Question: When is a Deal not a Deal?
City Conversation #82: Answer: When the City of Vancouver folds with a full house
September 22nd 2022—a mayoral candidate forum in False Creek highlights another city staff sleight of hand—and not a good one.
Excerpt from the False Creek North Official Development Plan showing the original “Park with parcel 6A or 6C whichever proceeds last”…but the boundaries are pretty clear
“If I’d known this would be the end result of all our work in the late 80s, I’d have paid more attention at the time!” I was comparing the park at the northeast end of False Creek as shown in the False Creek North Official Development Plan (FCNODP) to modifications proposed by the city in 2017, almost 30 years later. I was the Managing Architect for the original ODP.
“Well,” commented my son, “I wasn’t even born when you started work on the ODP, so pardon my questions.” He smiled—he never really pardons himself before tackling my thoughts.
“How did the whichever proceeds last wording get into the comment about the park adjacent Parcel 6C? Seems pretty lame. And what’s changed?” he asked.
“I honestly don’t remember the exact reasoning around whichever proceeds last but I’m guessing it’s because that whole end of Pacific Place was a big question mark. Rogers Arena wasn’t even a gleam in anyone’s eye, the proposed occupancy of the former Expo 86 BC Pavilion site (6b) was unknown, but probably office. And, of course, there was unremediated soils contamination there from former industrial activities.”
The 2017 city proposal squeezes the park’s waterfront footprint back against the heavy traffic roads to make room for more private development. Meanwhile the Carrall Street realignment messes up the heavily used Andy Livingstone Park so that the Carrall Street realignment looks like good urban design rather than a waterfront land grab…just sayin’
I continued. “I guess I should have been more suspicious of that wording at the time. Thinking about now, 30+ years later, and a current example, the much-delayed community centre in the River District, the development industry’s modus operandi now appears to be to delay public amenities until the very end of projects, and in the case of the River District to then demand more density in exchange for what they’ve previously agreed to provide.”
He interrupted. “Dad, this is Northeast False Creek, not the River District—stay focused!”
“Actually,” I replied, smiling at his impertinence, “I am staying focused. The original North False Creek ODP proposed 42.4 acres of park space as an appropriate ratio for 11,511 homes. Since some of that housing has not yet been built in Neighbourhood 6C, there’s no park there—just a Concord Pacific presentation centre and a large parking lot that they lease out to events like Cirque de Soleil—not a bad return on a piece of land BC Assessment values at $1 and for which Concord Pacific pays no property taxes!”
“And let’s also notice that what’s now called Future Neighbourhood 6C as well as the BC pavilion site (6B) were planned to be office space. So when we add the housing now planned for 6B and 6C to the city-owned blocks, which are also planned as residential—where’s the additional park space for the extra thousands of homes? I don’t see any.”
I continued. “It’s still unclear when the construction that will trigger the park requirement will occur. Personally, if I knew I had an obligation to build a park only when I had started (?) or completed (?) a housing neighbourhood, I’d leave that one to the last!” He nodded at the same time as scowling.
“Another interesting thing about the 174 page Northeast False Creek Plan—by the way the original ODP for all of the north shore of False Creek was all of 37 pages, of which half was planning diagrams—I can’t find a summary of development proposed anywhere in that 174 pages.” He gave me his continue look so I did.
“There are lots of photos and aerial artist’s renderings of development, but I guess actual numbers will be a function of the spot rezonings brought forward by the property owners—including the City on its City-owned blocks.”
“What’s most worrisome to me,” I concluded, “is this wording tucked away at the very end of the Plan: The Public Benefits Strategy will be delivered through rezoning applications within Northeast False Creek. The timing and delivery of public benefits in Northeast False Creek are dependent upon rezoning applications from landowners. (Page 169).”
He paused for a moment. “So nothing will happen until private development starts, and public benefits may not appear until the very end, which is what I gather has happened in the River District.”
“Looks that way,” I replied with a sigh. “Will the city never learn?”
The Time for Action will soon be too late
Please let me know what pre-election activities are happening in your neighbourhood—I will try to order my neighbourhood-based analyses to have maximum impact.
TEAM for a Livable Vancouver is the only political party pledged to set aside the Vancouver Plan and the related Broadway Plan and bring back neighbourhood-based planning. Vancouver’s civic election is October 15th of this year. Lots more damage can still be done to our city before that date—and it will continue, and worsen, unless TEAM elects the next Mayor and a majority (6 of 10) City Councillors—less than 6 and not much will change for the better. A majority TEAM Park Board (4 of 7) will ensure our open spaces are integrated with the city rather than ignoring or fighting it. And our voice on the School Board will bring schools into sync with parks, open spaces and neighbourhood development.
If you are concerned that the City Conversations you’ve been reading are examples of what’s wrong with our city and want to bring back Vancouver’s livability, join TEAM and work with us to restore Vancouver as a place we can all afford to call home.
And please let me know what other subjects you are passionate about so we can have that conversation before election day, October 15th.
Today’s question: Do you think the proposed park in the northeast corner of False Creek should be a). built now or when that area is completely developed; and b). reconfigured to provide more development waterfront or park waterfront? Why or why not?
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.
Reader Fern Jeffries responded to this Conversation, in part as follows: "...after years of Vision Vancouver and and this current crew, the park, promised to be located in the area from Carrall Street to Quebec Street, has been reduced by 3+ acres, and re-aligned so that there is less waterfront. In fact, much of the new design calls for the park to be located under the viaducts. That will be peaceful!" and "...There is a small community park there now -- the result of a negotiation between the FCRA and Concord. While at first I questioned a private park, now our reality is that -- it is the ONLY local space kept clean of needles and excrement. Yet another example of failed municipal government."
Reader Ralph Segal was working with the city as Senior Urban Planner at the time the discussions about reconfiguring the park were initiated. He says this in favour of viaduct removal, in part: "I immediately thought... we’re going to spend $50m to extend the life forever of this nasty testament to urban freeways luckily avoided in Vancouver, when removing it could dispense with all the urban design compromises we were having to make were it to be kept. This, to say nothing of the two full city-owned blocks freed up to the east, Quebec to Gore, Union to Prior, with all the added value and potential for the full range of needed housing (even then!) and knitting together of this easterly precinct (my version of how “Hogan’s Alley” might be reconstituted, right side of sketch). It was not easy convincing others, particularly Engineering, that a re-worked ground level street network could properly connect and accommodate the future traffic load. But finally, in 2015, I was happy to see Council formally endorse Viaduct Removal."
He was not so positive about the park realignment: "I was also disturbed to see shrinkage (no other word for it) of its size as the Plan evolved after I left the City. There is no doubt that Concord has done very well for itself in what has become the now approved Plan. Viaduct removal increases their useable site footprint and realignment of the western edge of the park increases site area available for high density development. I was impressed with the audacious re-aligning of Pacific Blvd. curving to the north which increases slightly Concord's developable site area but also provides a more contiguous open space relationship of the park with Andy Livingston Park. The detailed design of the park as it has evolved contains many high quality features including how it’s waterfront edge engages with pedestrians. Of course, such qualitative park design features would be expected in the design of the larger park footprint of the original ODP. So there can be a debate about quantity vs. quality."