Posts from — May 2009

Vancouver's original Sikh temple, built in 1906 at 1866 W. Second Ave.

The prayer service held today to celebrate Arthur Erickson’s design of Khalsa Diwan Society’s Gurdwara, which dominates Southwest Marine Drive just west of Knight, became a celebration of a turning point in the Sikh community’s life.

For generations, the Sikh community in BC, which never numbered more than a few thousand, was centred on the original wood frame Gurdwara at 1866 W. 2nd Ave., within walking distance of the mills that then clustered around False Creek.

As the forest industry moved to the Fraser River after the Second World War, many Sikh millworkers followed to homes along Southwest Marine Drive.

By 1968, the temple was too far from the community, too small and too dilapidated to repair. With the city’s help, the Society acquired the land on Marine Drive to rebuild.

Artak Gosal, a member of the temple committee that retained Erickson, recalled the decision to fire the first architect, who was unable to pronounce “gurdwara.” Erickson was introduced by a friend and “we knew immediately we had met a genius.”

Erickson listened carefully to their concerns “and acted,” Gosal said, to make their dreams a reality. An austere, dazzling white gurdwara that appears to float over the landscape was their reward.

Committee members travelled across the province to raise the $300,000 it cost, including the land, to raise the new temple, a dramatic statement of confidence by such a small community. The temple opened in April 1970. A few years later, changes to the immigration laws opened the door to more arrivals from Punjab. The Ross St. Temple was ready to greet them, a fitting centre for the life of a community in the process of transformation.

“Every time I come here,” Dr. Gurdev Singh Gill told the congregation, “I am awestruck at the beauty of the building.” Dharm Makwana, of 24 Hours, captured that beauty in this short video:

Amtrak's Talgo trains can travel well over 100 mph but are limited to 90 by US law. Modest changes to border crossing arrangements and some track upgrades could result in much higher speed travel between Cascadia cities, a stepping stone to true High Speed Rail.

Only two Canadian cities — Montreal and Vancouver – stand to be winners in the battle for benefits from President Barack Obama’s $8 billion high speed rail development program, but so far Ottawa won’t let Vancouver get in the fight.

As state and city officials from Oregon and Washington prepare their bid for hundreds of millions of dollars to develop passenger trail travel from Eugene, Ore., to Vancouver, they remain stymied by Ottawa’s demand that Amtrak pay the customs and immigration costs for a second daily train to our city.

Yes, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan has agreed to waive the $1,500 daily fee during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, but after that anybody seeking to bring up an estimated 35,000 additional visitors to BC annually, as the Amtrak train would, should expect to pay.

It’s a penny wise, pound foolish policy that Mayor Gregor Robertson could only express embarassment about and promise to raise with Ottawa when he talked to US officials during this week’s Cascadia Rail Week. The event was organized to focus and co-ordinate the bid for new funding on the Pacific Northwest route identified as a candidate for support in Obama’s April announcement.

US state and municipal legislators made it clear during the two-day rolling seminar, which traveled from Seattle to Portland and back on Amtrak’s modern Spanish-designed trains, that the Obama announcement is viewed as a turning point in American transportation policy on a par with the creation of the national freeway system.

The economic and environmental benefits are obvious.

BC could be a ground floor beneficiary of this massive new investment, but Ottawa so far seems unaware of the possibilities.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transportation held an urgent meeting on the high speed rail issue earlier this month, but federal officials were mute on the BC possibilities, focusing instead on Ontario and Quebec.

Fortunately, US officials like Portland Mayor Sam Adams, Washington State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen and Oregon Congressman Pete De Fazio are pulling together make the Pacific Northwest bid a reality. Adams and Robertson signed a memorandum of understanding to create a cross-border collaboration in support of rail development.

This is not about billions of dollars for bullet trains. Very simple improvements in customs clearance policies on both sides of the border could dramatically cut travel times from Vancouver to Seattle, a route that has seen dramatic growth since service resumed 12 years ago.

Modest track improvements, like the new Delta siding that received provincial government support last year, could cut the current three hour and 55 minute trip to something closer to three hours, about equivalent to a road trip that includes a quick border crossing.

All these changes would lay the foundation for true high speed service in a corridor where even moderately higher speeds – well within the 120-km per hour capabilities of the current Amtrak train sets, never mind the superfast times achieved in Europe and Asia – would transform intercity travel.

All that’s missing is a clear, unequivocal statement from Ottawa that says “yes” to laying the groundwork for a sustainable, 21st century passenger rail system in the Cascades corridor.

Clearly, that Canadian response needs to be built in BC, crafted by the region’s municipalities, Victoria and the business interests, including our railways and the tourism sector, with the most at stake.

Until that happens, our friends in Cascadia will be fighting in Washington with one hand tied behind their backs, proposing an enhanced rail system to a destination that wants them to pay for the privilege.

Is Vancouver harbouring hundreds or thousands of empty condominiums that could help solve the city’s rental shortage? Many believed so last fall and Mayor Gregor Robertson mused about taxing the empty units to bring them into service.

But do they exist? The debate sparked the realization at Bing Thom Architects that little is known about Vancouver’s condo inventory once it is sold. Firm associates Andy Yan and Eileen Keenan decided to find out more, using the resources of  BTAWorks, the firm’s research foundation.

The results, first unveiled May 12 to the Economic Development Strategy committee of the Vancouver Economic Development Commission, are startling. (Frances Bula sums up the findings here.)

What constitutes an empty condo? Using BC Hydro expertise, Yan and Keenan used energy consumption as a proxy, looking for units where monthly consumption was below what would be expected for an energy-efficient fridge. But they went much further than that, combing through city records, BC Assessment Authority data and the strata council minutes of 12 buildings with 2400 units that formed the study sample.

Thousands of empty units? Not really. Between January 2006 and January 2007, the vacancy rate in the study sample was about 5.5 percent, consistent with the the high turnover Yan and Keenan found in this housing stock. Other interesting findings:

• between 52 and 61 percent of the units are not owner-occupied, depending on the building, meaning condo units make up a significant share of the rental market;
• foreign ownership is less than 10 percent of the stock in the sample, although Yan warns this finding is not conclusive;
• rental restrictions are effective in raising the share of owner-occupied units, but one tower without restrictions provides vital rental units to foreign students living in the downtown core; and
• smaller units, which meet a minimum standard for affordability for a typical couple with one child, are too small for a growing family, which the CMHC says needs two bedrooms.

As a result, Yan says, we can conclude that the condo market is generating “growth, but not development.” The units that are affordable for new families — a doorway to home ownership — are too small for family life.

In other words, Yan told the VEDC group, “high density does not lead to [social] sustainability or affordability in urban housing.”

The Keefer Steps

The graceful cascade of steps from Stadium/Chinatown Skytrain station to Keefer St. in International Village — the Keefer Steps — is a vital pedestrian link from the Downtown Core to Chinatown.

The steps are also the most visible example of a growing problem in the city, which for years has negotiated — or “extracted” in developers’ parlance — public benefits in return for increased density.

This important public thoroughfare is actually private property, owned by Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd., which is building the dense commercial and residential complex at the west end of Keefer.

Henderson created the link in return for density granted at the rezoning many years ago, and has transferred a share of the maintenance, cleaning and security costs to residential condo owners through their strata fees. It owns parking underneath the steps and continues to be the owner of commercial property it developed in the complex.

The modest but monthly fee is frustrating to condo owners, who pay the piper but do not call the tune. After I made an inquiry on their behalf at city council, the city’s agreements with Henderson were clarified to ensure residents would not be charged for security and surveillance on the steps, as well as basic maintenance charges, but the costs have not been taken over by the city as residents had hoped.

In fact, the Keefer Steps question has triggered a wider look at these amenities and the policy issues they raise. There are many examples: the public walk through the Shangri-La, the soon-to-be-open square at Woodwards, the new and vastly-improved Dunsmuir entrance to the Granville Skytrain station, and the new elevator from the Georgia Viaduct to Costco and GM Place are just a few.

They are public benefits provided by private owners, but as the Keefer Steps controversy illustrates, the “benefits” of the original negotiation can fade with time and new players. In each case, the developers have done exactly what they were asked to do and do not appreciate any suggestion to the contrary.

Often, there isn’t a problem.

But in high profile locations like the Keefer Steps, there are serious issues for the city: should public thoroughfares be maintained by the city directly, even if owned by others? And if so, should taxpayers simply take on the burden, even when significant benefits have already been given to private interests? These are questions that need to be clarified to ensure that “extracted” amenities remain a real public benefit, not just a private burden.