Brian: just reading Arthur Miller’s The Crucible again, first time since high school and it reminded me that I needed to comment here. I suspect my mind linking the two speaks volumes, does it not? The attacks on free speech, “professional” & not, are patently absurd & growing with alarming regularity. How do people think tearing down Enlightenment values will end? I’ve learned from your work, Brian. Call me a fan. :)
I blame David Rubenstein. His excellent interview of Stacy Schiff & her comments on the Salem witch trials seem deliberately prophetic given current trends.
I think it's invaluable to have professionals like Brian commenting on their areas of expertise as it pertains to public affairs and current events. I also don't believe that blog posts should be subject to the same standards of scrutiny (as CupOfSoup argues in this thread) as professional paid work. As a (former) academic historian, I have seen the majority of my colleges - myself included - sit passively on the sidelines of crucial public conversations in recent years, unwilling to contribute our perspectives from years and often decades of reading and research, for fear of professional backlash and loss of opportunities. Another reason we often fail to intervene is because there is simply not enough time to both complete our professional obligations AND write in public forums with the same rigor and exactitude that the profession (traditionally) demands. In the meanwhile those who do dominate the public discourse certainly don't apply those professional standards to themselves. This is a loss for everyone. People who have studied for years and decades in certain areas need venues to respond quickly and nimbly to public affairs without having their livelihoods threatened, especially when their opinions and conclusions are not represented in the mainstream. It would be a tremendous loss for Vancouverites to lose Brian's blog posts. Unfortunately, across professional domains - in teaching, medicine, psychology - we have seen a chilling silencing of substantive debate over the last decade, with dissenting opinions cast as somehow imminently harmful or beyond the realm of acceptable discourse. It could be useful for Brian to look at some of these other domains and learn from the array of choices that other brave professionals have made to get through the storms.
Let me first say that I do not agree with lodging complaints against folks' employment due to political disagreements, which I feel this falls under.
That being said, I think you've pretty much invited this complaint.
AIBC's Code of Ethics states:
"Registrants must undertake work and documentation with due diligence and in accordance with any AIBC guidance developed to standardize professional documentation. "
I think it would be reasonable to consider the renders that you took co-responsibility for them in your post #49 as architectural work. The fact that you reference your credentials as an architect in that post reinforces that point. Similar considerations would apply to your other posts where they touch on the field of architecture.
So then the question becomes one of due diligence.
I have seen many posts (including from Architects such as Marianne Amodio) questioning whether your renderings and posts ignored issues like setbacks and FSR limits, resulting in false and misleading information being produced and published for public consumption. It is difficult to independently verify their accuracy without you providing dimensions, but if these concerns are well founded then I think it would be reasonable to say your work on the rendering lacked due diligence, and at the least you should have re-checked the renderings and issued a correction if they were not completely accurate.
Did your renderings reflect 20 storey buildings with a 6,000 sf floorplate on 20,000 sf lots (as your post #51 describes)?
I will respond to just a couple of your points: our modelling involved creating at least 1,000 high-rise buildings because the city’s work did not include them, so they are simple rectangles that are nonetheless acccurate as to floor plate size-they are actually about 10% shorter than the final plan would permit.
Much has been made of their lack of podiums at their bases-see note above about 1,000+ buildings. Having said that, the first two high-rises proposed after the plan was approved, and which they say meet the plan, are straight up boxes with no podiums. Not my design, just what others have proposed.
Marianne is an excellent architect and I am sure she would create well articulated designs under the Broadway Plan. If I took the time she does with each of her designs to model 1,000+ buildings, well, I would be less than halfway through. But clearly others think differently than Marianne. I stand by my massing models as illustrative of what can happen in the Plan’s 485 blocks.
Others made comment which conveyed that they didn't understand that there are rules in play that Architects must follow, I intended only to give reference for people to find said.
Gotcha and thanks for the clarification, Ian. Perhaps the slow speed at which this is being considered relates to deliberation about the policy you enunciated. Thanks.
Ian, a hint about what you mean by this? I've never a). named other architects, nor impugned their work or reputations; b). engaged in imprudent gossip or generalized comments. My posts are all based on rigorous research. I mapped out exactly what the Broadway Plan could mean for its 485 blocks, and so far what's been proposed has been pretty much exactly per my modeling. The fact that I comment on a blog rather than some other medium does not automatically make any of my writing suspect.
Further to the policy comments about social media, I have never been intemperate in my comments. Most of my posts are read and (re)edited a half dozen or more timed before they are posted, including #112.
Perhaps you'd care to expand on your comment. I am hoping you are simply pointing out how the Code of Ethics might be misinterpreted in my case.
While respecting the importance of professional ethics, this seems to be a clear case of someone taking your words/illustrations out of context. I wonder if the slowness of the Investigation is a reflection of the lack of substance to the complaint. Anyway, keep writing.
This is very sad. I cannot understand what is happening in Vancouver.
Using a professional association to get back at a writer and semi-retired planner seems use of excessive force. Shameful in fact, but somehow normal in this environment.
I can help you understand this, Laura. Let say, for example, an architect were to continuously use deeply misleading imagery to stoke opposition to a development. As an architect that person is lending their credibility to this misinformation. The Architecture Institute of British Columbia has fairly clear professional standards and tends to frown on people using the trappings of their accreditation to do unprofessional things like using deeply misleading imagery to sow opposition to a development. Sullies the profession and takes some of the shine of all members of the AIBC. It’s actually pretty clear.
Except my imagery is not misleading, if that's what you are referring to. As I have said, proposals tabled since the Broadway Plan was adopted are consistent with what I modeled. In fact, in many instances proposals already exceed the height, etc. limits of the Broadway Plan. Also, as one simple example, the modeling was based on 2.7m floor to floor, whereas the BP now "supports" 3m f to f. So all of my modelled buildings are about 10% shorter than the BP supports (at the time I did the modelling this increase in f to f height had not yet been tabled by city staff). So I clearly disagree with "deeply misleading," would rather suggest "conservative." As I have said numerous times, "the model arises from what the BP words say—if you don't like the result, change the BP words."
Laura, I am also mystified at the vagueness of the complaint and the length of time for its consideration. But I am encouraged by the kind words of you and a surprising number of others. Cheers.
Can you get legal advice regarding this slow, mysterious investigation? You obviously hurt the complainant's feelings and now he wants to punish you. He could have just debated with you but instead chose this route.
I've never criticized a building design's architecture, etc., have limited myself to urban design and planning issues. Perhaps the outcome of this will establish the bounds of what architects can say in this city. I will keep you posted. Thanks
I have found your articles interesting and enlightening. If there are architects with other opinions, why don't they write rebuttals. I would be very interested to read why other professionals may disagree with you. Complaining to your professional body just seems childish.
I appreciate all the articles that have been written by you. Hopefully you will be able to resume writing them in the future. It seems that those with deep pockets waste no time in shutting down opposing voices. It seems greed by a select few have usurped our democracy a long time ago. Unfortunately the average Canadian pays little attention to politics and consistently votes for politicians they know if anything about.
Barbara, thanks for your words of support. It's not clear where this complaint arises from±perhaps it will become clearer as this moves along. Meantime, take care
Yes, I beg you, from the bottom of my heart: write no more, forever. No one values you or your silly opinions.
The deficit in your critical thinking skills is wider than your tooth gap, and you think far more of yourself than is proper.
I hope you've had your 6th booster.
I hope we never have to hear another word of nonsense from you about "shunning the unvaccinated" ever again.
He's already been proven an incompetent idiot. I don't think we need to worry!
Brian: just reading Arthur Miller’s The Crucible again, first time since high school and it reminded me that I needed to comment here. I suspect my mind linking the two speaks volumes, does it not? The attacks on free speech, “professional” & not, are patently absurd & growing with alarming regularity. How do people think tearing down Enlightenment values will end? I’ve learned from your work, Brian. Call me a fan. :)
Richard, thanks for your kind words, except now I will need to revisit the Crucible.
I blame David Rubenstein. His excellent interview of Stacy Schiff & her comments on the Salem witch trials seem deliberately prophetic given current trends.
I think it's invaluable to have professionals like Brian commenting on their areas of expertise as it pertains to public affairs and current events. I also don't believe that blog posts should be subject to the same standards of scrutiny (as CupOfSoup argues in this thread) as professional paid work. As a (former) academic historian, I have seen the majority of my colleges - myself included - sit passively on the sidelines of crucial public conversations in recent years, unwilling to contribute our perspectives from years and often decades of reading and research, for fear of professional backlash and loss of opportunities. Another reason we often fail to intervene is because there is simply not enough time to both complete our professional obligations AND write in public forums with the same rigor and exactitude that the profession (traditionally) demands. In the meanwhile those who do dominate the public discourse certainly don't apply those professional standards to themselves. This is a loss for everyone. People who have studied for years and decades in certain areas need venues to respond quickly and nimbly to public affairs without having their livelihoods threatened, especially when their opinions and conclusions are not represented in the mainstream. It would be a tremendous loss for Vancouverites to lose Brian's blog posts. Unfortunately, across professional domains - in teaching, medicine, psychology - we have seen a chilling silencing of substantive debate over the last decade, with dissenting opinions cast as somehow imminently harmful or beyond the realm of acceptable discourse. It could be useful for Brian to look at some of these other domains and learn from the array of choices that other brave professionals have made to get through the storms.
Jennifer, thanks for your thoughtful analysis and your suggestions
I think you gentlemen should take your debate offline. It does not appear to relate to my original post. Thanks
Is this meant to be a reply to me and DM? If so fair enough!
Let me first say that I do not agree with lodging complaints against folks' employment due to political disagreements, which I feel this falls under.
That being said, I think you've pretty much invited this complaint.
AIBC's Code of Ethics states:
"Registrants must undertake work and documentation with due diligence and in accordance with any AIBC guidance developed to standardize professional documentation. "
I think it would be reasonable to consider the renders that you took co-responsibility for them in your post #49 as architectural work. The fact that you reference your credentials as an architect in that post reinforces that point. Similar considerations would apply to your other posts where they touch on the field of architecture.
So then the question becomes one of due diligence.
I have seen many posts (including from Architects such as Marianne Amodio) questioning whether your renderings and posts ignored issues like setbacks and FSR limits, resulting in false and misleading information being produced and published for public consumption. It is difficult to independently verify their accuracy without you providing dimensions, but if these concerns are well founded then I think it would be reasonable to say your work on the rendering lacked due diligence, and at the least you should have re-checked the renderings and issued a correction if they were not completely accurate.
Did your renderings reflect 20 storey buildings with a 6,000 sf floorplate on 20,000 sf lots (as your post #51 describes)?
I will respond to just a couple of your points: our modelling involved creating at least 1,000 high-rise buildings because the city’s work did not include them, so they are simple rectangles that are nonetheless acccurate as to floor plate size-they are actually about 10% shorter than the final plan would permit.
Much has been made of their lack of podiums at their bases-see note above about 1,000+ buildings. Having said that, the first two high-rises proposed after the plan was approved, and which they say meet the plan, are straight up boxes with no podiums. Not my design, just what others have proposed.
Marianne is an excellent architect and I am sure she would create well articulated designs under the Broadway Plan. If I took the time she does with each of her designs to model 1,000+ buildings, well, I would be less than halfway through. But clearly others think differently than Marianne. I stand by my massing models as illustrative of what can happen in the Plan’s 485 blocks.
Thanks for your thoughtful observations.
Thanks for the reply Brian. I noticed you didn't mention the FSR limits and setbacks. Can you confirm those were properly considered?
Others made comment which conveyed that they didn't understand that there are rules in play that Architects must follow, I intended only to give reference for people to find said.
Gotcha and thanks for the clarification, Ian. Perhaps the slow speed at which this is being considered relates to deliberation about the policy you enunciated. Thanks.
https://aibc.ca/wp-content/uploads/files/2023/06/Schedule-A-Code-of-Ethics-and-Professional-Conduct.pdf "Registrants should avoid imprudent gossip or generalized comments about other Registrants, their work or reputation, or type of project. The proliferation of digital and social media
facilitates immediate and influential commentary. Registrants are reminded that the
convenience, reach, and power of such platforms must be balanced by the expectations set by
this and other relevant standards."
Ian, a hint about what you mean by this? I've never a). named other architects, nor impugned their work or reputations; b). engaged in imprudent gossip or generalized comments. My posts are all based on rigorous research. I mapped out exactly what the Broadway Plan could mean for its 485 blocks, and so far what's been proposed has been pretty much exactly per my modeling. The fact that I comment on a blog rather than some other medium does not automatically make any of my writing suspect.
Further to the policy comments about social media, I have never been intemperate in my comments. Most of my posts are read and (re)edited a half dozen or more timed before they are posted, including #112.
Perhaps you'd care to expand on your comment. I am hoping you are simply pointing out how the Code of Ethics might be misinterpreted in my case.
Thanks for raising this.
It seems to just be a way to stop your professional views being disseminated. Keep us up to date on this dreadful attempt to silence you.
Thanks for your words of support. Hopefully all will be revealed soon. Meantime, take care!
This is a bloody SLAPP suit. I hope your professional organization recognizes this complaint for what it is. Good grief.
In the words of Francis Urquhart in "To Play the King," ...""you might well think that but I couldn't possibly comment"
While respecting the importance of professional ethics, this seems to be a clear case of someone taking your words/illustrations out of context. I wonder if the slowness of the Investigation is a reflection of the lack of substance to the complaint. Anyway, keep writing.
Thanks for your words of support. I am continuing to write, but for the moment about how we might better plan the cities we love. Take care.
This is very sad. I cannot understand what is happening in Vancouver.
Using a professional association to get back at a writer and semi-retired planner seems use of excessive force. Shameful in fact, but somehow normal in this environment.
I can help you understand this, Laura. Let say, for example, an architect were to continuously use deeply misleading imagery to stoke opposition to a development. As an architect that person is lending their credibility to this misinformation. The Architecture Institute of British Columbia has fairly clear professional standards and tends to frown on people using the trappings of their accreditation to do unprofessional things like using deeply misleading imagery to sow opposition to a development. Sullies the profession and takes some of the shine of all members of the AIBC. It’s actually pretty clear.
Except my imagery is not misleading, if that's what you are referring to. As I have said, proposals tabled since the Broadway Plan was adopted are consistent with what I modeled. In fact, in many instances proposals already exceed the height, etc. limits of the Broadway Plan. Also, as one simple example, the modeling was based on 2.7m floor to floor, whereas the BP now "supports" 3m f to f. So all of my modelled buildings are about 10% shorter than the BP supports (at the time I did the modelling this increase in f to f height had not yet been tabled by city staff). So I clearly disagree with "deeply misleading," would rather suggest "conservative." As I have said numerous times, "the model arises from what the BP words say—if you don't like the result, change the BP words."
Thanks for your comments.
Did you not constantly promote images like including these?
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/05/10/BroadwayPlanVisualization1.jpg
Until you got called out and then they were suddenly just "place holders"?
Here: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-flap-over-highrise-renderings-leads-broadway-plan-debate-in-vancouver
Do you really expect anyone to believe that?
Laura, I am also mystified at the vagueness of the complaint and the length of time for its consideration. But I am encouraged by the kind words of you and a surprising number of others. Cheers.
Can you get legal advice regarding this slow, mysterious investigation? You obviously hurt the complainant's feelings and now he wants to punish you. He could have just debated with you but instead chose this route.
Fight the good fight!
Thanks, Steve.
My God. What rubbish. So if an architect is involved (100% of projects) you can't critique the project??
I've never criticized a building design's architecture, etc., have limited myself to urban design and planning issues. Perhaps the outcome of this will establish the bounds of what architects can say in this city. I will keep you posted. Thanks
I have found your articles interesting and enlightening. If there are architects with other opinions, why don't they write rebuttals. I would be very interested to read why other professionals may disagree with you. Complaining to your professional body just seems childish.
Jan, thanks for your kind words. I will keep you and others posted as this progresses. Cheers
Brian,
I appreciate all the articles that have been written by you. Hopefully you will be able to resume writing them in the future. It seems that those with deep pockets waste no time in shutting down opposing voices. It seems greed by a select few have usurped our democracy a long time ago. Unfortunately the average Canadian pays little attention to politics and consistently votes for politicians they know if anything about.
Barbara, thanks for your words of support. It's not clear where this complaint arises from±perhaps it will become clearer as this moves along. Meantime, take care