I remember reading a glowing Toronto Star feature on Vancouver and its view corridors a few years before I ended up moving to Vancouver, and it’s one of the things that really distinguishes the city. When I first arrived here for work downtown, I’d find myself stopping at intersections where the North Shore mountains would loom into view, just to admire the view. I’d often be the sole person stunned by the sight — everyone else was jaded about the view.

It’d be a shame if the corridors concept was degraded, and I imagine there’s been just as much of a premium associated with having them, indirectly, than might be gained by getting rid of them or modifying them just to satisfy the thirst for development. I think the fact that Calgary didn’t even discuss the views is probably more a comment on Calgary and its priorities than anything else.

It’s an interesting gauge of where Vancouver is and wants to go, in its simultaneous attempts to stay livable and grow “world-class”.

Although I would agree with Michael Geller that we should completely understand where these corridors are before being critical, and he is being faily impartial in his comments, personally I would be opposed to the very people propping up the election campaigns of city officials, from being involved in any of the process going forward.

Talk about a conflict of interest.

Perhaps we should tackle some election reforms and limit contributions before we start considering such topics as sensitive as this one.

It’s also a concern that our new McBeasley hasn’t been here long enough before taking on this monumental dialogue. Calgary’s downtown planning is definitely not the path we as a city should be heading down.

Frances, maybe you can use your contacts and check what Beasleys view on the matter is, in my opinion Toderian just hasn’t been able to fill his shoes.

“Frances, maybe you can use your contacts and check what Beasleys view on the matter is, in my opinion Toderian just hasn’t been able to fill his shoes.”

Sorry, Joe, but Larry Beasley’s view on this would be that he would be in favour of any policy that would ensure maximum profits in the pockets of developers. That was his primary goal all through those dreadful years he was in charge of Planning. Larry Beasley was the best friend developers ever had at City Hall (why do you think there’s a soon-to-be-built Yaletown tower named after him? In a word: Gratitude; in this case, from one of his good developer buddies). I got to know Larry slightly when I debated him on radio a few times during a dispute over a controversial development proposal he was backing in the late 90s. It was hard not to like him personally. He was an immensely charming guy, which was one of the things that made him so dangerous. When a book was published outlining Vancouver’s post-Expo development history and which praised Beasley for his reshaping of the city, Larry used to keep copies in his office and proudly give them out to visitors. Modesty was never his strong suit. Is there any reason to think that all that Persian Gulf sunshine has made him rethink his approach to planning?
Toderian may not have filled Beasley’s shoes as of yet, but he’s sounding more and more like a chip off the old block. Larry was from Las Vegas, Toderian’s from Calgary; neither one can be considered anything like an appropriate development model for Vancouver. But here we go again, it seems…
gmgw

Some comments that are more on-topic than damning Larry Beasley:
Frances, there’s a small error in your story. It wasn’t the Harbour Centre development that set off the controversy over view corridors. Rather, it was the massive Project 200 development that the CPR’s Marathon Realty (former employers of Gordon Campbell), together with several partners including Grosvenor-Laing and Woodward’s, proposed to build in the late 60s. This would have seen a Toronto Harbourfront-style wall of buildings erected along the CPR rail lands on the waterfront, completely blocking most of the existing view corridors. The public outcry against this proposal was fierce enough that it was dropped. The only building in the Project 200 development that was completed was Granville Square, built in 1971-72 and now the home of your former employers at PacPress, Frances; note how it neatly blocks the view of the mountains from the north slope of Granville Street. It was Granville Square, more than any other single building, that gave rise to the “view corridor” guidelines. As Harold Kalman notes in my dusty 2nd edition of “Exploring Vancouver”: “One factor in the emasculation of Project 200 was the growing disillusionment with massive skyscraper redevelopment schemes.”. This, mind you, was back in the days when Mayor Tom Campbell (a developer) was castigated for suggesting that Vancouver could become “another New York City”. Those were more enlightened times. Now we have “skyscraper enthusiasts” in Vancouver, singing the praises of phallocentric development on their website.

As regards the view corridors, the ones that are under discusssion have been relentlessly whittled away. As a resident of the South Shore of False Creek for the past 25 years, I have seen our own once-glorious view corridors almost completely disappear. Time was when we could see the entire ridge of Mt. Seymour, the Golden Ears, and, on a clear day, the peaks above the eastern Fraser Valley– Cheam and Slesse, all from our balcony. Now, to the north and northeast, we look at little but condo towers. I was surprised to see that the Lions and Crown and Grouse Mountains are still considered to be visible in the view corridor extending north from Charleson Park. I’ll have to check next time I go for a walk along there, but I suspect those views were wiped out by Concord Pacific’s Great Wall of False Creek North, years ago.

Regarding Michael Geller’s predictable whine about the non-validity of preserving the view from the Granville Bridge– someday I must dig through the Sun files and find an Allan Fotheringham column from the late 60s in which he gave a wonderfully lyrical description of the experience of driving across the bridge and being struck by its then-stupendous view; Dr. Foth described it, IIRC, as “one of the great urban views of North America” (the fact that this lyrical flight appeared, bizarrely, in a column urging approval of the then-proposed Pacific Centre development does not lessen its validity). That was 40+ years ago. Now the view from the bridge has been so encroached upon that even slow-moving southbound pedestrians won’t emerge from Condo Canyon until they are in the very center of the span. As for his cranky kvetch about “preserving the view of the Lions for a mid-span motorist”, Mr. Geller might be surprised to learn that a considerable number of tourists make a point of walking across the Granville Bridge; partly for the view and partly because they’re trying to get to Granville Island. I often encounter them while walking to work across the bridge (I have been stopped and asked “Excuse me, how do we get to Granville Island?” so many times that I ought to carry printouts giving directions). They, too, are often disappointed in the non-view from the North end; it has been so throughly destroyed, in fact, that I fail to see what Geller is bitching about.

I think, in a way, Toderian’s proposed rethink is an admission that, view-wise, we’ve f****ed up downtown beyond any hope of redemption, and we may as well hammer the final few nails into the coffin of the view corridor concept. It was a noble idea, but it has become a meaningless exercise in hypocrisy. Its demise was/is inevitable, but it will still be missed. When Toderian blathers on about “embracing the tough questions”, “a challenging dialogue on values” and “new approaches”, I have enough experience with planning processes in this city to know whose “values” will ultimately triumph on this issue, and they ain’t gonna be mine. I hate to close with a quote from Bob Dylan, but “money doesn’t talk, it swears” seems somehow apropos.
gmgw

Views like parkland are never recaptured … density vs livability … developers and profit vs livability … skyscrapers like freeways have never been the answer.

But how would he get back?

“To gmgw,
Thanks for the additional info about the wall of condos planned for Coal Harbour. I didn’t ever know about that and people didn’t bring it up when I was researching this story. (And I thought I did my homework, going back to Ray Spaxman!)”

You’re welcome, Frances; the Project 200 saga is a useful cautionary tale. I must point out, though, that Project 200 preceded the Spaxman era; he became City Planner in 1973. Something I neglected to mention that one of the principal reasons Project 200 (which would have been mostly office towers rather than condos– condo towers as we now know them were still blessedly far in Vancouver’s future at the time) met with so much opposition was that it called for the “redevelopment” (read: destruction) of much of the north side of Gastown, including many of the buildings on the north side of Water Street. The one-time “Gaslight Square” at 131 Water– I don’t know what it’s called now, or even if it’s still there; I walk along that block maybe once every couple of years or so– is/was an example of the kind of development that would probably have replaced them. It too was a project of Marathon Realty; built in ’74-’75, it ignored heritage guidelines in the area. Even as Project 200 was being touted, Larry Killam and a few other visionary developers were beginning to buy up buildings (often for absurdly low prices) in what would become Gastown with an eye to restoring them and creating a heritage-themed retail and professional district– rather than simply demolishing them as the City would likely have preferred. Project 200, had it gone ahead, would have killed the Gastown concept, as surely as the equally reprehensible Chinatown freeway would have destroyed Chinatown– and would also have connected to a proposed waterfront freeway which, it was hoped, would connect with the long-awaited Third Crossing (for which, thankfully, we’re still waiting).

Gastown, of course, would later sink into a decades-long downturn in its fortunes, but lately it seems to be making something of a comeback– God granting that the insane plan for a waterfront soccer stadium never reaches fruition. Back in Gastown’s early days, Larry Killam was frequently demonized by the counterculture as a money-grubbing capitalist profiteer; but there’s no denying he played a major role in revitalizing the area, and saved a number of historically important buildings. (And, yes, he made a lot of money in the process– in addition to getting whacked in the head by a police baton wielded by a member of the VPD Mounted Squad during the August 1971 Gastown Riot; Killam was trying to stop the police from pursuing fleeing stoners who were taking shelter in one of his buildings. Now *that’s* something Nat Bosa and Victor Li would never do!) Now we have developers in Gastown who, encouraged by Planning, think the way to rejuvenate a 19th-century building is to completely gut and replace its insides, retaining only its streetfront facade as a meaningless sop to heritage preservationists. How times have changed.

Project 200 was arguably the last manifestation of the boomtown mentality that, through several phases, had largely driven development in Vancouver since the late 19th century. The “boomtown” approach would return with a vengeance in the post-Expo years; but in the relatively quiet intermission that was the 70s in Vancouver, City Hall was run by people with a much more egalatarian vision than those who’d gone before. The victory of the liberal TEAM party and the temporary retreat of the development-at-all-costs NPA saw outstanding figures like Art Phillips, Walter Hardwick, and Setty Pendakur on Council; Ray Spaxman in Planning; and the late and much-beloved Ernie Fladell, in Cultural Planning. They brought in a whole new way of doing things. Incidentally, if you want to see the kind of development they were reacting against; if you want to see the kind of vision Tom Campbell (the late 60s/early 70s conservative NPA mayor, developer, and all-round wacko) had for the city, take a look at that bizarre propeller-shaped apartment tower at the south end of the Burrard Bridge. That was one of Campbell’s buildings, certainly his best-known. He put it up in the mid-60s. It wouldn’t be out of place in Richmond or North Surrey; but it’s completely out of scale and inappropriate for largely low-rise Kitsilano, especially back then, but even now.

Unfortunately, the new approach fostered by the TEAM team did not long survive their departure from City Hall. I’m fond of pointing out that the best way to compare and contrast what could be called the Spaxman and Beasley eras is to simply take a walk along the south shore of False Creek. The extraordinary transformation of the south shore– more specifically, the area between Leg-in-Boot Square and the Granville Bridge– from a toxic morass of assorted small industries to a pleasant low-scale residential neighbourhood– with an excellent mix of condos and cooperative (i.e affordable) housing– is a tribute to the vision and drive of Spaxman, Hardwick and a number of other creative folks at City Hall. Art Phillips gave the FCS neighbourhood his personal endorsement when he and Carole Taylor moved into a condo on the east side of Charleson Park. We used to encounter them strolling on the seawall so often that we developed a nodding acquaintanceship. (I’ve also encountered Sam Sullivan a few times near his Homer Street condo, but it wasn’t the same experience at all…) And when Ron Basford spearheaded the transformation of Granville Island, it provided a cultural linchpin not only for the new neighbourhood but for the entire city. Could Granville Island come into being in these hard-nosed, profit-driven times? Not bloody likely.

Ironically, at the time the south shore was developed, there was some criticism of its density levels, mainly because the City had decreed that the most efficient use of the space would be multi-family complexes, starting with False Creek Housing Co-op, which opened in 1975. I can remember Vancouver writer D.M. Fraser, who’s long since passed on, sneeringly dismissing the look of the neighbourhood in the late 70s as “Buchenwald chic”. I think time has invalidated his cynicism. But compare the south shore with what has gone up across the water to the north, in “Beasleyville”, as I like to call it. The comparative appearances of the north and south shores of False Creek are the perfect visual metaphor for the spectacularly oppositional social and cultural values of Vancouver’s planners and politicians in the post-Expo era and their predecessors in the 70s– in a nutshell, Beasley vs. Spaxman. On the south shore, low-rise, human-scaled development; nicely landscaped greenspace; housing for people with a wide variety of incomes; Granville Island. On the north shore? Block after block of huge, nearly-identical condo towers looming over a few token, boringly-designed, often-deserted mini-parks. The towers are mostly comprised of apartments affordable only by those with substantial incomes; many, in fact, were bought purely as an investment by people who have no interest in helping to build a local community. At the bottom of the canyons, dreary, windswept little plazas and streets with shops and restaurants that somehow afford the obscene rents– as well as, of course, the sky-high prices of Urban Fare. The contrast could not be more dramatic. All the mistakes that Planning and successive Councils made in facilitating the overdevelopment of the West End from the late 50s onward have not only been repeated but compounded in Yaletown. And the same thing is happening yet again in Southeast False Creek (though on a somewhat smaller scale), and will shortly be happening in spades in the forest of enormous towers that will soon be rising around BC Place. Vancouver is always in such a rush to forget its past or even to obliterate its traces, ensuring that the city never learns from that past. And as I said in an earlier post, it’s beginning to appear that Brent Toderian is planning (no pun intended) to continue that tradition. Anyone with enough money can put up a 30-storey tower, or even a dozen such towers; but it takes real vision, drive and courage to create a living, breathing, integrated, human-scaled neighbourhood from scratch. Increased density is not necessarily in and of itself an evil; but it has to be done with an eye to fundamental human values. And there’s been precious little evidence of that sort of creative vision coming from Planning for the past twenty-plus years.

Sorry about the length of this post; it wandered a long way from the topic of view cones! Anyway, I think I’ve got all this out of my system for now.

gmgw

That was a great read, gmgw.

I lived in South False Creek for 11 years. As GMGW points out in the rather small minority portion of his/her unedited but heartfelt critique, South False Creek is one of the most unique communities in the nation.

However, I take exception to the majority of the piece, which to me reads as nothing more than a self-important vindictive hunk of blather about one of Canada’s notable urban planners.

If Larry Beasley was so pro-developer, he would have BEEN a private developer, not an important public official whose record is rife with hard scrapple fights with said developers over many issues concerning the public good, density bonuses being only one.

Jane Jacobs, who knew more about urbanism and urban economy than almost anyone else, praised Vancouver for its progressive stance on controlling development, increasing its downtown density, and creating a walkable community for families (yes, there are many kids and seniors growing up within a stone’s throw of Urban Fare and the vibrant Westend commercial strips, not just childless 40-something part-time foreign occupants and beemer drivers) on former polluted railyards, these being the notable accomplishments during Beasley’s tenure. Would GMGW blast her as well? You can’t hang it on one individual.

Moreover, Beasley did not work alone. Planning and development policy and development proposals must go through a rigorous public approval process, and evolve. Developers have always harped about the onerousness of this process, which I think is a good sign.

My sense is that some commentators are greatly troubled by urbanism, especially its pace during times of growth. Fair enough. You have been heard loudly and clearly for years. But downgrading urbanism to village-ism in Canada’s third largest metropolis is just a step away from building a Great Wall or a big glass bubble. “I’ll live here and have an impact in my community, but I’ll do my damndest to keep eveyone else out if they affect their own change”

Last but not least, glibly trashtalking all downtown development ignores its environmental benefits. One exapmple of many: Downtown traffic has decreased between 9% and 12% (depending on the source) while the population doubled to nearly 100,000 people. No other communty, inclusing Kits, lays claim to that. This to me is good enough reason to convert asphalt to bike lanes (Burrard Bridge anyone?) and linear parks.

Yes, there are issues with views, but unless someone fills in the ocean to create more developable land, tall towers in one of the densest communities on the continent are to be expected.

Yes, tweak the architecture to vary the one-glass-facade-fits-all syndrom, and try to increase the quality of its public open spaces, but unless Vancouver depopulates, views and towers will always be a matter of intense discourse.

And speaking as an ex-Calgarian urban designer, I am very happy to live here and sincerely appreciate the effort of Beasley and others. Note: I do not work for the city of Vancouver or a private developer.

MB,

I’m not going to get into anything more than your comment on removing lanes of traffic from the Burrard Bridge in favour of bikes.

Good/great planning needs to encompass all modes of transportation people will use in the future, and that involves cars. They’re not going away (electric’s are coming) and all the people who think otherwise are living in a dream world.

Converting even one lane of the Burrard bridge for cyclists is nothing more than a band-aid that adds no long-term value to anyone’s livability in this city. City staffers have even recommended against this approach.

One month it’s the Burrard Bridge, the next it’s a rent-a-bike proposal by R. Louie. This city has little if any infrastructure to support a massive increase in people using their bikes, yet this council soldiers on with these feel-good motions.
I ask you and I ask VV what is their overall plan? Or do they even have one?

Regarding your stat on reduced vehicle use in the dwtn, it was not achieved by reducing the roadways into the core, but rather through migration and planning. This same method should be used when building a proper and comprehensive cycling infrastructure that takes into account that cars still and will always exist.

Reducing car lanes on the Burrard Bridge has never been about smart use of roadways, or even reducing polution, it’s been about ideology. Very bad ideology.

The boosters of what was done in Yaletown/False Creek N love to say that it’s been turned into a wonderful place for families. You have to wonder what planet they’re living on.

The masses of tiny condos are anything but family-friendly. We constantly hear about the massive demand for places at Elsie Roy school, but in reality, we talking about a school of 330 kids (and demand for maybe 500) in a neighbourhood with 10k units.

The fact is that the development plan for the downtown core has turned it into a resort for rich out-of-towners, and a playground for yuppies until they grow up and have families. It looks nice now because it’s new, but let’s see what it’s like in 20 years.

The sad thing is that it could have been developed as a place for families, for people to live all their lives, to grow up in. Instead, the planning dept/council chose to use the development as a cash-cow, which really pushed the condo-bubble.

I think the current firesale at The Beasley is an entirely appropriate legacy for the Beasley era.

“gmgw,

A thanks again for all the detailed history. But your analysis of the north and south shore developments made me wonder — what is your assessment of the SEFC/Olympic village development in the context of those other two?”

Frances: Sorry, but here’s another essay-length response. My take on SEFC is pretty much in line with critiques made by a lot of other people over the past few years. I will concede that what’s happening there is an improvement on the neo-brutalist design ethic on view in Yaletown and Downtown South. The emphasis in SEFC on low-and-mid-rise buildings , coupled with the drive for sustainability, will, it is to be hoped, result in the creation of a somewhat more human-scaled community, especially when compared with the Concord Pacific properties (but still a community with much greater densities than similarly low- and mid-rise False Creek South). Had Concord been successful in the bidding for development rights to SEFC, they would almost certainly have put great pressure on the City to grant them permission to build highrise towers similar to those in False Creek North, and Terry Hui indicated as much. Even given the difference in scale, the sight of the overall SEFC development, viewed as a whole, is somewhat daunting. I was part of a group taken on an extensive tour of the SEFC site about a year ago and even then the sheer scale of the concept, seen at close range, was breathtaking, probably because it’s being built all at once, rather than in stages as was False Creek North.

The affordable-housing fiasco is unfortunate and reflects badly on all the involved parties. There are also those who, like Michael Geller, seem to think that “affordable housing” means instant slums full of problem tenants– homeless people, the unemployed, the mentally ill, substance abusers, whatever your poor-people paranoia happens to be. This is balderdash. There is a highly successful mixed-income neighbourhood model conveniently located near at hand, right on the other side of the Cambie Bridge, with “affordable” housing complexes comfortably nestling next to high-end condos. It is a pleasant and functional neighbourhood with a broad range of residents and no more social problems than any other neighbourhood (and considerably fewer than some). It should be pointed out once again that many of those “affordable” buildings are housing co-ops, built at a time when the Federal government was still actively committed to funding a co-op housing program. Housing co-ops, far from embodying the cliched image of rundown “social housing” are in fact shining examples of the mixed-income model, with single moms on fixed incomes living next door to double-income professionals in a close-knit, self-sustaining community. Ottawa’s ridiculously short-sighted decision to cease the funding of affordable housing was a terrible blow to civic governments all across the country who have been forced to fall back on their own meagre resources in finding funding for affordable housing.

Those who think like Geller need to be reminded that people– including many working people– who can’t afford to drop 750G on a condo, aren’t necessarily more likely to be spending their evenings breaking into their wealthier neighbours’ cars and homes. And why all this resentment coming from those Gellerites who argue that people who live in affordable housing should, apparently, be denied sites for their homes with pleasant views of water or greenspace? There’s been a lot of thinly-disguised poor-bashing in the media lately, with all this whining about half-million-dollar “affordable housing” units. A lot of the blame for this mess can be laid at the feet of Sam Sullivan and the NPA, who, on taking office, wasted no time in trashing much of the more egalitarian planning for SEFC that had been done by the previous civic administration, including a substantially higher affordable housing component. It must also be kept in mind that the extraordinarily high price the City demanded and received for the SEFC lands, while it must have seemed like a windfall at the time, helped to ensure that the affordable/non-profit housing component would be minimized.

The financial problems associated with SEFC will also likely ensure that development of the much-needed parkland planned for the area next to the Cambie Bridge will have to be put on hold for at least a couple of years. That site could prove to be problematic in another way; until recently the home of the City works yard, a century of industrial use has left the soils on the park site heavily polluted, so much so that it was considered unsuitable for housing. Yet the City has no plans for soil remediation on that site. May I remind one and all of the fiasco that resulted on the Expo site after those lands (85 acres, give or take) were sold by Grace McCarthy to Li Ka-Shing for the bargain-basement price of about $170 million. Li was canny enough to demand a clause in the sale requiring that the seller take responsibility for any necessary site cleanup. The upshot was that so much polluted soil had to be removed from the site– God knows how many thousands of tons– that it pretty much wiped out the profits from the sale. (Most of that soil was dumped into Georgia Strait, off Point Grey– another good reason to stay out of the water at Wreck Beach.) Might I also mention Gasworks Park in Seattle’s Wallingford neighbourhood, considered a showpiece makeover of an industrial site– 20 acres that once encompassed a coal gasification plant, which were transformed into an extremely popular city park that opened in 1975 (the eponymous gasworks plant was retained, as a sort of giant work of industrial art). Unfortunately, Gasworks Park was found to contain dangerous levels of benzene and other toxic chemicals in its soil. The cleanup went on for more tan two decades, requiring frequent extended closings of the park, and even now tar still occasionally oozes to the surface in some areas. Could we be looking at a potentially similar scenario in SEFC? I fervently hope not.

Incidentally, the Vancouver Salt Building, the only heritage structure remaining on the SEFC site, has itself eaten up a lot of money, as it was found to be in worse shape than originally thought (and despite its relative fragility, it had to be moved a short distance to accommodate a new building planned for that site). At least the Salt Building will be saved, though it may look quite anachronistic in the midst of all that shiny newness. It’s unfortunate that the huge (3 acres in size!) and magnificent old Western Bridge/Canron building, dating from 1935 and torn down in 1998, could not have been retained and somehow integrated into the redevelopment, as took place on Granville Island, but it didn’t fit into the plans– just too rustic, I guess.

An important aspect of SEFC that has not yet received proper attention in the media is the enormous impact it will have on its neighbouring areas. After the Olympics are blessedly over, a brand-new community of some 14,000 people is going to suddenly come into being. By comparison, there are not much more than 5,000 residents in all of False Creek South, between the Cambie and Granville bridges, a larger area than SEFC. My neighbours in False Creek South, not surprisingly, are anticipating the advent of SEFC with some trepidation. The local community association is spending much time considering the potential impact of SEFC and how to mitigate that impact. A Community Plan is being drawn up and will be submitted to the City (see http://www.falsecreeksouth.org for more details). If Planning has its way, SEFC will also spawn a complete makeover of the slopes of lower Mount Pleasant– i.e., the area encompassed by Main Street, Broadway, Cambie and Second Avenue. It is intended that over the next decade or so this now light-industrial area will, through rezoning, be almost wholly transformed into middle-to-high-density housing, to tie in with the transformation of SEFC. The massive redevelopment of lower Cambie Street, incorporating big-box retailers and two Canada Line stations, has been done with both of these newly created communities prominently in mind. There are major developments already planned (finances permitting) for Second Avenue, which almost borders the SEFC lands to the south but is not part of them.

In closing, I’ll note that I was privy for some years to many of the deliberations of the SEFC Working Group, being acquainted with one of its members. This informal group of consultants, comprising a group of people with diverse backgrounds in architecture, planning, design, and the environment, was assembled by the City to provide ideas on how best to build a sustainable, functional community in SEFC. Their excellent list of recommendations, submitted in their final report, were received with thanks and then almost completely ignored. It’s a great pity that the City did not see fit to incorporate the Working Group’s proposals into the plans for SEFC. Had they done so, we might have seen a truly world-class neighbourhood take shape on that site. As things stand, however, we can only cross our fingers, wait, and hope.

gmgw

that should read “which aspect of the Granville Street Bridge VIEW is currently being protected.

One interesting thing I forgot to mention concerns Copenhagen. City officials decided in the 60s to remove public urban land devoted to private cars, but at the very reasonable pace of 3% a year. This policy was strongly influenced by Jan Gehl, a Danish architect and urban designer. As the result they accumulated over 100,000 square metres (25 acres) of land which was converted over the years to conjoining public pedestrian streets and plazas.

The effect was stunning, as characterized primarily in the Stroget, a 6 km long car-free zone with high quality finishes and pedestrian-oriented amenities.

Links to this topic and a description of Jan Gehl’s work are below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str%C3%B8get
http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/tourist/what_to_see_and_do/inspiration/top_10_sights/stroeget
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Jan_Gehl

Dear Mr. Geller:
I think what I object to more than anything esle in your remarks is your smug use of the phrase “deliberate poor”. Perhaps that was a clumsy attempt at humour; I don’t know. I do know that it comes close to being as offensive as the common usage of “welfare bums” was, years ago. I don’t know of anyone, apart from monks whose holy orders require them to take a vow of poverty, who deliberately sets out to be poor. It’s not an easy way of life. I’ve tasted poverty myself more than once and I fervently hope never to again. Regarding your filing of teaching assistants and artists under that dubious classification, I am privileged to number members of both of those honourable professions among my friends and acquaintances, and I can assure you that even though each of them loves what she/he does and intends to keep at it, all of them hope to move on frrom their varying levels of relative impoverishment as soon as possible. The most skilled artist I know, a dear friend, has a full-time job which keeps her busy and tired enough that for some time she has had little time or energy to pursue her art– but she also has a mortgage to pay down. The impoverished state of many of this town’s tryly innovative and creative artists– and artists everywhere- is more a reflection of how little honour is assigned artists in this city and in this society (yes, I know that there’s nothing new about that, but…). We have emerged into an age that values art chiefly for its investment potential, and my friend’s delicate, lovely, and distinctive watercolour still-lifes have been turned down by more than one gallery owner as lacking in marketability and being out of step with current trends. I suppose she could “deliberately” quit her job and try to formulate an artistic vision with greater commercial potential, but she’s no fool (and she has no interest in pandering to popular tastes). You need to do some re-thinking about poverty, its causes, and about those who suffer from it, Mr. Geller. And kindly remove that usage from your vocabulary.

Regarding your proposal for a debate: Interesting idea, Mr. G., but I’m no fool either. I suppect my rusty public debating skills would be no match for yours. Unlike MB, I think going “off topic” in an online discussion or forum can often serve a useful purpose, as long as the discussion remains within parameters that at least relate to the main subject of the forum: In this case, the city of Vancouver, its sociopolitical culture, and the extended ramifications of same. But I think we’re approaching the end of this thread’s usefulness (and likely testing Frances’ tolerance–and bandwidth– rather more than she’d prefer).
gmgw

“Unlike GMGW, I’ll take the design of George Wainborn Park over the current version of Granville Square any day.”

This may surprise you, MB, but I agree with you, on this point anyway. At least Wainborn Park has a grassy surface, and is probably more quiet than Granville Square, thanks in part to those tombstone-like towers serving as WP’s backdrop. The design of the park itself, however, is rather dull, conservative and stolid, not unlike the man for whom it was named.

I will also agree with you that Granville Square does enjoy one of the finest urban views in the country. (Though imagine what would happen to that view should the Whitecaps stadium ever come into being!) (There’s a lesser-known great view, BTW, from the north side of the parking lot between the Seabus terminal/former CPR station and the Landing building (Steamworks).) But good God, could the Square itself ever use a (complete) makeover.

Vancouver, like Toronto, has been cut off from its (Burrard Inlet) waterfront throughout most of its history by industrial usage. This accounts in large part, I think, for the huge marketing success of the massive Coal Harbour reedevelopment– those views had not been available for residential usage since the days of the Three Greenhorns. It’s a pity that Crab Park remains the only place for public access to the Burrard Inlet waterfront between Coal Harbour and New Brighton Park. The fact that a single developer (his name escapes me, but he stood to profit mightily from the proposed stadium) has been allowed to buy up much of the waterfront land between Main and Granville streets probably means that this won’t change any time soon.

As a long-time devotee of the Jazz Festival, I have my doubts as to the suitability of even a remade Granville Square as a primary outdoor venue for that event. David Lam Park works well enough. Certainly Granville Square would merit consideration as a secondary venue, however (though some in the area might take issue with the sound from the PA).

It’s difficult to envision how Granville Street could be successfully “extended to the waterfront” should Granville Square be demolished, or what might greet people at its northern terminus. As I’ve said, as a rule I’m all in favour of enhanced waterfront access (for pedestrians, I hasten to add). But in this case I would like to see the concept drawings before making up my mind. Anyone know of an online source?

gmgw

“Also keep in mind, it’s only ever been the increase of gas prices that gets people out of their cars, and NOT congesting traffic by taking existing traffic lanes out of production as Gregor plans to do.”

Len, I have to disagree. Many European and east Asian cities are experimenting with reducing traffic congestion by simply making it much more difficult and/or expensive to take a car into the city centre– Amsterdam, which now severely restricts the number of cars allowed to enter the narrow streets of the historic city centre is a recent example. There has been some preliminary discussions of how Vancouver might insitute similar restrictions, but so far a relentless increase of parking meter rates in downtown and environs appears to be the only concrete idea planners can come up with. The other factor that encourages people to leave their cars at home (if they even own a car) is efficient, affordable and extensive mass transit systems. Do you really think that the majority of people who work in Manhattan, downtown Toronto, or in central London or Tokyo gets to their job by car? Can you imagine what would happen if they tried? “Chaos” doesn’t even begin to say it. Vancouver spent decades futzing around and lagging behind other cities in Canada and elsewhere in developing efficient rapid transit systems. And now that the cost of the infrastructure has gone through the roof, we’re still lagging. And even when we build those systems, we still screw things up: When the Canada Line starts running on or about Labour Day, Transink will be eliminating all the express bus routes that currently carry riders from Richmond, Delta, and south Surrey into downtown (including the heavily-used and remarkably efficient Richmond B-Line ), in a draconian attempt to force riders to take local buses connecting with the Canada Line instead. Residents and politicians alike from cities south of the Fraser are furious about this, but Translink (read: the BC government) remains adamant. Far too much money has been spent on the Canada Line to risk anyone using an alternative method of transit. Most observers seem to feel that at least initially there will be a substantial upswing in car traffic as stubborn commuters try to have it their own way, but that will likely fade as people get fed up with dealing with the nightmares that are southern Oak Street, Granville and 70th, and Highway 99 during rush hour.

It seems to be a longstanding (Metro) Vancouver tradition that even when we finally do the right thing, we still do it the wrong way.
gmgw

gmgw,

If you’re talking about increasing the cost to people travelling into the core, then I agree that will work (to a point).

Whether it’s an increase in gas prices, or a ‘congestion tax’ as some cities have implemented or debated, it’s not a lot different than an increase in fuel costs. It’s hitting people in the pocket books that works – I don’t see where there is any disagreement. I will add that I am not advocating for a congestion tax.

Reducing existing infrastructure (roads) to the point of a European city is a bit like comparing apples to oranges though. Unless new neighborhoods are constructed such as the Olympic Village where the streets are as narrow as one would find in Europe, forcing the electorate (majority) to accept reduced existing capacity for a minority (cyclists) of the population will never be tolerated.

With regards to the Burrard Bridge and cycling use, I would also suggest that with current density in other areas of the city increasing much quicker than those areas serviced by the Burrard Bridge, that cycling lanes on other bridges may/should be more of a priority.
(Where would we get the most value for our dollar?) I don’t support reduced lanes on any existing bridge, I’m just making a point.

Further, I’ll add that even David Suzuki has stated on his t.v. program that he’s had it wrong for at least 20 years (I believe he used the phrase – beating his head against the wall trying to get people to listen to him). People will not change their habits based on a worry about the environment, but will if there are benefits they derive from changing their behaviour – namely convenience and cost.

As you mentioned we do not have a convenient transportation system and nor is it inexpensive to the user. And it’s not only transit, we’ve wasted millions in this city on under-used bike lanes because the routes planned, are not the ones most frequented by cyclists.

This has to stop and knee-jerk feel-good policies (rent-bikes and the Burrard Bridge trials) should be shelved until we come up with a transportation and infrastructure plan that will stand the test of time and include all modes of transport. Read “No more band-aids”.

Finally, it should also be presented as such, with much public debate and scrutiny before implementation. I’m not talking about an information session or two at the Roundhouse, perhaps a seperate ballot question during our tri-annual civic election would work.

I’m pretty sure the tower is named after Beasley to honour what he’s done in making Vancouver one of the most liveable cities in the world year after year, not as a reward for allowing developers to rape the citizens.
Also while your knowledge of the past is great, your knowledge of the present is saddening. There is no 60 storey tower planned in area 10A or 10C (BC place land). There is a view cone that passes over it and there are strict height limits in place. The one corner could allow just under 300ft (~30stories), the other corner much lower. Simple mistakes like that make me question the facts presented in your other posts.

The sad thing here is that if view cones are altered, the only thing we’ll get in return is more tasteless condominium towers, firmly solidifying Vancouver’s reputation for mediocrity (architecturally and otherwise).

As an admirer of your fair city I have the perspective of an outsider, which perhaps gives my position a different sort of objectivity. I have visited and studied your city in detail basically because it is a great city and I would like to live in a city as beautiful as yours. I really hope you realize how good you have it and how unusual this is.

I have nothing personal to gain, but it would break my heart to see your city get worse instead of better due to something so petty as shortsightedness.

Please be aware that if you people begin down the road of undoing the View Corridors, that you run the very real risk of setting in motion a trend towards compromising on other aspects of the things that have also made Vancouver truly special. Once such a trend begins, it is very hard to reverse.

My impression is that the View Corridor ordinance, which incidentally has inspired other cities to attempt similar measures for the public good, arose because every new development project resulted in a battle, and judging by some of your comments it seems clear that in some of these battles the developers won and the public indeed lost. Perhaps I am mistaken, but to revise the view corridors in response to developer pressure now is an invitation for a return to a very contentious situation in which developers and the public are continually pitted against one another.

Is this actually what you want? I am sure the developers would not mind, since they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But what do you want?

I am honestly surprised that you people cannot find a more creative solution. I am shocked actually. I know your city well and have studied your view corridors in detail. At this juncture you developers have nothing legitimate to complain about because the view corridor ordinance has been in place now for a considerable length of time. Begin to tinker with it and this will no longer be true. Suddenly every developer will have grounds for violating a view corridor for any new project because it will be seen as unfair that some rules were relaxed while others were not.

Instead I think you people should recognize that sooner or later buildable lots in downtown will become scarce. This could happen now, in which case developers can be encouraged to improve your city by improving other parts of it, or you can first let them ruin the downtown and then move on. For example, San Francisco suffered a weakening of its identity when short cited city officials changed rules that permitted the downtown to become overdeveloped. Yes there are still nice parts to the city but the downtown there is now cold and hostile and not nearly as nice as it once was. Once a bad idea is implemented in such a form you are stuck with it.

Take your time, please, and try to figure out what the real problem is, and by all means find a more creative solution than dismantling the things that took you this far just so some developers can pocket some extra cash.