PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Vancouver must heed warning signs on horizon



mr.x
Nov 12, 2007, 10:33 PM
Vancouver must heed warning signs on horizon
ROSLYN KUNIN

Globe and Mail Update
November 12, 2007 at 6:18 AM EST

VANCOUVER — What must a city do to maintain its quality of life?

In Vancouver, quality of life has meant ocean, beaches, parks and mountains, thriving arts and culture, and the general peace and prosperity that have come from a post-Expo, pre-Olympics boom.

However, the sustainability of Vancouver's much-touted quality of life is at risk. The risk comes not because of potential ecological disaster, or because the downtown eastside is getting out of hand.

Quality of life - everything from social services to creative spaces and recreation programs - requires tax money, particularly taxes paid by business. And there are signs that Vancouver is at risk of losing its business base.

The Vancouver Economic Development Commission (VEDC) recently released a report on the state of the city's business climate, which details the many warning signs on the horizon.

Labour productivity, gross domestic product, exports, employment income in British Columbia lag behind the rest of the country. Yet Vancouver housing prices continue to soar beyond the means of most working families. Companies that want to do business in the city often can't find the space, or the employees. As for location safety, Statistics Canada lists Vancouver among the highest in Canada for violent and property crime rates.

These are the factors that are starting to drive businesses, employees and infrastructure to places such as Richmond, Surrey, Langley and Abbotsford. In the recent economic boom, jobs in Vancouver are growing at less than 2 per cent, compared with 10 per cent for Metro Vancouver's 21 municipalities. Combine all this with downturns in the export industry from the rising dollar, and it spells trouble for this growing city.

In the VEDC report, business and community leaders speak about a hollowing out, the prospect that Vancouver could be a bedroom community enjoyed by the wealthy, owned by absentee condo owners who prefer to do business elsewhere.

How will Vancouver keep businesses from voting with their feet, and taking their jobs and tax payments - and thus quality of life - with them?

Of 40 total recommended actions in the VEDC report, three barriers to business growth and retention are targeted as priorities for Vancouver City Council to deal with - regulations, crime and taxes.

More than a simple list of recommendations, the report is call-to-arms, detailing the real change that can be made in a short period of time, with little dependence on other levels of government.

They are also realistic actions to take, doable in a relatively short time span. The mere announcement that the city is starting them would send a strong, positive signal to the business community that the climate for business in Vancouver is about to get better.

But as important as these actions are, they're pieces of a bigger picture. The reality is that all cities have a quality of life to maintain and protect; Ottawa, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal are often not far behind Vancouver on international quality of life surveys, and the new rising stars are cities like Abbotsford, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Sherbrooke.

The lesson for business, community and municipal leaders across Canada is that quality of life is not the result of a shortlist of features or amenities. Quality of life is the sum total of social, environmental and economic factors that integrate and work together to support one another for the long haul.

In Vancouver, measures to address the economic side of the equation are long overdue, mainly because we've been able to coast on the strength of the city's social and environmental qualities. But people and business won't come just for beaches, skiing and restaurants any more. A strong and growing economy must be here: head offices, commercial and industrial space, and jobs.

And so it goes across Canada. Environment, society and economy must be integrated to achieve balance, and sustainability. In Vancouver, the economy has become the risk to quality of life. What is it in your city?

"The time to fix your roof is when the sun is shining," said John F. Kennedy. In Vancouver, nobody ever waits until the rains come - the rainy season is too long and the effects on society and one's environment are too severe to simply wait and react.

The sun may not shine in Vancouver for very long, and for the business community, the time to fix the roof is now.






Dr. Roslyn Kunin is special adviser to the board of directors of the Vancouver Economic Development Commission, and director of the BC Office of the Canada West Foundation.

leftside
Nov 13, 2007, 6:10 PM
Great article. I'll be keeping an eye on the news to see how Vancouver deals with these issues.

"The mere announcement that the city is starting them would send a strong, positive signal to the business community that the climate for business in Vancouver is about to get better."
Let's hope so.

EastVanMark
Nov 14, 2007, 1:58 AM
Great article. A must read for all those swallowing the tripe spewing from both city hall and city planners alike who fear change and refuse to learn that the status quo just doesn't cut it; and most importantly, you must accommodate business, NOT like they do over in City Hall where they try the opposite.(with predictable horrid results).

Hed Kandi
Nov 14, 2007, 3:43 AM
Soon enough we'll all be living on the streets of Hastings ! :haha:

djh
Nov 14, 2007, 5:20 AM
Great article. A must read for all those swallowing the tripe spewing from both city hall and city planners alike who fear change and refuse to learn that the status quo just doesn't cut it; and most importantly, you must accommodate business, NOT like they do over in City Hall where they try the opposite.(with predictable horrid results).

It's interesting that the perception is that City Hall dislikes business. When I moved here there was a left-wing provincial government in place, and all I ever heard was how much the provincial government hated business. Now there's a centre-right government and there's been a noticeable and palatable change at the provincial level.
But at the municipal level things have not changed with the change from NPA to COPE (well, Larry Campbell) and back to NPA. In fact, I think Larry Campbell was probably the most "pro-progress" major this city has had in the last few iterations - moreso than Sam Sullivan certainly. So ultimately, is it really the party in power at City Hall that makes the city pro- or against- business, or is it really the bureaucrats who have been wedged into their cushy union jobs-for-life, don't like change, and don't really care about the businesses trying to make the city, they just want to go to work and do their job and process pieces of paper.
?

mr.x
Nov 14, 2007, 6:18 AM
bring back Larry! best mayor we've ever had.

EastVanMark
Nov 15, 2007, 7:44 AM
:previous: He was good but I don't know if he was better than former Vancouver mayor Louis Denison Taylor. He started the amalgamation movement with Point Grey, South Vancouver, and Vancouver itself. He was also a behind a movement to open the Sea Island airport and from a landmark building point of view, was instrumental in the building of the Sun Tower. (then the tallest in the whole British Empire).

EastVanMark
Nov 15, 2007, 8:27 AM
It's interesting that the perception is that City Hall dislikes business. When I moved here there was a left-wing provincial government in place, and all I ever heard was how much the provincial government hated business. Now there's a centre-right government and there's been a noticeable and palatable change at the provincial level.
But at the municipal level things have not changed with the change from NPA to COPE (well, Larry Campbell) and back to NPA. In fact, I think Larry Campbell was probably the most "pro-progress" major this city has had in the last few iterations - moreso than Sam Sullivan certainly. So ultimately, is it really the party in power at City Hall that makes the city pro- or against- business, or is it really the bureaucrats who have been wedged into their cushy union jobs-for-life, don't like change, and don't really care about the businesses trying to make the city, they just want to go to work and do their job and process pieces of paper.
?


Your correct in your assertion that the party in power-not the mayor that dictate policy. The mayor can put motions forth but council has the ultimate say on what gets passed. Usually the council will be comprised mostly of members from the same party as the mayor and therefore will vote the same way as the mayor. Larry Campbell didn't have that luxury. His fellow COPE councilors were opposed to many of his ideas like support for the then RAV Line and his support for the Olympics. They had more "pressing matters" like Vancouver's official stance on the war in Iraq.:koko: (former councilor Tim Louis was the worst offender). Hence the split of the party that followed. On the other side of the spectrum, the NPA's council better supports its mayor but its policies are mostly decided party insiders (blue bloods from Shaughnessy and Point Grey) who donate plenty of money to ensure that their voices are heard at City Hall. Especially when they don't like something-i.e. no turning along Granville, Arbutus Skytrain line, taller downtown buildings obstructing their views etc.

So again, the rest of the citizens are forced to choose between one party that is scared of change, and one that caters to the poor.

mr.x
Nov 15, 2007, 8:37 AM
:previous: He was good but I don't know if he was better than former Vancouver mayor Louis Denison Taylor. He started the amalgamation movement with Point Grey, South Vancouver, and Vancouver itself. He was also a behind a movement to open the Sea Island airport and from a landmark building point of view, was instrumental in the building of the Sun Tower. (then the tallest in the whole British Empire).

best mayor we've had...recently.

EastVanMark
Nov 15, 2007, 8:45 AM
best mayor we've had...recently.

got ya.:cheers:

mr.x
Nov 15, 2007, 8:51 AM
got ya.:cheers:

we need to lure him back...why did he not run for second term anyway?

djh
Nov 15, 2007, 6:48 PM
we need to lure him back...why did he not run for second term anyway?

He got frustrated by the bureaucracy in the city. He wanted to get things *done*. City Hall wanted to talk and debate ad infiinitum.


Sums up Vancouver's biggest problem, really

EastVanMark
Nov 16, 2007, 2:02 AM
we need to lure him back...why did he not run for second term anyway?

:previous:(Djh) that and he also got a cushy senator post offered to him during the end of his term as mayor. ( you know the kind of post that is high paying, exceptional benefit pacakage, virtually no term limit, and you don't have to be voted in or out of office). Sat about 2 rows away from him during last years Grey Cup in Winnipeg and had a chat with him at halftime. Truly a nice guy.

Stingray2004
Nov 16, 2007, 4:10 AM
Larry Campbell didn't have that luxury. His fellow COPE councilors were opposed to many of his ideas like support for the then RAV Line and his support for the Olympics. They had more "pressing matters" like Vancouver's official stance on the war in Iraq.:koko:

You may not remember this instance, but during the 1980 civic election, Mike Harcourt ran as an independent against incumbent Jack Volrich (NPA) for mayor and he concurrently also ran television commercials at the time claiming that he would ensure (as mayor) that no tall towers would be built along the waterfront where the Shaw Tower (489 ft.) currently is situate.

At the time, Harcourt pointed out that the then Daon Building (now Axa Place) at 272 ft. was too tall and other taller buildings would block views of the mountains. I distinctly recall that as a kid as I wanted to beat other cities in terms of building height. (didn't know about the then 450 ft. height limit)

After Harcourt was elected, COPE councillors were against the downtown Indy race (too much noise and glorification of the car :rolleyes: ) and were also against the rebuilding of the Cambie Street Bridge. (imagine if that old wreck still remained), among other things.

That's why in retrospect I have such a hard time understanding why people view Vision Vancouver and COPE as being "pro-development" and "pro-fun city" when everything that they have done historically totally contradicted these concepts. (RAV and Olympics being the latest)

COPE did, however, force through signs at the entrances to the city that stated: "Welcome to the City of Vancouver - A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone".:D

EastVanMark
Nov 16, 2007, 7:44 AM
You may not remember this instance, but during the 1980 civic election, Mike Harcourt ran as an independent against incumbent Jack Volrich (NPA) for mayor and he concurrently also ran television commercials at the time claiming that he would ensure (as mayor) that no tall towers would be built along the waterfront where the Shaw Tower (489 ft.) currently is situate.

At the time, Harcourt pointed out that the then Daon Building (now Axa Place) at 272 ft. was too tall and other taller buildings would block views of the mountains. I distinctly recall that as a kid as I wanted to beat other cities in terms of building height. (didn't know about the then 450 ft. height limit)

After Harcourt was elected, COPE councillors were against the downtown Indy race (too much noise and glorification of the car :rolleyes: ) and were also against the rebuilding of the Cambie Street Bridge. (imagine if that old wreck still remained), among other things.

That's why in retrospect I have such a hard time understanding why people view Vision Vancouver and COPE as being "pro-development" and "pro-fun city" when everything that they have done historically totally contradicted these concepts. (RAV and Olympics being the latest)

COPE did, however, force through signs at the entrances to the city that stated: "Welcome to the City of Vancouver - A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone".:D

Many people/groups have opposed the building of taller towers downtown. Another such example to add to your story about former mayor Harcourt (who also openly opposed Expo if you can believe it). In the early 70's the NDP killed a proposal for a government office tower that was to stand 680'. That still would beat Shangri-La today.

BTW how the hell can 272" be considered too tall? (anywhere...anytime).

Stingray2004
Nov 16, 2007, 8:14 AM
Many people/groups have opposed the building of taller towers downtown. Another such example to add to your story about former mayor Harcourt (who also openly opposed Expo if you can believe it). In the early 70's the NDP killed a proposal for a government office tower that was to stand 680'. That still would beat Shangri-La today.

BTW how the hell can 272" be considered too tall? (anywhere...anytime).

Yeah, the 55-storey provincial government building, which I understood had received approval by the then NPA council, but W.A.C. Bennett's Socreds bit the dust in August, 1972 and Barrett's NDP subsequently nixed the plan replacing it with Robson Square. What a shame we couldn't have both.

As for Harcourt's letter writing campaign to the Bureau of International Expositions in Paris... glad that didn't pan out!:tup: