 |
Download Video
(Quicktime, 2.1 MB, 1 min, 40 sec)
More thoughts from John...
Briefly describe the ideal Okanagan community from your perspective (just the key elements).
Walkable (not car dependent for most household needs), quite, safe, mixed (income, racial,
age, housing types, employment opportunities), sufficient public space (parks, etc.),
interconnected with other communities (not in a car dependent way).
What does sustainability mean to you?
Making choices today that do not limit the ability of future generations to attain the same quality
of life as we are enjoying.
Do you believe it is attainable?
Yes, but not necessarily easily.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
Based on the situations of today, including the impacts of global factors such as climate
change, when you imagine the Okanagan 25 years from now, what do you see — what stands
out?
We will be surprised. If we are not careful, we will be disappointed. I don't think we yet realize
all of the implications of global climate change. In 25 years the valley will be a little bit warmer,
and have to deal with the fact that there will be less snow in the mountains to feed the streams
that we rely on. Those are the local issues, and we are trying to manage them through water
conservation measures. However, if other important food production areas on the planet suffer,
then we may see food prices rise, and pressure to produce more food locally. Good for the
farmers, but will put even more pressure on the water resources we have, and create pressure
to increase the amount of land in agriculture. We know our population will increase. However,
will we also become a destination for climate refugees? Bangladesh, low elevation island
nations, etc. We have an issue with a 3% per year population growth. Can we manage 5%?
These are things we are beginning to see. There will be surprises.
How about 100 years from now?
More of the same.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
From your perspective, what are the biggest threats or challenges to sustainable livability in
the Okanagan — now and in the next 25 years?
The almost complete absence of mechanisms to implement the good plans that we come up
with. This is not an Okanagan problem, but rather a problem that is endemic to most North
American jurisdictions. As an economist, I look at how incentives motivate behaviour. Our land
use 'planning' process in North America creates incentives that are almost exactly counter to
the kind of coordination and building on complementarities that is at the heart of good planning.
The biggest threat I see to building sustainable communities is the same one we have been
dealing with for decades. We need to change the rules so that the behaviour we want people –
from individuals to developers and other industrialists – to undertake is rewarded rather than
punished. We are great at coming up with beautiful plans. We are abysmal at coming up with
implementation strategies that have any great chance of success.
At the round table, I think that the most pertinent point for me was the NIMBY (not in my back yard) issue. I
certainly had the misconception that developers were a large part of the problem. While
I still think there is a disconnect between the incentives land owners and developers
face and the kind of cities we would like to build, we also need to recognize that people
who live where we want new development are likely to oppose it. I think that there is a
role for incentives here too. How can we introduce density and amenities together, so
that those who are neighbours of the new development see their own situation as
improved. Would building a linear park either separating themselves from the
development or providing a new recreational opportunity work? Would a street and/or
traffic realignment which protected these neighbours from traffic changes? How many
of these neighbours would agree to an outright purchase of their properties? I know
that some of these are sometimes part of the deal. Maybe we need a formal
neighbourhood negotiation framework to find a plan that both permits increases in
density and makes those who will remain better off than they would be without the
development.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
Are there any other national or global factors that we should be paying closer attention to as
we plan the Valley’s future?
I already mentioned the main ones above that I think are looming. Global food prices and
climate refugees.
With flat land running out in the Valley, what is your opinion of the impact that increased
building on the hillsides will bring?
Some of it is going to have to happen. We need to do it right. If we want hillside communities
that are walkable or bikable, we need to consider the topography when we locate things like
roads, schools, shops, and parks. Most people do not enjoy cycling uphill. Downhill is fun, but
there is a return trip to consider. As such, if we want to make hillside communities that are not
car dependent, we need to make streets with as gentle a gradient as possible. We also need
to include pathways between parts of these communities that have a gentle gradient, so that
cyclists and pedestrians don't have to take the round-about routes we insist that cars take.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
Is there any way to undo or ameliorate pedestrian-phobic (or anti-pedestrian) sprawl such as
that found for kilometres along Hwy 97 in Kelowna?
If we are to make
things walkable around the part of Harvey near downtown, in my opinion two things
need to be done. First, provide convenient ways for pedestrians and cyclists to cross
Harvey. Second, limit the extent to which traffic is an obstacle for access to the lake.
The main traffic arteries should not be close to the lakeshore, but rather several blocks
away. For the downtown, if traffic cannot get off Harvey until Richter, then access to the
downtown would be from the east. This would make it easier for pedestrians and others
to enjoy the waterfront and access those businesses close to the waterfront. I am not
familiar enough with the area further east to comment much. I do know that most cities
have an industrial and big box retail area like this, and unless things change radically, I
expect that we will continue to need such an area.
Sure, if we are prepared to spend the money. From the bridge to Burch or Spall, sink the
highway about six feet. Put up a wall or berm about six feet up, which would make the road level
about 12 feet below the top of this noise barrier. Things would become considerably less noisy
for those living near the highway. Put overpasses at Richter, Gordon, Spall and Dillworth.
Close off other street access to Harvey. Realign Pandosy onto Richter. I know, we just spent
millions aligning Pandosy to Water. This money is gone, and continuing with a bad idea
doesn't get the money back. There is no point crying over spilt milk. Put pedestrian and
bicycle overpasses at Abbot, Ellis, and Ethel. Burtch should get one, or possibly a flyover.
Between Spall and Dillworth there should be at least two pedestrian overpasses or tunnels, and
likewise between Dillworth and Highway 33. I applaud the density being put in in this area,
except for the absence of usable green space immediately adjacent to the buildings. However,
as it is, the residents are essentially prisoners between Springfield and Harvey.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
Should Okanagan municipalities adopt Green Building Standards such as those being tested
in Toronto and Santa Monica or require projects to meet the LEED rating system of the Canada
Green Building Council?
I tend to be suspicious of standards. Rather, I would use the tax system to promote behaviors
we want to see. Thus, a discount in the property tax or some other concession to buildings that
are built to such a standard would make more sense to me.
In the discussion afterwards, it was pointed out that there is no LEED standard for single
family residential and most wood frame construction. As such, if we are choosing a
standard, we would need to make sure that it is relevant to the building stock we have in
Kelowna and the valley more generally.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
Dr. Gabor Zovanyi, professor of urban planning at Eastern Washington University and a
speaker at the 2007Building Sustainable Communities conference in Kelowna, argues that growth is not
sustainable given current ecological realities and that therefore, communities should be looking
at ways of stopping growth. So, what about the effects of population growth? For all the talk
about “smart growth” strategies, are we missing a crucial component when we talk about our
future by just assuming that our population must increase to sustain our economy? Should we
be looking at limiting or ceasing population growth? Does the Okanagan have a carrying
capacity? If so, how will we know when we reach that point?
Sure. We have a finite planet. We are being very hard on this planet. We cannot sustain
population growth indefinitely. However, we have population growth for another 50 – 100 years
on this planet, and we will have localized population growth due to migration for longer than
that. Given the reality of the state most people on this planet are living in, to me it is not
ethically acceptable to say “you can't come here because we like what we have and don't want
to share.” Yes, the Okanagan has a carrying capacity. How big that is in terms of human
population depends, I think, more on how we choose to live here than on the absolute number
of people living in the valley.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
Most of the talk surrounding issues of growth is focused on economic or environmental
concerns. Yet, there are clearly important social issues to be aware of and plan for. So, what
are the social implications to all this growth (or non-growth) that we should be paying more
attention to?
We have a way of living that lets us hide from that which is going on around us. We build
beautiful, expensive communities around golf courses, so that are neighbours are all in the
same income and education class that we are. We relegate those with lower incomes to less
desirable areas and speed by them on the high capacity roads we put in. We seldom go
downtown so that we don't have to look at the homeless and/or face the reality of crimes
committed by people addicted to drugs, suffering mental problems, or just so desperate as to
turn to crime. These are some of the implications of the way we are currently developing.
Those with the most power to do something have isolated themselves from what is really going
on. So, we need to actively counter the way that we are using land use planning as a form of
segregation. Again, this is not unique to the Okanagan. If moving away from areas with more
crime and drugs is no longer an option, then maybe we will get serious about dealing with these
issues.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
What mantra should Valley planners be chanting to remind themselves of how to develop the
ideal Okanagan community?
Well, I'm not sure that planners are really the problem. My guess is that most would love to
design and build the kinds of communities that I would like to live in. However, they are faced
with a system that is working against them. I can't see any mantra being effective until the
problems with the incentives surrounding land use are dealt with.
After our discussion, I still think that planners are not the problem. I also have come
away thinking that builders are less of a problem than I originally thought. Planners are
stuck between the economic incentives facing builders and developers, the NIMBY
incentives of households, and the political objectives of city government. We do need to
figure out how to make these pressures more consistent with good planning.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
What practices being employed today in the Valley should we carry forward? What should we
abandon?
I'm only beginning to learn about these. One that I think we do need to address is the way we
lay out subdivisions. We do a great job of designing the streets to control motor vehicle speed
and make these subdivisions safe for our seniors and children. However, that control tends to
include winding streets, cul-de-sacs, etc. These are not conducive to non-motorized travel,
because they end up vastly increasing travel distances. We need to build pathways within and
between subdivisions that enable those using non-motorized modes to get around quickly.
These pathways need to be looked at as a part of the transportation infrastructure, and not
simply recreational resources. If we are willing to spend the money, we could retrofit some
existing subdivisions in this regards. However, it may require buying and demolishing the odd
house.
The other practice I don't like is that of putting apartment buildings as close together as we do,
with little or no usable green space. When we move people from a house with a yard to a
condo or apartment, we are asking them to do without a private green space. The sprawl
associated with everyone having private green space is bad. However, people who do live in
condos and apartments still gain value from being able to step outside and enjoy sitting on the
grass in the shade of a tree. They even enjoy looking at green space from their balcony. I
think that if we want people to give up their private yards, we need to build the higher density
accommodations with easy walking access to public green space, playgrounds, and community
gardens.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
If you could implement or change just one policy for the benefit of future Okanagan
generations, what would that be?
100% tax on the net windfall from land zoning changes. Alternatively, simply separate
development rights from ownership rights, and vest all development rights with a level of
government separate from the land use decisions. Yes, a pipe dream. However, this would
remove a very large portion of the incentives to try and change good plans. No longer would
planning make millionaires out of some and not others. Most of the increase in value of land in
the Okanagan has nothing to do with what the owners of the land have done, and there is no
real justification for their being rewarded so handsomely for what amounts to good luck (which
may be the good luck of having the right political connections).
Politically, how would you do this? With lots of money. Such an idea is going to be opposed
vigorously so long as those who have spent money speculating on property see their potential
gain disappearing. We need to measure what sort of gain people have been getting, and then
essentially buy them out. It will cost millions. However, if you worked out the cost of not doing
this, it is also in the millions. It is just these costs are paid in terms of lost time, obesity,
pollution related health issues, loss of a sense of community, etc.
As I have mentioned above, I come away from the session thinking that developers are
only one third of the issue. NIMBY and political considerations are the other two thirds.
Perhaps we need to have a planning process where plans for entire neighbourhoods are
developed, in consultation with residents, and then approval given for the entire project.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
From your perspective, what are the best reasons for having optimism about the Valley’s
future?
The sunrise I see in the morning when I cycle to work. The sunset I see on the way home.
Kids playing on the beach in the summer.
I add to this, the passion and commitment of the group you gathered for this roundtable.
Return to top xxxxxxxxxxxParticipants xxxxxxxxxxxRound Table
|
