In an attempt to make some sense of the qualitative/quantitative issues surrounding Vancouver's current urban form/makeup, a look at some previous observations made by Trevor Boddy in his September 2005 “Vancouverism vs. Lower Manhattanism: Shaping the High Density City” along with some of my own remarks outlines where I'm at thus far in questioning the current diversity/density situation of Downtown Vancouver:
Vancouver breaks iron rules of North American urbanism:
01_The continent’s youngest major city with its highest residential density;
02_Vancouver is the only major city in North America without a single freeway within its boundaries;
03_Current planning decisions are almost entirely insulated from interference by city councillors and mayor;
04_While having immigrant and non-white population ratios comparable to New York, Toronto, and Los Angeles, Vancouver has escaped many of the striations and frictions that come with neighbourhoods sorted by ethnicity. The ghetto of Vancouver is chemically derived instead;
05_For nearly 20 years, Vancouver has used a form of social bonus zoning, in which extra density in housing developments is granted in return for such public amenities as cultural facilities, parks, schools, and social housing.
Vancouverism’s current residential building typology has been generated by the following:
01_1960s: There has been a long-standing tradition of high density living: Since 1960s, the West End has had Canada’s densest residential neighbourhood; second in North America only to Manhattan;
02_1970s: False Creek South [Granville Island]: mix of income groups and modes of housing tenure in dense neighbourhoods with significant investment into parks, arts, rec. facilities, social housing;
03_late 1980s: North shore of False Creek: Hong Kong inspired small plate high-rise towers rather than the mid-rises constructed previously allowed for significantly higher densities. This was also due to Li Ka Shing’s acquisition of Expo lands and significant public investments in the area were extracted from his Concord Pacific Developments;
04_1991: ‘Living First’: codified social bonus zoning system and was partnered with a Vancouver market willing to live in smaller units in denser neighbourhoods;
[Taiwanese and Hong Kongers fleeing in the prospect of returning to China’s control in 1997]
05_Townhouses Typology: The same plan established the small plate high rise tower on townhouse base typology that is the architectural face of Vancouverism, along with the notion that developers, not taxpayers, would help pay for public amenities in new districts, raising the value of their constructions through a vibrant public realm. The same plan also re-zoned a huge portion of the downtown peninsula as “housing optional,” but which has since developed almost only as housing.
The current monotony in building typology can largely be attributed to:
01_Planners have too much control to intervene on visual and design issues and have a detrimental effect on the aesthetic and the social atmosphere of Downtown Vancouver; which has led to …
02_Vancouver’s urban successes come at the price of architectural quality, innovation, even standards of building finishes, which has led to…
03_Very few of Vancouver’s best architects winning commissions Downtown. Instead, low fee production houses [see tract house suburbia] with close linkages to developers [Bob Rennie, Ian Gillespie and others] which has led to…
04_A burgeoning market which buys nearly half the condo market as speculative investment and has little concern with issues of ownership, identity, and liveability and rather with resale value
05_As the final 10% of Downtown sites are developed, only now has architecture and the quality of housing layout started to become a real factor in the real estate market place.
No comments:
Post a Comment