Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Marine Gateway survey shows quiet support from two-thirds of residents

September 16th, 2010 · 31 Comments

The Marine Gateway proponents have released a survey on what the Marpole community thinks of the proposal for the large complex being planned for Marine and Cambie, which currently includes a very tall residential tower, a smaller office tower, a plaza surrounded by retail, a daycare, and a cineplex.

The proposal has been generating significant public protest (250 people at the public meeting last night, says my source Coun. Ellen Woodsworth) and concern from people like the city’s former assistant director of planning, Trish French.

Here is the survey for all to peruse. Yes, the sharp-eyed will notice that it has been done by Stratcom, Vision Vancouver’s preferred pollster. As well, I have looked through and cannot find the number of people surveyed or how it was done (phone or internet), though the margin of error is calculated at 4.7 per cent plus or minus.

In spite of that, I am not surprised or disbelieving to hear that there are residents in the community who support it. Public meetings advertised as being a gathering of those concerned about a building project will draw those who are concerned. Those who support it will likely not turn up just to get into an argument with everyone. There’s nothing in it for them.

But I’m interested in your comments or analysis.

Final Marine Gateway survey

Oh, and here is a revised survey that shows the numbers of people interviewed and methodology, which Stratcom put in after seeing the earlier post.

Marine_Gateway_survey_extended_memo_Sep_14[1]

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Mark Allerton

    The response to Q7b is interesting though – when 34 floors are mentioned, the balance tilts towards opposition.

  • Chris Porter

    “Those who support it will likely not turn up just to get into an argument with everyone. There’s nothing in it for them.”

    This is the general problem with most consultation processes. They turn into rant sessions for vocal minorities. A few years ago I went to an eco-density consultation, because I was genuinely interested. The Q&A session was just a bunch of people complaining. What a waste of time.

  • Morven

    I am not prepared to accept this survey as such.

    For one, it does not tabulate the number of respondents. Two it does not identify respondents by distance from the site.

    If this was the financial industry, the consultant and the client would be sharply rapped over the knuckles for failure to disclose information in the public interest.

    So what make Vancouver consultants and developers believe they can ignore the standard practices of opinion surveys?

    And why do our elected representatives stand for deficient surveys?

    If we, the poor taxpayers are expected at accept surveys as an aid to decision making, the least our elected representatives can do is to ensure the data is credible and transparent and not skewed (or with the impression of being skewed)
    -30

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Councillors turned out last night; Meggs, Anton, Reimer, Chow and Woodsworth. Others may have been there, but these were the only I saw.

    Jo-Ann Pringle is a very impressive as a spokesperson for MARA. And the question was posed, why the rush?

    Brent Toderian gave a brief ‘tutorial’ with definitions for CAC’s, FSR and how the rezoning process plays out.

    There was also a presentation on the densification planned around the Cambie corridor.

    When the meeting turned to public ‘open mic’ a public speaker mentioned Michael Naylor from the City’s planning dept was going around taking photos of public speakers and the crowd was not happy with that. Brent then asked for there to be no more photos taken.

    In broadstrokes, some of the concerns raised were:

    Not just the north east corner immediate development from PCI, but other developments to come at the other corners of that particular intersection. Spot rezoning can lead to an incongruous mess here.

    Increase of traffic at that intersection was a big concern and there were fears it would increase.

    Lack of parks / green space in Marpole was raised by a commenter regarding CAC’s.

    While residents were supportive when the project was first brought forth, a concern expressed how it had mushroomed into more, and much taller, towers in the area than what was initially proposed.

  • Bill Lee

    I’d be wary of this survey.
    40 to 50 percent of the area (Census tract data) speak a language other than English at home.

    Survey companies in Vancouver are notorious for hiring only $8/hour poor Anglos.

    And how can imagine a 34 or even 10 storey tower in a region of flat building except for Airport Square (15 storeys) See skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5594

    Play around with the Cenus Tract regions and the “Additional Data” tab to see languages, income etc. etc. If you want to pay and pre-arrange with StatCan you can get narrower data, but this will suffice for now

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ds2gxy

  • Roger Kemble

    Let’s see now. I have had bit of experience with this sort of public reaction.

    When we did a public response exercises, initially we got negative: then with a bit of massaging we got positive. Which tells me the public can be capricious and easily swayed.

    That is, of course not my opinion, of the few long time residents who know the score.

    When Bill Lee points out that “40 to 50 percent of the area (Census tract data) speak a language other than English at home.” he doesn’t really say, in my professional experience, anything: more likely the new arrivals haven’t a clue and are susceptible and intimidated by the official presence (despite Brent trying to be noncommittally technical yet emitting the impression he is, for, by his very presence) for the development encouraging the attitude, don’t rock the boat.

    Mostly community response is based on the public’s lack of understanding of alternatives and for sure the developer isn’t going to give any: and unfortunately, in my experience, neither is the planning department.

    As for Gateway, IMO, it is inappropriate for this site. I am not against the height and I favour mix lacking is sensitive, neighbourly integration.

    Following the architect’s previous work, the Wall Centre IMO, tells me his firm is not sensitive to street level reciprocation or, and forgive my persistence, Figure Ground urban integration.

    And that is when my antennae begins to twitch. Earlier I pointed out the non sequitur High street: quickly it was switched to concourse.

    Evidently earlier posters indicated neighbours looking forward to ambling across the road for their morning java and newspaper.

    To wit: Marine Drive, at that location, is anything but ambulatory and the high street/concourse street is still private property despite the label, with no logo chain outlets that are anything but conducive to a morning of relaxing.

    Remember, Robsonstrasse rapidly degenerated into ersatz Rodeo Drive north.

    It’s hard edges that makes Gateway just another isolated island of contracts made of gray concrete.

  • Bill McCreery

    I agree with you Roger. From a review of the survey it is clear the results are skewed because of the significant #s who were not familiar with the project, & as you point out they were presented with what the developer wanted them to see. When I 1st looked @ the proposal I thought it ‘nice’ too. But, when I found out more & thought about it my opinion changed.

    I attended last night’s public meeting of more than 250. There was not 1 comment in support of the proposal but there were also a couple of wishy washies who I think in the end did not fully support the proposal. These people no doubt lived closer to the proposal & many came out because they had been contacted by MARA, who have limited time & resources.

    The pollsters knew full well the bigger the catchment area the more likely they get the response they wanted. Which is one of the reasons Francis’s suggestion that this relatively uniformed & lesser affected majority somehow has a legitimacy = to those who have become informed [I limit this categorization to the context of their current opinion, we are all citizens & therefore =].

    I have spent a good deal of time evaluating the material the proponent has presented & not surprisingly is is VERY selective & shows only what they want you to see the way they want you to see it &, not what they don’t. I could give you an extensive list of these but I refrain.

    In the interests of ‘balanced journalism’ perhaps Francis will do a followup to this to present the arguments of those who are more directly affected & who do oppose this proposal.

  • Frances Bula

    @ Bill. Do you really think I have not given a voice to the people who are affected by this proposal? I was the first and for a while the only reporter who was writing about the community dissatisfaction. I’ve done multiple posts on this, turned it into a news story, which many other media haven’t done to this day, covered the very negative urban-design panel hearing, and posted Trish French’s scathing letter.

  • Westender1

    I would be more interested in the results of this survey had it been conducted by the City. Having the developer undertake this work might lead one to conclude that “he or she with the most resources, wins.” Shouldn’t this be about an objective analysis led by the City, rather than a PR campaign led by those with the deepest pockets?

  • Tom

    Hmmm.

    Photos eh!

    Can someone tell me if this is standard practice?

    Or is this a new practice that is completed with the names, addresses and phone numbers posted on civicscene.ca, with open-ended questions accusing the residents of fictional conflicts of interest?

    I believe this is a legitimate question now.

  • Bill Lee

    Ah. In the extended memo, [ link above in Frances Bula’s introductory note: http://francesbula.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Marine_Gateway_survey_extended_memo_Sep_141.pdf ] at the end,
    “This survey was fielded by Stratcom’s Vancouver unionized in-house call centre between August 19th to 25th, 2010, in English, Cantonese and Mandarin using a CATI system. 412 interviews were conducted. Respondents were selected randomly from among Marpole households with listed phone numbers. The results were statistically weighted to ensure that the sample’s regional gender and age composition reflects that of the actual regional 18+ population according to the 2006 Census.”

    (Oh, can’t weight next census if we lose the mandatory Long Form Household census next year)

    “Listed phone numbers” ?? Landlines? Who answers a landline anymore said he facetiously.

    With a cinema, I would be concerned about the little Hondas racing up the Cambie speedway or the Marine drag-race line after hours and the films are over.

  • gmgw

    When I read in yesterday’s “Courier” cover story on the 70th and Granville proposal that the biggest concern about the proposal Gregory Henriquez has heard expressed by local residents relates to the potential loss of the liquor store, I knew that the forces opposing the project are doomed.

    For God’s sake, Marpolians, sober up and get your priorities straight.
    gmgw

  • Roger Kemble

    “. . . 412 interviews were conducted.”

    A random sample of less that 500 is unacceptable: indeed 500 is absolute rock bottom.

    And yes, I can believe a concern about losing a liquor store is motivating opinions.

    That is why vision and courageous leadership is so critical . . .

  • Bill Lee

    @Roger Kemble/Urbanismo

    Well, we don’t know the refusal rate (or never pick up from strangers call. or forever out (which is me)) for the poll.

    About 400 to 500 is good for a region as small as this. 10,000? I’ll let someone add up the
    various numbers of the Marpole region by homes, people, people/household, over 18 etc.
    They did give a margin of error and this could be seen in a bar or line graph as an error margin.

    The questions were biased and they asked on a scale of 1 to 5 and then clumped.
    I was surprised by only 2 percent in Question 2B (extended survey) that only 2 percent (zero if error considered) wanted proposed development.
    Chart 3: Preferred Uses for the Site (Q2b)
    “2b What is your personal preference as to what should now be done with the land around the Canada Line station.”
    [ 13 answers were measured ]
    “In an open ended question we asked what should be done with the site. ”

    Just drop the Marine Speedway idea. Get on with putting towers on the Shaughnessy hill and razing Dunbar and Point Grey.

  • Bill Lee

    from my TinyURL Geodepot Canada Census above

    tract # Pop 18+ Dwelling
    5.00 7451 6211 4376
    6.01 4710 3630 1702
    6.02 5373 4238 1864
    4.01 4233 3413 1471
    4.02 5406 4010 1702
    ===== ===== =====
    27173 21502 11115

    They stopped at 57th, I would have gone up the hill to 49th. However.

  • Bill McCreery

    @FB, 8. Opps! My apology. I was to tunnel focused.

    I was also, in part, reacting to the inference not so much from you but a CKNW reporter, that since there were 2/3’s support this proposal is the right thing to do & therefore OK.

    I am absolutely convinced, as are many other professionals &, in particular Trish & Ray, 2 of the most respected planners in the past 40 years in Vancouver, that this is not the right process nor the right solution for this location. I hope firstly, that this proposal can be put on hold as the Comox one has to allow for a proper Marpole community plan to be developed [the Mayor’s WE Advisory is not adequate]. Secondly, since I have no confidence this Council & the Planner are capable of doing this I can only hope some kind of process can be developed to modify the current proposal substantially. If this were to happen it would @ least accomplish something but would be a long way from what should have happened.

  • Frances Bula

    @ Bill. Oh, it’s okay. One thing I’ve realized that we are all doing, as we get wound up over various issues, is conflate what one person is saying with another. So I have hit back at people sometimes because I mind-melded the milder critical things they said with the more critical things someone else said. People sometimes firmly believe I reported something they don’t like when it was another city hall reporter who really wrote the story they don’t like. And so on.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ FB, 17. & a daily cold shower should be de riguer before all bloggers engage.

  • Frances Bula

    @ Bill. I say we all go to yoga in the morning together.

  • Eva

    Thanks Frances for the coverage you have given this proposal. Your articles and posts have been instrumental in helping the community effect some important changes to date on Marine Gateway. It has also assisted in getting the community at the table earlier in the process on the several significant projects yet to come at this corner – not something the community should have had to fight to do.

    With respect to the survey, putting aside questions of its validity and bias, I think all it really tells us is what we already knew – Marpole is not a nimby neighbourhood, and is eager to see positive change. Most people who weren’t even ‘aware’ of the project until they got the survey phone call, are willing to say they support something they’ve never even seen. Wow, try that in Dunbar or Point Grey.

    I think it is unwise to accept this as an endorsement of the specific proposal, particularly its scale and height (even this survey showed this issue as tipping the scales to non-support), or as a reason to dismiss the input and concerns of those who have made the effort to become better informed (not just ‘aware’) about the project .

  • Pondering

    Re Tom’s question (#10)

    Taking photos at open houses and other public events is standard – check any city planning webpage. It’s just documenting the event.

    http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/littlemountain/public/index.htm

    http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/whitecaps/2008.html

    http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/arbutuscentre/public/2007/index.htm

    etc.

  • MB

    I’m now up to triple shot Americanos to maintain balance.

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Day

    “Why use One word where Ten would do?”

    Following up ‘ThinkOutsideABox’ mentioning of the Director of Planning, is it only me, or when you listen to Brent talking, it’s like listening to the humming coming from the back of your refrigerator? Not to say that the visual I have is that of an Angolan Python slowly swallowing a 90,500 pages Thesaurus dictionary.
    They get those in Angola, a lot, trust me on this…
    …
    “The building is… ahem, ‘ugly'”
    “The building is… ahem, ‘needs a rejuvenation cream applied all over its challenging design'”
    There. See? Ten.

    Nice to read Roger’s comments in here! BTW, I like ‘Urbanismo’ nick, more. Figure that one out, eh?! 😀
    And, oh, yes, hi there!

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Aiden E

    I rec’d a survey call – felt like it went on forever, luckily I paid attention though – cause at the very end, after the survey was done they asked me who I was most likely to vote for if there were a civic election today.

  • Lorna

    Why no new business is moving to Vancouver?
    Microsoft went to Richmond, EA and Kodak are in Burnaby. Even TransLink and Metro Vancouver preferred Burnaby for their head offices.

    Reasons: Higher lease rates , expensive parking , traffic congestion ( remember only 3% people bike in Vancouver) , crowded transit service , expensive real-estate .Hence no one is willing to built office towers or light industrial .

    Marine Gateway would be mixed use on a land currently zoned as industrial , why anyone around that site would built industrial , owners would wait and speculate when they would be able to rezone and build residential or mixed use.

    Let us change Vancouver’s name to “Resort Municipality of Vancouver”
    Lorna

  • Morven

    # Pondering # 21

    It may be standard practise but it it acceptable?

    The whole point in consultation is to engender trust and it you start taking photos without the speakers having consented, then out the door goes the concept of trust.

    I can see taping the audio component for the record but a photokit of speakers seems a bit arbitrary.
    -30-

    -30-

    .

  • Bill McCreery

    I’ve figured out what’s bothering me about this whole topic.

    The developer releases a telephone survey of 500 people @ the public consultation meeting. The survey wasn’t completely skewed to the developer but, it did answer ?s from their perspective.

    However, the survey area was the entire Marpole area up to 57th & from the Arbutus Line r.o.w. to a couple of blocks east of Cambie. Most of that demographic has little interest in or, knowledge of what happens @ Cambie & Marine. As such, they have even less familiarity with the specifics of the proposal & going further even less knowledge of the implications of the additional proposed density increases there.

    On the other hand, 250 people, mostly people who lived in the area, took the time to come out to Wednesday’s meeting & to review the info presented by the developer & the City. Not withstanding both the City & developer’s point of views showed them what they wanted to be seen, attendees still overwhelmingly were opposed to the proposal. This is significant because this group:

    1] has an immediate interest in the outcome because of their proximity to it,
    2] they had given the matter more than passing thought & in fact had taken time to inform themselves &,
    3] they also had been presented with limited information from those who had studied this proposal extensively & opposed it. @ least they had been given some alternative perspectives.

    What this analysis shows is:

    1] the survey of largely uninformed people from a to large demographic is of relatively less validity with respect to judging community opinion than the views of more directly affected & informed community members &,

    2] when we are reduced to being told we must rely on relatively invalid data to gauge community acceptance it becomes clearer that the public consultation process really is badly broken &, the cart is indeed before the horse.

    Proper community consultation & consensus must happen before massive, game changing proposals such as this & the others already in the pipeline are considered.

    What’s the hurry?

  • Norman

    Of course people don’t want their neighbourhoods to change. I feel the same way, So, evidently, do the people of the Downtown Eastside, according to the Carnegie document. The problem is, density has to go somewhere, as long it isn’t where I live.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I’d say it’s not that people don’t want density. Heck I have been pushing for additional density around my home for years, as the area desperately needs it or it will continue to languish. I think people are fighting what that density should look like. Each area will come to a different solution and it’s notgoing to be the same throughout regardless of which council is in power.

  • Jo-Anne Pringle

    @Norman. The people of Marpole are saying the opposite of your comment. The majority of people seem to be welcoming of the idea of new shops and services in the area. And since there isn’t any farmland in the central areas of Vancouver, we are all living in one form or another of density. So the argument isn’t about density – it’s about appropriate density, that will truly achieve sustainability and will contribute positively not only to the area that it is being introduced to but to the environment in general. Too much density, even around a TOD, can bring too much new traffic, especially when that development bringing the new neighbours will also bring a large amount of new commercial – commercial so big that it appears one will need a car to transport whatever they’ve purchased. It’s not unreasonable to expect that limitations need to be placed around development, to ensure that the development is right, whether it’s taking place in Marpole, the Downtown Eastside, the Westend or your neighbourhood. Limitations can only be placed, when proper planning has been done. In the case of Marpole, the density is excessive as will be the vehicle traffic generated by it, limitations have not been established, and planning has not taken place. The Marpole Plan is 31 years old, the demographics and needs of this community have changed considerably in 31 years. We are facing up to 9 major redevelopments in Marpole. How can any responsible planning department contemplate introducing that many developments to various areas of one neighbourhood, without first updating the planning, to ensure that the developments proposed suit and meet the needs of the neighbourhood or at the very least, ensure that the existing infrasture can support that much change. Unfortunately the canvass has been left blank down here – allowing those who wish to develop here, to establish their own guidelines as to height, density and appropriateness. Density will come to Marpole, there’s no question. But the answer that no one has provided is – how much density is the appropriate amount.

    Every cup can be overfilled – but it’s best to stop before that happens.

  • Michael Geller

    Joe, I agree with you. While many people will say they don’t want DENSITY, they do want more attractive and healthy neighbourhoods, more housing choices, improved transit and lower taxes.

    What is incumbent upon those of us in the planning, development and political arenas is to demonstrate that higher density development, when it is well designed within a broader planning context, can result in these benefits.

    And you are correct in noting that the solutions must vary around the region.

    Rather than just talk about the benefits of higher density housing, I have decided to ‘put my money where my mouth’ is and partner in a proposal to build 9 infill homes on 3 lots in West Vancouver. (This was discussed in a Fabula post earlier this year.) The proposed density is 0.63 which is comparable to single familyhousing in Vancouver. However, for this particular neighbourhood, this is a significant increase (the current FSR is 0.35). The proposed density is about one tenth that being proposed at Marine Gateway, but the proposal has been almost as contentious over the past few years.

    For those of you who live in West Vancouver, there will be a Public Open House re: the project on Tuesday September 21 from 5 to 7:30 at the West Vancouver Seniors Centre (which coincidentally is right next to my site). More details re: West Vancouver’s efforts to increase housing density at http://www.westvancouver.ca/Residents/Level3.aspx?id=21128&utm_source=redirect&utm_campaign=housing

    Whether it is Marine and Cambie or 21st and Esquimalt, and 0.6 or 6.0 FSR, the concerns are very similar. We need therefore need a better system to plan and approve and evaluate such proposals. Otherwise, we may all lose out.