Voting Against never ends well
CC #141 - Thoughts as we approach the end of the next beginning and why it's so important that we vote.
“Vote for hope!” The Green candidate for our riding almost shouted. Of course she meant vote for her and her party, but I feel there is a larger lesson beyond the rhetoric.
I had just attended my second all candidates meeting—actually the first where all the candidates were present, Premier Eby and the Green candidate having both missed the previous meeting sponsored by the residents association where I live, instead sending substitutes. This second meeting was managed as it should be, with a clear agenda of opening remarks by each candidate, collected questions for each and their closing remarks, all carefully and equally timed.
I did not learn much but thought I would share. Setting aside the few out and out lies, here is my summary. Note that the order of speakers revolved, so my notes also:
Bills 44, 46, 47 and 18—the bills mandating higher density near transit, in fact higher density everywhere, and putting an end to most public hearings: Greens: consult but you must have more density, including high-rise density1; Conservatives: More consultation needed with communities, but also much more density; NDP: Conservatives are against rent control.
Affordability—NDP: Larch Street was a choice between a few luxury condos and 19 affordable rental homes; Conservatives: “affordable” inconsistent with doubling of rents for tiny apartments; Greens: Vacancy control, land trusts2 and co-ops a better solution than REITs3 buying up everything.
UBCx = the extension of SkyTrain west from Vine/Broadway all the way out to UBC: Conservatives: no business case; negative for small business, renters and homeowners; Greens: in favour because much higher density needed for UBC’s future; NDP: in favour; 8th/Arbutus congregate housing is for disadvantaged seniors.4
Elected Park Board: Greens: in favour of elected Park Board, no sale of parks; NDP: loss of Showboat is what happens with current elected Park Board; need to consider indigenous “component”; Conservatives: protect urban green space. NDP support for Charter amendment that would allow dismantling of Park Board is a “flip-flop.”
Jericho Lands, a currently proposed development for 24-30,000 new residents in up to 50 storey towers: NDP: the city is working this through with the community; Conservatives: lack of consultation with local residents; Greens: more local consultation needed but reconciliation important.
Broadway Plan, covering almost 500 city blocks from Vine to Clark and 1st to 16th: Conservatives: NDP getting poor advice on amount, type and placement of density; Greens: prefer medium density; NDP: Housing near transit essential. We will have 300,000 more residents to house. We need housing for service folks.
Supportive housing: Greens: safe consumption sites needed; NDP: must build supportive housing but also involuntary care; Conservatives: involuntary care needs to come back.
Cost of living: NDP: car insurance rates lowered. Daycare reduced from $52/day to $17/day, aiming for $10; Conservatives: “Rustad rebate” will be a tax cut to all owners and renters. The public sector grows while the private sector stagnates; Greens: we need vacancy control.
Closing remarks: Conservatives: is your life better than seven years ago? Greens: a balance of power with Greens holding the balance worked; NDP: The Conservatives have not costed their platform, how can they be trusted.
I’m sure I’ve missed some content but the essence is there for the nine questions asked at the meeting. As to what was missed, in my humble opinion:
Greens: have not connected increased density to the resulting higher construction, GHG and energy costs. There is no business case for UBCx. Rent control is important but will not solve all problems.
Conservatives: clarity about how and where to increase density—you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
NDP: How do you square the “democratic” in NDP with imposing density and prohibiting public consultation and hearings?
The hope equations:
There are many less disruptive, more affordable and more human, family friendly ways other than high-rise to increase density.
We need more, not less public parks and urban spaces.
Science points to the need for more than just safe consumption sites and involuntary care.
Democracy is the worst possible form of government—except for all the rest!5 Let’s keep it!
I’m exhausted but I’ve already voted! Vote for hope and I hope you vote!
The post above is 810 words, about a five minute read, two minutes longer than what the Vancouver City Council now permits for public presentations at its meetings.
If you appreciated this post, please 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. These 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 we love to live.
Interesting as the Green candidate seemed unaware that tall buildings are more costly per home to build, use more GHGs in their concrete and more energy in their operation.
In a land trust, the land remains in some form of common ownership and land cost/profit is somewhat removed or limited, reducing costs of ownership.
REIT = Real Estate Investment Trust, where a company buys entire buildings for profit.
The congregate housing at 8th/Arbutus being for seniors is a stretch and not part of what has been officially proposed, so far as I am aware. Also not sure how that related to UBCx but that’s where he linked it.
attributed to Winston Churchill.
I agree about UBC and sustainability and worry as UBCx soil testing has now moved to Alma between Broadway and 10th. Thanks for reading.
".....................the bills mandating higher density near transit..........."; this is a myth, that you need density for transit, especially in the metro Vancouver area.
Density has little to do with transit use, except if the transit is so bad that the only way to increase ridership is to massively densify around a transit route, especially at stations.
What has attracted people to transit is user friendliness or the ease of using good transit, from where you live to where you want to go, without transfer or with one transfer with quick connections.
The density myth has been repeated so often locally, that the public and politcans have come to believe it. The sad fact is, transit ridership in the Vancouver metro area has only increased with the increase of population and there is zero evidence that transit, especially our proprietary light metro system has actually created any sort of modal shift from car to light-metro.
What the politcans do not tell the taxpayers is that our SkyTrain light-metro system has been studied to death and this pertinent fact, that the light metro system, where well over 80% of its customers first take a bus, has not created a modal shift, is the main reason no other city has copied Vancouver and its exclusive use of light metro.
The Broadway subway is testament to the power of the SkyTrain/density myth and urban planning.
Funding for the now $4 billion, 5.7 km Broadway subway which this revision of cost will be announced after the provincial election.
The North American Standard for building a subway is a transit route with traffic flows in excess of 15,000 persons per hour per direction (pphpd), yet peak traffic flows on the 99B Line, which will be replaced by the Broadway subway to Arbutus, is about 2,000 pphpd, based on 3 minute peak hour headway's.
Before Bombardier's rail division was sold to Alstom, Bombardier publicly stated on its website "that it doesn’t recommend the Skytrain technology for peak period passenger levels below 8000 passengers/hour/direction". According to Thales news release, regarding winning the $1.47 billion resignalling of the Expo and Millennium Lines; "When the programme is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to accommodate 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line (Broadway Subway) will be able to handle 7500 passengers per hour per direction, a 32% and 96% increase respectively.
In 1940's and early 1950's, the Toronto Transit Commission were operating coupled sets of PCC trams on select routes, offering a maximum peak hour capacity over 12,000 pphpd, yet the Millennium Line will be limited to a maximum capacity of only 7,500 pphpd!
To complete the subway to UBC, with any chance of reasonable ridership, massive densification must take place along Broadway, so much densification that the surrounding roads will become permanently congested, with gridlock being common place, while at the same time politcans will crow about the high ridership on SkyTrain, which over time the public will come to realize that those supporting SkyTrain and a subway, were selling "Snake Oil" to city rubes.