The Urban Land Institute met in Paris for their European conference, with architect Richard Rogers as a featured speaker. The theme: density. What he said will resonate here.
.
Dense, compact cities are “the way forward in the development of man” and are critical in combating climate change and inequality, renowned architect Lord Richard Rogers told delegates at the ULI Europe conference in Paris.
Keynote speaker Rogers—speaking in the same city as the Pompidou Centre he designed with Renzo Piano, shooting him to fame in 1971—said that cities that “sprawl,”—spreading out over large areas, thus creating a need for cars—need to be shunned, and dense cities that promote dynamism and collaboration need to be encouraged.
“The compact city, the city that has mixed living, working, and leisure, which is connected through transport and infrastructure, which has good public space and is well designed—these cities are already here,” said Rogers. “Some cities are doing it well, and some are doing it badly.
Vancouver, arguably, is one that was doing it well. Whether we will continue to do so depends on the reversal of the need for a referendum every time Metro wishes to expand transit and whether the Province tightens the concrete noose it is building outside the compact region of vehicle-dependent growth. And this:
We need to rediscover the classical order of things, where there was a mix of rich and poor. There are two problems tearing the world apart, and they are climate change and the gap between the rich and the poor. We need dense, mixed cities that open doors instead of close them.” …
He argued that cities should be building “in, not out,” meaning that areas should be made denser rather than spreading out, and that this does not inevitably lead to the building of more high-rise towers.
“In London, we have a policy of ‘brownfield first’—we have huge amounts of brownfield sites in England, and it isn’t acceptable that someone should have to travel 30 miles or more to get to work.
“London is made up of 32 boroughs, and around 600 hubs, most of them around public transport of some sort, where there are houses and a few shops. We think you can make these areas more dense, as there is already life there and you are not starting from scratch.”
He showed delegates plans of three designs for housing that use the same amount of land and deliver the same number of homes—one low rise, one mid rise, and one high rise—showing that towers are not the only solution to the problem.
He finished with a passionate plea. “When the citizens of Athens became a citizen, they had to swear an oath,” he said. “‘I shall leave the city more beautiful and greater than it was when I entered it.’ We need to ensure we do the same thing with our cities today.”
.
Another panel followed, echoing many of the points raised by Rogers.
.
https://youtu.be/o6M4-u9TMqY for the video of Richard Rogers’ talk.
I blame regressive zoning in Vancouver more than I do the failed referendum. Yes, of course the transit plan would have been a great help for planning density. But when you have the majority the city legally restricted to single-family homes, yet already well-served by trolley lines and bike routes, something has to change at the municipal level too. Our vast tracts of RS-1 should be upzoned to create a city of mixed density and housing types.
Certainly there is a failure to up zone RS-1 areas, but it’s understandable. Look at who funds civic election campaigns, who organizes meetings and who votes in huge numbers. Baby boomers wield immense power from their numbers and the fact that they were born into the greatest economic expansion in history. Until that generation passes into memory it’s going to be very hard to enact meaningful changes.
When I was a child there was a place without any detached houses or yards, a place where people walked to the store, talked to their neighbours and generally got along. When we grew up we were told that Sesame Street wasn’t real and that a big yard, 2.5 kids and a multi-car garage was the only acceptable home, the only true measure of success.
We need to fix that because endless sprawl is the real fantasy.
Having said that I must caution that “single family” doesn’t always mean that a structure contains only one dwelling unit. Many single family homes are officially or unofficially multi-unit homes already. In some neighbourhoods RS-1 is housing more people than duplex zoning would and providing a mix of home owners, extended families and tenants. That mix is preferable, in my mind, to places where young and old, rich and poor are segregated.
“Vancouver, arguably, is one that was doing it well”. Emphasis on“was”. When I first arrived in 1951 Vancouver was a series of flourishing viilage, i.e. Kerridale, Kits, York @ Yew. It’s been down hill ever since.
I whole heartedly agree with his Lordship!
Nanaimo is so great with its endless strip malls and sprawl. In the 80’s Nanaimo was known as having the most shopping malls per capita.
“ . . . endless strip malls Agree Ron. I never use ’em!
On the other hand Nanaimo downtown, where I live, is an urban village: five minute walk, passed the library and Port Theater, to Thrifty’s groceries and London Drugs housed in a “this-is-not-a-strip-mall-strip-mall“. Then five minute walk home along the harbour waterfront.
I lived on Kits Point from 1972-90: walking across the park to Ron’s grocery: I’d still be there if I had my druthers!
Returning after a couple of years in Mexico City, lectura arquitectos UNAM, and wow housing prices has, errrrrr, gone thru the roof: hence Nan for the duration and luvin’ it!
Downtown Nanaimo is a great little town. So much potential too in the midst of a walkable and deeply historic contaxt. The housing cost differential with Vancouver will always be huge; we have three generations in our family who have made the move.
But, Urbanisimo, you were also attracted to the marinas at your doorstep, weren’t you?
I wouldn’t trust the district, though, to keep the public good intact with respect to Richard Roger’s urban synopsis. It’s almost like the NRD is getting ready to allow the private forest companies who own vast tracts of now well-logged over land at the edges to build multiple sprawling subdivisions up the mountainsides. Perhaps there is another controversial reclassification from TFL to residential being negotiated behind closed doors in Victoria as we speak. The precedence was set in Jordan River, though because of the public outcry over that incident, the CRD got involved and rejigged its policies. There is no evidence the NRD sees the same danger though the opportunities are no doubt making the forestry company board of directors drool.
IMHO, the malls should be converted to villages, the periphery comfortably densified, and new subdivisions beyond the existing boundaries banned in favour of real town planning rooted by transit.
Yes, MB . . . “ you were also attracted to the marinas at your doorstep, weren’t you?”
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/3sailing/desolation.sound.2008/sailing.desolation.sound.2008.html
My little Agua Flor was moored in the harbour were I could see it. Still Nan downtown is a worthy urban design model and evidently many architects agree: indeed they are convening a meeting here soon as announced on a separate PT post above.
Unlike other cities that aren’t the second most unaffordable city on the entire planet, lack of affordability in Vancouver is going to encourage sprawl.
It’s like telling families to stop eating processed food — eat more organic cauliflower and grass-fed beef. Meanwhile, food prices are skyrocketing beyond reach. Vancouver has passed the point where the majority of worker bees can only afford the Kraft Dinner of housing, and their portion sizes keep shrinking.
People may want to live downtown, but at a certain point, they just simply cannot afford it, especially families. For many Vancouverites — again, a unique situation of being the second most unaffordable city in the whole world, it’s not a choice. Look at this infographic on the cost of downtown vs suburbs:
http://www.moneysense.ca/spend/real-estate/selling/city-or-suburbs-what-it-takes-to-live-in-downtown-vancouver/
Then click on the Calgary link. The anti-sprawl solutions in Vancouver versus the anti-sprawl solutions in most other North American cities like Calgary are not going to be the same.
Oh, I’d sure like to see a graphic on London UK! Or NYC.
The price of food has gone up radically in direct proportion to the shrinkage of the Canadian dollar. Like, most of our produce is imported from the US, or from US companies growing food in Mexico, and sold in US greenbacks with a 33% differential. Record drought in these regions has also helped boost the price of food.
This is the price you pay for electing governments who made the Loonie into a petrodollar, and who have never had long term policies with respect to energy and food security.
And the urban-suburban divide will also be there. There was a time when the 10-weeks a year spent on your butt behind the wheel commuting to work was a measureable disincentive to living in the burbs and living in the city, but that cost new seems worth it to many as the overall price of housing increases.
But here’s the fundamental flaw in the piece: Comparing a large suburban lot price to the price of that lot if it was helicoptered downtown. That’s ridiculous. Of course land values are higher in the centre than at the edges. That’s the natural economy. What it doesn’t address is the waste of land, and the greater land use efficiencies (i.e. denser housing types) as you move to the centre. Another dumb comparison: Housing in Vancouver compared to housing in Calgary where the prices have plummeted along with its economy. Here’s even another ridiculous comparison: Take a 4,000 square foot standard Vancouver lot with a detached home and move it to downtown London where there are no such things — then compare prices. Hint: It will be shockingly more than the west side of Vancouver. Perhaps then people will see that the value of land is the only device that controls land use efficiency.
The other flaw is equating all price trends to large lots with detached houses, using these as the standard. Until there are greater choices in housing types that use less land, then the suburbs will always have an allure that gets tarnished when the transportation penalty is paid year after year. But the suburbs are filling up too, and many towns with a substantial amount of protected farm land are forced to become more efficient with their land use, and in doing so offer greater housing choice (e.g. townhouses in Walnut Grove), unless the province does something beyond the bounds of stupidity and opens up the ALR to sprawling development and kybosh food security.
Land is a non-renewable resource and should be treated as such.
“…disincentive to living in the burbs and working in the city …”
Like Vancouver houses that sit empty and used as nothing more than a store of value instead of a place for people to live, it now sounds like ALR land is being flipped too without being used for farming. We’ll have to wait for more details, but nothing surprises me here anymore.
http://www.cknw.com/2016/02/11/new-concerns-about-shadow-flipping-affecting-farmland/
You’re right, Kirk. Nothing is a big surprise any more.
I have yet to see vacant houses in my neighbourhood or even in noticeable numbers deeper into the east side.