I should post my comments in this piece from The Vancouver Sun in case any PT readers want to weigh in. (Why should Frances Bula have all the fun?)
Neighbourhoods fight against Vancouver’s densification plans
Planners need to be more responsive to communities’ concerns, activists say
By Jessica Barrett
As the city moves forward on its plan to increase density at 20 key sites in the city, focusing on transit hubs and major corridors, neighbourhoods are balking. ….
But the pushback doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the city’s consultation process, it’s all part of it, said Gordon Price, director of the City program at Simon Fraser University.
“Just because there’s controversy doesn’t mean the process is bad,” he said.
Price said his six terms on Vancouver city council from 1986 to 2002 taught him that community outcry is inevitable when the planning process goes from discussing generalities — desired amenities and possible locations for density — to specifics — a 37-storey tower proposed for a traditionally single-family neighbourhood.
“You always have to realize that by the time you get down to specifics, something hits the fan.”
That fallout tends to be much larger in established neighbourhoods that aren’t accustomed to change, he added.
Still, with demographic forecasts predicting 150,000 more people within Vancouver’s city limits in the next 30 years, and the cost of housing out of reach for most families, the city must find some way to accommodate growth and encourage affordable housing in every neighbourhood, Price said.
More commentators here. Plus previous comments by me here.
But the pushback doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the city’s consultation process, it’s all part of it, said Gordon Price, director of the City program at Simon Fraser University.
“Just because there’s controversy doesn’t mean the process is bad,” he said.
Price said his six terms on Vancouver city council from 1986 to 2002 taught him that community outcry is inevitable when the planning process goes from discussing generalities — desired amenities and possible locations for density — to specifics — a 37-storey tower proposed for a traditionally single-family neighbourhood.
“You always have to realize that by the time you get down to specifics, something hits the fan.”
That fallout tends to be much larger in established neighbourhoods that aren’t accustomed to change, he added.
Still, with demographic forecasts predicting 150,000 more people within Vancouver’s city limits in the next 30 years, and the cost of housing out of reach for most families, the city must find some way to accommodate growth and encourage affordable housing in every neighbourhood, Price said.
More commentators here. Plus previous comments by me here.
It also doesn’t mean the process was a good one. For a year in Grandview we have spent countless person-hours discussing parks, public realm, arts & culture, transportation, heritage and local economy for the Community Plan. When the draft Plan was published in June, those areas took up 20 pages of a 38 page report. The other 18 pages — the tough stuff of rezoning and land use — had never once been discussed. We were given 4 weeks to respond. The entire process was a sham and, knowing nothing about the facts of the case, your pontification does nothing to help an already terrible situation.
Do we live in a world now where we can just toss out statements like ‘The entire process was a sham’ merely because we don’t agree? I know you’re upset, but that’s a pretty big claim to make. Any change is going to have those who agree and those who disagree. Why can’t we just deal with it maturely instead of flipping over the table and saying that it was all a sham? Where do you go from there? It’s not productive.
And, incidentally, things seem to be working as designed – the document was released for comment, the neighbourhood certainly made comment, and now it is being revised accordingly. What part of that is a sham?
I just grow really tired of this enforced cynicism. Maybe things are just fine. Maybe we need to be less hyperbolic in public.