Well, my colleague has done it again. Patrick Condon delivers a clear indictment of what is planned for SEFC. There's far too much common sense in what Condon writes for the real players in this game to take seriously. Sadly, we are likely to see a very watered down version of the sustainable community vision that was fought for over many years, which resulted in a Policy Statement document that, if implemented, might have been a real model community. I fear however that if Patrick is right, we will see a pale facsimile of what might have been. The City's Real Estate group (the landlord) has consistently dug in its heels and pushed for a version of False Creek North a la Concord Pacific. I hope I am wrong, but think that is what we will land up getting. Fine grained, lower scale yet just as dense (if not denser: think Paris or Barcelona), ground-oriented urban form does not seem to cut the mustard with these guys. No Patrick, you are not slow or naive. It is they who just don't get it.

an interesting article, but why not be more pointed? "the city" and anonymous, amorphous bureaucrats provide a rather vague target for this important criticism. who exactly is responsible for this land giveaway a la vander zalm and for this banalization of what should have been made into an exciting and highly liveable urban redevelopment? which departments, which councillers, which staff? give us names now so that people cant blame "the process" or other airy entities if and when this project ends up a failure...

A fascinating look at the lost potential at False Creek East. Thank you Tyee and Patrick Condon for a fascinating look at how a golden opportunity is being wasted away in the name of quick progress. I agree with Sebastian Toombs above: Who are the department heads and/or councillors that are letting developers get away with these mediocre projects, let alone the steal of a deal for the land (with or without environmental clean-up). I have 2 more beefs: 1) Why is Concord/False Creek North considered such a success? Can a middle class family (ie, 2 parents and 1-3 kids) reasonably expect to afford a 2-bedroom condominium (900 to 1000 feet) that fetches $400,000-plus on the market. Come on! Plus, the neighbourhood feels sanitized, and half of the units are owned by "investors' looking to flip the things for a profit. Larry Beasley calls this a success? 2) When is someone going to come out and just say it... most of these buildings are UGLY. The most recent being (albeit on the north side of downtown), the Shaw Tower. 3) The city's "success story" at Coal Harbour may be anything but... Read on at Vancouver Magazine... On the Waterfront: Exactly Who Lives in Coal Harbour? http://www.vanmag.com/0309/f1.htm

I have participated, for academic credit, on a lengthy project looking at alternative designs for SEFC. Though it did not totally meet the program (specified acerage for park, development and right of ways), the row house model design was the best received by the head of the planning department. This design had four to five storey "grow" houses (a la Avi Friedman - McGill) with mid-rise apartment buildings stepping down from City Gate. The neighbourhood as designed was reflective of what is south of the area in Mount Pleasant as opposed to what sits looming over the land across the creek. What was really nice about the design is that it brought the green space (though less than the 26.4 acres dictated by the policy document) into the community so that more houses fronted or had immediate access to it. The block sizes were small and the housing was designed to be subdivided for smaller developers to showcase a variety of sustainable housing creating a unique (not cookie-cutter) community. Call me crazy, but this is more the type of community in which I want to live.

Dunno about yer numbers patrick. $150 per buildable seems dream-like; recent highest urban core was $97. And of the 48 acres, 26 is park, 9 is roads leaving only about 12-13 for sale. No easy answers immediately spring to mind.

An urban high rise related density is the economic argument, but most cities in the world manage the same density in 6 to 8 storey buildings. (Density is not to be feared if done right). The city can achieve the payback without doing towers, unless up near the Uptown Broadway corridor, with density purchased from "the heritage site"; ie, the waterfront park. A mix of this form plus some townhousing and small lots would achieve a more viable mix of form, lifestyle and streetscape. On canals too- but more of that later. Mid rises also allow for family yard related units at grade and terraced family units on top, meaning the family formation is encouraged downtown.

I have never understood why everyone boasts of Vancouver being a beautiful city! As far as I am concerned, it is a dump! Concrete, blacktop parked cars and garbage all over the place. Maybe I have spent too many years working in The "City of Vancouver" but there is nothing, other than maybe the beaches, that I find attractive about it! Start turning the Arbutus Railway Line into a walking/cycling route and greenway and MAYBE Vancouver could perhaps live up to its' potential but until such time as we get over our love affair wih the car and START making our cities for HUMAN BEINGS, that is NEVER going to happen!

I have been around the world and I have to disagree with Colin - even though Vancouver hardly attempts to reach the potential haven it can be - it is undeniably one of the most beautiful (and yes, I grudgingly admit it - green) city I have experienced. Just crossing over to Seattle makes you appreciate the relatively clean streets of Vancouver. I think the fear of selling off little blocks as opposed to have the whole area of False Creek developed under one vision is that there will be a lack of cohevsiveness of design - leaving an unplanned mess that would be a soar point of major disparagement by the media. We have taught our politicians to play it safe and not venture out into any "fast ferry" deals even if they look promising. UBC has taken on a new "sustainability pledge" to be the greenest university in Canada (if not N. America) and this vision is dependent on active participation of its constituents. Vancouver citizens need to get involved rather than expect all things delivered. Got an idea - then spring it into action - if it is doable, then do it.

Tom Price-Digby writes that $97 per buildable is the maximum in downtown. But downtown is not the comparison I am making. I am making it to Kits. Also, the 26 acres for park is still in play at this time. My own view is that 12 is more reasonable if it is just that district that is being considered. The recent developments in the downtown are oversupplied with open space in my view, and of a type that reduces rather than enhances environmetnal sustainability. Then if 40% of all buildable space is given over to roads, those are very wide roads indeed. 30% would be a better target. Thanks for your comments Tom and others above. Patrick

Remember Mayor Larry Campbell, Jim Green and other 2010 Bid Boosters saying how the Olympics weren't going to cost the city anything? How the Games would be a good deal for the City? Here's what the No Games folks found out during the Vancouver Plebiscite campaign....but no one reported it! In the last days of NPA dominance in Vancouver's City Hall, in the secrecy of the Mayor's Office, after the electorate had voted to give COPE a chance, city officials and 2010 Bid Corp members were busy signing legal agreements committing the City to 2010 Winter Games financial obligations. One of these agreements titled, "Games Facility Agreement - Vancouver Athlete's Village", (to be located on the South East False Creek Lands owned by the City) committed the City of Vancouver to the following estimated costs (2003 dollars): 1. All site remediation costs: $16,300,000 2. Infrastructure: $31,000,000 3. Finance: $15,000,000 4. Building Construction: $105,000,000 The total estimated financial responsibilities for the Vancouver Athlete's Village: $167,300,000 The Feds and Province, through the Bid Corp, promised to help pay for some of the costs...$30,000,000...leaving the City of Vancouver to finance a total of $137,300,000. Section 6.2 of the Vancouver Athlete's Village Agreement states: "Except for the BidCorp Contribution, the City will be responsible to provide all funding for the development and construction of the Permanent Facilities." The new COPE council were made aware of all of the legal obligations the former NPA council made in regards to the 2010 Winter Games Bid. Despite being aware of the costs of the Athlete's Village and the implications it would have on future development of the City owned SE False Creek Lands, Mayor Campbell, Councillors Green, Louie (not Louis), Stephenson and Cadman voted to Boost the Games. Also, Councillor Green and others have consistently stated to the media and public that the 564 unit Athlete's Village will be turned into social housing at the end of the 2010 Games. Here's what the Agreement actually states: Section 8.2 "City to Provide Non-Market Housing. The City agrees to facilitate the conversion of a portion of the Permanent Facilities into non-market housing as a lasting legacy to the community. The City will make the final determination of the form and nature of the non-market housing and will make reasonable best efforts to deliver the target of approximately 250 units of non-market housing." IT appears that only a portion of the Village will be used for non-market housing. Is non-market housing social housing? The agreement doesn't define the term "non-market housing" so you're guess is as good as mine. Will the 'Don' of the Downtown Eastside be around to ensure that the City Council of the day makes "reasonable best efforts" to provide "approximately" 250 "non-market" housing units to Vancouver's 50,000 residents in need of affordable housing? I don't think Section 8.2 guarantees any social housing! What will the cost of a 450 sq.ft. SE False Creek studio be in 2010? It may be non-market but will it be affordable for the tens of thousands of residents who are currently paying over 50% of their gross incomes for substandard housing? Perhaps some of this explains why the enlightened vision of many Vancouver's residents work on SE False Creek has been scrapped for yet another real estate windfall for the city's development community. Here's what Frank O'Brien, editor of the Western Investor had to say about the real purpose of hosting the 2010 Games in his Western Perspective column on June 2002: "When Jack Poole adressed a room full of real estate developers this spring it erased any doubts of what the 2010 Winter Olympics bid for Vancouver-Whistler is really all about. At the risk of sounding naive, we had understood the bid was aimed at getting the games, raising Vancouver's international profile and welcoming elite athletes to one of the world's best skiing locations. Wrong. The real purpose of the 2010 Olympics bid is to seduce the provincial and federal governments and long suffering taxpayers into footing a billion dollar bill to pave the path for future real estate sales. Whether the bid is successful or not is actually immaterial. "If the Olympic bid wasn't happening we would have to invent something. " Poole, chair of the 2010 Vancouver Bid Corp. and noted real estate developer, said in a most telling understatement. It is hard to imagine any fantasy that fits better than the Olympics bid if you are into real estate development." Despite all the good intentions, the present Vancouver Council, like the last has been more than willing to facilitate the desires and tired visions of real estate developers over a desire to create a real sustainable future. Thanks to Patrick Condon for bringing this issue back to light. Those of you who spent hundreds of hours designing an incredible vision for SE False Creek should not give up. I think Vancouver residents would love to see the work you did. Perhaps you could parade it into the chambers of Vancouver council next Tuesday! It ain't a done deal yet.

Every so-called "advocate" who espouses the language of "world class" verbiage (verbiage made infamous by the NPA "developers clique") is an individual who is invariably out of touch with the local community's locally-asessed needs, wants and community vision - the current people who live with the outcome - not "future" people of future communities, yet to be shoved down the throats of the local contituents; "new" communities that are invariably the "theoretical" darlings of remote minded and pontificating experts, that clearly have a very hard time understanding existing - not "future neighbourhoods". What's espoused in those "drawings" - and drawing like those - is NOT the consensus of the local constituency. Do you actually have the un-informed gall to say that SEFC wasn't something - a land area of Mount Pleasant's - expediently - and without consultation (by the City - read NPA), at the arbitrary stroke of a pen, extracted from the Mount Pleasant community in the 80's, that was prior destined for non-development purpose?

Dear editor. Your newspaper talked back to me. This has never happened before. I thought this comment page is where we get to take provocative shots at your writers with immunity from consequence. Dear Phil. Good comment. Too long.

well, lets see, where do i start? how about i start and finish with the truth in one word. Olympigs! its the truth! a few make a whole lot of money while some think they can too and many suffer. it is shard to understand how some "activists" think the Olympigs can do good when poverty increases! but, then again, since when do politicians really care about ending poverty? right! upwardly mobile KKKapitalist's or want to be capitalust's! thanks to all you inteligent folks who make sure they know the truth! kym hothead

well maybe if these pinhead planers in the GVRD would start thinking that maybe if a freeway went around the city then gridlock in the downtown core would ease up. And they want the Olyimpics the 15 day party for the rich. I hope you vancouver types will enjoy the mass grid lock on hwy 99 going over the Lions Gate Bridge for half a day to get to these venues on the North Shore Mountains.

For those concerned that a sustainable development will not pursued by the City for the SEFC might want to consider involving the City of Torino, Italy. Vancouver and Torino agreed on sustainable development policies in the Convention of Cooperation signed in March 2004. (see www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/olympics/) Perhaps the Italian Mayor can provide some clout under public pressure. Just a thought.