Andrew Pask of the Vancouver Public Space Network writes:
I’m currently working on a story for the Vancouver Public Space Network’s bi-monthly publication. The subject is “Vancouverism” – a key term from the city’s urban design lexicon.
Although there are already ‘formal’ definitions in place – not to mention a Wikipedia entry, we’d like to see if we can expand this a little bit. What does Vancouverism mean to you? What is meant by this transformation of our city into a descriptor like this? What should the definition of Vancouverism” include? What, if anything, is in danger of being overlooked or overemphasized?
Here’s what I contributed:
Vancouverism evolved from necessity: the need to make density livable, and to provide transportation choices once it was clear the city would not accommodate ‘Motordom’ – the auto-dominant urban planning that characterized most of the 20th century.
Vancouverism took the constraints and advantages of our geography, which on one hand constrained us and, on the other, offered abundant access to the waterfront, and then added a very high quality of urban design. (Not the same thing as great architecture. The repeated use of generic forms such as the point-and-podium tower creates a certain sameness in the city.)
We went up rather than out; we mixed uses rather than separated functions; we priorized pedestrians, cyclists and transit users; we required growth to help pay for growth; and we took advantage of the amenities and the views that added value to both real estate and public space. It is this blend of livable density and high-quality public space that makes Vancouver and its ‘ism’ so remarkable.
Our geography may have set the stage. But the actors still needed direction – and we were fortunate to have a generation of leaders and designers who made mostly right choices.
Now, just a hunch that some PT readers may take issue with some or all of the above. But better yet, why not contribute directly to the VPSN’s definition. Send your comments to Andrew at info@vancouverpublicspace.ca
He’ll publish the best of the responses in the next newsletter. But he needs comments in by Friday, September 4.
Submit away!
