“A Community of Communities is the Touchstone”—or Not?
City Conversation #45: Mike Harcourt, former Vancouver Mayor & Premier of BC, outlines his concerns about Vancouver’s current planning, spot rezonings & the need to strengthen our communities.
Mike Harcourt was Vancouver’s Mayor from 1980 through Expo ’86, then Premier of British Columbia from 1991 through 1996.
A stark choice—Vancouver as one city or a community of communities?
I was surprised and delighted to receive over the Easter weekend an email from former Vancouver Planning Director Ray Spaxman, enclosing remarks from Mike Harcourt, a former Mayor of Vancouver and Premier of the province, along with permission to share those remarks. In today’s environment leading up to the civic election later this year, what Mr. Harcourt has to say goes straight to the heart and the beliefs of many who read City Conversations and care about Vancouver.
Mr. Harcourt’s interest in Vancouver's development goes back a long way; he fought plans for a freeway through Strathcona in the late 1960s, served as alderman from 1973 to 1980, and was mayor from 1980 to 1986. His remarks are in italics, and have not been edited by me, even where I may occasionally disagree with the details. My modest thoughts are captured in regular type. Let’s start with Mr. Harcourt’s opening remarks:
Ray, I share your concerns about City Hall-
- the spot zoning for oversized buildings over the last 5-10 years,
- the massive over-developments (58 storeys) proposed at the Squamish/ Gillespie (Senakw’) site by the Burrard Bridge, the newest proposal for Jericho(30 stories), the Broadway and Commercial Safeway/Gillespie site (28 storeys).
Previous City Conversations have addressed concerns about the many spot zonings throughout the city—there have been more than 380 introduced during the life of the current Council, of which 200 (so far) have been approved by Council, representing more than 50,000 new homes for about 116,000 new residents.
Together, just the approved spot rezonings represent a 16+ year supply of housing.
These numbers do not include: laneway homes (about 400 per year); duplexing (about 150 per year); and all of the gentle densification that takes place when, for example, a one storey strip of older small businesses is replaced with three storeys of residences atop ground level commercial in accordance with existing zoning.
I will add in later the potential development of the Squamish/Gillespie (Senakw’) and Jericho sites mentioned above by Mr. Harcourt—they have not been formally applied for, so might change significantly before formal applications are made. Back to Mr. Harcourt:
- I’m not supporting any group or candidate. But I’ve been asked for advice by 3-4 of the mayoralty candidates.
My litmus test is how they intend to strengthen communities (My emphasis). The communities we’ve worked hard at building- all 23 of them, that most Vancouverites identify with- Kits, the Westend, the Drive.
Starting in the 70’s with our local area plans, reinforced by commercial retail shopping villages on bus routes, community centres, local park and recreation, branch libraries, community schools, neighbourhood houses, seniors centres, boys and girls clubs, traffic calming measures, bike routes,
We’ve reinforced that smaller scale consciousness that makes a big city seem like a series of villages.
One of the many concerns about the Broadway Plan, coming to Council for approval in mid-May, and the Vancouver Plan, coming in mid-June, is their omission of most of what makes a community—parks; schools; seniors centres; neighbourhood houses; branch libraries; community centres, etc. Our population is projected to grow by more than one third to 2050—simple logic says we will need significantly more community amenities.
Except for schools, if these community amenities are mentioned at all, they are budget line items to be addressed at an undefined later time, without even identifying simple things like where’s the land for them? Schools are punted to the provincial government, which has not matched school demand in Vancouver for decades. So even the 116,000 new residents in homes already approved by this Council’s spot rezoning may have nowhere to go to school, borrow a library book, use a public gym, or take a walk in a park with their children or elders. Back to Mr. Harcourt:
The challenge now (aside from affordable housing and childcare, transit mobility, homelessness, mental health and addiction, climate change, reconciliation) is to bring in a Vancouver Plan based on the future we choose.
One that recognizes that a million more people are coming to Metro Vancouver over the next 20-30 years. BUT the 250,000 of them slated for Vancouver City can be accommodated within 23 livable, enjoyable communities.
We can do that with-
- gentle densification in the 70% of Vancouver that was RS-1, with duplexes/ lane cottages, row houses, townhouses, 3-4 story small apartments where appropriate,
- 4-8 story mixed use (retail/office/housing) apartments along the bus routes,
- 8-30 story developments along the rapid transit routes (Expo, Canada and Millennium Lines),
- scaled back development of the Squamish, Jericho developments,
- the 100,000-150,000 people coming west of Alma to the Jericho, UBC, Musqueam developments.
My earlier calculations already include baked-in spot rezonings to accommodate 116,000+ new residents. Let’s add in 30 years of laneways and duplexing and we are more than halfway to Mr. Harcourt’s estimate of 250,000 new Vancouver residents by 2050, which is in the same ballpark as Metro Vancouver’s and other projections.
So where do these additional 125,000+ residents get to live? City staff will say the Broadway Plan only accommodates 50,000 residents, so even with Jericho and Senakw’, we are barely halfway to what we need, they will say—clearly, we will need yet more upzoning!
Except the staff’s Broadway Plan numbers are not even close. As my recent analysis of the Broadway Plan area around the proposed spot rezoning at 1477 West Broadway indicates, the Broadway Plan is NOT a plan for 30,000 homes and 50,000 people. Extrapolated to the entire Broadway Plan corridor, it’s a plan for up to 115,000 homes—enough for 253,000 residents, which is Vancouver’s entire projected population growth to 2050.
The numbers are getting confusing, so let’s recap, remembering these numbers are conservative minimums (means I’ve inevitably missed some projects—I just found two more this afternoon, buried in city project web sites):
Approved spot rezonings: 55,000 residents
In process spot rezonings: 61,000 residents
Laneways and duplexing: 35,000 new residents to 2050
Jericho and Senakw’: 27,000 residents (minimum)
Broadway Plan: 253,000 residents
Subtotal: 431,000 new residents proposed by Planning Department initiatives as compared to at most 250,000 TOTAL new residents projected to 2050
Vancouver Plan additional homes in multiple town centres, rapid transit areas, neighbourhood centres, villages and multiplex areas: not counted
Incremental development under existing zones such as C-2: not counted, perhaps contemplated in the Vancouver Plan?
I hate focusing on numbers, but they help make it clear what city government has become focused on rather than what really makes a city—community, or rather our community of communities. The projected 250,000 new residents by 2050 will thank nobody for insufficient schools, parks, community centres and the loss of the rich tapestry of places and experiences that has characterized our neighbourhoods. These did not just happen. They were conceived and nurtured by caring politicians and planners who listened to, met and worked with the citizens who make up and have built the fabric of Vancouver. Together, we created that strength of neighbourhood character and if we forget that or fail to fight for it, we and our future neighbours will all be the poorer for it.
To finish with Mr. Harcourt’s final words:
However, that sense of Vancouver being a community of communities is the touchstone.
Mike H
Calls to Action
There are clear alternative choices for the future of Vancouver. The sleight-of-hand city numbers are frightening. But there is always hope when citizens step forward to express their concerns, such as they are doing for the proposed spot upcoming at 1477 West Broadway, which you can still sign up to speak about until Wednesday, April 19th until 5pm.
Vancouver’s civic election is in late October of this year. Lots of damage can be done by the current Council, city management and staff before that date—and it will continue, and worsen, unless TEAM for a Livable Vancouver elects a majority (6 of 10) City Councillors—less than 6 and not much will change. If you are concerned that what you’ve just read is an example of what’s wrong with our city, and want to bring back its livability, join TEAM and work with us to restore Vancouver as a place we can all afford to call home.
Today’s question: Do you share Mike Harcourt’s concerns about what’s been happening at Vancouver’s City Hall? Explain (just like your Grade 10 teacher would ask):
I read and respond to all comments made below. If you enjoyed this post, consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
Brian Palmquist is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired for the moment, still teaching and writing, so not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 40+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” He is also a member of TEAM for a livable Vancouver, a new political party dedicated to restoring a livable Vancouver starting with the 2022 civic election. City Conversations are generally congruent with TEAM policy, so if you like the ideas that I’m writing about, please consider joining TEAM.
In general, I agree with Mr. Harcourt's concerns and yours, Mr. Palmquist. I want to add a few of my own. First, accessibility is rarely mentioned and nearly all high-rises in Vancouver are stratas. Many of them are dangerously inaccessible or come with risks of entrapment for the vulnerable and the disabled. For instance, at our building the strata council, in its wisdom stopped issuing and re-issuing keys for the doors from the stairwell to the floors we live on. This is a problem for people who simply want to use the stairs for exercise, and to know that there are two routes to reach their home but the bigger concern is that these doors self-lock when they close. They close automatically as required by the fire code however the fire code does not require that they lock and locking them creates a significant hazard. The fire department can only enforce the fire code and it contains no terms, nor does it intend to address other potential hazards such as earthquakes, insurrection, building sink holes, sliding etc. The fire department may have 1000s of calls for a single event such as an earthquake and they may not be able to reach your building before many die. The strata council legally seems to have no jurisdiction to impose restrictions on access to one's privately owned strata lot but that doesn't prevent them from imposing their own rules.
It is a complete myth that stratas are fun democratically. They are, for the most part, feudal strongholds to be blunt and in fact the legislation designed in Mr. Harcourt's time, does not even allow for owners of these $million+ homes to dissent safely. There is no official opposition, nor any unofficial opposition and recent (past 4 or 5 years) case law has verified that an individual owner cannot hold to account the strata council member(s) who are making decisions such as to simply withhold the issue or re-issue of keys that would allow for access to one's floor. There is no rule or bylaw and any such rule or bylaw to prohibit access would be unenforceable as it would conflict with other laws such as property laws, human rights legislation and the residential tenancy act which requires that landlords give renters access to their homes via all routes, which is why realtors must make sure at the time of possession that a new owner has all keys to all locked doors. It should go without saying, right? Wrong! In most stratas there is little or no consumer protection and little or no safety from many types of abuse such as elder abuse, equity theft, etc. etc. These are communities within communities but they often do not provide for any type of actual, real community. They are hives at best.
To be clear we can get out of the building in a fire assuming the stairwells are not blocked by gas, fumes, fire, flames etc. The problem is that there is a cross-over floor every 5 floors but one cannot reach the cross-over floor if the stairwell is blocked say 2 floors down from your own floor. Worse, you cannot go back up and get back onto your floor and then try the other stairwell.... this is because the door closes, and LOCKS behind you as you enter the stairwell. So, your are trapped. The elevators shut down automatically in a fire or other disaster and in any case, some people do not want to use elevators at all. In no instance, would city hall tell the owner of a single family dwelling that they cannot use their back door, must lock it and give them the key. But the equivalent of that is happening in many stratas.
Worse, stratas are left to their own devices, and the assumption is you can just run for council and solve the problems once you are on council. But again, that is often impossible, because unlike city elections, strata elections are NOT DEMOCRATIC and even getting a secret ballot is next to impossible but more significantly anyone can gather as many proxies as they want from other owners because the legislation has done nothing to protect consumers from this horrific reality. Not anyone can vote in a municipal elections, but how the majority of owners (strata dwellers) in this city live, is often controlled by a very few people who self elect. You may say, well the proxy assignment documents are certified, right? Wrong... they just say there are but the legislation does not require these documents to be certified against any criteria nor does it specify who is to certify the document nor when. So, in some stratas the owners are governed by someone who has collected proxy assignment documents from anyone they can get them from. If it is a standing council member who is farming the assignments, they simply promise special assistance to those who hand across their proxy, then the councillor essentially self-elects or has their partner rotate through the council for them. It is tyranny in full bloom. The strata property act has no provisions to protect owners against fraud or corruption. Owners who seek to communicate with other owners are seen to be "out of line" and the council will use its powers to fully oppress them. In the first place most floors are secured one from the other and so it is not possible to connect easily with your neighbours other than the 3 or 4 who live on the same floor as you.
My point is that the sub-communities within these more and more massive stratas are alien to the main community, they are separate and apart by definition. Even the police will not assist often and just say "that is a strata issue" .... same with nearly all services. These private corporate communities are the norm and they are highly oppressive and certainly not viable on a long term basis. Costs to insure these buildings are skyrocketing first and foremost because government has done nothing to require that building codes are changed to prevent flooding (the main risk). So instead of requiring developers to water proof floors more effectively and give them a tiny slope and include a drain hole (in all wet rooms such as kitchens, laundry rooms and bathrooms, the legislature favours the developers as always and doesn't want to upset them, so practical, preventive measures that would save billions of dollars annually, simply do not happen. Instead of only one unit being affected in a small way, as all the water goes promptly down the drain, what we have is the regular occurrence of 10 or 20 units suffering massive destruction and people are out of home sometimes for up to 2 years. This is unsustainable but government does nothing! They have known what to do for more than 20 years and yet there is no change! The reason is simple, they don't want to disturb the developers in any way, as they proceed on their path toward covering every square inch of our city with mega high-rises run by an often corrupt few and/or by the PM companies who are often owned by the developer under a different name. Meanwhile, Ontario is taking significant steps forward to address their similar situation, but BC as always does little or nothing and changes that do happen, to the legislation (or as are slipped in via the BC Strata Property Regulations) are to the benefit, not of those who own and live in the buildings but to the advantage of property management companies and developers. Please don't tell me about the BC Law Institute's proposed changes... they fit the bill as described above and in the first place those reports are old, dusty, and never recommended much of anything in the first place.
This may be different than the community issue to which you have given rise, but the point is that the sub-communities within the 23 larger communities exact more controls on our lives than the municipality or the provincial government and even the BCCA has stated that strata is not government nor does it provide government like activities, so owners are not even protected by the constitution. Ask Mr. Tim Louis about this and get him to make comment!
Strata legislation has designed out of community, any version of community as we knew it when living in single family housing. It does not allow for many groups. If a young woman gets pregnant while living in a strata that has decided by vote (using these proxies as above) in age restrictions and suddenly kids are not allowed, she and husband are forced to move, not just out of the home they own but out of the community they live and likely work in.
So, for all of the above reasons, I say before building more of these bee hives, limit the number of units in a big way, and make major changes to the legislation to protect human rights, civil liberties and to allow for communities to exist at all. Plus, the impact of high-rises on the climate and on climate change is WAY BEHIND. They are hugely wasteful.
Congratulations on an a thorough analysis of the situation. The numbers certainly speak loud and clear: there is just way too much proposed density. Which leads to a question: when does density become too much? When does increased density destroy the character of a city?
It seems to me that the wonderful character of this City has come about due to the BALANCE between density, and public open space and amenities. Vancouver is recognized worldwide as an incredibly livable city, for this reason. So, the question arises: at what point do the current citizens of Vancouver protest the proposed massive increase to population? I suggest that the answer is: when our existing public space is being sacrificed in favour of a commercial property development. An example of this state of affairs is the Senakw project, being developed by a joint venture of the the Squamish Nation and WestBank.
I noticed in mid 2021 that an access road through Vanier Park was part of the Senakw project, and have since tried to bring this to the attention of the City Councillors, Park Board, local MP Dr. Hedy Fry, as well as the Minister of Public Works - all to no avail. An article was however published in the Vancouver Sun on 23rd August 2021 by John Mackie regarding this proposed road. In addition, I have distributed protest signs in Kits Point, which has generated a following of 250 protesters. I also host a website nosenakwroadway.com that highlights in detail the proposed roadway.
I conclusion I do hope that by shedding more light on the Senakw project, the issue of excessive density will become a major issue in the upcoming Mayoral election.