A new report from the Fraser Institute — Canada’s free-market think tank — says that Vancouver, BC’s growth-management plan is making Vancouver less, not more, livable. And you know the report must be right, because it was written by your very own Antiplanner.
Nice views. But how many people would really prefer to live in these high-priced condos if affordable single-family homes were available in the suburbs?
Vancouver has been practicing growth-management planning at least since 1966, when the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board published a plan that set aside large amounts of land from development. That board was soon replaced by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), a backdoor effort to create a consolidated metropolitan regional government.
In the early 1970s, one of the members of the GVRD board coined the term “livable region” to cover up the fact that they were writing a plan that made the region less livable. From then on, just about every planning document prepared by the GVRD made liberal use of the term livable, making good use of the Big Lie theory: repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
In the early 1980s, a recession led the province’s conservative government to revoke the GVRD’s planning authority as “anti-business.” But that authority was restored by a liberal government in 1995. The new “Growth Strategies Act” required the GVRD to write a plan that would keep housing affordable, provide efficient transportation, protect the unique character of local communities, and do many other things. The GVRD ignored most of these mandates and wrote a plan that concentrated on only two things mentioned in the law: avoiding urban sprawl and minimizing the use of the automobile.
Psychological and physical reasons are responsible for reduced sildenafil 100mg tablets lovemaking desire in men. This has been an effective anti- impotency medicinal drug which leads for greater potential impacts of the active drug ingredients the drug application can be fatal for people on cipla tadalafil nitrates and those with cardio-vascular problems. Stomach ought to be light whilst taking viagra in usa http://respitecaresa.org/author/ncarney/page/2/ the actual drug. usa cheap viagra I always advise you, consult the trusted and best sexologist doctor in Delhi to get rid of ED is to use Kamagra oral jelly.
The resulting plan put more than 70 percent of the region off limits to development. It vowed to spend virtually all of the region’s transportation capital funds on a transit system that moved only about 10 percent of the region’s passenger travel (and, needless to say, none of its freight). The plan also required all communities in the region to densify and achieve a jobs-worker balance, which doesn’t do much to preserve the unique character of those communities.
As a result, the Vancouver region has the least affordable housing in Canada by far. It is tied with Toronto and Montreal in having the worst congestion in Canada. Housing affordability and congestion are only two measures of livability, but they were both explicitly mentioned in the Growth Strategies Act and both are ignored by GVRD planners who try to pretend that their plan is not responsible for Vancouver’s poor showing by these measures.
More than 70 percent of Canadians say they would prefer to live in a single-family home with a yard. Planners have deliberately worked to foil that dream. Nearly 90 percent of Vancouver’s travel is by automobile. Planners have deliberately tried to make things as difficult as possible for those travelers.
Of course, thanks to the Livable Region plan, Vancouver has lots of open space, but British Columbia hardly has a shortage of open space. British Columbia has an average population density of only 10 people per square mile; only 14 of the world’s 230 nations have lower densities than that. So Vancouver planners have managed to create an artificial land shortage in a place where land is just about the most abundant resource available.
For that, GVRD planners earn the praise of their peers, most of whom have knee-jerk reactions that open space preservation is worth any price and automobile drivers deserve the congestion they get.
Like Portland, the city of Vancouver itself is heavily populated by young singles or childless couples who love their city. But they are willing to impose their dense lifestyle on others who aren’t so thrilled about it. Perhaps the Fraser Institute can persuade some of the region’s suburban residents to turn things around.
I picked up your report and after reading it, I found that you seem to have very little understanding of Metro Vancouver. Yes, you have read quite a bit, but there are holes in the report.
Why did your report neglect to mention Yaletown, Londsdale Quay, and Metrotown? All are extremely successful and popular communities. They are dense, transit-oriented communities that have exploded in growth over the last 10 years. They are hugely popular with all sorts of people (families, immigrants, singles, etc). The only problem from my point of view is that there are just not enough communities like these (I live in a community like this). Places like Port Moody, further out are trying to emulate these successes.
Even if you think these communities are somehow flawed (which I bet you do), by not mentioning their effect on Metro Vancouver in your report, you have shown a significant lack of understanding of the region. The point is that they are extremely popular and they are being built because there is a demand.
Additionally, you neglected to mention that commute times have decreased in Metro Vancouver in the past 10 years:
http://tinyurl.com/nloo9
GHG emissions in Vancouver proper have not decreased, but they have not kept up with population growth.
http://tinyurl.com/2moj8m
I would bet that there is a relationship between all of this.
Housing prices and traffic are a problem, but your assertion that they are the most important that we are facing is a value judgment that I do not think you have the experience to make.
Pingback: » The Antiplanner
I share your anti-planning sentiments and agree that Vancouver planning has created many problems of affordability for families, that need not exist to the same extent. But I would have trouble using this post in my blogging because you throw your analysis into doubt with statements like this: “Of course, thanks to the Livable Region plan, Vancouver has lots of open space, but British Columbia hardly has a shortage of open space. British Columbia has an average population density of only 10 people per square mile; only 14 of the world’s 230 nations have lower densities than that. So Vancouver planners have managed to create an artificial land shortage in a place where land is just about the most abundant resource available.”
Have you looked at a map? Most all of BC is mountains, with heavy snowfalls (above 300m. on the coast). Most of the population lives in the few modestly sized valleys. Vancouver is bounded to the west by the Pacfic, to the south by the US border (literally 30 minutes from downtown, if no congestion), and to the north the mountains (which come right into the first row of suburbs). While there is room for greater density all over the place, the only empty free land in any great amount (assuming we keep our parks) is agricultural land in the river valley to the south and east of the city. While we need to find more land for housing, clearly, we have to remember this is the most fertile agricultural land in North America and with rising fuel costs, we need to sustain agriculture in British Columbia to feel secure about our food supply. We also need to spend more on roads, and arguably less on light rail. But, again, it is not so simple as that: it’s hard to imagine how we will ever avoid some congestion given the inevitable bottlenecks in a region reliant on expensive bridges (however many we build) over the many waterways and the roads that must feed into them.