the past few days. Let’s recall that the critique of Modern Urbanism really got teeth in the 1960’s with outcries about what plopping a tower down did to a historic precinct.

  It was not a tower in the Cambie Gateway, but rather towers in the HAHR that brought the heat of public scorn to Modern Planning. A critique that Modern Planning has yet to answer…

  Gastown revitalization was born out of that (someone will have to explain to me why Pender Street never got the same level of attention as Water Street—but perhaps that is an issue for us to address today).

  The Bank of America is our standard bearer on the west coast for understanding how towers screwed up historic areas. The BoA tower in historic Portland is an eyesore; the BoA black monolith in San Francisco—according to one business owner in Washington Squaer—is triggered the Alan Jacobs urban design plan for that city (completed with Donald Appleyard in 1971).

  There is just no “politically correct way” to breach this chasm as far as I can see. On the one side, we have towers-the-hell-may-care about anything neighbourhood oriented (like human scaled streets). On the other we have a long tradition of building density as the underpinning value of making great societies…

  Oh, but in today’s Vancouver we have to add the Colin Rowe qualifier: density that is not more than 5 stories high…

  “an intial planning vision for the area…it would examine where new buildings could be added, without demolition; where heritage buildings might be retained; where new parks and community facilities might be located; where retail and office uses might be permitted, and yes, where towers might be appropriate…”

  Michael Geller 25

  Reading Rowe has caused me to reconsider why “towers might be appropriate…” except as a knee-jerk return to modernist urbanism?

  Is there no exit from that line of thinking? Do we always have to give one property owner the advantage over everyone else to the detriment of the neighbourhood as a whole? It is not a question of density, surely. It is a question of privilege. I think we can find better ways of regulating “competitive advantage” than giving one neighbour the “drop” over everyone else.

  Canadians must decide once and for all whether it’s okay to have the mentally ill, the poor, and the addicted living in the street.

  Yes or No.

  Once we get a grip on that, if the answer is “no”, then we have to find a way to provide housing with supports without zoning a ghetto.

  Social engineering? Nope—Good Urbanism.

• 27 Roger Kemble // Feb 1, 2011 at 2:39 am

  Towers versus rows: as with the argument between deniers and believers of AGW never the twain shall meet.

  I can respect Michael’s point of view because of his very successful tower contribution to Kerrisdale’s delightful urban village. I have not visited his SFU village but I hear it is equally successful.

  As for HAHR and DTES there is absolutely nothing wrong with heights already prescribed.

  No need to point out the disastrous imposition to go higher: we need only look to the big W to see the results.

  And to placate the low-istas, why not a mix: hence the atrium form.

  [Edited to remove personal and libellous attack]

  I mention this to add perspective: this tower/row conversation is important. I suspect a somewhat chastened city hall is watching closely.

  Personal prejudice is not at issue. Building economics, technique, materials at hand and indeed the talents, or lack thereof, of the local design profession are!

  Most historical buildings we admire, New York art deco, Mayan Chusa, Tudor wattle and daub, Chinese pagoda, or Hindu temples derive their spatial form from the economics and availability of indigenous materials and religions beliefs.

  Economics is the western contemporary religious belief. Material and work force are shipped indiscriminately according to wherever political repression offers the most convenience.

  The most commanding element in the form of contemporary urban structures is the Wajax Crane. The tower form is derived from the single point of loading of the crane.

  In contrast the pagoda was stacked to get closer to heaven.

  My last building was a low rise: we needed two cranes to supply materials to the overall site. Most developers prefer the single point of loading: hence the tower.

  In Vancouver the religious components are the mountains and the sea. And, as with all religions, they may be ephemeral as the next cult blocks the view.

• 28 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 1, 2011 at 6:10 am

  There are other issues in our historic neighbourhoods besides being “in keeping” with the building tradition of its era (a topic which appears to consume us here).

  Since the Freeway Fight, it is hard not to drive the area an see a pattern of disinvestment organized from the highest levels of our economy on down. Residential intensification will mean making the area “safe” for developers to come in and stake the future on urban land that has had a checkered record.

  The Powell-Cordova one-way coupling will have to be tested for its negative impact on the neighbourhoods. There may be other places as well where traffic calming is the missing ingredient to the urban environment supporting social neighbourhood functioning.

  Transportation would give a major shot in the arm. It may be the right project to attract senior levels of funding. BRT/LRT on Hastings could be as close to being a reality as the allocation of road space by the Engineering Department.

  The Hastings bus might then upgrade to B-Line status. Investing in street revitalization would take over from that. Curbs, medians, trees, stations, could all be part of redesigning Hastings into Vancouver’s historic “Great Street”. Once the job was completed the B-line would be a BRT. Adding rails and new rolling stock would complete the sequenced transformation to LRT. That would come as need for capacity grows.

  The same process might be repeated on Main Street.

  Does anyone doubt that kind of investment by our combined levels of government would not spur investment from the private sector? Would not every available piece of frontage on revitalized streets become more desirable?

  There are the historic gems to account for. The historic neighbourhoods are studded with cultural sites. Each one of these might be associated with a new public space in the same manner as the Salt Building was regaled with an Olympic Village Square at its doorstep. The size of the building might determine the scale of the space, and the combined effort might be more modest than at the OV. Yet, the end result would be just as enigmatic. It’s empty now, but as the area fills out, Olympic Square will be the beating heart of its community.

  Two final results. One, I think we will learn in this process how to fit social housing so that it is indistinguishable from other units in its vicinity, and we will learn the importance of providing social housing in a fully functioning neighbourhood setting.

  Two. There is a complete urbanism still in place in our historic quartiers. It predates modernism by just a scant few decades. But, it was up, and running, and whole. We can learn from those patterns inscribed on the land, and raised on bricks and wood frame. And the lessons will not be about buildings as objects.

  Rather, what we stand to understand is what results when the neighbourhoods are structured in a special way. When the front door and the corner and the park and the job place and the transit all lie about in a certain relationship to one another and within easy walking distance. What a street feels like when it is lined by front doors, trees, parked cars, and streetwalls that have been expertly scaled to give the sense of place and let sunlight through every day of the year.

  Finally, we stand to learn about the synergies created when we have five, or nine, or eleven of these places strung together by an urban spine of the quality of a revitalized Hastings Street.

• 29 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Feb 1, 2011 at 10:55 am

  I feel the deficit of creativity in addressing the area problems is due, in no small part, to the fact that right now it is being left up to the Planning Department to provide solutions. But all they have is a one-piece toolbox of towers = CAC amenities = revitalization (maybe) – not to mention some not-so-hidden ulterior motives for wanting more towers. Although it’s likely that the phrase “arts and culture” doesn’t appear once in the HAHR report, it is interesting to read that a no-nonsense developer like Michael Geller appears to recognize that promoting and developing the arts and culture in the area would have a positive impact, and not be riddled with as many political minefields as the current course of the HAHR.

  In my opinion, real revitalization around Hastings and Main, and in nearby Chinatown, would get an immense boost from restoration and reopening of the Pantages Theatre. This cannot happen if left up to the private sector and depending on CAC amenity money from condo towers (now that the Heritage Density Transfer program has been kneecapped) – it needs support from government, and likely all 3 levels.

  This is a crumbling jewel in Vancouver (and the oldest surviving Pantages in N. America) and would go a long way towards kick-starting rejuvenation, the opening up of new businesses, local job opportunities, etc. It would instill some pride of place in the area. It would bring in “body heat”. It would create a prominent cultural anchor that would attract investment around it. It would be a “must see experience” for all Vancouverites in what is currently a no-fly-zone for most.

  It also has the support of many, many people — local residents, the arts community, heritage groups, Chinatown community, etc – I have never personally met a person who is AGAINST restoring the Pantages, or who doesn’t think it would have a positive impact. So politically, it should be a no-brainer, because it would serve to bring people together, not create the endless and fruitless Us vs. Them battle that occurs in this area and inevitably ends in “do nothing”. If the City of Vancouver could manage to somehow make this happen, it would set a positive precedent, showing us how to work together and find common ground solutions (I know, sounding naïve again, but I do believe this to be true).

  If our governments were really serious about revitalizing this area in a way that includes the resident communities and has the added bonus of creating a very special and lasting legacy for our city, they would work to find a way to turn the Pantages Theatre back into the jewel of Hastings Street.

• 30 Roger Kemble // Feb 1, 2011 at 11:56 am

  GJG @ 29

  1951 the, now, Pantages Theatre was called, back then, The State Theatre.

  I well remember Joy La Joy doing her thing writhing on the stage coming up covered in dust.

  No turn on for us horny kids, poor dear lady, she was past her prime as was The State, even then.

  The real Pantages, an impressive columnated white imitation marble facade, was across Hastings from the Army Navy.

  It was demolished 1960+/- to accommodate, apparently, the present parking lot: another case of Vancouver vandalism along with the Birk’s Building.

  Really I do not see as DTES/Gastown as an arts centre especially if VAG goes to Larwill.

  On the other hand if VAG has the good sense to stay where it is then a revival may be possible.

  There was more than a glimmer of cultural activity, more even than there is today, back in the days of early Gastown.

  ¡Asi es la vida!

• 31 Michael Geller // Feb 1, 2011 at 10:03 pm

  The VAG’s potential move will have little if any impact on whether the DTES/Gastown will become an arts centre. The presence of SFU is a much more significant force, as is the number of nearby artist live/work housing developments and stock of affordable housing.

  I would very much like to see more artists move into the area, and think this is a very real possibility. One of the ideas I have been exploring with the city and SFU is a new housing/studio development catering to local and international artists, based somewhat on the Cite des Arts Residence in Paris. http://www.vingtparismagazine.com/2007/06/cit_des_arts_re.html

  There are dozens of somewhat similar centres around the world, and given Vancouver’s desire to be a creative city and centre of culture, I would like to think we could attract such a residency, and the DTES would be a most suitable neighbourhood.

• 32 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 2, 2011 at 12:02 am

  I tend to agree with Michael. The arts community in Vancouver is not defined by the VAG. And I applaud your efforts at creating an arts house that caters to local, national and international artists.

  The DTES is but 45% of the historic neighbourhoods. So with the right investments in place, such as BRT/LRT on Hastings, the opportunities to find the right site broaden.

  It is in microcosm a test of what a cc-ordinated Urban Code can bring to the neighbourhoods as a whole.

• 33 Roger Kemble // Feb 2, 2011 at 1:00 am

  Michael @ 31

  “The VAG’s potential move will have little if any impact on whether the DTES/Gastown will become an arts centre.

  Well how can you be so sure? Is not the expectation of the move to create a Cultural precinct around VAG, CBC etc?

  South Granville around Heffel and Equinox seem to be the most concentrated centre of lumpen galleries in the city!

  Indeed was it not your suggestion that the block on Cambie between the QE and potential VAG become a closed off art’s street? How many arts precincts can a small culturally isolated city up hold?

  I like to thinq of myself as an artist. I paint, write poetry, dabble in architecture and talk too much about urban design. And actually the farther away I am from art and artists the more I feel I can jump the shark.

  And yes I live in a tower and it does not dampen my need to parody or for irony one little bit: why just the other day I received a note from a minister of the church (????) who had bought my “Just doin’ mi job” depicting a Roman legionnaire hanging that guy up on his cross.
  What I find most extraordinary is why so much attention is paid by us predatory professionals to an area of the city that is most foreign to us when there are so may other delightful neighbourhoods, in peril from the likes of eco-density, that need our attention.

  Lewis @ 32 “

  I tend to agree with Michael. The arts community in Vancouver is not defined by the VAG. ” Oh yes it is! And, good heavens, what do you know about art or artists? Ditto Michael too, for that matter.

  “It is in microcosm a test of what a cc-ordinated Urban Code can bring to the neighbourhoods as a whole.” Shudder oh shudder, shudder . . . a sure sign of the death knell of a neighbourhood.

  Art is about individual risk and contemplative loneliness. You wouldn’t get me living or working in an art ghetto. Huh!

• 34 Bill Lee // Feb 2, 2011 at 11:23 am

  Let’s look at street level of Chinatown. That is what the public, and tourists, see and live with.
  Here we have been presented with towers seen from afar, and no street level view from the 160 cm height stance.
  Look at the present Chinatown and it is filled with offices, banks, what I call “bear paw stores” of Chinese medicines, a few cheap clothing stores, and one or two restaurants. Nothing to see.
  There is nothing for the average person to see or do. Even white Sean Bickerton didn’t mention GoldStone bakery with its cold and hot Horlicks and authentic Hong Kong atmosphere, nor the Hon’s potsticker restaurant.
  The Chinese Cultural centre is generally locked in the evening, as is the wide 80 feet of the black-fronted Rennie offices. so that block of the former DuPont street is dead.

  Chinatown is almost dead, like Montreal’s La Gauchetiere, Toronto’s Elizabeth Street. New generational Chinese districts have openened.
  The Famuly ‘Tong’s” own much of the property and want to see a greater return. Hong Kong towers is one way to get money out.
  But Chinatown is nostalgia, the district is gone now along with Robsonstrasse, Little Italy Commercial Drive and Anglo Kerrisdale.

• 35 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm

  Bill, what I can add to your list is seeing people in the street. That requires residential intensification (in keeping with local traditions). The second plus of having more people living in Chinatown is that they patronize local establishments.