Vancouver hires former San Francisco city planner

[jollyburger]

On Twitter

A mild mannered architect I know just texted me about it: ‘good fucking riddance’ was the reaction.

[djh]

I wonder if part of the problem Vancouver has with retaining good Heads of Planning is as such:

The politicians see that the city needs somebody with a big, audacious vision. So they go on the international search for such a person. This inevitably leads to candidates with a healthy sense of self (read: ego, which in any senior public-facing role is necessary to some extent). Said applicant promises the Hiring Committee that they will bring vision, progress, direction, change to the city. They are duly hired with excitement from the politicians.

Inevitably, that new hire has to deal with City Hall. The bureaucracy there is NOT designed for egos, vision, change, or progress. It is designed for status-quo. And it always outlives the politicians who select the new hires.

The new hire and the City butt heads about how things should be done around there. Eventually the new hire realises it's futile to attempt to change a machine that would require cutting so much dead wood that they would be seen as a cruel and constant gardner. So they quit. The City wins again. The politicians are oblivious and wonder why nobody can do the job they promised, since to them, the City seems soooooo nice. Everybody bites their tongue. Let's start hiring again...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by djh

I wonder if part of the problem Vancouver has with retaining good Heads of Planning is as such:

The politicians see that the city needs somebody with a big, audacious vision. So they go on the international search for such a person. This inevitably leads to candidates with a healthy sense of self (read: ego, which in any senior public-facing role is necessary to some extent). Said applicant promises the Hiring Committee that they will bring vision, progress, direction, change to the city. They are duly hired with excitement from the politicians.

Inevitably, that new hire has to deal with City Hall. The bureaucracy there is NOT designed for egos, vision, change, or progress. It is designed for status-quo. And it always outlives the politicians who select the new hires.

The new hire and the City butt heads about how things should be done around there. Eventually the new hire realises it's futile to attempt to change a machine that would require cutting so much dead wood that they would be seen as a cruel and constant gardner. So they quit. The City wins again. The politicians are oblivious and wonder why nobody can do the job they promised, since to them, the City seems soooooo nice. Everybody bites their tongue. Let's start hiring again...

Unless I missed somebody, the previous City Planner was from Richmond (and not the one in Virginia), and the one before that (who was fired without cause) came from Calgary. Before that there were two Co-Directors who had worked their way through the ranks at City Hall, and were in post for many years. So the 'international' appointment was a first. The temporary replacement, Theresa O'Donnell, who is taking over on an interim basis was previously in Dallas before coming to Vancouver - so there's that.

[Feathered Friend]

Dan Fumano @fumano
Updated story w/ comments from departing Vancouver head planner Gil Kelley, who told me he couldn’t discuss details of departure, but said change was sudden, he was sad to leave while big planning projects underway & he has no plans for what he’ll do next:
7:40 PM · Mar 15, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/fumano/status/13...792041987?s=20

Asked if it is a good time to change considering Vancouver is four years into a 10-year housing plan, partway through the Broadway corridor planning process, and in the early stages of a city-wide plan, Kelley replied: “I’d ask you to talk about that with the city manager, city council and others in the community. … I would refer you to others to opine on whether it’s the right moment or not.”

But Kelley said he and the city had reached a “congenial agreement.”

Kelley has previously lived and worked in San Francisco, Berkeley and Portland. In conversation Monday, he emphasized his love for Vancouver.

“Vancouver has huge potential,” Kelley said. “And it’s going to face some really tough questions about what kind of city it wants to be going forward: a boutique city for the highest incomes? Or does it want to be a more inclusive, equitable city?”

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ving-city-hall

[Klazu]

For what it matters but Reddit comments are also wishing this über progressive planner good riddance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/c..._leaving_city/

[s211]

Originally Posted by Klazu

For what it matters but Reddit comments are also wishing this über progressive planner good riddance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/c..._leaving_city/

And yet what we seem to get from the elected officials and bureaucrats is even more "progressive", which such an oxymoron these days.

[GenWhy?]

It's interesting that some of the best housing planning policies in the last 4 years have been either voted down, sent back to the drawing board for more study (delaying decisions by years), watered down, or simply rejected by council. In what I know about the other cities he's worked in it's a similar situation.

The Planning Department isn't a dictatorship.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It's interesting that some of the best housing planning policies in the last 4 years have been either voted down, sent back to the drawing board for more study (delaying decisions by years), watered down, or simply rejected by council. In what I know about the other cities he's worked in it's a similar situation.

The Planning Department isn't a dictatorship.

As a member of the Development Permit Board Kelly had a chance to approve a new project for a derelict lot in Chinatown precisely at a time when the neighbourhood needed an infusion of lifeblood. But Kelly is the guy who, in a virtually unprecedented act for the Development Permit Board, cast the deciding vote against the 105 Keefer Street project, notwithstanding that the project conformed to all pre-existing zoning requirements. We all know how that decision turned out: Years later the site is still a useless vacant lot, the neighbourhood has descended to a new nadir and the city is left defending itself in an expensive lawsuit.

[GenWhy?]

While I disagreed with that decision greatly, and it did meet zoning, they voted against it based on design guidelines. Curious if this has anything to do with the City now being in court for that.

As an aside, one could argue the Dev. Board was overstepping with Gil as a member, but this is separate from the Planning Dept as making housing plans, area plans, new district by-laws, as I was referring to. The court will ultimately decide and we'll see what the City has to potentially fork over to Beedie.

[GenWhy?]

Just pointing out the dozens of examples I've seen since Gil came on that Council has been almost the sole issue to good housing / planning policy being enacted, when the finger gets routinely pointed at Planning or just the Mayor.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

While I disagreed with that decision greatly, and it did meet zoning, they voted against it based on design guidelines.

Prior to Kelly’s rejection of 105 Keefer, which conformed to all pre-existing zoning requirements, the project had received unanimous support from the City of Vancouver planning staff, the Urban Design Panel and the Development Permit Board advisory panel. But Kelly chose to unilaterally sweep aside the recommendations of all three civic institutions.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Prior to Kelly’s rejection of 105 Keefer, which conformed to all pre-existing zoning requirements, the project had received unanimous support from the City of Vancouver planning staff, the Urban Design Panel and the Development Permit Board advisory panel. But Kelly chose to unilaterally sweep aside the recommendations of all three civic institutions.

Agreed. As 1 of 3 votes the DPB rejected other bodies of support based on that it didn't meet the area's design guidelines, and now the City is in court. I don't disagree that this bizarre one-off was strange and a poor decision.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rofina

2 municipalities known the continent wide for having;

- Strongest NIMBY's around
- Massive ongoing housing problems
- Massive amounts of SFH in spitting distance of rapidly growing urban cores
- Similar economic make up
- Similar social policy approaches
- Massive red tape on new housing
- Dated piece meal approaches to planning

Very similar problems plague both. These cities dont need similar approaches or to be looking at each other for advice.
This is akin to a raging heroin addict asking advice on how to quit from a raging heroin addict - not a recipe for success.

You forgot;
Two of the biggest birth places of Hippie-ism and drug use, with the results of rampant drug use and homelessness abound.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Vin

You forgot;
Two of the biggest birth places of Hippie-ism and drug use, with the results of rampant drug use and homelessness abound.

Uhm you might want to look into that...

Drug Overdose Mortality by State and Opioid Summaries by State

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Prior to Kelly’s rejection of 105 Keefer, which conformed to all pre-existing zoning requirements, the project had received unanimous support from the City of Vancouver planning staff, the Urban Design Panel and the Development Permit Board advisory panel. But Kelly chose to unilaterally sweep aside the recommendations of all three civic institutions.

This was a big error by Kelley in my opinion, especially so early in his tenure.

Hi is a good person and definitely had the right direction for Vancouver in my opinion though. He was a big proponent of easing the viewcones, pushing through economically important commercial developments, and increasing density and affordable housing in more than just a few hand picked areas of the city.

He ran up against our dysfunctional bureaucracy though and was not able to implement what needed to be done, which may have been his downfall.