Dear Worship and Council,

As an owner in Spectrum, I have followed with great interest the public consultation process surrounding the City of Vancouver’s North East False Creek, Higher Level review.

What has struck me most, is that this exercise of a “High Level Review” has never been clearly defined or understood (by staff or the public) and therefore it has fallen sadly of track.

My understanding (after attending the recent open houses) is that this HLR report is a guide that sets broad goals and guidelines for future rezonings and ODP modifications. However, in past open houses last spring, staff alerted me that this HLR would replace the ODP and set a new vision, density targets and would allow landowners to go to rezonings immediately. What is the actual exercise of the HLR?

In any case, the process has been dragging on for well over a year and still I do not see a vision being defined for the area by City staff. In my mind the HLR should have been a return to first principles as was the case with the policy broadsheets process which brought us the 1990 ODP. That was a phenomenal visioning exercise that set the baseline for the ODP and the subsequent rezonings we have seen to date. It is so sad that we instead have a report that avoids FSR, gets into density (but not specifically into benefits or where they are located) and lacks any kind of real guiding principles other than “live, work, play”.

I cannot find the Richard Henriquez plan online, but saw it (in grainy quality) when watching the council video last week. It was the first time I saw a plan that looked at the area and said “what’s best for residents today and for residents moving forward”. He didn’t seem to be suggesting a smaller park and I was eager to hear more, but with only 5 minutes for him to speak I did not get a full account of his plan. I was lead to believe that it would connect Georgia street down to the water (great for us Spectrum residents!), create a park that focuses and increases public space on the waterfront among other items. This sounds excellent!

While the HLR report is a lost opportunity, I do understand that City staff have a tough job to do. There are several landowners, with various goals, aspirations and timing requirements. The neighbourhood contains residents (citygate) whom feel they are owed a park and have become irrational as anger blinds them to any possibilities that do not involve the punishment of “sins” for the developers, Concord Pacific. This issues has become personal for them and is counterproductive to positive, world-class city building.

I ask that as you prepare to debate this report today you reflect on the opportunity at hand. Yes its tough, yes there are very hard issues, but this is YOUR opportunity as councillors to make a mark on a definitive piece of land that could tie east and west together and create a new “Vancouver model” for the next 20 years. We did it before in 1990 with the first ODP, now please lets focus on what the future holds for this area, not what grievances are held, what obligations must be wrung out of developers and punishment levelled. I live in the area and want to start a family. As a new $500M roof is built next door, I hope other benefits (which are always delivered in the NEFC through private development activities) will follow as development continues and more bodies fill a derelict space.

Consider what works. Lets hear more from the Heriquez group and lets lay off density at this stage and talk about land use, urban form and what a great park really looks like. My request to you council is that you ask staff to work on this Henriquez plan, figure out the park and that a planning exercise to create a new ODP for the area be put in place, not more modifications.

Yours truly,

Loaded phrases like “selling out” do not apply to the waterfront park. There is no way under the sun (or, as it were, the rain) that condo towers will be built right on the waterfront and block access for the public. Councilors of any stripe will put their futures in serious jeopardy if they voted for such a giveaway. Waterfront as a public amenity is sacrosanct in downtown.

The issue is utilizing what little open space is left on the downtown peninsula (already blessed by the 1,000 acre Stanley Park and several hundred additional acres of additional waterfront park and public open space) for more housing + a linear waterfront park of limited size, or less housing + a larger park.

And I’ve been to meetings where both anti + pro development crowds use identical and very, very typical tactics to disrupt meetings and overwhelm a speaker’s list. Rules can be equally bent by opposing interests.

It’s even bigger than the new convention centre green roof, which is off-limits to general public access.

In response to the above comments, I agree that the park space need not be grass. It could include’ hard landscaping’….Indeed, I argued that it should include the area of shoreline walkways created by the developer…that was a battle!

I am surprised to read that Coal Harbour and SEFC did not achieve the 2.75/1000 requirement. This is not my understanding at all, but I would welcome further evidence that the requirement was not met. (Although I would accept that the new man made environmental island be counted…but not the water!)

Sean Bickerton mentionend that NYC has devoted a significant amount of land to park space. Well, I really don’t believe they’ve achieved anything close to 2.75/1,000 in Manhattan. Though Central Park could be called New York’s “Stanley Park”, you’d be hard pressed to find generous green space from mid-Manhattan south. Moreover, the FDR freeway took over huge parts of the Manhattan waterfront, something Vancouver has purposely avoided to its great merit

However, green spaces like Washington Square (and many even smaller spaces) are absolutely delightful gems and add much vitality to a very dense city.

Sounds like some would prefer that the city wrestle developments from the evil developers and have the city form its own development company, perhaps put every little development detail out to public referenda, or do nothing more than build walls around the city and pop a glass bubble on top.

Also, I have a confession to make, I am afraid of circus clowns. I am particularly scared when they are riding their undersized bicycles, honking their horns and spraying water on the unsuspecting spectators from their flower shaped water throwers. And then, there are the shoes. Big, “gianormous” rainbow coloured, gummy soled, dog shit left on grass squishing machines.
But, enough about Vancouver Vision…

To the topic now.

What about dogs in the city?
My dog is not fussy. He doesn’t care if the park is linear, square, rectangle, oval, stripes shaped. No Siree Dog! Hey, he is only passing through, taking a dump, moving on, no hard feelings. But. He. Needs. His. Patch. Of. Green.
Without it he may as well stay at home and do his thing on the rug, in the kitchen, which would be uncivilized, especially for a Dalmatian.
All things said the city should review the ratio to something like this: 2.75/ 1000 + 101 Dalmatians. Got it?
They live in Vancouver and this keeps them busy too!

Because it’s time government finally moved to protect the world famous coral reefs of False Creek from the Aqua Ferry scourge.