As the date for a Sept. 15 public meeting on the large new project at Marine Gateway approaches, this letter is going in to city and council from one particularly knowledgeable resident: Trish French, former assistant director of planning with the city until last year.
She is not impressed with the current plan, for the many reasons she spells out here. I, for one, am waiting to see which direction council will go on this troubled project. Though there are residents in the area who quietly favour the idea of having more shopping and a cinema complex nearby, the project has generated a steady core of public resident opposition and it has endured some weirdly conflicting demands from the city. (i.e. This is supposed to be an industrial area, not residential, but we’ll allow some residential because it’s close to transit, though we want it to be rental. Oh, now reduce the height and get rid of some of the office space. Does that mean you’ll lose some of the rentals? Pity.)
The design has been approved, after a second try, at the urban design panel but only after the tower height was reduced. That eliminated the majority of the rental apartments that had originally been part of the project.
Here’s Trish’s letter.
September 10, 2010
Dear Mayor and Council:
RE: Rezoning Applications at 8430 Cambie Street (“Marine Gateway”)
and 8018 – 8150 Cambie Street
As a Cambie Corridor resident, and until recently an Assistant Director of Planning for Vancouver, I am shocked and concerned that Council has directed their staff to process two very large rezonings at Marine and Cambie prior to completing the necessary area plan. Because I will be out of town until early October, and cannot attend the September 15 public meeting on the “Marine Gateway” rezoning, I am writing now to state in the strongest terms why an area development plan must be done before rezonings of this scale proceed.
The two rezonings propose:
- Almost as many dwelling units as the entire Olympic Village (1027 vs. 1124) ;
- 22, 30, and 35 storey residential towers and an approximately 15 storey office building;
- net densities of about 6.0 FSR, which is higher than downtown residential developments;
- 210,000 sq. ft. of retail space, which is more than the previous Wal-Mart proposal further east on Marine; and
- a 50,000 sq. ft. multi-theatre cinema complex, which will likely threaten the viability of both the Park and Oakridge Centre neighbourhood theatres.
Moreover, based on the “Draft Urban Design Framework” diagram for the area (hastily put together by staff and the developers’ architects for an Urban Design Panel meeting considering the Marine Gateway proposal, without input or review by the community) I estimate that the area as a whole will have more than 2400 housing units in eight highrises and other buildings.
Vancouver has a 40 year history of excellence in creating new communities. Over 52,000 units of new housing capacity were created, about half in neighbourhoods outside the downtown. Each new community is different, because its plan responds to the particular opportunities and constraints of the area. The attached table compares the areas in terms of the units, population, densities, building form, housing mix, and public benefits achieved.
As a Senior Planner and Assistant Director of Planning with the City for over 20 years I was closely involved in the planning programs for many of these new communities. Given this background, as you can imagine, I fully support having additional housing and jobs capacity around transit stations. However, it is irresponsible to allow rezonings for developments of this scale without first completing an area development plan, the “Cambie Corridor Interim Rezoning Policy” notwithstanding. The current process won’t achieve a fair balance between public and private, or citywide and local, interests. It also sets a bad precedent, encouraging developer opportunism and public cynicism.
Why there must be an area development plan before rezonings proceed. Technical work, creative options and community involvement are all needed create a truly attractive new place, a new heart for this part of Marpole. To achieve more than a collection of disconnected, out-of-scale Metrotown-style developments, here are some questions that have to be answered.
- The overall amount of development, and the mix/location of land uses, should be arrived at after considering urban design, housing mix, transportation constraints, and the capacity of current and future parks, community facilities and services, and economic feasibility. How much development gives the best outcome considering all these aspects? How much retail should there be, and where? (Right now, the “Draft Urban Design Framework” shows retail along Cambie, but the rezoning application for 8018 to 8150 Cambie does not provide it). Providing job space is good, but Marine Gateway apparently is using the residential and retail to financially underwrite the office, meaning less support is available for housing mix or public benefits (see below). Would this be necessary to the same degree if there were less office? If the current office market won’t pay the rents the developer wants, should it be built later? No options have been generated and evaluated: the thinking appears to be “let’s build as high and as dense as we think we can get away with”.
- At 30 to 35 storeys and 6.0 FSR, the proposed scale of buildings is far too large from either a local or a citywide built form perspective. The “gateway” idea does not justify or necessitate this scale. The “Draft Urban Design Framework” presents a banal vision for the area, at best. Is it appropriate that these developments be so much larger than the future towers in the ODP for Oakridge Centre, which is a much more important node? Will we be considering 35 storey towers there next? What other massing options are there? Who knows…since none have been developed or shared?
- The housing mix proposed by the two current zonings is 990 small market condos, and 37 small market rental “STIR” units. This is nowhere near what the City usually looks for, either in terms of affordability or variety of housing types. What are the options to achieve affordability in the area? How much support should go to housing affordability versus other public benefits (see below)? What mix of unit types should the area have?
- There is no Transportation Plan for the area, and the individual transportation studies that are required for each rezoning will not add up to one. The Marine Gateway rezoning actually proposes more parking than the City requires because of the number of drivers that the retail seeks to attract. Its traffic study notes that an additional lane on SW Marine will be required, making eight lanes that pedestrians will have to cross. It also says that the overloading of the SW Marine and Yukon intersection will mean special signalization and likely rerouting of busses serving the bus interchange. The study doesn’t even comment on the impact on the SE Marine and Cambie intersection, one of the most congested in the City. How can this be justified as “transit-oriented-development”? What do the other proposed redevelopments in this area, as well as further north in the corridor, add to the traffic burden? How much development could be achieved without widening SW Marine? How will pedestrians, bikes, transit and goods movement be prioritized, as per City policy? Again, there are no answers to these questions.
- There is no Public Benefits Strategy–individual developers are just offering whatever they think is appealing to staff and politicians to get the rezonings approved. Marpole is one of the most park-deficient communities in the City. As for the community centre, childcare facilities, and the local library, 2500 new residents will expect to be served by these. From experience in other new communities, we know that private development can never fully cover the costs of meeting additional needs. This means choices have to be made. For an area like this, with multiple sites that will develop over a decade or more, a strategy also has to deal with phasing of benefits. What are the needs and feasible options, and what are this community’s priorities? The community needs study has not been done yet, let alone the development of different possible benefits packages and discussion with the community.
- Not to mention other issues: a coordinated public realm concept in this incredibly challenged environment; utilities upgrades; an area-wide district energy plan…all things that a plan could address in a smart and efficient way.
There is no urgency that justifies proceeding with rezonings without a plan.
- Staff has estimated that Vancouver already has housing capacity in existing zoning and adopted ODPs to accommodate at least 92,000 more people, or about 13 years of population growth (based on growth rate between 2001 and 2006);
- Translink has reported that the Canada Line has already reached its 2013 ridership target, three years ahead of time; and
- Given that the City has indicated support for some form of major redevelopment here, the sites will certainly not develop to lower-than-optimal use while planning is going on.
I have heard it said that this Mayor and Council feel that planning takes too much time. In fact, the time needed to make informed decisions by doing a plan is saved later when multiple rezonings can proceed (often years after, when the market supports them) without having to re-examine the same issues over and over.
We are not immune to failure, even when we are well-intentioned.
The many awards the City has garnered, the “best place to live” accolades, the City’s reputation among urbanists, and the real estate sales success, have been due in no small part to the excellence of our new communities. This excellence comes from the commitment of all parties—Council, staff, community residents, and the development community—to developing interesting and ground-breaking plans.
Perhaps we are so used to success that we have forgotten that we can make big mistakes. I am old enough to remember a few of them:
- Urban renewal: Raymur and McLean Park urban renewal projects were built before activists managed to stop the demolition of the rest of Strathcona;
- The “almost” freeway system: we congratulate ourselves on not having built it, but we should really remember that we almost did; and
- Pacific Centre: we approved—in fact provided land for—this large internal mall that sucked the life out of Granville Street for more than 25 years. The street is only now recovering.
The folks behind these projects were no doubt progressive and well-motivated for their times, but were captive of the “we politicians and technocrats know best” thinking that Jane Jacobs so successfully criticized. They were not open to considering options, or to looking at the full range of objectives and impacts, and they didn’t care for citizen input.
It would be easy to allow enthusiasm for building green buildings, for providing major developers with short term opportunities, or for being seen as “bold” and “new”, to lead us into the same kind of thinking. Addressing district energy, wastewater management, and GHG production is important, but does not mean we can stop addressing scale, housing mix, transportation and public benefits and other aspects which are also fundamentals of sustainability.
In conclusion, I strongly urge City Council to put the rezoning applications in the Marine and Cambie area “on hold”, and direct their staff to complete a proper area development plan—with all the necessary technical work, creative options, and real community involvement.
I look forward to hearing what progress has been made on this issue when I return to Vancouver in early October. While I am away, I will be able to check my e-mail occasionally should you wish to contact me.
Sincerely,
Trish French
att.
cc.
Brent Toderian, Director of Planning
Kent Munro, Assistant Director of Planning
Michael Naylor, Senior Planner, Rezoning Centre
Anita Molaro, Development Planner
Jim Bailey, Planner, Cambie Corridor Planning Program
Dwayne Drobot, Planner, Cambie Corridor Planning Program
Matthew Roddis, Urban Designer
29 responses so far ↓
1 Lin // Sep 12, 2010 at 12:16 am
Ms. French’s many valid, intelligent concerns may be far beyond the Mayor & Vision-run council’s comprehension.
As with so many other ill-planned initiatives lacking due consultation with those who actually face impact, it is sadly imperative for citizens in various communities to unite, strategize and FIGHT City Hall to demand fair and due process & planning. Do not stop.
I learned first-hand that we (individuals) simply must stand up to them, we CAN make a difference, and there IS no-one else who will care enough to fight for your neighbourhood.
2 Jo-Anne Pringle // Sep 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I am one of the Co-Founders of the Marpole Area Residents Alliance (MARA). Our group is both thankful to Ms. French and relieved that her letter fully backs up what our community and other Vancouver communities have been saying all along about public process,consultation and specifcially in our area – the rush to develop along the Canada Line. Soon after forming the Alliance in May of this year we realized that what we were truly dealing with was not Marpole specific but was a city wide issue, where the process that lead the decision making in our city in the past, has completely fallen apart. Residents in different areas of our city have been forced to put personal and family priorities on hold and to allocate time and personal financial resources to gather troops to fight for their neighbourhoods. Residents have been further forced to “prove” their cases to the Mayor, Councillors and Planning staff. It is time for our Mayor and City Councillors to recognize that they are leading this city down the wrong path and they need to be big enough to admit that they need to change what they are doing. Council needs to give thoughtful directions to the Planning Staff and re-empower them to come back with recommendations – without interference or interception from anyone above. Big is not always better – and dense for the sake of dense and bike lanes without proper planning are not by themselves green. The Greenist City by 2020 is an ambitious goal and one not worth achieving if Rezoning Applications are rushed through simply because the proposals are LEED compliant and offer mass density, but upon deeper scrutiny don’t actucally fit the criteria of green. This goal is also not worth it’s title if it means running down anyone who might get in the way or slow down the green agenda. Marpole fought for more consultation which will take place on September 15th at 8515 Cambie Street in the Docksteader right beside the Marine Drive skytrain station. While this meeting was not the workshop that we had pushed for, we are going to try to make the most of it. I will leave you with an excerpt from MARA’s recent Press Release – - – “The current administration at City Hall has a very ambitious plan to make Vancouver the Greenist City by 2020” states MARA spokesperson, Jo-Anne Pringle. “While being the Greenist City would be a global reputation to be proud of, we fear that the urgency to densify all over the city, is a part of the “race” to get there first. And in their haste, our city will be left in the wake of an over-zealous agenda that was poorly laid out and improperly implemented. Proper, detailed planning for all Vancouver neighbourhoods must be the foundation upon which our green city will grow, otherwise the weeds of over-densification and poor foresight will choke our city for generations to come”.
3 Mary // Sep 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm
For the record,Trish is saying, eloquently as always, what some professional staff have been saying about this site this since day one. Hopefully the Mayor’s office & Council will begin to listen.
4 Jo-Anne Pringle // Sep 12, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Frances – I just wanted to add a correction to your post. The UDP did support Marine Gateway at the July UDP – but the height was not reduced – it remained the same from the previous proposal put forward in June, and in fact it has gone up slightly – in June, the height was 372ft and the current resubmission dated August and presented in July indicates 377ft. The project did however see a reduction of bulk from the residential component – which ended up being the removal of the majority of rental units. At the June UDP there were 187 rental units under STIR, at the July UDP the rental units had been reduced down to 31 – the UDP indicatd disappointed that so many rental units had been removed and encouraged Busby to try to put more back in. So Busby responded by adding a whopping 6 more rentals for a total of 37. We are curious to know if all the bonuses and waivers they were going to recieve for the 187 STIR units will be decreased or affected in anyway – or does all just stay the same?
5 Joe Just Joe // Sep 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Have to agree with Trish. This project isn’t a bad project in itself, it is however a bad project for this area. The height is too much as is the density.
I remember Brent Toderian speaking against this proposal very early on, the planning dept actually cautioned the developer against it. I would be interested in knowing why their position seems to have changed, perhaps Brent could chime in.
6 Joseph Jones // Sep 12, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Trish French says it all:
“Technical work, creative options and community involvement are all needed to create a truly attractive new place, a new heart for this part of _____. To achieve more than a collection of disconnected, out-of-scale Metrotown-style developments … I have heard it said that this Mayor and Council feel that planning takes too much time.”
The City of Vancouver has put in well over four years trying to do up another neighbourhood called Norquay. They think that their thrice-failed “process” has taken too much time – even though the result so far amounts to little more than
Ad hoc widespread mass rezoning
Abandonment of human scale along Kingsway
No clear plan for an attractive central place (aka “neighbourhood centre”)
Ongoing disregard for resident involvement
Alas, CityPlan! Alas, Community Vision! Alas, Working Group!
7 victor // Sep 12, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Residents of the West End can well appreciate the concerns of Marpole residents. I live in the West End and why are their concerns are so familiar!
The current planning process is being done the wrong way around. Developers should not be planning our city but should follow an agreed upon Community plan after consultation with the various communities. West Enders have been calling for consultation and have to date asked 10,000 residents who have shown they totally agree by signing a petition.
This battling of City Hall is taking huge volunteer resources and time away from our families . It is astounding that so many disparate alliances have banded together to battle this tone deaf City Hall.
If City Hall thinks we are not watching and working together….they better think again!!
We can assure them there are more than just Norquay, Marpole, West End outraged citizens out there…… our voices have just started to rise. Soon we will join in unison and become a loud chorus creating a very large roar.
8 George // Sep 12, 2010 at 10:46 pm
@ Victor
Add my voice to that choir…
9 Lin // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:18 am
Please add False Creek North to the growing list of communities that unite(d) to fight City Hall…and we started this way back early 2009.
Having survived Hizzoner’s first fiasco of the HEAT shelters mayhem in FCN, I warn you:
BEWARE of his tactics to divide & conquer.
As one of the “chosen few” for the Mayor’s invite-only but so-called community consultation in ’09, I’ll inform he also invited a handful of activists to the meeting, then sat back; not to offer ANY solutions or suggestions, but to watch both sides ‘duke it out’. Some leadership, that.
He and his Vision majority are interested only in their end goals – we, the citizens, are but collateral damage.
10 Flowmass One // Sep 13, 2010 at 11:30 am
Trish French makes some compelling arguments for perhaps slowing down the pace of the Marine Gateway development. And perhaps getting more public benefits.
The residents of Norquay have some valid concerns regarding towers sprouting up with lack of community input and also adequate public benefits.
But when Victor of the West End weighs in, falling on his rubber retractable sword to claim that the West End is under the same pressures, is simply nonsense.
I see recently that the City offered to let the West End to have a 12 person advisory panel to, obviously, advise on future development for this already built-out community. Is Victor in favour of this?
I see that Ms. French and the Norquay folks never use the word exclusion or want to use the area planning process as a negative tool to delay time-sensitive projects.
It’s become evident to more and more of us West Ender’s who just recently appraised ourselves of the situation regarding the postponing of the recent STIR project there, and the benefits, is that is exactly what they set out and organized to do.
This too will become evident.
11 Bill McCreery // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I have cleared with Ray Spaxman that distribution of these email is OK & Trish has given her permission in the covering email below.
In addition to Trich’s letter below pls find her covering email sent to a number of planners & architects she thought would be interested & as well, a reply from Ray Spaxman, the Director of Planning from 1974 to I think, 1992, the most respected planner in Vancouver history.
These are very significant. Two of the most respected planners in the last 40 years in Vancouver are clearly stating their grave, well articulated concerns about the planning process now being employed not just @ Gateway but, throughout the City. As regular readers are aware I have been saying the same things for some time. Other knowledgeable commenters on this blog also are very concerned along similar lines.
On Sep 11, 2010, at 16:14, Trish French wrote:
Hello fellow urbanists
Many of you receiving email are former colleagues of mine at the City of Vancouver: all of you are urbanists who have dedicated a large portion of your professional life to making Vancouver a better place.
After retiring last year from my position as Assistant Director of Planning in Vancouver, I was hoping to be in the cheering section for new, sustainable development in the city. Alas, my first foray as a citizen has to be to take the Mayor and Council to task for trying to impose extremely large amounts of development at Marine and Cambie without doing the basic due diligence of an area development plan. My attached letter, which will also be going to the staff involved in the Marine and Cambie rezoning, other urbanists and some media, lays out in detail why this is a bad idea.
I am very concerned that no one “on the outside” of City Hall seems to be aware of the current situation, and the precedent it sets for the way future development is dealt with throughout the city. I hope you will read my letter, and please feel free to forward this to anyone at all that you think would be interested.
Best regards
Trish French
From: Ray Spaxman
Date: September 11, 2010 5:28:18 PM PDT (CA)
To: Trish French
Subject: Re: Marine Gateway & Major Rezonings without Planning
Hello Trish,
Thank you for putting your concerns so eloquenty and directly to Council.
I share your concerns about what appears to be expediency rather than good planning, “bigger the better” rather than “balancing community needs”, “we already know” rather than “working it out with the community”.
You have quickly come to recognize since leaving City Hall the difficulty of keeping up to date with what the Hall is doing. You are also experiencing the worry about what has happened to the guidelnes and policies, both procedural and urban design, that are the basis of Vancouver’s recognized special environmental qualities. I have had somewhat longer to experience being out of City Hall, but ever since density bonusing became a panacea for achieving public amenities, giving density, or selling density, seems to drive a great deal of development decisions. I believe I have mentioned to you, as to many others, my confusion about how the Shangri La became the tallest building in town, with a flat roof, and a window cleaning crane as its architectural decoration, (apart form the discontinuity of activity along Georgia and an inaccessible open space) . That building, destined to be our tallest building for a long time, will never generate the affection or the debate now occurring about the Empire State building in NY. I have seen the densities of Downtown rise formally from 9 FSR to 11 FSR, and now, with bonusing, to over 20FSR. I am not sure what STIR is doing to our other communities but I do understand the anxiety being expressed by the West End community. Perhaps, those whom you describe as urbanists share some of these concerns?
I have added to your circulation list as others might.
Ray Spaxman
12 Bill Lee // Sep 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I just noticed today that 7th and Burrard Acurra car dealership has a planning sign for a 10 storey tower.
It this the first of mega-towers, full of mirror glass to blast Kits dwellers with extra sunlight, to rise along this south Burrard Street strip? Is this what the city needs–a line of tall glass towers either side of a canyon that will be Burrard Street?
13 Larry // Sep 13, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Trish French and Ray Spaxman; maybe there is hope. If this crowd can’t hear/won’t listen to them, then we have no hope.
14 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 14, 2010 at 8:59 am
@Flowmass One,
I don’t believe Victor was raising the issue of development pressure, but since you bring it up, there are rezoning proposals in the works or approved, to land more density in the West End with dramatic FSR increases: 1754 Pendrell, 1401 Comox, 1215 Bidwell, 1155 Thurlow, Beach Towers.
Regarding the Mayor’s West End Advisory Committee, http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/West_End_group_aims_to_scrutinize_mayors_committee-9152.aspx
Councillor Ellen Woodsworth – “They are not to comment on spot rezoning. They are not a visioning process and they are not accountable to council,”
Kevin Quinlan: “We’ve always been clear that the mayor’s advisory council was not a review panel or decision-making body for any developments in the city.”
Councillor Tim Stevenson: “not a replacement for a community plan [and] it was never intended to be so,”
Rubber retractable swords vs rubber stamp committees; I’ll leave that for others to contemplate which concern has more legitimacy.
15 Roger Kemble // Sep 14, 2010 at 9:53 am
http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/thu.future/vancouver.failed.html
and please follow the links . . .
16 Wayne Soon // Sep 14, 2010 at 11:26 am
I think it’s interesting that many people outside of Marpole, particularly former Vancouver Director of Planning Ray Spaxman and former Assistant Director of Planning Trish French have stressed the need for an area development plan before any rezonings are considered. They are quick to realize that proper planning is needed before any reshaping of the urban landscape occurs. If developers can do what they want in Marpole, then the same can happen anywhere in Vancouver. Would we then still be one of the top most liveable cities in the world?
17 Ian // Sep 14, 2010 at 12:30 pm
The other major issue that is receiving little air time is the proposal’s impact on the nearby industrial land base. A quick trip along Kent avenue shows many industrial sites up for sale. This project will likely lead to more industrial property speculation making this land even more unaffordable for industrial use. We have been whittling away industrial land for decades using affordable as a context for redevelopment. Burnaby foreshore is a great example of good industrial planning (other than the small fact that it should have been ALR land) which we should emulate
18 MB // Sep 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I would like to thank Ms French for her well-articulated opinion, and Ms Bula for posting it. I cannot agree more with her call to get back to first principles in community planning and urban design.
Mr Spaxman has contributed from his deep well of experiemce too. Is Beasley far behind?
The mayor and council need to understand the concept of sober second thought, and that it is crucial to include such a thing even when caught up in the maelstrom of attempting to form tangible policy out of one’s ideals …. or from one’s campaign contributions.
19 Roger Kemble // Sep 14, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Maybe there is a lesson here for every city
http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemblesnr/curitiba/curitiba.html
Oh and please follow the links . . .
20 Westender1 // Sep 14, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Kudos to Ms. French and to Mr. Spaxman for weighing in on these important issues. I couldn’t agree with them more.
Even just the headings of the major sections of Ms. French’s letter serve as a valuable summary of the need for a “re-boot” in how we are planning the future of Vancouver:
-Why there must be an area development plan before rezonings proceed.
-There is no urgency that justifies proceeding with rezonings without a plan.
-We are not immune to failure, even when we are well-intentioned.
Mayor and Council, City Planning Department – Are you listening?
21 Roger Kemble // Sep 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@ MB
May I please caution you about getting too enthusiastic about past planning and past planners.
“Mr Spaxman has contributed from his deep well of experience too. Is Beasley far behind?”
I knew both casually and have attended many of their presentations and lectures.
I have worked with their planning departments and watched their influences over both of their respective tenures. Indeed I lived in, and was practicing in, Vancouver long before either arrived.
In no way do I wish to impugn their professional or personal integrity.
Their profession legacy, though, deserves skeptical scrutiny.
Both Mr. Beasley and Mr. Spaxman are of old school planning where twisting developers’ arms to get something was the aim of the game. They are trained as architects not planners.
I would include Ms French in that category too: although I admire her current caution against proceeding with Gateway: Gateway is not for Marpole.
Sin embargo . . .
Not one of the three have a clue about “figure ground” urban design: a technique so vital to the spatial ambulatory urban experience that will transform our cities from what they are today: essentially contracts writ in gray concrete.
By eulogizing past planners, who with the best of intentions, may I say, are of yesterday, we will perpetuate an urban era best forgotten.
We must look to today and further if we wish Vancouver to live to our pretensions.
God bless all three of them but please let us not get carried away.
22 Frances Bula // Sep 14, 2010 at 5:03 pm
@Roger. Nice to see you back.
23 Bill McCreery // Sep 15, 2010 at 12:06 am
@ Roger, 21.
I strongly disagree with your dismissal of these 3 experienced & talented planner / architects / whatever [don't think Beasley & Trish are architects, but irrelevant]. Whatever jargonese you think is the current state of ‘planning’ may, given time, be seen to have some merit. But, in the meantime these 3 individuals have dedicated a good part of their lives to thinking about, perfecting & indeed actually doing something meaningful about it. and, Vancouver is immensely better for it IMO.
The problem we have @ the moment has nothing to do with jargonese but, has a lot to do with getting the basics right. On that score VV & some in the present Planning Department are a big ’0′. I think it’s time to get the basics right & IMO Trish & Ray have a valuable contribution to make. Larry might as well, although I have not seen any comment so far [could be wrong - busy].
24 Roger Kemble // Sep 15, 2010 at 8:23 am
@ Bill 23,
If we continue this jargon we will lose everyone . . . however just once more into the breech . . .
The “figure ground” concept of urban design is articulated by:
Roger Trancik. Finding Lost Space. Van Nostrand Reinholt. New York. 1986.
Roger Kemble. SCARP 1987 graduating thesis: Urban design requirements: BC Place.
Roger Kemble. The Canadian City. From St. John’s to Victoria: a critical commentary. Harvest. Montreal. 1989. in which A shared vision of urban space was first articulated (concept behind CityPlan): Larry has it on his SCARP reading list.
Roger Kemble. “Out from Denial.” Issues in Canadian Urban Design. Institute of Urban Studies. Winnipeg. 1995.
and further articulated, 2010, at:
http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemble/4.down.town/false.creek/false.creek.html
Two egregious example of urban design failure are FCN (hopefully not replicated NEFC) and King Ed. Village, and the about to fail Norgate.
“Figure Ground” is not a mystery except in the Vancouver Planning Dept.
My two suggestions:
1. Without bonusing charge developments to, dedicate areas designated “high streets, malls, public” etc (trade jargon, not mine) as public property: in the interests of amenity and developer profitability.
2. Retrain all design/approval planners in the spatial arts: drawing, sketching, sculpting and visualizing inter-relationships.
3. Stop gossiping and read the stuff listed above.
Once planners are liberated from the word on paper, and developers from misleading presentations, they will experience a fulfillment that will show up at ground level and make Vancouver wealthy once more.
Thanqxz Francis: glad to be back.
25 Joseph Jones // Sep 15, 2010 at 9:31 am
Roger Kemble: “Two egregious example of urban design failure are FCN (hopefully not replicated NEFC) and King Ed. Village, and the about to fail Norgate.”
Norgate: What a beautiful subliminal echo of the dirty tricks of Watergate.
Until our two square kilometers suffers terminal rezoning abuse, it can also be called Norquay!
26 Morven // Sep 15, 2010 at 11:56 am
Many us who are interested in the civic scene, believe that the planning system, including area development plans have a balancing role to play.
I think it fair to say that the changes in local planning and consultation stem from previous councils but continue unabated. Many of us recognize that there are good grounds to believe the planning system should be made more efficient but there are also good grounds to believe that the planning system should also be fair, transparent and accountable.
Which is why the cry for the Marpole area development plan is particularly important. Protecting the community’s interests is just as important as minimizing developer risk.
There will always be competing interests and planning issues by their very nature bring parties into opposition and disagreement. In the absence of local plans, the risks in not resolving local issues are not minimised.
We all want an efficient, transparent, fair and accountable planning system. Tipping the balance of convenience to the developers will not accomplish that goal.
-30-
27 Tessa // Sep 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I would like to say the letter makes a lot of very good points. In particular, I’m also concerned about the amount of parking, apparent widening of Marine Drive (which goes against the whole idea of TOD) and the reduction in rental units. That said, I strongly disagree with the idea that this density isn’t needed, or that this project should be delayed by years while planning gets done that should have been done years ago like it was in Richmond.
The Marine Drive Station is actually a better spot for TOD than Oakridge, as it’s not only a stop on the Canada Line but it’s also the terminus for bus routes #15, 3, 8, 10 with service from the #100. As a terminus, it needs to serve as an anchor for those bus routes, something that will drive ridership to the end rather than having empty buses arriving at Marine Drive. Right now, south vancouver has no anchor, whereas the west side, east side and north side of the city have reasonable anchors. To read more about it, check here: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/vancouver-the-almost-perfect-grid.html
As well, this will provide services to a relatively underserved part of the city, while also supporting transit in the city and providing what I think is a well designed building, in comparison to the ubiquitous glass towers that all look alike.
That said, I agree there are some problems, and I think the city and developer should be open to changes. I don’t agree with widening the roads there. I don’t think there should be more parking than minimally necessary so as to encourage more transit use and thus not add to the congestion. I also think the developer should be encouraged to add those rental units back in.
28 michael geller // Sep 16, 2010 at 8:17 am
At a time when we are overwhelmed with anonymous sources, I found it extremely courageous and bold for Trish French to publicly come forward with her opinions on this matter. While I don’t agree with every one of her concerns, as I have written on this blog before, I do agree with her call for a comprehensive planning process and approval of an area plan before considering such a dramatic change in form and density in this location. I believe the same holds true for other neighbourhoods in the city.
I have previously shared this view with both representatives of the Marpole community, and the developer, who is someone for whom I have a high regard.
I sincerely hope that the Mayor and Council will appreciate that Ms. French is not motivated by political considerations, or petty grievances, but rather by a profound commitment to good planning in the city. Like many in the planning and development communities, she is concerned with the recent trend to ‘throw away the book’ when it comes to consideration of spot rezonings which result in significant density increases.
This trend is not related to any one political party, but it is, as Spaxman and others have noted, related to the ‘let’s make a deal’ approach to zoning, and the need for ‘cash infusions’ that has increasingly become rampant in our city . It has to stop, and I hope that Ms. French’s letter will be a wake-up call for those who were starting to become immune to the problem.
29 looking back // Sep 17, 2010 at 6:48 am
Considering what’s being discussed, including Mr. Geller’s last comment, I found re-reading this Bula article on planning almost ironic. Seems planning was being criticized for doing many of the things we now want them to do (ie. more area planning). Also interesting comments about whether planners should be “liked” by developers.
Glad to join the discussion!
http://francesbula.com/uncategorized/marine-gateway-survey-shows-quiet-support-from-two-thirds-of-residents/#comments
http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Vancouver_s_Top_City_Planner
Leave a Comment