Sun columnist Alan Fotheringham characterized Vancouver in the 1960s as a “Village on the Edge of the Rain Forest” – and apparently one of the house photographers was a character named Vlad.
Durning came across his Facebook page, where he’s been posting his work from, yup, a half century ago, when the main street of Vancouver looked like this:
I’ll leave it to John Atkin to nail the exact date, but you can see this was taken, about 1970, when Pacific Centre was under construction, Royal Centre hadn’t even started, and Georgia just west of Burrard still had one-storey storefronts.
So what’s going on?
SPEC, the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, had been formed in 1969, and they’re having a protest march through downtown on the way to Stanley Park:
So much has changed. Except the issue that SPEC was demonstrating about.
Lots more great captures from that time on Vlad’s site here – Seize the Time – where there’s not much about him, even his last time. Just his photos.Read more »
… or at least Italy, from where John Graham reports:
In the south of Italy – here in Sorrento at the end of the Amalfi coast – the e-bike with fat tires is taking over. And not by the mountain-biker demographic, as you can see from the front basket and rear child seat.
This bike on the main pedestrian shopping street is their version of the mini SUV. The fat tires are for the rough and variable cobblestones.
The rider was a woman in her 40’s who got off and went into the cosmetic shop behind.
Read more »
Dean A recommended this piece in the New York Times:
Among the safety measures proposed by car companies are encouraging pedestrians and bicyclists to use R.F.I.D. tags, which emit signals that cars can detect. This means it’s becoming the pedestrian’s responsibility to avoid getting hit. But if keeping people safe means putting the responsibility on them (or worse, criminalizing walking and biking), we need to think twice about the technology we’re developing. …
Peter Ladner was motivated to write this response with respect to our bike routes:Read more »
Conversation #2: What do we do about neighbourhoods?
Some argue that “neighbourhood character” must be maintained to preserve the diversity of the city. Others note however that “neighbourhood character” frequently serves as an instrument of exclusion, making people feel unwelcome and marginalizing them.
Neighbourhoods that do not evolve risk stagnation, while neighbourhoods that change too rapidly erase the attributes that make them unique.
Are there then qualities of neighbourhoods that should be cultivated or protected? As Vancouver faces a housing crisis, how do we go about discussing neighbourhood change?
Four panelists share their insights about their local places:
Richard Evans – Chair of RePlan, a committee of the False Creek South Neighbourhood Association
Scot Hein – adjunct professor in the Master of Urban Design program at UBC, previously the senior urban designer with the City of Vancouver
Jada-Gabrielle Pape – facilitator and consultant with Courage Consulting
Jennifer Maiko Bradshaw – renter, pro-housing activist and director of Abundant Housing Vancouver
Wednesday, October 9
SFU Goldcorp Centre for the Arts (SFU Woodwards) – 149 West Hastings Street
Free, donations appreciated.
Read more »
This clip from a local news station in New York City is labelled as “the city before gentrification.” What now provokes nostaligia wasn’t all that great if you actually had to live in a city of rapid decline – and this illustrates how sad it was. And now funny.
Worth listening to just for the accents and attitudes of the New Yawkers.Read more »
The latest from Michael Anderson at the Sightline Institute:
For three years, Portland’s proposal to re-legalize fourplexes citywide has been overshadowing another, related reform. … This proposed mid-density reform, dubbed “Better Housing by Design,” includes various good ideas … like regulating buildings by size rather than unit count; and giving nonprofit developers of below-market housing a leg up with size bonuses.
But one detail in this proposal is almost shocking in its clarity. It turns out that there is one simple factor that determines whether these lots are likely to eventually redevelop as:
- high-cost townhomes, or as
- mixed-income condo buildings for the middle and working class.
The difference between these options is whether they need to provide storage for cars—i.e. parking.
According to calculations from the city’s own contracted analysts, if off-street parking spaces are required in the city’s new “RM2” zone, then the most profitable thing for a landowner to build on one of these properties in inner Portland is 10 townhomes, each valued at $733,000, with an on-site garage.
But if off-street parking isn’t required, then the most profitable thing to build is a 32-unit mixed-income building, including 28 market-rate condos selling for an average of $280,000 and four below-market condos—potentially created in partnership with a community land trust like Portland’s Proud Ground—sold to households making no more than 60 percent of the area’s median income.
This is worth repeating: As long as parking isn’t necessary, the most profitable homes a developer can build on a lot like this in inner Portland would already be within the reach of most Portland households on day one.
But if we require parking on these lots, we block this scenario. If every unit has to come with an on-site garage, the most profitable thing to build becomes, instead, a much more expensive townhome.
When people say cities can choose either housing people or housing cars, this is what they’re talking about.
I’ve never seen a more clear-cut example.
Read more »
How to make an editorial comment in a front-page layout …
Not sure how deliberately The Globe juxtaposed an Andrew Scheer profile with a climate-strike march to make a statement about Scheer on the Environment – but it really doesn’t matter. Scheer did that on his own.
In Vancouver, he took that day when a hundred thousand marched on climate to announce money for highway expansion. (Because more lanes means less pollution because that always works.)
And that’s got to be deliberate.
Though the message may be oblique, it’s clear evidence that Scheer discounts climate change whether as a political issue or as reality. He’s basically doing a Harper 2.0 – similar to Stephen Harper’s Arctic tours when the words ‘climate change’ never passed his lips. Harper’s message to other decision-makers: don’t take climate change too seriously. I have no intention of doing anything drastic. You don’t have to either.”
Scheer looks to continue that strategy. Reality might make a difference in Scheer’s indifference, but not mass marches.
Is he, then, an extinctionist?* – the ultimate pragmatist.
I doubt he’s reached the point where extinction of some kind seems so inevitable that it shapes his policy. But I think he believes he can afford to be indifferent now.
So Andrew Scheer is an extinctionist-in-making. Perhaps already made.
*What’s an extinctionist? Here’s my definition:
Leaders and decision-makers who accept extinction – minor or major, local and global – as an acceptable outcome of climate change; and justify it in order to maximize power and benefit.
It’s not that they are so sociopathic they don’t care or will even revel in the apocalyptic. But they are resigned to the inevitability of the threat and believe we are powerless to do anything consequential about it . They therefore have to accept when making decisions that will hasten extinction, particularly for immediate benefit, that that’s okay. Not desired, not expected, but possible. An acceptable outcome to consider.Read more »