The Urbanarium event on September 20 – Planning West Coast Cities – may be remembered more for the complexion of its panel than the significance of the announcement made by Vancouver Planning Director Gil Kelley, subtly integrated into his presentation. Too subtly, apparently. While it didn’t get the attention it deserved, it may well mark the beginning of a new era in city planning.
Vancouver, in his opinion, should have a city-wide plan, and the work should start soon after the election of a new council. It could take two to three years to achieve, but given it’s ambition, so is the timeframe.
It’s been argued for years whether there’s actually a need for such a planning document to be used as the basis for shaping the city, rather than relying on the Vancouver equivalent, the Zoning and Development Bylaw – a hodepodge of incremental change, unfathomable to most citizens. Some say the last city plan of any clarity was devised by Harland Bartholomew, though never passed by council, in 1928. Other would contend that it was the 1995 ‘CityPlan,’ – “a framework for decisions on City funding, programs, and actions” that could have been more effective if it had been translated into actual zoning at the neighbourhood level.
Kelley is proposing a version of both: a visioning exercise, bringing together already established policy combined with the values and aspirations of Vancouverites today, followed by a physical plan which would translate chosen directions into actions and zoning.
I doubt he would have used a major public event to announce that intention if it had not been vetted, minimally, by the city manager and mayor. I also assume it reflects the belief of the planning staff generally and his reading of community sentiment. (Gil is welcome to clarify.)
The timing is exquisite. A new council, made up largely of newcomers to City Hall, will be looking to translate their promises and commitments to consultation into action, while at the same time learning about processes and resources available – in other words, the inevitable reality check. What better way to take action, without having to spend a lot of political capital making precipitous real-world decisions in the short term, than committing to a long-term city-wide planning process? (As far as responding to the housing crisis, much of the heavy lifting has already been done, especially with regard to senior-government commitments to new programs and billions in expenditures. The results will soon be apparent.)
All the new council has to do is commit itself to the strategy that Kelley can quickly put in front of them (and vote for the dollars and staff to do it).
At this point I have to acknowledge that, as Patrick Condon can vouch, I have argued against the need for a city-wide plan. Indeed, I and Geoff Meggs won an Urbanarium debate on this very subject against Patrick and Adrianne Carr back in April of 2016.
And I would still oppose any simultaneous revision of the Zoning and Development Bylaw for every neighbourhood in the city, hinged to a strategy of densification that would change scale and character throughout our 44 square miles. Mainly, I don’t believe it is needed nor could actually happen, given the political capital required to overcome a unified opposition that could grind down any process which tried to move too quickly.
Kelley’s more incremental strategy has a better chance of success: first integrating existing plans and policies with a visionary exercise. Then making the trade-offs needed, with council approval for further directions to take. Assuming we get that far (not a slam dunk), we can then assess how expectations can be translated into changes on the ground. I’ll bet that, rather than a city-wide rezoning, we’ll do it over time, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, once priorities have been set where needs are greatest and resources are available.
That’s the way we’ve been doing it since the seventies. Kelley’s version could provide a framework more appropriate for our times and the scale of our challenges. And it just might work.
Gil needs a picture where he looks less like Robert Moses and more like Jane Jacobs 😉