Good article in the Guardian – part of the series ‘things which aren’t about Vancouver but could be’.
There is a relationship to Vancouver in this, and it is hinted at in the Vancouver Sun this morning.
It has been said over and over (here’s one) that there is an appearance that Vancouver only provides for the public good when there is CAC money, and the city will permit anything which provides sufficient CAC money. There is a risk with this that increasingly, Public Space is ‘brought to you by’ Private Means, instead of being truly open and free. The city seems to become reliant on a particular kind of large development to finance needed civic infrastructure, which does not guarantee conflicts but does make them seem more likely. Little Mountain is a case in point when a reliance on a private firm to build public goods has so far produced neither, at the expense of the hundreds of households who live there. At least now for the sake of the displaced residents, there does seem to again be progress: HERE.
When the city will not build public space itself, and relies on others, it cedes at least some of its ability to dictate time, place, schedule, needs, and content of this Private-Public ‘Pri-blic(?)’ development, and the city’s lack of an overall plan would seem to make it more difficult to anticipate what content will be needed in the first place. The public good becomes the starting point in a negotiation, and some public needs are too vital to be compromised.”
A recent morning newspaper headline was “Brains versus the benefactors” with the subtitle “Cash-strapped universities are turning to donations from corporations or individuals to fund research initiatives. Their influence — real or implied – sometimes can make things awkward…” Vancouver is a city whose functions which have historically been funded through taxes are increasingly being funded through what are effectively donations, with the same potential for influence in tow.
