World full of sustainable ideas

The following article appeared in the Whistler Pique, following my presentation to BC Land Summit:

Whistler compares well with many forward-thinking communities around the world, according to Michael Geller.

Published 2009-05-27 14:53:04

Michael Geller finds inspiration from practices in Brazil, Turkey, Albania, Israel, Whistler

By Clare Ogilvie

As the global community comes face to face with land-use issues and climate change, unique and inspiring ideas are beginning to blossom.

Not every idea is huge and there are many obstacles to making sustainable and livable environments a reality.

But little by little land use planners and others and working to try and make sustainable living a reality. A few of these ideas were the topic of a popular seminar at the B.C. Land Summit in Whistler last week which looked at what lesson could be taken from countries around the world and put in place in B.C.

Hosted by Simon Fraser University's Michael Geller the audience learned about Brazil's transportation system in Curitiba, South America's most sustainable city; why row housing should and is coming back; why there should be more public art; and why taxi service needs to be overhauled to allow for multiple passengers at the same time.

The presentation was based on a tour Geller did of 31 countries across four continents in 2007.

Of all the lessons that need to be taken to heart the most compelling concerns transportation said Geller.

Cities on the water need to embrace more water based transportation, public transportation needs to be convenient and timely for the passengers and people need to realize that public transportation is for everyone, not just those who can't afford a car.

"One of the real problems with public transit is that most of us think we are too good to use public transportation, especially buses," said Geller.

"We will consider using things like Skytrain. But I think if you can change the public perception of public transit then more people will use it."

Officials also need to re-think what public transportation is. Geller used the "buses" in Turkey as an example. There the buses are more like mini shuttles and while they have a route, they can deviate to take you to a designated spot.

This can work especially well in areas that are larger and have low density, like many of the communities in B.C.

In Curitiba, said Geller, the busses run like a light rail with people buying tickets on a platform before they board the transit. In some cases the bus is in a designated lane and in other cases it melds with traffic.

In Israel's Tel Aviv, if you get a cab from the airport the driver waits until it is full of passengers before leaving the terminal.

"The notion of someone going in a taxi by themselves from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is unheard of, and I really think we need to think about sharing taxis as part of our culture," said Geller.

The battle to get more people to ride transit was dealt with in an interesting way in Curitiba. There the mayor of the city decided to deal with two issues at once: getting people on buses and disposing of recyclables and garbage.

It was decided to pay people in transit tickets to get rid of their garbage sustainably. But as an added bonus each transit ticket used also had a number on it, which entered the rider in a state lottery.

"This is the kind of creative thinking that we really need to start to introduce to all of our communities," said Geller.

Whistler, he said, compares well with many of the most forward thinking communities when it comes to sustainable planning.

The town is built around a pedestrian system encouraging people to leave their cars behind while shopping. It is at the forefront of sustainable practices and while some may complain that it is too uniform in it's buildings it maintains an overall look that is welcoming and attractive.

"I think Whistler is on par with a lot of these places because it has done a lot of things very well," said Geller after the presentation.

"One of the things it has done is it allows you to get around without a car as a pedestrian, so many of the portions of the town centre are pedestrian-oriented."

Looking good is also important, though the beauty can be in the eye of the beholder, said Geller.

In Albania, for example, he explained, the new mayor of the capital Tirana, an artist, wanted to do something to fix up the cities decrepit housing. There was no money for new construction but he could afford to get paint for everyone.

Currently the city's buildings are covered with the most amazing combinations of colours and patterns.

"Now there really is quite an interesting sense of pride developing in this the poorest country in Europe," said Geller.

In Singapore, officials have an annual competition amongst the residents of government-owned housing to see which complex is the cleanest. It is hugely successful.

Geller suggested that the same be done here in B.C. Housing complexes.

"I think you could give $1,000 to the winning household and still be ahead of the game in terms of your maintenance costs and also create greater sense of pride in communities," he said.

There are a myriad of ways to improve the livability of a city, town or region said Geller. But to make it happen it takes vision.

Geller is a Vancouver-based architect, planner, real estate consultant and property developer with four decades of experience in the public, private and institutional sectors.

He also serves on the Adjunct Faculty of SFU's Centre for Sustainable Community Development.

Chew this over!

Following my recent post about discarded chewing gum and cigarette butts, I received a number of suggestions on how other places are dealing with the problem. In Croydon UK and other English cities, there is a 75 pound fine if someone throws there used chewing gum on the street. The program is called "chew this over". But teenagers are also being given pocket sized packets to put their discarded gum in-before them into special chewing gum bins dotted around the town centre.

The scheme is being spearheaded by Croydon's Business Improvement District which organizes gangs of cleaners to wash gum off the town's streets with power washing equipment.

Other cities are handing out special containers, which one can hang around their neck, with space for advertising, to hold used chewing gum until it can be discarded.

I think it is time we started to be creative and discourage people from throwing their gum on Vancouver's streets. Agree?

RENTAL HOUSING IN VANCOUVER

Yesterday, an impressive selection of Vancouver developers, architects, housing advocates, and government officials gathered at the Mountainview Cemetery Celebration Hall, at the invitation of the mayor, to discuss how best to accelerate the supply of new rental housing. Prior to the meeting, each participant was asked to prepare a 'one-pager' setting out their thoughts. Below is what I submitted. In future posts, I will report on the discussion, and what I think the city should do.

1. Why has rental housing not been built?
• The economic rent is greater than the market rent; due to GST, land and construction costs, ‘rent controls’, etc.
• Development of market condominiums has been more profitable;
• Federal tax policies have ‘discriminated’ against rental: GST, depreciation policies;
• Previous government programs have distorted the market: Limited Dividend, ARP, CRSP, MURB, etc; developers became ‘addicted’ to government programs.

2. What are some potential solutions put forward by others?
• Provincial/municipal subsidy programs
• Reduction in municipal DCC’s, CAC’s, etc.
• Reduction in Development and Building Permit Fees
• Deferment of property taxes for specific periods of time;
• Density bonusing;
• Inclusionary zoning;
• Offer city-owned lands/ schools, etc. for sale or lease for rental housing;
• Allow laneway housing to create rental units;
• Reconsider conversion and demolition policies;
• Reduction/modification of certain standards: eg: parking, sprinklers in basement suites;
• Allow legalized secondary suites in multi-family buildings;
• Require developers to pay into ‘affordable housing fund’,etc.
• Levy business/property tax on empty units
• Increased demolition tax ($20,000 instead of $1,000)
• Allow site remediation as an offset against property taxes
• Creation of a City housing department or Community Housing Trust;
• Mandate the development of rental housing as part of other types of development;
• Create ‘rental zones’
• Get the federal government to eliminate GST
• Get CMHC to revise mortgage insurance premiums
• Allow relocatable modular affordable housing as an temporary/interim use with property tax ‘holiday’

3. What I think should be done?
• The city should allow density bonuses for projects that remain rental for 20 years or longer;
• The city should accelerate rezonings and development approvals for purpose built rental;
• The city should relax both parking, and minimum unit sizes;
• The city could offer certain lands for affordable rental housing on a preferential sale/lease basis;
• the city might consider allowing relocatable modular housing as affordable rental housing, with a property tax holiday;
• The city should accelerate approval of laneway housing, and reconsider some of the requirements that may increase the cost and decrease affordability;
• HOWEVER, the city should NOT start to offer property tax relief, reduced DCC’s, permit fees, etc. since it is likely going to be too expensive, cumbersome to administer, this brings in the question of equity, and the market is ready to build market rental housing anyway;
• Furthermore, this simply exacerbates the historic problem of government ‘intervention’ in rental housing;


For more information, contact Michael Geller 778 997 9980 geller@sfu.ca

The future of Vancouver's Downtown

On Tuesday night I found myself in a very unusual position. For a while I thought I might be the only person at a Public Hearing defending residential uses in the downtown. Fortunately, a few others, including respected former City Planner Chuck Brook came forward to state a similar position.

I did not enjoy being in disagreement with either Brent Toderian or Kevin McNally, two very capable planners. However, as Edward de Bono noted in his book "I am right, you are wrong" we both came at the topic with different information. My thoughts on the topic were recently posted at www.citycaucus.com but are repeated below:

On April 21^st, 2009, while most Vancouverites were in front of their televisions watching the Canucks defeat the Blues in overtime, a very small group of people was gathered in the Vancouver City Council Chamber at a Public Hearing. It is a sad irony that so few people were watching this ‘game’ since its ramifications for our city will be even greater than a Stanley Cup victory. Let me explain.

The purpose of the Public Hearing was to consider a staff report, almost five years in the making, under the heading: Metro Core Jobs and Economy Land Use Plan: Part One, Proposed Downtown Policies. The proposals before Council included zoning changes affecting the Central Business District (CBD) and adjacent lands. The thrust of the initiative was to provide sufficient job space potential in the Downtown to meet future demand, to strengthen and intensify commercial uses in the CBD, and to maintain the commercial mix of historic Yaletown.

Now I appreciate that these seem like noble goals, and one might wonder what the problem is. Let me explain.

I do not have any disagreement with the overarching goals set out in the staff report. The problem is the manner by which the Director of Planning is proposing to achieve these goals. More specifically, the recommendations include increasing the permitted commercial density by 2.0 FSR across the CBD. I support this.

However, the report also recommends ‘the removal of residential as a permitted use across the expanded CBD to ensure that potential development capacity is not taken up by residential, and that land values remain reasonable for commercial development as a result of reduced land speculation for residential use.’ I do not support this.

As respected former City Planner Chuck Brook, one of only seven speakers at the meeting passionately told Council, what distinguishes Vancouver from Cleveland or most other North American cities is the inclusion of residential as a permitted use in the CBD. This is what has contributed to the vitality of our downtown neighbourhoods and allowed an increasing number of people to walk to work. It is what has made Vancouver distinctive.

Now, there is no doubt that as Trevor Boddy and others have exclaimed, in many instances city planners may have gone too far in allowing residential development to replace commercial development. Boddy’s fear is that Vancouver is “heading towards a fate as a dormitory suburb” and ‘resort city’, rather than a major commercial centre. I do not entirely disagree.

I would point to the conversion of the former West Coast Transmission building, the cabled box on Georgia Street, from office to residential use, as a perfect example of what should not have been allowed to happen. However, to now propose that we protect job space potential by eliminating residential as a permitted use is simply wrong. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I also disagree with the concern that permitting residential development will result in land speculation that will prevent office developments from proceeding. Office developments will proceed when policies encourage commercial development, and there is a market for more space. A speedier and less convoluted approval process will also help.

At the Public Hearing, a number of councillors expressed their desire to see new large corporate head office buildings in the downtown. However, as Mr. Brook cleverly responded, given the changing trends in corporate office development, these types of buildings are becoming ‘the Hummers and Escalades’ of urban development. Instead, vibrant mixed-use buildings and developments are what we should be striving to achieve.

I attended the meeting on behalf of a client who controls the block along Georgia Street between Richards and Homer Streets. Under the proposed zoning changes, he would not be allowed to build any housing, even though the site is adjacent to L’Hermitage, a mixed-use development that was recently completed on a site sold by the city for the purpose of mixed use development!

This irony was not missed by a L’Hermitage resident who spoke at the meeting on behalf of his neighbours at home watching the hockey game. He moved into the development with the expectation that it would be a vibrant new neighbourhood. He did not want to be surrounded by commercial only buildings.

I encouraged Council to seek zoning changes that would encourage more commercial development, while still permitting vibrant mixed use developments. I noted that this is what City planners, architects and developers have been working towards for the past twenty-five years. In response, the Director of Planning agreed that mixed use developments were indeed desirable, and advised Council that they would still be possible…. through a rezoning. He reminded Council that a rezoning process would also allow the city to extract the desired financial contributions and amenities from the developer.

In other words, the city should downzone properties by removing residential as a permitted use, (even though we agree it adds to the vitality of the city), on the understanding that developers can always apply for a rezoning and hopefully offer sufficient ‘public amenities’ to be allowed to do what they should be encouraged to do in the first place.

This is the wrong way to plan a city.

Council should reject the current proposals and direct staff to come forward with revised zoning schedules and other policies that encourage commercial development, while allowing mixed-use where appropriate. These should include Development Cost Charges and Community Amenity Contributions that address any additional costs associated with residential development.

In the lobby of the HSBC building is a giant pendulum. I enjoy watching it swing. However, in the case of theses proposed Bylaw changes, the pendulum is swinging too far. I hope Council agrees we should not remove residential as a permitted use in our downtown, and insist that the Director of Planning continue Vancouver’s tradition of thoughtful, carefully crafted Zoning Bylaws to create a city worthy of international acclaim.

Council will make its decision at 2 pm on May 5^th. Hopefully there’s no hockey game to divert our attention.

A Spring Cleaning for Vancouver

I think I have touched a nerve.

As I have been wandering around the downtown, and other parts of the city, I have become increasingly disturbed by the mess on our streets...not only chewing gum and litter, but an increasing number of cigarette butts just strewn about. This prompted me to write an op-ed piece for the Vancouver Sun which was published on April 16th. Since then, I have been inundated with emails and calls from radio stations wanting to discuss the article, and some of the suggested solutions.

In case you missed it, below is the story from the Sun. I would welcome any comments, and suggestions on what we might do to improve the litter control in our city.

VANCOUVER NEEDS A GOOD SPRING CLEANING

As a teenager growing up in Toronto, I was always a bit dismissive of American relatives who constantly commented on how clean our city was. After all, was that really so important, especially since Toronto seemed somewhat dull and boring compared with many American cities. However, four decades later, I now find myself constantly focusing on urban cleanliness.

By international standards, Vancouver is a relatively clean city. We particularly excel in the management of unwanted graffiti, which is now plaguing many cities around the world. One only has to visit the ancient sites of Greece, or Sao Paulo where graffiti artists tag the upper floors of luxury apartment buildings, to appreciate how well we are doing.

However, while we have managed to contain graffiti, we are failing when it comes to controlling chewing gum, cigarette butts and other litter.

Now I realize many may question whether this is really something to get worked up about. After all, given the terrible gang violence in our city, the tragic death of Wendy Ladner-Beaudry, and the serious economic times we are facing, is it really that important to worry about our city’s cleanliness?

I think it is, especially since the cleanliness of a city says something about the sense of pride of its residents. Furthermore, it is an aspect of urban life that we can do something about.

To better understand my concern, take a look at the areas in front of the Burrard Street SkyTrain station or most downtown office buildings. Or look at the sidewalks and tree grates along most downtown streets. Not only are they covered with ugly stains from chewing gum, but far too many people are turning these areas into ashtrays.

Around the world, other cities have come up with various solutions to deal with these problems. In Dublin, the city administration has placed provocative posters on buses and bus shelters proclaiming: If you behave like a piece of filth, that’s how the world sees you. Litter is disgusting. So are those responsible.

In Galway, posters urge people to bin your gum. Others remind people that cigarette butts are not biodegradable. They harm marine and animal life and they account for a large percentage of public litter. And if these messages do not deter residents, the ‘on the spot’ fines of 150 Euros usually do. The fine for not cleaning up after your dog? Up to 1900 Euros. Galway is extremely clean.

Elsewhere throughout the country, towns and cities compete to win a ‘Tidy Town’ award with many shopkeepers participating in ‘litter patrol’ programs every day as they close up their businesses.

Ireland is not alone in such programs. In Singapore, public housing residents compete each year to see who can maintain the cleanest project. The prize monies are more than offset by savings in maintenance. In Hong Kong, there is a fixed penalty of $1500HK for littering. And In Fort Lauderdale and many other American cities, ‘smoking poles’ are found outside building entrances, resulting in the easy collection and disposal of cigarette butts.

If Vancouver truly wants to become the greenest city in the world, we should emulate Curitiba, the greenest city in South America. Here one finds five colour coordinated bins for paper, plastic, metal, glass and organic waste.

To help keep poorer neighbourhoods clean and tidy, the city pays residents to pick up their own garbage…with bus tickets! These allow travel to other parts of the city to find work. And the numbers on the tickets are good for a weekly lottery.

As Jaime Lerner, the former Mayor of Curitiba, once told a Vancouver audience, “If you want to see creativity in a city department, just knock a zero off its budget!”

Over the coming months, it is my hope that residents throughout our city, including the Downtown Eastside, will agree that it is now time to embark on a community ‘Spring Cleaning’. To help keep some neighbourhoods clean over the longer term, residents might want to consider setting up an ‘Adopt a Block’ program, similar to programs that help maintain American highways

In less than a year, the world will be coming to Vancouver. I would like to think that we have enough civic pride to start a cleaning program without the threat of fines. Let’s start by not throwing chewing gum and cigarette butts on the ground, and more carefully disposing of litter. If we need more ashtrays, I would invite businesses to install and maintain ‘smoking poles’ where required.

As the ‘broken windows’ programs in many American cities have shown us, often when we tend to the small problems, the bigger problems also get addressed.

A good spring cleaning might be a good way to get started.

Laneway Housing: 'off the shelf' modules!

While I have spent the last 35 years working on some of the largest projects in Canada, now I want to work on some of the smallest...Laneway Homes. For this reason, I have established Laneway Cottages Inc. (www.lanewaycottages.ca) to take advantage of pending zoning changes in Vancouver, and other Metro municipalities.

To create affordable units, with minimal disruption to homeowners and neighbours, I have been exploring the feasibility of using factory produced modules for the laneway homes. (These should not be confused with the relocatable factory modules I have been proposing as affordable housing on vacant lands. See below.)
In discussions with city planners, I discovered that what I thought would be a preferred approach for a cottage on a 33' lot will not be allowed under the planning guidelines currently being prepared. More specifically, I thought a single 12 wide module, between 30 and 40 feet in length, would be ideal for many narrow lots. It would allow two parking spaces, and need not be more than a single storey. However, the city's preference is a building with similar dimensions to a double car garage, even if it is 1 1/2 storeys high. Alternatively, they might reconsider the requirement for two parking spaces.

This discussion came to mind this past weekend as I traveled down to Portland Oregon. On the way, I came across numerous recreational vehicle lots selling precisely what I have been proposing....12' modular 'cottages' that could be sited along the rear portion of a lot. They come in all styles, many with 4 foot 'lofts'. Inside, they are surprisingly spacious. And all under 400 sq.ft. in size.interestingly, these units are classified as Recreational Park Trailers! However, unlike those primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreation, camping and seasonal use, these are built quite similarly to a regular built home.
While these designs are not necessarily exactly what I would create, they do have a certain appeal...especially considering the price...between $50,000 and $75,000 USD. Fully Furnished! I am now going to explore the feasibility of bringing one to Vancouver, just to show planning how well it could fit on many narrow lots. Stay tuned!

10 Solutions for Homelessness from 24 Hours

24 Hours Newspaper recently invited its readers to submit ideas to address homelessness. Readers are now invited to vote on what they consider to be the best idea. Below is a message from the editors. I would invite you to check out the best ideas submitted at www.vancouver.24hrs.ca/solutions. (you will have to cut and paste this URL)

I am pleased that my proposal, 'Solution C' is one of the 10 finalists. If it is selected, I will donate any prize money to a worthy DTES organization.

"We received over 800 entries to this contest and it has been an interesting and stimulating challenge to evaluate them all. The editors want to thank all the readers who took the time to think and write about this complex issue . Many of the entries had common elements – build shelters, revamp/reopen institutions that used to provide support, tax breaks for new housing, etc. The letters & essays published at www.vancouver.24hrs.ca/solutions feature the opinions and ideas that we found to be most unique or the ideas we felt were best thought out.

To vote for your favourite simply send an email to: solutions@sunmedia.ca (again, you'll have to cut and paste) with the letter of your choice clearly marked in the subject line. Your votes will help us in determining the winner of the Vancouver 24 hours Homelessness Solutions Essay competition. Check our paper on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 when we announce the winner!

(Ed. Note: Solution B, which provides a thoughtful overview with short, medium and long term solutions, including a 'Home Run' for homelessness, was declared the winner.)