| |
Posted Jan 21, 2011, 3:53 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
|
|
I sent this long message to council. =O BTW does anybody know what has happened with the Higher Buildings in Downtown proposal?
Quote:
From: Allan Kuan
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:07 AM
To: Correspondence Group, City Clerk's Office
Subject: Higher Buildings in Downtown Vancouver and Chinatown (In Support)
January 20th, 2011
SUBJECT: Higher Buildings in Downtown Vancouver and Chinatown (IN SUPPORT)
Dear Mayor Robertson and Vancouver City Council,
I’d like to express my approval for higher buildings in Downtown Vancouver by refuting the accusations being thrown out by anti-development groups against the proposal. In addition, I’d like to express one reservation I have at the moment about higher buildings in Chinatown.
To start off, I’ll introduce myself a little. I’m a Canadian of Chinese descent and currently a student at Simon Fraser University who resides in Vancouver with my parents and my older sister. Our family has lived in Vancouver ever since my parents immigrated here back in the 1970’s. Having just turned 18 in December, I see myself as being the representative of future generations of Vancouverites as well as the representative of people around my age.
The Truth about Higher Buildings in Downtown (from a progressive-looking point of view)
Speculation about the height increases and their effects have gone wild due to the efforts of the anti-height groups to stall the proposal through any means necessary. They offer misleading and sometimes entirely false accusations supporting their viewpoints. For example, one claim is that higher buildings are a form of “vertical sprawl” that would create “major changes to the city’s skyline”. However, the changes are not that extreme as some are exaggerating it to be; in fact some groups are claiming that the North Shore and West End will be affected, when clearly they are outside the study scope areas at the moment.
Another suggestion offered by opponents is that taller buildings will actually be less sustainable. However, it’d be wise to consider the other scenario. In the past few years, some new and old companies have located or relocated to suburban offices in neighbouring Burnaby and Surrey. In addition Surrey is planning to move ahead with more residential and industrial developments on what is currently farmland. Compared to the increased heights proposal, these offices and homes do considerably more environmental damage by taking up and covering more land and by forcing longer, congested car commutes through regional thoroughfares. I also have faith that the city will continue to require taller buildings to meet some sort of LEED requirements and a level of architectural prominence before they are approved.
A third claim is that higher buildings will be detrimental to city infrastructure by using everything up. However, I believe the region still has capacity for more growth and other cities in this region are using this to their full potential. In addition, developers are usually required by the city anyway during the approval process to contribute to improvements if necessary.
A fourth claim is that higher buildings will be detrimental to city finances. This is entirely false; on the contrary, the competition caused by the locating and relocating of offices and homes in places other than Downtown Vancouver threatens to erode the city’s image as a regional economic powerhouse on the business stage, which in turn may preclude the creation of new, local jobs and residents and therefore new sources of tax revenues. In addition, if people are concerned about a collapse of the tourist industry, the effects of tall buildings on that are generally negligible and are potentially offset by the fact that a potential diversification of job sources in Vancouver can possibly still help support the city even if one industry collapses. One only has to take a look at the local forestry industry to see the problems of doing otherwise: job losses happened in massive numbers over the past few decades and have never fully recovered since then, leaving areas once wholly dependent on the industry struggling to stay alive.
Finally, there are claims that higher buildings will damage the “character of Vancouver”. However, this depends on who you talk to. For some, generally well-off older individuals, Vancouver could be considered an exclusive all-season paradise and resort town that should be left untouched. But for the majority Vancouver is generally considered more like a busy working city with some natural touristic aspects included. I do not believe that Vancouver should pander more towards becoming more of a resort; although tourism is a generally stable and powerful industry at the moment, it only takes one or more events here and/or elsewhere to derail the whole machine and force the city to make do without it for some period of time. In addition, the touristic appeal of this city comes at a high cost: the strict protection of local communities and consequent lack of additional capacity in Vancouver for more homes and offices often causes property values to soar and precludes affordability for the rest of the population.
With these misconceptions thrown out of the window, the picture becomes clearer - higher buildings in Downtown:
- will help the city diversify its job sources away from tourism, while having few impacts on tourism itself
- can contribute to a net gain in city services, provided that developers contribute during approvals
- is environmentally responsible and sustainable compared to other suburban alternatives for growth
- can rely more effectively on public transport and less on congested roads, especially in easily accessible areas like Downtown Vancouver
- can generate new sources of tax revenue for the city’s often stretched budgets
- can help alleviate a housing and office shortage and possibly lower prices for both
- is compatible with the majority view of the “character of Vancouver”.
Historic Chinatown and Higher Buildings
In the case of higher buildings in Chinatown, however, I have one reservation about proceeding due to the area’s historic nature. The gentrification associated with these developments may push out older commercial tenants and create something that is “unauthentic”, or in other words not as occupied by Chinese businesses and residents as before. This is critical: although Chinatown needs many improvements to attract back customers and residents, the same efforts may come at the expense of a loss of character in the historic neighbourhood, which does not exist at just the architectural level but also extends down to the street atmosphere. I therefore suggest that the city does more to promote Chinese-Canadian residents and businesses towards this area.
I also believe that the city, in conjunction with the new policy, should enforce a new architectural policy in the area that requires new buildings to have historic-looking street-fronts to at least four stories before transitioning towards normal construction. An example of this (although in a much taller size) was recently built in New Westminster: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4525175476_4dbc4ff790.jpg (credits to ‘paradigm’ of SkyScraperPage Forums)
In conclusion, higher buildings are acceptable in Chinatown as long as they:
- encourage new Chinese businesses and residents to establish a presence and therefore preserve and enhance the neighbourhood’s historic culture
- blend in with the rest of the neighbourhood at street level with historic-looking facades (up to four stories at the least).
Conclusions
With the opposition rallying loudly and trying to stall Vancouver from moving forward with their false claims and rhetoric, I urge Vancouver City Council to unconditionally approve the Higher Buildings in Downtown policy. I also recommend that Vancouver City Council conditionally accept higher buildings in Chinatown while also continuing to address the concerns I raised above about gentrification, loss of culture and loss of heritage in the area.
In addition to the two proposals that are being debated on, I ask that the city continue to explore other areas where higher buildings could be built outside of Downtown, such as near existing SkyTrain stations and busy road corridors and intersections.
The City of Vancouver and its future depends on being able to grow efficiently on the limited amount of space remaining, and these two proposals are the first two steps towards that answer.
I regret that I have late classes tonight and therefore can not make it to the council meeting regarding the two higher building proposals, but I look forward for a positive outcome. Thank you for your time and patience in reading this long yet necessary message.
● Αllɑn Kuɑn
|
|
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
