Our letter encourages the City to create a better, more transparent process for looking at ways to improve. This was not intended as a broader rejection of the idea of reform. Indeed, we support efforts to improve our parks and community centres. We are also of the opinion that there ARE opportunities to strengthen matters related to their governance, performance, design, programming and stewardship of parks.

However, the motion as proposed has a number of critical implications.

In the one week since it was hastily introduced, there has been little opportunity to properly evaluate the concerns that the motion purports to address.

We are particularly concerned about the process through which this motion was advanced, and the conflation of governance considerations (i.e. the elected park board), with operational and planning considerations.

We note that many of the considerations identified in the Council motion – questions of user experience, service delivery, and operational efficiency – can be addressed without the loss of the democratic opportunities that come with an elected Park Board.

So, to be clear – we are open to a process that:

(a) provides a forum to clearly identify issues and areas of concern with parks and the Park Board, and

(b) provides a fair opportunity to evaluate opportunities (and options) for improvement.

We used our letter to request that Mayor & Council amend the motion to introduce a minimum six month process that allows further public discussion and exploration of the core issues and areas of concern.

We feel that this is a fair compromise that would ensure clarity around the identification of issues & potential solutions. And yes, as part of this, the process could include revisiting the division or organization of powers as set out in the Vancouver Charter.

Newly elected ABC Vancouver candidates have indicated that they plan to remove the temporary bike lane in Stanley Park. Does hearing this make us uneasy? In a word, yes.

Both commissioners-elect and candidates-elect revealed this news while the party has been actively working with a transition team where they are organizing to “fully get going with their 94-point platform plan.”

However, the removal of the Stanley Park temporary bike lane was not specifically identified as a priority in ABC’s platform. (Presumably it is being advanced under the idea of making parks more “accessible and inclusive” – though if that’s the case, there’s lots that could be unpacked in that framing of things).

To be fair, two ABC candidates did discuss it in the candidate survey undertaken by HUB. (No ABC candidates responded to the VPSN survey, which specifically asked about biking and cycling infrastructure in parks).

At any rate, media comments by commissioners-elect indicate a desire to explore new “engineered solutions” that allow for two lanes of car traffic and a bike lane. This, coupled with a stated policy direction to “immediately restore car traffic right away.”

The current approach, which uses the existing right-of-way along Stanley Park Drive, allocates one paved lane for bikes and one for cars.

This method, introduced during COVID, has helped to alleviate the increasing number of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists along the formerly-shared seawall route.

There is no doubt that the approach – like many bike lane discussions in the city – has been controversial. This one particularly so. Unfortunately, in the ensuing public discourse, facts (on all sides of the discussion) were often buried underneath anecdote and hyperbole. Several candidates and parties – though not ABC – campaigned on a platform to “save” Stanley Park. Public opposition often characterized the park as being ‘completely inaccessible’ to drivers. This was not the case.

So… in the spirit of being open-minded, are there other approaches? Perhaps. We are curious to see what an “engineered solution” might mean. (For context: the current approach was developed by engineers as well).

One thing we do NOT want to see: painted lanes and/or sharrows that are not physically separated from car traffic. These provide no measurable benefit to safety. We also hope that past antipathy to *protected* bike lanes voiced by some ABC candidates, is just that: a thing of the past.

Further, while some widening at selected locations could improve operations, a complete new lane at the expense of large tree removal or sidewalk reallocation is not the way to go either. The installation of an expanded, protected bike lane network, suitable for all-ages and abilities, is critical in Stanley Park – particularly as the park has seen a significant increase in the number of people walking, rolling and biking.

Further consideration should also be given to other ideas floated during and before the election – such as a free, electrified trolley to service key sites, beaches and commercial areas. (Maybe something like this?)

And yes, proper attention to ensuring that the park remains accessible to seniors and those with mobility needs should absolutely be a priority. However, this is not, despite some of the rhetoric, an either/or choice.

To that end, current studies of how the park is – and isn’t – being accessed are key. We encourage the newly elected Park Board to make an evidence-based assessment, and deliver a solution that prioritizes healthy, active, and equitable access to the park. In our opinion, this approach include having the newly elected Park Board Commissioners wait for the completion of the current study into long term mobility options in Stanley Park. They could then review this important work before any decisions are made.

This article was originally published October 19, 2022. Updated October 23, 2022.

Photos and Maps: City of Vancouver website. ABC Platform – ABC webpage (sourced October 19, 2022). 

At roughly 1000m2, the new park will occupy roughly a third of a city block – and will be part of an overall redevelopment of the block that also includes a non-market housing project.

This is an interesting site, and one that is prominently located in the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood. There’s lots of potential for the new public space to serve as a ‘gateway’ to the area, but there are also some challenges that will need to be accounted for as well. Chief among them: the task of creating an inviting gathering area next to a busy arterial road.

So how do you think the park should look and feel? This initial survey gives you a chance to share your ideas on the character of the space, potential activities, design and landscaping treatments and more.

• Read the Information Booklet
  
• Take the Survey

We reached out to each of the 33 contestants for office on Thursday, September 27, and asked them to weigh in on the questions below. We’re publishing their answers – sorted by question and by candidate – as we receive them.

Whose responded? As of Wednesday, October 10 @ 3:45pm, we’ve heard from 17 candidates: Cliff Relph (Independent), Gwen Giesbrecht (COPE), Rick Hurlbut (Pro Vancouver), Dave Demers (Green Party), Stuart Mackinnon (Green Party), Mathew Kagis (Work Less Party), John Coupar (NPA), Ann-Marie Copping (NPA), Casey Crawford (NPA), Leo Heba (YES Vancouver), Chris Fuoco (Vancouver First), Tricia Barker (NPA), Gregory Edgelow (Pro Vancouver), Pall Beelsa (NPA), Camil Dumont (Green Party), Ray En-Jui Chang (Coalition Vancouver), and Winnie Siu (Coalition Vancouver).

The questions were as follows:

1. What is your favourite park or park board facility in Vancouver, and why? (LINK)
2. We’ll be sharing the top three priorities that you provided the City of Vancouver, but we want to know: which one of your three priorities are you most passionate about, and why? (LINK)
3. Vancouver is a growing city! What are your ideas for ensuring that the city’s parks and recreation facilities can respond to the needs of an increasing and diversifying population? (LINK)
4. Given the high cost of land in the city, what suggestions do you have for how the Park Board should approach the creation of new park spaces? (LINK)
5. What, if any, role do you see the Park Board playing in responding to critical social issues such as homelessness, the opioid epidemic, and social isolation? (LINK)
6. In the past few years, the Park Board has taken steps to acknowledge First Nations cultures and the impacts of colonization on local Indigenous communities. Would you continue this work? If yes, how? (LINK)
7. How can Vancouver’s parks and recreation facilities best respond to the challenges posed by climate change? (LINK)
8. What, if any, role do you think privately owned companies should play in the management, operation, or naming/branding of Park board facilities? (LINK)
9. What, if any, role do you feel that neighbourhoods or community groups should play in the stewardship of park spaces and facilities? (LINK)
10. Is there anything else you would like to share about yourself or your platform? (LINK)

The Vancouver Park Board is currently undertaking an initiative called VanPlay, which will result in a 25-year masterplan to guide the creation and maintenance of parks, community centres, and recreational facilities within the city. Community engagement around the “playbook” incorporates themes such as: community and vision, space and equity, ecology and nature, celebration and diversity, resilience and wellbeing. The “Phase 1 Engagement Report” was released last year, and it describes the technical progression of this “yearlong public discussion about the future of parks and recreation.” The whole project is anticipated to be complete by the summer of 2018.

The VanPlay conversation has got me thinking about the origins of the park spaces in which we learn, laugh, and play – and about about these spaces do (and sometimes don’t) afford residents and newcomers the opportunity to recreate and connect in safety, comfort and with peace of mind.

It also raises an interesting series of questions: what, exactly, is a park? Or at the very least, what do we need to ensure the creation of a good park? This, as you can imagine, leads to still other queries:

What sorts of features makes a park a park? Does a park need a playground? Do we need seats or benches in a park? Does a park require an abundance of grass, or does a little suffice? Can a beach be a park? Why is one park better than another? More importantly, why are some parks full of life while others are abandoned and desolate?

The Seawall as it runs along the edge of David Lam Park. Photo by Bobby Sanghera.

On February 12, 2018, B.C. Family Day, I decided to visit David Lam Park located near the south side of Yaletown. The park is located near a number of high-rise residential buildings, shops, offices, and the popular Roundhouse Community Centre. Residents and visitors make use of the lawns for gathering and picnics, or, depending on their age, get more active on the playground, tennis and basketball courts, or the prominent large field (whichs hosts soccer, volleyball and other team sports). Cyclists and pedestrians make use of the Seawall, sometimes stopping to gaze at False Creek, and the public art features located along its edge. During key weekends in the summer, the popularity of this park extends further as it serves as a key venue for the Jazz festival.

It’s this mix of uses that provides at least part of the answer to my questions.

A good park, it would seem, is so much more than just a mere place to have your lunch or a place to take an afternoon stroll. Considered in its most holistic sense, a park is an inclusive, layered, and diverse space that benefits when also surrounded by a range of other uses.

A panorama of David Lam Park. Photo by Dennis S. Hurd.

A park also works best when it aligns with the needs and desires of the users that interact within the dynamic space. The little things that make up the park, such as: benches, boardwalks, and even particular sightlines, must incite a feeling of yearning, appeal, and participation that incentivizes particular sentiments that are unique to each location.

That would imply that the success of such a place is ultimately determined through the various components that allow the park to be noticed, desired, functional, and comfortable. Jane Jacobs, in The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), argues that the fundamental requirement of neighbourhood parks is consideration for the arrangement of things that invite “liveliness and variety [which, in turn] attract more liveliness” (Jacobs, 98).

Jacobs goes on to describe four characteristics that are essential to the conservation of liveliness within a park: The importance of various focal points in the park (centering), the exposure to sunlight (sun), the implicit and explicit boundaries that makeup the park (enclosure), and, the characteristic I’ve been emphasizing, the organization and prearrangement of a park (intricacy) (103).

According to Jacobs, it is the grouping of objects in a park or, “[the] subtle expressions of difference” (104) that catch the eye of users operate as a stimulus that invites intrigue, exploration, and discovery. The experience of a particular space, such as David Lam Park, is an experience that is determined through factors that provide a measure of satisfaction – and, hopefully, happiness – to the user. This includes its many distinct features (including its intriguing public art along the shoreline, warm pavers and fountains, and mix of facilities), as well as the connections to through a space, the visibility and arrangement of features in the landscape, the nature of materials, the presence (and design) of supports such as seating, washrooms, and the variety of spaces that invite mutual uses amongst a diversity of users.

Public art along the edge of Yaletown Park. Photo by GoToVan.

The creation and conservation of our neighborhood parks needs to embrace these human-centered elements. David Lam is an excellent park, but not all of our parks are created to this standard. As we look to the future of parks in the city, it’s important to acknowledge that under-used or unloved park may have unique challenges to overcome. Not all parks can be made perfect, but the opportunity to create a long-range plan like VanPlay is also an opportunity to shed light on the things – big and little – that can help our neighborhood parks become ever more more inclusive and beloved.

Let’s do our part to make sure that all our parks are designed to respond to the needs of our neighbourhoods and their residents. You can learn about the VanPlay process by clicking here or visiting the next VanPlay Community Dialogue on April 10, 2018, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm (the location is still to be determined).

UPDATE: We’ve been advised by the Park Board that the next VanPlay Community Dialogue is being rescheduled to May 2018 – final date and location TBD. Please visit their webpage and sign-up for updates about this and other VanPlay events.

Bobby Sanghera is an aspiring Urban Planner and is passionate about social planning. He has lived and worked in Vancouver his whole life and is fascinated with the growing concerns of his local communities.

References

References to Jane Jacobs are from the The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. p. 89 – 111.

– The VPSN Team

Exploring Gastown Public Spaces – Monday, November 27

Recently, we had a chance to support the City of Vancouver’s efforts to “Reimagine Gastown Streets” by exploring a number of the neighbourhood’s key public spaces. For us, this is all part of a larger body of advocacy and placemaking work that we’ve done around Blood Alley, the Waterfront Hub, and Alexander Street (to name a few of our projects).

Coming up next Monday, November 27 at 6:00pm, we’ll be holding a small ideas jam with our team to look at developing a comprehensive set of recommendations that we can use in our advocacy work around Gastown.

If you’re interested in joining, please let us know. Email info@vancouverpublicspace.ca for more details.

“Public Space Day” at City Council – Wednesday, November 29

Speaking of advocacy… City staff will be presenting a number of updates to Council next week, including reports on Plaza Stewardship, Special Events, the Viva Vancouver (public space activation) program, Bute & Robson Plaza, and an update on the Places for People work involving the City’s downtown public spaces.

The VPSN will be reviewing all of these reports over the next few days, and we’d encourage you to do the same. And hey, you should let Council know your thoughts. More often than not, City Council only hears from people who don’t like a particular initiative… but we think there’s lots in these programs and initiatives that’s worthy of general comment and commendation! Consider informing the discussion by sharing your feedback!

:: Check out the Council Agenda (contains links to individual reports)
:: Share your thoughts – email mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

Community Dialogue – Downtown Parks & Recreation – Wednesday, November 29

How would you like the Park Board to provide recreation, such as arts, culture, spaces and facilities, in the downtown core of Vancouver? The Vancouver Park Board is developing Vancouver’s Playbook, a new master plan to guide the delivery of vibrant parks and recreation over the next 25 years. This coming Wednesday, they’ll be holding a dialogue on the future of downtown parks and recreation facilities. The event takes place 6:30 – 9:00pm, at the Roundhouse Community Arts and Recreation Centre. It’s free, but registration is encouraged.

:: Register for Park Board – VanPlay Community Dialogue: Downtown
:: More Info: www.vancouver.ca/vanplay

Places for People Downtown – Public Space Makers – Wednesday, December 6

As part of the Lumiere Festival, the City of Vancouver is hosting a Pecha Kucha-style discussion that looks at how our public spaces function. In particular, the event asks What kind of public spaces do we need in Downtown Vancouver? How can we better support the idea of creating public life in a rainy city?

The event takes place at Jim Deva Plaza (Bute and Davie), 6:00-8:30pm. The VPSN’s Paola Qualizza will be one of a number of presenters – so be sure to check out this exciting event!

Five More Public-Space Related Projects that Need Your Input

The City of Vancouver is in the midst of a number of public-space related initiatives that you may be interested in. Though described in a recent media release as “transportation” projects, the initiatives in question will all have the potential to enhance city streets and neighbourhoods in a number of different ways. Projects include upgrades to the Georgia Gateway, improvements to the Cambie Bridge, the North East False Creek Area Plan, the Alexander Bikeway, and Mobility Pricing.
There are various consultation opportunities under way, and while some of the open house opportunities have passed, there are other ways to share your feedback.

:: Read More – Get Involved: New and ongoing public space initiatives need your input

Recap: Arbutus Greenway Design Jam

October 27–29, 2017 saw the Arbutus Greenway Design Jam, an all-weekend event where 100 Vancouverites met to generate ideas for the permanent greenway. Residents discussed how to enhance biodiversity and access to nature in the city, provide spaces for play and learning at all ages, increase opportunities for public art, and honour the layered history and culture of the area.

Naomi Wittes Reichstein, Arbutus Greenway Project Lead for the VPSN, was there. You can read her write-up on our blog.

:: Read More – Building our city at the Arbutus Greenway Design Jam

Gift Ideas for the Public Space Aficionado. Your ideas?

Every few years we public a list of cool gift ideas for lovers of public space. There’s always an exciting mix of things to be found – and some of the best ideas come from readers like yourself.

If you’ve got something you think we should add to this year’s list, please email us at info@vancouverpublicspace.ca.

Volunteer Opportunities?

Interested in lending a hand with our public space work? Our next volunteer orientation session takes place on Tuesday, December 5 at 6pm. Location details are being finalized, but if you’d like to attend please email volunteer@vancouverpublicspace.ca.

Photo credit: Rain Urbanism, by Matthew Soules

This lecture explores the ecological and environmental sustainability dimensions of parks and public spaces in urban environments with two leading experts: Melina Scholefield, Manager of the City’s Green Infrastructure Implementation, and Steven Apfelbaum, Senior Ecologist, Founder & Chairman of Applied Ecological Services.

A little further along, the VPSN’s Andrew Pask will be back moderating the following event on November 1, covering the theme of Celebration and Diversity. Details on this event will be shared shortly.

:: Register for the event Ecology and Nature event

Imagine Parks and Recreation – What could Vancouver’s parks, public space and recreation opportunities look like in 25 years? How about 100 years?

6:30pm to 8pm: Group Lecture

• Dr Tara Moreau: UBC Botanical Garden
• Jessie Mann: Youth leader
• Aaron Licker: using GIS to investigate cities
• Ildiko G. Kovacs: engaging children in parks planning
• Andrew Pask: Vancouver Public Space Network
• Rena Soutar: First Nations relationship building
• Dylan Rawlyk: Stanley Park Ecological Society
• Emily Seider: Using park spaces as disaster hubs

8pm to 9pm: Mix and Mingle Reception

Check out this great evening of ideas. Tickets are free and can be booked online.

:: To register, or for more information on the event: Urbanarium webpage

Vancouver is urbanizing at such a rapid rate that it is hard to imagine what it used to look like 150 years ago.

The city used to have an abundance of salmon swimming in streams that have mostly gone extinct, grey and humpback whales used to live in our ocean, grizzly bears used to roam our forest. However, many of our wild species have disappeared or gone extinct as humans continue to build and develop on lands that were once the habitat of these species. In our present day society, surrounded and enclosed by our human-made environment, it’s so easy to become disconnected with our natural environment. It’s hard to imagine what Vancouver was once like as we continue to develop buildings that result in many streams being buried and dramatically changing our natural world. Nonetheless, in the midst of “dewilding”, Vancouver is pushing to “rewild” its city again by intertwining nature and our built environment together.

The Vancouver Park Board has been working to “rewild” Vancouver through the “Rewilding Vancouver: From Sustaining to Flourishing” action plan. Not only does this plan encourage Vancouverites to connect themselves back to the natural world in their daily life, it also is essential that we have full access to nature because the natural world is important to our physical and mental well-being. Residents should be able to witness streams teeming with salmon, whales swimming in the harbour, and eagles flying above. As humans who depend on much of our natural resources, we must take good care of our natural world. J.B. Mackinnon, author of The Once and Future World, says that “this city can do more than offer more access to nature; it can also give nature more access to the city. This is the right place; this is the right time. By rewilding Vancouver, we will create a city that is not only more resilient, but also more exciting, more fascinating, more magical to live in—wilder in every sense of the word.”

What ‘no net loss’ idea means, in general, is that whenever there is a loss of greenspace in a park or school board site, it would have to be replaced. Of course, as we note below, it’s the specific details where things start to get tricky — and we have identified a few items that we feel are worth thinking about if this motion gets the go-ahead.

To that end, we sent off a letter to offer our support – just as we did almost seven years ago when it was first proposed by former Park Board Commissioner Spencer Herbert. Here’s an excerpt:

…The idea of developing a ‘no net loss’ policy has considerable merit. The VPSN first wrote to the City in support of a similar motion in November 2007. We commend the City for revisiting this issue.

We note that the idea of a no net loss policy has some technical and implementation-related questions that will need to be looked at closely. We would like to use this opportunity to share some considerations in advance of any policy or strategy development.

• Clarifying ‘no net loss’ – Greenspace can be reduced in two ways: (1) through a reduction in the number of hectares of designated greenspace (e.g. through the expansion of a park building or installation of a parking lot – assuming that these are not part of the original ‘net total’); and (2) through the potential reduction in available park space per capita, as the population of the city grows. The VPSN supports measures to mitigate both of these forms of reduction.

• Greenspace vs open space – Some additional clarity should be considered around the loss of greenspace versus open-space, as these terms are overlapping, but not synonymous. If a park is redesigned and has an increased amount of hard-surfacing introduced – i.e. a plaza – does that count as loss of greenspace? Similarly, if a public gathering area/plaza without any real landscaping is reduced, could that trigger the provisions of this motion?

• Quality and quantity – While this motion focuses on the idea of quantitative reductions in greenspace, we would suggest that improvements in quality may be as important, if not more important than quantitative improvements. Stated another way, merely ensuring that ‘lost’ greenspace is replaced doesn’t necessarily guarantee a public or environmental benefit is derived.We understand also that, in at least two of the community plan consultations (Marpole and Grandview-Woodland), strong preferences were expressed for qualitative improvements to existing parks.Given that a no-net loss policy will require some funding mechanism for parkland acquisition, this raises the question – would at least a portion of that money be better spent improving under-performing spaces before acquiring new space elsewhere. We offer this as food for thought.

• Locational considerations – In general, the VPSN supports a ‘no net loss’ approach that ties any ‘replacement greenspace’ to the neighbourhood/local area in which ‘the loss’ takes place. However, we note that the motion raises a question of equity: what if there is a net loss in greenspace in a neighbourhood that is particularly park rich? Is it appropriate to shift the public benefit to an area of the city that is park deficient? Again, something to think about in the course of developing a strategy around this. Either way, we recommend that the City be clear on this issue.

• Funding ‘no net loss’ replacement greenspace – The City’s parkland acquisition budget is not particularly large. Furthermore, the Parks Board already has a number of laudable park acquisition priorities: focused on ensuring waterfront access, increasing parkland in park-deficient neighbourhoods and supporting the acquisition of park space to meet the Greenest City 5-minute ‘Access to Nature’ goal. We would not want to see this already-limited budget further stretched to support the no-net loss goal. To that end, we favour the apportioning of additional funds from the annual City budget to support this motion.

Again, these comments are intended – pending approval of this motion – to strengthen any future work around a no-net of greenspace policy. We would like to further note our support for the other provisions of the motion that deal with the potential to expand greenspace and, also, to set biodiversity targets in the city.