Are tall buildings the way to achieve needed density? David Owen & Sam Sullivan argue yes.

Last night, at Vancouver’s Playhouse theatre, staff writer at the New Yorker Magazine, density advocate and contributing editor of Golf Digest, David Owen presented his argument that Manhattan, with its dense urban form, is the Greenest City in North America.

Following introductory remarks by former Vancouver Mayor and eco-density pioneer Sam Sullivan, Mr. Owen’s talk was largely a retread of his recently published book, Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability (Riverhead, 2009) and 2004 New Yorker article Green Manhattan Everywhere should be more like New York. Owen offered evidence that New York Style urban development – vertical, dense and massively scaled – is becoming an environmental necessity. Mr. Owen’s points included:

• The increasing cost of energy will force all those but the very wealthy to live in compact walkable urban environments (he himself lives in rural Connecticut).
• Urban residents use far less energy than their rural counterparts and are less reliant on the automobile.
• Densely populated cities make public transit more viable.
• The 100 mile diet (local food) is part of a ‘luxury consumption’ trend that typifies the futile of efforts many western environmentalists.
• Technological innovation ends up exacerbating environmental problems by making formerly luxury and energy intensive products (e.g. iPad) and services (e.g. air travel) widely available to all socio-economic groups.

Mr. Owen’s message, closely follows that of local density advocate Sam Sullivan. 

Following the presentation Mr. Sullivan lamented not being given the authority during his time in office, to allow developers to build ever higher buildings in Vancouver (which he says would provide housing for both families and the poor). (As a side note, Sam Sullivan’s colleague out at UBC, Patrick Condon, has made some excellent arguments about the possibility of achieving increased density with low to mid-rise development – thus avoiding the run-to-tower option presented here).

Owen is not without his detractors, James Howard Kunstler amongst them, who view massively scaled condo towers, such as those found in ever greater abundance in Vancouver, as one-generation buildings, ultimately destined for redundancy with little possibility of re-purposing or redevelopment upon their decline.

There are several pointed arguments here and we’re interested to know what people think of the various theses that are contained in Owen’s arguments. Feel free to weigh in!

- Post by JT

“I voted” sticker – Photo by Cave Canem

Next week promises to be a busy one at Council – between the regular session of Council on Tuesday and the various Council Committee meetings taking place on Thursday there is a full suite of public space related activities. These include:

• A motion (see below) on the possibility of on-line voting (Tues)
• A motion on calculating available density in the city (Tues)
• A report on expanding street food options (Thurs)
• A report on noise in the city and the efficacy of the noise bylaw (Thurs)
• Discussion on the VAG move (which we mentioned in our previous post) (Thurs)
• Two presentations – likely quite contentious – on building heights and view-related issues (Thurs)
• The draft Greenest City Implementation Plan (Thurs)

The first is particularly timely. Earlier this week a suite of contenders for the leadership of the BC liberals endorsed (some cautiously) the idea of on-line voting. And here’s a chance to consider it at the local level.

For those that have difficulty scheduling a trip to the neighbourhood voting box once every three or four years, this might make life easier. There’s a larger discussion to be had about civic engagement here – and, as much as we like technology, we can’t help wonder if this will do much to get at the core issues behind current voting levels. Then again, if it does a better job of getting residents engaged with the civic contest, that’s a positive outcome.

Either way, it’s an interesting motion and we’re be watching to see the sort of exchange that ensues.

Here’s the text of the motion, which was introduced by Councillor Andrea Reimer:

WHEREAS

1. Less than 35% of eligible voters in Vancouver cast ballots in the last two
civic elections;

2. Voter turnout is considered an important indicator of social cohesion
and vital to a healthy democracy;

3. Research conducted by Elections Canada on voter turn out in the last
federal election found that 57% of non-voters cited time pressures that
prevented them from getting to a voting place in person;

4. Elections Canada will be conducting an online voting pilot in the 2013
federal election;

5. Online voting can greatly improve accessibility by increasing the time
and place options available to voters to cast a ballot;

6. Online voting is used in more than three dozen Canadian municipalities ranging from 44 municipalities in Ontario, such as Markham, ON which piloted online voting in 2003, to Halifax, Nova Scotia which conducted successful pilots in a 2008 general election and 2009 by-election;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk report to Council on the feasibility of conducting an online voting pilot in the 2011 municipal elections or, if 2011 is not feasible, what the earliest date for a pilot would be.

For his talk, entitled “A Field Guide to Transit Debates,” Walker laid out his broader aim in writing and working in transit: to help people frame the nature of the most important questions about transit services, thus further empowering them to thoughtfully evaluate possible answers. He presented a spectrum from objectivity/rationality to subjectivity as a tool for navigating what people say about transit and advocating for more voices in the transit planning process that respect a balance of both perspectives.

Walker was a major critic of the all-too-common triumph of fantastical plans for the future of transit over practical concerns, the latter of which he dubbed the “Cold, Boring, Sexless and Inescapable Facts of Transit Geometry.” He provided examples of poorly designed and executed projects (or whole systems), many in open defiance of the constraints of service or land use considerations, comparing and contrasting Portland, Sydney, and San Francisco. Walker also made multiple references to the online debate he had with UBC Professor Patrick Condon on the role and value of streetcars, as well as his disagreements with the supporters of “slow transit,” given that it is speed, frequency, and reliability that affect quality of service, not the particularities of a transit technology.

Despite being a minor part of his presentation, one of Walker’s topics stood out as particularly relevant to the VPSN’s advocacy for meaningful, memorable, and inclusive public spaces: the detrimental effect of the over-emphasis on rational concerns in planning. While the rules of geometry are important, Walker argued, the outcome can be problematic if this focus is given the power to dictate human culture and behaviour without thought to the trade-offs. Walker emphasized that beyond geometry’s hard and fast rules, we can make the decision as communities to value things other than efficiency. However, he made it clear that we should work to be fully aware of the trade-offs. This will help to prevent, for example, taking an agency to task for slow ridership growth in places where ridership expansion is not the agency’s goal.

As audience questions brought the discussion closer to home, Walker’s advice for transit advocates here was to keep alive the memory of the moments when Vancouver has shown how transit can scale and work for the city, such as during the Vancouver Olympics. He also encouraged Vancouverites to look to Europe for inspiration in surmounting some of our obstacles, pointing out that as far as North America goes, most other cities are grappling with similar issues with about as much, if not less, success.

If you missed this talk, the SFU City Program is likely to release a video of this presentation in the future UPDATE: SFU did not tape it, although an audio version is in the works and will be linked to when available, as indicated in the comments below. To keep up to date on his writing (including a forthcoming book), check out Jarrett’s blog Human Transit.