Granville Island Updates

[GenWhy?]

Interesting... we've been avoiding the Island as much as possible due to the crowds... granted we go on weekends

[svlt]

Granville Island is nothing but a headache to us as well, we make it a point to avoid it and it really mostly harbors interests to tourists. Way too difficult to navigate to and park and very few interesting shops, services and eateries. Recent openings like Popina just further its reputation as a tourist cash grab. As a local living in the west side I'd much rather walk around South Granville, W. 4th and even the few shops and services near Kits Beach than Granville Island.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Public Market's pretty good for lunch. Ditto Go Fish five minutes down the seawall. The rest is, indeed, entirely skippable.

[Conrad Yablonski]

Originally Posted by svlt

... Recent openings like Popina just further its reputation as a tourist cash grab...

Yeah that place is So Bad it's not even funny and the staff.....

[WarrenC12]

Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

[jollyburger]

The roof of the main market is being replaced. Scaffolding going up now. Should be finished around May 2025

https://www.instagram.com/granville_island/p/DAUG7N9zx9R/

Reddit:

I actually put a bid on for some work there, they will be removing the old roof and doing some asbestos work before the new roof goes in. That's just scaffolding for weather protection. Next they will add a big white tarp and shrink wrap it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1gal771/anyone_know_whats_being_erected_on_granville/

Looks like the underside of the roof has already been enclosed with plastic.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DDQL3RPz0xR/

[jollyburger]

I doubt this goes anywhere but who knows.

Canada is in talks about Indigenous groups having a greater say over Granville Island, a man-made peninsula and tourist magnet in the heart of Vancouver.

Exploratory discussions started with Canadian officials after inquiries from the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations, working in a partnership called MST, said Tom Lancaster, who manages the 37-acre site for federal housing company Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

“In the spirit of reconciliation, the CMHC, Canada Lands Company and the MST Nations have initiated preliminary discussions about the potential to increase the presence and involvement of the MST Nations on Granville Island,” Lancaster said in an emailed statement. “It is anticipated that these discussions will take place over the coming years.”

Pressed on whether this may lead to changes in the control or management of real estate, Lancaster said by phone that he didn’t want to prejudice the conversations, and that “it could go probably anywhere, or it could go absolutely nowhere.”

Representatives for the First Nations partnership MST and Canada Lands Company referred requests to comment to CMHC.

Reconciliation

Granville Island is technically a peninsula in the inlet southwest of Vancouver’s downtown that attracts millions of visitors annually to its restaurants, market, boutiques and arts venues. It’s also a berth for boat owners and whale-watching trips.

The area was first used by Indigenous people before the modern landmass was filled in on the site of a sandbar in 1916 as logging and industry developed, and it’s been owned and operated by the federal government since the 1970s.

The MST Nations have areas of shared traditional territory and work on some projects as a partnership. Their joint company to manage mutual business interests, MST Development Corp., isn’t currently involved in the Granville Island discussion, Lancaster said.

The talks come amid a profound shift in Canada known as “reconciliation” — the goal of redressing injustices done to the land’s first inhabitants that spans culture, education and business. A years-long national commission described Canada’s historical policy as “cultural genocide” and issued 94 calls to action in 2015.

Canada’s federal and provincial governments are providing support on these recommendations — such as loan guarantees to First Nations announced in recent budgets — but also face criticism for making insufficient progress.

The federal government has already worked with the MST Nations. Looking to gain economically from the desirable Vancouver real estate market, MST’s development company is now planning to build more than 15,000 housing units on nearby sites called Jericho Lands and Heather Lands, after partnering with the Canada Lands Company.

Lancaster said those sites were categorized as so-called surplus lands in the government catalog, and Granville Island isn’t.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-p...uver-hot-spots-future-with-first-nations

[chowhou]

Are we really at the point where local FNs are now trying to claim that land reclaimed from the ocean is their traditional territory?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Are we really at the point where local FNs are now trying to claim that land reclaimed from the ocean is their traditional territory?

Yes, and the politicians will give in to virtue signal.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Are we really at the point where local FNs are now trying to claim that land reclaimed from the ocean is their traditional territory?

Where does it say they're trying to reclaim it?

The most I got from the article directly referencing what sort of involvement being sought is this : -

"Exploratory discussions started with Canadian officials after inquiries from the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations, working in a partnership called MST, said Tom Lancaster, who manages the 37-acre site for federal housing company Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

“In the spirit of reconciliation, the CMHC, Canada Lands Company and the MST Nations have initiated preliminary discussions about the potential to increase the presence and involvement of the MST Nations on Granville Island,” Lancaster said in an emailed statement. “It is anticipated that these discussions will take place over the coming years.”"

That doesn't sound or read to me like an attempt to try and reclaim it.
Sure, that headline under-text is written in a way that makes it seem like that's the case, but the article itself seems to suggest otherwise.

And on the face of it, it would make sense to have them have more presence and involvement there given its proximity to their landmark development just across the way over at Burrard bridge.
Seems like it would be mutually beneficial to both sides.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Are we really at the point where local FNs are now trying to claim that land reclaimed from the ocean is their traditional territory?

There used to be a 80-90 acre Kitsilano Reserve around Vanier Park etc but they just ended up in the more recent court case getting the lands for Senakw.

The hən̓ q̓ əmin̓ əm and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh speaking peoples have occupied the site since time immemorial. In 1869, the Colonial Government set aside land around the Sen̓ áḵw village. After the Indian Act was passed in 1876, and with the Joint Indian Reserve Commission established by the Provincial and Federal governments to deal with land allotments to Indigenous people in BC, a reserve was plotted out for the Indigenous peoples living at this location. In 1877, the Joint Reserve Commission expanded the area set aside to ~80 acres as Kitsilano Indian Reserve No. 6. However, after further settlement began in the Vancouver area, the Indigenous peoples were forced to relocate to other nearby villages. Both in 1886 and 1902, portions of the reserve were expropriated by the Federal government for railway purposes. In 1913, the Provincial government induced the residents to relocate by coercing them to sell, an action which was later found to be illegal. Many families were placed on a barge and towed to other communities in the Burrard Inlet area.

https://parkboardmeetings.vancouver.ca/files/MEMO-SenakwDevelopmentOverview-20230302.pdf

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Where does it say they're trying to reclaim it?

That doesn't sound or read to me like an attempt to try and reclaim it.
Sure, that headline under-text is written in a way that makes it seem like that's the case, but the article itself seems to suggest otherwise.

And on the face of it, it would make sense to have them have more presence and involvement there given its proximity to their landmark development just across the way over at Burrard bridge.
Seems like it would be mutually beneficial to both sides.

Reclaim, as in land reclamation. Not as in FN land claims.

I completely understand how it's beneficial to MST given their nearby land developments. More control is always better. How exactly is it beneficial to anyone else?

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Reclaim, as in land reclamation. Not as in FN land claims.

I completely understand how it's beneficial to MST given their nearby land developments. More control is always better. How exactly is it beneficial to anyone else?

Yes, but you insinuated that they're trying to claim it as their territory.
(The miswording and erronous conflation in my comment between "claim" and "reclaim", notwithstanding).

The article itself (and specifically the very specific quote by the CMHC official) doesn't support that assertion neither.
I'm not talking about how they worded the article to make it sound like this is the case.
Lancaster himself was noncommittal as to whether the discussions involved any questions about "control" or "management".

So I don't see how one therefore arrives to the conclusion that they're trying to "claim" it.

As to the benefit of their involvement for anyone else (ignoring the assertion about "control", which, unless otherwise corroborated doesn't seem to be the case here at all), are you asking how having more Indigenous or FN involvement in a place heavily frequented and visited by tourists and outsiders (And spending tourist dollars there - taxable tourist dollars) would be of benefit to anyone but them?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Yes, but you insinuated that they're trying to claim it as their territory.
(The miswording and erronous conflation in my comment between "claim" and "reclaim", notwithstanding).

The article itself (and specifically the very specific quote by the CMHC official) doesn't support that assertion neither.
I'm not talking about how they worded the article to make it sound like this is the case.
Lancaster himself was noncommittal as to whether the discussions involved any questions about "control" or "management".

So I don't see how one therefore arrives to the conclusion that they're trying to "claim" it.

As to the benefit of their involvement for anyone else (ignoring the assertion about "control", which, unless otherwise corroborated doesn't seem to be the case here at all), are you asking how having more Indigenous or FN involvement in a place heavily frequented and visited by tourists and outsiders (And spending tourist dollars there - taxable tourist dollars) would be of benefit to anyone but them?

The only reason the conversation can even begin to start is if any of the MST groups can justify the land being traditional territory i.e. claiming the territory. No Mohawk, Dene, or Inuit is ever asking for a place at the table in the Lower Mainland nor should the government give them any time if they came asking because it's patently obvious they have nothing to do with the land.

And yes I am asking how FN involvement is a benefit to a post-industrial tourist area. Should all the Chinatown groups and Kits groups and Yaletown business groups be brought in too? There isn't exactly a shortage of FNs art for sale on Granville Island.

[Migrant_Coconut]

IIRC Granville Island is owned by the CMHC, the CMHC is a federal crown corp, and the First Nations get dibs on all federal property (e.g. Sinclair Centre). So not a claim so much as a legal technicality; we'll see how the courts rule.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC Granville Island is owned by the CMHC, the CMHC is a federal crown corp, and the First Nations get dibs on all federal property (e.g. Sinclair Centre). So not a claim so much as a legal technicality.

Only if it's being sold. As the article states, Granville Island is not being considered surplus land by the feds.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC Granville Island is owned by the CMHC, the CMHC is a federal crown corp, and the First Nations get dibs on all federal property (e.g. Sinclair Centre). So not a claim so much as a legal technicality; we'll see how the courts rule.

Hopefully this last gasp of virtue-signalling has no more legs than the dying Liberal gov’t that encouraged it.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The only reason the conversation can even begin to start is if any of the MST groups can justify the land being traditional territory i.e. claiming the territory. No Mohawk, Dene, or Inuit is ever asking for a place at the table in the Lower Mainland nor should the government give them any time if they came asking because it's patently obvious they have nothing to do with the land.

And yes I am asking how FN involvement is a benefit to a post-industrial tourist area. Should all the Chinatown groups and Kits groups and Yaletown business groups be brought in too? There isn't exactly a shortage of FNs art for sale on Granville Island.

Yes, and what I'm pointing out to you is that such a claim has NOT been made.
Officially or unofficially.

It's your own inference that you made (based on your own belief) and the conclusion you came to, and not from anything in the article - that this discussion is the forebearance of an actual or official claim being made.
Even Lancaster himself stated that the discussion is not about one, nor at that point (....yet), and it's quite possible it may not come up at all.

Pressed on whether this may lead to changes in the control or management of real estate, Lancaster said by phone that he didn’t want to prejudice the conversations, and that “it could go probably anywhere, or it could go absolutely nowhere.

And remind me again:
Are the Sen̓áḵw' towers over on Burrard only going to benefit just Indigenous and FN people exclusively and no one else (non-indigenous) at all?

Your comparison to, or example of "Chinatown groups and Kits grops and Yaletown business groups" (being brought in) - even as a sarcatic rejoinder - is patently ridiculous, and you know it.

Some people see the word "reconciliation" and they just get triggered to the most bizarre levels.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Yes, and what I'm pointing out to you is that such a claim has NOT been made.
Officially or unofficially.

It's your own inference that you made (based on your own belief) and the conclusion you came to, and not from anything in the article - that this discussion is the forebearance of an actual or official claim being made.
Even Lancaster himself stated that the discussion is not about one, nor at that point (....yet), and it's quite possible it may not come up at all.

So does that mean that your thesis is that the MST are asking for a seat at the table despite the fact they don't think they deserve one because they have no claim to the land? If that's the case, why should they have any case?

And remind me again:
Are the Sen̓áḵw' towers over on Burrard only going to benefit just Indigenous and FN people exclusively and no one else (non-indigenous) at all?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying that the MST will push for high density housing development on Granville Island or something? Do you think if the Lilwat were given a say in how Kitsilano IR 6 was governed it wouldn't help the Lilwat? But why should the Squamish give them a say?

Your comparison to, or example of "Chinatown groups and Kits grops and Yaletown business groups" (being brought in) - even as a sarcatic rejoinder - is patently ridiculous, and you know it.

It's not ridiculous, obviously Chinatown groups and Kits groups and Yaletown groups would benefit from having additional say in Granville Island. Why should MST get a seat when other local groups don't? What do they have that others don't?

Some people see the word "reconciliation" and they just get triggered to the most bizarre levels.

Frankly the MST nations are some of the least (if not the least) downtrodden FNs in Canada. They have all the means to prosper and live happily and healthily and embrace their traditional cultures if they want. I'm actually very supportive of social and economic reconciliation with most FNs in Canada but it really bothers me when we decide that some of the wealthiest landowners in the Lower Mainland need to be given more political and economic power for some reason. What do we want the Lower Mainland to be like in 100 years? What's the endgame here? Will reconciliation ever be "over"? Should MST members and non-MST members be equals in the future or should MST members forever have special privileges that non-MST members will never have?

As someone of Chinese descent I look at countries like Malaysia with official policies to enrich and politically protect the indigenous majority Malay and disenfranchise the non-native minority Chinese and I'm appalled. Legally housing developers have to sell property for lower prices to Malay citizens than to Chinese citizens (subsidized by Chinese buyers, just like how social housing here is subsidized by non-social housing). Government contracts are legally only allowed to be given to ethnically Malay citizens. Publicly traded companies used to legally have a 30% ethnic Malay ownership requirement. Surely we can agree that the protections for indigenous Malay citizens at the expense of non-indigenous Chinese citizens is a racist, discriminatory practice, right?

Tell me again why the MST should be given additional powers here? I believe we should be fighting for a society where everyone has been brought up to an equal level. Not with winners and losers.

[simons]

Originally Posted by chowhou

So does that mean that your thesis is that the MST are asking for a seat at the table despite the fact they don't think they deserve one because they have no claim to the land? If that's the case, why should they have any case?



What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying that the MST will push for high density housing development on Granville Island or something? Do you think if the Lilwat were given a say in how Kitsilano IR 6 was governed it wouldn't help the Lilwat? But why should the Squamish give them a say?




It's not ridiculous, obviously Chinatown groups and Kits groups and Yaletown groups would benefit from having additional say in Granville Island. Why should MST get a seat when other local groups don't? What do they have that others don't?



Frankly the MST nations are some of the least (if not the least) downtrodden FNs in Canada. They have all the means to prosper and live happily and healthily and embrace their traditional cultures if they want. I'm actually very supportive of social and economic reconciliation with most FNs in Canada but it really bothers me when we decide that some of the wealthiest landowners in the Lower Mainland need to be given more political and economic power for some reason. What do we want the Lower Mainland to be like in 100 years? What's the endgame here? Will reconciliation ever be "over"? Should MST members and non-MST members be equals in the future or should MST members forever have special privileges that non-MST members will never have?

As someone of Chinese descent I look at countries like Malaysia with official policies to enrich and politically protect the indigenous majority Malay and disenfranchise the non-native minority Chinese and I'm appalled. Legally housing developers have to sell property for lower prices to Malay citizens than to Chinese citizens (subsidized by Chinese buyers, just like how social housing here is subsidized by non-social housing). Government contracts are legally only allowed to be given to ethnically Malay citizens. Publicly traded companies used to legally have a 30% ethnic Malay ownership requirement. Surely we can agree that the protections for indigenous Malay citizens at the expense of non-indigenous Chinese citizens is a racist, discriminatory practice, right?

Tell me again why the MST should be given additional powers here? I believe we should be fighting for a society where everyone has been brought up to an equal level. Not with winners and losers.

• It appears you aren’t aware of the difference between a legal land claim vs. unceded territory.
• Saying that certain FN groups have all the means to prosper is certainly a choice given the horrific conditions they were subject to no more than 2-3 generations ago that have to this day manifested in overrepresentation in, for example, homeless populations.
• Maybe the MST should have a seat because it’s their traditional territory and, you know, UNDRIP?
• Treating rights like a zero sum game is also… a choice.

For what it’s worth I don’t think you are properly equipped to have an informed discussion about this matter at this time.