I came across an article by Frances written a couple of years ago for the Sun about the EcoDensity consultation process. It is very interesting to see that all the issues now causing outrage in communities came up during the public consultation process:

“EcoDensity raises fears of crowding without amenities

Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, February 11, 2008

…

As the city heads into the home stretch of public consultation on what will become an “EcoDensity Charter,” resident groups have banded together to express their concern that the policy — marketed as a way to make Vancouver a more environmentally sustainable city by promoting compact living and green building — may result in density just being shoved into their neighbourhoods.

As well, they worry there isn’t enough emphasis on creating affordable housing or complete neighbourhoods with libraries, transit and community services to go with the density.

Those are some of the points that a consortium of 23 neighbourhood groups has made in a formal letter to city council, in an effort to modify the final EcoDensity Charter, which is due to be voted on at the end of the month.

“The concept isn’t bad, but we want a sustainable city, not just a dense one,” said Mel Lehan, a veteran Kitsilano resident activist, who speaks behalf of groups from Southlands to Commercial Drive and Dunbar to southeast Vancouver.

Lehan said people feel the process is being rushed through and they fear that the new charter will mean that “we will have 40-storey towers that will be built in the middle of nowhere.”

As well, they don’t like a postscript added by Coun. Suzanne Anton to consider taller buildings in the city’s heritage neighbourhoods of Chinatown, Gastown and the Downtown Eastside.”

…

There’s more, but I’ll stop there.

I think Lehan’s quote hits to the heart of the debate: Density, on its own, does not automatically equate to sustainability, and in fact may detract from it in the case of large towers. Unfortunately, the fallacy of density=sustainability no matter what form it takes is being pushed by Toderian, developers, and successive councils.

The City’s residents have repeatedly said what they want, and don’t want, the future of Vancouver to look like. The DofP, and two different councils, have totally ignored them. They have no-one to blame but themselves for the backlash we are now seeing.

It begs the question: exactly whose interests are our elected representatives and public servants working on behalf of?

Mr. Geller, you have written in the past that you don’t agree with more towers in the Historic Area, which comprises a good portion of the DTES (see also last line of the article quoted above). I would be very interested to hear why you have now flip-flopped on this?

I hope that, come next election, prospective City councillors are clear which side of this debate they are on. Given the rising tide of dissatisfaction and activism being shown on this and other issues by neighbourhood groups, those who support more towers outside the core may be doing so at their own peril.

Michael, surely “obsession” belongs to the modernist fixation with the building as object.

What the fee-simple, incremental, human-scaled intensification will deliver is a back ground building, a common cypher for the next wave in Canadian urbanization, complete with a set of values that is incomprehensible to modernist sensibility. The first step for getting the old urbanism in the rear view mirror is to shift the focus away from “building heights” toward more important stuff.

Building type is but one of seven elements in urbanism as I would describe it. As far as the types go, I agree that there is need for more than one type. In FormShift we presented three different types. The type for zones with retail on the ground floor was strata title with structured parking. There we sought to satisfy the need for housing that is barrier free, elevator served, and with secured parking. While all of the three types would provide “view opportunities”, none of them would deliver the ills that Jo-Ann so well describes in post#24 above.

Let’s stress this one point: most of the arguments for “mixing building types together” are of the “thin-end-of-the-wedge” variety. Their ultimate purpose seems to be to “add height”.

“Good” urbanism the world over partakes of a paradox that requires a sophisticated understanding: it presents continuity of character, and diversity of form.

The first is achieved by a standardized model or type, the second by the inventiveness used in its repetitive application. When the building unit is more or less the same, we must turn to the design of the place itself for inoculation against tedium—That’s urban design pure and simple.

The benefits are many. Not just urbanism, but the building construction industry benefits from identifying single cyphers, or basic units of build out, and repeating them ad nauseum. We need go no further than the suburbs for an example as ubiquitous as it is adaptable. We are arguing against the tide when we suggest that an urbanism of a cypher or two is either untenable, or unprofitable.

For examples of what has gone wrong in Vancouver’s neighbourhoods we can go to Kerrisdale, as well as the historic quartiers. The Boulevard, from 41st to 49th, is a prime urban site of the highest quality interpreted in the worst sort of way. The low rise condos fronting with double loaded corridors deliver inferior quality units, and streets bereft of social capital in what should be one of Vancouver’s most memorable great streets. Who wins?

The DoP is about to repeat this same mistake along the proposed “new” boulevard blocks on Cambie.

“Similarly, to only want to see low-rise buildings in the DTES is also unrealistic, and inappropriate.”

—Michael Geller

“A 6 storey medium rise horizontal equivalent casts a shadow over all of an east west 66′ r.o.w. street for more than half the year during most of the day. That too is problematic.”

—Bill McCreery

My prescription for the historic quartiers is not given in terms of height (i.e. high, or low), but rather in proportion to the width of the fronting right of way. I would have the buildings relate to the street at a ratio of 1 : 2.

Following Bills analysis, on 66-foot R.O.W.s the streetwall would be 33 feet. On the 99-foot arterials, we could front with a building type 50-feet tall that I will describe below. The 130-foot-plus widths of the East and West Boulevard, and boulevard sections of Cambie, of course, beg for a much more nuanced understanding of the application of human scale in urban spaces.

That may seem like a novel idea in the tower-no tower debate that merits repeating. After careful consideration, the only guarantee of quality in the resulting urban environment must result from fixing the building height to the width of the available public right of way.

This is the correct interpretation of the urbanist tradition of our historic quartiers. To do otherwise is to violate the very values we seek to preserve.

Another aspect of good urbanism missed by the modernist revolutionaries was the importance of preserving urban memory. The historic neighbourhoods in Vancouver—I have dubbed them ‘quartiers’ in recognition that modernist planning has failed to quantify a ‘neighbourhood unit’—present a complete urbanism. I would argue that this urbanism is the last well-wrought urbanism to be built on our shore.

The high-density building types for its construction are on view on a walk down Water Street. On the north side, the type for the avenue or boulevard is represented by the 50-foot warehouse building. On the other side of the street, the 35-foot building for the residential streets is presented.

By the 1880’s, urbanism in North America had undergone a radicalization that we would should reconsider today. In the Back Bay of Boston, in the post 1850 intensification of Greenwich Village, in the streetwall buildings of our historic quartiers, and in some of the apartment houses that were built with the advent of the elevator in the early decades of the next century, the residential building type doubled in depth. The 50-foot building became 100-feet deep. The consequences for ventilation and solar penetration were pushed to an extreme, and the character of the rear lane was given away for no good reason I can find.

I believe the promise of our historic neighbourhoods will only be realized with an intensification plan carried out by extending into our era the same building types of our first wave of urbanism.

Only by reaching such an undertaking we will have finally embraced the true meaning of a much used, but greatly misunderstood term: typology.

Typology is the analysis of the type as it is re-interpreted in different eras. Whether it is the ‘basilica type’ of the Granville Island industrial shed, the ‘warehouse type’ of of the north side of Water Street, or the ‘house type’ of the hotel buildings on the south side (the Water Street Café being one of the most remarkable examples of the type), the challenge of typology is to take the products of the past and reinterpret them in the current era and economy without violating the fundamental human values each of the types present.

We can count in one hand the set of building types sufficient for the successful intensification of our historic quartiers, and for the much needed celebration of the unique brand of urbanism that took root right here on our shore.

Why anyone would want to add towers into the mix rather than extend the local typology and tradition of place cannot be justified in terms of either economic gain, nor cultural expression.

“Mr. Geller, you have written in the past that you don’t agree with more towers in the Historic Area, which comprises a good portion of the DTES (see also last line of the article quoted above). I would be very interested to hear why you have now flip-flopped on this?”

David, I haven’t flip-flopped. I am still opposed to towers in the historic area. But I am also opposed to just 3 storey fee simple ‘quartier’ townhouses and apartments.

What I do support in this area is a mix of low and mid-rise buildings, noting that the mid-rise is the generic form. In some instances, buildings up to 10 storeys seem to work, and I support those. But I continue to remain opposed to ‘towers’.

I’m glad you raised this point since it highlights that planning and design are not always ‘black and white’ issues. I’m opposed to towers in the historic area, but support towers at Oakridge. I’m in favour of mid-rise buildings in the DTES but oppose a continuous ribbon of mid-rise buildings along Cambie Street, as some have proposed.

I know this must all sound confusing and perhaps mumble-jumble to some, but the important message is that different situations warrant different solutions.

There’s no one right answer.

As for the earlier Bula article, I agreed with the concerns that the city should not increase densities without adding community amenities. I still believe this very strongly. My objection is how best to pay for them.

I also agree that EcoDensity placed too much importance on ‘saving the environment’ and not enough on the potential to create more affordable housing choices.

Thanks for referencing Bula’s earlier article. I agree it is still relevant today.

Lewis Villegas may find much to despise along the Boulevard in Kerrisdale, but I and my neighbours – almost all women d’un certain age like myself – find it much to our liking. we could start with the fact that the vast majority of the buildings are not condos as Lewis alleges. They are coops, and due to a variety of interwoven factors, they are affordable as well as eminently livable. I have a front door and a back door. I have neighbours who look out for me (more social capital here that in the single family suburb I raised my daughter in or the view strata unit in Fairview I rented briefly). We share the gardening, we mostly manage our maintenance issues ourselves, we share the laundry, we mostly take transit, and walk to the butcher, the baker, the green grocer, the cafe, the pharmacy, etc. In short our footprint is small. I’m not aware of what the units pre acre/hectare is along the boulevard, but I daresay that it is ‘up there’,and I challenge you to find a more livable environment at a comparable density anywhere.

@Lewis, back to the topic. The building in discussion is at the corner of Marine and Cambie. It is not an historic district by any stretch of the imagination. While it would be great to come up a scheme that would preserve some of the trees on the property. The “local typology” is one story car dealerships and junk food restaurants with landscaped setbacks to make it all prettier to drive by. Very 1960’s. Hardly worth continuing or preserving.

The main objections to this development seem to be mainly the latest design which is rather blockly and massive looking. Previous designs that included towers and similar densities (I think), seemed to be received much better.

I think this is a case for them to dust off some of the older plans.

@Michael Geller: can you elaborate on why row housing won’t work in Vancouver? There are some interesting examples of such houses in Port Coquitlam and many such examples in eastern cities.

I’m not convinced increased density in the city is best served using stratas, as the lifespan of strata buildings tends to be more finite. If that’s the goal, fine, but there are implications to a neighbourhood’s long term dynamic if that’s the case.

You know that the very nice Ashley Mar housing cooperative and the Sing Tao Daily offices are to the west of this new proposed tower and to lie in its shadow in the morning and be blasted by reflected sunlight in the evening from the tower and from the setting sun.
These are a few of the landmarks noted by Google Maps.

Unfortunately few people ever notated the area in the modern or the ‘classic’ map-type at http://wikimapia.org/#lat=49.2094953&lon=-123.1171811&z=17&l=0&m=s&v=9

A few quick responses. Fee simple or individually owned row houses can be built in Metro Vancouver. I just finished an interview with the Vancouver Sun which is doing an upcoming story on the 3 individually owned units at 33 and Cambie, developed by the late Art Cowie. He intended his project to be a demonstration project, and hopefully it will fulfil this purpose.

In 10 years, I predict individually owned row housing will be as popular, if not more popular than condominium row housing.

Now as for EcoDensity, there is a strong ‘movement’ of people, including Peter Busby, Patrick Condon, and many more who believe there is a direct correlation between the density of communities, and their impact on the environment. As a general principal, I agree with the concept, but am the first to admit that far too many people are making bad decisions on the size of buildings because they believe bigger is better as far as the environment is concerned. These people are wrong, since the key to sustainability is successfully balancing competing interests.

Approving a building at 5 times the permitted density in the name of the environment is an example of what we should not be doing.

I agree with jesse and Bill Lee. Richard, for Cambie & Marine search this site with “the vancouver neighbourhoods backlash continues.”

There are important points of contact between Vancouver’s Historic Quariters, and Marpole. For example, we need a common “theory of urbanism”. We need to identify the things we can all agree about, not just carp on about all the trash we hate.

Second there is a broad area of consensus around the need to retool the planning and approvals process. When you consider how central the Department of Planning (DoP) is to our regional economy, you get a sense for how difficult this will be.

Richard, on the post I have linked my own conclusions were these:

The question that I still have on the chess board is: what approach provides the best hedge against “irrational exuberance” in the Vancouver real estate market?

After all, if we are seeking density, livability, and reductions in automobile use, we don’t have to build higher than 3.5 stories above the street. Here, we have a Stale Mate between the tower and the human-scale product.

However, if we are seeking to keep our land values stable, maybe the answer is that we should not build higher than 3.5 stories above the street. That’s Check Mate on towers outside very clearly defined, and geographically determined boundaries like our downtown.

I still think that analysis is sound. I will be happy to wear the hair shirt of “obsessing” on human-scale urbanism.

“we hear from a UBC grad that one unit in a condo tower has the same ecological footprint as a single family residence”

Lewis, all I can say is he must have graduated in dentistry, since he doesn’t know the first thing about ‘ecological footprints’. This is absolute nonsense.

Even if the owner of the condo and the owner of the single family residence drive the same distance everyday, and the two suites are the same size, the apartment will inevitably use less energy since it has less exterior surfaces.

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-a-bigger-ecological-footprint-and-why.html

Sounds like we just need more poor, friendly people because, once again, rude rich people are ruining everything. Hmmm… I often hear that it’s hard to make new friends around here, and we’re the most expensive place in the country. 😉

All I can say is I’ve lived in Marpole my entire life. This change will affect my family 100%, and I can’t imagine how all the welfare people around here are going to deal.

Dear GMGW & readers,

ok,,i have read this blog..and all i have hear is no,,ok how about all the rotten buildings around marpole there are lots of them ,and if ya look a wee bit south the “airport towe”r,,that is the president height,
and sad to say this “all the welfare people around here are going to deal.” get off welfare its just for short term use not you long-term time wasting , get jobs ,times are changing and this place needs a good reboot politely saying, and if those old ninnies are complaining well they only have 10-20 yrs left to live,,then what??
so quit your belly aching and let the land gain some value, and rework some crappy places most of the Granville area is not used to its maximum potential ,ok well lets make it look like Steveston ,then? old style buildings. but please stop belly aching change is going to happen ,like it or not and im happy for this change it will bring a london drugs or a shoppers the area needs one..and need another grocer safeway isnt the only thing .besides the markets if the food last any longer than 3 days…grin

mm very interesting last i heard it was supposed to be a new safeway.nevermnd impact of change of neighbourhood what about the jobs lost as result of closure and the seniors and disabled to who it will effect for their grocerys and medication. this is crazy . I know of someone in the polictal sector who is interested in this matter could i please get contact number for joanne pringle ty a concerned marpole resident