►
Description
Special City Council Meeting - 04-2018 from Jan. 17, 2018.
Presentation from Brent Toderian, an award-winning Vancouver-based city planning consultant, on challenges and opportunities of building higher density communities.
For the full meeting agenda visit: https://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/city-calendar-events?p_p_id=8&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=_118_INSTANCE_mIrojY3TeRAO__column-1&p_p_col_pos=2&p_p_col_count=3&_8_struts_action=%2Fcalendar%2Fview_event&_8_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityofkingston.ca%2Fresidents%2Fcity-calendar-events%3Fp_p_id%3D8%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3D_118_INSTANCE_mIrojY3TeRAO__column-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D2%26p_p_col_count%3D3%26_8_tabs1%3Dmonth%26_8_month%3D0%26_8_struts_action%3D%252Fcalendar%252Fview%26_8_year%3D2018%26_8_day%3D26&_8_eventId=23235394
A
C
B
E
F
A
So
what
we're
going
to
do
in
a
couple
of
moments
is
we're
going
to
invite
mr
todarian
to
to
come
and
give
his
presentation
following
that
we
will
move
into
a
q,
a
format.
So
first
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
to
members
of
council
to
ask
any
questions
of
mr
dadarian
and
then
after
that
is
done.
Then
I
will
open
up
the
floor
to
members
of
the
public
to
ask
questions
of
mr
tuderian
as
well.
What
we
will
do
we
have
a
couple
of
staff
members
that
will
have
microphones
with
them.
A
So
if
you,
if
you
have
a
question
for
the
presenter,
then
please
just
raise
your
hand
and
I'll
help
to
facilitate
that
I'll.
Just
point
you
out
and
you
can
ask
a
question,
I
think,
just
to
be
fair.
I
think
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
just
ask
everyone.
Just
please
one
question:
until
everybody
has
had
a
chance
to
ask
questions
and
then
if
we
have
time,
I
can
entertain
a
second
round
after
that.
Okay.
A
So
with
that,
I'm
going
to
ask
commissioner
lanny
hertl
to
provide
some
introductory
remark,
remarks
and
introduce
brent
todarian
of
todarian
urban
works,
an
award-winning
vancouver-based
consultancy
who
will
speak
to
the
challenges
and
opportunities
of
building
higher
density
communities.
Mr
hurdle.
G
G
So
most
of
you
are
obviously
aware
that
in
the
past
years,
council
has
made
a
number
of
decisions
to
really
hold
the
line
in
terms
of
our
urban
growth
boundary,
which
means
that
we
need
to
find
ways
to
grow
within
the
current
boundary
that
we
have,
and
there
are
multiple
reasons
why
we
would
want
to
do
that.
One
is
to
prevent
urban
sprawl.
The
other
is
to
really
focus
our
investments
in
terms
of
infrastructure,
and
that
enables
us
to
do
that.
G
But
with
that,
obviously,
we
need
to
look
at
ways
of
growing
within
which
really
leads
to
intensification
and
infill,
so
we
have
been,
I
know,
as
a
community
having
a
challenge
in
terms
of
not
so
much
the
concept
I
think.
For
the
most
part,
people
are
very
supportive
of
intensification
and
feel,
but
it's
more
about
how
is
it
actually
implemented?
G
How
do
we
do
intensification
and
fill
in
our
community,
and
I
I
also
want
to
stress
the
importance
of
growth
in
our
community
and
most
of
you,
or
some
of
you
might
have
seen
recently,
that
we
have
currently
the
lowest
vacancy
rate
in
the
province.
We
have
a
0.7
vacancy
rate
currently
in
kingston,
that's
lower
than
toronto
and
the
gta.
G
G
G
So
with
that
in
mind,
this
is
where
the
intensification
and
infill
become
really
critical,
and
I
think
we
need
to
find
a
way
forward
as
a
community
or
I'm
hoping
that
tonight
will
be
the
beginning
of
a
larger
or
longer
dialogue
about
how
we
can
move
forward
with
intensification
and
fill
in
our
community,
and
we
have
asked
mr
brent
toleran
to
be
here
tonight
to
help
us
start
that
dialogue
and
it's
something
that
was
actually
suggested
by
some
members
of
the
community.
So
I'm
not
going
to
take
credit
for
that.
G
This
community
dialogue
was
a
suggestion
that
came
from
some
of
you,
so
I
do
appreciate
it.
So,
mr
tottering,
for
those
of
you
who
have
not
had
a
chance
to
read
his
bio,
was
the
former
chief
planner
for
the
city
of
vancouver
is
currently
a
consultant
that
he's
doing
work
not
only
in
canada,
in
smaller
midsize
in
larger
cities,
but
also
doing
work
worldwide.
G
One
of
the
things
that
I
would
like
to
point
out
about,
mr
totterin,
that
most
people
probably
don't
know
is
that
he's
actually
from
ontario
is
from
perth
ontario,
so
he's
he's
from
a
small
town
and
has
had
a
chance
to
do
work
recently
in
communities
such
as
burlington
and
in
london,
so
without
further
delay.
I
know
we're
all
here
to
hear
from
mr
tottering
I'm
going
to
ask
him
to
come
up
to
the
podium
and
make
his
presentation.
Thank
you.
H
I
am
a
kind
of
a
local
boy,
so
I
jumped
at
the
excuse
to
come
back.
I
was
actually
just
back
in
perth
in
december,
visiting
my
mother
who's
still
there
and
she
got
to
see
her
grandson,
which
he
was
very
happy
about,
but
I
liked
this
opportunity
to
come
back
because
I
have
fond
feelings
for
and
a
long
history
with
with
kingston,
as
well
as
a
number
of
municipalities
in
this
part
of
the
province.
H
So,
although
I
do
work
all
over
the
world
now
I
try
to
spend
a
deliberate
amount
of
my
time
working
for
canadian
cities
specifically
and
if
I
can
do
it,
cities
that
have
some
personal
resonance
with
me
in
kingston
is
certainly
one
of
those.
So
it's
not
random.
That
I'm
here
is
what
I'm
saying
to
you:
I'm
not
a
typical
consultant
in
many
ways,
and
I
have
nothing
against
consultants,
but
I'm
not
a
typical
one.
H
But
my
attitude
is
my
brand
is
called
advanced
urbanism
and
my
attitude
is,
I
am
a
sole
practitioner
I
haven't
tried
and
don't
intend
to
try
to
build
a
company.
I
put
my
energy
where
I
think
it
will
do
the
most
good
and
I
usually
get
called
into
cities
to
help
when
there
is
a
special
moment
involved
a
transitional
moment
a
transformational
moment,
because
I
don't
generally
do
status
quo.
H
I
don't
do
better
than
average
status
quo,
I'm
usually
helping
people
do
something
significant,
something
powerful
and
transformative,
and
I
firmly
believe
I
believe
I
I
was
optimistic
and
now
after
two
days.
I
firmly
believe
that
that
is
the
kind
of
moment
that
kingston
is
in
now
and
we'll
see
how
you
feel
as
we
move
forward
after
tonight.
H
The
skill
sets
the
tools,
the
policies
etc
within
city
hall
and
hopefully
well
beyond
city
hall.
So
they're
going
to
be
points
in
my
talk
tonight,
because
I'm
going
to
be
challenging
everyone
involved
in
the
city
making
process
to
rethink
differently,
they're
going
to
be
points
tonight
where
staff
may
be
shuffling
in
their
seats.
Other
points
where
mayor
and
council
may
be
shuffling
in
their
seats
other
points.
H
I'm
gonna
I've
titled
my
talk
density
done
well
in
a
kingston
by
design.
That's
not
accidental.
A
lot
of
my
advice
to
cities
is
not
about
densification
as
a
mathematical
exercise.
Intensification
as
a
mathematical
exercise,
because
I'm
not
a
fan
of
that
approach.
What
I'm
a
fan
of
is
a
qualitative
conversation
about
how
to
densify
successfully
how
to
densify
well
how
to
improve
quality
of
life.
Livability
sustainability,
public
health,
fiscal
responsibility,
costs
of
infrastructure.
As
you
densify,
and
I
I
know
I
don't
believe.
H
H
I
hope
now
that
I
haven't
embarrassed
you
by
pointing
that
out
that
your
your
communications
department
isn't
immediately
going
to
go
and
change
your
twitter
bio.
I
didn't.
I
didn't
do
it.
For
that
reason,
it's
good
that
you're
putting
that
goal.
I
like
the
power
of
goals.
I
notice
you
didn't
give
yourself
a
deadline.
H
You
should
give
yourself
a
deadline.
You
should
feel
a
sense
of
urgency.
We
should
all
feel
a
sense
of
urgency,
because
even
the
cities
that
are
improving
and
progressing
in
my
observation
are
often
not
improving
and
progressing
fast
enough
and
when
it
comes
to
consequences
like
sustainability,
we
don't
have
all
the
time
in
the
world.
H
We
have
to
establish
a
greater
sense
of
urgency,
so
good
on
you
for
having
it
in
your
bio
and,
more
importantly,
in
your
strategic
plan,
and
I
take
that
very
seriously
and
and
all
your
citizens-
and
I
will
be
the
folks
that
say
so.
Are
you
doing
what's
necessary
to
actually
achieve
that,
because
it's
an
easier
thing
to
say
than
it
is
to
achieve?
H
H
So
one
of
my
key
messages,
mr
mayor
and
council:
how
bad
do
you
want
that
right
now,
the
most
sustainable
city
in
the
world?
If
you
believe
certain
metrics
is
vancouver,
so
you've
got
stiff
competition,
but
I
actually
believe
you
could
do
it.
I
actually
want
every
city
to
strive
for
that
goal
and
end
up
in
a
tie.
H
What
implications
does
that
have
for
energy
dependent
places
like
our
suburbs,
frankly,
aging
and
changing
population?
We
talk
a
lot
about
the
aging
population,
but
we
don't
talk
about
enough
about
the
fact
that,
because
of
the
age
of
the
baby
boomers,
the
baby
boomers
are
no
longer
the
largest
demographic
group
on
planet
earth.
The
millennials
are,
and
every
city
is
competing
for
the
millennials,
because
that's
going
to
be
the
basis
of
your
tax
base.
H
So
the
two
biggest
demographic
groups
in
human
history,
the
boomers
and
the
millennials-
are
both
big
challenges
for
cities
and
that
plays
out
in
news
releases
like
amazon
is
looking
for
a
second
headquarters,
and
every
single
city
in
canada
starts
competing.
What
that
really
is
is
a
competition
for
millennials
and
they're,
because
those
are
the
people
that
work
at
amazon
and
civic
identity
as
you're
intensifying.
Does
it
look
like
every
other
place?
This
is
a
critical
issue.
I
don't
need
to
tell
you
for
your
community
one
of
the
most
historically
significant
cities
in
canada.
I
H
Made
in
kingston
approach
to
intensification
that
doesn't
mean
reinventing
the
wheel,
but
it
means
looking
at
ways
to
integrate
your
character
and
identity
into
the
built
result.
So,
whether
you're
motivated
by
climate
change-
and
there
is
a
direct
connection
between
our
carbon
footprint
and
the
way
we
build
cities,
even
the
big
cities
know
it.
New
york
city
has
just
started
a
process
to
sue
the
big
oil
companies.
My
response
to
them
was:
have
you
done
everything
you
can
within
the
things
that
are
within
your
city,
control
to
affect
climate
change?
H
That's
a
new
york
city
rests
on
its
laurels
in
terms
of
a
lot
of
development.
That
happened
a
hundred
years
ago,
but
are
you
making
the
right
decisions
today?
If
you're
not
motivated
by
climate
change?
You
should
be
motivated
by
the
incredibly
powerful
connection
between
public
health
and
city,
making.
H
I've
noticed
over
the
last
five
years
that
my
most
important
allies
in
a
conversation
with
the
public,
with
with
elected
leaders,
about
how
we
build
cities,
are
doctors
and
public
health
care
officials.
I
think
people
as
humans
were
trained
to
listen
to
our
doctors,
maybe
more
so
than
our
city
planners
or
our
climate
scientists,
because
when
doctors
speak,
it
gets
noticed.
H
My
clients
are
the
heart
foundation
of
australia
and
they
brought
me
in
to
help
influence
and
motivate
state-level
governments
and
local
governments
about
how
to
do
intensification
more
successfully
because
they
know
it's
directly
tied
to
prevent
prevention
of
heart
disease
and
a
whole
bunch
of
other
preventable
health
epidemics
that
are
not
only
killing
a
lot
of
people
but
causing
billions
of
dollars
of
costs.
In
our
public
health
care
costs,
so
the
conversation
is
a
heck
of
a
lot
more
complex
than
density,
just
being
a
thing
that
developers
want
because
they
want
to
make
more
profit.
H
That's
just
not
what's
driving
this
conversation,
no
pun
intended
and
if
you're,
not
motivated
by
public
health,
maybe
you're,
motivated
by
good
old-fashioned
cash
cities
in
canada
are
in
the
lead,
internationally
and
inspiring
other
cities
around
the
world.
Now,
in
doing
the
better
math
around
the
costs
of
how
we
build
infill
versus
green
fields,
up
versus
out
different
levels
of
densification
relative
to
infrastructure
costs
and
taxation,
that
can
literally
mean
the
difference
and
has
meant
the
difference
in
some
american
cities
between
success
and
bankruptcy
being
being
called
by
municipalities.
H
One
of
your
peer
cities
and
one
of
my
favorite
cities
that
I've
worked
in
halifax
did
one
of
the
best
studies
I
think
of
looking
at
the
costs
of
different
ratios,
of
how
much
of
your
growth
goes
to
the
suburbs
versus
grows
and
goes
into
inner
city
infill
and
just
making
slight
variations
in
the
percentage
of
growth
resulted
in
billions
of
dollars
of
municipal
costs.
Your
money
being
spent
to
essentially
subsidize
certain
growth
patterns
when
other
growth
patterns
more
than
pay
for
themselves
and
actually
generate
net
revenue
for
the
city.
H
It's
really
hard
for
politicians
and
leaders
and
activists
and
anyone
to
ignore
this
kind
of
math
once
they
know
it.
I
actually
think
it's
one
of
the
most
powerful
game.
Changing
conversations,
that's
been
happening
in
the
conversation
about
where
to
put
our
growth
and
how
to
design
our
growth,
because,
if
you're
not
motivated
by
altruism
like
climate
change
and
public
health,
almost
everybody
seems
to
be
motivated
by
money,
whether
it's
public
money
or
individual
money
and
ultimately,
it's
all
individual
money
and
halifax
is
a
peer
city
of
yours.
H
The
question
is:
how
are
we
going
to
do
it?
Well,
the
bad
news
is,
if
you
think
technology
is
going
to
save
us,
the
driverless
car
is
going
to
be
the
solution
or
whatever.
I
can't
tell
you
how
many
mayors
I've
had
to
have
the
conversation
that
no.
Mr
mayor,
madam
mayor,
you
don't
get
to
defund
public
transportation,
because
driverless
cars
are
going
to
be
the
solution.
H
It's
not
going
to
be
the
solution.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
depending
on
the
details,
it
might
lead
to
an
awful
lot
more
driving.
It
may
be
a
bigger
problem
for
us.
If
science
isn't
going
to
save
us
and
tech
isn't
going
to
save
us.
Demographics
are
going
to
certainly
help
the
perspective
of
the
millennials
around
driving
and
different
ways
of
getting
around
and
choice
about
where
to
live
in
neighborhoods
and
urban
living,
even
as
they're
getting
to
the
age
where
they
are
having
kids.
H
If
we
design
for
that
in
our
urban
places,
we
get,
we
keep
the
millennials,
we
attract
the
millennials
and
the
cities
that
are
attracting
that
talent
for
the
tax
base
for
the
job
base.
Etcetera
are
the
ones
that
are
providing
suburbs
that
are
more
walkable
and
multimodal
and
urban
places
that
can
still
accommodate
millennials
when
they
start
to
have
kids.
Both
of
those
things
are
entirely
possible.
We
just
haven't
necessarily
been
doing
it
that
way.
Up
till
now,
the
largest
demographic
group
on
planet
earth
their
parents,
originally
the
largest
demographic
group
in
history.
H
Well,
it
is
the
largest
demographic
group
in
history.
Increasingly
want
the
same
things.
I
hope
none
of
you
are
insulted.
I
once
had
a
senior's
advocate
say
that
term
broken
hipster
is
a
terrible
term
very
insulting,
and
I
said
it's
not
my
term.
It's
the
wall
street
journal,
but
admittedly
I
am
putting
it
on
a
slide.
Why
I
like
it
is
because
it
catches
people's
attention
that
the
the
baby
boomers
are
making
the
choices
that
we
tend
to
associate
with
the
so-called
hipsters.
They
want
walkable
neighborhoods.
They
want
choice
in
how
to
get
around.
H
They
want
to
be
close
to
their
grandkids.
They
are
choosing
urban
places
and
since
the
boomers
have
the
money,
they're
beating
their
kids
in
the
real
estate
battle,
but
the
two
demographic
groups
are
both
increasingly
saying.
This
is
the
kind
of
development
we
want.
The
kind
of
places
we
want
to
live
in
and
the
same
old,
suburban
model
just
isn't
cutting
it
and
the
demographic
group
in
between
the
age
groups
that
are
having
families
the
typical
narrative.
They
don't
want
to
live
downtown.
H
They
don't
want
to
live
in
urban
places
as
soon
as
they
have
kids
they're,
going
to
move
out
of
the
downtown
and
go
to
the
suburbs.
In
vancouver,
we
have
7
000
children
in
our
downtown
peninsula,
6
800
or
so
more
than
we
had
a
couple
of
decades
ago,
because
we
designed
specifically
for
families
and
kids
to
be
a
part
of
that
urban
living
and
and
instead
of
other
cities
who
have
basically
created
a
self-fulfilling
prophecy
for
themselves
by
designing
in
a
way
that
virtually
repels
families
and
then
they
say
see.
H
You
don't
have
schools
and
daycare
and
other
supports
that
facilitate
families.
You
haven't
designed
your
public
realm
in
a
kid-friendly
way
and
then
you
say
see
the
families
don't
want
to
come.
We
did
the
opposite
of
all
that
we
have
seven
thousand
children
and
there
are
multiple
cities
around
the
world,
including
some
of
your
com,
competitive
cities,
with
you
from
a
scale
percentage
per
perspective
that
are
in
the
process
of
specifically
changing
the
way
they
build
urban
places
for
families,
and
it
is
completely
possible.
H
You
just
have
to
want
it,
and
I
can
tell
you
all
of
these
things,
but
at
some
point
I
suspect
everyone
in
this
room
is
going
to
think
what
I
often
call
the
eight
most
unhelpful
words
in
the
english
language,
which
is
we
could
never
do
that
in
our
city.
It's
amazing
how
much
energy
goes
into
convincing
me
that
what
I'm
talking
about
is
impossible
here
because
of
fill
in
the
blank
climate,
culture,
history,
tradition,
politics,
economics,
what
I've
found
and
I
work
across
ontario.
I
work
across
canada.
I
work
across
north
america.
H
I
work
across
the
world
and
I've
worked
in
some
of
the
most
successful
cities
in
terms
of
attention
accolades
like
most
livable
or
most
innovative,
et
cetera,
and
what
I
found
is
that
the
cities
that
are
actually
achieving
anything
they
want
are
the
ones
that
have
a
clear
vision.
They
have
the
will
and
skill
to
pull
it
off
and
they
emphasize
follow-through
instead
of
talking.
I
work
in
parts
of
the
country
that
are
great
at
follow-through.
Canadian
cities,
often
not
so
great
at
follow-through.
H
We
can
do
a
lot
of
talking,
but
the
the
are
you
actually
carrying
forward
and
doing
the
tough
things
that
are
necessary
to
make
your
vision
a
reality.
When
it
comes
to
how
you
write
your
budget,
how
you
do
other
things?
This
is
one
of
the
ways
I
put
it
the
truth
about
a
city's
aspiration
isn't
found
in
its
vision.
It's
found
in
its
budget.
H
The
budget
is
my
favorite
example
of
follow
through
I,
I
see
city
after
city
with
policy
that
says
we're
going
to
be
a
multimodal
city,
walking
and
biking
transit
is
going
to
be
delightful,
and
then
I
look
at
their
budget
and
see
that
the
actual
money
that's
going
towards
active
transport
is
a
rounding
error
in
the
in
the
conversation,
the
budget
reveals
the
truth
in
terms
of
where
your
real
priorities
are.
Every
city
should
have
to
when
they
are
in
budget
time
directly.
H
It's
not
easy
when
you're
starting
from
a
place
of
less
than
perfection,
shall
we
say
to
start
to
get
it
right
and
I've
observed
over
my
career
that
there's
a
sort
of
stages
of
the
evolution
in
how
to
go
from
doing
it
wrong
to
doing
it
right.
You
you,
you
start
off
by
doing
the
wrong
thing
and
you
folks
have
been
doing
a
lot
of
the
wrong
thing.
H
If
you're
wondering
what
I
mean
I'll,
give
you
a
really
simple
example,
but
I
can
give
you
a
thousand
examples:
you're
still
building
big
box
retailing,
that's
completely
car
dependent
on
your
suburbs,
but
you've
got
a
new
policy
that
calls
for
improved
landscaping
in
the
parking
lot,
so
people
won't
be
so
frightened
walking
from
their
parked
car
to
the
that's
an
example
of
doing
the
wrong
thing.
Better
driverless
cars
by
the
way
is
an
example
of
doing
the
wrong
thing
better
because
we
don't
need
more
driving.
H
Then
I
often
see
cities
in
what
I
call
the
state
of
how
trying
to
have
their
cake
and
eat
it
too
they're
starting
to
invest.
If
I
look
at
their
budget
they're
starting
to
invest
in
infrastructure
for
walking
biking
and
transit,
but
they're
still
doubling
and
tripling
down
on
car
infrastructure,
they're
still
widening
roads
and
they're
wondering
why
there's
no
mode
shift
they're
wondering
why
more
and
more
people
are
still
driving
and
not
more
people
are
walking
biking
and
taking
public
transit
as
you
densify.
H
If
you
still
have
the
same
number
of
people
driving
or
even
more
people
driving
your
densification
is
going
to
be
unsuccessful
by
definition,
mathematically,
geometry:
if
you
have
more
and
more
people
and
they're
all
trying
to
drive
it
doesn't
fit.
I'm
gonna
get
more
into
that.
But
the
point
is
it's
one
of
the
most
common
examples
of
trying
to
have
your
cake
and
eat
it
too.
So
what
do
you?
How
are
you
stopping
doing
the
wrong
things
as
at
the
same
time
as
you're
starting
to
do
the
right
things?
H
H
I
think
we're
in
stage
two
doing
the
wrong
thing
better
and-
and
I
said
you
might
be
in
stage
two
in
certain
issues
in
some
issues
you
might
be
doing
the
right
thing
in
some
issues:
you're
still
stuck
back
in
stage
one
though
the
point
is
not
to
be
absolute.
The
point
is
for
you
to
think
about
what
success
looks
like
because,
as
an
example,
I
often
tell
my
clients.
Don't
get
me
wrong
I'll.
H
Give
you
some
credit
for
doing
the
wrong
thing
better,
because
if
you're
going
to
do
the
wrong
thing,
you
might
as
well.
Do
it
better,
but
don't
mistake
that
for
success,
don't
mistake
that
if
you're
going
to
keep
building
big
box
I'd
prefer
you
to
improve
the
landscaping
in
the
parking
lot.
But
you
need
to
stop
doing
big
bucks
and
don't
mistake
those
things
so
as
a
way.
One
other
way
I
put
it
progress
doesn't
just
depend
on
starting
doing
the
right
things.
H
It
depends
on
stopping
doing
the
wrong
things
and
even
going
back
and
starting
to
fix
your
mistakes,
it's
important
to
say
that,
because
politically
counsel,
it's
a
lot
easier
to
start
to
do
the
right
things.
You
get
a
lot
of
credit
for
that
you
can
do
a
media
release,
it's
actually
harder
to
stop
doing
the
wrong
things,
because
now
you
have
people
mad
at
you
that
are
calling
you
up
and
saying
I'm
used
to
doing
the
wrong
thing.
How
dare
you
tell
me?
H
H
Vancouver
gets
a
lot
of
attention,
not
as
a
big
city,
but
just
as
a
city
that
is
doing
thing
has
been
doing
things
right
and
you
can
start
to
when
you
once
you
get
on
a
roll,
you
can
get
attention
for
a
lot
of
things,
not
just
livability
healthy,
reputable
visitable
from
a
tourism
perspective,
but
you
know
tough
top
coffee
city
top
beach
city.
You
get
some
crazy
ones.
My
clients
in
colombia
laugh
when
I
put
up
that
slide
about
top
top
coffee
city.
H
They
think
none
of
us
understand
coffee,
but
the
key
line
in
there
is
economically
successful
city.
None
of
this
is
airy
fairy.
None
of
this
is
boy
it'd
be
nice
to
have
it
if
we
could
afford
it.
All
of
this
is
proven
everything
I'm
going
to
talk
about
in
this
talk
is
proven
in
terms
of
success,
including
economic
success.
H
One
of
the
things
you
need
to
be
able
to
embrace
as
you
talk
about
densification,
is
the
value
of
design,
and
the
conversation
about
design
tends
to
focus
on
beautification,
which
seems
like
a
superficial
thing,
a
skin-deep
thing
something
nice
to
have.
If
you
have
a
spare
budget,
my
conversation
with
you
is
one
of
my
conversations
with
your
staff
is
about
how
to
get
to
a
culture
of
urban
design
where
design
is
essential
in
the
successful
delivery
of
everything
you're
trying
to
accomplish,
and
it
is
a
value
creator.
H
H
Thinking
about
how
to
perceive
design
as
a
critical
component
to
more
successful
densification,
I'm
not
going
to
weed
it
out,
but
you
can
see
all
the
ways
that
good
design
has
a
demonstrated
track
record
of
economic
success
for
the
private
sector
and
for
the
public
sector,
which
is
more
important
specifically
for
you,
I'm
less
motivated
about
whether
whether
developers
take
make
profit,
but
I'm
really
concerned
about
the
economic
stability
of
cities
put
in
a
more
simple
way:
beauty,
outperforms
ugly
and
it's
remarkable
how
expensive
ugly
can
be.
So
there
is
an.
H
I
want
you
to
think
about
beauty
as
a
critically
component
element,
a
critically
important
component
of
this
conversation,
not
just
because
it's
nice
to
have,
but
it's
a
value
creator
with
a
great
return
on
investment,
demonstrated
track
record.
If
you
think
vancouver
is
mostly
tall
buildings.
Yes,
we
have
tall
buildings,
that's
the
downtown
in
the
foreground,
and
we
have
many
places
where
tall
buildings
are
allowed
contemplated
within
the
urban
pattern
in
vancouver.
H
But
as
you
can
see,
a
lot
of
vancouver
is
low
rise
and
then,
when
you
go
to
the
rest
of
the
the
city
region,
you
see
all
sorts
of
variables.
The
point
is
we
and
all
good
cities
do
densification
in
all
sorts
of
scales
in
all
sorts
of
contexts,
but
the
key
thing
is
we
emphasize
quality
design
at
every
scale.
We
don't
get
into
fights
about
whether
a
certain
scale
like
tall
buildings
are
inherently
bad
or
inherently
good.
H
We
focused
on
the
design
quality
of
every
outcome
and
I'm
going
to
get
a
lot
more
into
that.
Once
you
get
out
of
that
city
proper
you
get
to
where
one
of
the
real
challenging
areas
are.
I've
spent
a
lot
of
the
first
two
days
with
your
staff
talking
about
inner
city
infill,
but,
let's
be
clear,
I
know.
You're
you've
got
a
lot
of
suburbs.
I
know
you're
still
going
to
keep
building
suburbs,
it's
where
most
of
you
live
and
it's
where
most
of
the
new
residents
are
still
going
to
go.
H
So
you
need
to
be
dramatic
in
your
transformational
thinking
about
how
to
do
suburbs
better.
I
don't
like,
like
many
urbanists
vilify
the
suburbs,
even
if
I
wanted
to
what's
the
point
of
that,
but
I
point
this
out
the
success
or
failure
of
our
city
regions
and
ultimately
our
survival
is
going
to
depend
on
how.
Well
we
do
our
suburbs.
H
We
can
do
our
almost
our
inner
city
almost
perfectly,
but
if
we
continue
to
do
our
suburbs
badly
from
a
climate
change,
economic
cost
perspective,
public
health
perspective,
all
the
things
I've
been
talking
about
we're
still
in
deep
trouble.
This
is
the
generational
challenge
we
have,
but
one
of
the
ways
we
make
the
suburbs
better
is
by
taking
the
pressure
off
the
suburbs
by
doing
more
inner
city,
infill,
more
people
living
in
frankly,
more
urban
and
and
more
successful
patterns.
Not
all
suburbia
is
sprawl.
H
This
term
you
have,
but
let's
be
clear
too
much
of
it
is,
and
the
key
defining
characteristic
of
sprawl
is
auto
dependency.
If
you
need
the
car
to
do
basically
everything
you
need
to
do
and
you're
telling
me
brent,
I
need
my
car,
don't
tell
me
to
get
on
a
bike
or
take
public
transit.
I
need
my
car.
I
say
I
believe
you
and
that's
a
failure
of
the
way
we've
designed
that
suburb
we've
designed
that
suburb.
H
So
you
need
a
car
for
everything
we
need
to
design
suburbs
differently,
so
you
have
choices.
This
is
why
suburbs
fail,
not
because
I
inherently
care
more
or
less
about
a
single
detached
house
versus
an
apartment.
This
is
the
problem
so
suburbs,
all
over
north
america
are
changing
they're
becoming
more
urban,
not
everywhere,
but
in
key
places.
H
This
is
one
of
the
suburbs
of
vancouver
where
we
put
transit
infrastructure,
our
skytrain
infrastructure
out
there,
you
see
a
skytrain
station
in
the
middle
of
what
was
a
suburban
1960s
shopping
center
with
a
sea
of
parking,
that's
not
unfamiliar
to
you.
You
have
that,
and
you
know
don't
be
too
focused
on
the
type
of
of
transit
infrastructure,
because
I
know
you
don't
have
light
rail
yet
and
hopefully
at
some
point
you
will.
But
the
point
is
what
you
can
do
when
you
start
to
rethink
the
potential
of
that
land
out
in
the
suburbs.
H
This
is
actually
under
construction.
The
phase
one
is
almost
finished
of
a
transit-oriented
mixed-use
high-density
community
in
the
suburbs,
as
a
new
growth
area,
new
urban
place
in
the
suburbs,
one
of
the
most
interesting
things
about
this
slide.
You
see
the
shadowed
or
ghosted
towers
in
the
back
there.
H
We
haven't
even
had
to
touch
the
mall
yet
and
interfere
with
the
operations
of
that
mall,
which
shows
how
much
space
we're
giving
away
to
parking,
and
you
don't
need
the
the
transit
for
that
to
be
true
for
you.
When
I
go
to
your
malls,
I
see
that
same
sea
of
parking.
I
see
that
same
opportunity
for
a
different
kind
of
building,
we're
doing
transit
corridors,
vertical
corridors
or
sort
of
horizontal
corridors
going
through
the
urban
places
running
along
transit.
H
There's
no
right
answer
to
this.
This
is
a
transit
corridor
that
that
I
oversaw
the
planning
of
called
the
camby
corridor
they're
at
the
stations
there's
much
higher
density,
both
higher
and
more
dense
and
those
two
things
are
not
exactly
the
same
thing
but
in
between
stations,
it's
a
prevailing
scale
of
six
stories.
I
know
there
are
people
in
the
community
that
think
six
stories
is
the
optimal
ideal
scale
in
every
context.
I
happen
to
like
six
story
form,
but
I
don't
believe
it's
the
answer
everywhere.
H
It
is
the
predominant
answer
in
this
particular
corridor,
but
not
at
the
station
areas
or
not
in
the
neighborhood
centers.
Or
what
have
you,
but
it
shows
you
can
start
to
have
a
sophisticated
conversation
about
the
type
of
density,
the
type
of
scale,
the
type
of
built
form
in
different
contexts
to
achieve
different
public
goals,
including
transit,
ridership,
walkability,
complete
communities,
etc.
H
This
is
a
slide
I
actually
created
when
I
was
chief
planner
when
I
was
going
out
to
community
groups
like
you,
I
remember
in
one
couple
of
month
period,
I
went
to
53
community
groups
and
talked
about
density,
because
it's
important
for
members
of
the
public
sector
to
be
talking
about.
Why
we're
talking
about
intensification
at
all,
because,
let's
be
candid
in
the
absence
of
that,
the
narrative
tends
to
be
well.
H
H
Don't
do
that,
but
you
need
to
be
constant
and
persuasive
in
your
conversation
about
why
it
is
in
the
public
interest.
A
necessity
to
be
talking
about
intensification,
reduced
energy
use
in
buildings
allows
active
transport.
Frankly,
it
does
more
than
allow
them
it's
in
this
it.
It
creates
the
opportunity
for
them.
It
makes
them
possible
more
green
design
options,
many
of
which
are
dependent
on
certain
levels
of
density
like
cogeneration.
H
District
energy
is
a
game
changer
in
terms
of
solving
climate
change,
and
it's
only
possible
with
certain
levels
of
density,
less
sprawl,
less
pressure
on
agricultural
land,
industrial
land,
less
pressure
on
heritage
buildings,
if
you
can
intensify
elsewhere,
more
affordable
housing
choices,
improve
public
health.
Even
the
stats
show
more
safe,
more
diverse,
more
inclusive,
just
about
everything
you
can
quantify
and
many
things
you
can
show
that
density
is
a
net
positive.
H
If
you
do
it
well,
and
I
always
make
that
distinction,
because
there
is
such
a
thing
as
bad
density,
there
is
a
such
thing
as
poorly
designed
density
unsuccessful
density,
but
if
you
do
it
well,
this
is
what
you
can
achieve.
This
is
why
the
public
sector
needs
to
be
talking
about
densification
and
it
and
listen.
H
H
Okay,
well,
I'm
going
to
go
fast,
then
so
buckle
up.
There
are
three
elements
to
density
done
well,
and
I
am
going
to
go
through
them
quickly.
The
first
is
to
make
sure
that
you
you're
doing
your
land
use
and
your
mobility
in
an
aligned
way
that
you're
thinking
about
how
people
move
and
where
people
live.
In
the
same
conversation,
a
lot
of
city
halls
still
have
a
bit
of
a
disconnect.
H
How
we
get
around
is
a
critical
component
to
how
we
do
density,
I'm
here
to
tell
you
if
you
think
the
solution
to
densification
is
to
widen
roads
that
won't
work.
It
doesn't
fit.
You
can't
widen
the
roads
wide
enough
frankly,
and
we
know
that
when
you
widen
rows
it
it
just
induces
people
to
do
more
driving
the
concept
is
called
induced
demand
or
the
law
of
congestion.
H
Our
transportation
engineers
in
vancouver
know
that
the
best
transportation
plan
is
a
great
land
use
plan.
You
get
your
land
use
right.
It
makes
walking
biking
and
public
transit
highly
viable
and
then,
if
you
do
the
infrastructure
rate
right,
you
make
it
enjoyable,
but
if
you
get
your
land
use
wrong,
it's
really
hard.
So
this
aligned
conversation,
this
mutual
shared
definition
of
success
between
land
use
and
transportation
is
critical.
H
The
most
important
policy
that
vancouver
ever
passed
was
in
the
1990s
and
it
said
we're
not
balancing
ways
of
getting
around
we're:
prioritizing
walking,
biking
in
public
transit,
then
goods,
movement
and
then
the
private
automobile.
We
don't
ban
the
private
automobile
they're
still
driving
in
vancouver.
We
actually
have
the
same
level
of
driving
in
vancouver
that
we
had
in
1970,
and
I
say
the
same:
that's
the
wrong
way
of
putting
it.
H
It
went
up,
and
then
it
went
back
down
to
nineteen
seventies
levels
because
of
our
our
improvements
in
public
transit,
walking
and
biking,
which
is
a
huge
international
success
story,
but
it
takes
prioritization
balances
code,
usually
for
the
status
quo.
When
I
see
a
plan
that
calls
for
balance,
I
have
a
sense
that
the
city
isn't
all
that
serious.
H
First
of
all,
if
you
look
at
it
just
pragmatically,
the
cars
had
a
head
start
for
about
50
years.
So,
even
if
your
goal
is
balance,
you've
got
to
prioritize
walking,
biking
and
transit.
It's
like
a
100
yard
dash
and
you've.
Given
the
car,
an
80
yard.
Head
start,
you've
got
to
prioritize
walking,
biking
and
transit.
If
you
want
to
have
multimodal
success
and
it's
critically
tied
to
intensification,
because
if
you
add
to
your
population
in
a
way
that's
car
supported,
you've
got
problems.
You've
got
trouble.
H
If
you
design
a
city
for
cars,
it
fails
for
everyone,
including
drivers.
If
you
design
a
multimodal
city,
it
works
better
for
everyone,
including
drivers.
I
want
you
to
understand.
This
is
one
of
my
most
important
messages
that
as
we
move
in
this
direction,
this
is
not
an
anti-car
message.
It's
not
a
war
in
the
car.
That's
a
rob
ford
line.
H
We
are
constantly
thinking
about
the
vertical
experience
of
the
pedestrian,
the
city
at
eye
level,
at
five
kilometers
an
hour
that
basically
rewards
the
pedestrian
for
walking
you're
spending
a
lot
of
time
on
the
public
realm
design.
But
the
track
record
of
performance
around
the
architecture
at
grade
is
frankly
weak.
So
how
to
do
that?
Much
better
in
terms
of
creating
that
expectation,
new
york
went
through
the
process
of
breaking
down
the
elements
of
the
street
wall
to
make
sure
that
they
were
putting
attention
on
on
every
aspect.
H
H
It's
not
quite
that
simple,
I'm
oversimplifying,
but
you
get
the
point
it's
really
important
and,
as
we
think
about
how
streets
and
public
spaces
are
designed,
yes,
we
should
be
thinking
about
moving
people,
not
just
cars.
That's
advanced
thinking
when
it
comes
to
mobility,
but
we
also
need
to
think
of
streets
as
places
that
aren't
just
for
movement.
H
I
won't
talk
a
lot
about
that.
Sorry,
if
there's
bike
activists
in
the
room
that
want
me
to
talk
for
a
lot
about
it,
but
I
will
say
the
absolute
key
to
getting
a
mode
shift
increase
in
bikes,
particularly
on
busy
fast
roads.
Is
separation
separated
bike
lanes?
If
you
don't
aren't
willing
to
go
with
separation,
if
you're
trying
to
have
cyclists,
share
the
streets
with
with
traffic
you're
going
to
be
limited
in
your
success,
I
won't
say
you
won't
improve,
but
you're
going
to
be
limited
in
your
success.
H
This
is
one
of
our
first
bike
lanes
hornby
and
it
was
started
as
a
pilot
and
then
became
permanent.
You
can
learn
from
us
in
vancouver.
We
are
now
the
first
canadian
city
to
get
to
double
digits
and
bike
share.
Ten
percent
of
our
trips
are
by
bike
and
by
north
american
standards.
That's
great!
When
I
go
to
my
scandinavian
city,
clients,
they
kind
of
chuckle
at
me
and
with
a
bit
of
sympathy
because
they're
up
in
35
45
percent,
but
by
north
american
standards.
That's
that's
pretty
impressive.
H
H
Why
are
there?
No
cyclists
well
because
we
don't
have
a
complete
network
and
are
we
done
now?
No
we're
not
done
because
we
don't
have
a
complete
network,
but
that's
what
happens
when
you
do
it
slowly
and
the
public
gets
frustrated
because
they
don't
see
success
so
do
what
calgary
did
and
which
learned
from
our
mistake.
H
We
all
know
that
when
cars
are
moving,
they
take
way
more
space
than
that,
but
I
still
like
this
kind
of
thing
I
collect
the
mayors,
now
send
them
to
me
because
they
know
I
tweet
them
and,
and
I've
probably
got
about
150
of
them.
My
favorite
one
is
from
my
recent
clients
in
santiago
chile
because
they
introduced
the
additional
element
of
you
see
the
bus
caught
in
the
same
traffic.
H
It
makes
the
extra
point
on
top
of
the
space
point,
which
is
that
when
you
don't
separate
your
bus
infrastructure,
you
have
all
those
people
stuck
in
the
same
traffic
in
all
of
those
cars,
which
is
a
very
good
extra
point.
There's
all
sorts
of
creative
ways
to
make
the
point
about
how
much
less
space
is
necessary.
This
case
bike
parking
how
many
bikes
you
can
park
in
the
space
of
a
parked
car,
but
it's
all
about
you.
You
have
to
understand
that
mobility
in
cities,
especially
as
you're
adding
population
intensifying,
is
about
space.
H
An
electric
car
won't
solve
that.
A
driverless
car
won't
solve
that.
It's
ultimately
about
space
when
cars
move
and
when
cars
park.
The
second
element
of
density
done
well
is
a
high
quality
design
standard.
I've
already
talked
about
that.
The
you
need,
as
a
culture,
change
to
change
your
culture,
your
tools,
your
your
systems
to
deliver
better
quality
and
particularly
as
you're
talking
about
height,
which
I
know
is
one
of
your.
If
not
the
critical
element
that
you
constantly
are
debating
and
discussing
in
this
city,
this
is
our
waterfront.
H
I've
taken
pictures
and
tweeted
your
waterfront
and
had
some
comments.
Maybe
you
don't
like
our
waterfront.
This
is
early
generation.
This
is
15
20
years
ago,
but
what
you
see
is
height,
but
what
you
see
is
separation
of
buildings
and
they
all
land
on
a
podium
that
activates
and
a
street
and
has
a
very
strong
human
scale
and
there's
separation
for
privacy
and
sunlight
access
and
views,
etc.
H
In
all
the
ways
we
can
measure
in
many
ways
we
can't
measure
the
performance
of
density,
whether
it's
shadowing
on
public
spaces
or
privacy
or
view
blockage
or
all
sorts
of
things
like
that.
So
one
of
the
things
vancouver
is
known
for
is
doing
the
podium
which
your
architects
have
started.
To
borrow
from
I've.
Seen
and
there's
there's
some
progress.
H
I
think
in
the
quality
of
the
conversation
about
the
podium,
but
the
towers
are
separated
and
they're
stepped
back
and
they
don't
determine
the
human
scale
of
the
experience,
because
the
podium
does
that,
but
the
towers
aren't
fat.
They're,
slim
they're,
they're,
elegant.
It's
really
important
as
you're
doing
tall
buildings
that
you
do
tall
buildings.
Well,
I
call
this
the
parnasse
effect.
This
is
the
maparnas
tower
in
paris.
It
was
the
first
tall
tower
built
in
paris
ever
and
it
was
awful
and
hated
the
the.
H
H
You
know
that
building
costs
cost
everyone
the
opportunity
to
have
a
conversation
about
whether
tall
buildings
were
good
or
not,
and
I'm
not
sure
the
answer
in
the
paris
context,
but
that
ended
the
conversation
because
of
how
bad
that
was,
if
you're
interested
in
my
narrative
or
my
conversation
about
that
write
down
that
title
tall
towers
debates
could
use
less
dogma
and
better
design,
and
I
talk
in
depth
about
that.
What
we've
got
to
get
to
is
a
conversation
about
the
quality
of
tall
buildings.
H
Just
like
we
talk
about
the
quality
of
mid-size
buildings
and
the
quality
of
low-rise
buildings,
we
make
sure
they're
not
vertical
sprawl
in
the
sense
that
they
are
not
car,
oriented
and
badly
designed
at
the
street.
But
just
because
they're
tall
they're,
not
vertical
sprawl,
you
can
be
vertically
urban
or
vertical
sprawl.
It
depends
on
what
happens
when
you
ride
down
the
elevator,
which
I
consider
a
form
of
public
transit.
H
If
you
ride
down
the
elevator
and
get
into
your
parking
garage
and
vomit
out
onto
the
expressway-
and
there
are
literally
projects,
I've
seen
that
do
that
direct
on-ramps
onto
the
expressway-
that
is
vertical
sprawl.
If
you
ride
down
the
elevator
and
walk
your
kids
to
school
or
walk
to
the
grocery
store
that
is
vertical
urbanism,
that
is
about
the
quality
of
the
tall
tower
design
and
the
nature
and
quality
of
the
neighborhood.
H
That's
got
to
be
the
conversation
about
tall
buildings.
Instead,
what
a
lot
of
ontario
cities
have
is
a
focused
conversation
about
the
number
of
floors,
my
clients
in
burlington
ontario,
just
next
to
hamilton.
If
you
know
burlington,
we
had
a
very
similar
conversation
about
tall
buildings,
and
I-
and
I
pointed
out
to
them-
I
went
around
taking
pictures
of
their
tall
buildings
and
I
said
man
if
I
thought
these
were
the
tall
buildings
you
were
going
to
be
building.
H
I
would
hate
tall
buildings
too,
but
I
could
name
you
25
horrible
things
about
these
buildings
before
I
even
mention
height
and
yet
the
conversation
is
almost
was
in
burlington
almost
entirely
about
how
tall
buildings
the
buildings
were
and
in
the
downtown
different
architecture,
different
materials,
but
the
same
basic
issue,
huge
slab
buildings
that
were
frankly,
very
poorly
designed
blocked
views
all
sorts
of
things,
but
they
weren't
tall,
and
there
was
a
perspective
that
that
was
success.
Frankly,
they
are
pretty
tall,
they're,
just
tall
and
fat.
H
H
You
folks
have
built
a
lot
of
slab
towers
and
a
lot
of
the
proposals
you
have
coming
forward,
because
most
of
the
conversation
is
about
how
tall
they
are,
and
your
council
and
your
staff
are
very
sensitive
to
the
perception
that
the
public
doesn't
like
height
you're,
basically
squashing
them
down
into
badly
designed
slightly
less
tall
buildings
is
my
observation
for
you.
What
I
want
for
you
is
a
much
more
sophisticated,
intense,
multifaceted
conversation
about
how
to
do
density
and
height
well
and
not
just
be
focused
on
how
tall
the
buildings
are.
H
H
H
There
are
opportunities
to
do
strategically
located
tall
buildings
and,
by
definition,
defining
where
they
shouldn't
go
tall
buildings
and
make
sure
they
get
designed
better.
That's
just
horrible
ugly,
bad
monolithic,
tall
buildings.
That's
a
false
choice.
That's
a
straw
man
as
they
say.
Okay,
that's
not
your
two
choices.
H
There
is
a
middle
way
that
is
about
the
quality
of
design
at
every
scale.
Mr
mayor,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
fast
forward
to
some
things
to
get
some
key
messages.
I
just
want
to
say
with
this.
The
third
element
of
density
done
well,
is
how
you
bring
the
amenities
into
the
conversation
and
achieve
them
through
tools
like
density
bonusing,
which
is
one
of
the
most
important
tools
you
have
as
a
city
to
make
sure
you're
building
the
amenities
that
make
the
density
livable
and
lovable.
H
As
you
intensify,
and
I
know
there
are
constantly
challenges
from
your
development
industry,
etc
about
whether
you
should
be
using
tools
like
density,
bonusing
or
other
charges,
you
need
to,
because
you,
like,
every
other
municipality
in
canada,
can't
afford
to
keep
up
on
the
amenities
that
make
density
successful.
Unless
you
use
these
tools.
H
Frankly,
you
should
be
using
them
more
and
that's
one
of
the
meetings
I'm
going
to
have
with
your
staff
tomorrow,
because
that's
the
way
you
achieve
not
just
overcrowding
but
density
that
actually
succeeds
when
combined
with
multimodal
design
and
great
urban
design
in
general.
That's
how
you
get
livable
density,
that's
how
you
get
livable
intensification
and
lovable
intensification,
because
you're,
preserving
things
like
heritage,
etc
that
people
love
and
bring
character,
so
public
spaces
and
day
care
and
rental
housing
may
be
in.
H
In
the
conversation
of
of
a
more
diverse
neighborhood,
not
just
a
livable
one,
cultural
facilities,
community
and
civic
facilities,
all
anything
that
supports
that
that
densification
community
pools
is
a
big
issue
in
one
of
the
cities,
I'm
working
in
right
now,
so
density
and
design
at
every
great
density,
great
design
at
every
scale,
but
without
having
this
inherent
scale
dogma.
That
says
anything
above
six
stories
is
inherently
evil.
H
It's
not
bad
design
is
evil
in
my
opinion,
and
you
can
determine
the
quality
of
your
outcome
just
to
show
you
that
vancouver
doesn't
just
two
tall
buildings,
we're
actually
very
good
at
mid-rise
too,
and
the
predominant
pattern
in
vancouver
is
actually
mid-rise.
Tall
towers
are
not
allowed
in
vancouver
in
most
of
vancouver,
but
where
they
are
allowed,
the
emphasis
is
on
making
sure
they
are
done.
H
Well
because
we've
gotten
past
this
sort
of
simplistic
narrative
about
tall
towers,
good
or
bad,
yes
or
no-
and
it's
a
conversation
about
where,
where
not,
how
our
olympic
village,
for
example,
which
is
probably
our
most
famous
neighborhood,
this
was
the
athletes
village
for
the
2010
winter
games
named
the
greenest
community
in
north
america.
It's
all
mid-rise
there
was
debate
about
whether
should
be
high-rise.
We
said
no,
we
want
to
show.
We
do
mid-rise,
really
well
greenest
community
in
north
america,
and
I
can
show
you
plenty
of
pictures
of
that.
H
The
point
is
that
at
every
scale
the
conversation
is
about
quality
design,
good
urbanism,
good
densification
and
never
once
his
size
fits
all
approach,
but
a
conversation
in
every
part
of
your
community
in
urban
places
in
in
more
low-density
places.
I
say
that
because
there's
a
very
important
conversation
to
you
for
you
to
be
having
about
ground-oriented
forms
of
densification,
my
friend
dan
parolic
in
san
francisco
calls
it
the
missing
middle
between
single
detached
houses
and
the
mid-riser
high-rise.
H
It's
all
those
ground-oriented
things
like
duplexes
row,
houses,
courtyard
row,
houses,
etc
that
we
haven't
been
building
to
be
clear.
These
are
not
things
that
you
do
instead
of
tall
towers
in
places
where
tall
towers
make
sense.
These
are
places.
These
are
things
you
do
frankly
in
the
low-density
neighborhoods,
when
you
want
to
have
more
opportunities
for
those
neighborhoods
to
evolve
over
time,
and
if
I
had
more
time
I'd
get
more
into
that.
H
But
the
point
is,
you
can
completely
have
a
conversation
about
how
to
densify
in
low-density
neighborhoods
that
the
public
can
actually
come
on
board
with.
If
you
have
a
conversation
about
the
nature
of
change
versus
stability,
so-called
stability
in
your
neighborhoods,
I
use
terms
in
the
vancouver
conversation
like
gentle
density,
hidden
density
and
invisible
density,
to
talk
about
secondary
suites,
laneway
houses,
row
houses,
etc
and
how
they
could
actually
stabilize
neighborhoods,
because
in
many
neighborhoods
your
population
is
dropping.
H
Your
local
inner
city
school
is
under
threat
of
closure,
because
the
empty
nesters
haven't
downsized
because
they
don't
have
unit
types
in
their
neighborhood
to
downsize
to
it's
remarkable
how
these
kinds
of
housing
forms
can
actually
add
to
the
stability
help
with
the
stability
of
neighborhoods,
and
then
you
get
simple
ideas
like
laneway
housing.
You
folks
have
some
lanes.
H
This
was
thought
of
as
a
very
small
idea
when
I
was
championing
it
now.
We
have
over
2500
approved
laneway
houses
around
the
single-family
neighborhoods,
what
I
call
hidden
density
at
the
time.
The
point
is
all
sorts
of
different
scales,
so
if
you
think
that
I'm
talking
about
a
place
like
vancouver
that
where
the
density
conversation
is
very
easy,
but
the
density
conversation
is
very
hard
in
your
city,
this
is
a
pretty
typical
headline
in
vancouver.
The
densification
conversation
is
very
hard
in
vancouver
it's
very
hard
in
every
city.
H
I
work
in
you
are
not
special.
In
that
sense,
your
conversation
is
hard.
If
you,
if
you
I-
I
liked
your
your
cartoons
about
density,
here's
one
that
our
local
community
did.
This
was
a
poster
that
was
done
when
a
transit
corridor,
a
main
spine
transit
corridor,
was
being
proposed
to
take
the
density,
the
height
from
four
stories
to
five
stories.
H
One
additional
floor,
they've
got
better
graphic
skills
than
even
your
cartoonist
and
you've
got
a
pretty
good
cartoonist
locally.
The
conversation
about
density
is
never
easy,
but
it's
got
a
shift
to
a
conversation
about
not
yes
or
no,
but
the
quality
it
might.
My
hero,
jonathan
barnett,
said
it's
not
how
dense
you
make
it,
but
how
you
make
it
dense,
he's
my
hero,
but
I
don't
think
he's
quite
right.
H
It's
both
the
amount
of
density
does
matter,
but
it
matters
how
you
do
it,
how
successfully
I
want
to
move
the
conversation
from
what
I
call
from
nimby
to
quindy,
not
a
conversation
of
not
in
my
backyard,
which
is
a
yes
or
no
kind
of
polarized
conversation.
But
quimby
stands
for
quality
in
my
backyard,
how
we
have
a
conversation
about
better
design
in
every
context
at
every
scale,
not
with
a
one-size-fits-all
approach,
but
a
contextual
approach
and
all
designed
really
well.
H
So,
mr
mayor,
I'm
going
to
skip
through
some
of
these
because
I've
just
gone
too
far.
I
want
to
leave
you
with
some
initial
observations.
Forgive
me.
I
know
I'm
going
a
little
bit
over
time.
Some
initial
observations.
I've
gone
into
much
more
detail
with
your
staff,
I'm
going
to
continue
to
work
with
your
staff,
but
a
few
high-level
thoughts
for
council
and
for
the
community.
H
First
of
all,
let's
be
really
clear.
Density
done
well,
not
just
densification
as
a
numbers
exercise,
but
doing
it
well
is
a
really
critically
necessary
element
to
becoming
the
most
sustainable
city.
If
you
take
that
goal
seriously,
you
need
to
get
better
at
this.
You
must
get
better
at
it,
I'm
not
saying
you're
horrible
at
it.
I'm
saying
you
need
to
get
better
at
it.
You're
not
you're,
not
perfectly
appropriately
positioned
to
have
a
successful
conversation
about
density.
You
don't
have
the
culture,
you
don't
have
the
conversation.
H
You
don't
have
many
of
the
tools
necessary
to
achieve
it.
Your
staff
need
additional
training
and
support.
You've
got
an
exceptionally
good
chief
planner
and
a
staff
that
wants
to
learn
and
we're
talking
about
how
to
build
that
capacity
and
skill
set
and
culture
into
all
of
your
departments,
not
just
the
planning
department.
So
you
there's
great
potential
there,
but
it's
going
to
take
work.
It's
going
to
take
realization
that
there
needs
to
be
a
significant
improvement
and
you
and
you
are
going
to
need
to
support
that
initiative.
H
It's
not
going
to
happen
overnight.
Sorry,
great
city
building
needs
champions.
I
think
the
chief
planner
should
be
a
champion.
The
mayor
should
be
a
chief
planner,
all
of
council
community
champions,
and
you
need
many
voices.
I
fear
that
there
aren't
enough
voices
talking
about
the
different
elements
of
how
to
build
a
great
city.
You've
got
great
voices
in
your
community
about
heritage
preservation.
You've
got
great
voices
in
your
community
about
the
issue
of
tall
buildings.
H
H
It
can
be
a
big
problem
for
achieving
successful
density.
If
you
start
to
say
yes
to
projects
that
are
too
big,
I'm
here
to
tell
you
there
is
such
a
thing
as
too
much
density
on
a
site.
It's
got
to
be
driven
by
an
urban
design
exercise
and
you've
got
to
have
the
confidence
to
say.
I
don't
need
to
get
all
my
housing
on
one
project
or
two
projects.
H
I'm
gonna
have
the
confidence
that
I'm
gonna
achieve
my
all
of
my
goals
through
a
pattern
of
building
a
better
city,
you're
likely
underestimating
okay,
this
this
sentence-
or
this
paragraph,
mr
mayor,
is
a
mouthful
so
see
if
see.
If
I
can
get
get
you
to
follow
this
you're
likely
underestimating
how
much
will
need
to
change
to
suffice
sufficiently
improve
the
culture
system,
tools,
etc.
To
deliver
successful
densification
you're
likely
underestimating
how
much
you're
all
going
to
need
to
change.
It
will
evolve
some
things
you
currently
don't
want
to
do.
H
I've
already
heard
it
in
the
last
48
hours,
there's
some
things
that
oh
I'm
not
or
that
that's
your
staff
think
you
won't
let
them
do
as
political
leaders
it'll
take
some
things
that
the
development
industry
will
tell
you
that
they
don't
want
you
to
do.
It'll,
take
some
things
that
community
activists
will
tell
you
that
they
don't
want
you
to
do
so.
There
are
going
to
be
moments
where
almost
everybody
is
unhappy,
but
through
that
exercise
will
come
better
outcomes
because
the
city
will
be
better
as
a
result
of
it.
H
I
have
no
doubt
of
that.
The
good
news
is,
you
do
have
successes
in
this
city.
You
have
remarkable
transit,
successes,
walking
and
biking
successes,
heritage,
preservation,
successes,
you've,
got
a
lot
of
assets
that
other
cities
that
I
work
for
would
kill
for,
and
you
have
good
people
in
key
positions.
So
the
opportunity
is
there
for
you.
If
you
want
it,
the
question
just
is
how
bad
do
you
want
it?
Mr
mayor,
thank
you
very
much.
A
J
H
J
J
H
I
think
people
following
on
twitter
following
me
on
twitter
would
think
that
I've
been
hired
specifically
to
help
you
with
your
waterfront,
because
so
many
of
my
tweets,
I
think
I
had
two
or
three
of
them
that
were
specifically
about
your
waterfront,
which,
as
a
result
of
the
fact
that
your
staff
booked
me
on
in
a
waterfront
hotel,
you
might
not
do
that.
Might
not
do
that
in
the
future,
but
the.
H
But
I
don't
think
you
have
a
special
problem
on
your
waterfront.
I
think
the
waterfront
is
a
great
example
of
the
problem
you
have
citywide,
which
is
that
you've
got
the
ability
and
I
think,
you're,
making
generally
good
decisions
in
the
places
in
between
that
are
under
city
ownership
and
under
control.
You've
got
an
evolving
waterfront
master
plan.
Hopefully
you
will
make
good
decisions,
including
funding
around
things
like
cycling
infrastructure.
H
But
your
big
challenge
right
now
is
how
you
interact
with
the
development
industry
and-
and
I
don't
blame
anyone
around
this
table-
I'm
presuming
most
of
you
weren't
here
for
a
lot
of
the
things
I
was
looking
at
on
the
waterfront,
but
you
I
I
point
those
out.
Not
to
make
myself
feel
smart,
I
point
those
out
because
they
are
cautionary
tales
and
instructive.
H
Lessons
on
what
not
to
do
moving
forward,
whether
it's
on
the
waterfront
or
not,
it's
extra
heinous,
in
the
sense
that
it's
being
done
in
a
place
that
really
damages
your
one
of
your
most
significant
assets,
the
waterfront.
You
know,
cities
would
kill
for
that
waterfront
and
in
some
ways,
you've
damaged
that
potential,
because
once
those
things
are
built
they're
there,
but
you've
also
done
good
things
on
your
waterfront.
Your
tech
center
is
remarkable
architecture.
So
then
I
know
there's.
H
D
D
H
Choices,
I
think
the
monster
homes
are
what
happens
when
you
do
it's
almost
a
reaction
to
the
absence
of
a
better
answer,
and
so
yes
you're
having
conversations
about
other
ways
to
do
densification
that
addresses
students
in
other
places,
so
that
those
neighborhoods
could
remain
more
in
the
way
that
they
have
been
both
historically
and
in
terms
of
the
the
perception
and
culture
of
the
residents.
So
it's
it's
a
bit
of
a
cautionary,
and
I
know
you
folks
are
struggling
with.
H
I
know
the
efforts
that
have
gone
in,
so
I'm
not
going
to
be
flippant.
In
my
answer
to
you,
I
know
how
much
effort
has
gone
into
this
issue,
but
it's
tied
to
the
conversation
about
densification
in
general.
If
you
provide
more
density
options,
some
of
that
may
be
taken
up
by
students.
Some
of
that
may
be
taken
up
by
millennials.
H
My
perception
is,
you
folks
are
getting
two
and
three
bedrooms
because
they're
being
built
for
students
so
and
that's
almost
a
bit
of
a
benefit,
because
the
students
may
be
there
or
not
there,
but
then
that
housing
is
available
for
families
too,
so
it
just
puts
sort
of
extra
pressure
on
you
to
have
even
more
units
that
are
two
and
three-bedroom.
So
my
long-winded
answer
to
your
question,
counselor
is
is:
is
it's
it's
in
inextricably
connected
to
the
densification
conversation
in
general?
L
L
So
how
like,
when
the
issues
of
tall
buildings
are
coming
up
and
the
value
of
intensification
is,
is
apparent
in
certain
parts
of
the
city,
but
perhaps
not
for
others,
who
I
don't.
I
don't
agree
with
this,
but
perhaps
for
for
others
who
are
living
in
a
rural
air
area,
for
example,
where
intensification
is
just
so
far
from
there
they're
thinking
about
our
city.
How
do
we
bring
people
together
and
build
that
consensus
that
you're
talking
about.
H
H
H
My
observation,
then,
because
I
was
pseudo-political
in
the
sense
that
my
ability
to
achieve
my
goals
as
a
planner
was
completely
dependent
on
the
perspective
of
the
council
about
the
shared
obligation
responsibilities.
So
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
with
my
rural
counselors
and
my
suburban
counselors
to
understand
the
critical
importance
of
a
successful
downtown
and
inner
city
to
them
and
their
constituents
whether
they
ever
come
downtown.
H
H
It's
important
to
the
tax
base,
it's
where
that
much
of
the
tax
base
gets
generated,
so
even
if
you're,
just
motivated
by
that
you
know
so,
but
telling
that
story.
I
found
often
that
the
inner
city
and
the
urban
parts
of
the
city
are
not
particularly
good
at
telling
that
story
as
part
of
the
political
narrative,
and
it
shouldn't
be
all
to
the
downtown
or
inner
city
councillors.
To
tell
that
story.
That
should
be
a
city
story
that
that
is
constantly
done.
My
only
political
advice
to
you
is
empower
your
staff.
I
believe
firmly.
H
I
was
a
chief
planner
and
I
was
very
outspoken.
I
understand
and
believe
in
the
power
of
the
the
chief
planner
being
out
in
the
community
as
an
outspoken
champion
and
a
facilitator
of
this
conversation
to
be
able
to
go
out
and
have
the
information.
Tell
the
stories
celebrate
the
successes.
Talk
candidly
about
the
challenges
about
that
kind
of
thing.
H
Tell
the
truth
when,
when
it's
issues
like
the
that
the
suburbanites
benefit
from
the
tax
base
of
the
inner
city
show
the
numbers
and
make
that
case
with
your
council
colleagues,
and
hopefully
you
don't
have
to
any
suburban
councillors
and
such
if
they
don't
understand
yet
how
they
are
you're.
All
in
this
together,
just
don't
have
the
facts,
but
often
that
can
honestly
be
the
case.
The
facts
haven't
been
well
communicated.
H
F
Todder
and
so
so
kel
commissioner
hertel
was
pronouncing
correct.
I
have
an
armenian
friend
who
has
a
similar
name
and
it's
that
anyways
thank
you
todder
and
mr
tottering.
That
was
a
very
fascinating
presentation
and
I'm
very
excited
that
you're
here
I've
been
following
you
on
twitter,
for
a
while
and
and
I'm
familiar
with,
the
concept
of
urbanism
and
the
different
kinds
of
urbanism,
and
I
see
now
that
you
have
your
own
style.
I
guess
you
said
it
was
advanced
urbanism,
so
we're.
F
Obviously
none
of
us
are
there
yet
in
a
place
like
kingston,
but
thanks
for
your
presentation,
we
can
hopefully
get
there.
I
have
an
issue,
a
specific
question
that
illustrates
what
councilor
holland
was
just
mentioning
and
also
illustrates
what
you
were
saying
about
the
narrative
and
how
we
need
to
change
the
narrative
and
it's
related
to
induced
demand,
but
in
a
specific
sense
we
actually
have
a
project
on
the
books
right
now.
That
is
not
it.
F
The
green
light
isn't
completely
there,
but
it's
it's
considered
pretty
much
a
done
deal,
it's
going
to
happen,
and
it's
because
the
narrative
starts
with
it
being
an
assumption
and
the
narrative
started
like
this.
We
private
developers
obtained
some
land
in
our
downtown
and
they're
planning
on
building
there,
we're
not
sure
exactly
what
they're
gonna
build,
but
we're
losing
some
parking
spaces.
So
the
narrative
was
put
to
us
by
the
cio.
F
We
suggest
a
parking
garage
on
this
spot,
and
so
that's
what
we're
debating
we're
debating
where
to
put
the
parking
garage
and
it's
sort
of
a
given
that
we're
going
to
build
the
parking
garage
because
we've
lost
this
parking
supply
and
has
to
be
replaced.
That's
the
assumption
from
your
presentation,
I'm
getting
the
impression
that
that's
in
your
list
of
four
ways
to
do
things.
Do
the
wrong
thing:
do
the
wrong
thing
better,
trying
to
have
your
cake
and
eat
it
too,
and
to
do
the
right
thing
in
that's
either
number
one
or
number
two.
H
You
might
be
a
fifth
one
counselor,
which
is
not
not
doing
the
right
thing,
but
not
doing
the
right
not
doing
things
better.
It
doesn't
make
things
worse.
I've
literally
worked
and
seen
cities
that
would
see
that
as
an
opportunity
to
double
the
amount
of
surface
parking,
so
that
would
be
making
it
even
worse,
but
it's
I'd
probably
not
disagreeing
with
any
of
your
staff
colleagues,
by
pointing
out
the
obvious,
which
is
that
your
staff
take
direction
from
you.
H
The
conversation
about
whether
or
not
you
quote
unquote
need
parking
is
a
strategic
conversation
relative
to
the
mode
shift
intentions
you
have
for
how
people
will
get
downtown
parking
supply
is
an
incredibly
important
lever
in
the
conversation
that
I'm
having
with
you
about
multimodal
urbanism
road
capacity
is
an
important
lever
and
parking
supply
is
a
very
important
lever
in
vancouver
and
in
other
cities
the
amount
of
absolute
parking
surface
or
not.
We've
been
trending
down
deliberately.
That
is
the
strategy.
H
If
that's
an
interest
for
council,
you
can
have
that
conversation.
I
don't
know
enough
about
your
parking
situation
to
know
whether
that's
a
good
idea
right
or
not,
but
it's
a
question
I
almost
always
ask.
Is
it?
Do
we
want
to
have
there's
going
to
be
pressure
from
your
public
to
say
well
then,
and
from
your
downtown
businesses,
I
don't
need
to
tell
you
are
going
to
say
we
need
more
parking,
downtown.
There's
one
thing
I
get
from
every
downtown
business
association.
I've
ever
worked
with.
H
Well,
the
problem
is,
there's
not
enough
parking,
that's
usually
not
the
problem.
Often
the
problem
is
there's
too
much
parking
and
not
enough
things
there
to
actually
happen,
but
you
can't
have
a
knee-jerk
reaction
to
that
that
that's
the
that's
a
great
question
to
ask
which
becomes
the
basis
of
an
analysis
and
a
community
conversation
etc,
and
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
it.
But
I've
never
seen.
One
of
my
lines
is
every
great
place
has
a
parking
problem
and
you
often
make
the
great
place
worse
by
trying
to
solve
the
parking
problem.
K
H
Other
options,
if
the
answer
is
to
put
it
underground,
there's
there's
opportunities
for
that.
I
don't
know
your
your
seismic
or
your
or
your
structural
issues
associated
with
that.
The
question
is
the
worst
kind
of
parking
in
a
downtown
from
the
success
of
a
downtown
is
surface
parking,
so,
if
you're
replacing
it
but
you're,
replacing
it
structured
or
downtown,
that's
actually
an
improvement.
H
But
the
better
answer
is
asking
yourself:
do
we
need
that
parking
at
all
and
what
is
the
strategic
relationship
between
providing
that
parking
and
our
mode
shift
goals
relative
to
how
people
are
getting
downtown?
I've
got.
I've
got
my
meeting
with
your
active
transport
staff
tomorrow,
so
I
don't
know
enough
to
make
an
intelligent
comment,
but
I'm
going
to
be
asking
them
questions
like
do
you
have
a
target?
H
Do
you
have
a
mode
shift
goal
for
yourself?
What
is
your
existing
situation
with
the
trips
and
relative
percentages
and
have
you
set
a
target
and
then
have
you
asked
yourself
what
it
would
take
to
actually
achieve
that
target?
And
I
guarantee
you
one
of
the
parts
of
that
answer
is
thinking
about
your
parking
supply.
M
M
Okay,
so
my
question
is:
is
that
what
you're
recommending
kingston
to
do
as
well
and
in
vancouver,
when
you
say
that?
What
range
of
number
of
stories
is
that,
because
maybe
16
stories
is
considered
mid-rise
in
vancouver,
where
for
us
in
kingston,
that's
considered
high
rise.
So
I
just
want
to
get
the
right
context.
H
The
way
I
put
it
now
actually
is
mid-rise
is
what
can
be
fit
appropriately
into
a
a
well-designed
podium,
and
you
don't
have
a
10-story
podium
anywhere
ever
proposes
to
you
a
10-story
podium,
don't
approve
it!
That's
too
tall
for
a
podium.
So
if
it's
two,
if
it's
higher
than
you
would
ever
do
a
podium,
then
it's
probably
not
mid-rise,
but
that
varies
even
by
by
our
context.
In
vancouver.
You
know,
a
a
ten-story
building
would
be
short
in
our
downtown.
C
Thank
you,
worship
through
you
thanks
again
for
your
presentation,
obviously
I've,
yet
to
run
into
somebody.
That's
not
really
aware
of
the
buzzword,
intensification
also
most
people
seem
to
be
in
favor
of
it.
The
biggest
thing
that
I
find
seems
to
be
how
we
do
it,
so
you
mentioned
kind
of
the
short
squished
squat
buildings,
which
tend
to
be
a
result
of
the
high
rises
kind
of
getting
squished
down
and
trying
to
get
that
same
level,
the
density,
so
in
kingston.
H
H
I've
done
work
in
an
extremely
sensitive
heritage
context
like
gastown
in
vancouver,
which
is
a
natural
national
heritage
site.
The
answer
in
gas
town
is
no
towers,
are
allowed,
but
immediately
around
gas
town
towers
are
allowed
and
the
debate
about
whether
you
should
be
able
to
see
towers
from
gas
town,
which
I
know
is
a
debate
here,
should
you
be
able
to
see
towers
from
market
square?
The
answer
is
yes,
you
can
see
towers
from
gas
town,
but
the
conversation
is
about
is
the
tower.
H
You
can
see
a
big
fat
ugly
tower
to
put
it
crassly
or
is
it
an
elegant?
I
can
show
you
pictures
of
gaston,
which
are
beautiful
towers,
with
a
beautiful
historic
streetscape
with
towers
in
the
background,
but
because
of
the
nature
of
the
towers,
the
towers
don't
draw
your
eye
and
detract
from
your
ability
to
enjoy
the
nature
of
the
heritage
context
you're
in
so
you
can,
but
should
you
put
towers
right
on
water
street,
which
is
our
main
spine
in
our
heritage
district?
No,
absolutely
not.
H
So
I
think
there
can
be
a
conversation,
as
I
say
about
where
and
where
not,
and
the
important
thing
in
that
sentence
is
the
where
not
because
you're
actually
providing
clarity
for
the
community
for
the
for
the
developers
who
you
don't
want
to
buy
sites
and
then
consolidate
sites
and
overpay
for
land
and
then
get
the
bad
news
you're
not
going
to
support
the
tower
because
they're
just
going
to
make
your
life
really
hard,
you
want
to
tell
them
before
they
even
do
that.
Where
and
where
not.
H
My
sense
right
now
is
it's
you're
not
there
yet,
because
you
will
entertain
a
plan
in
a
place
where
height
wasn't
necessarily
contemplated,
so
that
sends
the
message
to
the
marketplace.
Well,
the
current
plan
doesn't
allow
it,
but
all
can
all
put
effort
into
consolidating
and
I'll
roll
the
dice
and
by
the
way,
I'm
talking
about
a
plan,
not
the
zoning
one
thing
for
the
community
to
really
understand.
I
often
hear
from
the
community.
The
zoning
doesn't
allow
that,
and
that
should
be
the
answer.
You
should
respect
your
zoning.
H
The
legal
and
real
truth
of
zoning
is
zoning
can
be
changed.
It's
the
whole
zoning
system
in
ontario
has,
and
canada
and
everywhere
I've
done.
Zoning
is
a
whole
system,
is
predicated
on
the
assumption
that
there
can
and
probably
will
be
applications
to
change
zoning
zoning
is
not
your
vision.
Zoning
is
the
identification
of
the
status
quo.
It's
what's
currently
allowed.
What
matters
is
your
plan.
H
That's
and
then,
if,
if
the
community
comes
in
and
says
how
dare
you
change
the
zoning
folks,
zoning
changes
all
the
time.
The
whole
legal
system
has
been
based
on
the
actual
legal
principle
that
council
is
required
to
consider
zoning
applications
and
you're
supposed
to
consider
it
in
the
context
of
your
plan.
So
the
plan
is
what's
really
important
in
this
context.
Sorry,
for
that
aside,
but
that's
that's
an
important
distinction.
C
H
In
the
historic
core,
well,
actually
the
the
epicenter
of
the
historic
core.
What's
your
answer
in
the
rest
of
the
historic
core?
What's
your
answer
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
yes
or
no,
it
can
be
here
and
here
and
here,
but
not
everywhere
else.
You
can
be
that
specific
in
the
rest
of
what
you
call
the
downtown,
which
is
actually
a
remarkably
big
geographic
area
that
I
had
to
wrap
my
mind
around.
H
What's
the
what's
the
answer
there
and
then
in
the
rest
of
the
city
the
where
and
where
not
specifically
identified
in
those
various
contexts
and
then
the
how
and
a
lot
of
conversation
about
the
how
what
is
a
good
tower,
what
is
a
good
podium?
What
is
a
good
ground
plane
treatment?
What
are
your
expectations
and
what
are
you
clearly
going
to
say
no
to
if
they
come
in
with
something
that
doesn't
meet
your
expectations?
H
All
of
that
the
development
industry
doesn't
necessarily
always
remember
this,
but
all
of
that
is
actually
important
for
the
development
industry,
because
it
provides
clarity
that
actually
allows
them
to
price
land
properly.
One
of
your
jobs
and
staff's
job
is
to
send
enough
clarity
out
there
into
the
marketplace
that
developers
don't
overpay
for
land.
H
C
H
N
N
So
in
terms
of
parking
I
understand,
surface
parking
is,
is
not
a
good
thing
and
I
agree.
We
do
need
a
different
facility
for
parking,
but
what
my
concern
is
is,
as
our
population
ages,
how
will
these
people
get
around
with
mobility
issues,
and
that
concerns
me
about
a
city
and
how
will
they
they
do
that?
H
H
H
That's
the
way
the
environment
has
been
designed.
Other
environments
are
designed
where
all
options
are
open.
It's
not
necessarily
a
hindrance,
but
I
also
have
the
choice
to
walk
bike
or
take
public
transit
as
well
as
owning
a
car
and
a
lot
of
citizens
in
cities
where
the
density
has
been
done.
Well
are
multimodal
citizens,
they
do
own
a
car,
they
just
don't
feel
the
need
to
use
it
for
every
trip
and
that,
I
actually
think,
is
the
goal.
I'm
not
here
to
vilify
drivers.
H
As
I
say,
I've
had
thousands
of
people
in
my
career
just
say
to
explain
to
me
why
their
life
necessitates
a
car
aging
population,
kids
in
ballet
and
hockey.
You
know,
there's
all
sorts
of
different
scenarios.
My
message
is:
there's
nothing
in
my
narrative
that
says
you
should
be
forced
out
of
your
car.
H
My
narrative
is,
I
want
you
to
be
able
to
drive
your
kids
to
ballet
but
walk
to
the
grocery
store.
If
you
want,
I
want
there
to
be
choices
in
the
way
we've
designed
your
neighborhood
so
that
you
have
more
freedom
and
you
may
or
may
not
choose
to
drive
the
car.
You
may
you
may
live
in
an
urban
place
and
still
drive
your
car
every
single
time
and
no
police
cop
is
going
to
give
you
a
ticket
for
that.
H
But
I
want
the
environment
to
be
able
to
facilitate
those
choices
and
again
for
those
who
have
to
do
it
or
just
really
want
to
and
don't
want
to
change,
it's
a
benefit
to
them
if
all
their
neighbors
have
choices
that
mean
they're
not
competing
for
that
finite
space
on
the
street,
but
let's
be
clear
what
we've
been
building
and
what
you've
been
building,
except
what
you
inherently
you
originally
inherited
in
the
urban
pattern
of
the
inner
city,
doesn't
come
close
to
achieving
that
you're
you're
you're!
Still
your
suburbs
are
car
dependent.
N
H
Which
is
why
my
point
about
the
baby
boomers
looking
now
for
urban
places,
there's
an
increasing
narrative
that
says
the
suburbs
are
no
place
to
grow
old.
Oh,
I
know
because
it
as
soon
as
you
lose
my
mother
and
and
and
her
husband
are
facing
this
as
soon
as
you
for
health
reasons
or
can
no
longer
drive
or
shouldn't
be
driving
you're.
Suddenly
isolated,
you're,
vulnerable,
you're
dependent.
That's
that's!
So
that's.
Why
we're
having
a
conversation
about
more
choice?
Everything
you've
said
about
the
aging
population
reinforces
my
message.
E
Thank
you
and
through
you
another
question
related
to
parking.
I'm
not
sure
why
everyone's
asking
about
parking,
but
is
there
a
best
practices
that
you're
seeing
either
in
the
province
or
in
the
country
or
globally
related
to
parking
ratios?
So,
for
example,
if
you
build
a
200
unit
building
a
lot
of
times,
people
are
saying
you
have
to
have
200.
You
have
to
have
200
parking
spaces.
The
concern
I
have
when
we
talk
about
affordability
is
that
a
lot
of
places
are
selling
parking
for,
say
forty
thousand
dollars.
E
If
they
didn't
have
a
car
or
we
didn't
force
them
to
have
a
buy
that
parking
space
for
their
unit,
they
could
have
a
much
affordable,
more
affordable
unit,
and
then
it
it
kind
of
pushes
people
into
that
concept
of
living,
say,
downtown
and
and
walking
everywhere
or
using
public
transit
is.
Is
there
a
best
practices
that
you
see
emerging.
H
H
You
know
I'll
give
you
an
example
along
transit
corridors.
You
should
be
thinking
about
a
different
parking
standard
where,
where
you
don't
have
a
place
for
illegal
parking
to
occur
like
in
vancouver's
case
the
downtown,
you
can
lower
the
parking
standard
and
not
worry
about
a
problem,
because
people
won't
people
won't
buy
a
car
and
park
it
in
the
neighborhood
illegally
because
there's
no
place
to
park
it.
H
So
you
have
a
confidence
that
you're
able
to
provide
a
housing
option
for
people
who
truly
don't
want
to
own
a
car,
but
that's
a
contextual
thing.
So
in
some
urban
places
we
we
worry
about
there
being
parking
problems
in
the
adjacent
neighborhood.
If
those
adjacent
neighborhoods
don't
exist
for
various
reasons
or
you
can
manage
that
concern
through
a
management
structure
for
for
for
for
parking
passes,
etc,
then
you
don't
worry
about
it.
H
How
your
parking
expectations
trend
down
over
time
is
is
key.
What
one
of
the
things
that
vancouver
has
done
has
been
always
very
strategic
about,
looking
at
where
the
market
is
and
helping
the
market
go
down
in
a
fast
evolution,
but
not
a
revolution
way.
Apart.
Every
couple
of
years,
we've
lowered
the
parking
standard
and
so
you're
helping
the
market
trend
down,
but
at
the
same
time
we're
making
sure
we're
providing
the
options,
the
alternatives,
the
transit,
is
there,
the
walking
is
there.
H
The
biking
is
there
at
the
same
time
as
we're
trending
down
the
parking
and
over
10
years.
Suddenly
you
wake
up
and
you
have
half
or
a
quarter
of
the
parking
you
used
to
have,
but
none
of
that
was
like
that,
but
it
was
very
deliberate
and
strategic
in
terms
of
its
trending
down.
Decoupling
parking
is
a
key
best
practice.
H
If
you
haven't
done
that
already,
you
should
look
at
that.
The
idea
should
be
that
you
mandate
that
developers
sell
the
parking
space
separately,
because
you
don't
want
people
who
don't
want
to
own
a
car
to
have
to
buy
the
parking
space.
You
want
them
to
make
that
as
a
choice,
which
means
you
can
often
provide
less
parking
in
the
project
and
you
achieve
an
affordability
goal,
because
people
have
the
option
to
not
buy
the
parking
space
and
save
them
35
to
40
thousand
dollars.
H
That's
another
best
practice,
you
know
so
parking
maximums
are
a
best
practice
in
certain
contexts
where
you've
got
a
problem
where
no
matter
what
your
minimum
is.
The
developer
is
going
to
build
three
times
that,
and
you
have
to
start
to
think
about
a
maximum
to
make
sure
that
they
don't
keep
over
building
an
example
being
on
transit
areas.
H
Another
conversation
that's
happening
right
now
is
every
city
is
being
told
by
urbanists
like
me
to
get
rid
of
their
parking
minimum
and
let
people
build
parking
projects
with
no
parking
and
we're
celebrating
individual
projects
in
different
cities
that
have
zero
parking.
That's
an
option
in
the
right
context.
In
a
context
where
you've
got
multimodal
opportunities,
you
can
try
that
out
and
see
how
the
market
responds,
and
you
have
a
confidence
that
you're
not
going
to
have
an
adjacent
parking
problem
in
the
next
neighborhood.
H
What
I
say
that
is
slightly
different
is
I
wouldn't
get
rid
of
your
parking
minimum.
I
would
do
what
we
deliberately
did
in
vancouver,
which
is
use
the
parking
minimum
as
an
incentive
to
achieve
something
you
want.
It's
kind
of
like
a
version
of
density.
Bonusing
density
is
good,
but
you
still
don't
give
density
away.
H
You
use
density
to
leverage
the
things
that
make
that
density
successful
right.
Similarly,
if
you
reduce
your
parking
say
you
set
a
low
parking
standard,
but
there's
still
a
minimum,
but
it's
low,
but
you
can
provide
an
option
for
the
developer
to
get
down
to
zero
parking
if
they
provide
on-site
car
sharing,
additional
bike
facilities,
investment
in
adjacent
cycling
infrastructure
or
what
have
you
things
that
you're
struggling
with
that
you
can't
through
regulation,
require
them
to
do
that?
H
H
It
is,
even
though
that's
an
expensive
thing
sitting
there
most
of
the
time,
but
as
soon
as
you
show
them
that
they
could
get
a
car
share
membership,
then
you
go
from
a
low
car
use
scenario
to
a
no
car
ownership
scenario,
which
has
benefits
from
the
parking
you
build:
the
affordability
of
the
units,
etc,
etc.
So
car
share
is
a
very,
very
strategic
thing.
E
I
have
a
follow-up
question,
so
I
I
would
be
willing
to
hedge
my
bets
that
your
presentation
tonight
has
caught
the
attention
of
everyone
in
the
room
or
most
people
in
the
room.
I
would
say
I
should
never
say
everyone,
but
you
know
when
we
leave
here
today
and
we
go
to
work
tomorrow.
What
what
are
our
first
steps
like?
E
H
Well,
tomorrow
morning,
I'm
spending
with
your
staff
and
the
you
know
that
the
answer
is
slightly
different
for
every
participant
in
this
process.
I
would
hope
that
this
starts
a
conversation
in
the
community
that
might
evolve
the
the
the
the
approach
and
narrative
and
conversation
of
everything
from
heritage
activist
to
community
activists,
to
those
very
interested
in
density
and
by
the
way
I
don't
use
activists
as
a
bad
word.
H
Activists
are
just
people
who
care
passionately
about
something,
and
some
of
you
may
say
to
me:
well
brent,
you
really
oversimplified
us,
we
don't
just
think
about
height.
We
do
this
that
and
the
other
thing
so
I
might
be.
I
might
be
potentially
unfair
in
the
way
I've
characterized
this-
I
don't
know,
but
I
want
this
to
be
a
start
of
a
conversation
where
community
activists
are
thinking
about
how
they
engage
into
this
conversation.
H
H
Some
of
it
may
be
wrong
and
you're
going
to
listen
very
carefully,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
what
you
would
be
asking
your
staff
to
do
is
very
hard
and
they're
going
to
need
your
support
and
they're
going
to
need
it
most.
When
the
angry
calls
come
from
the
developers
or
from
the
community
activists
or
both
you
might
have
a
phone
on
both
ears.
H
H
I
haven't
seen
that
yet
I
don't
think
it
exists,
but
are
you
doing
a
good
job
in
the
context
of
that
controversy?
Do
you
have
credibility
in
that
controversy?
Do
you
have
I
call
it?
Do
you
have
the
high
ground
because
you're
basically
confident
that
you're
doing
good
and
right
things,
and
you
know
why
you're
doing
them
you
know.
Thank
you.
Does
that
help.
A
A
O
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
mayor
and
the
councillors
very
much
for
organizing
this
meeting
and
allowing
us
all
to
come
and
to
listen
to
this
presentation
and
to
also
form
what
I
think
is
a
very,
very
encouraging
population
who's
concerned
about
what's
happening
in
kingston.
So
I
congratulate
you
and
thank
you
very
much
mayor.
O
I
have
a
question
kingston,
in
my
opinion,
has
a
lot
of
high
density
or
high
rise
building,
which
is
based
on
kind
of
a
cookie
cutter
formula.
You
take
a
platform,
and
you
say
how
many
stories
can
I
build
on
top
of
that
platform?
What
can
I
get
away
with,
and
I've
had
discussions
with
a
couple
of
different
architects
in
town
about
how
ugly
their
buildings
are?
O
H
There
are
ways
materials
have
more
effect
on
the
cost
of
a
project
than
some
of
the
things
that
I'm
talking
about,
which
is
good
street
relationship
right.
There
can
be
loca
I've
seen
low-cost
public
sector
buildings,
public
housing
that
are
some
of
the
best
buildings
in
an
urban
pattern.
I've
seen
in
the
context
of
what
I'm
talking
about
because
they
treat
the
street
well
they're,
rightly
scaled,
and
they
have
some
architectural
interest
that
can
be
as
cheap
as
a
can
of
paint.
H
H
H
I
don't
need
an
architecture
shaped
like
marilyn
monroe
to
feel
like
I've
achieved
beauty,
and
probably
none
of
you
can
afford
a
building
in
a
a
home
in
that
building
anyway,
because
the
price
point
will
be
too
high.
What
I'm
talking
about
in
terms
of
beauty
is
very
different.
The
kind
of
interaction
public
life
on
the
street
as
simple
as
taking
some
of
your
parking
spaces
and
making
them
public
spaces.
I'm
a
big
fan
of
container
urbanism,
the
idea
of
taking
your
gaps
in
your
urban
pattern
that
are
waiting
for
development.
H
That
might
not
happen
and
activating
it
with
something
simple
and
lively,
and
and
not
at
all
expensive,
as
you
can
see,
and
if
you
think
that
you
know
cities
with
no
standards.
Do
this,
that's
helsinki,
that's
new
york!
That's
copenhagen!
That's
oslo!
That's
christ,
church,
addressing
all
the
buildings
that
got
not
down
in
the
earthquake
and
that's
your
peer
city
of
halifax
on
the
waterfront
as
they
wait
for
the
waterfront
to
transform
so
which
cities
are
doing
this.
H
K
Thank
you
well.
My
question
is
similar
to
the
last
one
about
beauty
of
arabian,
but
about
good
design
really,
but
I
mean
how
do
you
define
that
you're
just
answering
part
of
that
there
a
bit
but
but
how
do
administrators
make
those
kinds
of
judgments?
I
think
that's
real
tough.
I
think
that's
a
real
tough
number.
H
I
I
don't
think
administrators
do
when
I
see
planner
of
vancouver.
Technically
I
had
authority
over
almost
everything
built
in
the
city,
but
I
often
pointed
out
that
I
don't
oversee
public
art,
because
is
it
is
a
city
official
going
to
tell
monet
to
put
a
little
more
blue
in
the
water
lilies?
You
don't.
H
The
part
first
part
of
your
question
about
was
about
cookie
cutter
and
I
want
to
say
that
part
of
this
exercise
is
you're
going
to
have
to
be
willing
to
push
back
on
the
cookie
cutter
and
say
I
know
that's
the
way.
You've
done
your
last
five
buildings
elsewhere
or
in
our
city,
but
this
is
what
we
expect
you
to
do
and
you
have
to
be
willing
to
say
no.
H
They
don't
really
scare
off
development,
that's
a
pretty
lazy
narrative
and
it
works
when,
when
councils
and
cities
frankly
lack
confidence
but
the
the
the
cities.
That
said,
the
cities
that
are
getting
better
have
set
a
high
standard.
And
can
I
tell
you
just
one
quick
anecdote
when
I
was
in
calgary?
It
was
a
very
pro
private
sector.
The
market
knows
best
development
or
city
hall
should
get
out
of
the
way
and
one
of
the
ways
I
convinced
the
politicians
to
raise
the
bar
and
expect
more
was.
H
I
showed
them
examples
of
projects
that
were
being
done
by
developers
in
calgary
where
those
developers
were
also
building
things
in
vancouver
and
san
francisco
and
boston,
and
there
was
a
demonstrated
obvious
difference
and
what
I
said
is
the
only
variable.
That's
different
is
the
expectations
that
we
have
and
the
message
we've
sent
about
what
we're
willing
to
live
with.
H
So
a
lot
of
this
is
about
your
confidence
to
expect
more
and
if
you're
clear
about
it,
you
won't
scare
off
development.
I
haven't
seen
a
place
that
does
and
if
you
do,
you're
scaring
off
the
bad
development
anyway
and
you're
opening
up
the
opportunity
of
I
know,
I
know
scenarios
where
bad
developers
because
of
this
have
sold
their
land
to
good
developers
and
you
get
a
good
project.
A
P
P
P
I
mean,
I
must
say
that
I
was
was
heartened
by
some
of
the
advice
you
were
giving,
because
it
really
did
suggest
that
not
only
have
we
made
mistakes
in
the
past,
but
we
are
right
now
doing
mistakes,
and
we
should
stop
doing
them.
We
should
put
a
halt
to,
for
example,
mega
bridges
like
the
third
crossing
that
are
just
going
to
exponentially,
raise
the
amount
of
car
use
in
this
city.
We
should
say
no
to
the
slab
high-rises
that
are
coming
into
the
historic
downtown.
H
Well,
thank
you
ma'am,
to
be
clear.
Let's
be
really
really
clear.
If
I
haven't
been
completely
clear,
I'm
not
coming
here
telling
you
to
do
what
vancouver
did
it's
been
almost
six
years
since
I
was
chief
planner
I've
been
work.
I've
worked
in
a
hundred
cities,
since
my
message
is
never
to
do
what
some
other
city
did.
H
H
So
what
I
always
point
out
is
cities
have
more
in
common
with
each
other
than
differences,
and
you
can
learn
from
cities
of
every
scale
and
it's
quite
common
for
me
to
get
a
commentary
that
sort
of
says
well
but
we're
different
than
vancouver.
Of
course,
you
are
that's
not
that's
not
what
I'm
saying,
but
I'm
saying
that
just
like
vancouver
can
learn
from
kingston.
Kingston
can
learn
from
vancouver
your
point
about
vancouver
being
far
from
perfect
hell
yeah.
H
I
agree
completely
and
there's
a
reason
why
I
struggled
for
six
years,
because
there
are
big
challenges
in
vancouver.
What
I
give
vancouver
credit
for
is
the
incredible
push
to
solve
those
problems
to
do
better
proactively
and
not
just
let
market
forces
and
such
provide.
The
answer
for
us,
vancouver
is
a
very
deliberate
city.
H
R
R
H
To
be
clear
to
everyone
in
the
audience,
I'm
going
to
make
no
comment
about
specific
proposals,
neither
infrastructure
proposals
like
the
bridge,
which
I've
heard
a
lot
and
I've
got
emails
about
the
bridge.
But
I
don't
know
enough
about
the
context
to
make
an
informed
opinion
and
I'm
not
lazy.
I
don't
make
opinions
public
unless
they
are
informed
opinions.
So
I'm
not
going
to
comment
on
any
proposal.
H
I
don't
doubt
the
veracity
of
your
description
of
the
situation,
but
I
just
don't
know
enough
to
comment:
I'm
putting
out
principles
and
ideas
and
truths
about
different
forms
and
different
approaches
in
different
contexts,
always
with
good
design
that
I'm
hoping
will
help
you,
as
you
evolve
in
the
sophistication
of
your
own
conversation
about
these
things.
That's
my
goal.
H
My
goal
is
to
help
you
get
better
at
this
to
be
more
credible
in
the
conversation
about
this
everyone
to
be
more
credible,
to
be
more
factual
to
be
more
constructively
candid
about
things
to
get
past
some
of
the
baggage,
because
I
do
believe
there
is
dogma
and
baggage
associated
with
some
things,
but
also
to
be
truthful.
When
past
mistakes
have
been
made
and
talk
about
those
constructively
so
that
you
can
move
forward
and
do
better
in
the
future,
I
believe
in
that.
A
S
Thank
you,
my
name's
duncan
mcdowell,
I'd
like
to
reiterate
the
thanks
to
the
council
and
your
honor
for
this
evening.
It
is
very
refreshing
to
come
to
something:
that's
not
confrontational
and
oppositional
an
excellent
talk.
I
think
it
suggests
to
me
that
we
have
to
step
back
perhaps
from
some
of
the
immediate
challenges
before
us
and
reframe.
Some
of
our
dialogue
get
away
from
a
car
oriented
etcetera.
S
So
thank
you
for
this
evening.
A
question
for
our
excellent
speaker.
I
I'm
a
british
columbian
and
is
proud
of
vancouver,
as
perhaps
you
are.
I
suggest
that
maybe
there's
one
element
you
should
add
into
your
criteria
of
successful
sustained
development,
and
that
is
social
equitability.
As
you
pointed
out,
vancouver
is
horrendously
expensive.
There's
a
now
famous
op-ed
piece
by
the
young
millennial
last
fall
in
vancouver
who
moved
to
calgary
because
she
couldn't
afford
to
live
there
titled
I
didn't
leave
vancouver
vancouver
left
me.
S
What
worries
me
about
much
of
what
I
see
about
densification
here
is
that
it
tends
to
be
dedicated
to
high-end
rental
high-end
condos,
pushing
out
a
more
balanced
downtown,
and
I
think
we
have
to
ask
that
question
about
social
equitability
and
not
just
predicated
on
perhaps
a
developmental
strategy
that
is
is
geared
to
who
has
the
money.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation.
H
Because
I
started
to
speed
up
at
the
end
of
my
presentation,
I
really
went
fast
over
that
third
element
of
density
done
well,
which
is
about
amenities
and
diversity,
and
a
couple
of
truths.
Vancouver
is
at
least
the
most
expensive
city
in
canada.
I
often
say
it's
a
it's
a
result
of
success
in
the
context.
H
If
you
build
something
good,
people
want
to
be
a
part
of
it
and
in
the
in,
in
the
absence
of
a
cataclysmic
event,
it's
going
to
stay
expensive,
but
vancouver
does
more
than
any
other
city
in
north
america
to
aggressively
intervene
in
the
marketplace
to
try
to
address
the
affordability
challenge.
It
is
a
daily,
intense
conversation
and
debate,
and
there
is
always
a
conversation
about
who
the
density
is
for
is
it
for
families?
H
Is
it
for
quote
unquote,
locals,
there's
all
sorts
of
conversations,
some
have
gotten
very
nasty
and
and
even
accused
of
racism,
there's
all
sorts
of
different
tensions.
As
I
say,
if
you
think
our
conversations
about
density
are
easy,
but
all
the
things
that
I'm
talking
about
apply
in
the
context
of
any
kind
of
city,
a
rich
city,
a
poor
city,
a
city
that
struggles
with
affordability,
because
it's
so
quote,
unquote
successful
another
city,
that's
struggling
just
to
make
something
happen.
H
I
spent
my
first
10
years
of
my
career
working
in
cities
like
kitchener
waterloo,
at
the
time
where
we
were
trying
to
make
something
happen
in
the
downtown,
because
the
downtown
was
in
many
cases
perceived
as
almost
empty.
So
the
principles
that
I'm
talking
about
are
things
that
apply
to
different
conditions
and
that's
why
I
keep
them
at
a
fairly
high
level.
Your
job
as
locals,
and
I'm
glad
to
help,
if
you
want
me
to,
is
to
figure
out
how
those
translate
into
better
practices,
better
policy,
better
culture
and
better
conversations
here.
H
A
T
Thank
you
very
much.
It
was
I
I
found
this
really
enlightening
and
it's
nice
to
see
things
going
in
in
a
bit
of
a
different
direction.
My
name
is
david
and
I
own
a
little
shop
called
martello
alley.
It's
brand
new,
it's
only
about
two
years
old
in
downtown
kingston
and
about
70
of
the
people
who
come
into
our
shop
are
tourists.
We
don't
get
a
lot
of
locals
in
our
place
because
we're,
I
guess,
we're
too
new
or
whatever,
but
it
tends
to
be
a
tourist
type
of
shop.
T
And
for
me
it's
critical
that,
because
of
all
the
tourists
we
have-
and
they
come
here
because
of
our
beautiful
historic
downtown,
it's
critical
that
we
maintain
that
and
if
we
build
new
developments
that
they
blend
in
and
they
don't
detract-
and
I
was
really
quite
shocked
and
surprised,
pleasantly-
that
you
tweeted
out
those
pictures
and
those
comments
about
your
hotel
view.
I
agree.
T
100
percent
and
a
lot
of
the
people
coming
into
the
store
have
because
I
talk
to
the
people
and-
and
I
interact
with
them
and
many
of
those
people
coming
in
from
outside,
say
what
a
beautiful
downtown,
but
what
happened
to
the
waterfront?
Why
did
they
do
that?
And
I
can't
answer
that
question
so.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
really
appreciate
that
now
moving
forward.
T
I
know
that
with
new
developments,
there
are
going
to
be
these
trade-offs
for
higher
density
and
whatever
or
or
or
for
setbacks,
or
what,
whatever
accommodations
and
they're
called
community
benefits
and
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
I'm
directing
this,
I
guess
at
the
at
our
city,
planner
planning
department.
It
seems
when
we're
looking
at
these
community
benefits
and
trade-offs,
we're
talking
about
dollars
and
we're
taking
out
calculators
and
measuring
tape.
We're
not
talking
about
creativity,
we're
not
talking
about
the
experience
that
the
shoppers
and
the
visitors
are
having
when
they're
coming
to
our
downtown.
T
A
H
Mr
mayor,
with
with
with,
if
it,
if,
if
you
are
okay
with
it,
I
love
any
opportunity.
One
of
my
goals
is
to
actually
help
facilitate
a
culture
where
your
chief
planner
and
you
really
know
each
other
really
well
and
that
your
tree
planter,
I
think,
who
has
all
the
ability
and
chops
in
terms
of
our
the
last
two
days,
we've
talked
about
to
do
and
is
already
working
on
many
of
the
things
I'm
talking
about.
H
I
actually
encourage
the
opportunity
for
for
paige
to
be
a
part
of
this
conversation
with
me
I'll
I'll,
say
you
and
I
have
shared
some
emails
back
and
forth.
You've
shared
with
me,
some
incredibly
detailed
emails,
incredibly
detailed,
and
I
don't
disagree,
but
you
know,
although
I
have
a
very
high
standard
for
the
public
realm
edge
condition
of
new
buildings,
very
few
buildings
are
going
to
end
up.
H
Looking
like
your
context,
because
your
context
is
pretty
darn
special,
but
I
agree
with
you
that
the
quality
of
that
edge,
condition
at
eye
level
is
critically
important
and
even
in
the
good
examples
that
you
and
I
talked
about
by
email,
even
if
it's
good,
we
tend
to
do
it
in
a
monotonous
way.
A
new
project
has
the
sameness
go
along.
H
A
U
Thank
you
and
through
you,
mayor
patterson,
so
I
would
say
when
it
comes
to
community
benefits
and
there's
a
number
of
people
in
the
room
that
have
worked
very
closely
with
my
staff.
Greg
newman
on
my
staff
has
been
leading.
The
community
benefit
conversation
with
the
city
for
the
last
12
months
or
so,
and
we
have
discussed
that
with
brent
in
particular,
and
we're
having
another
discussion
with
him
tomorrow
and
what
I
can
say
in
terms
of
the
guideline
that
we've
developed,
going
forward
with
respect
to
community
benefits,
is
cutting
edge.
U
It's
cutting
edge
with
any
other
major
urban
center,
and
we
really
took
time
to
look
at
best
practices
from
other
municipalities
that
are
really
doing
it
well
and
have
been
doing
it
well
for
a
long
time
what
kingston
has
lacked
in
this
conversation
related
to
community
benefits
over
the
last
year.
So
is
the
fact
that
we
just
didn't,
have
the
experience
of
going
through
multiple
projects
and
knowing
how
to
do
it.
U
It
is
a
really
good,
robust
guideline.
I
think
it's
going
to
provide
us
with
a
much
better
tool
as
a
community
and
that,
as
we
work
together
as
a
community,
every
project
that
we
look
at
going
forward
where
we're
negotiating
community
benefits,
we're
going
to
be
seeing
much
better
results
and
what
I
think
the
city's
been
able
to
achieve.
In
the
past.
H
Ms
mayor,
if
I
could
quickly
add
just
because
the
conversation
or
question
mentioned
community
benefits
to
say
something
that
I
really
would
like
to
say,
and
I
suspect
paige
probably
feels
she
can't
say,
although
maybe
she
can
moving
forward,
here's
how
you
can
help
there
is
going
to
be
a
conversation
about
community
benefits.
It's
going
to
end
up
at
council
community
benefits
density
bonusing
as
the
tool
for
achieving
community
benefits,
as
I
said,
is
an
incredibly
powerful
tool
for
better
city
making.
Right
now
the
developers
are
calling
your
counselors
and
saying
don't
do
it.
H
They
don't
want
you
to
do
it,
and
some
of
you,
as
activists,
are
accusing
the
city
of
wanting
to
sell
density,
because
you
don't
like
how
tall
the
building
is
or
how
big
it
is.
You're
saying
well
the
city's
just
doing
that
to
get
community
benefits
and
language
like
selling
density
or
deal
making
instead
of
plan
making
is
being
used.
That's
familiar
to
me
because
I
get
that
in
vancouver.
H
Whenever
the
community
doesn't
like
the
level
of
density,
it
can
be
about
well
you're,
just
doing
it
to
get
community
benefits.
Your
staff
understands
what
I
know,
which
is
the
first
stage
of
a
community
benefit
process,
is
to
get
the
density
right.
The
design
right
you
never
let
the
community
benefit
wag,
the
dog.
If
you
know
the
tail
wagging
the
dog
metaphor
and
once
you've
got
the
density
right,
then
you
do
the
math
on
the
community
benefits
and
you
achieve
amenities
that
your
council,
otherwise
would
not
be
able
to
achieve.
H
You
don't
have
the
money,
you
don't
have
the
legal
positioning
to
be
able
to
achieve
it.
I'm
telling
you
this
is
because
often
this
most
empower
powerful
tool,
that's
important
for
better
city
making,
sometimes
community
activists
themselves
are
telling
council
to
not
do
it
and
that's
problematic,
because
it's
an
incredibly
important
tool
for
you
moving
forward.
You
need
to
be
on
board
with
it.
You
need
to
make
sure
it's
done
well,
that
you
never
do
stupid
density
just
to
get
a
community
development
or
benefit
I'll.
H
Tell
that
to
counsel
too
that's
tailwagging
the
dog,
but
but
you
need
to
support
this
tool.
It's
a
very
powerful
tool
and,
thank
god,
the
planning
system
in
canada
allows
for
it,
because
how
else
are
you
going
to
get
day
care?
How
else
are
you
going
to
get
community
facilities
and
your
municipal
budget
can't
achieve
the
kinds
of
things
often
that
are
getting
paid
for,
if
anything,
my
advice
to
staff
is
going
to
be
to
ramp
up
your
use
of
community
and
density
bonusing.
H
I
tell
you
that,
because
there
are
probably
people
in
this
audience
who
have
lobbied
council
to
not
do
it
because
they're
accusing
council
of
wanting
to
sell
zoning,
that
kind
of
narrative
fits
fits
in
perfectly
with
the
aspirations
of
the
developers
who
also
want
council
to
not
do
it.
For
other
reasons,
does
that
make
sense?
Do
you
understand
what
I'm
saying.
V
O
V
So
when
I
came
to
kingston,
which
I
guess
is
about
seven
and
a
half
years
ago,
I
look
at
the
novelist
lands,
form,
alkane
lands
and
I
see
a
high
park.
I
see
a
stanley
park
and
you
know
it's
already
been
to
my
mind:
ruined
by
putting
a
garage
gas
station
on
the
corner.
You
know,
but
there's
still
some
natural
stuff
left.
V
I'm
just
wondering
how
this
this
densification
of
things
can
actually
exploit
natural
opportunities
and
how
individual
areas
of
the
city
can
take
on
their
own
distinct
character,
which
vancouver,
to
my
mind,
has
done
really
well
and
one
bad
example,
and
then
I'll,
let
you
speak
victoria.
I
was
shocked
devastated
when
I
was
back
in
victoria,
and
I
looked
at
where
rattenbury's
was
over
the
parliament
buildings
and
it's
like
downtown
young
and
dundas
in
toronto.
Now,
with
condo
towers
and
steel
and
glass
and
I'm
staring
at
the.
D
V
Poles
at
the
museum-
and
you
turn
around
and
it's
just
like
it
just
seems
like
it's
the
wrong
location
so
and
I
think
that's
what
a
lot
of
what
I've
heard
in
kingston
too.
So
how
do
you
maximize
the
right
location
and
not
the
wrong
location,
not
in
a
built
by
build
specific
thing,
but
in
in
a
larger
planning
sort
of
scope.
H
I
can't
count.
I
can't
comment
on
victoria
because
I
haven't
worked
for
them.
I
haven't
studied
their
situation
well
enough
to
to
well,
I
I
have
worked
for
them,
but
I
haven't
studied
this
situation
well
enough
to
to
speak
intelligently
on
it.
I
do
you
know,
especially
when
you've
got
a
historic
backdrop.
The
question
of
what
you
can
see
in
the
context
of
that
historic
backdrop
is
important
and
it's
certainly
important
for
you.
H
I
don't
necessarily
buy
into
the
language
that,
when
you're
in
a
historic
setting,
you
should
be
able
to
look
around
and
pretend
it's
still
hundred
years
ago,
because
there's
no
tall
buildings,
I
don't
mind
the
idea
that
you
can
perceive
tall
buildings
in
the
context
of
historic
places.
I
don't
mind
that,
because
I
know
that
those
tall
buildings
may
be
achieving
a
lot
of
public
interest
goals,
including
body
heat,
to
support,
downtown
retailers
and
all
sorts
of
things
that
make
it
worth
it.
H
But
what
I
make
sure
is
that
there
be
a
very
robust
conversation
about
the
quality
of
those
tall
buildings
because
they
shouldn't
damage
and
distract
from
the
experience
you
have
in
a
historic
place
and
the
presence
of
a
tall
building,
in
my
opinion,
doesn't
damage
or
distract,
but
the
presence
of
a
too
big
ugly
tall
building
easily
can
it's
it's
psychologically
how
the
eye
is
drawn
to
something
that's
too
big
or
too
ugly.
So
that's
part
of
the
subjective
to
be
sure
urban
design
analysis
that
gets
done
when
you're
doing
this
kind
of
thing.
H
The
starting
point
of
your
conversation,
I
think,
was
about
natural
assets
and
I
think
it's
a
great
question.
You
know
if
I,
if
I
gave
a
more
robust
description
about
how
to
do
density.
Well,
I
would
probably
have
a
specific
sub
section
about
integrating
nature
and
green
into
density.
As
you
densify
large
natural
places
like
stanley
park,
smaller
natural
places,
connection
to
the
mountains,
which
we
do
through
our
view,
corridors
policy
in
vancouver
and
integrating
green
everywhere
street
tree
policies.
Urban
canopy
policies,
as
you
densify,
there's.
Q
Hello,
my
name
is
robert
kiley,
mr
todder,
and
thank
you
for
opening
your
conversation
by
challenging
us
to
move
on
from
the
status
quo
to
move
beyond
way.
Things
have
been
done
traditionally,
I
think
that's
needed
in
planning,
as
in
policy
and
in
politics
as
an
mpp
candidate,
I'm
fascinated
about
the
intersection
and
the
impact
of
provincial
legislation
on
the
sustainability
of
communities.
H
It's
a
pretty
high
order
question
so,
but
carbon
tax
is
connected
to
this
conversation,
in
the
sense
that
if
you
seriously
want
to
have
a
conversation
about
addressing
congestion
which
is
different
than
giving
choices
for
mobility,
it's
do
you
want
to
have
fewer
cars
on
your
streets
and
roads
relative
to
the
space.
The
only
tool
that
actually
can
succeed
in
doing
that
is,
is
congestion,
pricing,
the
financial
tools
and
mechanisms,
and
they
have
to
be
robust
enough.
H
You
know:
we've
had
a
carbon
tax
in
vancouver
for
many
years.
There's
a
robust
conversation
going
on
right
now,
I'm
literally
going
back
from
this
to
take
and
taking
part
in
a
panel
on
carbon
tax
taxation
in
in
metro
vancouver
about
taking
it
to
the
next
level,
road
pricing
throughout
the
region,
more
tolls,
etc,
because
if
you
want
to
have
a
serious
conversation
about
lowering
congestion
and
shifting
modes,
additionally,
carbon
taxes
have
to
be
part
of
that
conversation.
That's
all.
H
W
W
There's
been
a
number
of
questions
and
points
about
parking,
and
I
want
to
tie
that
in
to
the
availability
of
information
and
open
government,
and
we
have
open
government
as
a
priority
of
council
and
we've
been
discussing
parking
and
the
question
was
raised,
more
parking,
downtown
and
and
so
forth.
It's
a
very
complicated
topic,
but
in
terms
of
getting
information
on
what
the
business
situation
is
with
the
city's
parking
is
a
problem.
I've
been
trying
to
address
that.
W
W
So
I'm
wondering
you
might
be
able
to
just
talk
about
a
practical
way
of
maybe
getting
the
change
to
occur
so
that
these
conversations
can
actually
happen
normally
with
parking.
It's
the
example.
I've
taken,
but
other
similar
situations,
all
of
the
density,
bonusing
and
height
in
the
right
place,
and
that
sort
of
thing
is
so.
This
really
is
a
culture
change.
W
H
H
That's
not
a
criticism
to
staff.
It
takes
a
lot
of
work
to
gather
information
and
they're,
trying
to
put
out
fires
and
dance
on
the
head
of
a
pin
and
fly
the
airplane,
while
it's
being
built
pick
your
metaphor
all
at
the
same
time,
with
a
relatively
small
staff
by
comparison
even
to
other
cities
your
size.
So
there
are
huge
challenges
associated
with
it.
Should
you
get
base
data
on
things
like
parking,
supply,
parking
usage,
etc?
Absolutely
is
that
easy,
not
necessarily
because
you're
trying
to
do
get
a
whole
bunch
of
things?
H
Data
and
recognition
of
your
starting
point
is
key,
though,
on
something
like
parking,
for
example,
knowing
how
your
parking
is
used,
and
certainly
we
always
knew
that
in
vancouver
could
be
the
basis
for
your
decision
to
trend
down
on
your
parking
standard,
because
we
had
the
benefit
of
the
information
that
says
the
parking
lots
are
only
70
full
anyway
or
60
full
vancouver.
At
the
time
it
was
half
full
half
were
empty,
which
gave
us
a
great
political
positioning
to
lower
the
parking
standard
moving
forward.
H
We
also
could
say
well
at
the
sta,
the
the
situation
is
they're
80
percent
full,
but
it's
dedicated
parking
and
what?
If
we
made
a
tweak
to
the
parking
operations
strategy
and
turned
it
to
scramble
parking,
for
example?
Suddenly
that
opens
up
20
percent
of
capacity,
which
means
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
build
that
parking
garage.
X
Hi
well,
thank
you.
This
is
a
great
discussion
and
I
have
in
some
respect
a
lot
of
questions.
So
it's
going
to
be
hard
for
me
to
kind
of
narrow
it
down
to
the
one
question
that
I'm
supposed
to
ask,
and
so
here's
a
little
bit
of
the
context
you
talked
about.
You
know
the
density,
good
density,
I'm
still
kind
of
struggling
with.
How
do
you
actually,
then,
for
city
of
kingston?
X
Talked
about
the
plan
and
how
the
plan
is
the
thing
that
should
guide
our
decision.
Well,
that's
what
I've
been
saying
a
long
time
and
I
feel
that
the
city
has
not.
You
know,
used
the
plan,
the
official
plan
I
assume
you're,
referring
to
as
the
guidance
to
to
make
the
decisions,
and
so
we
have
these
proposals
that
come
forward
that
are
20
story
in
an
area
where
well
the
plan
says
you
know,
eight
stories
may
be
maximum
or
something
so
there
is
that
contradiction
there.
X
So
I'm
not
really
sure
where
you
stand
on
that
when,
when
you
have
that
scenario
right
that
we
have
a
plan
where
it
feels
that
a
developer
can
come
with
a
proposal
that
is,
you
know
out
to
lunch,
I
would
say,
or
totally
out
of
context
of
what
the
plan
would
suggest
they
should
be
built,
and
so
where
do
you?
Where
do
you
sit
in
that
scenario
and
then
the
question
would
be
so
if
we.
X
Okay,
but
if
they
all
hang
together
and
you
don't
have
to
necessarily
answer
the
one
or
the
other,
but
so
you
know
there's
the
plan
and
then
if
there
is
a
new
way
and
to
do
things,
then
what
do
we
do
in
the
interim?
You
know
like
we
have
to
adhere
to
the
plan
or
should
not,
or
so
that's
where
I'm
kind
of
struggling
with
what
I've
heard
tonight.
You
kind
of
discuss.
H
I
can't
comment
on
your
plan
because
I
haven't
studied
it
in
depth
your
current
plan,
so
I
can't
comment
on
whether
the
plan
should
have
been
adhered
to
or
not
adhered
to.
I
I
can't
I
can't
comment
on
the
the
specific
wording,
the
intent
versus
the
clarity
versus
the
flexibility,
but
I've
since
I've
left
city
hall
in
vancouver.
H
In
certain
cases
you
want
to
be
clear
on
what's
allowed,
because
you
wanted
to
do
many
things,
including
giving
the
community
certainty
on
what
they
can
expect
to
see
in
the
context
of
the
vision
and,
from
the
other
end
enough
clarity
for
the
developers
that
they
know
how
to
much
to
pay
for
land,
which
is
a
critically
important
responsibility
of
city
hall.
You
have
to
provide
enough
clarity
so
that
you
don't
have
the
problem
for
yourself
of
developers
over
paying
for
land
or
if
they
do
it's
their
own
fault.
H
There
should
be
enough
in
it.
That
stands
the
test
of
time
over
time,
because
plans
are
forward-looking,
but
they
should
have
the
flexibility
to
know
a
better
idea
when
they
hear
it
and
be
able
to
move
forward
on
that
better
idea-
and
I
always
said
when
I
was
chief
planner,
I
have
no
problem
saying
I'm
the
first
arbit
arbitrator
of
whether
it's
a
better
idea
and
ultimately
that
arbitrator
becomes
counsel.
H
H
That
is
my
comment
on
how
plans
should
be
made,
and
there
probably
needs
to
be
some
specific
clarity
and
conversation
about
how
your
pl,
where
your
plan
provides
clarity
versus
providing
flexibility,
so
that
when,
when
the
community
or
developers
see
something
they
can
understand,
why
there's
been
either
flexibility
or
not
flexibility
applied.
But
let
me
push
it
back
on
you.
I've
heard
many
many
times
from
communities.
I
can't
believe
you
didn't
listen
to
our
plan
when
the
clear
intent
of
the
plan
was
to
provide
opportunities
for
flexibility.
H
So
you
are
listening
to
the
plan
because
the
plan
intended
to
have
flexibility,
but
often
community
doesn't
want
to
hear
that
because
they
wanted
you
to
just
do
what
the
plan
initially
said.
So
a
lot
depends
on
how
the
plan
is
written
and
maybe
that's
the
way.
Your
plan
is
written
paige,
I
don't
know
if
you
want.
U
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
so
to
build
on
one.
What
brent
has
just
had
to
say
our
plan
actually
has
both
our
plan
has
a
lot
of
clarity,
especially
with
respect
to
downtown,
and
I
think,
as
a
community
and
we've
talked
about
this
a
number
of
times
in
public
sessions,
the
importance
of
reading
the
plan
in
its
wholeness
in
its
entirety.
You
can't
just
read
certain
sections
of
the
plan
and
not
have
regard
for
other
sections
of
the
plan.
U
It's
an
entire
document
so
where
our
plan
has
certainly
has
clarity
with
respect
to
giving
an
overall
direction
related
to
downtown
in
a
height
limitation.
Our
plan,
at
the
same
time,
also
has
flexible
policy
that
says
taller
buildings.
More
dense
buildings
can
happen
anywhere
in
the
downtown
subject
to
an
urban
design
study,
and
this
is
where
we've
struggled
a
little
bit
as
a
community
and
there's
work
to
be
done
with
respect
to
the
policy.
Y
I
appreciate
all
the
conversation
about
density
and
streetscape.
I
want
to
get
a
little
more
granular
if
you
could
and
help
us
with
some
guidance
in
terms
of
how
you
proportion
office
use
versus
residential
use.
One
of
the
things
we're
seeing
right
now
is
it's
pretty
quiet
in
the
mornings
during
the
daytime.
Our
downtown
urban
context,
amazing
the
weekends
great
at
night,
but
I'm
I'm
just
wondering
how
you
get
the
right
proportions.
H
H
H
We
probably
went
a
little
too
far
toward
that
and
then,
when
I
came
in,
I
had
to
say
well,
whoa
we're
so
living
that
we're
not
working
and
and
good
downtowns
need
a
balance.
You
need
to
have
part
of
your
vision
should
be
how
much
office
space.
Do
you
want
in
the
central
core
how
much
housing
do
you
want
in
the
central
core,
presumably
you're
hoping
for
an
interrelationship,
so
people
can
walk
to
work
and
live
close
to
work,
but
that's
a
core.
H
My
general
answer
to
you
is:
there
should
absolutely
be
in
a
complete
and
balanced
downtown
that
kind
of
interrelationship.
I
hope
your
your
downtown,
your
either
existing
plan
or
your
evolving
downtown
thinking,
answers
that
question.
But
that's
we've
been
talking
with
your
staff
about
setting
targets
as
opposed
to
projections.
How
much
office
do
you
want
to
have
in
your
downtown?
H
How
much
do
you
need
to
be
able
to
facilitate
those
walking
and
biking
trips
that
we,
your
mode
shift
goals
from
a
transportation
and
active
transport
perspective
that
becomes
all
part
of
the
vision
and
I'm
seeing
paige
nodding?
So
I'm
presuming
either
that's
already
there
or
part
of
the
current
conversation.
I
First,
thank
you
to
council
and
staff
for
organizing
and
obviously
to
brent
for
a
a
great
presentation.
You
had
a
lot
of
great
principles
and
ideas
that
you
brought
forth
a
lot
that
I
agree
with
I'm
a
former
planner
and
current
developer
with
podium
developments.
We
have
a
number
of
projects
in
the
city
of
kingston
at
the
moment,
and
you
know.
I
As
you
know,
the
commercial
that
comes
with
it.
So
one
thing
that
we
strive
for
is
utilizing
intensification
corridors
in
the
city,
key
corridors
such
as
princess
street
for
kingston,
and
you
know
I
want
to
understand
your
opinion
on
that
and
and
how
you
think,
those
intensification
corridors
play
into
the
entire
process
of
intensification
for
a
city.
H
I
support
the
concept
of
intensification
corridors.
I
haven't
gone
deep
enough
with
my
work
with
staff
to
say
I
support
any
particular
intensification
corridor
and
what
intensification
would
mean
in
a
specific
corridor.
I'm
just
not
deep
enough
in
that
to
make
any
intelligent
comments,
but
in
many
of
the
cities
I'm
working
in
the
benefit
of
intensifying
in
a
corridor
is
is
is
powerful
because
it
does
many
things
not
just
providing
your
housing
supply,
but
facilitating
your
transit
and
gets
you
getting
you
to
a
frequent
transit
network,
which
is
one
of
the
keys
to
the
success.
H
Now
I,
as
you,
can
see
from
some
of
my
examples.
I
think
there
are
places
within
a
suburban
context
where
you
can
do
tall
towers,
where
you
can
do
urban
mixed
use,
transit-oriented
development,
but
what
that
means,
how
big
it
means
where
it
is,
and
importantly,
where
not
is
critical,
so
you're
a
developer.
I
have
no
idea
if
I
would
support
a
particular
site
you
owned,
but
I
do
know
that
the
conversation
about
densification
is
a
city-wide
conversation,
but
not
with
a
one-size-fits-all
approach.
Z
It's
against
the
wall
yeah,
so
as
a
younger
person.
Obviously
I
have
like
the
better
part
of
my
life
ahead
of
me
and
so
urbanism
makes
sense
to
me
because,
like
it's
a
sustainable
way
moving
forward,
especially
with
climate
change
and
all
those
sorts
of
things,
I
thought
it
was
really
great
how
you
roped
in
the
upper
part
of
the
you
know.
Sorry,
like
the
aging
population.
Z
You
know,
because,
like
accessibility
and
so
on,
but
I
find
a
struggle
personally
like
as
someone
who
accepts
urbanism
is
like
a
good
way
to
move
forward.
Getting
buy-in
from
other
people
like
it
just
makes
sense
to
me,
and
I
struggle
sharing
that
with
other
people.
You
know
whether
it
be
my
friends,
my
neighbors
family
city
staff,
council,
all
those
sorts
of
things
I
was
just
wanting
to
maybe
share
a
success
story
of
getting
buy-in
from
people.
Z
H
I
don't
think
people
when
they
come
and
tell
me
what
they're
afraid
of
or
concerned
about
are
wrong
or
bad
or
selfish,
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
there's
generational
differences
in
the
perception
of
what
feels
normal
and
acceptable.
I
think
people
have
lived
in
a
community
for
a
long
time
get
used
to
things.
That's
human
nature.
I've
had
some
of
your
locals
on
this
trip.
H
One
of
your
reporters
said
to
me:
you
know
I
I
look
at
the
the
waterfront
towers
and
they
don't
look
that
bad
at
all,
and
I
asked
have
you
lived
here
all
your
life
and
he
said
yes,
it's
amazing
what
you
can
get
used
to,
but
what's
the
perspective
of
the
young
generation,
what's
the
perspective
of
the
tourist?
What's
the
perspective
of
the
new
eyes,
the
fresh
eyes
that
should
matter
to
you
generationally,
there's
a
difference.
H
So
when
I
talk
about
the
things
that
we
can
be
achieved
by
density,
that's
going
to
resonate
less
than
the
fear
they
have
about
what
they're
going
to
lose.
That's
human
nature,
I
don't
say
that's
wrong
or
evil.
I
have
to
become
a
student
of
human
nature
if
I'm
going
to
have
a
conversation
with
the
community,
but
so
it
takes
empathy,
it
takes
listening
and
it
takes
the
quality
of
that
conversation.
H
So
I'll
give
you
that
success
story
you
talked
about
when
we
talk
about
gentle
density
in
the
neighborhoods
in
the
single
family,
single
detached
neighborhoods
in
vancouver,
which
are
actually
in
many
cases,
low
density,
very
low
density.
The
conversation
about
even
a
row
house
as
a
starting
point
would
be
downright
controversial.
H
Now
I
got,
I
know:
you've
got
some
unique
challenges
here
with
student,
housing
etc,
but
in
normal,
no
den
low
density
neighborhoods
that
the
narrative
is
often
about
the
worry
of
change,
destabilizing
neighborhoods.
So
in
a
conversation
that
I
and
my
staff
had
in
vancouver
around
gentle
density
and
such
we
went
did
a
lot
of
listening
about
what
was
happening
in
the
neighborhoods.
And
what
we
found
is
that
the
population
was
reducing
because
empty
nesters.
As
I
said
a
little
bit
earlier,
weren't
downsizing
in
the
way
we
all
expected
they
would.
H
They
were
hanging
on
by
their
fingernails
to
their
big
house,
even
though
the
kids
have
long
ago
left.
Why?
When
we
asked
them
it's
because
they
love
their
neighborhood
and
all
they
thought
that
their
house
was
too
big.
They
weren't
going
to
downsize
until
they
could
find
a
smaller
house
within
their
neighborhood
because
they
didn't
want
to
leave
their
neighborhood
and
guess
what
there
were
no
housing
options
for
smaller
houses
within
the
neighborhoods.
H
So
they
stayed
put
and
they
were
occupying
a
house
that
could
have
occupied
been
occupied
by
a
family
and
they
lamented
that
that
their
kids
and
grandkids
lived
that
lived
out
in
white
rock.
If
you
know
vancouver,
and
we
never
see
them
and
the
school
is
closing
and
are
under
threat
of
closure
and
the
retail
isn't
there
and
when
you
start
to
have
those
conversations-
and
you
talk
about
all
of
that
change-
which
they
don't
like
in
the
context
of
this
concept
of
stability
and
said,
if
we
introduce
let's
talk
about
laneway
housing.
H
Let's
talk
about
row
houses.
It
provides
an
opportunity
for
the
for
the
empty
nesters
to
downsize
within
the
neighborhood
at
an
elaine
way.
House
does
all
the
things
that
I
think
I
described
a
little
bit
earlier
and
your
school
maybe
stays
open,
because
one
of
our
goals
should
be
to
bring
back
the
kids
to
the
neighborhood
you're
listening
to
their
human
stories.
H
You
can
get
to
an
answer
that
isn't
necessarily
mid-rise
or
high-rise,
but
it's
a
successful
answer
in
the
context
of
their
role
in
a
changing
city
and
then
nearby
you've
got
an
arterial
corridor
that
has
mid-rise,
because
mid-rise
is
the
right
answer
and
over
there
you
have
neighborhood,
centers
and
another
corridor
that
has
higher
order,
transit
on
it
and
thus
you're
contemplating
tall
buildings
there,
because
it
makes
sense
in
that
context
and
you're
always
able
to
explain
why
and
why
not.
So
my
success
story
for
you.
H
I've
got
plenty
of
them,
but
they
always
involve
some
empathy,
good
listening
and
a
strategic
approach
to
planning
and
everybody
sort
of
treating
everybody
else
with
a
little
more
respect,
not
assuming
the
worst
of
people.
That's
why
I
say
I
have
no
time
for
narratives
like
planners,
are
on
the
take.
I
never
let
community
groups
or
anyone
get
away
with
accusing
my
staff
of
that.
Never
but
I
I
show
an
equal
amount
of
respect
to
the
citizen
voices
that
I'm
hearing
and
talking
about.
Does
that
make
sense.
A
AA
H
Ma'am
with
all
due
respect,
if
that's
what
it
sounds
like
I'm
doing,
then
I've
failed
in
being
clear,
because
I
thought
I've
been
really
really
deliberate
in
saying
the
exact
opposite
to
that
that
my
principles
are
not
principles
that
come
from
a
big,
wealthy
city.
My
principles
are
from
doing
this
in
just
about
every
context
you
can
think
of
in
a
lot
of
parts
of
canada
and
the
world
from
small
towns
to
big
cities.
H
I
would
run
me
out
of
town,
because
there
are
some
consultants
out
there
that
try
to
do
that,
but
I'd
like
to
think
I've
spent
all
of
tonight
sending
the
exact
opposite
message.
What
we're
talking
about
is
high
order
principles
that,
in
my
opinion
and
observation
and
experience,
are
universal,
but
the
challenge
becomes
how
it
applies
to
your
place
and
your
context,
and
even
the
moment
that
you're
in
right
now
because
place
can
be
temporal,
not
just
geographic.
T
H
Be
clear
for
your
time
all
joking
aside,
you've
got
a
very
good
chief
planner.
I
think
everyone
in
this
system
can
do
a
lot
to
position.
Your
planning
department,
your
your
chief
planner,
your
representatives
from
other
departments.
Your
transportation
officials
have
made
incredible
successes.
I've
met
with
the
senior
management
team
today.
You've
got
good
staff.
H
A
lot
of
the
challenges
they
have
is
they'd
like
to
do
better,
but
it's
often
and
different,
but
often
there's
a
perception
that
is
the
community
ready
for
that
is
council
ready
for
that,
etc.
So
one
of
my
core
messages
is
you
all
have
to
help
each
other
to
achieve
this
you're,
not
enemies,
you're
sort
of
it
is:
let's
do
a
big
group
hug
now,
I'm
I
I
don't
want
to
sound
too
wishy-washy,
but
that's
the
truth.
The
more
you
fight
with
each
other,
the
the
lower
the
quality
of
the
outcome
that
I
know.