In early 2020, Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick started meeting in person with citizens from each of the city’s fifty neighbourhoods, listening to what they think about where they live. Initially, the meetings used a “Livable City DNA Matrix” developed by urban designer Scot Hein to prompt discussion about what makes a successful neighbourhood—the matrix considers five factors for each of housing, mobility, economy, green space and community amenities. These were discussed in a meeting style where participants made Post It note comments on their neighbourhood’s map. COVID interrupted Councillor Hardwick’s in person one-neighbourhood-a-week effort, but the process recently recommenced using Zoom. This is a summary of the first half of Councillor Hardwick’s planned neighbourhood meetings, chronicling how residents feel about their city and what they feel needs to be considered before each of fifty neighbourhoods can welcome 500-1,000 new neighbours over the next decade to the places they call home.
Ranked Neighbourhood Concerns to Date
It was never going to be easy, but meaningful work never is. Meeting with representatives from each of Vancouver’s fifty neighbourhoods, one ‘hood a week, is a punishing schedule by itself; doing it while working as a full-time City Councillor is that much harder; doing it during a pandemic is nearly impossible.
The one-a-week schedule slipped due to COVID, but twenty-six of fifty neighbourhoods have been heard so far. And the process has continued, with an average of one neighbourhood meeting each week. It’s too early for a final report, but timely to report some findings.
Neighbourhoods that have met with Councillor Hardwick to date include, in alphabetical order: Cedar Cottage; Champlain Heights; Collingwood; Dunbar; Grandview-Woodland; Hastings-Sunrise; Kerrisdale; Kits Point; Marpole; Mount Pleasant; North False Creek; Oakridge; Oppenheimer; Riley Park; River District; Shaughnessy; Southeast False Creek; Southlands; Southwest False Creek; Strathcona; Upper Kitsilano; West End; West Kitsilano; West Point Grey; and Yaletown. At least half of these have pre-existing Area Plans or Community Vision documents that have been largely set aside in recent years—some of the neighbours who have attended these first twenty-six meetings took part in the processes that led to these largely-abandoned planning documents. More neighbourhood meetings are currently being planned.
We worried about being able to capture even a tiny part of what’s been said, so used a simple spreadsheet to capture neighbourhood concerns expressed in the detailed meeting minutes. We turned that into a listing and ranking of some thirty areas of concern identified by the neighbourhoods without prompts such as surveys or questionnaires—the resulting complexity reflects the wide range of neighbours’ concerns. To be clear, each neighbourhood might have ten residents concerned about density, or safety, for example, but the record shows that as one neighbourhood concern about one aspect of the city. As a result, the resulting list is long and messy—there are no blinders on the results.
Sadly, there were few if any positive comments about any of the subjects raised by neighbours.
Having now reviewed all of the detailed meeting notes to date, we have heard the community tone as it washes over us and are comfortable that the pie chart is representative of what’s been heard. People are deeply concerned—the listing of concerns does not begin to capture the passion, the upset, the anger of many of the citizens who took the trouble to participate in an environment where they feel they are not being heard and inappropriate development is occurring in that poor communications environment.
The participants are a true cross-section of each neighbourhood: homeowners, some individual, some representing stratas or neighbourhood associations; renters and some renter group representatives; business owners, tenants and business improvement associations; advocacy-group representatives such as for the homeless or those needing supportive services; a smattering of planning and design professionals such as myself; and even a few developers living or working in specific areas of the city.
At every meeting so far, attendees listen respectfully as Councillor Hardwick explains her approach: its origins in urban geography and planning; its respect for past neighbourhood planning processes; the importance of the attendees’ concerns and messages. At every meeting this somewhat academic introduction is followed by a deluge of commentary—respectful, patient with other attendees and their perspectives, but often with barely contained anger.
What are some takeaways so far?
· Housing and family issues such as affordability, renter protection, homelessness, future jobs and the need for seniors housing, schools, parks, childcare, etc., were identified as major concerns by a third of neighbourhoods so far;
· Almost one quarter of participants across twenty-six neighbourhoods decry the setting aside of existing neighbourhood plans and associated poor communications by city council and staff;
· One quarter of neighbourhoods are concerned about urban planning and development issues that staff and council are seen to be mishandling: densification; spot rezonings; the wrong form of development or inflexibility about what is allowed. If you add in neighbourhood plans being ignored, the concern level rises to almost one-third;
· Although business owners were a minority at each meeting, there is broad concern for the loss of neighbourhood businesses, a general recognition that these are essential for neighbourhood success and an understanding that commercial (over)taxation is a major villain;
· Several aspects of recent staff and council emphasis, such as car/ bike conflicts and climate change, are barely on the neighbourhoods’ radar. Attendees agreed they are vitally important but much less so than pressing concerns about communications, planning and housing issues. As more than one attendee said, “Climate change isn’t so important if you can’t make rent!”
To be clear, when we say that affordability issues were an expressed concern of one-third of neighbourhoods, that does not mean that two-thirds of neighbourhoods think affordability is not an issue—it simply means that amongst some thirty areas of concern raised by neighbourhoods, one-third of neighbourhoods specifically identified affordability as a local concern to their representatives who attended.
You may read other messages into our results so far, may disagree with what Councillor Hardwick has heard from more than half of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods so far. Please understand that this initiative started in large part because basic development and housing data requested by City Council more than a year ago, which might describe in more detail what city staff are thinking or planning on behalf of existing Vancouver residents, has so far been either withheld or released in heavily edited, unusable form. Government at every level is only as successful as it is transparent and inclusive—often difficult to achieve but always essential. To quote Winston Churchill, “Democracy is the worst form of government….except for all the rest!”
If you wish to participate in a future meeting with your neighbourhood, please express your interest via email to Councillor Hardwick’s part-time assistant, perdita@colleenhardwick.com. The effort involved in planning, conducting and reporting about these meetings is mostly voluntary, so please be patient—but persistent!
***
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, so not beholden to any client or city hall. His 40+ year Vancouver planning history ranges from first proposing the laneway housing concept to managing the community planning design team for the North Shore of False Creek. He is the author of the Amazon best seller “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” He lives in Vancouver.