Vancouver - A Model For Urbanization?

[M II A II R II K]

Do we (still) need Vancouver?


28 Nov 2011

By Howard Blackson

Read More: http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opin...need-vancouver

A few years ago Urban Guru Leon Krier asked this question — “Do we still need Vancouver?” — at CNU XVII Denver. In response, the Next Generation of New Urbanists invited then-new Vancouver planning director Brent Toderian to speak in favor of Vancouver, which is easy to do. For, since the fall of Hong Kong, Vancouver has been reinvented to become one of the world’s most livable cities, and a model for urbanization. While Leon emphatically stated “no” in answering his own question, San Diego has answered with a resounding “yes.” Former Vancouver planning director, Larry Beasley, easily sold his city and its developers to other north American city booster groups, and San Diego smartly bought it.

- All the rage, the imported Vancouver model was built very quickly and effectively changed our downtown and its skyline until the economy inadvertently solved for our affordable housing issues. With our downtown development experiencing a dramatic pause (or contemplative lull), it’s now easier to reconsider just what happened to my city, and where do we go next? So, I’ve concluded that Leon was wrong … as well as right. He is correct in his assertion that the Vancouver model is really urbanism-lite and a contradiction of both suburban and urban. The single common entry frontages to the towers choke the flow of people like a vertical cul-de-sac. The towers themselves celebrate and elevate a private imperialism of residential glass fishbowls that looms over and dominates the public realm below.

- He is correct in his assertion that the Vancouver model is really urbanism-lite and a contradiction of both suburban and urban. The single common entry frontages to the towers choke the flow of people like a vertical cul-de-sac. The towers themselves celebrate and elevate a private imperialism of residential glass fishbowls that looms over and dominates the public realm below. And, he is correct to point out that the suburban townhouses that ‘wrap’ were used to ‘hide’ the urbanism of the narrow point tower that woefully undermines urban intensities with luxury, view-oriented condos. The ground floor townhouse wraps also limit access into the urbanized block with their single private stoop entries fronting the majority of the block. A contradiction, the model is simultaneously a little too much and a little too little… but for San Diego, it was just right.

- He is correct to assert that urbanism-lite in a European or east coast USA context is a mistake. However, from 1947 to 1997, San Diego effectively emptied out, made illegal, disenfranchised and completely disinvested in our previously vital downtown. It was lost, gone, and could not be (RE)vitalized as all of its vitality was completely sapped. We had to (RE)learn how to build and live downtown. As local Urban Guru Michael J. Stepner, FAIA, FAICP, smartly points out, “When downtown was vibrant in 1940s, we were a city of 250,000 people. Redeveloping downtown today is occurring in the context of a region with 3 million people.” As with the rest of the US west, ours is a relatively new downtown with a renewed purpose and vitality. But, it took the perceived design safety of the Vancouver model to teach us that downtown was safe again. With its security-guarded common entry lobbies, urban dwellers are effectively sequestered behind their gated stoops. Add the safety of the townhouse wrap and you’ve got a strong sell that downtown can embody the aesthetic comforts of suburbia. In response, here in San Diego, bored suburbanites were lured back downtown.

- All that said, I now believe the Vancouver model is outdated. Ten years later, we all get it. We see the value of urbanism. Its building and block type really did serve as an entry level urbanism to re-inhabit our cities in a more livable manner. And, because of it, we are now prepared to build true urbanism. Brooklyn, Wicker Park, Union Square and Capital Hill urbanism. This is the type of urbanism being demanded by the Baby Boomers (born mid 40s to early 60s), who no longer feel compelled to spend their time maintaining their suburban lawns, coupled with the Millennials (born after the mid 80s), now thoroughly rejecting their parents’ suburban lifestyle. These two large markets are creating a tremendous demand for real urbanism which we designers are now being looked upon to build. The lessons of the Vancouver model, good and bad, have been studied and learned. Now’s the time for next steps. A more 3-dimensional urbanism, where people connect at the street, and at the 3rd, 6th, and upper floors… and back down to the street.

.....

Vancouver urbanism






San Diego emulates Vancouver






The traditional face of urbanism






Urban evolution in San Diego

[MolsonExport]

Led Zeppelin. Physical Graffiti

[J. Will]

This piece is stupid for several reasons. For one, lining highrises with townhomes is not "hiding them with sprawl".

And, he is correct to point out that the suburban townhouses that ‘wrap’ were used to ‘hide’ the urbanism of the narrow point tower that woefully undermines urban intensities with luxury, view-oriented condos.

Yet Vancouver's downtown peninsula has probably 90,000+ people (will have to wait for the new census numbers) is a little over 2 square miles. And it's not even "finished" yet. Thousands more people will be housed on the NE shore of False Creek, which is currently just vacant land. By the time it's "built out", there will likely be 100,000 people in just over 2 square miles of downtown Vancouver. That is an excellent density, so the idea that it must "undermine urban intensities" is nonsense.

[JDRCRASH]

This is the kind of development pattern I think LA should look at, mostly downtown and hollywood, especially once more rail transit is built. Spread out high-rises and "hide" them with townhouses, or even 5-7 story buildings.

[mhays]

Why hide them? While I love Vancouver, its dense areas always seem to miss something, specifically because of their short podiums and wide tower spacing. Further, it never achieves even remotely the right density level, a la Manhattan, which averages far more density in 24 square miles than Vancouver can manage for even a couple square miles.

[J. Will]

Residential towers against the street are only ideal if there are units right on the ground floor (assuming it's a building without retail), as ground floor "eyes on the street" are what help keep the streets safe (and feel safe), much more so than residences on higher floors. In Manhattan the towers (even on the side streets where they don't have retail) often don't have ground floor residences. 40,000+ ppsm in downtown Vancouver is excellent, and to compare it's density to a city with more than ten times the population is ridiculous. If you want to compare Vancouver's density to other downtowns, pick cities of similar population.

On top of that, the towers in Vancouver are almost never "hidden behind townhomes". They are usually (almost always) adjacent to the townhomes that are part of the same development. The towers usually rise straight from the sidewalk as well. The guy who wrote this article looks like an idiot suggesting that the towers are hidden "behind" the lowrise housing. Has he even been to Vancouver? This is what the townhomes/highrises look like. You can see that the towers rise straight up from the street. They are adjacent to the townhomes, not behind them, and not "hidden" in any way.

The ground floor townhouse wraps also limit access into the urbanized block with their single private stoop entries fronting the majority of the block.

This comment makes no sense at all. If the townhomes beside the towers weren't there to "limit access" to the towers, there would be other buildings there instead of the townhomes. And they would "limit access" just the same. Is a residential tower supposed to have entrances on all four sides? Were that the case, it would necessitate open space all around the tower which would do much more to reduce density than having townhomes next to the tower.

[ue]

Vancouver is really overrated IMO, but still does excellent work at showing how quality urbanism can be created from or nearly from scratch in the 21st century in the North American context. The townhouse podiums mentioned above are a good example of Vancouver's excellent work.

[vanman]

^In what ways do you think Vancouver is overrated? I'm actually curious, not trying to start a flame war or anything.

[ue]

Ok...

First off, I don't mean to insult Vancouverites by this as I do think it is a nice city and like I stated above, it has done some great work in 21st century North American planning.

Anyways, it just seems as though, from a Prairie perspective, Vancouver is thought of as a utopian metropolis where nothing can go wrong. It is praised to death as if there is nothing wrong with it. If it were given credit where credit was due and not bash someone's head in with said credit, I would not consider Vancouver overrated.

The architecture is very hit and miss. On one hand, you have the uber sexy architecture of the Olympic Village, on the other, you have Coal Harbour and Yaletown. Many people praise Vancouver's architecture, and while I like curtain wall glass, Vancouver's approach to it is massively repetitive and boring. I think most on SSP get that, but keep in mind there is a huge world out there full of different opinions than that of SSPers.

Culturally, the city leaves a lot to be desired. I haven't visited Vancouver festivals, which I hear are quite good, so I will take people's word for that one and leave it alone. But really I find it lacking in the museum department. VAG was ok last time I was there, but for a region of 2.5 million people or so? And what about other museums? I know Vancouver's got them, but aside from the UBC's Anthropology museum, none come to mind, probably because there isn't anything memorable about them. When you look south to Seattle, or even similarly sized Portland, Vancouver seems a tad underwhelming on the museum front.

People always go gaga over the Lower Mainland's weather, but never take into account the constant drizzle in the winter. Not to mention the humidity in the summer. Weather is probably the biggest thing Vancouver is overrated with.

Vancouver is also highly regarded in the transit department. While I will say for Vancouver's size, its transportation network is impressive, I find it strange how such an urbane place has such low per capita ridership (I know I calculated the numbers and posted them here a while back). People seem to forget that and instead opt for pretty Skytrain photos.

Not to mention, for such a "perfect" city, the DTES really is a huge scar on the city which is often (although I will admit a handful of times it is noted) ignored.

That being said, for such a young city with the population it does in North America, it doesn't do too badly. Although Coal Harbour is a little sterile, it provides some great ideas for modern urbanism in North America and give Coal Harbour time to age, and I'm sure it'll become less sterile. Not to mention there is a ton of cool and vibrant areas in the city, like Robson St, Commercial Drive, South Granville, Gastown, Chinatown, West End, Broadway, West 4th, Yaletown, Cambie St, and Main St. Oh, and it does suburban development quite well.

[Metro-One]

I was just at the Vancouver Museum and that one I enjoyed a lot, it is not downtown (near the south end of the Burrard Street Bridge in Kits) so maybe you missed that one. It has a lot of good exhibits exploring the city's history, along with our multiculturalism.

You make valid points, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. My favorite place in the city personally is where Denman Meets Davie at English Bay, full on beach city feel there with great funky restaurants and cafes throughout that area. Perfect on a humid summer day

I know your feel towards Yaletown, but did you explore Hamilton or Mainland streets in Yaletown? That area is really cool IMO, with all the stores and restaurants built into the old warehouses. And having the new Canada Line subway station right at its doorstep has really helped open that area up.

In regards to Museums and weather though, Victoria has Vancouver beat on both. So next time you are here you can always get your Museum fix there, one of the benefits of being a Provincial capital.

The one thing I do believe you are off on, is the transit. People often praise Portland oregon for their transit use. just for comparison, Metro-Portland is just a couple hundred thousand smaller than Metro-Vancouver. The Portland Max has 4 lines and 85 stations, with an average week day ridership of 127 000 (which isn't bad). In Vancouver, we have 3 skytrain lines and 47 stations, yet our week day ridership is 406 000! Which is not bad at all. So what I am getting at, is if you think Vancouver is so/so on transit use, then you must think Portland is bad and Seattle (at around 25 000 a day on their light rail) is abysmal!

Where Vancouver excels though is food, we are a huge food culture city, often ranked in the top 5 in North America (some putting us as #2) and that praise I feel we do deserve, hehe.

[ue]

^

Yeah, I haven't visited the Vancouver Museum. Will try and check it out next time I'm in town. Yes, I know about Hamilton and Mainland Streets, very nice roads. I know Yaletown has some nice features, I even said it was a nice vibrant area. The townhouse podiums and mixed use developments in general give some great ideas for modern urbanism. I just find the styles generally repetitive and thus, boring. I do not believe I am off on transit. And yes, Portland and Seattle are really subpar for supposed meccas of American transit usage (outside the traditionals like NYC and Chicago). Transit is something that is exceptionally overrated with Portland. Vancouver as compared to any Canadian city sans Ottawa with a train system I believe does have lower per capita ridership.

I may have not really stated this well, but I also think the constant drilling in one's head of Vancouver's greatness and accomplishments (even in areas that it truly does well, such as suburban planning, heavy rail over LRT, vibrant neighbourhoods, mixed use development, tolerant attitudes, etc.) makes it overrated. It is like constantly hearing about this movie that is supposed to be mindblowing. Constantly hearing about it just pumps you so high that you are expecting it to be out-of-this-world awesome, that when you finally watch this supposed movie, you are very disappointed. Why? It didn't live up to the insanely high expectations caused by constant compliments about it.

[ozonemania]

In reference to the OP article, I don't think the author of this article really grasps what the Vancouverism model is. Any built form has it's pros and cons, no doubt. But his analysis seems to hinge on an overly-simplified concept of simply a point tower fringed with townhouses.

If you look at actual Vancouver developments, you see an evolution, it's all about mixed use and layering of different densities particularly at street level in order to create a livable neighbourhood. Mixing market and rental housing, townhomes, community, retail and commercial space all in one block is what makes it dynamic. Moreover, townhouses/rowhouses still provide a healthy chunk of density. It's not like suburban 33' lots side by side.

I'm not suggesting that all of Vancouver development is like that -- far from it in fact. But it is a guiding principle that is implemented to varying degrees.

Maybe I am misinterpreting this article. Is he commenting on the urban form of San Diego, or Vancouver, or both?

In any case, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it can't be a bad thing to look at Vancouver with a discerning eye. Urbanism evolves, and resting on one's laurels can't be good either.

And ue, you bring up some great criticisms of Vancouver, I think they are valid. I can't speak for Vancouverites in general, but I don't think we live up to our hype either. I'm not sure who or what bestowed this hype on us, but it's a blessing and a curse. One good thing about hype though, is that if we want to stay in such lofty esteem, we need to work our butts in order to keep it.

Hehe, you brought up that Vancouver has little in the cultural department. Years ago, I deluded myself to think the reason we don't have that is because we're always just so busy skiing, rollerblading, biking, hiking (insert any random outdoorsy endeavour), that no time was left for cultural enrichment. Later, I concluded that the real reason is because we're all so cash poor from trying to pay for our living expenses that there was none left for anything else, so while people will boast about what an exciting weekend they had all they really did was sit at home browsing internet forums.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by ue

^

Yeah, I haven't visited the Vancouver Museum. Will try and check it out next time I'm in town. Yes, I know about Hamilton and Mainland Streets, very nice roads. I know Yaletown has some nice features, I even said it was a nice vibrant area. The townhouse podiums and mixed use developments in general give some great ideas for modern urbanism. I just find the styles generally repetitive and thus, boring. I do not believe I am off on transit. And yes, Portland and Seattle are really subpar for supposed meccas of American transit usage (outside the traditionals like NYC and Chicago). Transit is something that is exceptionally overrated with Portland. Vancouver as compared to any Canadian city sans Ottawa with a train system I believe does have lower per capita ridership.

I may have not really stated this well, but I also think the constant drilling in one's head of Vancouver's greatness and accomplishments (even in areas that it truly does well, such as suburban planning, heavy rail over LRT, vibrant neighbourhoods, mixed use development, tolerant attitudes, etc.) makes it overrated. It is like constantly hearing about this movie that is supposed to be mindblowing. Constantly hearing about it just pumps you so high that you are expecting it to be out-of-this-world awesome, that when you finally watch this supposed movie, you are very disappointed. Why? It didn't live up to the insanely high expectations caused by constant compliments about it.

OK, your reasoning is sound, hehe, though I do think vancouver is better per capita than Edmonton (as with Ottawa). But from stats I have seen in the past I do believe we do have the highest per capita rate of those who walk to work, and Victoria has the highest % that bike to work.

I honestly think you would enjoy Victoria, which has an amazing vibe IMO for a metro under 400 000. Not to mention half the rain of Vancouver and much more sunshine.

I also understand what you mean by hype. The city of Paris was like that for me. I had seen and heard so much about it my entire life through family, movies, books, magazines, etc... and when I went there I hyped myself up so much that is actually became a huge let down for me. Sucks when that happens, so it is always best not to let the hype get you (good and bad hype).

But again, I do firmly stand behind Vancouver's amazing food scene, hehehehe. (I love food too much for my own good)

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by ue

^
It is like constantly hearing about this movie that is supposed to be mindblowing. Constantly hearing about it just pumps you so high that you are expecting it to be out-of-this-world awesome, that when you finally watch this supposed movie, you are very disappointed. Why? It didn't live up to the insanely high expectations caused by constant compliments about it.

Haha I suppose Vancouver is the "inception" of cities then?

In regards to your earlier post most of what you said is fair, some of it even irrefutable (The culture in particular), however I have to correct you on one thing, your comment about humid summers. Vancouver has some of the driest summers on the continent, not only from a humidity in the air standpoint but in terms of rainfall as well. Only one major city in Canada gets less rainfall during the months of May to September and that is Calgary.

Vancouver isn't perfect, not by a long shot, but I sure do miss it!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The one thing I do believe you are off on, is the transit. People often praise Portland oregon for their transit use. just for comparison, Metro-Portland is just a couple hundred thousand smaller than Metro-Vancouver. The Portland Max has 4 lines and 85 stations, with an average week day ridership of 127 000 (which isn't bad). In Vancouver, we have 3 skytrain lines and 47 stations, yet our week day ridership is 406 000! Which is not bad at all. So what I am getting at, is if you think Vancouver is so/so on transit use, then you must think Portland is bad and Seattle (at around 25 000 a day on their light rail) is abysmal!

He said transit, not rail. Seattle's rail line is a tiny percentage of our transit usage. Vancouver's total transit usage is better than ours of course. Portland's transit usage (or commute mode share) is indeed low given the city's reputation.

[M II A II R II K]

With the architecture I think there's too much glassy stuff being built and makes the skyline look pretty much the same throughout with nothing that really sticks out.

[jigglysquishy]

Vancouver is a fantastic city, but it is far from the model of urbanism.

Paris is far and away the best designed city we have on this Earth. Every city should be looking at Paris for inspiration.

[Cirrus]

The article is spot on. I think those of you defending Vancouver against it may be missing its point.

The point is not that Vancouver is bad. It isn't. The point is that Vancouver produced a valuable and necessary forward step, but that having learned its lessons we can now do even better. The point is that Vancouver is great, and we needed it, but that Vancouver is not the final, perfect word on urbanism. If we apply a critical eye towards Vancouver, we can do even better.

And of course Vancouver isn't perfect. I don't believe anyone who thinks their city is completely, 100% perfect with absolutely zero room for improvement. Anyone who thinks that is either lying to themselves or has no imagination.

Vancouver's model of urbanism is very much like a denser version of new urbanism. It's much, much better than what we've generally been building for the past 60 years, but in many ways it still isn't as good as what we built 100 years ago. The bases of the buildings (including the townhouse wraps) are still inferior to traditional forms. The streetscape is too repetitive and not engaging enough. Small scale infill is difficult with this model, which has resulted in large parts of the peninsula (including some of its important commercial streets) being left behind the renaissance.

These are all good problems to have. Our problems 20 years ago were much more serious. The fact that we are ready to focus on these sorts of problems means we have been successful at covering the basics.

The point of this article is that Vancouver is a huge success story, and that with the knowledge we have gained from it we are now ready to take the next step.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

OK, your reasoning is sound, hehe, though I do think vancouver is better per capita than Edmonton (as with Ottawa). But from stats I have seen in the past I do believe we do have the highest per capita rate of those who walk to work, and Victoria has the highest % that bike to work.

I honestly think you would enjoy Victoria, which has an amazing vibe IMO for a metro under 400 000. Not to mention half the rain of Vancouver and much more sunshine.

I also understand what you mean by hype. The city of Paris was like that for me. I had seen and heard so much about it my entire life through family, movies, books, magazines, etc... and when I went there I hyped myself up so much that is actually became a huge let down for me. Sucks when that happens, so it is always best not to let the hype get you (good and bad hype).

But again, I do firmly stand behind Vancouver's amazing food scene, hehehehe. (I love food too much for my own good)

It's been awhile since I've visited Victoria but yeah, a very nice and vibrant city for its size. Though to be honest, last time I was there I did get bored of it (probably because I didn't know about all the great places to check out).

You are right that Vancouver is high on people walking to work. [strikethrough] But I stand by my point with public transit, and yes, even Edmonton has higher per capita ridership over Vancouver [/strikethrough] (think about it, a city with just 20KM of track yet approaching 100,000 riders a day. Portland gets dozens of KM of track and just has 127,000. Yes, I know Portland isn't the city of comparison, but I thought it would be interesting to note). But I will recalculate as I know I used 2010 numbers which may mean things have changed.

Just so you know this is only comparing rail transit, not buses or other formats of public transit.

Montreal - 1,111,700/riders per day - 69.2 KM of track - 16,065 riders per KM
Toronto (subway) - 948,100/riders per day - 70 KM of track - 13,544 riders per KM
New York City (subway) - 4,395,000/riders per day - 337 KM of track - 13,041 riders per KM
Vancouver - 406,200/riders per day - 68.7 KM of track - 5913 riders per KM
Calgary - 267,500/riders per day - 48.8 KM of track - 5481 riders per KM
Edmonton - 93,600/riders per day - 20.5 KM of track - 4565 riders per KM
Washington D.C. - 737,100/riders per day - 171.1 KM of track - 4308 riders per KM
Portland - 126,100/riders per day - 84.6 KM of track - 1490 riders per KM
Denver - 63,100/riders per day - 63 KM of track - 1002 riders per KM

So I think you were right, Metro-One. However, digging up some of last years numbers indicate that Vancouver was lower on the per capita front. I guess with the new year the stats just changed some.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Haha I suppose Vancouver is the "inception" of cities then?

In regards to your earlier post most of what you said is fair, some of it even irrefutable (The culture in particular), however I have to correct you on one thing, your comment about humid summers. Vancouver has some of the driest summers on the continent, not only from a humidity in the air standpoint but in terms of rainfall as well. Only one major city in Canada gets less rainfall during the months of May to September and that is Calgary.

Vancouver isn't perfect, not by a long shot, but I sure do miss it!

Maybe I've just been there when it's unusually humid?

[Metro-One]

Humidity can be a very relative feeling.

If you are comparing Vancouver to Calgary, or even Kelowna, then yes it does feel humid during the summer months, despite being very sunny.

On the flip side if you are comparing Vancouver to Toronto, then Vancouver's air feels very dry.

It is funny, i get complaints from both sides all the time. My wife is from Japan so she complains how dry the air is, and the my parents are from the dry interior of BC, so they complain how thick and humid the air is, hehe.

So it all depends on where you are from.

Humidity is very subjective in what one considers "humid" or not.

And regarding transit, of course there is much room for improvement, and we are only so/so in transit ridership on a world sense, but I still feel we do well compared to our counterparts to the south. And what we do have is a nice backbone, fully grade separated (making it a true metro) mass transit rail system, with great frequencies.