Towards Common Ground - Sustainable Development in Southeast False Creek

TOWARDS COMMON GROUND: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK by JOHN JACOB MICHAEL IRWIN B.A. Hons.
, The University of Alberta, 1995
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)
We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 2004
John Jacob Michael Irwin, 2004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1*1
National Library of C a n a d a Acquisitions and Bibliographic S ervices
Bibliotheque nationale du C a n a d a A cquisisitons et services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada
395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 0-612-93134-X Our file Notre reference ISBN: 0-612-93134-X
The author has granted a non exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduire, preter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique. L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou aturement reproduits sans son autorisation.
The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this dissertation. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the dissertation.
Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de ce manuscrit. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
Canada
ABSTRACT This thesis focuses on communicative participation processes and the mutual understanding that can occur amongst participants. This mutual understanding can often lead to better sustainability planning outcomes. It analyzes both the process and the outcomes of the process through a case study. The principle research question addressed is: does communicative participation in development processes, by a broad range of interests, contribute to social, environmental, and economic sustainability? The research instruments include: action research conducted by the author in the Southeast False Creek Model Sustainable Community Planning Process case study, which took place in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; twenty qualitative interviews with the members of a policy Advisory Group, staff of the local civic government, and political representatives; and analysis of the key planning documents generated by the process and other contextual documentation. The findings from the action research are presented, followed by the qualitative interview findings. These two types of results (which were conducted independently of each other) were then compared, analyzed, and contrasted with the literature in an iterative manner. The literature consulted includes: communicative action, communicative action in planning, public participation, sustainable development and sustainable urban development (ecological, social, and economic). Two sets of criteria, one for the process and the other for the outcome, were derived from the literature review. The research findings indicate that this case study is an example of a reasonably good communicative participation process that was deep and long-term, but did not involve the broader community as well as it could have. The analysis concludes, however, that power played a significant role in this case study. This highlights the need for communicative action theory in planning to be supplemented, extended, and revised. Communicative action theory could be strengthened by being supplemented by political economic theory, progressive planning theory, mobilization theory, and postmodern trans-cultural planning theory. The process outcome, the policy for Southeast False Creek, was found to make marked progress towards ecological sustainability, and marginal movement towards economic sustainability. The policy was found to be quite lacking in terms of social sustainability, although it was given more consideration than in previous development policy in Vancouver. A lack of focus on social sustainability was found in the process, and this was reflected in the policy. Although the sustainability policy was found to be quite weak overall, it did lead towards greater sustainable urban development in Vancouver, and increased awareness about sustainability in the development policy community. This thesis makes a significant contribution to communicative action theory by analyzing a case study that put this theory into practice. It may also improve planning practice by recommending ways to improve communicative participation processes.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract...................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents......................................................................................................................iii List of Tables............................................................................................................................. ix List of Illustrations................................................................................................................... x Preface........................................................................................................................................ xiii Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................xiv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction to the Case Study............................................................................................ 2 1.2 Structure of the Thesis..........................................................................................................8 1.3 Limitations............................................................................................................................ 9 1.4 The Thesis Contribution to the Planning Literature........................................................ 9 CHAPTER 2:COMMUNICATIVE PARTICIPATION: COMMUNICATIVE ACTION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING 2.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Progressive Planning and Communicative Action Theory................................................11 2.1.1 Power................................................................................................................................17 2.2 The Philosophical Roots of Communicative Action (CA)................................................20 2.2.1 The Lifeworld.................................................................................................................. 23 2.2.2 The Administrative and Economic System................................................................... 24 2.2.3 The Colonisation of the Lifeworld................................................................................ 26 2.3 Limitations of Communicative Action Theory................................................................ 28 2.3.1 Philosophical Critiques.................................................................................................. 28 2.3.2 A Sociological Critique................................................................................................. 30 2.3.3 Planning Theorist Critics...............................................................................................31 2.4 Public Participation.............................................................................................................. 37 2.4.1 The Promises of Public Participation............................................................................44 2.4.2 The Limitations of Public Participation........................................................................ 46 2.5 Democratic Theory and Communicative Participation..................................................... 47 2.6 The Policy Community.........................................................................................................52 2.6.1 Interest Groups............................................................................................................... 53 54 2.6.2 The Policy Cycle M ode................................ 2.6.3 The Role of Urban Interest Groups............................................................................... 54 2.7 Local Political Economy..................................................................................................... 56 2.8 Power and Ideology.............................................................................................................. 58 2.8.1 The Neo-Liberal, or Neo-Conservative Approach.................................................... 59 2.8.2. The Neo-Pluralist Approach........................................................................................ 59 2.8.3 The Neo-Marxist Approach.......................................................................................... 61
iii
2.9 Criteria for Communicative Consensus-based Processes................................................. 66 2.9.1 Process Criteria..............................................................................................................69 2.10 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................70 CHAPTER 3: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT 3.0 Introduction: Sustainable Urban Development Defined................................................. 72 3.1 Strong Versus Weak Sustainability.................................................................................... 76 3.2.1 Ecological Sustainability.............................................................................................. 80 3.2.2 Social Sustainability......................................................................................................84 3.2.3 Economic Sustainability............................................................................................... 88 3.3 Sustainability at the International and Local Scale........................................................... 92 3.4 Sustainable Urban Development Precedents..................................................................... 95 3.4.1 Westerpark Car Free Housing Project......................................................................... 96 3.5 Indicators of Sustainable Urban Development..................................................................99 3.6 Two Primary Indicators: Water Quality and Transportation............................................102 3.6.1 Nonpoint Source Pollution and Impervious Surfaces................................................ 102 3.6.2 Sustainable Urban Transportation................................................................................ 104 3.7 Outcome Criteria.................................................................................................................. 107 3.8 Conclusion............................................................................................................................110 CHAPTER 4: FROM BROWNFIELD TO SUSTAINABLE URBAN OASIS 4.0 The Planning Context.......................................................................................................... 111 4.1 The SeFC Planning Process................................................................................................ I l l 4.1.1 A Brief Historical Snapshot..........................................................................................I l l 4.1.2 The Governmental Context........................................................................................... 112 4.1.3 The Policy Context........................................................................................................ 116 4.1.4 The SeFC Working Group............................................................................................ 117 4.1.5 The Development Consultant........................................................................................118 4.1.6 The First Step Towards Sustainable Urban Development..........................................119 4.1.7 The SeFC Advisory G roup...........................................................................................120 4.1.8 The Sustainable Development Consultants.................................................................122 4.1.9 The Loss of Heritage and An Unsustainable Interim U se..........................................122 4.1.10 The Sustainability R eport...........................................................................................123 4.1.11 The Policy Statement...................................................................................................123 4.1.12 The City of Vancouvers Expert Design Charette................................................. 124 4.1.13 The All Parkland Lobby........................................................................................... 124 4.1.14 Southeast False Creek Policy Adopted by Vancouvers City Council....................126 4.2 South False C reek................................................................................................................128 4.3 Fairview Slopes.................................................................................................................... 131 4.4 North False C reek................................................................................................................133 4.5 Local Political Economic Context..................................................................................... 136 4.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................144 CHAPTER 5: METHODS 5.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................145 5.1 Action Research................................................................................................................... 146 5.2 Action Research Methods....................................................................................................149 5.3 Qualitative Interviews......................................................................................................... 150 5.4 Document Analysis............................................................................................................. 151
iv
5.5 Neo-Marxist Political Economic Context............................................................................ 152 5.6 Limitations............................................................................................................................. 152 5.7 Case Study Propositions and Research Questions.............................................................. 153 5.8 Research Criteria, Questions and M easures........................................................................154 5.8.1 Process Criteria, Questions, and Measures.................................................................... 154 5.8.2 Outcome Criteria, Questions, and Measures................................................................. 160 5.9 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 164 CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH I -ACTION RESEARCH 6.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 165 6.1 Inclusion.................................................................................................................................165 6.2 Equality of Opportunity.........................................................................................................167 6.3 Objective, Social, and Subjective Issues WereAddressed in the Process.........................168 6.3.1 Objective Issues............................................................................................................... 168 6.3.2 Social Issues were Addressed........................................................................................ 169 6.3.3 Subjective Issues............................................................................................................. 169 6.4 Opportunity to Suggest a Facilitator....................................................................................170 6.5 The Facilitation Was Productive and Efficient................................................................... 170 6.6 Mutual Understanding...........................................................................................................171 6.6.1 Full and Deep Discourse Preceded Consensus.............................................................. 172 6.7 Transparency.......................................................................................................................... 172 6.8 Power Impartiality................................................................................................................. 173 6.8.1 Powerful Participants Freely Shared Information with A ll.......................................... 175 6.8.2 Accuracy of the Process Information............................................................................ 176 6.8.3 Powerful Participants Have Influence With Decision-Makers.....................................177 6.8.4 Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency..................................................................................177 6.9 OUTCOME............................................................................................................................ 179 6.10 General Policy Assessment................................................................................................. 179 6.11 The SeFC Policy Increased Sustainable Urban Development in Vancouver.................181 6.12 Ecological Sustainability.................................................................................................... 182 6.12.1 Efficient Use of Land.................................................................................................... 182 6.12.2 Reduction or Elimination of Pollution......................................................................... 183 6.12.3 Reduction in the Use of Natural Resources................................................................ 185 6.12.4 Effective M onitoring.................................................................................................... 185 6.13 Social Sustainability............................................................................................................186 6.13.1 Equality.......................................................................................................................... 186 6.13.2 Community Capacity.................................................................................................... 187 6.13.3 Urbanity......................................................................................................................... 188 6.13.4 Interests and Representativeness..................................................................................189 6.13.5 Conflict Reduction, and Flexible and Networked Practices......................................190 6.13.6 Flexible and Networked Practices............................................................................... 190 6.13.7 Second Order Effects.................................................................................................... 191 6.14 Economic Sustainability..................................................................................................... 192 6.14.1 Economic Security.........................................................................................................192 6.14.2 Ecologically Sound Economic Activity.......................................................................192 6.14.3 Local Self-reliance.........................................................................................................193 6.14.4 Cost Reduction and Benefits........................................................................................ 194
6.15 Creative Adaptation............................................................................................................. 195 6.16 Adaptation and Contingency Planning.............................................................................. 195 6.17 Implementation....................................................................................................................195 6.18 Feasibility and Fit Between Participants Needs and Future Actions.............................196 6.19 Commitment for Implementation....................................................................................... 196 6.20 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 197 CHAPTER 7: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH II -PROCESS 7.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 198 7.1 Inclusion.................................................................................................................................199 7.2 Inclusion of Relevant and Significant Interests.................................................................. 202 7.3 Long-term Involvement........................................................................................................ 205 7.4 Equality of Opportunity........................................................................................................ 207 7.5 Participants Set Groundrules, Tasks, and Objectives......................................................... 208 7.6 Participants Challenged Basic Assumptions...................................................................... 210 7.7 Objective Issues.................................................................................................................... 212 7.8 Social Issues...........................................................................................................................213 7.9 Subjective Issues................................................................................................................... 215 7.10 Opportunity to Suggest Facilitation and Methods of Facilitation................................... 216 7.11 Facilitation was Productive and Efficient..........................................................................217 7.12 Mutual Understanding........................................................................................................ 219 7.13 The Quality of the Discourse............................................................................................. 220 7.14 Full and Deep Discourse Preceded Consensus.................................................................221 7.15 Process was Open, Participatory, and Transparent.......................................................... 223 7.16 Goals were Set Transparently............................................................................................ 225 7.17 Participants Power, or Powerlessness Affected the Process..........................................226 7.18 Powerful Participants and Strategic Action...................................................................... 228 7.19 Information Sharing and Accuracy....................................................................................229 7.20 Accuracy of Process Information......................................................................................231 7.21 Powerful Participants Influence Decision-makers........................................................... 232 7.22 Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency......................................................................................234 7.23 Participants Concerns Regarding the Process.................................................................237 7.24 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................239 CHAPTER 8: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH III -OUTCOMES 8.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 240 8.1 The SeFC Policy Increased Sustainable Urban Development in Vancouver...................240 8.2 Ecological Sustainability...................................................................................................... 242 8.3 Effective Monitoring.............................................................................................................244 8.4 Social Sustainability..............................................................................................................246 8.5 The Policy Meets All Participants Interests.....................................................................248 8.6 The Policy Increases Representativeness.......................................................................... 251 8.7 The Policy Included a Governing Framework...................................................................252 8.8 The Policy is Fair and Beneficial for All............................................................................253 8.9 Conflict Reduction................................................................................................................255 8.10 The Policy Fostered Flexible and Networked Practices...................................................257 8.11 The Policy Lead to the Creation of Second Order Effects.............................................. 259 8.12 Economic Sustainability.....................................................................................................261
vi
8.13 Cost Reduction and Benefits.............................................................................................. 265 8.14 Creative Adaptation.............................................................................................................267 8.15 Adaptation and Contingency Planning.............................................................................. 269 8.16 Implementation................................................................................................................... 270 8.17 Feasibility and Fit Between Participants Needs and Future Actions.............................272 8.18 The Policy is Based on Sufficient Commitment to Ensure Implementation..................274 8.19 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................275 Chapter 9: Analysis of the Results I - Process 9.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 276 9.1 Inclusion................................................................................................................................ 276 9.2 Long-term Involvement........................................................................................................ 277 9.3 Equality of Opportunity to Participate................................................................................ 277 9.4 Setting of Ground-rules, Tasks, and Objectives.................................................................278 9.5 Participants Challenged Basic Assumptions...................................................................... 278 9.7 Objective Issues were Addressed......................................................................................... 279 9.7 Social Issues...........................................................................................................................280 9.8 Subjective Issues................................................................................................................... 281 9.9 Opportunity to Suggest Facilitation.....................................................................................281 9.10 Facilitation was Productive and Efficient..........................................................................282 9.11 Participants Reached Mutual Understanding.................................................................... 282 9.12 Principles of Civil Discourse were Followed................................................................... 283 9.13 Full and Deep Discourse Preceded Consensus.................................................................284 9.14 Process was Open, Participatory, and Transparent.......................................................... 285 9.15 Goals were Set Transparently............................................................................................ 286 9.16 Participants Power, or Powerlessness Affected the Process..........................................287 9.17 Powerful Participants and Strategic Action...................................................................... 288 9.18 Information Sharing and Accuracy................................................................................... 289 9.19 Accuracy of Process Information......................................................................................290 9.20 Powerful Participants Influence Decision-makers........................................................... 290 9.22 Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency......................................................................................292 9.22 Participants Concerns Regarding the Process.................................................................293 9.23 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................299 CHAPTER 10: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS II 10.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................300 10.1 The SeFC Policy Increased Sustainable Urban Development in Vancouver................ 300 10.2 Ecological Sustainability....................................................................................................301 10.3 Effective Monitoring.................................................................................................... 303 10.4 Social Sustainability..................................................................................................... 305 10.5 The Policy Meets All Participants Interests.................................................................... 308 10.6 The Policy Increases Representativeness..................................................... 308 10.7 The Policy Included a Governing Framework.................................................................. 310 10.8 The Policy is Fair and Beneficial for All...........................................................................311 10.9 Conflict Reduction..............................................................................................................311 10.10 The Policy Fostered Flexible and Networked Practices................................................ 313 10.11 The Policy Led to the Creation of Second Order Effects.............................................. 315 10.12 Economic Sustainability...................................................................................................316
vii
10.13 Cost Reduction and Benefits............................................................................................ 320 10.14 Creative Adaptation.......................................................................................................... 324 10.15 Adaptation and Contingency Planning............................................................................327 10.16 Implementation................................................................................................................. 328 10.17 Feasibility and Fit Between Participants Needs and Future Actions.......................... 330 10.18 The Policy is Based on Sufficient Commitment toEnsure Implementation................ 331 10.19 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................337 CHAPTER 11: RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE PLANNING PRACTICE 11.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................338 11.1 Action Research Recommendations.................................................................................. 338 11.2 Participants Recommendations......................................................................................... 342 11.3 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................348 CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION 12.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................349 12.1 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................349 12.2 The SeFC Case Study and Communicative Action Theory............................................ 352 12.3 The Thesis Contribution to the Planning Literature........................................................ 356 12.4 Suggestions for Future Research........................................................................................357 Epilogue........................................................................................................................................ 259 References....................................................................................................................................361 Appendix I: Interview Questions................................................................................................383 Appendix II: Criteria for Communicative Consensus-Based Processes................................. 386 Appendix III: List of Meetings...................................................................................................391
v iii
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 Typology of Public Participation...................................................................... 43 TABLE 4.1 SeFC Working Group Core Organizations..................................................... 117 TABLE 4.2 SeFC Advisory Group......................................................................................... 121 TABLE 4.3 Total Campaign Contributions of All Political Parties................................. 138 TABLE 4.4 Vancouver Mayors and City Councilors..........................................................140 TABLE 4.5 Chronology of Key Points in the SeFC Planning Process.............................142
ix
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.1 Greater Vancouver.................................................................................................4 Figure 1.2 Southeast False Creek Planning Area................................................................. 5 Figure 2.1 Sources of Process Criteria...................................................................................68 Figure 3.1 Westerpark Car Free Development.................................................................... 97 Figure 3.2 Sources of Outcome Criteria................................................................................ 108 Figure 4.1 Government Framework for SeFC......................................................................113 Figure 4.2 Communicative Participation in SeFC...............................................................118 Figure 4.6 City of Vancouver Organization Chart..............................................................127 Figure 4.7 South False Creek................................................................................................... 129 Figure 4.8 South False Creek................................................................................................... 130 Figure 4.9 Fairview Slopes....................................................................................................... 131 Figure 4.10 Fairview Slopes..................................................................................................... 132 Figure 4.11 North False Creek Concord Pacific.................................................................. 134 Figure 4.12 North False Creek Concord Pacific.................................................................. 135 Figure 4.13 Election Funding of Vancouvers Major Political Parties............................137 Figure 4.14 Election Funding of Vancouvers Other Political Parties.............................137 Figure 4.15 Total Campaign Contributions of All Political Parties................................. 137 Figure 4.16 Total Annual Building Permit Values............................................................... 141 Figure 7.1 Inclusion................................................................................................................... 204 Figure 7.2 Inclusion of Relevant and Significant Interests................................................ 204 Figure 7.3 Long-term Involvement......................................................................................... 204 Figure 7.4 Equality of Opportunity........................................................................................ 209
Figure 7.5 Participants Set Groundrules, Tasks, and Objectives......................................209 Figure 7.6 Participants Challenged Basic Assumptions.....................................................209 Figure 7.7 Objective Issues...................................................................................................... 215 Figure 7.8 Social Issues.............................................................................................................215 Figure 7.9 Subjective Issues..................................................................................................... 215 Figure 7.10 Opportunity to Suggest Facilitation and Methods of Facilitation.............. 218 Figure 7.11 Facilitation was Productive and Efficient........................................................ 218 Figure 7.12 Mutual Understanding........................................................................................ 218 Figure 7.13 The Quality of the Discourse.............................................................................. 222 Figure 7.14 Full and Deep Discourse Preceded Consensus............................................... 222 Figure 7.15 Process was Open, Participatory, and Transparent.......................................222 Figure 7.16 Goals were Set Transparently............................................................................227 Figure 7.17 Participants Power, or Powerlessness Affected the Process....................... 227 Figure 7.18 Powerful Participants and Strategic Action....................................................227 Figure 7.19 Information Sharing and Accuracy.................................................................. 232 Figure 7.20 Accuracy of Process Information.................................................................... 232 Figure 7.21 Powerful Participants Influence Decision-makers.........................................232 Figure 7.22 Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency...................................................................... 236 Figure 8.1 The SeFC Policy Increased Sustainable Urban Development in Vancouver....................................................................................................................................245 Figure 8.2 Ecological Sustainability.......................................................................................245 Figure 8.3 Effective Monitoring...............................................................................................245 Figure 8.4 Social Sustainability.............................................................................................. 249 Figure 8.5 The Policy Meets All Participants Interests.....................................................249
xi
Figure 8.6 The Policy Increases Representativeness........................................................... 249 Figure 8.7 The Policy Includes a Governing Framework...................................................254 Figure 8.8 The Policy is Fair and Beneficial for All............................................................ 254 Figure 8.9 Conflict Reduction..................................................................................................254 Figure 8.10 The Policy Fostered Flexible and Networked Practices................................ 261 Figure 8.11 The Policy Lead to the Creation of Second Order Effects............................261 Figure 8.12 Economic Sustainability......................................................................................261 Figure 8.13 Cost Reduction and Benefits.............................................................................. 268 Figure 8.14 Creative Adaptation............................................................................................ 268 Figure 8.15 Adaptation and Contingency Planning.............................................................268 Figure 8.16 Implementation..................................................................................................... 272 Figure 8.17 Feasibility and Fit Between Participants Needs and Future Actions 272
Figure 8.18 The Policy is Based on Sufficient Commitment to Ensure Implementation..........................................................................................................................272 Figure 9.1 Ranked Array of All Process Criteria................................................................295 Figure 9.2 Ranked Array of All Process Criteria................................................................296 Figure 9.3 Ranked Array of All Process Criteria................................................................297 Figure 9.4 Ranked Array of All Process Criteria................................................................ 298 Figure 10.1 Ranked Array of All Outcome Criteria........................................................... 334 Figure 10.2 Ranked Array of All Outcome Criteria........................................................... 335 Figure 10.3 Ranked Array of All Outcome Criteria........................................................... 336
xii
Preface I wrote the latter part of this thesis in Vancouvers public library. From my high vaulted ceiling desk on the librarys fourth floor I would look out at the city as a modernist machine. A city formed by the grid of the automobile, and full of modernist block and cylindrical towers of concrete, glass, and steel of varying heights. The only remnants of green that were evident were the row of street trees that lined one cross street and the moss on a one-story commercial building kitty-comer to the public library. This view of the city of Vancouver, however, masks what cannot be seen from this perspective. The Vancouver public library building has a green roof, that can only be seen from the higher buildings that surround it or by taking a pre-arranged tour of the roof. The higher density of the buildings, could, it is hoped, reduce the auto-dependency of the most recent residents of Vancouvers downtown peninsula. This thesis is written from the point of view of someone who has been engaged in civic activism for the last fourteen years. As an ecological and social justice activist I have learned a lot from both my fellow activists and from those who have disagreed with the activist agenda in the many planning processes that we activists engage in. Many theses, dissertations, and academic papers make claims to objectivity while the bias and worldview of the authors remains implicit. The strong sustainability focus of this thesis advocates for social justice, material and political equality, and a strong version of ecological sustainability. In order to add balance to this perspective, qualitative interviews and document analysis were conducted. The strong sustainability stance of the following thesis was informed by several years of study, both academic and out in the field of local politics in Vancouver. My engagement in the case study (the City of Vancouvers model sustainable community in Southeast False Creek) presented in this thesis has spanned eight years (as of this writing). In this process, I learned a significant amount from fellow activists and the other participants in the process. Hopefully, by taking a more radical approach to sustainability my fellow activists, and I have helped to move society further down the path to sustainable urban development in Vancouver. I leave it to you, the reader to decide.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the members of my committee David Ley, for his insights and comments; Don Alexander, for his keen eye for detail and editing; Mark Roseland, for his help with substantive issues; Les Lavkulich, for his ongoing support of this study; and my thesis supervisor Tony Dorcey, for his patience, extremely helpful suggestions for revision and editing, and his ongoing support over the course of the thesis. I would like to thank the interviewees for their time and agreeing to take part in the study; and Matt Galloway and Daniel Philippot for their help with digital photography of the various charette materials. Rob Wynen and Marie Claire Seebohm for their photos of Westerpark, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Last, but far from least, I would also like to thank my partner, Edna Tepper, for her ongoing support, encouragement, and help with editing, and formatting. Without Ednas consistent support, this thesis would likely not have been completed.
xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
I should have sought a country, in which the legislative power should be vested in all citizens: for who can better judge than themselves of the propriety of the terms, on which they mutually agree to live together in the same community? Jean-Jacques Rousseau The problem with socialism is that it takes too many evenings. Oscar Wilde
1.0 Introduction
Sustainable urban development is defined in this thesis as development which meets the needs of the present populations of humans and other species without compromising the ability of future generations to both thrive and survive. It holds out the promise of merging technological and social solutions to the resource use (supply, demand, and demand management), and environmental issues (global warming, air and water quality issues) that are increasingly becoming apparent during the contemporary period of rapid, global urbanization. The main research question to be addressed by this thesis is: Does communicative participation in development processes, by a broad range of interests, contribute to social, environmental, and economic sustainability? Communicative action, which is arguably one of the main threads of the theory of public participation, is generally held out as one of the tenets of social sustainability. However, some theorists argue that sustainable urban development has more to do with technical or technological solutions, while others argue that differences in the power and influence wielded by participants make participatory planning irrelevant. This thesis lays out various theories and critiques of both communicative action and public participation. The linkages between communicative action and public participation are discussed and are synthesized into communicative participation. Communicative participation is defined as participation in the planning process where all participants arrive at mutual
understanding regarding the substantive and normative issues that the process is intended to address. Communicative participation provides a broad conceptual and analytical framework for the thesis. Communicative participation is linked to the substantive section of the research, sustainable urban development. Given that a significant proportion of the social sustainability literature calls for vigorous public participation, it has proven to be instructive to empirically determine who is involved in these processes and how they participate. It is pertinent to analyze and evaluate these processes, for any significant move towards sustainable urban development will require the interest, commitment, and social education of a wide cross section of the public. Dorcey and McDaniels (2001) note there have been relatively few attempts to evaluate these processes that are not subject to serious limitations. Analytical criteria are presented and utilized to ascertain qualitatively both the process and the policy for sustainable urban development in the context of the Southeast False Creek case study, located in the Greater Vancouver area in Lower Mainland British Columbia, Canada (see Figure 1.1-1.2). Through involvement in the City of Vancouvers current efforts to create a model sustainable urban development in Southeast False Creek (SeFC) from 1996 to the present (as an activist-planner and a member of the Advisory Group which aided the City in formulating the adopted policy for the development), observations were made of how planners attempt to either democratize processes or limit public involvement. Based on this direct involvement in the case study, action research, document analysis, and participant observer methods are utilized for analyzing the research questions.
1.1 Introduction to the Case Study
This thesis focuses on a single case study: the policy-making process in the SeFC model sustainable community planning process. The SeFC planning area is located in the central area of the City of Vancouver on former industrial, or brownfield, land (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2 for the location of SeFC). Prior to colonisation SeFC was an intertidal flat rich in biodiversity, which
2
provided First Nations with many species of fish and other species. From the late 1800s the area was the site of various industrial activities: sawmills, foundries, shipbuilding and many other industrial uses. In the late 1970s to early 1980s South False Creek, the area directly to the west of SeFC, was developed as a medium-density, inner-City residential development. From the early 1990s to the present, North False Creek, the area directly to the northwest of SeFC, is being developed by Concord Pacific as a high-density inner City residential area. By the late 1970s industrial use was declining in the SeFC area which is bounded by False Creek to the north, Cambie Street to the west, Second Avenue to the south, and Main Street to the east. From 1990 to 1999 Vancouvers City Council enacted several policies that facilitated the emergence of a sustainable urban development policy process in SeFC. In 1990, Vancouver's City Council (hereinafter referred to as Council) identified SeFC as a let go industrial area (an area set for rezoning to mixed use or residential). On 16 October, 1990 Council incorporated recommendations from the Clouds of Change Task Force Report for an energy efficient community design for the SeFC area plan, locating employment and housing within close proximity of each other, and increasing housing adjacent to Vancouver's Central Area. In 1991, Council decided that housing would be the main land use for SeFC, with housing for families with children given a priority. City Councils Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment approved a preliminary planning time frame, public consultation process, and development guidelines in October 1995. In December 1995 Council resolved that the Office of the Environment and the Real Estate Division jointly study SeFC as a model for sustainable development. This was part of a Clouds of Change status report. The development consultant responsible for the North Shore of False Creek developments (which many viewed as counter to sustainable development) was appointed by Council as the development consultant for SeFC in May 1996. He delivered the first phase o f his consultant's report to Council in early April 1997.
Figure 1.1 Greater Vancouver
W est Vancouver
N o rth Vancouver
Coquitlam
Burnaby Vancouver N e w W estminster
Port Coquitlam
Richmond
Langley
Metropolitan Core
Source: ad ap ted from GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan: 1999 Annual Report.
Figure 1.2 Southeast False Creek Planning Area
=3 XI
ca
S? Q
O co
teJ o fe^ in y f
* 9
Mis
n o u v is /IC
J.S N IVn
5 038300
W V
1XSH 3
Source: City of Vancouver, 1997a
Largely in response to public input (from a broad coalition of community, social justice, and environmental groups), Council decided that the development consultant's report was too tightly focused on economic factors and did not take into account social and environmental factors. Council then approved contracting a consultancy team to deal with the manifold issues of sustainable urban development. In 1998 the sustainable development consultancy provided: a succinct definition of sustainable development; ecological, social, and economic parameters; clearly defined performance targets; a list of relevant precedents on sustainable urban development; and a full-cost accounting (FCA) framework. In mid-1997 an Advisory Group was established for the SeFC planning area, which gave advice regarding the sustainable urban development consultancy, and the emerging policy for the area. This Advisory Group went through a few faltering meetings before a facilitator was contracted to assist the Advisory Group in its work. This Advisory Group advised City Planning from 1997 to October 1999. In October 1999, the policy for SeFC was officially adopted by Council. The Advisory Group then became the Stewardship Group for the SeFC planning area (which meets monthly as of this writing). I was involved in the Southeast False Creek Sustainable Community process at the community and environmental non-governmental organization level from the spring of 1996 to the end of 1999.1 attended most meetings held by these groups, engaged in media and overall coordination. I also participated in (from 1997 to present) and chaired the SeFC Working Group Steering Committee (from 1998 to present). I was one of two SeFC Working Group members who sat on the Advisory Group for SeFC from its inception to its transformation into the SeFC Stewardship Group, which I have attended from its creation in early 2000 to the present. I attended many other events and meetings over the course of the case study. This case lends itself well to three rationales that Yin (1989) has identified for a case study: 1) it is a critical case study that tests or expands upon a well-formulated theory (or set of theories); 2) it is a unique case; and 3) it holds promise for being a revelatory case that observes
6
and analyses previously inaccessible phenomena. The SeFC case is a specific local case that attempts to operationalize sustainable urban development theory. It also provides an opportunity to analyse and evaluate a communicative participation process. According to research completed to date, SeFC is definitely unique in a North American context as it moves sustainable urban development into a central, high-density geographical location. The action research, interviews, and document analysis allow for the observation and analysis of the fine grain of this sustainable urban development policy formulation process. This thesis takes strong sustainability, as was discussed in the preface, as the preferred outcome of communicative participation directed towards achieving sustainable urban development. This level of sustainability is used for analysis as it, arguably, is required to begin to address the pressing issues that are created by unsustainable development. To respond to these challenges in a weak, or more status quo manner, will likely exacerbate our species ecological and social justice dilemmas. There will be opportunity costs incurred if we do not respond to climate change, pollution, and growing inequality in our increasingly urban societies. It is important to note that other development processes have achieved quite high levels of sustainable urban development that either predate sustainability, or do not rely on communicative participation. Davis, California, for instance, is a precedent-setting privately initiated development, which has achieved a sustainable urban development outcome and a high level of post-occupancy participation, without communicative participation occurring, to any significant degree, in the policy and planning process. Locally, South False Creek provides an example of how the convergence of three levels of government (federal, provincial, and local) and limited, but vigourous, participation resulted in a sustainable outcome long before the notion of sustainability had emerged as a more widely accepted concept. Thus sustainable outcomes can occur without communicative participation. Whether they can be readily implemented elsewhere without communicative participation remains a research question that lies outside the scope of this thesis.
1.2 Structure of the Thesis
Chapter 1: Introduction. The general problem area is described: communicative participation and sustainable urban development. The research question is presented, and the local problem of sustainability in Vancouver is introduced, with specific reference to the Southeast False Creek case study. The theoretical approach of the thesis is introduced (communicative participation, sustainable urban development and local political economy). The limitations and key assumptions of the thesis are described. The introduction concludes by highlighting the contribution of the thesis to knowledge in the field of urban planning.
Chapter 2: Communicative Participation: Communicative Action, Public Participation, and Planning. This chapter reviews Habermas theoretical basis for communicative action, the previous work on communicative action theory in planning, and select aspects of public participation theory. Critiques of communicative action and public participation are discussed. The criteria for analysis of communicative participation processes are presented.
Chapter 3: Towards Sustainable Urban Development. This chapter reviews the sustainable urban development literature, and outlines definitions of sustainable urban development. A conceptual framework for sustainable urban development is described. From this framework a set of criteria flows that are utilized to analyse sustainable urban development in SeFC. The criteria for analysis of the policy outcome are laid out.
Chapter 4: From Brownfield to Sustainable Urban Oasis. The fourth chapter lays out the historical, geographical, political economic, and policy context of the Southeast False Creek case study.
Chapter 5: Methods. The methodology of this case-driven thesis is described: action research, participant observation. The benefits and limitations of these methods are discussed.
Chapter 6: Results o f the Research I-A ction Research. The results of the action research (reflection-in-action) are presented. A full list of key meetings are attached in the appendices.
Chapter 7: Results o f the Research II - Participant Observation - Process. The results of the interviews regarding the process are presented.
Chapter 8: Results o f the Research III - Participant Observation - Policy. The results of the interviews regarding the policy outcome are presented.
Chapter 9: Analysis o f the Results I - Process. The research results are analysed in terms of the criteria for communicative participation processes.
Chapter 10: Analysis o f the Results II - Policy. The research results are analysed in terms of the criteria for policy outcomes.
Chapter 11: Recommendations to Improve Planning Practice. Recommendations are made which can help planners, and planner-activists improve their practice. The recommendations of interviewees are presented.
Chapter 12: Conclusion. A summary is made of the research with emphasis on the results and the contribution of the research to the literature. Avenues for future research are suggested.
1.3 Limitations
The results cannot be generalized from this very specific case study (Fien and Skoien, 2002). However, the results and recommendations should be of some help to planners and planning scholars who are grappling with sustainability and communicative planning. Researchers can also draw on the results of this investigation to evaluate across empirical case studies to arrive at results that can be generalized and compared (e.g. Beierle and Cayford, 2002).
1.4 Contribution to the Planning Literature
The thesis adds to the increasing amount of research and literature on communicative planning. It contributes to these works by analyzing the outcome of communicative planning processes. Analyses of the outcome of communicative participation processes are in limited 9
supply. It also provides a case study of a sustainable urban development process and product that increases knowledge about sustainable development, and contributes to that literature. Additionally, the thesis contributes to the action research literature by providing reflection on planning practice, while it also draws on other methods (document analysis and participant observer methods). While it is not primarily a theory-based work, the thesis makes a contribution to communicative action theory by analyzing a case study that puts communicative action theory into practice. The analysis of communicative participation helps to test the theory of communicative action in planning by grounding it in an empirical case. It also contributes to the growing literature that contains recommendations for improving planning practice. The thesis begins by considering the theoretical backdrop of the thesis: communicative participation.
10
CHAPTER 2: COMMUNICATIVE PARTICIPATION: COMMUNICATIVE ACTION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING
2.0 Introduction
This chapter begins by discussing the planning theorists, Forester, Innes and others, who apply communicative action theory to the day-to-day practice of planning. It then turns to a direct consideration of Habermas theories, especially communicative action theory. This is followed by a consideration of the philosophical, sociological, and planning theorist critiques of communicative action theory. The focus then shifts to a discussion of the promises and limitations of public participation. The policy community, including a framework for the interest groups involved, and a policy cycle model are then laid out. A discussion of the local political economy precedes a consideration of various approaches to power and ideology. The chapter concludes by outlining the criteria employed to analyze the process of the SeFC case study. Communicative participation, participation in which all participants arrive at mutual understanding regarding the substantive and normative issues that they are addressing in the planning process, is a concept derived from a synthesis of communicative action theory and certain aspects of public participation theory. This concept evolves throughout the following discussion. Out of communicative action and public participation theory and the literature on sustainable development flow a set of criteria common to both public participation and sustainable development which creates part of the analytical framework for the thesis. These criteria share many of the same principles as Habermas communicative action theory.
2.1 Progressive Planning and Communicative Action Theory
There are planning theorists that point to communicative action theory as a paradigm shift in planning. This may be a case of making a claim for the importance of communicative action in
11
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
planning, which did not show much concern with communication in planning, in an attempt to raise its theoretical profile. Planning was traditionally, primarily focused on rational, or technical approaches. In the 1960s and 1970s this approach shifted somewhat towards advocacy planning. In the period from the 1970s to the present there have been scholars that accessed political economy to analyze planning (e.g. Lauria, 1995). Other scholars have stressed the importance of the spatial, and image-based aspects of planning (e.g. Jones, 2000; and Neuman, 2000). A significant strand of contemporary planning theory is focusing on post-modern conceptions of planning which highlight exclusion and cultural difference (e.g. Umemoto, 2001; and Sandercock, 1998). Some planning scholars argue that sustainable development offers a new direction for broad visionary planning (e.g. Berke, 2002). Rather than viewing these multiple approaches as a sign of confusion and conflict over the theory of planning, which is certainly present, it could be viewed as a signifier of diversity in planning. As a metaphor from the biological sciences, diversity is an indicator of health and vigour. These various strands provide an array of material, which may allow for an interesting synthesis of approaches, or are productive in that the dialectics between these multiple approaches helps to move planning theory forward. While this thesis argues that the strengths of communicative action are many, it does not seek to deny the potent arguments brought forward by other approaches. Communicative action has clearly arisen as a major strand of planning theory. Judith Innes (1995) and John Forester (1989), for example, are two planning theorists who draw on Habermas theories in an attempt to re-conceptualize the practice of planning by basing it on communicative action. This thesis argues that valid public participation processes should be based on the communicative action theory that Habermas (1995) has laid out. Planning theorists such as Innes and Forester delineate criteria for communicative action processes. As conceived of by Habermas, these processes must be inclusive, consensus must be reached by all participants, and the discourse must be authentic (participants must not knowingly misrepresent their positions, their claims must be truthful). Planners, the areas that they plan, and the bureaucracies that they are nested in, or that planners rely upon to implement plans and programs, are not
12
machines. These entities are made up of people with different perspectives who often compete or negotiate amongst themselves over their roles, functions, and the most effective ways of planning. Forester (1989) conceives of planning practice as communicative action. As the decision-maker or planner faces a situation which is increasingly open to the system, or society, the planners practical strategy moves from optimizing (the rational-comprehensive position) to satisficing, and lowering expectations (the cognitive limits model); networking, searching and satisficing (the socially differentiated model); bargaining, incremental planning, and adjustment based on monitoring (the negotiation, pluralist-based model); and anticipating, counteracting, organizing and democratizing (the structurally focused, political economic, neo-Marxist model) (Forester, 1989). These two latter approaches, pluralist and neo-Marxist, mix and merge to describe the amount of conflict and competition amongst interest groups (Pross, 1992). They also point out the structural nature of power and inequality present in contemporary, urban human settlements (cities) and this, arguably, applies to Vancouver. These structural inequalities play themselves out in the struggles over which areas of the City will accept more density and growth, and who will benefit from growth, a central part of the planning story for Southeast False Creek (SeFC). Neo-Marxist and pluralist approaches are discussed below. Communicative action theorists focus on processes where planners have created innovative, participant-based, consensus building processes. Innes notes that Habermas spells out a process for learning and deciding that bears a close resemblance to such practices and which provides principles for managing those processes, such as assuring representation of all major points of view, equalizing information among group members, and creating conditions within the group so that the force of argument can be the deciding factor rather than an individuals power outside the group (1995, p. 187). Habermas (1995) termed this form of social learning communicative rationality. Forester (1989) recommends that progressive planners and decision makers engage in communicative action to organize the community and democratize policy making processes. 13
Before options and choices can be considered, a good sense of what is at stake, who is participating, what is involved, to whom and to what we need to pay attention, must be constructed. Forester (1999) lucidly points out that:
We must try to recognize difference and listen carefully, presuming neither that differences of experience, class, gender, or race, for example, must be unbridgeable and mutually incomprehensible nor that some perfect intersubjectivity will ensure equally perfect understanding, (p. 40) Here Forester is alluding to two strains of contemporary planning theory: postmodernist theory which argues that differences between people in society are paramount and seemingly insurmountable, and narrow communicative action theory which does not acknowledge that communicative action is an ideal. Difference amongst people (on the bases of class, gender, race, sexual orientation) is important. The most effective way to incorporate postmodernist concerns regarding difference is through communicative participation. Communicative participation is defined as discourse amongst participants in a process where they come to mutually understand each other through the social learning which occurs during inclusive, extensive processes. These processes, as we shall see, are also central to sustainable development processes. It is also important to keep in mind, as Habermas himself has indicated, that communicative action is an ideal. Critics have used this in attempts to try and dismiss communicative action as impossible to achieve in practice; however, the same arguments were used at one time to dismiss notions of justice. Justice is also an ideal, yet few people would want to deny its importance. The subtle practical gains that deliberative processes can provide are often easily missed in processes that regularly occur in the face of conflict, with great amounts of distrust present. Forester (1999) notes that some sophisticated accounts in political science often gloss over or fail to reveal the transformation of interests and social learning that can occur in these processes. These more superficial accounts would miss phenomena, such as double loop learning where the participants own assumptions shift during the process (Alexander, 1994). Many planners and
14
designers shape dialogic spaces as much as they shape and create physical spaces, in the many meetings (both public and internal), charettes, and review sessions that they are involved in. It is significant that Forester notes that these deliberative processes are not necessarily positive. They can inspire public imagination, and give life to the aspirations of many, or they can lead to cynicism and a reduction in the visionary capacities of the public. The lack of hope on the part of active citizens that Forester is pointing to here can be very corrosive. For if citizens become cynical of the opportunities for participation that are available to them, it wears away at the foundations of democratic institutions. In order for deliberative planning to be effective, attention must be paid to both the substantive issues and the relationships that link the participants in the process (Forester, 1999). If planners and designers are to create and maintain spaces for deliberation, they must have the emotional and intellectual strength to listen to strongly held, often conflicting viewpoints. They need to listen, question, and use a multitude of methods to separate the chaff of rhetoric from the wheat of deeply held, valid, deeper concerns. A further challenge for deliberative planners is the fact that they must play multiple roles simultaneously in these processes. They must provide knowledge in their areas of expertise, while as mediators they need to listen and foster creative solutions; as negotiators they are required to defend certain positions; and as organizers they must desigi, run, and create relevant products from public participation, and decision-making processes. Deliberative planning can require an inordinate amount of time. In one of the practice stories that John Forester (1999) describes, for instance, it took two hundred meetings for the planner to convince the local government that they had to consider the whole infrastructure (both physical and social) if they were to increase the attraction of their City for tourism. These stories of deliberative practice often reveal that there are no quick technical fixes to planning issues (especially regarding sustainability), and it is often a slow process (which may actually, at least in the case of SeFC, increase sustainability). These practice stories also highlight what Forester has lucidly pointed out: Politics involves not only the distribution of who gets what, but also, and more profoundly, the capacity to act, including crucially peoples imagination of 15
I can..., or I cant..., We can..., or We cant.. (Forester, 1999, p. 72). These processes are inherently political, and often riven by power (Forester, 1989). In the case of SeFC, for instance, the I cant was reflected by some planners stating that some actions were too political,or ran counter to the implicit imperatives of local political, and economic elites. Communicative participation which is based on consensus building requires many meetings (perhaps hundreds) to reach shared understanding, and the results of these processes are very practical (Forester, 1999). This was certainly the case for the SeFC policy-making process (there were twenty-two meetings of the Advisory Group alone during the limited period of the case study). In these negotiated learning processes the planner is often an interested party, a facilitator, and a process organizer simultaneously, while also learning and growing through the process as a participant. In SeFC, for instance, the planners facilitated many public meetings, mediated amongst interest groups and other departments in City Hall, and represented the City as the major landowner in the planning area. These communicative participation processes are symbiotic (Rocha, 1997; and Environment Canada, 1975). Top down education occurs, alongside or intermingled with bottom up education. Although this symbiosis often occurs, it is not always the case. Margerum (2002b) found that many government participants view their role as providing expertise, and technical advice, rather than engaging in a symbiotic, two-way interactive exchange of knowledge and information. These processes seldom take place in a linear and stable fashion as the context or situation is constantly changing. As the situation changes, the plans must also change. Local planning subcommittees or processes such as the one involved in SeFC, while they occur all the time, are unique in that they provide a microcosm for studying and evaluating public participation and communicative participation. In these communicative, deliberative processes participants should have room to argue. This enables synergistic solutions to emerge. Shared understanding, at a deeper level, does not mean being nice, it requires that practical work gets done (while people remain respectful of each other). SeFC provides a strong example of this as it is focused on the practicalities of designing policy for, and implementing sustainable urban development. 16
2.1.1 Power
While these communicative participatory, deliberative, processes may seem mundane and common, planning often takes place on a stage fraught with as many power plays as a Shakespearean, or Shavian drama. Deliberative, participatory, communicative local processes can open up, or create space, for negotiation when power is ever present, but not so entrenched as to enable unilateral decision-making. In many local planning processes in late capitalism, the developer wields a significant amount of power (Forester, 1989 and 1999; Alexander, 1994; and Gutstein, 1975). This power enables developers to present the planners, the City, and its citizens with land use maps and development plans which are narrow in scope, and allow for little room to negotiate. Participatory deliberative planning (communicative participation) can greatly increase the space, in such situations, for symbiotic social learning, synergy, and the innovative solutions required to move towards sustainable urban development. Some planning scholars have noted the lack of attention paid to issues of power in both the planning literature and in practice. Flyvberg (2002) joins Friedmann in criticizing planning research and theory for being ambivalent about power. They both assert that approaches to planning have been too normative, too focused on what theorists and researchers would like to see happen in the practice of planning, rather than what is actually happening in the Planning Department and politics. This thesis places a communicative participation planning process in its political context. As Flyvberg rightly points out, power often ignores or designs knowledge at its convenience (2002, p. 355). A discussion of the political economic context of the SeFC case study analyzes the manner in which power played a role in this specific case. In terms of the practice of planning, planners often fail to acknowledge that they wield significant power in planning processes and policy and implementation outcomes, or plans. Innes and Booher observe that planners and others who assist policy-making processes typically do not recognize the power they do have or the ways they can play significant parts in producing valued outcomes for 17
society (2002, p.222). The planners and others that were interviewed were asked directly about issues of power, both economic and administrative (see Results of Research II). An emergent concep t is being discussed in the planning literature: network power. Innes and Booher (2002) describe network power as the ability of community-based organizations, and individuals, to influence City agencies and change local government policy through a highly networked community sector (sometimes referred to as the third sector, preceded by the administrative and economic sectors). While this concept ignores those who are marginalized, or lie outside of these networks, it is none the less important to recognize the possibility of this kind of power to have an influence on planning processes. The concept of community capacity (outlined in the social sustainability section) incorporates network power and what is primarily conceived o f in the literature as social capital (Fien and Skoien, 2002). The significance of community capacity in communicative planning processes, and especially sustainable urban development processes is taken into account in the analysis of the SeFC cas e, where network power played a prominent role in moving the process towards sustainability. Forester (1999) notes that in communicative participation planning processes it is very important for planners and participants to tell their stories. This form of storytelling is significant in that it fosters relationships between the participants which allows for reasonable differences, and civil, but not cold or unemotional, argument. These stories act to disclose and reveal concerns, and character as well. These stories may encourage the participants to come up with new demands (such as, calling for car-free development to address both ecological and social issues, as described in the sustainability section). In most planning situations, especially those dealing with sustainability, participants often have limited information and expertise. In these circumstances, or in sustainability deliberations (fraught with complexity, and many intersecting ecological, economic, ideological, and sociological factors) the planners carefully related stories of their concerns can raise options beyond any of those originally imagined by the participants.
18
Forester (1999, pp.83-84) sums up the challenges of communicative participation by raising five points:
1) process design, and political and institutional design are barely discussed in the planning literature, these processes need to be carefully structured to create the space for public deliberation and argument, and transformative learning;
2) consensus building and mediated negotiations are characterized by their politically deliberative nature and the often greater amount of time required to successfully complete the process (this must be firmly grasped to avoid falling into narrowly pragmatic deal making);
3) the overlapping skills of negotiation, mediation, facilitation, and consensus building are in demand in planning contexts which are fraught with conflict;
4) thoughtfully designed deliberative discussions are realistically possible (if not essential) in adversarial contexts; and
5) the process and product are inextricably intertwined and are based on a range of practical considerations that come into play in real cases.
Regarding Foresters last observation, this is certainly the case in the SeFC policy-making and decision-making process. In terms of his first point, emphasis is placed on process design and this empirical work considers both the policy-making process and the decision-making process that occurred in the SeFC case study. Forester (1989, and 1999), Innes (1995) and other planning theorists have based their notions of communicative action primarily on the concepts of consensus, inclusion, fairness, and authenticity which Jurgen Habermas has outlined in his work on communicative action theory 19
and discourse ethics. In order to more fully understand the basis of this theory, we will now turn to a discussion of his theory, including some of the main critiques that have been raised by other planning theorists and sociologists. The discussion is based on Habermas earlier work on communicative action theory, as this was the theory that communicative action planning theorists drew upon when they adapted it to the study and practice of planning. This discussion is necessary as some theorists have weighed in with arguments that may be based on partial interpretations of Habermas work.
2.2 The Philosophical Roots of Communicative Action
Communicative action (CA) is defined by Habermas as a type of action in which the actors are oriented to validity claims (1995, p.44) and the participants coordinate their plans of action consensually, with the agreement reached at any point being evaluated in terms of the intersubjective recognition of validity claims (1995, p. 58). Validity claims, or truth claims are one of the key mechanisms of argumentation for normative discourses. These discourses are central to planning which is necessarily concerned with determining what future actions society should pursue (hopefully, based on some consideration of the public good). Habermas (1995) argues that collective learning which advances communicative rationality can lead to ethical progress. If planners are to engage in progressive planning practice (Forester, 1989) some concept of ethical progress based on the public good is required. Communicative action and communicative participation, which is a necessary but not sufficient precursor to CA, provide promising means for defining the public good in complex, controversial planning situations such as those dealing with sustainable urban development. For communicative action to have occurred there must be an action taken, a plan implemented, which aids people in regaining some degree of control of an aspect of their lives (or Lifeworlds). Habermas theory of society analyzes instrumental or strategic action (action oriented towards success with objects) and communicative action (action based on the achievement of 20
shared understanding). In Habermas philosop hical paradigm knowledge is ultimately dependent on subject-subject relations versus subject-object relations (Cartesian, logical positivism). Habermas (1995) has argued for a much longer, extensive and broader form of rationality. He argues that norms (or the normative) can also be a subject of rational discourse. That rational discourse is not limited to objective phenomena alone. For Habermas being human is bound up with a certain use of language which occurs in an ideal speech situation. It is important to keep in mind the fact that it is an ideal. Habermas also acknowledges this when he notes that argumentative speech is considered as a process and that we have to make do with a form of communication that is improbable in that it sufficiently approximates ideal conditions (1984, p.25). Fundamentally an ideal speech situation leads to consensus (deep or true) which is compulsion-free. Habermas (1984) posits that:
Participants in argumentation have to presuppose in general that the structure of their communication excludes all force -whether it arises from within the process of reaching understanding itself or influences it from outside- except the force of the better argument (and thus that it also excludes, on their part, all motives except that of a cooperative search for the truth). From this perspective argumentation can be conceived as a reflective continuation, with different means o f action oriented to reaching understanding, (p. 25) This has raised many concerns amongst critics of Habermas who argue, somewhat validly, but perhaps a little too vehemently, that he discounts the importance of economic power and political influence. However, his concern with the colonization of the lifeworld underscores the fact that Habermas is very cognizant of the inequalities in power and influence amongst participants. Three other criteria that Habermas delineates for communicative action processes are a broad inclusion of participants (the inclusion principle), a transparency of that process (the transparency principle), and extensive or exhaustive processes (the continuance principle). Regarding this form of communicative discourse, for example, Habermas (1984) states that:
21
I shall speak of discourse only when the meaning of the problematic validity claim conceptually forces participants to suppose that a rationally motivated agreement could in principle be achieved, whereby the phrase in principle expresses the idealizing proviso: if only the argumentation could be conducted openly enough and continued long enough, (p. 42) According to Flyvbjerg (2000), Habermas lays out five procedural criteria for reaching mutual understanding (consensus) in a discourse or an ideal speech situation:
1) All those affected by the substantive topics under discussion should be included (the inclusion principle); 2) Every participant in the discourse should be enabled to raise and critique validity claims on an equal footing (the equality of opportunity principle); 3) Participants should be able to understand each others validity claims and deeply empathize with each others interests (intersubjective mutual understanding); 4) Inequalities in power and influence must be left outside of the discourse to enable participants to engage in full and free deliberation (power impartiality); and 5) Participants must not rely on strategic action (discursive practices where participants interests and aims are covert)(the transparency principle), (p. 213) Habermas criteria flow through to sets of criteria utilized by communicative action-based planning theorists such as Forester and Innes. They are also similar to the Canadian National Round Table on the Environment and the Economys ten principles for building consensus for a sustainable future (see Appendix II). Habermas, Innes and the Canadian National Round Tables criteria were drawn upon, adapted, and added to other criteria that flowed from the literature review (see Section 2.8). To further comprehend Habermas concern with power, it is necessary to consider two key concepts: the lifeworld and the colonisation of the lifeworld.
22
2.2.1 The Lifeworld
Communicative action (CA) draws on explicit knowledge; however, it occurs in a context of an enormous fund of implicit, taken for granted notions that greatly influence the interpretation of what Habermas terms: the Lifeworld. Habermas (1984) introduces the concept of the Lifeworld as:
The correlate of processes of reaching understanding. Subjects acting communicatively always come to an understanding in the horizon of a lifeworld. Their lifeworld is formed from more or less diffuse, always unproblematic, background convictions. This lifeworld serves as a source of situation definitions that are presupposed by participants as unproblematic, (p.70) Actors in society cannot become conscious of the Lifeworld as a whole and sum it up by a series of neat propositions. Behind each horizon of understanding lies another horizon. We draw on our common Lifeworld to seek shared understanding about something in the objective, social, or subjective worlds. As active (or passive) agents in the Lifeworld we harmonize our plans of action on the basis of a common definition of the situation. The stock of knowledge provided by the Lifeworld serves as a resource to help frame this common definition. The Lifeworld is arrived at through consensus, which is achieved through discourse, the ideal speech situation. Communicative action defines and delineates the Lifeworld in societies where the Lifeworld is not colonised by the subsystems, the administrative state and the economic system (which are both increasingly dominated by corporate power). Habermas conceives of CA as sustaining and continuing the Lifeworld in which it occurs. Therefore, it is much more than a process of reaching agreement on claims referring to the
objective, social, and inner worlds (Brand, 1990). It is, importantly, an activity in which
socialized subjects, when participating in cooperative processes of interpretation, themselves employ the concept of the world in an implicit way (Habermas, 1984; p. 82). One could argue that though the concepts of the world, or worldviews are implicit, participants in discourse often 23
refer explicitly to the world as they see it, including the Lifeworld. This has great relevance in consensus-based sustainability discourses as ones worldview often predetermines ones range of options of social, environmental, and economic solutions. Communicative participation provides an ongoing discourse in which participants are able to examine their previously taken-for-granted assumptions, ideologies, and worldviews. This does not mean that participants necessarily change their assumptions, however, they do come to understand how to plan and work with those who have different assumptions. The difference between the Lifeworld and worldview is best explained by comparing the difference between types of terms. For example, a Lifeworld term would be the concept of justice, whereas a term drawn from a worldview would be social justice, for an actor with a progressive worldview, or coercive justice (increased policing and courts) for an actor with a conservative worldview. Both worldviews embrace the Lifeworld concept of justice, they each view justice in a different manner, and pursue different means to achieve it.
2.2.2 The Adminstrative and Economic System
Habermas (1984) argues that contemporary society is economically constituted and based on class. Through the framework of the politically stratified class society goods and markets emerge which are coordinated through the medium of money. Money, and the power it can bestow, can have a structurating effect on the whole of society when the economy splits off from the political order. Thus reorganizations of the state can be induced by the economic subsystem (or now with globalization -supra-system). The economic subsystem employs the medium of money to de-politicize the economic subsystem (economic planning and issues are increasingly removed from the political realm) and remove it from a normative context (or away from effective democratic regulation). The administrative state becomes dependent on the economic subsystem as it requires resources to carry out its functions. In the context of local politics in Vancouver, 24
for instance, this was played out in the reliance of the party that was governing during the policy-making phase of the SeFC process on the corporate business and developer class for election funding and, to a lesser degree, recruitment. The so-called Non-Partisan Association (NPA) relies heavily on corporations and other business interests for election funding (see section 4.5) and draws its representatives, for the most part, from the business community. Money and power allow the coming about of subsystems (economic and political) which become increasingly independent of the Lifeworld. In other words, the subsystems are increasingly free from democratic guidance. These subsystems can only function properly on the basis of codified, bourgeois civil law (Habermas, 1995; and Brand, 1990). Paradoxically they also rely on the Lifeworld for this codified law, which is only made possible by the universalization entailed by its rationalisation (through democratic conventions such as legislatures and other decision-making fora). These forms of integration: the state (power) and the market (money) drop out of language as agreement over these matters increasingly occurs behind the backs of actors rather than through a process of reaching shared understanding (in an exchange of explicit, and criticizable validity claims). In Habermas conceptual framework, the distinction between abstract norms and principles versus concrete values and forms of life becomes increasingly evident and more clear. This is significant in that the subsystems of rational action (the government and the market) form and split off from the Lifeworld. The emergence and institutionalization of the market depends on legal developments that codify the protection of property and contracts by law. Belief in legitimacy forms the basis upon which the origination of institutionalized governing rests. The System becomes increasingly norm-free and delinguistified. Language is used as a means of goal-rational communication rather than for the coordination of action through the exchange of validity claims, or communicative action (Habermas, 1984; and Brand, 1990). In a planning process, for instance, the issue may be framed as one of development that serves the interests of 25
those with direct economic interest in development (development, real estate, and construction firms). This agenda is a given at the outset of the planning process, rather than relying on communicative participation to determine what is the best plan to follow at the time for the whole community, or society. The independence of these new subsystems (market: money; and power: state) becomes so great that they can no longer be controlled from the Lifeworld. They are free from democratic control. Limited and distorted communication must be systematically applied to keep the relevant economic and administrative functions latent (functions such as capital accumulation) and leaves the majority of the actors unaware of these functions (Forester, 1989, and Brand, 1990). This occurs in local development processes when the broader public is given short notice of developments or significant changes to policy, while those with economic power are in the know about these issues. In SeFC, for example, the dominance of narrow economic sustainability was bolstered by the lack of attention paid to the many pressing issues of social sustainability (social justice issues such as affordable housing; and deep and broad public participation). Also, the economically interested parties often had much greater access to information, or they were engaged in generating information that they did not freely share with all participants.
2.2.3 The Colonization of the Lifeworld
The Systems rationalization relies, at first, on the Lifeworld. However, at this stage of late capitalism, through colonization the System becomes destructive to the Lifeworld. This colonization is not inevitable. The analysis of the colonization of the Lifeworld takes up a central position in Habermas CA theory. Here Habermas set out to clarify the manner in which the critique of reification, or of rationalisation (the postmodern critique) could be reassembled to offer both an explanation of the decay of the welfare state compromise, and the critical potential found in the new movements (social and ecological), without discarding modernity or 26
embracing post or anti-modernism (Hasson and Ley, 1994; and Brand, 1990). Habermas conceives of these social movements as arising at the seam between system and life world in order to foster the revitalization of buried possibilities for expression and communication (Habermas quoted in Hasson and Ley, 1994, p. 16). These social movements can organize, and foster communicative participation. Communicative participation can aid in democratizing the subsystems by going beyond basic representative routines, such as voting. The case study and the thesis provide examples of new movement groups and their attempts to increase communicative participation in local urban planning processes. Habermas defines reification as referring to the process in which the System (through the functional conditions of its reproduction) undermines the rational foundations of communicative action in the Lifeworld. Through money and power the economy and the state infiltrate the Lifeworld and destroy communicative processes. The system distorts these communicative processes where they are the most vital: in cultural reproduction (the media, films, and literature), social integration (planning and other political processes), and socialization (education and family life). With regard to the latter, family includes all types of family including single-headed households. Through analysis based on system theory one can gain access to functional relations in a relatively objective manner (Habermas, 1984; and Brand, 1990). This contrasts with his concept of the Lifeworld, which is based on a performative attitude (direct participation). As a result of this the distinctive nature of communicative processes can only be perceived from the perspective of a participant in a certain Lifeworld. Habermas argues that only this two-pronged approach can explain social phenomena. This study adapts Habermas two-level approach by analyzing the communicative processes in the case study as a participant observer (triangulated by interviews, and documents) and by employing political economy to frame the politicaleconomic context, or planning surround (Abbott, 1996).
27
2.3 Limitations of Communicative Action Theory
Communicative action theory as outlined by Habermas, as is the case with many theories, is not free from difficulties. This section briefly outlines the philosophical objections to Habermas theory, considers a sociological critique, and then turns to planning theorists critiques of communicative action theory.
2.3.1 Philosophical Critiques
There is not sufficient space and time to engage in a thorough discussion of the more than 20 year debate that has surrounded Habermas communicative action theory. Here, in brief, are several critiques that other philosophers have raised. Schnadelbach (in Honneth and Joas, 1991) has raised three main criticisms of communicative action theory:
1) A theory of rationality may not be supported by referring to the quality of action-related knowledge, such as communicative discourses;
2) The internal relationship that Habermas establishes between understanding and evaluating linguistic utterances is questionable; and
3) The term Lifeworld is used ambiguously (the Lifeworld is introduced from the participants perspective, and then it is reintroduced from a systems perspective) (Honneth and Joas, 1991; and Brand, 1990).
As Habermas is attempting to refute the radical relativism of the postmodern critics, it is consistent for his communicative action theory to attempt to create a theory of rationality that is based on both speech and subsequent action. This theory allows a researcher scope to attempt to 28
understand and make sense of participants assertions in a communicative policy-making process. Even if this type of understanding and evaluation is questionable, it provides an heuristic device which goes beyond quantitative methods, and it holds promise for rendering a fuller description than analysis of documents alone can provide. Schnadelbach rightly notes Habermas ambiguous use of the term Lifeworld. However, in attempting to conceive of large systems and backgrounds a certain amount of ambiguity would seem inevitable. Consider the unspecified use of the term public, which often occurs in the social sciences without any effort to define what is meant by the term. This ambiguity stems from Habermas ambitious merging of communications theory and systems theory to provide the rationale for communicative action theory. By introducing systems theory Habermas includes considerations of power (political and economic) which many critics have falsely accused him of ignoring. Other philosophers have noted that Habermas theory of system and Lifeworld is only a one way conception. Berger (in Honneth and Joas, 1991), for instance, notes that Habermas colonization of the Lifeworld ignores the fact that Lifeworld orientations could also intrude into spheres of purposive-rational action or the spheres of the economic and administrative subsystems (i.e. the democratization of the workplace)(Brand, 1990). Rather than refuting communicative action theory, one could argue that this observation shores it up, as it points out that democratization, or increased communicative participation can be an effective strategy in returning the economic subsystems to some degree of democratic control. Joas (1991) considers Habermas conception of the Lifeworld and system as problematic as the concept of the Lifeworld is given both a communications theory and an epistemological thrust (the Lifeworld through language provides a reservoir of knowledge and pre-understanding). Given the latter, Habermas is certainly not alone in arguing that language provides the basis for our epistemology, or our systems of knowledge. From Habermas conception of the public sphere, it is important to note that he includes discourse which is conducted through journals (Habermas, 1993). There are many more philosophical critiques of Habermas communicative action theory, and lengthy rebuttals from Habermas as well, however, these lie beyond the scope of this thesis. 29
2.3.2 A Sociological Critique
Nancy Fraser (1991) has raised a valid critique of communicative action theory from a feminist perspective. A theory which relies so extensively on discourse is not sufficient to overcome societal inequalities such as those based on gender, race, and class. Fraser asserts that declaring a deliberative arena to be a space where extant status distinctions are bracketed and neutralized is not sufficient to make it so (1991, p. 115). Fraser notes that while Habermas theory of the public sphere is required for critical social theory, he does not address these issues of difference very well, if at all. Practitioners of communicative action, particularly facilitators, and especially open space learning practitioners, have developed many imaginative methods for dealing with these important differences in deliberative processes. However, these processes should not be viewed as a panacea for all social ills and inequalities. They should be viewed as one set of intellectual tools in a larger workshop of methods that will foster progressive planning (Forester, 1989). The struggles which occur away from the table are as important as the discourse at the table, and Habermas has also noted the importance of social movements (Hasson and Ley, 1994). In an earlier work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas (1993) traces the development of the bourgeois public sphere. He conceives of this sphere as private people who have congregated as a public. This public sphere claimed to regulate from above against the public authorities themselves (the monarch, under absolutism, and parliament in constitutional monarchies). Habermas argues that this bourgeois public sphere emerged to engage in debate, based on reason, with the public authorities concerning the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labour (1993, p. 27). He also argues that the peoples public use of their reason in this political confrontation was peculiar and without historical precedent. This concept of the public sphere is central to Habermas communicative action theory and it likely provides the 30
background for what he later conceived of as the Lifeworld. It is similar to the Lifeworld in that it functions on the basis of mutual understanding reached through discourse.
2.3.3 Planning Theorist Critics
Although some planning theorists have heralded communicative action as providing a paradigm shift for planning, many planning scholars have noted shortcomings with Habermas theory. For instance, Skollerhom lays some of these out as: a contradiction concerning the choice of approach in empirical studies; a neglect of ecocentrism; Habermas personal bias towards technology and economics in environmental issues; a lack of ideas about how social learning spreads; and a neglect of the irreversible effects on nature caused even by truly democratic decisions (1998, p. 561). In terms of the latter criticism, it is valid to note that democratic decisions are made daily to increase the construction of roadways, and implement other energy intensive, pollution creating activities, which lead away from sustainability. Regarding the first of these difficulties, Skollerhom notes that uneven power distribution is caused by the uneven distribution of resources in the economy. These power distortions are then transferred to political institutions when they are created, and all debates occur within the parameters laid down by these power distortions (Skollerhom, 1998). Forester (1989) delineates strategies where progressive planners can work to democratize these processes and counter these power distortions or misinformation. These strategies are to democratize, or increase the publics participation in planning or policy-making in situations that are more open to society. There are planning theorists that raise substantial critiques of communicative action theory in planning based on its lack of attention to issues of power (Neuman, 2000; Flyvberg, 2000, 1998; and Huxley, 2000). Flyvberg (2002, 1998), for instance, conducted a case study in Aalborg on transportation planning that found a disproportionate amount of power was wielded by that Citys business interests. Flyvberg (2002, 1998) cites Foucaults consideration of power and calls for power to be brought more firmly into planning research. As was noted above in the 31
discussion of Habermas communicative action theory, Habermas does take power into consideration by delineating the effects of the system (administrative and economic) on the Lifeworld. Flyvbergs critique, however, is accurate in that communicative action theory in planning has tended to gloss over the difficulties of power inequalities inherent in contemporary planning processes. Fischler (2000), however, notes that there are areas of agreement and disagreement between communicative action planning theorists and planning theorists with a Foucaldian approach. Both types of theorists agree that discourse must be understood as a practice worthy of analysis. The Foucaldian approach, however, seeks to place the planning discourse in an historical context. Fischler (2000) asserts that:
Foucault would find much to his liking in the writing of communicative action theorists. Yet, at the same time, he would raise the stakes for them: He would expect them to situate planning practice more firmly in its historical context and to evaluate more openly the cost that we have to pay for the adoption of communicative rationality in planning, (p. 359) By placing emphasis on both the geographical and political economic context of the SeFC case study, this thesis strives to analyze a communicative participation process in its historical context. Foucauldian planning theory differs from a communicative action theory approach in that it places more emphasis on what creates speakers mental and social universe rather than their specific utterances in the planning discourse (Fischler, 2000). Innes, a leading proponent of the communicative approach to planning takes a Foucauldian turn by arguing that participants problem definitions and assumptions are more important than their specific utterances. This is a valid argument, the difficulty is that it is problematic to discern participants assumptions and framing of problems except by inference based on their backgrounds, current role(s) in the planning situation, and their utterances. This thesis attempts to take these factors into account in the analysis of the case study.
32
Another potent critique of communicative action theory, found in both the planning and public participation literature, is that it has political costs in that it may be viewed as undermining representative democracy and state intervention (Fischler, 2000; and Sharp, 2002). Communicative action theory should be seen as one approach among several to help formulate plans, programs, and policy. It could be considered as a means to strengthen representative democracy. In Vancouver, for instance, the Citys recently elected, progressive mayor is using public forums to discuss issues outside of the narrowly-bounded confines of the public hearing/meeting process at City Hall with its one-way discourse, and very constrained time limits, in order to hear all views. A pressing issue for communicative planning theory is that of representation within a process. Participants are often selected for a communicative planning process on the basis of their ability to represent their community, or sector. Abram (2000) critiques the nature of this representation in communicative participation processes on the basis that it is founded on notions of a homogeneous community, and that those who speak in either their own interests, or in the interest of the greater good (the environment, or animal welfare) are not granted a voice in the public sphere. In response to claims of a homogeneous community the selection of participants in a process should, ideally, reflect the cultural diversity present in the community. While this presents many challenges for communicative planning practitioners, planning scholars such as Karen Umemoto (2001) are adding the concern with the challenges of communicating across culture-based epistemologies and soliciting the voices of multiple publics into the communicative action discourse. Regarding the exclusion of those who participate to speak in their own interests, unfortunately, in many planning processes this actually occurs too often. This points to a salient critique of communicative participation: that it can be misused by narrow self-serving interests to actually exclude those with less economic and administrative power. Berke (2002) notes that there is considerable evidence that often citizens of affluent neighbourhoods, in the United States, have increasingly been fostering participatory processes in order to exclude housing 33
opportunities for the poor and people of colour in their neighbourhoods. Citizen participation planner Randy Hester argues that today participatory design is more likely to be used to preserve the quality of life for affluent and powerful citizens than to fight poverty and environmental racism (Hester, 1996 as quoted in Berke, 2002, p. 24). While this definitely may be the case at times in communicative planning processes, Berke (2002) also points out that communicative participation worked to empower both the poor and people of colour during the 1960s and 1970s in the United States. Those with affluence and power may also be more well-connected to those in power to effect the same types of narrow self-serving ends in a non-participatory planning process. In these types of representative processes those with economic power may have greater influence over decision makers. At least communicative participation can open up the discourse to a wider array of participants. A careful selection of participants in a communicative process should aim to include those who are most marginalized in a meaningful and productive manner. Regarding the exclusion of those who represent the greater good, such as ecological issues, many members of the new social movements call for more participatory processes. In the case of SeFC those representing ecological issues were given a significant opportunity to participate. While it is acknowledged that these greater good voices are often organized out, it should be noted that this is not always the case. Another critique of communicative action is that it does not take into account the spatial nature of planning (Jones, 2000; and Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000), and that it does not analyze, or use images sufficiently, as it is too text-based (Neuman, 2000). The former may be true during the policy-making phase of planning, though not always. In the SeFC case, for instance, the City of Vancouver ran an exclusive design charette, which was closed to participants on the Advisory Group. These early images of the site helped to move the process forward. In the case of the latter, the images generated by workshops, design studios, and design charettes should be analyzed. Examples of these are included in the thesis and are discussed somewhat. However, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to engage in an in-depth analysis of these images. This type of 34
image analysis should be part of future research on communicative participation in sustainable urban development. Others have asserted that Habermas has abstracted away from the participants individual concrete identities to such an extent that his approach annuls differences (of identities and values) between people (Hillier, 1998). These critics (some of whom are predisposed to communicative action theory) argue that by bracketing difference to create more equal relations amongst participants Habermas is actually entrenching the very inequalities that his approach is attempting to address. These critics tend to view Habermas communicative action theory as simply advocating a large-scale, power disregarding, debating club. However, contrary to what these critics argue, Habermas does not picture society as a Targe scale debating club. His consideration of administrative power and economic power (discussed above) is often disregarded by those who want to simplify his theories or to dismiss them (Flyvberg, 1998; and Friedmann, 1987). Friedmann, for instance, considers Habermas theory of communicative action to be the ideal of a graduate university seminar, though for Habermas it decries the conditions of the perfect polity (1987, p. 267). This is interesting as Friedmann himself advocates the use of dialogic processes for the social mobilization area of planning theory that he outlines. Habermas conceives of communicative action as a means to deal with inequalities in power and influence. He does not ignore issues of power. Furthermore, Habermas weighs and considers communications coordinating effect on subsequent action. It is future actions which Habermas is most concerned with and this makes his theories a natural fit for planning and it explains why many planning theorists have drawn on his concepts (Forester, 1989,1999; Innes 1995; and Skollerhom 1998). Specifically Habermas asks: How can communication have action-coordinating effects? The coordination of action in CA implies that there are three elements which are linked together. When a truth-claim is raised in a process the listener reacts by: 1) understanding its meaning; 2) agreeing or disagreeing with it; and 3) if there is agreement the hearer follows up with action according to the convention of
35
established action obligations (if there is disagreement the interaction can be ended or both the speaker and the listener can change their positions by entering into discourse) (Brand 1990). There is scope for democratic resistance in Habermas theoretical construct. Power requires legitimation through democratic procedures. A significant tension, however, exists between democracy and capitalism (Forester, 1989). This tension cannot disappear because both systems correlate to different forms of integration. Implicit in democracy is the primacy of the Lifeworld, based on the public sphere, and integration is conducted through communicative action. Capitalism, on the other hand, requires that the subsystems (the state, and, especially the economic system) are left free to follow their internal dynamics. Thus the subsystems, are held free from legitimation requirements, even at the cost of the technification of the Lifeworld. The subsystems are left to simply carry out their functional necessities. As a result of this, room remains to organize, democratize, and return normative control of the subsystems to the Lifeworld or to citizens through democratic control (Forester, 1989; and Brand, 1990). Communicative participation may provide the means to engender democratic control of the System by citizens. Communicative participation involves processes in which participants reach mutual or shared understanding about an issue, or sets of issues. How widely shared this understanding is remains a question. In some instances it may be reached in a very narrow inter-agency process, and in others it may require broad and deep participation by the broader public. In the case of sustainable urban development, and other initiatives that rely on the participation, and support of as wide a cross section of the public as possible, communicative participation must be fostered through a process that is both deep and wide. This will encourage the symbiotic learning that is required for complex planning situations. The most significant aspect of sustainability is that it touches on so many pressing issues -social, ecological, and economic- that no single expert, or lay expert has a comprehensive understanding of it. This means that communicative participation, and synergistic solutions that will lead towards sustainable development require as broad and intense a form of public participation as possible. 36
2.4 Public Participation
Webler (1995) argues that Habermas concept of the ideal speech situation provides the rudiments of an evaluative framework for public participation. Webler has also noted that, in terms of democratic theory, popular sovereignty is very similar to Habermas assertion that validity based on communicative participation is integral to the lifeworld. Briefly, popular sovereignty emerged from Rousseaus (1967) concept of the generalised will. It is only by hearing, or establishing, what the general will is, that those who rule have legitimacy. Through the general will the people govern. Rousseau (1967), then, was seemingly advocating for participatory democracy. Habermas (1993) claims that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries participatory democracy emerged in the salons and cafe society of Western Europe. In these settings citizens became involved with the state by engaging in discourses about practical issues and the role of the state (Habermas, 1993; and Webler, 1995). Habermas (1993) points out that the public sphere, and the informal participatory democracy that took place in this public sphere, disintegrated due to expanded state intervention in the late nineteenth century. Kemp (in Webler, 1995) argues that the ideal speech situation shares the same attributes as pre disintegrated, nineteenth century British democracy: openness, impartiality, and justice (although it was a political order that excluded women and the working class). Habermas seeks to repoliticise the public sphere through communicative action in order to counter the scientisation of politics (increasing reliance on scientific and technological forms of rationality) (Webler, 1995). This re-establishment, or establishment of popular sovereignty, or more participatory democracy, emerged in quite a forceful manner in the late 1960s through calls for increased and strengthened public participation. In her seminal article, A ladder of citizen participation, Sherry R. Amstein (a chief advisor on Citizen Participation in the HUDs Model Cities Administration in the 1960s) laid 37
out a lucid typology of public participation. She asserted that citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power. Amstein (1969) argues that:
(Citizen participation) is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the strategy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs are operated, and benefits like contracts and patronage are parceled out. In short, it is the means by which they can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society, (p. 216) This is a succinct, however focused, definition of public participation and it is also a precursor to the redistribution of both power and economic benefits that form the main features of much of the social sustainability literature (discussed in the social sustainability section in Chapter 3). Amsteins (1969) ladder of participation covers both participation and non-participation. Starting with the lowest forms of non-participation and ending with what amounts to effective citizen power, here are the eight rungs of Amsteins public participation ladder: 1) manipulation, and 2) therapy (non-participation); 3) informing, 4) consultation, and 5) placation (degrees of tokenism); and 6) partnership, 7) delegated power, and 8) citizen control (degrees of citizen power). John Abbott (1996) has dealt extensively with urban community participation in community development in the South (the so-called third world). He notes that the common response in the South, with a few exceptions, was to dismiss Amsteins analysis as simplistic and paternalistic. Critics argued that community participation in the South was more complicated than a simple transfer of power from the top to the bottom. Abbott (1996) argues, however, that these critics ignored the fundamental influence that Amsteins typology has had on conceptual thinking. Firstly, by emphasizing that participation is of the governed in their government it helped to entrench the duality between the state and the community. Secondly, the typology introduced, for the first time, the conceptual basis of intensity: that people can
38
become involved in decision-making processes to varying degrees. Rocha (1997) also notes this ground-breaking concept of intensity, however, she points out that Amstein only dealt with power from the perspective of classical pluralism. This is exemplified by Dahls concept of power in which actor A wields power over actor B, when in her or his own interest, she or he influences actor B to do something that goes against actor B s own interest. Rocha (1997) asserts that there are other types of power based on empowerment theory, which are developmental in nature (such as experiences of power based on belonging to a group or organization). Amsteins conception of power can also miss the fact that synergistic solutions can sometimes work to the advantage, and interests of both actors A and B. The theory and rationale for communicative action provides strategies and criteria for creating participatory, sustainable processes for the planning of sustainable urban development. This is discussed below in the section on criteria for communicative consensus-based processes. There is a strong relationship between communicative action and public participation. Calls for more direct involvement of citizens are not new. Rousseau, for instance, as is demonstrated in the quote at the outset of this thesis, was most concerned with the participation of citizens in democracies. Draper (1978) traced the evolution of citizen participation in Canada from its roots in the 1930s to well into the 1970s. Dorcey and McDaniels (2001) have noted two significant waves of what they term citizen involvement. The first wave occurred in the 1970s and the second wave, which is consequential for the argument of this thesis occurred in the 1990s in Canada (especially British Columbia) and it involved discourses about sustainable development. The first wave was played out in the field of environmental policy-making and inplementation (including the realm of social issues, such as housing and urban renewal). During the 1970s, for instance, the emergence of the public interest lobby, which was based on communitarian theory, called for increased public participation in policy-making and decision making (Tester, 1992; and Williams and Matheny, 1995). These grassroots organizations challenged both public and private institutions by claiming that they had become too large and removed from democratic control. This is strikingly similar to Habermas conception of the 39
systems (economic power and administrative power) encroachment, or colonization of the Lifeworld. The remedy that they called for is analogous to Habermas communicative action theory: that the discourse around issues dealing with the public interest should include a much wider segment of the public. These groups coalesced around diverse issues such as consumer protection, and environmental protection (Williams and Matheny, 1995). Interest groups, at the time, were critical of what they viewed as domination of the states regulatory processes by powerful economic interest groups. They also challenged the ability o f experts, especially those working for business or government, to capture the values, and the broad range of alternatives involved in environmental protection. For instance, this was a key issue in the fight against freeway construction in Vancouver (Hasson and Ley, 1994), and local groups such as the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC; formed in 1969) were founded. SPEC is still very active, and it played a significant role in the public hearing at which Vancouvers City Council adopted the policy for a sustainable urban neighbourhood in SeFC in 1999. Local, national, and international groups remain a vibrant force to this day, and they have continued to call for broader and deeper public participation. The British Columbia Environmental Network (BCEN), for instance, lists close to 500 voluntary groups in their directory (Alexander, 1994). The BCEN group listing does not include less organized groups such as the SeFC Working Group which play a significant role in local policy formulation. Interest groups also played a significant role in establishing sustainable development on the governments agenda. Many of these groups attended the World Commission on Environment and Development hearings and made submissions to the commission when it toured Canada in the early 1980s. Following the release of the Brundtland Report {Our Common Future ) in 1987 both the federal and provincial levels of government sought to define sustainable development in efforts to create policy that would foster sustainable development. This consultation concerning sustainability marks the start of the second wave (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). The Brundtland Report asserts that the pursuit of sustainable development requires a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making (1987, p. 65). Canada 40
responded to challenges of sustainable development by engaging in consensus-based processes to define and create sustainable development policies (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). For instance, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was formed in the late 1980s as Canadas response to the Brundtland Report and growing public awareness of environmental issues. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy employed consensus techniques to address the challenges of implementing sustainable development. At the provincial level this resulted in initiatives such as the Environment Council of Albertas Future Environmental Directions for Alberta Project (1994-1995) which resulted in an educative report on implementing sustainable development which was published just before the neo-conservative government of Ralph Klein ended the mandate of the Environment Council of Alberta (EC A) in early 1995. The EC A was established during the first wave of public participation in 1970, and over its 25-year history it provided many points of public participation in environmental policy-making in Alberta. In British Columbia both the BC Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1990) and the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) (1992) were set up by the provincial government as participatory, consensus-based forums to address sustainable development and the growing conflicts over resources in the province (especially forestry, mining, and hydro-electriCity) (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). Both of these provincial initiatives were very active in attempting to reduce the increasing resource use conflicts and in producing innovative approaches to consensusbuilding processes. CORE also drafted an innovative Sustainability Act, which included public participation initiatives and alternative dispute resolution systems (Dorcey and McDaniels,
2001).
At the local level in Canada there have been very few municipalities that have acted on Local Agenda 21 (LA21). LA21 emerged out of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (a global follow-up to the Brundtland Report) that took place in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. LA21 has been adopted by many European cities, especially in Germany, Norway, and the UK. The steps in the LA21 process include a call for consulting and involving the general 41
public in order to move society towards sustainable development (O'Riordan and Voisey, 1998). In Vancouver, sustainable urban development has been addressed by relying on public participation in both the Livable Region Strategic Plan (Greater Vancouver Regional District) and the CityPlan (1993 to present) process (City of Vancouver). Both of these processes relied on broad input by the public. The Livable Region Strategic Plan, for instance, was the result of a four year public and intergovernmental consultation process. CityPlan has incorporated many forms of public participation and it has resulted in broad and deep involvement by the citizens of Vancouver (McAfee, 1997; and Riera, Fletcher, and McAfee 1993). In order to consider the many methods of public participation involved in policy-making processes it is helpful to consider a list of public participation methods. Environment Canadas Monograph on Comprehensive River Basin Planning (1975) presents an early and wide-ranging list of methods that could be employed to involve the public in decision-making. According to Environment Canadas monograph the twelve major types of public participation are: 1) surveys and public opinion polls; 2) referenda; 3) voting at the ballot box in a general election; 4) public hearings; 5) advocacy planning; 6) letters (to public officials, politicians and editors); 7) representations by interest groups; 8) protests and demonstrations; 9) court actions; 10) public meetings; 11) workshops and seminars; and 12) task forces (includes advisory committees and roundtables). With the exceptions of public opinion polls, referenda, and court actions all of these methods of public participation have been employed in the SeFC case. This list generates interest in that it includes activities that many scholars may not consider as legitimate forms of public participation, such as protests and demonstrations. It is also instructive as it includes democratic public participation, like voting, which is constitutionally mandated. Furthermore, it delineates the broad array of methods of public participation that occurs away from the deliberative process such as a roundtable or advisory committee (AC). This study relies on teasing out the claims that participants made in an Advisory Group and it also takes into account this considerable array of methods of public participation.
42
Table 2.1 Typology of Public Participation+

Democratic Model* Purpose Participants Managerialist Fact Finding Broadest Public Possible Pluralist Visioning and Goal Setting Interested Citizens Participatory Implementation Interest Groups Interested Citizens Wider Public Governments Control Engagement Influence Example of Mechanisms High Control Information Sharing Input Public Comments, Public Meetings and Hearings Moderate Control Deliberation Recommendations Non-Consensus ACs, Workshops, Citizen Juries Low Control Negotiation Mutual Agreement Consensus ACs, Negotiations and Mediations
+ Adapted from Beierle and Cayford, 2002 *Defmed below in Democratic Theory Section
The Southeast False Creek (SeFC) policy-making process relied in large part on the interaction of 18 individuals on a non-consensus advisory committee. Previous studies of advisory committee (AC) experiences are very critical of these processes which bring together participants who have differing amounts of power and influence (Howlett, 1990; and Clow, 1992). All involved are to cooperate in reaching a consensus. This cooperation is based on assumptions of equality between participants, which does not exist, and there is denial of the fact that there will be those with less power and influence involved in the process. Keeping these very valid criticisms in mind, this thesis argues that in an era in which complexity and uncertainty about planning and resource use issues abound (global warming; soil, air, and water quality issues), the most promising way to achieve sustainability is through participatory processes. These processes ideally work to inform the whole society of the social and technological solutions that are available to overcome these challenges. The implementation of these solutions will require an informed citizenry, and supportive agencies and professionals whose legitimization is strengthened through helping to inform public policy processes. To the 43
extent that inequalities exist, and they are currently inevitable, strategies can be employed to mitigate them, as discussed earlier in reference to Foresters (1989) suggestions. Having laid out this typology, and these broad arguments about public participation and sustainable development, we now turn our attention to the promises and limitations of public participation as found in the literature.
2.4.1 The Promises of Public Participation
The range of the promises (and limitations) reflects that the different interests, such as, citizens, politicians, and developers approach public participation from different perspectives. Based on the authors assesment of the literature, the positive aspects of public participation processes are many. If the participants input is received at the outset, the range of options is widened before policy-makers and experts can narrow it (Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999; Williams, and Matheny, 1995). The complexity, or wickedness, of many contemporary planning problems (especially, sustainable urban development), and their inter-relatedness are best dealt with by participation by a wide range of interests (Margerum, 2002a). Margerum (2002b) also points out that public participation is turned to when other more simplistic solutions to pressing problems have failed. Public participation can work to reinvigorate citizenship as it provides a catalyst for leadership in civil society (participants often end up in the forefront of efforts to implement the goals which come out of the process) (Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999; and Wurth, 1992). Decision-makers, in both the public and private sectors, gain direction on where they should be leading the rest of society, as public participation provides them with a better understanding of the facts, values, and opinions that are involved in a policy-making process (Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999; National Research Council, 1996; Dorcey, 1994; Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). Thus, well-conducted public participation results in more effective public decisions (Thomas, 1995; Dorcey, 1994).
44
Good public participation processes provide networks that can increase cooperation and collaboration between the diverse array of participants and interests in contemporary society (Booher and Innes, 2002; Neuman, 2000; and Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999). Collaborative processes aid participants in defining mutually acceptable goals, which leads to better implementation of their objectives (Albrechts, 2002; and Margerum, 2002). Another positive result is that it can reduce conflict and work towards achieving cost effectiveness (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). A satisfied and supportive public makes implementation of policies, laws, and regulations proceed more smoothly and efficiently (Dorcey, 1994; and Thomas, 1995). Public participation increases the publics trust in institutions (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001) and results in a stronger democracy (Thomas, 1995). Grengs (2002) cites the ability of citizen participation to keep public agencies in line with citizens expectations (in this case a public transit authority in Los Angeles that Grengs found rife with corruption and poor decision making). Public participation can, arguably, provide societal scrutiny of technology, help to enhance citizen's scientific and technological education, legitimate decisions, and provide protection from corruption and ineptitude (Wurth, 1992). Rosenbaum, for instance, cites a situation where citizens, members of the Centre for Law in the Public Interest, gathered evidence that a nuclear plant in California was being located on a fault line (Dabelko and Weinberg, 1984). Wurth argues, furthermore, "not only for participation in technology but also for participation instead of technology" (Wurth, 1992). He notes the example of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania where effective public participation eliminated the technological fix of a solid waste incinerator, and replaced it with "an energized population dedicated to participation in recycling " (Wurth, 1992). This kind of broad public scrutiny of technological solutions is central to sustainable urban development where behavioural solutions are often more sustainable than changes in technology. For instance, eliminating pesticide and herbicide use through composting and other methods of organic gardening can achieve ecological sustainability in a cheaper, safer, more cost effective way than newly emerging and untested genetically engineered solutions. This kind of behavioural 45
solution also creates synergy as it reduces the amount of organic waste that goes to the landfill, and it can also help to encourage urban agriculture. The significant point is that increased interaction and information sharing can generate new, synergistic solutions to pressing ecological, social, and economic problems (Albrechts, 2002; and Margerum, 2002). Other examples of these types of solutions are dealt with in the chapter on sustainable urban development. Well-run public participation processes, with sufficient resources available (human, intellectual, and material resources), can help build: communities, community capacity (see the social sustainability section in Chapter 3), trust, and shared definitions and understandings (Neuman, 2002). However, there are also significant drawbacks to public participation.
2.4.2 The Limitations of Public Participation
The negative aspects, or problems associated with public participation are also numerous according to the literature. On the one hand, good public participation processes can raise expectations within the City, community, or neighbourhood that all issues will be dealt with in this manner (Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999). Furthermore, if the results of well organized and run public participation processes remain as words in a policy document, or plan and are not implemented the result will be cynicism on the part of the public (Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999). On the other hand, poor public participation processes can result in a dissatisfied and even recalcitrant public (Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999). Public participation can also result in ineffectual decisions and lead to a weakened democracy (Moore, Longo, and Palmer, 1999). Dorcey and McDaniels (2001) have pointed out that public participation processes can: delay policy or development as they take too much time and are costly; rely on and give too much voice to the interests of active publics; be viewed by elected officials as usurping their role; and technical analysts have been severely critical of the data, methods, and conclusions of many public participation processes. Others argue that providing forums for public deliberation does not ensure acceptable outcomes, and will not resolve deeply entrenched conflicts (Margerum, 46
2002). A single process focused on a workable agreement is unlikely to resolve issues that arise from the historic context, such as a lack of constructive relationships, mistrust, and deeply entrenched conflict (Albrechts, 2002). Another critique of public participation processes is that they can divert progressive energies from fighting for substantive policy change into small-scale voluntary activities (Sharp, 2002). This is similar to the window dressing critique of public participation that is often raised by those who have had negative experiences with public consultation. A public agency is likely well-advised to not engage in public participation if there are not going to be substantive outcomes from the process. Despite these many drawbacks to both poorly organized, and well organized public participation processes, it remains as one of the few methods for grappling with large, complex, uncertain problems such as those involved in planning for sustainable urban development. On the whole, this thesis argues that when set in a context of a democratic system (such as the one in Canada, although it may be, arguably weakened), then the supposed costs of increased public participation do not outweigh its benefits. Increased communicative participation will likely only strengthen democracy, especially local democracy. This will be the case even if all that increased communicative participation achieves is to delegate more authority to a limited set of actors within a policy community (see section 2.6).
2.5 Democratic Theory and Communicative Participation
There are various approaches to democratic theory. Some argue that democracy is essentially a contested term, which is open to numerous interpretations (McLaverty, 2002). For instance, the use of the terms representative, constitutional, liberal, participatory, social, and deliberative democracy speaks to the multiple types or models of democracy that have been discussed in democratic theory. Wintrop (2000) asserts that these democratic models should be replaced with a threefold classification of democratic theory as ideological, public philosophic, 47
and utopian. Wintrop (2000, p.2) defines ideological democratic theory as a one that conceives of contemporary democracy in formal or empirical terms as the existing institutional framework and practices irrespective of the standards expressed in or the social effects of these institutions and procedures(a conservative approach). Wintrop (2000) applies the term public philosophic to democratic theory as a realist mean between ideological and utopian democratic theory, one that is normative, but takes into account the existing institutional framework, and context (a modified pluralist approach). The utopian approach is defined by Wintrop (2000) as one that explicitly or implicitly associates democracy with socialist or other egalitarian ends, which require significant social change and transformation (a radical approach). This array of approaches to democratic theory is intended as a sample of the many models arrived at by democratic theorists. Wintrops threefold classification is reflected, somewhat, inBeierle and Cayfords (2002) concepts of managerialist (ideological), pluralist (public philosophic), and participatory (utopian) democracy. In the mangerialist model government administrators and representatives, or experts, are left to define the public good and entrusted to create and implement policies based upon their appraisal of the public interest, which is often based on notions of the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time (Beierle and Cayford, 2002, p.2). Beierle and Cayford (2002) note that managerialism still has many adherents, and surfaces in contemporary policy-making in the form of risk assessment and cost benefit analyses. Adherents of the managerialist approach are concerned that the average members of the public lack the knowledge and experience to be responsible actors in decision-making processes. The pluralist approach arose (from the 1930s on) from the tension that exists between expert management and democratic accountability (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). For proponents of the pluralist approach the public good is contingent and is to be debated, negotiated, and defined by a wide plurality of interests (Beierle and Cayford, 2002) (both individuals and interest groups). Those who adhere to the pluralist approach view the governments role as one of arbitration between competing interests, rather than as an elected manager doling out the public good based on expert advice (Dorcey, 2002). During the 1960s and 1970s, environmental, 48
consumer protection, and access to information laws were passed in many liberal democracies that enshrined pluralism and opened up access to greater participation by interest groups and the interested public, to both government information and decision-making processes (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). It is important to note the this opening up did not occur by the good graces of the governments of the time; the increased access was struggled for by groups and individuals in the civil rights, peace, consumer protection, and emerging environmental movements. Recently, the pluralist approach has been challenged by a more participatory approach. Beierle and Cayford (2002) note that the participatory (or populist) approach stresses the importance of public participation to increase community capacity (strong networks of civicminded groups and individuals -see section 3.2.2). Participatory democracy is similar to pluralism, in that it places importance on the interaction between different interests, interaction which can often be fraught with adversity (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). Those who take a participatory approach assert that participation is needed to improve decision-making and implementation. However, adherents to the participatory approach assert that the main purpose of interaction between different interests is to arrive at mutually agreed upon parameters of the public good, or public interest by direct participation in the decision-making process (Dorcey, 2002). The participatory approach highlights the importance of more consensual processes, rather than simply advocating for interests to compete amongst each other, with the dominant actors often framing the public interest (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). The communicative participation argued for in this thesis falls mostly into the participatory approach, however, it allows for some symbiosis amongst the other two competing approaches (managerialist and pluralist). An area of tension exists between communicative participation and representation. Dorcey and McDaniels (2001), for instance, have pointed out that communicative participation processes can be viewed by elected representatives as usurping their role. Selman and Parker (1999) argue that methods that splice communicative participation and representative (mangerialist and pluralist) methods should be experimented with. They assert that this will 49
increase the symbiosis between the elected top and the bottom. During the SeFC policy making process, for instance, attempts were made early on in the process to have a Vancouver City Councillor sit on the Advisory Group. It is also important to note that on average, in Canada, local representatives are elected by 40% of eligible voters; compared to 75% for federal and provincial representatives (Higgins, 1986). Thus the level of government which is closest to the people geographically is furthest from the people in terms of electoral turnout, representation, and, most often, involvement by citizens. Regarding this tension between representative methods, and communicative participation. Knight, Chigudu and Tandon (2002) argue that participation should be based on equal rights and justice, and ought to be part of a governing system, which is responsive and inclusive. Furthermore, Knight, Chigudu and Tandon (2002, p.78) assert that participation means being heard and consulted on a regular and continuing basis, not merely at election time. It means more than a vote; it means involvement in decision-[making] and policy-making with public agencies and officials. Thus, those who advocate for a participatory approach would argue that communicative participation actually improves, and enhances the capacity of representatives to represent the electorate. The assertion that communicative participation can improve representative methods of democracy must be tempered somewhat in that it should not arbitrarily replace representative modes of democracy. Communicative participation methods and mechanisms should work in a symbiotic manner with other democratic institutions (parliaments, legislative assemblies, Councils, and courts). Beierle and Cayford (2002, p.24), for example, point out that nearly 60% of the public participation case studies that they coded for socioeconomic representativeness (63 cases) were not at all representative of the wider public. Communicative participation is based on Habermas communicative action theory, and aspects of public participation theory. Some participatory democratic theorists, of the new left, have drawn on Habermas communicative action and discourse ethics theory to formulate
50
arguments for more participatory democracy (e.g. Cunningham, 1987; Ingram, 1993; and Plotke, 1989). For instance, Ingram (1993) notes that:
For Habermas, the distinct advantage of a mass democratic system organized along party lines resides precisely in its capacity to provide associative bases that transcend economic, ethnic, and Regional boundaries. To offset the disadvantages of the party system -its tendency, as an extension of the government, to manipulate public opinion and obscure social antagonism behind diluted programs -he looks to the spontaneous proliferation of informal, unincorporated, grass-roots associations, (p. 316) The role of these grass-roots associations or urban interest groups is discussed below (see section 2.6.3). This reading of Habermas places him in the social democracy branch of new left scholars. Ingram (1993, p. 316) concludes that a more participatory form of democracy, based on communicative participation and discourse ethics, must consist of both participatory organizations, comprising non-occupational public spheres and economic units, and formally organized mass party organizations and state bureaucracies. Some democratic theorists, for example Wintrop (2000), have derided participatory, or what he terms as utopian, democratic theorists for their overly normative approach to democracy. However, it is germane to point out that a conservative approach to democratic theory would have likely left most human societies in the grip of religious absolutism and monarchical forms of government. The spirit of democratic theory, and democracy has long been normative. In this spirit, Knight, Chigudu and Tandon (2002) draw on a study of the input of close to 10,000 participants in processes conducted in 47 commonwealth countries. Based on their analysis, Knight, Chigudu and Tandon (2002) see a growing consenus that three elements are needed to strengthen democracy: a healthy, well functioning state government working in concert with a vibrant and active civil society; an increased, more participatory role for citizens (and residents o f each state -as not all those residing in a nation state are citizens)', and a deepened democracy and strengthened democratic culture (additional comment is italicized). Thus, one could argue that democracy is an ideal, similar to justice. Humans view democracy as if 51
it were a summit in the mist, once we arrive at the summit we are amazed to see another higher summit in the distance, and, hopefully, we set off to attempt to scale its heights.
2.6 The Policy Community
Policy community theory as outlined by Howlett and Ramesh (1995), and Pross (1992) provides concepts for classifying institutions and groups that are involved in a particular sector of governance. Pross (1992) defines a policy community as that part of a political system that has acquired a dominant voice in determining government decisions in a field of public activity. According to Howlett and Ramesh (1995) a policy community is made up of actors and potential actors from society who hold a common policy focus and a specific knowledge base. This contrasts to the concept of a policy network which is the linking up within a policy community of those with some material interest (or immaterial interest as based on Skollerhom, discussed below). Thus the broad array of interests involved in the SeFC process would be well represented by those representatives who participated in the two main public hearings on the SeFC model sustainable community. Policy networks, on the other hand would include the developers network, and the activists network (or networks) that formed around the policy making process for SeFC. Pross (1992) notes that the policy community is made up of government agencies, interest groups, media personnel, and individuals (including academics) who share an interest in a particular policy field and seek to have influence in it. It is important to note that in the current era academics can appear in any of these groupings. As Pross (1992) points out, though these groups and individuals are part of the same policy community, they do not necessarily share the same approach to policy. In the case of SeFC, for instance, developers and environmentalists are both part of the sustainable urban development policy community, and despite some overlap, they do not share a common approach regarding the substantive policy issue.
52
2.6.1 Interest Groups
Skollerhoms (1998) interpretation of Habermas theories postulates that there are three possible political cultures in the formulation of sustainable urban development policy: anthropocentric material (largely characterized by utilitarian notions of the material effects of actions in an objective reality); anthropocentric immaterial (community and neighbourhood organizations, cooperative economic enterprises etc.); and ecocentric immaterial (groups that work to extend moral obligation to include other species, and their habitats -ecological or environmental groups). These three broad classifications help to frame a taxonomy of the groups and individuals involved in participatory processes such as the one that took place regarding SeFC. Gardner (1991) has classified environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) by referring to two types: 1) advocacy groups; and 2) Stewardship Groups. She extends the analysis of ENGOs by pointing out that these groups play three roles. Firstly, advocacy groups play an advocacy role in an effort to increase the accountability of government by convincing it to implement and enforce existing environmental programs, regulations, and legislation. Advocacy groups also endeavour to: incorporate ecological principles in the planning process; encourage the government to pass and implement new environmental legislation; and include ecological issues in decision-making (Gardner, 1991). Secondly, Stewardship Groups play a role that supplements governmental, or agency activities. Gardner (1991) suggests that Stewardship Groups primarily fulfill this supplemental role by: attending to the recreational and social needs of their membership; increasing or providing environmental conservation through voluntary environmental stewardship (such as, operating ecological education centres or parks); and through hands on project work (for example, stream or habitat rehabilitation). Thirdly, both advocacy groups and Stewardship Groups can play a transformative role through protest, education, and modeling that seeks to change the structure of government and society (Gardner, 1991). This typology will be drawn upon and adapted as the SeFC process included both types 53
of ENGOs, or ecocentric immaterial groups. The SeFC Working Group, for instance, is an advocacy group that played both advocacy and transformative roles. The Friends of False Creek, on the other hand, is a Stewardship Group that only peripherally played an advocacy role, and it places most of its efforts into habitat restoration, and water quality sampling in False Creek. The SeFC Working Group also attempted to transform the process around development in SeFC by increasing communicative participation, conducting public education in partnership with a local college, and taking part in protests (over the loss of a significant heritage anchor, the Canron building, and over social justice issues).
2.6.2 The Policy Cycle Model
Howlett and Ramesh (1995) delineate a policy cycle model that sets out five categories: 1) agenda setting (problem recognition); 2) policy formulation (proposal of solutions); 3) decision-making (choice of solutions); 4) policy implementation (operationalizing the solutions); and 5) policy evaluation (monitoring results). This policy cycle model will be modified to help break down the complex policy-making process into discrete sub-processes. This case study only deals with the cycle model up to the decision-making stage. However, the policy for a sustainable urban development will be evaluated on the basis of indicators drawn from the literature and other precedents (Roseland et al., 1998; and Sheltair, 1998). Thus the fifth category will also be addressed in this study.
2.6.3 The Role of Urban Interest Groups
Vancouvers past development is an intriguing story with many urban interest groups playing significant roles. Hasson and Ley (1994) have traced the development of neighbourhood organizations and they note that these organizations have a significant impact on the 54
development and redevelopment of urban areas. In Vancouver local community groups formed and successfully dealt with many pressing and contentious community issues. The inner City of Vancouver, for instance, would have a much different development history if it were not for the successful intervention of several groups. Groups such as the Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association capably fended off the development of a freeway to downtown Vancouver in the 1960s (Hasson and Ley, 1994). As a result, the built form in the central core of the City has developed into one of the most livable downtown areas in North America (Hardwick, 1994). The Downtown Eastside Resident Association (DERA) formed in 1973, and it continues to be relatively successful in maintaining the fabric of community in its area despite increasing incursion, and gentrification by development interests. Currently, both social justice groups: such as the Tenants Rights Action Coalition (TRAC); and ecological groups: Friends of False Creek, for instance; are part of the coalition of groups and individuals that make up the broad coalition of individuals and groups involved in the SeFC Working Group. Although it is often left as implicit, other interest groups in urban development have formed around material interests: trade unions, and business and development interests (Higgins, 1986). As was noted above corporate business, development, and real estate interests have long played a role in the development of Vancouver (Gutstein, 1975). Regarding the redevelopment of SeFC, for example, the development interests were represented by the hiring of Concord Pacifics development consultant, a consultant with strong ties to the Hong Kong-based developer, Li Ka-shing. These interest groups were also well represented on the SeFC Advisory Group by: a representative of the Urban Development Institute; several commercial and residential real estate representatives; and private landowners in the area. The dominance of these interests is highlighted by the fact that no union representation was included on the SeFC Advisory Group. In Vancouver, these union interests would be represented by the Vancouver Labour District Council (VDLC). Hasson and Ley (1994) note that DERA has strong ties to unions with its past directors holding office in local trade unions. DERA was peripherally involved through the SeFC Working Group. These types of groups are reflected in Skollerhoms 55
typology of anthropocentric material, anthropocentric immaterial, and ecocentric immaterial interest groups (see beginning of section 2.5.1).
2.7 Local Political Economy
Forester (1989) focuses part of his attention regarding certain planning contexts on power, hegemony, and political economy. He advocates communicative action to democratize planning processes in response to a preponderance of economic and administrative power. He argues that political economic and structural analysis, or critical planning theory can set the stage for an empirical political analysis that exposes the subtle ways in which a given structure of state and productive relations function: (1) to perpetuate itself while it seeks to extend its power; (2) to exclude particular groups systematically from decision-making processes that effect their lives; (3) to promote the political and moral illusion that science and technology, through professionals and experts, can solve political problems; and so (4) to restrict public political argument, participation, and mobilization regarding a broad range of public welfare-oriented policy alternatives that are incompatible with existing patterns of ownership, wealth, and power (Forester, 1989, p. 141). Critical planning theory based on political economy and structural analysis can tease out the communicative distortions that economic and administrative power can create. Forester (1989) notes that some of these communicative distortions are avoidable and surmountable. Others, on the other hand, are so imbedded in the current political economic structure that they are unavoidable (such as imperfect information). Regarding avoidable communicative distortions, which Forester maintains are artificial, they include: the self-serving legitimation of great inequalities of income and wealth; the consumer ideologies inherited from and generated by the way capitalist productive relations are organized; the manipulation of public ignorance in defense of professional power; and the stultifying racial, ethnic, and sexual type casting to which we are all subjected daily (1989, p. 140). While these are not only local phenomena, they most certainly apply to the local context in Vancouver, and other metropolitan 56
areas. Critical planning theory can also be employed to sketch out the manner in which these communicative distortions can lead society away from sustainability (economic, social, and ecological). Cogent political economic analysis lays out the structural relationships between the ownership of the means of production (both economic and cultural) and the effects that these have on policy-making and decision-making in the democratic political realm. Locally, Gutstein (1975) did an extensive political economic analysis of Vancouver in which he outlines the explicit and implicit links between the business and development interests and those governing at City Hall in Vancouver. For instance, Gutstein notes how massive areas of Vancouvers West End were redeveloped along the lines developers desired with little input from, or concern for the existing neighbourhood. The political economic framework that Gutstein applied (charting out the links between and amongst development corporations and business interests; and the links with the dominant political and administrative system) is adopted to provide an analysis of the communicative distortions that occurred in the SeFC planning and policy-making process. Wallace and Shields (Clement et al., 1997) argue that the literature on the new Canadian political economy cannot ignore the new social movements, which they typify as post materialist or postmodern. They argue, somewhat dogmatically, that those who make up these movements are urban professionals who bear no direct costs by advocating a reduction in resource use and extraction in the distant hinterlands which serve the City. This political economic analysis misses the fact that cities are increasingly the site of the consumption of these resources, and that ecological activism in these urban areas is only one strategy employed to address these issues. They also gloss over the fact that there are rural people who are also part of these movements (Gardner, 1991). However, they do point out the negative effects of this rampant resource use (poor air and water quality). Furthermore, many in the environmental movement are, or were either directly, or indirectly involved in some way with resource extraction activities. Wallace and Shields (Clement et al., 1997) point out that Canadian political economy would be strengthened by addressing issues of sustainability and environmental 57
concerns. These are issues that most working on political economy in Canada have ignored, which is quite amazing given the prominence of ecological debates surrounding resource extraction and use. This thesis will add to the Canadian political economy literature by using the conceptual tools which it provides (outlining who owns the means of production and how their power influences administrative power) to analyze the ways in which economic interests may distort communicative participation to achieve their narrow interests of capital accumulation. This approach is also consistent with Habermasian theory as any consideration of the system and the lifeworld must empirically lay out the structure of the subsystems through an analysis of primary and secondary sources and newspaper sources.
2.8 Power and Ideology
This section briefly discusses various approaches to power: the neo-liberal, or neo conservative approach; the neo-pluralist and neo-Marxist approaches. Most social sustainability literature argues for equity between the members of society. The neo-Marxist approach of this thesis argues for more than this, for if society as a whole is to reduce its material throughputs or consumption, then a relative equality of outcome should be achieved for all of the participants in society (including those who are increasingly marginalized by the global economy)(Agyeman and Evans, 2002). Truly participatory, consensus-based processes may provide a means to begin the structural change that can work towards this relative equality of outcome. Although neopluralists would also advocate for communicative participation, consensus-based participatory processes are consistent with the neo-Marxist approach of Habermas (Dunleavy and OTeary, 1987) and communicative action theory (Brand, 1990). Firstly, let us turn our attention towards the neo-liberal, or neo-conservative approach which is otherwise known as either rational choice or public choice theory.
58
2.8.1 The Neo-Liberal, or Neo-Conservative Approach
This approach is based on neo-classical economics, and methodological individualism. The basic assumption of rational choice theory is that, just as in neo-classical economics, people are individual utility maximizers who vote on the basis of their own individual interests. Those who advocate this approach tend, for the most part, although there are exceptions, to be located to the right on a right to left continuum (Dunleavy and Oleary, 1987). This approach arose out of the new right politics which emerged in the 1980s in the form of Thatcherism and Reganomics. Adherents to this approach generally argue for a much more reduced role for government. Their basic assumption is that a small, and minimal government will allow individual people the freedom to exercise their choices in both the marketplace and in representative politics through the ballot box. In this model politicians seeking re-election adopt policies that will work to keep them in power (Dyck, 1993). Logical positivism, game theory, and the reduction of macro political phenomena to individual preferences provide guides for this approach (Dunleavy and Oleary, 1987). This approach will only be cursorily discussed as it does not call for increased participation by citizens, except for calls for referenda and recall of politicians who do not deliver on their stated policy initiatives. The ascendancy of this approach in contemporary politics and analysis needs to be pointed out, as it provides the counter to increased communicative participation by groups of citizens against which a dialectical discussion or struggle can occur.
2.8.2 The Neo-Pluralist Approach
This approach emerged from pluralism, which was the dominant approach in political science for most of the post World War II era. Neo-pluralism arose in response to valid criticisms about pluralism (based on the assumption that everyone in a representative liberal democracy has an equal opportunity for political participation (Dyck, 1993) raised by neo-Marxists, and elite theorists that pluralism ignored the increasing power of corporate and business interests. Also, a 59
series of events beset many liberal democratic states in the 1960s (race riots, the anti-Vietnam War protests, the ecological movement, and the May 1968 protests in France) that challenged the basic institutions of pluralism. Dunleavy and Oleary note that neo-pluralists seek to demonstrate the irrelevance of contemporary socialism, the utopian deceptions of ecological rejections of modernity, and the anachronisms of the new right attempts to turn the clock back to a simpler world of entrepreneurial firms and a nightwatchman state (1987, p. 272). Neo-pluralism draws from four primary intellectual traditions: unorthodox economics; political science which takes into account the limitations that economic systems create for collective decision-making; policy analysis; and systems theory (Dunleavy and O leary, 1987). Unorthodox economics focuses on the large modem corporation and the extended state, applies a basically literary presentation (versus an array of complex statistical information and mathematical formula), and draws on a broader range of sources which are beyond conventional neo-classical economics. The political science perspective is best exemplified by Dahls shift from pluralism to neo-pluralism as demonstrated by his increasing attention to the manner in which capitalist corporations impair democratic processes. Policy analysis is a full-fledged enterprise with many research institutes (Friedmann, 1987). Dunleavy and Oleary point out that neo-pluralist policy analysis has moved towards a new consensus which rejects technocratic modes of decision-making but nonetheless reasserts the importance and legitimacy of rationality considerations across almost all applied public policy areas (1987, p. 283). Neo-pluralism has drawn on the sociological systems theory of Talcott Parsons to trace out the notion that increasing complexity results in an increasing differentiation in the systems and subsystems of society and the state. This is the novel modernization focus of neo-pluralism. Interestingly, neo-pluralists such as Luhmann and Etzioni have worked out detailed suggestions for improving collective, public policy-making and decision-making processes. Etzioni, for instance, envisioned an active society in which full and well informed public discourse occurs in a symbiotic relationship with technocratic planners in full, broad, and sophisticated policy making processes (Dunleavy and Oleary, 1987). As a whole neo-pluralists 60
argue that in an era when the extended state regulates more areas of peoples lives rationalized communicative participation is a prerequisite for effective policy and it guards against policy distortion.
2.8.3 The Neo-Marxist Approach
There is considerable overlap between the neo-pluralist approach and the neo-Marxist approach, at least in terms of the prescriptive call for more well-informed communicative participation. The reasons for this call for communicative participation, however, are quite different. Neo-pluralists still have remnants of classical pluralism in their approach. While they assume that the power of modern corporations and the administrative state are forces to be reckoned with, they still view power as being plural or diffused throughout these two systems and society as a whole. Neo-Marxists, however, emphasize the concentration of power in fewer hands in both the economic and administrative systems, power which serves to ensure capital accumulation by the corporate elite (Habermas, 1984; Brand, 1990; Dunleavy and OTeary, 1987; and Dyck, 1993). Habermas draws somewhat on strains of neo-Marxist thought, and he draws on Webers system theory as well. Some have missed this concern with power in Habermas writings, while others have ignored his communicative action theory which calls for consensusbased communicative participation. Like the neo-pluralists Habermas also drew on Parsons systems theory to provide an explanation of the systems (economic and administrative) colonization of the Tifeworld. Dyck (1993) succinctly sums up neo-Marxism in six basic points: 1) the corporate elite largely determines the shape of public policies which are designed to continue and extend their capital accumulation; 2) the corporate elite (or bourgeoisie) provide personnel for public offices and funds for political parties, they shape societal values (through control of the media) and they fund and organize pressure groups; 3) the liberal democratic state remains dependent on the capitalist system for the provision of jobs and economic growth; 4) intermediary classes (the 61
petite bourgeoisie, and the new middle class) as well as the working class must be accommodated to some degree by policies that ensure the legitimation of the capitalist system without unduly eroding the ability for capital accumulation; 5) the government may have to resort to coercion if the intermediary classes and working classes are not satisfied with this legitimation; and 6) modern states themselves must contend with the power of transnational and multi-national corporations. Let us now consider how a neo-Marxist approach could apply to Vancouver. Given that the City-state of Vancouver has been governed by a so-called non-party -the Non-partisan Association (NPA)- for 56 of the 70 years of the NPAs existence exemplifies the first two points of Dycks summation of neo-Marxism. The NPA is funded by the corporate elite, has drawn representatives for Council from this elite, and is heavily influenced by the many pressure groups that have formed around business and development interests in Vancouver. For example, the Urban Development Institute, the Vancouver Board of Trade, and the Vancouver Downtown Business Association are just a few of the corporate elites pressure groups who work to maintain the ascendancy of the corporate elites interests. Many jobs in urban areas remain dependent on development (both residential and commercial), and this is certainly the case in Vancouver. Working class and other intermediary classes have been accommodated in Vancouvers governance system through negotiations and agreements with unions, and the provision of a marginal amount of affordable housing in new development (officially set at 20%, in reality approximately 11%, personal communication, February, 1998) (these intermediary classes and the working class are likely eroding in this era of dis-employment due to government and corporate downsizing). Police security crackdowns during many recent peaceful political protests in Vancouver are indicative of Vancouvers willingness to use coercion. Local government in Vancouver has to contend with novel, powerful, external forces, as there are many multi-national and transnational firms involved in business and development in Vancouver. Local corporate elites no longer have a monopoly on development in Vancouver.
62
Hasson and Ley point out that for the neo-Marxist literature, the very existence of community and consumption-based organizations, which fail to make connections with classbased organizations, presents some serious theoretical and normative problems (1994, p. 8). These serious theoretical and normative difficulties exist, however, through coalition building, as was evident during the protests in Seattle and local protests regarding free trade, these groups are learning about their shared class identity (even if it means being in a set of classes which is defined by not being part of the corporate elite class). Hasson and Ley (1994, p. 9) also note that Castells identified three types of struggles in which local community groups are involved: 1) conflicts which revolve around residents quality of life (use value) versus the corporate elites quest for profits (exchange value); 2) conflict over cultural values when pre-existing, unique local, ethnic, and historical traditions come up against standardized values which are imposed from above; and 3) friction regarding participation, where people protest the states monopoly over decision-making, planning, and the pattern of urban life. The latter is very significant, as it has been primarily through protest and resistance that increased and more communicative participation has come to exist. Even if these urban movements may have a non-class orientation, their appearance is grounded in class structure. They may also share significant overlapping membership with groups with a clear class orientation. This is the case with DERA, for instance, which engages in struggles over consumption issues, the provision of affordable housing, and has leadership which overlaps with union membership. Many individual members of the SeFC Working Group, though by no means the majority, also have an explicit affinity or indentification with the working class. Castells (in Hasson and Ley), theorized that the rise of the new social movements was a reaction to the shaping of the social and spatial forms of the City by dominant actors capitalists, technocrats, and bureaucrats- who operate through specific institutions and mechanisms of the capitalist mode of production, the modes of industrial and information development, and state power (1994, p. 11). Even though Castells took this structural view based on the dominant political, economic, and cultural structures he remains open to the role of 63
social agents in organizing and coordinating these movements. Thus, although neo-Marxism remains wedded to methodological holism (methods based on classes of people and the structural relations between these classes), as does classical Marxism, it does take the role played by individuals in collective action into account. John Friedmann (1987) traces the tradition of social mobilization in his impressive survey of planning theory and thought Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. He notes social mobilizations roots from the mutually antagonistic relationship between two movements on the left: the Marxists; and the Utopians and anarchists. This thesis focuses on the Marxist, or neo-Marxist, approach where a confrontational mode of politics emphasizes political struggle as necessary to transform existing relations of power and create a new order that is not based on the exploitation of labour and the alienation of [people] from what is distinctively human (Friedmann, 1987, pp. 83-84). This is central to struggles over resource allocation in urban areas. It also points to methods that are known in the negotiation literature as a better alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA) where people engage in protests or strikes when their concerns and interests are not being dealt with at the bargaining or negotiating table (Fisher and Ury, 1991). These types of protests were used in several instances in the SeFC process. The main locus of classic Marxist thought is freedom from oppression and scarCity (Dunleavy and OTeary, 1987). A key question for neo-Marxists is: Can freedom be achieved democratically within the framework of the liberal democratic state? Habermas work on communicative action argues for communicative participation and subsequent action to resist the colonization of the lifeworld by the economic system and the administrative state (Brand, 1990; and Habermas, 1984). This scope for democratic resistance fits in well with five key questions that Friedmann (1987, p. 84) raises for the social mobilization approach to address:
1) What is the proper role of community organizers, and the leaders of social mobilization movements? If freedom from oppression is the ideological goal, organizers should follow thoroughly democratic procedures which include the full communicative participation of 64
everyone in collective decisions, tolerance for open dissent, and non-manipulative methods for organizing group action.
2) How can the poor, disenfranchised, and those who have never had effective power empower themselves to gain freedom from oppression?
3) How can the commitment to a new life in struggle that leads to community be maintained when only partial and provisional gains are made in the conflict with the dominant capitalist paradigm?
4) What should be the basic strategies to follow? What, if any, role should be given to violence, to the timing and duration of actions (long marches), and what specific actions should be engaged in (strikes, demonstrations, street theatre, terrorism, non-cooperation, the setting up of alternative communities)?
5) What should be the characteristics of the good society, the social ideal to be realized in practice, now or in the future? What priority should be assigned to various goals, such as, a nonhierarchical and inclusive social order, the practice of self-reliance, voluntary cooperation, dialogic practices, and a radical leveling of the social hierarchy?
Although Friedmann (1987) places Habermas theory in the social mobilization area of planning thought, as we have seen above, he does not view the theory of communicative action as being capable of action. One can argue that this depends on context, for if there is scope for democratic resistance that can lead towards a non-hierarchical and inclusive social order existant within our western democracies, especially at the local level, then communicative participation provides promising, non-violent means to achieve this end. However, in states where there is no room for
65
democratic resistance and change other more violent means may be necessary, although non violent modes of protest, and non-cooperation are likely even more effective in these states. As to Friedmanns second question, the relative success of Porto Alegres participatory budget under the participatory, and decentralized government of the Workers Party shows that even in areas with little previous democratic experience, impoverished people can be very involved in successfully engaging in communicative participation to work with their leadership to govern themselves (Abers in Douglas and Friedmann, 1998). Regarding Friedmanns first question many groups involved in the new social movements organize themselves in an inclusive, participatory manner. The SeFC Working Group, for instance, has put these modes of decision making into its mission statement, and it has functioned in this manner over the course of its existence. The logic for pursuing a neo-Marxist approach is evident from both an empirical and normative standpoint. Empirically, political economic analysis of contemporary urban development will reveal the primacy of business and development interests (Gutstein, 1975; Higgins, 1986; and Alexander, 2000). Normatively, social sustainability, in urban areas especially, will require a distribution of benefits and costs that will not exacerbate the current frightening drift to a bifurcation between those with more than enough income and material well-being, and those with little or no income and material well-being. This will be dealt with in the following chapter on sustainable urban development. Friedmanns third question is more problematic, however, partial and provisional gains made in the conflict with the dominant capitalistic paradigm could possibly open up the dialogic space required for improved communicative participation to occur. We now turn our attention towards the criteria for communicative participation.
2.9 Criteria for Communicative Consensus-Based Processes
Judith Innes (1999) draws on Habermas communicative action theory and lays out a series of criteria that these communicative consensus-based policy development processes, like
66
the one attempted for the Southeast False Creek planning process, should meet. She conceives of both process and outcome criteria to enable the researcher to evaluate the process being studied. These criteria are contained in Appendix II. Significantly, Innes criteria reflect the principles outlined by Habermas communicative action theory: the inclusion, equality of opportunity, intersubjective mutual understanding, power impartiality, and transparency principles (see section 2.2). Innes criteria also mirror the principles for sustainable development that emerged from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (see appendix II). These criteria were merged with other criteria, from the literature review, to provide a series of criteria that are used to evaluate the communicative participation process that occurred in the SeFC policy-making process. The outcome of the process is also evaluated and these outcome criteria are presented in chapter three. The criteria were added to and expanded upon in an iterative process as the study proceeded. In some ways the process, despite Skollerhoms (1998) concerns about it, is in many ways as important as the product of the process. Innes criteria and the sustainability criteria were added to, and adopted to provide these criteria to evaluate the communicative participation process that dealt with sustainable urban development in Vancouver. These criteria were chosen from an extensive literature review, and modified to meet the strong sustainability focus of the thesis (see section 3.1). The criteria were selected as a result of the fact that they encapsulated many of the normative aspects of communicative planning theory, echoed Habermas original communicative action criteria for the ideal speech situation, and provided a rigorous and extensive, yet succinct array of criteria for evaluating a communicative process. The SeFC process arrived at an agreement, adopted as policy by Vancouvers City Council, which relied on mutual understanding that was arrived at by members of the policy community. An evaluation of this process provides recommendations that can aid subsequent sustainable urban development processes that rely on some form of communicative participation.
67
Figure 2.1 Sources of Process Criteria PROCESS CRITERIA Inclusion NRTEE (1996) Habermas (1984) All Affected Included Address Objective, Social, and Subjective Issues Understand the Other's Worldviews and Interests Purpose is Open and Explicit
Innes(1999)
Webler, (1995)
Inclusive, Not Inclusiveness Exclusive
Set Own Groundrules; Equality of Equal Access Ability to Opportunity to Information Challenge Assumptions Participants Full and Deep Mutual Design Discourse Understanding Consensus Precedes Process Consensus Practical and Shared Purpose Guides the Group
Select Facilitator and Facilitation Style
Realistic Transparency Deadlines
Power Impartiality
No Strategic Action; Those with Less Power Participants Question or Work Together Reveal Existing Throughout Power the Process Structures; Information is Contributed by All and Freely Shared
Cost Effectiveness Accountability and Efficiency
2.9.1 Process Criteria
Process Criterion 1
Inclusiveness: The process includes all the relevant and significantly different interests in a long term process, including those who are either positively or negatively affected by the decision process (Habermas, 1985, Innes, 1999, andNRTEE, 1996).
Process Criterion 2:
Equality of Opportunity: The process allowed: all participants an equal opportunity to participate in setting their own ground-rules, choosing a facilitator and a method of facilitation; equal access to information; participants to challenge basic assumptions; and for the explicit addressing of objective, normative (social), and subjective issues (Habermas, 1985; Innes, 1999; Webler, 1995; and NRTEE, 1996).
Mutual Understanding: The principles of civil discourse were followed (mutual respect, and sufficient time devoted for participants to learn about each other's worldviews, situations, and interests) and full and deep discourse preceded consensus (Habermas, 1985; Innes, 1999, and NRTEE, 1996).
Process Criterion 4 :
Transparency: An openly and explicitly acknowledged, practical and shared purpose guides the 69
group in its work (Habermas, 1985; Innes, 1999; and NRTEE, 1996), and realistic deadlines, and planning timelines are openly set and followed throughout the process (NRTEE, 1996).
Power Impartiality: Participants (including experts and those with power) work together throughout the process (it is symbiotic, neither exclusively top-down or bottom-up), and those with power (or those with less power) do not engage in strategic action (either in the process, or away from it). Participants with less power are in a position to question existing power structures, or are able to reveal to others how these power differentials cause them harm. All participants are encouraged to bring relevant and accurate information to the process, and all information is freely shared amongst participants (Habermas, 1985).
Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency: The process was cost effective and efficient in terms of time, and human and financial resources (NRTEE, 1996).
2.10 Conclusion
This conceptual and analytical framework relies on a merging of communicative action theory and certain communicative approaches found in public participation theory. These literatures are synthesized to form the concept of communicative participation (participation in which all participants reach mutual understanding about the normative and substantive issues that they are dealing with in their process). Despite the criticisms, and shortcomings, of both communicative action and public participation, these methods of analysis and process design provide powerful tools to engage participants in communicative participation processes which 70
may lead society towards sustainable development in general, and sustainable urban development in the specific case study of SeFC. Habermas concepts of system and Lifeworld will be employed to provide the political economic context of the broader systems in which communicative participation and power played significant roles in the SeFC planning process. The criteria for consensus-based processes and sustainability processes create a succinct array of criteria for an evaluation of the SeFC process and its outcomes. We now turn to a definition, description, and analysis of the substantive topic of the thesis: sustainable urban development.
71
CHAPTER 3: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
A good society is like building a house together. Homeless Person from Belize Knight et al Reviving Democracy: Citizens at the Heart o f Governance It had come into her mind that for life to be large and full, it must contain the care of the past and of the future in every passing moment of the present. Our daily work must be done to the glory of the dead, and for the good of those who come after. Joseph Conrad Nostromo Each generation is entitled to the interest on natural capital, but the principle should be handed on unimpaired. Canadas Commission on Conservation, 1915 The apartment itself was part of an old palace that faced what had once been a charming little square with a fountain playing gently in its middle. But that had been in the days before the motorcar had degraded and despoiled Rome as it has despoiled so many cities. Now the little square was parked full of cars, leaving their stink on the heavy September air. The little fountain still played, but its basin was full of wrappers and trash, rarely cleared out. Robertson Davies What s Bred in the Bone
3.0 Introduction: Sustainable Urban Development Defined
This chapter lays out a broad framework for sustainable urban development. It begins by considering the conceptual basis of sustainable development, and then it moves on to discuss and
define sustainable urban development. Our attention then shifts to some o f the tensions
surrounding sustainable development by considering strong versus weak sustainability. Sustainable urban development is then conceptually mapped out by discussing three generally accepted spheres of sustainable development: the ecological, the social, and the economic spheres. 72
The focus then shifts to one specific example of a sustainable urban development precedent, and the role of sustainability indicators. The chapter concludes by presenting the outcome criteria that were utilized to analyze the SeFC case study. Let us now consider the conceptual roots of sustainable development by discussing its definition. Notions of sustainability and stewardship (crop rotation, limits on grazing on the commons) have a long tradition in agriculture and other human activities. Sustainable development, however, is a novel concept that emerged from the United Nations Conference on Human Development in Stockholm, in 1972 (BCRTEE, 1993). It was succinctly articulated by the United Nations Commission on the Environment and Development (the Brundtland Report: Our Common Future). The Brundtland Report (1987) asserted that:
Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable -to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable development does imply limits -not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. But technology and social organization can be managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic growth. The commission believes that widespread poverty is no longer inevitable. Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes (my emphasis), (p. 8) The Brundtland Report is quoted extensively as it lays out the three broad concepts that have framed the sustainable development discourse, and it contains the essence of strong arguments for redistributive social organization. It also contains the contradiction of greater economic growth to achieve both social and ecological goals. Ecological, social, and economic sustainability are described and elaborated upon in most considerations of sustainable urban development (The Sheltair Report, 1998; Roseland et. al, 1998; Newman, 1998; and Blake, 1999; Selman and Parker, 1999; and Counsell, 1999). Before considering these three broad conceptual categories in detail, the evolution of sustainable development into sustainable urban development is discussed. Then 73
some of the tensions within the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable urban development are addressed. Sustainable urban development has been elaborated upon since the publication of the Brundtland Report and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which formulated Agenda 21 (Local Agenda 21 is discussed below), a sustainable development action plan for the 21st century (Roseland, 1997). There are multiple definitions for local sustainable urban development. This is not, however, problematic as most of the literature recommends that each locality define sustainable urban development through a communicative participation process (Roseland et al., 1997; Newman, 1998;Yanarella, 1999; Stirling, 1999; Blake, 1999; and Selman and Parker, 1999). Some of the main, general features of sustainable urban development are:
Ecological sustainability: efficient and ecologically sensitive land use in urban areas (Roseland et al., 1998, Van Vliet, 1994; Rees and Walker, 1997); minimizing the use of natural resources, and the reduction, or elimination of pollution (Wackemagel and Rees, 1996; and Roseland et al., 1998);
Social sustainability: building or increasing community capacity and the overall health of the community (Roseland et al., 1998; World Bank, 1995; and Kline, 2000, and 1997); the mobilization and communicative participation of citizens, groups, and governments in the movement towards sustainable communities (Roseland et al., 1998; Counsell, 1999; Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998; and Kranz and Silva, 1998); and social equity (Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993), or relative material equality (Agyeman and Evans, 2002)(discussed below);
74
Economic sustainability: the fostering of local economic security (Kline, 2000, and 1997; and Roseland et al., 1998); and local self-reliance and ecologically benign or beneficial economic activity (Roseland et al., 1998; Skinner, 1997; and Vodden, 1997).
These three areas of sustainable urban development are listed in order of importance, or necessity. Ecological sustainability is a necessary condition for both social and economic sustainability. A functioning and thriving ecological system is required for the continuing survival of the human species, and all other species (Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). In turn, the economy depends on a stable, healthy, and diverse society. Without a fully functioning society, the notion of economy becomes void of meaning or purpose. The economy must serve the interests of citizens who are dependent on ecology and community (Gibson, Alexander, and Tomalty, 1997. p. 39). Pointing out these biophysical and social realities does not dismiss the heuristic, academically productive, and practical interdisciplinary benefits that the three spheres of sustainability offer. Kline points out the value of sustainability processes: they bring people together from different fields of interest and disciplines who normally do not relate to each other; gathering data from disparate sources and combining salient facts into one document; and identifying information gaps for future collection (2000, p. 344). The sustainability consultants for SeFC, for instance, pointed out the importance of focusing on the overlap area between the three spheres of sustainability as this is where synergies occur (Sheltair, 1998). Examples of these synergies, which emerged during the communicative participation process for SeFC, will be described below. Before turning our attention to these details of sustainable urban development, let us consider the tensions and conflicts which arise from the concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development and sustainability are essentially contested concepts (Yanarella, 1999; and Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). Yanarella (1999) notes that the Brundtland 75
Commissions definition of sustainable development has aided in the blurring of two very different concepts: economic growth and development. Daly and Cobb (1989) draw a significant distinction between the two terms:
Growth should refer to quantitative expansion in the scale of the physical dimensions of the economic system, while development should refer to the qualitative change of a physically nongrowing economic system in dynamic equilibrium with the environment, (p. 71) Daly and Cobb (1989) argue for a reduced consumption approach, rather than the substitutability approach towards sustainable development. Those who advocate for unlimited growth assert that the latter will ensure sustainable development as the ingenuity of humans can always replace resources with new technologies (Yanarella, 1999). Wackemagel and Rees (1996) point out the ambiguity of the concept of sustainable development:
Many people identify more with the sustainable part and hear a call for ecological and social transformation, a world of environmental stability and social justice. Others identify more with development and interpret it to mean more sensitive growth, a reformed version of the status quo. (p. 33) The former worldview or approach will be argued for in the ecocentric, social justice, and community capacity focus of this thesis. The ambiguity of sustainable development, and the ideology which lies behind it, can be more fully analyzed by considering the differences between what has been conceived of as strong rather than weak sustainability.
3.1 Strong Versus Weak Sustainability
Daly and Cobb (1989) define strong sustainability as the separate maintenance of humanly created capital and natural resources in a complementary manner. The core of their concept of strong sustainability is that economic capital and natural resources are complements rather than
76
substitutes (Yanarella, 1999). Due to the entropy law (the second law of thermodynamics) once concentrated energy is used it cannot be substituted for by economic capital as it is dispersed widely into the environment (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). In stark contrast to this, Daly and Cobb (1989) posit that weak sustainability is based on neoclassical economic theory which has argued that economic capital is a near perfect substitute for the services and resources which the natural world or ecosystem provides. This approach totally discounts the fact that the ecosystem has to assimilate the wastes from the economic system. It also fails to acknowledge, that even in our contemporary, seemingly separate economy, all our economic processes are, at the most basic level, dependent upon the resources and functions of the ecosystem. The computers that we use to write, store and collate our information, for instance, are often pointed to by proponents of weak sustainability as a substitute for material and energy. Although there is little doubt that our computers have become smaller and much more energy efficient, they have also become inordinately numerous, and they rely on a very extensive flow of natural resources and ecosystem functions (waste assimilation). The average computer workstation requires: 60 kilograms of manufacturing waste (for a 33-kilogram workstation); 28 kilograms of hazardous liquid chemicals (for 10 grams of semiconductor chips); 33,000 litres of water; 2315 kilowatt-hours of electricity (manufacturing only); and, until 1995, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were used as solvents to clean circuit boards (the Montreal Protocol phased out the use of these ozone depleting substances) (Durham, 1993). These are only the manufacturing effects of computers. Durham (1993) notes that computers consume 5% of commercial power in the United States (1993), and this has likely risen to at least 10% by 2000 (the equivalent of emissions from 8.5 million automobiles). Clearly, in the case of computers and many other consumer goods there has been little substitution or less reliance on the resources or functional services of the ecosystem.
ORiordan and Voisey (1998, p. 16) have elaborated and expanded on the bi-polar concept of strong versus weak sustainability by conceiving of and adding very strong and very weak 77
sustainability. This conceptual framework has been adapted from the international and national scale and placed on a continuum, for use in analyzing the local scale at which the SeFC case study occurred:
Very weak sustainability: environmental policy, little or no policy integration; economic policy. marginal use of economic instruments, and a token amount of financial reinvestment for sustainability goals; public awareness: little awareness and next to no media coverage; and public participation : window-dressing consultation exercises and exclusive, corporatist discussion groups.
Weak sustainability: environmental policy, new institutional structures to implement formal, integrated policy (based on specific targets); economic policy : substantial restructuring to encourage the use of economic instruments, and a significant amount of financial reinvestment for sustainability goals; public awareness: broader public education, and partnerships between educational institutions and the local community; and public participation : interested party groups (Advisory Groups), and local Council surveillance.
Strong sustainability: environmental policy: legally binding policy integration, and strong sustainability policies with indicators; economic policy: full cost and green accounting practiced, and widely accepted measures of community capacity; public awareness: curriculum integration which delivers educational initiatives with the intent of improving the local community, and regular media coverage of sustainability issues; and communicative participation: widespread and ongoing community involvement, and strong local Council support of sustainability initiatives.
Very strong sustainability: environmental policy: new bylaws and regulations (flexible in design), and formally mandated administrative integration; economic policy: formal shift to participatory sustainability accounting; public awareness: a comprehensive cultural shift which utilizes 78
emerging and traditional forms of the media, educational institutions at all local levels, and the arts to celebrate all aspects of sustainability; and communicative participation : local Council freely delegates power, locally-led initiatives become the norm, participatory municipal budgeting (Kranz and Silva, 1998), and ongoing sustainability fora.
As we move across the continuum from very weak to very strong sustainability there is an increase in: environmental and social policy commitments, environmental and socially bounded economic policy, public awareness of and involvement in ecological and social issues, movement towards communicative participation, and an increased role for local government. Generally speaking very strong sustainability is often advocated for by environmental non governmental organizations, and very weak sustainability is promoted by the development industry (Counsell, 1999). While this is generally valid, it is important to keep in mind that there are exceptions. Maurice Strong, for instance, came from a corporate business and development background, and his approach falls somewhere between weak and strong sustainability (Keating et al., 1997). This thesis will use the sustainability continuum to evaluate both the policy-making process and the policy for SeFC. Movement towards sustainability is significant, however, as we depend upon the ecosystem for our continued survival, the human species cannot afford to deplete, or reduce, natural resources and the functioning of the ecosystem (Roseland et al., 1998; and Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). Major shifts are required in the lifestyles of citizens in the developed world, or the industrialized North. The industrialized countries, for instance, which make up 26% of global population consume 80% of commercial energy (Bmndtland Report, 1987). This compares to the South which, with 74% of global population, consumes only 20% of commercial energy (Bmndtland Report, 1987). Little has changed since the publication of the Bmndtland Report. In 1997, for example, the richest 20% of the global human population produced 86% of global gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the poorest 20% which produced 1% of global GDP (Knight, Chigudu and Tandon, 2002, pp. 16-17). Furthermore, in 1998, 1.3 billion people, more 79
than 20% of the total global human population live on less than $1 per day, and 840 million are malnourished (Knight, Chigudu and Tandon, 2002, pp. 16-17). Thus strong sustainability is required to bring the consumption of natural resources into precautionary balance. This precautionary balance would reduce material consumption in the industrialised North, and would allow for a rise in material standards in the South. The precautionary principle, in short, calls for minimal increase in economic growth as we do not yet know what the long-term effects (ecological and social) of unhampered growth will be. Daly and Cobb (1989) have asserted the economy cannot continue to grow in a finite world. We now move forward to discuss the three spheres of sustainability.
3.2.1 Ecological Sustainability
The finite nature of the Earth, or biosphere is exemplified by the concept of ecological sustainability. The British Columbia (BC) Round Table on the Environment and Economy (1994) defines ecological sustainability by outlining several objectives and guidelines:
The preservation of biodiversity; The protection of pure water, clean air, and uncontaminated terrestial, wetland, coastal and sea bottom systems; The protection of natural beauty that we value aesthetically and spiritually; A new order of urban design that reduces the need for energy-intensive transportation, integrates green space, and enhances our sense of community; Land-use planning that preserves prime agricultural and forest lands, and protects wilderness areas and wildlife habitat, while providing working capacity for development; Hold to a minimum the depletion of non-renewable resources; Preserve and protect the environment (conserve life support systems, biological diversity, and renewable resources); and
Limit our impact on the living world to stay within its carrying capacity (its ability to
renew itself from natural and human impacts), (pp. 16-17) The BC Roundtable rightly notes that we cannot afford to further damage the carrying capacity of our ecosystem. Carrying capacity is an ecological concept which estimates the population of 80
other species which can survive and thrive in perpetuity on a certain habitat without degrading its productivity (Daly and Cobb, 1989; and Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). Wackemagel and Rees (1996) note that human carrying capacity is a concept with a long history (dating back to Plato), and that it can only be estimated by considering average incomes which, in turn, reflect rates of consumption of natural resources. Using a land-based measure (the Eco-Footprint, discussed below in the indicators section), Wackemagel and Rees (1996) estimate that if all humans on Earth were to consume at the rate of an average North American, then we would require the natural resources and assimilative capacity for waste that would equal three planet Earths. The ecological integrity of a healthy ecosystem is a difficult, but necessary goal to strive for, due to the scientific uncertainty which surrounds the concept (ORiordan and Voisey, 1998). Elizabeth Kline (2000) approaches ecological integrity from an eco-City perspective. She argues that an eco-City perspective still regulates human activities. However, the emphasis shifts from managing each type of activity separately towards protecting and restoring natural ecosystems. The reference point is the functional ability of natural systems such as rivers, airsheds, watersheds or soils rather than the impacts on them (Kline, 2000, p. 344). Furthermore, this perspective seeks to restore, enhance, and protect the ecosystems functions for humans and all other species in the present and in perpetuity (Kline, 2000). Added to this, an ecocentric perspective would assert that these habitats, or ecosystems have an inherent right to exist, as free from human valuing as possible (Healey, 1997). While our scientific understanding of the functioning of ecosystems is still surrounded by uncertainties, there are many immediate steps that local communities can take to plan for ecological sustainability. Gibson, Alexander, and Tomalty (1997), for instance, advocate for ecosystem planning to replace current, conventional planning. Ecosystem planning takes into account the fact that quantitative economic growth overwhelms the resiliency of communities and ecosystems, and causes negative ecological, social, and economic effects (these effects are not easily reversible, nor can they be easily compensated for financially) (Gibson, Alexander, and Tomalty, 1997). Ecosystem planning is based on the acknowledgment of humanitys dependence upon, and 81
responsibility for, natural systems. Gibson, Alexander, and Tomalty (1997, pp. 30-35) list ten principles for ecosystem planning: 1) define planning units on the basis of natural boundaries (i.e. watershed planning); 2) design with nature (i.e. no net loss of habitat, and demand management); 3) weigh and deliberate upon global, cross-boundary, intergenerational, and cumulative effects; 4) foster inteijurisdictional decision-making; 5) engage in communicative participation, and facilitate cooperation and collaboration; 6) design and implement long-term monitoring and feedback, and create flexible, adaptive plans; 7) ensure that information is gathered in an interdisciplinary manner; 8) use a precautionary approach for planning and development which goes beyond avoiding future damages to reduce ecological impacts, and enhances and restores the integrity of ecosystems and communities; 9) integrate ecological, social, and economic objectives in land use planning; and 10) create linkages between ecosystem planning and democratic change, social learning, community development, and ecological consciousness. At the local or community level these principles of ecosystem planning provide a useful guide to operationalizing ecological sustainability. The literature contains many strategies to operationalize ecological sustainability at the local level (Roseland et al., 1998; Newman and Kenworthy, 1999; Saunders, 1997; and Engwicht, 1993). Saunders (1997), for example, employs the concept of ecological communities as a generic term to describe ecologically sustainable development which integrates built environments with natural environments, and studies and views human settlements as ecosystems. This term encompasses many concepts that have been employed to discuss sustainable urban development, such as: Green Cities, Ecological Villages, Sustainable Communities (Roseland et al., 1998), Ecocities, and Green Communities (Roseland et al., 1997). Ecological communities should be energy efficient, produce little waste, and achieve self-reliance. Saunders (1997) outlines some general characteristics of ecological communities that repeatedly appear in the literature: 1) the use of renewable energy (Mortimer, Kellet, and Grant, 1997; Sheltair, 1998; and Roseland et al., 1998); 2) alternative, local sewer and wastewater treatment (Roseland et al., 1998; Newman, 1998; and Sheltair, 1998); 3) reduced impact on natural amenities (habitat)(Roseland et al., 1998, Van Vliet, 82
1994; Rees and Walker, 1997); and 4) conservation of natural resources and the generation of a small amount of waste (Newman, 1998; Wackemagel and Rees, 1996; and Roseland et al., 1998). There are repeated references in the literature to the overlap area where the three spheres of sustainability intersect as the conceptual realm where synergy occurs (Sheltair, 1998; ORiordan and Voisey, 1998; and Hancock, 1997). This synergy is evident when a planning measure or tool which is designed to increase, for instance, ecological sustainability results in a change which causes an increase in the other two spheres. A potent example of this is car free development (discussed in the precedent section below). Car free planning and development reduces automobile use to the minimum by not providing parking, streets for driving for the automobile, or by creating car free, pedestrian oriented areas in central areas (Newman, 1998). Car free measures are primarily implemented to address the ecological effects of automobile dependency: air and water pollution. By removing automobiles from urban areas other benefits are also realized in the other two spheres of sustainability. Regarding social sustainability streets that are designed for pedestrians and cyclists provide areas for children to play, and for people to meet and enjoy each others company. These types of streets create numerous exchanges which increase community capacity (discussed in the social sustainability section)(Engwicht, 1993). In terms of economic sustainability, these types of areas require far less financial resources for hard infrastructure (paved roadways, curbs etc.), and street-park community gardens could increase local food security. If automobile parking is greatly reduced or eliminated, and the costs of providing parking are de-linked from the cost of each housing unit and passed on to the resident (purchaser or renter), then a 15% (on average) reduction in unit costs occurs (Litman, 1999). These economic efficiencies apply at the meso scale as well. Developers of housing in car free developments realize lower borrowing costs. The financial resources that they borrow to construct parking occur early in project development, and, therefore, account for an increase in debt carrying charges (interest)(Litman, 1999). At the macro level, car free areas are much safer for pedestrians and, thus, reduce healthcare costs. 83
There are repeated calls in the ecological sustainability literature for increased communicative participation, and equity. This is another example of the many ways that the spheres of sustainability overlap with each other, and it suggests an extensive set of these types of synergies that require further research. Let us now turn our attention towards social sustainability.
3.2.2 Social Sustainability
Social sustainability is defined by Roseland et al. (1998) as requiring social equity and as community members ability to:
achieve and maintain personal health: physical, mental and psychological; feed themselves adequately; provide adequate and appropriate shelter for themselves; have opportunities for gainful and meaningful employment; improve their knowledge and understanding of the world around them; find opportunities to express creativity and enjoy recreation in ways that satisfy spiritual and psychological needs; express a sense of identity through heritage, art and culture; enjoy a sense of belonging; be assured of mutual social support from their community; enjoy freedom from discrimination and, for those who are physically challenged, move about a barrier free community; enjoy freedom from fear, and security of person; and participate actively in civic affairs, (p. 147) This is an extensive list of characteristics for social sustainability, however, one must keep in mind the fact that it draws from a long tradition of writing, activism, and planning for social justice in the local reform movements (Gunton, 1979; Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993; and Newman, 1997). This is conceived of in the limited amount of social sustainability literature as social equity (Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993). According to Roseland et al (1998) social equity means more than equal opportunity, it implies opportunities for adequate housing, healthcare, education, employment, and mobility. An analytical framework (adapted from Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993) for social sustainability includes three general concepts: 1) equality; 2) community capacity; and 3) urbanity.
84
Equality One can argue that social sustainability requires more than equity. If we are to reduce material and energy consumption, society should not burden those who are least able to afford to do with less with the responsibility for reducing their already extremely modest or insufficient consumption patterns (Wackemagel and Rees, 1996; and Roseland et al., 1998). Those who can most afford to give up material and energy consumption (and, therefore, reduce their ecological impact as well) should be charged with the responsibility, or convinced through suasion, to reduce their consumption and redistribute wealth to those who are being forced to live at very low or no income levels (Agyeman and Evans, 2002; and Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). From a neo-Marxist perspective, social equity does not provide for a very strong form of social sustainability. For while social equity implies equality of outcome, it is not as explicit as aiming for a relative level of equality of outcome amongst the members of society; a relative level of equality which provides for the basic physical needs of people (adequate housing, diet, education, and fulfilling employment). Another aspect of social equality concerns peoples ability to participate in decision-making. Communicative participation requires both equal opportunity, and equal means to participate in decision-making fora. Communicative participation (often referred to as public, or citizen participation) is reiterated in both the ecological, and social sustainability literature (Roseland et al, 1998; Newman, 1998; Yanarella, 1999; Stirling, 1999; Blake, 1999; Selman and Parker, 1999; Counsell, 1999; Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998; Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993; and Kranz and Silva, 1998). Communicative participation was extensively discussed in chapter two; therefore, it will only be discussed here briefly by noting some aspects that have emerged from this part of the literature review. Stirling (1999), for instance, argues that symbiotic, communicative participation processes are necessary to ensure the fostering of analytical rigour for indicators (discussed in the section on indicators). Blake (1999) notes that behavioural change, which is required for society to move towards sustainability, will depend on institutional capacity which enables people to be involved in the implementation, design, and evaluation of sustainability 85
projects. In the case of SeFC, for example, this type of institutional capacity is beginning to build around the Planning Departments support of the SeFC Stewardship Group (staff time and some limited resources).
Community Capacity The presence of community capacity is indicated by the groups and networks which exist in civil society (World Bank, 1995), and it encompasses what some term social capital, community conviviality, or social caring capacity (Roseland et al, 1998; Hancock, 1997; and Healey, 1997). The existence, strength, diversity, and vitality of these groups can significantly increase a communitys capacity for working collaboratively towards sustainable urban development. The growth of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or the third sector, has been pointed out by planning theorists (Douglass and Friedmann, 1998; and Sandercock, 1997). Others, such as Putnam (1998), have decried the loss of social groups and networks in American society (or 'social capital' as Putnam classifies it). The increase in NGOs and environmental NGOs (ENGOs), however, is a persuasive example of an increase in community capacity. This increase in community capacity likely increases social interaction and the strength of social networks. Putnam (1998) notes the weakening or disappearance of social groups in the United States (many of which formed from the 1940s to 1970s). These groups were more often than not exclusionary (they often excluded women and racial minorities). Putnam places the blame for this loss of community, or social networks on television as an atomizing force. Although this is valid, other technologies, such as the single occupant vehicle, have also reduced the amount of social exchange, or social sustainability in contemporary society -especially in urban areas (Engwicht, 1993). Douglass and Friedmann (1998) note the rise of civil society as these groups have grown in number in an era when governments have increasingly stepped away from their 'traditional' role as service providers. Community capacity also includes other aspects of a vibrant community which are necessary for moving towards social sustainability. This includes the building blocks drawn from the
86
healthy communities literature, such as the manifold characteristics of public health: safe and nutritious food, shelter, peace, income, a stable ecosystem, sustainable natural resource supplies and uses, and social justice (Roseland, 1997). Kline (2000) expands this list by including some general quality of life goals: sufficient health care; a sense of belonging to a community; close connections to natural areas (even in densely populated areas); and feeling safe and comfortable enough to enjoy outdoor recreation. Safety goes beyond the reduction or elimination of crime to safe streets where people can walk, and play free from the fear of being struck down by automobiles (Engwicht, 1993). In the SeFC policy-making process this was addressed by activists advocating for car free streets or areas to foster this aspect of social sustainability.
Urbanity In reaction to suburban development (the dominant mode, or movement of urban planning and development for most of the 20th century), writers such as Lewis Mumford and Jane Jacobs rediscovered and reinterpreted urbanism in the mosaic of ethnic communities occupying downtown (Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993, p. 143). In Canada, there was less white flight, or class flight to the suburbs than there was in the United States, during the latter half of the twentieth century. This was partly due to the success of activists, planners, and politicians who kept freeways from rending the fabric of Canadas major City centres (Newman and Kenworthy, 1998; and Hasson and Ley, 1994). Vancouvers West End, for example, is a high-density, residential area located in the City centre. This area has high amenity value as it is bounded to the north and south by the ocean, to the west by Vancouvers Stanley Park, and to the east by the central business, cultural, and entertainment districts. Walker and Rees (1997) note that 40% of households in the West End do not own an automobile. It provides a precedent of successful urbanity, as social exchanges amongst its high ratio of pedestrians are greater than in other automobile dominated parts of the City of Vancouver. However, transportation issues are becoming evident, especially difficulties with increasing traffic.
87
Yiftachel and Hedgecock (1993) point out that, by the 1980s, new agendas had emerged in the planning profession: adaptive re-use, inner City living, revitalization and preservation. These new agendas were initiated by popular protests against various redevelopment proposals in the 1970s, in both Australia and Canada (Hasson and Ley, 1993; and Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993). Inherent in this bringing back the City movement, which includes some aspects of new urbanism (Roseland et al., 1998), is recognition of the value of high-density urban areas. These areas provide nodes in which many exchanges occur, exchanges of: friendship, culture (the arts and other ethnic traditions), knowledge, insight, skills; and emotional, psychological, and spiritual support (Engwicht, 1993). These exchanges reflect the vibrancy, and diversity of urban areas and go far beyond the exchanges which are usually emphasized: information and material goods exchange (Engwicht, 1993; Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). These cultural and community-based exchanges were argued for, with some success, by some participants in the SeFC policy-making process. Those who advocate for sustainable urban development generally have a desire to maintain these positive features of urban living, while striving to improve ecological integrity, and local economic sustainability.
3.2.3 Economic Sustainability
This conceptual framework for economic sustainability draws on, adapts, and expands upon Yiftachel and Hedgecocks (1993) framework for social sustainability, by extending it for the other spheres of sustainability. Economic sustainability was generally defined above as the fostering of local economic security (Kline, 2000, and 1997; and Roseland et al., 1998); and local self-reliance and ecologically benign or beneficial economic activity (Roseland et al., 1998; Skinner, 1997; and Vodden, 1997). Essentially, economic sustainability can be conceived of as: 1) economic security; 2) local self-reliance; and 3) ecologically sound economic activity. We will now consider each one of these characteristics of ecological sustainability in fuller detail.
88
Economic Security Kline (1997 and 2000) conceives of economic security as being much broader than standard measures of economic activity (based on revenues, or tax collected, and indicators such as gross national product, or the number of jobs created). Economic security is a concept based on an economy which works for peoples welfare. It covers issues such as: education, training, and occupational safety (Kline, 1997 and 2000). Education and training are required to adjust to future requirements and changes in labour force needs. Kline (2000) defines economic security as including peoples ability to have a voice in their workplaces. Traditionally, in late capitalism, issues of occupational health and safety have been dealt with through union organizing and bargaining. Although this will remain a necessary feature of peoples occupations in contemporary capitalism (one that will require many struggles to maintain), a neo-Marxist perspective would argue that cooperative ownership of smaller production and service units will be required to realize greater economic security and fuller workplace democracy. There are many similarities between Klines eco-City perspective and community economic development regarding strategies to achieve economic security. Sustainable community economic development (CED) is defined as: a process by which communities can initiate and generate their own solutions to their common economic problems and thereby build long-term community capacity and foster the integration of economic, social, and environmental objectives (Roseland et al., 1998, p. 5). Most standard CED initiatives seek to establish individual and community self-reliance through collaborative action, capacity building, and engaging in strategies to return control of the local economy to local communities (Roseland et al., 1998). Many CED initiatives are being employed to achieve greater local economic security, for instance: buy local marketing campaigns, cooperative enterprises, skills training and small enterprise development (Roseland et al., 1998), and local employment (or exchange) and trading systems (Nozick, 1992; and Burman, 1997). The latter uses a local exchange accounting system which allows people to trade services and goods independently of
89
the formal economy, such as gardening in exchange for child care. Economic security and CED contain many initiatives that can increase local communities self-reliance.
Local Self-Reliance Those who argue for strong sustainability advocate increased local self-reliance as a solution to the inherently unsustainable nature of the trade-based, global economy. International trade is energy intensive and this increases the costs of transportation, unless energy sources are subsidized, which is often the case. Daly (1996) asserts that charging full-cost energy prices would reduce the initial gains from long-distance trade, whether international or interRegional, and would have the same effect as a tariff that was both efficient and protective. Daly (1996) also points out two other disadvantages of international trade: 1) increased dependence on distant markets and economic specialization weakens the control a community has over its economy; and 2) economic specialization reduces the range of employment options for local residents. Increased local self-reliance would likely also greatly increase a communitys resiliency in the event of a global economic recession. Local self-reliance need not lead to isolation, nor become as totally dominant as the global economy. For instance, trade in light fair trade goods (which are produced by people making a living wage, using environmentally sound methods) will remain essential to valuable intercultural exchange and understanding. Roseland et al. define local self-reliance as the diversification of local economies to support local needs, encourage cohesiveness, reduce waste and enable more sustainable trade practices with other communities (1998, p. 161). Essentially, increased local self-reliance requires: the substitution of imports with locally produced goods and services; producing more with less natural resource consumption through recovery, recycling, and conservation (demand management); the increased local circulation of money (maximum local multiplier effect); local innovation, adaptation, and flexibility to create needed products and services; and collective community self-reliance which allows for fair trade with other localities (Nozick, 1992). Unfortunately, in the case of SeFC, economic development has fallen, for the 90
most part, in the realm of weak sustainability. Ecologically sound economic development received more attention during the SeFC policy-making process.
Ecologically Sound Economic Activity Ecologically sound economic activity (green business or industry) includes categories of industries or services with either markedly reduced ecological impacts, or those which actually improve or restore local ecosystems (Roseland et al., 1998; Skinner, 1997; Nozick, 1992; and Vodden, 1997). Nozick (1992), for instance, shares a strikingly elegant, and successful case of this type of enterprise: the Tall Grass Prairie Bread Company. This bakery was formed when a group of families pooled their financial resources to purchase a local bakery, which was closing down. The two women who run the bakery purchase organically grown grain directly from farmers (who are paid a higher price than the market: a fair price). They then grind the grain themselves, and bake fresh, nutritious bread for their local neighbourhoods needs. These types of ecologically sound enterprises often meet, or support other social and ecological sustainability goals. The case of the Tall Grass Prairie Bread Company highlights this in several ways. The retention of a local bakery reduces the need for local residents to leave their neighbourhood for essential needs, and thus automobile dependency is reduced (with attendant synergies in energy conservation and pollution reduction). There are strong linkages created between mral farmers, and urban producers and consumers (Nozick, 1992). This green enterprise also supports sustainable agriculture, shares profits with farmers by paying fair prices for their wheat, and creates employment for local residents (Nozick, 1992). Regarding SeFC, the possibility of having a permanent farmers market may stimulate other green enterprises, similar to the one that Nozick presents. In the Berkley, California area green enterprises have been given a high priority at a Regional scale. Berkleys Green Valley pursues two complementary goals: 1) the creation and retention of local employment; and 2) ecological protection and enhancement (Skinner, 1997). Green enterprises such as recycling, in comparison to resource extraction and waste disposal industries, 91
create a high proportion of employment. For every million tons of waste, for example, 67 jobs would be created for landfilling, versus 467 jobs if the waste was composted, and 600 jobs if it were recycled (Skinner, 1997). Added to this is the reduction in industrial extraction (forestry and mining) caused by recycling solid waste. The latter observation has its detractors, however, as some point to the energy intensiveness of collecting, sorting, and recycling materials. Foxon et al. (1999), for example, assert that incinerating paper is more energy efficient than recycling it, if the trees are sustainably grown and harvested. Furthermore, they note the complexities of determining which methods of waste management are appropriate, incineration creates higher levels of local particulate and lower overall levels of carbon dioxide than recycling (caused by the fact that recycling may result in higher levels of carbon dioxide due to the greater amount of transportation demand)(Foxon et al., 1999). In cases such as these where there is an ecological impasse, then local community development and employment creation should be taken into account. To sum up, ecologically sound economic activity can: lower the costs of waste disposal; conserve natural resources (energy, water, and other resources); reduce or eliminate pollution; increase compliance with regulations; enhance enterprises public image; create new local opportunities (Roseland et al., 1998); and increase local employment (Skinner, 1997).
3.3 Sustainability at the International and Local Scale
The literature reiterates the argument that the focus of sustainable development is at the local scale (Selman and Parker, 1999; Counsell, 1999; Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998; Kranz and Silva, 1998; and O Riordan and Voisey, 1998). This conclusion arose out of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Selman and Parker (1999) note that this conference laid out the framework for sustainable development at the local scale through Chapter 28 of Agenda 21. Chapter 28 called for Local Agenda 21 to implement sustainable development at the local scale. This emphasis on action at the local scale also reflects 92
many years of environmental activism at the local level from the mid-1960s. This is neatly summed up in the phrase that forms the basis for ENGOs at the local scale: Think Globally, Act Locally (Gardner, 1991). Therefore, a strong relationship exists between politics and activism at the global scale and implementation or action at the local scale. In the United States (US) and Canada Local Agenda 21 has not achieved as much momentum as in Europe. There have been, however, vibrant examples of local sustainability initiatives in both the US and Canada. Yanarella (1999), for instance, argues for the City as the node for sustainable development and notes the success of both Hamilton-Wentworth and Chatanooga in moving towards sustainable urban development. In Europe, on the other hand, Local Agenda 21 is being pursued quite assiduously -especially in Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom (U K)(0Riordan and Voisey, 1998), and Sweden (Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998). In Sweden, for example, all 288 municipalities had decided to embark on their own Local Agenda 21 (LA21) processes by 1996 (Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998). The fundamental philosophy of LA 21 processes is that local Councils should be in partnership with local residents in order to promote their well being (Selman and Parker, 1999). These partnerships, on the whole, generally take the form of communicative participation processes where local citizens work in partnership with local Councils and agencies to define and operationalize sustainable development (Selman and Parker, 1999; Counsell, 1999; Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998; and Kranz and Silva, 1998). Selman and Parker (1999) interviewed participants in four leading edge LA21 processes in the UK. They found that the symbiosis between both the top and the bottom is required for these processes. One of the LA21 agency staff, noted that you need the expert, but you dont need the expert to do everything because communities are expert in what living in their communities means to them... professionals are getting better at delivering and realising that you cannot be patronizing anymore, that you cant impose your ideas on your community (sic) (Selman and Parker, 1999, p. 52). These consensus-based communicative participation processes are widespread in the LA21 initiatives and should provide
93
fertile ground for analysis of how these processes move society either towards or away from sustainable urban development. Eckerberg and Forsberg (1998) note that the majority of the Swedish LA21 initiatives dealt with issues that are well within the capacity of local government: waste management, municipal green purchasing programs, and water and sewerage systems. Added to this is the role of local governments in transportation. Differences in governmental systems and socio-political cultures make some European states more amenable to local sustainability initiatives. These include factors such as: the previous involvement of local governments in UNCED activities; national support (finances and coordination); sufficient local autonomy; previous experience with communicative participation processes; and strong activism at the local level (Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998). In Canada, the international imperative for sustainable development, flowed from the Brundtland Report (1987). The conclusions of the Brundtland Report (1987) were drawn from the World Commission on Environment and Developments three-year global consultation, from 1983 to 1987 (WCED, 1987). These consultations took the form of public hearings, reports from advisory committees, and studies that were submitted to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987). In Canada, and throughout the world, this process included submissions, representations, and reports from the federal and provincial levels of government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs), individuals, and academics (WCED, 1987). The federal government responded to the Brundtland Report by establishing the National Task Force on Environment and Economy in 1987 (Dorcey, 1991; and Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). The National Task Force on Environment and Economy recommended that round tables be established to integrate environmental and economic policy, and to increase public participation and education regarding sustainable development (Lotz, 1995; and Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). In the late 1980s and early 1990s round tables were set up at the federal level, and the provincial levels of government (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). In British Columbia, the British Columbia 94
Round Table on the Environment and Economy (BCRTEE) was established in 1990 (BCRTEE, 1994). The provincial round table recommended that local round tables be established throughout British Columbia (Lotz, 1995). The BCRTEE also produced a series of reports on sustainable urban development (BCRTEE, 1994). Lotz (1995) describes the form and function of local round tables that were established throughout British Columbia. The Capital Region District Regional Round Table, for instance, was formed by the Capital Region District (CRD) in 1990 (Lotz, 1995). This CRD round table reported to and advised the CRD board on long-term planning issues facing the Region. Through these round tables sustainable development imperatives from the international processes were expanded upon at the federal, provincial, Regional and local levels through communicative participation processes (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). In order for these local round tables to be effective Canadian municipalities, and local governments require sufficient local autonomy. Sufficient local autonomy is problematic in the Canadian context given the current trend towards municipal amalgamation. This amalgamation has occurred in Ontario, and it is facilitated by the fact that, constitutionally, Canadian municipalities exist as creations of the provincial level of government. In British Columbia, amalgamation has not, thus far, arisen as a factor. However, municipal amalgamation has been discussed in the local media. The local scale is the site of significant action and implementation for sustainable urban development.
3.4 Sustainable Urban Development Precedents
Examples of movement towards sustainable urban development exist at the Regional, Citywide, or neighbourhood scales in North America and abroad. Some examples include: Regionally, the Hertfordshire County structure plan, UK (Counsell, 1999), and Hamilton-Wentworths Vision 2020 Sustainable Community Project, Canada (Yanarella, 1999); City-wide, Waitakeres transit oriented development (TOD) strategy, New Zealand (Barton, 1998); and at the community or neighbourhood scale, Village Homes, a well established, ecologically designed, suburban 95
development, Davis, California, US (Barton, 1998; and Roseland et al., 1998). Barton (1998) points out that the most striking aspect of Davis, California is the extensive and intensive communicative participation processes (Davis has 376 volunteer committees) through which it has achieved a high degree of sustainable urban development, even though it relied on a developerdriven planning process. Village Homes has achieved: narrow streets (20 to 25 feet instead of the common 30 feet or more) which absorb less heat in the summer; a network of bikeways which make biking or walking the most direct and quickest way to travel, and, as a result, Village Homes residents use 36% less energy for vehicular driving (United States, Department of Energy, 1999). There are a gDod number of other neighbourhood scale precedents of sustainable urban development (Barton, 1998; Roseland et al., 1997; and Roseland et al., 1998). For purposes of illustration, we will consider one urban, neighbourhood scale precedent (which is similar to SeFC, if it is developed in a strong sustainability manner) that exemplifies the great distance towards sustainable urban development that can be realized. It also serves as a point of comparison for the SeFC planning process, and possibilities for successful implementation of sustainable urban developments.
3.4.1 Westerpark Car Free Housing Project Amsterdam, Netherlands
Westerpark is a vibrant example of urban, brownfield redevelopment (it stands on a former water utility site), situated 2.5 km from the centre of Amsterdam, which was completed in 1998 (see figure 3.4.1). It has 600 residences in medium-rise buildings, restricts the use of private vehicles, and utilizes sound ecological design in the creation of a low impact community. The buildings feature many green building, energy saving features, such as passive and active solar technologies. Existing and new buildings were utilized for a community centre, a day care centre for handicapped children, and some commercial and industrial use. The relatively small scale of the development has been made practical by the existence of many important local facilities such as schools and local shops within 200 metres of the development (Action Towards Local Sustainability, 1999). 96
Figure 3.4.1 Westerpark Car Free Development
The target for Westerpark was to build at a density of 100 dwellings per hectare (which is not unusual for inner Amsterdam), and to limit car ownership to 0.3 cars per dwelling with the parking provided at the entrance to the estate (Action Towards Local Sustainability, 1999). Density was increased by 15 - 20% by restricting private cars. Car ownership in Amsterdam as a whole is around 50%, in Westerpark that figure is about 30% (Action Towards Local Sustainability, 1999). The intention is to provide more open space by reducing access to private vehicles and to give priority for the new housing to existing residents in Westerpark. The estate is pedestrian only. A shielding wall of between 4 and 9 stories was built along two sides of the development, providing 57% of the dwellings and protecting the remainder of the site from wind and noise (Action Towards Local Sustainability, 1999). The remaining dwellings were provided in 14 blocks on the rest of the site. The density of the development is high; however, the lack of cars and the minimal walking distances to the edge of the estate (150m is the furthest walk required) allows for a park-like feeling in the area. Applications for residency are oversubscribed 97
and lots are drawn to decide who gets access to the 110 parking spaces available at the entrance to the estate. The car-free nature of the estate is supported by effective and regular existing public transport services into and around Amsterdam and by special services for those with mobility difficulties. In addition, the minimized number of car parks enabled planners to include a vast extent of landscaped public and private space, significantly reducing the share of open area under pavement when compared to conventional development (Scheurer, 1999). This increased open space, due to the lack of parking and other infrastructure for automobiles, has allowed areas for community gardens on the site which increase local self-reliance. Furthermore, it has greatly reduced the amount of impervious surface, an important ecological indicator (discussed below). The Westerpark Car Free Housing Project was an initiative of the Westerpark Council (with a majority of social democrat and green members) in partnership with the Ministry of Housing, and Spatial Planning and Environment (Action Towards Local Sustainability, 1999). The apartments are half owner-occupied and half publicly subsidized rental housing. The local Council ran a newspaper ad in 1993, resulting in 4,000 serious respondents who were asked to sign a non-obligational declaration of support for the car-free nature of the housing (Scheurer, 1999). The entire site is inaccessible to motor vehicles including taxis and removal vans; however, 110 parking spaces have been created towards the western verge to cater for an estimated 20% of residents still owning a car (this figure had been established in a survey, and the spaces were allocated in a lottery) (Scheurer, 1999). It can be expected that car ownership will not exceed this level, as parking in the surrounding area has been effectively controlled by resident-only parking for years. The apartments were completed in stages between late 1996 and early 1998 (Sdieurer, 1999). This precedent is set in an European context. This is significant in that European urban Regions have higher densities than Canadian urban Regions. The Regional average population density for Europe, in 1990, was 49.9 persons per hectare, while for Canada, it was 26.2 persons per hectare (Brown et. al, 1999). Europe also has a lower average rate of car use at 4,519 kilometres perperson as compared to Canadas 6,946 kifometres per person (Brown et. al, 1999). These differences in density and automobile use make it more of a challenge to implement these 98
European land use cases in North American cities, such as Vancouver. Although there are significant differences between the European and Canadian contexts, Vancouver has areas of high density that make it one of the most promising urban areas for this type o f car free development. Vancouvers West End, for instance, is one of the highest density, inner City areas in North America (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999). Furthermore, Vancouver has a long history of selectively restricting automobile access: Granville Street Transit mall, and the West Ends street end pocket parks (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999), and South False Creeks car free areas. Examples of sustainable development precedents are given here as they set the bar for sustainability, and they set it quite high in the case of the European precedents. These examples help to frame a stronger version of sustainable urban development, and they help to inform the criteria used to evaluate the sustainability outcomes for SeFC. Given that precedents are often assessed on the basis of indicators, and indicator setting was given significant priority in the SeFC case, it is relevant to consider some of the issues bound up in determining sustainability indicators.
3.5 Indicators of Sustainable Urban Development
In sustainability processes, once planning goals have been set (a reduction in automobile dependency, for example) then objective measures have to be established to indicate the progress made in moving towards (or away) from the goals that plans are intended to achieve. The SeFC case study dealt extensively with the many issues surrounding indicators. The Sheltair Report (1998), for instance, provides a framework for sustainable urban development principles with goals and criteria, and laid out an extensive array of indicators dealing with waste, energy, water management, and other goals and indicators. There is tension in policy communities regarding these indicators. Some argue that experts should play a major role in determining indicators (Foxon et al., 1999), while others assert that communicative participation is required to set meaningful indicators (Leitman, 1999; Stirling, 1999; and Crilly et al., 1999). Without 99
communicative participation, the process of setting indicators can result in the selection of indicators based solely on data availability. This approach simply perpetuates the status quo (Crilly, et al., 1999). Communicative participation processes allow for more transparent and open non-technical and disaggregated indicators which enable the public and specific participants to understand the scope of sustainable development and the linkages between issues (Crilly, et al., 1999). Stirling (1999) stresses the symbiotic nature of communicative participation approaches in determining sustainability indicators:
Rather than counterpoising technical analysis and public deliberation in appraisal, the two are better seen as intrinsically interdependent. For it is only through public deliberation that analysis may obtain the essential empirical inputs concerning the selection, definition and prioritisation of the appraisal criteria which are essential to analysis, (p. 127) These appraisal criteria, or sustainability indicators can also help to direct policy formulation if they are clearly identified before, or during the policy-making process. A significant amount of the literature describes and discusses quality of life and other sustainable development indicators (Leitman, 1999; Foxon et al., 1999; Kline, 2000; and Crilly et al., 1999). Kline (2000), for example, outlines indicators that cover economic security (per capita income, educational levels), and quality of life indicators (housing and health care provision). Kline (2000) argues that measuring quality of life must go beyond these quantitative indicators to consider qualitative indicators such as: a sense of belonging to the community; being comfortable and secure enough in ones neighbourhood to enjoy a full array of outdoor activities (recreation, walking, and cycling); a closer connection to nature in densely populated urban areas; trust of ones neighbours; the level of volunteerism in the community; and attendance at cultural and arts events. Once these qualitative indicators have been determined, through communicative participation processes, they must be measured through alternative methods: surveys and opinion polls; discussion groups; interviews; and other qualitative methods (Kline, 2000). Thus there is a full
100
iterative, communicative, and participative cycle in determining and measuring these types of qualitative indicators. Stirling points out that communicative participation processes to identify key indicators will also lead to analytical rigour as even in principle we cannot expect to find definitive analytical justifications for one sustainability strategy over another (1999, p. 127). These communicative participation processes may also bring in novel alternative measures, which create synergy and help move towards sustainability. One alternative measure of sustainable urban development that might be raised by ecocentric non-material interests in a communicative participation process is Wackemagel and Rees (1996) ecological footprint. The ecological footprint is an indicator that seeks to measure the complete cycle of ecological impacts of products, types of development, or modes of transportation. This analytical tool measures both natural resource extraction and waste assimilation. It then goes further by translating these measurements back into the area of land required to supply natural resources and assimilate the wastes of production and use (Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). Regarding the ecological footprints of conurbations, for instance, the Lower Fraser Valley would require an area 19 times its size to provide present levels of consumption of food, forestry products, and fossil fuel use (Wackemagel and Rees, 1996). This points out the high rate of natural resource consumption that occurs in conurbations, however, the ecological footprint can also be used to compare types of development and levels of density (urban as compared to suburban). Walker and Rees (1997), for example, compared different types of residential densities. They calculate that in comparison to a standard detached single family house: high-rise apartments have a 40% smaller ecological footprint; walk-up apartments have a 36% smaller ecological footprint; and townhouses have a 22% smaller ecological footprint (Walker and Rees, 1997). Thus ecological footprints have been utilized to point out a contradiction inherent in present urban development: it consumes high levels of energy and natural resources (including waste assimilation); and when the built form achieves high density, and livability, natural resource and energy consumption can be markedly reduced. Ecological footprints and sustainability indicators
101
in general provide measures which can compare different sustainability strategies. We now turn to a brief discussion of two primary indicators for sustainable urban development, water quality and transportation.
3.6 Two Primary Indicators: Water Quality and Transportation
The policy-making process for SeFC dealt with a full array of ecological, and economic issues. Social sustainability issues were deliberated upon in a more cursory, and implicit manner. In order to explore indicators further, with regard to those that were addressed in SeFC, non point source pollution, impervious surfaces in urban areas, and sustainable urban transportation are discussed. These two indicators were also drawn on to assess the policy-making and sustainability consultancy work for the case study.
3.6.1 Non-point Source Pollution and Impervious Surfaces
The pervious nature of undeveloped watersheds is extremely significant for the maintenance of normal hydrological flows and water quality (Ben-Joseph, 1995; and Harbor, 1996). Urban development increases impervious surfaces (pavement and rooftops). Arnold et al. (1996) argue that impervious surface coverage is a significant environmental indicator. Greater areas of impervious surfaces markedly increase stormwater flows, and impact water quality by exacerbating nonpoint source pollution (which increases in tandem with the amount of impervious surface coverage and the increase in traffic volumes which greater amounts of pavement facilitate (Schreier et al., 1991; and Ferguson and Hall, 1979). Gutteridge, et al.(1981) succinctly sum up many of the sources of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution:
Pollution results from the washing of materials from impervious surfaces and includes contamination from road pavement materials, motor vehicles (leakage of fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, coolants, fine particles worn off tyres, clutch and brake linings, exhaust 102
emissions, dirt, rust and decomposing coatings dropped from the underside of mudguards and undercarriages, vehicle components broken by vibration or impact), atmospheric fallout (from industrial stacks, vents), vegetation (leaves, pollen, bark, twigs, seeds, fruiting bodies and grasses), litter (packaging materials, plant debris, food discards, animal and bird droppings), spills (dust, sand, gravel, cement, agricultural and petroleum products etc.) and unauthorised deliberate dumping. Best management measures and redevelopment measures provide means to effectively reverse the effects of NPS pollution and the amount of impervious surface coverage in a well established urban area. These stormwater best management practices include: vegetative controls (grassed channels, or swales designed to limit erosion and enhance the settling of suspended solids); the use of filter strips of grass for sheet flow which act to increase infiltration and filter pollutants from stormwater runoff; and rooftop storage, and parking lots designed to provide temporary storage could reduce peak flows in well established urban areas (Maestri et al., 1989, Arnold et al., 1996; and Ferguson and Hall, 1979). There are many benefits to developing, or, in the case of long established urban areas, redeveloping shared streets where the paved area is narrowed considerably, curbs are eliminated, and there is no straight line of travel available for motor vehicles which must share the right of way with children and pedestrians (Ben-Joseph, 1995). The development of shared streets would further reduce stormwater runoff and would act to naturally filter out contaminants close to their source as the shared street concept also incorporates grassy swales, and permeable paving (Ben-Joseph, 1995). Reduction in the widths of residential streets and the replacement of pavement with permeable paving also results in reduced transportation by single occupancy vehicles (SOVs). Arnold et al. (1996), for instance, cite a 14% reduction in vehicle trips in the areas where shared streets have been constructed. Five or more developments in Europe are carfree, and this markedly reduces impervious surfaces (see the precedents section above). One in Edinburgh, for example, has residents sign an agreement to join a car cooperative and not own a private automobile while living in the automobile-free development (Roseland et al., 1998). A total reduction in motor vehicle trips should result in both improved water and air quality. 103
A general oversupply of parking in well established urban areas causes an increase in impervious surfaces and single occupancy vehicle trips (Willson, 1995; and Arnold et al., 1996). Parking is the largest component of impervious cover in commercial and industrial zones. This oversupply of free parking also acts to encourage more single occupancy vehicle trips which in turn increases average daily traffic levels which are a significant factor in roadways contributions to NPS pollution and the water quality impairment of receiving waters. SeFC is the first major development in Vancouver to include in its policy document the need to reduce impervious surfaces (both streets and rooftops). Thus the SeFC case study provides a rare opportunity to operationalize strategies (shared and car free streets, rooftop retention in the form of garden-like roofs, transportation demand side management, parking reduction, grassy swales, permeable paving, etc.) which will reduce impervious surface coverage and markedly reduce the flow and NPS pollution effects of stormwater sewerage systems. The amount of impervious surfaces is a significant indicator of ecological sustainability. This impervious surface policy will be analyzed to evaluate the SeFC policys movement towards sustainable urban development. Throughout this discussion of NPS pollution and impervious surfaces in urban areas, there has been considerable overlap with another significant aspect of sustainable urban development: sustainable urban transportation.
3.6.2 Sustainable Urban Transportation
Urban transportation can have many deleterious ecological and social impacts. Planning for sustainable urban transportation can go a significant distance in markedly reducing automobile dependency and in turn can decrease these social and ecological impacts (Engwicht; 1993; Safdie, 1998; Newman and Kenworthy, 1998; Willson, 1995; and Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998). Newman and Kenworthy (1998) define automobile dependency as urban planning which assumes automobile use as the dominant imperative in its decisions on transportation,
104
infrastructure, and land use. Newman and Kenworthy (1998) go further by pointing out the strong relationship between automobile dependency and sustainability:
Automobile dependence is the primary force driving cities to increase their use of land, energy, water, and other materials; their production of transportation-related air emissions (both greenhouse gases and local smog-related emissions), traffic noise, and stormwater pollution (due to the extent of asphalt in Auto Cities); and their economic problems due to the high capital costs of sprawl-related infrastructure, direct transportation costs (road accidents, pollution etc.); along with the transportation-related loss of the public realm, safety, and community. Automobile dependency impacts all three spheres of sustainability: the ecological, social, and economic spheres. Newman and Kenworthy (1998) conclude that movement towards sustainable urban development cannot be realized without addressing automobile dependence. Status quo planning which entrenches automobile dependence occurs throughout North America, and is gaining widespread, global acceptance. The focus on planning for the automobile leaves other important modes of transportation (walking, bicycling, and public transit) as peripheral, or non existent in planning (Newman and Kenworthy, 1998). Planning for sustainable urban transportation employs a series of land use strategies and inverts the status quo of transportation planning. Sustainable land use and urban transportation planning requires a shift from supplying an endless demand for transportation infrastructure to transportation demand side management (Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998; Engwicht, 1993; Newman and Kenworthy, 1998; Safdie, 1998; Vigar, 2000; and Willson, 1995). Transportation demand side management (TDM) is a predict and prevent approach (as opposed to the predict and provide supply-side approach) which moves to far less dependence on roadway construction (or no net expansion, or, perhaps, even a reduction over time, of existing roadways), and the adoption of a series of strategies to reduce or manage transportation demand as opposed to simply providing for it (Vigar, 2000). Engwicht (1993) notes that transportation supply-side approaches can never meet demand as building
105
more and larger roadways simply increases demand, which quickly fills up the increased transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, Engwicht (1993) rightly notes that the primary purpose of transportation is not to just go somewhere; humans move themselves to meet exchange values. These exchange values go beyond economic exchange (which are important) and include exchanges of: friendship, culture, knowledge, insight, skills; and emotional, psychological, and spiritual support (Engwicht, 1993). Land use strategies which can increase exchanges while reducing transportation demand encompass: high density, mixed use planning which allows for a diversity of land uses in a local area and provides employment close to residences (Newman, 1997; and Roseland et al., 1998); car free land use planning which provides for mixed use and reduces transportation demand by providing incentives for those who cannot afford an automobile, or choose to live without one (incentives include, for instance, more affordable housing due to cost savings on roadways and parking)(Roseland et al., 1998); and higher density transit oriented development which plans for compact pedestrian-scaled neighbourhoods focused on transit infrastructure (Barton, 1998). The SeFC policy may provide for any amount of these land use strategies which aid in the movement towards sustainable urban transportation. Indicators which can be used to measure progress towards sustainable urban transportation include: density ratios (Walker and Rees, 1997; Roseland et al., 1998); the percentage of residences within easy walking distance (350 metres) of basic services, employment, and public transit (Sheltair, 1998); and average vehicle kilometres traveled per capita and transportationrelated carbon dioxide emissions (Sheltair, 1998). Simply measuring a reduction in automobile dependency is not sufficient, for sustainable urban transportation also requires a shift towards more ecologically and socially sound transportation. Planning for sustainable urban transportation inverts transportation planning priorities. It creates plans for, in order of priority, pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and lastly the automobile. There are many indicators which can measure progress towards, or away, from these sustainable urban transportation goals: the percentage of residents who walk, cycle, and ride 106
public transit; the percentage of development site area dedicated to walking, cycling, and public transit (Newman and Kenworthy, 1998; and Sheltair, 1998); the average commute to and from work, and parking ratios (the number of parking spaces per residence or enterprise)(Willson, 1996; and Newman and Kenworthy, 1998). These indicators foster the movement towards sustainable urban development in several ways: in communicative participation processes (which should include deliberations over appropriate indicators) they can provide a framework for discourse which can lead to improved policy-formulation; indicators which are easily, and readily understood can empower residents with a set of tools to chart their communitys movement towards sustainability; and indicators are necessary to both monitor and adapt sustainable urban development policies.
3.7 Outcome Criteria
The following outcome criteria were drawn from the literature review. They were selected as they represented a set of strong sustainability criteria, yet they are general enough to note the, often incremental, improvements that often occur in policy-making processes. The ecological, social, and economic sustainability criteria are used to evaluate sustainable urban development policy in the SeFC case study in as broad a manner as possible, while focusing in on specific policies that can aid in moving towards sustainability. The adaptation and implementation criteria were added to help assess the prospects of implementation for the policy. They are germaine, in that the most well formulated policy becomes meaningless if it is filed away and not implemented in an adaptive manner.
107
Figure 3.2 Sources of Outcome Criteria Wackemagel and Rees (1996); Rees and Walker (1997) Efficient and Ecologically Sensitive Land Use; Reduction of Natural Resource Use and Pollution Creates Flexible and Networked Practices; Reduces Conflict; Increses Representativeness; Creates Second Order Effects Creates Greater Equality; Fosters Urbanity
OUTCOME CRITERIA
Roseland et al.(1998)
Innes(1999)
Kline (1997, and 2000)
Yiftachel and Hedgecock (1993)
Ecological Sustainability
Efficient and Ecologically Sensitive Land Use; Reduction of Natural Resource Use and Pollution
Social Sustainability
Increases Community Capacity
Economic Sustainability
Increased Economic Security; Increased Local SelfReliance; Ecologically Sound Economic Activitiy
Reduces Overall Costs; Generates Benefits
Increased Economic Security
Creative Adaptation
Implementation
Creative Ideas for Action; Adaptive to Changes Feasible and Based on Commitment that Aids Implementation
108
Outcome Criterion 1:
Ecological Sustainability: The policy or plan increases efficient and ecologically sensitive land use (Roseland et al., 1998; Van Vliet, 1994; and Rees and Walker, 1997); reduces the use of natural resources, reduces or eliminates pollution (Roseland et al., 1998; Wackemagel and Rees, 1996), and allows for effective, monitoring (Foxon et al., 1999; and Stirling, 1999).
Social Sustainability: The policy or plan meets the interests and needs of all participants and society in general, aids in the creation of flexible and networked practices, reduces conflict, increases representativeness, and creates second order effects (Innes, 1999); the policy also creates greater equality, or the capacity to move towards greater equality (both political and economic equality) (Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993; and Agyeman and Evans, 2002); increases community capacity (communicative participation, strong groups and networks) (Roseland et al., 1998; World Bank, 1995; and Kline, 2000, and 1997); and fosters urbanity (vibrant urban culture: arts, education) (Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993).
Economic Sustainability: The policy or plan reduces overall costs, and generates benefits, can be implemented over a reasonable time-frame (Innes, 1999); and creates the capacity for increased economic security (Roseland et al., 1998; and Kline, 2000, and 1997), increased local self-reliance, and ecologically sound economic activity (Roseland et al., 1998; Skinner, 1997; and Vodden, 1997).
109
Creative Adaptation: The policy or plan prominently features creative ideas for action, and it is adaptive to changes in the situation (Innes, 1999).
Implementation: The proposed policy is feasible and is based on actual commitments that will aid in its implementation (Innes, 1999).
3.8 Conclusion
This chapter outlines a broad framework for sustainable urban development. It considers the conceptual basis of sustainable development, and discusses and defines sustainable urban development. Despite the tensions (strong versus weak sustainability) inherent in planning for sustainable urban development, it provides a conceptual framework to evaluate sustainability policy. The framework builds on the three generally accepted spheres of sustainable urban development: the ecological, social, and economic spheres. The conceptual framework expands on these three spheres to include satellite spheres, or concepts: the ecological sphere, 1) efficient and ecologically sensitive land use; 2) reduction in the use of natural resources, and 3) the reduction, or elimination of pollution; the social sphere, 1) equality, 2) community capacity, and 3) urbanity; and the economic sphere, 1) economic security, 2) local self-reliance, and 3) ecologically sound economic activity. This conceptual framework is utilized to evaluate the substantive sustainable urban development policy for SeFC.
110
CHAPTER 4: FROM BROWNFIELD TO SUSTAINABLE URBAN COMMUNITY
4.0 The Planning Context The SeFC planning process takes place in a surround or context that is determined by politics past and current. This context is geographical, economic, and political. In order to begin to describe this context, the SeFC process and background story is retold. We continue to consider the case studys context by discussing the governmental context and the geographical areas that have been developed around SeFC, and the local politics that guided and shaped the development of these areas. These areas are the South False Creek area (directly to the west of SeFC), Fairview Slopes (southwest of SeFC), and North False Creek (the area directly to the northwest of SeFC). As Ley (1980, 1987, 1988, and 1992) has pointed out these, primarily post industrial, areas were redeveloped with dominant political, and ideological forces shaping the very form and style of development.
4.1 The SeFC Planning Process
4.1.1 A Brief Historical Snapshot Originally False Creek, a large tidal marsh fed by creeks with freshwater, stretched 5.5 kilometres inland to where Clark Drive is today, and it provided habitat for a diverse array of other species (deer, elk, beaver, muskrat, geese, waterfowl, salmon, trout, perch, flounder and sturgeon) (Oke, North, and Slaymaker, 1992). A small First Nations settlement, Snauq, was located at the mouth of False Creek in 1839 or earlier (Alexander and Griffiths, unpublished). The First Nations likely used cedar weirs, and other traditional harvesting methods, to take fish and other ocean borne species from False Creeks wide intertidal flat for sustenance. This Squamish band settlement and land sharing between the Musqueam and Squamish bands, and the fact that treaty negotiations were never conducted by the provincial government, has resulted in land claims by First Nations around False Creek that continue to this time (Alexander and Griffiths, unpublished). I ll
The eastend of False Creek (east of Main Street) served as a dumping area for residential and industrial waste from 1900 on (Oke, North, and Slaymaker, 1992). During the period from 1900 to the late 1960's intensive industrial activity (primarily resource processing) had left False Creek in such a degraded environmental condition that some called for the infilling of the whole basin (Oke, North, and Slaymaker, 1992). The industrial uses of the land were various: residential and commercial waste incineration, steel fabrication, salt distribution, ship building, sawmills and lumber manufacturing, machine shops, coal sales, trucking and transfer, paper recycling, and aboat yard (Kwok, 1997). Over the course of this industrial period, False Creek was reduced to 25% of its original size by dredging for navigation and industrial infill (Oke, North, and Slaymaker, 1992). In the late 1960s it was decided that industry should be removed from False Creek west and the 1970s saw the development of Granville Island and False Creek South (including Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and provincial cooperative and affordable housing projects and private developments). Resident satisfaction in this area has been tracked by follow-up studies as uniformly high (Phillips, 1993). With the development of the former Expo 1986 lands on the North Shore of False Creek "the industrial backdoor" to Vancouver is almost closed, and SeFC, an area between Cambie and Main Streets, and the water and Second Avenue is the last vestige of central Vancouver's heavy industrial past.
4.1.2 The Governmental Context The SeFC case study takes place in a democratic federated nation state governed by the federal government of Canada (see Figure 4.1). While the federal government has no direct constitutional authority for urban affairs, two government of Canada departments, Environment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada, have jurisdiction over the Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS), which lays out broad policy direction, and may be of significance to SUD in SeFC. The SDS strategy plans to work with Canadians to provide: reductions of Canadian levels of smog, inhalable particulates, greenhouse gases, and transportation related environmental stress; tools to prevent pollution and develop green technologies; and mobilization of effective 112
partnerships nationally and the promotion of an international sustainable development agenda (Environment Canada, 1997). Figure 4.1 Government Framework for SeFC
Government of Canada (Federal) Sustainable Development Strategy Provincial Government of British Columbia Growth Management Strategy Local Government Act Greater Vancouver Regional District Liveable Region Strategic Plan Water, Transportation, and Air Quality City of Vancouver Central Area Planning Real Estate Department Southeast False Creek
The provincial government of British Columbia (BC) has authority over municipal affairs constitutionally, and deals with municipal issues and planning under the Local Government Act. This act lays out the jurisdiction of BCs local governments by delegating authority to them over local planning and development (primarily zoning, bylaws, and local planning and service delivery). The provincial Growth Strategies Act (1995) outlines the provincial Growth Management Strategy (GMS). The GMS provides a provincial framework that requires regional planning, and requires municipalities and regions to work together (Ministry of Community Aboriginal and Womens Services, 2004). The provincial government has delegated regional planning authority (primarily over local regional services, such as water and sewerage services and transportation) to regional districts. 113
The SeFC case takes place within the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). The GVRDs Livable Region Strategic Plan was the result of a four-year public and intergovernmental consultation process. The Livable Region Strategic Plan contains four basic strategies:
1) The plans green zone is intended to protect Greater Vancouver's natural environment (major parks, watersheds, and ecologically important areas), agricultural land and to establish a long-term boundary for urban growth;
2) The build complete communities component supports the public's strong desire for communities with a wider range of opportunities for day-to-day life focused on town centres throughout the region; the plan aims to provide a better balance in the distribution of jobs and housing, a wider choice of affordable housing types, a better distribution of public services, and more effective transportation service.
3) The compact metropolitan region strategy calls for a larger share of residential growth to be concentrated in a manner that allows more people to live closer to their jobs, which would also make better use of public transit and community services.
4) The plan seeks to increase transportation choice by encouraging the use of public transit and discouraging single occupant vehicle (SOV) dependence through transportation demand management initiatives that place a priority on walking, cycling, public transit, goods movement and, lastly, the automobile.
It is intended that the public transit and regional road and highway system will achieve the transportation priorities and support the land use strategy laid out in the Strategic Plan. The GVRD Board enters into partnerships with member municipalities, First Nations, other Lower Mainland regional districts, the provincial government and its agencies and the federal 114
government and its agencies to plan and deliver a system that supports the protection of the green zone, the development of complete communities, the realization of a compact metropolitan region, and an increase in transportation choice (Greater Vancouver Regional District, 2004). The SeFC case study area is located within the City of Vancouver, within the C itys Central Area Planning area. The Central Area Planning division carries out the Central Area Plan that provides policy directions for additional housing in and around the central area (roughly demarcated as the West End, Downtown, and the areas falling within the Main Street, Broadway, and Burrard Street corridors). The primary goal of Central Area Plan is to reduce demand for, and investment in, transportation facilities (City of Vancouver, 1991). Central Area Plan goals, which have importance for SeFC, include: enhancement of the Central Area for walking, cycling, and transit use; the establishment of town centres; locating residents close to where they live, play, work and shop; a central area which is a place to live and visit for all income and racial groups, and all ages, from children to seniors; maintenance of and improvements to environmental quality and connection to the natural setting; and the strengthening of heritage resources, character areas, livable neighbourhoods, and active public spaces (City of Vancouver, 1991). These goals were set through public dialogues which the City and Planning Department held from 1987 to 1991. The Real Estate Department has jurisdiction over all of the City of Vancouvers publicly owned land (excepting parks and public roadways), and financial assets derived from the sale of land (the property endowment fund). This department is essentially the developer of the public lands in SeFC. It contracted the development consultant for SeFC (see section 4.1.5), and played a role on the policy development process at the higher corporate level within the City of Vancouver.
115
4.1.3 The Policy Context On 26 July 1990 Vancouver's City Council (hereinafter referred to as Council) identified SeFC as a "let go" industrial area (an area set for rezoning to mixed use or residential), and on 16 October, 1990 it incorporated recommendations from the Clouds of Change Task Force Report for "an energy efficient community design" for the SeFC area plan, locating employment and housing within close proximity of each other, and increasing housing adjacent from Vancouver's Central Area (Kong, 1997, unpublished). The Clouds of Change Task Force (TF) recommendations as adopted by City Council also provide for the phase out of ozone-producing chemicals, reductions in sulphur dioxide levels, reductions in single occupancy vehicle trips, provisions of alternative transportation (walking, cycling, public transit), and reduction of gasoline and diesel fuel use in conventional vehicles (Task Force on Atmospheric Change, 1990). These three latter policies are in keeping with the Greater Vancouver Regional Strategic Plan (which Vancouver, and eighteen other GVRD municipalities signed off in 1995)(Bose, 1996). On 3 December 1991 Council decided that housing would be the main land use for SeFC (with housing for families with children given a priority) and the City Works Yard (at First Avenue and Cambie) would remain until 2003 (Kong, 1997, unpublished). On 22 February, 1994 Council approved that a streetcar line be preserved on the old Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) line from Main to Granville Island. In April 1996 Council signed an agreement with the CPR, which purchased the CPR right-of-way between Granville Island and Ash Street for $9 million. This sporadically run streetcar has since been extended to Main Street and it is expected to link the whole south shore of False Creek by streetcar (Ward, 1996). On 6 December 1995 Council resolved that the Office of the Environment and the Real Estate Division jointly study SeFC as a "model for sustainable development (Kong, 1997, unpublished). This was part of a Clouds of Change status report. The City's Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment approved a preliminary planning time frame, public consultation process, and development guidelines on 26 October, 1995 (City of Vancouver, 1997a).
116
4.1.4 The SeFC Working Group The SeFC Working Groups process was initiated in the spring of 1996, and formally started in the fall of 1996 at an EcoCity Network forum. Many of those involved in the SeFC Working Group came from the EcoCity Network. The SeFC Working Group met monthly or more over the course of several years, and still meets as of writing. The SeFC Working Group is a coalition of twenty groups, social justice and ecological non-governmental organizations (see Table 4.1), and one hundred and sixty individuals. The SeFC Working Groups process produced a degree of consensus that allowed those involved in the broader process to have a voice and impact on the process. The SeFC WorkingGroups facilitation process created capacity, as facilitation was done by rotation amongst members. It also created relationships amongst a diverse group ofparticipants and it allowed them to produce: three annual, well-attended, on-site sustainability outreach festivals (in 1997, 1998, and 1999); many informative evening meetings and events, includinga sustainability lecture series done in partnership with Langara College; a coherent mission statement and leaflets; policy critiques; a web page; an outreach data-base; several dedicated participants on the Advisory Group (AG) (see section 4.1.6); and an extensive list of speakers at the final public meetings held before City Council, for the official adoption of the SeFC Policy Statement. Table 4.1 SeFC Working Group Core Organizations
Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST) Brewery Creek Historical Preservation Society BC Women's Housing Coalition* Carnegie Community Action Project David Suzuki Foundation Downtown Eastside Residents' Association Designers for Social Responsibility* EcoCity Network* (ECN) (a network of over 300 individuals and organizations) Ecodesign Resource Society* End Legislated Poverty Environmental Youth Alliance* Evergreen Foundation Farm Folk/City Folk Innovative Housing Lower Mainland Network for Affordable Housing Main and Hastings Community Development Mole Hill Living Heritage Society Mount Pleasant Community Centre Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood Association No to APEC! Social Change Institute* Tenants' Rights Action Coalition (TRAC) Urban Youth Alliance* Wondertree Foundation for Natural Learning
indicates the most active groups, based on observations by the author.
117
4.1.5 The Development Consultant The development consultant responsible for the North Shore of False Creek developments (which many view as counter to sustainable development), was contracted as the development consultant for SeFC on 21 May 1996. This occurred after the Planning Department did not receive approval for the development consultant's appointment through a closed process in May Figure 4.2 Communicative Participation in SeFC
t/j -o
mm
118
of 1995 (Kong, 1997, unpublished). The first phase of the development consultant's report was delivered to Council in early April 1997, and the presentation included a complete model of the proposed development. The report is entitled: Creekside Landing: Southeast False Creek. Henceforth referred to as the development consultants report. This report is discussed in Chapter 6: Results of the Research I. The total cost of the development consultants work was $600,000 (Larsen, 1998).
4.1.6 The First Step Towards Sustainable Urban Development Largely in response to public input (from a broad coalition of community, social justice, and environmental groups, including: The SeFC Working Group, Designers for Social Responsibility, the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, and many individuals). Council decided that the development consultant's report was too tightly focused on economic factors and did not take into account social, and environmental factors. Council then approved contracting a consultancy team to deal with the manifold issues of sustainable urban development. The Planning department reported back with a terms of reference for the sustainable development consultancy in late July 1997 (City of Vancouver, 1997a). The Sustainable development consultancy, which started in October 1997, ran over a period of six months, and resulted in the publication of the Sheltair Report (discussed below). Under the Vancouver Charter the City of Vancouver is an anomaly in British Columbia as it has more leeway delegated to it in terms of policy development. This has important ramifications for SeFC as Council has stated that "existing City policies, guidelines, standards, by-laws, etc., should be considered only as a starting point for planning a sustainable and economically viable community in Southeast False Creek" (City of Vancouver, 1997b). This policy flexibility has the potential to prove invaluable if sustainable urban development is to be realized in SeFC as policies often prove to be a drag on innovative development.
119
4.1.7 The SeFC Advisory Group In September 1997 the Citys Planning Department established an Advisory Group (AG) to advise and make recommendations on the development of a policy broadsheet for the model sustainable community in SeFC. The AG included representatives from: the real estate and development community; SeFC area landowners; environmental engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture; community and housing associations; youth and environmental non governmental organizations; the Vancouver City Planning Commission; and Regional energy and air quality expertise (see Table 4.2, a list of AG members). The membership of the Advisory Group was chosen by the planners, and was not open for the AG members to review. This AG met twenty-two times from October 1997 to June 1999 and advised the Planning Department on both the sustainability consultants report (the Sheltair report) and the policy statement for the SeFC area. After eight meetings, and a few members suggestions that facilitation would be helpful, a facilitator was contracted to facilitate the work of the AG. This facilitator organized and facilitated eleven of the twenty-two meetings. The facilitator aided the group in working together, and did not force bureaucratic or professional oversight onto the process. At the time that the facilitator was contracted, a chair was elected from the membership of the AG. This chairperson has served, from this time to the time as writing, as chair of the AG and as chair of the Stewardship Group.
120
Table 4.2 SeFC Advisory Group Name Ron Bain Ed Ferrara Jeanette Frost Rob Gritten Jeff Herold John Irwin Bob Laurie Barbara Lindsay Patrick Mooney Jennie Moore David Osborne Mike Overholt Eva Riccius Gavin Ross Alice Sundberg Tana Worcester Joe Winkler Citv Staff Participants Tilo Driesen Mark Holland Ian Smith Planner Vancouver Parks Board Planning Analyst Senior Planner Interest Ecodesign Resource Society Coldwell Banker Keen Engineering Avison Young Urban Development Institute Southeast False Creek Working Group Finning International Vancouver City Planning Commission UBC Landscape Architecture EcoCity Network False Creek South Community SeFC Property Owners Southeast False Creek Working Group Mt. Pleasant Community Association BC Nonprofit Housing Association Urban Youth Alliance SeFC Property Owners
Source: City of Vancouver, 1999b http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/990721/sefc.htm
4.1.8 The Sustainable Development Consultants In October, 1997, the sustainable development consultancy was awarded to The Sheltair Group, who worked together with staff and an Advisory Group to produce a comprehensive report on sustainable urban development. The Sheltair Group proceeded to develop: a succinct definition of sustainable development; ecological, social, and economic parameters; clearly defined performance targets; a list of relevant precedents on sustainable urban development; and a fullcost accounting (FCA) framework, which is relevant to municipal land development (City of Vancouver, 1997a). Certain aspects of this consultants work were incorporated into the policy statement for SeFC, such as many targets that were included in the appendices of the policy statement. However, these targets are in the policy statement for information only. The policy statement sets out no firm indicators, or targets.
4.1.9 The Loss of Heritage and An Unsustainable Interim Use Despite efforts by heritage and sustainability activists to preserve the Canron Building, on 6 November, 1997, Vancouver City Council awarded a contract to Quantum Environmental Group Inc. to demolish the Canron building (after Council tried to award the contract in camera in September). The existence of an order from the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, which pointed out the nature of high levels of soil contamination on part of the Canron site, was cited as the primary reason for demolishing this significant industrial heritage building. There was no order, however, the only item the City had in hand from the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks was a letter outlining the provincial governments concerns. The loss of this building is significant in several ways. It could have provided flexible retail space, or community facilities in its 100,000 square foot area (the area of retail space called for by the SeFC Policy Statement). According to heritage activists, the historically significant Canron building would have provided a heritage spine, which likely would have encouraged innovative commercial and artisan activity similar to the highly successful Granville Island (Appleby, 1997). A rigorous sustainable urban development process would have applied full cost accounting to
122
create reliable estimates of the full energy costs of saving the Canron building, rather than demolishing it. This type of analysis was never completed. Moreover, the Canron building may have been the victim of another unsustainable event that relocated in the SeFC area: the Canron building had to be pulled down to make way for the Molson Indy automobile race. Vancouvers City Council approved the extension of the Molson Indy automobile race onto the SeFC lands on 13 March, 1997. The annual race continues to run on the SeFC site, despite the objections of nearby residents and transportation activists. The SeFC site was also completely paved over to make way for the Molson Indy automobile race.
4.1.10 The Sustainablility Report In April, 1998, the sustainability consultants, Sheltair Scientific delivered their report Visions. Tools and Targets: Environmentally Sustainable Development Guidelines for Southeast False Creek to Vancouvers City Council and the Planning Department. The Sheltair Report (1998) provides a succinct definition of ecological sustainability:
Ecological sustainability involves the maintenance of clean air, soil, and water, and a variety of species and habitats through practices that minimize damage to the carrying capacity of the natural environment and that ensure the long-term integrity of a healthy ecosystem. This document and the process surrounding it are discussed at greater length in Chapter 6: Results of the Research I.
4.1.11 The Policy Statement On 9 April, 1998, members of the Advisory Group for SeFC received a first draft of the SeFC Policy Statement for their comment and review. This process of comment and review went on for several months during the remainder of 1998 and into 1999. The AG read and commented on nine iterations of the policy statement. The AG also reviewed policy broadsheets for Coal 123
Harbour, Concorde Pacific, and False Creek at the outset of the policy-making process. In July1998, after the AG for SeFC had reviewed many versions of the policy, a draft policy statement for SeFC was released for public review. Over the summer of 1998, the Planning Department met with many groups, including the SeFC Working Group to receive input on the policy statement. In the fall of 1998 the planners met with the property owners several times, but did not meet with other groups.
4.1.12 The City of Vancouvers Expert Design Charette From the 20-23 October 1998, the Planning Department and Oread Group held an exclusive design charette for the SeFC area that produced three land use plans for the SeFC area, several renderings and a report. This charette only included one participant from the SeFC Advisory Group, even though several members indicated an eagerness to participate. The SeFC Working Group called for public participation in this design charette, but were ignored. Other than a few recommendations in the appendices of the officially adopted SeFC policy statement, however, this charette, in retrospect, had a limited effect. On the other hand, it did prove out significant aspects of the proposed sustainable community, prior to adoption of the proposed policy by City Council.
4.1.13 The All Parkland Lobby In August of 1998, a proposal from a former Vancouver Parks Board commissioner, who was also a former Liberal Party Member of the provincial Legislative Assembly, was introduced. This proposal, which was presented to Vancouvers Parks Board, called for the publicly-owned lands in the SeFC study area to be developed into a festival park. This festival park was proposed as the permanent home for Vancouvers annual Childrens, Jazz, and Folk Festivals; the Molson Indy, and Dragon Boat races; the Maritime Museum; the Sun Run; and other annual events (Cathcart, 1998). By November, 1998, the Vancouver Parks Board chair, Duncan Wilson introduced a proposal that called for the establishment of a significant park on the Southeast 124
False Creek site (35 of 43 acres), with residential development limited to slightly less than a third ofthe site (Will, 1998b). This proposal was advanced as beinggoodfor park deficient Mt. Pleasant, but it would have greatly reduced the scale of the proposed sustainable urban development. In December, of 1998, after an Advisory Group meeting, a Parks Board planner let the author know that the Parks Board wanted all of the publicly owned lands in SeFC to be parkland. This parkland versus development debate postponed the public meetings for adoption ofthe SeFC policy statement for ten months. Ten of the twenty news stories and letters to the editor, specific to the SeFC planning process, that were gathered from local daily and weekly periodicals dealt with this controversy. Until this time media coverage was intermittent and rarely acknowledged the proactive involvement of community, social justice, and ecological group participants. In response to the all parkland lobby, the SeFC Working Group moderated their approach to supporting a call for half of the City owned lands to be made into a significant park. The SeFC WoikingGroup also approached the group leadingthe all parkland effort, Parkland is Supportable and Sustainable, in an attempt to find some kind of compromise. This group was unwilling to discuss a compromise. This conflict ballooned into a clash between the Parks Board and Vancouvers City Council. Noted environmentalist David Suzuki wrote a letter of support for the all parkland side, but withdrew support after members of the SeFC Working Group met with a representative ofthe David Suzuki Foundation. At this meeting SeFC Working Group members reminded David Suzukis representative of the original commitment to SeFC. David Suzuki cited confusion over where the park was to be located, and indicated that he actually supported the model sustainable community in SeFC (Vancouver Sun, 26 June, 1999). A SeFC Working Group member also noted the Suzuki Foundations letter of support for the concept of a sustainable urban neighbourhood which was sent to the City of Vancouvers Mayor and Council (Vancouver Sun, 26 June, 1999). On July 9, 1999, in response to both the Vancouver Parks Board, and calls for an increased amount of park area, the policy statement was amended to include twenty-six acres of park. This was the final version of the policy statement that went before City Council over the summer and into the fall of 1999. 125
Reproduced with permission o fth e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In mid-July, 1999 the Planning Department held three public workshops on the SeFC area. Two of these workshops were very acrimonious. The all parkland attempted to take over the workshops by angrily speaking to the planners. Throughout this part of the planning process, the Parkland is Supportable and Sustainable, all parkland group maintained that they did not know that the SeFC process was occurring. However, some ofthe all parkland proponents were on the SeFC Working Groups contact list, which was accessed many times over the course of the process to keep people informed. Moreover, the planning process had been the subject of many prominent news stories published in local newspapers, and the three large public meetings were well advertised in local papers. The all parkland lobby remained unsatisfied with the twenty six acres of park compromise, right up to and after the SeFC policy statement was adopted by Vancouvers City Council.
4.1.14 Southeast False Creek Policy Adopted by Vancouvers City Council On 19 October, 1999 Vancouver's City Council officially adopted the Southeast False Creek (SeFC) policy statement, Towards a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Major Park in Southeast False Creek, without amendment. Only two City Councilors voted against accepting the policy. One Councillor tabled a motion for referral of the policy. This motion was not seconded. The Southeast False Creek (SeFC) Working Group supported most of the adopted policy, however, many members had deep misgivings about social issues, such as, the amount of affordable housing that the development would provide. At the three public meetings that were held before Council (21 July, 15 September, and 5 October, 1999) 45 speakers were heard. Nine speakers made presentations in favour of the whole of the City-owned lands being set aside for park. Thirty-four spoke in support of the policy
statement (usually with recommended amendments or improvements). Council received 13 letters
of support, 6 letters in opposition and 343 petition letters in opposition. According to the adopted policy, 26 acres of the 47 acres of City-owned lands would be set aside as park, and the remaining 21 acres would be developed into a sustainable community. 126
The Planning Department committed itself to setting up a Stewardship Committee as soon as possible. In January, 2000, the Planning Department, with Vancouver City Councils approval, established the Stewardship Group for the SeFC area (which meets monthly as of writing). The SeFC Working Group representatives played an active role in the establishment of the Stewardship Group, and continue their involvement (see Epilogue).
Figure 4.6 City of Vancouver Organization Chart
CITY OF VANCOUVER ORGANIZATION CHART

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THE COMMUNITY
VANCOUVER LIBRARY 60A R0 VANCOUVER POLICE BOARD BOARD OF PARKS A RECREATION
CITY MANAGERS OFFICE C ity M an ager D epu ty C ity M an ager
BOARDS
COMMUNITY SERVICES G e n e ra l M a n ag e r HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES G e n e ra l M anager
SERVICE GROUPS
DEPARTMENTS
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
FINANCIAL PLANNING A TREASURY SERVICES
BUDGET SERVICES
FINANCIAL SERVICES
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
FACILITY DESION A MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OFFICE OF TH E CITY BUILDINO OFFICIAL
SU PPO RT SERVICES
OFFICE OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS
This pdf can b e found on th e City of V ancouver W eb site: w w w .city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/orgcharts/
L ast updated: April 23, 2003
127
4.2 South False Creek Both Hardwick (1994) and Ley (1987) have noted the manner in which, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, the then emerging, largely professional, liberal class of planners and politicians shaped the redevelopment of South False Creek (SFC) (see Figures 4.7-4.8) from an abandoned and polluted industrial area to a postmodern, postindustrial village. The redevelopment of SFC, interestingly, began with a project, in 1965, of geography and architecture students led by geograpy professor Walter Hardwick and architect Wolfgang Gerson. In 1968 Hardwick and another of the emergent liberal reform politicians were elected to the Vancouver City Council (Hardwick, 1994). They were committed to wresting the direction of civic affairs away from the bureaucracy (Hardwick, 1994) in order to have the bureaucracy returned to managing program implementation. Ley (1987) has noted that these liberal reformers emerged from the social movements and innovations of the 1960s, and that they formed the basis of local political reaction against the rationalism of the municipal planners, designers, and politicians that dominated at that time. It is also interesting to note that the redevelopment of SFC is an example of praxis where the liberal reform concepts and ideals of the livable urban core were transferred from an academic setting (half of the liberal reform caucus was made up of academics) to the planning of a significant area of Vancouvers central area. This concept of the livable City is important as it provides the background for the beginning of discussions regarding sustainable urban development in Vancouver. These liberal reform politicians coalesced around The Electors Action Movement (TEAM) which formed the majority on Vancouvers City Council in the 1972 civic elections (Ley, 1987; Hasson and Ley, 1994; and Hardwick, 1994). The conservative, civic Non-Partisan Association (NPA), which held the majority of seats on City Council prior to this (1937 to 1967) in 1967, put policy in place for False Creek to remain an industrial area. In response to this, and the NPAs plans for an extensive freeway system, political mobilization around the built form resulted in the election of the TEAM majority, which planned a radically different future for False Creek (Ley 1987; and Hasson and Ley, 1994). 128
Figure 4.7 South False Creek
The TEAM liberal reformers through the Special Committee on False Creek (SCFC) guided the planning of South False Creek. According to Hardwick (1994) an innovative, participatory design process, based on Christopher Alexanders pattern language was used to lay out the land use plans for South False Creek. The resulting redevelopment reflects the ideas of the liberal reformers: a mixture of households provided housing for residents of differing ages, family status, and incomes; continuous pedestrian walkways throughout the area linked the parks; the shoreline and waterway of False Creek were accentuated; and planning for the automobile was moved quite far down in priority for the time (Hardwick, 1994). These planning principles are echoed in much of the sustainable urban development literature. Rather than turning the area over to private developers for redevelopment, or entering into partnership with a private developer, a political decision was made for the initiative to be led by the City. Much of the land in the area is still 129
Figure 4.8 South False Creek
owned by the City, which leases it out to residents. This area had been the focus of many social, economic, aesthetic studies, however, there have been no calls for a design review (Hardwick, 1994). Local residents from this area have played significant roles in the planning for SeFC (on both the SeFC Advisory Group and in the SeFC Working Group coalition). This area has provided a local precedent for development around which much of the discourse around SeFC has occurred. The success of this participatory design process adds further weight to the arguments that sustainable urban development is most effectively dealt with through the employment of communicative participation methods. The redevelopment of this area led to the liberal reformers shifting their attention to the area directly to the south of False Creek. Thus the redevelopment of South False Creek spurred on the redevelopment and gentrification of Fairview Slopes.
130
4.3 Fairview Slopes In another series of proposed participatory design processes (Ley 1988) the TEAM-led City Council and bureaucracy began to focus on the redevelopment of the predominantly working class area on the upslope directly to the south of South False Creek. Ley (1988) has noted that the first phase of this redevelopment reflected the postmodern objective to make the buildings responsive to their context. Both False Creek and this first phase of development in Fairview Slopes were modest, understated, and the landscape as a whole is expressive of the humanistic face of postmodernism (Ley, 1988). In the later phases of the redevelopment of Fairview Slopes a much more marked form of postmodern architecture was developed which overwhelmed any sense of an integrated landscape. It is also pertinent to note that this second phase turned out to be not at all participatory, and the liberal reformers ideas of livability which were so prominent in the planning and redevelopment of South False Creek were not transferred to this subsequent development. This is a pressing concern for sustainable urban development, for much of the logic behind this type of development is that if we develop precedents of sustainable urban development, then they will be repeated in other areas of the City, Region, and world. Figure 4.9 Fairview Slopes
131
Reproduced with permission o fth e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Figure 4.10 Fairview Slopes
As was the case with South False Creek, the move towards postmodern human scale architecture in Fairview Slopes was motivated by a rejection of the destructive nature, elitism, and utopianism of modernist design (Ley 1988). This postmodern design was based on ideas of authenticity (heritage style), and human scale, low-rise buildings. Ley (1988) notes that this postmodern development paralleled a shift in the economy where professional employment increased during the deep recession of 1981 to 1984 while other categories suffered a large net loss of employment. As a result of this shift, gentrification was accelerated in Fairview Slopes. This class of gentrifiers was largely made up of intellectuals and those with technical skills. This New Class challenged old ruling-class values by participating in the political reform, ecology, and womens movements (Ley, 1988). These movements and the interest groups that they fostered are discussed below. This second phase of redevelopment in this area contains much of this more pointed postmodern architecture, which was largely based on Californian designs. These developments became significant in the communicative discourse over SeFC as many from the development 132
community maintained narrow neo-classical economic arguments about marketability, and fiscal returns. Others at the SeFC table pointed out that it was not fiscally responsible to build these types of buildings, which have a high rate of leakage problems. These leaky condos have left their owners to meet the full costs of rep air, with some sli^it assistance from the provincial government.
4.4 North False Creek The story of a radically different form of development occurred on the north shore of False Creek in the early to mid 1980s. It begins with the spectacle of a world fair. Ley (1988) asserts that worlds fairs are the product of the dominant culture. The political, business, designer, and artist elites create these world fairs in their own images as spectacles of consumption. This worlds fair was planned and operated by the provincial government under the then Social Credit government. The government set up a crown corporation, chaired by a prominent local entrepreneur, however, the strategic directions for the worlds fair emanated from the provincial cabinet. This worlds fair (Expo 86) was marked by dissension between all levels of government about financing and even over whether to hold the fair. For example, the Mayor of Vancouver, a former member of the TEAM coalition, at the time was in opposition to holding the fair. Ley (1988) notes that while 85% of the public thought that the large financial deficit that Expo 86 left behind was worthwhile, members of the public did not reiterate uniformly the politicians overwhelmingly glowing public pronouncements about the worlds fair. Rather than indicating a lack of hegemony on the part of the neo-conservative, dominant elite, Ley (1988) points out that: Not to restate politically dominant values might imply a manipulated (and depoliticised) consciousness; it might also point to independent thought in a lifeworld where hegemonic values have not penetrated and may have been resisted. The amount of boosterism that surrounded the fair may have also increased the publics appetite for it, for as Ley (1988) has asserted it was almost seen as being un-British Columbian to oppose this worlds fair. The site o f Expo 86 became the redevelopment area where Li Ka-shing, a Hong Kong-based entrepreneur (Hasson and Ley, 1994), has developed mostly high-end of the market condominiums. 133
Figure 4.11 North False Creek Concord Pacific
The development of theNorth Shore of False Creek also took place under the re-emergence and then dominance o f the Non-Partisan Assodation which returned to power in 1991. This non-partisan party as is noted above is funded by and has direct representation of large corporate development, real estate, and business interests (Hasson and Ley, 1994). Expo and the redevelopment which followed it did not take place without resistance from community groups. The Downtown Eastside Residents Association, for instance, fought against the loss of single occupancy hotel rooms during the worlds fair (Hasson and Ley, 1994). It has also campaigned against gentrification in the Downtown Eastside during the redevelopment ofthe North Shore of False Creek, and, at the beginning, it was part of the coalition that formed around sustainability in SeFC. The North False Creek area played a role in the communicative participatory discourse around both sustainable urban development and status quo development in Southeast False Creek in three ways. First, it provides a potent example of modernist planning that ecologically-based, sustainable urban development planning views as an anathema (despite the high densities, which would be transit supportive, if there were more sufficient transit in place near this recent 134
development). As a result, it served as a symbol of the type of development that citizens and activist-planners wanted to prevent from happening in SeFC, and the reaction against it helped the groups and individuals concerned about sustainable urban development to coalesce very early on in the process. Secondly, the development consultant for North False Creek (or Concord Pacific, as the whole north shore of False Creek is called, as one large redevelopment parcel, under the control of one developer) was also retained in May 1996 by the City of Vancouver as the development consultant for SeFC (Alexander, 2000). The hiring of this development consultant for SeFC raised concerns in the activist and design community about the lack of knowledge of sustainable urban development held by this consultant (as demonstrated by the North Shore redevelopment). Thirdly, the development consultants dismissal of sustainability as meaningless, and his report of April 1997 which included a model and land-use plan strikingly similar to the North Shore redevelopment led to significant opposition from both the activist and design community. These opposing groups convinced the City of Vancouver Council (totally dominated by the Non-Partisan Association, which held all seats) to retain the Sheltair Groups consultancy on sustainable urban development. Figure 4.12 North False Creek Concord Pacific
IIHI lltlll
'""iLHl
135
4.5 Local Political Economic Context As was noted earlier (see section 2.7) the structure of the local political and economic subsystems can, arguably, have a distorting effect on communicative participation processes. During the period of analysis for this thesis (1990-1999), the Non-Partisan Association (NPA) held a majority of seats on Vancouver City Council (see Table 4.4). The NPA has long been the dominant party in Vancouvers at large electoral system (see section 2.8.3). The NPA was and is supported both financially, and in terms of human resources, by business and development interests in Vancouver. For instance, in the 1996 local civic elections the NPA received a total of $728,172 (includes mayoral, Council, and fundraising events) in contributions to their campaign (Vancouver Civic Election Financing Records, 1996). Of this campaign funding, $387,127, or more than half came from businesses (53%), the remainder came from individuals, or small businesses and organizations that donated less than $100 (donations of less than $100 are not required to be reported). Moreover, a scan of the list of individual donors (not included in the 53% of business funding) reveals the names of many prominent, local business people, especially in the development industry. The development industry (includes: construction, architectural, planning and consulting, land holding and development firms) donated $71,720 (9.8% of total contributions) to the NPA in 1996. The financial services sector (includes: investment, investment advisory, and financial holding firms) contributed $72,550 (9.9% of total contributions) to the NPAs campaign funds in 1996. The real estate and property management sector (includes: realty, commercial property management, and residential property management) gave $38,074 (5.3% of total contributions) to the NPAs campaign coffers in 1996. The remaining campaign funds, $204,783 (28% of total contributions) came from a broad range of other businesses. Many of the other businesses were numbered or holding companies that may have belonged in either the development sector or the financial services sector, therefore, the campaign donations for these sectors is likely conservative. For a visual summary of the NPAs campaign funding see Figures 4.13 and 4.15, and Table 4.3. 136
Figure 4.13 Election Funding of V ancouver's Major Political

P a rtie s
P e rc e n ta g e o f C a m p a ig n F u n d s
S o u r c e : V a n c o u v e r C iv ic E le c tio n F in a n c in g R e c o r d s , 1996
Development Financial Unions lndividual/<$100
Real Property Other Businesses Unions (Development)
Figure 4.14 Election Funding of V ancouver's Other Political Parties 1996

II D e v e lo p m e n t R e a l P r o p e r ty F in a n c ia l O th e r B u s i n e s s e s U n io n s U n io n s (D e v e lo p m e n t) ln d iv id u a l/< $ 1 0 0
80 P e r c e n ta g e o f C a m p a ig n Funds 60 40
20
M a riju a n a VOICE G re e n
Figure 4.15 Total Campaign Contributions of All Political Parties 1996 $800,000 -i
T o ta l E le c tio n C o n tr ib u tio n s CAD
$600,000 $400,000 $200,000

$0
11
Till8
NPA COPE Marijuana VOICE
S o u r c e : C ity o f V a n c o u v e r E le c tio n F in a n c in g R e p o r ts
137
Table 4.3 Total Campaign Contributions of All Political Parties NPA COPE Marijuana VOICE Green $728,172 $317,589 $22,417 $17,390 $6,503 Source: City of Vancouver Election Financing Reports In the 1996 civic election, the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE), Vancouvers other major political party for the period of analysis, received a total of $317,589 in campaign contributions (Vancouver Civic Election Financing Records, 1996). Generally, COPE receives the bulk of its financial support from unions. For example, in 1996 COPE received $206,845 (65% of total contributions) from unions, and $3,580 (1% of total contributions) from development-based unions (construction trade unions). In contrast to the NPA, COPE received very little campaign funding from businesses. For instance, COPE was given $1,750 (0.6% of total contributions) from the development industry, and $5,860 (1.8% of total contributions) from other businesses. The other three civic parties that filed election funding reports with Vancouvers City Clerk raised considerably less funds than the two major parties and drew most of their funds from individuals or small donations of less than one hundred dollars. In order of funds raised, the Marijuana Party raised a total of $22,417 (only $100 came from one business) from individuals and small donations. The V.O.I.C.E. Party received a total of $17,390 in contributions. Of the V.O.I.C.E. Partys contributions, $250 (1.4% of total contributions) came from the development industry; $470 (2.7% of total contributions) was raised from the financial sector; and $2,840 (16.3% of total contributions) was donated from other businesses (Vancouver Civic Election Financing Records, 1996). The Green Party brought in $6,503 in total contributions from individuals and small donations (they received $150, or 2.3% of their contributions from other businesses)(see Figure 4.14). 138
In terms of total financial contributions, the NPA far outstripped the other civic parties in Vancouver by garnering a total of $728,172 in campaign contributions in 1996. The next major party, COPE, raised $317,589 in total donations in the 1996 civic election. The other three parties that ran significant campaigns, in Vancouvers 1996 civic election, raised the following total campaign contributions: the Marijuana Party raised $22,417; the V.O.I.C.E. Party received $17,390; and the Green Party brought in $6,503 in donations (Vancouver Civic Election Financing Records, 1996) (see Figure 4.14). The NPA brought in more than twice the amount of campaign contributions than its nearest rival, COPE. As was noted above, most of this funding, 53% of these contributions, came from business, and one of the largest shares of identifiable sectoral donations came from the development industry (9.8%). Some scholars, mostly conservative, but a proportion of pluralists as well, would argue that the funding of civic political parties is irrelevant, that this has no bearing on the decisions that are made once the party is elected. A political economic approach, however, asserts that the financial supporters of a party provide inferences about the nature and make-up of that party and increase the likelihood that decisions will be made, for the most part, to meet the interests of the contributors. It is important to note that this can apply to other parties, such as COPE, that would likely be more beholden to union interests, given that it receives the bulk of its donations from unions (65% in 1996). During the most intensive period of analysis (1996-1999), the NPA held all of the seats on Vancouvers City Council (see Table 4.4). The inherent pro-development bias on City Council may be reflected in several ways in the SeFC case study. First, there were no members of unions, civic services, or other workers chosen to sit on the SeFC Advisory Group. Secondly, many of the significant City Council committee meetings were held during normal working hours, which makes it hard for people working a standard five day work week to attend. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, there was little debate about whether the SeFC lands should remain industrial with a focus on generating longer term employment in a City-centred manufacturing area (SeFC was zoned as a manufacturing zone). The notion that residential and commercial 139
development of the SeFC lands was the only way to proceed was not challenged, with the exception of the all parkland lobby. Finally, the NPA City Councils development industry backing may have surfaced in the choice of development consultant for SeFC. This development consultant, had been the development consultant for Concord Pacific, and was paid $600,000 (Larsen, 1998), in comparison to $80,000 for the sustainability consultants.
Table 4.4 Vancouver Mayors and City Councilors with Party Affiliation
1990-1993
Mayor Gordon Campbell NPA Donald Bellamy NPA Tung Chan NPA Libby Davies COPE Bruce Eriksen COPE Philip Owen NPA Gordon Price NPA George Puil NPA Harry Rankin COPE Patricia Wilson COPE Bruce Yorke COPE
1993-1996
Mayor Philip Owen NPA Donald Bellamy NPA Nancy Chiavario NPA Jennifer Clarke NPA Craig Hemer NPA Maggie Ip NPA Lynne Kennedy NPA Jenny Kwan COPE Gordon Price NPA George Puil NPA Sam Sullivan NPA
1996-1999
Mayor Philip Owen NPA Donald Bellamy NPA Nancy Chiavario NPA Jennifer Clarke NPA Alan Herbert NPA Lynne Kennedy NPA Daniel Lee NPA Don Lee NPA Gordon Price NPA George Puil NPA Sam Sullivan NPA
The development industry, realty and property management, and other businesses have a direct interest in helping to shape the decision-making agenda at City Hall. This is a result of the fact that zoning, bylaw, and business license decisions are the bailiwick of local City Councils. Development is a very lucrative activity in Vancouver and its Region. For instance, an average of $1,106,988,107 per annum in building permit values went through the permitting process in Vancouver for the period of 1993-1996 (Business in Vancouver, 1999). This significant amount 140
of building permit values in Vancouver accounted for 31% of the slightly more than $3.5 billion total building permit values, on average for 1993-1996, that was permitted in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Business in Vancouver, 1999). Developers generally earn a 15-20% return on the value of their investments, therefore, a conservative estimate of development profits in Vancouver in the mid-to-late 1990s would have been $160 million (at 15%) per annum. For the Region profits were approximately $525 million (at 15%) per annum. Therefore, one can see why the development industry would make substantial political contributions in an attempt to influence rezonings, and other planning processes.
Figure 4.16 Total Annual Building Permit Values in the GVRD's Four Largest Municipalities 1993-1998
$1,200 i $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0
Millions
Avg 1993-96
S o u rce: B u sin e ss in V ancouver 1999
1997
1998
V ancouver a R ichm ond S urrey B urnaby
At the end of the period of analysis for this thesis, the political context in Vancouver began to shift. In the 1999 civic elections the NPAs total majority (a majority where it held all seats on City Council, and both the school and Parks Boards) was successfully challenged by a coalition of Green Party and Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE). In the 1999-2002 term, there were two COPE Councillors on City Council, one Green Party representative on Parks Board, and two COPE representatives on the School Board. In November 2002, a COPE majority took office on Vancouvers City Council, School Board, and Parks Board (see the Epilogue). Unlike
141
the liberal reform movements TEAM coalition, the socialist Committee of Progressive Electors (COPE) began as a union supported coalition which was organized around its sole Alderman in the late 1960s (Hasson and Ley, 1994). Until 1980 Councillor Harry Rankin was COPEs only elected representative. In the early 1980s COPE held three of the ten seats on City Council, and by 1990 COPE held half the seats on City Council (Hasson and Ley, 1994). Hasson and Ley (1994) point out that COPEs success was due, in large measure, to the fact that it attracted credible candidates that had gained their political experience by working with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association (DERA). Hasson and Ley (1994) also note that COPE, TEAM, and their allies shared political power on Vancouvers City Council for much of the 1972 to 1986 period. Given the recent electoral success of COPE, the later planning phases of SeFC will likely occur in a more progressive political context. This more progressive political context may facilitate an increase in sustainable urban development in SeFC.
Table 4.6 Chronology of Key Points in the SeFC Planning Process

1912 1925 1960s 1970s 1978 1984 1980s 2000s 1989 City Works Yards incinerator built for residential and commercial waste up to mid-1950s. Crown Grant of 9.88 acres of land in SeFC received by City of Vancouver, which also purchased 25.39acres (total City-owned lands 35.27 acres of 43 acres). Vancouver City Council decides to remove industry from False Creek west. Development of Granville Island and residential housing in False Creek South. The City of Vancouver purchased the Dominion Bridge property (3.84 acres) in the SeFC. The City acquired most o f the former Sauder Lumber properties (1.47 acres). Development of residential housing at the Concord Pacific development on Expo 1986 lands on the North Shore of False Creek. Vancouver's City Council adopted the False Creek Policy Broadsheets, which identified SeFC as suitable for residential development, office development, or high-technology development, Council deferred any decisions on SeFC. Vancouvers City Council resolved that the block bounded by Main Street, Terminal Avenue, Quebec Street, and Second Avenue be incorporated into the SeFC process. 26 July, Vancouver's City Council identified SeFC as a let go industrial area (an area set for rezoning to mixed use or residential). 3 August, The City of Vancouver purchased the former Canron site (1.91 acres). 16 October, Vancouvers City Council incorporated recommendations from the Clouds of Change Task Force Report for an energy efficient community design for the SeFC area plan, work to bring housing and employment closer together, and increase housing adjacent to Vancouvers Central Area. 3 December, Vancouvers City Council decided that residential housing would be the main land use for SeFC (with housing for families with children given a priority). 17 November, Vancouvers City Council approved the Vancouver Arts Initiative to study the feasibility of developing an Arts Resource Centre on a City-owned site in SeFC.
142
1989 1990 1990 1990
1991 1993
1994 1994
1995
1995 1996 1996 1996 1996
1997 1997 1997
1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998
1999
1999 2000
22 February, Vancouvers City Council approved that a streetcar line be preserved on the old Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) line from Main Street to Granville Island. 6 December, Vancouvers City Council approved the Special Office for the Environment to liaise with the Director of Planning, and the Director of Housing and Properties to explore the potential of using the SeFC City lands as a model for sustainable development. 26 October, Vancouvers City Councils Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment approved a preliminary planning time frame, public consultation process, development guidelines, boundaries, management structure, and staffing for planning SeFC. 6 December, Vancouvers City Council resolved that the Office of the Environment and the Real Estate Division jointly study SeFC as a model for sustainable development. 11 June, the development consultant was appointed for the SeFC planning area. April, Council approved the purchase of the CPR right-of-way between Granville Island and Ash Street for $9 million. September, the Southeast False Creek Working Group, a coalition of individuals and groups interested in sustainable urban development in SeFC was established. December, The City of Vancouver purchased 0.67 acres from Burlington Northern Railway; the City now owns 43.16 acres of the 48.06 acres of land in the SeFC planning area (Egmont Towing owns 1.9 acres and BC Transit holds 3 acres). January, development consultant's report Creekside Landing delivered to City Council. 13 March, Vancouvers City Council approved the extension of the Molson Indy automobile race onto the SeFC lands. 8 May, Vancouver City Council decided the development consultant's report was too tightly focused on economic factors and failed to account for social, and environmental factors, however, they did proceed with the second phase of the development consultants contract. 8 May, Vancouver City Council approved contracting a consultancy team to deal with the manifold issues of sustainable urban development (SUD). July, the Planning Department reported back with a terms of reference for the sustainable development consultancy. 14 October, the sustainable development consultancy was awarded to Sheltair Scientific. 6 November, a contract was awarded to Quantum Environmental Group Inc. to demolish the Canron building, after heritage and sustainability activists tried have it preserved. April, Sheltair Scientific delivered its report. 9 April, a first draft of the SeFC Policy Statement was released to members o f the Advisory Group for SeFC for their comment and review. Draft policy statement for SeFC was released for public review. 20-23 October, City Planning and Oread Group held an exclusive design charette for the SeFC area that produced three land use plans for the SeFC area, several renderings and a report. July-August, in response to both the Vancouver Parks Board, and input at several open houses held by planning, the final version of the policy statement, dated 9 July, 1999, was amended to include twenty six acres of park. October, Vancouver City Council approved and officially adopted the Policy Statement for SeFC to guide all future planning for the site. January, the Planning Department, with Vancouver City Councils approval, established the Stewardship Group for the SeFC area (which meets monthly as o f writing).
4.6 Conclusion The SeFC case study has a complex political economic and geographical context. The planning process took place during a period in Vancouvers history when City Council had a majority of pro-development NPA councillors (or a total of all of the seats from 1996-1999). The NPA was clearly supported by the development industry and other business interests. This shaped the form and style of development in the North False Creek area. The development of South False Creek preceded the development of the North False Creek, and raised the possibilities of creating more sustainable urban development in Vancouvers central area. The urban reformers who fostered the South False Creek development proved that City centre living was feasible and desirable. The sustainability activists that engaged in the SeFC process recognized this, and sought to improve the ecological, social, and economic sustainability of Vancouver through involvement in the innovative SeFC planning process.
144
CHAPTER 5: METHODS
5.0 Introduction This detailed case study employed qualitative methods. These action research methods are based on modified Habermasian theory that applies qualitative interviews, and document analysis. This chapter describes action research and these methods in the preceding order. Drawing on three methods provides triangulation to increase the internal validity of the thesis. The methods and their application are discussed below. The main methodological thrust of this thesis is to relate a full and accurate planning story regarding the SeFC sustainable community planning process. Forester (1999) conceives of consensus-building processes, such as those attempted in the SeFC case, as deliberative processes, and he focuses on the importance of telling particular stories of planning processes to get at the substantive and process-based lessons that they can teach planners and others in the policy community. These stories encompass the demands, the vulnerable and precarious virtues required of a politically attentive, participatory professional practice (Forester, 1999, p. 35), as well as the consequential outcomes of planning practice. Planning practice stories can increase our capacity of critical understanding by permitting the discussion of the political passions of planning -the academic undiscussables of fear and courage, outrage and resolve, hope and cynicism too, as planners and other professionals must live with them, face them, work with them. What a planner says in her or his daily practice focuses attention, reveals much about the play of power, the possibilities for future action and the shaping of others participation. Without analysis, practice stories would be just words. Cogent analysis can tease out an understanding of who is attempting what, why, how and in each planning situation. In short, what really matters or what are the valuable lessons to be taken from planning stories can be analyzed.
145
As a result of their messiness, detail and particularistic nature, planning practice stories are a significant tool for understanding a situation where detail, and particulars matter, as is the case with urban sustainability in general, especially, regarding sustainable urban development in SeFC. More than the planners stories, however, need to be narrativized for cogent analysis. If we are to interpret the world of planning in order to change it, we should pay attention not just to the partiality of citizens and planners stories, but also to the real moral and political work these stories do (Forester, 1999, p. 58). The stories of most participants, or a representative sample of their stories, must be told to recreate the full story and to elaborate upon the specific context in which planning occurs. These carefully related planning stories can be made more polyphonic (told from the perspective of several perspectives) by engaging in qualitative interviews and action research.
5.1 Action Research Kemmis (1996) draws on and modifies communicative action theory and applies it to emancipatory educational action research. Kemmis notes Habermasadvocacy of social movements to collaborate and engage in struggles for emancipation from the systems imperatives (the economic and administrative systems). Kemmis (1996) advocates communicative action theory-based strategies to overcome the division and fragmentation created by social relations dominated by bureaucratic and expert systems This thesis draws on Kemmis adaptation of communicative action theory to engage in action research. The action research methodology that this thesis utilized is action research with no direct involvement of the subjects in form ulating the research design (they were interviewed and reviewed their transcripts). Instead, I reflected on my role as an activist and a change agent. Action research is defined by Greenwood and Levine (1998, as quoted in Rudestam and Newton, 2001) as:
[A term for describing] a form of research that generates knowledge claims for the express purpose of taking action to promote social change and social analysis, (p.49) 146
Cunningham also notes that action research is a method that allows the researcher to experience the problem, or process, as it evolves. In conducting action research, the researcher must be able to assemble and draw on real-life data in real time in the world of practice (Cunningham, 1993). The iterative fieldwork and research conducted for this thesis, from 1996 to 1999, certainly fits into this methodological framework. This research also drew on praxis (Lather, 1991), it required a focus on action intended to foster social change. Therefore, the action research methodology drawn on for the thesis can be fruitfully expanded upon by including the Womens Research Centres (Barnsley and Ellis, 1992) definition:
We define action research as the systematic collection and analysis of information for the purpose of taking action and making change, (p. 9) As a researcher, I did not simply engage with the manifold problems of sustainable urban development over a long period of time. I was an observing participant engaged in action research. I attempted to move the SeFC planning process towards the multifaceted definition of sustainable urban development (SUD) laid out in the SUD chapter. As I expanded on my own knowledge of SUD (countless meetings with many others with interests and expertise in SUD was an intrinsic part of this process), I did my utmost to advocate for the theory surrounding the concept. Reardon (as quoted in Forester, 1999) argues that as one reflects-in-action:
Reflecting upon that information generates new assumptions, new theories, new hypotheses. But you dont just stop there: you take that knowledge and try to apply it to solve some immediate problems. In other words, you actively experiment with this knowledge you think you have acquired to see if it has its desired impact. Its this cycle that goes on. (pp. 119120) This type of transformative learning (Forester, 1999, and Alexander, 1994) is certainly what I experienced as an action researcher in the SeFC case study.
147
Action research is research that is very engaged in the specific setting or context that is being studied. Action research was utilised in the SeFC case study in an attempt to operationalise sustainable urban development theory. The SeFC case study provides the context for analysis of communicative participation in a sustainable urban development process. Local knowledge is one of the most predominant forms of knowledge endorsed by those who engage in action research (Schon, 1995; Reardon et al., 1993: and Reardon, 1998). Local knowledge of the political, economic, and social context was drawn on to provide the background for the SeFC communicative participation process. Reardon et al. (1993) point out that an iterative process can be engaged in by universitybased researchers about what they think they know by consulting residents. The planners gain as much knowledge (or more) as residents as they facilitate the process and educate those in the community. Although my fellow activists played no role in designing the research, I certainly gained significant knowledge and insight about planning and sustainable urban development through my involvement with them. The action research for this thesis has occurred over a period of eight years (1996 to the time of writing). This approach offers an opportunity to assess long-term implementation effects which have been lacking in the planning literature (Margerum, 2002). While the primary period of analysis is up to 1999 (when the policy for SeFC was adopted), a synopsis of the progress of the case study to the time of writing (2004) is included in the Epilogue, as this helps to analyze the outcomes of the communicative participation process in SeFC. The analysis for this thesis employed an iterative design to avoid some of the pitfalls of relying too much on the theories that provide the conceptual framework (communicative participation, sustainable urban development, and neo-Marxist political economy). Action research must allow leeway for results to flow from the data that run counter to what the theory expounds. In this manner the theory can be modified and strengthened through reflection on the actions that were engaged in during the fieldwork. Schon (1983) delineates a type of reflection-inaction research where research on fundamental methods of inquiry and overarching theories allow 148
a researcher to use existing theories as springboards for making sense of novel, complex situations. Schon (1983) asserts that this kind of research may fall into two categories: 1) examination of existing episodes of practice in an attempt to discover how this process of recognition and restructuring functions; and 2) an action science which concerns itself with situations of uniqueness, uncertainty, and instability to which the theories and techniques of technical rationality derived from science are not easily applied. Research on fundamental methods of inquiry and overarching theories describes the method of action research that were employed. Two overarching theories, communicative participation and sustainable urban development, were drawn upon to bring narrative order to the SeFC story.
5.2 Action Research Methods Field notes were taken at most of the meetings that were attended and they provided selective reflections on the SeFC planning process. Critical reflection was utilized to assess successes and failures using the Habermasian-based and sustainable development criteria that are outlined below. Notes were taken at all City of Vancouver public meetings for SeFC (with the exception of one) and they helped to frame the narrative of the planning process for the Southeast False Creek model sustainable community. These notes were recorded in written form, and were drawn upon for reflections-in-action and on action to render a fuller picture of this planning process. I attended many events and meetings over the course of the case studys period of analysis. SpringFests 1997, 1998, and 1999 were attended, organized by the Southeast False Creek Working Group (SeFCWG). I also helped to plan, and organize all three Springfests. I attended the Cents and Sustainability seminar (held by the Simon Fraser Universitys City Program); and the Southeast False Creek SeFC Sustainable Community Public Workshop held at the Vancouver public library. I attended all the Advisory Group meetings for the Southeast False Creek model sustainable community policy-making process with the exception of one. I was present at the open houses that the City of Vancouver held in 1999, and I presented to and attended the whole of the final public hearing at Vancouver City Council for the SeFC policy 149
statement. A list of the meetings that were attended, including times, dates, and locations are included in Appendix III.
5.3 Qualitative Interviews
In order to triangulate the research and moderate my own biases -I engaged in qualitative research (one-on-one interviews with a representative sample of actors in the case studys policy community). With the exception of one Advisory Group participant, all those approached to do an interview on the Advisory Group, 17 out of 19, were interviewed. This high response rate is emblematic of the trust that was established throughout the course of the action research. Long term active participants were chosen because of the emphasis on social learning and transformation that occurs over time as participants achieve some level of mutual understanding. One participant who left the formal process, but remained engaged in the process at the community group level, was interviewed to provide a fuller analysis of the process. Often those who leave a process are ignored in research, and this may lead to a flawed interpretation and analysis of what occurred. These interviews aided in triangulation with the other empirical research (field notes and document analysis). The transcripts of individuals responses were provided for them to approve (or alter) to ensure that the study reflects the interests and positions of those who were involved. Counter-intuitive findings, research surprises, or findings that run counter to the theoretical framework of the thesis were included. The one-on-one interviews were held in settings chosen by the interviewees, their homes, offices, coffee houses, and even outside terraces. This approach allowed the interviewees to choose places that they were most comfortable with, and likely increased the response rate, as it allowed the interviewer to meet the interviewees at their convenience. After the interviewees gave their consent, the interviews were recorded on a portable tape recording device, and all interviewees agreed to this. Notes were taken to facilitate the transcription and analysis process, and to provide a back up in the event of the failure of the tape recorder. On the whole, this 150
recording approach worked well, however, in some of the more public interviews the recording device picked up background noise that added to the challenge of transcription. All of the interviews were transcribed, verbatim (200 pages in total), and they were emailed to interviewees for their review. No interviewees requested changes, therefore, one can assume that the interview results accurately reflect the thoughts of the respondents. The first few interviews suffered slightly from the fact that some questions needed more explanation than others. This was improved upon in the subsequent interviews. The interviewees were classified according to their primary role in the process (see section 7.0). The transcripts were reviewed several times in an iterative process of analysis, using the framework of questions generated in the preceding chapters. The responses of the interviewees were presented in their own words, whenever they made significant comments that were representative. Responses that fit better in other categories, rather than in the categories they were recorded in, were coded and utilized in the appropriate sections. This accounted for the fact that respondents sometimes answered an earlier question later in the interview. The transcripts were also reviewed for analysis and placing on the qualitative spectra (see chapters 7 and 8).
5.4 Document Analysis Document analysis was carried out on all materials that are relevant to the case. These materials included: the official minutes of all City of Vancouver meetings; Creekside Landing: Southeast False Creek (Kwok, 1997); the Southeast False Creek Policy Statement: Toward a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and a Major Park in Southeast False Creek (8 drafts and the final version) (City of Vancouver, 1999); the Visions, Tools and Targets: Environmental Sustainable development Guidelines fo r Southeast False Creek (two drafts and a final version)(Sheltair, 1998), and City of Vancouver civic election funding reports. Media items (primarily print) that dealt directly with the case study were reviewed to render a fuller version of the SeFC story and the context of the case study.
151
5.5 Neo-Marxist Political-Economic Context Certain planning scholars adhere to the notion that research for planning and practice is inherently political (Grengs, 2002; and Reardon et al., 1993). This was certainly observed in the SeFC process, and in other local planning issues. Local City planners often try to avoid the political. This is implicit language used to indicate that they are not willing to listen as attentively to ideas that run counter to the interests of the political decision-makers on City Council. Action research and observing participant methodologies can tease out these political nuances. Booher and Innes (2002) highlight the lack of political analysis in planning education: Most professional planning programs skim lightly over the political setting, if they deal with it at all. Reardon et al. (1993) note that organizing disempowered, low income communities and helping them get their voices heard complicates local politics. Tensions surface among the representatives of those who have been getting the largest share of resources. For example, when urban social justice groups like the Downtown Eastside Residents Association in Vancouver confront development interests by organizing those with few resources, and asserting that development in their area is gentrification, they cause discomfort amongst development interests. These development interests are accustomed to pursuing their interests with little or no opposition. Development interests often also directly, or indirectly, benefit from local government decisions. This occurs when a rezoning of land greatly increases the value of land that they own, or when a large public event (which Ley, 1988) terms a spectacle of consumption), such as Expo 86, or the 2010 Olympics; is embarked upon with government support and funding. These events generally directly benefit real estate and development firms. This points to one more central idea that is often not explicitly stated in research for planning: it is inherently economic. Often in local politics, civic politicians represent the business, developer, and real estate interests that support their campaign efforts. The neoMarxist approach discussed above utilized document analysis to frame the political economic context of the SeFC case study. Documents such as those available from Vancouvers City Clerk were analysed to reveal the local election funding sources of Vancouvers civic parties. This was 152
compared to documentation of development permits and local development firms annual profits to assess the possible linkages between political contributions and the activity of local development firms. Inferences were drawn from this about how this may, or may not, impact on planning processes and policy development in Vancouver.
5.6 Limitations The most apparent limitation of this type of case study is that results cannot be generalized from it (Fien and Skoien, 2002). That said, however, the results and recommendations can aid planners and planning scholars who are navigating the rocky shores of both sustainability and communicative planning. Furthermore, at a later date, researchers can evaluate across empirical case studies to arrive at results that can be generalized. It is assumed that the results of this research may be utilized in such a comparative manner.
5.7 Case Study Propositions and Research Questions Yin (1989) notes that the case study method is likely more appropriate for how and why questions, rather than what or when questions. The case study analysis seeks to answer the broad case study questions below (they are not all interview questions). The SeFC sustainable urban development policy-making process provides both the geographical and temporal unit of analysis for the case. Although there is some limited discussion of the history, and context of the SeFC case, the primary temporal period of the case will be from the adoption of the City of Vancouvers Clouds of Change recommendations (in 1989) to the adoption of the policy statement for a sustainable neighbourhood and park in SeFC in November 1999. An important case study component identified by Yin (1989) deals with the logic linking the data to the propositions. The logical argumentation based on the literature reviews explicitly links the data to the propositions presented below. The final component that Yin (1989) outlines requires explicit criteria for interpreting the findings. The criteria are listed below, and 153
they were modified as the research proceeded. This is in keeping with Yins (1989) assertion that case study design is an iterative process. This case study employs what Yin (1989) terms analytic generalisation. This type of generalisation relies on previously developed theory with which the empirical results of the case study will be compared. The thesis drew on multiple sources of evidence (action research notes and reflections; interviews with key participants; and document analysis, minutes of public hearings, media coverage, and written reports). This triangulated the research and increased its constmct validity. A clear, logical chain of evidence was established by constantly checking the data to the questions being posed and the propositions upon which the questions are based.
5.8 Research Criteria, Questions, and Measures
The main proposition the case study addresses is:
Communicative participation in development processes, by a broad range of interests contributes to social, environmental, and economic sustainability.
Case Study Question: Did communicative participation occur in the SeFC case study, and move society towards sustainable urban development?
5.8.1 Process Criteria, Questions, and Measures These criteria were listed at the end of chapters 2 and 3. They are listed again here to illustrate how the research questions flowed out of these criteria. The interview questions are attached in Appendix I.
154
Process Criterion 1
Inclusiveness: The process includes all the relevant and significantly different interests in a long-term process, including those who are either positively or negatively affected by the decision process.
Interview question: Was the process inclusive?
Subsidiary, or case study questions:
Did the process include all relevant and significantly different interests?
Did the process engage participants in long-term involvement?
Who participated and what interest did they have in participating?
Measures:
Compared the list of participants with lists of both those who were invited to participate and significant interests that were not invited. Interviewed those who left the process. Interviewed the participants of the policy-making process.
Equality of Opportunity: The process allowed: all participants an equal opportunity to participate in setting their own ground-rules, choosing a facilitator and a method of facilitation; equal access to information; participants to challenge basic assumptions; and for the explicit addressing of objective, normative (social), and subjective issues. 155
Interview question: Did all participants have an equal opportunity to participate?
Subsidiary questions:
Were all the participants empowered with the ability to set their own ground-rules, tasks, objectives, and discussion topics?
Did the process allow participants to challenge basic assumptions?
Were objective, social (normative), and subjective issues addressed in the SeFC policy process?
Did all the participants have an opportunity to suggest a facilitator and a method for facilitation?
Was the facilitation productive and efficient?
What methods did various actors and groups employ to increase communicative participation?
Did the Southeast False Creek Working Group's internal communicative participation process increase communicative participation in the broader SeFC process?
Measures: Analyzed the process based on my action research notes, and interviewed participants and planning staff who structured and facilitated the process.
156
Mutual Understanding: The principles of civil discourse were followed (mutual respect, and sufficient time devoted for participants to learn about each other's worldviews, situations, and interests) and full and deep discourse preceded consensus.
Interview question: Did participants come to understand each other's interests and perspectives?
Were the principles of civil discourse followed (mutual respect, equal access to information, equal time for participation, and opportunity for participants to learn about each other's worldviews, situations and interests)?
Did full and deep discourse precede consensus?
Measures: Analyzed the process based on my action research notes, and interviewed participants.
Process Criterion 4 :
Transparency: An openly and explicitly acknowledged, practical and shared purpose guides the group in its work, and realistic deadlines, and planning timelines are openly set and followed throughout the process.
Interview question: Was the process open, participatory, and transparent?
157
Were goals set in an open, participatory, and transparent manner?
Were mutually agreed upon deadlines, and planning timelines put in place and followed throughout the process?
Measures: Analyzed the process based on my action research notes, interviewed participants and drew on the City's minutes of meetings and planning time-lines.
A secondary proposition that this case study delves into is:
Economic and administrative power (strategic, instrumental action) places significant limits on communicative participation and action.
Power Impartiality: Participants (including experts and those with power) work together throughout the process (it is symbiotic, neither exclusively top-down or bottom-up), and those with power (or those with less power) do not engage in strategic action (either in the process, or away from it). Participants with less power are in a position to question existing power structures, or are able to reveal to others how these power differentials cause them harm. All participants are encouraged to bring relevant and accurate information to the process, and all information is freely shared amongst participants.
Interview question: Did participants power, or powerlessness, effect the process?
158
Did some 'powerful' participants (and those with less power) engage in strategic action?
Did participants with more economic or administrative power freely share information with all participants?
Do participants accept the information generated throughout the process as accurate?
Do participants with more power have influence with decision-makers outside of the process? Were decision-makers included in the process? If decision-makers were not part of the process, how were they informed about it?
Was the process adaptive and based on high quality information (which was arrived at through a symbiotic process: concurrently bottom up and top down)? Did powerful actors engage in activity outside of the process?
Measures: Analyzed the process based on primary documents (annual and election funding reports, newspaper, and other media sources), my action research notes, and interviews with participants.
Cost Effectiveness: The process was cost effective and a good use of both time and financial resources.
Interview question: Was the process efficient in terms of both time and financial resources? 159
5.8.2 Outcome Criteria, Questions and Measures
Based on the p olicy outcome criteria, which are app lied to the p olicy that was formally adopted by Vancouver's City Council in 1999, and the definition of sustainable urban development drawn from the literature review and the action research, this study addresses the following questions:
Case study question: Did the SeFC communicative participation process increase sustainable urban development in Vancouver?
Ecological Sustainability: The policy or plan increases efficient and ecologically sensitive land use, reduces the use of natural resources, reduces or eliminates pollution, and allows for effective, monitoring.
Interview question: Does the policy allow for an increase in ecological sustainability?
Will the policy provide for efficient and ecologically sensitive land use; a reduction in the use of natural resources; and the reduction, or elimination of pollution?
Does the policy include explicit indicators that will allow for effective monitoring?
Measures: Analyzed the content of the adopted policy statement, interviewed participants, planners and others who reviewed the policy statement. Compared the proposed policy with conventional development policy.
160
Social Sustainability: The policy or plan meets the interests and needs of all participants and society in general, aids in the creation of flexible and networked practices, reduces conflict, increases representativeness, and creates second order effects; the policy also creates greater equality, or the capacity to move towards greater equality (both political and economic equality), increases community capacity (communicative participation, strong groups and networks), and fosters urbanity (vibrant urban culture: arts, education).
Interview question: Does the policy move society towards greater social sustainability?
Does the policy framework bring about greater equality, community capacity (communicative participation, strong groups and networks), and urbanity?
Does the policy meet the interests of all participants?
Does the policy increase representativeness (knowledge and information gained by participants is widely shared with the broader public)?
Does the policy include a framework or recommendations for governing the sustainable neighbourhood?
Do participants view the policy as fair and beneficial for everyone in society?
Did adoption of the policy by Council end stalemate, and avoid, or reduce, conflict? 161
Does the policy foster the creation of flexible and networked practices and institutions?
Does the policy encourage second order effects (changes in behaviours or actions that occur away from the process)?
Measures: Analyzed the content of the adopted policy statement, drew on action research notes, and interviewed participants, planners and others who reviewed the policy statement. Compared the proposed policy with conventional development policy.
Economic Sustainability: The policy or plan reduces overall costs (based on full cost accounting), and generates benefits, can be implemented over a reasonable time-frame; and creates the capacity for increased economic security, increased local self-reliance, and ecologically sound economic activity.
Interview question: Does the policy lay the groundwork for economic sustainability?
Does the policy create the capacity for economic security, increased local self-reliance, and ecologically sound economic activity?
Does the policy framework facilitate a planning process that reduces costs (including full cost analysis) and generates benefits?
162
Creative Adaptation: The policy or plan prominently features creative ideas for action, and it is adaptive to changes in the situation.
Interview question: Is the policy creative and adaptive?
Does the policy prominently feature creative ideas for action?
Is adaptation, or contingency planning, a part of the policy statement?
Implementation: The proposed policy is feasible and is based on actual commitments that will aid in its implementation.
Interview question: Can the adopted policy be implemented? 163
Is the policy feasible (creates a good fit between participants needs and concerns and the actual situation; and sets out a course of action which can be implemented)?
Is the policy based on sufficient commitment, which will ensure its implementation?
Measures: Analyzed the content of the adopted policy statement, drew on action research notes, and interviewed participants, planners and others who reviewed the policy statement. Compared the proposed policy with conventional development policy broadsheets.
5.9 Conclusion
This array of methods was employed to increase the internal and external validity of the case study and the analysis of communicative participation and sustainable urban development. The triangulation of action research, interviews (see Appendix I for the actual interview questions), and document analysis aided in rendering a fuller account and analysis of the case study. The SeFC story was deepened by including the political economic and geographical context of the case study. The focus now shifts to a presentation of the results of the research.
164
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH I -ACTION RESEARCH
6.0 Introduction This chapter is based on several years of action research (based on meeting notes, see appendix III for a complete list of meetings, and reflections about the process and the policy) and an analysis of the key documents in the SeFC process (for a complete list see Chapter 5, methods, and for the SeFC policy and its various iterations see appendix III a list of the various iterations of the policy). This analysis was completed before, and independently of, the analysis of the interview results. The process criteria are dealt with in the following order: inclusion; equality of opportunity; the nature of the process information; mutual understanding; transparency; and power impartiality. The results of the action research regarding policy are presented, in terms of: ecological, social, and economic sustainability; and the prospects for implementation. We now turn our attention to the inclusiveness of the SeFC process.
6.1 Inclusion The process includes: meetings of the Southeast False Creek Advisory Group (SeFC AG), which met twenty-two times over the course of close to two years; public meetings; and the final public meetings that were held before City Council. Participants on the SeFC AG were selected by Vancouver the Planning Department and included a broad range of interests (see Table 4.2). The most significant actors missing were those with direct political, or economic power (City Councillors and development industry decision-makers). Those with direct political, or economic power were represented by City staff (political), and development and real estate representatives (economic interests). The most powerless in Vancouvers society were not at the table (those on low income, or no income). There was also no direct participation in the process by groups, which are seeking to increase their power (such as urban First Nations). No union, or trades representatives were involved in the SeFC process. However, the process was relatively inclusive. 165
The membership of the AG could have been drawn from a broader cross section of society to make it more representative. For example, when one participant on the AG raised the issue of the lack of First Nations representation, the facilitator would not allow this issue to be dealt with in the process, or within the group. As a result, the participant (who represented youth and another cultural group) left the AG. This eroded the inclusiveness of the group, even though the participant did delegate the position on the AG to a colleague, and thus the AG still had a youth representative. Another youth group representative was invited to the AG, but did not attend. Various participants may have been involved for different reasons. The real estate representatives have economic interests in the SeFC area, as they earn their livelihoods leasing, renting, and selling real estate. The property owners have economic interests in developing, or selling their properties (at a much higher re-zoned value). The development firm representatives share similar interests with both real estate and property owners, and they may assemble land (by purchasing it) in order to develop and market large block developments (see section 4.5). The SeFC WG, and other participants, were involved as part of the effort to make the development more socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable. These participants interests include, but are not limited to, increasing: affordable housing, alternative energy, social justice, and participatory decision-making. These groups and individuals participated as a result of the deliberative space that the process for a model sustainable community allowed. The AG also had a significant number of members with design and sustainability expertise. This expertise, or knowledge, was also an aspect of the members that represented other groups at the table. The two SeFC WG members, for instance, were also graduate students in resource and environmental management. These sustainability experts were drawn from institutions of higher learning and the design and planning professions. They provided, along with contracted consultants, much of the knowledge required for such a complex planning and policy-making process. The inclusion of these types of participants, with an interest in implementing the theory
166
of sustainability helped to ensure that the process was symbiotic (concurrently top down and bottom up).
Yet another set of interests were involved, they represented some of the areas contiguous to SeFC. Only two contiguous areas had representation on the AG (South False Creek, directly to the west, and Mount Pleasant, to the south). Other areas, to the east and north of SeFC were not represented on the AG (City Gate, Thorton Park, the Downtown Eastside, and Chinatown). For the individuals and representatives of groups who were invited and remained to participate on the AG, there was long-term, and at times, intensive involvement in the process. This involvement spanned close to two years, and for many participants carries on to the present as they remain members of the Stewardship Group for the area.
6.2 Equality of Opportunity There was a reasonable attempt to ensure that participants had an equal opportunity to participate. However, at times the facilitator did not follow the speakers queue that well. The fact that an economic participant from the AG attended the Citys exclusive charette, while other ecological and social participants were not allowed to attend, also indicates a lack of equality of opportunity. Despite these two exceptions, on balance, there was an equal opportunity for Advisory Group members to participate. Participants were given many opportunities to participate through: small break-out groups, individual review briefs, and in the general group discussion. Participants were somewhat empowered with the ability to set their own ground-rules, tasks, objectives, and discussion topics. The facilitator, however, did ask the group to remain focused on the task at hand very early on in the process. While it is important to have this convergent aspect to the process at some point, if it is introduced too soon important ideas, information, and learning opportunities may be lost. The SeFC process may have been forced to be convergent too early. 167
Although participants were given some scope to question the assumptions of the process and each others assumptions, most of this occurred implicitly rather than explicitly (through an exercise, or role play). For instance, development for housing and economic development was not questioned by the AG. No opportunity was available to bring up other options, such as leaving the land as an industrial area. There was no part of the process that allowed participants to question each others assumptions.
6.3 Objective, Social, and Subjective Issues Were Addressed in the Process
6.3.1 Objective Issues The SeFC policy-making process, at the AG level, focused primarily on the objective questions surrounding planning for sustainable urban development (SUD). Much of the discourse was technical with the AG splitting up into smaller break-out groups to deal with policy issues. The nature of the preponderance on objective issues is emphasized by the contents of the reports that were completed for the process. The development consultants report, Creekside Landing, for instance, focused primarily on economic pro forma for the development, and it included an assertion that sustainable development could not be well defined. The development consultants report, therefore, was limited to mostly economic data (for a description of how this drove the call for greater communicative participation in the SeFC process see the background section: Chapter 4). The sustainability consultants report, Visions, Tools and Targets: Environmentally Sustainable Development Guidelines for SeFC, also took into account mostly objective issues, based on goals, objectives, indicators and targets. Members of the AG helped to prioritize the ecological goals and objectives. The report also acknowledges that: A final review was not conducted with the Advisory Group. The Advisory Group was extensively involved with the consulting team throughout the research stages of this study, and contributed many excellent suggestions and ideas. A lack of time and budget for this project prevented a review of the final document (Sheltair, 1998). The author corresponded with a member of the sustainability 168
consultants team regarding transportation, and non-point source pollution issues (both water and air quality). Some of the suggestions are evident, such as the concern for permeability and non-point source pollution. Two other indicators, parking ratios and automobile ownership, however, were removed from the Sheltair report altogether.
6.3.2 Social Issues were Addressed The sustainability consultant attempted to address social goals, objectives, indicators and targets. However, these issues were moved to the appendices of the report after the Director of Central Area Planning made it clear that the Planning Department wanted hard technical data regarding sustainable urban development. This shift in emphasis from all three spheres of sustainable urban development, ecological, social, and economic, to a primary focus on ecological sustainability, was made clear by a comparison of a draft of the sustainability consultants report (dated 1 March, 1998) with the final report. The economic and social goals and objectives were moved to the appendices. By including this work in the appendices, however, the consultant was able to include this vital work on aspects of social sustainability for later reference. Social issues, such as the fostering of broad representation, social exchange, and affordable housing were shunted to the side. It was assumed that the Citys Planning Department, and current City policy addressed these issues sufficiently. Representatives of the SeFC WG and others continued to raise these issues throughout the process.
6.3.3 Subjective Issues Subjective issues -aesthetics, the look and feel of the SeFC area were not directly addressed at the AG through a visioning, or a day-in-the-life process (Alexander, 1977). There was an exclusive charette contracted out by the Planning Department that dealt with some of these issues in a manner that was far from communicative participation. There was limited involvement by a wide range of interests in this design charette. This design charette seems, upon reflection, to have had little impact on the SeFC process. However, social and subjective issues did surface in 169
the seemingly objective AG process. When the breakout group on land use, for example, was discussing density one of the members brought up the aesthetics of a European low to mid-rise design as being aesthetically pleasing.
6.4 Opportunity to Suggest a Facilitator The participants were given sufficient room to suggest that a facilitator be contracted to make the process run more smoothly. This issue of the need for facilitation came to the forefront at one particular AG meeting when the sustainability consultants and City staff could not agree on how to proceed. This left most of the AG members frustrated at this relatively early stage in the process. As a result, a facilitator was contracted for a significant portion of the process (eleven of twenty-two meetings). Although the SeFC Working Group, and others on the AG, had called for independent facilitation at the outset of the process, the facilitator was contracted roughly half way through the process. The facilitation began at the ninth meeting of the AG. The AG, however, was not given any scope to accept the facilitator, or have a role in choosing who would facilitate the AG. Nor were participants allowed to suggest a method (or methods) of facilitation.
6.5 The Facilitation Was Productive and Efficient There was a significant need for facilitation in the AG process. This facilitation opened up space for the involvement of all the participants, and it greatly aided in the smoother functioning of the AG. Through a facilitated process and the use of smaller break-out groups the AGs work was divided into more manageable sections. For instance, the AG broke into sub-groups, which dealt with: open space, land-use, vision statement and guiding principles, and process and implementation issues. The AGs facilitator was able to have all participants, regardless of interest, think about the linkages between issues. The facilitator, however, came with a certain amount of prescriptive knowledge regarding sustainability. While this specific knowledge did not always effect the process, it did at times. For instance, in one facilitated exercise participants were asked to give a word that encapsulated their concerns. 170
The author gave the word equality. This word was recorded by the facilitator as quality, and had to be repeated several times. To be fair to the facilitator, the Planning Department made it clear early on in the process that it did not want to deal with social sustainability and this instruction was likely given to the facilitator (a contracted consultant). However, the tight focus on the technical aspects of sustainable urban development was maintained by the facilitator rather than being opened up. But, with this one drawback, the AGs facilitation was productive (the AG aided in the production of both the sustainability consultants report and the adopted policy for SeFC), and it was efficient both in terms of time and in the fulfilling of the contract with the Planning Department. For instance, the Advisory Groups input into the policy statement occurred primarily during the eleven meetings that were facilitated by the contracted facilitator. During this period, from February to June 1998, the AG considered the first three of nine iterations of the policy statement for SeFC. The AG was able to achieve some significant additions to the policy for SeFC, such as: the inclusion of clean industry; solar orientation; parkades which can be adapted for other uses if there is less demand for parking; and keeping the remaining heritage building, the Domtar salt building, for some form of public use. This input was ascertained by cross referencing all nine of the policy iterations, and tracking the policy input that the AG gave in the form of written briefs, from the minutes of the AG meetings, and from the authors action research notes.
6.6 Mutual Understanding Participants, over time, and with the aid of skillful facilitation did come to a high degree of mutual understanding. The principles of civil discourse (mutual respect, equal time for participation) were followed both during and after the facilitators involvement (the AG met three more times after the facilitators contract had concluded). Through this long-term (close to two years) process participants came to understand each others interests and perspectives, and in some cases they even began to share some common interests. For instance, midway through 171
the process one of the real estate interest participants agreed that drivers should have to pay a higher rate for the privilege of driving their cars in the proposed sustainable neighbourhood. Towards the end of the process the same real estate interest participant said that perhaps he would move into the SeFC and try giving up his car. Equal access to information was problematic throughout the process. Some members of the AG, such as property owners, were given access to information that was not shared with the whole of the AG until very close to a decision-making point. For example, the planners met with the property owners four or five times in the fall of 1998, and only met with the SeFC Working Group once. Otherwise information was freely shared with all members of the AG.
6.6.1 Full and Deep Discourse Preceded Consensus Full and deep discourse did not always precede consensus. As a result of the large number of issues to be dealt with during the process, this was a difficult criterion to fulfill. It is also important to note that consensus or consensus rules were never formally part of the mandate of the AG. However, full and deep discourse and a decent level of consensus, a lack of strong objection, was achieved on some issues with ongoing committees, such as land use, vision, and open space. Other issues, such as social sustainability were not discussed at length, or were discussed only in relation to the issues dealt with by the committees.
6.7 Transparency The process was relatively transparent. There were three well-attended, large public meetings and there were three evenings of public meetings that took place before City Council. Arguably, there could have been more public meetings. The ones that did occur had significant opportunities for input, and allowed people to sign up to keep informed about the process. However, given that goals and planning time-lines were not set in an open, participatory, and transparent manner, the participants on the AG were often unsure about the direction of the work. The overall goals of the process were prescribed by Council, and the interim goals, deadlines, and planning time172
lines were, for the most part, set by the the Planning Department with little opportunity for involvement by the participants on the AG. The AG did engage in some specific goal setting for the policy and the site. This resulted in some frustration on the part of some of the participants on the AG. For instance, after the AG agreed to it, some participants would volunteer time in between meetings to create policy frameworks, and do other work, only to discover that the direction had changed without their work or input being incorporated. For example, the author was part of a sub-group of the AG that met in March and April 1998 to develop a framework for the policy statement. This specific policy framework incorporated the work done by the AG to this point, and was organized into broad categories that were dissimilar to previous City of Vancouver policy statements for other large block developments. This framework was totally ignored and was dropped after the lead planner drafted a more conventional first draft of the policy statement, with some new and innovative sections on environmental issues added.
6.8 Power Impartiality As was mentioned above, the property and real estate interests were given more planning time and resources. For instance, during the summer of 1998, the SeFC Working Group (which represented 20 groups and 160 individuals) was consulted once about the proposed policy, while property owners were consulted several times. Another manner in which power impartiality was not followed was in the selection of the development consultancy for the SeFC planning area. An attempt was made by City Council to appoint this consultancy in camera. The consultant that was awarded the contract had direct links to the developer of the North False Creek development. The bulk of the planning consultancy resources went to this development consultant ($600,000 CAD) rather than the sustainability consultant ($80,000 CAD). This development consultant was reluctant to actively participate (by providing timely information) in the process that resulted in the innovative policy statement being adopted for the planning study area. The development consultant, and his subcontracted architects, however, did participate in several meetings of the AG as observers. 173
Another way in which the lack of power impartiality surfaced during the process was when we were told that the large developers said of our attempts to forge innovative sustainability policy, something to the effect of: We already know what is sustainable, just get out of our way and let us develop the SeFC area. One of the real estate representatives reacted in anger to this assertion on the part of these powerful developers. This points to the main flaw in the SeFC process: those with economic and administrative power were not participants. The powerful participated by proxy through the Citys Planning Department in the case of administrative power, and through the development consultant in the case of economic power. City Council was only involved at the Council retreat and public hearing stages; no City Councilor sat on the AG. There was some strategic action on the part of some powerful actors. The development consultant, for instance, attempted to move the proposed sustainable development towards conventional development on several occasions. An emphasis on neo-classical economics (economic growth and profit maximization), and a disregard for full cost accounting (FCA) and ecological economics guided the development consultants work. In terms of those with administrative power (City Council), while they expressed a desire for full cost accounting, they did nothing to ensure that a FCA framework was applied to the SeFC policy. Council did ask the sustainability consultant for a FCA framework, however; this was not applied to the subsequent policy work. City Council engaged in their own forms of strategic action regarding two issues. Firstly, they made a decision with no consultation at all that the Canron building (which had significant heritage value) be demolished. Secondly, they also decided, at the very last meeting before the summer break with little notice, that the Molson Indy racetrack be allowed to use the publicly owned lands for three years in August 1998. This interim lease was then extended in 2001 to 2004. The SeFC Working Group engaged in a lot of networking and mobilizing of different sections of the policy community at key points. Otherwise, the SeFC Working Group largely avoided 174
strategic action. The SeFC Working Group did participate, however, in some strategic actions that had to do with the overall social sustainability, or social justice, of the City. For example, members of the SeFC Working Group occupied City Council chambers with other youth and anti-poverty groups when the wholly Non-Partisan Association (NPA) City Council passed a bylaw banning busking without a permit, panhandling in certain public areas, and the hanging of posters in the City. The SeFC Working Groups involvement in this protest may have had an effect on City Councils perception of the SeFC Working Group. Another group with a significant amount of influence with the NPA City Council, Parkland is Supportable and Sustainable, engaged in strategic action. Some of their members were involved, or at least were on the SeFC Working Groups email list-serve. However, when it came to the SeFC policy formulation process they proclaimed their lack of knowledge of the process and pushed for the whole of the SeFC area to be public parkland during the last stages of the policy formulation. The SeFC Working group decided to moderate their position to half park (25 of 50 acres) and tried to involve this group in our coalition. The pro-park group would not join with the SeFC Working Group and continued to lobby very vociferously for all of the City owned lands to be park from late 1998 to the City Council public meetings in the fall of 1999.
6.8.1 Powerful Participants Freely Shared Information With All Participants with more power (both economic and administrative) did not always freely share the information that they had in their possession. In the case of the the Planning Department, they sometimes held on to information until it had been cleared by their internal, Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Committee. On the whole, however, the the Planning Department was willing to inform the process to the best of their ability. The development consultants, on the other hand, did extensive work with the Sustainable Development Research Institutes Quest model and extensive design work which was rarely shared with the AG. The 175
development consultant also was preparing an official development plan (ODP), before the policy was adopted, which was to be put in place immediately after the policy was adopted (Sean Blore, personal communication, March 30,1998). Fortunately, the development consultant was not able to rush the ODP through without the participation of the Stewardship Group (see the Epilogue).
6.8.2 Accuracy of the Process Information For the most part the information that guided the SeFC policy-making process was accurate. The exception would be the development consultants report which claimed that there was too much confusion over what sustainable urban development meant for it to have any useful meaning. Was it a balanced decision to have a residential development consultant, who had completed work for another large block development in North False Creek, prepare a report for the economic viability of different types of development for SeFC? The pro forma that was used in the development consultants report based the holding costs for the public lands in SeFC on a too optimistic average bond percentage rate, and it never addressed what economic benefits the City had received from using these lands for their works yard, in terms of saved rents or monies the City would have had to spend on new land for the City works yard. The development consultants report also did not analyze the benefit of the original Crown Land grant in 1925 (Creekside Landing, 1997), or of the rents collected over the years from the industries located in SeFC. However, most of this somewhat incomplete information was generated before the involvement of the AG, and the opening up of the policy-making process. The information generated by the sustainability consultant was accurate, but it was truncated, by administrative participants, when it came to economic and social sustainability information. The subsequent policy statement reflects this lack of social and economic information to a certain degree. The process was adaptive and based on the best available information at the time. It could have been more symbiotic (concurrently top-down and bottom-up). For instance, a professional design charette was held for the area, yet none of the professionals that sat on the AG were allowed to 176
participate, with the exception of one of the development industry representatives. This was the case, even though several professionals on the AG asked to participate in the design charette. However, the information that was provided for the process was reasonably accurate.
6.8.3 Powerful Participants Have Influence With Decision-Makers Participants with economic power (developers and real estate interests) had, and continue to have, strong links with decision-makers. The NPA is well funded by development and real estate interests (see background section), and it has even drawn representatives directly from the development and real estate industries. By inference it is likely that participants with more power in the process had influence with City Council regarding the sustainable development of SeFC. As was mentioned above, City Council did not directly participate in the AG. City Councils involvement was restricted to Council retreats, a few public open houses, and the public hearings. City Council was kept informed by presentations of various planning reports and consultants reports that were generated throughout the process.
6.8.4 Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency The cost effectiveness of the SeFC process is hard to gauge as it is difficult to estimate the human resources put into the project. In October, 1995 Vancouver City Council approved that $374,700 be allocated from the Property Endowment Fund to pay for the planning process for SeFC (City of Vancouver, 1995). This funding was to cover the following planning and development costs: $145,400 for planning staff; $35,000 for engineering staff; $29,500 for social planning staff; $10,000 for Parks Board planning staff; and $24,000 for public consultation costs (City of Vancouver, 1995). These costs were to recur annually for three years, at total cost of $243,900 per year for a total of $731,700. A one-time cost was approved for office equipment ($10,000) and consultants ($60,000) for a total of $70,000 (City of Vancouver, 1995). This leaves the total for the Citys costs at $801,700 for three years of planning. Added to this is $600,000 Council allocated for the development consultants on May 21, 1996 (City of 177
Vancouver, 1996a), and $80,000 approved for the sustainability consultants on October 26, 1997 (City of Vancouver, 1997c). This brings the total costs of the process to $1,481,700. Of these costs, however, not all can be attributed to the sustainability planning for SeFC. A significant amount, perhaps close to all of it, of the development consultants work was standard development work and analysis. The development consultants costs and the standard consultants costs can be deducted from the costs of conducting a communicative, sustainability process (-$660,000). It is reasonable to assume that half of the recurring planning, engineering, and Parks Board costs, without the public consultation costs, would have been taken up in a standard development (-$329,850). To err on the side of overestimating the costs of sustainability, all of the public consultation costs will be included as part of the costs of conducting a three year sustainability process. This leaves the costs of the communicative participation process at $491,850, or $163,950 per annum over three years. This, admittedly rough, estimate would indicate that the SeFC process was fiscally sound, and cost-effective. The fact that all meetings were held in City-owned facilities, or facilities that were donated by participants on the Advisory Group aided its cost-effectiveness. In terms of time, some might argue that the sustainability process increased the length of time of the process considerably. Although there may be some merit to this argument, it is relevant to point out the fact that some of the delay in the planning process can be chalked up to the fact that the first part of the process was expert driven and not very participatory. A year passed from when the development consultant was appointed to when the development consultants report was presented to City Council (May 1996 to May 1997). It took the Planning Department six more months to contract the sustainability consultants (late October 1997), and set up the SeFC Advisory Group (the introductory meeting was held on October 15, 1997). The SeFC Advisory Group held its last meeting on June 9, 1999. In one year and eight months, the SeFC Advisory Group met 22 times. Moreover, there was a gap of six months between the second last meeting (December 1,1998) and the last meeting. Much of this six-month delay was, arguably due to a lack of participation from the all parkland lobby. In response to this lobby, 178
planning held several open houses, and brokered a compromise to increase the amount of parkland in SeFC to 26 acres. Therefore, a significant delay in adoption of the sustainable development occurred due to old school interest based bargaining. Perhaps this could have been allayed somewhat if the parkland lobby were given a spot at the table. In spite of these various delays, the communicative, participation process for SeFC was relatively time efficient.
6.9 OUTCOME This section deals with the final outcome of the SeFC process. The final policy that was officially adopted by Vancouvers City Council on 19 October, 1999 is entitled: 'Southeast False Creek Policy Statement: Toward a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Major Park in Southeast False Creek. The distance that the policy statement went towards sustainable urban development is discussed based on action research notes, and document analysis. A general indication of the policys innovative aspects and iterative nature is presented. Research results regarding ecological sustainability, efficient use of urban land, the reduction or elimination of pollution, a reduction in the use of natural resources, and effective monitoring are presented. The level of movement towards social sustainability is presented including: equity or equality; community capacity; urbanity; interests and representativeness; and conflict reduction, and flexible and networked practices. The section concludes with a presentation of: economic sustainability: economic security, ecologically sound economic activity, local self-reliance, and cost reductions and benefits; creative adaptation; and implementation.
6.10 General Policy Assessment Throughout the process some voiced a concern that the SeFC policy statement was just a replica of previous large development block development policy broadsheets such as those completed for Coal Harbour, North False Creek, and the Central Waterfront/Portlands. This may be partially true in terms of the general framework of the SeFC policy statement, and some specific policies, however, there are significant differences between the SeFC policy statement 179
and these previous policy statements. For example, even though some of the table of contents categories are the same as the Coal Harbour and North False Creek policy broadsheets, such as significant headings under the land use, built form, open space, and transportation sections, these similarities are generally superficial with the policies that follow being substantively different. Both of the Coal Harbour and North False Creek policy statements were cross-referenced with the final SeFC policy. The formats of the Coal Harbour and North False Creek policy statements are reflected in the general layout of the SeFC policy, by the headings of Issues, Past Policy, and Policy under each policy category. However, only two instances of policy being directly incorporated from the previous policy statements were found, in the Community Facilities section under ODP phase policies, for instance:
1.A Services Plan or "white paper" for SeFC should be developed by City staff to determine an appropriate range of community facilities needed in SeFC to address the educational, social, health, recreational, and cultural needs of residents and employees; and 2.Community facilities and services should be developed concurrently with the residential units that they are intended to serve (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 22 and Coal Harbour Policy Statement p. 32). And under the Pedestrian Access and the Waterfront Walkway - Bikeway section:
1.A continuous public pedestrian-bicycle path system should be located at or near the water's edge in SeFC (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 51, Coal Harbour Policy Statement p. 10, and False Creek Policy Broadsheets, p. 5). 4.The treatment of the pedestrian-bicycle system should reflect the overall objectives of achieving a major public presence on the waterfront, by incorporating a diversity of activities and opportunities for recreational use of the water (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 51, and Coal Harbour Policy Statement p. 10). These two policies from the previous policy statements were also changed in the SeFC policy. The Community Facilities policy, for example, had inclusive of all age groups and those with 180
special needs (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 22) added to it, and the waterfront walkway - bikeway policy was modified in the SeFC policy statement to allow the walkway - bikeway to be set inland where necessary by adding at or near the waters edge (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 51) to allow for habitat enhancement objectives as was recommended by the author and other members of the AG. The SeFC policy includes new sections of policy including: live-work and work-live; social and cultural development; environment: energy use, water management, waste, recycling and composting, air quality, and urban agriculture; and economic development and stewardship policy headings. The seeming similarity between the framework for SeFC and previous policy broadsheets may have resulted from the fact that the AG was given these policy broadsheets to identify previous policies that might have been applicable to SeFC. Furthermore, the lead planner who drafted the first version of the policy may have been cognizant of keeping the policy in a format that would be acceptable to other departments and, finally, City Council. One of the most significant differences between the SeFC policy and previous policies is the extensive treatment of environmental and resource management issues. For example, the most recent large block development policy, for Coal Harbour, only has a very limited section on environmental issues which put in place limited policy for soil remediation and cursorily dealt with: recycling and energy conservation programs to existing City standards; and careful monitoring o f the receiving waters in Coal Harbour. In the SeFC policy statement these issues are dealt with by whole sections of policy on ecological issues. These are presented in the following section on ecological sustainability. First let us consider how the adopted policy increased sustainable urban development in Vancouver.
6.11 The SeFC Policy Increased Sustainable Urban Development in Vancouver The SeFC policy, and the process that led up to it, increased sustainable urban development in Vancouver in several ways. First, it provides a definition of sustainable urban development for Vancouver where none existed before, except as scattered policies. Secondly, it draws these 181
scattered policies together, builds on them, and arranges them in an accessible manner. Thirdly, the policy has been drawn on to bring sustainability to Vancouvers next large urban development in the East Fraser Lands, on the north arm of the Fraser River at Boundary Road. Fourthly, it has helped to accelerate the development of green, energy efficient buildings in Vancouver, all new City buildings will be energy and water efficient. Finally, it was likely a significant factor in the decision to set up a small Sustainability Department in Vancouvers City Hall.
6.12 Ecological Sustainability
6.12.1 Efficient Use of Land Policy for the SeFC planning area generates strong results for the efficient use of urban land. Firstly, it constitutes the redevelopment of former industrial or brownfield land. This redevelopment is beneficial in that it reclaims industrial land, and remediates or applies risk assessment to any contaminated soils. Reuse of these lands makes it available to house people, provide new local economic activity, and restore some remnants of the pre-existing local ecosystem. One possible drawback to rezoning industrial land, however, is that industry may relocate and cause industrial sprawl in suburban or ex-urban areas. For instance, two of three of the industries that were in the SeFC area are now located in other riverside industrial areas in the Greater Vancouver Region. Secondly, the SeFC Policy Statement allows for the planning area to be redeveloped at reasonably high densities. For instance, the SeFC policy statement states that: a wide diversity of housing comprising 2,000 to 2,500 units for 4,000 to 5,000 people will be planned into the lands north of 1st Avenue, with family housing as a priority. Plans may also include housing for another 3,000 to 4,000 on the private lands in SeFC, and live-work space as a priority (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 7). By housing 7,000 residents (87.5 people per acre), the more conservative amount of people, in the proposed 80 acre urban development, at high densities, roughly 636 acres of land (woodlot or agricultural land) could be saved from standard suburban development 182
(based on eleven people per acre, the average density of single family development in Canada (Alexander and Tomalty, 2001)). Thirdly, the policy for SeFC also represents efficient urban land use as it locates residential development close to employment, education, recreation, and commercial opportunities. These opportunities are planned to be located within the proposed community, and the site is close to several employment nodes such as the Broadway corridor and the central business district.
6.12.2 Reduction or Elimination of Pollution High densities can also markedly reduce automobile dependency, if residences, shops, schools and other services are located within easy walking or cycling distance, or if there is reliable, frequent public transit available. The SeFC policy provides for both of these measures to reduce automobile dependency. For example, the SeFC policy states that:
2.The City should develop the Downtown Streetcar system through SeFC, with linkages to Granville Island, the downtown, the SkyTrain station at Science World, and with other City and Regional transit connections. Achieving this policy will require discussions and agreements with the GVTA. Rezoning Phase Policies 3.As ranked priorities, the transportation network in SeFC should address pedestrians, bicycles, transit (including ferries), goods movement and then automobiles (SeFC Policy Statement, p.54). Mixed use zoning, and the provision of schools, daycares and employment in SeFC are all included in the policy statement. The planning area is also located on an existing streetcar line, which will be extended to the downtown area in the future, and it is close to an existing heavy rail transit system. Reductions in automobile dependency result in the reduction of many air pollutants (nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and ground level ozone). This is addressed in the air quality section in the policy.
183
The reduction of automobile use also reduces water pollution from transportation (non-point source (NPS) pollution: oils and metals which runoff the street system, into the stormsewers that pollute the receiving waters). The policy acknowledges this somewhat in the Objectives and Intent section:
Rationale: Runoff from streets and other urban surfaces can contain toxins and tends to occur in peak flows during storms. Managing precipitation runoff on the surface, through a range of design elements such as swales and small reed ponds, can reduce the need for infrastructure, reduce erosive peak flows, and eliminate some toxins from runoff thereby delivering clean water to the receiving water body. Surface water management systems can be designed into parks (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 63). The policy goes some distance in reducing NPS pollution, by reducing impervious surface coverage (pavement and rooftops). The policy calls on the City to develop a neighbourhood water management plan, which includes Surface runoff management within the site's catchment area (SeFC Policy Statement, p.64). However, it does not approach the problem in a synergistic manner. For example, the existing policy states that on-street parking should be provided on most streets to increase parking opportunities and to serve as a traffic calming measure (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 57). This on-street parking is a significant contributor to NPS pollution of the receiving waters from urban stormwater. A more preventative, synergistic solution would have been to reduce the number of parking spaces for the development by allowing for automobile restricted, or car free development. Also, the automobile dependent should be charged the full cost of storing their automobiles. The costs of parking should be de-linked from the cost of housing units on the site. However, as the policy has allowances for adaptation included in it, there may still be a possibility that this type of development will be implemented in SeFC. The SeFC policy also reduces pollution by calling for a high ratio of recycled materials in construction materials, creating opportunity and incentives for green energy and water efficient buildings, and through waste management plans that will markedly reduce solid waste.
184
6.12.3 Reduction in the Use of Natural Resources: The policy sets in place a framework of energy, water resource, and waste management plans, which will markedly reduce the use of natural resources. For example, the policy notes that in the Official Development Plan phase:
1.In consultation with BC Hydro and the developer, the City should develop an energy plan for SeFC, which may address issues such as: a. Renewable energy technology; b. Regulatory issues; c. Building and infrastructure design; d. Landscape design; e. Costs; f. Opportunities for collaboration with energy supply companies, senior governments and industry; g. Education for stakeholders; and h. Using City-owned buildings as sites for demonstration projects featuring advanced energy-efficient design (SeFC Policy Statement, p.61). This, in combination with reductions in automobile dependency, demand management of water resources and waste management, should result in much lower demand for natural resources in the SeFC sustainable community. The post occupancy education and monitoring programs should influence natural resource use throughout the City and the Region.
6.12.4 Effective Monitoring The policy includes indicators in the appendices of the adopted policy. These indicators were not officially adopted by City Council. They are there to inform discussion and development planning in the area. These few indicators were derived from the sustainability consultants report. They were arrived at through a very limited communicative participation process, the AG gave some input on these indicators. A public process would likely make these indicators more accessible to the future residents. This is very significant, especially if future residents will be responsible for monitoring. However, the indicators in the appendices are quite impressive. They 185
call for marked reductions in resource use. The water use indicator, for instance, calls for a maximum o f 100 litres of potable water per person per day. The average water use in highdensity development in Vancouver is 220 litres of potable water per person per day. The other targets reflect an aggressive move towards resource conservation.
6.13 Social Sustainability Social sustainability is the sphere of sustainability that was addressed the least in the SeFC policy-making process. This is exemplified by the fact that environment and economic development were each allotted a separate section in the policy statement. The social sustainability policies and issues are dispersed throughout the policy. This reflects the assumption by the Planning Department that existing City policies sufficiently address social sustainability. Growing inequality, illustrated by increasing homelessness, for instance, highlights the fact that existing policies are inadequate.
6.13.1 Equality Despite the lack of explicit recognition of social sustainability, there was some significant movement towards greater social sustainability. The policy, for instance, calls for social housing on the lands north of 1st Avenue, sites should be reserved for non-market housing programs to build a minimum of 20% of the total units. These programs are to be funded by senior governments or by public-private partnerships that can achieve a similar result (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 13). Existing City policy already requires 20% of affordable housing for new developments, however, the policy also recommends that a minimum of 35% of the total units on the land north of 1st Avenue should be suitable for families with children. Consider using some DCL (development cost levy) funds for this housing (SeFC Policy Statement, p. 13). If the policy results in 30-50% affordable housing in the residential development on the publicly owned lands, then a significant increase in economic equality will occur. In terms of other types of societal equality, the section on Social and Cultural Development goes some distance by stating 186
that a healthy level of social diversity should be promoted in SeFC, addressing factors such as age, income, culture, gender, family type, education, occupation, housing tenure and health status (SeFC Policy Statement, p.26). Social equality is also covered off by barrier free design policies, and acknowledgment of facilities for those with special needs.
6.13.2 Community Capacity The careful consideration of community facilities (community centres, daycares, schools, and healthcare facilities) will be rounded out by a community facilities white paper and the policy calls for these community facilities to be constructed concurrently with residential and mixed use development. Usually, these facilities are constructed after the new development is constructed. This is also an indication of movement towards social sustainability as these facilities provide space for community and other groups to use for meeting space at moderate rates, which increases their capacity to engage in communicative processes. Vibrant public spaces, such as community centres and schools can greatly increase and foster community capacity. These community facilities, especially community centres, provide rooms for small groups that do not have the capacity to rent or purchase their own facilities. Many of the SeFC Working Groups meetings, for example, were held in the Citys local community centres. In terms of increased communicative participation, the policy aids in this area somewhat. For example, the policy recommends that The City should establish a stewardship Advisory Group to advise staff in securing and maintaining the vision of SeFC as a sustainable neighbourhood (SeFC Policy Statement, p.78). The policy also states that the City should encourage youth participation in SeFC planning to respond to youth related issues (all stages)(SeFC Policy Statement, p.25). These policies should ensure greater communicative participation than is the norm in development processes. However, other than this quite constrained policy commitment, communicative participation in the governing of the SeFC area is given cursory mention in the policy statement. For example, the policy encourages resident participation in key decisions that face the SeFC neighbourhood. 187
According to the bulk of the literature, this aspect of sustainability is so important that it should have a separate section in the policy broadsheet. In the interim, the significant gap between policy and implementation is addressed by creating capacity for communicative participation through a Stewardship Group for SeFC. The stewardship section of the policy statement created the capacity for the continued involvement of those interested in fostering sustainable urban development in SeFC. Regarding the future governing structure in SeFC, the policy statement recommends that the Stewardship Group be transformed into a neighbourhood association. However, it makes no recommendations about the functioning, or Councils official recognition of the proposed neighbourhood association (neighbourhood associations are not officially recognized by Vancouvers City Council).
6.13.3 Urbanity The policy statement provides several policies that will help to ensure that the SeFC neighbourhood is a vibrant, culturally rich area of the City. For example, the policy recommends that the City should encourage public artist participation in the planning and design of the open spaces in SeFC (SeFC Policy Statement, p.26). Through other similar policies, cultural and community activities are to be encouraged in public open spaces, open spaces and public art should be planned with public and artist participation, and affordable artist studios and artist live-work are encouraged by the policy statement. In the post-development phase, the policy calls for participation in educational, arts and cultural activities (SeFC Policy Statement, p.27). This type of policy is extended through the policys recommendations for interdisciplinary learning in the arts, science, the environment, health and wellness (SeFC Policy Statement, p.27) in schools and community facilities in SeFC. The policy also allows for the skillful refining of Vancouvers successful mixed-use development policies that should ensure a vibrant, local-serving range of community services, businesses, and commercial uses for the SeFC area. This range of amenities and services is important as they will welcome visitors to the site, and they will encourage residents to live, 188
work, and play in their own neighbourhood. These various policies will likely increase urbanity (an increase in social and cultural exchanges in the sustainable community in SeFC).
6.13.4 Interests and Representativeness Generally, the policy meets the interests of all the core participants in the SeFC policy making process. The main exception is the reduced emphasis on social sustainability. The developers, property, and real estate interests are allowed a high enough density to ensure a healthy financial return on their investment. Those interests concerned about ecological issues have their interests met by policies that will reduce energy, water use, and solid waste; policies that address, to some degree, air quality and soil pollution; and policy that will encourage urban agriculture. Ecological interests are also met by the policy that satisfies those who wanted all the public land to be parkland. Twenty-six of fifty acres of publicly owned land is set aside as parks and open space. This park area, if planned as intended by those who helped to formulate the policy broadsheets, should meet the recreational needs and interests of residents and surrounding communities. Hopefully, it will also meet the habitat needs of other species. However, this remains to be seen as parks planning is conducted under the authority of Vancouvers Parks Board in a separate process.
Representativeness Other than the stewardship policy, the policy contains little substantive policy on how knowledge and information about sustainable urban development and SeFC will be shared with the broader public through groups, institutions, and individuals. There is some minimal policy regarding interdisciplinary learning, and other activities, but these are post-occupancy policies. This is a notable lack as the SeFC policy could inform urban development in Vancouver, and move it towards sustainable urban development, even before anything is developed on the site.
189
The policy allows for some scope to be fair and beneficial to everyone in Vancouvers society. By increasing affordable housing, green space, reducing energy and water use, and providing a working example of sustainable urban development, the policy, if implemented in a strong sustainability manner, will benefit everyone in the City and the Greater Vancouver Region. However, as a result of the policy being written, as is often necessary, in a loose and open-ended fashion, there is always room for the proposed sustainable development to slip back to the status quo with a few token, technologically based sustainability bells and whistles. The ongoing work of the SeFC Stewardship Group and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as the SeFC Working Group, should help to maintain a higher level of sustainable urban development in SeFC.
6.13.5 Conflict Reduction, and Flexible and Networked Practices To some degree, the adoption of the policy statement for SeFC ended a static situation where there was a standoff between development interests and the proponents of sustainable development in SeFC. However, it did not reduce conflict between those with differing views about the highest and best use of the SeFC lands, especially the publicly owned lands. There was significant conflict generated by the all-parks proponents. The SeFC Working Group worked to reduce this conflict. This may have been a symptom of the fact that the Planning Department scheduled too little direct communicative participation for the broader public. However, as was pointed out above, the all-parkland proponents knew about the ongoing process from early on, and engaged in last minute, old school tactics in an attempt to derail the process. It is also interesting to note that they were not at all satisfied with the fact that they achieved a policy shift where more than half of the publicly owned lands were made into parks and open space.
6.13.6 Flexible and Networked Practices The policy has also fostered some flexible and networked practices and institutions. For instance, the Citys Planning Department now meets regularly with other departments (engineering, and real estate, for example) regarding the plans and preparation for the Official 190
Development Plan (this actually started with the North False Creek development, and was strengthened in the SeFC process). Another example of the flexible and networked practices and institutions that have been encouraged by the policy for SeFC, and a second order effect, is the Citys partnering with the Regional and provincial governments regarding energy and water efficient green buildings. All three levels of government, in partnership with development interests, are pursuing the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) process for certifying green buildings. Another indication of flexible and networked practices was the successful partnership of the City, through the Planning Department, and two non-governmental organizations, the SeFC Working Group and Designers for Social Responsibility, in securing funds under the BC provincial governments Green Communities program. This funding allowed the Planning Department to fund the energy plan consultant, and gave the SeFC Working Group the capacity to run a short-term, on-site Sustainability Outreach Office, and conduct other awareness-raising projects. The Designers for Social Responsibility received funds to conduct an ODP review workshop when the first draft of the ODP is released to the public.
6.13.7 Second Order Effects The SeFC process and policy has already had several important second order effects. The partnership to enact green building indicators and certification was mentioned above, and other second order changes are occurring as of writing. The Greater Vancouver Regional District, for instance, has began to embark on a sustainable Region planning process, and the City of Vancouver is in the first stages of establishing City-wide sustainability policy and an office of sustainability. Whether these will be token attempts at both communicative participation and implementing sustainable urban development remains to be seen. The fact that these things are starting to take place is an indication of the elevation of sustainability in the Regions and the Citys plans for the future.
191
6.14 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
6.14.1 Economic Security Regarding economic security, there are a few brief words about encouraging youth job-training opportunities in SeFC. The policy states that the linking of youth job-training programs to SeFC should be encouraged by the City, especially for jobs associated with the construction and operation of the site (SeFC Policy Statement, p.77). The policy also calls for the investigation of establishing a Farmers Market in SeFC. With these exceptions, however, there is little emphasis in the policy on community economic development that would increase the economic security of all residents, especially the most vulnerable in our society. However, a demonstration project that encourages the possibility of establishing a SeFC neighbourhood economic development office in a City-owned facility may allow some scope to increase local economic security and opportunities in SeFC. The policy states that:
The possibility for creating a SeFC neighbourhood economic development office in a Cityowned facility (community centre) should be considered, to promote local economic health and environmentally responsible business practices (SeFC Policy Statement, p.77). The staff of this neighbourhood economic development office may be able to help to increase economic security by implementing synergistic policies that increase local economic activity, promote ecologically responsible business practices, and increase economic security for some of the residents of SeFC, and surounding areas.
6.14.2 Ecologically Sound Economic Activity The proposed purpose of the SeFC neighbourhood economic development office is to promote environmentally responsible business practices. While this is encouraging, the City totally rejected proposals for regulation (through zoning) to ensure that only ecologically benign or beneficial economic development would occur in SeFC. The policy does, however, call for 192
consideration of full cost accounting methods and a window of seven years payback for development pro forma. Also lacking in the policy statement are any incentives to encourage ecologically responsible business practices. Thus, the policy lacks both carrots and sticks regarding economic development. However, the policy may leave scope for something like incentives and regulation to occur. For instance, the policy recommends that the City should look at applying the SeFC development policies which promote more environment-friendly development to regulations controlling other development in the City (SeFC Policy Statement, p.77). Therefore, the City may create an environmentally benign or beneficial aspect to the business bylaws in the future.
6.14.3 Local Self-reliance An ecologically sound economic activity that would increase local self-reliance was mentioned above when the policy calls for the possibility of establishing a space for a farmers market in SeFC. Local self-reliance increases markedly when urban residents are able to purchase locally grown food directly from agricultural producers. Another policy that will increase the local selfreliance of SeFC residents is the urban agriculture policy, this policy states that:
An urban agriculture strategy should be developed for SeFC by the City in consultation with the developer. This plan may consider issues such as: a. The City's role and responsibility in securing a food supply for its population; b. Opportunities and constraints with regard to urban agriculture which can be reasonably addressed in SeFC; c. Gardening opportunities on private land, on rooftops, and in public parks; d. Education for stakeholders; and e. Regulatory issues (SeFC Policy Statement, p.73). These urban agriculture policies should help to increase local self-reliance, especially if they are shored up by a target included in the appendices (not officially adopted by City Council). An impressive target of growing 12.5% of the produce consumed by residents on site is included in the appendices of the SeFC policy statement. The many proposed energy reduction policies,
193
presented in the ecological sustainability section above, will also make SeFC residents more energy self-reliant.
6.14.4 Cost Reduction and Benefits If the transportation, waste management, energy and water use plans are sufficiently rigorous, the possibility of very significant long-term savings (both financial and in terms of natural resources) is very great. Although the policy statement calls for full cost accounting to be considered as a decision-making tool for SeFC, there is no specific FCA review of the proposed plans that will inform the Official Development Plan. There is also no framework proposed in the policy statement for a FCA audit of the Official Development Plan. FCA would more clearly lay out the costs and benefits of externalities such as reductions in air and water pollution. Without FCA, the focus becomes one of narrow cost analysis, or at best narrow lifecycle costs, based on projected natural resource prices (which are difficult to project under ideal circumstances). Assuming that the policy statement is implemented in a strong sustainability direction, the economic benefits will be significant. Local residents, businesses, and utilities all benefit from demand management. Local residents and businesses will have lower energy and water use costs. Water and energy utilities benefit from demand management as it is much more costly to build new plants to meet increased demand, than it is to maintain and improve existing operating plants. The City and the Region benefit from reduced resource use as they are generally responsible for water and waste treatment. The reductions in resource use encouraged in the policy statement will also maintain local air quality. This benefits all residents and other species in our Region, especially if the lessons learned in SeFC are extended to the City and the Region. The policy statement also contains many measures to improve and maintain local air quality, which benefits all residents and other species in our Region, once again, assuming that the lessons learned in SeFC are extended to the City and the Region.
194
6.15 Creative Adaptation The policy statement includes many creative policies that will move Vancouver markedly towards sustainable urban development. While many of these policies are technical, there is even some scope for social sustainability dispersed throughout the policy statement. For example, the policy recommends that the City should encourage youth-oriented community facilities, cultural activities and economic opportunities in SeFC (SeFC Policy Statement, p.25). The stewardship policy is also very creative and innovative. The policy is also written in recommendation style and allows for a significant amount of room for adaptability, even though it is not often explicitly built in to the policy. Thus, the policy is fairly creative and adaptive.
6.16 Adaptation and Contingency Planning The policy statement is explicitly written to be adaptive and flexible to account for changes in the planning situation. This flexibility is acknowledged up-front in the policy statement. This allows for the many detailed plans to be conducted prior to the Official Development Plan process. It also creates space for societal change, and technological changes or advances. On the other hand, the policy has no contingency planning and does not call for it. This is interesting as the first major specific work for SeFC, the development consultants report (prepared in 19961997), includes references to some contingency planning. Therefore, adaptation is included in the policy, but contingency planning is not.
6.17 Implementation The policy statement is reasonably feasible. The successful creation and ongoing work of the Stewardship Group for the SeFC area should help to achieve a high degree of implementation. The policy statement, on the whole, includes policies that are technically feasible (many of the proposed policies already exist in bits and pieces throughout Vancouver and its Region). A critical point may be that in many ways it is too achievable. However, the flexibility built into 195
the policy allows for greater movement towards sustainability over time. For instance, the policy statement includes on-street parking as traffic calming. This has not prevented the SeFC Working Group from mounting a reasonably successful argument that on-street parking should be limited, and that part of the site should be restricted to automobiles.
6.18 Feasibility and Fit Between Participants Needs and Future Actions As with a similar question about whether the policy meets all participants needs, the policy provides quite reasonable feasibility and fit in terms of participants needs and the future actions recommended by the policy. The development and property industry representatives needs are met by the future actions called for by the policy which allows for a high enough density to ensure sufficient economic returns. The energy, water, transportation, urban agriculture, and waste management plan policies lay out a framework that should meet the needs of ecological interests by embedding these plans into the Official Development Plan. The needs of social justice interests, are provided less of a good fit, as the proposed level of affordable housing does not meet the needs of those who require social housing. With the exception of the latter, however, the policy provides somewhat of a good fit between participants needs and the future actions laid out in the policy.
6.19 Commitment for Implementation The policy is also based on actual commitments that will aid in its implementation. For the remaining phases of the planning and development process responsibilities are clearly laid out. For each of the Official Development Plan phases, the rezoning phase, the development and design directives, post-development initiatives, and demonstration projects those who are responsible throughout the community are identified. Furthermore, the policy was officially adopted by Council, after an extensive public process. Therefore, significant responsibility for its implementation rests with City Council. Moreover, as a result of the process, and the adoption
196
of the policy, many of the property owners in the area, and some developers are showing a significant commitment to sustainabilty.
6.20 Conclusion On the whole, the SeFC sustainable development policy-making process has opened up deliberative space for local planning in Vancouver. This has occurred in a context where most Council meetings are held during the day (which can greatly limit communicative participation, especially for those with weekday employment). Basically, communicative participation did occur in the SeFC process. It was not always smooth, or straightforward, however, a high degree of mutual understanding and respect was achieved. This mutual understanding continues as of writing on the Stewardship Group, and it allows it to be creative and useful to the ongoing planning process. Having presented the results of the extensive and intensive action research and document analysis, presentation of the results of what the other participants in the SeFC policy making process thought about both the process and the policy for SeFC follows.
197
CHAPTER 7: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH II -PROCESS
7.0 Introduction This chapter summarizes the results of the questions about the process for the twenty qualitative interviews that were conducted. It follows the same categories, based on the criteria, as were introduced in the preceding chapter. The analysis presented here was conducted independently of, and after, the analysis of the action research results and document analysis was completed. The interviewees have been grouped into their primary backgrounds to aid in presentation and analysis of the results. The interviewees were classified as:
Ecological participants: Participants who because of background or group affiliation have a major focus on ecological, or environmental issues (air quality, water quality, soil quality, habitat, and energy efficiency);
Social participants: Participants who through group affiliation, or background focus on issues of social sustainability (equity, or equality, affordable housing; and drug harm reduction strategies);
Community participants: Those who represent a specific geographical area of the City (i.e. South False Creek, or Mount Pleasant);
Economic participants: Participants who represent the material interests engaged in urban development (developers, real estate professionals, and private landowners in SeFC);
Political representatives: City Councillors who sat on Council during policy formulation and decision-making processes;
198
Administrative participants: Participants who worked as City planners, or in other departments during the process; and
Academic, or expert participants: Participants with substantive knowledge in sustainable development or some aspect of it (i.e. landscape architects, energy efficiency technicians).
As in any classification, these categories are meant as rough groupings. They do not acknowledge that some ecological participants spoke out as much about affordable housing as did the social participants, and they do not acknowledge that some economic participants are also greatly concerned when it comes to ecological issues. The complexities of these participative roles are included in the presentation of the results and in the analysis. A lower rate of respondents for some questions signifies non-response by the interviewees that chose not to answer these questions. To aid the reader in grasping, generally, what participants thought about the various criteria, the responses were placed on spectra, which generally and qualitatively represents the respondents answers to each question. Each spectrum has a positive and negative pole, and a mid-point. Some spectra have a grey area, which was a catchall category for those who did not know, could not recall, or would not comment on the question. The spectra are displayed in the figures, one spectrum for each criterion. This chapter considers the participants views of the process (inclusion, equality of opportunity, mutual understanding, transparency, and power impartiality).
7.1 Inclusion
In terms of the inclusiveness of the SeFC process interviewees were, for the most part, evenly split over whether it was an inclusive, or was not an inclusive process. A few other
199
respondents fell onto the spectrum (see Figure 7.1) somewhere between a positive or a negative response. The latter group, rightly, noted the complexity of the question.
Those who strongly asserted that it was an inclusive process were from the economic, administrative, or political representation groupings. With the exception of one interviewee who was from the social issue grouping. The economic interests often answered with a straightforward yes when they were asked: Was the process for SeFC inclusive? One economic participant, for instance, replied: I think it was excellent. There was nothing wrong with our Advisory Group. They did a tremendous job (personal communication, September 26, 2002). Another economic participant responded by stating that:
Yes, I think it was. I think in cross-sections of people, it was inclusive in the sense that it wore you down, and the people that really wanted to be there stayed. And I think the people that are there are really representative of an overall community, not just a segment, or two, or three. And I think out of that, and everything is hard work, is worthwhile. I think out of that came a lot of respect. I think we saw that just with the owners being there, and trying to advocate for themselves. No one is kidding themselves. But there is a real desire on behalf of the group to try to support them (the owners) and move it through the system. In recognition of their fundamental honesty and openness. So I would say absolutely representative, (personal communication, October 8, 2002) The economic participant quoted above is reflecting the fact that representation is a complex process and that people often participate in a manner that is not always sectoral, or interestbased. The other grouping that responded very positively to inclusiveness was the administrative participants (planners and other City employees). The planners noted the increased amount of both participation and inclusiveness, when compared to other developments in Vancouver. One administrative participant pointed out that the question should be comparative. The administrative participant stated that:
200
The question then comes down to what are the normal ways that a jurisdiction deals with it? From that reference point, I think SeFC was one of the most inclusive processes ever undertaken by the City for development like this. The only one that I know of, that might have gotten a bit larger, would have been False Creek South, (personal communication, November 21, 2002) This positive response was echoed by another administrative respondent who stated that:
I think, yes, its been, by far, the most inclusive of any major project weve had in the City of Vancouver. And that was at a very early stage. Dont forget, we havent even been to the public. Were not even at the public process yet. Weve already had, before we get to the ODP process, (public participation). Normally, the first time the public gets involved in the process would be through the ODP. The developer and the planning staff work together. They come up with something they can take to the public (personal communication, December 3,2002). This respondent noted that in a normal planning process the public usually is not involved until there is a range of options or plans put in place by planners and developers. As was mentioned above, one of the social participants was very positive about the wide range of participants that took part in the process. This participant stated that the process was certainly more inclusive than it could have been, and I was pretty impressed with the spectrum of participants that were there (personal communication, October 5, 2002). This positive response was also shared by one of the political representatives who asserted that the important thing is was there the opportunity there for those who wanted to participate? Yeah, sure. So, fundamentally, yes, it was inclusive (personal communication, December 5, 2002). One can readily see that those who viewed the process as inclusive include all the economic and administrative participants that were interviewed. In the middle of the spectrum fell those who, validly, found the question hard to answer with a straight yes, or no. One ecological participant thought that the Advisory Group represented a quasi-public engagement process where the planners were strongly at the helm (personal communication, September 26, 2002). But the same participant felt unqualified to comment on the process as a whole. Another ecological participant thought that the process was more 201
inclusive than usual, but I wouldnt say it was really inclusive (personal communication, December 4, 2002). It is important to note that even these middle of the spectrum responses are somewhat critical regarding the inclusiveness of the process. Community participants, the other social participants, the academic/experts and one of the political representatives all thought that the SeFC process was not inclusive, or that it could have been more inclusive than it was. These respondents noted that the general public did not know about the SeFC process. For instance, one social participant stated that: I think the thing is most of the public doesnt know about SeFC, and that would probably be un-inclusive (personal communication, December 6, 2002). One interviewee, a political representative, after answering no, noted that the inclusiveness that occurred was a result of pressure. This participant stated that: No. I think it was pushed into being inclusive to a certain extent (by) the people who became the Working Group. Which, initially the general public was more interested in this than anybody realized. [The Working Group] pushed it into being inclusive, but I think it still struggles today (personal communication, May 11, 2002). These responses about inclusion demonstrate a near even split over whether the process was inclusive, or not. A secondary question was asked of interviewees to delve deeper into the significant question of inclusion in the policy-making process. A subset of interviewees were asked whether they thought the process included all relevant and significant interests.
7.2 Inclusion of Relevant and Significant Interests Amongst the subset that was asked this question (see Figure 7.2), again the economic and administrative participants stand out as being positive about the level of inclusion, with the exception of two (who thought it was inclusive, but noted the lack of First Nations participation). For example, an economic participant stated that:
I think so. Although I question First Nations. The lack of First Nations at the table. But, again, I think thats a real enigma for most people to get their hands around, beyond the obvious. Its integration. You know we hear statements, we hear a lot of inflammatory 202
dialogue over First Nations issues. I mean like [the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs] yesterday. If you cant hurry up, were going to cut you off. Okay, I can see the pro and con in those statements, but theyre inflammatory to people that have been waiting for a hundred years. I would say that First Nations is the one that I think is glaring (personal communication, October 8, 2002). Concern over the lack of involvement of First Nations, and the attempts to include them was also apparent in the response from an administrative participant:
Yes, looking back on it now if we could have done one thing better, it would have been trying to include First Nations, and it wasn't for lack of trying. We went two or three different times to the First Nation's Centre on Fifth Avenue [the Native Education Centre], Yeah, we distributed the documents. We discussed where we were heading, and what we were trying to do. We solicited their input. It actually did get some review, and some comment, but we found it very difficult. Maybe it's just our way of thinking, as planners, the people we're used to dealing with to really engage them. I think we probably could have done a better job in that respect (personal communication, May 30, 2002). The difficulty of successfully engaging First Nations, and other cultural groups, was also encountered by the SeFC Working Group. The respondents in this subset whose responses fell on the middle of the spectrum were also quite negative about the inclusion of important and appropriate interests. One economic participant was more positive about the inclusiveness of the process. This interviewee noted that the process was inclusive for the participants in the group, but that it could have included participants with an engineering or transportation orientation. The other, more negative, response that fell near the middle of the spectrum was voiced by an academic/expert participant: Well, I suspect that it included the interests that you would normally find are willing to be involved in a very lengthy process, because it was three years. But, because there was very little reporting on the process, it had to be something that you knew about in the past to become involved in it (personal communication, October 3, 2002). The issue of how participants were informed about the process is an important question, and it is dealt with later in the analysis chapter.
203
FIGURE 7.1 : INCLUSION
++ o e + e e 0++ 0 +
8 o0 . oe e P
FIGURE 7.2 : INCLUSION OF RELATIVE AND SIGNIFICANT INTERESTS
0 00
FIGURE 7.3 : LONG-TERM INVOLVEMENT
0 0
O++0
1 ______________ _ Q
Community Participants
@ Ecological Participants Economic Participants
00 + 00 A 0_____ 0 1 ------0 0
- ---------------------------- 1
Administrative Participants
Q Political Representatives Ac ademic s/Exp erts
Social Participants
This concern over the lack of inclusion was shared by all of the respondents who responded negatively to this question. Both of the ecological participants were negative about the level of inclusion. One of the ecological participants also mentioned the lack of consideration of First Nations rights, and noted the token nature of the selection of the participants. All of the social and community participants that are in this subset thought that the process was not inclusive. One social participant pointed out the lack of significant and relevant interests in the process:
At the beginning, the more stringent environmental groups set their own vision. Oppositional groups have never been involved. East Side sectors were not involved: Thornton Park, the Downtown Eastside, and Mount Pleasant. Interest groups, which were supposed to represent issues, were more directly involved, while those who were concerned with social sustainability were less directly involved (personal communication, December 21, 2002). 204
The other social participant in this subset thought that the process included an overemphasis on those with technical backgrounds: developers, architects, environmentalists, housing specialists, and social justice advocates. This social participant stated that there was something missing, and maybe it was just around the area of family life (personal communication, October 5, 2002). The academic/expert participant in this subset, and the community participant both noted the lack of youth involvement in the process. The community participant raised other groups of people that were not included in the process, such as the English as a second language community and others from Vancouvers very multi-cultural community.
7.3 Long-Term Involvement A significant majority of respondents affirmed that the process engaged participants in long term involvement (see Figure 7.3). The political representatives; economic, administrative, administrative, and social participants all responded very to reasonably positively to this question. For example, one of the most enthusiastic responses came from one of the academic/expert participants:
Yeah, we were involved for a long time. I cant even remember when we started. I mean what I was most impressed with, I think like throughout that whole group, and weve lost a few people, but that groups been there for how many years now, three, four years? [Its been five years with breaks.]Yeah, so I started whenever we had that meeting on Fraser and Broadway, Mt. Pleasant Neighbourhood House there, and I came to one of those meetings. I cant even remember how long ago it was. But if I look around and think of who was there, I mean a good number of them are still here. I think thats really amazing (personal communication, May 15, 2002). This participant is highlighting the fact that many members of the original Advisory Group are still involved, on the Stewardship Group for SeFC. One ecological participant responded positively to this question and, along with one of the economic participants, cited the work of the facilitator as one of the reasons for the long-term involvement. This participant stated that:
205
I think bringing in the group facilitator was very good in terms of a team-building, commitment-building exercise. I think that that was a very, very good process to witness. And I think that built some longer-term commitment from people. Like there was definitely more social bonding amongst people in the group, and higher levels of trust and respect. As an outcome of working with her in the process, right. So I think that engendered some longerterm commitment. But if long-term means thirty years, then I dont know that thats the case (personal communication, September 26, 2002). This quote highlights some of the results yet to be presented, like mutual trust and respect, and the efficacy of the facilitation, however, it does point to the nature of the long-term involvement. This concern for even longer-term involvement leads to the responses of those who were less enthusiastic about the nature of the long-term involvement. Those who were both positive and negative about the long-term involvement of the participants in the process, a community and a social participant, both acknowledged the long-term involvement of participants, but credited either the group itself, or the SeFC Working Group for long-term involvement. For instance, the community participant asserted that in that sense there are some people that have been following it for a long period of time, like the SeFC Working Group, but I dont think the City can take credit for that long-term involvement. Really, it was the Working Group not the City (personal communication, November 1, 2002). Even the one ecological participant who answered most negatively regarding long-term participation gave a qualified response. This ecological participant stated that: Its kind of a mixed answer. I kind of say no, because those people who have stayed long-term have been able to do so, like if youre talking about the industry sector, they can do so because they are paid staff. The voluntary sector is a lot harder, to engage in that long-term process without any kind of funding, support, or anything. The usual problem of stakeholder process (personal communication, December 4, 2002). This lack of resources, or capacity that the respondent claims limits the ability to participate may have some basis; however, most of the interviewees acknowledged that Advisory Group members engaged in long term participation in the SeFC policy-making process.
206
7.4 Equality of Opportunity Regarding equality of opportunity within the Advisory Group process, most of the interviewees (economic, administrative, and academic participants; and a political representative) thought that equality of opportunity to participate existed in the SeFC process (see Figure 7.4). One of the economic participants, for example, responded very affirmatively and went on to state that:
[In] any group dynamic like that youve got some people who speak more than others. And I dont necessarily take verbalization as being, speaking more or less, as an indicator of whether they were participating or not. You know, from the eye contact, the body language, I think you could say that everybody was interested and had an equal opportunity to speak when they wanted to (personal communication, May 13, 2002). Some respondents were still positive about the level of equality of opportunity, but thought that there was some shortage of it as well. For example, one of the community participants pointed to a difference in access to the planners and the Chair of the Advisory Group. This community participant asserted that:
Well, its never a completely fair playing field when you look at these things, cause there were different formats of the meetings. Which Ill give them credit for, some small group stuff and some large group stuff. That was an opportunity for people to give their feedback in more than one way. But, again, that depends on whos doing the recording, and what gets recorded and what doesnt. And what the emphasis is on. So I think as far as the AG itself is concerned, the members there, for the most part, felt like they were being heard. But, I also think that access to the key players, like say the Chair and, in particular, the planners, was a little bit limited in the sense that some people probably had better access than others. You know. I realize everybody had the option of emailing the Chair and planners, but, you know, its just a matter of whether some people would feel comfortable doing that (personal communication, November 1, 2002).
207
This community participant thought that this lack of access to the planners and the Chair resulted in less input for some of the participants. One of the ecological participants criticized the process for a lack of equal opportunity to participate, which, in turn, resulted in some members o f the Advisory Group leaving the process. When asked about equal opportunity to participate, this ecological participant stated that:
No. I think that in theory perhaps (the process was) structurally designed to allow equal opportunity, but clearly some people are more important stakeholders in the sense that they represent landowners, or otherwise. And theyre going to have more access, and theyre goingto be included in more aspects of the process. They re going to be consulted more often in the process, and through the process. And that definitely happened in the AG. And I dont know that thats necessarily a bad thing, but I definitely feel that some of the p eople who opted out over time were implicitly marginalised (personal communication, September 26, 2002). To summarize, with the exception of two of the interviewees, most respondents viewed the SeFC policy-making process as providing equality of opportunity for participants.
7.5 Participants Set Groundrules, Tasks, and Objectives The results for this criterion were more spread across the spectrum from positive to negative (see Figure 7.5). Once again the economic participants were positive about the ability of participants to set ground rules, tasks, and objectives. One of each of the administrative, ecological, and social participants were also very positive about this criterion. The administrative participant in this group pointed out the Planning Departments efforts to distance themselves from the running of the Advisory Group, that they brought in the facilitator and that really helped the process, really helped to make sure that everybody was empowered and listened to (personal communication, May 30, 2002). The ecological participant noted that the elected chair of the Advisory Group set the meeting agendas, and the group agreed to a terms of reference for the Advisory Group.
208
Those whose responses lay somewhere in the middle of the spectrum thought that there was some limited scope for participants to determine groundrules, tasks, and objectives. These interviewees found that the process agenda was set by the City. An ecological participant, for instance, stated that: I think we tried really hard to set our own ground rules, and we were partially effective. I remember that we pushed for a facilitator and got one. We didnt end up getting the terms of reference that we had hoped for, I remember that. But, sort of as these types of processes go, it was probably not too bad (personal communication, December 4, 2002). Another respondent in this middle-of-the-spectrum group noted that the use of subgroups in the process allowed participants to work on specific issues, but questioned whether the results of that group work were included in the final policy statement.
FIGURE 7.4 : EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
0 + +0 0 # + a
1 ot
po
+
|0__________
FIGURE 7 .5 : SETTING OF GROUNDRULES, TASKS AND OBJECTIVES
*++* !
o o
0
A O e o j0
0 +
o 0 o
--
++
L 0
FIGURE 7 .6 : PARTICIPANTS CHALLENGED BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
Ecological Participants
eo
Administrative Participants
P o litic a l R epresentatives
Economic Participants Social Participants
O Ac ademic s/Exp erts
209
There were interviewees that thought that there was very little or no scope for participants to determine the ground rules, tasks, and objectives. An administrative participant, a community participant, and an academic/expert participant, either thought that tasks and objectives were set by the planners and the Chair of the Advisory Group, or that there was no latitude at all for priority setting by the group-at-large. One of the administrative participants openly acknowledged the reluctance of City staff to allow participants the room to set tasks, priorities, and groundrules. This administrative participant noted that participants were not allowed to set the agenda during the policy process:
Not during the policy process, because the City was driving it. We definitely engaged them in discussion. It was a dialogue with people. I mean, you guys had some pretty serious leverage power at different points, when people said, Listen, its not okay, where we are going, we really need to look at things differently. So, yes, there was a certain degree of that. But, the author of the process was the City. We could not, almost ethically, release control of the process, when it was being done under the City banner. We worked for City Council, so we had to maintain certain City policies and practices. And we couldnt simply devolve all of that decision-making to a group of people that werent accountable to City Council (personal communication, November 21, 2002). We can readily see that the mixed reactions to this question raise questions about the participants ability to set their own ground-rules, tasks, and objectives.
7.6 Participants Challenged Basic Assumptions Most of the respondents thought the process allowed participants to challenge basic assumptions (see Figure 7.6). Two of the ecological, and academic/expert participants respectively, responded negatively to this question. Of those who answered positively to this question, one social participant asserted that the participants challenged basic assumptions even though they were not encouraged to do so by those running the process. One of the administrative participants thought that the group actually developed the basic assumptions, as the process proceeded. This administrative participant stated that:
210
Yeah, I think we almost developed the basic assumptions. As we went along, I mean I don't think that there were a lot of assumptions about the site. I mean, certainly, we had done major projects before, and we had created neighbourhoods around the downtown on former industrial lands before. But I think right from the beginning it was a different approach, and all of the previous assumptions were on the table for discussion and for argumentation and I think the policy statement that came out is a kind of a testament to the fact that we really did take a different approach. And there are different values that are integrated into that document (personal communication, May 30, 2002). A political representative also echoed this response, regarding the wider process (at the public meetings held before City Council) by stating that: Yes, I think that the people who came forward on the (report, from the development consultant), definitely made it shift. I believe that (report) was probably going to be approved with some little tinkerings, if it hadnt been for the public (personal communication, May 11, 2002). Although most interviewees thought that there was sufficient allowance for participants to challenge basic assumptions, some were less sanguine about it. Of two of the academic/expert participants, for instance, one thought that it allowed participants to challenge basic assumptions in a very limited way, while the other thought that it did not allow it at all. Two of the ecological participants responded negatively as well. One ecological participant, for example, thought that some assumptions simply werent allowed to be challenged. And I dont think they were pursued that rigorously. And I think thats where the work of the SeFC Working Group, for example, added some cross-checking in terms of that charette process (personal communication, September 26, 2002). So we see that although most thought the process allowed participants to challenge basic assumptions, there were those who raised points about the constraints of the process. The next section deals with the nature of the areas of knowledge or issues that normatively should have been dealt with in the SeFC policy making process.
211
Objective, Social, and Subjective Issues Were Addressed in the Process
7.7 Objective Issues Responses were spread across the spectrum for this criterion (see Figure 7.7). The administrative participants stand out as being most positive about the objective knowledge presented and produced by the process. Both of the administrative participants (planners) noted the scientific bench-marking work done by the Sheltair Group (the sustainability consultants), the economic data generated by the Real Estate Department and the development consultant, and the use of full cost accounting as examples of evidence that objective issues were well-addressed in the process. One of the social participants also thought that these issues were sufficiently dealt with in the process. This social participant stated that:
Well, I think that they were. I learned a lot myself. Like, for example, about that full cost accounting process. I had just barely heard of it before. So not only was that introduced, but participants were given some background in it to be able to use that reasoning. And I thought that there was a good amount of research that was brought to bear. Lots of good presentations that got people thinking about all of those kinds of things. Yeah, I think they did a good job (personal communication, October 5, 2002). The positive interviewees also included two of the economic participants, and one of the academic/expert participants. There were respondents who were still positive about the way objective issues were addressed, but they were less so. This included an economic participant, and both ecological participants. The economic participant thought that objective issues were addressed more in a theoretical sense, than in a practical or pragmatic sense. So, yes, I think there was an attempt to address the numbers side of it. But Im not sure if we addressed them from a development, or developers perspective (personal communication, October 30, 2002). One of the economic participants felt that the question could not be answered. Both of the community participants were slightly negative about the manner in which objective issues were dealt with in the process.
212
One of the community participants raised a deeper, more fundamental problem when responding to the question about objective knowledge. This community participant asserted that we have not dealt with, to me, the fundamental problem (which) is the people that are making the decisions, and this is not a negative criticism. But the planners, the engineers theyre the same people that have been working to produce the problems that w ere trying to solve now (personal communication, May 12, 2002). This respondent is questioning the knowledge claims of those who produce the objective, and other knowledge for policy-making processes. The interviewees that were most negative about the way that objective issues were addressed noted that issues around the amount of density on the site were not well addressed, that these issues were not addressed during the policy phase, and that they were actually discouraged. This group of respondents included: two academic/expert, one economic, and one social participant respectively. The social participant, who was a student in environmental sciences during the policy-making process, and is now with the science division at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), noted that there were no DFO, or government scientists involved. There werent any scientists from the universities involved. There could have been more involvement by the scientific community (personal communication, December 21, 2002). To summarize, the spread of responses from positive to negative may indicate that participants thought objective issues could have been addressed better in the SeFC policy-making process.
7.8 Social Issues Most of the interviewees responded negatively about whether social issues were addressed in the process (see Figure 7.8). Three of the economic participants thought that social issues were well addressed. For example, an economic participant stated:
I think the social agenda has been fairly well looked after. Social housing, I think the City of Vancouver has led the way in providing social housing in a time when federal funds were basically removed, and provincial funds were becoming more scarce, I think the City of Vancouver is going out of their way to keep wherever possible a fairly high component of social, or non-market housing. As an example, their childcare policies, all those standards that 213
they pushed for, I think, sets a context for the social aspects of sustainability, well before sustainability was a concept (personal communication, October 30, 2002). With the exception of one of the economic participants who did not recall enough to answer, and an administrative participant who was marginally positive, the rest of the interviewees responded negatively to the question of the inclusion of social issues in the process. The administrative participant, who was somewhat positive, noted that the Planning Department grappled with them a lot, but that it was the Social Planning Departments area of responsibility. Another, social participant was more negative. This social participant thought that:
There was some room for improvement in that area of being able to discuss (social issues), and I certainly dont know how. Like when I talked about the full cost accounting, and that whole process, well that takes some of those kinds of things into account, and that was useful. By doing that, they broadened the capacity of that group to cope with the whole scope of the job. But they might have been able to do something similar to that with the social and moral aspects. Just to infuse the group with the reality of that kind of thinking. GPI [General Progress Indicators], or those kinds of concepts. That didnt come up at all (personal communication, October 5, 2002). Those who responded by stating that social issues were not addressed, or were very poorly addressed, such as one academic/expert participant, pointed out the fact that these issues were dealt with in a superficial manner only as headings for discussion, not as substance (personal communication, October 3, 2002). One community participant thought that:
There could have been better discussion on social equity. The whole social aspect of the plan. But, you know, when you get into areas like that, I think theyre subjective areas. Theres some things you can point at and say thats objective, or we have a housing problem and we can pull out the numbers. But how you interpret those numbers becomes subjective. Its a bit of a tricky area in some ways. But I think there definitely couldve been more discussion on the social issues (personal communication, November 1, 2002).
214
FIGURE 7 .7 : OBJECTIVE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED
0 ++ 1 *0
1
FIGURE 7.8 : SOCIAL ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED
oo
++
1
0 0 m ,.,,8 8 0 0 0 1
----
FIGURE 7 .9 : SUBJECTIVE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED ++ 1
, 1
0s 0 0
00 0 0 ,
0
#
Administrative Participants Political Representatives Academics/Experts
Ecological Participants Economic Participants Social Participants
This interviewee noted a difficulty with these classifications of issues, or knowledge. It is hard to determine where social issues overlap with subjective issues.
7.9 Subjective Issues For the question of whether subjective issues (aesthetics, emotional or design issues) were dealt with during the process, respondents were spread over the spectrum in four clusters: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, and very negative (see Figure 7.9). Those respondents that were most positive noted: the use of weekend visioning workshops, a significant emphasis on elements of touch and feel, and soft values, which addressed subjective issues. The interviewees that were somewhat positive stated that: emotional issues were 215
considered somewhat, and that some subjective issues were addressed, but they are better addressed in the Official Development Plan and design process (both administrative participants). Those respondents that were somewhat negative thought subjective issues were not very well addressed, that there was limited discussion of massing and the way the development would look. The respondents that were very negative about the manner in which subjective issues were dealt with pointed out that the process: did not deal with issues of high density development; did not allow Advisory Group members to participate in the Citys design charette; the facilitator did not deal very well with emotional content; had very limited discussion about public art; that, although urban design was dealt with quite well, social issues were not given due consideration; and allowed for only a marginal amount of discussion about livability. The most representative view of this cluster of very negative responses, the largest of the four, came from an ecological participant who stated:
I dont think so. I m trying to remember now the various colourful drawings that (the Real Estate Departments architectural consultant) brought forward. I dont know if I ever really got a sense o f design in those. I mean maybe that was because it was a way too early stage, and I also dont really know how that architectural process works (personal communication, December 4, 2002). From the general responses for this question one gets the impression that subjective issues were not as well addressed as they could have been in the opinion of the participants.
7.10 Opportunity to Suggest Facilitation and Methods of Facilitation Most interviewees affirmed that the Advisory Group had an opportunity to suggest a facilitator. Three could not recall, and two thought that the City had suggested that a facilitator be brought in (see Figure 7.10). Some respondents noted that the City staff decided who the facilitator would be, however, an administrative participant noted that Advisory Group members were consulted about the choice of facilitators. A few respondents pointed out that the group was successful in suggesting a facilitator only after the process nearly broke down. This crisis in 216
the functioning of the Advisory Group part of the process was noted by one of the academic/expert participants who stated that:
Well I think in the end we individually did, 'cause I certainly went to (the planner). I know we all were saying that it's just not working we need somebody in here that can help us. And I think after we really pushed, I don't know who made up their minds that it was needed, but it did come. Then (the facilitator) was brought in. That was really unfortunate that that didn't happen sooner. I know we'd asked for it (personal communication, May 21, 2002). Therefore, the respondents noted that there was no scope to recommend a method of facilitation, or a specific facilitator.
7.11 Facilitation was Productive and Efficient Even though some thought the facilitator was brought in quite late in the process, most interviewees thought that the facilitation was productive and efficient (see Figure 7.11). Several participants noted the unconventional approach of the facilitator, however, they also commented on the facilitators ability to: help participants reach down into basic values; set a really positive environment for both listening and contributing without criticism; ensure that all participants had an equal opportunity to be heard; create a team-building, commitment-building process that resulted in trust and social bonding between the Advisory Groups members, and in turn fostered long-term commitment; and to bring a diverse group together to learn to appreciate each other.
217
FIGURE 7.10: OPPORUNITTY TO SUGGEST FACILrrATTON
++
.
a +
sO off ^
FIGURE 7.11: FACILITATION WAS PRODUCTIVE AND EFFICIENT
0 i +*o +
0 Sal?
t
0
io?8
+
FIGURE 712: PARTICIPANTS REACHED MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING
, o o o 1 ee |
O Community Participants O Administrative Participants Polltlcal Representatives O Academics/Experts
% Ecological Participants
Economic Participants O Social Participants
When asked this question, one of the administrative participants stated that:
Given my experiences in other projects, I think (the facilitator) was quite effective in keeping a very shared access to the microphone, and permitting a discussion process. Now, again, within the bounds that the City put on her. (The facilitator) was a contractor to us. So we put certain bounds on what could, or could not happen. And I know (this facilitator) is more radical than we would have allowed her to go, and might have desired to have gone further. But, I felt that (the facilitator) was very, very effective for the amount of money we could afford to pay, for the time, and the challenges that were facing the group. The group was basically in disarray when we hired (the facilitator). The whole project was (off) the rails, the consultation process was (personal communication, November 21, 2002). One academic/expert participant thought that the facilitation would have been more efficient if there had been more resources to provide the support that was necessary for the facilitation. 218
Another ecological participant was positive about the facilitators ability to facilitate the Advisory Group meetings, but had concerns about whether the facilitator was given free rein, and about who was facilitating the overall process. The two negative respondents thought that the facilitator structured the process too much. That it became like going to a conference, according to one community participant, with each participant having five minutes to speak (personal communication, May 12, 2002). A social participant remembered feeling neglected sometimes, and I didnt always feel like I was being heard. There was a lot of effort put into maintaining a congenial atmosphere (personal communication, December 21, 2002). Even though there is some disagreement, most participants viewed the facilitation as productive and efficient. Some noted that the facilitation helped participants to appreciate the others in the Advisory Group.
7.12 Mutual Understanding This was the only criterion where all respondents were positive about the question that was asked. The responses fall into two general groupings: very or quite positive, and somewhat positive. Amongst the former grouping, participants noted: that the facilitator really helped to bring understanding amongst participants forward; that mutual understanding occurred because the process took so long; that as a result of the level of deep commitment relationships were built over time; that the economic participants came to understand the other participants (social, ecological, and community) and vice versa; and that the merging of the different interests created a sense of common purpose that helped to create innovative and improved policy. Regarding the last comment, an administrative participant stated that it:
Really brought about a different and much better policy statement than even I would have suspected when we started the process. We can look to the process and all the learning around it, the kind of the sharing, and the fact that the Advisory Group worked well together as an important event in kind of converting a lot of City staff that may have been fearful of the process, fearful of the Advisory Group, or the kind of input that they were having and in fact, I think at the end of the day that the contributions of the Advisory Group and the way 219
in which those contributions happened were very positive in moving this whole thing forward within the senior City staff (personal communication, May 30, 2002). This administrative participant is pointing out another positive aspect of participation: it can legitimize a policy process within the administrative system. Those who were somewhat positive thought mutual understanding had occurred, however, they raised a few concerns: participants from minority backgrounds were less able to have their voices heard; participants came to the process and left the process entrenched in their own positions; the participants may have fallen victim to group think; and more understanding occurred between participants away from the process. For the most part, participants thought that mutual understanding was reached in the process.
7.13 The Quality of the Discourse Interviewees were asked whether the discourse was civil, full, and deep. Regarding the civility of the discourse, most participants were positive about it, however, they were split into two groups: those who were very positive, and those who were less positive (see Figure 7.13). Of those interviewees that were very positive, for instance, one administrative participant noted that the facilitator was responsible for fostering the civility of the discussion. The administrative participant stated that: at the beginning, before we got the facilitator, certain people including staff, not just staff, were becoming defensive about their positions. That, over a long period of time, could have been disruptive to the whole process. It could have really limited the amount of growth and learning that did occur. The facilitator helped us get over that (personal communication, May 30, 2002). Those who were less positive about the civil nature of the discourse also thought that it became more civil after the facilitator was brought in. The less positive respondents also pointed out that: participants were allowed to not engage in the discussion; the discourse became more civil towards the end of the process; the discourse was more equitable and accessible than other processes; and that the planners and the Chair of the Advisory Group took a disproportionate amount of time during discussions. Those who were 220
somewhat negative about this criterion also echoed the opinion that civility was quite lacking in the beginning. They noted that mutual respect was lacking, that there was a lot of mistrust, tension, and underlying conflict. An ecological participant summed it up by stating: I wouldnt say we ended up as a happy family (personal communication, December 4, 2002). The most telling point of even these more negative responses is that, generally, participants thought civil discourse occurred at many points in the process, especially after the facilitator was contracted. The firmly negative response was from a social participant who left the Advisory Group process very early on. As was mentioned in the action research results one participant left after not being allowed to raise the issue of the lack of First Nations participation in the process. The social participant who left stated that the facilitator tabled the discussion for another time as opposed to actually addressing the issue at this level. At this table, in this room, at the moment, thats not good facilitation. Thats called, I dont have the power as the facilitator. I dont know where the power is in the room (personal communication, December 6, 2002). While this incident demonstrates a significant lack of civil discourse, even with the facilitator present, it was the first meeting where facilitation was attempted, and, overall, most respondents were fairly positive about the civility of the discussion.
7.14 Full and Deep Discourse Preceded Consensus The responses to this question were clustered in three groupings: very positive, somewhat positive, and somewhat to quite negative (see Figure 7.14). Amongst the positive responses both of the administrative participants dwelt on consensus. One administrative participant was surprised at the amount of consensus that occurred given that it was not in the mandate of the Advisory Group, however, this participant noted that there was full discourse. The other administrative participant was also positive about the fullness and depth of the discussion, but noted that the group likely never achieved consensus. This administrative participant noted that We did have a lot of deep discussion, I dont know if we ever got to consensus. But, full and deep, again, as much as the process could allow, yes. I think a lot of that discussion happened
221
off-line, not necessarily as part of the official process (personal communication, November 21, 2002). Those who responded less positively about the depth and fullness of the discourse brought up many salient points: the lack of capability, background material, and capacity to engage in some key areas of discussion; that the discussion would have been fuller and deeper if the facilitator had been involved from the beginning through to the end; some issues were given short-shrift; and some participants might not have felt that they were listened to. As with the civility of the discourse, most interviewees were on the positive side of the spectrum regarding full and deep discourse and consensus.
FIGURE 7.13: PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL DISCOURSE WERE FOLLOWED
++ o
o0
FIGURE 7.14: FULL AND DEEP DISCOURSE PRECEDED CONSENSUS
++
+ o,
'o
FIGURE 7.15: PROCESS WAS OPEN, PARTICIPATORY, AND TRANSPARENT
0 0
0
9 0
O Administrative Participants Q Political Representatives O Academics/Experts
@ Ecological Participants Economic Participants Social Participants
222
Those interviewees that were somewhat to quite negative raised some significant issues: there was a lack of consensus on some of the key issues (such as density) and the group never formally recognized whether consensus rules should be implemented; the Advisory Group never documented what a decision was to consist of; participants lacked sway on technical matters; and at the policy-drafting stage participants were more editors of the policy, rather than authors of it. One community participant, for instance, stated that: I felt at times we were more editors than we were contributors to the concepts (personal communication, May 12, 2002). Another participant pointed out the superficiality of the discourse. When asked if the discussion was full and deep, this social participant replied, Not as much, a lot of the discussion occurred at the superficial level. I like to get into deep discussions of a topic. In this process, there was not the depth of discussion that I prefer. There were a huge range of topics to be dealt with though (personal communication, December 21,2002). The wide range of topics covered in a sustainability planning process make full and deep discussion a difficult criterion to achieve, however, most respondents were reasonably positive about it.
Transparency
7.15 Process was Open, Participatory, and Transparent The responses to this question were spread over the spectrum, with a cluster that was very to quite positive about the openness, participation, and transparency of the process (see Figure 7.15). The administrative participant that responded most positively asserted that:
It wasn't just the AG. It wasn't just the meetings of Council and the AG's and Council. I think that at all of the important stages we were out talking to interest groups and the public, and the adjacent neighbours. And I think that all of the representatives in the AG helped us to understand who we needed to talk to and I think it was, I mean, over the course of the two years or so that it took to put the policy statement together our notification list grew from, you know, two hundred to about twelve hundred (personal communication, May 30, 2002).
223
Others who were still quite positive, noted that: the process lacked clarity, and as a result opportunities to contribute were lost; the process was participatory after the facilitator was engaged; and that the process was transparent within the AG, but not outside of the AG. A political representative thought that the process was not particularly closed, however, the representative agreed that the one outstanding heritage issue, the Canron building, could have been dealt with in a more open manner. Those respondents that were clustered around the positive side of the middle of the spectrum pointed out that: there was not much opportunity for those outside of the AG to make comments to the AG; that participants who represented specific groups had difficulty in reporting back (especially during some periods when the AG met bi-weekly); and that the process was only transparent if one went looking for it. Those who were somewhat to quite negative about the transparency of the process stated: that they had an intuition that things were happening that those on the Advisory Group were not aware of, and that the process was not open to the public. An academic/expert participant, for instance, voiced a concern about the whole openness of the SeFC process. And it continues with this ODP part of it. I think there could've been more public dialogue about this. And I think, for some reason there seems to be a lot of anxiety at City Hall about not opening it up more publicly (personal communication, May 21, 2002). A political representative pointed out that the process was extremely closed, even to City Council, during the part of the process that led to the development consultants concept plan and model (before the AG was formed). An academic/expert who was the most negative about the transparency of the process stated that:
I think the City held stuff back from us. I mean several times we would come there and there would be all these renderings of massing or, I mean, what I mentioned about before was that the policy statement came in draft form. You know, I certainly didnt know they were working on (it), actually, to that level of development (personal communication, May 15, 2002). Given the wide dispersal of responses, one can conclude that participants did not find the process to be that open, transparent, and always participatory. 224
7.16 Goals were Set Transparently To delve more deeply into the transparency criterion, a subset of participants responded to the question of whether the goals of the AG were set in an open, particpatory, and transparent manner. The interviewees responses fall into three groupings: very positive, somewhat positive, and quite to very negative (see Figure 7.16). The administrative participant in this subset answered that the process was pretty open, compared to how most goals are usually set. I m involved in other projects in the City now of roughly a similar size. And I mean theres a few public meetings, and boards. Theres no Advisory Groups. The usual process simply is not this open (personal communication, November 21, 2002). A somewhat more negative response was voiced when an academic/expert participant asserted that, although the goals were set in a transparent manner, there was no opportunity for AG members to review the goals after City staff had completed their internal review of the goals. A community participant was still relatively positive, yet stated that the fundamentals were set, it was going to be residential, it was going to be high density. Until the park was modified and sized, it was going to be sort of a typical park. So the decisions that weve made, again, have never been community decisions (personal communication, May 12, 2002). The quite negative respondents echoed the observation that the ultimate goal was predetermined even though there were a couple of goal setting sessions. One social participant, for instance, stated that, I remember early on that there was a lot of work in terms of setting the goals. But I think that it was fairly controlled by the people from the City. You know, they were quite concerned that the thing not go off the rails. So they were pretty focused on the goals that they wanted to achieve (personal communication, October 5, 2002). The remaining responses noted the lack of goal setting for the group, they pointed out that the goals were set for the site, but not for the group as a whole, or for the process. With the distribution of responses from negative, to middling, to positive, respondents did not, on the whole, agree that the goals were set in a transparent fashion.
225
Power Impartiality
7.17 Participants Power, or Powerlessness Affected the Process Many of the interviewees responded positively when questioned about whether participants power, or lack of power affected the process. A few respondents answered neither yes or no, and a few responded negatively (see Figure 7.17). Those participants that responded positively noted the following aspects of power, and powerlessness: the Chair of the AG, and the city planner have a certain amount of power that was noticed when they exerted their power; every process has empowered, and dis-empowered participants; those more conversant with working with the Citys bureaucracy likely had more influence; those who felt powerless to change things may have felt like they were not being heard, and, as a result, left the process; and social connections and background are important. One community participant noted that power lay with the planners, developers, and land owners, but also pointed out that communities have a longer-term form of power. This community participant stated that:
Yeah, I think its not surprising that the power lay with the City, the planners. I dont know whether its as perceptible as it is now, but the power of the land owners and the developers appears quite clearly evident. But the reality is that the businessmen, the landowners theyre very, very influential. I think communities are primarily influential over a long period of time when the climate of opinion changes (personal communication, May 12, 2002). An administrative participant also echoed the predominance of economic power in urban development projects. This administrative participant noted that:
That process for that project, as far as design goes, the majority is probably going to come more from the developer, forget about the City, just the developer and thats always frustrating for everybody. And its not just this project, its any project. Everybody thinks they have some sort of design stuff. And I think everybody gets sort of frustrated when they find out that theyre not the ones that are designing the project, somebody else is. I think thats a built-in frustration in our system. Whos got the money, usually ends up designing it (personal communication, December 3, 2002). 226
FIGURE 7.16: GOALS WERE SET IN A N OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER
++ 9
pi
O Q|
O OQ
FIGURE 7.17: PARTICIPANTS1POWER, OR POWERLESSNESS AFFECTED THE PROCESS
0++ o + @
FIGURE 7.18: POWERFUL PARTICIPANTS ENGAGED IN STRATEGIC ACTION OUTSIDE OF THE PROCESS
+ o
.0
e e o
1
O Community Participants Ecological Participants Economic Participants Social Participants
Administrative Participants 0 Political Representatives 0 Academics/Experts
This concern over design was also raised by an ecological participant who answered somewhat positively as to whether power was at play in the SeFC policy-making, and planning process. Interestingly, the two political representatives, and one administrative participant answered totally neutrally to this question. The respondents who thought that power and powerlessness played no significant role pointed out that: the AG was just another group giving input on a process, and that participants on the AG did have a lot of power; and that the planners and the facilitator gave sufficient deliberation to all participants concerns. In response to the query of whether participants power affected the process, an economic participant stated that: I dont think so. I believe the facilitator, and the City, gave due consideration to every opinion that was out there. I think when the majority of the panel was of one persuasion, and only one or two members were of a 227
different, it was kind of easy to, not ignore the two, and not overrule the two, but certainly to move along with the majority (personal communication, October 30, 2002). As many participants thought that power and powerlessness did affect the process, one can validly say that participants did not view the process as being impartial to power.
7.18 Powerful Participants and Strategic Action Many participants responded affirmatively to the question of whether powerful participants engaged in strategic action outside of the process. Who the participants viewed as powerful, however, varied. While many noted the power of economic interests and administrative participants, some noted the power and strategic action of ecological/social participants. For instance, one administrative participant replied, Yes, I think you were probably one of the most important in that, your whole SeFC charettes, the SeFC Working Group (personal communication, November 21, 2002). Two of the ecological participants noted the greater access that one economic participant had to the planners. That this economic participant went on a trip to California with the planners. Interestingly, one economic participant thought that thats what its all about. You take it back to your constituents and you gauge, on a week-by-week, or month-by-month basis, the reaction of those constituents, i.e. this works or it doesnt work, its bullshit or its real or I dont like the way its going, I like the way its going. Thats what its all about, were supposed to be conduits back to our neighbourhoods, back to the community (personal communication, October 8, 2002). Even more significantly, the two political representatives relayed their concerns about the strategic action that they thought had occurred. One political representative voiced concern about the strategic action that the development consultant seemed to be engaging in early on in the process, the other noted the effective strategic action of the all-parkland group. Others who still thought that those with power engaged in strategic action were not able to give specifics. An academic/expert participant thought that: senior City staff was engaged in all sorts of stuff away from our table, but not those on the AG (personal communication, M ay 21, 2002). 228
Two respondents echoed the view that members on the Advisory Group did not engage in strategic action, excluding the administrative participants. The bulk of interviewees thought that some variant of strategic action occurred. O f the cluster of respondents who did not think that any strategic action had occurred they either were not aware of any and thought that the AG was very equally constituted in terms of power. One administrative participant, for instance, stated that:
It's funny when you look at it, you know, I don't know if there were any powerful participants and yet they were all powerful. You know, at the beginning you would think that the most powerful participants are going to be City staff and particularly representatives of the Real Estate Division which are the developer. In most previous development projects, major projects like Concord, Marathon. You know both Concord and Marathon played major roles. Maybe because it was the City acting as the developer, maybe because it's mostly public lands, I don't know, I felt this was quite a bit different. You know, I mean if anything I think that the role of the developer was downplayed and in fact they recognized that it was a different situation (personal communication, May 30, 2002). Therefore, one can conclude that most participants thought that powerful participants engaged in strategic action outside of the process.
7.19 Information Sharing and Accuracy To ascertain what participants thought about information sharing, they were asked whether participants with more economic, or administrative power freely shared information with all participants (see Figure 7.19). Interviewees, generally, fell into two clusters when responding to this question: those who were very to quite positive, and those who were somewhat negative to very negative. In the former grouping, the administrative participants noted that they shared information much more than in standard development processes. One of the administrative participants, for example, stated that they shared information as much as we possibly could, yes, and more so than most projects. In retrospect, I look back on it now, more so by a light year. This project really triggered an enormous, open discussion. I mean other projects just dont do this (personal communication, November 21, 2002). This administrative participant, 229
however, did go on to say that they could have possibly shared more, but that it would likely not have changed anything. An economic participant thought the information was freely shared. This economic participant stated that:
I think so. Now when I say that, I of course dont know what work was done that wasnt shared with the participants. Certainly, from my perspective, anything that I did was shared. Whether the City staff did analyses, or were doing analyses on things that were not being shared back, I have no idea. But, from my recollection, most every thing that people were working on, that I knew about was shared back with the group (personal communication, October 30,2002). It is interesting to note that all of the administrative and economic participants that were interviewed responded very to quite positively regarding information sharing. Those who were less satisfied with the manner in which information was shared pointed out what they thought were several shortcomings: the developers have a vested interest and tended to keep their information to themselves; participants on the AG were not briefed, or given a presentation about the field trip, or visit, to high technology parks in California, the planners and one economic participant went on; more powerful, or advantaged participants had more information than others; there was no effort to provide those without email information, if the participants had no access to email, then they were at a disadvantage; and those with more economic power could have been more forthcoming with their agenda, their rationale, strategies, and priorities. An academic/expert participant summarizes the general responses of this group of respondents: I think at the end there was sharing, but I think there were times when there was probably stuff kept from us. Maybe there was tons of stuff kept from us. I think now, I feel now, in the process there's a lot more being kept from us, than I felt during the Advisory Group part (personal communication, May 21,2002). For the ecological, social, and one of each of the community and academic/expert participants, information could have been more freely shared by those with economic, or administrative power. A greater number of respondents thought that information sharing occurred. To probe more deeply into participants views about information they were asked about the accuracy of the process information. 230
7.20 Accuracy of Process Information With the exception of three interviewees, the remaining respondents ranged from very positive to somewhat positive when asked if participants accepted the information generated throughout the process as accurate (see Figure 7.20). O f those who were very to somewhat positive, they noted: that the process allowed participants to question the accuracy of the information; that there were some issues, such as soil contamination, that participants may not have gotten accurate information about, but for the most part the information was accurate; and the information, the Sheltair report and the policy statement, was accurate, but participants, added an academic/expert participant sometimes thought they were being left out of the loop with the City (personal communication, May 15, 2002). A participant questioned the amount of information that was generated, but was still somewhat positive about the accuracy o f the information. This academic/expert respondent stated:
The reason Im grappling with that is, Im not sure how much information was generated. So one of the difficulties I have with the process is it is more opinion than based on any sort of substantive analysis. This is not condemning opinion, but if it had not been for the involvement of Sheltair, it would have not worked. They were the only contributor we really had. The Sheltair information, and the interaction with Sheltair, particularly for me, at least personally, helped to clarify my thinking for the first part of the process, and then gave me an agenda in the sense of the things that were important for the rest of the process (personal communication, October 3, 2002). Those who were less sanguine about the accuracy of the information pointed out that: some participants were not satisfied that all the issues had been addressed properly; that the AG meetings were not very accurately recorded; and that information around soil contamination and heritage issues was not dealt with very well. One academic/expert participant thought there were issues about accuracy. In particular one that sticks in my mind is soil contamination, and also the removal of the heritage building. I think that was a big issue in this process. The need to do that, and how that decision finally got made. I think that was not accurate (personal communication, May 21, 2002). One can see that although the bulk of participants thought the 231
information was generally accurate, questions arose in respondents minds about both the quality and the quantity of information that was generated. We now move on to the final question that was asked regarding the process: did powerful participants have influence with decision-makers?
FIGURE 7.19: PARTICIPANTS 'WITH ECONOMIC OR ADMINISTRATIVE POWER SHARED INFORMATION WITH ALL
++
> 0# o o
++' 0
O'
O 0 O
FIGURE 720: PARTTCPANTS ACCEPTED THE PROCESS' INFORMATION AS ACCURATE
0 0 O 00
0 00
FIGURE 7.21: POWERFUL PARTICIPANTS HAVE INFLUENCE WITH DECISION-MAKERS
< * +:
e e +
00
O
OOJI
o
0 Administrative Participants Political Representatives 0 Academics/Experts
O Ecological Participants Economic Participants O Social Participants
7.21 Powerful Participants Influence Decision-makers (City Council and Senior Staff) Interviewees were split into two groupings on this question: very to somewhat positive (the bulk of respondents), and those who were very negative. Those who were most positive about the influence powerful participants have with decision-makers noted that: for some decisions the AG provided a rubber-stamp function; the particular City Council at the decision-making stage was very influenced by those with power; certain participants with more power were invited to the process; and those who prepare the final report, such as the planners, have more power and 232
influence over Council. A political representative responded: I dont know any process that doesnt. It would suggest a neutering of the process to a degree that just doesnt match up with the human condition. Do leaders emerge? Do people have varying amounts of power? Do they exercise it differently? Yeah (personal communication, December 5, 2002). Again, as with the first question regarding power, who different participants thought was powerful differed. One participant, for instance, noted the influence of powerful, sometimes paid, interests. This academic/expert respondent commented that:
I think there were definitely people with power, outside of the politicians that were not necessarily in our group. I don't think there were people in our group that had that kind of power. But there were certainly people that had the ear of Council, or senior staff. That were tapping into the process, and some of them were being paid as well. There was definitely that happening. And I guess that always happens in this City (personal communication, May 21, 2002). On the other hand, an economic participant noted the power of community groups. This interviewee responded by stating that:
I think maybe one of the strongest, and maybe its lip service, I dont think it is, groups that a politician will listen to, is a grass-roots community group, if so empowered. I honestly believe that of the City of Vancouver. Economic sway doesnt seem to cut it. You know, maybe Im being naive. But, Ive seen whole initiatives sidetracked because it wasnt consistent with what the community saw as the direction it should go (personal communication, October 8, 2002). One of the ecological participants agreed that those with more power have influence, but also echoed the comment on community group influence by the economic participant above. This ecological participant noted that probably in most cases, yes. Although, I do think that, because of the strong and broad support that we brought with us as a community, we did actually exercise some (influence). But, I dont think we would have been invited to the table had we not had SpringFest, and all this other stuff (personal communication, December 4, 2002). An 233
administrative participant brought up the community-based pro-park group that had a fair amount of influence over the final decision-making process. Those who did not think that powerful participants had influence over decision-makers noted that: no one on the AG had any more power than anyone else; economic participants did not engage in lobbying politicians; and senior staff did not perceive any pressure being placed on them by politicians who were lobbied by powerful economic actors. Regarding the first comment, the academic/expert participant that voiced it also thought that the development consultant had a disproportionate amount of influence outside of the process. Others, for instance, thought that this was not the case. For instance, one administrative participant stated that:
No, Council and staff typically very much respect the commitment. Like I just said, we respect the commitment of people who engaged us respectfully, and really helpfully, and pro-actively. That builds credibility and trust between individuals, and it builds credibility in a process. On occasion some of the powerful people outside can intervene. If this were a private land-owner, the private land-owner and some of their key players might have had more influence. But, even then SeFC is showing an amazing blindness to land ownership. Im actually quite surprised (personal communication, November 21, 2002). Thus one can readily grasp that, although there are a few significant participants who did not think that powerful participants influenced decision-makers outside of the process, the bulk of the respondents thought that power played a role in the SeFC policy-making process.
7.22 Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency Very few of the thirteen out of twenty interviewees that responded regarding cost effectiveness and efficiency had a grasp of the monetary costs of the process, or the amount of human resources that were dedicated to the policy-making process. M ost couched their answers in terms of the length of time that the process took. Although some noted that the process took too long, others stated that there was not enough time allocated to the process (see figure 7.22).
234
Three economic participants and an administrative participant thought that the SeFC policy making process took too long. An economic participant noted that it took too long, but it was necessary to keep the project on track. Another economic participant pointed out that a process that took so long is not sustainable, and this kind of process will only apply to government sponsored projects. One other economic participant replied that what was the most bothersome was the length of time. The lack of progress. And progress there is gained by the politicians or staff. We languished, what was it, two years, John, Jesus. Thats a waste of peoples time, use us, or lose us. I think this is an orphan. Its like I think were an orphan, John. W ere being asked to run through a political minefield (personal communication, October 8, 2002). An administrative participant noted the fact that the process may have taken too long, but also pointed out that the North False Creek (Concord Pacific) process took a long period of time as well [Concord Pacific took ten years from the start of the planning process to the OD]). Furthermore, this administrative participant asserted that the length of time may be endemic in planning large urban developments, regardless of whether they are attempting to move towards sustainable urban development. This administrative participant noted that the Planning Department simply grinds along, for any number of reasons, at any given point in time, in any given neighbourhood. SeFC, whatever its differences were from the hypothetical, perceived norm, in everybodys mind, will be attributed to sustainability, rightly or wrongly (personal communication, November 21, 2002). This administrative participant noted that the SeFC policy-making process took two and a half years. An academic/expert participant noted that the process went on for a very extensive time, however, this respondent was rather neutral about whether this was positive or negative. Conversely, other participants responded by voicing a concern that the process was too rushed, and should have been allowed more time. Two ecological participants stated that this was the case. An ecological participant, for instance, asserted that one way to improve the process would have been to give it a bit more time. I mean thats always a big trade-off, the time versus product (personal communication, December 4, 2002). One of the academic/expert participants 235
stated that a lot more could have been done to include the community in the process, and that the process was really short on time (personal communication, May 21, 2002).
FIGURE 7.2 2: COST EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
++
.o
Administrative Participants Political Representatives 0 Academic s/Experts
@ Ecological Participants 0 0 Economic Participants Social Participants
Three administrative and one academic/expert participant directly addressed the issue of the financial resources that were expended on the policy development process. Two administrative participants stated that the process, or short-term costs were too high. One administrative participant, for example, stated that the City paid and brought people in to speak on bloody well everything. We engaged one of the widest reaching consultation processes, long-standing, and invested a lot of money in it (personal communication, November 21, 2002). The second administrative participant noted that this increased funding may have been necessary to arrive at a definitive policy for sustainable urban development, and that this cost would not have to be incurred in subsequent development, as it had laid the groundwork for future sustainable urban development processes in the City. The third administrative participant also pointed out that the City overspent for what [was] budgeted for the policy development phase. But, you know, in retrospect I dont think anybody felt that that was money spent that wasnt worthwhile. I dont think that Council at the end of it felt that we should have been doing it any quicker (personal communication, May 30, 2002). On the other hand, the academic/expert participant noted that there simply wasnt a budget there to provide background for the support that was necessary (personal communication, October 3, 2002). However, this same academic/expert participant also 236
stated that the process was an endless series of meetings where we talked about subject matter, that [provided] background and [was] useful, but nobody understood where we were going with it. It was, as many processes are, a hugely wasteful process (personal communication, October 3, 2002). One of the two political representatives replied that there were not enough resources given to these types of processes to allow for comprehensive thinking about planning and shaping the City (personal communication, May 11, 2002). This political representative asserted that more scope should be allowed for recruiting or allowing [department heads] to assemble their department in a way that lets them brainstorm once in a while. [In a way that] gives them some time to do some research, without being under fire to have a report ready in three weeks (personal communication, May 11, 2002). The other political representative noted that the process took too long for the latter part of the process, but stated that more time should have been allocated for defining the parameters of sustainability. This political representative also stated that it would have avoided the time and money that we wasted on something that [arrived at the conclusion] that sustainability was an adaptable word. Maybe we had to go through it just to settle that, but we couldve done it cheaper (personal communication, December 5, 2002). These mixed reults indicate ambivalence regarding the length of time of the process, the financial costs of the process, and the human resources dedicated to the policy-making process. Roughly half of the interviewees were reasonably positive about the cost effectiveness and efficiency of the process, while the other half were more negative (see figure 7.22). However, most respondents gave both positive and negative answers to this criteria. However, it is significant to note that two senior administrative participants were somewhat to very positive about the costs and efficiency of the process.
7.23 Participants Concerns Regarding the Process Two open-ended questions were included in the interviews, in order to allow participants an opportunity to say what they thought about the process, away from the structure that a specific question can impose. Participants were asked whether they had any recommendations that would 237
either improve the process or the policy for SeFC. Participants recommendations, from both the question and any other place in the interviews where they arose, are included in the recommendations for planning practice chapter (Chapter 11). The interviews closed with the question of whether anything about the process bothered respondents. Roughly half (9 of 20) replied that there was not anything that bothered them about the process. The remaining respondents voiced several general criticisms of the process. One social participant, who left the process very early on, was so put off by the process, and the heavy load that too much local activism can produce, that it would likely be the last City process that the participant would be involved in. In response to the question, this social participant replied: That bothered me? I walked away from it. I dont think I ll ever participate again in a City process. But, I ve moved away from thinking that I can effect change on that level (personal communication, December 6, 2002). Another academic/expert participant pointed out that all of the presentations made to City Council by consultants and staff, with the exception of the one at the public meeting for adoption of the policy statement, were made in camera. A grouping of responses (from an academic/expert, a community, and a social participant) to this question, revealed critiques of the nature of the involvement in the process: there was a lack of community involvement, and there were no politicians on the Advisory Group; the process was too narrow, over-managed, and tokenistic (like here is the youth representative, and here is the social housing representative); and certain participants that were involved had more influence and sway than others. The social participant in this grouping also noted that the sustainability consultants work (the Sheltair report) was also largely ignored. Another general grouping of responses was evident. This grouping thought that placation or appeasement seemed like the goal of the process. Two ecological participants, and an academic/expert participant noted that what bothered them about the process was that, at times, it seemed like an exercise in appeasement or placation. That sometimes participants were placating each other, that participants were not being taken seriously, and they were being placated or appeased. One ecological participant, for instance, replied: I felt that we were there 238
to placate ourselves occasionally. That the planners role was to simply get sign-off on the policy statement (personal communication, September 26, 2002). This concern with placation is significant, and it is taken into account during the analysis. Thus we can understand that participants had concerns about the nature of the involvement, and about the seeming use of the process, at times, for placation.
7.24 Conclusion As is the case in most qualitative studies that delve beyond straightforward answers to complex questions, responses ranged across the spectra, for the most part. However, there were exceptions. Regarding the strongest, positive responses one can generally conclude that respondents thought: there was an opportunity to suggest facilitation, and the facilitation was productive and efficient; participants reached mutual understanding, engaged in long-term involvement, challenged basic assumptions, and had an equal opportunity to participate; that social issues were not well-addressed; that the principles of civil discourse were followed; and that participants thought the process information was accurate. The other criteria that had more mixed responses, and other aspects of the results of the research for the process are more fully discussed in the analysis chapter. We now move on to the next chapter, which presents the results of the interview research regarding the outcome of the process: the policy for a model sustainable community in SeFC.
239
CHAPTER 8: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH m -OUTCOMES
8.0 Introduction This chapter presents the results from the interviews regarding the outcome of the SeFC policy-making process. It is based on questions that participants were asked about the nature of the policy that was adopted for the SeFC area. The classification of participants that was introduced in the last chapter is used in this chapter and the analysis chapter as well. This chapter presents the interviewees responses about the quality of the policy for SeFC in terms of ecological sustainability, social sustainability, economic sustainability, cost reduction and benefits, creativity and adaptation, and implementation. We begin by considering participants views about whether the process, and the policy has increased sustainable urban development in Vancouver.
8.1 The SeFC Policy Increased Sustainable Urban Development in Vancouver A slightly smaller subset (13 of 20 respondents) responded when asked if they thought that the SeFC policy increased sustainable urban development in Vancouver. The interviewees responses break down into four general groupings: those who were positive, those who were somewhat positive, those who thought it was too early to say, and those who did not think that the policy had increased sustainable urban development in Vancouver (see Figure 8.1). Those who responded positively noted that the policy is being drawn upon locally, nationally, and even internationally. An administrative participant pointed out the fact that the policy is given out to people all the time. Not only in Vancouver, theres people from Ottawa, the Capital Commission of Ottawa, Calgary was here, there are problems with the development over there, but we wont go into that. They have taken it, and its been all over the world (personal communication, December 3, 2002). Another administrative participant was very affirmative about the policys effect locally. This respondent stated:
240
Yes, yes, yes. The work thats been done, and youre actually part of this process, as a proactive agent. Youre getting up and telling Council that you want sustainability included in other big projects. Staff go: Yeah, thats a good idea. and pick up the phone and start asking for advice on these things. What happened here, because we walked a fine line between the development reality and envisioning a more sustainable approach, is that what came out of SeFC can in fact be a model for other developments. And as a result, Council and staff are quite comfortable saying, I want you guys to go grapple with what we were doing in SeFC, and I d like to see some of that here. Because they feel confident that its applicable, its not a pie-in-the-sky, its real stuff. So yes, because of that approach, SeFC is actually having a phenomenal impact, more than most pilot projects (personal communication, November 21, 2002 ). Another respondent, an economic one, also believed that the policy will increase sustainable urban development in Vancouver, however, the respondent was not sure its the SeFC policy as opposed to a City-wide policy that has been initiated, or may be revised or reinitiated, based on some of the things that have been learned in SeFC that was having an effect (personal communication, October 30, 2002). Those who were marginally positive about this question thought that the SeFC would move Vancouver towards sustainable urban development: maybe more so than North False Creek; as a small step forward (voiced with hesitation); and that the final product (the policy) was watereddown. A political representative, and an academic/expert participant thought that it was too early to judge, however, according to these two respondents, the policy: definitely increased the attention paid to sustainable urban development; caused the City to adopt sustainable building criteria for its own buildings; and raised the concept of a City-wide requirement for the implementation of sustainable building criteria. The interviewees that answered this question negatively stated that: it has only contributed a certain amount of awareness that sustainable urban development exists; it exists as a policy statement and very few people have read it; and the policy has not achieved anything yet. An ecological participant responded by stating: No. I think that was our hope. That it could be a model that could be applied across the City. I havent seen evidence of that. But, I havent spent a ton of time looking (personal communication, December 4, 2002). Thus we can see that 241
participants opinions are mixed when it comes to the effect of the policy in terms of increasing sustainable urban development in Vancouver. The respondents (all 20 interviewees) were more positive about the policys allowance for an increase in ecological sustainability.
8.2 Ecological Sustainability The interviewer read out a definition of ecological sustainability to each interviewee: 1) a reduction in the use of natural resources; 2) a reduction or elimination of pollution; and 3) ecologically sensitive or efficient land use. Interviewees were also encouraged to frame ecological sustainability in their own manner. Very few respondents chose to do so. Interviewees were then asked if the SeFC policy allows for an increase in ecological sustainability. A significant majority of interviewees were very to quite positive about the capacity of the policy to allow for an increase in ecological sustainability. A handful of respondents were somewhat to marginally positive, and one was quite negative (see Figure 8.2). Those who were most positive about this criteria noted the policys capacity to: reduce water use through the recycling of water; develop green spaces that require less water; implement green building systems and demonstrate energy efficient buildings in SeFC; reclaim contaminated brownfield land; enhance the livability of high density residential close to the downtown; demonstrate innovative waste management (i.e. the reuse of crushed concrete for roadways and paths); consider the embodied energy in construction materials; put pilot urban agriculture projects in place; and encourage innovative transportation planning. An administrative participant noted that this was the first time a major project in Vancouver took an ecological approach. This respondent stated that:
For the first time it has been factored into the policy statement as a major component. If you look at the policy statements for False Creek North and Coal Harbour, I mean you can say we are responding to certain ecological concerns, but it just happened. It wasn't by direction. This policy statement was based on a need and a desire to expand upon what had been fairly successful policy statements in the past (personal communication, May 30, 2002).
242
A political representative was also positive and quite emphatic about the policys ability to move significantly towards ecological sustainability. This political representative stated: It sure damn well better, otherwise, what was the point! And it better do it significantly. This has to be a demonstration project. One thats achievable by the Citys criteria, and one that serves as a model for others. If it doesnt do it, you know, dramatically, again, what was the point? And yeah, okay, you can do all those (personal communication, December 5, 2002). The all those that the interviewee is referring to are the three elements of ecological sustainability outlined above. The respondents who were somewhat to marginally positive about this criteria stated that: the policy moves towards ecological sustainability to some degree, but not as intensely as it should have; as a result of the lack of discussion about what sustainability is in the process, the resulting policy cannot be described as completely sustainable; the policy would have been stronger if it had included more of the work done by the sustainability consultants (the Sheltair report); the policy will only move a small distance towards sustainability because it is constrained by other pieces of legislation (health regulations, and provincial regulations). A social participant who was the most marginally positive asserted that it would probably allow for an increase in ecological sustainability, but what does it matter. Seeing as how we consume, in North America people are going to leave that community and go and shop at The Gap. And to be honest, because its going to be mostly upper-income people. Cause like if theres no effect outside of the community, then it just kind of becomes this ecological gated community, which is unsustainable unto itself (personal communication, December 6, 2002). One other respondent was far more critical of the ability of the policy to increase ecological sustainability. The most critical respondent, a community participant, was the sole negative response to this question. This community respondent noted that: If you accept that the resources that were using now and if everybody on the earth today used the same amount as you and I are using we would need three earths to do it. If you accept that as the definition of sustainability, then I dont think were anywhere near it. I dont think the professions have pushed beyond the conventions 243
plus one (personal communication, May 12, 2002). Therefore, we see that, even though most participants thought that the policy increases ecological sustainability, some were quite critical about the policys prospects.
8.3 Effective M onitoring Interviewees were asked whether the policy included specific indicators that would allow for effective monitoring. Several respondents could not recall, the remaining interviewees are clustered into three groupings: very to quite positive, marginally positive, and somewhat negative. There is also a single respondent that was quite negative (see Figure 8.3). The interviewees that were very to quite positive, the greatest number of participants, noted that: it included some of the indicators from the sustainability consultants report; that caution has to be exercised to ensure that the targets and indicators are achievable; that the indicators should be implemented and monitored in a relatively straightforward manner so they can be readily understood; that the effectiveness of the indicators will depend on who does the monitoring and how rigorous the monitoring is; that the AG was not too sure about what was going to be measured; and that the indicators may not be the right one as they were not linked in a manner that would ensure a reduction in what was to be reduced. An academic/expert respondent, who echoed some of the participants previous concerns, stated: Theyve got the targets that people have set, but the question is: how will somebody actually monitor it? And if you dont meet that target, what happens? That wasnt set out in the policy statement, you know, what happens if you dont meet the targets that were set out. So the whole thing that we talked about, monitoring and stewardship, afterwards is really the crux (personal communication, May 15, 2002). Therefore, even those who responded positively about indicators and monitoring had some concerns.
244
FIGURE 8.1: THE POLICY INCREASED SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN VANCOUVER
++
FIGURE 8.2: THE POLICY INCREASED ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
++ -+ a o 0
FIGURE 8.3: THE POLICY INCLUDES SPECIFIC INDICATORS FOR MONITORING
0 ++
0 0 To
0
Q Community Participants Ecological Participants Economic Participants Social Participants
o H
Those who were marginally positive pointed out that: the policy statement was quite watered down and that benchmarks, or indicators were moved to the appendices of the document; indicators still need to be developed; and there were no performance measurements. An academic/expert participant stated:
Even more important, the inclusion of a process as to how this sort of stuff would come in at a later date wasnt part of the policy statement. So, therefore, there was no understanding, or commitment, for the strategies, or techniques, of trying to create a sustainable development. And thats still effecting the process. Theyre looking at it as a traditional (development), with their standards and guidelines rather than a sort of organic approach where youre heading towards a direction, instead of starting from a conclusion or objective (personal communication, October 3, 2002).
245
Those who were somewhat negative thought that: there was no clear structure for how monitoring will be conducted; the policy pays Tip service to indicators and monitoring; the whole behaviour of urban residents was not addressed by the indicators; and, a community participant thought that monitoring success will depend on how the business community accepts the standards. If theyre not convinced the standards are workable, you dont need to monitor because its not going to happen (personal communication, May 12, 2002). The one respondent who was quite negative, an administrative participant, thought that the policy only addressed indicators and monitoring at a conceptual level, and that the policy phase was not the proper place for this type of activity. Therefore, we can perceive that, while most interviewees noted that the policy dealt with indicators and monitoring, they thought that there is plenty of scope for improvement.
8.4 Social Sustainability Interviewees responses ranged right across the spectrum when they were asked if the policy moves society towards greater social sustainability. Once again, interviewees were read a brief description of social sustainability: 1) equality, or equity; 2) community capacity: strong groups and networks in a community with sufficient opportunities for well-facilitated public participation; and 3) urbanity: vibrant civic life with many opportunities for educational and cultural exchanges. The respondents, generally, clustered into four groupings: those who were very to quite positive, those who were somewhat positive, those who were somewhat negative, and those who were quite to very negative (see Figure 8.4). An administrative participants responses are representative of those who responded very positively. This respondent pointed out that the City was integrating the various existing parts of social planning; that the SeFC policy will work to broaden the choice of housing by providing family housing at high densities; and that this will help meet the pressing needs for housing in the Vancouver Region. This administrative participant also noted that social sustainability will be dependent on struggling for equity and access throughout all the stages of development. This respondent summed up by stating that: The SeFC Policy Statement (PS) is 246
the first PS that makes it clear that social sustainability goals are the goals of our neighbourhood. In previous PSs it was not as evident (personal communication, May 30, 2002). An economic participant encapsulates the responses of those who were most positive about the policys ability to aid in moving towards social sustainabiltiy:
Yeah, I think its an empowerment. The document is empowering. It recognizes the need for inclusiveness. You cant have democracy, and thats what it is, its fundamental democracy, not my definition, not Marxs definition. Its a fundamental definition of participation. Having a voice, having a say. And it allows the intelligence of the citizen to come forward. I mean youre never going to get a hundred percent consensus, but if its truly articulated, if theres a vehicle for articulation, and thats what theyre saying, people will be able to judge. People arent stupid. Most people have a mortgage, or they have responsibility to a person, or a family, or something. Theres something out there that empowers people and insults them when theyre not consulted (personal communication, October 8, 2002). Those who were somewhat positive about social sustainability in the policy noted: the inclusion of affordable housing and cooperative housing that allows for different ages and incomes, however, strongpr languagp could have been used; that the movement towards social sustainability is dependent on how many people are willing to move towards it; that SeFC provides an opportunity to create a sense of community, which is sorely lacking in Vancouver; and that the integration of arts and culture was not new, but it would increase social sustainability. Those who were somewhat negative noted: that the policy was not really ground breaking regarding social sustainability, although it creates a role for citizen-stewardship; that the policy does not contain key elements of urban design that allows for the creation of spaces where people can congregate, or meet; and that, although the policy allows for work/live opportunities, it is not unique or outstanding. One academic/expert participant, for instance, stated that: the whole area of social sustainbility is a weakness in the policy statement, and I think everybody asked for more time to develop that. And why didn't we? Why couldn't we? I think that to me was abig disappointment. I don't understand why. Nobodys ever explained why we couldn't take that further. I think it was a huge opportunity, a missed opportunity (personal communication, May 21, 2002). 247
The interviewees who were quite to very negative pointed out that: the policy failed to address social sustainability, but that the Stewardship Group might help to address it; the failure to set meaningful numbers for social housing in the policy will result in SeFC becoming an enclave for those who can afford to live there; the policy lacks a broad description of community; it does not address the needs of older residents, healthcare services, or the needs of youth; the manner in which people meet, and create casual relationships was not addressed; the whole cultural component of park areas was not considered; the policy reflects the fact that noone from the Citys Social Planning Department was involved in the process; the policy does not include methods for participation and consensus-making, such as encouraging the participation of lowincome, First Nations, and other cultural groups to participate; and the policy lacks any method for measuring participation. An administrative participant noted that the policy statements weakness was the lack of attention paid to social sustainability, the policy statement is more of an environmental, ecological one. W eve moved from that on to a White Paper on social stuff, which, if I recall, I dont recall much (about it) from the policy statement on the social side. Its a more of an earth, wind, and fire type of thing (personal communication, December 3, 2002). Thus, participants answers regarding social sustainability are spread across the spectrum from positive to negative. This signals that social sustainbility was not considered to be very well addressed by the policy for SeFC.
Interests and Representativeness
8.5 The Policy Meets A11 Participants Interests Interviewees were asked whether the policy meets the interests of all participants. Responses were largely negative, but the answers ranged from: a few who were positive; one participant was marginally positive; some were somewhat negative to quite negative; and some were very negative (see Figure 8.5). Those who were positive, such as one economic participant, noted that it embraces and does not ignore all participants interests, but maybe it does not have enough 248
emphasis (personal communication, October 8,2002). An administrative participant answered positively, but noted that there are those who would disagree. The PS tries to do quite a bit in all aspects of sustainability. We dont want to go too far in one aspect to the detriment of other aspects. We have to do the best we can in our climate, and our area. People will always say we couldve done more (personal communication, May 30, 2002). This administrative respondent, seemingly, foresaw that many participants might think that the policy did not meet all participants interests. Even the marginally positive, community participant was negative regarding this question, however, this respondent stated that everybody realizes its complex, its incremental improvement, and its compromise, yeah. I dont get the sense that anybody, except for maybe me, is saying wait, this is not good enough. No, I would say, yeah, most people would be happy with whats going on (personal communication, May 12, 2002). Most of the respondents, however, did not think that the policy met the interests of all participants.
FIGURE 8.4: THE POLICY MOVES SOCIETY TOWARDS GREATER SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
i + '
o 0
o u qOO
FIGURE 8.5: THE POLICY MEETS ALL PARTTCPANTS' NEEDS
++
_ o O @ o
0 o
O o o
__
FIGURE 8.6: THE POLICY INCREASES REPRESENTATIVENESS
++
0
0 9 0
o o
+0 o
0
O 0 0
0 Administrative Participants 0 Political Representatives 0 Academics/Experts
Community Participants Ecological Participants Economic Participants Social Participants
249
Those interviewees that were somewhat negative pointed out that: the policy did not meet the expectations of some participants, for instance, those that thought there should be a carfree area in SeFC; the p olicy did not meet the interests of all, but it probably does more than most any other development; and the weakness of the policy in terms of social sustainability means it will likely not ever meet the interests of all participants. This lack of social sustainability was also noted by those who were quite negative, who also thought that: the level of affordable housing was too low; and that there was likely a lot of disappointment in the ecological sector (brought up by a social participant), but that the policy might need to be incremental to increase its acceptance. One community p articipant, who was in the quite negative grouping, stated that:
Its a heavily compromised policy at this point, you know. I think the City is out to kind of maximize what they see as their investment. Theyre kind of looking at it from a bottom line point of view, as opposed to just a kind of break-even thing that at least they shouldnt lose money on it. But they shouldnt be worried so much about making money on this. They should see it as a chance to experiment, to take chances, and to try and do things a little differently. So I just feel that maybe the policy doesnt meet the participants needs at all. It meets some participants needs more than others, for sure (personal communication, November 1, 2002). The respondents who answered very negatively also noted: the lack of affordable housing options; and that the City was just following their previous policy in terms of social sustainability. One of the very negative responses came from an economic participant who stated that we put some targets in, some requirements on certain things that are going to severely test the economics of these projects in real life (personal communication, October 30, 2002). Thus, we can perceive that even some of the economic participants thought the policy did not meet their interests. According to the interviewees answers, the policy did not adequately meet the interests of all participants.
250
8.6 The Policy Increases Representativeness When interviewees were asked if the policy increases representativeness (knowledge and information is widely shared with the broader public, through groups, institutions and individuals), their answers fell across the spectrum from positive to negative. Responses, generally, gathered into three clusters: those that were very positive, those that were somewhat to marginally positive, and those that were quite negative (see Figure 8.6). Those that were positive stated that the policy is community-based, in the broadest sense of the word community. The interviewees who were somewhat positive noted that: the City-wide sustainability policy that was developed from the policy work on SeFC increases representativeness; the policy needs to continue to be shared with people in the community, as residents will be the best advocates for sustainability; and the policy for the creation of the Stewardship Group increases representativeness in a directed manner. Another academic/expert participant noted that the policy could increase representativeness: It could. The one thing about the policy is that it was open-ended enough that you could make it go in several directions. The drawback to that was it could mean nothing happens, but the good thing is it could be interpreted very broadly and could be used to achieve some quite marvelous things. Its a perfectly good policy (personal communication, October 3, 2002). The two participants who were marginally positive noted that: it only increased representativeness in a marginal manner through the Stewardship Group policy; and that development planning is only able to achieve a small increase in representativeness. The participants who responded quite negatively pointed out that: the neighbourhood associations are not really included in the policy, and they are not well enough established, with the exception of Mount Pleasant, to inform a broader public and relay the publics concerns; there is nothing in the policy about informing the public about SeFC and sustainability, there are no advertising or public education programs; and the inclusiveness of the SeFC process has increased representativeness, not the policy. Given that responses ranged from positive to negative, with the majority being somewhat positive to marginally positive, one can conclude that participants thought the policy increased representativeness in a marginal manner. 251
8.7 The Policy Included a Governing Framework Participants were asked if the policy includes a governing framework (recommendations about how the neighbourhood will function politically once it is developed). The responses ranged across the spectrum and were generally grouped into three clusters: responses that were very to quite positive, responses that were somewhat positive, and those that were quite negative (see Figure 8.7). Those who were positive noted the Stewardship Group policy as a governing framework, and they noted that further work needs to be completed in this area. Regarding the governing framework, the Stewardship Group that should become a neighbourhood association, one administrative participant noted that a governing framework is in the policy statement itself, yes. The Stewardship Group is very much an innovative thing, it could provide legal challenges (personal communication, November 21, 2002). The participants who responded somewhat positively pointed out that a governing framework is in the policy in the form of the Stewardship Group, which would transform into a neighbourhood association over time, but, a community participant asserted that there couldve been more. Its kind of a key area. Because its one thing to build something. Its another to ensure that it functions smoothly (personal communication, November 1, 2002). An economic participant was somewhat positive in answering the question, however, this participant was critical of the governing framework as it is presented in the policy: Theres a little bit too much, what I call non-stakeholder governance of the project, as opposed to true stakeholder governance (personal communication, October 30, 2002). This participant extensively communicated the notion that the only valid stakeholders should be those who live on the SeFC site, or in the immediate, surrounding area. Those who responded quite negatively to this question pointed out that: the stewardship policy is there, but it does not spell out how the community will be governed, or who will be responsible for the monitoring program; that a governing framework is not in the policy, it came from senior staff; and that providing a governing framework for the community in the policy goes beyond the planners range of responsibilities. The community participant, that raised the latter point, noted that any fundamental shift in how its governed is going to require a fundamental 252
shift in City Hall, you know, whether its ward systems, or a very strong office of sustainability, or a community sustainability committee (personal communication, May 12, 2002). A political representative was less positive than all respondents when it came to this question. When asked if thepoliey included a gpveming framework, the political representative replied: No, not really, and, again, I d be very wary of it if it did. It moves very quickly towards the academic. So much time can be sp ent on it, because p eop le are arguing agendas with little benefit (p ersonal communication, December 5, 2002). As most respondents noted the existence of the Stewardship Group policy, whether they were positive or negative, one can generalize that the respondents thought there was some form of governing framework in the policy. Disagreement exists over whether the policy set enough direction in this area, or if it was the proper manner in which to address the issue.
8.8 The Policy is Fair and Beneficial for All A subset of the participants (14 of20) responded when asked if the policy is fair and beneficial for all members of society. The results fall into four general groupings: very positive responses, somewhat positive responses, marginally negative responses, and quite to very negative responses (seeFigure 8.8). The participants who were very positive, two ofthe economic participants, noted that efforts have been made to give the policy some leeway in terms of fairness to all. One economic participant, for instance, replied to the question by stating: Yes, I think theres an attempt to cut it some slack where it is deficient. Because you dont want to kill it, its very embryonic yet. I think people want to believe that it will be moved into the forefront (personal communication, October 8, 2002). Those who were somewhat positive noted that they could place qualifications on the amount of fairness. One administrative participant noted that the SeFC policy is more fair and beneficial than most development policy. This administrative participant replied that the SeFC policy was more fair and beneficial than most:
More so than most. Again the capitalist development process simply is not very good at responding to certain of those who fall through the cracks. And, again, with SeFC as one patch, one of a group of threads in the whole piece of fabric, its difficult to ascertain what its 253
responsibility is compared to other areas. I think equity, representation, fairness was definitely an agenda. How far we got, or well ultimately end up to be, I dont know. Probably better again than many (personal communication, November 21, 2002).
FIGURE 8.7: THE POLICY INCLUDES A GOVERNING FRAMEWORK
++ @
+ e 8%
nu
FIGURE 8.8: THE POLICY IS FAIR AND BENEFICIAL FOR ALL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY
++
0
FIGURE 8.9: ADOPTION OF THE POLICY ENDED STALEMATE AND REDUCED CONFLICT
o ei @ Q
OfH
lo
0
&
0
Administrative Participants Political Representatives 0 Academics/Experts
The remainder of the respondents, the greater majority, were less satisified about the fairness of the policy for all members of society. The participants that responded marginally negatively noted that it is an improvement in terms of being beneficial, but that it is not fair as the policy clears the way for a hi^i proportion of residents who can afford to pay a lot of money to live in SeFC. One academic/expert participant asked:
Whos going to benefit? Definitely, we know its going to benefit the upper class, and the working class, and the people who may eventually work in the (SeFC) flats there. In the high tech area. But I dont know if its really going to help the people up in Mt. Pleasant. What 254
will it provide them? Other than a walk down to a park. I m hoping that theyll be providing things like free clinics, and dental, and medical things that a lot of low income people dont have access to right now. Because its right on the border of where people really need it, geographically. And community centres like the Carnegie Centre are just so well used, and thats the only facility around town and I think that, you know, theres a lot of other low income people that need those facilities (personal communication, May 15, 2002). This quote is echoed by other participants that responded marginally negatively to the question. The participants that answered quite to very negatively pointed out that: the whole social component is missing from the policy; building density and other issues that are well addressed in the policy statement had very little direct impact on society as a whole; and some participants thought the policy did not go far enough to ensure that it would be fair and beneficial for all members of society. One community participant, for instance, stated that: I think there was an honest attempt made there, to try and make it as fair as possible. But, I think it depends on where youre coming from. Quite personally, I dont think that it is fair to all members of society. Its just not designed to be. Thats not to totally impune everyones intentions (personal communication, November 1, 2002). Another participant, who responded quite negatively, represented a different perspective on the fairness and beneficial quality of the policy. This economic participant replied, Well, I ll put on my developers hat here. I think its gone overboard on the targets and requirements (personal communication, October 30,2002). Thus we can readily see that most participants thought that the policy did not measure up too well when it comes to benefitting all members of society, and fairness for all.
Conflict Reduction, Flexible and Networked Practices, and Second Order Effects
8.9 Conflict Reduction Participants were questioned about whether they thought that the adoption of the policy for SeFC by Vancouver City Council helped to either end stalemate, or avoid or reduce conflict. Most participants responded positively, one group of participants was very to quite positive, 255
and another was somewhat positive. Three participants were: marginally negative, somewhat negative, and very negative respectively (see Figure 8.9). Those who answered very to quite positively pointed out that: the stewardship policy allowed for the dialogue to continue, which helps to reduce conflict; the discussion process that led up to the policy increased mutual understanding, and commitment; and the adopted Council policy provides the stick in a carrot and stick development process. An administrative participant noted that the policy created a win/win situation. This administrative participant stated:
The decision was made for both a sustainable neighbourhood and a large park so the issue of park versus development has been put to bed. It was a win/win situation. We can focus on the nature of the community as we continue the planning. Without the adoption of the policy statement - I mean Council is on the record- it would become more difficult to follow through. There was a danger that standard development could occur before the adoption of sustainability. Some thought existing development was sustainable, not just Council, but senior management. There were champions on Council. You cant be around this and learn what weve learned and not see things differently (personal communication, May 30, 2002). The participants that responded somewhat positively noted that adoption of the policy: helped the situation, however, if the policy is not written correctly, it could make things worse; it is a significant step, an opportunity to build on; adoption of the policy helped to end stalemate, but it only reduced conflict a small amount; and the policy may have potentially reduced conflict, but can the buildings that the policy specifies actually be built. The participant who was marginally negative noted that it only closed off discussion for the time being, and that contentious issues will come up in the future. The respondent that was somewhat negative thought that the stalemate was between the planning and Real Estate Departments, and that the stalemate was taken care of internally separate from the policy, because staff really runs the show
(Academic/Expert Participant 5). The participant that was very negative, about this question,
noted that there is no conflict resolution mechanism specified in the policy. Another economic participant did not know if the policy accomplished anything, because, believe it or not, you know, a lot of people arent even aware of what is happening, of this whole rezoning down 256
there (personal communication, November 15,2002). Therefore, although those who were more negative raise compelling points, most respondents thought that the policy went a significant distance in reducing conflict and ending stalemate. Now we will consider what participants had to say about whether the policy fostered flexible and networked practices.
8.10 The Policy Fostered Flexible and Networked Practices Participants were asked if they thought the policy fosters the creation of flexible and networked practices and institutions. Participants responses generally clustered into four groups, those who answered: very positively, somewhat positively, marginally negatively, and quite negatively (see Figure 8.10). It is interesting to note that all of the administrative participants were in the very positive cluster of respondents. The administrative participants, the only very positive respondents to answer at length, noted that: the Citys different departments and disciplines have come together and arrived at a common vision and new ideas, which requires flexibility, adaptability, and learning, its not going to stop (personal communication, May 30, 2002).; and that the question really raises a City management issue and it is difficult to ascertain how much the SeFC policy triggered change, or was the result of change. In response to the latter point, an administrative participant noted that as a result of the SeFC policy the City has a sustainability group which includes the Citys senior managers (the heads of engineering, real estate, Parks Board, CityPlan, and social planning). This administrative participant pointed out that the City is in the process of setting up a small department of sustainability, and went further by stating that:
All of this is coming out through the SeFC policy statement. I mean its been a catalyst inside the City to the point where we got Engineering on board now. Senior, and I dont know how far it goes down, I think it does because most of the engineers are probably young now. But the senior engineers are all on board with sustainability. So theres been some huge shifts since we started this process. Thats a direct result of the policy statement (personal communication, December 3, 2002).
257
Thus, one can say that within the Citys institutional framework the policy fostered flexible and networked practices, at least according to the administrative participants that were interviewed.
Those participants who responded somewhat positively pointed out that: the planner has pulled divergent groups together, especially by getting plan and zoning checkers on side with sustainability; the fact that the policy required parts of the City to talk to each other and work together, primarily the planning, real estate, and Engineering Departments; and the policy helped to move people towards working together. One of the academic/expert participants stated that:
Theyre finding that they have to talk to more groups. Just by doing the waste management plan, theyve had to integrate more with the Engineering Department. They hadnt done that until they had to do the management plan. I think theyre realizing that they have to be inclusive of all departments in the City. More so than any other policy, or ODP that theyve had to do. I think theyre finding that a bit difficult. Because its more work (personal communication, May 15, 2002). Thus, one can state with some confidence that most respondents thought that the policy increased flexible and networked practices. However, those who responded marginally negatively, and quite negatively, also raised significant, critical points. Those participants that responded marginally negatively pointed out that: that although there was an attempt to bring different people to the table, everybody still looks after their own turf; that there is little emphasis on holistic thinking and cooperative teamwork; there was an attempt to put partisan, departmental loyalties aside, but there was a definite position taken by participants, and resistance to change; and there was some forging of bridges, but there is some ongoing discord, the parks issue is an example of that. An economic participant encapsulates then concerns of those who were marginally negative:
I still wonder, because of the political structure within City Hall, how much the City Hall departments are working together. That sort of sits underneath the surface. Its verbalized on occasion. The comments of Planning versus Transportation (engineering), Planning versus Real Estate. You know, Engineering will never go for that sort of stuff. I think theres some 258
political structures within the City Hall, and the department heads and their power vis-a-vis the other departments thats probably always going to be a factor. I would hope it would have calmed some of the waters, and probably did, but I think that internecine warfare is still there to a certain extent (personal communication, May 13, 2002). The respondents who were quite negative noted that the Planning Department has a certain mandate, Engineering has a certain mandate, and that as well as not working together very well they also do not network well with the development community. An economic participant stated that: An engineer may say, Oh, we want this, but hows that going to effect the eventual finished product, and the marketability, and the usability of it too (personal communication, November 15, 2002). Therefore, one can say that although those inside the institutions, and many of the other participants, are positive about the creation of flexible and networked practices, there are those who think that they are not included in these networks.
8.11 The Policy Led to the Creation of Second Order Effects Interviewees were asked if the policy fosters second order effects. Most of the respondents were very positive about this criterion, one was marginally positive, one was somewhat negative, and a cluster of three interviewees were quite negative (three stated they did not know enough to comment) (see Figure 8.11). Those who were very positive echoed, in a more specific manner, the comment of an economic participant who replied: Oh, definitely, this is a model. The policy was a model of that, no question. Oh, definitely, it stirred it up all over town. No question (personal communication, September 26, 2002). Other participants who responded very positively pointed out several second order effects: the policy is one of the pieces that is drawing attention to peoples neighbourhoods, and a need for strong neighbourhoods; the City of Vancouvers City-wide sustainability policy; and the adoption of green building, or the Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria, by the Region, developers, and other municipalities. Some have questioned the role SeFC played in the Regional movement towards green buildings. An administrative participant, however, pointed out that:
259
The people who got involved in LEED, who really pushed LEED, came out of SeFC. Because they got exposed to it, through Seattle and other places. But I dont think we would have been anywhere near where we are right now (without SeFC). The real answer is yes, because we would not be where we are today without SeFC. There is no doubt. I dont think wed be anywhere close (personal communication, December 3, 2002). This respondent also noted that every facility the City is constructing is being built to a LEED silver standard, as an example of how the SeFC policy has aided in shifting towards sustainability in the City. A political representative, the respondent who was marginally positive, agreed that the policy is currently creating second order effects, however, the political representative stated that: The larger context here is probably more important, and that is: why is sustainability moving up the agenda generally? And thats because I think of the state of the world, this struggle over Kyoto. Its a curious time, you have these disturbingly short-term considerations around the war on terrorism, geopolitical instability, probably more than weve seen in our lifetime. And climate change increasingly moving up the agenda, because it has to be taken seriously (personal communication, December 5, 2002). Thus, one can see that it is not easy to precisely determine second order effects, however, many participants identified strong examples of likely second order effects that came about as a result of the SeFC policy-making and policy adoption. Never the less, one should not overlook the responses of those who were less positive. An academic/expert participant was somewhat negative about whether the SeFC policy fostered any second order effects, especially the movement towards green buildings, or the use of LEED criteria. This academic/expert participant noted the two other sustainable developments (at UBC and SFU), and a number of individual buildings in the City that likely also had an effect. The interviewees who were quite negative, simply did not know of any second order effects that may have been fostered by the SeFC policy.
260
FIGURE 8.10: THE POLICY FOSTERED FLEXIBLE AND NETWORKED PRACTICES
0++
00
FIGURE 8.11: THE POLICY LED TO THE CREATION OF SECOND ORDER EFFECTS
< D ++ #
off
g o -= ^ 3
FIGURE 8.12: THE POLICY LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FO R ECONOM IC SUSTAINABILITY
k++
0*
0 0
0 O
0 Administrative Participants 0 Political Representatives O Ac ademic s/Exp erts
8.12 Economic Sustainability Participants were asked if they thought the policy statement for SeFC lays the groundwork for economic sustainability, As with both ecological and social sustainability, participants were read a short list of economic sustainability attributes: 1) an increase in economic security, 2) an increase in local self-reliance, and 3) ecologically benign or beneficial economic activity. Interviewees were also invited to frame economic sustainability in whatever manner they chose. Responses fell across the spectrum in four relative clusters: very to quite positive, somewhat to marginally positive, marginally negative, and quite to very negative (see Figure 8.12). Those who were very to quite p ositive noted that the policy includes: scope for utilizing full cost accounting (FCA), and it gives a greater appreciation of how much of what the local level does in the public interest already includes full cost 261
accounting elements that could benefit existing industries, and create employment in tourism, and environmental industries; strategies for opening up opportunities for those who are not as financially advantaged; possible economic benefits for those who do not require an automobile; economic savings by locating housing close to where people work, and close to public transit; a reasonable amount of density, which lowers the ecological footprint of the development; and it could help provide for the sense of self-sufficiency in an urban community. The last comment, which was made by a social participant, was echoed by an economic participant who stated:
You know, on the macro level youve got Kyoto, there doesnt seem to be anything in between, and this is the micro level. I think weve got to start looking at our own communities. And, frankly, you dont need to import. You need to be aware, but you dont need to import. Everything we need is right here. This is the community, it doesnt function in abstract. It functions as a living, breathing area, that isnt being manipulated from afar. It should be manipulated by the participants in that community, governed and managed, not manipulated (personal communication, October 8, 2002). Another economic participant, with a strong commerce background, framed economic sustainability as sometimes having to do with marketing and the ability to sell. However, this respondent was quite positive about the policy, because The fact that it reduces ones dependence on the environment, I think it is an extremely good goal, and I think, in fact, it is a saleable goal (personal communication, May 13, 2002). The participants whose responses were somewhat positive noted that the policy would: improve local self-reliance through the first attempts at urban agriculture, which can increase basic economic and food security; the energy planning compared the potential costs of different types of energy generation; and the policy does not, however, allow for small-scale construction, or small development businesses. An administrative participant noted that because of the complexity of high density, urban development. It limits the choice of housing form and developer size that can really seriously engage it. Land assembly takes over (personal
262
communication, November 21, 2002). The participants that were marginally positive pointed out that: densifying the urban core increases economic sustainability, but ideas that were discussed during the process, such as small-scale workshops for making local products were left out of the policy; there was some full cost accounting, yet it did not go far enough; the fact that SeFC will be a little less automobile-reliant will result in economic savings, and increase local self-reliance, however, too little attention was paid to what kind of employment will be available, will it be a high tech enclave, or a more complete community. The community participant who made the latter comment, also stated that:
You know, to be economically sustainable we have to attach importance to a whole range of things like that. For example, the dishwasher, or the street-cleaner, they may not have the most glamourous jobs in the world, but they definitely contribute to the upkeep of the City. They deserve to have as good a life as the next person. So that means making sure that theyre compensated fairly. And its not all just money and wages, you know, its treatment, and having a safety-net in place (personal communication, November 1, 2002). This commentary highlights participants concerns about the lack of consideration given to economic security in the policy. An academic/expert participant whose reply was marginally negative stated that: There are some very broad statements in the policy that could direct you that way. But in fact they were not developed, and when I say none of these things would have a direct impact, what I really mean is they wont have a direct impact if somebody doesnt start them (personal communication, October 3, 2002). The respondents who were quite to very negative pointed out that: the policy frames economic sustainability as being at no greater cost than development would normally be, there is little scope for full cost accounting; the policy does not consider what future jobs might be, and it ignores the needs of the service industry, and various industrial zonings; the economic policy was not considered from a social perspective; all the economic standards in the policy are based in the contemporary definitions of the business community; the City defined the density to break 263
even, or to make a profit, which implies that a broader definition of economic sustainability may not be included; most of the fundamental decisions, such as density, buildings, and park space, were all made prior to any discussion of economic sustainability; the policy provides for housing, mixed use, and commercial business, but active pursuit of community economic development strategies integrated with land use practice is lacking; and the policy never really got beyond developing the land by one large development firm. One of the economic participants reiterated the lack of full cost accounting. This participant replied:
Thats a fundamental flaw. I dont think it does. Sustainability means that youre always doing cost/benefit analysis, but things are not always measured in dollars, for example, well being, environmental diversity, or things that are measurable like cancer rates and bad air. To ensure that the true beneficiaries are paying the cost to get that benefit, you need an economic analysis to understand that. In terms of better accountability, its got to make sense from an economic perspective (personal communication, October 30, 2002). A political representative reacted quite vehemently to the strong economic sustainability criteria that were read to each interviewee. This political representative replied that: Yeah, I suspect that if you add that on, if the argument is that thats a fundamental criteria of sustainability, I have a hunch youre setting yourself up for failure (personal communication, December 5, 2002). After this interviewee was reminded that economic sustainability could be framed in any manner, this respondent noted that economic sustainability would have to be translated down to the costs that the community, including both SeFC residents and the rest of Vancouver, the government, and private players incur, and measure those costs in very real terms. As there were responses right across the spectrum, and given that even the participants who responded positively brought up shortcomings of the policy, in terms of strong economic sustainability, one can say that the policy fell some distance short of achieving this criterion, according to participants.
264
8.13 Cost Reduction and Benefits Participants were asked if they thought the policy facilitated a process that reduces costs, including full cost accounting, and generates benefits. The responses were spread across the spectrum in four rough groupings: very positive, somewhat to marginally positive, somewhat negative, and very negative (see Figure 8.13). The participants whose replies were very positive pointed out that: you can either conduct full cost accounting and invest more up front or spend your resources dealing with air quality costs and healthcare costs; the City has gotten into life cycle accounting, which is more easily quantified than full cost accounting; and the policys indicators will deliver benefits: lower energy and water consumption, less pipes and sewers, and some urban agriculture, even though urban agriculture will likely make little difference. An economic participant who responded very positively also noted a difficulty with the cost accounting suggested by the policy. This participant replied that:
Yeah, I think youve got to look at the life of the object. It doesnt begin and end in a year. It brings a benefit that requires a payback, that is as long as the horizon of the utility of that object is there, theres a strong argument that the up-front costs (are worth it). I mean, the difficulty is an up-front cost is today, and that dollar is worth a lot more than a dollar, five, ten, fifteen years from now just simply on discounted cash flow. Its a big hurdle to get over, its a very big hurdle. But, again, were ultimately going to kill ourselves if we dont start doing something about greenhouse gases. Suicide is not a rational act (personal communication, October 8, 2002). Those respondents who were somewhat to marginally positive, noted the long term cost/benefits of the policy as well. The participants who responded somewhat to marginally positively pointed out that: over the long term the policy reduces costs and generates benefits; the policy is not overly strong regarding the environmental and social cost savings that could be achieved, for
example, if you provide more social housing, the healthcare costs associated with homelessness
will be reduced; the policy creates full cost accounting benefits, but does not reduce short term costs, for instance, the up-front costs are higher for green buildings; the policy statement is way too general, one cannot assess costs and benefits until we are down to the design scale; it is 265
questionable whether the benefits of this sustainability policy will be tangible; the policy includes some things that will generate benefits in regard to the full costs of economic development, such as the farmers market; the policy could potentially reduce costs and generate benefits, but only willingness and understanding on the part of future participants will ensure that they occur; ongoing costs are generally ignored in planning and development, for example, energy and water reductions always cost more initially; and other costs should have been included, such as, how much did the City of Vancouver pay for this land including: carrying costs and staff costs. The political representative who brought up the last point stated that in todays dollars, were likely not losing money, based on todays land values (personal communication, May 11, 2002). Another political representative noted that the policy should have considered soil remediation costs. This political representative replied that the policy generates benefits and reduces costs in theory absolutely. Then show me the particulars, because I think, in this case, the theory has adapted to the economic circumstances. Youd be hard-pressed to argue that this is a sustainable project, if you included the soil remediation costs. The rationale is, regardless of what we did, even if we used it for industrial, those costs would have to be written off. But shouldnt it really be included (personal communication, December 5, 2002)? The question this political representative raises is dealt with in the analysis chapter. However, even the responses of those who were somewhat to marginally positive show that participants questioned the costs and benefits that the policy may help to address. Those whose rep lies were somewhat negative noted that: comprehensive full cost accounting is required to make the whole notion of sustainable development work, by considering how much resources are actually worth and the actual costs of specific activities, however, there was too little scope for full cost accounting in the policy; and the p olicy statement in of itself is not strong enough to implement all the solutions, but it does help to facilitate the opportunity to look at the costs and benefits of these solutions. Some participants were even less optimistic about the policys capacity to create a process that could generate benefits and reduce costs. 266
Those whose responses were very negative pointed out that; full cost accounting was discussed a great deal, but what did it actually change, a great deal more could have been done in that area based on what the full cost accounting consultant delivered; and a true cost/benefit analysis has not been completed correctly, or the costs and benefits have not been properly linked back to each other, as a result, one group expends resources so that another group can reap the benefits. To sum up, in general participants had many concerns about the policys ability to facilitate a process that reduces costs and generates benefits.
8.14 Creative A daptation Participants were asked if the policy prominently featured creative and adaptive ideas for action. The participants responses fell into three groupings: very positive, somewhat to marginally positive, and quite to very negative (see Figure 8.14). The participants who answered very positively noted that: the policy statement is very creative and has a lot of vision; the policy is an attempt to start to build a blueprint, and it allows for things to be added; the policy includes creative ideas for action because it lays out a broad-based, inclusive consensus process; and the policy has to be creative and adaptive as there are likely solutions that have not been conceived of yet, there are elements that will require further refinement. An administrative participant reiterated these very positive comments, and agreed that the policy was creative and adaptive. This administrative participant replied that: Yeah, it does, because I mean the ideas in the policy were not things that I was thinking about five or six years ago when the policy first came out. My ideas have become so much a part of it that I dont think of it as creative anymore (personal communication, December 3, 2002). This respondent is highlighting a difficulty with sustainability planning, that todays creative solution does not seem creative further down the path to sustainable urban development.
267
FIGURE 8.13: THE POLICY FACILITATES A PROCESS THAT REDUCES COSTS AND GENERATES BENEFITS
FIGURE 8.14: THE POLICY FEATURES CREATIVE AND ADAPTIVE IDEAS
00
0 o
FIGURE 8.15: ADAPTATION AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING ARE INCLUDED IN THE POLICY
>++
0 @
o o-
0 Administrative Participants Political Representatives O Academ ic s/Exp erts
Ecological Participants Economic Participants Social Participants
Those who were somewhat to marginally positive pointed out that: the policy does not provide a comprehensive collection of creative ideas, however, as a series of elements that can be worked with the policy allows for creativity and adaptability; there was an attempt to be creative, but the policy could have been much more creative; the monitoring role of the Stewardship Group called for in the policy makes it creative, action oriented to an extent, and adaptive, however, the policy does not feature ideas for action; the policy is somewhat creative, its adaptability remains to be seen, it depends on what incentives the City will put in place to entice owners and developers; the policys recommendation for the east end of False Creek to be for non-motorized vessels only is creative; and the policy is adaptive, however, the fact that they used the structure of other policy broadsheets to work from makes it much less creative, but the stewardship policy is creative. Two of the respondents who were marginally positive thought the policy is creative, but could not recall if it was adaptive.
268
The participants who responded quite to very negative regarding this criterion asserted that: the policy does not address what the whole of SeFC and the surrounding area will be like in forty years; the policy does not integrate the private and public land use planning in a manner that would allow for creative, action-oriented ideas; and the problem with planning in Vancouver is that the planners and developers think they are doing such a good job compared with the rest of the world that it is difficult to get creative ideas into policy. A social participant who was quite negative pointed out that the policy is not all that creative, but the creativity of the participants snuck in there (personal communication, December 21,2002). Therefore, the participants, generally were very to marginally positive about this criterion. However, they did raise many points of concern.
8.15 Adaptation and Contingency Planning A subset of participants (15 of 20 participants) responded when asked if adaptation and contingency planning was part of the policy statement. Responses fell solidly into four groups: very positive, marginally positive, those who could not recall, and very negative (see Figure 8.15). Three respondents thought that contingency planning and adaptation was part of the policy statement. An economic participant in the very positive response grouping stated that adaptation or contingency planning might be thin, but its certainly an important part (personal communication, October 8, 2002). The marginally positive respondent, one of the academic/expert participants, thought that adaptability and flexibility was inherent in the fact that it is just a policy statement (personal communication, May 21, 2002). A fair number of participants simply could not recall if these elements were included in the policy. Participants who responded very negatively noted that adaptability and contingency planning is not included, the policy statement is basically a series of targets and goals. An economic participant replied: As a matter of fact, I dont think theres anything in there about contingency planning. If you consider contingency: what i f (personal communication, May 13, 2002). Therefore, we can see that respondents, generally, were not sure if adaptation and contingency planning were included in the policy statement. 269
8.16 Implementation Participants were asked if the adopted policy can be implemented. This was one of the rare questions where the bulk of responses are grouped in one place on the spectrum. Most participants were very to quite positive about implementation, one participant was marginally positive, and another was quite negative (see Figure 8.16). Those who were very positive answered mostly with a straightforward yes. An administrative participant noted that the policy can be implemented and improved upon (personal communication, May 30, 2002). Another administrative participant noted that the policy better be implemented, were spending an awful lot of money (personal communication, December 3, 2002). A third administrative participant replied that:
Yes. No question. And, in fact, the adopted policy is probably conservative. By the time things get built, we can probably even go further, we can certainly meet the general words of the policy statement, and probably even get better performing buildings, systems than we initially thought. Because technology is coming on-line every day. Its going to help this out. The expertise in the design field is growing fast (personal communication, November 21, 2002 ). One of the political representatives echoed the very positive responses of the administrative participants. This political representative replied: Yeah, I think so. I would say, one nice thing about the time that I served on Council, I dont see why it would change now, is that you tend to not get things coming before you that havent been vetted through enough process by staff, so that they at least have the ability to be implemented (personal communication, December 5, 2002). Those who were quite positive about the prospects for implementation of the policy, also raised concerns about the nature of the policy. Those who were quite positive pointed out that: the policy is better than any policy completed in Vancouver, and can be implemented, but it does not push the envelope; and the policy has good prospects for implementation, but the City will really have to consult with the property owners and developers to ensure that the regulations are 270
not so onerous that they prevent implementation. Another community participant was quite positive about prospects for implementation, but was not very positive about the policy itself. This community participant stated that: Well, you can implement anything. I dont think theres anything in it thats so radical that is going to make it unfeasible. Its really just a tweaking of the existing bylaws, guidelines, and its not a real, or significant enough departure that its not capable of being implemented (personal communication, November 1,2002). So we can see that even those who are quite sure that the policy will be implemented are still concerned about the quality of the policy. An economic participant was less optimistic about the implementation of the SeFC policy. This economic participant was marginally positive, and stated that Well it can be implemented. Im not convinced that developments can adhere to the targets and other aspects that are set in the policy. I dont believe the policy is transferable to other projects (personal communication, October 30, 2002). The last comment is dealt with in the analysis chapter. An ecological participant was quite negative about the possibility of implementation. This participant stated that:
Not unless theres agreement and relaxation of other pieces of legislation. Thats the irony of sustainability. You know the policy statement itself got watered down a huge amount anyway, just to become acceptable. You know this is what I said at Think EcoCity too. Like a lot of people dont realize its illegal to do the things that we want to do. And I dont think this policy statements any exception, its not going to help us circumvent (existing codes and laws). And the big opportunity is the fact that its being created by the City on the left hand, right. But unless the right hand and the provincial government get on board, its not going to go that far (personal communication, September 26,2002). Even given the valid concerns of the two latter participants, the remaining participants were very to quite optimistic about the implementation of the policy statement for SeFC. To dig a bit deeper regarding implementation, a subset of interviewees was asked a further question about the policys feasibility and fit.
271
FIGURE 8.16: THE POLICY CAN BE MPLEMETED
<?n++0
gn V 0 0 ,qV q q
+
e
FIGURE 8.17: THE POLICY IS FEASIBLE AND CREATES A GOOD FIT BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS' NEEDS AND FUTURE ACTIONS
i +
FIGURE 8.18: THE POLICY IS BASED O N SUFFICIENT COMMITMENT TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION
i + M
0
0 Administrative Participants Q Political Representatives O Academics/Experts
i - J *
8.17 The Policys Feasibility andthe Match Between Participants Needs and Future Actions
A subset of participants (13 of 20) responded when asked if the policy is feasible and creates a good fit between participants needs and future actions. Responses fell into four clusters: very to quite positive, somewhat to marginally positive, marginally negative, and quite negative. Two respondents simply stated that they did not know (see Figure 8.17). One of the economic participants who was quite positive replied that: Yes, theres still some fine tuning that needs to be done which is why were going through the second phase. But, for its time and the time it was produced, I think it was very good (personal communication, May 13, 2002). This economic participant provides a representative quote for the grouping that was very positive. Another
272
social participant was quite positive and noted that the process led to greater feasibility. This social participant stated that:
Well, I think it is. I mean I think that thats why it took as long as it did. We had to sort out a lot of those kinds of conflicts, that would prevent it from being feasible, or shortcomings in all of the different aspects that were being considered. I think its feasible, but it still needs political and economic will to do it, right. I think it very easily could be scuttled simply by some of the old school attitudes saying this isnt going to work (personal communication, October 5, 2002). The participants who responded somewhat to marginally positive regarding the policys feasibility and fit noted that: people can probably work with the policy; the policy reflects the needs of the participants that were particularly interested in the SeFC development; the policy could have included immediate plans of action, such as, using the existing heritage building (the Salt building) as a community centre before development is started; and the policy provided a reasonable fit, but there were definitely some interests that were always marginalized, such as, the interests that were advocating for social housing. The academic/expert participant that was marginally positive replied that: For the local government it does, yes. But, for the community, I dont know. The communitys not driving the process at all. Educations so important, the public needs to be informed about the importance of this (personal communication, May 21, 2002). The topic of how to involve the wider public has, and continues to be a perpetual concern in the SeFC process. It is addressed in the analysis chapter. The participant that was marginally negative thought the policy provides a good fit with participants interests, needs, and desires, however, this economic participant remained skeptical about the feasibility of the policy. The community participant that was quite negative replied that: No, no, I mean in particular the needs and desires of the social housing community were not met. The needs and desires of people who feel that the height of the buildings is too high were not met, in terms of the visual impact, and just what the appropriate density is (personal communication, November 1, 2002). This community participant went on to emphasize that the 273
neighbourliness of the SeFC community was not addressed, and that it needs to be addressed. Therefore, the participants were generally positive about this criterion, however, they also raised critical points, which are analyzed in the next chapter. Participants were also asked about the level of commitment available to ensure implementation.
8.18 The Policy is Based on Sufficient Commitment to Ensure Implementation A smaller subset of participants (11 of 20) replied when asked if the policy is based on sufficient commitment to ensure its implementation. Participants responses fell, generally, into four groupings: very positive, somewhat positive, marginally positive, and quite negative (see Figure 8.18). Those who were quite positive noted that: the policy is based on enough commitment, although it seems to have been forgotten over the last two years, but that will soon be reversed; City Council is committed to the policy, it remains uncertain whether subsequent Councils will be as committed or not, but hopefully they will; there was a lot of interaction throughout the iterative process with City Council and other participants that should help to ensure the policys implementation; and keeping the Advisory Group involved as the Stewardship Group is going to aid in implementation. Regarding the latter point, the economic participant who made it pointed out that, If the Advisory Group wasnt there, w ed have strayed from the original policy statement. I can tell you that without any doubt (personal communication, May 13, 2002). The attitude of the participants who were very positive about this criterion is best summed up by an administrative participant who replied that:
I think so, yes. I think that because of the long-standing discussion process. Because the mandate, the rigour that was brought to bear on that discussion process, and the investment in making sure it happened long enough, that enough interests have bought into it, that there is commitment behind this. And its profile, its political profile is so high, that I think people are going to be willing to go the extra mile. And the learning process has transformed the City governance system, it has transformed how senior decision-makers think about things (personal communication, November 21, 2002).
274
Those who were somewhat positive noted that: there is a certain commitment, to an extent, however, the full commitment within the City and the Planning Department to implement everything in the policy may be lacking; it is difficult to say, but there is buy-in at the senior levels of City management for the policy; and the commitment is there from the City, but there could be a lot of time spent during implementation proving that you cannot meet certain indicators, that could be a difficulty from a development perspective. The marginally positive respondent, a community participant noted that a lot will depend on what happens with the next Council (2002-2005). The quite negative respondent echoed this comment. This interviewee, an ecological participant replied:
No, no. You cant ensure it. I think theres lots of commitment. I m not trying to belittle the commitment that is there. (Theres) not enough commitment to ensure that it will be implemented, no. And a big part of that now with the change in Council, and senior engineering is not there, you know. Yeah, I know. The medical health officer is not there. These are all critical, critical players who are not directly committed (personal communication, September 26, 2002). Thus, many participants were very to marginally positive about the level of commitment available to ensure that the policy will be implemented. The one negative response, however, does point out that there may need to be some work to improve the implementation process.
8.19 Conclusion In spite of the necessary, critical responses that surfaced during the interviews, there are several key criteria that interviewees responded to positively. For instance, according to most respondents, the policy: allows for an increase in ecological sustainbility; includes specific indicators for monitoring; increases representativeness; helped to end stalemate and reduce conflict; features creative and adaptive ideas; and shows great promise in terms of implementation. The many qualifications that respondents brought up will be woven into the next two chapters that deal with the analysis of the SeFC case study. 275
CHAPTER 9: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS I - PROCESS
9.0 Introduction This chapter analyzes the action research, document analysis, and interview results. Analysis of the process considers the criteria in the order they were presented in the previous results chapters: inclusion; equality of opportunity; the nature of the process information; mutual understanding; transparency; and power impartiality.
9.1 Inclusion As was noted in both the action research results, and the responses of interviewees, the SeFC process was relatively inclusive. Notable absences on the AG were: City Councilors; developers with direct control over development firms; First Nations; unions and trades representatives; representatives of east side areas, such as Thornton Park, the Downtown Eastside, and Chinatown; and people on low incomes. Despite the lack of direct representation of these groups, those participating at the Advisory Group (AG) table had some success in representing the needs and interests of low-income people. For instance, as one of the Southeast False Creek Working Groups (SeFC WG) representatives on the AG, the author argued so consistently for affordable housing, that many on the AG assumed that the author was in need of affordable housing. Fortunately, this was not the case. And, to be fair to the administrative participants, the planners, they did try several times to reach out to First Nations groups and met with First Nations representatives (see section 7.2). The planners found the meetings with First Nations difficult, this points to the need for culturally-sensitive planning as highlighted in the planning literature. Leaving out representatives from other areas contiguous to SeFC further eroded the inclusiveness of the SeFC AG process, and highlights the West Side focus of the SeFC process. In Vancouver, the West Side is generally more prosperous, and receives, or the perception is that this area receives, more resources from the City. This is especially the case when it comes to 276
parkland, as the east side of Vancouver has far less park land area per capita than the west side. The existence of the all park lobby was likely an indication that this was a factor in the SeFC process. At the final public meetings no representatives from these contiguous areas spoke, this may have been a result of their not being formally involved in the process from the initial stages.
9.2 Long-term Involvement Both the action research and interview results show that the process had engaged participants in long-term involvement. AG members faithfully attended twenty-two meetings over the course of two years, attendance of sectorial representatives was constant and reasonably high for a voluntary body. Moreover, eleven of sixteen members of the Advisory Group continued on with the Stewardship Group in the spring of 2000, and ten people from the original AG are active members of the Stewardship Group for SeFC as of this writing. Some respondents raised the lengthy nature of the process as a detrimental aspect. However, given the fact that this was the first time that the specific goal of creating a model sustainable urban neighbourhood was attempted in Vancouver, there should be some slack allowed for the increased amount of time the process may have taken to get to the policy development phase. It is also important to point out, as one administrative participant did, that everything detrimental about the SeFC process will likely be tallied up as the responsibility of a sustainable development process, regardless of whether this was the case. The length of time may have also resulted in greater mutual understanding, discussed below, and a fuller discourse around the substantive issues.
9.3 Equal Opportunity to Participate The action research and most interviewees responses indicate a fairly decent attempt to provide an equal opportunity for all members to participate in the process. It is significant to note that some participants thought that some participants, the landowners for example, had greater access to the Chair and planners. The action research findings note that one of the Advisory Groups economic participants was given greater opportunity to participate by being 277
allowed to take part in the Citys exclusive design charette for SeFC. At the time it was a significant issue that those of us who were willing to participate in the Citys design charette were not allowed to do so. The author was not even allowed to observe the charette as an academic researcher. In the long term, however, the charette, seemingly, has had a marginal impact on the SeFC process and outcomes. Its recommendations were included in the appendices of the policy statement, and the images and maps generated have not appeared very often since their production. Thus, although there was good structural and procedural equality of opportunity for participation, the fact that some participants were given greater access and opportunities to participate, means that there could have been a greater effort made to ensure that this critical procedural criterion was met.
9.4 Setting of Ground-Rules, Tasks, and Objectives The SeFC process did less well in terms ofthis criterion. Thepress of time resulted in a process that was very oriented to the review of information, for the sustainability consultancy, and to the creation of the policy statement. This left participants with a marginal amount of room to set the Advisory Groups tasks and objectives. For instance, the question of whether a model sustainable community was the highest and best use of the Citys lands, versus as a park area or remaining as industrial land, was never broached. As some of the interviewees noted, however, the AG was successful in engaging a facilitator. The AG was also able to bring in significant objectives and tasks, especially regarding the creation of the stewardship policy and the overall vision for SeFC, which both have a prominent place in the policy for SeFC. The lack of a decent amount of divergent space in the process may have resulted in the loss of significant learning opportunities. However, within the constraints of the process this criterion was adhered to somewhat.
9.5 Participants Challenged Basic Assumptions Most of the interviewees thought that the process allowed participants to challenge basic assumptions. The action research found that this occurred implicitly rather than explicitly. As 278
was pointed out above, the basic assumption that housing and economic development was the best use of the SeFC was not challenged. However, within the parameters of development for housing and economic development, many basic assumptions were challenged, such as: the manner in which costs are calculated, full cost versus standard cost methods; that the development had to fund the soils remediation costs was successfully challenged and changed; and standard urban development was challenged by incorporating many more aspects of ecological sustainability than was present in previous development policies in Vancouver throughout the SeFC process. Some respondents raised the ability of some participants to challenge basic assumptions in the wider process: those who came forward to call for more sustainability in the spring of 1997 and helped to put the whole AG process in motion; and the design charette for SeFC that was organized by the SeFC Working Group, in cooperation with many others, challenged many of the transportation and housing assumptions that were prevalent in the process. Thus, within the framework of development for housing, economic development, and parks many basic assumptions were challenged.
9.6 Objective Issues Were Addressed There was a significant effort made to address the many complex and technical issues that inevitably crop up in an urban planning process, which are exacerbated when sustainability is brought into the mix. The process through its economic and ecological reports sought to cover these issues off. Objective issues were quite well covered in these reports. However, the economic report (from the development consultant) did not address sustainability in any meaningful way, and the primarily ecological report had economic goals, and data shifted to the appendices, with the exception of the full cost accounting framework. Throughout the process those with objective knowledge about economic and ecological issues were able to give valuable input. Interview respondents held mixed opinions about this criterion. Some thought they were well-covered. Some thought they were reasonably addressed, but could have included more economic data from the development industrys perspective. Others, who were less satisfied 279
noted that: the problems are being solved by the same professionals who created them; that no federal or provincial ministry, or academic, scientists were involved; and that the issue of density was not well-addressed. With regard to the first criticism, the fact remains that planners and engineers are the primary professionals that deal with urban development issues, therefore, if a symbiotic process does not include them, and try to shift them towards more sustainable ways of planning and engineering, then there will likely be little movement towards all three types of sustainability. In terms of the second critical point, there could have been more of an effort to have scientists participate, or at a bare minimum, do a comprehensive review of the information, and proposed policy. The observation that density issues were not dealt with may have been different if the respondent had been involved in the land use sub-group. The author was part of this sub-group throughout the process, and we had the Planning Department create a comparative table of densities from surrounding and other recent large block developments. The issues surrounding density were well-addressed in the SeFC process. Given the time and resource constraints faced by the City, objective issues were quite well-addressed. However, there would have been less resource constraints if the process had funded the sustainability consultancy to the level of that provided for the economic, development consultancy.
9.7 Social Issues The action research found that social issues were often shunted to the background, with the assumption being that the City already dealt with these issues sufficiently through their social housing, and other social policies. All of the interview respondents, with the exception of three economic respondents thought that social issues were not well-addressed. One economic participant thought that the City was doing a good job regarding social housing, especially during a period when senior levels of government were stepping away from providing funds for affordable housing. Those who were less sanguine noted that the issues were dealt with superficially, more as headings and previous policy than as topics for discussion. Perhaps, this came about as a result of the fact that participants were broken down into small-breakout groups 280
that made it difficult to discuss issues in terms of their specific spheres, such as social, ecological, and economic issues. Therefore, one can conclude that social issues could have been much more fully addressed in the SeFC process.
9.8 Subjective Issues Both the action research and the interviews found that, for the most part, subjective issues were not that well-addressed. In terms of the latter, it is interesting to note that the economic participants were the most positive, followed by the administrative participants, who were somewhat positive. The positive respondents noted that the process included elements of touch and feel, and considered soft values, but the policy-making process was not where subjective issues should be addressed, which should be addressed in the Official Development Plan and design processes. Those who thought that subjective issues were not well-addressed noted: the lack of AG participation in the Citys design charette, that there was little discussion about public art, that the process facilitator did not deal well with emotional content, that urban design never encompassed social issues, and there was marginal discussion of livability issues. The action research noted the exclusive nature of the Citys design charette. However, it also found that subjective issues crept in, even though there was little scope allowed for them in the process. On balance, however, the process facilitator did open up some space for subjective issues by having participants bring objects with significant value, such as pictures of their family, flowers, a skateboard, and having participants discuss the values and meanings attached to the objects.
9.9 Opportunity to Suggest Facilitation Most of the interviewees recalled that the AG was enabled to suggest that facilitation was required. Some thought that the administrative participants had suggested that a facilitator be brought in. Some respondents pointed out that facilitation was resorted to only after the process nearly broke down. The action research found this to be the case as well. Although the AG members were able to suggest facilitation, they were not able to suggest the method of facilitation
281
and were not asked to suggest a specific facilitator. There could have been more of a role for AG members in determining the method of facilitation, however, the fact that the AG was successful in suggesting and achieving facilitation aided in the smoother functioning of the process, and goes part of the distance to meet this criterion.
9.10 The Facilitation Was Productive and Efficient Both the action research and the interviews found that the facilitation was productive and efficient. The marginally to somewhat negative comments about the facilitation were only voiced by two interviewees who thought that they were not always listened to, and that the facilitated process was too formal, too conference-like. The action research results also noted that people were not always being heard in the facilitated process, however, this seemed to improve as the process went along. According to the action research notes, at one of the last meetings of the AG, one not facilitated by the facilitator, an economic participant pointed out that the facilitator helped the AG to do two years worth of work in five months. Those interviewees who were positive noted that the facilitation helped to: address the basic values of participants, create a criticism-free space for listening and contributing, foster a commitment and team-building process that resulted in long-term commitment, and helped participants to appreciate each other and their various perspectives. Therefore, one can conclude, with some confidence, that the facilitation was efficient and productive, and helped to foster mutual understanding amongst participants.
9.11 Participants Reached Mutual Understanding The action research results indicate that a high degree of mutual understanding was achieved during the SeFC AG process. All of the responses from interviewees, for the only time in the study, were very to somewhat positive about this criterion. This is not to say that participants had no concerns regarding mutual understanding. Some respondents, for instance, noted that participants left the process as entrenched in their positions as when they first became involved, that participants were likely victims of group think, and that more mutual understanding 282
between participants occurred away from the process. The more positive points raised by participants stated that mutual understanding occurred as a result of: the helpful nature of the facilitation, the length of the process, and the level of deep commitment that allowed for relationships to be built. It was also noted by respondents that mutual understanding created a sense of common purpose that helped improve the policy and made the policy more innovative. The fact that a significant proportion of the AG became the Stewardship Group, which has met regularly since the spring of 2000 without facilitation, demonstrates that a significant level of mutual understanding existed and continues as of writing. The hue test of this understanding, however, will come with the Official Development Plan process, and the rezoning and design process.
9.12 Principles of Civil Discourse Were Followed The action research findings and the interview results generally signify that the principles of civil discourse (mutual respect, equal access to information, equal time for participation, and opportunity to learn about each others perspectives) were followed. Most respondents thought that the principles of civil discourse were adhered to throughout the process. The interviewees noted that the discourse became more civil after the facilitator was brought in. The most negative comment regarding this criteria was that the Chair and the planners took a disproportionate amount of time during discussions. The most firmly negative response regarding this criterion came from a participant who left the process after a discussion regarding the lack of participation of First Nations was disallowed by the facilitator. This is the one clear incident of a lack of civil discourse. The discourse likely would have adhered to the principles of civil discourse if this valid issue was dealt with at the table. Equal access to the planners and information was also somewhat problematic, according to the action research notes, the property owners met with the planners far more often than others on the AG, and, as a result, had better access to information and more scope for input into the policy. Never-the-less, with these few exceptions the principles of civil discourse were maintained to a high degree throughout the process. 283
9.13 Full and Deep Discourse Preceded Consensus In both the interview results and the action research results evidence was presented that, even though this is a difficult criterion to achieve, it was achieved to some degree. In the latter results participants were largely positive, and regarding consensus thought that: a surprising amount of consensus occurred, in spite of the fact that this was not in the mandate of the AG; that a significant amount of full and deep discussion was engaged in, but that consensus was likely not reached; and that there was no formal recognition of procedural rules, especially consensus rules and there was no documentation of a decision-making process. The action research results noted that a form of consensus was evident given the lack of vocal objection throughout the process, in spite of the fact that no procedural rules were discussed. The interviewees were mostly positive, with notable exceptions, about the level of full and deep discourse that was engaged in. The administrative and economic participants were the most positive about the fullness and depth of the discourse. The academic/expert participants, and one of each of the ecological and social participants were somewhat to marginally positive about the degree of discussion that occurred. For example, they noted that the discussion was less full and deep as a result of: the lack of technical background material, capability, and technical capacity to engage in some critical areas of discussion; facilitation only being in place for a portion of the process; a perception that some participants were not being listened to; that AG members were more like editors rather than authors of the policy; and the fact that some issues were given short-shrift. Regarding the first, valid criticism, sustainability in many ways is almost too ambitious in the scope of issues that it attempts to embrace. As a result of this broad scope, it is difficult to address all the technical information and capacity needs of a sustainability process in a full and deep manner. Given the time and resource constraints, the process allowed for a reasonable amount of full discussion, that was as deep as such a strict time-line would allow. The action research and other interview results noted the lack of discussion of social issues, which could have been given greater attention in the process. The depth and fullness of the discussion would have likely been improved if facilitation was in place from the outset to the conclusion of 284
the process, however, this would have demanded more resources, or a reallocation of resources in the planning process. Regarding the assertion that the AG members were only editors of the policy, the action research found that the input of the AG seeped into the policy in many significant places, especially in the key areas of vision and stewardship. The AGs input was also evident in the detail of many other policy areas such as land use and open space. Therefore, the process allowed for some full and deep discourse, specifically around the issues that were put before AG members, however, the discourse was constrained by design to ensure the delivery of a policy for a model of sustainable urban development.
9.14 The Process Was Open, Participatory, and Transparent The process was relatively open, and participatory. The very existence of the AG, where there had been little scope for this kind of participation in other significant urban developments, with the exception of South False Creek, is an indicator of increased openness and participation. As was noted in the action research results, there could have been more large public meetings. This was echoed in some of the interview results. For example, some interviewees thought that there could have been more public dialogue about SeFC, and that the process was open to members of the AG, but not to the public. However, as was pointed out by an administrative participant in the interview results, the planners did increase their contact list from two hundred to twelve hundred people, and they were out talking to many different interest groups over the course of the two years that it took to develop the policy for SeFC. In terms of transparency there were a few key things that were dealt with in a non transparent manner: the hiring, and early work (before March 1997), of the of the development consultant; the extension of the Molson Indy race track into the SeFC site; and, tied to the extension of the Indy, the demolition of an industrial heritage building, the Canron building. In the interviews, both political representatives noted that the process was particularly closed, even to them, especially in the period before the delivery of the development consultants report. The development consultants report was delivered before very much involvement by the Planning 285
Department, and before the AG was created for SeFC. One of the political representatives also agreed that the demolition of the significant Canron industrial building could have been dealt with in a more transparent manner. The interview results regarding the transparency of the AG process were dispersed across the spectrum from positive to negative. Once again, the most positive responses came from the administrative and economic participants. The remainder of the participants responded somewhat positively to very negatively. These participants thought that: representatives of specific groups were not given sufficient time to report back; there were few opportunities for those outside of the AG to make comments to the AG; and that the City held back information or product from the AG. Therefore, one can conclude that, despite the significant efforts of the planners, the process was not as transparent as it could have been. However, discursive, deliberative space was opened up by the AG process. In sum, the process was relatively open and participatory, but it lacked transparency.
9.15 Goals Were Set in an Open and Transparent Manner The interviews and the action research indicate that the goals of the SeFC process were not set in a very open, participatory, and transparent manner. This is not to say that some respondents, the administrative and economic participants, were not positive about this criterion. An administrative participant, for instance, noted that usually large urban developments have no Advisory Groups and few public meetings. One of the community participants, who was also marginally positive, noted that the fundamentals of the specific policy for the site were set, and that there were few community decisions. Others thought that the AG set goals for the site, but were not given an opportunity to review the goals after they were vetted by the City. Respondents also pointed out that they had no scope to set goals for the AG, or the process as a whole. The action research results noted the frustration of participants who completed homework for the policy-making process which was summarily ignored, this provides an indication that the goals of the policy-making process for AG were not well-spelled out, and
286
were not always followed when they were. The action research also found that the planning time lines and overall goals were set by the Planning Department and City Council. In sum, the AG was allowed little room to set goals for the AG process, and the wider process. However, AG members were given some scope to help set goals within the constraints of the process that was laid out by the Planning Department and City Council.
Power Impartiality
9.16 Participants Power, or Powerlessness Affected the Process There are indications from both the action research and the interviews that power and powerlessness played a significant role in the SeFC process. Most of the respondents, for instance, thought that power or powerlessness affected the process. The exceptions to this were three economic participants, and one academic/expert participant who noted that participants on the AG were: just another group giving advice to the City; quite powerful in their own right; and were given sufficient space for deliberation by the facilitator and the planners. The two political representatives and one administrative participant gave neutral responses to this question. Could this be an indication that power is seldom raised in an explicit manner in our society? Or is it a reflection that those who hold power in a process have a hard time seeing their own power? The rest of the respondents found that power played a major part in the SeFC process. Regarding power they noted that: the planner and the Chair exerted their power; every process has participants that are empowered, or dis-empowered; those more familiar with working with the Citys bureaucracy had more influence; those with less power left the process when they were not listened to; social connections and background are important in these processes; in our system, those with financial resources are the ones who design the project; and the power lay with the planners, the developers, and the landowners. The respondent who raised the last point, also noted that community groups have a slower burning type of power that fosters long-term shifts of attitude. 287
The findings of the action research reflect the effects of power found by most of the interview results. The fact that a major development consultant was hired in camera, was given a much larger portion of resources, and was engaged in a process that even the political representatives found to be closed is an indication of the workings of economic power. The machinations of economic power were also evident in the greater access that the landowners had to the planners, and the greater access that a real estate representative had to the planners. Administrative power was felt in the sense that participants, including the author, found that there were key points when planning seemed to be holding information back from us. Thus one can conclude that power played a considerable role in the SeFC planning process.
9.17 Powerful Participants Engaged in Strategic Action Outside of the Process The results, action research and interview, point out the existence of strategic action on the part of powerful participants. The action research noted the strategic action of the development consultant, who at various points throughout the process attempted to bring the SeFC project in line with standard economically-based urban development, rather than following a more sustainable track. The strategic action of Vancouver City Council was raised in the key decisions they made, with little or no notice, to demolish a significant heritage building on the SeFC site, and to allow the Molson Indy automobile race to use the SeFC site. The strategic action of the all parkland group was noted: calling for all of the publicly-owned lands to be park. The limited strategic action of the SeFC Working Group was also pointed out: the occupation of City Council chambers over social issues: panhandling, busking, and postering in public areas. Surprisingly, in the interview results, an administrative participant pointed out the strategic action of the SeFC Working Group through our charettes, and workshops. While the acknowledgment of our coalition as powerful may be partially true, in the sense that we were capable when it came to motivating network power, the charettes and workshops were open to all. For the Citizens Design Charette that the SeFC Working Group held, for instance, invitations were made to the planners, City Council, the development consultants, members of
288
the AG, and the wider public. Similar invitations to all participants were made for the SeFC Working Groups workshops and sustainability festivals. Most of the interview respondents thought that powerful participants had engaged in strategic action outside of the process. These respondents noted the strategic action of: the development consultant, especially in the period before the AG was established; an economic participant, who was granted greater access to the planners, for instance, this participant went on a field trip to look at a development in San Jose with the planners for SeFC; and the all parkland group that effectively engaged in strategic action as the policy for SeFC was being finalized. Therefore, one clearly finds evidence of strategic action in the SeFC process.
9.18 Powerful Participants Freely Shared Information with All The action research results and the interview results were both mixed when it came to information sharing by powerful participants. The action research found that administrative and economic participants did not always freely share information. The City had to clear information through their Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Committee, which would have explained some of the tight information delivery. They could have structured the process better to ensure more timely information sharing, however, on the whole, the administrative participants informed the process as well as they could. The development consultant engaged in work that was seldom shared with the AG. For example, there was a lot of work done with the Sustainable Development Research Institute, at the University of British Columbia, which was never shared with the AG, or the public. In terms of the interview results, participants were quite split regarding information-sharing by more powerful participants. The majority of participants, including all of the economic and administrative participants, thought that powerful participants freely shared information. The administrative participants, for instance, noted that they shared information freely. However, one of the administrative participants thought that information could have been more freely shared, but also noted that it likely would have made little difference in terms of the outcome of the 289
process. A good portion of respondents, all of the ecological and social participants and one of each of the community and academic/expert participants, were less satisfied with the way information was shared. These somewhat negative to quite negative respondents pointed out that: with a vested interest the developers tended to keep information to themselves; the AG was not given a presentation about the field trip that the planners took with one of the economic participants; and more powerful participants had more information than other participants. Given these mixed results, one can conclude that information was not shared as well as it could have been by powerful participants in the SeFC process. Therefore, this criterion was only partially met.
9.19 Participants Accepted the Process Information as Accurate The action research found that, with some information lacking (social and economic), the information that was generated was reasonably accurate. The only exception were questions regarding some of the assumptions of the development consultants report, such as the lack of sustainability information. The interview results also, for the most part, accepted the process information as accurate. Only three respondents were somewhat negative about this criterion, the remainder were very to somewhat positive. The positive respondents noted that: the process albwed part kip ants to challenge the accuracy of the information; other than the soils contamination, the information was accurate; and the sustainability consultants report and the policy statement were based on accurate information. Those who were somewhat negative also pointed out the inaccuracy of the soils contamination information, and that heritage issue information was not very accurate. With the exception of these latter two issues, one can conclude that the information generated throughout the process was accurate, even though it may have been incomplete.
9.20 Powerful Participants Have Influence With Decision-Makers The action research and the bulk of the interview responses indicate that power played a role in the SeFC process. The economic development preference of the decision-makers was made by 290
inference as many of the funders of the Non-Partisan Association, who held every seat on City Council at the time of the adoption of the SeFC policy statement, are from the development and real estate industries. The development consultants worked for firms that directly funded the NPA, and one of the individual consultants gave funds to the NPA in 1999 (see background section). One of the economic participants worked for a firm that donated considerably to the NPA, and was subsequently granted a significant rezoning of their land to a use that would generate higher returns when it was sold. It is likely that development firms and individuals with such close ties to the then governing party had considerable influence with decision-makers, in comparison to those who lack these ties, and the funds required to create them. The interview respondents who were the most positive about powerful participants influence with decision-makers pointed out that: the AG provided a rubber stamp for decisions already made; the governing party at the time of the decision-making was very influenced by those with power; that certain participants in the process had more power; and the planners have more power and influence over Council as they prepare the final reports. Regarding the latter, the planners were seemingly blind to their own power. This is not to say that all participants focused on the power of economic or administrative actors. For instance, one economic participant pointed to the power of community groups, and other respondents brought up the power of community groups, such as the SeFC Working Group and the all parkland group. This is another indication of the existence of network power in the SeFC process. On the other hand, there were a few respondents, two economic participants, two administrative participants and one academic/expert participant, who thought that powerful participants have little influence with decision-makers. These participants stated that: everyone on the AG was equally powerful; economic participants did not lobby politicians; and that senior staff were not cognizant of any pressure placed upon them by politicians who were lobbied by economic interests. Regarding the lobbying by economic interests of politicians it may be that their influence is felt more at a general level, a level that reifies economic development as the main goal of urban development, and relegates issues that lie outside of this primary end as too political. The first assertion that 291
everyone on the AG was equally powerful is not all that accurate. All participants did not have the capacity to hold AG meetings at their facilities, not all participants were given greater access to the planners, and not all participants were able to meet with the planners as often as others. Therefore, one can conclude that powerful participants have somewhat more influence with those administrative participants that in turn have greater influence over decision-makers, and that powerful participants help to set the context in which planning processes occur. This is not to discount the different type of network power that community groups can achieve in influencing decision-makers. However, this network power may demand more from community group members than their capacity allows.
9.21 Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency The respondents were evenly split over whether too much time was allocated to the process. Out of thirteen interviewees, six were positive about the time efficiency of the communicative participation process, and the other six were negative. As was noted above (see section 6.8.4), a high proportion of the delay in the SeFC planning process can be attributed to the development consultants report (one year), the fact that it took the City Planning Department more time to contract the sustainability consultant and set up the Advisory Group (six months), and the time taken to respond to the all parkland lobby (six months). Therefore, in a three and one half year planning process, the communicative participation process took one year and eight months to complete. As one the administrative participants noted, planning processes for large block developments simply grind along. This may raise questions about the suitability of large block planning for sustainability, or in general. It may add fuel to the fire of those who advocate for more incremental planning for sustainability. Overall, however, the SeFC communicative planning process was quite time efficient. The rough estimate of $163,950 per annum in financial costs for the SeFC planning process, gleaned from the Planning Departments reports to Council, indicates that the process costs were not prohibitive (see section 6.8.4). Of the three administrative participants who commented on 292
the process costs, two thought they were quite high, although one thought that they were very worthwhile, and the third thought that the costs were reasonable. An academic/expert respondent thought the process required more resources for supportive background material. However, this same academic/expert participant also thought that the process lacked focus, and was very wasteful of financial resources. The two political representatives who commented on the process costs were pitted against each other. One thought more resources should be spent on research and time to brainstorm, and the other thought that the process could have been completed in a much more efficient manner. It is significant to note that the wasteful costs were implicitly identified as the high costs of the development consultant in the latter respondents interview results. Therefore, drawing on both the qualitative results and the action research results, the SeFC process was found to be quite time efficient and relatively cost effective.
9.22 Participants Concerns Regarding the Process Nine of the twenty interview participants replied that there was nothing about the SeFC process that bothered them when asked if they had concerns about the process. The remaining eleven participants voiced several concerns: all of the presentations to City Council, with the exception of the policy statement were made in camera; community involvement was lacking and there were no politicians on the AG; the process was too narrowly constrained and tokenistic; certain participants had more influence than others; the sustainability consultants report was largely ignored; the process was an exercise in placation or appeasement; and the process took too long. The claim that all of the presentations that were made to Council were in camera is only partially true. The development consultancys report was made at a public meeting before City Council in March 1997. The fact that so many other presentations to Council were conducted in camera raises questions about the openness of the SeFC process. The lack of community involvement was noticed during the action research. There were only four large public meetings over the course of the two years of policy development. Throughout the summer of 1998 the 293
SeFC Working Group called for greater public participation without any significant results. The process may have been too narrowly constrained with too much emphasis placed on ecological sustainability and development for residential and commercial development, however, within those constraints the AG, and others were able to have greater input than would have been the case without the AG process. The action research also found that certain participants had more influence than others. For instance, some participants were given more opportunities to meet with the planners, and one participant was able to participate in the Citys design charette, while others were not even invited to observe the Citys design charette. The sustainability consultants report, especially the specific targets, was ignored to a certain extent. It did, however, provide the rationale and the definition that was required for the SeFC process to continue to move towards sustainability, and it provided some aspects of the framework for the environmental section of the policy statement. At some level the process may have been an exercise in placation, however, the AG was given many opportunities to give input, and the action research found that a lot of this input worked its way into the policy statement. The process may have taken too long, on the other hand, if it had been rushed even more, then the placation that many thought existed would likely have been more evident.
294
FIGURE 9.1: RANKED ARRAY OF ALL PROCESS CRITERIA PARTICIPANTS REACHED MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING + + +
LONG-TERM INVOLVEMENT + +
+
_______________ ,
tetfOOOtOtOCJQ Q.0
+ + +
FACILITATION WAS PRODUCTIVE AND EFFICIENT
. oa&camcGCM
o r e
0________ ,
PARTICPANTS ACCEPTED THE PROCESS' INFORMATION AS ACCURATE + + +
0ommomoo 0 0 _______ ,
PARTICPANTS CHALLENGED BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
++
ooooo ,
+
,
PRINCPLES OF CIVIL DISCOURSE WERE FOLLOWED
++
e _______________
O Community Participants Ecological Participants Economic Participants Social Participants
295
FIGURE 9.2: RANKED ARRAY OF ALL PROCESS CRITERIA EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
++
Q 0 Q 0 Q tO O 0 Q O O 0
,0__________ 0
++
OPPORUNTITY TO SUGGEST FACILITATION
p eeo o o o o p fQ
+
000_______ (
++
,
FULL AND DEEP DISCOURSE PRECEDED CONSENSUS
0000000 0000 0 , QOQ0QO03OC0 figq oo0C5*0eoeo o

++ +
00
0 0
PARTICIPANTS' POWER, OR POWERLESSNESS AFFECTED THE PROCESS
0000 O 0i"bo
POWERFUL RARTTCIPANTS HAVE INFLUENCE WTIH DECISION-MAKERS

________________________________________ 1 ~ 1
1 ______________________________________ 1
GOALS WERE SET IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER
000 %
0 0 0 0
0,
O 00
0 Administrative Participants
Q Political Representatives OAcademics/Experts
296
FIGURE 9.3: RANKED ARRAY OF ALL PROCESS CRITERIA

PARTICIPANTS WITH POWER SHARED INFORMATION WITH ALL
I_________________________________L _I_J_______________________________ i
M OM 00000
++ +
'
++
0 0 0 0 0
SETTING OF GROUNDRULES, TASKS AND OBJECTIVES
000
0 O,O O P
0 00
PROCESS WAS OPEJS^PARTICIPATORY, AND TRANSPARENT
>0000000 00 0^0 00 O O P 0~
OBJECTIVE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED
_____________________________C D _____________________________
000 0 0
++
000
+
0 00
o O00
POWERFUL PARTICIPANTS ENGAGED IN STRATEGIC ACTION
0000000000 000 , 0
JOST EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
++
00000 3
O 000
00
0
0 0
Community Participants Ecological Participants Social Participants
O Administrative Participants Q Political Representatives 0 Ac ademic s/Exp erts
0 Economic Participants
297
FIGURE 9.4: BANKED ARRAY OF ALL PROCESS CRITERIA

INCLUSION
M i MQ O O S O
,
0 ,
00,0
O O O 0 O O O Q
000 0000
,
,
INCLUSION OF RELATIVE AND SIGNIFICANT INTERESTS + + +
OtQO
+
SUBJECTIVE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED
0
+
##
+
+ 0Q +
, 000
O ooooo,
SOCIAL ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _f 000_
00 O O Q O Q O Q O O QAdministrative Participants
0 Polltical Representatives
O Community Participants
0 0 Ecological Participants Social Participants
0 Economic Participants
OAcademics/Experts
9.23 Conclusion It is interesting to note that the economic and administrative participants responses were the only ones to show a definite trend. In response to sixteen out of twenty-one of the questions (with the exception of one economic or administrative participants responses to two of these questions) the economic and administrative participants responses fell on the positive side of the spectra (see Figures 9.1-9.4). This pattern, while not sufficient to draw conclusive generalizations, may raise some interesting questions. Did economic and administrative participants answer positively because it is in their organizational cultures to present things in a positive manner? Were they positive about the process because the process met their interests more than other participants? Does it indicate that they may have more power and influence in planning processes? These questions are discussed further in the future research section in the conclusion. On the whole, both the action research results and the interview results are positive about the process. For example, the interview results are strongly positive (with three or less respondents on the negative side of the spectra) in seven out of seventeen criteria. On the other hand, there is only one process criterion (the addressing of social issues) that received a majority of negative responses, the three positive responses for this criterion were all economic interests. The analysis of the research results is summarized in the conclusion. We now turn our attention to an analysis of the outcome results.
299
CHAPTER 10: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS II-OUTCOMES
10.0 Introduction The outcome (the adopted policy for SeFC) results are analyzed in this chapter by addressing the results from the action research, document analysis, and the interviews in order to integrate the assessments of the participants with the author in terms of outcomes: ecological sustainability, social sustainability, economic sustainability, cost reduction and benefits, creativity and adaptation, and implementation.
10.1 The SeFC Policy Increased Sustainable Urban Development In Vancouver The action research found that the SeFC policy aided markedly in increasing sustainable urban development in Vancouver. The policy: defined sustainability for the first time in an urban context for the City of Vancouver; pulled together, built upon, and made more accessible, Vancouvers various ecological, social, and some economic policies; is being accessed to bring sustainability to other large block developments; increased the drive in Vancouver to create green building policy; and was probably significant in the setting up of a small Sustainability Department in Vancouver. The interview results, although mixed between those who were very to somewhat positive and those who were quite to very negative, also highlighted the contribution of the SeFC policy to increasing sustainable urban development in Vancouver. Those who responded positively pointed out that: the policy is being drawn upon locally; that the policy is being used for other large block developments; that the SeFC policy would move Vancouver towards sustainability more than North False Creek; that it was a small step forward as the policy was watered down; and that adoption of the policy definitely increased the attention paid to sustainable urban development and raised the concept of a City-wide application of sustainable building criteria. Having analyzed the North False Creek policy broadsheets, one can readily agree that SeFC will increase sustainable urban development in Vancouver, as its many novel policies, such as urban agriculture, water and energy efficiency, and 300
stewardship are implemented. The policy was watered down somewhat, the strongest version of the policy statement was produced in September 1998 after the planners spent the summer meeting with various groups. However, the vetted policy is still a marked improvement on other large block developments in Vancouver, and it leaves enough room to work the aspects of the policy that were vetted into other phases of the development. The policy, and the policy-making process was well covered in the media, and in turn raised awareness of sustainability. The policy also provided existing policy to draw on when citizens were calling upon City Council to extend this policy in a city-wide manner by putting in place sustainable building criteria throughout the City. Those interviewees who were negative noted that the policy: contributed only a limited amount of awareness about sustainable urban development in Vancouver; has been read by very few people; and has not achieved anything yet. The amount of media coverage, the turnout at the public meetings and the final public meetings, the size of the Citys contact list, twelve hundred, and the SeFC Working Groups List, three hundred, indicates that a fair number of people in the development community have read, or heard about the SeFC policy. It is a valid criticism that it has not gotten out to a wider audience, hopefully, this will happen in the public participation phase of the Official Development Plan. On the whole, the SeFC policy has made a valuable contribution to increasing sustainable urban development in Vancouver.
10.2 The Policy Increased Ecological Sustainability The action research and document analysis findings indicate that the SeFC policy increased ecological sustainability markedly. The policy will result in the efficient use of land: by reusing former industrial land for residential land and a significant park area that should increase the amount of habitat for other species; by having a significant amount of density, which can create housing for many urban residents close to where they work, leam, and play; and by achieving these densities the SeFC development should reduce the amount of sprawl that is occurring in the Vancouver Region. The policy will reduce pollution: as higher densities close to employment 301
results in less automobile dependency, which in turn reduces air and water pollution from transportation; as it includes policies that will reduce the amount of impervious surfaces, which further reduces the impacts of non-point source water pollution; by calling for a high ratio of recycled materials, reusing demolition and construction waste, improving upon and expanding existing recycling programs, and encouraging composting, solid waste will be markedly reduced; and by creating programs and incentives for green, energy and water efficient buildings. The policy will reduce the use of natural resources through the implementation of the energy, water resource, and waste management plans that are prominently featured. The interview results found that almost all the participants, with the exception of one community participant, were very to somewhat positive about this criterion. Those who were very to marginally positive pointed out that the policy will: reduce potable water use through recycling of water, and the use of less water reliant landscape design; implement and demonstrate energy efficient building systems in SeFC; reclaim contaminated industrial land; enhance the livability of high density residential development close to the downtown; demonstrate innovative waste management; pilot urban agriculture; and will encourage innovative transportation planning. However, those who were somewhat to marginally positive raised several critical points: the policy could have moved more intensely towards ecological sustainability; the process lacked sufficient discussion about sustainability, therefore the policy cannot be described as completely sustainable; the policy would be stronger if it included more of the sustainability consultants report; the policy will have a marginal effect as it is restrained by other health and provincial regulations; and the policy increases ecological sustainbility for an exclusive population of future residents who will simply consume any savings in other ways. The somewhat negative respondent, a community participant, noted that the professions have not gone beyond the conventions plus one in the SeFC policy. The responses of those who were very to somewhat positive reiterate the action research findings. Regarding the more critical responses, there could have been better discussion about sustainability at the outset of the process, this likely would have occurred in a fuller manner if 302
there had been a facilitator at the outset. However, the AG spent a great amount of its meeting time discussing ecological sustainability, and this discussion is evident in the input generated by the AG for the policy statement. The lack of good integration of the sustainability consultants report has been noted elsewhere. The fact that the targets were relegated to the appendices is a potent example of the way in which the sustainability consultants work was only partially drawn on. Part of the purpose at the outset for the SeFC process was to challenge existing codes and bylaws and make them flexible to achieve sustainability. In order to move forward with sustainability these institutional and legal barriers should be explicitly summarized through research, then methods to change them can be pursued. Hopefully, the education and post occupancy programs in the SeFC policy will aid in discouraging residents from simply consuming their savings in other unsustainable, consumption-based activity. Regarding the exclusive nature of the SeFC development, with only the standard twenty percent of housing as affordable, those active on the Stewardship Group, and in the wider community, continue to attempt to improve this indicator towards a third low income, a third middle income, and a third market. Aside from these critical responses, both the interview results and the action research found that this criterion was met quite substantially.
10.3 The Policy Includes Specific Indicators For Monitoring The SeFC policy statement, as was noted in the action research results, includes indicators in the appendices that were not officially adopted by Vancouvers City Council. These indicators were taken from the sustainability consultants report, and are intended as a point of reference for further discussion. There was limited communicative participation in arriving at the indicators, and greater communicative-public participation would likely have achieved indicators that are more accessible and understandable for future residents, who should play a significant role in a monitoring program. The indicators themselves, however, are quite rigourous, and they would result in marked reductions in resource conservation if they were achieved in SeFC. Most of the interview respondents noted that the policy statement included some of the 303
indicators from the sustainability consultants report. Those who were very to quite positive also raised some significant points regarding indicators: indicators should be implemented in a manner which is readily understandable; the indicators should be achievable; successful monitoring depends on who conducts the monitoring and how rigourous the monitoring is; the indicators included in the appendices of the policy may not be linked in a way that would ensure the reductions that were being targeted; and that stewardship was the crux of monitoring. The interviewees who were marginally positive noted that the indicators were watered-down when moved to the appendices; and that indicators and performance measures still need to be developed. The somewhat negative to quite negative respondents pointed out that: there was no clear structure for monitoring and indicators included in the policy; the whole behaviour of SeFCs future residents was not addressed; monitoring success is dependent on whether the business community accepts the standards; and that the policy phase was not the appropriate place for monitoring. The last point was made by an administrative participant. The previous policy statements, both the Coal Harbour and the False Creek policy broadsheets, however, contain specific targets for some policy sections. Was planning reluctant to include the targets as they may have made the adoption of the policy more difficult? The lack of indicators makes the policy more flexible, but it also makes it a weaker policy statement. Regarding the second last criticism, some of the indicators address specific behaviours of SeFCs future residents, such as: solid waste, transportation and accessibility, energy use, air pollution reduction, soil and water indicators, open space indicators, and building targets. The policy could have included a clearer structure for monitoring and indicators, never-the-less, the policy includes monitoring and indicator generation as the mandate of the Stewardship Group, who are to advise City staff on these issues. The points raised that the monitoring program and indicators need to be achievable, understandable, rigourous, and interlinked will likely be addressed by the many capable people on the Stewardship Group. The Stewardship Group is structured to become a neighbourhood association as the development becomes populated, and the hope is that this neighbourhood 304
association, in cooperation with City staff in the community development office, will continue on with the monitoring program. Therefore, even though the indicators were marginalised by being placed in the appendices and not adopted by Vancouvers City Council, the policy does provide a loose structure which could make movement towards this criterion quite achievable.
10.4 The Policy Moves Society towards Greater Social Sustainability Document analysis of the SeFC policy statement found that the policy moves some distance towards social sustainability, even though social issues are not given their own section. The affordable housing ratio of twenty percent will provide much needed housing for core need and low income families. However, this will be difficult to achieve in an era where senior governments have, for the most part, pulled out of funding affordable housing. Also, in order to meet the needs of Vancouver for affordable housing, the ratio could have been significantly higher. The fact that the policy calls for social diversity will also increase societal equality, however, the social diversity policy is lacking in that it misses significant groups such as First Nations and those with different sexual orientation. The development of community facilities concurrently with the development of SeFC will likely increase both the community capacity, and the urbanity of the neighbourhood, by providing spaces for residents to meet, socialize, and recreate. The concurrent development of community facilities will also likely increase opportunities for communicative participation. On the other hand, explicit reference to communicative participation is somewhat lacking in the policy statement. For instance, other than the reference to communicative participation in the Stewardship Group section, and another brief mention of participation by youths, the policy lays out no specific communicative, public process for indicator setting, or other planning phases. The policy should go quite a distance in increasing urbanity in the SeFC neighbourhood through artist and public participation in the design of public art and open spaces, by encouraging cultural and community activities in public open spaces, and in the post development phase 305
through the policies that call for participation in educational, arts, and cultural activities. Of course, these last policies will depend on the capacity and willingness of the residents of SeFC to be successful. The mixed use nature of the SeFC neighbourhood, as laid out in the policy, should also go a significant distance in creating a vibrant urban area where residents can live, work, leam, and play. The distribution of interviewees responses was spread all across the spectrum regarding social sustainability. Those who were very to quite positive, all of them are administrative or economic participants, noted that: the City integrated the various parts of social planning in the policy; that the policy will meet pressing needs for housing through an increase in family housing at high densities; and it is the first policy statement that makes it clear that social sustainability goals are the goals of a neighbourhood in Vancouver. An administrative participant also noted that achieving social sustainability will be dependent on the struggle for equity and access throughout all the stages of the development. The interviewees who were somewhat positive pointed out that: social sustainability is increased by the policies for affordable and cooperative housing for a wide range of incomes and ages, but it required stronger language to be effective; that the SeFC policy provides an opportunity to create a sense of community, which is sorely lacking in Vancouver; and that the integration of arts and culture, while it is not new, will increase social sustainability. The integration of previous social policy, and the provision of a limited amount of affordable housing will help to move society towards greater social sustainability. However, the policy could have been stronger and the proportion of affordable housing could have been significantly higher. Even though it is the first policy statement in Vancouver that explicitly acknowledges social issues in such a concentrated manner, the various social issues and policies to address them should have been organized into a separate section, as was done with environmental and economic development and stewardship. The respondents who were quite to very negative raised several key criticisms of the SeFC policy: although the Stewardship Group may address social sustainbility, it is not well-addressed by the policy; the lack of meaningful numbers for affordable housing will result in SeFC being 306
largely an enclave for those with the wealth to be able to afford to live there; the policy does not address the needs of older residents, or youths; opportunities for people to meet and create casual relationships were left unaddressed; the cultural component of park areas was not considered; the policy reflects the fact that noone from the Citys Social Planning Department was involved in the process; the policy lacks methods for participation and consensus-making, and it has no method to measure public participation. Regarding the first criticism, social sustainability could have been more well-addressed by the policy, as was pointed out above the social housing numbers could have been higher. Actually the policy meets the needs of youth and older residents to some degree, through youth participation policies, and aging in place, and community health facilities policies. The lack of social exchanges in the public realm is a valid criticism, as the focus in the policy was still on providing movement for automobiles throughout the SeFC site. The cultural component of parks and open space is addressed somewhat in the policy, and it is to be part of the community facilities white paper completed for the Official Development Plan (ODP). The Social Planning Department was involved on the Citys interdepartmental technical committee, however, involvement on the AG from the Social Planning Department fell off very early on in the process. The policy is limited to the communicative, public participation as discussed above, and there is no mention of consensus-making in SeFC. The Advisory Group and the Stewardship Group are both intended as advisory only with little, or no, decision-making authority. Therefore, one can conclude that the SeFC went some distance to increasing equality, however, it could have been much bolder. The policy increases community capacity marginally, by basically integrating existing policies, but not by adding to them. It also goes some way towards increasing urbanity. On the whole, the action research, document analysis, and interview results indicate that the SeFC policy achieved middling progress at best in terms of social sustainability. This is probably a reflection of the fact that social sustainability was not given a very prominent place in the process that led to the creation of the policy.
307
10.5 The Policy Meets All Participants Needs With the exception of the lack of social sustainability, the action research and document analysis found that the policy meets the needs of most participants. Economic participants were ensured a comfortable level of financial returns by the amount of density that the policy allows. Ecological participants needs were met by the energy, water, solid waste, air quality, soils, open space, and urban agriculture policies. The interview results found that the respondents were largely negative about this criterion. Even those who were positive thought that others might be less satisfied when it came to the policy meeting all participants needs. The respondents who were somewhat negative noted that: those who thought that there should be a car free area in SeFC did not have their needs met by the policy; that not all needs were met, but more needs were met than in other policy statements; the weak nature of the social sustainability policy means it will likely not meet the needs of those participants; and that the policy also fell short of meeting the needs of ecological participants. Regarding the first and last points, the policy certainly could have been much stronger on ecological sustainability, however, given the fact that this was new territory for many of the participants, especially the economic participants, the amount of progress on ecological issues was quite impressive. The lack of the policy in meeting social participants needs was also noted in the action research and document analysis results. Those who responded very negatively echoed the concerns over the lack of significant progress in terms of social sustainability, and, an economic participant, thought that the targets would severely test the economics of the project. As was noted above, the targets were not officially developed and have yet to be determined as of writing. Therefore, given the fact that so many respondents were negative about this criterion, and that the action research noted the policys lack of capacity in meeting social participants needs, one can conclude that the policy did not meet all participants needs.
10.6 The Policy Increases Representativeness The action research and the document analysis noted that the SeFC policy has little 308
substantive policy on increasing the representativeness of the development process by sharing information with a wider audience. On the other hand, the interview responses were mostly positive, with only three respondents that were quite negative. Those interviewees that were quite positive to somewhat positive pointed out that: the policy was community-based, in the broadest sense of the word; the City-wide sustainability policy that was derived from the work done in SeFC increases representativeness; residents will be the best advocates for sustainability, until they reside on the site those involved need to continue sharing the policy with the rest of the community; the stewardship policy increases representativeness in a directed manner; and the policy is open-ended enough that representativeness could be greatly increased within the framework that it established. Regarding the first two assertions, the policy was communitybased, but it holds few mechanisms to increase knowledge about sustainability in the broader public, and the City-wide sustainability policy will focus on the internal operations of the City first. Hopefully, the Sustainability Department will move quickly to begin to effect development in a truly City-wide manner. The Stewardship Group and the others that remain involved in SeFC should be able to create a reasonable amount of information-sharing, however, if the City as a whole was involved in this effort, much more could be achieved. Those participants who were quite negative pointed out that: the surrounding neighbourhood associations are not really included in the policy, and there are few neighbourhood associations that are well enough established to inform the wider public, except for the Mount Pleasant Community Association; the policy lacks mechanisms to inform the public about SeFC and sustainability, such as education or advertising; and the process for SeFC has increased representativeness, not the policy. The first criticism is quite valid, for other than the Stewardship Group becoming a neighbourhood association over time, there is little scope for other neighbourhood organizations to become informed. The policy would have been strengthened by having an explicit education and advertising policy. However, as the process moves through the ODP process, there will be greater room and resources for increased public participation (which can be a learning process) and a limited amount of advertising. Therefore, 309
one can conclude that the policy, although it leaves some scope for increased representativeness, could have gone much further in laying out an explicit program for education, communicativepublic participation, and advertising.
10.7 The Policy Includes a Governing Framework The document analysis found that the SeFC policy statement contained only the stewardship policy, which calls for the creation of a Stewardship Group of residents, business and property owners, and sustainability experts. Over time this Stewardship Group is intended to become a neighbourhood association, or a neighbourhood integrated service team. On the one hand, the policy could have gone much further by suggesting a neighbourhood Council, or some more formal mechanism for neighbourhood decision-making. However, given the fact that such recommendations may be unpalatable to elected representatives, perhaps the Stewardship Group to become a neighbourhood association is sufficient. Never-the-less, the policy should have contained creative communicative-public participation policy as this is a keystone concept of sustainability, especially social sustainability. The interview results found that most participants, who responded positively, thought that the innovative stewardship policy created a governing framework for the SeFC neighbourhood. The interviewees who were quite negative pointed out that: providing a governing framework was beyond the planners range of responsibilities; and that a governing framework, that spells out who is responsible for the monitoring program, is not in the policy statement. One community participant, in the quite negative responses, noted that any fundamental shift in the governing of the sustainable community would have to come from significant shift in City Hall, one that would allow a ward system, a very powerful office of sustainability, or a community sustainability committee. Therefore, one can readily see that the interview results echo the document analysis, in that the policy provides a loose advisory framework that could provide a minimal level of neighbourhood-based decision-making if and when the Stewardship Group becomes the neighbourhood association for SeFC. 310
10.8 The Policy is Fair and Beneficial for All Members of Society The document analysis and the action research found that the policy statement was written loosely enough to provide the scope to be fair and beneficial to all members of society by increasing affordable housing, green space, reducing energy and water use, and providing a working example of sustainable urban development. However, the policy would have to be moved towards strong sustainability by the work of the Stewardship Group, community groups, and interested individuals to meet this criterion. The interview results found that most participants were marginally to very negative about this criterion. Those who were quite to somewhat positive, again mostly economic and administrative participants, qualified their responses by pointing out that the policy was more fair and beneficial than most of Vancouvers development policies. The interviewees who were marginally to very negative noted that: the policy is beneficial, but it is not fair as it clears the way for a high proportion of future residents who can afford to pay a lot of money to live in SeFC; that the whole social component is missing from the policy; and the policy did not go far enough to ensure that it would be fair and beneficial to all members of society. The lack of strong social sustainability was noted above. The policy certainly could have been strengthened in terms of income mix and other social sustainability issues. In sum, the policy is quite beneficial, however, it is not fair to all members of society.
10.9 Adoption of the Policy Ended Stalemate and Reduced Conflict The action research results noted that adoption of the policy statement ended the stalemate, and some of the conflict between those who wanted standard development and those who were advocating for sustainable urban development. The all parkland group, however, remained unsatisfied with the adoption of the policy, even though they achieved a very siginifcant increase in the amount of park area. The interview results found that most participants thought that adoption of the policy ended conflict and stalemate. Those respondents who were very to quite positive pointed out that: the stewardship policy allows the dialogue to continue, which should reduce conflict regarding SeFC; the process increased mutual understanding and commitment; the 311
policy provides the stick which should increase regulation and certainty and reduce conflict; that the policy created a win/win situation through the adoption of both a model sustainable neighbourhood and a significant, new waterfront park; and that the conflict over whether existing development was sustainable, within senior management and Council, was bridged by the formal adoption of the policy. Regarding these comments, the ongoing dialogue on the Stewardship Group (now well in train, see the Epilogue), should help to reduce existing and future conflict. The process findings are certainly strong in concluding that the process achieved mutual understanding amongst participants and this aids in reducing conflict, and, perhaps more importantly, provides an ongoing mechanism for dealing with conflict. The assertion that the policy provides a significant stick when it comes to regulation is somewhat of an overstatement. The language of the policy statement steers well clear of firm regulatory language, it utilizes words such as: should, and encourage. The policy did create a marginal win/win solution, as those who were advocating for all parkland in the publicly-owned lands in SeFC were not happy with this compromise. The fact that the adoption of the policy won over the skeptics in City Hall, both senior staff and on Council, is very significant as this will aid in moving sustainability forward within the SeFC planning process, and, more importantly, it will help to move sustainability out into the wider development community.
The interviewees who responded somewhat positively pointed out that adoption of the policy: helped the situation, but if it is not well-written the policy may actually exacerbate conflict; the policy helped to end stalemate, yet it only reduced conflict marginally; and the policy likely reduced conflict, however, there are significant challenges in terms of whether the buildings it specifies can actually be built. Regarding the first comment, the policy is reasonably well-written, and the fact that the language is recommendation-like is both positive and negative. It is positive, in that i f participants are able to keep abreast of the process, then such loosely worded policy provides a good path upon which progress towards stronger sustainibility can be trekked. On the other hand, it is negative in the sense that the policy often does not close off 312
areas of contention satisfactorily, such as density and what affordable rental housing actually means. Therefore, the point that the policy could simply leave participants turning over the same old ground is also valid. This remains to be seen (see the Epilogue). The assertion that the buildings that the policy recommends cannot be built is being proven a non-starter as the work on green, energy efficient buildings being done by the City and some development firms and consultants suggests. The question may actually be whether the policy is strong enough in this regard given the advances in design and building systems. Those respondents who were marginally to very negative raised several valid points of criticism: the adoption of the policy only closed off discussion for the time being, contentious issues will come up in the future; the stalemate was actually internal to City Hall, between the Real Estate and Planning Departments, and was actually taken care of internally as it is City staff that really runs the show; and there is no conflict resolution mechanism spelled out by the policy. The first assertion is likely accurate as the main conflicts over density and the highest and best use of the publicly-owned lands will probably surface again. Conflict and, sometimes stalemate are persistent in most planning processes, however, it may be unrealistic to expect the creation of policy to end conflict for the duration of a planning and development process. If the adoption of the policy resolved outstanding disputes and brought a static situation to an end, and allowed the dialogue to continue then it has gone a great distance in meeting this criterion. On the whole, the adoption of the policy for SeFC achieved this, even though some parties were not satisfied with the outcome.
10.10 The Policy Fostered Flexible and Networked Practices The action research findings indicate a fairly decent level of flexible and networked practices. For example, the policy has: increased the networked and flexible practices between departments at City Hall; helped to support the ongoing work on green buildings in the City, Region, and province; and has, in combination with the ongoing process outlined in the policy, created some significant partnerships between the Planning Department and non-governmental organizations. 313
The interview results indicate that two thirds of respondents thought that the policy fostered these flexible and networked practices, the other third was marginally to quite negative. Those who were very positive and made substantive comments, all administrative participants, noted that: the City departments have come together in an ongoing process which is based on adaptability, flexibility, and learning; the SeFC policy spurred the creation of a senior management sustainability group, which includes the Heads of Engineering, Real Estate, Parks Board, CityPlan, and Social Planning; and the policy worked to bring about the creation of a small office of sustainbility. Thus, one can say with a fair degree of confidence that the adoption of the SeFC worked to create flexible and networked practices within the institutional framework of City Hall. One administrative participant, who has been an independent consultant for a few years now and is no longer an insider at City Hall, however, brought up the question of how much the SeFC policy triggered change, or was the result of change. Those inside the City Hall institutions, on the other hand, directly credit the SeFC process and policy with the shift towards sustainability. Those interviewees who were somewhat positive pointed out that: since the adoption of the policy the lead planner has pulled divergent groups together, such as getting plan checkers onside with sustainability; that the policy required the primary departments, Planning, Real Estate, and Engineering to work together; and that the policy helped to move people, in general, towards working together. The increased networked and flexible practices within City Hall were discussed above, as was the increased partnering of the City with non-governmental organizations. Significant, critical points were also raised by the participants who were marginally to quite negative about the extent of flexible and networked practices. They noted that: everybody still looks after their own turf, in spite of efforts to bring them into the process; little emphasis on holistic thinking and cooperative teamwork exists after the adoption of the policy; resistance to change exists, and it is difficult to put partisan, departmental loyalties aside; and there was some creation of networked practices, but the parks issue is an example of ongoing discord. These points, with the exception of the increased interdepartmental networking and cooperation, which 314
was discussed above, point out that the flexible and networked practices could have reached out to wider groups and networks, although groups such as the SeFC Working Group have tried to increase this. Various participants have recommended that the all-parks group be brought into discussions about the nature of the proposed park. This aspect of the process remains a challenge, and perhaps the policy could have outlined resources or measures to address the increased need for broader networked practices through the fostering of wider communicative participation in the SeFC planning process. This said, however, the policy went a very significant distance in enabling willing participants to create more flexible and networked practices.
10.11 The Policy led to the Creation of Second Order Effects The action research found several significant second order effects that can be attributed, for the most part, to the work on sustainability that was started by the SeFC process, such as: the green buildings work by the City, Region, and Province; the City-wide sustainability policy and the new office of sustainability; and the Regional Districts process for planning a sustainable region. The interview results indicate that most respondents thought there were second order effects. Those who were very to marginally positive reiterated the second order effects found in the action research results. The one exception was a comment made by an economic participant who pointed out that the policy drew peoples attention to their neighbourhoods and the need for strong neighbourhoods. A political representative, who was marginally positive, thought that the larger context, the Kyoto Agreement on greenhouse gases, and climate change was likely more important in fostering the shift towards sustainability. Regarding this last point, another larger context factor may have been the spike in energy prices that occurred in the late nineteen nineties, however, this does not remove the influence that SeFC had in the City of Vancouver and the Region. The SeFC policy likely did draw attention to the need for strong neighbourhoods with a full array of services and housing opportunities to limit the need for travel by single occupant vehicles. 315
O f the respondents who were somewhat to very negative most simply did not know of any second order effects. One academic/expert participant, however, thought that other buildings, and two other sustainable development projects at the University of British Colombia and Simon Fraser University likely played a larger role in the shift to green buildings in the City and the Region. These other developments occurred concurrently, and slightly behind the SeFC process, and they have yet to be analyzed. The existence of other green buildings was likely brought to Councils attention through the sustainability consultants work for SeFC which highlighted local precedents of energy and water efficient buildings, such as the C.K. Choi building at UBC, and the geothermal, Kalke building on Vancouvers West Fourth Avenue in Kitsilano. Therefore, it is very likely that the SeFC process and policy had a marked effect in spurring on other sustainable initiatives, and as a result it had several second order effects.
10.12 The Policy Lays the Groundwork for Economic Sustainability The action research found that the policy for SeFC contains some policies that would marginally increase economic sustainability in a strong, and marked manner. In terms of economic security, there are limited youth employment policies and a neighbourhood development office that may allow some limited scope for increased economic security for the future residents of SeFC. As far as ecologically sound economic activity goes, the policy gives some scope to the proposed neighbourhood economic development office to promote environmentally responsible business practices. However, the policy shied away from regulation that would have ensured that only ecologically benign or beneficial economic development would occur in SeFC, that could help to create a new sustainable business code for the City of Vancouver. Incentives to encourage ecologically responsible business practices are also lacking. On the other hand, the policy does call for consideration of applying SeFC development policies which promote environmentfriendly development to regulations that control other development in the City of Vancouver. Also, the policy does recommend the use of full cost accounting and a window of seven years pay-back for development pro forma. Local self-reliance should be increased somewhat by the 316
urban agriculture policy, and the many proposed energy reduction policies in the SeFC policy statement. The interview results for this criterion fall right across the spectrum from very positive to very negative. Those interviewees who were very to quite positive noted that the policy includes: scope for utilizing full cost accounting; elements that could benefit existing industries and foster employment in tourism and environmental industries; strategies for creating economic opportunities for those who are not as financially advantaged; the possibility of economic benefits for those who do not require an automobile; economic savings by locating housing in close proximity to public transit and employment; a reasonable amount of density, which helps to lower the ecological footprint of the development; and it could provide for a sense of greater self-sufficiency in an urban community. Another economic participant framed economic sustainability as requiring the ability to market and sell the positive aspects of sustainable urban development, such as a reduction of ones dependence on the environment, which the economic participant thought was a very marketable goal. Very few respondents chose to frame economic sustainability in their own terms. The last response raises an important, critical point, under a system dominated by capitalism, a portion of this development must appeal to peoples desires for convenience and economic savings, and their belief that protecting and enhancing the environment is a necessary goal. Let us consider the remaining points in the order they were raised. Full cost accounting was discussed above. The elements and strategies that could benefit existing industries and foster jobs in tourism and environmental industries and create economic benefits for those who lack economic opportunities are, as discussed above, not very substantial. More of this kind of economic sustainability is implicit, rather than explicitly laid out in the policy. Economic savings and benefits for those who do not own an automobile and locating highdensity housing close to public transit and employment are likely to be considerable and they will increase local self-reliance. The interviewees who responded in a somewhat positive manner thought that: basic economic and food security could be improved through the urban agriculture policy; the energy 317
plan considers the potential costs of different methods of energy generation; and the policy does not allow for small-scale construction and development businesses as a result of the complexity of high-density urban development. The positive contribution of urban agriculture was discussed above. The energy plan policy lists only costs, and does not specify full cost accounting, which should be considered as a tool to assist in decision making in SeFC (SeFC Policy Statement, p.77). The respondent may be talking about the energy plan consultancy in the official development process, this is discussed in the Epilogue. The lack of acknowledgment that smaller construction and development firms should be able to compete in SeFC weakens the likelihood of different, incremental scales of development in SeFC, which may result in greater economic sustainability. On the other hand, by having the large to medium sized development firms engage in creating more sustainable buildings and large block developments, the chances are likely greater that sustainable urban development will be implemented throughout the City of Vancouver. The interviewees that were marginally positive also mentioned the economic benefits of density and the reduction of automobile dependency, and the limited use of full cost accounting. They also noted that: the policy left out innovative ideas, such as the provision of small-scale workshops for making local products, that were discussed in the process; and that too little attention was paid to what kind of employment will be available, that it will likely be a hightechnology enclave rather than a more economically complete community. The lack of innovative small-scale initiatives in the policy ignores the growth of smaller enterprises in the contemporary urban economy, and leaves out one of the original indicators that was considered in the earlier stages of the sustainability consultancy: the number of local jobs established per residential unit (Sheltair Report, Draft dated 1 March, 1998). The lack of this kind of policy makes the policy quite weak in terms of economic sustainability. The policy is also weakened by not including flexible policy about the future economic development of the area and the nature of future employment opportunities, beyond broad descriptions of where certain retail, industrial land uses should be located in the Retail and Service Uses, and the Office Uses section. The participants who responded in a quite to very negative way raised other critical issues 318
that they had with the policy: the policy gives limited scope for full cost accounting, therefore, the economics are very standard; the policy fails to address the nature of future jobs, ignores the needs of the service industry and various industrial zonings; the economic policy was not considered from a social perspective; the policys economic standards are based on the contemporary business communitys definitions; a broader definition of economic sustainability may be lacking, given that the density levels are set to break even, or make a modest return; discussions of economic sustainability were conducted after decisions were made about density, buildings, and park space; active pursuit of community economic development strategies integrated with land use practice is lacking; and the policy never really got beyond considering development as being completed by one large development firm. These critical points are discussed in the order they were reintroduced. The lack of full cost accounting, and the nature of future work has been covered above. Various industrial zonings are addressed somewhat by the policy, however, the needs of the service industry, especially City centre service industries, such as electrician, plumbers, and other maintenance and service industries, are not addressed by the policy. The policy is quite close to standard business community definitions of economic development, however, some economic participants have noted that the policies were quite challenging in terms of the development industry, and, although they are only encouraged, the environmentally responsible business practices recommended in the policy are, sadly, quite a distance from standard business practices. However, these business practices should have been more clearly spelled out, or the policy should have put in place a requirement for a white paper on economic sustainability. The density levels are set at a break even point in terms of profits for the City, as long as they meet livability criteria. The density targets in the policy are also based on transit supportive densities, which place housing in SeFC close to where employment is located, on the Broadway corridor and in the central business district. The process actually started off with the sole focus being on economics, however, the discussion of economic sustainability was side-lined in much the same manner as was social sustainability during the sustainability consultant phase. On the other hand, some innovative 319
policy, such as the neighbourhood economic development office, did work its way into the policy. Thus, one can see that economic sustainability was considered, at a marginal level, concurrently with decisions about density, buildings, and park space. The assertion that community economic development strategies integrated with land use practice were actively pursued in the policy is accurate. This lack of community economic development policy, with the limited exception of the possibility of the neighbourhood economic development office, pulls the policy away from strong economic sustainability. The policy defines built form development as fine grained, however, there is no explicit direction to subdivide the publicly owned site into parcels that would allow large, medium, and small developers to incrementally establish and demonstrate more sustainable design and building methods. Interestingly, one of the administrative participants noted that the publicly-owned lands should, after the completion of the ODP, provide an opportunity for the medium-sized, local development firm to become involved in development in SeFC. This is somewhat promising as it may result in more incremental development, and it may remove the valid concern that SeFC would be developed by one large development firm. The action research, document analysis, and interview results indicate that the SeFC policy was less successful in addressing economic sustainability. On the other hand, it is written in a broad enough style that it could be utilized to increase the economic sustainability of SeFC, however, this will require significant capacity, and it may be that the neighbourhood economic development office should be set up before, or concurrently with development.
10.13 The Policy Facilitates a Process that Reduces Costs and Generates Benefits The action research and document analysis indicates that there is great promise in the scope of the policy to reduce costs and generate benefits. If the transportation, waste management, energy and water use plans are prepared with sufficient rigour, and they inform the Official Development Plan in a very significant way, then very significant long-term savings, financially, and in natural resource use reductions, are achievable within the policy framework. The lack of 320
strong language regarding the implementation of full cost accounting in the policy is a significant constraint on the total scale of achievable savings and benefits. A full cost accounting framework would calculate the savings and benefits in terms of externalities, for example, reductions in air and water pollution. On the other hand, the possible reductions in resource use through technologically-based efficiencies and demand management will generate savings and benefits for local residents, businesses, and utilities through lower energy and water use costs. In the case of local utilities, at a City-wide or Regional scale, assuming that SeFC has its intended effect as a model, reductions in natural resource use should prevent the need for costly new power generating and water treatment plants. Residents of Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Region may benefit from improved air quality, the policy has many measures that could help to improve and maintain local air quality, if they are drawn upon for implementation at the City and Regional scales. Most interviewees responded positively when it came to the possible benefits and savings that the SeFC policy could achieve, however, a third of respondents were somewhat to very negative. Those who were very to marginally positive noted that: the use of full cost accounting will achieve long-term savings and benefits, especially in air quality and health costs; the City is using life cycle analysis, as it is more reliable than full cost accounting; through lower energy and water use, the policys indicators will create savings; the policy could be stronger in terms of environmental and social cost savings; the policy creates long-term savings, but it does not address the increased short-term costs for providing green buildings; the costs and benefits can only be assessed at the design phase as the policy is way too general; the policy may lack tangible benefits; the policy allows for measures that will generate benefits in terms of the full costs of economic development; only the willingness and understanding of future residents can ensure that savings and benefits will accrue; and the policy should have included other costs borne by the City, such as carrying costs, staff costs, and soils treatment costs. The point about soil treatment costs was raised by a political representative, who asserted that one would be hard-pressed to argue that SeFC is an economically sustainable project, if the 321
soil remediation costs were included. This is a significant point, however, one should ask, as the SeFC Working Group participants and others did, whether it is sustainable in a socio-economic sense to saddle future generations with the costs of mistakes made in the past? The other interesting aspect about who should pay for soils treatment is the fact that the most contaminated land on the SeFC site, the Citys works yard, was the site of a former City residential, commercial, and industrial waste incinerator. The ash from this incinerator was simply pushed out into False Creek towards the shoring. The City also never mentioned pursuing other industrial users of the land for soils treatment costs, Canron Construction Corporation West, Sauder Industries Limited, and Dominion Bridge (Dominion Bridge went out o f business in 1998). Both Canron and Sauder are still in business and operating in the Vancouver Region. The likely reason that the City never pursued these industrial land owners is that the City purchased the properties, Canron in 1990, Sauder in 1983, and Dominion Bridge in 1978 (Creekside Landing, 1997), and is, therefore, likely liable for the soil treatment costs under the provincial Waste Management Act (1993) and the Contaminated Sites Regulation (1997). The attempt to pass the costs on to the future residents of SeFC by increasing the densities to, perhaps, less livable levels would have been narrow economic sustainability. However, a fuller analysis would have included the property tax and employment benefits that accrued to the City as a whole. Moreover, the worst contamination was generated by past, faulty waste management practices by the City of Vancouver itself. Therefore, the policy remains committed to a soils remediation plan that will ensure economic viability and environmental health (SeFC Policy Statement, p.68), and the costs of the past were not put in place to hamper the full potential benefits that could be achieved by a model of sustainable development. The remaining points raised by the respondents who were very to marginally positive are discussed in the order they were presented above. Full cost accounting will achieve long-term savings and benefits. However, given the fact that the City has largely remained wedded to using life-cycle costing, which they already used for major developments, the savings and benefits that could be achieved by full cost accounting may not come to fruition. As was mentioned above in 322
the action research and document analysis the policy provides the scope for significant savings due to the energy, water, and transportation plans. The policy definitely could have been stronger in terms of environmental and, especially social costs savings. The short term costs of building green buildings may be lower than first imagined, for instance, to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design silver rating, a method to meet specific energy and environmental criteria, increases costs by an average of approximately 0.04 % (Granger and Kesterloo, 2003, p. 5). The design phase is actually not the phase to begin to put in place measures for cost savings and benefits, they must be there throughout the development process, granted the level of detail increases as the process moves towards design. The policy does contain measures that could generate many tangible benefits, such as reductions in resource use, pollution, and livability benefits for a community that is less automobile dependent. The full costs of economic development are addressed only marginally by the policy, however, it does call for environmentally friendly development (which remains largely undefined). It is a very valid statement that only the willingness, commitment, and understanding of future residents can ensure that savings and benefits will occur. On the other hand, with a development that has next to no residents, the policy, official development plan, and the rezoning can put in place policies, bylaws and measures that can work to increasing the capacity of future residents to achieve possible savings and benefits. Hopefully, this can be achieved through the on-site neighbourhood economic development office. It would be very helpful if these processes, and their products, in this case the policy, included as many costs and savings borne by the City, such as: carrying costs; staff costs; revenues generated from interim uses; economic activity generated; profits made through an increase in land values; and tax revenues raised. The development consultants report addressed carrying costs, and, to some degree, proposed economic activity. The development consultants report did not address the benefits of past economic activity, and little analysis from the development consultants report found its way into the policy. Those respondents who were somewhat to very negative about this criterion pointed out that there was too little scope for full cost accounting in the policy; the policy facilitates the 323
opportunity to look at the costs and benefits of various solutions, but is not worded strongly enough to implement these solutions; and a true cost/benefit analysis was not completed, the costs and benefits have not been properly linked back to each other. Full cost accounting was discussed at length above. The lack of strong wording has been noted above, and it remains one of the significant weaknesses of the policy statement. The economic participant who voiced the last concern about the lack of a true cost/benefit analysis, went further by asserting that one group, the developers, expends the resources, while others reap the benefits. This may be accurate in a very narrow sense, however, the benefits of cleaner air, and more sustainable use of limited resources, will be reaped by the broader society, which includes the development community. The policy is also not such a great departure from existing practices that the development community will not be willing to come on board, providing it is a level playing field for all involved in the development industry. Furthermore, savings in carrying and debt charges could accrue to developers, if something like less parking, or minimal parking is achieved in SeFC. As the developers must carry the debt for the project through the excavating, and building of the parking structures, a significant amount of time, which increases the debt carrying charges of development projects considerably.
10.14 The Policy Features Creative and Adaptive Ideas The action research and document analysis found that the SeFC policy is reasonably creative and adaptive, especially some of its youth-centred, and stewardship policies. However, more creative policies for social sustainability could have been included. For instance, the transportation policies could have been more flexible and creative. There could have been an automobile restricted zone in SeFC, and the policy could call for the streets to be shared streets, where pedestrians, especially children at play, have the right-of-way on very narrow and winding streets that are well-signed. On the other hand, even though the language around it is quite weak, the economic development policies have moved beyond mixed-use towards industrial ecology. Industrial ecology requires the development of highly efficient, quiet, pollution-free light 324
industrial uses located in high density urban development, which exchange waste heat and waste products to increase efficiencies. The waste product from one industrial process makes up part of the material or energy for another. This creative economic policy can allow for more on-site workplaces, the use of excess heat from light industrial processes for space heating, and a vibrant, artisan feel to the neighbourhood. The interview results found that most respondents thought the policy features creative and adaptive ideas. There were three respondents, one of each of the social, academic/expert, and community participants, that were quite to very negative about this criterion. Those interviewees who were very positive noted that the policy is creative and adaptive as it: has a lot of vision; allows for things to be added; lays out a broad-based, inclusive consensus process; and the policy leaves scope to include solutions that have not been conceived of yet. An administrative participant noted one of the difficulties of sustainability planning: todays innovation does not seem as creative further down the path to sustainable urban development. Regarding these points, the policy does contain extensive, and helpful vision sections, that were largely contributed by the AG. The policy also allows for things to be added and changed. However, the policy does not really outline a broad-based consensus process. Yet, it does leave room for new solutions. Those who were somewhat to marginally positive pointed out that: the policy lacks a comprehensive collection of creative ideas, but it has elements that allow for creativity and adaptation; despite attempts to make the policy creative, it could have included more creativity; the monitoring role in the stewardship policy makes the policy creative, somewhat actionoriented, and adaptive, however, the policy does not feature ideas for action; the policy is somewhat creative, its adaptation depends on the incentives the City will put in place to encourage owners and developers; the policy features creative ideas, such as the non-powered craft policy for the east end of False Creek; and the policy contains creative ideas, however, the fact that the policy statement follows the outline of other, previous policy statements makes it much less creative. These points are addressed in the order they were introduced. The lack of a comprehensive collection of ideas is a valid criticism, however, these details are likely to be dealt 325
with in the Official Development Plan and design phases, and even in the post occupancy phase. The policy could have been more creative, however, the Stewardship Group policies and many other policies are very creative when compared to other standard development policies. Although they are not always as specific as they could be, the policy contains many ideas, directions, and recommendations that clear the way for future action. Such as the demonstration policies, which include things like the neighbourhood economic development office, and flexible parking structures that can be readily converted to other uses, if there is a lack of demand for parking. In the outline of most of the plans, such as the energy plan, the policy calls for work on incentives to encourage ecologically sound development and activities. This should allow for significant incentives to encourage land owners and developers. The policy is very similar in structure to previous policy statements for Vancouvers central area, and this may indicate less creativity, however, within this tried and true structure many creative and adaptive policies were put in place, and adopted by City Council. As was discussed above, it may have been harder to get Council approval if the policy had looked too different from previous policy broadsheets. The few respondents who were quite to very negative about the policys creative and adaptive capacity raised some significant points: the policy does not address what the surrounding area will be like in forty years; it lacks integration between the privately-owned and the publicly-owned lands, which results in less creativity and adaptability; and the planning and development professionals in Vancouver think they are doing such an innovative job already, therefore, it is difficult to get creative ideas into policy. Regarding these critical points, the future, geographic context could have been addressed by a context study, which included some forecasting of future changes. However, given that the policy called for many keystone studies, energy, water, waste management, transportation, and urban agriculture, adding too many studies would have bogged the planning process down. There is definitely a disconnect between the privately-owned and the publicly-owned lands within the area that the policy applies to. This is negative in that it makes comprehensive, integrated planning of the whole area more difficult. However, it may allow for the private lands to be developed earlier, and, if monitored properly, 326
this could provide lessons for the remainder of the development. On the other hand, this lack of integration will probably constrain the creativity and adaptation on the privately-owned lands. The Vancouver development community does suffer somewhat from an attitude that the City is so far ahead in terms of innovation that it can rest on its laurels. If compared to many European Citys, especially in terms of measures to curb automobile dependency and the attendant air and water quality concerns, then Vancouver has a significant way to go. This attitude does hamper creativity in Vancouvers planning and development community. Hopefully, through education around precedents and successful programs from every comer of the globe and the country, this perception can be shifted somewhat. Arguably, the SeFC process and policy aids in this educative program. On the whole, the action research, document analysis, and interview results found that the SeFC policy is creative and adaptive.
10.15 The Policy Includes Adaptation and Contingency Planning The action research and document analysis found that adaptation as was noted in the last criterion is included in the policy to a significant degree, however, the policy does not include contingency planning measures, or plans. Of the subset of respondents that were asked this question, fifteen of twenty interviewees, six could not recall, three responded very positively, one was marginally positive, and five were very negative. The interviewees that were very positive thought that the policy included both adaptation and contingency. The marginally positive respondent thought that adaptation and contingency was inherent in the fact that it was just a policy statement. The remainder of the respondents, including those who could not recall, correctly noted that there was no contingency planning in the policy document, and that the adaptation that was included was limited. Therefore, one can conclude that the adaptation was given some scope in the policy statement, but it lacks recommendations and substantive policy regarding contingency planning.
327
10.16 The Policy Can Be Implemented The document analysis and action research indicates that the policy can be implemented. The Stewardship Group policy increases the likelihood that many of the policies will be acted upon. The policies are technically feasible, many of them are demonstrated in part in existing developments in Vancouver. The policy may be too achievable, and it may not be innovative enough. The policys flexibility, however, more than likely allows for significant movement towards sustainability over time. The interview results demonstrate one of the few times that respondents were in agreement. With the exception of one respondent, interviewees were positive about the possibility of implementation. Most were very to quite positive and they noted that implementation was achievable because of the amount of resources that are going into the project as of writing (see the Epilogue), and that increases in knowledge and technology are making the energy and water policies easier to achieve. A political representative pointed out that staff usually brings items and policy forward that have been well vetted by internal and external processes and are often implemented. Expending significant resources does not always mean success in implementation, however, the work to date required these resources, and this likely greatly increases the chances of rigourous implementation. If changes in design and technology make the policy too readily achievable, then the lack of the policy to push for innovation may become evident, and what was supposed to serve as a model for sustainable development may simply be the new status quo by the time it is developed. The combined experience of the capable people on the Stewardship Group, and the commitment of City staff should guard against this. There were concerns raised by respondents who were quite positive about prospects for implementation. These respondents pointed out that: the policy is better than any other completed in Vancouver, but it does not really push the envelope enough; the City will have to consult extensively with the property owners and developers to ensure that the regulations are not so onerous that they prevent implementation; and the policy is not a significant enough departure from previous policy that it cannot be implemented. Granted, the policy could have 328
been much stronger on many aspects of sustainable urban development, especially social and economic sustainability, however, it is a significant enough departure from previous policy to begin the journey down the path to sustainability. The incentives called for in the policy will probably prove helpful in enticing the property owners and developers to move towards sustainability. A marginally positive, economic participant voiced a concern with whether the developments can adhere to the targets and other aspects that are set in the policy, and thought that the policy was not transferable to other projects. The targets and other aspects of the policy are reasonably feasible, and the goals behind them will bring many benefits, see the costs and benefits section above. The difficulty of transferability is a very valid one. Unless decision-makers and staff get behind sustainability and push for it, sustainability will not be included in other developments. For instance, in the spring of 2002 a major, large block development process for the East Fraser Lands started without any reference to sustainable development, sustainability, or resource use management. The respondent that was very negative, an ecological participant, noted that implementation was unlikely as a lot of what the policy proposes is illegal and goes against existing codes and bylaws. At the outset of the policy-making process the intent was to make these codes and bylaws flexible for the SeFC model and then tweak them for the whole bylaw and code system. Fortunately, bylaws and codes are not carved in stone. They can and should be changed if they are driving development away from sustainability. This criticism is valid, however, and it demonstrates that the policy should have called for a bylaw and code study to anticipate these difficulties and aid in the work to address them. Despite these concerns, the interviews, the action research, and the document analysis clearly conclude that the policy can be implemented. This is being borne out in the Official Development Plan process (see the Epilogue).
329
10.17 Feasibility and Fit between Participants Needs and Future Actions The document analysis and action research found that the policy, on the whole, provides a good fit between the needs of those participants that were concerned about economic issues, and ecological concerns, and future actions included in the policy statement. The fit between social participants needs and the future actions included in the policy, however, is lacking. Interviewees responded mostly positively to this question, except for an economic participant and a community participant. Those who were quite positive noted that a good fit exists between needs and future actions, but the policy still needs to be backed by political will to make it happen. This is a valid comment, however, the adoption of the policy by Vancouvers City Council, and subsequent decisions to fund substantive parts of the Official Development Plan process, are strong indications of political will. The interviewees that were somewhat to marginally positive regarding this criterion pointed out that: the policy reflects the needs of those who were particularly interested in the SeFC development; the policy could have included immediate plans of action to be implemented before development started; some interests needs were marginalized, such as, the needs of the interests advocating for social housing; and the needs of local government were met, but there are questions about whether the needs of the wider community were met as a result of the lack of wider communicative-public participation. This lack of sufficient communicative participation with a wider public has been noted at several points in the action research and interview results. Perhaps the City could have drawn on the experience of its CityPlan division to create well-run, engaging public workshops, such as those that they have conducted for the CityPlan process. Many of the CityPlan policies shore up the SeFC policy as previous adopted City policy in the policy statement. Regarding the remaining points, the lack of valid wider communicativepublic participation, has led to policy that, for the most part, reflects the narrow needs of participants. However, many social, ecological, and community participants called for more affordable housing and other socially sustainable policies, such as concurrent school provisions, which failed to make it into the policy. The policy could have included immediate plans of action 330
such as: demonstration of seven different types of soil remediation, a farmers market, an onsite sustainability centre, demonstration of solar aquatic water treatment for the combined sewer overflows that regularly occur in the east end of False Creek, and the renovation of the Domtar Salt Building. Some may ask where the funds for these initiatives would come from, but it is interesting to note that society has the funds to acquire land for left turn bays, at approximately half a million per turn bay, and for straightening the S curve on Stanley Parks causeway at a cost of $18 million. Moreover, the interim uses of the land have been far from sustainable. The land is leased for automobile, and truck transportation parking. Race junk from the annual Molson Indy race takes up much space, and the race track takes up even more for the bulk of the summer months. The only sustainable legacy of this automobile race is the temporary pedestrian bike path that was funded from charges put on the event. But I digress, the lack of match between the participants needs for social housing has been discussed at length. The one community participant that was quite negative raised some significant lack of fit: the needs of the social housing community, and the needs of the people who thought that the building heights were too high were not met. There was tension in the process between density and livability. Higher densities can be transit supportive, and can greatly reduce transportation if the residences are located close to where people work. However, if the density is too high livability can be impacted. The planning for the densities in SeFC has to address issues of livability, therefore, one can say that the needs of those who thought the building heights were too high were met to a marginal degree. Given the lack of fit between significant interests needs especially the social housing interests, overall, the SeFC policy only partially met this criterion.
10.18 The Policy is based on Sufficient Commitment to Ensure Implementation The document analysis found that the policy explicitly spells out the various parties responsibilities, and this indicates some commitment on the part of the City to see this policy through. The policy was officially adopted by City Council. This adoption and ongoing funding demonstrate a significant level of commitment on the part of City Council. The property owners 331
and some developers are also showing strong support for the policy. The interview results also indicate that participants, with the exception of one ecological participant, thought that there is sufficient commitment to implement the policy. The respondents who were quite positive stated that: the policy is based on sufficient commitment, but it seems to have been forgotten over the last two years (2000-2002); it remains to be seen whether subsequent Councils will remain committed; there was a lot of interaction throughout the process with City Council and other participants that should aid in implementation; and the Stewardship Group is going to increase the likelihood of implementation. Regarding these concerns, as the process moves into the official development process, the profile of SeFC will bring it back to the top of peoples minds. The commitment of subsequent Councils is always hard to gauge ( for a cursory discussion of the current Councils commitment see the Epilogue). The interaction throughout the process with City Council and other participants, and the continuing engagement on the Stewardship Group should increase the likelihood of implementation, however, it is no guarantee. Several rough spots have been encountered since the adoption of the policy. Yet, this increased interaction has moved the process forward, as of writing. The respondents who were somewhat positive noted that: the full commitment required for implementation within the City and the Planning Department may be lacking; there is buy in at the senior levels of management; from a development perspective, a lot of time during implementation may be wasted proving that certain indicators cannot be met; and a lot will depend on the next Council (2002-2005). The interest within the City and the Planning Department in seeing this sustainability policy through is evident in the assigning of full time planning staff, and increased funding for the process. The interview results clearly found buy-in amongst senior management, and the existence of the senior management sustainability committee underlines their commitment. Hopefully, if sustainability indicators and requirements are handled in an even, fair manner, then a lot of time-wasting conflict over meeting indicators can be avoided. A lot will depend on the new Coalition of Progressive Electors majority Council that was elected in November 2002, however, until the Council makes some major decisions it is too soon to gauge 332
the extent of their commitment. The ecological participant who was quite negative pointed out that senior engineering, and the medical health officer are not committed. The Engineering Department, supposedly with the consent of senior engineering, has dedicated significant staff resources to the Stewardship Group, and the emerging plans. The medical health officer may not have been involved, and this may be something that is lacking on the Citys technical committee. Therefore, one can, with some confidence assume that sufficient commitment exists to ensure the implementation of the SeFC policy statement.
333
FIGURE 10. l: RANKED ARRAY OF ALL OUTCOME CRITERIA

THE POLICY CAN BE IMPLEMETED
++
THE POLICY INCREASED ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
++
THE POLICY IS BASED ON SUFFICIENT COMMITMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
O M C P tttl
++
"
THE POLICY IS FEASIBLE
0 0 Cp
+
THE POLICY FEATURES CREATIVE AND ADAPTIVE IDEAS
. o m a tc m x m o i
++ +
a
00
00 0
THE POLICY INCLUDES SPECIFIC INDICATORS FOR MONITORING
Administrative Participants Political Representatives 0 Ac ademic s/Exp erts
@ Ecological Participants 9 Economic Participants Social Participants
334
FIGURE 10.2: RANKED ARRAY OF ALL OUTCOME CRITERIA ADOPTION OFTHE POLICY ENDED STALEMATE AND REDUCED CONFLICT O O tQ g tO 0 fQ Q 0 ~ O C>~
THE POLICY INCREASES REPRESENTATIVENESS

i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hi._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _i
THE POLICY LED TO THE CREATION OF SECOND ORDER EFFECTS
M O O O S O G Q O "# ogm
OO"
I______________________________ -LJU .____________________________I

THE POLICY INCREASED SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN VANCOUVER
i____________________________________ 1
cm m am
o"
o"
mimm
oo oo o #o" i__ to
'__________________________________i
THE POLICY FOSTERED FLEXIBLE AND NETWORKED PRACTICES
i_______________________________________ l j j .__________________________________i
o+iooo oeo *9#o eo

<9
THE POLICY REDUCES COSTS AND GENERATES BENEFITS
eeccesojj, o~e
oiT
0 0 0 0
Community Participants Ecological Participants Ec onomic P articipants Social Participants
0 Administrative Participants
Q PoHtlcal Representatives
0 Ac ademic s/Exp erts
FIGURE 10.3: RANKED ARRAY OF ALL OUTCOME CRITERIA THE POLICY LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR ECONOMIC SU STAINABILITY
0 ~ Q 000Q ~t
THE POLICY INCUDES A GOVERNING FRAMEWORK
0 0 Q S oto i o e Q
+M +
++ +
q o co g o "
THE POLICY MOVES SOCIETY TOWARDS GREATER SOCIAL SUSTALNABILITY
SB o~ 00000" oooo
ADAPTATION AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING ARE INCLUDED IN THE POLICY
Q OMpSS
THE POLICY IS FAIR AND BENEFICIAL FOR ALL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY
Q0 @ S 0*000
I_____________________________________ C X 3 ___________________________________i
THE POLICY MEETS ALL PARTTCPANTS' NEEDS
i_______________________________I_____________________________ i
+ # #+ o
, o#osoo0C )d c QAdministrative Participants

PoHtlcal Representatives Academics/Experts
0
0
336
10.19 Conclusion A similar pattern emerged in the interview and action research findings for outcomes as was found in the process results. The economic and administrative participants responded positively to fourteen of the eighteen questions that were asked (in response to seven of these questions, there was only one negative response by either an economic or administrative participant). The same questions that were raised in the preceding chapter emerge again, and they will be discussed in the conclusion. The administrative participants only answered negatively to five of eighteen questions. This indicates that they were more sanguine when it comes to the policy than other participants. For instance, at least one or more of the community participants was negative about the policy in response to eleven of eighteen questions. The satisfaction of the administrative participants with the policy is evident, and according to the action research is mostly valid. However, does it signify a lack of reflection-in-action on the part of the administrative participants? Or does it reflect the fact that, as authors of the policy, the planners are more satisfied with their product? These questions lead to the need for further research, which is discussed in the concluding chapter. The communicative participation and other more standard approaches by participants (some of them strategic) has moved planning in Vancouver in a more sustainable direction. If most of the adopted policy is implemented, it will result in a resource efficient, ecologically benign or beneficial development. This sustainable development will move the benchmarks forward for subsequent development, and will aid in moving Vancouver and, hopefully, its Region a significant distance towards sustainable urban development. The specific conclusions from the research will be summarized in the conclusion. The next chapter focuses on the recommendations that flowed from the research.
337
CHAPTER 11: RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE PLANNING PRACTICE
11.0 Introduction This chapter briefly outlines recommendations to improve planning practice, with a specific focus on sustainability. Recommendations drawn from the action research are followed by recommendations made by interviewees, who were asked if they had any. The interviewees recommendations include their specific answers to this question and any recommendations that arose in response to the interview questions. The recommendations are presented in point form with no discussion, as they are an outgrowth of discussion in the previous chapters. The recommendations from the action research are presented in terms of process recommendations, and policy recommendations, and the interviewees recommendations are presented in the same manner.
11.1 Action Research Recommendations:
Process:
Inclusion and Long-term Involvement
Allow sufficient time for participants to review material and consult with those that they represent.
Equal Opportunity, Ground-Rules and Task Setting, and Challenge of Basic Assumptions
Ensure that equal time and access is available for all participants to planners and other city staff.
338
Representativeness
Create a welcoming space for the process where the interested public is invited to observe AG and SG meetings; and
Ensure that each process has at a minimum quarterly large and well-advertised public meetings with mechanisms in place to gather input in a well-facilitated manner.
Mutual Understanding; and the Process Civility, Depth, Breadth, and Consensus-Like Nature
Facilitate a process where no participant, especially the chair and city staff, is able to monopolize the discourse.
The Participatory, Openness, and Transparency of the Process, and Goal-Setting
All participants should agree on transparent procedural rules and objectives at the outset of the process.
Participants Accepted the Process Information as Accurate
Conduct an independent review of the process information by scientists, ecologists, and economists and other relevant professionals;
Fund the information finding and generating of the three spheres of sustainability equally (the SeFC process addressed mostly the economic and ecological spheres);
339
Try to break the process into sub-groups based on ecological, social, and economic interests periodically, to enable a more concentrated review of the specific policies and information from these perspectives; and
Conduct research, possibly in partnership with academic institutions, on the institutional and legal barriers that bar the way for progress towards sustainability.
The Issues Addressed by the Policy Highlight changes to policy or plans as they are made so participants review can focus on new material; and Set readily understandable indicators and targets through communicative-public participation processes.
The Effectiveness of the Process Facilitation Have facilitation from the start of the process to its conclusion, or if it is necessary to bring a facilitator in mid-way have them observe for one or two meetings.
Power Impartiality Hold meetings in public or neutral facilities (not corporate or interest group facilities).
Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency Draw on existing resources, such as the CityPlan division, to help run broad, productive communicative-public participation processes for sustainability.
340
The Outcome: The SeFC Policy
Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability To emphasize its importance in relation to economic and ecological sustainability, future sustainability policy should allot a separate, substantive section to social sustainability policy; Sustainability policy should include specific policies that will help guide significant communicative-public participation processes for the subsequent phases of development; and Explicit public education and public relations programs (advertising and media coverage) should be spelled out in the policy.
The Policy Increases Representativeness and Includes a Governing Framework The policy should create a governing framework for the neighbourhood, through a ward system, an on-site office of sustainability, or a community sustainability committee; and The neighbourhood economic development office should start as a sustainability centre and change over time into the neighbourhood economic development office.
The Policy is Creative and Adaptive, and Includes Contingency Planning Scope for the preparation of contingency plans should be included in sustainability policy.
The Policy is Fair and Beneficial for All Foster the capacity within planning and other departments to deal with cultural differences in approaches to sustainability planning, this may entail hiring a First Nations planner, or at a minimum a planner who has studied these issues intensively. 341
The Policy Ended Stalemate and Conflict, and Fostered Flexible and Networked Practices
The policy should provide for groups working on sustainability policy processes by allowing them to use city and parks board meeting facilities free of charge, within reason, for example, one two hour block per month.
The Policy Led to the Creation of Second Order Effects
Create a Sustainability Stewardship Advisory Group for the city, focus on SeFC, city-wide development and redevelopment.
Commitment and Implementation
Sustainability policy should include recommendations to enable bylaw and code studies to address institutional and legal barriers to implementing sustainable urban development.
11.2 Participants Recommendations
Process:
Inclusion
The process should be much broader, and include greater community involvement (academic/expert participant);
To ensure a balance between profit motivated interests and altruistic interests, a blended group of people is required to foster economic development (economic participant); 342
Include a broader range of participants right from the start, such as lower income people and those who wanted the whole site to be an urban forest (social participant); Sustainability processes should include members of the scientific community (social participant); Ensure that the sustainability committee has members with sufficient background, or capacity for critical analysis, in their respective fields (community participant); and The advisory and stewardship groups should include politicians (academic/expert).
Long-term Involvement
Methods and mechanisms to speed up the process have to be found, if sustainability processes are to become a part of day-to-day development (economic participant, and an administrative participant); The process would have been improved if it had been allotted more time (ecological participant); and More time should have been spent defining the parameters of sustainability (political representative).
Equal Opportunity, Ground-Rules and Task Setting, and Challenge of Basic Assumptions
Meetings should be held at times that are convenient for those with personal needs, such as parents (social participant), or childcare should be provided (author);
343
Community groups that are attempting to interest the wider community in sustainability issues should receive financial support (community participant); and
All committee participants should be solicited for agenda items prior to the meetings (community participant).
Representativeness
There should be a workshop with council, that includes invitees of the stewardship committee, staff, and all of the councilors (economic participant); and
The regulators, plan checkers and zoning planners, should be included and given a stronger role in the process (ecological participant).
Mutual Understanding; and the Process Civility, Depth, Breadth, and Consensus-Like Nature
The process should have included a smaller executive committee made up of the committee chair, the facilitator, and the lead planner (ecological participant).
The Participatory, Openness, and Transparency of the Process, and Goal-Setting
The process milestones should be clearly laid out, a website which clearly outlines the process should be created (social participant); and
The process needs to allow for keeping the options open, it should not move too quickly to arrive at conclusions (administrative participant). 344
Participants Accepted the Process Information as Accurate
The context of the proposed development site should be considered in depth (community participant);
Meetings should be held close to the development site to allow for a better feeling and analysis of the planning context (community participant);
The process should include a charette or visioning workshop that should animate participants visions and hope for the planning area with drawings and land use plans, and make the project more exciting and tangible for people (community participant);
Knowledgeable, innovative thinkers should be brought in, who are independent of the administrative system and not under contract to the local government, to present information (community participant);
Create a better, networked way to facilitate the sharing and receiving of information throughout the process amongst all participants (ecological participant); and
Ensure that information is provided in a variety of ways, send mail or faxes to those without convenient internet access (social participant).
The Issues Addressed by the Policy
There should have been social sustainability workshops that focused on the social aspects of economics (political representative).
345
The Effectiveness of the Process Facilitation Due to the challenging nature of a sustainable urban development process, the process should have a professional facilitator right from the outset (social participant).
Power Impartiality The process should have been broken down into an equally weighted number of interests for each of the economic, social, and ecological interest areas perhaps a third, a third, and a third (economic participant).
Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency A significant sustainability project like SeFC should have a full-time project team dedicated to it (academic/expert participant); and The process, through all phases, requires a staff champion, a staff member who is on top of things on a day-to-day basis (academic/expert participant).
The Outcome: The SeFC Policy
Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability There should have been stronger language around the environmental policy (ecological participant); An area specific transit pass should be implemented for the SeFC neighbourhood (community participant).
346
The policy should have been written in much clearer, more active, and stronger language (social participant);
Actions that would promote sustainability very soon after adoption should have been explicitly laid out in the policy (social participant);
The policy should lay out an incremental, piece-by-piece development process that would allow learning to occur about ecological, social, and economic sustainability (social participant); and
The city-owned lands should not be sold, if the lands are sold the public good aspect will be greatly reduced (political representative).
Indicators
There should be a separate person or department charged with the responsibility of monitoring all of the indicators (academic/expert participant).
The Policy Increases Representativeness and Includes a Governing Framework
The advisory group should have been invited to a workshop to review the final draft of the policy statement as it was subjected to so many revisions by staff (academic/expert participant); and
The policy should have limited stewardship as an activity conducted by people who are part of the adjacent community, landowners and surrounding neighbours (economic participant).
347
The Policy Ended Stalemate and Conflict, and Fostered Flexible and Networked Practices
Policy for a sustainable community should include a dedicated space where people can have dialogues about the issues facing the community (social participant).
Commitment and Implementation
The owners and developers need to be consulted with extensively to ensure that the regulations are not so onerous that it prevents the policy from being implemented (economic participant);
Incentives for developers who are increasing sustainability should have been clearly spelled out in the policy statement (economic participant); and
There should be significant involvement from the development community to determine how far they would be willingto go in beginning a sustainable development project (economic particip ant).
11.3 Conclusion The lack of recommendations from the administrative participants is notable. The administrative participants were, by-and-large, very satisfied with the process and the policy. Is this an indication of an inability to reflect critically on their planning practice? Or were they more satisfied because they had been through more of the internal struggles, and had a clearer view of the trade-offs involved in the process? Further research is required to look into the issues these questions raise (see suggestions for future research, chapter 12). Some of the above recommendations have been put into practice to some degree (see Epilogue). These recommendations were delivered by email to all participants. The author is planning to hold a workshop where they will be discussed sometime in the future. This will enable the action research to have an iterative effect on the on going process. 348
CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION
12.0 Introduction A summary of the research, the contribution to the literature, and future avenues for study of communicative participation and sustainable urban development conclude this thesis. The research is summarized by drawing together the conclusions from the results chapters. Reference to the research results includes all of the studys results, action research, document analysis, and participant observer, unless otherwise specified. Both the process and the policy are generally assessed. The planning, social, and political theory are discussed in relation to sustainable urban development theory. The thesis concludes with a discussion of its contribution to the planning literature, and suggestions for future research.
12.1 Conclusion In this section we will briefly review the research results are briefly reviewed in order to answer the primary research question: Did communicative participation, by urban interest groups, contribute to ecological, social, and economic sustainability in the SeFC policy-making process?
The Process First, it is necessary to assess what level of communicative participation occurred. As was mentioned above there was very little widespread communicative-public participation. Therefore, the communicative participation that took place was deep, but not wide. The results of the research strongly indicate that the process: engaged Advisory Group participants (referred to as participants from here on) in long-term involvement; addressed objective issues quite well; employed productive and efficient facilitation; brought participants to mutually understand each other; followed the principles of civil discourse; and generated information that participants accepted as accurate. Research results found that the process met the following criteria somewhat 349
successfully: inclusiveness; equal opportunity for participation; participants could challenge basic assumptions; full and deep discourse preceded consensus (informal consensus); the process was open, participatory, and relatively transparent; and powerful participants freely shared information. The results regarding power impartiality indicate that power played a significant role in the SeFC process: participants power, or powerlessness affected the process; powerful participants engaged in strategic action outside of the process; and powerful participants had somewhat more influence than others, some of whom were very capable in wielding network power. According to the research, the process did not meet the following criteria very well: the process goals were not set in a very open and transparent fashion; the setting of ground-rules, tasks, and objectives was largely out of the hands of participants; and while there was an opportunity to suggest a facilitator, the participants were not free to suggest who the facilitator would be, or a method of facilitation. The research found that the process did not address social, or subjective issues very well at all. Despite these several criteria that were not met, most of the criteria were met quite well or somewhat. Therefore, for the most part, the SeFC process was quite a reasonably good communicative participation process. This communicative participation was deep and long, but it was not wide. It was more like the upper Fraser River than the wide delta of the Nile. We now move on to consider if this communicative participation resulted in increased sustainable urban development.
The Outcome The research indicates that the SeFC policy has made, and continues to make, a valuable contribution to the general movement towards sustainable urban development in Vancouver. The policy has moved standard development towards sustainable urban development. The policy includes substantive sections that: increased ecological sustainability markedly; include specific indicators for monitoring (even though they were not officially adopted by City Council); fostered flexible and networked practices, within the institutional framework of the City and the wider policy community; led to second order effects; facilitates a process that reduces costs and 350
generates benefits; prominently features creative and adaptive ideas; can be implemented; and that are based on sufficient commitment to ensure implementation. The policy achieved somewhat more moderate success regarding the following criteria: the policy increases representativeness somewhat; the adoption of the policy ended stalemate and went some distance in terms of reducing conflict; and the policy provides a partial fit between participants needs and the future actions it recommends, the lack of capacity to meet social participants needs is notable. The policy was an even more middling success in terms of laying the groundwork for economic sustainability, and providing a governing framework. The policy contains no contingency planning, or any calls for it. The policy was found to be quite lacking regarding social sustainability. The lack of substantial progress towards social sustainability led to the policy being less fair and beneficial for all members of society, although it is somewhat beneficial for all. The research found that, as a result of the weak social sustainability indicated, the policy did not meet all participants needs. Therefore, the policy moved markedly towards ecological sustainability, marginally towards economic sustainability, and was lacking significant forward movement in terms of social sustainability, although social sustainability is given more consideration than in previous policy statements. O Riordan and Voiseys (1998) concept of weak sustainability would best describe the level of sustainability achieved in SeFC (see section 3.2.1). The SeFC policy was formally adopted by the City, and has required somewhat new institutional arrangements for implementation. There is a reasonable commitment to using economic instruments for sustainability, and a significant amount of reinvestment for sustainability. In terms of public awareness, there has been broader public education, however, partnerships with educational institutions and the local community have been lacking. Regarding public participation there has been communicative participation by interested parties on an Advisory Group, and consistent local City Council surveilance and support. The SeFC process and policy meets most of the criteria for weak sustainability. 351
In conclusion, the somewhat narrow, but deep communicative participation process in the SeFC case moved towards sustainable urban development, more so in terms of ecological sustainability, less so regarding economic sustainability, and the least movement was found towards social sustainability. Thus the lack of focus on social sustainability in the process, and the deficiency of communicative-public participation, is reflected in the outcome of the process: the policy. Generally, on the other hand, the SeFC process did lead towards greater sustainable urban development in Vancouver, and an elevation of awareness of its importance in the development policy community. It is also pertinent to note that the link found between communicative participation and sustainable urban development is not dependent on the strong sustainability lens used to analyze sustainability in this case study. The particular model of strong sustainability that is drawn upon adds educational value, but it does not have to be assumed in order to reach the conclusion that there is a linkage between good communicative participation processes and improved sustainable outcomes. As was discussed in the introduction, other development processes, privately intiated, such as Davis, California, or with limited participation, as in the development of South False Creek in Vancouver, have accomplished the goal of increased sustainable urban development. There are different ways to achieve sustainability outcomes, this specific case provides an example of what effective communicative action planning can and cannot accomplish in an ongoing iterative planning process.
12.2 The Southeast False Creek Case Study and Communicative Action Theory This section addresses how well the SeFC Case study fared overall, in terms of the assertions made for communicative action theory. The claims for the benefits of communicative action theory, and communicative participation are many. Key ones introduced in chapter two are discussed in turn. Communicative action theory has raised inclusion as one possible tool to address the 352
manifold differences (based on class, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation), that postmodern theorists validly argue have an effect on the power and effectiveness of participants partaking in planning processes in contemporary societies (see section 2.1). The Southeast False Creek case, unfortunately failed to address racial issues, simply as a result of the fact that most of the members of the Advisory Group were drawn from the charter European settlement segment of the population. Planning theorists, such as Umemoto (2001) and Sandercock (1998), work, on how to engage in transcultural planning, needs to be drawn upon to improve this aspect of communicative action in practice. In terms of class-based issues, the fact that social sustainability (equality, community capacity, and urbanity) was only marginally addressed, in this specific case study, adds weight to Laurias (1995) criticism of communicative action theory practiced in a vacuum that ignores power relations in the political economic framework. For communicative participation exercises to be more fruitful in sustainability planning, the many issues surrounding social sustainability must be allocated the same standing as ecological sustainability, and mechanisms to compensate for power differentials need to be created and implemented. This speaks volumes about the main weakness of communicative action theory, it alone may not be sufficient to address these pressing issues of inequality in power, both political and economic. Power neutrality remains the bane of communicative planning theorys existence. However, broader structural change drawing on other theory, political economic theory (e.g. Lauria, 1995), progressive planning theory (Forester, 1989), or mobilization theory (e.g. Friedmann, 1987), may be required to design or build a societal context in which communicative participation can thrive, and move society farther down the path towards ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Aside from allusions to the colonization of the lifeworld by the economic and administrative subsystems, power is largely missing from Habemas communicative action framework. Power was found to have played an important role in this case study.
Communicative action, or participation, in its ideal form aspires to create processes that are 353
transparent (explicit and openly shared purpose, and openly determined planning time-lines are set and followed), and provide equal opportunity for participation (equal opportunity to participate, set ground rules, and choose a facilitator; equal access to information; allowance for challenging basic assumptions; and attention to objective, normative, and subjective issues) (Habermas, 1984; and Innes, 1999). Regarding transparency, the SeFC case allowed for a reasonably open process, but one that was not as transparent as communicative action theory normatively demands. This is likely a reflection of the entrenched, sometimes seemingly invisible hand of the administrative and economic subsystems in setting out processes, such as the one in SeFC. This is not necessarily conspiratorial, or even explicitly stated, it is fundamentally structural in nature. An administrative City-state governed by elected representatives who are drawn from and represent the interests of large development, financial, real estate and property, and other business interests, sets out a development planning process that facilitates the status quo, with the primary goal of urban development being the drive to short-term profit. In terms of communicative action theorys clarion call for processes that cover objective, social, and subjective issues, the SeFC case highlights the nature of some of these planning processes which tend to have a drift towards discourse which is based mainly on objective issues (mostly technical in nature). Social and subjective issues inherently seep into the mostly objective, technical discourse, however, social and subjective issues are rarely given the same scope, resources, and time allotment during the process. Nonetheless, the success of the SeFC communicative process in creating dialogic space, and quite strong policy, for ecological sustainability, is a signpost of hope on the path to sustainability. Hopefully, on the basis of this previous opening up of planning processes for stronger consideration of ecological sustainability, a subsequent enlarging of these processes will occur that allows for consideration of normative social issues (social sustainability), and subjective issues (aesthetic and emotional issues)(Habermas, 1984). Then perhaps communicative participation can become one tool in a whole suite of policy-making and planning tools to increase equality, community capacity, and urbanity in urban planning and development. 354
Proponents of communicative action theory in planning (e.g. Forester, Innes, and Healey) and the prime originator of the theory, Habermas, note the importance of mutual understanding (engaging in civil discourse -mutual respect, and sufficient time to learn about the other participants worldviews and interests; and consensus based on full and deep discourse). Although there are usually some participants and observers that note that communicative processes could be fuller, deeper, and more consensual, the degree of consensus in the SeFC case study, where consensus was not an explicitly stated goal, was quite high for this long-term process. Adherents to communicative action theory in planning assert that there is a trade-off between the costs of communicative planning processes (human resources -paid and in-kind; financial resources; and time-based resources) and the increased quality of the final product of these processes (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001). Though the SeFC communicative planning process seemed to take a disproportionate amount of time and resources, at least to some of the participants, there were others who noted that not enough time and resources were allocated. The very real constraints of time and financial resources have to be taken into account for communicative participation processes, however, one should not approach these democratic processes with too sharp of a pencil. If the argument of cost-effectiveness and efficiency is taken too far, then one could fall into the trap of arguing that we can no longer afford democratic processes (this has surfaced somewhat in the cost savings of reducing funding to maintain voters lists of all Canadians). These communicative planning processes must remain transparently, and fiscally accountable to both the level of government they are conducted under, and to the citizens of each City, Region, province or state, and nation-state. Regarding fiscal costs in the SeFC case study, a significant amount went to a development consultant, and far less resources were allocated for the sustainability consultants, and planning staff time. Further work needs to be conducted on a comparison of planning resources, process versus technical costs, and policy or planning outcomes. Communicative action theory is a very powerful and promising strain of planning theory, however, it only goes so far. It needs supplementation, revision, and extension. Communicative 355
action theory could be supplemented by being complemented by political economic analysis (Lauria, 1995). Communicative action theory often ignores the constraints of power. Power plays a significant role as those with a Foucauldian approach assert (Flyvberg, 1998 and 2000; and Fischler, 2000). However, one can plan in the face of this power, and change can take place in its shadow.
12.3 The Thesis Contribution to the Planning Literature Communicative planning is heralded by many planning theorists as a new paradigm for planning (Forester, 1989 and 1999; and Innes, 1995). This thesis adds to the growing amount of research and literature on communicative planning by providing in-depth research of a case study, which relied on communicative planning techniques in an ongoing, iterative process that spanned several years. Forester (1999) highlights the importance of specific, fine-grained planning stories, the SeFC planning story draws out qualitative information which adds to the growing body of communicative planning cases. The thesis contributes to the works of academic literature analyzing the outcome of communicative planning processes. Several scholars have noted that this type of analysis is in short supply (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2001; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; and Margerum, 2002). Beierle and Cayford, for instance, point out that more research on implementation is needed (2002, p. 76). Given that the thesis considers the first phase of the development process, policy implementation, it begins to address this lack of research on implementation. The SeFC case study also provides an example of a sustainable urban development process and policy implementation. The sustainable urban development literature is often normative, and contains many significant and relevant examples of sustainability (Roseland et. al, 1998; Newman, 1998; and Blake, 1999; Selman and Parker, 1999; and Counsell, 1999). The thesis helps to increase knowledge about sustainable urban development, and contributes to this literature. It also augments the literature on social sustainability (Agyeman and Evans, 2002; Counsell, 1999; Eckerberg and Forsberg, 1998; Kline, 2000, and 1997; Kranz and Silva, 1998; Roseland et al., 356
1998; World Bank, 1995; and Yiftachel and Hedgecock, 1993). The thesis builds on Yiftachel and Hedgecocks (1993) framework for social sustainability (equality, community capacity, and urbanity) by adopting this framework and adding work to further flesh it out. Forester (1999) and Reardon (1993 and 1998) note the importance of engaging in action research in certain planning contexts. The thesis also contributes to the action research literature by providing an iterative reflection on planning practice, while it also draws on other methods (document analysis and interview methods). The thesis makes a significant contribution to communicative action theory by attempting to analyze a case study that put communicative action theory into practice. The analysis helps to test communicative action theory, and develops a deeper understanding of communicative participation planning processes. The thesis may also contribute, in a small way, to planning practice through the recommendations that are made to improve planning practice. The work on the political economic context provides a start towards supplementing and revising communicative action planning theory.
12.4 Suggestions for Future Research
Specific to the Case Study Outside of the limited number of participants that were interviewed for the case study there exist two groupings of people whose attitudes should be researched regarding the SeFC process and outcome, and sustainable urban development in general, those in the policy community who were involved at some stages and those of the wider public. Quantitative interview methods, using a more succinct array of the criteria used in this qualitative study, should be utilized to assess the attitudes of a randomly selected sample of those involved in the wider SeFC process (the contact lists of the City, and the SeFC Working Group could be drawn upon for this). A random, statistically significant sample of the residents of Vancouver should be surveyed to 357
ascertain awareness of the SeFC process and of sustainability in general. Also, more participatory action research, versus the basic action research that was completed for this thesis, should be done during the implementation phases of the SeFC case study (the Official Development Plan, the rezoning, and the actual building development phase). There is also a significant opportunity to leam about communicative participation by continuing this study through the subsequent development phases.
General Research There were some other sustainability projects in Vancouvers Region that occurred before, or concurrently to the SeFC process (e.g. Simon Fraser Universitys UniverCity project). Comparative research across these cases, and other sustainable urban development cases, nationally and globally, should be conducted. The comparative studies that involve other jurisdictions should focus on the jurisdictional, institutional, and cultural differences in the contexts of the cases. The elements and influence of power and power relationships should be covered in the research. Research should be carried out with a focus on the relationship between communicative participation and the outcome of the process, and analyses of the progress towards sustainable urban development. This research could address questions such as: Were the processes communicative? Was the outcome more sustainable? Is the sustainability of the projects, or programs being monitored? Are the more sustainable processes, policies, and practices being transferred to other processes and projects? Action research, and participatory action research should be drawn upon in upcoming sustainability processes, such as the Greater Vancouver Regional Districts sustainable development initiative, as sustainability is a direction that guides society on the path towards it, rather than a fixed end point.
358
EPILOGUE Throughout the summer and fall of 2000 the Southeast False Creek (SeFC) Advisory Group held a series of meetings and transformed itself into the SeFC Stewardship Group. This Stewardship Group is in the process of advising planners and other City staff on incorporating sustainability targets (such as a reduction in automobile use, and reductions in energy use) into the Official Development Plan for the sustainable community. The SeFC Working Group is well represented on the Stewardship Group, and continues to advocate for stronger social sustainability (greater citizen participation, and an increase in the amount of affordable housing), and ecological sustainability. The SeFC Working Group held several phases of a Citizens Design Charrette during the year 2000. One of the most significant details of the Citizens Design Charrette is that all of the land use plans that came out of this citizen-run, participatory process are pedestrian-oriented, and feature car free residential areas. In these car free areas, a greatly reduced amount of parking is provided at the edge of the community. This citizen participation has resulted in the Planning Department, Engineering Department and the development consultants shifting towards considering the inclusion of at least a few car free streets in the SeFC planning area. The SeFC Working Group continues it work as of writing. The main efforts of this group over the 2000 to 2004 period included two more on site sustainability fairs, and the opening and running of an on site sustainability outreach office. This outreach office was moderately successful, in that the SeFC Working Groups contact list grew by about one third, and the office, and other outreach activities, raised the profile of the SeFC planning process somewhat. The SeFC Working Group is also advising Designers for Social Responsibility on their Official Development Plan review workshop. The SeFC planning process has continued at a good pace. The preparatory phase for drafting an Official Development Plan (ODP) included the completion of water, transportation, energy, urban agriculture, and community facilities reports (over the course of 2001-2003). A consultant merged these reports into a single report that informed the preparation of the ODP. The SeFC Stewardship Group reviewed and recommended additions and changes to all of these reports. While this preparation was being completed, the SeFC planning area was selected as one of the sites for housing athletes for the Vancouver/Whistler 2010 Olympics, which was granted to Vancouver by the International Olympic Committee in the spring of 2003. The 2010 Olympics may increase the ecological sustainability somewhat, however, it also freezes a significant part of the City-owned lands (50 out 80 acres) from being developed for security and surface parking for the Olympic athletes, officials, and media personnel. On the other hand, the 2010 Olympic Bid book contains a significant commitment from the federal and provincial governments for social housing (roughly 250 units). 359
Another significant change occurred in the November 2002 civic election. The NPA was ousted from power by COPE. COPE won the mayoral and eight out of ten City Councillor seats on Vancouvers City Council. COPE also won significant majorities on Parks Board and School Board. The new local government at Vancouvers City Hall is reflected in an opening up to the public in the SeFC process. The Planning Department held many public events after the public release of the ODP: a Kick Off event on May 24, 2003; a Park Forum on May 31, 2003; a Sustainability Forum on June 12, 2003; a professional Urban Design Workshop on June 17, 2003; an Urban Design Forum on June 18, 2003; and a wrap-up Open House on July 19, 2003. The SeFC Stewardship Group was consulted on this ambitious communicative participation process. The fall of 2003 has been spent revising the SeFC ODP on the basis of the input received over the summer of 2003. After a few more monthly SeFC Stewardship Group meetings, and many internal meetings within City Hall, the revised version of the SeFC ODP is to be released on February 15,2004, and will go before City Council for approval in the spring or summer of 2004.1 continue to tread the path of sustainability, as a member of the SeFC Stewardship Group, the Coordinator of the SeFC Working Group, and as a researcher.
360
REFERENCES 1) Communicative Action and Public Participation Abbott, J. (1996). Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Management. London: Earthscan. Abram, S. A. (2000). Planning the public: Some comments on empirical problems for planning theory. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 19, 351-357. Albrechts, L. (2002). The planning community reflects on enhancing public involvement: Views from academics and reflective practitioners. Planning Theory and Practice, 3, (3) 331-347. Alexander, C. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. Alexander, D. H. M. (1994). Planning as learning: The education o f citizen activists. Unpublished dissertation, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON. Alexander, D. H. M. (2000). The best so far. Alternatives, 26, (3), (Summer), Amstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal o f the American Institute o f Planners, 35, (3), 216-224. Barber, B.R. (1998) A Place fo r Us: How To Make Society Civil and Democracy Strong. New York: Hill and Wang. Beierle, T.C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Booher, D. E. & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 21, 221-236. Brand, A. (1990). The Force O f Reason : An Introduction to Habermas' Theory o f Communicative Action. Boston : Allen & Unwin. Brennis, K. & M Gonigle, M. (1991). Public participation: components of the process. Environments 21. (3). Burbidge, J. (1997). Beyond Prince and Merchant: Citizen Participation and the Rise o f Civil Society. New York: Pact Publications. Calhoun, C., Ed. (1992). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 361
Chess, C. & Purcell, K. (1998). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology, 33 16. Christiansen-Ruffman, L., & Stewart, B. (1977). Actors and processes in citizen participation: negative aspects of reliance on professionals. In Barry Sadler (Ed.), Involvement and Environment: Proceedings o f the Canadian Conference on Public Participation, 1, (pp. 77-102). Edmonton, AB: Environmental Council of Alberta. Clement, W., Ed. (1997). Understanding Canada: Building on the New Canadian Political Economy, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press. Clow, M. (1992). Round tables taken with a grain of salt. Alternatives, 19, (Sept./Oct.). Coleman, D., & Skogstad, G. (1990). Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada : A Structural Approach. Mississauga, ON: Copp Clark Pitman. Commission on Resources and Environment. (1994a). A sustainability act for British Columbia provincial land use strategy, Volume 1. Victoria: Commission on Resources and Environment. Commission on Resources and Environment. (1994b). Public participation - provincial land use strategy, Volume 3. Victoria: Commission on Resources and Environment. Cunningham, F. (1987). Democratic Theory and Socialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dabelko, D. & Weinberg, M. (1984). Citizen participation in policy making. Humboldt Journal o f Social Relations, 11, (2), (Spring/Summer), 28-39. Dorcey, A.H.J. (1997). Collaborating towards sustainability together: The Fraser Basin Management Board and Program. In Shrubsole, D. and Mitchell, B. (eds.) Practising Sustainable Water Management: Canadian and International Experiences. Cambridge, ON: Canadian Water Resources Association. Dorcey, A.H.J. (2002). Sustainability governance: Surfing the waves of transformation. Retrieved from http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/dorcey/tony/thirdwave.html Dorcey, A.H.J. & McDaniels, T. (2001). Great expectations, mixed results: Trends in citizen involvement in Canadian environmental governance. In Parson, E. A. (Ed.), Governing the Environment: Persistent Challenges, Uncertain Innovations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 362
Dorcey, A.H.J., Doney, L. & Rueggeberg, H. (1994). Public involvement in government decision making: choosing the right model. Victoria: BC Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
Draper, J.A. (1978). Evolution of citizen participation in Canada. In Sadler, B. (Ed.) Involvement and the environment, 1. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Duffy, D., Hallgren, L., Parker, Z., Penrose, R., & Roseland, M. (1998). Improving the shared decision-making model: an evaluation o f public participation in land and resource management planning (LRMP) in British Columbia. Volumes 1 and 2, Department of Geography and The School of Resource and Environmental Management. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University. Dunleavy, P. & OTeary, B. (1987). Theories o f the State: the Politics o f Liberal Democracy. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.. Dyck, R. (1993). Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada. Eckerberg, K., & Forsberg, B. (1998). Implementing Agenda 21 in local government: the Swedish experience. Local Environment, 3, (3). Environment Canada (1975). Monograph on Comprehensive River Basin Planning. Ottawa: Information Canada. Fien, J. & Skoien, P. (2002). I m learning... How you go about stirring things up -in a consultative manner: Social capital and action competence in two community catchment groups. Local Environment, 7, (3), 269-282. Fischler, R. (2000). Communicative planning theory: A Foucauldian assessment. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 19, 358-368. Fisher, R. & W. Ury (1981). Getting To Yes: Reaching Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2000). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? British Journal o f Sociology. 49, 210-233. 363
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researchers praxis story. Journal o f Planning Education and Research. 21, 353-366. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face o f Power. Berkley: University of California Press. Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Fraser, N. (1991) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gardner, J. E. (1991). Environmental non-government organisations and the management of the aquatic environment for sustainable development. In Dorcey, A.H.J., (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, The University of British Columbia. Gramsci, A. (1994). Letters From Prison. New York: University Press. Grengs, J. (2002). Community-based planning as a source of political change: The transit equity movement of Los Angeles Bus Riders Union. Journal o f the American Planning Association, 68, (2), 165-178. Gutstein, D. (1975) Vancouver, Ltd. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory o f Communicative Action (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation o f the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category o f Bourgeois Society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1995). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (C. Lenhardt & S. Weber Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Hardwick, W. (1994). Responding to the 1960s: Designing adaptable communities in Vancouver. Environment and Behavior, 26, 338-62.
364
Hasson, S. & Ley D. (1994). Neighbourhood Organizations and the Welfare State. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Healey, P. (1992). A planners day: knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal o f the American Planning Association, Winter, 9-20. Higgins, D. J.H. (1986). Local and Urban Politics in Canada. Toronto: Gage Educational Publishing Company. Hoberg, G. & Harrison, K. (1994). It's not easy being green: The politics of Canada's green plan. Canadian Public Policy, 20, 119-137. Honneth, A. & Joas, H. (1991). Communicative Action: Essays on Jurgen Habermas's The Theory o f Communicative Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Howlett, M. (1990). The round table experience: representation and legitimacy in Canadian environmental policy-making. Queens Quarterly, 97, (4), 580-601. Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Huxley, M. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 19, 369-377. Huxley, M. & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 19, 333-342. Ingram, D. (1993). The limits and possibilities of communicative ethics for democratic theory. Democratic Theory, 21, (2), 294-321. Innes, J. (1995). Planning theorys emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 14, (3), 183-189. Innes, J. (1999). Evaluating consensus building. In Susskind, L., McKeaman, S., & ThomasLarmer, J. (Eds.). The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Innes, J. & Booher, D.E. (1999). Consensus building as role-playing and bricolage: Towards a theory of collaborative planning. Journal o f the American Planning Association, 65, (1), 926.
365
Jones, K. (2000). Planning, representation, and the production of space in Lexington, Kentucky. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 19, 379-388. Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., & Berger, D. (1996). Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Knight, B., Chigudu, H. & Tandon, R. (2002). Reviving Democracy: Citizens at the Heart o f Governance. London: Earthscan. Kranz, P. & Silva, N.L.A. (1998). Radical dreams coming through: Local Agenda 21 and the participative budget. Local Environment, 3, (2). Laird, F.N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy and technological decision making. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18, (3). Lauria, M. (1995). Planning theory and political economy: A symposium. Planning Theory, 15, 3-115. Ley, D. (1980). Liberal ideology and the postindustrial City. Annals o f the Association o f American Geographers, 70, 238-58. Ley, D. (1987) "Styles of the times: liberal and neo-conservative landscapes in inner Vancouver, 1968-1986" Journal of Historical Geography 13: 40-56 Ley, D. & K. Olds (1988). Landscape as spectacle. Society and Space, 6, 191-212. Lucas, A. R. (1978). Fundamental prerequisites for citizen participation. In B. Sadler (Ed.), Involvement and the environment. Volume 1. Edmonton, AB: Environment Council of Alberta. Margerum, R.D. (2002). Evaluating collaborative planning: Implications from an empirical analysis of growth management. Journal o f the American Planning Association, 68, (2), 179-193. Margerum, R.D. (2002b). Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 21, 237-253. McAfee, A. (1997). When theory meets practice - Citizen participation in planning. Plan Canada, 37, (3), 18-22. McLaverty, P. (Ed.) (2002). Public Participation and Innovations in Community Governance. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. 366
Mills, C.A. (1988). Life on the upslope: The postmodern landscape of gentrification. Society and Space, 6, 169-189. Moore, C.M., Longo, G., & Palmer, P. (1999). Visioning. In Susskind, L., McKeaman, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (Eds.), The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (1993). Building consensus fo r a sustainable future: Guiding principles. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (1996). Building consensus fo r a sustainable future: putting principles into practice. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Neuman, M. (2000). Communicate this! Does consensus lead to advocacy and pluralism? Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 19, 343-350. O'Riordan, T. & Voisey, H. (Eds.)(1998). The Transition to Sustainability: The Politics o f Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan. Plotke, D. (1989). Marxism and democratic theory. Political Theory, Summer. Pross, A.P. (1992). Group Politics and Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Riera, B., Fletcher, T., & McAfee, A. (1993). New partnerships, new directions: Vancouvers CityPlan. Plan Canada, November. Rocha, E.M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 17, 31-44. Roseland, M., Cureton. M., & Womell, H. (1998). Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources fo r Citizens and their Governments. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Rousseau, J. (1967). The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin o f Inequality. New York: Washington Square Press. Sager, T. (2002). Deliberative planning and decision making: An impossibility result. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 21, 367-378.
367
Seelig, M., & Seelig, J. (1997). CityPlan: Participation or abdication? Plan Canada, 37, (3), 1822 . Sharp, L. (2002). Public participation and policy: Unpacking connections in one UK Local Agenda21 .LocalEnvironment, 7, (1), 7-22. Sewell, W.R.D. (1975). Public involvement. In Environment Canada, Monograph on Comprehensive River Basin Planning. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Skollerhorn, E. (1998). Habermas and nature: the theory of communicative action for studying environmental policy. Journal o f Environmental Planning and Management, 41, (5), 555573. Susskind, L., McKeaman, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tester, F .J. (1992). Reflections on Tin Wis: Environmentalism and the evolution of public participation in Canada. Alternatives, 19, (1), 34-41. Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies fo r Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Umemoto, K. (2001). Walking in anothers shoes: epistemological challenges in participatory planning. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 21, 17-31. Walker, P. (1998). Participation works! Local Environment, 3, (3). Webler, T. (1995). Right discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Renn, 0., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P.M. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models fo r Environmental Discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Williams, B.A. & Matheny, A.R. (1995). Democracy, Dialogue and Environmental Disputes: The Contested Language o f Social Regulation. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Wintrop, N. (2000). Democratic Theory as Public Philososphy: The Alternative to Ideology and Utopia. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. World Bank. (1996). The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington, DC: The World Bank. 368
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press. Wurth, A.H. (1992). Public participation in technological decisions: A new Model. Bulletin o f Science, Technology and Society, 12, (6), 289-293. 2) Sustainable Urban Development Action Towards Local Sustainability (1999, July). Retreived July 1, 1999 from http://www.sustainability.org.uk/info/atozlist/atoztransport.htm (website -UK) Agyeman, Julian and Bob Evans (2002) Environmental quality and human equality, Local Environment, 7, (1), 5-6. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns - Buildings Construction. New York: Oxford University Press. Are we stronger as 21 cities? Or as one? (2001, March 31). [Editorial] The Vancouver Sun, p. A22. Arnold, C.L. & Gibbons, C.J. (1996). Impervious surface coverage- the emergence of a key environmental indicator. American Planning Association Journal, Spring, 243-258. Berke, P.R. (2002). Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Journal o f Planning Literature, 17, (1), August, 21-36. Barton, H. (1998). Eco-neighbourhoods: a review of projects. Local Environment, 3, (2). Bates, D. (1996). Sustaining clean air. In P.J. Smith, H.P. Oberlander & T. Hutton (Eds.), Urban Solutions to Global Problems. Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlements, UBC & Institute of Governance Studies, SFU. Ben-Joseph, E. (1995). Changing the residential street scene: adapting the Shared Street (Woonerf) concept to the suburban environment. American Planning Association Journal\ Autumn, 504-515. Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the value-action gap in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4, (3).
369
Boeckh, I., Christie, V.S., Dorcey, A.H.J., & Rueggeberg, H.I. (1991). Human settlement in the Fraser River basin. In A.H.J. Dorcey (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, The University of British Columbia. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (BCRTEE). (1993). Sustainability: from ideas to action. Victoria, BC: BCRTEE. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (BCRTEE). (1994). State o f sustainability: urban sustainability and containment. Victoria, BC: BCRTEE. Brown, L.R., Flavin, C., & French, H. (1999). State o f the World 1999: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Burman, D. (1997). Enhancing community health promotion with local currencies: The local employment and trading system (LETS). In M. Roseland (Ed.) Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, just cities, growing cities? Journal o f the American Planning Association, 62, (3), 296-312. Counsell, D. (1999). Attitudes to sustainable development in planning: policy integration, participation and Local Agenda 21, a case study of the Hertfordshire Structure Plan. Local Environment, 4,{ 1). Crilly, M., Mannis, A., & Morrow, K. (1999). Indicators for change: Taking a lead. Local Environment, 4, (2). Daly, H.E. & Cobb, J.B. (1989). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press. Daly, H.E. (1996). Beyond Growth: The Economics o f Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press. Dorcey, A.H.J., & McDaniels, T. (2001). Great expectations, mixed results: trends in citizen involvement in Canadian environmental governance. In E.A. Parson (Ed.), Governing the Environment: Persistent Challenges, Uncertain Innovations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Douglass, M. & Friedmann, J. (1998). Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise o f Civil Society in a Global Age. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 370
Durham, T. (1993). Birth of the eco-computer. New Scientist, 140, (1897). Engwicht, D. (1993). Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living with Less Traffic. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers. Eckerberg, K. & Forsberg, B. (1998). Implementing Agenda 21 in local government: the Swedish experience. Local Environment, 3., (3). Ferguson, K.D., & Hall, K.J. (1979). Fraser River estuary study water quality- stormwater discharges. Vancouver, BC: Government of Canada. Foxon, T.J., Leach, M., Butler, D., Dawes, J., Hutchinson, D., Pearson, P., & Rose D. (1999). Useful indicators of urban sustainability: some methodological issues. Local Environment. 4, (2). Gardner, J. E. (1991). Environmental non-government organisations and the management of the aquatic environment for sustainable development. In A.H.J Dorcey (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, The University of British Columbia. Gibson, R.B., Alexander, D.H.M., & Tomalty, R. (1997). Putting cities in there place: ecosystem-based planning for Canadian urban Regions. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Gunton, T.I. (1979). The ideas and policies of the Canadian planning profession, 1909-1931. In A.F.J. Artibise, & G.A. Stelter (Eds.), The Usable Urban Past: Planning and Politics in the Modern Canadian City. Toronto: Macmillan. Gutteridge, H. & Davey Pty. Ltd. & the Environment Protection Authority of Victoria (1981). Characterisation o f Pollution in Urban Stormwater Runoff. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Hancock, T. (1997). Healthy, sustainable communities: concept, fledgling practice, and implications for governance. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Harbor, J.M. (1994). A practical method for estimating the impact of land use change on surface runoff, groundwater recharge and wetland hydrology. Journal o f the American Planning Association, Winter, 95-108.
371
Hasson, S. & Ley, D. (1994). Neighbourhood Organizations and the Welfare State. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Healey, M.C. (1997). Fraser Basin ecosystem study, final report: Prospects fo r sustainability. Vancouver, BC: West Water Research Centre. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Higgins, D.J.H. (1986). Local and Urban Politics in Canada. Toronto: Gage Educational Publishing Company. Hutton, T. (1996). A socio-economic profile of metropolitan Vancouver. In P.J. Smith, H.P. Oberlander & T. Hutton (Eds.), Urban Solutions to Global Problems. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Settlements, UBC and Institute of Governance Studies, SFU. Johnson, C.D. & Kramer, J.M. (1996). Sustainable development and social development: necessary partners for the future. Journal o f Sociology and Social Welfare, 23, (1), 75-91. Keating, M. (1997). Canada and the State o f the Planet: The Social, Economic and Environmental Trends that are Shaping Our Lives. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Kline, E. (1997). Sustainable community indicators: how to measure progress. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Kline, E. (2000). Planning and creating eco-cities: indicators as a tool for shaping development and measuring progress. Local Environment, 5, (3). Kranz, P. & Silva, N.L.A. (1998). Radical dreams coming through: local Agenda 21 and the participative budget. Local Environment, 3, (2). Leitman, J. (1999). Can City quality of life indicators be objective and relevant? Towards a participatory tool for sustaining urban development. Local Environment, 4, (2). Litman, T. (1999). Parking requirement impacts on housing affordability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved 4 April 1999: htttp:www.islandnet.com/~litman Lotz, S .J. (1995). Using the stage model o f collaboration theory to guide the establishment and operations o f community round tables. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
372
Maestri, B., Dorman, M.E., & Hartigan, J. (1989). Managing pollution from highway storm water runoff. Transportation Research Record, 15-21. Mortimer, N.D., Kellet, J.E., & Grant, J.F. (1997). Municipal initiatives for promoting the use of municipal energy. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Newman, P. (1997). Greening the City: The ecological and human dimensions of the City can be part of town planning. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Newman, P. (1998). From symbolic gesture to the mainstream: next step in local urban sustainability. Local Environment, 3, (3). Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability And Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependency. Washington, DC: Island Press. Nozick, M. (1992). No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development. OHara, S.U. (1995). Sustainability: social and ecological dimensions. Review o f Social Economy, 53, (4), 529-551. O'Riordan, T. & Voisey, H. (1998). The Transition to Sustainability: The Politics o f Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan. Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal o f Democracy, 6,
( 1), 1- 10 .
Rees, W.E., & Walker, L.A. (1997). Urban density and ecological footprints: an analysis of Canadian households. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Roseland, Mark (1992) Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for Municipal and Local Governments. (National Round Table Series on Sustainable Development). Roseland, M., Cureton. M., & Womell, H. (1998). Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources fo r Citizens and their Governments. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Safdie, M. (1998). The City After the Automobile: An Architect s Vision. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd.. 373
Sandercock, L. (1998). Toward Cosmopolis: Planning fo r Multicultural Cities. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Saunders, T. (1997). Ecology and community design: lessons from Northern European ecological communities. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Scheurer, J. (1999, July). Car-free housing in Europe: a new approach to sustainable residential development. Retrieved July 4, 1999 from http://wwwistp .murdoch. edu. au/research/carfree .html#CommProj Schreier, H., Brown, S.J., & Hall, K.J. (1991). The land-water interface in the Fraser River basin. In A.H.J. Dorcey, & J.R. Griggs (Eds.), Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia: Westwater Research Centre. Selman, P., & Parker, J. (1999). Tales of local sustainability. Local Environment, 4, (1). Smith, P.J., Oberlander, H.P., & Hutton T. (1996). Urban Solutions to Global Problems. Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlements, UBC and Institute of Governance Studies, SFU. Stirling, A. (1999). The appraisal of sustainability: some problems and possible responses. Local Environment, 4, (3). United States, Department of Energy, Center of Excellence in Sustainable Development (1999, July). Retrieved July 1, 1999, from http://www.sustainable.doe.gov Van Vliet, D.R. (1994). Sustainable subdivision planning and design: analysis, literature review and annotated bibliography. Winnipeg, MB: Institute of Urban Studies. Vigar, G. (2000). Local barriers to environmentally sustainable transport planning. Local Environment, 5, (1). Vodden, K. (1997). Working together for a green economy. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City Dimensions. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Wackemagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Willson, R.W. (1995). Suburban parking requirements: A tacit policy for automobile use and sprawl. Journal o f the American Planning Association, Winter, 29-42. 374
World Bank. (1995). World Bank participation sourcebook. Washington DC: World Bank. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yanarella, E.J. (1999). Local sustainability programmes in comparative perspective: Canada and the USA. Local Environment, 4, (1). Yiftachel, O., & Hedgcock, D. (1993). Urban social sustainability: the planning of an Australian City. Cities, 10, (2), 139-157. 3) Methods Alexander, D. H. M. (1994). Planning as learning: The education o f citizen activists. Unpublished dissertation, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON. Altrichter, H. (1989). Do we need an alternative methodology for doing alternative research? (work to be identified). Barnsley, J. & Ellis, D. (1992). Research fo r change: Participatory action research fo r community groups. Vancouver, BC: Womens Research Centre. Bernard, R. (1988). Participant observation. Research Methods in Anthropology, 137-165. Birdsall, C.T., Clifton, A.K., and Wood, M.F. (1992). Action research in planning housing for women. Journal o f Architectural and Planning Research, 9, (2), 149-157. Burgess, J. & Harrison, C.M. (1993). The circulation of claims in the cultural politics of environmental change. In A. Hansen (Ed.), The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. London: Leichester University Press. Cunningham, J.B. (1993). Action Research and Organizational Development. Westport, Conneticut: Praeger. Dahlgren, P. (1996). Cultural Studies as a research perspective: themes and tensions. In J. Comer, P. Schlesinger, & R. Silverstone (Eds.), International Media Research: a Critical Survey. New York: Routledge. Ervin, A.M. (1996). Collaborative and participatory research in urban social planning and restructuring: Anthropological experiences from a medium-sized Canadian City. Human Organization, 55, (3), 324-333. 375
Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Frideres, J.S. (Ed.) (1992). A World o f Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives. North York: Captus University Publications. Frideres, J.S., Fleising, U., Goldenburg, S., & DiSanto, J. (1992). Community participation: Natural resource development in rural Alberta. In J.S. Frideres (Ed.), A World o f Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives. North York: Captus University Publications. Gramsci, A. (1994). Letters From Prison. New York: University Press. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory o f Communicative Action (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation o f the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category o f Bourgeois Society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1995). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (C. Lenhardt & S. Weber Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Kemmis, S. (1996). Emancipatory aspirations in a postmodern era. In O. Zuber-Skerritt, (Ed.), New Directions in Action Research. London: Falmer Press. Lather, P. (1991). Getting Smart - Feminist Research and Pedagogy within the Postmodern. New York: Routledge. Martin, P.Y. & Turner, B. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157. Nelson, J.G. (1991). Research in human ecology and planning: an interactive, adaptive approach. Canadian Geographer, 35(2), 114-127 Reardon, K., Welsh, J., Kreiswirth, B., & Forester, J. (1993). Participatory action research from the inside: community development practice in East St. Louis. The American Sociologist, Spring. Reardon, K. (1998). Enhancing the capacity of community-based organizations in East St. Louis. Journal o f Planning Education and Research, 17(4), 323-333. 376
Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Schon, D.A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27, (6), 27-34. Scott, S.M. (1992). Personal change through participation in social action: a case study often social activists. Canadian Journal fo r the Study o f Adult Education, 6, (2), 47-64. Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Weisman, G.D. (1983). Environmental programming and action research. Environment and Behavior, 15, (3), 381-408. Winter, R. (1996). Some principles for the conduct of action research. In O. Zuber-Skerritt, (Ed.), New Directions in Action Research. London: Falmer Press. Whyte, W.F. (1995). Encounters with participatory action research. Qualitative Sociology, 18, (3), 289-299. Whyte, W.F. (1994). Participant Observer: An Autobiography. New York: ILR Press. Yin, R.K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). New Directions in Action Research. London: Falmer Press.
4) Southeast False Creek Alexander, D. H. M. & Griffiths, D.. Stolen land: a brief sketch of the First Nations use and occupation of False Creek, as exemplified by the village of Snauq. In D. Alexander (unpublished), False Creek past, present, and future: an anthology. Alexander, D. H. M. & Tomalty, R.. (2001). BC sprawl report 2001. Published by Smart Growth BC. Applebe, A. (1997, November 5). Historian urges City to recycle building into spectacular venue. The Vancouver Courier, p. 17. Applebe, A. (1998, March 18). Canrons demise, Salt Factorys gain. The Vancouver Courier, p .12. 377
Applebe, A. (1998, December 20). Urban site could be model for world: City eyes sustainable mini-City on waterfront site. The Vancouver Courier, p. 12. Battle over False Creek future. (1999, May 21). West End Times, p.l. Beers, D. (1998, September). Beyond tackyleakylandia with Southeast False Creek, Vancouver can redeem its urban planning sins (Or go straight to hell). Vancouver, 1998, pp. 76-80. Blore, S. (1998, June 25-July 2). The S word: Sustainable development may sound progressive, but does anyone know what it means? The Georgia Straight, pp.17-25. Blore, S. (1999, June 5). Betrayed by the prophet: Disillusioned by David Suzukis latest pronouncements, Shawn Blore senses an eco-generation gap widening. Its the doers vs. the doomsayers. The Vancouver Sun, pp.El-E2. Bose, B. (1996). Metropolitan governance and strategic planning in Greater Vancouver. In P.J. Smith, H.P. Oberlander & T. Hutton (Eds.), Urban Solutions to Global Problems. Vancouver: Centre forHuman Settlements, UBC, and Institute of Governance Studies, SFU. Bula, F. (1998, June 24). More Creek towers expected: Plans for the last undeveloped section of False Creek also include a natural shoreline and marshes. The Vancouver Sun, p.A3. Bula, F. (2000, May 3). Moves to transform False Creek flats take major step forward. The Vancouver Sun, p.Bl. Cathcart, C. (1998, July 3). Cowie proposes park. West End Times, p.l. City of Vancouver (1991). Central Area Plan: Goals and Land Use Policy. City of Vancouver (1995, October 26). Policy report: urban structure, the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. City of Vancouver (1996, July 30). City Plan: community visions, terms of reference. City of Vancouver (1996a, May 21). Administrative Report. Appointment of Development Consultant for the Southeast Shore of False Creek. City of Vancouver (1997, March 13). Office of the City Clerk, a letter outlining the decisions made by City Council on 13 March, 1997. City of Vancouver (1997, June 19). Office of the City Clerk, a letter outliningthe decisions made by City Council on 19 June 1997. City of Vancouver (1997, July). Vancouver Water Opportunities Advisory Group,. Blueways: 378
overview of the draft Blueways Document. City of Vancouver (1997a). Policy report: urban structure, the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. City of Vancouver (1997b). Memorandum 8206, City Clerk's Office. City of Vancouver (1997c, October 14). Administrative Report: Appointment of development consultant for the southeast shore of False Creek. City of Vancouver (1999). Southeast False Creek policy statement: Toward a sustainable neighbourhood and a major park in Southeast False Creek. City of Vancouver (1999b). Retrieved March 27, 2004 from http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/990721/sefc.htm Coppard, P. (1999, October 24). Controversy wont stop cleanup of creek site: Development opponents say economics not right for commercial housing. The Vancouver Courier, p .13. Cowie, A. (1999, August 7) [Letter to the editor]. False Creek impractical for housing. The Vancouver Sun , p.A22. Davis, J. (1998, July 9-16). [Letter to the editor]. The Georgia Straight, p. 7. Dobson, C. (1999, October 6). [Letter to the editor]. Planners incompatible roles serve interests of politicians. The Vancouver Courier. The EcoCafe (1997, August). The EcoCafe Sustainability Centre, an unpublished pamphlet. Environmental Youth Alliance (EYA)(1995, September). Community land proposal (submission to Vancouver City Council,). Environment Canada (1997, April). Sustainable Development Strategy. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Granger, J. & Kesterloo, A. (2003, February). LEED audit rport: South East False Creek project. City o f Vancouver. Greater Vancouver Regional District (2004). Retrieved 27 March, 2004, from http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/lrsp.htm
379
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
Hardwick, W. (1974). Vancouver. Collier-Macmillan: Don Mills, Ontario. Johnson, P. (1999, July 30). False Creek debate cools over summer. West End Times, pp. 1-3. Kong, G.C. (1997). Southeast False Creek: Council's next challenge, Social Change Institute pamphlet (published as a monograph). Krangle, K. (1999, October 20). Last portion of False Creek gets okay for housing, park. The Vancouver Sun, p.Al. Krangle, K. (1999, October 21). False Creek issue to add heat to election: Just after Council votes to turn the old industrial zone into high-density housing with a park, a pro-park group takes the NPA to task for its decision. The Vancouver Sun, p.A6. Kwok, S. (April 1997). Creekside landing: Southeast False Creek. For the Property Endowment Fund, City of Vancouver. Langara College (1997, September-December). Continuing studies: programs, courses and workshops. (Continuing studies calendar). Larsen, R. (1998, July 3). Green community proposal. West End Times, p.l. McCune, S. (1999, February 2). False Creek battlefield in Council-Parks Board scrap. The Province, p. A 14. Ministry of Community Aboriginal and Womens Services (2004), Government of British Columbia, Retrieved 27 March, 2004, from http://www.mcaws.gov.bc.ca/lgd/irpd/index.htm Mulgrew, I. (1999, July 13). Neighbours get say in False Creeks future. The Vancouver Sun, p.B l. Mulgrew, I. (1999, October 19). False Creek lands review pressed: A poll indicates little public awareness of the southeast shore issue and the majority want the decision delayed. The Vancouver Sun, pp.Al-A2. Oke, T.R., North, M. & Slaymaker, O. (1992). Primordial to primorder: A century of environmental change. In G.Wynn & T. Oke (Eds.), Vancouver and Its Region. Vancouver: University Press.
380
Phillips, R. (1993). The evolution of an urban village. CascadiaForum, 1, (1). Roseland, M. (1997, April 24). False Creeks 21st-century promise. The Vancouver Sun, OpEditorial page. Sheltair Group (1998). Visions, tools and targets: environmentally sustainable development for Southeast False Creek. Vancouver, BC: The Sheltair Group Inc.. Smith, C. (1998, June 11-18). City-lease increases may threaten model community. The Georgia Straight, p. 12. Smith, C. (1998, November 5-12). Man on a mission targets Concords sales tactics. The Georgia Straight, p.23. Sullivan, A. (1998, January 21). Series aims to sustain interest in social issues. The Vancouver Courier. Suzuki, D., Cholette, K., Blore, S., & Wilson, D. (1999, June 26). Battle of False Creek: Did David Suzuki, as Shawn Blore charged, betray the future of a green neighbourhood? Suzuki fires back along with representatives of the Southeast False Creek working group and the Parks Board. The Vancouver Sun, p. E8. Task Force on Atmospheric Change (1990). Clouds of change: Final report of the City of Vancouver task force on atmospheric change. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Timmer, D. (1996). Local environmental politics and the development of the southeast shore of False Creek (unpublished). Tromp, S. (1999, February 18-24). Parks vs. population: The Citys development vision for South East False Creek has critics crying, wheres the park space? Westender, p. 10. The Vancouver Sun: Last urban frontier: Council needs to understand its principles before abandoning them - or imposing them on False Creek. (1997, April 24). [Editorial]. The Vancouver Sun. Heart of the City: False Creek, most speakers back proposed development. (1998, March 11). The Vancouver Sun, p.Bl. Heart of the City: False Creek, removal of trees OKd to pave way for Indy. (1999, March 11) The Vancouver Sun, p.B 1. 381
Park, development can co-exist at creek: Reclaiming the lands of False Creek does not have to be an either-or proposition. In an area with too few parks, a new proposal includes parkland in the energy-efficient community. (1999, August 6). [Editorial]. The Vancouver Sun, p.A18. City Council strikes fair balance in shore decision. (1999, October 21). [Editorial]. The Vancouver Sun, p.A22. Ward, R. (1996, April 27). How we got railroaded. Vancouver Sun. Way, D. (1998, July 9-16). [Letter to the editor]. The Georgia Straight, p. 7. Will, G. (1998a, October 18). Race confirms Indy noise concerns: Race loud enough to cause temporary hearing impediment. The Vancouver Courier, p.6. Will, Gudrun (1998b, November 29). Parks Board wants green waterfront: City proposal too focused on housing, says chairman. The Vancouver Courier, p. 13. Wilson, D. (1999, August 13). [Letter to the editor]. West End Times, p. 5.
382
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
Appendix I: Interview Questions 1) Was the process for SeFC inclusive? a) Do you think it included all relevant and significant interests? b) Do you think the process engaged participants in long-term participation? c) Do you think all participants had an equal opportunity to participate? d) Do you think the process allowed participants the ability to set their own ground rules, tasks, objectives, and discussion topics? e) Do you think the process allowed participants to challenge basic assumptions? f) Do you think objective, or more economic, or scientific issues based on numbers, such as the amount of density, or waste, or energy used were addressed in the SeFC policy-making process? g) Do you think social issues, moral issues, issues such as fairness, affordable housing, were addressed in the SeFC process? h) What about subjective issues, like aesthetics, or issues of design? 2) Did the participants have an opportunity to suggest a facilitator, and a method for facilitation? a) Do you think the facilitation was productive and efficient? 3) Did participants come to understand each others interests and perspectives? 4) Do you think principles of civil discourse were followed? 5) Do you think full and deep discussion preceded consensus? 6) You would say that the process was open, participatory, and transparent? 7) Do you think participants power, or powerlessness affected the process at all? a) Do you think some powerful participants engaged in strategic action away from the table? b) Did participants with more economic, or administrative power freely share information with all participants? 383
c) Do you think participants accepted the information generated throughout the process as accurate? d) Do you think participants with more power had influence with decision-makers, which in this case would be City Council, outside of the process? 8) Was the process efficient in terms of both time and financial resources? OUTCOMES 1) Do you think the policy allows for an increase in ecological sustainability? (Reduce pollution, increase the efficient use of land) 2) Does the policy include specific indicators that will allow for effective monitoring? 3) Do you think the policy moves society towards greater social sustainability? a) Do you think the policy meets the interests of all participants? b) Do you think the policy increases representativeness? c) Does the policy include a framework, or recommendations for governing the sustainable neighbourhood? d) Do you think participants view the policy as fair and beneficial for everyone in society? e) Do you think the adoption of the policy by Council helped to either end stalemate, or avoid or reduce conflict? f) Do you think the policy fosters the creation of flexible and networked practices and institutions? h) Do you think the policy fostered second order effects? 3) Do you think the policy lays the groundwork for economic sustainability? a) Do you think the policy facilitated a process that reduces costs and generates benefits? 4) Does the policy prominently feature creative ideas for action? 5) Is adaptation, or contingency planning part of the policy statement? 384
6) Do you think the adopted policy can be implemented? 7) Is the policy feasible, and creates a good fit between our needs as participants and future actions? 8) Is the policy based on sufficient commitment to ensure its implementation? 9) Do you have any recommendations that you would make to either improve the process, or the policy? 10) Was there anything about the process that bothered you at all?
385
Appendix II Criteria for Communicative Consensus-Based Processes Judith Innes (1999) lays out a series of criteria that these communicative consensus-based policy development processes, like the one attempted for the Southeast False Creek planning process, should meet. She conceives of both process and outcome criteria to enable the researcher to evaluate the process being studied. These criteria are briefly sketched below. Significantly, these criteria reflect the principles outlined by Habermas communicative action theory: the inclusion, equality of opportunity, intersubjective mutual understanding, power impartiality, and transparency principles. Innes criteria also mirror the principles for sustainable development that emerged from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (outlined below). The criteria were added to and expanded upon in an iterative process as the study proceeded. Criteria of Good Process: 1. Inclusiveness: The process includes all the relevant, and significantly different interests. This criterion results in well informed deliberation, and increases the sense of legitimacy and fairness by those who are not present. It allows for the learning that was achieved in the process to be communicated to the wider public. Achieving this criterion will result in swifter, smoother implementation. 2. Goal Oriented: A practical and shared purpose guides the group in its work. This criterion helps participants to manage a resource, make land use, or budget decisions. The overall goal must be broad enough for all those with differing perspectives to share it. The purpose must be concrete and relevant to ensure that it is well worth the participants time and effort. 3. Self-Organization: Participants are enabled to set their own ground rules and determine their own tasks, objectives, and discussion topics. This allows for ownership of the process, which results in more active participation in learning and decision-making. Thus the priorities of the group will be taken into account and it will function well. 4. Civility: The principles of civil discourse should be followed: mutual respect; equal access to information; equal time for participation; and the ability to learn about each others interests. Each participant is able to assess the legitimacy (social world) and sincerity of the other participants (personal world) and participants can assess the scientific accuracy of information (objective world). Through these consensus-based processes they can reach shared understanding. 5. Adaptive and Based on High-Oualitv Information: All the participants must be made aware of and have the capacity to leam from all the relevant: facts, scientific knowledge, and firsthand experiences relevant to the issues. Participants and experts work together to collect and analyze 386
information (it is symbiotic, neither exclusively top-down or bottom-up). The questions and concerns of the group are answered. Members of the group find the methods for collecting the relevant data to be acceptable. 6. Challenges Assumptions: Flexible, adaptive, and creative thinking is often required to address the issues that are being considered in deliberative processes. Participants are given room to encourage the changing: of the problem definition, a law, or a bylaw. Participants with less power are in a position to question existing power structures, or are able to reveal to others how these power differentials cause them harm. The process allows all participants to suggest even seemingly crazy ideas and proposals (from these often come the most creative notions and solutions) 7. Engages Long-term Participation: Examples of well-functioning processes keep the interest of those involved, and engage them in continuous learning. This engagement is fostered through: drama, humour, informal social interaction, the empowerment of participants, and positive and constructive discussions. This type of process allows for a joint learning process. 8. Full and Deep Discourse and Deliberation Precedes Consensus: Only after the issues and interests have been fully explored, and creative ideas and plans of action have been proposed does the group attempt to achieve consensus. By incorporating the knowledge and concerns of participants the creativity and effectiveness of the process increases. Criteria for an Assessment of Outcomes: 1. Results in a High Quality Agreement: Such an agreement meets the interests of all participants, and it reflects a procedure which was based on sufficient thought, dialogue, and commitment to give the agreement stability which ensures its implementation. The differences between participants interests are resolved through joint gains (synergies). The policy is flexible and adaptive to allow for unseen or changing conditions. 2. Stalemate is Ended or Conflict is Avoided: Participants reach agreement and have, therefore, ended stalemate. However, if they do not reach consensus, and if the process reduces mistrust, conflict, and allows them to function more cooperatively, it is partially successful. A partially successful process is important as it can lead to a more fully consensual process in the long run. 3. The Process Reduced Costs and Generated Benefits: Consensus-based processes should compare favourably with other planning and decision-making processes. The costs of the process and possible outcomes should be estimated, such as: financial costs (in kind time and donations included), the amount of time spent on the process, and the time required to achieve results. The benefits are outlined in Innes list (added criteria: lower overall costs, use of full cost analysis, and facilitation of timely implementation). 387
4. The Policy or Proposals are Feasible: There should be a fit between the proposals and participants needs and concerns; and the actual situation. The policy or proposal should chart a course of action, and should go some distance to solving the problems raised by the participants. 5. Creative Ideas for Action Were Produced: Problems can be resolved, and the process becomes educative if participants learn from creative ideas. Creative ideas can foster learning or a change of worldview (this is the case even if they are not implemented). 6. Participants Knowledge and Understanding Increased: At the completion of the process participants should have learned more about both the substantive issues and the worldviews, situations and interests o f other participants. 7. Participants Community Capacity Increased: Responsiveness to pressing problems, and capacity for adaptation are the results of the growth of communicative networks that emerge from good consensus-based processes. These communicative networks increase information flows amongst participants, and can leave a legacy of functioning relationships between diverse parties that result in ongoing exchange of information, cooperation, and understanding. Regarding community capacity, Innes, like most scholars typifies this as social capital. This concept is found to be lacking, as one cannot count or sum up these networks in any manner approaching the way one can ascertain financial capital, or make rough, assumption-ridden accounts of natural capital. Also a deconstruction of the term reveals the ascendancy of capital in that all concepts must be named in a way that relates to this dominant paradigm. This study will refer to this phenomenon as community capacity (Roseland et al., 1998; and Rocha, 1997). 8. Participants Accept the Information Generated as Accurate: A collaborative learning process relies on joint fact finding and should result in improved data collection and information collating. 9. Knowledge and Information were Widely Shared (Representativeness): Participants keep the groups they represented informed and bring their concerns to the table. The process disperses ideas and knowledge from the table widely throughout the community. 10. The Process Created Second Order Effects: Second order effects are changes in behaviours or actions that occur away from the process. Participants find common ground with others and then proceed to accomplish tasks unrelated to the specific process. 11. It Created Flexible and Networked Practices and Institutions: This allows for a more nuanced, creative response to change and conflict. The process changes the agendas of public agencies or interest groups. A new generation of people with skills and interest in consensus-building are fostered. It forms the basis for long-term partnerships amongst participants. 12. Just Outcomes were Produced: The outcomes must be seen as fair and desirable to both participants and the wider society. Powerless people should not take the brunt of the impact of 388
the process. A problem solved at the expense of powerless people would not be considered to be just. Those who already have significant money and power did not gain precipitously at the expense of others. A process that benefits those participants who are least deserving would also be unjust. 13. The Common Good or Public Interest was Served: The outcomes should be beneficial to the welfare of the broader community. If the outcome harms the broader community and only benefits those at the table then it fails to meet this criterion. 14. The Sustainability of both Natural and Social Systems were Enhanced: Resources were conserved or protected, society was strengthened and made more civil through more equity of power and material resources. For Innes the economy must not be sacrificed, however, this is questionable as it seems that in todays contemporary order many peoples welfare is being sacrificed for the economy. Sustainable human systems would nest the economy where it belongs, as a subsystem to fulfill human beings material needs for survival, while improving or protecting the ecological systems upon which all species rely for survival. We can readily see from Innes criteria, especially the last one, that there is significant overlap between consensus-based processes and the literature on sustainable development. Criteria for Consensus-Based Processes for Sustainability The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1996) chose consensus-based techniques to deal with the complexity and uncertainty which pervade the manifold issues of sustainable development. The round table outlined ten principles for processes that would move society towards sustainable development in its handbook Building consensus for a sustainable future: putting principles into practice. These principles are in some cases the same as Innes and Habermas criteria and in others there is significant overlap. The ten criteria, in no set order of relevance or importance are: Principle 1. Purpose-Driven People need a reason to participate in the process; Principle 2. Inclusive, Not Exclusive All parties with a significant interest in the issues should be involved in the consensus process; Principle 3. Voluntary Participation The parties who are affected or interested participate voluntarily; Principle 4. Self Design The parties design the consensus process; Principle 5. Flexibility Flexibility should be designed into the process; 389
Principle 6. Equal Opportunity All parties have equal access to relevant information and the opportunity to participate effectively throughout the process; Principle 7. Respect for Diverse Interests Acceptance of the diverse values, interests, and knowledge o f the parties involved in the consensus process is essential; Principle 8. Accountability The participants are accountable both to their constituencies and to the process that they have agreed to establish; Principle 9. Time Limits Realistic deadlines are necessary throughout the process; and Principle 10. Implementation Commitments to implementation and effective monitoring are essential parts of any agreement. These ten principles, it should be noted, were the product of the effort of a consensus-based process itself. These processes work well for laying out criteria upon which a process can be structured.
390
Appendix III: List of Advisory Group Meetings and Dates of Various Policy Statement Drafts 1:15 October, 1997, Introductory Meeting at Finning 555 Great Northern Way 2: 29 October ,1997 at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House 3: 12 November, 1997 at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House 4: 19 November, 1997 at the Roundhouse Community Centre 5:10 December, 1997 at the Roundhouse Community Centre 6: 7 January, 1998 at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House 7: 21 January, 1998 at Mount Pleasant Community Centre 8: 4 February, 1998 at Vancouver Public Library -Central Branch 9: 18 February, 1998 at Vancouver Public Library -Main Branch 10: 4 March, 1998 at Finning 555 Great Northern Way 11:7 March, 1998 at Finning 555 Great Northern Way: Sheltair Report Workshop 12: 25 March, 1998 at Vancouver Public Library -Main Branch 13:1 April, 1998 at Finning 555 Great Northern Way Draft of Policy Statement 1 Received on 9 April, 1998 14: 15 April, 1998 at Vancouver Public Library -Main Branch 15: 29 April, 1998 at Vancouver Public Library -Main Branch 16: 13 May, 1998 at Vancouver Public Library -Main Branch 17: 27 May, 1998 at Vancouver Public Library -Main Branch Draft of Policy Statement 2 Received 27 May, 1998 18:3 June, 1998 at Finning 555 Great Northern Way 19: 10 June, 1998 at Finning 555 Great Northern Way Draft of Policy Statement 3 Received 19 June, 1998 Draft of Policy Statement 4 Received September, 1998 20: 1 October, 1998 at Finning 555 Great Northern Way Draft of Policy Statement 5 Received 20 November, 1998 21: 1 December, 1998 at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House Draft of Policy Statement 6 Received December, 1998 Draft of Policy Statement 7 Received February, 1998 Draft of Policy Statement 8 Received May, 1999 22: 9 June, 1999 at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House Final Version of Policy Statement Received 9 July, 1999
391

Towards Common Ground - Sustainable Development in Southeast False Creek

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Towards Common Ground - Sustainable Development in Southeast False Creek

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TOWARDS COMMON GROUND: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK by JOHN JACOB MICHAEL IRWIN B.A. Hons.

, The University of Alberta, 1995

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 2004

John Jacob Michael Irwin, 2004

National Library of C a n a d a Acquisitions and Bibliographic S ervices

Bibliotheque nationale du C a n a d a A cquisisitons et services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada

395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada

1.1 Introduction to the Case Study

Figure 1.1 Greater Vancouver

Burnaby Vancouver N e w W estminster

Figure 1.2 Southeast False Creek Planning Area

Source: City of Vancouver, 1997a

1.2 Structure of the Thesis

1.4 Contribution to the Planning Literature

CHAPTER 2: COMMUNICATIVE PARTICIPATION: COMMUNICATIVE ACTION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING

2.1 Progressive Planning and Communicative Action Theory

2.2 The Philosophical Roots of Communicative Action

2.2.1 The Lifeworld

2.2.2 The Adminstrative and Economic System

2.2.3 The Colonization of the Lifeworld

2.3 Limitations of Communicative Action Theory

2.3.1 Philosophical Critiques

2.3.2 A Sociological Critique

2.3.3 Planning Theorist Critics

2.4 Public Participation

Table 2.1 Typology of Public Participation+

2.4.1 The Promises of Public Participation

2.4.2 The Limitations of Public Participation

2.5 Democratic Theory and Communicative Participation

2.6 The Policy Community

2.6.1 Interest Groups

2.6.2 The Policy Cycle Model

2.6.3 The Role of Urban Interest Groups

2.7 Local Political Economy

2.8 Power and Ideology

2.8.1 The Neo-Liberal, or Neo-Conservative Approach

2.8.2 The Neo-Pluralist Approach

2.8.3 The Neo-Marxist Approach

2.9 Criteria for Communicative Consensus-Based Processes

Inclusive, Not Inclusiveness Exclusive

Select Facilitator and Facilitation Style

Realistic Transparency Deadlines

Cost Effectiveness Accountability and Efficiency

2.9.1 Process Criteria

CHAPTER 3: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

3.0 Introduction: Sustainable Urban Development Defined

3.1 Strong Versus Weak Sustainability

3.2.1 Ecological Sustainability

3.2.2 Social Sustainability

3.2.3 Economic Sustainability

3.3 Sustainability at the International and Local Scale

3.4 Sustainable Urban Development Precedents

3.4.1 Westerpark Car Free Housing Project Amsterdam, Netherlands

Figure 3.4.1 Westerpark Car Free Development

3.5 Indicators of Sustainable Urban Development

3.6 Two Primary Indicators: Water Quality and Transportation

3.6.1 Non-point Source Pollution and Impervious Surfaces

3.6.2 Sustainable Urban Transportation

3.7 Outcome Criteria

Kline (1997, and 2000)

Yiftachel and Hedgecock (1993)