For those not following me on Twitter, where I re-tweeted this, here’s the latest from the mayor’s trip to New York, which he posted at 1 a.m. NY time as far as I can tell.
“toured brooklyn navy yard. leading edge industrial zone creating green jobs. false creek flats? south van? http://bit.ly/9968Gl”
32 responses so far ↓
1 Claudia Laroye // Apr 14, 2010 at 8:29 am
The industrial nature and zoning of the Marpole (South Vancouver) industrial lands has been reaffirmed by Council in 2006, and most recently again in July 2009. The City of Vancouver confirmed the industrial nature of these lands out of concern over the lose of its dwindling industrial land base and their related jobs.
These industrial lands already exist. They are substantial in size, well-located within Metro Vancouver, and in many cases, water-based along the north arm of the Fraser River. However, they are higher priced industrial property, in comparison with other industrial land pockets within the region.
Whether they are termed ‘green industrial’ zones creating ‘green jobs’ will be based upon the City’s (and VEDC’s) support for those types of jobs (read: tax incentives?), affordability of land purchase or leasing, and the actual business case in Vancouver for such green businesses wanting to locate here.
There are many good reasons to do so, and the City is wise to examine how best to entice those businesses to locate here, and to do our/their collective best at creating an architecturally and environmentally stimulating industrial environment that works for business, employees, the community and the Fraser River waterfront, which remains a jewel too-often ignored by our city’s highly-successful, but exclusionary, white-hot focus upon our other waterfront.
Bring the green leading edge to south Vancouver. The industrial lands and zoning are already here. The vision and attention to create a new industrial future for Vancouver are what have been lacking.
2 Mira // Apr 14, 2010 at 11:02 am
Frances, are we the Mayor’s personal chambermaid now? Whoever is interested in what Gregor twits, all three of them to be more exact, they can go on Twitter. Duh! No need for you to genuflect it in here!
3 Michael Geller // Apr 14, 2010 at 11:05 am
False Creek Flats…dubbed ‘The Sustainability Precinct’ by city staff and council a few years ago. Yes, it’s a good idea, but let’s not be so worried about excluding residential uses this time. They should and can be mixed in with industrial, commercial, retail and community amenities.
And of course….education and health care…
The Great Northern Way Campus is exploring a variety of options so that it can be a part of a very vibrant 21st century downtown in this part of Vancouver. As I said at the beginning, previous staff and Councils have recognized the potential…but to be truly green and sustainable, it must be economically viable too. That will be the challenge.
4 Urbanismo // Apr 14, 2010 at 11:50 am
I’m getting sick as hell over all this “green”, “sustainable” political posturing: political posturing, that’s what it is. Lying is a better word! It’s also very expensive ineffective marketing: ineffective because everyone is pretending to do it!
Mayor Philip Owen declared the False Creek flats to be a high tech zone and what did we get, Cost Co , Canadian Tire and other big box consumer wastage: “sustainable”, “green”, words that mock the language . . . political pollution at its worst!
I have been watching a freighter loading raw logs all week: The BLACK FOREST, “Pacific Basin” emblazoned on its sides, registered in Panama.
It’s taking our raw material to sweatshops!
Yesterday evening, keeping well clear, I followed it out. It’s decks were loaded 20ft high with our jobs and wealth only to come back to inflate our real estate so we have to de-humanise our own playing the “stick-’em-in-a-container” shell game.
I really don’t know how you guys can keep a straight face: “container living” for God’s sake!
5 Dan // Apr 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Like many others I am sure, I do not understand what a green industrial zone-or green industry- means precisely. What comes to mind is the stereotype of alternative energy research and construction; industries whose products and services focus on lowering are carbon output or promoting some sort of ecological friendly business.
It appears to me that green industry does not need a “zone” in the way that we have “industrial zones” -separated from residences and other businesses and exclusively industrial. Can’t green industry just be assimilated into regular business parks or commercial zones? Or in other cheaper lands that are not part of some specific, reserved industrial lot? Certainly a green industry is made even greener when it is located more central and whose services are easier to reach? Yes, central locations come at a cost but if the mayor is truly focused on making the city a green capital subsidies could be made available for locations like this.
I would support such “green zone” or a green-tech industrial cluster, but would be hesitant to sacrifice the little industrial land in the city for it when it is unnecessary
6 Brad // Apr 14, 2010 at 12:33 pm
The problem is that nobody will locate to Vancouver proper because the industrial land prices are too high whereas industrial land prices are much lower in the rest of Metro Vancouver – with much better transportation infrastructure/links I might add.
7 Visiting // Apr 14, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Urbanismo, kudos man! You are so right. Of, course the Mayor’s Office + Vancouver Vision will have none of this. It’s like taking away their own “green” sandbox. Nothing to play in anymore, eh?
Oh, the humanity!
8 katey // Apr 14, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Can you name one Green Industry that exits without direct Government subsidies?
You can’t because there aren’t.
And now our very own Greenie Gregor wants to invest in a bubble industry.
Wonderful use of taxpayer funds.
9 spartikus // Apr 14, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Can you name one Green Industry that exits without direct Government subsidies?
Direct government subsidies? I’ll bite! But first, how much will you give for each business we list?
What’s reasonable? $1 per business? To charity?
Let’s get the ball rolling: Wetcleaner, Community Composting…
10 Chris Keam // Apr 14, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Well, unless you can name an industry that makes zero use of public infrastructure, publicly-funded education, or publicly-funded medical services, not to mention law enforcement, emergency responders, and on and on and on, every industry benefits from government spending. After that it’s all a question of degree. I for one am happy to see governments investing in green industries, so since I don’t share your outrage, I can’t imagine why I would feel compelled to answer your question.
11 Dan // Apr 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm
ooohh snap!
not to mention, auto industry, forestry…oh ya, remember when wall st. was bailed out for grand total of way more than has ever been put into green industries?
12 IanS // Apr 14, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Well, to the extent that the City can create or nurture a circumstance or environment which encourages an influx of industry and jobs in that area, I’m all for it. Who wouldn’t be?
To the extent those jobs are “green”, or whatever other buzzword we may want to apply to them, so what? All the better.
13 spartikus // Apr 14, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Ah but Chris, those are all indirect subsidies. Katey went above and beyond the call and claimed every “green” business – every single one – receives a cheque each month from the government. That being the definition of direct subsidy.
remember when wall st. was bailed out for grand total of way more than has ever been put into green industries?
By orders of magnitude more, yes.
14 MB // Apr 14, 2010 at 3:24 pm
The nations — note I did not say ‘cities’ — that fostered the most green industry supplied publicly-funded incentives like feed in tariffs on local clean power generation, direct grants to literally steal solar panel manufacturers away from other countries, and grants for serious R&D into green tech are leading the way (e.g. Germany, Denmark, China ….).
Yes, katey, subsidies are one way of looking at it. But another is the simple notion of seed capital, which will place these countries far ahead of other industrialized nations in future. Canada, thanks to it’s current Leave It To Beaver PM, is stuck in the fossil fuel era of last century, and as the result will be buying green products from offshore at a premium rather than making its own.
Feed in tariffs are getting criticized now in Germany for placing too much emphasis on local household generation of power (thousands of households in Germany sell more power back to the grid than they produce, and have paid for their expensive photovoltaics in well under a decade) compared to larger centralized projects, like offshore wind farms that require fewer cents per kilowatt hour to develop. But I see a certain beauty in decentralization and household and neighbourhood energy independence.
I’m not sure how a city can make a green industry zone appear out of the air without senior government assistance.
15 landlord // Apr 14, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Subsidize “green” companiew or any other kind of company with tax holidays or cheap land or any other approach. Then watch all the businesses who didn’t get the favours start to yell, then support any politician who will “restore a level playing field” or call for “fairness”. Environmental standards must be even-handed and apply to all.
The State has a terrible record of “investing”, usually in firms which kick back the most. Seed capital is great, but should come from private investors, not some car dealer or union organizer with MLA or MP after his name who is spending your money.
If the banks won’t lend you money for your business plan there’s usually a very good reason. That’s when shady operators turn to the government for special consideration. They’ll promise anything : “We’ll create jobs” they’ll say, and then later when they’re going broke they’ll say “We can’t compete against cheap foreign labour. Impose tarriffs”. Then when they face bankruptcy they turn to blackmail : “Fund us or we’ll lay off x hundred employees, mostly in your riding”.
Good ideas don’t need government money to succeed. They need private capital, productive workers, intelligent management and consumer demand. You won’t find any of those in government.
16 Chris Keam // Apr 14, 2010 at 5:15 pm
“If the banks won’t lend you money for your business plan there’s usually a very good reason.”
One only has to consider the huge number of successful ventures that couldn’t get funding from historically conservative lenders such as banks to see how erroneous that statement is. In fact, most of the modern economy is built upon risky ventures that paid big dividends.
“Good ideas don’t need government money to succeed. ”
O rly?
Is public transit a good idea? What about sewers, or power utilities, or roads, railways, and ports? Good ideas need whatever they need to make it happen. Blanket statements however, are not a good idea.
17 Chris Keam // Apr 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“But I see a certain beauty in decentralization and household and neighbourhood energy independence.”
Absolutely. Imagine a power grid that healed itself by rerouting around problems, so that one downed tree on one set of wires didn’t mean power outages for thousands of people. In extreme weather (such as seems to be the prediction for our future) such a system would literally save lives.
18 landlord // Apr 14, 2010 at 10:55 pm
@CK : “huge number of successful ventures…”. Name three. “…most of the modern economy is built upon risky ventures that paid big dividends”. Easy to say, hard to demonstrate. The modern economy is built upon cheap oil and automated production.
19 Chris Keam // Apr 15, 2010 at 7:37 am
Hard to imagine a riskier venture than oil exploration.
Internet communications and high-tech sector- often gov’t funded, full of ideas that burned through v.c. and crashed.
Finance industry – recent events show it’s full of risk.
20 spartikus // Apr 15, 2010 at 7:57 am
Internet communications and high-tech sector- often gov’t funded, full of ideas that burned through v.c. and crashed.
By coincidence, I just read this tale of a promising internet start up based in Vancouver that’s had the rug pulled out from under them.
21 JP Ratelle // Apr 15, 2010 at 9:17 am
Chris,
It’s not the sector that’s inherintly risky, its the timing of the entry and what the project is.
There was a day when oil was bubbling out of the ground. Was investment risky then? Not a chance. Is it now (somewhat), but it’s all private money these days.
No government is investing in one $300Million deep-ocean well, or even a $30 million 20,000 foot deep trough play. In both cases the bigger the company, the more advanced their data centres are, and empty holes are fewer and farther between.
The Alberta government invested heavily in the oil sands, but the risk wasn’t the finding, it clearly was there. Their investment was in building a market/or waiting for one, in heavy crude. If you look at what it’s done for their province and our country, you certainly cannot suggest it hasn’t proved itself worthy.
Green-tech. It’s better now then it was 10-20 years ago. Just check into how much money the German government has invested in their solar tech industry. Has their investment paid off, not likely for another 20-30 years, if it makes it. If solar doesn’t clean up their act to eliminate the harmful chemical gases that are released in production, what better is it then oil?
High-tech/Internet will always be risky, spartikus’s (sic) example is a story we could read about dozens of times a day. Sure the rug may have been pulled out from under them, but for him to call this a “promising internet start-up” is like saying “bellybutton piercing is a promising business”, you know cause everyone has one. The internet start-up graveyard is not one to be quoting from sparty.
Bankers generally limit risk, what happened was bad policy and greed. In Canada we were not as affected as in the states.
With respect to your comments, it sounds like you have never put any of your own money into a business venture or that you understand risk very well. It’s all risky to those without any real skin in the game.
22 spartikus // Apr 15, 2010 at 9:34 am
The internet start-up graveyard is not one to be quoting from sparty.
I thought we were providing examples of how high-risk, high reward enterprises aren’t restricted to “green industry”.
I give you the other side of the internet start-up coin – also originally from Vancouver:
Flickr.
Brief corporate history.
With respect to your comments, it sounds like you have never put any of your own money into a business venture or that you understand risk very well.
That’s insulting to Mr. Keam. Not to mention, if you bothered to click on the link attached to his name, untrue.
You make erroneous assumptions like that a lot.
23 Chris Keam // Apr 15, 2010 at 10:24 am
“With respect to your comments, it sounds like you have never put any of your own money into a business venture or that you understand risk very well. It’s all risky to those without any real skin in the game”
Once you start making personal remarks like that when we are discussing abstractions it reflects more poorly on you than me JP.
24 JP Ratelle // Apr 15, 2010 at 11:05 am
His business does not qualify as putting skin in the game. Nor do rrsps or mutal fund investments.
If you haven’t taken your money and attempted to create a real corporation on a large scale, sorry but it simply isn’t the same. I’m talking watermelons and Chris and Sparty are stuck on picking cherries.
More than anything that shows YOUR lack of understanding the risk involved in starting a REAL business. And that was directed to the both of you.
And Flickr’s success Sparty was less risk, more timing. Try and start that today and see how far you get. When they did it, it was less risky then today, but of course you don’t understand what you’re talking about so you offer up ridiculous arguments and point the fingers at others.
25 JP Ratelle // Apr 15, 2010 at 11:14 am
“Once you start making personal remarks like that when we are discussing abstractions it reflects more poorly on you than me JP.”
See Chris, my comments were directed at your comments as follows:
“Hard to imagine a riskier venture than oil exploration.
Internet communications and high-tech sector- often gov’t funded, full of ideas that burned through v.c. and crashed.
Finance industry – recent events show it’s full of risk”
These comments actually show how ill-informed you are on business matters and as you say, “reflects more poorly on you, not me”.
If you can’t take the heat for your uninformed comment, then don’t comment.
26 Chris Keam // Apr 15, 2010 at 11:34 am
I stand by my comments and am happy to take the heat for them, especially in regard to the context in which they were originally offered ( a counter-point to blanket statements regarding the need for gov’t subsidies with regard to green industry).
But, since we’ve gone there, then I think it’s time for you to direct us to some examples of your business acumen and financial success.
If you think bona fides and proof of performance are important to the discussion, then clearly it’s not unreasonable to ask you to provide same.
Thanks, have a great day.
CK
27 MB // Apr 15, 2010 at 12:04 pm
@ JP: “If solar doesn’t clean up their act to eliminate the harmful chemical gases that are released in production, what better is it then oil?”
Over 78 million barrels of oil are produced and consumed every day, predominantly as fuel in hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines around the world. I don’t have hard data at hand (I recommend cruising http://www.theoildrum.com for a tremendous load of information on stuff like this), but I suggest the toxic gases emitted by every solar plant, panel and cell in the world combined throughout their life cycle, including manufacturing, will forever be a small fraction of emissions from oil.
The record production level was 87 million barrels a day (or 3.6 million barrels an hour) before the price blew the lid off in ’08 and contributed greatly to the recent worldwide economic recession.
There is growing evidence that these record levels of production cannot be sustained, but also evidence that renewables, like solar, cannot make up the equivalent amount of energy. Similarly, unconventional oil (tar sands, deep sea wells, etc., and their largely unproven recoverability rates) will never give the world the abundance of energy found in the conventional supergiant fields, which have now gone into decline. Therefore, something has to give, like our overall consumption.
Lastly, oil IS subsidized by governments, from the oil producers who keep consumption by their own citizens so artifically low it’s absurd — something like 25 cents a gallon (about 6 cents a litre) for gasoline in the UAE — to the importers like China who underwrite the cost of importation and refinement, and in massive investments (read ‘subsidies’) for unproven technology like carbon sequestration here at home and in charging unfairly low royalties to private oil companies for a publicly owned resource.
To imply renewables shouldn’t be subsidized when looking at the complex subsidies and intertwined political relationships between Big Oil and governments is rediculous.
28 spartikus // Apr 15, 2010 at 12:44 pm
If you haven’t taken your money and attempted to create a real corporation on a large scale
What you are doing is attempting to dismiss the argument unanswered by attacking [assumed] credentials.
Attacking the messenger/poisoning the well is a common rhetorical trick in internet discussions.
And Flickr’s success Sparty was less risk, more timing.
And here I thought 99% of business was timing. Flickr started life as a game, then morphed into it’s present service when they realized the original vision wasn’t going to work.
Would creating a Flickr work today? No…because there already is one that’s very good at what it does. Would it have worked in 2002? No…because digital cameras hadn’t captured enough market share yet.
The point is they made one in 2005-6 when there was a need in the market.
I found my original cite interesting if for no other reason than government grants and loans are available specifically for new businesses such as his.
I have family members starting more traditional businesses who’ve gotten the same.
I have no idea anymore how this relates to a “green zone” in Vancouver, but what the hell.
29 spartikus // Apr 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Why are antique shops clustered around Main & 25th?
Why are outdoor equipment shops prevalent along Broadway b/w Cambie & Main?
Historical accident, or civic policy? I have no idea. But I do know if I ever wanted to buy an antique table or take up rock-climbing where I would go first.
Could there be an equivalent “green zone” – I have my doubts. A green business isn’t a type of business, it’s how a business conducts itself. I see more logic in encouraging all companies to adopt sustainable practices than to set up a zone for green businesses.
Now I’ll bow out for the actual urban planners to say smarter things LOL
30 MB // Apr 15, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Spartikus … smartikus.
BTW, the anitique stores on Main are located there primarily for the relatively low rents. I say ‘relatively’ because rents are going up and driving out the smallest and least diversified ones.
Back to Green Industrial Zones. I don’t see a magic formula to pick a geographical area, call it “green” and permanently attract green industry without having a surrounding sustainable society to market its wares to.
Property tax breaks are one of the few tools the city has, but for the life of me I cannot see solar panel and wind generator firms locating there without a corresponding national policy to reduce emissions and stimulate a renewable clean energy industry.
31 MB // Apr 15, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Perhaps Gordo and His Worship could market BC as one big repository for storing carbon by introducing a realistic and auditable (to be rid of posers) carbon offsetting program via a new silvicultural program targeted to replanting the billions of hectares of forests munched by the pine beetle.
The effort can be funded through offset revenue and international cap and trade programs. The carbon offset corporate headquarters could be physically located in a special green zone, but realisitically could be located anywhere, including on line.
The carbon storage capacity over time must be very significant to make up for the loss of capacity through bugs and the increased carbon release from decaying dead trees, forst fires, and the emissions from BC’s gas industry.
32 Bill Lee // Apr 16, 2010 at 12:21 pm
First she created Light, then the earth and heavens and then Vancouver’s harbour and it was good.
Now the keeper of this political salon, Madame Bula, twitters too.
In case no one knows the twitter of which she speaks, visit weekly:
http://twitter.com/fabulavancouver
Never enough vegetable cooking hints and far too much subsidy of the Libyan government and its nefarious bit.ly cruel compact compressed prison of innocent URLs, the minute by minute tweeting is a must read in the parlours of the twitterati of the new West Side.
How does she find the time to do all of this!!
Leave a Comment