This post, copied below, from independent planner Lance Berelowitz, adds to the commentary following speeches by the city’s three former planning directors last week, reported by Jeff Lee at the Sun.
I suspect this kind of commentary is getting traction because of the way the Vision council approaches its job, which is to see it as a set of goals: affordable housing, check; homeless shelters, check; bike lanes, check; food trucks, check; another World Cities Summit, check.
That can be an extremely efficient strategy for accomplishing key goals and we’re seeing this council get a lot done that way. But it can start to go off-key if it’s not accompanied by a big, global sense of how the city should develop overall, which it sounds like a lot of people feel is missing.
Lance’s thoughts (and here’s the direct link):
It’s been more than six months now since the Vision Party-dominated Vancouver City Council fired the City’s last Director of Planning, and still no replacement is in site. Recently it emerged that Council has reorganized the Planning Department and is in effect eliminating the Planning Director position, instead advertising for a General Manager of Development Services (which will incorporate the Director of Planning’s statutory functions) who will report directly to the City Manager’s office. This is unprecedented. The position is being politicized, presumably to ensure that the incumbent is more directly under the control of Council and more consistently on message with Vision’s ideological mission.
A source tells me that the City Manager recently called in several representatives of the design and development industries and academia to ask them what they thought the successful candidate needed to possess. An appreciation of development industry imperatives and the approvals processes seemed to be high on the list of key attributes. Having a long-term urban planning vision for the city did not, apparently.
Meanwhile, several high-profile and contentious development projects have been approved or are in the pipeline, including a major new rezoning in the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood that Council approved despite widespread and broad-based opposition (including several planning and design professionals).
The other night an Urban Land Institute panel discussion brought together three former Directors of Planning (Ray Spaxman, Larry Beasley and Brent Toderian) to talk about where the City of Vancouver is going. All three, to a remarkably consistent degree (and quite independently of each other, according to a source), expressed concern for the city’s future in general in the face of mounting issues, and for the future of the City of Vancouver’s planning vision in particular. One former director, Ray Spaxman, likened the City of Vancouver to feeling as if we are “on an Easter egg hunt. Council is rushing off after density, they’re rushing after lane housing, they’re rushing after cycle paths. They’re all rushing after the latest panacea that happens to offer some solution but isn’t.”
There is a growing sense that this Council is determined to ram certain things through regardless of staff advice, public process, or absent a larger vision (excuse the pun). Or if there is a vision, it seems increasingly ideologically driven, with little room for dissent.
What’s going on?
Is Vancouver increasingly just trading on its good looks, as another former director, Larry Beasley, put it? And what happens as the city ages and those looks inevitably start sagging and getting wrinkled?
A few thoughts:
City planning is difficult. To do it well and comprehensively takes lots of courage (in the face of resistance and vested interests whether from communities or within the corporation of the City itself) and nuance. It is a sophisticated balancing act. It should be done at arms length from local partisan politics as much as possible if it is to result in rational, equitable and defendable policies and a compelling vision.
A good urban plan is not susceptible to planning by fiat or by ideological dogma. It is more than a checklist of specific objectives, laudable as some of these may be (more affordable housing, for example). A vision is required. A long term, comprehensive vision, which is backed up by thought-through policies and strategies for achieving that vision. Planning takes partnerships: the public, private and non-profit sectors all have a role to play. It cannot be a zero sum game in which some win all, while others feel that they have lost everything. That is not a recipe for city-making success, less still for a compelling urban vision. There is an art and skill in moulding a city into something that is both beautiful and functional. Beauty (i.e. considered design) is not superfluous, but central, especially in appealing both to a local sense of pride and to the human and financial capital that other smart cities are competing for.
Politicians need to resist the impulse to interfere too directly, and to trust their professional planning leaders. Politicizing the planning function to this degree is bad for Vancouver regardless of which political party is doing it.
Vancouver can only rely on its good (and mostly non-planned) looks for so long. The city needs a forward-looking, comprehensive plan. We need to come to grips with what kind of city we want to be; with chronic housing unaffordability; with a city of increasing haves and have nots; with transit underfunding and transportation conflicts; with the challenges of intensifying our land uses and densifying our limited residential land base; with declining head offices; with our overdependence on tourism for economic development; with too many rules and regulations, and a risk-averse City Hall culture that stifles investment, entrepreneurship and creativity; with a problematic regional governance model that cannot compel its constituent members to comply with its planning policies; and with the gnawing sense that Vancouver is becoming less, not more, competitive in the global city-state stakes.
Smart cities know the stakes, and are investing accordingly, in both professional leaders and the infrastructures that support intelligent decision-making. Progressive cities need progressive urban plans. Vancouver better not think it can get away without one for too much longer. When we hold the mirror up, the picture we see is not some Dorian Grey-equivalent city, but rather a town that has been both very lucky and also at times quite thoughtful about its place in the world. Perhaps this is one of those times when we have to think carefully again. Looks can only get you so far.
48 responses so far ↓
1 jesse // Jul 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm
But the city has planners, no? Why does it need a grand-poobah planner? Sounds like a committee can work just as well.
2 jesse // Jul 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm
And, to play devil’s advocate, why does the City need to produce a master plan at all? Providing a master plan seems more suited for those who like visionary themes but hardly seems necessary and can be accomplished by a hodgepodge of other efforts.
The complaints I’ve heard is that “visionary” plans seem displaced from those operating on the ground and the public cannot relate to them. Perhaps it’s better to make the plans more pedestrian: if planning is inherently messy and chaotic in practice it seems suitable to match “the plan” with the reality.
3 Roger Kemble // Jul 20, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Well said Lance . . .
Start with a vision, i.e recognize and incremenatlize traditional neighbourhoods . . .
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/1yorkshirelad/vancouver.re-boot/Vancouver.re-boot.html
. . . so community input is more than token.
Encourage the community to set its own site specific parameters i.e. related urban village . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/theyorkshirelad72/working.mount.pleasant.html
. . . and integrate new and old prioritizing shapes, colours, textures and sound at ground level for people to enjoy.
Treat the experience as a work of art rather than a by-law exercise!
4 Julia // Jul 20, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Its all about physics. Consider the waterbed… you sit on the corner and the water pushes up somewhere else. If you don’t take that cause and effect into consideration you may end up with unintended consequences.
Checklist planning gives no consideration to physics – and that is nothing short of foolish.
5 Lance Berelowitz // Jul 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm
To be clear, I am not necessarily opposed to this Council’s goals, and indeed many of them are very progressive and should be lauded. No-one can reasonably argue with an agenda that seeks to improve housing affordability, more sustainability, better transportation alternatives, etc. But yes, city-making is more than checklists. And Vancouver does need a comprehensive plan, IMHO.
6 Everyman // Jul 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm
The term “vision” is used a lot in the article, doubly ironic when you consider how little of it Vision Vancouver has.
And I’m sorry, but this little nugget made me retch: “An appreciation of development industry imperatives and the approvals processes seemed to be high on the list of key attributes. ” I’m sorry, shouldn’t the city’s civil servants consider the interests of its citizens as paramount, not developers’ imperatives!?
7 Michelle // Jul 20, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Lance #4
That’s all there is… an agenda!
Nothing of substance of this Vision Vancouver council, really.
Symbolic effort from a amateurs. Period.
If it wasn’t for the money pumped into their election effort there would be no Vision Vancouver!
8 Julia // Jul 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm
do you think we are being treated like a real life version of Sim City????
9 Silly Season // Jul 20, 2012 at 11:30 pm
I applaud Lance for stating what so many have been talking about for the last few years: we have no guide posts and worse, no sense of what we want to be, and how we should get theat least from “leadership” at City Hall. You don’t have to be an urban planner to feel the anxiety on this issue all over town.
As long as this council thinks we can be bought off by shiny trinket projects like food trucks (good…god…) or community centre money diverted to bike lanes (to satisfy their base, and to make them look like they are really on the sustainability/transit track), we will get the city we deserve.
Affordability is only on the agenda because Vancouverites and some community leaders were lighting fires under the council’s collective ass. And even though certain councillors (and a supportive scribe) wanted to make it an issue about race in order to shut down the inconveneient (and embarrassing) conversation, the topic was just too big an elephant in the room to contain. S,o they’ve taken a couple of months of chats and produced a report. Wonder what will come of that?
(As a sidebar, I have to laff cynically as I hear Geoff Meggs now laud the Aquilini new three tower “rental housing” as part of that affordability effort—as if council helped shepard this development through, and weren’t going ape shit over the fact that their dream of major condo CAC’s were now being flushed. Wonder how that will affect the budget and pet projects next year??).
(Laff #2. GREAT! Put single young men in those 300 sq ft condos down in Gastown. Lovely to have a room to flop in between visits to the Lamplighter and Chill Winston. But once they decide to grow up, want to put down some roots and pro-create, where will they be living then??).
The homeless issue is of course a shared project with the province. What I want to know—how much will Adrian Dix commit to social housing in Vancouver, when he becomes Premier? Perhaps the Mayor could ask him?
Between the feckless Vision Park Board Commissioners who live on the glory of skate board parks for not-so-young adult adult males and the closing of ammenities like the Mt. Pleasant Pool and the Kids Farm at Stanley Park, and a Council that can’t see the forest for the tiny trees they plant in hopes of boosting their own party’s fortunes, I have to agree that we are fast wasting the opportunity to move this city forward in an organized, visionary and sustainable way.
10 IanS // Jul 21, 2012 at 5:48 am
I certainly don’t disagree with any of these criticisms, but I think it’s worth noting that Vision won the last election by a fairly sizable majority. Perhaps this Vision approach is something the majority of Vancouver residents want?
At the very least, an argument can be made that we’re getting what we deserve, having voted them in.
11 Julia // Jul 21, 2012 at 9:47 am
Ian, $601 million of the 1.2 billion budget gets paid through property taxes. 52% of those taxes are represented by the electorate. The remaining are not eligible to vote. (aka, taxation without representation).
According to the city’s website, 144,823/418,878 people voted in the 2011 election.
34% of the eligible voters cast a ballot or another way to look at it… 34% of $319,000,000 (residential tax share) is $108,460,000.
Now, this sizable majority you speak of was 53% 0f those votes cast were for Gregor Robertson.
That translates into $57,483,800 (residential tax share) of a $1,200,000,000 budget or 4.8% of the total city budget.
And we wonder why Developers get what they want… they pay a heck of a lot more of the bills in this town than Gregor’s ‘majority’.
Without a plan, and without transparent oversight, there are simply too many tails eligible to wag the dog.
12 brilliant // Jul 21, 2012 at 9:57 am
@IanS-Nope. Vision was just better at getting their basement suite dwelling base out to vote. The NPA needs to better at getting their base to vote.
13 Mira // Jul 21, 2012 at 10:36 am
This is nothing new. As a matter of fact a number of planning and urban design experts have said similar things only a few months ago as a response to a Gordon Price article:
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/push-and-pull-in-vancouver-citys-planning-game/
But I think, if I remember correctly, we discussed this before on this site, am I right?
You cannot ride two horses at the same time, it’s impossible, therefore Vision Vancouver and Robertson are riding on… one horse instead!
And it’s not even a horse. It’s a donkey!
Hilarious!
14 Terry M // Jul 21, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Gimme a break Lance. I heard you speak before in front of an audience. just like your pal Toderian , you two like to hear yourselves talk. And those sour grapes… Nothing to do with your rant right?
15 waltyss // Jul 21, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Julia @10. Whatever you were trying to say, I doubt even you can follow. The truth is that in a democracy, the majority of voters get to choose. You can think up all sorts of mathematical equations as to why you don’t like it but the truth is that Vision got everyone they ran elected. Had they run more people, I suspect they would have won more seats.
#brilliant not in its usual custom turns it really ugly. If you are renter a (before you go off on a tangent brilliant not, I am not a renter), then you are some kind of deadbeat whose vote is less important than a property owner. Of course, brilliant not forgets (if it ever knew) that a property owner who does not live in the city still gets to vote. And brilliant not, the NPA is better at getting out its vote; its just that there is less of it to get out.
That said, the truth is that this Council does appear to be operating without a clear vision (no pun intended) and unless they do focus on something other than checklists, then if a decent alternative comes along they will be doomed in 2014. City Planners with a real view have made their imprint on the city and we need a new one to come in to make his or her stamp. The City Manager is not a City planner nor does she pretend to be.
16 Glissando Remmy // Jul 21, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Thought of The Night
“Before Lance’s “Wither Vancouver” there was a dream… an April “Urban Dream”!”
Completely forgot about that one, Mira #12!
…………………………………………………………………
URBAN DREAM
Demented City,
Expelled Brent,
Fronted by Twitty,
Council from Trent.
Bang Chitty,
Zero Content,
Demented City,
Expelled Brent.
Sitting whitty,
Almost bent,
Nitty-gritty,
Avenging Brent.
Drum, water, cement…”
…………………………………………………………………
I guess we could say with certainty, there is no skinny love inside City Hall these days …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBQW5C6KqJ8&feature=related
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
17 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 22, 2012 at 12:04 am
There was something refreshing about having the former Directors take the stage and rap about their ideas in planning. Missing from the right-wing agenda of the Reaganist Years has been critical thinking and public speech.
[Bang Chitty, Zero, Fronted by Twitty, Demented City, Bang Chitty, Zero]
Of course, then you have to look at what is being said. Here, their sad old formulae being repeated make it more clear that we have turned a page, and entered into a season of change.
Spaxman-Beasley are our tower makers. They facilitated the city for capital—in place of the capital city. The tower takes the view and the prestigious position and—well—damn the torpedos!
I have always supported building towers in our regional centres where the infrastructure and supporting services are all in. But towers don’t belong in Mount Pleasant, the West Side, Granview-Woodlands, the DTES, Chinatown, Cambie Corridor, Little Mountain, etc.
[Bang Chitty, Zero, Fronted by Twitty, Demented City, Bang Chitty, Zero]
Dawning even here in our sleepy hollow—a new era is challenging us to build a workable urbanism for the rest of us.
The Mayor’s Task Force, and the Legislature in Victoria, made strides in June 2012 that eluded all these three Directors.
Through a coordinated series of legislative actions the way has been cleared to build affordable, high-density, human-scale urbanism—namely ‘row houses’ (the bread and butter of the British Empire, Paris in the 17th – 19th centuries—spanning the Belle Epoch—and visible in any European capital you care to mention).
Whoooosh! What could not be done before is possible now. A new era enters the scened and no one—not even these three—take notice. We live in Vancouver…
[Bang Chitty, Zero, Fronted by Twitty, Demented City, Bang Chitty, Zero]
This new promise may unlock the chains that keep our arterials in a mess. And, it may put the small builder on an even keel with the Condo Kings, finally showing us who’s been running lean, and who has been riding high on the hog.
18 brilliant // Jul 22, 2012 at 11:39 am
For waltsyss, by way of Clemenceau: “If a man isn’t a socialist when he is 25 he has no heart, if he is still one at 40 he has no head”.
19 Julia // Jul 22, 2012 at 11:52 am
Density is only good for the good old boys downtown. We tried to subdivide a 77X130′ lot in South Vancouver in the last 6 months so someone could build 2 homes with suites and possibly laneway housing to accommodate up to 6 family units instead of the possible 3 that current zoning would allow.
No deal. The neighbours had to agree and although most are already on 33′ lots, they did not want to allow our subdivision to go ahead – who knows why. So, City Planning said no, and now the lot will have a monster house on it for the next 30-40 years that is too expensive for most families and 3 other families will not have a place to live.
Who said we don’t need planning?
20 waltyss // Jul 22, 2012 at 3:31 pm
brilliant not #17, You can use a famous quotes book. I am so happy for you.
Lewis N. Villegas, while I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying, I am not sure that I agree that the DTES and particularly the Cambie corridor should not allow towers. To some extent they are already there (Oakridge, for example and north of Broadway). If you mean we don’t want another West End or Yaletown in these locations, I would agree but particularly with the Canada Line on Cambie, I fully support stepped down development around the train stops which might include the odd tower, lower rise condos and, yes finally, row housing. And not just on the busy arterial roads.
21 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 22, 2012 at 3:48 pm
@waltyss
“…I am not sure that I agree that the DTES and particularly the Cambie corridor should not allow towers.”
The difference between these two sites makes considering them at one and the same time for the same type of redevelopment kind of interesting.
The so-called DTES is the cradle of our city. This is ‘Vancouver’ before Vancouver and the CPR. And, it is also a kind of a failed experiment in combining warehouses and social housing.
So, waltyss, what would towers possibly bring to the mix besides the possibility of high profits for a few private developers and CACs to the city?
On the Cambie corridor, surprisingly, the questions are not that much different.
First, there is the failed issue in planning. Why was the land and its redevelopment not dealt with at the same time as the Canada Line planning and construction phases? Where were the Directors of Planning, and their Directors, focusing their vision?
Then, the wrong formula applied. If we can achieve high-density with row houses, waltyss, then why go higher?
Do you not recognize, or are you not familiar with the issues of hyper-density neighbourhoods like the downtown?
22 Higgins // Jul 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Glissy #15,
some of those verses need repetition:
Man, your little poem made my Sunday smile!
Simply brilliant.
I also second Lewis comment #16, and
“Bang Chitty, Zero content, Fronted by Twitty, Demented City, Bang Chitty, Zero Content”
LOL!
23 Jay // Jul 22, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Lewis N. Villegas – “Do you not recognize, or are you not familiar with the issues of hyper-density neighbourhoods like the downtown?”
I’m interested to hear about these issues if you don’t mind.
Paris, which is consistently praised, has around the same density as DT Vancouver residential areas. Does Paris suffer from the same issues? Or are you more referring to tower/podium neighborhoods?
For me it’s more an issue of architecture and the social make-up of these newer tower neighborhoods. What I see happening now outside of DT Vancouver and into the Metro Core, is a lopped off version of Yaletown forming – more glass with the same boring demographic, so I’m not so sure height is our main concern.
I would gladly absorb into Mt. Pleasant a 26 story version of the Woodwards building over any of these soulless mid rise buildings that are now our new standard for the Metro Core.
24 waltyss // Jul 22, 2012 at 11:00 pm
@ Lewis N. Villegas: I don’t know what you mean by being the cradle of our city. Certainly that is where the city started. However more recently it is the product of an evil NPA policy to warehouse all of society’s flotsam and jetsam within a prescribed area. It succeeded to that extent even though the overall result is sad. There is no reason to keep it as it is. Anything would be better provided all of the poor are not driven out.
I’m not suggesting towers and I am certainly not arguing for a continuation of Vancouver’s mind numbingly boring glass architecture in towers or anywhere else. However, while an overdue and welcome addition, I do not see row housing as the panacea.
Paris, well, it has something we don’t have. Land. And once you get out of some of the highly desirable neighbourhoods in the centre, parts of Paris are pretty awful.
What features of the Woodwards building do you think could be preserved at 26 storeys?
Finally, I am with Jay, what are the issues of the hyper dense neighbourhoods. I ask sincerely.
25 Roger Kemble // Jul 23, 2012 at 3:02 am
Lewis @ #16 “But towers don’t belong in Mount Pleasant . . . “. Who said? Rize @ 19 storeys faces an uncertain future but it may yet emerge: and if it does then what will you say?
Mount Pleasant is emerging as a regional centre: mixed use, mixed building typology etc . . . you wont regognize the place in twenty years . . . so stop trying to be King Canute!
“. . . namely ‘row houses’ (the bread and butter of the British Empire . . .” Obsessing again, Lewis? The bread and butter of the British Empire was Imperial theft aided and abetted by the Royal Navy. I know only too well: I was there.
“Paris in the 17th – 19th centuries—spanning the Belle Epoch—and visible in any European capital you care to mention . . . “. You only know a city by living and working in the city as an adult: a tourist’s view is superficial (there is an underbelly to even the prettiest urban agglomeration) and reading about it in books is . . . well . . . errrrr . . . about books.
The Vancouver Planning Department should appropriately be called The Vancouver Approval office for it does precious little planning, reserving its energy and time facilitating indiscriminate paper shuffling.
26 Broadwayishome // Jul 23, 2012 at 4:36 am
I’ve held senior management positions both in large private companies and governmental organizations. One thing that I’ve learned: nothing large and complex happens without a plan. And not just a plan cooked up by one person in a back corner, rather a thoughtful strategy developed with multiple viewpoints and wide ranging expertise. A strategy that has been tested, challenged, vetted and fine tuned.
Over the years I’ve encountered many individuals I will call micromanagers. Micromanagers tend to believe that they are gifted with a higher intelligence than those around them. Why engage in planning, consultation and discussion with people you have no respect for? Micromanagers tend to build organizations unable to sharpen a pencil without their permission.
Here’s the thing: micromanagers always fail. They make bad decisions, they alienate people around them and they do not unite people towards a common goal.
Which brings me to Vision Vancouver. This is a council of micromanagers. Whether the iron grip on city hall staff, the alienation of community groups, or the wanton disrespect for democratic processes, this is a group of people that believes they are smarter than the rest, and thus need no input from the less visionary.
Who needs a planning director when you have a team of micromanaging visionaries at the helm?
27 Nelson100 // Jul 23, 2012 at 4:50 am
I have worked and lived in Paris. Sure it has a few bad spots like all large cities but it remains perhaps the best and most beautiful example of what large cities can aspire to. It is a complete joy to live in.
It is utter nonsense that Paris has land available yet Vancouver does not. Paris (Ile de France, the metro area, to be more correct) is completely constrained by strict land zoning, as are most European cities. I’ll mention that Paris performs much better from an energy perspective than any North American city. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument from tower advocates why Vancouver can’t follow a Parisian density model.
Do we really want to be become Manila instead of Paris?
28 Roger Kemble // Jul 23, 2012 at 7:18 am
PS . . . and besides Paris is no Vancouver. The Paris we ogle over is a military encampment designed to move troops to quell the communards: Vancouverites have neither the balls nor understanding of collective action.
Now if you are talking Montmartre or Montparnasse: they were neither designed nor intended: they occurred over decades/centuries of use. The Vancouver mentality could never countenance such extended spontaneity.
BTW “The so-called DTES“, was never, “. . . the cradle of our city . . .” . . . New Westminster was!
As for Spaxman and Beasley . . . they had no clue and still haven’t!
29 Frank Ducote // Jul 23, 2012 at 8:10 am
For what it’s worth for the sake of accuracy, one cannot truthfully refer to a typical Parisian 7 storey building type as a “row house.”
Also, the subject of this thread is about a Director of Planning for Vancouver, not one’s all-purpose panacea.
30 Roger Kemble // Jul 23, 2012 at 8:26 am
PPS I’ll bet the Third Empire would have gone TOWERS if they’d had the know-how . . .
Frank @ #29. Right . . .
31 Morven // Jul 23, 2012 at 9:47 am
We should not be surprised.
After all, VISION are following the federal and provincial model.
That is: eliminate professional cadres, cut the bureaucracy to the core, rely on special interests for professional advice rather than rely on independent professionals.
Short sighted. For Harper, Clark and Robertson. -30-
32 Rick // Jul 23, 2012 at 11:03 am
It might be a first, but I completely agree with Lance. There’s no clothes on this emperor.
33 jolson // Jul 23, 2012 at 1:37 pm
There is no such thing as an independent planner unless that person is retired and does not intend to ever work in that field again. There are not a growing number of critics other than consultant hopefuls joining the chorus of the recently dispossessed.
The current Council has been elected by voters increasingly concerned with environmental issues which largely arise as a result of little thinking and even less planning. In the City of Vancouver, Planning and Development Services will be “managed” from now on and decisions will be based in science and reason and not on the “pursuit of the beautiful”. We can also expect a new Manager of Environmental Planning and a new Policy on Climate Change Adaptation which will go before Council this week.
Change is not a mystery if you know where to look but change is a necessity if we are to make progress on the important issues of the day.
34 brilliant // Jul 23, 2012 at 5:21 pm
@jolson-Sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Propaganda.
35 Michelle // Jul 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm
brilliant # 34,
I second your two cents re. jolson #33
Freaky!
Help me understand Jolson, WTF does the “Environmental Planning and a new Policy on Climate Change Adaptation” mean?
More and more, it feels like we live in a city out of a Russian novel from the 19th century!
36 waltyss // Jul 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm
@jolson are you articulating the Vision rationale for no planner. I can see logical arguments on both sides of this issue: like a board of directors, city council articulates a broad vision of what it wants and asks the civil servants to carry it out; or they appoint a strong Head planner who leads them to his or her vision and then has the bureaucracy carry it out. When we look at a Spaxman or a Beasley, they were clearly carrying out their vision, rubber stamped by council.
Which produces better results? Who knows?
A check list approach is not desirable? Neither is emphasizing greeness to the exclusion of other things.
I have yet to see this council articulate a view of what they think the city will look like in 1015-20 years. Yet, without a city planner, the task is there’s. If their view is green glass towers every where, then I am concerned. If not, what is it.
37 Terry M // Jul 23, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Geezus Jolson @33 you really jumped the ship with your comment. crazy!
38 A Dave // Jul 23, 2012 at 9:21 pm
I hate to be the one to raise this, but the “concerns” raised by Beasley and Toderian really smack of self interest. It sounds like they are trying to use Vision as the scapegoat to deflect any scrutiny away from the fact that their own plans for the city were extremely lacking.
If Beasley’s own 10-year lag theory is true, then the last two planning directors are the ones most responsible for the affordability mess, the ad hoc planning process, and the “let’s make a deal” mentality of city planning that exists today.
Beasley is the one who left downtown totally overbuilt and filled with monotonous green towers, which led Toderian by the nose into the historic area and outer neighbourhoods searching for places to land more towers for our hungry developers. And now they think the insatiable quest for density is short-sighted? Yet Yaletown, Coal Harbour are Beasley, and Toderian is the author of EcoDensity. Shannon Mews, the Rize, Chinatown towers, the Vancouver Club, etc. were all green-lighted by Toderian.
And these two both claim heritage preservation is important, yet they are the ones who institutionalized facadism, ran the heritage density bank into the ground, and allowed remarkable public assets like the Pantages Theatre to be demolished, all through the exact opposite of vision: neglect. Toderian’s HAHR even set about trying to undo all the by-laws in the Historic Area that Spaxman helped bring in.
And how many well-designed cities, and highly decorated planners, can claim to have a colossal failure such as the Leaky Condo Crisis on their resume?! Ssshhhh, don’t tell the Russians…
Vision may rate a fail on the planning front, and I certainly don’t disagree with the criticism of their tenure. But it’s a little pathetic for the guys who have been running the show for the last 25 years to start pointing fingers and saying the deep cracks showing up in the foundations were caused by someone else.
But hey, shirking responsibility after things start unraveling is pretty much how the Leaky Condo Crisis played out, too…
39 Glissando Remmy // Jul 24, 2012 at 12:15 am
A Dave #38
You are making a convincing argument. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
GR
40 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 24, 2012 at 1:04 am
We can add to A Dave’s admonition about ‘Leaky Condo’s’ and running rough shod over the historic district the fact that none of the reporting I read indicated any mention by the three former DoPs of homelessness.
I’ve never lived in Paris longer than a week at a time. But, each one of those weeks were magical. The towers are at La Defence, and nobody thinks that ‘zone’ is successful.
Nelson100 gives a clear sense of it, and draws the right conclusion—as regards the Rize, for example, why the hell are we building Korea in Mount Pleasant? For the extra CACs?
Wow!
As for row houses as panacea… it all depends where the rows are in the quartier footprint. At the periphery, for the intensification of the arterials and their remediation from functioning as open traffic sewers—did the three planners mention that high traffic volumes destroy the livability of streets & neighbourhoods—yeah, I think rows have the jam to deliver the ‘good’ urbanism there.
The Paris building type after 1800 is the Maisonette. Surprisingly, it too is incremental. Those Paris blocks where all the buildings look more or less the same were planned so that they could be executed by different builders, one lot at a time.
When Otis got the steel cable technology right and built the elevator, the 6-storey maisonette added 2 floors, and the social equation was inverted. The top became the sought-after zone and the piano nobble—the 2nd floor apartments that had hosted the infamous salons—gave up their chic.
The pre-1800 Paris/Versailles houses, and the British row houses belong to a different building type from the maisonette. They range in height from 2 to 4 storeys. They never reach 6 or 8, and they would grow to depend on mass transit.
These are the towers laid on their side. Once the building adopts that attitude, the elevator-on-its-side becomes the tram and the subway. Affordability arrives with a longer trip on the transit. However, the ability to flood the market with housing on the periphery has healthy effects in the core housing prices.
In the neighbourhood core, near subways for example, I think that the 6-storey maisonette can make an appearance and mix with row houses and mixed-use commercial-residential buildings.
I know it is a stretch, but I have started to look at the Sylvia Hotel in English Bay, and the Lee Building in Mount Pleasant, as local examples of the maisonette type—albeit with obvious differences.
The most important lesson about the maisonette should be to insist that the height of the building be kept in a 1 to 3 proportion to the width of the fronting street or right of way. That too is a Paris lesson.
The maisonettes went higher than the row houses to be sure, but the Haussmann-Napoleon III administration made sure that the avenues and the boulevards that the maisonettes fronted were—first—made wider. Then—second—scaled-down to human proportions using rows of trees planted in medians.
We can’t just pick at this thing or the other in urbanism. We really have to swallow the entire thing whole, and then digest it one part at a time. One of the lessons to draw from ‘older urbanisms’ is the absence of squares in our neighbourhoods.
So, for example, as we intensify Mount Pleasant and the other neighbourhoods, we must insist that squares be built even when they are not called for in the plan. These should be designed tot support social functioning as gathering places. Access to parking garages and loading should be located away from the squares.
Poster Child for what NOT to do? The public space that we find around 1 Kingsway.
41 Julia // Jul 24, 2012 at 3:29 am
We are blaming these guys for leaky condo’s? How about global warming while you are at it.
I did not city planners write the national building code.
42 Frank Ducote // Jul 24, 2012 at 11:18 am
Julia – thank you for restoring a measure of rationality to this so-called conversation.
On the whole, I respect the three former planners’ efforts to provide some informed and intelligent forward thinking about our city and the need for a clearer vision. I’m not sure anybody can reasonably argue with that. It was a risky thing to do, especially knowing Vancouver’s infamous desire to shred the reputations of its present and former civil servants and politicians.
43 Paul // Jul 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Lance’s is a valid viewpoint in need of greater consideration by many.
The way I see it, we’re right now building “product” that will house the city’s populace – for the next 100 years. With density, design, floorplates, unit mixes, and rezonings being done on an ad-hoc basis right now, it seems the city is chasing more after CAC’s than they are enduring utility of Vancouver’s scarce land. And the developers are only building what will sell today, not what will make sense for the populace tomorrow and for the next 100 years. There’s no one driving the bus, but we’re all strapped in tight.
While it can be argued that a committee can do the job just fine, every committee needs a chair. Having a collaborative visionary at the top will ensure that the interests of all parties are represented, not just developers complaining about onerous approval processes and NIMBYs complaining they weren’t consulted enough.
And ultimately, who is looking out for the housing needs of Vancouver’s citizenry in the decades to come? A political entity is an inappropriate choice as when it comes time to make the hard decisions they’re answering to donors and mouthpieces, not the masses in search of appropriate housing.
44 Bill Lee // Jul 24, 2012 at 3:16 pm
REW.ca @REWca Tweets:
“Brian Jackson, the man behind #RichmondBC successful “5 Villages” planning, hired by @CityofVancouver. Our gain!”
via @fabulavancouver
Retweeted by Frances Bula
And
twitter.com/SunCivicLee
Jeff Lee @SunCivicLee Tweets
Brian Jackson, former planner with Richmond, Toronto waterfront, Pasadena, San Gabriel hired to replace @BrentToderian
Jeff Lee @SunCivicLee
Vancouver hires Richmond’s Brian Jackson as general manager of planning & development to replace @BrentToderian #vanpoli
Jeff Lee posts
“Vancouver looks to Richmond in hiring new planning boss / By Jeff Lee, Vancouver Sun July 24, 2012 2:17 PM
[ PHOTO Vancouver's city budget has for years increased much more each year than the combined rate of inflation and population growth. City Hall Photograph by: Vancouver Sun , Sun ]
VANCOUVER — After an extensive international search in which it received 108 applications from all over the world, the City of Vancouver had to go no further than the municipality next door to hire a new general manager and director of planning.
On Tuesday the Vision Vancouver-led council ratified the hiring of Brian J.Jackson as the new general manager of planning and development. For the last four years Jackson has been acting general manager of planning for Richmond. He begins work August 27.
Mayor Gregor Robertson said that in hiring Jackson the city had found someone whose work around large, complex land-use planning initiatives align with Vancouver’s key priorities of affordable housing, transit-oriented development, economic development and sustainability.
The new position as general manager means Jackson will be a member city’s corporate management team. But it also includes the statutory position of director of planning, one of the few positions enshrined in the Vancouver Charter. Jackson’s hiring comes six months after the city fired Brent Toderian as its director of planning.
“Brian brings to this role his 32 years of senior planning experience across North America, in both the private and public sector, along with specific skills in the areas of priority for our council, like affordability, transit-oriented development, and community consultation,” Robertson said. “He is keenly aware of the challenges we face and we look forward to him working with our local neighbourhoods, businesses and not-for-profit communities to implement our vision for the future of Vancouver.”
Toderian was fired in late January by City Manager Penny Ballem over a difference in vision for the city. Robertson said at the time the city needed “new leadership” to meet council’s priorities and that Toderian wasn’t that person.
Toderian, who didn’t enjoy a lot of support among some developers, had also become a target of neighbourhoods over his defence of “eco-density”, a land-intensive planning exercise started by the last mayor, Sam Sullivan of the Non-Partisan Association. And yet he was considered to be competent and had been a major supporter of ensuring developers contributed adequate funds to pay for public amenities needed as a result of their projects.
But the lengthy delay in appointing a new director of planning to replace Toderian also created concern among developers and neighbhourhoods, who noted that under the Vancouver Charter the city had a statutory obligation to have a “director of planning.” The city temporarily appointed Kent Munro as acting director of planning.
Jackson has worked both in the public and private sector as a planner in Nevada, California, Ontario and B.C. Prior to his position with Richmond he oversaw a transit-oriented development project involving 11 communities around Pasadena, California. He also worked as the project manager for the San Gabriel Valley growth visioning study, which involved working with more than 30 local California governments around growth initiatives.
For 10 years Jackson also worked as a senior associate for IBI Group, a large private development, engineering and architectural group. In the 1990s he was the manager of waterfront planning for Toronto as it was undergoing significant revitalization of its central waterfront.
Vancouver acknowledged Jackson’s work in Toronto, saying that over his seven years there “he oversaw the review of development applications representing over 10,000 residential units and five million square feet of office space. The streets, buildings, parks and public art that have reenergized the waterfront have earned more than 40 regional, national and international awards.”
In Richmond Jackson is credited with overseeing more than $4-billion worth of applications in construction value, including hotels, retail, office and over 12,000 residential units, as well as 520 affordable housing units.
Jefflee@vancouversun.com
Twitter.com/sunciviclee
Blog: vancouversun.com/jefflee
Read more: vancouversun.com/Vancouver+looks+Richmond+hiring+planning+boss/6983088/story.html
45 Higgins // Jul 24, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Bill Lee 44,
Thanks for that info, Bill!
Must be really an “ouch” moment for the local Urban Design aficionados, one question though.
FWIW, I think Vision Vancouver, what they did, they concentrated the bureaucracy under a smaller umbrella. Easier to direct and control! Period.
46 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 24, 2012 at 10:56 pm
We are blaming these guys for leaky condo’s? How about global warming while you are at it.
I did not city planners write the national building code.
Julia 41
I’m not sure I get it… the building code was written to (1) ensure buildings were safe against fire threats; then revised to (2) make sure buildings did not present barriers to people in wheel chairs; and finally (3) in earth-quake zones, to ensure that building technology kept up to date with the latest findings from natural disasters in California and Japan.
Leaky condos—if you really want to talk about that—hold special kind of shame for our building professions.
Every leaky condo in our province was (1) designed and stamped by a registered architect; (2) structurally designed and stamped by a registered engineer; and (3) approved by a municipality staffed by building technologists, architects and engineers.
[Planners really don't punch at this weight class. The technical side of the industry is typically left to other professionals.]
So, what’s your point, Julia?
47 Frank Ducote // Jul 26, 2012 at 7:27 am
Well that was a conversation killer.
48 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Facts circumvent speculation.
Leave a Comment