Comment 71671

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted November 28, 2011 at 17:13:19

Ningu: Such ideas have moved on beyond theoretical frameworks in most cities - and are deployed in practice at various stages (1) of refinement in different parts of the world.

We will begin to see such thinking in the form of local buildings as soon as such foundational ideas are discussed more freely among lay people in Hamilton --and our local public conversations move from archi-babble patched together with Jane Jacobs and Richard Florida says that too... logic-- to more intelligent conversations, with a problem solving stance that is driven by a need for discovery of 'local context'.

A quick-fix rush to list the popular top10 successes from other cities will continue to regurgitate preconceived life-style choices and aesthetic biases.

"Egg whites provide the lift in angel cakes, so no baking powder or baking soda is needed."

We need to recognize that our current local conversations on architecture and urban design use a lot of baking powder for an artificial lift - or hype.

One such example of this is the above architectural awards that operate under categories that perpetuate antiquated form based thinking.

A lot of these signature projects suffer from poor locations such as the Learning Centre, or even poorer use such as the Lister Block which will stand empty past 4.30pm every weekday. Even the Landscape architecture award - edible sounding as it is! is located in a place which simply cannot stimulate a community market like spirit - stuck there on the forecourt of the city hall alongside a 24/7 highway. And the Healthy Communities category suffers from poor planning of the McNab Terminal which involves transit riders crossing bus lanes in order to access the terminal... but which is just fine, because there is a gratuitous green roof on top of the long bus shelters made up of metal decking -- which may not be all that cool in a few years when the grass remains uncut because of budget cuts, and leaks start to develop as the metal corrodes.

The mistakes made here are that green certification & such annual awards have been turned into an industry in itself - in worshiping superficial form, rather than using it as a vehicle for scientific benchmarking of high design standards in sustainability and architecture.

The other such example is the local conversations of the so called "Vancouver Model" which some suggest Hamilton needs to adopt in order to succeed. However the fact are:

"Often cities like New York and Vancouver are cited as stellar examples of dense ecologically superior cities with tall buildings. It’s usually assumed that it’s the tall buildings in these cities that give them the edge."

"These cities are indeed very positive when it comes to carbon and other ecological metrics. But it’s often overlooked that tall buildings are only a fraction of all structures in these places, with the bulk of neighborhoods consisting of rowhouses, low-rise apartment buildings, and other much lower structures. They get their low-carbon advantages not from density per se, but from an optimum distribution of daily amenities, walkability and access to transit, and other efficiencies of urban form." ~ More low-down on tall buildings

Our local media conversations on architecture and urban design suffer gravely from the lack of deep reading of cities - in turn resulting in evangelizing physical form of buildings like in a fashion show. Such superficial conversations fail to even research basic facts before rushing to press with solutions - another example of this is Hamilton's tendency to ascribe Vancouver's success to its built-form. A recent article in Canadian Architect (CA) exposes the deeper reasons behind Vancouver's liveability quite clearly:

"In the history of urban planning in Canada, 1953 was a turning point for creative financing at the municipal level. That year, the province of British Columbia granted a unique Charter to the City of Vancouver, which, among other things, permitted discretionary zoning. In 1975, Vancouver's planning officials utilized this acquired authority to apply discretionary zoning--or approve a project based on objective criteria--and give bonus density to certain developments in exchange for community facilities. In 1989, these "amenity bonuses" were formalized to create an interesting experiment in creative financing for the City--the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC)."

"While Vancouver's Development Cost Levies (DCLs) help fund childcare facilities, parks, social housing, and engineering services, -- CACs pay for a wider range of services, including artists' studios, community gardens, non-market housing, park refurbishments, public art, cultural facilities, drug treatment facilities, greenways, and bicycle lanes."

"The director of city planning for the City of Vancouver, Brent Toderian, adds, "it has been a cornerstone of the Vancouver model of city building."

"After deducting hard costs, soft costs, a 15% developer profit, and overhead for two to three years, the City of Vancouver negotiates for 70% to 80% of the additional density--also considered a "land-lift" because of the increased value to the property--in the form of a CAC."

"In the final analysis, the best test of CACs comes not from their relative size, but from their effect on local liveability. ...In theory, CACs are abstract financial instruments debated at City Hall but in reality, these creative financial instruments (or lack thereof) help determine and improve the quality of life in urban areas. "Visitors don't realize how we can provide for all of these amenities in Vancouver," notes Toderian."

Enormous amounts of energy in Hamilton is wasted on ascribing the label of pragmatism to superficial form based thinking and re-writing of history, while the building industry chases an entirely different market-driven pragmatism of quick profits and early exits with certification and awards:

"...In fact, I'm working on a piece with some historic context that shows Hamilton was actually headed towards the type of urban development we now see in Vancouver long before Vancouver was... ~ Jason"

Our local academia has been entirely absent from the research and development aspects of Hamilton's urban redevelopment - while perpetuating Green certification myths via its poorly located new campus buildings or its recent planning disconnects in the lower city at Bay & Main or Wentworth North.

Many false premises are allowed to perpetuate via the local media in Hamilton, while -real discussions worth having- are ignored or plain avoided or even ridiculed, and being critical of this is looked upon as being condescending or belittling false premises -- the result is that world outside Hamilton carries on with its rapid progress in sustainability issues -- while we end up fighting false battles which are as shallow as the depth of our media pundits, whose power over the local people defines our community's green and sustainability knowledge base.

It is tragic that in a city of over half-a-million with two tax payer funded institutions of higher learning, the ideas that are allowed to float up and define our community's progress in green industries and sustainability issues in 2011 are such as these.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds