May 14, 2022: Vancouver is worth fighting for - Vancouver Sun writes Lother Wiwjorra, retired urban designer/ city architect.
There will never be enough density, no city in the world can win that particular race.
The spirit of Vancouver, themed “Vancouverism” by former city planner Larry Beasley, is vanishing in the shadow of condo towers, rampant greed and over-densification. The story is the same all over the world in every afflicted city: invasions of unrestricted global capital in the property market, hyper gentrification, mass loss of affordable housing stock, a plague of tourists, the death of small local businesses, and the rise of corporate monoculture.
Under the banner of affordability, already affordable and functional neighbourhoods with a variety of architecture, ownerships, and personalized green spaces, the new zoning creates what we already have seen in Yaletown and downtown: an anesthetized aesthetic.
It will be the same all over: Same tower architecture, same shiny surfaces, same steel and glass frontages, facing each other up to 50 storeys high along city streets. The inhabitants can see their reflections in the building opposite, thanks to minimal tower separation. Views of the surrounding Vancouver scenery will only be available for the few at the top of the towers.
There will be nothing for residents in the public realm except 24 hours of overcrowding on glorified “boulevards” flanked by the same corporate retail and restaurant chains, and overburdened by car traffic. As if everyone living in the corridor works there and uses public transit or bikes.
There are no significant planned escapes from the new density glorified "vibrancy" in the form of designed large new parks and green spaces that are more than just mere pocket parks, overshadowed by the adjacent towers and surrounded by massive traffic.
The city is willing to squeeze its existing and future population (and millions of tourists) into the same green spaces, public pools, and water frontage walkways created decades ago for a population several times smaller than proposed. There will be no serenity left in Vancouver, except for the rich who exclusively can enjoy their decks and terraces and take in the remaining views of the mountains and the water. There will be no chance of cultivating street retail such as Main Street, West 4th, Commercial Drive, or West 41st in Kerrisdale due to the mechanisms of corporate leasing.
There will be no more quiet, green courtyards and lawns that still exist for renters in characteristic neighbourhoods such as between Oak, Granville, Broadway and 12th Avenue. The nature of replacement buildings is determined by the financing and turn-arounds, not by urban design principles, beauty, and a feeling of home for its residents. Instead, maximizing building footprints and heights will be squashing the only open spaces available and the visual variety of its existing buildings.
It is all deeply unfair and cynical to the population who already live here and who are seen as a disposable mass in order to achieve more and more density and so-called affordability. Their views are being criticized as “nostalgic”.
However, all of this is man-made, intentional, and therefore stoppable. The next City of Vancouver council and its planning administration should develop a mind-set, process and policy that anyone who plans and builds in the city has to adhere to the strongest urban design qualities and quality density, or leave.
There will never be enough density, no city in the world can win that particular race. Just following an open-door approach to simply build large tower formats — with a certain so-called affordability rate — and allow global hyper-gentrification at the same time is easily giving away the precious location this city has to the highest bidder instead of to the best bidder. It is worth fighting for. There is only one Vancouver.
Lother Wiwjorra, retired urban designer/city architect
Is Lother Wiwjorra's Article Relvant to Oak Bay?
(Note: Lether Wiwjorra’s wording is in italics)
The spirit of Vancouver, themed “Vancouverism” by former city planner Larry Beasley, is vanishing in the shadow of condo towers, rampant greed and over-densification. The story is the same all over the world in every afflicted city: invasions of unrestricted global capital in the property market, hyper gentrification, mass loss of affordable housing stock, a plague of tourists, the death of small local businesses, and the rise of corporate monoculture.
Under the banner of affordability, already affordable and functional neighbourhoods with a variety of architecture, ownerships, and personalized green spaces, the new zoning creates what we already have seen in Yaletown and downtown: an anesthetized aesthetic.
It will be the same all over: Same tower architecture, same shiny surfaces, same steel and glass frontages, facing each other up to 50 storeys high along city streets. The inhabitants can see their reflections in the building opposite, thanks to minimal tower separation. Views of the surrounding Vancouver scenery will only be available for the few at the top of the towers.
There will be nothing for residents in the public realm except 24 hours of overcrowding on glorified “boulevards” flanked by the same corporate retail and restaurant chains, and overburdened by car traffic. As if everyone living in the corridor works there and uses public transit or bikes.
There are no significant planned escapes from the new density glorified "vibrancy" in the form of designed large new parks and green spaces that are more than just mere pocket parks, overshadowed by the adjacent towers and surrounded by massive traffic.
The city is willing to squeeze its existing and future population (and millions of tourists) into the same green spaces, public pools, and water frontage walkways created decades ago for a population several times smaller than proposed. There will be no serenity left in Vancouver, except for the rich who exclusively can enjoy their decks and terraces and take in the remaining views of the mountains and the water. There will be no chance of cultivating street retail such as Main Street, West 4th, Commercial Drive, or West 41st in Kerrisdale due to the mechanisms of corporate leasing.
There will be no more quiet, green courtyards and lawns that still exist for renters in characteristic neighbourhoods such as between Oak, Granville, Broadway and 12th Avenue. The nature of replacement buildings is determined by the financing and turn-arounds, not by urban design principles, beauty, and a feeling of home for its residents. Instead, maximizing building footprints and heights will be squashing the only open spaces available and the visual variety of its existing buildings.
It is all deeply unfair and cynical to the population who already live here and who are seen as a disposable mass in order to achieve more and more density and so-called affordability. Their views are being criticized as “nostalgic”.
However, all of this is man-made, intentional, and therefore stoppable. The next City of Vancouver council and its planning administration should develop a mind-set, process and policy that anyone who plans and builds in the city has to adhere to the strongest urban design qualities and quality density, or leave.
There will never be enough density, no city in the world can win that particular race. Just following an open-door approach to simply build large tower formats — with a certain so-called affordability rate — and allow global hyper-gentrification at the same time is easily giving away the precious location this city has to the highest bidder instead of to the best bidder. It is worth fighting for. There is only one Vancouver.
Lother Wiwjorra, retired urban designer/city architect
Is Lother Wiwjorra's Article Relvant to Oak Bay?
(Note: Lether Wiwjorra’s wording is in italics)
“Under the banner of affordability, the more affordable housing in Oak Bay with its functional neighbourhoods and a variety of architecture, ownerships, and personalized green spaces” are now all under fire. Council changed the District’s zoning in 2007 unintentionally allowing too much lot coverage. The zoning mistake was compounded in 2014, allowing even more invasive developments “which we have seen on many of our Streets.”
Adding density takes careful, well thought out planning, and although we now have a million-dollar planning department, there has been little consideration of infrastructure requirements, capacity of our amenities, natural resources and school capacities. For example Oak Bay High is full and Willows Elementary is not only full, but has added 3, portable classrooms at the expense of green space.
The municipality seems "willing to squeeze its existing and future population (and visitors) into the same green spaces, public pools, and water frontage walkways etc, created decades ago.”
As Oak Bay has experienced “the nature of replacement buildings is determined by the financing and turn-arounds, not by urban design principles, beauty, and a feeling of home for its residents. Instead, maximizing building footprints and heights will be squashing the only open spaces available and the visual variety of its existing buildings.”
“It is all deeply unfair and cynical to the population who already live here and who are seen as a disposable mass in order to achieve more and more density, demolitions and so-called affordability. Their views are being criticized as selfish. opposing change and nostalgic”.
“However, all of this is man-made, intentional, and therefore stoppable. The next council and its planning administration should develop a mind-set, process and policy that anyone who plans and builds in the Municipality has to adhere to the strongest urban design qualities and quality density,” and be satisfied with a reasonable profit. There is only one Oak Bay
“There will never be enough density: no city in the world can win that particular race.”
Adding density takes careful, well thought out planning, and although we now have a million-dollar planning department, there has been little consideration of infrastructure requirements, capacity of our amenities, natural resources and school capacities. For example Oak Bay High is full and Willows Elementary is not only full, but has added 3, portable classrooms at the expense of green space.
The municipality seems "willing to squeeze its existing and future population (and visitors) into the same green spaces, public pools, and water frontage walkways etc, created decades ago.”
As Oak Bay has experienced “the nature of replacement buildings is determined by the financing and turn-arounds, not by urban design principles, beauty, and a feeling of home for its residents. Instead, maximizing building footprints and heights will be squashing the only open spaces available and the visual variety of its existing buildings.”
“It is all deeply unfair and cynical to the population who already live here and who are seen as a disposable mass in order to achieve more and more density, demolitions and so-called affordability. Their views are being criticized as selfish. opposing change and nostalgic”.
“However, all of this is man-made, intentional, and therefore stoppable. The next council and its planning administration should develop a mind-set, process and policy that anyone who plans and builds in the Municipality has to adhere to the strongest urban design qualities and quality density,” and be satisfied with a reasonable profit. There is only one Oak Bay
“There will never be enough density: no city in the world can win that particular race.”