I couldn’t really write anything better than Charles Campbell already has in The Tyee: At Ground Zero for Vancouver’s Towering Debate. Except this:
I learned as a councillor that the City never goes into a neighbourhood to say, “Hi, we’re here to help change the character of your community to accommodate the growth we are forecasting.”
Inevitably, the people who live there want to keep it pretty much the same – only with more parks and services. They will never say they are against growth, of course, but they will often have problems with the process, or who benefits, or who doesn’t.
As they get used to a declining rate of change, in fact, people who have resided in a community for some time become increasingly sensitive to any change that does occur, no matter how relatively modest it is compared to the change that created the character of the community in the first place.
Example: in Marpole, according to NRU, “A crowd of angry residents protested Saturday outside the city’s first open house … with signs saying they are opposed to the idea of a thin street in the neighbourhood.” (That’s already been taken off the agenda.)
In the West End, when the rental tower was proposed for Comox and Broughton, some residents condemned the ‘unprecedented’ change it represented. Think about that: a highrise, in the West End, was felt to be unprecedented.
Towers are more legitimately the argument in Grandview, where 36-storeys has been suggested for the Safeway site at Broadway and Commercial, next to the SkyTrain station, where hardly any significant development has occurred since the opening of the line in 1985.
Change that Burnaby wouldn’t blink at is the focus of mobilization in this community. Already the whiff of hysteria is evident. And I’d say the blowback will be so great that Council might as well take control of the agenda now, with specific instructions to staff, who seemed to have come up with the idea of highrises largely outside the public process, that other models of density will be favoured.
There is, I suppose, an argument to made for a very tall tower at what will be the second great transfer point in this region after Waterfront: to mark it on the skyline with a landmark. That is what towers do – and if this one is good enough to be iconic, it will ultimately be a source of identity.
But that is just as clearly what the people who already live there do not want, for fear that it will change their identity. And the process, after all, began with an assumption, stated or otherwise, that the character of Grandview would be preserved.
Growth, in this city’s neighbourhoods, must complement character, not the other way around.
I don’t see what’s wrong with a few towers around commercial skytrain station. It is, after all, a major transit interchange (second to waterfront, as said). If they don’t creep North up the Drive, and they have attractive architecture, what’s the big deal?
I’ll admit – I would like to see Vancouver grow into a larger city with more tall buildings, because I just like that kind of thing. Other people hate it and want to keep the city relatively the same. I don’t criticize other people’s preferences, but generally, people shouldn’t be able to force their preferences on other people. The problem is, with urban planning, this inevitably occurs. The difference is that I get my preferences when markets are liberalized and developers and buyers and owners are allowed to do what they want, while the NIMBY’s get theirs when we centrally plan and zone and regulate and excessively control what people can do with their own property.
Maybe the free market should be given a little bit freer rein. Everyone complains about how profitable towers are like it’s a bad thing. Tall towers are profitable because that’s what people want and they reduce the marginal cost per dwelling exponentially, the higher they get. This translates to cheaper housing, or more amenities, or both (not to mention better returns on investment for investors, which we all are). Not to mention all the benefits of having higher density, especially next to an interchange like commericlal-broadway.
Things change! Cities are supposed to be exciting and dynamic, not so boring and static. Maybe the old ladies of Grandview at garage sales shouldn’t get to have such a say over what other people build on their property. Because development (or lack thereof) doesn’t just affect them, it affects everyone who wants to be able to afford a condo. From a philosophical standpoint; someone owns the land, someone wants to build something cool on it, and someone else wants to buy it. Who is that old lady to stop them? Because it’s HER neighborhood? She doesn’t own the neighborhood, but Safeway owns the land. These community engagement processes where some people get to limit what is built on others’ land is what makes housing so expensive, but it’s good for the old ladies who have owned their properties since the dawn of time.
In a completely free market, with competition, Vancouver would be a massive city and the cost of housing would reflect practically only the cost of the buildings (which would tower above us). We don’t have to go completely in that direction, but maybe we can slightly reduce the amount we tame the growth of the city and make it unaffordable for aesthetics. It’s really a regressive tax – rich landowners maintain their land values at the expense of the young, the poor, immigrants, and anyone who doesn’t already own something.
Interesting comment – thanks for writing.
I have to agree with Andrew that it’s an interesting comment, and I do thank you for clearly articulating your ideas in a thoughtful manner, but I have a few quibbles:
“Tall towers are profitable because that’s what people want…”
Is that only what people want, or do people who are looking for higher-density, urban living with lots of conveniences end up getting forced into that sort of housing because, well, that’s what’s available in Vancouver? Our market is highly regulated, especially towers – not except them. And without that regulation, we would have a lot of other things that might not qualify as good urbanism, or desirable, by your standards or mine.
I disagree with the idea that simply owning land means that someone has a say over what happens there. I believe that is undemocratic, and bordering on authoritarianism and dictatorial decision making. It means that the vast majority of people in Grandview Woodland (renters, non-owners) have no say whatsoever on the future of what happens in their city when it comes to land use. This is their home, even if it’s not their land. So why is it that being born into money entitles someone to more of a voice than someone else?
Now I’m not saying that we should limit density per say. Nor do I think neighbourhoods should be able to stay static. But democratic decision-making is, in my mind, a good thing – because the market doesn’t factor in anything other than profit, and there’s a lot of things that matter just as much, and in my opinion much more, when it comes to making a community great. Because what you do on your land impacts your neighbours, and because we all have to live together and share this space. So even if we require neighbourhoods to densify, then neighbourhoods should get to decide HOW they densify.
And here’s the thing. You pointed out, in your opinion, your preferred urban landscape comes about when landowners are free to do whatever they want with their land, and people in favour of neighbourhoods without towers get their wish when we have controls over what people do with their land. But that point isn’t true, either. There are tower neighbourhoods for tower-loving people. And right now, at least, there are also non-tower urban neighbourhoods. This is a city of neighbourhoods, each generally very different and unique, individual, eclectic and beautiful in their own way. But that’s not exactly the case with tower neighbourhoods – they are all, basically, the same, whether you live in Collingwood or Yaletown or Downtown South or on Central Broadway or in Metrotown or wherever, they all basically look the same with the same architecture and thes ame nail parlours. In the end, the free market creates one vision – a vision for landowners to maximize profit – whereas having some democratic control over neighbourhoods creates many, many different visions, each crafted and dreamed up by each neighbourhood, and each a little different thanks to those individual tastes. I prefer an eclectic city of neighbourhoods to a uniform city of towers.
How would you apply those principles to this pic here?
Downtown Vancouver would never have been built…
http://vintageairphotos.com/bo-46-145/
A very rich and lengthy discussion on this very topic can be seen on http://www.francesbula.com.
The Commercial and Broadway problem:
-5,000 residents
-150,000 transit users (and expected to double).
The question
do you plane according the wish of the 5,000 residents, or according the need of the 150,000 (expected to be doubled) transit user.
Ignoring the later ones, will not make them disappear.
in fact, it has been the choice done at Paris Les Halles (where sit the main regional transfer station of the city), which has largely being designed according the wish of local residents, and has quickly been considered as a tremendous failure by almost any observer of this conundrum (the nearby Beaubourg museum, is the “fait du Prince” and has proven beyond any doubt to be a tremendous place making success (see also http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/geography-of-paris-squares-or-plazas/ )
And the huge challenge is not only to accomodate the transit user, but to make the connection more than a transfer point, more than a Phibbs exchange style experience (what Commercial/Broadway largely is at this time, just busier and dirtier, with more drug addict, more pandhandler…), ideally a desirable destination in itself.
I don’t know if the proposal is the right one for the place, but I suggest little thought has ben put on the site, its challenges but also its attractiveness potential…
Broadway/Commercial is recognized as a “sub-area” in the Grandview Woodland communuty plan.
The good news, is that is recognized as a special area, the bad news, is that is considered only as an annex of a the Grandview/Woodland comunity.
Obviously it is not, the area should have probably been fully excluded of the Grandview Woodland commnuty plan, and Commercial/Broadway the object of a very specific and separate process
In that respect the Cambie corridor plan, starting at 16th Ave, de facto, excluding the Cambie/Broadway area, provide a much better approach
Commerial/Broadway (like Cambie/Broadway) deserve a specific approach due to the complexity of those very important sites. However The balance between local resident interests and the more general interest can arguably be different due to the general importance of such sites.
PS: Ryan comments are interesting take.
making the skytrain station a good experience for the transit user does not mean building skyscrapers is necessary.
How much will the character of the neighbourhood be changed if there isn’t new development?
Grandview is already a very desirable community with (from my observations) a decent income mix and a diverse population. But if there are no units offered in the neighbourhood, sooner or later, that will change. It’s simple supply and demand, if the supply doesn’t increase the price of the existing units will continue to rise.
That means all the low income people will eventually have to leave, as well as the immigrants, the unique shops on Commercial Drive…. They’ll be priced out for sure if new units aren’t built.
Even with new construction, there’s still going to be a lot of change, but what comes out on the other side could more strongly resemble the current Grandview, than a Grandview in which the supply of units stays static as demand goes through the roof.
In my own experience, I was able to enjoy living in the West End during my years in Vancouver because rents were still somewhat affordable. But the only reason that was possible was because Yaletown and Coal Harbour were able to relieve demand for downtown living accommodations. Without the construction there, the current West End units would probably by now be completely unattainable to people of economic standing.
An iconic tower at the Safeway site could easily be a part of the new Grandview.
First, density and an increase in supply does not equal towers. There is plenty of appetite in Grandview Woodland for increases in density, but not towers.
But remember, too, that not all supply is created equal. If you have thousands of diamonds to sell they’re not suddenly going to become priceless, and when new concrete construction replaces older wooden walk-ups the result is inevitably a rent increase.
I’m not defending towers per se, merely pointing out the inevitable economic fact that without increasing supply of units, a lot of the people in those older wood walk-ups are going to be pushed out anyhow.
Change without some disruption is unfortunately impossible.
I don’t think one or two towers at Commercial and Broadway is going to drastically change the area. It would be a different story it they were proposing to turn the area into Yaletown Part 2 with towers on every block of Commercial. That’s not what’s being proposed and I actually think the current plan is perhaps too much, especially without a much clearer commitment to maintain or better yet, increase the number of supported and affordable housing units in the neighbourhood.
However, so much of the commentary on this subject has become anti-development-of-any-kind and I feel its important to point out that if Grandview is allowed to ‘remain the same’ in terms of little or no new developments that the character of neighbourhood is going be changed just as radically, perhaps even more so, then going ahead with this plan would cause.
That’s just an unfortunate economic reality.