EcoDensity raises fears of crowding without amenities
Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, February 11, 2008
resident groups have banded together to express their concern that the policy — marketed as a way to make Vancouver a more environmentally sustainable city by promoting compact living and green building — may result in density just being shoved into their neighbourhoods.
As well, they worry there isn’t enough emphasis on creating affordable housing or complete neighbourhoods with libraries, transit and community services to go with the density.
They are right to be worried, because the city does not control transit. Vancouver gets much better transit service than the rest of the region now – so the idea that it can get more when nobody else has nearly enough is bizarre. Except of course now the province is making decisions the next rapid transit line but one will serve the Premier’s constituency. Can you see a lot more density in Point Grey? The eastward march of the towers into Chinatown and out to Commercial Drive is much more likely I think.
Brent Toderian is quoted as saying “It’s an unusual process and it was launched in an unusual way, so it’s a challenge for the community.” And there is a lot more to that than meets the eye. Vancouver has long had an enviable policy of consultation with neighbourhoods as part of its planning process. That is in strong contrast to what happens in other municipalities. I think Sam Sullivan has very badly misread what his supporters will let him do. While I am sure the people who contribute such huge sums to his campaign funds like this initiative, it is not going down well with the voters – and mainly not because of what it says but because of the way it is being done.
I also think that the city may be able to screw a few more libraries and community centres out of the developers – but that requires huge projects. And the way density needs to be done to be acceptable is gradual change. A sort of “natural” process as the neighbourhood changes at a rate that residents can adjust to. Also known as the “boiling frog” syndrome. The residents won’t notice incremental change as that happens all the time. But go away and come back in a few years and it will look very different. Cities are more like organisms than most planners and developers are prepared to acknowledge. They like to go for the urban equivalent of “heroic surgery” – but that is going to have a much bigger effect on the body – and the city – than less invasive procedures. But a bunch of small scale projects will not provide the huge gobs of cash and land that municipal services need.
Good post, Stephen
The idea of increasing density isn’t in and of itself a bad concept. The problem comes with execution. It is my understanding that Vancouverites have long perceived that they are losing what used to be their lifestyle and how they grew up. Many of my Canadian-born friends say that they were used to grow up in houses.
I am not a born-Canadian and yes I also was raised that way. I think that unless there is a big paradigm and behavioral shift in the population whereby perceptions of raising a family in an apartment home (instead of a single dettached family dwelling) are not negative, we can’t really implement increased density programs.
I have lived in apartments for the past 12 years (ever since I moved to Canada) and I would say that I’m pretty much used to the idea. I wonder how many people have gotten used to the idea too.
I was supposed to go to one of those EcoDensity workshops, but I haven’t gotten a chance to do so as of yet. I’ll let you know what I see there.
Raul
February 11, 2008 at 10:55 am
The Cedar Cottage – Kensington development and density increases at Knight and Kingsway show that not all neighbourhoods are resistant. A derelict former flea-market building was ripped down and an attractive high-rise built. A neighbourhood community centre with a pool and gymnasium facilities already existed several blocks south with a large park between. Kensington Library is just across from the development on the west side of Knight Street.
I supported this development at an open-house when the proposal was made, as did the majority of residents. One of the reasons for this support was a former councilor who lived nearby and invested time and effort into the community groups. The councilor and groups had tried to convince developers to replace the flea market with other retail, but Safeway had covenant that no other grocery stores could take over their old store. Densification in Kensington-Cedar Cottage was conceived in fortuitous circumstances.
Graeme
February 11, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The City has gone through massive increases in density in the past without anywhere near the trauma that Sullivan & Co have brought. The development of Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Coal Harbour, False Creek, the West End was accomplished with little opposition. This is because those areas were ripe for redevelopment and also because the City had programs in place that involved neighborhoods. The West End for example established a neighborhood planning office which produced a plan that was ultimately approved by Council. On the other hand when the City tried to ram a US style urban renewal project through Strathcona there was hell to pay. And when the City allowed the redevelopment and density increase of the Austin Taylor Estate in the early seventies the public was so enraged that the NPA was turfed out and replaced by Art Philips and TEAM. History is repeating.
Eco Density does all of the wrong things for the wrong reasons. It represents an attack on the most stable neighborhoods in the City. The policy is articulated in a draft Charter that is the intellectual equivalent of a children’s pop up. The only transparency in the approach is that it is a means of raising vast amounts of money from developers to ass kissing politicians.
The planners take comfort in the fact that the slogan is sufficiently trendy to find its way into various American planning journals. These are the same journals who pushed transit malls and urban renewal.
Jonathan Baker
Jonathan Baker
February 12, 2008 at 8:26 am
At the COPE meeting last night I was handed a number of flyers, one of which is organizing an information picket at the door of City Hall at 7pm on February 26. The concern “EcoDensity Charter: A lot about density, but not much about ‘Eco’.”
Stephen Rees
February 12, 2008 at 8:37 am
Thanks for your post, Stephen. I agree with Raul that the gods are in the details.
Would that we could skip over the puckering up to butts, but keep some of the most innovative ideas like lane houses, carraige houses and granny flats over garages. I would personally aspire to downsizing to a two-storey masonry row house in my neighbourhood,even with postage stamp front + back yard for my beloved garden when I’m retired, but where pray tell are they?
These are just some of the best proposed ways to densify the single-family-zoned areas of the City of Vancouver (which occupy 70% of the land, and which are often filled with charming houses and mature trees) while protecting or even enhancing neighbourhood character. These ideas are not new.
Further, the Design Centre for Sustainability calculated that we can accommodate more than our share of the next million people expected here within 25 years by building up the existing arterials to accommodate continuous four-storey multiple-zoned development. This is also not new, nor did it require the ‘Eco’ prefix.
Three more points. One is that additional public transit is essential (an admitted condition in the EcoDensity publications), but I would emphasis quality of service and appropriate ties to land use over merely adding more capacity.
Secondly, I wouldn’t disparage density bonuses. The record indicates that the significant funds from developers allowing them to add additional units ended up supporting many public amenities all over Metro Vancouver including parks and recreation projects, the new Vancouver International Film Festival theatre and head office, and the complete renovation of the Orpheum Theatre, as well as affording the hugely expensive siesmic upgrading and renovation work on many heritage buildings that wouldn’t have otherwise been possible.
Lastly, the Eco in the Density is not getting the emphasis it needs. The energy consumption of buildings is as dependent on finite petroleum reserves as car-dependent suburbs (not nearly to the same level, but dependent nonetheless). It would be very foolish to wait until the price spikes of peak oil are well underway to not deal with our vital need for public transit, and to link transit alternatives to alternative energy for buildings in the fight against climate change.
Meredith
February 12, 2008 at 11:27 am
I do not “disparage” density bonuses – I just do not see them in action when small houses on standard lots are pulled down and replaced with several town houses. But maybe that’s just Richmond.
And if you find such a house with a garden let me know because that is exactly what I have been looking for – and for some time now.
Stephen Rees
February 12, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I was referring to Jonathan baker’s commentary regarding money from developers. The flow specifically from density bonuses is not to politicians, but to public amenities. I can’t identify any losers with this policy. In fact, think there is greater potential to expand it into creating TODs, increasing the supply of affordable and social housing, to directly support transit intiatives, and perhaps to create a fund to supply grants to homeowners for solar panels or neighbourhoods for efficient district heating plants and the like.
The flow of money into political campaigns is an entirely different matter.
You’re right, the small single-family to multi-family conversions do not generate density bonuses, and many developments by spec builders are quite distasteful (where is the justifcation for pink Pepto Bismol stucco in a temperate rain forest?). But again, what we can learn from Europe covers many things, and housing is one of them. The masonry rowhouse or townhouse evolved over centuries and I believe it would fit well into a densifying Vancouver. My understanding is that developers don’t like them as much as stacked condos because they can make more money. But there are good mid-range developers out there who should be encouraged to build such things. I suspect there is a pent-up market out there, especially if they were sold fee simple and didn’t chain owners to a strata council.
Meredith
February 13, 2008 at 11:04 am