News

It is too bad the EcoDensity debate got dragged into an election year. Over the last few months, this discussion has entered an unwelcome and unprecedented new phase. Talk about residential density in Vancouver is getting un-civil.

An element of skepticism has entered the debate about the value of density. Given our urban trajectory over the past four decades, this is as startling as not liking snow on Grouse Mountain, or refusing an invitation to dim sum.

What's worse, the grumbling is not coming from dwellers in downtown's condo forest who are about to lose their last remaining view to yet another tower, but from residents of long standing in some of our lowest density neighbourhoods, on both Eastside and Westside.

The anti-density skirmishes are mounting. On the Eastside, a modest regime for granny flats, housing infill, and re-development of major streets east of Nanaimo along Kingsway prompts a hot reaction from a handful of objectors. What the community really thinks is even more in doubt now, because on February 5 a poll of residents was thrown out as flawed, City Hall arguing its results had been skewed through cloned submissions by anti-density forces.

On the Westside, a common sense re-parcelling of Kerrisdale land for townhouses generates ire from neighbours as if it were some fiendish plot to open a bone rendering plant in their backyards.

EcoDensity is getting whacked as a mere developer's ploy, in part because of mischievous 11th hour add-ons to its draft policies, such as counselors Suzanne Anton's proposal to lift building height limits in Chinatown and the Downtown Eastside, permitting a calamitous march of towers through our most historic areas.

Maybe Vancouver's pro-density urban ethos of the past few decades was too good to last.

Almost monthly, I host architects and city planners from around the world on tours of our fast-changing city. My guests, especially the Americans, are amazed Vancouver has not seen more community resistance to our radical tests of how many people can live happily together on one city clock. My urbanist colleagues too often see their own residents (and opportunistic politicians) still advocating variations on suburbia - low-density, non-diverse, car-oriented neighbourhoods that waste land, energy and quality of life.

Vancouverites have long supported the aggressive turn to density that now sets our city apart from nearly all other major cities in North America. By the mid-1960s our West End was the highest density residential neighbourhood in Canada, and indeed, the entire Pacific coast of the Americas. While I have waxed on about our un-ambitious architecture, I am also the first to brag about how no city on the continent has so committed to high rise, high amenity living as has Vancouver north of False Creek.

This pro-density tradition is not simply because over one third of our citizens have roots in Asia, nor is it solely geographically imposed destiny - being jammed hard up against mountains, rivers, inlets and the American border. Until the sour turn over the past few months, Vancouverites have been fans of increasing residential density for the best of all possible reasons: our city works better because of it; it has added value to our houses and apartments; and most of all, it makes for a green and healthy place to live.

What a strange world if Vancouver derails its experiment with density in the very areas of the city that need it most, just as the rest of the planet has turned us into a verb, speaking of "Vancouverizing" their sprawl into compact urbanity.

It is time to make the positive case for how density has made this a better city, and if carefully managed, will continue to do so. In the face of the culture of complaint that has arisen, there needs to be a clear declaration of how our city has improved through doing more with less.

Increasing residential density, especially south of False Creek, is the best way to improve the quality and frequency of public transit. This does not mean towers in the middle of every neighbourhood - no one, especially not the development industry, is proposing this - but rather granny flats, infill, townhouses and other gentle strategies that will allow families, singles, seniors and a variety of income groups to co-exist, netting strength through diversity.

Flanking both sides of our bus-bearing arterial streets with higher buildings makes perfect sense. We should demand, however, that one quarter to one half of new building areas built above Kingsway, Victoria, Dunbar and similar streets should be work spaces, This is because we have seriously erred in balancing job with living spaces downtown - with space running out there, arterials are where we can set things right.

Copenhagen demands a fifty-fifty split of work and living spaces in its redeveloped zones, and putting both close together makes the walking and biking city so much easier, reducing costly transit investments. We need vision, not waffling, about much higher densities around our new Canada Line stations: Richmond is advanced in harnessing urban benefits from a new mass transit line that opens in 18 months, but where is Vancouver?

Density increases the liveliness of streets, supports a variety of retail choices, and permits a wider range of housing types and price-points. While we have done a poor job of managing this to date, cleverly deployed density south of False Creek could make more vital boulevards, and set out a range of dwelling sizes and forms we do not enjoy today.

Much of Vancouver's new anti-density critique is aimed at housing developers. This sentiment is misplaced, because our current industry is entirely the product of public policies and regulation. If we want a denser, better-designed city, our existing developers will need to adapt, or find themselves replaced by younger innovators.

When it comes to density, the obvious needs to be stated: living tighter together in Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and so on means less pressure on Canada's most fertile and productive agricultural land. The more we build up existing areas, the more benefit we gain from existing infrastructure, and the less energy we will expend on superfluous new public investments (schools, roads, sewers) and ever-growing commuting costs.

Dense, efficient cities are the most powerful long term green strategy available. This crucial point is being lost amidst flaky sustainability fads proffered by greens (then hustled by novelty-seeking media), plus the greenwashing hype (but not conservation investments) we now get too much of from governments and corporations. Cities are green machines.