Site of the proposed East Fraserlands development lies between the Fraser River and Everett Crowley Park, south of Marine Drive between Boundary Road and Kerr Street.

It’s big, it’s bold, and everybody who’s involved in creating it hopes it will be beautiful.

It will house 10,000 people, some say as many as 15,000, living in single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums and as many as 15 high-rise towers ranging in height from 15 to 22 storeys. It will include, at least according to the latest proposal, park space, a riverfront walkway, a school, community centre, child care facilities, seniors housing, non-market housing, and a commercial “high street” with shops, restaurants, a 40,000-square-foot supermarket, and an equally large drug store.

It’s the East Fraserlands project and over the next 20 years it’s going to rise like a phoenix out of the concrete ashes of a mile-long rehabilitated industrial site along the banks of the north arm of the Fraser River between Kerr Street and Boundary Road.

You don’t have to be a visionary to see the potential in the site. It’s the kind of place where you can hear sparrows sing and watch brightly painted tugboats churning up and down the river, artfully nudging log booms destined for the ceaseless maw of the nearby mills.

Chances are you haven’t heard very much about the East Fraserlands project. For about a year, the city and the developer, ParkLane Homes and WesGroup Properties, two companies controlled by Peter Wesik, have held discussions with a citizen’s group, the East Fraserlands Subcommittee, that has an avowed policy of not talking to the media.

This is a huge residential project and it’s going to influence the surrounding neighbourhoods the way a black hole influences everything around it in space. It’ll be one of the biggest residential projects ever in Vancouver, and it’s about to take place on one of the last, large, undeveloped parts of the city. The entire site, including city-owned land currently being negotiated for sale to the developer, is about 104 acres. What’s more, the city has precious little riverfront to work with, having given so much of it over to industry over the years, that this represents one of the few opportunities it will have to reclaim this valuable resource for the people of Vancouver.

Considering the stakes and the impact this project is going to have for generations to come, you’d think this would be front-page news, but eerily it all seems to be taking place in a media vacuum. Some observers of the process are beginning to think it’s about time that changed.

Last March, my wife Lisa and I, along with our two-year-old son James, moved into a townhome in West Fraserlands, a newer residential neighbourhood that butts up against East Fraserlands at the foot of Kerr. A few days after moving in, I met one of my neighbours, Ross Corrigan. Ross and his wife Ann live right across the street from us and their bedroom window looks directly onto the concrete slab that represents most of what’s left on the East Fraserland’s site following the dismantling of Weyerhauser’s Canadian White Pine Mill.

We met in the street on a lovely sunny day. After about two minutes of conversation, Ross pointed to a giant cottonwood tree located on the riverfront about 100 metres past the storm fence marking the limits of the old mill site.

“See that tree,” he said. “One day there’s going to be a 25-storey tower there. And the people who live in it will be looking right into your bedroom window.”

After a suitable period of buyer’s remorse, I decided to find out more about what was happening at East Fraserlands. At the library, I found only five news stories-four of which appeared in the Courier-about the development. I attended public meetings at the Killarney Community Centre of the East Fraserlands Subcommittee but when they saw my tape recorder, I was told that I was not welcome at EFS meetings as a journalist, despite the fact that I live closer to the site than any person who actually sits on the committee.

The reason the EFS doesn’t want the media to get involved was explained to me by committee chair Sharon Saunders. She said the committee is fearful that debating the project in public will polarize opinion, antagonize the developer and cause it to be less rather than more likely to provide what her committee feels are badly needed amenities.

In a subsequent interview with Norm Shearing, vice-president of development for the project, I told him about the committee’s views on this and he seemed genuinely surprised.

“Who said that?” he asked.

According to Michael Naylor, the city planing department’s point man on the project, the East Fraserlands project grew out of the Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney Community Vision. The vision’s statement contains little detail, except to say that if the mill, then located on the site, ever closes or relocates, “the city should initiate a major study of future uses of this area which should include consideration of a range of housing options including rowhouses, townhouses and apartments along with required park space, waterfront walkways, schools, and other public facilities and services required for the future population.”

It concludes by stating the study “should include significant public consultation,” an irony considering the city and developer have confined discussions about the project with an unelected citizen’s group that shuns the media. Some truly public, if sparsely attended meetings, have taken place, but more on that later.

The mill closed in 2002. Studies on the land’s future followed. Once it learned that the land was available, the city commissioned the Coriolis Consulting Group to prepare a financial analysis for East Fraserlands. The study, released in 2003, concluded the only way to make the project “financially attractive for rezoning” was to dial up the density and dial down the amenities (park space, community centre etc).

What did this mean? Even before the developer bought the land, it was released from providing the kinds of amenities that would normally be required in a project of this size. EFS members (at the meetings I was allowed to attend) asked the city why the park space wasn’t matching up with the city’s own target standards. At one particularly fractious meeting last May, excited committee member Rick Evans demanded to know why “we’re negotiating less park space when we should be negotiating for more.”

The answer came from project planner Naylor, who said the money to do so simply wasn’t there. But data used to support such a conclusion is not available. In a subsequent interview, I asked Naylor why the city didn’t simply release the numbers and let them speak for themselves.

“My personal preference is to show the numbers,” said Naylor, “but my superiors say I can’t do that, and the reason they give is that city council is looking after the good of the public and [city council are] the ones that get to see the numbers so they’ll make the decisions on behalf of the project.”

I asked Jay Wollenberg, president of Coriolis Consulting, about the study. “My terms of reference were to use any reasonable data that came from the proponent in terms of development costs,” he said. “Well, we actually got very little in terms of direct estimates from the developer so the modelling I did was based almost entirely on some numbers we brought, on some numbers the city brought, and some comments on some of those numbers that came from the developer. Despite several requests, we were never given detailed estimates prepared by the other side.”

Such misgivings about the study don’t concern the city’s real estate services division. “An update may be warranted once the final amenity package is negotiated and we want to test it just to make sure a year and half later that everything is sound,” said Michael Flanagan, manager of the city’s real estate services division. “But my personal belief is that not much will change in the conclusion.”

Some observers think the city had no right conduct a financial analysis at all, considering the study is now being used as a tool for cutting

back on the standard allotment of park space and amenities.

“I was shocked by the tone of the report and its disregard for market realities,” said Bob Ransford, chairman of the Urban Development Institute’s communications committee. He argues that what the city should have done was to simply say: here’s the land, here’s what we want on it in terms of parks, amenities, open spaces, walkways, building heights and commercial space-are there any takers? Developers could step up to the plate and bid.

“Instead the city is saying,” Ransford added, “‘We’re going to tell you how to make this project work from a financial point of view and we’re going to limit how much you make from it.’ But why would a developer buy a piece of land, speculate on whether or not he can get the approval of the rezoning committees, put a lot of equity on the line, wait through a process that literally takes years, in a market that’s cyclical, to earn a profit, when that profit is being controlled by some third party that has no risk?”

Good question.

Not every observer of the East Fraserlands project thinks the process should continue under a cone of silence. Vancouver parks commissioner Suzanne Anton says the time has come to “get it into the open.”

She points out the city has a target standard of 2.75 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Although the East Fraserlands officially has 2.5 acres per thousand set aside (it was originally 1.5), not all of that is what most people think of as park space. The formula includes 17 acres of actual park space, .6 acres of “waterfront easement,” .5 acres of land set aside for the community centre, .5 acres of “decking” and 3.25 acres of pedestrian walkways.

The pedestrian walkways are going to be the subject of cocktail parties for years to come. If you look at the latest plan for the entire East Fraserlands project-Illustrative Plan No. 1-dated April 2004, the pedestrian walkways look more like the grand boulevards of Paris than what they really are, which is landscaped corridors people can use to walk or cycle around the neighbourhood. They’ll be big enough to kick a ball around with a toddler, like I do most days with my two year old, but that’s about it.

As for the real park land, Anton says there simply isn’t enough, and the project needs at least another six acres of it. If principles related to neighbourhood “sustainability” are to be adhered to, she says, the people who will be living in East Fraserlands should have adequate park space on which to play a game of soccer, or softball, or football, or ultimate (Frisbee), or whatever. Besides, community centres in the Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney district, not to mention the sports fields, are already stretched to the limit.

“I made the motion that the board needs to make it clear to council that the amount of park space in East Fraserlands is not enough, and that we direct staff to seek the normal park standard of 2.75 acres per acres per 1,000 residents,” says Anton.

Her motion was defeated by commissioners Heather Deal, Eva Riccius, Anita Romaniuk and Loretta Woodcock.

In an e-mail to me, Romaniuk said she voted against the motion because she wanted more information before taking a stand on that particular issue. She added, “I think it is far from certain that park space is being scaled back because talks are still going on. I am optimistic that things will be worked out.”

Complicating matters, and not just throwing a wrench into the works but a full-size toolbox, is the fact that the amenities in the East Fraserlands project aren’t just going to be used by the people who live in that neighbourhood, but also by the folks in West Fraserlands, where I live. We have no schools, community centres or shopping. We are by no means anti-development. Far from it. The sooner they build a school and decent shopping the better as far as my little family is concerned, but we’re a little skeptical at this stage. Consider the school issue.

The current plans call for one K-12 school in East Fraserlands. It will serve not only the community growing up around it, but also West Fraserlands. Crunch the numbers and we’re looking at a total school population of 1,300 (800 K-8 and 500 high school students). Is this a good thing? Vancouver School Board trustee Andrea Reimer doesn’t think so.

“That’s a whopping school,” Reimer said. “In a perfect world you wouldn’t have any elementary-age kids in any school larger than 450.”

Ideally, Fraserlands-east and west could use three schools. An annex for K-3 in East Fraserlands, a K-7

elementary school in West Fraserlands and a separate high school altogether for the teenagers.

“K-3 kids really thrive in a primary-school environment,” Reimer said. “It’s best practices.”

I don’t know how other parents feel, but I want my son to “thrive” as much as possible.

City hall staff will tell you this is all tempest-in-a-teapot stuff and that it’s still too early to say what’s really coming down the pipe. However, at the last meeting of the EFS I attended before I was declared journalistic persona non grata, developer representative Norm Shearing was on hand to assist in the unveiling of the latest plan, dated April 2004. At that meeting, city planner Michael Naylor said that planning staff was happy with the plan. Nothing’s carved in stone, he said, but it’s coming together.

In an interview, Coun. Raymond Louie told me not to worry. If the demand for services and amenities outstrips what the economic feasibility study says the developer should provide, perhaps the city will kick in the rest of the money needed to provide those amenities, he said. The way things are going, the city might not have any choice because the amenities and park space included in the current plan do not seem adequate for the number of people who will one day live alongside the banks of the river.

Despite all its efforts at playing coy, the citizens committee EFS hasn’t had much success in changing the direction this project is headed in. Consider this extract from a letter the EFS sent to council in May of this year.

“It is with concern, regret, and frustration that we write to you today. Community organizations and individuals represented here, members of the East Fraserlands Sub-committee of the Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney CityPlan Committee, have engaged in discussions with the city and the developer, ParkLane, for approximately eight months. We had hoped that needs identified by the community would be listened to and addressed in the development plan and in city policy. Although some changes have been made to the plan, key issues remain outstanding, and a serious lack of confidence in the process is developing amongst our members.”

However, in a letter to me dated June 22, EFS chair Sharon Saunders took a different tack. “The plan has changed considerably since 2003 and many of the community’s concerns have been heard,” she said. But she added: “There are enormous problems to overcome, one of which is the terrible lack of amenities in WFL. Who is responsible for making up for the shortfall in that development? We want to find solutions.

“We are concerned about the impact of 10,000 new residents in the area-the impact on traffic, and existing resources.

“We are concerned about creating a community with significant social problems if there are not enough resources available to them in that isolated area.

“We are also going to be working with the city and ParkLane to delve more deeply into various issues such as schools, community amenities, green space, outdoor recreation space etc. etc. so we, as much as is possible, thoroughly understand all the factors informing decisions and are able to make good decisions (or continue to pressure the city and the developer into making better ones).”

As mentioned above, the city has held public meetings on the East Fraserlands project-a series took place last summer and fall and more are scheduled for this fall-but as Suzanne Anton pointed out to me, the people who play soccer tend to be doing that rather than attending public meetings.

The city has a summary of these meetings-based on 72 comment sheets returned between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and on information gathered at an Oct. 5 community meeting-on its website. The comments indicated that residents felt the density was too high, that the proposed 28-storey towers (now down to 22 storeys) were “ugly,” and that there was too much floor space devoted to commercial aspects of the project (shops, etc). The summary also states that the “majority of residents felt that the park and open space plan did not adequately meet the needs of the proposed population.”

As Saunders pointed out, some things have indeed changed since last year. A bit of park space has been added, the amount of commercial floor space has been reduced and the building height maximum has been scaled down, but there still appears to be a wide gulf between what the city/developer is offering and what those who are aware of the project want.

All of which would seem to indicate that perhaps the time has come to “debate this in the media.”

Anyway, the good news in all of this I’ve saved for the end and my new neighbour Ross. That 25-storey tower he was so worried about on the waterfront isn’t going to happen. I’ve been assured by developer rep Shearing that nothing on the waterfront will be higher than four stories.

Ross can thank me later.