Why the Site C Dam is So Wrong

The BC government announced yesterday that a massive, $6.6 billion hydro-electric dam (being called "Site C") on the Peace River in Northern BC is a go. At first glance you may think "hey, hydro, that's green power. Perfect!" And yes, hydro is and can be very green power. The main problem with Site C is its massive size.

BC Hydro Site C Web-page

Here's why the current plan for Site C is terrible...

• Dams of this size create reservoirs that cause massive destruction to the land and never really become the "lake" we are promised. We need only look at the effects from the W.A.C. Bennett dam that was built in the 60s to see that.
• This dam is going to flood over 5000 hectares of land, virtually all of it fertile land that either is currently or could be farmed. It makes no sense to flood fertile land in an age where food security and availability is becoming an increasingly critical issue. This land is as productive as the Lower Mainland because of the long summer days they get this far north.
• There are so many other ways to produce this much power: smaller dams like run-of-river systems, wind, geothermal, solar, tidal. We have all of these available to us (in virtually unlimited quantities) in BC, so why is the government stuck on a single massive project?
• We don't need more power, at least not this much. BC Hydro and the government will tell you that BC now has to import about 15% of its power, which is creative accounting. The fact is BC Hydro sells lots of green power at a premium to the US, and buys cheaper dirty power to make up for what we need. In addition, BC Hydro admits they plan to achieve 70% of future power needs through energy conservation. I think that number can be even higher - the problem in this province is that our power is far too cheap, leaving little incentive to conserve.
• The Site C dam is no where near where most of the power is being used. Approximately 13% of the power generated 1000's of km away in the Peace is lost during transmission. We should be looking at generating more power near to and within the Lower Mainland.
• Finally, there's the cost. $6.6 billion? Really? How can we justify spending this much when private companies are falling over each other trying to develop green power in this province at no cost to the taxpayer?
  

A great series of articles from The Tyee goes into detail on the downsides of building this dam - check it out!
Disturbing the Peace: The Case Against the Site C Dam

Making-over The Bay

A few weeks ago I stumbled across this picture that was taken in the 1930s/40s of the Hudson's Bay Company building (The Bay) here in Vancouver. I love old photos and historical architecture in general, but this picture struck me. It struck me because of how much the building had been butchered and defaced by poor design decisions in the time since. To compare, look at a picture from a similar angle taken today:


All the upper windows have been covered over. One column of windows has been transformed into ventilation grilles (which are dirty, of course).

The awnings over each street-level window and the large canopies over each entrance have been replaced by an ugly, oppressive overhang. Sure, the overhang is great for protection from the rain, but it's dark and uninviting beneath. Without the entrance canopies, who can tell where to enter the store unless you're walking right in front?


The light standards that used to line the parapet are gone. Even the signage is bad - a suburban fluorescent sign-box on the corner of the building.

These pictures taken at night also show the contrast between then and now:


The modern exterior lighting treatment is pretty great, I must admit. But the windows, the eyes of any building, are dead and lifeless. In the old photo, the building has a life, a soul, it's a place you might actually want to enter.

Fortunately modern architects have realized past mistakes such as this. Natural light has made a comeback, windows are a must, and they even open! The street-scape and pedestrian environment are key elements of any new building design today, much as they were when The Bay was originally built. I guess this post is an attempt to convince "the powers that be" to bring back the character of the original building, which is arguably one of the most beautiful in this concrete and glass city.

The new Granville Street

The more times I walk down the refurbished Granville Street here in Vancouver, the more I like some aspects and dislike others. The lighting is great as are the materials used for the sidewalks and street furniture. The extra wide sidewalks and bus-only sections on the northern half are wonderful. But the decision to park cars the way they have between Nelson and Drake is, well, dumb. Part of the goal of this refurbishment was to widen the sidewalks, and because of the parking the way it is, I think it has failed.


Granville Street Redesign: City of Vancouver



The idea was right in principle: that cars could park on half the sidewalk most of the time, and be banned for special events or busier times, leaving four clear lanes of traffic. In reality though, when the cars are removed, all the posts and plantings that are there to define the parking spots make it hardly walkable, adding no additional space to the sidewalks. In simple terms: FAIL.

Fortunately there is an easy solution: put the cars back on the road! Granville Street doesn't even seem to have the volume of traffic that warrants 4 full lanes, particularly with the one-way couplet of Seymour and Howe on each side. In addition, Granville ends at Smithe for cars, (only buses can go north beyond that point), so it's not a street that is used to get anywhere. So let's fix this: put the parking onto the roadway where it makes sense, and clear up all the clutter that is there for parking cars to make the southern-end sidewalks as great as the rest of the street.

Totally connected, yet so disconnected

On an episode of Oprah last week (and a few last fall), a family of four was profiled. They were the typical suburban family; Mom, Dad and two sons. The issue was how the family was so distant from one another, and how the marriage was at risk of falling apart. The reason: not enough social interaction. They rarely ate meals together or did anything together aside from watch TV - hardly good family bonding. Mom and Dad shared a bed, but that was about it.

The cause: electronics. Mom, Dad and the older son all had cell phones, and were texting or checking email constantly. The son was sending 200-300 texts every day! Video games and the TV served as a babysitter. The first thing dad did every morning was get up and check his email. Instead of interacting with each other, they were interacting with others who weren't even in their home. The house was also a mess and the garage was full of stuff; not on the level of "Hoarders", but at a level of over consumption typical in this age of consumerism. This family, and all of us these days, are more connected to the world than ever before, yet socially we are becoming very disconnected from each other.

So to solve the problem, the electronics were taken away for a week, and rules were set about cleaning the house, eating together, spending quality time together, etc. And it worked - in just a few days, things improved more than anyone expected. Talking to each other instead of to their cell phones made a huge difference.

That should be the end of the story, right? Well, I think it's great that this family worked it out, and I hope a lot of families learned from it. But I think this experiment only cured a symptom of a bigger problem. This family, as I mentioned, is a typical suburban family. "Suburban" being the key word. The kids rarely went to hang out with friends, and why? Probably because being in suburbia, they are just too far away. Kids in suburbia often can't just walk a few houses down to see friends like they can in the city - everyone is too spread out. Mom and Dad had to drive to get anywhere or do anything, and after a long day at work and a long commute, who wants to get back in their car again? So, they pull into the garage and stay in the house, isolated.

The real problem is the design of suburbia. Suburbia, which was once a great idea, is becoming a nightmare. Kids are isolated and if they can't drive or don't have a car, they are stuck at home. That leads to boredom, obesity and social problems - kids will find something to do eventually, and more and more often it's crime and drugs. People would walk or bike if they could, but everything is so spread out, it's not going to happen. And it's not just the distance, it's the blandness of the surroundings. Walking through suburbia, past garage door after garage door, one cookie cutter house after another, is hardly motivation to do it more than once. There's no interest to get people out of their homes. So they stay inside, the streets void of people.

"Suburbia" is the problem that needs to be solved. I'm not saying everyone has to live downtown in highrises, but we need to stop building anonymous suburbs. It is possible to design communities of single family homes where you don't have to drive everywhere, where there are people on the streets, shops close by, life. Governments need to start promoting and even mandating good development - people who aren't isolated are healthier physically and mentally and the less we drive, the fewer roads we need. Those bland 'burbs are cheap to build initially, but have become very expensive in the long run.