So what is "livability", really?

Just got back from a great lecture, "The Life and Death of Cities: Accounting for Environmental and Social Sustainability". It tied in very well with the recent release of the Mercer Quality of Living Report, in which Vancouver placed 4th in the world. The other popular report is by the Economist; World's Most Livable Cities, in which Vancouver was most recently 1st.

The Mercer report ranks based on:

• Tangible values for qualitative perceptions to establish an objective assessment of the quality of living for transfers to more than 420 cities worldwide.
• Carefully selected factors representing the criteria considered most relevant to international executives.

That's right, "criteria considered most relevant to international executives". Now I'm not sure how that puts Vancouver way up there, but it does make sense why Calgary is up so high, along with other major business and financial centres of the world. It also doesn't explain why Seattle is so far down; to me it's almost as great as Vancouver. If it had a "Whistler" less than two hours away like Vancouver, it would be an equal! Anyways, go check out the report for yourself: http://www.mercer.com/qualityofliving

The Economist World's Most Livable Cities bases its report on:

"...the challenges that might be presented to an individual's lifestyle in 140 cities worldwide. Each city is assigned a score for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories: stability, health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure."

Now this sounds much more like a "livability" report, versus the very economically based Mercer Report.

Both reports are well summarized on Wikipedia.

But I'm still not totally clear on what livability really is. I find Vancouver incredibly livable; I wouldn't live here if I didn't. But we all like different things, so a lot of that is subjective and personal. The problem with the indexes above is that they are very numbers based and generally the numbers are too focused and not broadly defined. For example, the unemployment rate tells us how many people are working or not. But what does it tell us about those who are working? How good are their jobs? And how much are they actually working?

What about issues like urban sprawl? I don't think there is a single city in the world that can claim zero sprawl, but where in a city we live makes a huge difference on our quality of life. Generally, people move to the burbs because real estate is cheaper. But on the other hand their transportation costs are far higher, they spend huge amounts of their lives commuting, and there are clear social and community issues with everyone living in their own house separated from everyone else - never mind the cost in utilities to live that way. In which case how does Vancouver end up so highly ranked, if they are indeed ranking the region as a whole. While Vancouver proper (population 578,000) covers only 115 square km, Metro Vancouver covers a massive 2878 square km, with a population of just over 2 million; how is that livable and sustainable? The scary thing is that Vancouver is good by comparison...

Calgary: pop. 1.1 million (only slightly higher for the Metro region)
City area: 726 square km
Calgary Metro: a whopping 5107 square km!!

So on a city level that's 6 times the area for less than 2 times the population.
On a metro level that's nearly double the area for only half the population!

Toronto: pop. 2.5 million, metro 5.6 million
City area: 630 square km
Metro: 7125 square km

That's a bit smaller than Calgary but more than double the population.
On a metro level that's 5 times as many people in less than 1.5 times the area.
Compared to Vancouver, at a city level, Vancouver is about 25% more densely populated. At the metro level, Toronto is actually about 12% more dense.

Now it may seem like I'm bashing Calgary (and OK, maybe I am a little), but the scary thing is that so many cities, particularly in North America, have grown like Calgary. It's an unsustainable and poorly livable design. As more and more people move to our cities, we need to start getting this right. Over 50% of the world now lives in a city; the level is 80% in developed nations. Clearly, in the developing world there are a lot more people that will be moving to cities, because they aspire to the culture and lifestyle of the developed world. Now is the time to teach them the way, and if that means losing our status as most livable city by bringing them to greatness, it's totally worth it and the whole world will be better for it.

A Grand Public Square for Vancouver

A few weeks ago I talked about what to do with the Sears Building in downtown Vancouver, and one of my ideas was to tear it down and build a public square big enough to host large events such as concerts, parties, rallies, etc. It's something that Vancouver is definitely lacking. Cities of the world are often defined by their squares and plazas. Rome, for example, IS its piazza's. "Meet me at Piazza Navona", actually means something. Vancouver has lots of public space along its perimeter, looking out to the mountains and ocean, but there is no major inward-looking space nor is there really any square that everyone knows. "Meet me at Emily Barnes Park", means something only to the people in the Yaletown area. We all know English Bay, but it's a huge area - how often have you tried to describe to someone on the phone where you are on English Bay? Lawn or sand; north or south; maybe at the Starbucks on the corner (which may lead to "which one?"

Anyways... go figure that there was already a design competition underway to suggest solutions to this problem called Where's the Square? (http://vancouverpublicspace.ca/index.php?page=wts_splash) The contest gave no specific site, but asked teams to suggest a site and reason why that location was best. There were numerous entries with grand squares located on the waterfront in Coal Harbour/Gastown, but to me these only add to the outward-looking public space we already have. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that view is a bad thing - it's beautiful. The other large group of entries centered around Robson Square and the Sears Building, most of them incorporating a new/improved Vancouver Art Gallery suggesting that it is much better in its current location rather than the proposed move to Plaza of Nations. This is really the place I see with the most potential. It already has huge volumes of pedestrians who would love more space, it's located at the heart of downtown, and there is a sky train station soon to be right there.

I also liked the entry that proposed a new square at Granville and Pacific/Drake. It would be a great new square in an area that is soon to be redevelopped and would only improve the attractiveness of this currently "downtrodden" area.

So go check out the short-listed entries and vote for your favourite!
http://vancouverpublicspace.ca/index.php?page=wts_gallery

On a larger scale, it would be great to see large public squares pop up all over the city and region creating a network of great spaces.

20 places to visit before they are gone...

I came across a list the other day by CNN of the 5 places to visit before they are gone due to global warming. They were great choices (and are included here in my list), but I felt there were so many more. Be it due to rising oceans, melting glaciers or toxic pollution, there are a lot of places that are at risk of disappearing within our lifetime. Yes, normally I'm the eternal optimist...but we can't ignore what is already happening. One personal example; the Athabasca Glacier in Jasper National Park has shrunk considerably since I visited it with family in 1989, and I can see the difference immediately.

So, in no particular order (other than Banff/Jasper because I think they are amazing)...and with the reason to see them soon...

1. Banff, Jasper, Yoho, Kootenay, Glacier National Parks, Canada
(Glacial melting)
In particular, a drive a long the Icefields Parkway between Banff and Jasper

2. Great Barrier Reef, Australia
(Rising ocean temperature is bleaching and killing the coral)

3. New Orleans, USA
(Rising sea levels)
I have to be honest - I wonder if rebuilding this city really makes any sense. Storms like Katrina are only becoming more common and combined with sea level rise, well...it's not rocket science.

4. Rocky Mountain National Park, USA
(Glacial melting and pine beetle infestation)
The same could be said for most of Northern BC due to the pine beetle, which has now made it over the Rockies and into Alberta, and will no doubt soon make it's way across the prairies.

5. Alpine Glaciers, Switzerland
(Glacial melting)

6. Amazon Rain Forest, Brazil
(Deforestation and desertification)

7. Venice, Italy
(Rising sea levels)

8. Alaska, USA
(Glacial melting)

9. Bali and the Indonesian Archipelago
(Rising sea levels)

10. Patagonia, Argentina
(Glacial melting)

11. Himalayan Range, Nepal
(Glacial melting)

12. The Maldives
(Rising sea levels)

13. Antarctica
(Glacial melting)

14. Glacier National Park, USA and Waterton National Park, Canada
(Glacial melting)
At the current rate, Glacier National Park will have no glaciers by 2030. Will they change the name?

15. Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
(Glacial melting)

16. The Dead Sea, Israel and Jordan
(Desertification)
The water level of the Dead Sea is dropping at a rate of approx. 1 meter per year, and accelerating.

17. Miami and the Everglades, USA
(Rising sea levels)
It will only take sea levels rising by 1-2 meters for most of the tip of Florida to disappear. The same rise in ocean levels will cover Richmond and Delta, BC for those that care.

18. Galapagos Islands
(Rising sea levels)

19. Valley of the Kings and Pyramids of Giza, Egypt
(Air pollution, human development)
The pollution in the air is literally eating away at the pyramids.

20. The Netherlands
(Rising sea levels)
27% of its area and 60% of its population is located below sea level.

So that's my list - what places do you think are important to visit? I've been fortunate enough to have visited #1 and #14...and I've been to Miami but not the Everglades - so I have a lot of travelling to do!

Does Carbon Capture and Storage Make Sense?

There are countless ideas out there right now about how to reduce the amount of CO2 that we are sending into the atmosphere, and even removing some that is already there. There is one idea that I'm having a hard time with, and that is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Principally, CCS involves capturing the CO2 that is emitted by fossil-fuel powered electrical generation plants (coal in particular), and then storing it permanently underground or deep in the ocean. CO2 is already injected into the ground by oil companies to squeeze every drop of oil possible out of oil wells, so the process isn't new. What is new is collecting CO2 specifically to prevent it from going into the atmosphere.

Ocean storage is a very new and controvertial option because the CO2 over time eventually makes it into the atmosphere and in certain applications would dramaticlaly acidify the water, killing ocean life in the storage area. We just don't know enough about how this system would work and what effects it would have on the ocean and the planet in general.

Underground storage is clearly the safer option and is very well understood...yet it remains a less than ideal process. The main issue for me is that CCS simply buries the problem. Much like nuclear waste that will be stored forever, storing the CO2 just creates another problem. To me it makes far more sense to stop pumping out the CO2 to begin with, then we don't even have the problem. The process is still in development phase, so it's not like we can start capturing all the CO2 from power plants right away. And it's been shown that there are more than enough ways to generate the energy we need by renewable means. Here is some info about CCS:

• The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that CCS applied to a modern power plant could capture 80-90% of the CO2 released, but to do so would consume 25-40% more fuel (coal) and the cost of electricity from said plant would increase by 21-91%!
• It is widely agreed that underground CO2 storage is safe and that 99% of stored CO2 is likely to remain underground over 1000 years with no reason it shouldn't remain there for millions of years. But what if it doesn't stay stored? What if there is a leak? CO2 is deadly in high enough concentrations. As an example, albeit a natural one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
• The government of Alberta has announced it will invest $2 billion in CCS technology. Where is the investment in what will power the province once all the oil and coal run out? At this point the government is clearly still stuck on oil and the oil companies.
  

It doesn't make sense to be spending money on a temporary solution, when there are options that would wean us from fossil fuels forever. A combination of hydro, solar, wind, wave, tidal, methane capture (from landfills and sewage) and biomass generating plants and systems would ensure a continuous supply of electricity no matter what the weather or location.

Book Review: "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt

If you are at all interested in traffic, drive a lot or even if you're a pedestrian, this book is a great read. You'd think a book on traffic would be boring, but it is extremely interesting. I think it's because traffic is such a huge part of our lives. We talk about it constantly, it's always in the news, we seem forever stuck in traffic jams.

Mary Roach of the New York Times puts it well: "“Traffic” is not a dry examination of highway engineering; it’s a surprising, enlightening look at the psychology of human beings behind the steering wheels." Read her full review for more.

My favorite find of Tom's research is a bit of a surprise - the "safer" the design of the intersection (lights, signs, road markings), the more accidents there are. Remove all signs and lights and leave it to drivers to make the right judgement, and accidents dissapear.

Definitely worth a read!

TRAFFIC
Why We Drive the Way We Do (And What It Says About Us)
Tom Vanderbilt
402 pp. Alfred A. Knopf.

Save the Saddledome!

Opened in 1983, the Saddledome has undergone many name changes (currently called Pengrowth Saddledome), but remains an architectural icon of Calgary and the 1988 Winter Olympics.

In typical Calgary fashion, there is now talk of the Flames building a new arena at which time the Saddledome may be demolished! That's right, 26 years (30 or so by the time this might happen) is apparently too old - disposable architecture at its worst, if you ask me. When I heard rumours of this I immediately had to find out more.

There is a great article by the Calgary Herald about the Saddledome and its entire history: "Sensational Saddledome Helped Define Calgary"

In the article, even the architect , Barry Graham won't stand up for it, saying, "I have mixed emotions. I really like the building, but I realize things don't last forever. If it has to come down, take it down."

But the building has been a hit from day one; The Saddledome hit the cover of Time magazine on Sept. 27, 1987. The construction and architectural world went ga-ga, bestowing the designers with several architectural and engineering awards.

Why would anyone demolish such a great structure? This is a building that stands out amongst the bland architecture of Calgary and of the world in general. I don't believe it will actually be demolished because it is just "too cool" for lack of a better term. But I also want to get the word out there that it is at risk! Anyways, read the article - it does a great job of telling the entire story.

Electricity vs. Hydrogen

A few weeks ago I talked about why electricity was going to become the energy of the future and not hydrogen. Here's a great article that puts numbers to both sides, and shows how much better electricity really is as a fuel.

http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/Bossel_E13.pdf

Sears, Pacific Centre - A Proposal

If you live in Vancouver, and probably even if you've just visited, you know the building I'm talking about without even seeing a picture. It's that big white block on Robson between Howe and Granville - the Sears store, formerly Eaton's.

Call it weird, ugly or whatever you want, it's an excellent representation of the architecture of the 1970s. Unfortunately the white exterior (not ideally suited to a rainy, damp climate) is looking very tired and dirty because it no longer gets cleaned. Older photos of the building show it gleaming.

But the dirt is not the problem I'm proposing to fix (though it should coincide with the project). The issue I have with this building is how it almost completely turns it's back on a street that is otherwise alive with storefronts and display windows. It's a dead block on Vancouver's greatest street, having only a few entries on its exterior and not even any display windows along the sidewalk. Like all department stores of the era, and even many today, windows, and god forbid natural light, were the enemy. Even beautiful old department stores like our very own Bay on Georgia covered over all their windows in favour of "superior" artificial lighting. Have you ever seen a more dead facade than that of the Bay or similar buildings with their windows blackened? Fortunately we have now learned the error of our ways and department stores like the new Holt Renfrew are showing how it should be done, with windows and skylights all around.

Now you may think that based on the above, I don't like the Sears building. Although there was a time that I would have agreed with the masses about its ugliness, I have come to appreciate (maybe even "like") this white block. In a society where we are often too quick to say "tear it down" in order to build anew, and where only the oldest buildings are deemed to hold any historical and cultural value, we need to realize that buildings like this and of its era do have value. Buildings of the 50s, 60s and 70s are really the "heritage" buildings of today and the future. They represent the architectural and cultural beliefs of their time. The Sears building is a great example of 1970s architecture and design. I'm not saying it should be copied, but respected and learned from - and of course the reason of this article, be improved.

This proposal is really three:

1. Work with the building as it stands.
2. Perform a major overhaul of the building, particularly at street level.
3. Demolish it. (I know this contradicts my last paragraph, but bear with me).

1. Work with the building as it stands.

As you can see in the pictures above, there is great potential to liven up this building and it's not being used. Only occasionally have I seen these large billboards used above the entry or the banners in place along the sides. The parts for everything are already there, even lighting. Such a simple project would really brighten up the otherwise plain facade. Even the City of Vancouver has recognized the potential in their redesign of Granville Street, proposing to use the east facade as a large projection screen. Oh, and of course, clean the darn facade already!

Granville Street Redesign
Design plan 1
Design plan 2

2. Perform a major overhaul

The biggest problem with this building is how it closes itself off from the street. Other than the few entrances into the store, the walls are blank, without even a display window. The first few levels of the store are busy, but up higher it's almost like a ghost town.

I propose to blast out the walls throughout the first level (maybe even the second) on all sides. Subdivide the space along the exterior into smaller retail units and of course install clear glass storefronts. These could be "shop-in-shops" or boutiques of the store's existing brands each with their own street entrance to drive traffic. Alternatively (and I think this is the better option), maintain the busiest entries into the Sears store but sublease the new spaces to other retailers. With the rents one can charge on Robson Street (and Granville and Howe for that matter) it would be a sure way to generate profit, and would also increase overall traffic. Either way, the number of doors onto the street increases, driving more traffic and making the window shopping far more interesting.

For the upper levels of the store, there are a couple of options. The first would be to combine this option with #1 and bring the exterior alive. The second would be to open up windows on the upper levels, and maybe even convert those levels to offices. Putting windows into the mainly blank facade, while maintaining the architectural integrity of the 1970s design would be a challenge, but I think it could be very successful.

3. Demolish it.

Now that I've gone on about saving this building, and what an icon it is/could be, here's an idea that is drastic, but to be honest, I think I favour.

It's a widely agreed-upon fact that Vancouver seriously lacks a true public square/event plaza. Think Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto, Olympic Plaza in Calgary, Union Square in New York, and the many smaller squares throughout downtown Montreal. For such a large, vibrant city I've always been intrigued that Vancouver lacks such a public gathering place. Plazas like this are great people watching places every day, and can host large special events like rallies, protests, concerts and fairs. Maybe even a farmers market. Nothing like this exists in Vancouver, and it's hard to argue that there is a better spot for one than where the Sears building currently sits. In conjunction with the adjacent Robson Square and Art Gallery, and its location smack in the centre of downtown, this plaza would be a winner. Here are a few examples of city squares:

Now of course the city would have to pay a pretty high price and/or work out some amazing deal with the landlord, Cadillac Fairview. But CF could still keep the lower levels of Pacific Centre Mall beneath the plaza, and theoretically could expand below the art gallery as was done in Montreal at Promenades Cathédral. To build the Promenades, the existing church on the site was temporarily lifted up while the ground beneath it was removed and the new foundation built. Entrances to the mall could be located around the perimeter of the plaza. Could the city make a trade to make this happen? It's a long shot, I'll admit, but it would result in an amazing public space in an amazing downtown.

In summary, there are a lot of options to revive this iconic, weird, ugly, beautiful building. What is your favourite idea...or do you have another one?