New Media

What will Vancouver look like in 2050? Will we serve as a model of sustainability to be emulated around the world? It’s going to take more than just good ideas and innovations in technology; as I report in my latest Granville article, Vancouver in 2050, it may require a redefinition of citizenship in this country.

“Our competitiveness and prosperity are at stake,” said Holland. “This dynamic will have us change the story.”

This is going to take discipline and rewriting of public interests assumptions, he said, suggesting that the capitalist model of our society will not be able to deliver long-term solutions to issues like food supply, transportation, energy and livability.

“We are going to have to redefine citizenship” with a changed focus on obligations and responsibilities, he said.

If cities have to become more sustainable to cope with population growth, we need to be looking at solutions that solve four or five different problems, Johnston says.

Looking at how the city of Chicago has led innovation in this area, he pointed to things like using photovoltaic sidewalks and green roofs that can eat smog, reducing need for lighting, minimizing heat sinks that cause health problems and provide spaces for urban agriculture to improve access to local food supplies.

“We’re not looking for a silver bullet. We need silver buckshot.”

Commentary on the City in 2050: Creating Blueprints for Change

There goes the neighborhood? I don’t think so. But since it’s my neighborhood I’m talking about, I’m going to waffle a bit.

Vancouver writer Frances Bula points out a big problem with consultations on social housing projects in Vancouver, in this case referring to a new proposal for my neighborhood of Mount Pleasant:

As is always the case with “public consultation” these days, the open houses are always designed to split people up, rather than have a big open meeting, so that the angry ranters don’t get a chance to dominate.

That’s good, but I was struck by what I noticed in the conversations I had, which was a tendency among the explainers (city planners, architects, housing groups) to take on a tone of “but you just don’t realize the facts and I’m now going to explain them to you.” Very annoying, as it felt like I wasn’t really being listened to…

In the small groups I eavesdropped on, it sounded as though others were having the same experience and not being persuaded by it. One explainer said the neighbourhood didn’t have to worry about problems with the project because there had been a housing project built on Fraser and everyone had been worried about that, but it was completely unnoticeable now that it was up. But, said the woman listening, that project was much smaller, only 30 or so units, and this was is 100. And the people accepted there were people who’d gone through rehab; this one is for people who still have a lot of problems that aren’t going away any time soon.

Talking past one another is only part of the problem. But another factor is that stakeholders in these public forums may be encouraged in the impression that if they can just talk things out, a compromise solution will be found. But in some aspects of the social housing debate, there may be no middle ground.

Does the argument hold that all citizens, regardless of how addicted or delusional they may be, or whether they are a danger to themselves or others, are entitled to shelter? And that the shelter they are entitled to must be in a location and have amenities that offer a better quality of life than your typical bug-infested Downtown Eastside hotel? Well, then, some people, somewhere, in a community that has managed to create a positive experience for its residents, will necessarily have their own livability diluted.

It’s no stereotype that living next door to newly-moved-in drug addicts and the mentally ill is no picnic — it’s just the way it is. The level of inconvenience and public safety is likely to go down. But how much of a downgrade in livability is the community willing to tolerate so that their more unfortunate fellow citizens can have a chance at a better life?

Well, that really goes to the heart of what cities have always been about. Living in an urban setting has always been about trade-offs in access to amenities, economic opportunities, views, safety and just how comfortable you can be with your neighbors.

As a thought exercise, I suppose I’m comfortable with the idea of a single social housing facility going up in my neighborhood. But right now, I’m fuzzy on precisely how these new residents might affect the neighborhood overall. Won’t the potentially negative impact of the new neighbors be diluted in a densely-populated area of 54000 residents?

I’m also a bit more able to be more welcoming, since I know the project isn’t going up right next door to me. I judge the likely impact on my own standard of living to be relatively small. This seems to be borne out by one recent study showing that social housing facilities in Vancouver thus far seem to have little to no impact on the host community. I’m certain I’d be more emotionally involved if I lived on the same block as the new residents. I can afford to be more open-minded. But the NIMBYists do have legitimate concerns. What we have here is a failure to communicate — though it doesn’t have to be.

A mob of demonstrators blocked the Olympic torch relay last week and protests are expected to continue from now until the Olympics are done. Which brings us to the main question: What is the point of these protests?

Plenty of demonstrators seem incensed at the money spent on the Olympics instead of, say, health care, education or housing. But that money has already been spent. And it’s not like the protesters are going to be able to actually prevent the Olympics from taking place. So what do you think the demonstrators want? Isn’t the traditional media falling down on the job here in terms of probing the protesters with basic questions…

Continue reading this article in the Vancouver Sun’s Community of Interest.

Vancouver’s real estate market appears to be unaffected by the laws of recessionary gravity. I’m already in the process of selling my own condo this week, so I’ve been paying a lot of attention lately to the land rush fever that seems to have gripped this city.

The buzz from the Twittersphere tells the story:
YouthJuiceBC: The real estate market is rising. My listing just went into multiple 5 days on the market and way above list price!!!!
AderaHome: May 2009 Vancouver Real Estate Stats: GOOD times ahead
westcoasthomes: Real Estate market in Vancouver is becoming Hot again. Homes are selling fast and in some communties the M word–Multiple Offers!!!!

Undoubtedly, over-exuberant realtors catching their breath after months of hard slogging are adding to the frenzy with some strategic propaganda. But there are some other big reasons why people in Vancouver are buying houses, or closet-sized condos, once again:

5 Reasons for the Vancouver Real Estate Land Rush of 2009
1. The Olympics are coming. Nuff said.
2. Historically Low Cost of Borrowing Money for a Mortgage. They aren’t going to get any lower. Actually, they just went back up. Savvy buyers may have been able to pressure brokers to lock in the best rates for a little while longer, but those agreements won’t last long.
3. It’s Just That Time of Year. As it was explained to me, May and June just happen to be stronger months for real estate sales year after year. Nice weather is getting the people outdoors, where they can notice those open house signs.
4. A Variation on the Duddy Kravitz syndrome. If a man without land is nothing, then a man with land in Kitsilano is really something else.
5. Sustainability and Livability. Vancouver’s unique geography, eco-minded culture and a fortuitous foundation of good urban planning has made this city into one of the most livable metropolises in the world. Really. We’re not exaggerating, rest of Canada. It’s just that nice over here.

In case you were wondering about the condo I’ve put on the market, you can see the details and the pretty pictures in my real estate listing.

UPDATE 20 June 2009: My condo was shown on CTV news today. On the CTV site, click on St. John Alexander on Real Estate. See Leroy Patterson wandering around my living room. Thanks, news team!

As a guy who can’t watch any sport for more than 5 minutes without yawning, I have sympathy on a gut level with those who knock the 2010 Winter Olympics as a surreal waste of resources.

But I also recognize that the vast majority of Canadians do like sports in general and that there are significant benefits for hosting a sporting event like the Olympics specifically. Nebulous benefits like “putting the city on the map” can actually translate into tourism dollars supporting local workers. Getting the attention of the world puts pressure on higher levels of government to pour money into our area to build infrastructure that otherwise would have no chance of existing. Creating jobs and building venues for sports activities that many people seem to enjoy are not bad things.

There’s a sense amongst anti-Olympics protesters that in a zero-sum game of government spending, any dollar spent on the Olympic oval, for instance, is a dollar that doesn’t go towards, say, feeding the homeless. But that ignores the fact that a lot of this money from higher levels of government wouldn’t have gone to anything if the Olympics wasn’t in town.

Secondly, you could apply the spending argument to anything; why spend dollars on roads and bridges when you’ve got people sleeping in the alleys in the downtown eastside — or Kitsilano? Striking a budget balance where all priorities get what they need is an art, not a science.

Are our priorities wrong on this? Given that we’re not contemplating an Olympics that even comes close to the titanic spending for the Beijing games ($42 billion, in a country where a good proportion of the population still lives in grinding poverty), I don’t know that our spending on the Olympics is a problem. But I’d love to hear from readers.