Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves
Eric Villagomez has been looking at the map of dwelling units per acre based on recent census data.
Probably worth clicking on the image to see it full size.
No real suprise – downtown densified, so did Kits and the east side. But the bits where the rich live – and where the NPA draws much of its money from – remain single family, ground oriented. (I doubt the servants’ quarters get counted as separate households.)
Think “ecoDensity” ® will make a difference?
I am a recusant transportation economist and regional planner, displaced from England by the abolition of the Greater London Council and a dislike of Thatcherism. Until March of 2004 I worked for the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority on wide variety of policy issues. None of these have been solved since I left, and the region has abandoned its long established growth strategy altogether, as the province is expanding its major freeway and building another. I have long advocated more sensible policies to better integrate transport and land use. And this blog is a way to keep up the pressure! It also allows me to vent a bit on related issues.
|
Hello Stephen,
Since my response would be way too long to post here, I figured I’d write a blog post and link back to you. I don’t use WordPress so I can’t do the direct trackback, but here is the link
http://hummingbird604.blogspot.com/2008/02/recognizing-heterogeneity-in-vancouvers.html
Raul
February 19, 2008 at 2:40 am
If I recall correctly from when I worked on the census in ’96, servants’ houses and other infills are classed as separate dwellings — most anything other than rooming houses and shared accommodation is a dwelling. (My favourite oddity was that most basement suites were classed as “apartment or flat in a detached duplex”, while the sort of place most in B.C. would call a “duplex” was actually two “semi-attached houses”, and a basement suite in a duplex was in some other category altogether! At least “row houses” were what you think they are.) Dwelling counts don’t tell the whole the story; consider a largish house on a corner lot in Vancouver’s northeastern quarter subdivided into four suites (I used to live in one). That counts as four dwellings. A house on a 50-foot lot South Van with a multigenerational family (not uncommon) would count as one, even if each lot’s number of people, vehicles, and impact are similar.
A big problem with EcoDensity it’s become a convenient vessel for everyone from every neighbourhood to pour their worst fears into — whether it’s residents of single-family areas protesting rowhouses and terraces, those who really hate property developers and who imagine a plot to turn every artery into a Pacific Boulevard clone getting a chance to rail, or the mayor’s political opponents finding whatever flaw or unanswered question, and then beating him over the head with same. I blame a lot of that on launching the branding campaign before any initiatives were ready to show off to define EcoDensity. Then, there’s the NIMBY problem — even such sensible things as laneway houses can be protested to death, with opponents staying steadfast, always asking for “more consultation”, anything to run out the clock. No particular cadre of politicians have a good record there; they all have local activists and property owners they can’t reject too firmly.
BTW, it’s a bit dangerous to draw too much about politics from the map. The city’s political axis has been tilting on its side for some years. Aside from one wealthy and less dense area (the West Side south of 16th) where the NPA cleans up, it’s pretty complex. NPA gets a lot of support on the East Side south of 33rd/Kingsway, and some of those areas are quite dense — and not all that well-off. They also do well downtown (outside the West End), in relatively dense Kerrisdale, and even in Collingwood Village. Meanwhile, Vision and COPE have become increasingly strong in places like Kits even though it’s been growing less quickly. There’s a lot at play here.
Ian King
February 19, 2008 at 2:43 am
Actually Ian just gave me a really awesome idea about a geographical mapping of political clout. How could we measure this? Maybe quantifying number of electoral places won by political party in each riding?
Raul
February 19, 2008 at 3:21 am
Yes I worked on the census too. It has made me much more cynical about the quality of the data, and the use of postal forms in the 2006 effort has not made it any better. Unless the servants had their own entrance or a separate building it would probably not have been counted.
I have clarified my post – it is the money that dictates what happens.
And I think Vancouver (and all the other places that don’t have them) needs wards: “at large” is profoundly unrepresentative.
Calling people names does not make them wrong. Wanting to preserve the neighbourhood is perfectly reasonable. That is what you bought into. And becuase new subdivisions go up all at once, there is a strong “cohort” effect of all those people who bought at the same time and shared lots of experiences together. But that is obviously a suburban effect that is felt less in Vancouver where pepperpot change is always happening.
And with any process of consultation, you will hear more from those who are oppsed than those in favour.
Stephen Rees
February 19, 2008 at 8:06 am
The illustration drawn by Eric Villagomez is a simplistic way to communicate an ancient story: west trumps east in urban affluence and political influence. Not that it doesn’t have value. But the results have also been too obvious on every city map ever printed — just look at the city’s allocation of park space and recreational amenities — and in the pattern established by the CPR land surveyors in the 1880s when they created Shaughnessy. My interpretation of the Tyee piece is that Villagomez is trying to score a political point with as much vigour if not more so than elevating the debate over EcoDensity.
I believe there is far more value in trying to devise intelligent ways to bring smart growth and equitable rehabilitation to outlying suburban communities than to focus on I-told-you-so didactics and to attempt (and fail) yet again to diminish the obvious West Side centre of power. It is really a small area when compared to the vast, low-density sprawling tracts of Coquitlam, Surrey, Abbotsford and other communities. I would encourage Villagomez to redraw the density bar graph for the entire Lower Mainland.
Therein, the debate over density must, in my opinion, be elevated to a soundly democratic process spiked with professional, objective discourse over how to meet the challenges ahead for our cities in the future. Well, that sounds just like City Plan and the Neighbourhood Visioning exercise carried out a few years back, a superb planning process that had citizens actually drawing and writing down their aspirations for thier own communities, including how much density they are willing to accept. It took me four hours to fill out the forms for my neighbourhood. Every survey and questionnaire was tabulated and published. The process now should really be assumed by the Metro Vancouver planners (in updating the Livable Regions Strategic Plan?), not just by one mayor with a penchant for patenting silly names.
However, wards, though ultimately more democratic, may just solidify NIMBY trends in that local representatives within defined West Side geographical areas could help entrench their constituent’s attitudes even farther. At least the East Side councillors will have better representation and could on some issues obtain a majority vote, though that is not guarenteed with wards.
The entire discussion over density is moot when those pushing the debate have no real influence over transit. Building expensive transit projects with no accommodating land use plan often leads to justified accusations of a serious waste of resources, as discussed elsewhere on this blog. The only difference in pushing land use changes with no transit plan is that developers / builders assume most of the financial risks. But car dependency and its horrendous and debilitating attributes remain.
That is why Metro Vancouver officials should own the densification planning process. Sam Sullivan is acting alone with EcoDensity, but Metro officials have some sway over many more people and can lead the discussion to all points of the South Coast compass and influence grassroots opinion, which could in turn influence the provincial and federal politicians more than leaving it with Sam, who eveidently did not learn much from City Plan and is blowing the public consultation process.
I believe there is tremendous value in intitiating the Neighbourhood Visioning process in places like Port Coquitlam, Richmond, Delta, Chilliwack and Squamish and have every adult respond directly and in detail to the challenges of climate change, peak oil and a limited land base to accommodate growth. It may surprise everyone just how much people would agree to if they saw major transit intitiatives, new recreational amenities, expanded public services, and huge increases in neighbourhood diversity, housing and shopping opportunities tied to accepting more density if planned with sensitivity.
Meredith
February 20, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Maybe I haven’t looked at the Vancouver parks map carefully enough, but I don’t see a wide disparity in parks and recreational amenities west vs. east. In fact, many recent upgrades have been on the east side: Sunset CC, Killarney Pool, Trout Lake and Killarney Rinks.
Even the new Hillcrest CC and Pool and Rink are right off Ontario Street, replacing Riley Park, which will be converted to green space.
Sungsu
February 20, 2008 at 7:33 pm
… and the Mt. Pleasant CC, although delayed over a year, when opened will be on the east side.
Sungsu
February 20, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Stephen,
I brought up those elements — the perception that EcoDensity implies turning the neighbourhood into Downtown South, and that a number of its critics are Sullivan’s opponents — because they are out there. I’m not all that sympathetic to arguments about “preserving the neighbourhood” when the changes are not radical, being instead more like narrower lots, better use of existing ones, or slightly higher buildings on arteries. Dunbar is not going to be destroyed because of the odd rowhouse development. It’ll evolve. Neighbourhoods won’t be frozen in time, and that’s fine by me — especially when it means more shops and services nearby, trips and errands than can be done on foot, and enough people in an area to support transit so frequent one doesn’t need a schedule. Personally, I don’t see how government and community services can grow synchronously with these modest changes; as long as they keep pace,. that should be enough.
Public consultations in this city are broken. I think that less formal workshops and open houses where plans and indeas can be explained in a less intense atmosphere are a lot more useful than hearings where the antis mass as many people as possible and try to monopolise the meeting time. Repeating the same talking points thirty times over contributes nothing to the discussion, and burns into everyone’s time. Ultimately, though, you have to allocate time judiciously and have the guts to say “That’s enough; we’ve heard your arguments and we’ll now deliberate.” Rather like judges, in fact. The intractable opponents will never be satisfied no matter how much time they get — I’m not sure what to do other than dismiss them.
Raul,
The city’s 2005 election results page has links to a map of the polling divisions and an Excel spreadsheet with the poll-by-poll results. Even when you consider the lack of geographical data to describe each poll division, there’s a lot there to work with. Julian West created some maps after the 2002 election showing top vote-getters and turnout in each poll using the ’02 divisions.
A quick thought: The lack of density on the West Side — especially south of 16th — has worked against its influence at City Hall. Nearly every one of its neighbourhoods has been growing more slowly (if at all) than the city. West Siders have been in a minortiy the last two councils and I suspect that this will continue after 2008.
Ian King
February 21, 2008 at 12:28 am
Sungsu,
There’s a definite disparity in park area between east and west, which was part of the push to convert as much of Hastings Park as possible into green space. That, though, goes back to before any of use were around!
Ian King
February 21, 2008 at 12:30 am
The UEL is not within the City of Vancouver, and the waterfront parks along Spanish Banks, Jericho, Kitsilano and Vanier Park are in part a result of geography (and the location of the port on Burrard Inlet rather than on English Bay) – those spaces probably shift the balance.
I’m not really convinced that the east side is built up as densely as shown in that map. I know that the area around Victoria & 41st doesn’t have a lot of apartment blocks, but the whole area is shown dark on the map.
Note also that the perspective if the map creates a viewing angle so that any short bars in East Vancouver are effectively blocked from view by taller bars.
Ron C
February 21, 2008 at 3:21 am
Ian
Thank you for that very thoughtful comment. The debate that this short piece has stimulated is very interesting, and your perception about relative voting strength had not occurred to me. I lack objectivity on this issue as I still shiver at the memory of the public meetings over “Granville Highway”.
I do think that it is long past time that single storey shops on Granville be replaced with four floor multipurpose buidlings
Stephen Rees
February 21, 2008 at 7:44 am
Ian,
http://vancouver.ca/parks/parks/pb_vancouverparks.pdf
Are you counting Stanley Park as a west side park? Queen Elizabeth? Van Dusen?
Two ice rinks on the west side, four on the east side (I didn’t count Riley or West End).
Two indoor pools on the west side, five on the east side (I didn’t count Percy Norman).
Sungsu
February 21, 2008 at 9:25 am
While this pic:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Vancouver/South/2007/210/2
is denser than this one:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2007/vch2007_071.jpg
Is the difference as pronounced as shown on the map?
Ron C
February 21, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Well shiver me tree timbers, the East Side is catching up in terms of tiny green rectangles on a map. I’m hesitant to include the golf courses because they are predominantly vast single purpose spaces used by a minority of people, and have surprisingly low habitat, cultural or general purpose park value. Even multiple acres in sports fields have more users. But they are nice to look at, and provide quietude.
Hastings Park was supposed to be the Stanley Park of the East Side, but the plan got stalled once they completed The Sanctuary … which, incidently, is a highly successful conversion of acres of cracked, baking East Side asphalt into an oasis brimming with wildlife activity and greenery not unlike the Jericho Park ponds. The presence of the PNE still prevents the completion of the greening of Hastings Park, and has caused conflict between two diametrically opposed camps. The PNE makes The Sanctuary, tiny as it is, stand out like a green thumb.
The “accident of geography” that created park space along English Bay is most definitely hugely significant to the West Side roster of green space, just as an “accident of geography” placed the continuous shore of Burrard Inlet on the East Side. The land barrons of old, though, decided that heavy industry will dominate the shores of Burrard Inlet. And that begs the question about the quality of park space, East vs. West, especially concerning public access to the waterfront.
But park space is a tangent from the discussion above.
I still maintain that the promotion of density must be pushed into the region. It really is a disheartening to see urbanists / planners / advocates / environmentalists / neighbourhood activists / etc. confine their discourse to just one (albeit important) city while ignoring the larger region. Vancouver has already had an internationally recognized, positive influence with its efforts downtown and in the inner city. And the planning for density has already been completed for the rest of the city through City Plan and earlier intiatives. City Plan and the Neighbourhood Visions could be updated quite easily with new (and currently unantcipated) transit planning efforts.
As so aptly put by Alan Garr in yesterday’s Vancouver Courier, Sullivan’s EcoDensity “…rebrands 30 years of city development policy and makes it his own creation — EGOdensity would be a more suitable name … has driven the city’s planning staff to distraction and freaked out communities …”
Meredith
February 21, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Ouch. The “Granville Highway” debate. It was unpleasant enough from a distance; I’m sure it was worse close up. The old order was at work there: an NPA council dominated by West Siders, and who knew what powered the party. The party’s changed a lot since the 2002 wipeout; not that it did the 98 B-Line any good. (You’re right, it’s funny how a little post ends up having lots of hooks for debate.)
Ron C,
I can see what you’re getting at. A lot of those darker areas don’t seem all that dense when you visit them; they’re often places with 30-35 foot lots and lots of basement suites. I think the scale may not be appropriate; when census tracts with a lot of three-storey walkups show the same on the map as ones full of towers, it does suggest a bit of fine-tuning’s needed.
Sungsu,
Van Dusen’s on the West Side, and Queen Elizabeth straddles the east-west divide. The East Side has a fair number of facilities, but not a great deal of generic green space. To compound things, Crowley Park, one of the larger ones in East Van, is tucked away in a part of town not many people visit. (Ssssh! Don’t tell anyone!)
Ian King
February 22, 2008 at 2:12 am
Van Dusen is a fenced botanical garden that charges admission. There is no public green space for ball playing, walking your dog, or other generic uses.
Sungsu
February 22, 2008 at 4:57 am
[...] who have contributed to the longish debate that occurred here last time I picked up something by Erick Villagomez. Well he’s back with more but this time the focus is on [...]
Tyee on EcoDensity « Stephen Rees’s blog
March 3, 2008 at 12:13 pm