Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Vancouver city manager: There is no building moratorium in the Downtown Eastside

March 22nd, 2011 · 28 Comments

Everything ground to a confused halt in the Downtown Eastside last month, after city council — apparently bowing to pressure from a Mike Harcourt-led community group plus others — delayed voting on a public hearing to increase allowable building heights in DTES.

Since then, city manager Penny Ballem has been working with the two main community groups interested in this issue, the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Council and Harcourt’s Building Community Society, about how to have a neighbourhood planning process.

The  theoretical idea behind all this is to come up with a long-term, overall goal for the area in terms of what the mix of housing should be (right now, it’s about 10,000 low-income units and 3,000 private-market condos), along with other uses.

In the short term, many people — planners at the city and owners or developers in the area — are flummoxed about what is actually going on, with some perceiving that the neighbourhood groups are now in control.

So Ballem has been sending out the message, loud and clear, that the city is not going to stall everything down there. As my story says, 150-foot towers of condos are not on, but other projects are, including one or more housing projects that will require rezonings.

Interesting to see the city manager get so directly involved in this area and the community negotiations, something that I can’t imagine Ken Dobell or Judy Rogers ever doing.

(P.S. Sorry for the paucity of blog posts lately. I’ve been working on some big projects, which see the light of day soon.)

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Roger Kemble

    “150-foot towers of condos are not on” That is your story Frances.

    Joe Wai thinqxz otherwise and I agree.

    The atrium mixed-use configuration at fifteen stories +/- . . .

    http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/Atrium.pdf

    . . . may provide a variety of pleasant, affordable accommodations, some condos with views . . . and shops, offices, live-works and social amenity, play grounds, gardens, at street level.

    Is sentimentalism calling the shots, or economical liveability?

    We are in a planning rut here!

    A different point view should be introduced at these planning deliberations.

  • Morven

    My observation as a casual observer.

    The development control system depends on a number of predictable steps that end in a vote by elected representatives acting with the aid of professional staff input. At least that is the theory.

    What seems to me to be occurring in Vancouver is an iterative set of dispute resolutions of development control issues where the city staff and elected representatives are all involved at far too early a stage.

    This may be the future of urban planning for all I know but unless this alternate dispute resolution process is clearly spelled out, it is no surprise that developers, planners and citizens alike are confused at the outcome.

    At least I am.
    -30-

  • Sean Bickerton

    Morven’s confusion is completely understandable.

    The HAHR was the result of a very expensive and extensive ten-year community consultation that took into account the views of everyone involved and proposed common-sense solutions. It serves as a great example of a professional, independent staff-led process that worked.

    With all respect for the opponents, they could have participated in that process at any time over the past ten years. Where were they then? Is this just a case of people not being able to win on the issues so they changed the rules?

    The prime opponent, Mr. Harcourt, was both Mayor of Vancouver and Premier. He had all of the power in the world to make things better back when he was elected to do so.

    So while I’m sure he means well, for Mr. Harcourt to step in now at the eleventh hour and stop all forward progress in rescuing people from what can only be described as inhumane conditions is unconscionable.

    The HAHR is the city’s best effort over ten years to fashion a community supported plan, and those who don’t live there and who spent many years presiding over governments that helped create the conditions we now see in this area, should have the decency not to insist that all of the pain and suffering continue a few years longer just so they can put their stamp on things, yet again.

    People say in regard to other proposals that it’s the lack of consultation that is so objectionable. And I agree in some cases, such as with the massive casino expansion.

    But this consultation was extensive and conducted over a decade, so there was no rushed result. It allowed full input from all stakeholders and their input was used to shape the final result.

    This Mayor should not have run from the debate by canceling the scheduled public hearing, and this council should not have caved to a few isolated voices that are unelected and unrepresentative.

    An arbitrary intervention by a privileged few should not be allowed to undo the city’s well-established democratic processes.

  • tf

    I’d like to address one point of information at this time –

    Many proponents of the HAHR rezoning proposal have been saying it’s been going on for 10 years as a reason to approve it. Mr. Bickerton repeats this in his comment above.

    I quote the City’s website –
    “The Historic Area of Vancouver, including Chinatown, Gastown, Victory Square and Hastings Street, is rich with history and has played a key role in the shaping of Vancouver’s current identity. It is also a living community, a place of economy and a reminder of the City’s rich heritage. In 2008, as part of the planning program for the Downtown Eastside, the City of Vancouver began exploring opportunities for additional height and density in the Historic Area. The purpose of the study was to inform the Chinatown Community Plan being developed, as well as to inform how the City responds to rezoning enquiries for taller buildings in the Historic Area.”

    That says “2008.” That’s 2.5 years by my calculation. I repeat – “…as part of the planning program for the DTES…”

    A little bit of background about this “10 years” –
    In 1999 the City started a community planning process for the Downtown Eastside (which includes Chinatown) to address safety and crime issues. The process was completed in 2004 and proposed a “5 to 10 year” list of recommendations. Many initiatives have been completed – including forming the Chinatown Revitalization Committee with a mandate for marketing business, building the Chinatown Gate, presenting the Chinatown Festival, among others. None of the recommendations to improve the safety or the livability of the DTES included an increase in heights or building new condo towers.

    Inform yourself – here’s some background on “10 years” –
    http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/dtes/pdf/DTESDirectionsbackgrounder.pdf
    http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020723/rr2.htm

    In 2004, there was a Chinatown Market Housing Study completed and, again, height increase wasn’t suggested. In fact, the study said an increase in height wasn’t the best way in Chinatown because of small lot size and “to retain the area’s character.” Conversion and rehabilitation of existing buildings was recommended.

    The HAHR is NOT “the city’s best effort over ten years to fashion a community-supported plan”! It’s a rezoning proposal – NOT a community plan. There is a community plan and it includes the entire DTES and involves far more than just a height review!

    In spite of all the studies, the only answer “businessmen” have to revitalize a community is “growth.” “Tear down and build higher or Chinatown will die!” The studies and evaluation reports say otherwise.

    The Height review has not been a 10 year process and a change in zoning is being promoted by developers and no one else. It’s misleading to say otherwise.

    My question is – why has Chinatown been cut out of the community planning process? Who stands to profit? Who has been lobbying the City officials?

    Google “Chinatown Celebrates Vision” and you may find an answer ~ “an arbitrary intervention by a privileged few” indeed!

  • Frank Ducote

    This does beg the question of who is responsible for planning the city. The City Manager as uberplanner as well as uber everything else must be having its effect on staff morale as well as creating confusion amongst others directly involved in the city-building and development process.

    On a related note, I was pleasantly surprised last week to read that Councillor Meggs is holding Concord Pacific’s feet to the fire in terms of delivery of committed community amenities. I hope this trumps the City Manager’s position that various subarea plans of theirs can be dealt with separately.

    Further to this, it strikes me as very odd that the commercial (office) floor space at the Cambie Bridge head is again attempting to be moved off-site to make room for residential development there. The reason this is odd is that this commercial floor space was relocated there c. 2002 or so from Georgia and Beatty to make room for residential development (as well as Costco). So, the game of land use hopscotch continues, while provision for office jobs goes begging. Maybe sticking to a commitment to build office space should be considered by planners and Council as well as delivery of amenities.

    (Sorry for the digression from the main theme of the posting, Frances!)

  • Westender1

    Thank you Frank Ducote for the history lesson – it’s easy to lose the record of the hopscotch game.
    I won’t weigh in on the issue of added heights in Chinatown – I think that’s the role of affected residents and landowners. But I do have to wonder why Penny Ballem is playing a public role in this discussion and bartering agreements with community groups. Shouldn’t our well-educated and skilled planning staff be managing this process?

  • Stephanie

    @Sean Bickerton: Nice try, but tf has your number. The proposal to add height to the Historic District is comparatively recent and was not part of the community planning process. If the DNC hadn’t started organizing around this, most of the low-income residents of Chinatown wouldn’t have had a clue about the proposed rezoning, let alone that their community supposedly supports it.

    And please, stop promoting the fiction that market condo development makes a very poor neighbourhood “livable” or that it’s going to “save” anyone. Expensive market condos make a neighbourhood livable for the people who buy them and move in, period. For the existing residents they do sweet FA.

    Wander around a “revitalized” Gastown any time. I do it every day. The new residents and visitors are having a blast. But most of the people who already lived here are made to feel like intruders in their own neighbourhood.

    Low-income residents can’t afford to access the businesses that serve the new condo-dwellers and they’re driven from the public spaces around those businesses because they’re now seen as eyesores and intruders on their own streets. Meanwhile, up go the rents, and businesses that actually do serve the lower-income residents are driven out.

    Keep this nonsense up and we’re going to have a “Historic Chinatown” that has evicted all the food stands in favour of Chinoiserie-bedecked bistros serving $12 gai lan starters to the condo set.

    Stop pretending that market developers are doing anyone but their customers and their investors any favours. Just stop. It’s horseshit.

  • Mary

    Morven, Westender1 and Frank Ducote are correct to identify the problems created by the one-person show we have at City Hall these days. The lack of a diversity of perspectives in the decision-making processes is frighteningly undemocratic and is bringing about all of the down sides associated with weakened democracies, including inefficiency of government. It is folly to let it continue and there is only one body who can do anything about it.

  • Joe Just Joe

    Have the existing local residents managed to keep any the small businesses that have closed from going out of business?
    I walk Chinatown on an almost daily basis, there are more vacant storefronts than I wish to count. Many others are only still in business because the owners work there themselves and they aren’t taking much if any of a salary. Torn canopies, burnt out signs, broken windows that aren’t being fixed because of lack of funds. Chinatown is crying out for our help, they are struggling and can’t continue indefinitely if things remain as is. If we leave things it will become the next Japantown.
    Wouldn’t it be nice to assist them for a change after all the wrongs that the city has imposed on them over it’s history?

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    I hate to pile on, but…

    Sean, please explain how exactly do condo towers help in “rescuing people from what can only be described as inhumane conditions”?

    My word, man, you can’t really be serious?

    As others note, the HAHR was ordered by the NPA in 2008, and the DoP has stated ON THIS BLOG and at public hearings in the past that it was the result of developers’ “inquiries” and the rampant speculation caused by the approval of the Woodwards towers.

    This is not a community plan at all. This “review” was EXCLUSIVELY about heights and identifying market development opportunities. Never once was there even a pretense of concern by Planning for issues like housing, poverty, heritage, transportation, infrastructure, etc. The deliberately narrow focus is a big part of the problem with this “consultation process”.

    Lastly, to suggest that people who oppose the HAHR proposals did not take part in the process from the start is ridiculous. Although, if you drew this conclusion from reading the HAHR report, perhaps you can be forgiven — I don’t believe the report to Council adequately reflects the significant opposition there was all along. If it had, we probably wouldn’t be in this contentious situation at all…

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    JJJ, what do you see around the Woodwards towers or Tinseltown or even Gastown? Lots of empty storefronts, vacant lots and buildings.

    Where’s the proof that condo towers are a magic bullet for revitalization?

  • Joe Just Joe

    The empty storefronts around Tinseltown have been diminishing though and not increasing (if we are talking about inside the mall you won’t find any argument from me, that place is a mismanaged nightmare).
    Same thing with Gastown, by your name I take it you live there. The number of empty storefronts is much less today then it was even just 5yrs ago. If only the city could find proper tenants for the Storyeum location. 🙂
    I for one don’t think condos are some magic fix, I think people are the magic fix, condos are just one tool to bring more people back into the area. I’m game to hear other meaningful solutions as well as I truly believe something needs to be done, and sooner rather then later.

  • Gentle Bossa Nova

    The population of the so-called DTES is about 20,000. It could be as high as 70,000 without displacement (i.e. gentrification), and without building outside the historic tradition.

    HAHR, as Ghost points out, is a sad day in our city. It is simply the outcome all of us foresaw: the Woodwards was not a “one of a kind”. Rather, it was the “thin edge of the wedge” of what is to come.

    Those of us who care about the soul and spirit and historic heritage of our city can only oppose it.

    There may not be a “building moratorium” in our historic neighbourhoods, but there should be a moratorium on projects that “are not in keeping with the form and character” of this most important place.

  • More Be Us

    To clarify the confusion – something that many would rather have more of to serve specific agendas – the Chinatown planning process has been going on for 10 years, of which the last 2.5 include the HAHR. Admittedly, the rest of the DTES may not have had as comprehensive a planning process, and that’s why Chinatown constituents have expressed support for the Local Area Plan that would bring the surrounding communities up to speed.

    Also to be fair, the participants of Chinatown’s 10+ year planning process that suppport the HAHR are not just “businessmen and developers” as tf and Stephanie would like to posit. Are social organizations like SUCCESS, that have mandates to provide housing for Chinatown seniors, now evil because they support the HAHR as it offers potential avenues for even more senior’s housing in the community? I doubt that the family and benevolent associations, who own many of the heritage buildings and have mandates to continue providing services to their members in Chinatown, are supporting the HAHR just to say
    “Tear down and build higher or Chinatown will die!”

    Chinatown support for the HAHR is based on the fact that the HAHR recommendations for Chinatown are well aligned with what has been a comprehensive Chinatown planning process, and that is why Chinatown was allowed to proceed. Perhaps the HAHR recommendations for the rest of the DTES may not have been as well informed, and hopefully the LAP will rectify those issues.

    The issues in Chinatown regarding the HAHR and revitalization are complex and numerous – not just the “business/developer vs. poor” or “height vs. heritage” or “condo vs. housing” fearmongering that the media and DNC tend to subscribe to. This complexity is why Chinatown’s planning process has taken more than 10 years to develop a comprehensive series of documents that all the stakeholders involved stand behind. The process has been documented at the City’s website (http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/chinatown/program/index.htm) – please read everything before making misleading statements.

    If you actually read the HAHR recommendations for Chinatown, nowhere does it focus on exclusively on expensive condos towers other than to prohibit tower form/height in almost all of the neighbourhood. If you actually read the HAHR report for Chinatown, it spends a great amount of time on preserving the heritage character of the area and the accompanying design guidelines for the entire Chinatown area work to ensure that new developments fit with the existing urban fabric. If you read the documentation from the Chinatown planning process that the HAHR aligns with, the objectives for increasing residents in Chinatown fits with the DTES Housing Study (2003) recommendations for Chinatown.

    Misinformation and oversimplification perpetuates misunderstanding of the issues – no good can come out of that. I implore anyone who wants to comment to thoroughly read the HAHR and Chinatown planning documentation so that we can have some meaningful dialogue.

    Just stop the rhetoric. Just stop the fearmongering. Just stop the misrepresentation. Otherwise it is all horseshit.

  • More Be Us

    My apologies – the DTES Housing Study referenced above was passed in 2005, not 2003 as was originally cited by mistake.

  • tf

    Wow, spirited debate.
    Thanks Frances, I know this post wasn’t specifically about Chinatown and more about the actions of the City Manager, but interesting discussion none the less.

    To More Be Us –
    I will look closer at the reports you mention. I too cite a few reports so it’s not just all fearmongering and rhetoric:) Why stop when we’re informing ourselves? That’s what I want – community engagement in the decision-making.

    Yes, SUCCESS has built some lovely housing for seniors, mostly 4/6/8 stories, and they work well in the neighbourhood. Nothing is stopping SUCCESS from building more ~ at the moment they can build up to 9 stories ~ they don’t need rezoning for further potential.

    So I ask, why are the “businessmen” pushing for 15 stories? They say they likely won’t do it, so I ask – why are they pushing for it? They have spoken about “respect” and “inclusiveness” but when I greet them with hello, they have turned their backs to me, advise the youth not to talk to me, and mutter “you lie” as they walk away … I really wonder about what’s going on and the consequences to the community of the City’s Jan 20th motion …

    To JJJ –
    “If we leave things it will become the next Japantown.”
    You do know BC’s history don’t you? In 1942 the entire Japanese Canadian community of “Japantown” was packed up and interned to BC’s interior as “undesirable aliens.” All their property, businesses, and belongings were confiscated by the government and they weren’t allowed to return to the West Coast for many years. It was a ghost town. The area has yet to really recover from that long-ago trauma, although there are a few initiatives happening now – particularly through the Powell Street Festival. It’s a sad history and different to that of Chinatown ~

    In Chinatown, property speculation has been rife for many years – first in the 70s and again in the 90s – a property owner can pay less tax and insurance on an empty storefront than on an occupied space. Many of the vacant spaces are held that way to keep taxes low and to feed the myth of “dying Chinatown.” Think of the strip of buildings on Hastings across from Woodwards. An engaged property owner would do something about filling the empty space or they would sell it, no?

    I quote the Chinatown Market Housing Study of 2004 – “A lower than usually expected percentage of return does not necessarily render development impossible. Landowners who are not interested in selling their land holdings may be satisfied with achieving a lower level of return to cover the costs of construction in exchange for the long-term benefit the development could have on the community.”
    The operative word is “may” ~

    The point is – decisions can be made to benefit the “entire” community of the DTES and not just one section – it needs a cohesive plan. Spot rezoning is divisive; it’s wedge politics and dangerous to our entire city.

    Thanks again Frances!

  • Roger Kemble

    “. . . they don’t always seem to be getting that what worked downtown is not going to work elsewhere.” Well, I’m not so sure about that!

    The Marine Building was opened downtown in 1930. Surely it is one of the most delightful examples of Art deco anywhere. Ditto the Sun tower!

    At twenty-four floors, with the copper roof, it is probably higher than the Rize tower at Main and Kingsway. I’ll bet a similar graceful tower would work in MP if the architects were given the opportunity to show their stuff.

    So, is height the issue in Mount Pleasant?

    First off I would abandon that November 2010 report: towers dispersed at either end of Broadway, caveat restrictions always allowing greater heights must be abandoned. I would also monitor the planners post-meeting meetings to make sure they do not get carried away by those cozy developer, sotto voce, blandishments.

    Aston Ostray’s tower has qualities. It could be the visual apex of the Village-on-the-Hill with opportunities to continue the incremental, colourful streetscape on Main with a, public access, interior atrium, à la Anchor Point.

    I agree wholeheartedly the current crop of downtown colourless glass and concrete monstrosities are no model to follow. Likewise, is Marine Gateway, with its pretensions of a High Street beyond remedial design?

    For reasons that are lost on me we have been conditioned to unquestioningly admirer such lop-sided, ungainly gray intrusions as the courthouse behind VAG: there are many more in a similar vein!

    God forbid the more recent gray hulks surrounding the recently declared Entertainment Zone be criteria to follow aywhere.

    We are denied the lost the art of graceful design. The CP’s graceful White Empress’, TCA’s Super Constellations, New Look long skirts and pink Cadillac tail fins were of a different times but not so long ago.

    Stark, bland, colourless modernism is external evidence of our lost souls. Time to get ’em back!

  • Joe Just Joe

    tf I wasn’t alive in 42 but having been born and raised in Vancouver I am very famaliar with what happened to Japantown. The difference of dying of a heartattack or of cancer… The end result is still death unless treated.
    We can still save Chinatown. We might disagree on how to do it, but I think we agree that it needs saving.

  • Gentle Bossa Nova

    With respect, what happened to Japantown, along with all other Canadian-Japanese property during WWII, is that it was taken away. The people were put in detention camps. And, when they were released, nothing was given back to them.

    “Misinformation and oversimplification perpetuates misunderstanding of the issues – no good can come out of that. I implore anyone who wants to comment to thoroughly read the HAHR and Chinatown planning documentation so that we can have some meaningful dialogue.”

    MBU 14

    I’ve read the reports and know quite a few of the folks both in the community, and behind the computers spewing out the stuff.

    But I find any support for HAHR in Chinatown or elsewhere ignores lessons about “contextual responses” to neighbourhoods, and in this case, historic neighbourhoods.

    There is much that the rest of Vancouver can learn from Chinatown’s urbanism. We won’t get that lesson unless we pay attention to small details. Those things that will be too quickly dismissed, and to easily enveloped, by the long shadows of buildings that fail to respect the local, historic character and built form.

    Chinatown has soul. The HAHR is an oversimplification of the cultural, social and historic heritage of the place.

  • Sean Bickerton

    @ Stephanie – In the Gastown you lament there are no towers. Yet according to you “most of the people who already lived here are made to feel like intruders in their own neighbourhood.”

    And that same type of gentrification you don’t like is exactly what’s happening to the Carrall Street Greenway, and what will happen to Chinatown without action.

    The current state of affairs will encourage the only activity that can take place – bars and restaurants at street level forcing out traditional businesses, so we end up with an ersatz imitation of what Chinatown once was, instead of restoring the vitality of the traditional businesses still hanging on by a thread.

    With a few carefully controlled low-rise buildings recommended by the HAHR, which was approved by the residents of chinataown, SUCCESS, Chinatown BIA, and Chinatown Revitialization Committee, heritate will be preserved and there will be enough investment in amenities to attract more foot traffic and revitalize the area, providing badly needed jobs in our historic downtown.

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    Well, if we are going to talk reports, then I recommend reading up on the Heritage Density Transfer program.

    The DoP put a MORATORIUM on this program last year, which stopped dead a number of Chinatown revitalization projects that were all ready to go. There were independent reports written in 2002 and 2007 warning about the structural problems of the program that were making the Density Bank imbalanced.

    Planning ignored ALL recommendations, did absolutely nothing, and then slapped the moratorium on the program when it got so far out of whack. Why didn’t they heed the warnings and follow some of the recommendations in these two reports? Why did they do nothing?

    At the Density Transfer moratorium hearing, there was incredible frustration and betrayal expressed by the speakers, including Robert Fung and several Chinatown Society building owners. They were strung along for three years by the DoP, then had the rug pulled out fr0m under them. That’s part of the reason that 10 years later, we are still discussing what to do…

    And the result?

    Now, the only way out for the Chinatown owners is CAC’s from tower rezonings (how convenient), and if you read their letters supporting HAHR (appendix), you will note they ALL specifically tie their support to directly recieving the amenity benefits from the towers — no more messing around.

    I don’t blame them at all. They were painted into a corner. But to suggest this was the result of a community visioning and consensus, or these towers are what was really desired for the area, is just total BS.

    And meanwhile, how many towers and people landed in International Village the last 10-15 years? Steps away from Chinatown (actually this used to be part of Chinatown), why hasn’t all that density made any difference??? 2-3 minutes away is 100 new units at Koret, 400 units in Woodwards. Why hasn’t any of this made a difference?

    These 5 towers on Main St. will add a mere 80 extra people over what is already allowed. 80 people!

    Does anyone seriously think 80 people are going to really make a difference, and perform all the wonders that are being promised in Chinatown?

  • Sean Bickerton

    GJG, the Woodwards development has made a tremendous difference to our neighbourhood. 200 social housing units, businesses providing jobs, SFU educating youth, a new badly needed small performance theatre, a badly needed grocery store with extremely good values – best peanut butter in city for $2.50 a jar! – and lots of public space given over to local non-profits.

    It has greatly increased foot traffic along Abbott Street, and put a major crimp in the crack dealers who are being gradually pushed away from Abbott.

    It is, as you point out, the CACs that flow from low-rise development that will pay for the amenities necessary to improve Chinatown’s streetscape, preserve heritage and create attractions that together will bring in the increased foot traffic necessary to thriving downtown businesses.

    Just like it used to be before everyone else started telling them what they can and can’t do.

  • Gerald

    it was Woodward’s that choked the heritage density bank. making it impossible to negotiate heritage revitalization agreements for the Chinatown benevolent buildings. So we get 2 facades of one department store and lose all of Chinatown. Some deal.

  • Westender1

    Gerald, it’s farther reaching than Chinatown. The “bloating” of the density bank has affected other heritage preservation projects in other neighbourhoods by requiring absorption of (sometimes large) heritage density bonuses “on-site.” It is shameful that this important policy tool has been allowed to be damaged in this way.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Ghost has a point. If tower density was the missing ingredient in Chinatown revitalization, we’re not having this discussion.

    Sean Bickerton is well located to observe this, and we entrust him to keep up the good reporting:

    “… the Woodwards development has made a tremendous difference to our neighbourhood. 200 social housing units, businesses providing jobs, SFU educating youth, a new badly needed small performance theatre, a badly needed grocery store with extremely good values – best peanut butter in city for $2.50 a jar! – and lots of public space given over to local non-profits.”

    SB 22

    I’m going over to get me a jar of that peanut butter a.s.a.p.

    While I agree that all those elements listed add much needed “body heat” to the neighbourhood, yet putting it all in one city block and two towers robs the nearby city blocks of most of the much needed jam.

    Towers don’t belong in historic districts. This has been accepted in architecture circles since the mid-1950’s. Jane Jacobs more or less closed the discussion with her epoch making book (Death and Life of the American City, 1961). From there the move was on for contextually sympathetic responses.

    That means: “buildings that are in keeping with local historic traditions”. That’s not Woodward’s, and it is not HAHR.

    I have not had time to read up on the bonus density issues, and that deficiency is already starting to haunt me. Setting aside the bonus density issues for the moment, the Chinatown revitalization plan is short two important ingredients.

    1. A street beautification program to be completed by the City.

    There are a lot of places in Chinatown that are excellent candidates (including the Pender-Gore-Keefer parade route; Chinatown Square; and Main Street). Paying for this cannot be by CAC’s alone, and a set aside from property and business taxes should provide some of the funding, as well as matching funds from senior levels of government.

    The fundamental importance of a significant investment in street beautification by the City is that it signals the private sector that we are finally serous about what we say we are serious about doing. It’s that “money where you’re mouth is”.

    2. Transit Implementation

    Upgrading the Hastings B-Line to BRT; and upgrading the Main Street bus to either B-Line or BRT.

    This is important because investment in transportation infrastructure can pave the way for private sector investment in redevelopment on fronting lots. Upgrades in transportation provide competitive advantage to fronting lots. When the transportation upgrade is joined to a street beautification program, the advantage multiplies.

    With these two matters in hand we turn to the third element of a good revitalization strategy which is recognized in the present strategy:

    3. Residential Intensification

    Of course, here one has to repeat the refrain: that is in keeping with the local tradition of place.

    Chinatown’s urbanism is very exciting, and in some cases dramatically inventive and original. Yet it is well grounded in its place, so in a very real way it belongs to all of us, not just those of Chinese decent.

    Preserving the cultural and historic values of Chinatown means preserving a key part of the cultural and historic values of Vancouver as a whole.

  • Sean Bickerton

    Not for the first time I find myself again looking for the middle ground in this exchange with Mr. Villegas and agreeing with nearly everything he says. Agree completely on the necessity of investment on street beautification, transportation and residential intensification within the context he espouses. It’s time for us to move forward and rescue what he is right to call a jewel in the entire city’s heritage.

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    “In the Gastown you lament there are no towers.”

    – Sean Bickerton

    So, where exactly do you think the Woodwards towers are, on the moon?

    “Agree completely on the necessity of investment on street beautification, transportation and residential intensification within the context he (Lewis Villegas) espouses. It’s time for us to move forward and rescue what he is right to call a jewel in the entire city’s heritage.”

    Well, OK, Sean, I’m on board with this, too. But Villegas states, “Towers don’t belong in historic districts.” And, “That’s not Woodwards, and it is not HAHR.”

    But Sean, you state several times that you think towers are necessary, and that you support HAHR.

    You can’t have it both ways, sir. So which is it?

    Do we extend the rotten, modernist urbanism of Citygate north past the viaducts, or try to extend southwards the urbanism of the “jewel”?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    [Let’s repost that one]

    Not for the first time, I’ve used this blog to trot out my ideas and get feedback. Therefore, I am very appreciative of Mr. Bickerton’s support (#26).

    I will be speaking at the HAHR hearing, trying to identify “common ground”, and I find much that has been said here already to be key for establishing facts upon which we can build a consensus.

    1. I empathize with the concerns expressed by Stephanie that we can’t leave it to market forces to do the right thing. The private sector is waging a competitive enterprise and we all understand what that means.

    Yet, we have to allow that the area as a whole can improve—to pick one—in economic functioning. One result would be creating jobs that will go a long way to making life better for neighbourhood residents old and new.

    2. We may be making too much of the empty storefronts. HAHR has been around long enough to have its effect on the existing scene. It is quite likely that lot assembly and development on a scale that does not fit historic precedent is showing its first signs of doing the damage that will surely follow an HAHR approval.

    3. tf’s quote is also important:

    “Landowners who are not interested in selling their land holdings may be satisfied with achieving a lower level of return to cover the costs of construction in exchange for the long-term benefit the development could have on the community.” (#16)

    It argues for a partnership, where property owners don’t take the maximum development envelope, and the various levels of government as an in-kind gesture invest in street revitalization.

    4. But, Ghost has us over a barrel once again:

    “Do we extend the rotten, modernist urbanism of Citygate north past the viaducts, or try to extend southwards the urbanism of the “jewel”?”

    If we were to find the wherewithal to give to Chinatown tomorrow what Gastown got in 1970—i.e. extending the urbanism of the “jewel”—then, we stand to get the mojo that now clearly evades us. The jam necessary to get the intensification of the rest of the neighbourhoods right.