Council accepts Dunbar’s vision for neighbourhood: Planners said rejection of the report, which was opposed by some residents, would have undermined the future of the CityPlan.: [Final Edition]
. The Vancouver Sun [Vancouver, B.C] 11 Sep 1998: B4.
Abstract (summary)
The so-called Dunbar Community Vision was endorsed unanimously by councillors after they had heard critical presentations from Dunbar residents who said the report would bring too much density to the affluent single-family neighbourhood.
One Dunbar delegate, John Geddes, said the report would make it difficult for Dunbar residents to stop higher-density projects such as row housing. Geddes said that the Dunbar visioning process had upset he and his wife, Glenna, “more than anything else in our lives.”
CityPlan — the city’s blueprint that will guide the city’s development over the next 50 years — began moving into action last year when the first two neighbourhoods, Dunbar and Kensington/Cedar Cottage, were chosen to begin their planning process.
Full Text
The CityPlan process survived a major hurdle Thursday as a Vancouver council committee adopted a report setting out how Dunbar residents want to see their neighbourhood develop.
The so-called Dunbar Community Vision was endorsed unanimously by councillors after they had heard critical presentations from Dunbar residents who said the report would bring too much density to the affluent single-family neighbourhood.
Mayor Philip Owen told the angry delegations that the report offers only guidelines — not rezoning proposals.
“This is not chiselling something in stone,” said Owen. “It allows us to start a process.”
The report found that a majority of Dunbar residents want their neighbourhood to remain a single-family area.
However, the report also said exceptions could occur when the community supports new housing choices.
The report, for example, found that a slim majority supports creating new housing through in-fill on larger lots, but only as an incentive to retain character buildings.
The report also said that a slim majority favour more housing variety through rowhouses, four-and-sixplexes and duplexes — but only along arterial streets.
One Dunbar delegate, John Geddes, said the report would make it difficult for Dunbar residents to stop higher-density projects such as row housing. Geddes said that the Dunbar visioning process had upset he and his wife, Glenna, “more than anything else in our lives.”
But Councillor Jennifer Clarke said that the CityPlan will be “an incremental process of evolution” and that “there is going to be no radical change.”
Senior planner Rhonda Howard said afterwards that rejection of the report would have seriously undermined the CityPlan’s future. “It would have made it less credible to people in future visioning areas,” said Howard. “People want to believe that the message they send will be approved by council.”
CityPlan — the city’s blueprint that will guide the city’s development over the next 50 years — began moving into action last year when the first two neighbourhoods, Dunbar and Kensington/Cedar Cottage, were chosen to begin their planning process.
Each of the city’s 22 neighbourhoods will eventually do the same, with residents being urged to help decide their area’s future.
Councillors had already adopted the Kensington/Cedar Cottage report in July. Council had put off considering the Dunbar report so they could hear from delegations at the Thursday committee meeting.
The Dunbar residents, including officials from Dunbar Residents Association, charged the process was skewed to reflect city hall’s desire to bring increased density to Dunbar.
(Copyright Vancouver Sun 1998)
6 responses so far ↓
1 Christopher Porter // Oct 21, 2014 at 9:01 am
Deja vu.
It’s not surprising that finding consensus on city planning was as unattainable in 1998 as it is today. It baffles me that some people seem to think a different form of community consultation would result in a less contentious result. The fundamental problem is people disagree with what the future of our neighbourhoods should be. More consultation won’t change that.
2 Bill_McCreery // Oct 22, 2014 at 11:00 pm
I disagree. It is possible to move forward with planning initiatives, including densification provided you work in partnership with the community. A partnership has obligations. In the relationship between the City and neighbourhoods one of the obligations is that the neighbourhoods must do their part for the greater good.
With respect to density, following City and neighbourhood wide discussions about what kind of city we want, how big, quality of life, etc. the ‘hoods have to take their allotted share of density, social housing, etc. and make decisions about how what goes where. If this is done reasonably equitably the types of ridiculous excesses in densities that Vision Vancouver has imposed on 5 neighbourhoods and counting are no longer necessary. In fact these densities will bring services that will create the walk, bike, transit sustainable neighbourhoods everybody says we want.
3 leechap // Nov 9, 2014 at 1:15 am
The goal of consultation is not a less contentious process, it is to have the end result better reflect the interests and aspirations of all the stakeholders. Under the current Vision dictatorship only the developer agenda is being heard.
4 Lewis_N_Villegas // Nov 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm
Sorry to weigh in so late, but its a point that barely needs repeating. I’m interested in passing on to Christopher my experience in the early 2000’s with achieving consensus plans in cities in the western U.S. states.
I was a hired consultant on two or three local plans that achieved a high level of local support. In one of the neighbourhoods in Anchorage, Alaska, we received a standing ovation on the night we presented the plan. In NE Portland, we defused the car lobby and helped the community formulate a low-rise hi-density walkable plan.
I agree with Bill. It can be done. In fact it has been done. And once or twice I’ve been a part of it. Pity it hasn’t happened in our part of Canada. Not yet!
5 Lewis_N_Villegas // Nov 10, 2014 at 2:56 pm
I find we get to the results faster when we focus on helping folks identify what areas need to change, then we show them a menu of options for how to achieve that change over a period of time.
6 Lewis_N_Villegas // Nov 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Hi Lee. The goal of consultation—many times—is to inform people on the choices available to them. In other words, a good part of the consultation process is teaching about what options or choices are out there.
When I am working outside our neighbourhood I often remark that we are the experts on urban options and the residents are the experts of place. The consolation process becomes a consultation where each side informs and helps the other form its understanding remarkably quickly.
From there the design professionals pick up the ball, do some drawing, and consult back with the community to see if we have it right.
It’s a collaboration pure and simple.