Last week,
an unprecedented meeting took place behind closed doors at the UBC School of
Community and Regional Planning. In
attendance were former City of Vancouver planners, professors, planning
consultants and associated professionals. I was one of them. They had gathered
because of a shared concern over a number of recent Vancouver development
approvals and what they saw as a diminishing respect for the importance of
urban design and city planning within city hall.
“The
respect for planners and planning is gone. Urban design is too often seen as a
luxury or a constraint rather than a prerequisite for a well-planned city,”
noted one of the participants.
Attendees
also shared a desire for a better city plan to guide future development
decisions. While some saw this as updated neighbourhood plans, others believed
it was time to prepare an overall city plan, something which most cities have.
During
the two-hour discussion, a number of related concerns were expressed. These
included what many described as an increasing lack of trust between the
architectural and planning professions and the senior administration at city
hall. One
attendee observed that it is heartbreaking to see many of the urban design
principles that have made Vancouver internationally famous, now being ignored
or sometimes viewed with contempt. “Building design is no longer as important
as it used to be.”
He
criticized the growing practice of negotiating project designs and Community
Amenity Contributions (CACs) behind closed doors in the mayor’s and city
manager’s office. Examples included 1403 Comox, Kingsway and Broadway, 70th and
Granville, 900 Block East Hastings, Shannon Mews, Oakridge, and the Brenhill
project.
One
former city planner noted that in the past it was important to establish a
building’s overall size and density before calculating the CACs. Now the
city has become so addicted to CAC payments, the money and social benefits too
often determine the building design.
Some
lamented how many older planners have left the city, sometimes due to
retirement, but also due to what they described as a toxic working environment.
As a consequence, the city is losing its “institutional memory” essential for
future planning. One
respected voice observed the city has a vision, namely to increase the supply
of affordable housing. But unfortunately, this seems to be driving too many
poor planning decisions.
Others
decried the “us and them” relationship that seems to have developed between
city hall and the neighbourhoods. “Consultation is a charade,” he said, adding
too often the city staffer taking meeting notes decides what he wants to be
said, rather than what was said.
At the
conclusion of the meeting, the discussion turned to the Brenhill project which
proposes an almost six-fold increase in density compared to the zoning. While all
acknowledged the proposal results in replacement social housing and rental
units, the consensus was that this building was much too big for the site. Apparently
this had been confirmed by the initial Urban Design Panel (UDP) review which
rejected the design 7-0. After some very minor changes the project returned to
the UDP. This time the vote was 5-3 in favour; however some panel members
privately complained they felt coerced by the planning department to change
their vote.
This
project was scheduled to go to a new public hearing Tuesday night. Customarily
it would go to the UDP before public hearing. The group therefore decided to
send a letter to council urging proper due process by referring it back to the
UDP before final consideration.
While it
was acknowledged council will make the final decision, those present thought it
was particularly important that the UDP have the opportunity to offer its
comments to council, especially in this particular instance.
While I,
like everyone present, did not agree with everything that was said, I share
many of the concerns articulated. Regardless
of the final decision on the Brenhill project, we need to have a broader public
discussion on just how far city planners should depart from accepted zoning,
planning and urban design guidelines to achieve the administration and council
vision of more social and affordable housing.
I hope
this conversation will continue, but not behind closed doors.
- See
more at: http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/planners-alarmed-at-vancouver-city-hall-contempt-1.1823383#sthash.I1PUkNUD.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment