Embrace, Enhance, Evolve Part 1
CC #158—An alternative approach to planning our home
“Sun setting on the future”—Photo by Brian Palmquist
This is the first of several thought pieces about how we might proceed with the evolution of our cities.
“Not ready yet!” Dr. Ann McAfee shushed my comment whispered to her, which was: “We’ve preserved the future option for granny flats[2] in rear yards!” It was 1986 and Vancouver City Council had just approved our recommendations[3] addressing “monster houses[4],” including the requirement for a minimum rear yard separation space between garages and main homes. This came about because many monster houses and Vancouver Specials had eliminated rear yards in favour of garages attached to the main home, resulting in increased shadowing and overlook of neighbouring properties—basically, the loss of the quiet enjoyment of one’s home, whether owned or rented[5]. By mandating a separation space between the main home and a garage on the lane some 20 years before Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) were proposed in Vancouver, we had preserved the future option of additional laneway dwellings in the rear yards of small city lots.
Fast forward a generation to the first Vancouver EcoDensity[6] forum in 2008. In those days the city’s staff and politicians still held meetings where they listened to the public. I was ready that first evening when comments were invited from the audience—ready with a site plan (my own property) and floor plan showing how a single storey one bedroom ADU, including an off-street parking space, could be comfortably accommodated in the approved garage massing of a 10m (33 foot) wide standard city lot[7]—not rocket science, you say, but it caught the fancy of the audience. The politicians in attendance noted that and instructed planning staff to get behind the initiative.
There were many ideas put forward that evening, but the Vancouver audience seemed ready for ADUs, some 10-20 years before they were adopted in many other North American cities. Never mind that the high planning, building and engineering fees as well as usurious hookup fees for electricity or gas, the lengthy approval periods attached to them by city staff, and my middle age all caused me to give up the idea of paying for an ADU by remortgaging my own home. Despite those impediments, which have only modestly diminished over time, there are now about 400 ADUs built each year in Vancouver, which would accommodate more than 10% of the city’s historic annual population growth[8]. California builds about 4,000 ADUs per year, some 18% of new homes constructed.[9]
Positive tales in negative times
Why are ADUs so popular despite their high costs? I believe it’s because they are a simple idea that clearly represents gentle densification, which has many meanings but I take to be population increases that are fairly easily absorbed into existing neighbourhoods, with acceptable impacts on infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.) and community amenities (schools, parks, etc.).
In the almost 40 years since setting the stage for ADUs, the development landscape of my city has changed dramatically, as have the landscapes of most cities. Many of my neighbours think Vancouver is unique in suffering from lack of affordability, loss of open space and tree canopy, ossification of schools, community and healthcare facilities—but they would be wrong. When I read any development news originating around the English-speaking world, including elsewhere in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, I see the same patterns, the same phrases, the same issues.[10] The words and numbers are depressing, the suggested solutions generally anemic—everywhere there is hopelessness leavened with anger. I have penned many angry words myself, in my City Conversations[11] blog begun in March of 2021. For me that anger crested with the October 2022 Vancouver municipal election, at which an extremely pro-development regime was elected to a four-year mandate. Sadly, their performance to date has been as predicted.
In the face of four years of disastrous development, which will not address the issues of affordability, unequal opportunity and community amenities, I have elected to embrace the positive. I believe we need positive recommendations going forward, applicable generally rather than to interest groups.
My City Conversations blog has achieved modest success, I am told, because it makes sometimes complex urban planning and design conversations accessible to a wider audience. I hope this series of essays may achieve the same.
To arrive at straightforward, simpler observations about and solutions to urban design issues, I have forced myself to ingest many complex works—these are listed in the footnotes as they are integrated with these words. They are essential to me developing enough of an understanding that I can dare to distill their contents into ideas that can resonate, can inform and can assist in moving forward.
Wrapping the Complex in the Simple
In the course of writing more than 150 City Conversations to date, I have landed on many issues, many challenges, many possible solutions. The rapid pace of my city’s development has sometimes resulted in a blizzard of posts—my record is six in a 10-day period, often followed by a rest and recharge period. There is now a dedicated cadre of writers about the current challenges of Vancouver, largely curated by CityHallWatch (CHW), which I commend to you for insightful and rapid response to issues. These essays will not focus on those skirmishes because others do that better.
Considering the range of my posts and their subjects, I have identified just three underlying themes that between them capture my urban design philosophy:
Embrace
“Everyone hugs here!” Exclaimed my 20-year-old son. We had just arrived in Peru, the country of his birth. He has always been a hugger, has even made one of me. But in 2008 at the age of 20 his hugging was still an outlier action in Vancouver. He was pleased to identify where his love of an embrace might have originated—it was certainly pleasing to find an origin story or circumstance for what had always been natural for him.
Embrace in urban design is a concept with a long history around the world. It tells us to work with the past history of the places that we have been bequeathed, and that where we do this, we will move in directions that work for all. This has particular importance in places with indigenous origin stories that need integration with the settler past.[12]
Embrace also tells us to hold close our present reality while understanding the impatience of those for whom history is not by itself working.
Finally, embracing our future revolves around making conscious decisions about beneficial futures for all.
In summary, we must embrace the past, the present and the future whenever we are considering urban design solutions for our communities.
Enhance
“We have to relearn how to improve our cities and towns bit by bit, so we can get back to processes that worked so well a generation or two ago.” My friend Len was commiserating with me about all the planning and urban design lessons of the 60s and 70s that seem to have been forgotten by today’s planners and designers—or perhaps they were never taught.
Enhancement was foundational to generations of urban designers. For each major planning breakthrough such as False Creek South and Granville Island in Vancouver, there were literally hundreds of local scale opportunities arising with each new building—improving the streetscape[13], inserting amenities[14], completing a neighbourhood edge[15], etc.
Enhancement requires community consultation: ‘One of Jane Jacobs’s bottom-line principles is that local people know best what is appropriate for their Neighbourhood.”[16]
Evolve
“We have no issue with increasing density along with population—cities must evolve!” say many folks at the neighbourhood meetings I attend. In the run-up to the 2022 Vancouver civic election, I participated in Zoom (due to COVID) meetings with representatives of about half of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods[17]. At every one, we asked the question, “Can your neighbourhood accommodate X hundred new homes per year?” When proposed as a more modest neighbourhood-based number rather than “The city needs 83,000 new homes![18]” the response was always positive and supportive.
The successful evolution of a city requires that its nature be embraced and its neighbourhoods be enhanced as a natural byproduct of development. That is not what we are doing in my city and many others. These essays are intended to contribute possible solutions to that City Conversation. Thanks for reading.
This post is about 1900 words, much more than the 3-5 minutes citizens are allowed when they speak to the current City Council, in their efforts to suppress democracy. If you appreciated it, share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
Brian Palmquist writes on the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. City Conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-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 and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” A glutton for punishment, he recently started writing a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places where we love to live. Some of its content may appear above.
[1] not used.
[2] Modest backyard dwellings are now generally referred to as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or laneway homes in Vancouver.
[3] I was working for Architect Richard Hulbert on this assignment, which we completed shortly before Expo 86 and the Concord Pacific development that followed on the Expo lands on the north shores of False Creek, for which Rick was the lead Architect and I the Managing Architect.
[4] Monster houses, a.k.a. McMansions, etc., is a catch all phrase that captures single family homes that are significantly larger or otherwise excessive as compared to older homes in a neighbourhood.
[5] Quiet enjoyment of one’s property/home is a concept embedded in the law of many countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. It generally encompasses peace, quiet and privacy.
[6] The EcoDensity Initiative was officially launched in 2006 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The initiative was a response to deconcentration of urban land use due to urban sprawl. The initiative used density, design and land use as catalysts towards livability, affordability and environmental sustainability.
[7] About 70% by number of the lots in Vancouver are 10m wide. A few are narrower and a some are wider, 15m or 20m wide. The standard lot depth (there are variations) is about 37m (122 feet) deep, generally with a 6m (20 feet) lane at the back.
[8] Until the vast immigration and student visa deluge of the past nine years, Vancouver city’s historic growth rate has been about 1%. 400 ADUs @2.2 persons per home (the conservative average used by all levels of government and bureaucracy), or about 900 people. This divided by 7,000 (1%) results in close to 12% attributable to ADUs, so my 10% is on the low side.
[9] Before policy changes in California were introduced in 2016, ADUs were 1% of the new construction volume.
[10] To test this out, try reading just the headlines and story précis of the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald or The Guardian.
[11] https://brianpalmquist.substack.com/archive?sort=new
[12] “Integration” as used here does not mean historical focuses on assimilation and cultural destruction, rather mutual understanding leading to complementary progress.
[13] In addition to zoning requirements, it was the practice of Vancouver’s urban design staff prior to about 2010 to walk the neighbourhood of many new development proposals to identify what urban design elements would optimize the immediate neighbourhood. Their observations were often implemented through discretionary zoning, wherein proponents might achieve modest increases in building area or height in exchange for specific amenities identified in these walkabouts.
[14] One of Vancouver’s earliest and very successful amenity supports was to modestly bonus buildings that provided permanently low cost commercial space for arts and other uses.
[15] See Lynch, Kevin, The Image of the City, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts, 1960.
[16] Gratz, Roberta Brandes, “Jane Jacob’s Would Reject NYC’s Proposed “City of Yes””, Common Edge 240722.
[17] Hosted by then-Councillor Colleen Hardwick
[18] 2024-2033 Housing Vancouver 10-Year Housing Targets, Page 7
You should be Mayor!
Thanks for reading, Rod