Urban Planet is a daily roundup of  blogs from around the world dealing specifically with urban environments. We’ll be on the lookout for websites outside the country that approach themes related to urban experiences and issues.

GOOD asks "can a font help a city make a comeback"? Designers D.J. Trischler and Jeremy Dooler are trying to do just that. They believe their font, "Chatype", to be the first of its kind - a grassroots font developed specifically for city branding purposes. The geometric slab serif draws on local visual references including Cherokee script, Coca Cola's font, the typeface of the local train, the city's industrial past and its cluster of technological startups.

Image from GOOD

For more stories from around the planet, check out Spacing on Facebook and Twitter.  Do you have an Urban Planet worthy article you'd like to share? Send the link to urbanplanet@spacing.ca

This is the second part of an interview between Spacing Vancouver Editor Erick Villagomez and former Vancouver Director of Planning Brent Toderian discussing recent events, his planning legacy, and what his plans are for the future. For those of you who missed the first part, you can read it here.

•••

Spacing: The rise of publications like Spacing—that has quite a young and engaged readership—seems to speak to the possibility that urbanism has gone "mainstream.” The rise of urbanism-oriented product and fashions—everything from nerdy information graphics on t-shirts and poster to plates with urban grids on them—seem to validate this claim. Have you seen the level of engagement from the younger generation increase since you entered the professional world of planning/urbanism? What do you make of this seeming shift in interest from the younger generation.

Brent Toderian: Absolutely. Processes like our Greenest City engagement show that there is an incredible and often untapped passion for city building amongst the younger creatives. But I would debate the thought that interest in urbanism has only grown in the younger generations. What we see here is that urbanism is increasingly ageless.

It isn’t just about the young people and seniors embracing urbanism, with the theory that middle-aged folks with families are still suburban thinkers. I think our own downtown has proven that it doesn't have to be that way. 7,000 children live in the downtown peninsula—that means families choosing urbanism over the suburbs for quality-of-life reasons. I’m seeing everyone embracing — to varying degrees — the ideas of urbanism for all of the advantages it has. It’s similar to the metaphor for biking of “8 to 80.” Urbanism is ageless. I think that is one of the most interesting—and powerful—trends I’m seeing.

Spacing: The most recent media coverage has focused on the choices for the Mayor’s Affordability Task Force. As someone with first-hand experience trying to deal with affordability locally, I’d love to hear your honest thoughts and insights about how to go about tackling this really complex issue?

Brent Toderian: First of all, I was very pleased to see the quality of people on the Task Force, many of whom I know well. Nathan Edelson and I worked very closely together on planning staff, and he’s a good friend. Mark Guslits is a friend as well, and a colleague in the Council for Canadian Urbanism. I introduced him to the city, so I was thrilled to see him appointed. I think there is quality, intelligence and diversity on the Task Force, so am very intrigued to see what they come up with.

I think that there will need to be an acknowledgement that more strategically-smart supply of housing is critical to the affordability question — as critical as it is for making us a greener city. Although more supply doesn’t guarantee affordability, it is a necessary pre-condition for affordability, and without enough supply relative to demand, prices will only go up faster. Some people have challenged that, but it's a fundamental that must resist being politicized.

Supply isn’t nearly enough though. We’ll have to get really creative around the nature of the supply, with new models and older proven models that Canada seems to have forgotten how to do. I expect there will be innovative ideas around a sustainable approach to incentives for new purpose-built rental housing, flowing out of the STIR program. We, on staff, had many observations as to what worked and didn’t during the 2-year STIR program, and those observations have great value. We need a lot more secured rental housing, because rented condos are inherently unstable, and more expensive. The Feds and the Province will have to help more with the rental housing challenge, as well — it's too much for the City to do alone.

I expect the “Whistler Model” and other models of below-market ownership will be investigated, as will new co-housing models, other shared housing models, and social housing developments on City-owned land. We should be trying housing pilots for things like container housing, and doing more with pre-fabricated and modular construction techniques.

Secondary suites can be allowed in all other housing types, including row-houses and duplexes, and the City and the Province has to fix the legal issue around fee-simple row-houses that has frustrated me and others for too long. The Province and the Feds have to be kept on the hook, given that housing is their constitutional responsibility and that they get over 90 cents of every tax dollar — even while the City shows leadership. And solutions must be developed and implemented at the regional level.

The key, I think, will also be to make this a real moment that matters, and that will only happen if everything is put on the table, discussed, analyzed and decided on honestly and intelligently. If there are things that are taboo because people don’t want to talk about them, then this won’t be the moment that it could be, or have the impact that it could have.

On one hand, there has been a reluctance at City Hall to talk about the effect of things like city development charges, public benefits and amenities on affordability. I still submit that the affordability effects suggested by the development industry of such charges are overplayed and strategic on their part, and cutting such fees would increase developer profit more than it would affect affordability — since demand determines price, not costs. Further, such charges often lead directly to affordable forms such as social or rental housing that augment diversity, or amenities that make the increase in density actually livable.

Having said that, I think they should be put on the table and vigorously analyzed, and a definitive answer provided. Up until now, it has been an issue of developer costs and profits, and more of a public relations battle waged by the land development industry against City Hall — rather than an accurate discussion on affordability.

Similarly though, I think everything from the HST to developer spending for things like marketing to international audiences, should also be put on the table and discussed. Rent control should be put on the table and discussed. Limitations on out-of-city ownership should be put on the table and discussed. I’m not saying that I would encourage the adoption of any of these ideas, because often there are foreseen or unforeseen consequences associated with them to our local economy, and I actually don’t support many of them — but regardless, they should be but on the table, discussed and throughly analyzed. If that all really happens — if nothing is taboo, and everything is put on the table — then this Task Force will have done something for the ages, instead of coming up with a convenient taboo-free short term list of actions for today. I wish them luck and urge them to seize the moment with boldness.

Spacing: Continuing on the topic of affordability, well-known urban economist and author Edward Glaeser often discusses the link between the supply of space and the cost of real estate. Simply put, he suggests that the places that are expensive don’t build a lot, and the places that build a lot aren’t expensive. What this means is that growth—not height restrictions and a fixed building stock, etc.—keeps space affordable and ensures that poorer populations and less profitable firms can stay and help a thriving city remain successful and diverse. This also points to a poignant message: that although height restrictions do increase light, and preservation does protect history, benefits like these come with a cost.

This argument really solidifies the point that there is a relationship between the regulations and restrictions placed on development, and affordability. What would you say to the possible irony that the very same planning processes and regulations that have put Vancouver at the forefront of urbanism —ones that focus on building better environments at the cost of development efficiency—are the very things that sustain and exacerbate the city’s lack of affordable housing? And if this is the case, how do you think we could ensure better urbanism while allowing growth to take place?

Brent Toderian: Well, I would say that building a quality city can make it an attractive city, and an attractive city — when the supply is finite — is often an expensive city. So there is some inherent truth to that. But the alternative is to build a city poorly and hope it will be correspondingly cheap. Or to deregulate it and hope the market unfettered will do the right things for the commonwealth. I don’t believe de-regulation will have the positives Glaeser suggests, and think it could lead to many negatives.

Having said that, I often note that there is a big difference between dumb regulation and smart, progressive regulation. There are always dumb rules and counter-productive policies we could and should get rid of. Ones that are actually standing in the way of density done well and positive supply to meet our many city goals, but the smart policies and regulations that have become the basis of the Vancouver model of city building are one of the great reasons for our success. Suggesting that things would be fine if we just got rid of city visions, policies and regulations kind of sounds like the line used around the American banking system these days — and we saw how that has turned out.

Progressive regulation, smart regulation, is a key to not only great city building, but also great economies. Our own market and economy that weathered the global downturn much better than other North American cities clearly illustrates that.

The corollary is that it’s expensive; yes, because people want to live in our great city, but also because of our beautiful natural setting and our perceived resilient economy. All of those are good “problems” to have, so how you achieve affordability in that context is probably the single greatest challenge in Vancouver, as it is in many successful cities. To suggest that we can achieve affordability by simply getting rid of the very city building tools that led to our success is counter-productive and short-sighted.

There are lots of opportunities for growth and supply that don’t block the strategic public views to our mountains that strengthen our beauty and sense-of-place; that don’t overbuild towers and block the sun from parks and public places; that don’t densify parts of the city at the expense of highly valued heritage buildings or character.

At the end of the day, “density done well” that supports our values, preserves and strengthens what is important to us, and adds to the beauty and livability of our city, is the key to providing our supply to an economically successful city, and a greener and more resilient city. Density without vision and smart regulation is likely just density done poorly, and that has been shown time and time again to be bad for the economy and for livability.

Spacing: This of course is a trick question since it is the crux of the problem, but how do you think we achieve that better urbanism and great city you describe through regulations and those tools you state are important, while allowing growth to take place and more affordability to come into play?

Brent Toderian: I think affordability is deeply embedded in all decision-making in Vancouver these days. The key is to do it well, and smartly, to achieve multiple successes, not just one goal. If you over-densify in order to feel that you are achieving greater affordability, you are likely hurting the affordability agenda because you’ll turn people against the very density needed to mitigate prices.

“Density done well” is density with great urban design, strong public realm, great livability and neighbourliness, green design, amenities and diversity of hosting types for social inclusiveness, as well as good active mobility support such as walk, bike and transit. If you don’t have those things, and you over-densify or over-build relative to context or other goals, then all you’re doing is over-building, and the public won’t  support that over time. And they will be right.

In my opinion, you can successfully challenge and expand the public's tolerances for density with great design and show that — once things are built — many of the fears will be unfounded. But if you go too far, they will indeed be able to say “we told you so”, and your city-building will lose credibility.

The art of density done well is that it can be a platform to achieve all your goals, including affordability, a greener city, a healthier urban environment, greater demographic resiliency, and more energy resiliency. Density done well and great city-building are not barriers to achieving any one of those things; it is the platform to achieving those many things successfully over time.

The great pressure can be that you feel you have to solve a big problem like affordability in one or a few projects, immediately, or else you’ll have missed your chance — the city will be unaffordable and the polar ice caps will melt. The beauty of densifying properly and artfully over a pattern is that you achieve many goals over time in a way that works much better and gets you to where you need to go with the public's support.

Spacing: I’d like to get back to the qualities required to hold your former position. As you know, some of your personality traits were deemed by some  to get in the way of doing your job optimally. Others praised your integrity, your team-building, and your vision. Arguably, however, these personality traits are the very traits that someone in such a demanding position needs to have to succeed as a Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver.

Bob Ransford recently released a  feature in the Vancouver Sun with what he believes the next planning director should have. Effective Communication, understanding land economics, and a focus on public engagement were a few attributes he listed. Needless to say, they were pretty general and broad. With your intimate knowledge of development and planning in Vancouver, what do you believe are the most important attributes your successor must have?

Brent Toderian: I believe in all of the [attributes listed by Bob Ransford]. I think they are all necessary for a successful director of planning and they are all things I strove to bring to the position.

It may not be surprising, given the approach I’ve taken to the position, but although I believe that a director has to work very hard on relationships, work well with people and be flexible where its warranted  - a significant part of the role is to ultimately be willing to make tough and sometimes unpopular decisions, and always be willing to speak truth to power, with vision, professionalism and principle.

I think integrity and passion are critical to the role, and I would hope that my successor has those, along with the diplomacy that always is needed. Being able to work well with others on your team, across departments, with Council and with the community and industry, and not think of yourself as ‘THE planner for the city”, as it is often characterized by others, is key. I always saw myself as a city planner, yes, but also as a collaborator and leader of a fantastic team.

Having the support and loyalty of your team is critical to the role, or else you will not succeed. I think that has been one of my key successes. I beleive in giving and sharing credit, and one of my favourite phrases is "it's amazing what you can accomplish when nobody worries about who gets the credit!"

It will also be important to position my successor for success by making sure that the nature of the role and its many responsibilities are well understood, so my successor isn’t dogged with the kind of perception and positioning problems that I found myself dealing with very early in the role.

I believe a chief planner needs to be what my friend Charles Landry, author of the Creative City and the Art of City-Making, calls a “Civic Creative”, someone who skis on their creative edges so-to-speak. Some see creativity as a private sector or non-profit sector thing, but I certainly don’t - it can and must live in City Hall.

I don’t think Vancouver needs a bureaucrat or a yes-person. I’ve always said that we shouldn’t let a rule stand in the way of a better idea, but I’ve found that almost everyone thinks their idea IS better, and most are not.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe that anybody should be the director of planning for Vancouver without being a very sophisticated urbanist — somebody who loves and understands cities and thinks not just about the present, but always about the future in both a visionary and action-oriented way.

Spacing: You mentioned your team, and I’d like to touch upon this for a bit. Much has been said about the “5 minute standing ovation” your staff gave you during your final meeting with them. A lot of people have said, though, that there have been a lot of high profile people who have retired over time and there was some apprehension of the capabilities of the existing staff. What is your take on this?

Brent Toderian:  I want to say that I was very pleased that the people who retired left gradually over time, frequently saying that they stayed longer than they needed to because they were empowered and engaged, and enjoyed working in the culture I tried to create. I had the ability, thankfully, to replace them over five or six years instead of having them all leave at once. This was a important to the successes over the last 6 years. But it's true that we had to manage a generational turn-over.

What I believe the planning department has now is a group with the talent and creativity to possibly be the best generation of urbanists the planning department has had - if that potential is fostered, trusted, and allowed to be realized. Some may be young, but they are very smart, passionate and sophisticated in their knowledge and urbanist thinking.

I would say there is great ability and even greater potential, and I’m very proud of the role I played in building that talent, and giving it a culture to grow and do great work. I’m going to miss working with them, but I believe I’ve left the planning department in a very good place with the next generation of urbanists.

I think it will be critical for the corporate culture and management approach to allow and encourage them to do great and principled work for the city’s future. If this doesn’t happen, I don’t believe it will be the fault of youth, or a lack of talent and potential.

Spacing: I’d like to continue of the theme of your experience as a planner to-date. Having now worked in both in the public and private sectors in the world of city-building, what would you say are the pros/cons of each?

Brent Toderian: I’ve definitely learned in the last 12 years that the public sector, and municipal leadership specifically, is a much harder challenge. Although the work is long and difficult in the private sector, the kinds of challenges, stresses and politics working as a municipal leader are definitely on another level. I’m always going to have tremendous respect for the municipal leaders that I work with, as I move through my career.

The beauty of the private sector is that you get to have influence and participate in the workings of multiple cities. The slightly odd metaphor I’ve been pondering lately is that of an “Urban Rōnin”, a masterless samurai with honour intact who lends his sword to various cities. Now as you can imagine, not everything in that metaphor is attractive to me, but it’s an intriguing and kind of fun piece of imagery. The idea that I can work with any city — nationally and internationally — helping with their big urban challenges, learning from them, advising and teaching, is the most intriguing aspect of the private sector for me.

I don’t anticipate that I will be doing a significant amount of work for private sector clients, although if there are development clients interested in doing projects exhibiting advanced urbanism that I could be passionate about, I would be interested in that. But I have a lot of respect for the challenges of cities and I’m very interested in working with cities to help with those challenges.

Spacing: This brings me to the future. With the retirement of Toronto’s Chief Planner & Executive Director, Gary Wright on the horizon, people in the field are buzzing about the possibility of you taking the helm around those parts. Calgary is also seeking a new chief planner, and the rumour is you’ve been approached by several American cities, as well. But based on what I'm hearing, it sounds like this may be your foray back into the private sector. With the experience of working for the City of Vancouver behind you, what does the future have in store for Brent Toderian?

Brent Toderian: I knew when I accepted this once-in-a-lifetime position at 36 years old—the youngest planning director in North America as far as I could tell, at least for major cities—that I certainly wasn’t going to retire in that position. It also occurred to me that the chief planner of Vancouver is a unique position in many ways, and probably something that would represent the final role of my municipal career when it was over. So I’ve anticipated for some time now that I would go back to the private sector afterwards.

Having said that, I’ve gotten some intriguing inquiries and offers and I’m keeping an open mind on those. Several discussions continue, and I’ve learned in my life to “never say never”.

But it's true that my wife and I love Vancouver, and see it as our home. Also, the idea of my own urbanism consultancy—helping cities, towns and regions do their own advanced urbanism, helping them recognize that moment they are in, and have the skill and the will to be bold in that moment, is something that really excites me.

I would say that I’m strongly leaning towards the private sector and in fact have already initiated the launch of my new company, which I’ve named Toderian UrbanWORKS. I’m already having a lot of fun with it!  It won't just be about teaching or transplanting the Vancouver model. Rather it will be about help and solutions to tough urban problems, and addressing those 8 challenging and frustrating words I often here when I travel and speak elsewhere - “we could never do that in our city!”

I’m very excited about the opportunities for collaboration that are already materializing, with some of the great urbanists in the world who inspire me. 

Spacing: Do you have any final thoughts?

Brent Toderian: I truly love my profession - planning, design and building cities and communities. I’ve always said it was what I was meant to do, that I would do it for free if it came to that. I believe in strong, progressive city planning and the power of great design, in the need for cities to have vision AND follow-through, and that the best way to predict the future, is to design it.

My experiences over the last few weeks, although challenging, have ironically been some of the best and most meaningful of my career. I’ve made sure to soak it all up, learn from it, and come away stronger and smarter.

Being Vancouver’s chief planner for the last 6 years has been both a dream job, and the biggest and most stressful challenge of my life - at least so far. I’ve enjoyed it immensely, and have been greatly humbled by the responsibility that came with it. I’ve been very proud of the work I’ve done, that we've done together, and the people I’ve worked with as a city-builder here in Vancouver.

I deeply love this city; it’s urbanism is in my blood. As I move into the future though, to new roles nationally and internationally, I think my greatest contributions in city-building are yet to come, as are the greatest achievements of the City of Vancouver.

The future looks very intriguing and exciting. I wish my friends and colleagues at the City of Vancouver very well and I will continue to watch their work with great admiration.

•••

Another thanks to Brent Toderian for taking the time to speak with Erick over an omelette, and sharing his personal thoughts with the Spacing readers. As well as Yuri Artibise who took the time to transcribe this interview.

***

If you missed the first part of the interview, you can read it here.

**

Erick Villagomez is one of the founding editors at Spacing Vancouver. He is also an educator, independent researcher and designer with personal and professional interests in the urban landscapes. His private practice - Metis Design|Build - is an innovative practice dedicated to a collaborative and ecologically responsible approach to the design and construction of places.

*

Yuri Artibise is a public policy analyst and social media specialist. Through his Yurbanism brand, he explores the ‘Y’ of urbanism by sharing ways to make our cities more livable, community-oriented places one block at a time. He currently works with PlaceSpeak, an online location-based community consultation platform.

Vancouver's future lies in the streetcar grid of its past. Illustration source: Streetcars, the Missing Link? Gordon Price.

[Editor's Note: We are glad to be present the second part of the newest Tyee Series written by the University of British Columbia's Patrick Condon on a greater vision for Vancouver. The series is based on his most recent book A Convenience Truth: A 2050 Plan for a Sustainable Vancouver - available in print and online - and is sure to be of interest to those interested in the future or our city. For those of you who missed the first part, you can read it here.]

What happens when you give a team of 14 UBC landscape and architecture students and three UBC planning students the challenge of imagining how people will get around when Vancouver becomes a truly sustainable city in the year 2050?

We started by acknowledging that lately Vancouver has adopted an ambitious goal: by 2020, over 50 per cent of all trips in the city will be by biking, walking, or transit. This will put Vancouver in the same league as Copenhagen and Oslo, lofty competitors for this achievement. It's not impossible. Right now more than 40 per cent of Vancouverites' daily trips are via biking, walking and transit.

But in order to raise that figure to more than half of all trips, it seems judicious to examine how we move in this city, how our movement patterns got the way they are, and how we might use what is already working as the launching pad for something that works even better in the future.

So, next we studied the weave of the city's existing neighbourhoods and roads.

Most of Vancouver is oriented around its arterial streets -- Hastings Street, Commercial Drive, 41st Avenue, Cambie Street, Dunbar Street, Main Street, and many more. These key byways are the legacy of a time when moving around the city was impossible if you couldn't pick up a streetcar near home. Stimulated by the outward extension of streetcar lines, our neighbourhoods grew laterally from the tracks, with neighbourhoods gradually assuming an identity based on their service area. Thus the area we now know as "Point Grey" is composed of the blocks lying no more than a five-minute walk from the 10th Avenue streetcar. The area served by the Dunbar Street streetcar became know as "Dunbar," the area known as "Kerrisdale" includes blocks no more than a five-minute walk distance from the 41st Avenue streetcar, and in the "Hastings Sunrise" area the homes lie within a five-minute walk of the Hastings Street streetcar line.

Cafes, social clubs, clothing stores and pubs eventually lined each of these streets, forming the common centre for everyday life. To this day, if you ask a Vancouver resident where the heart of their neighbourhood is, they will likely name the former streetcar street at the center of their district. However, if you ask them where the edge of their neighbourhood is, their answer is likely to be more hazy.

Some of the city's streetcar arterials were so long that it would be ridiculous to name your neighbourhood after them. So the Broadway streetcar line became the center of civic life for what eventually became neighborhoods named "Kitsilano," "Mt. Pleasant" and "Fairview," while the Main Street streetcar arterial got divided between neighbourhoods named "Riley Park" and "Sunset."

Over time these main arteries became taken for granted, and in some cases abused. Widened many times to accommodate the increasing demands of the car, and hollowed out along many sad stretches to make room for parking lots, portions of these streetcar focused centres often became little more than auto sewers -- places no longer suitable for meeting friends, but engineered pipe systems designed to speed you and your car somewhere presumably better.

Fortunately, Vancouver's original streetcar grid left such a strong imprint that many arterial streets survived this auto-centric onslaught. The West End "U" of former streetcar streets, a U shaped by Davie, Denman, and Robson Streets, still combine to form one of North America's most vibrant civic realms and provide the West End with much of its defining character. Dunbar Street in Dunbar still accommodates serendipitous chats on a bright Sunday morning, and Hastings Street in Greenview-Woodland still throbs with the same vibrancy that it must have in 1920. In fact, our experience of the city echoes our earliest modern way of getting around, the streetcar.

Rise and fall of the streetcar

What does this history mean for us today?

Consider that until the advent of the electric powered streetcar, Vancouver was pretty much isolated to an area within a 15-minute walk of Victory Square. Things changed quickly after 1883 when Ernest Wiener von Siemens perfected a system of overhead wires capable of delivering electrical power to a moving vehicle: a streetcar. By 1890 the Vancouver Electric Railway and Light Company was formed, and just a few short years later the developed area of the city increased by over 1,000 per cent. Previously remote forests and farm fields, which covered the city south of downtown, could now be developed for housing. And they were. So much cheap land was made suddenly accessible that average city workers could, for the first time in history, live in their own houses on their own land.

Short reign of the streetcar in the City of Vancouver. Its presence defined and still defines our city. Graph produced by Niall MacRae and Nicci Theroux.

Like most early streetcar companies, the Vancouver Electric Railway and Light Company was both enormously profitable and vertically integrated. They were in the business of everything from building hydroelectric generation plants on Indian Arm (our area's first hydro plant and still in operation), to supplying street lights, to developing and selling housing within the service areas of their streetcars. This corporate behemoth rivaled the power of the Vancouver city government, which might help explain why no tears were shed when streetcar companies ran into financial difficulties. Their troubles occurred when residents finally had an alternative way to get around: the car. Introduced in large numbers by the 1920s, the car proved so powerful that in a matter of only two decades Vancouver streets were jammed with them, making the smooth movement of streetcars no longer possible.

Vancouver, like most North American areas, faced with the cost of maintaining and extending a rail system that was already in financial trouble, opted for the car over the streetcar, and tried to make transit vehicles operate more like automobiles. Steel-wheeled vehicles gave way to rubber-tired buses capable of riding on the newly-paved streets without the need to further extend and maintain a system of steel tracks.

The enormous influence of the auto industry played a part as well. Vancouver officials, not unlike officials in most other North American cities, were offered favorable deals by the makers of rubber-tired vehicles in exchange for a guarantee that at the end of their last run the city's streetcars would be burned. What to us seems like a shocking waste was justified by companies who did not want secondhand streetcars being shipped to other markets where they might compete with rubber-tired buses. Thus the burning of streetcars was an explicit requirement of the contract. Photos of burning streetcars from many cities litter the Internet. The image below is a record of our own version of this once commonplace ritual.

Streetcars burning below the Burrard Street Bridge after their last run, in the late 1950s. Destruction of streetcars was a condition of contracts. Images from video: BC Electric Railway: Then and Now. Photo capture and composition by Sara Orchard and Tate White.

Interestingly, during the period when our transportation needs were met by the streetcar, our GHG production for transportation was essentially zero. All the energy for the system came from GHG zero hydroelectric sources. With the advent of the petroleum fueled  private automobile, our per capita production of GHG skyrocketed. But the shift from streetcars to diesel powered buses also contributed.  A diesel powered bus produces more GHG per rider (assuming average loads) than does a Toyota Prius (assuming 4 passengers, details here).

Unfortunately this means that even if we could move the bulk of our car trips over to buses, we may not solve the GHG problem. We would certainly slow our per capita rate of GHG production, but not nearly by the 80 per cent required by law.

If we are serious about meeting our targets, it seems that the GHG produced by transit vehicles will need to be addressed. And since most of our transit trips in the region are by bus, and likely to remain so, the GHG profile of the humble bus must rightly be part of the discussion.

How to get to a sustainable Vancouver

With all this in mind, our UBC studio of students and instructors concluded that there were a few obvious rules to follow when thinking about sustainable transportation for Vancouver.

First, back to the streetcar future. Whatever is done must accept that the city is still, and likely always will be, organized around its streetcar arterials. Every neighbourhood depends on them, almost all of our merchants run businesses on them, and most of our job sites are near them.

Second, streak for zero greenhouse gas emissions. Our transit system must eventually be GHG zero, or nearly so. Moving all trips from cars to diesel fired buses only slows, but does not stop, our over-dependence on fossil fuels and the toxic exhaust they generate. It is logical, given our regions abundance of hydroelectric power, to start a process of switching to electrically-powered transit.

Third, make more destinations close by. To minimize unnecessary movement, each neighbourhood should become more diverse over time. Neighbourhoods with good-paying jobs, ample services, and a variety of affordable house types, reduce the necessity for traveling long distances from home: to get to the store, to work, to play. This transformation is already happening in areas like Kitsilano, where population has been increasing for decades, where many new apartment/condo units have been supplied, where every bungalow can be converted into a three-family strata unit if the owner desires, where virtually every single family home contains a reasonably affordable rental unit, and where, as a result, commercial enterprises and neighbourhood services have steadily grown. As a consequence, with so many things they need near at hand, Kitsilano residents use the car less than they once did, walk more than they once did, use transit more than they once did, and travel much shorter distances for what they need than before.

These three rules: use what you have, make it GHG zero, and put things close, provide the jumping off points for the design work that follows, and a logical public realm framework for a more sustainable city.

***

Part 1: Making Vancouver Work for Everyone.

INTERNATIONAL
• Nation's largest public Food Forest takes root on Beacon Hill [Crosscut]
• Providing for Usable Open Space for Multifamily Developments [MRSC Planning Advisor]
• Near Our National Parks, to Build or Not to Build? [The Atlantic Cities]
• Creating buildings that repair themselves [New Scientist]
• What Would It Take? Carbon Neutral Cities [Utne Reader]

***

Urban Planet is a daily roundup of  blogs from around the world dealing specifically with urban environments. We’ll be on the lookout for websites outside the country that approach themes related to urban experiences and issues.

It's generally accepted that light rail transit spurs positive economic impacts along the length of the planned corridor. Property values rise, commercial sites experience more customer traffic, and further development is encouraged. But as a recent article in The Atlantic Cities points out, the window of time one looks at and the nature of public perception of the LRT can have very real economic implications. Author Eric Jaffe uses the example of New Jersey Transit's River LRT Line which opened in 2004. With expectations of noise, disruption and increased crime, property values along the line dropped during construction. After the line came into service, properties within a half mile of stations rose in value by roughly 12-14 per cent.

Image from The Atlantic Cities

For more stories from around the planet, check out Spacing on Facebook and Twitter.  Do you have an Urban Planet worthy article you'd like to share? Send the link to urbanplanet@spacing.ca

Here is the same corner, Grant & Commercial, looking northwest in 2011:

The first thing I notice is just how many more trees we have in our streetscapes than we did 60 years ago. In fact the rebuilt version of F.N. Hamilton's building on the far side of Grant (which is now Charlatan's Bar) can hardly be seen through the trees.

Fred Hamilton had moved his hardware and plumbing business into 1447 Commercial in 1945. In May 1957 they demolished the building that can be seen in the first photograph and erected a new shop in concrete block. The Hamilton's (having been in business on the Drive since 1914) sold out to Hillcrest Plumbing in 1969. Hillcrest closed in 1987 after which the building was taken over by a series of restaurants and bars including the glorious Bukowski's where the present writer learned how to perform poetry to a loud crowd.

On the nearside of Grant we have 1501-1503 Commercial which was built by Angus Campbell in the spring of 1936. As the upper image shows, this building was originally a single-storey flat-roofed structure, a signature style for Campbell. However, as can be seen from the modern photo this building now has two storeys, a change that was made in 1970s.

What the two images also reveal is the wonderful continuity of the Blue Bird Beauty Salon. The Blue Bird, which was founded on the Drive in 1926, was an original tenant of 1503 Commercial when it was built in May 1936 and they have stayed there ever since. In the image from 1950 I was excited to see their old Blue Bird sign at the far left of the photo.

Finally, and returning to the theme, the electric pole being working on in 1950 is no longer in that position, I see, though the fire hydrant is.

***

Jak King has lived on Commercial Drive for more than twenty years. Now retired, he has devoted many years to the study of the Drive's retail, social, architectural and political history. He has published two books on the subject, with two further studies in preparation.

Editors: Gloria Ohland & Shelley Poticha (Reconnecting America, 2006)

On June 27, 1890, an event occurred in the little boom town of Vancouver that altered its destiny forever. Two parallel rails, little more that three miles (5 kilmeters) long, wound past Burrard Inlet's squatters and wooden shacks, part tree stumps and plank roads, and beyond West End mansions. Mere strips of steel, they passed seven lumber mills, dozens of hotels and three chartered banks and ran almost up to the original wooden Granville Street Bridge. The first car to run on these rail lines introduced a remarkable services that this port town had ever seen - one only newly available even in New York - public transit.  -  Vancouver's Glory Years: Public Transit 1890 - 1915

No words more accurately describe the unassuming yet colossal advent of the streetcar to Vancouver than those written above by Heather Conn and Henry Ewert. Streetcars in Vancouver - and in cities from coast to coast - were revolutionary and powerful shapers of the urban environment. And despite there decline beginning in the 1920's, a renaissance has already begun in urban centers across the continent.

Yet for all the increasing interest to implement this form of public transit, there continues to be resistance from all sorts of directions - political and otherwise. That makes books such as Street Smarts: Streetcars and cities in the Twenty-First Century all the more important. Self-published by Reconnecting America - a national non-profit organization working to integrate transportation systems and the communities they serve, with the goal of generating lasting public and private returns while giving communities more housing and mobility options - this book offers readers a comprehensive and holistic look at streetcars.

Written as a series of short, informative essays/stories focusing on a variety of specific topics concerning streetcars, this book is truly a great resource for any individuals or communities interested in learning about the topic. Individual topics range from the basics - i.e. what is a streetcar and how does it differ from other forms of rail-supported public transportation - to a history of streetcar systems in America; city planning for streetcar implementation to financial and economic incentives to creating this type public transit; a developer's point of view on streetcars to trackway design.

As if this were not enough, case studies for four different cities that range in size - San Francisco, Tampa, Kenosha and Little Rock - are described with hard data on issues such as costs on-hand. These concise and interesting essays are extremely important and demonstrate that communities of all sizes and demographics can support this type of transit.

Although there is a little bit of overlap across the essays - an issue common to this type of book - it is negligible in comparison to the new content given. This is achieved through keeping each piece succinct and to-the-point.

Also, while there are certain issues that are not very relevant in the Canadian context - the pieces on federal funding, in particular - the overall content of the book is well worth the read. Within, there is something to satisfy anybody with an enthusiasm for streetcars - from lobbyists and activists to transit geeks. In this sense, Street Smart is the a powerful weapon against the ignorance and conservatism that continues to prevent the creation of whole communities.

***

Erick Villagomez is one of the founding editors at Spacing Vancouver. He is also an educator, independent researcher and designer with personal and professional interests in the urban landscapes. His private practice - Metis Design|Build - is an innovative practice dedicated to a collaborative and ecologically responsible approach to the design and construction of places.

CANADA
• Covering Canadian Urbanism [The Atlantic Cities]

INTERNATIONAL
• Park 101 Keeps the Ball in the Air [California Planning & Development Report]
• Bipedal? Curious? Americans give walking and biking a try [Grist]
• How Cities Can Build a Cultural Identity [The Atlantic Cities]
• Yoshiko Sato 1960-2012 [Observers Room: Design Observer]

***

The early contract termination of Vancouver’s former director of planning Brent Toderian has been a hot topic in planning news, local and abroad. To some, he was the right mix of ambition, advocate and visionary for such a demanding position. Others have cited some of these same qualities as weaknesses. Others cite issues and challenges that can be attributed either to Toderian, or to the inherent nature of the Director position at today’s City Hall.

Spacing Vancouver Editor Erick Villagomez had the opportunity to meet up with Brent Toderian over breakfast on Commercial Drive for an honest discussion about recent events, his planning legacy, and what his plans are for the future. This is the first of a two-part series.

•••

Spacing: Obviously, the first place to start is the recent termination of your contract. Although some have said that there were rumblings for years, I think it’s fair to say that most people—including those in the planning department—were surprised by the news. The timing is even more surprising given the recent resource cuts to the planning department. Of course, this has sparked all sorts of rumours of plans to erode the role of planning department within the City. I’d love to hear your perspective on the events that led up to your termination and what do you think of the timing of this decision?

Brent Toderian: I think enough has probably been said about my leaving and why - essentially it came down to an issue of “fit” and perspective on management approach, and the role of the Director of Planning. I would emphasize that the City and I part ways on very good terms and with mutual respect. I have deep relationships across my former department and the many departments I’ve collaborating with over my six years at City Hall. I feel very good about the city-building work that we've accomplished over that busy time.

I have a great deal of confidence in the creativity and talents of the team I’ve rebuilt at city hall - I know they will continue to do outstanding and innovative work. I also have a very high regard for council and their stated intentions on green city building, affordability, active mobility etc. They are smart, visionary and committed. So I have no doubts that Vancouver is going to continue to do very progressive and interesting things. I’ll be doing my best to help in any way I can, even as I launch into my new chapter.

I’ve heard the  same rumours about the possible weakening of the planning function. I certainly hope and expect that those won’t come  true. I think the progressive and innovative city planning function in Vancouver has had a very deep and valued tradition. From Ray Spaxman to Co-Directors Larry Beasley and Anne McAfee, great planning and great city-building has been a real part of the success of this city. I think that there has long been a strong understanding of how smart physical design and planning contributes to our success. I would hope and expect that such an understanding would continue.

What’s most important to me is that I was able to leave City Hall with the same integrity, professionalism, principle and passion that I’ve brought to the job every moment that I’ve been at City Hall. I think that those are very important qualities for a good city planner, whether they are a Director of Planning or any member of the Planning Department.

I leave with those well intact and certainly feel that my former staff have those qualities in spades, as well. I’m very honoured to have been able to plan such a great city for 6 years — a city that I deeply admire and love. I’ve learned a lot and feel that I’ve contributed a lot to the very fine tradition of city planning here in Vancouver.

Spacing: Now, one of the constant comparisons heard in the popular media since the contract termination is that to Larry Beasley—a person who is often portrayed for better or worse as the hero—with you perhaps not living up to this lofty status in some peoples minds. For those who know the circumstances of your hiring, of course, the statement is somewhat unfair and flawed, considering your position took over the roles of both Larry Beasley and Ann McAfee. Big shoes to fill, no doubt, and Larry never had to do the whole job. Regardless, the comparison has been made numerous times.

On the other side, you have people like retired Assistant Director of Development Services — Rick Michaels — your  retired Assistant Directors of Planning, and many other prominent urbanists, who have commented publicly that your brightness, ability and passion put you unquestionably in the visionary class of those like Larry Beasley, Ann McAfee and Ray Spaxman who came before you. What do you think about all the hype around this comparison?

Brent Toderian: Larry has long been a professional hero to me as well, as have Ann and Ray. I knew that the comparisons would be one of the biggest challenges for me, and was ready for some of those comparisons to be unfair; particularly since I was coming from outside the city at 36 years old. I knew that I would be compared to Larry at the end of his city career, not at the beginning of his leadership tenure when he was reported to have had many struggles, himself. Larry has been gracious in sharing what he had learned with me, as have the assistant directors who worked with him for many years. I knew that there wouldn’t be much recognition of the fact that I was coming from the outside to replace two people who had been with the city essentially their whole careers. The learning curve for me would be substantial.

I also knew that we were going into a very different time in Vancouver’s history. As many people have put it: “the easy parts were over.” Although a significant part of my work has still been planning for the downtown, my responsibilities and focus has needed to be city-wide, where 50 percent of the land area was made up of single-detached housing in established neighbourhoods when I arrived. The challenges around Eco-density, the challenges around changing and densifying the rest of the city outside the downtown—and indeed the rest of the region—were going to be much tougher and more controversial, no matter how artful our planning and engagement was.

I’ve referred to the evolution and densification of the existing neighbourhoods in the inner city and suburbs as the greatest challenge of our planning generation, and I knew we would be on the “bleeding edge” of that here in Vancouver. It's one of the challenges that actually drew me to the job!

The transformations of many North American downtowns have generally been a success, often through the redevelopment of former industrial lands outside of existing communities. This was led by Vancouver as one of the earliest success stories. But the transformation of the rest of the city—and indeed the rest of the region, where most of the growth is happening — is the fundamental challenge of urbanism over the next few decades.

At the same time, a generational shift was about to hit City Hall, with numerous retirements to inevitably follow. Add to that things we couldn’t anticipate — including significant budget troubles, a municipal strike, the 2008 global downturn,  a change in municipal party politics and a politicization at City Hall — and it’s clear that it hasn’t been easy, to be sure. That said, I’m someone who relishes challenges, and I knew that it wouldn’t be easy. I’ve grown and learned a huge amount through those challenges, through the successes and perhaps even more through the failures.

I think Larry knew that things were changing. He’s a smart man, and saw Ann’s retirement and the changing times as a good time for his next chapter. Larry has been a role model of mine since long before I met him. He’s become a good friend and mentor to me, and has always been extremely supportive — as have other mentors and friends like Ken Greenberg and Paul Bedford in Toronto, Jan Gehl in Copenhagen, and Allan Jacobs in San Francisco.

But I’ve never tried to compare myself to Larry or others; I’ve always tried to do my own thing, and plan for the new challenges of the city while learning from and standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before me. It's true that others have frequently compared us, and I truly hope that such comparisons end with me, and don’t dog my successor.

I think the Toderian approach to urbanism, relative to my predecessors, has been about a greener approach — emphasizing more of a complete city, rather that just a livable city. Emphasizing urban design — yes, in the way the Beasley and Spaxman did — but layering on a holistic approach to sustainable urbanism and a much deeper green design expectation, while at the same time also emphasizing architectural variety and diversity.

I’m pleased to have brought something new to the mix, but it wasn’t about being compared favourably to my predecessors. It was about wanting to do something more and better because the city was ready to go further.

Spacing: Some of the local media initially seemed overly negative, but in the past few weeks that seems to have shifted, with significant support for you - with particular kudos for how you’ve been handling the last few weeks. The more professional urbanist media has been consistently supportive of your legacy, integrity and successes.  In fact, during your tenure you are credited with a lot of really interested projects and initiatives moving forward. One of the most significant, to me, being the Cambie Corridor Plan that set an interesting and different direction from the podium tower densification that most associate with Vancouver urbanism. Which project or projects are you the most proud of, and what ones do you feel weren’t as successful as they could have been?

Brent Toderian: First, a comment about the local press. I think your statement that some of local press has been negative perhaps refers to the fact that it’s tended to refer to the relationships with some key developers or certain community activists. It’s true that when you are working in new and controversial places and with new issues, controversy is inevitable no matter how hard you work at relationships.

Some community activists have objected to virtually everything we’ve done, but I’ve been grateful that many key community leaders have come to my “defense” in the last few weeks, telling about their own positive and respectful accounts and observations. And some developers are not going to be happy with a city planner who has strong and high expectations of them, while many other developers actually have complimented me — even now that I’ve left — for that high and consistent standard.

I think that some of the local media has focused on that controversy, but I’d say that there has also been a great support and recognition of my contribution to the city. I’ve been frankly overwhelmed by the support I’ve gotten around the city since the announcement, and certainly the support from colleagues at City Hall has been beyond anything I would have ever expected.

I’d say the support from the professionals of city building and urbanism has been consistent, with countless calls of support, and many telling stories of their own similar challenges. Some are even calling this a “badge of honour”, a comment I’m not sure i agree with, but I understand the sentiments behind.

I’ve always known that directors of planning don’t necessarily have long tenures, and 6 years has been a long, busy and very successful tenure. I had long heard from Allan Jacobs, who was former Director in San Francisco before he authored Great Streets, and from Paul Bedford who was Toronto’s Chief Planner, that every director of planning should keep “a small mortgage and their bags packed”. Having bought in Vancouver, I sure didn’t follow the first part of that advice!

I also heard that “you should never be so concerned about keeping your job, that you don’t do your job”. That is planning professionalism 101 and it’s certainly critically important for every director of planning. It takes an entire career to build integrity and credibility. Only you can give that away, no matter how much pressure there is to do so.

If anything, this seems to have strengthened the perceptions around the way I do city planning. It shows that every moment, good and less good, can be learning and teaching moments - for you, and for others.

In terms of projects, I’m very satisfied with and proud of  the legacy that I have in Vancouver city-building. Not just the obvious things like the Cambie Corridor Vision and Plan or the addition of four new public view corridors to our glorious mountains and the associated skyline sculpting that will result from 6 new proposed taller towers in-between view corridors that will redefine our downtown. Not just EcoDensity, and the Greenest City Action Plan, and my contributions to the housing, affordability, and rental portfolios. Not just Olympics-related planning and design, a creative and transformative new approach for the 4 new community plans we’ve initiated, an exciting new vision for the city’s two viaducts learning from the exciting “re:CONNECT” ideas competition, and my role on behalf of the City in the new Regional Growth Strategy.

I’m proud of those larger initiatives, but equally pleased with the many fine-grained initiatives as well. Strategic things like laneway housing, one of my favourite and most important initiatives. We’re about to reach our 500th approval, representing an unprecedented and remarkable transformation of the fine-grained city through what I nick-named “hidden density”.  New rules for basements have also significantly added to our secondary suite supply in the city.

I championed a much greater focus on green design through North America’s first LEED Gold policy for all rezoned buildings, and the first District Energy requirements for all larger sites like Arbutus Centre and Little Mountain, that we brought in under EcoDensity. In my partnership with my colleague and friend Jerry Dobrovolny, Vancouver's Director of Transportation, on the new Transportation Plan update, I’ve championed the use of streets and sidewalks as public spaces, not just as places for people to move through, and I think that championing has had a significant influence in many of our recent initiatives to enliven our streets.

And I’m proud of my vocal and deliberate push for much more architectural diversity and design risk-taking, in a city where I often hear the phrase “we love the urban design, but why do all the buildings look the same?” I’ve lead the design review and negotiations for hundreds of buildings with my talented architectural team, stressing our traditionally strong urban design “at eye level”, artful mixing of uses, and great public realm design  — but increasingly with the new layers of consistently greener design and more architectural variety.

Projects like the Olympics Athletes Village, the new Telus building project, the Hotel Georgia renovation and new tower, the beautiful new Oxford and Credit Suisse office tower designs, and countless others, reflect that new approach to the Vancouver model of design, and I compliment and congratulate all the talented designers in the city for rising to the new challenges.

The recently leaked Bjarke Ingels tower design at the foot of Granville Street, really exemplifies the new approach - a result also of a bit of matchmaking by introducing and encouraging my friend Bjarke and innovative developer Ian Gillespie to work together. I understand they’re also working together now in Toronto. This is indicative of the enhanced role I think chief planners should play, that of change agent and instigator, rather than just plan creator or design reviewer.

In several years, when the many buildings we’ve negotiated have been built, I’m confident that people will start to speak of Vancouver architecture differently - but not at the expense of our traditions around urban design and our new requirements for green design. I am hopeful that my successor will continue this push.

I’ve always tried to take a very holistic and multi-disciplinary approach to city building. I think that’s part of my legacy. The phase I’ve constantly used is, “the complete city”, rather than focusing on partial successes like livability, green, economically successful and vibrant, healthy, and inclusive. I’ve also used “the city that works” instead of the livable city only, and I’m sure you understand the double-entendre relative to the need to grow and mix job-space and other active uses in a more complete city. This is so important in a city where the profitability of residential is so dramatically higher than that of other land uses.

We’re becoming a mature, multi-facetted and more cultured city, where being internationally respected for a few things won't be good enough anymore. Vancouver always want to do more, be more!

Spacing: And where do you think more work could be done? Initiatives that maybe weren’t as successful as you had hoped and need strengthening perhaps in the future.

Brent Toderian: Well, there has always been much more work to be done, and our planning and development hasn’t been perfect, to be sure. Vancouver has many big challenges, and has a long way to go in addressing them. Certainly the challenges around affordability was one of the things I was very interested in tackling more vigorously. The challenges associated with planning in the Downtown Eastside are significant and I was looking forward to working on the Local Area Plan for the Downtown Eastside — no doubt it would have been some of the toughest and most important work of my career.

And I’m disappointed I wasn’t able to bring about the launch this year of a new, or perhaps more accurately the first, true city-wide plan, something I believe Vancouver very much needs. So, I think it’s been a matter of always being disappointed that the planning team and I weren't able to get to other things that are critically important to our city. Our ‘to-do’ list was always longer—much longer—than our staffing levels and resources, unfortunately.  This ate at us constantly. What I didn't get done in the 6 years, will likely continue to haunt my dreams.

Spacing: It is no surprise the holding the director of planning position in a City so well known for its urbanism comes with its fair share of travel. Which projects, developments, or public spaces in other Canadian cities do you look to as inspiration for Vancouver?

Brent Toderian: I’ve always said that Vancouver can learn something from every city, nationally and internationally. That’s what I truly love about every city—they all have something to learn and something to teach. I’ve always been intrigued about taking what’s best about the Vancouver model of city-building and marrying it with the best of global models and initiatives. I’ve had some significant opportunities to explore that through the peer work I’ve done with many international cities that have visited us and invited me to visit them - something I only did on my holidays, by the way, the sign of a true workaholic.

From Copenhagen, Rotterdam and Paris, to Shanghai and Singapore. We always learned as much or more than they did, and I always sought to merge that learning with our best thinking here in Vancouver. It's so important not to get insulated here, drinking from our own bath-water as they say, and that can be easy, if we’re not careful. We’ve been very busy and my first priority has always been the local workload, but I’ve done as much of this peer learning as I could - often the only holidays I took each year, sadly.

In Canada, I’ve had the opportunity to watch and participate in planning thought across the country, through my presidency of the Council for Canadian Urbanism and other organizations. I’ve been so impressed with the public space transformations in Montréal around their Quartier des Spectaculaire and Quartier International, and along St. Catherine Street and other parts of the historic city and waterfront.

I believe that Toronto has made some very good decisions, building of their legacy of great city-building in St. Lawrence Market and other traditional areas. The planning and design of the new Regent Park is very strong; the new waterfront beaches and public spaces; and the impressive new civic architecture like the new Gehry AGO expansion, the Kuwabara-designed Ballet School and the Jack Diamond-designed performance centre - although I’m not a fan of some of the less urban architecture, like the ROM. Certainly the very recent change of direction around “Transit City” is a very positive step for the future of that city.

Canada is seeing strong and innovative city-building in recent years.  Winnipeg’s Forks District and the wonderful Esplanade Riel pedestrian bridge. Calgary’s Centre City Plan, “Plan-It” city-wide plan, Bow River river-edge redesign and the East Village Plan, and the incredibly bold and brave red Calatrava Peace Bridge.

Victoria’s uber-green Dockside Green. Halifax’s amazing new plan “HRM By Design”. Add to that the strong new confidence and attitudes around city-making and design in Ottawa, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Quebec City - it's an important and positive time for Canadian urbanism. There are great examples  of creative city-building going on across the country that are inspirations to me.

Most of my study of best practices, though, have been around international models. Sustainable community building models in Copenhagen, Malmo, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Hamburg and Olso, for example. Bike infrastructure and deep cycling culture in Amsterdam and Copenhagen. So many progressive city-building moves in recent years in New York City, Curitiba, London and Melbourne.

I’ve had great opportunities to travel to many these cities, teach about Vancouver and learn about the best urban models they’ve envisioned and developed. This learning and observation is often the basis for my evolving thinking around an advanced urbanism.

I’ve never lost sight though, of the power of the Vancouver model, our success story, and how inspirational and valuable it can be to other cities. I saw its power, when helping plan the Mayors Climate Summit in Copenhagen with colleagues from key global cities, me representing the smallest city there, but a city that “punches above its weight” urbanistically.

I saw it when we crafted our city-building story for “Vancouver House” at the recent Shanghai Worlds Fair, one of the most visited city pavilions. I saw it in the countless discussions I’ve had with delegations from across the world who have come to learn about our evolving model.

Spacing: What do you think Vancouver can "export" to the rest of Canada in terms of good urbanism; beyond the cliche “Vancouverism” podium tower model?

Brent Toderian: Well, I don’t associate the Vancouver model just with the podium and point-tower model, or to any particular form for that matter. I think that’s a very lazy and simplistic association, that I always try to clarify and expand on, despite being a supporter of the “po-to” form in certain contexts as a very successful and effective design response.

What the Vancouver model is really about is an attitude around city-building where the city designs its future for the commonwealth and the success of the city as a whole. Larry always called it “a city by design” and I’ve always loved that term, as it connotes a deliberate city, planned and designed in keeping with the city’s values.

I’ve also used the term “city OF design”, to suggest that we also want a city with an exuberant and sometimes edgy design culture, from all directions and at the cellular level - this, I think, we are still working on.

The Vancouver model emphasizes that density should always be “done well” with great publically-minded design, amenities leveraged from projects to contribute to the commonwealth, a prioritization of walk/bike/transit in that order, and a series of methods, tools and practices, ranging from the urban design panel to discretionary zoning, to make those visions actually translate into a better city every day.

If I’ve worked on a “Vancouverism 2.0, its been about adding a deeper and deliberate sustainability, more variety in form (more mid-rise and low-rise density), greater architectural risk-taking, and a focus on a complete city, including a new emphasis on protecting and growing job-space, as the goal rather than focusing on ”living first” or just the livable city.

One of the things that I have often observed is that we may not have better visions in Vancouver, but we’ve been better at implementing them. I think it’s that connection between high-level vision, and the tools, practices, and—indeed yes—regulations to implement them. That alignment is very obvious here, and a critical piece of our success over generations.

 •••

Join us Wednesday for the second part of the interview with Brent Toderian.

A special thanks to Yuri Artibise for transcribing the interview.

Please join City of Vancouver staff at the second in a series of open houses and help shape new park spaces in Hastings Park.

• See how initial public feedback has helped shape park concepts.
• Provide further input on the next stages of the park design.

This project is a result of the Hastings Park/PNE Master Plan adopted by City Council in 2010. The Master Plan outlines a plan to transform Hastings Park into a greener, year-round destination that provides improved community access, significant additional park space, and renewed facilities for the annual PNE Fair, Playland and other festivals and events.

WHEN: 1pm--9pm Wednesday 22 February.
WHERE: Main entrance, Pacific Coliseum, 100 North Renfrew Street.
DESCRIPTION: Open House: New Park Spaces and Greenways: Hastings Park.

The following projects will be illustrated at this open house:

• Empire Field - synthetic turf sports fields and running path for community use
• Connection to New Brighton - greenways for walking, jogging and cycling
• Creekway Park and the daylighted stream
• Plateau Park - a multi-use sports park

If you are unable to attend the event, Open House materials and a questionnaire will be available online at: www.vancouver.ca/hastingspark

See also http://vancouver.ca/pnepark/public.htm

***

Urban Planet is a daily roundup of  blogs from around the world dealing specifically with urban environments. We’ll be on the lookout for websites outside the country that approach themes related to urban experiences and issues.

L.A. has never been known as a sidewalk friendly city, but with a recent spate of lawsuits, sidewalk users are beginning to fight back. In several cases before the courts, disabled plaintiffs contend that the broken sidewalks which make it impossible for them to navigate their neighbourhoods violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. Nearly half of all pedestrian paths in the city are in disrepair, according to city estimates. So will the pedestrians be successful in the challenges? It could go either way. Though the city has settled two recent cases for $85 million worth of sidewalk access ramps, the financial responsibility for L.A. sidewalk repair is somewhat murky. If pedestrians prove their case, the City will have to own up to $1.5 billion in repairs. (LA Times)

Image from LAist

For more stories from around the planet, check out Spacing on Facebook and Twitter.  Do you have an Urban Planet worthy article you'd like to share? Send the link to urbanplanet@spacing.ca

Heritage Vancouver wishes to clarify the alarmist and misleading statements expressed in the media related to Wilmar, the Kitchen Residence, a Heritage Register "B" building located at 2050 SW Marine Drive. These statements have portrayed a very negative situation that could threaten the survival of this very important heritage site, without any corresponding coverage of factual information that presents an entirely different point of its financial and heritage value.

There is no evidence that backs up the claims that it will cost up to $5 million to bring the house "up to code." This unfounded number is the basis for stating that the "house will have to be demolished." If there is no change in use, and it is retained as a single-family dwelling, there is no requirement for this level of building code upgrading. There will be deferred maintenance and renovation costs, but this figure of $5 million bears no reality to the solid condition of the house. Other opinions on the asking price consider it inflated, which could explain why there have been to date no "serious' offers" to purchase the house.

There has been no public discussion about how this heritage house can be retained. There may be subdivision potential to the property that could be realized through a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA), which would ensure that it is economically viable to retain Wilmar in its current situation.

In summation, any claims in the media that this house will have to be demolished are completely unjustified. Wilmar is an outstanding example of an early Vancouver home that could be retained through a negotiated development and the use of heritage incentives.

***

INTERNATIONAL
• New York vs. London, in Debate Form [The Atlantic Cities]
• Cuba Unleashes the Pent-Up Energy of Real Estate Dreams [The New York Times]

***

In the meantime, here's a shot of Old L.A.  That means the early Thirties.  But where?

.

.

Most Los Angelenos can probably figure out where this shot was taken (thank you, L.A. Library).

Looking east on Wilshire Blvd. with the Brown Derby Restaurant prior to the derby-shaped building, the St. James Church, and the Wilshire Professional Building in 1931. Storefronts were built in 1929.

But there's something intriguing about it, I find - a particularly contemporary aspect in at least one respect.  What do you think that might be?  (Comments welcome until I'm back to tell you.)

Here's what that scene looks like today (map here):

***

Spacing Saturday highlights posts from across Spacing’s blog network in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and the Atlantic region.

European Lights Festivals may be a way to enliven public space in the Canadian winter. 

Ottawa's pedestrian-only Sparks Street has long been fodder for ideas to increase its vitality. Marie-Judith Jean-Louis puts forward some stricking images of the Light Festival Ghent in Belgium has an idea to liven the pedestrian space in the winter time.

Alexandre Laquerre takes a look at 102 years of change at the corner of Sussex and Rideau in Central Ottawa.

Allanah Heffez writes about the challenges, opportunities and frustrations of dealing with the CP Rail tracks that separate Montreal's Plateau and Rosemont-Petite-Patrie neighbourhoods; the barrier is not the tracks themselves but bureaucratic inflexibility.

The Photo du Jour feature took a look this week at, amongst other things, various scenes of outdoor pick-up hockey in Montreal's parks. 

In response to Mayor Ford's claims that LRT technology is the same as streetcars and trams, Noah van der Laan has undertaken a new feature showcasing some of the world's most impressive modern LRT systems. This week the feature looked at the world's largest LRT system in Melbourne and an impressive suburban system in Stockholm.

Responding to the need for traffic calming on urban streets, Dylan Reid looks beyond the speed bump at examples of other effective design features in use both in Canada and around the world.

With Vancouver having been many times named one of the world's least affordable cities Mayor Gregor Robinson has appointed a 'Blue Ribbon Affordability Task Force.' Sean Antrim profiles the appointees to the task force and critiques its composition.

The theme of affordability was tied heavily with a discussion about the Downtown East Side, another major theme on the Vancouver Blog this week. Sean Ruthen profiles the interesting redevelopment of the historic Burns Block while Caroline Toth's Video Vancouver feature showcases an interview on the Gastown Project.

INTERNATIONAL
• Why Alleys Deserve More Attention [The Atlantic Cities]
• An Early Eco-City Faces the Future [The New York Times]

***

Residents and media are invited to join Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Park Board Chair Constance Barnes and Grandview Community Centre Association President Kate Perkins at the official opening of the $21.2 million Trout Lake Community Centre and an afternoon celebrating the history and future of the vibrant and diverse neighbourhood.

When: Saturday, February 18

Time: Official opening ceremony 11 am - noon; celebration of living community noon – 3 pm

Where: 3360 Victoria Drive (in John Hendry Park)

What: Remarks and ribbon cutting, cake, bbq, live music, theatre, storytelling, figure skating demos, historical multi-media display and more

The new light-filled complex with stunning views of John Hendry Park, Trout Lake and the North Shore Mountains boasts a community centre, preschool, state-of-the-art fitness centre and an NHL-sized ice rink (which opened two years ago as a 2010 Winter Games training venue for figure skating). It is jointly operated by the Vancouver Park Board and the Grandview Community Centre Association. Together, they offer more than 200 programs for all ages including art, dance, fitness, skating lessons, yoga, day camps, drop-in sports, indoor cycling, cooking classes, various martial arts and more. Along with a great selection of programs the community centre is also home to a full-size gym, performing arts studio, youth and seniors’ room, pottery studio, art studio, multipurpose rooms and a training room.

In keeping with the Park Board's ongoing commitment to sustainability, this gleaming 34,000-square-foot facility is built to high environmental standards, targeting LEED Gold certification and includes many features designed to conserve energy and water. The building was designed by Walter Francl Architecture Inc. and built by Bird Construction.

The public is encouraged to bike, walk or take transit to the opening celebration. Limited parking is available.

***

For more information visit the City of Vancouver website.

The design style known as art deco began in Paris in the 1920s and quickly gained worldwide popularity. Here in Vancouver, we see the art deco’s geometry-inspired style captured in the architecture of the Marine Building and the Burrard Street Bridge. Starting March 8, the public can also see it captured in women’s fashions of the 1920s and 1930s on display in Art Deco Chic: Extravagant glamour between the wars at the Museum of Vancouver.

“The garments chosen for exhibition have been selected because of their beauty and fine quality,” explains guest co-curator Ivan Sayers. “Some of the most important fashion designers in the world in the 1920s and 1930s will be represented.”

The fashion design of the era was a distinct departure from previous design styles. Drawing inspiration from geometric shapes to evoke elegance and modernity, it was also influenced by an increased ability to travel world wide – bringing inspiration not only from modernism, but from faraway places such as Russia, Egypt, and Mexico.

Visitors will enjoy more than 66 garments on display in this exhibition.

Notable Vancouver items include a black beaded gown worn to the opening of the Commodore Cabaret in 1929 and a red and gold lamé evening dress made from fabric depicting the battles of the Trojan War. Many items on show are exquisite designer dresses with labels such as Chanel, Lanvin, Vionnet, Patou, and Schiaparelli. To contrast these high fashion items is a piece from the MOV’s collection – a modest, yet stylish, navy polka dot dress made by the Aurora Dress Company of Vancouver around 1927.

The garments and accessories on display come from the private collections of Ivan Sayers and Claus Jahnke, as well as from the MOV and other’s collections. Handbags, hats, shoes, and jewelry will further illustrate the use of geometric shapes to create sleek, sophisticated designs.

For more information, visit the Art Deco Chic webpage.

***

The Museum of Vancouver is an independent non-profit organization which holds a mirror to the city and leads provocative conversations about its past, present, and future.

Screening | best of the 2011 ottawa international animation festival 

Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 7:30pm - 9:30pm

The best of the Ottawa International Animation Festival for 2011 will be screened at Emily Carr University of Art + Design. This festival is the largest of its kind in North America, attracting film buffs, art lovers, filmmakers, and cartoon fans from around the world to the nation's capital.

The proceeds of this screening will go towards a scholarship to fund an Emily Carr animation student to attend the Ottawa International Animation Festival in 2012.

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Doors 7pm | Screening 7:30pm
Emily Carr Lecture Theatre | SB Room 301
Tickets sold at the door (cash only):
Students with valid ID $5 | All Others $10

Note: This program is not suitable for minors

***