Sun
The debate over EcoDensity got off to a bad start in Vancouver, but that doesn’t make it a bad plan.
The name became too closely linked to the political future of Mayor Sam Sullivan after he briefly took out a trademark in his own name before turning it over to the city. But more importantly, the controversial brand name has become a lightning rod for fears that developers are going to be given carte blanche to turn peaceful, family oriented neighborhoods into row after row of Soviet-style apartment blocks.
To try to cool some of the rhetoric, some proponents have suggested changing the name of the initiative now under consideration by city council to EcoCity.
That wouldn’t really help. It would simply add confusion and no one would really be fooled. The debate really has to be about density. Like it or not, Vancouver, like the rest of the Lower Mainland, will continue to grow. The question is how.
The central notion behind EcoDensity is sound. Cities embody one of the great opportunities we have to tackle global warming. There are cascading opportunities that flow from replacing growth through energy-intensive suburban sprawl with more compact neighborhoods.
High on the list is getting people out of cars. Commuters can’t leave their cars at home unless they have a viable alternative. That means access to transit. Viable public transit needs riders, the more the better.
It also means zoning that allows people to live close enough to where they work that they can choose to walk or ride a bicycle.
More people also support more amenities, shops, theatres and restaurants, all the things that make great cities great.
And if it is done right, all of this growth can occur without increasing traffic on the roads. We have actually seen a decrease in commuting time in Vancouver over the past decade.
We’ve been reaping the benefits of such growth in Vancouver for the last 30 years as thousands of people have moved downtown. So what this debate is really about is doing it right.
It’s clear that many people who live in the suburban style neighborhoods within Vancouver fear that EcoDensity is a Trojan Horse that will allow developers to destroy their Arcadian existence.
But EcoDensity cannot mean unfettered growth. No developer should be allowed to tear down a single family home in the middle of the block and replace it with an eight-story condominium.
But that same leafy street may be able to accommodate well-designed carriage houses and suites that can significantly increase the stock of affordable rental accommodation in the city without harming the character of the neighborhood.
The arterial roads that run through such neighborhoods can support greater growth without harming the adjoining streets.
In fact, the best opportunity for improving life in such neighborhoods is to enable high-frequency transit within walking distances so people can leave their cars at home.
And one of the most promising ways of paying for rapid transit is to reap the value of significantly increased density around or in some cases over the top of stations.
Even on arterial roads, however, development has to be controlled so that the quality of life for existing residents is enhanced, not destroyed.
That still leaves room for creating new zoning that permits denser developments by right so that builders don’t have to go through an expensive variance for projects that fit within acceptable guidelines.
Does that mean that the concerns of local neighborhoods won’t be heard? Hardly. What it should mean is that those concerns will be heard in the context of the need for growth that enhances life in the city and the Lower Mainland.
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
