The discussion regarding the appropriateness of more buildings up to 150 feet in height in Chinatown and the DTES is continuing. Frances Bula has written about it, and many are talking about it. In the last few days, I have often been asked my views. So the following is a modified version of comments I posted this morning on Frances Bula's site.Conversely, I am troubled by the claims of 30 ‘learned’ academics that we should not allow taller buildings since they will result in a loss of affordable housing for the poor, and gentrification in the area.
With respect to the first comment, revitalization is already happening in Chinatown and in a limited number of DTES locations. I appreciate that some of the Chinatown merchants may not like the changes being brought about by the two new condominium projects V6A and Ginger, and the new restaurants and professional offices opening up in the area that are bringing a new demographic into the area, but the reality is that our Chinatown has changed forever, as a result of the emergence of Richmond’s ‘Chinatown’ and other 'Chinatowns' around the region.
In my opinion, there will continue to be new condominium developments catering to hip young buyers in Chinatown regardless of whether the height limits allow 10 storeys or 16 storeys. But I fear that allowing 5 new buildings up to 16 storeys along Main Street, (as staff are suggesting might be possible), will ultimately lead to a very different character for the area. It’s not just the five buildings…it’s the five more buildings that come afterwards, and then another five buildings and so on....
I worry that these taller buildings along Main Street will likely detract from the heritage character of the area. One reason I worry is that I don’t know what the new buildings will look like. That is why I have suggested to staff that they prepare drawings illustrating what 16 storey buildings might look like from different angles.
Now I admit I might be wrong. So please show me and others the pictures. Then we will all be in a more informed position to comment.
I also admit that some of my concerns are rooted in the above mentioned notion that taller buildings are necessary for economic revitalization. To me this is nonesense. I just don’t believe it.
So what’s the solution, In addition to seeing some illustrations, I would like to hear from architect Joe Wai, who has been working in Chinaotwn for four decades, and knows the area much better than me. He also understands what tall buildings can, and cannot do.
And although we have heard from 30 ‘learned academics’, I would also like to hear from other academics, especially those who are knowledgeable about architecture and planning.
I am troubled by the silence of professors from the School of Community and Regional Planning and the Faculty of Architecture at UBC. I would like to hear their views on the staff report.
I would also like to hear from more professionals in Vancouver’s architectural and planning community. I know some are conflicted, and some may be reluctant to speak out since they worry doing so might compromise their ability to get approvals from staff or Councils in the future. But the planning of important heritage areas in the city are at stake.
I think we all deserve second or third opinions on these important planning propositions.
(And while the professors and architects/planners are at it, I hope they will comment on the building heights/views/capacity report for the downtown.
And then they can comment on other current proposals for taller buildings and higher densities around the city.)
To be honest, I don’t know what they will say. They may completely disagree with my concerns, but I think it is important for staff and Council to hear from these people…not just from caring sociologists and related academics who might have been asked by activists concerned about the potential gentrification of the DTES (or by other colleagues who were approached by activists concerned about the potential gentrification of the DTES).
I would like to conclude on the subject of gentrification, which along with ‘revitalization’ seems to be at the root of this discussion,
I understand gentrification to mean the eviction of lower income households by the ‘gentry’ who move into an area as it is being revitalized and improved.
In the case of the DTES, a lot of the lower income households are living in affordable housing stock that is protected…since it is owned by governments and non-profits, or covered by anti-demolition bylaws. I acknowledge that some of the housing may be deliberately allowed to run-down, but the city can take steps to prevent this from happening too.
Furthermore, whether the building heights are 10 storeys or 16 storeys, we are going to see condominium development in both the DTES and Chinatown…and I think this is a good thing….they will result in healthier, more interesting and diverse communities.
The current situation in the DTES and Chinatown is not acceptable…there is a need for a broader social and income mix, and yes revitalization. But let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This might happen unless we better understand the ramifications of more 150 foot buildings.
I note that Council has pulled the proposal for the new heights in the DTES, but is sending the Chinatown increased heights, including the tower proposals to Public Hearing. So here's my suggestion.
A report is going to Council today supporting what some might call modest increases in building heights in Chinatown and the DTES. The issue of building height in this area has been under consideration ever since a few developers proposed a few very tall towers in the area about four years ago.
Monte Paulsen knows more about housing than most people I meet in the housing industry. A few years ago he focussed on housing affordability in a series for the Tyee. Now he's examing the costs and benefits of 'going green'.
Late last year I had a chance to see 'Last of the Wild Jews', a documentary about the life of Mordechai Richler. Ever since, I have been waiting for Barney's Version to arrive in Vancouver. Thanks to Rory Richards, the extraordinary media/PR/Events lady, I was able to enjoy an advance screening last night. The movie will open to the general public on January 14 at Fifth Avenue, and hopefully other theatres. My advice? Don't miss it.
As we look forward to another year, here are 12 predictions for 2011
The Liberals pick one of the two women who ran in the contest. Many delegates claim that it was her honesty, wicked wit and no-bullshit approach to politics that won them over.
Following a continuous flurry of accidents, new traffic lights are installed at the north end of the Burrard Street Bridge to guide motorists and cyclists. Although there is a substantial turnover in local businesses along Hornby Street, the Bike Lane Trial is deemed a success. However the Mayor wisely announces a moratorium on any more Bike Lane Trials until after the November election.
On April 1st, the Mayor announces that last year’s April 1st proposal for a shelter for homeless chickens was really an April Fool’s Day joke, and he was disappointed that most Vancouverites didn’t get it. He then announces that any residents who turn their front yards into vegetable gardens will get a $200 rebate on their property taxes. Vancouver bloggers are divided over whether this too is a joke.
That evening, after 11 nights of Public Hearings, Vancouver City Council decides not to approve the 1401 Comox STIR rezoning, but agrees to allow the developer to add the same square footage to his Telus proposal in exchange for an additional $21.7 million Community Amenity Contribution. After the meeting, outside the Council Chamber, the developer asks the Vancouver Sun’s Jeff Lee whether this might be another April Fools’ Day joke.
Vancouver’s first BikeShare Program, orchestrated by Gordon Price and Peter Ladner is a great success after the Vancouver Police Department decrees that those riding the chunky fluorescent green bikes at less than 20 kph need not wear helmets.
Coquitlam becomes the first Canadian municipality to convert its minimum parking standards into maximum parking standards. In making the announcement, Mayor Richard Stewart encourages other municipalities to follow suit. “What were we thinking?” exclaims the Mayor noting in light of climate change, society’s goal should be to decrease the number of cars on the road, not increase them.
After its directors spend a night sleeping in a city homeless shelter, Vancouver’s Streetohome Foundation decides to broaden the range of its activities. New programs include housing the homeless in scattered apartments around the city, personal grooming, job training, and friend and family reunification.
Three Metro Vancouver municipalities agree to participate in a Metro Vancouver Research and Demonstration Initiative to encourage the rezoning of neighbourhood sites to permit small single family houses, duplexes and coach houses. At the announcement, the respective Mayors admit that they grew up in homes of less than 1000 square feet and thought others in their municipalities should now be given the same chance.
Urged on by many Vancouverites’ seeking a change at City Hall, Carole Taylor agrees to run as an independent Mayoral candidate, and wins. Following her victory, a number of international companies, including some whose Chairmen served with her on the HSBC Board of Directors, announce their decision to relocate operations to Vancouver.
After a year of neighbourhood parties and celebrations, the Vancouver 125 Birthday Organizing Committee holds a very successful New Year’s Eve party for the public at the Convention Centre and surrounding plazas and walkways. After some children complain that all the fireworks were only one colour.... green, Committee Chairman Joel Solomon makes an eloquent public statement explaining the significance of his colour choice. Mayor Taylor assures the children that in 2012 there will be a broader selection of colours! 
All being well, I look forward to twelve months from now when we can review just how many of my predictions come true. In the meanwhile, Happy New Year!
