A lengthier interview here than any of us have done locally, with lots of fodder to ponder as Brent Toderian gives a tour of the city and his thoughts on city management to a reporter for Atlantic Cities.
For those looking for a city-planning consultant, by the way, I note that Brent has now set up his own company, Toderian Urbanism, according to LinkedIn.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Rick Michaels // Feb 13, 2012 at 9:30 am
I am a recently protired/retired Assistant Director of Development Services and most thankful for the privilege of serving the citizenry of Vancouver in an number of capacities for many years. I also had the privilege of working for and learning from some of the best , world-class visionaries, and leaders in city planning: Ray Spaxman, Larry Beasley and Anne McAfee.
How did Brent fair in my opinion? Through thick and thin our relationship was grounded on values, honesty, trust, respect and professionalism. This precipitated in very meaningful, productive candid discussions and collaborations. No question he is a man of principles and integrity and very clear on vision, objectives, goals and about his opinions but yet equally flexible to better ideas and means. Brent was no less or more involved in my work on his behalf than Larry before him. His support of my work and efforts was second to none and he didn’t provide support blindly . He did his due diligence and scrutiny to ensure we worked towards the best solution and opportunity and not default to some safe in the box solution. Some would find this challenging , lacking conservatism or flying in the face of stringent rules and past history of outcomes and way of doing things. This is an an exciting part of him – he challenged us to do better today than yesterday for the best tomorrow !
Brent is very bright, energetic, passionate about his beliefs , very skilled , articulate professional urbanist , and a leader ….. and unquestionably a visionary in the class of those like Ray and Larry and Anne before him.
I wish him the best and look forward to seeing his future successes in the world of urbanism !
Rick Michaels
2 Tessa // Feb 13, 2012 at 9:38 am
For anyone who doesn’t want to read the whole article, here’s the quick version:
“There’s been a new management style that has either driven away or meant the loss of many of the best creative people at the Hall. It’s more of a centralized control,” Toderian says. “A planning director, though, has to be able to speak truth to power. A planning director has to always make their recommendations on the decisions based on integrity, professionalism and principle, and being able to say what needs to be said is a very important part of that.”
It’s my guess he’s being rather diplomatic about this. It’s too bad – it’s not too often we get a window into the inner workings of city hall and I would love to hear what he says in private to those he trusts. I’m a general supporter of what Vision’s policies have been, despite my preference for COPE, but their love of centralization is like a noose around the neck of the city. This combined with several overly onerous policies around free speech (Olympics and more recently last year) and I’m starting to get serious misgivings about this council. Robertson has three more years to prove people like me wrong, but in the meantime I am seriously concerned, and this is a quote everyone in Vancouver who cares about the city should read.
And for one, I think the city is worse off without Toderian – without a doubt.
3 jesse // Feb 13, 2012 at 9:41 am
There are some sharp comments there, and there is no reason for them if he’s looking to be “professional”.
4 M Holland // Feb 13, 2012 at 9:43 am
This article made an interesting comment on Vancouver – the high visibility of its planning dept leaders. Larry Beasley received the Order of Canada for his impact on Vancouver and its ripples across North America and beyond. To step into not only Beasley’s workload but also Dr Ann McAfee’s workload is something Brent has noted here but few have picked up on in past discussions. I had the privelege to work for both McAfee and Beasley and their workload and political chessboard was collosal. In addition, they had Jacquie Forbes-Roberts, who was cut from the same excellent cloth overseeing all of community services.
Between managing Council, a radicalized and diverse community (190 languages are spoken in Vancouver), and a highly sophisticated and resourced development industry and to keep them all happy is not feasible. A strong strategic eye and a clear sense of vision is required, but also required is a tolerance for a significant amount of uncertainty and even chaos – as a lot of people, interests, opinions and money compete daily on every issue.
I think most of us from Brent’s generation believe he is probably one of the brightest amongst us. He took the reins in his late 30s and has survived a fascinating shift in Vancouver over the past 5 years and done what few could – implement ecodensity and take the currently successful Vancouver urban living model to new levels of complexity, and do so in the context of a post-olympics malaise, and a global crashing recession. Moreover, he did it while building deep respect and loyalty amongst his staff by how he managed his team. I think that while no one is perfect, his accomplishments show Brent is an exemplary leader.
More importantly, the rise of the profile of the director of planning in Vancouver is one that has happened because of the skills and dedication of those who have occupied that role in the past – strong leaders, strong personalities, visionaries and masters at political management – all rolled into one personality… and again, there were several of them working at the same time. It’s one thing to simply let one go and declare they will replace him. It’s going to be another completely to actually do that.
I have a lot of respect for Mayor Robertson and his vision – and the challenge of good local government is to be a politican with vision but also have senior leaders in your implementation departments with strong professional visions and to work with them. One of the secrets of Vancouver’s success has been this fine balance. An American mayorial model tends to have “yes-people” at the top because they are brought in by each mayor and most existing senior managers are expelled – a highly political plannign context. Having served as an advisor to a strong American mayor for a number of years in this model, I can say it has its upsides, but also it greatly limits the kind of long term vision and leadership that builds great cities over many decades.
I hope the current administration is successful in finding a good replacement for Brent – because a lot of good things go with him as he leaves.
M Holland
5 Glissando Remmy // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:11 am
Thought of The Morning
“I didn’t know that there was such a thing as – Impaired Vision Deniers!”
Tessa #1,
You say:
“Robertson has three more years to prove people like me wrong, but in the meantime I am seriously concerned…”
Oh, common, don’t make me laugh.
Really?
You didn’t see this coming, at all?
For three years, Robertson, Ballem and their Vision council have shown their true colors, their total love for control, cronyism, nepotism, and their utter incompetence.
Your money, the taxpayers money, was for three years, their Blackjack money! Period.
Your statement re. giving Robertson & gang another three years to “prove themselves”, and that you are “concerned” borders on satire.
Reminds me of a dark joke:
“Two well dressed ladies, sporting nice, big, shiny diamond rings are walking hand in hand, in front of Tiffany’s in New York.
A group of protesters stops them and one girl, pointing down to their rings, says:
“Are you aware Ladies, that some kids in Africa have their hands, cut off, so you could wear those rocks?”
To which one of them, fairly shocked asks:
“Both hands?”
I hope you get the joke, because if you don’t, there is really nothing I could do.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
PS.
BTW…
“Toderian Urbanism”?
Now, that’s a real wake up call for Brent. See how it feels, being on the other side of the DofP’s desk. Real life, on the outside, eh.
My advice:
“Practice Hat in Hands request for audience routine, in front of the mirror, and for heaven’s sake, don’t look Ballem in the eyes!”
6 Silly Season // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:46 am
@jesse
‘There are some sharp comments there, and there is no reason for them if he’s looking to be “professional”.
Can you expand on that statement? I find it rather intriguing.
7 Michael Geller // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm
I was pleased to read this article, even though my family wants me to join them on the PV beach!
I too share Silly Season’s confusion about Jesse’s comment. I thought Brent was being very diplomatic in his remarks to the journalist.
I was also pleased to see the comments from Rick Michaels and Mark Holland, and other former City staff on this blog. I also noted that the article referenced my comment on this blog about the standing ovation Brent received from his staff. I reported on this since I considered it very significant.
We often forget that in addition to giving talks around the world, appearing at UDI luncheons, talking on the radio, meeting with community groups, and encouraging developers to design more adventuresome buildings, the Director of Planning is responsible for managing a very large department… in the order of 150 people.
Anyone who has worked in a large organization or government knows that how you are viewed by your employees is often the greatest measure of a true leader.
I think it is a testament to Brent’s qualities that he received a five minute standing ovation from his staff, and so many of his former staff have publicly declared their respect and support for him.
That being said, it’s unfortunate that those who remain have been so publicly silent. But then again, anyone who has worked in a large organization or government department understands why.
A final story. I worked for a man who held the senior post for CMHC in BC. It was a highly coveted job, not unlike that of the Director of Planning.
However, unlike the DofP, my colleague had a propensity for very long lunches washed down by Johnny Walker Black Label. One day after a particularly long lunch, I suggested to my boss that it was time for him to return to his office.
“If the President calls and you’re not there, you might get fired” I joked.
He replied “The President can’t fire me….he’s promised my job to too many people!”
8 Michael Geller // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm
ps it’s true…if you ‘refresh’ your browser, the big box blocking the first story shrinks!
9 Insider // Feb 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm
http://www.vancourier.com/Letters+week/6131917/story.html
Oops, posted this to the last post, and just noticed this new one. This link is to a letter to the Courier from yet another former staffer speaking out, and fixing a misquote??? Again, holy cow…
10 Michelle // Feb 13, 2012 at 7:58 pm
“Toderian Urbanism” sounds more like a tourism agency to me… for the inner city traveler.
I am dying to find out who’s the first client, and for what! How are Brent’s reference letters? I’d love to see the ones from the City Manager’s offfice!
11 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 14, 2012 at 8:54 am
I’ve read the interview. There are some themes that are starting to sound familiar. But, I take this opportunity to discuss some of the City’s planning policies, whether or not they come from Brent.
A brief look in the rear view mirror. There are two times since 1970 that I felt duped by the Vancouver planning. The first was the Granville Mall (now disappeared). It was touted as a pedestrian place. I would now equate it with Strøget, Copenhagen’s and western Europe’s first pedestrian street. However, it turned out to be a bus mall, like 5th Ave. in Portland or the one in Minnesota. I wonder why it never worked? Putting 15,000 vehicles per day on the morning rush on Water Street is another case in point, but that one must be worn by the engineers.
The second is the 20% social housing in North Shore False Creek. That really sounded incredible. And it was. It was 20% of the “zoned space” that was reserved for social housing for which there was exactly $0 dollars. The inversion of this impression that was perpetrated on the citizenry is that for the developers of towers, density is really not what they are after. The Vancouver Achievement puts NSFC as 67% units/acre gross density. If that is correct, it is the equivalent of 3-story row houses or walk up apartment.
The first piece of planning policy that I like to take up is the “preservation of industrial land in our city”. My research here:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-sW
The vision of a business core surrounded by industrial land dates to 1929, and it is fair to say that the paradigm has changed. Cities from Chicago to London are redeveloping their 19th century industrial waterfronts. Inner city land all over North America is being revitalized.
What is dangerous about this policy is that it keeps two of the most challenging opportunities in our city in the shadows. I am referring to the Port Lands, and the False Creek Flats. How we land those Brown Fields is going to have a great deal to do with what kind of a city we are 100 years from now.
Maybe Private Citizen Brent can weigh in and explain to us city policy on these two sites, and the other one, the lands from the Olympic Village up to Broadway.
I intend to return to this thread and comment on the other major issues in planning discussed in the piece (or not) over the next couple of days.
12 Insider // Feb 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Frances has had a bunch of posts on the Toderian and City Hall morale situation (great job Frances, for that), and scanning them all again, i just get sadder and sadder. There’s no more i can say that hasn’t been said better in previous posts by better writers:
From Mary:
“This is all about the doctor not liking being contradicted or in any way challenged. Toderian’s ability and occasional habit of speaking plainly on issues like density, amenities, the Cambie corridor land prices, etc., was very threatening to She Who Must Call All the Shots. You can bet that we will get a replacement that knows his/her place and how to ‘yes ma’am!’”
and this, later:
“It is so principled of the 3 former assistant directors to state simply and directly what they experienced. So few people have principles, courage and the ability to communicate so clearly. Things are bad at the hall now. Even worse than before this last election. The City Manager is so abusive to managers and directors that creativity, risk taking, and “thinking outside the box” are all but gone. It will take years to rebuild and repair the former culture of creativity, service, and pride in accomplishment.”
From Frank F:
“I want to add to my comments above by wishing Brent well in his future endeavours and also offer my congratulations for leaving a situation that had to be untenable, from a top-down point of view. There seems to be very little emanating from Vancouver City Hall these days that makes it sound like a good place to work without undue interference, second-guessing and micromanagement from above, whether it be from the City Manager or Council.
It should be noted that not only many senior staff have left in recent years but also a great crop of younger staff as well. I’m sorry to say and I hope it isn’t true, but it certainly appears that yesmen and women are what is wanted there now.
As a citizen of this city I want the very best and brightest people to be attracted and retained here, and not chased away.”
From Lance Berelowitz:
“I found Brent to be unfailingly engaging, thoughtful and respectful of other’s views, and his intelligence, energy and enthusiasm for the job were very evident … hired in his late 30s as the youngest Director of Planning ever, he was dropped into a job that was going to be daunting no matter how mature the incumbent…
I want to add my best wishes to Brent for the future, and my thanks to him for having done a pretty tough job under what I believe must have been increasingly untenable conditions at City Hall. As others have noted above, City Hall has undergone a sea change in recent years, and not for the better, by most accounts. So many experienced people have left, and the Vision caucus has imposed a pretty tight straightjacket on the organization, beginning from the City Manager’s office on down. Those of us on the outside can only try imagine the conflicting pressures that the Director of Planning must have been under.
That Brent maintained his cool demeanour and apparent enthusiasm for the job throughout his tenure speaks to his professionalism.
Whoever is Brent’s replacement has a tough time ahead. My (naive?) hope is that the position is not overtly politicized by Council: in order to be effective the Director has to be able not only to stand up to outside pressure (from developers and community advocates alike) but also, sometimes, to speak truth to power.”
From Lari:
“the only possible positive outcome is that Toderian’s departure will reveal the true ineptness and arrogance of the City Manager and Mike Magee, who really pulls VISION’s strings. This will not do one whit of good in terms of more meaningful public participation or in achieving more affordable housing. In fact, I predict the opposite effect. Let’s keep our eye on the ball and hold them to account.”
From G-Man:
“The eradication of one the few remaining vertebrates withing city management cannot augur well for the future of planning.
The relentless and mindless politicization of the planning department management is almost complete. She who must be obeyed on peril of Obscenities, bullying and other general abuse wins yet another round.”
From Sean B:
“While I sometimes found myself on the other side of planning issues from Mr. Toderian … he was always a consummate, professional in all dealings.
And he was genuine. After months of us meeting with lower-level city planners to work out a possible solution to the park, higher-ups intervened behind the scenes and sandbagged us in council with a completely different proposal. People felt somewhat betrayed, which led to some dramatic moments in the chamber.
Even though Brent thought he was offering a better proposal and that we’d like it, we didn’t … To his credit, in front of the Mayor, City Manager and council, he turned around and apologized to us in front of everyone there.
He earned enormous respect from me that day.
Personally I wish him well, and hope his successor demonstrates the same professionalism and politesse.”
And from AD’s French, Howard and Jenkins:
“Brent worked tirelessly to address the urgent issues of sustainability and affordability, while maintaining Vancouver’s tradition of good urban design and liveability. He inspired City staff with his enthusiasm. Brent has a very strong commitment to neighbourhood consultation: we witnessed him working hard to revise proposed plans based on public input. Regarding relationships with developers, we observed Brent’s openness to and encouragement of new forms of development for “density done well”.
In addition to the often conflicting pressures of neighbourhoods and developers, Brent faced new challenges including filling the shoes of the two previous co-Directors, major staff retirements, hiring freezes, economic downturn, and Councils’ diminished respect for professional advice.
We are pleased to have worked with a Director as principled and passionate as Brent.”
Enough said from me. I go back to coping in the Hall, wondering if things will get better or worse…
13 Insider // Feb 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Sorry, meant “From Frank D”…
14 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 15, 2012 at 10:55 am
“The construction of the Distributor Street and the absence of skyscrapers will spread business evenly over the area and prevent undue traffic congestion.”
Harland Bartholomew, from A Plan for the City of Vancouver, British Columbia (1929). The “distributor street” is roughly equivalent to today’s Pacific Boulevard, and “the area” is the downtown peninsula. The Bartholomew Plan was drafted at the moment that Vancouver, Point Grey and South Vancouver amalgamated. It is the seminal source for understanding urbanism in our city. Back to the article under review here:
“… replacing two well-liked and well-established co-directors, Larry Beasley and Dr. Ann McAfee, made Toderian’s new job in the city in 2006 a challenge from before the start. …Beasley mainly focused his energy downtown, working with developers to build more community amenities and ground-level placemaking in exchange for taller buildings, while McAfee focused more on a citywide agenda.”
I had a few conversations with Dr. McAfee centred on City Plan, and heritage policy. One of the planners that I approached during the City Plan Cedar Cottage, and City Plan Dunbar sessions (the first two plans in the process), replied to my queries about ‘urban design’ with the curious phrase, “We are up to our asses in alligators.”
Shifting the metaphor slightly, the impression began to grow with me that unless Vancouver planners changed game, urban design would be making donkeys out of all of us. Of course, “urban design” is a tricky subject in a City that has an Urban Design Panel as part of the review process. Yet, a great gulf separates the brand of urban design (Modernism) coming out of the Urban Design Panel, and City planning, and the urban design now being practiced in North America and elsewhere. In this matter, we have fallen behind the times.
Larry Beasly and I shared a common view: that towers belonged downtown, and not anywhere else. A point taken from the writings of Leon Krier. For the Woodward’s project, situated in the historic footprint of the original Granville Townsite plan, his view changed. In a project that displays the open hostility of Modern urbanism towards the values of history, and cultural conservation, the tower(s) were made king. Brent stated publicly on two occasions that the Woodward’s propelled the height review in the historic district.
On this matter Ray Spaxman, Director of Planning before Beasley & McAfee, was consulted by Council in 2008, the second year of Brent’s tenure, with direction that he report:
“… to include consideration of policies for additional density and corresponding height in suitable locations in Gastown, Hastings, Chinatown, and Victory Square…”.
The article makes no mention of the Historic Area Height Review (HAHR). Staff had identified 9 possible locations within what we have termed the Vancouver Historic Quartiers. Ray Spaxman’s “Historic Precinct Height Study” (September 2008) upped the ante to 22 towers.
After having stated that two or more towers at the Chinese Cultural Centre may be the right fit, the 2008 report spells out this concept for our Historic Chinatown (p 25):
“A broader, more interesting pattern is conceivable if one considers the design of these three (towers # 7, 8, 9) Chinatown sites as a linked series of towers. A series of towers, starting with a low one in the southeast part of Chinatown and then progressing through increasingly higher buildings to the west and culminating in the tallest of the culture centre site would introduce a striking urban feature in this neighbourhood symbolizing the relationship between the whole of Chinatown and the cultural centre.”
In my research on urbanism, I too have come upon events experienced in sequence as unique moments in the city:
(From: The Urban Room and the Figuration of Place, in “The Vancouver Historic Quartiers: A Plan for a Sustainable Urbanism”. A report that will be presented to Council later this month. Preview here: http://sunnvancouver.wordpress.com/).
However, the human experience of the urban room lies at the diametric opposite from the experience of the Modern box as symbol. In western urbanism the public open space, or the urban room, has been the site for the peak experience of place. The Modernist view attempts an inversion of values at this most political, and personal level. Modernism will supplant the private, or corporate object, for the public realm. The square or plaza no longer holds any value, because like the space next to the TD tower, it is overwhelmed in scale, shadowed, and made inhospitable by unpredictable winds created by the towers. Nobody goes there.
Working in their favour is the fact that today we judge the value of urban places from our automobiles, driving at a speeds 10-times greater than the walking, or human experience of place. Behind the windshield of a Dodge, Toyota or Chrysler, one bad urban space feels pretty much the same as another.
However, left hanging in the balance is the fate of our neighbourhoods. My topic for tomorrow.
15 Bobbie Bees // Feb 16, 2012 at 11:56 am
Maybe I should move to Edmonton.
16 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 16, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Trying to encourage an alternative reading of urbanism in our city, we designed the Vancouver Historic Quartiers as a case study for how to achieve incremental intensification in the cradle of our city. The same approach can be adapted, and applied to the other neighbourhoods outside the downtown.
The work draws on two premises:
(1) That we can do density without height—putting in question Council’s understanding in 2008 that “additional density” necessitates “corresponding height”, and
(2) That the significance of Vancouver’s first neighbourhoods goes beyond their historic architecture, showing how a sustainable, or complete urbanism functions at the level of the neighbourhood. It combines: livable streets, a walkable footprint, built form with human-scale characteristics, a diversity of building types, urban rooms, a mix of uses, proximity to downtown, transit, and social housing.
Outside the downtown, hi-rise is not needed for density. On the one hand, the neighbourhoods have spoken against it. On the other, we can do density with human scale products.
However, a long list of recent projects follow the old paradigm instead…
The Woodwards, the Gateway at Cambie & Marine; the Cambie Corridor; Marpole Safeway; Arbutus Mall; Little Mountain; the Rise Tower in Mount Pleasant; the STIR program; the HAHR in the historic quartiers; Knight & Kingsway…
The critique for these sites comes from the Planning Department’s review—questioning overshadowing, and overlook. We add creating hot-points for the demand of services, and congestion. We explain the first set of issues as the human-scale characteristics of built form, here:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-yN
Even the attempts to ‘not’ do towers have failed to deliver ‘good’ urbanism. Laneway Housing lowered the bar for the separation between neighbours. For the first time in our city we are building homes standing at an indecent 30-foot distance from one another (front, and rear set-backs).
The Olympic Village speaks for itself.
Plans to intensify along the arterials, and building out C2 Zoning, bumps up against hard facts. The arterials are toxic, grimy, and dangerous. When development goes ahead, it proceeds by turning a back on the street, erecting a streetwall of hermetically sealed glass. When it does not, then units opening to the street get all their air and daylight from the mess below. Traffic noise and speed are a major problem. All of these factors come together under the heading “Livable Streets,” or livability.
This is an issue that the C2 Zoning by-law gets wrong:
[The] Emphasis is on building design that … ensures livability…
Livability is not a function of building design. It results from street design. In fact, we use it as a measure of ‘good’ urbanism—How livable are the streets? It turns out that on the arterials the answer is “not very livable.” We turn to transit implementation, and street revitalization to design new arterials that support a mix of uses. However, redesigning the arterials will incur costs.
Therefore, our study plans growth as the engine of change. When arterials are used as the site for intensification, new development is spread uniformly along their full length. Combined with BRT/LRT implementation (Bus rapid transit, or tram), the arterials are revitalized, returning their livability, and providing sites for safe neighbourhood intensification.
17 Insider // Feb 19, 2012 at 3:34 pm
The French/Jenkins/Howard letter praising Toderian was printed in the Courier!
http://www.vancourier.com/Retired+planners+sing+Toderian+praises/6168168/story.html
18 Insider // Mar 2, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Watching Toderians UDI presentation from just after the election just makes the decision tougher to understand. He was clear with the industry about city’s vision and intentions, called for new models and innovation, but obviously was listening and empathetic and eager to work with all; was clearly emphasizing the need FOR ALL to listen more and better, all the right messages for the future. And he seemed very sincere and committed. We really don’t get it. So odd and frustrating.
http://www.udi.bc.ca/events/udi/archive-udi-luncheon-brent-toderian
Leave a Comment