CBCâ€™s The National asks leading urbanists if our cities still work and how we can make them better.
When it came to my turn, my answer took a big picture and perhaps surprising approach, depending on your definition of urban design. In Vancouver, a city often referred to as “a city by design”, the most important urban design decision we ever made, the decision I loved most, is actually usually referred to as a transportation decision.
In 1997, the city approved its first influential Transportation Plan.
It was a game-changer for our city-making model in many ways, most notably in its decision to prioritize the ways we get around, rather than balance them. The active, healthy and green ways of getting around were ranked highest – first walking, our top priority, then biking, and then transit, in that order. The prioritization then went on to goods movement for the purposes of business support and economic development, and lastly, the private vehicle.
Vancouver still spends a considerable amount of energy trying to make driving a greener and healthier proposition, with examples from electric vehicle charging station pilot projects, to policies and zoning incentives that have contributed to our incredible growth of car-sharing. However the private vehicle remains the last priority. I always note that we are not anti-car, and we rarely ban the car, but prioritizing it last has a dramatic effect on the way we design our city.
If youâ€™re a driver who is worried about a â€œwar on the carâ€, remember this – our model of city building understands the â€œLaw of Congestionâ€ and proves that when you build a multimodal city, it makes getting around better and easier for every mode of transportation, including the car. It makes our city work better in every way.
This decision to prioritize rather than balance our ways of getting around has affected everything in how our city has been designed since then. Itâ€™s a huge part of the essential DNA that our city has grown from. Itâ€™s guided every decision, from thousands of physical design decisions, to our budget allocation. Has every decision followed it perfectly? No – there are many illustrations around the city where the prioritization hasn’t been perfectly reflected. However, enough decisions have reflected this prioritization to make our city design fundamentally different.
So my answer to Gordonâ€™s question â€œwhat urban design decision do I love?â€ Itâ€™s our ahead-of-the-curve 1997 decision to prioritize active transport rather than trying to balance ways of getting around. A decision we reinforced and are taking further in the recent Transportation Plan Update I had the pleasure of working on.
For the record, Saskatoon has gone the opposite direction in emphasizing the car.
Urban Planner Brent Toderian speaks about density done well in downtown cores. Â This is going to be a huge challenge for Saskatoon as we try to increase density in downtown Saskatoon. Â It’s interesting that he speaks of designing downtown for kids because if it works for kids, it will work for everyone. Â In Vancouver where they have 7000 kids, they build daycares and schools downtown. Â Saskatoon has really no amenities other than River Landing for families. Â We have a long way to go.
The other thing is that if you agree with Toderian and most other urban planners, Saskatoon is making decisions right now that will hurt our city for generations. Â It’s almost as if as a city and city council identify best practices in cities and do the opposite. Â They talk a great game about Transit 2.0 while putting bridges all over Saskatoon. Â In the next decade we will have a new bridges south of the city, two north of the city, and I have heard some talking about adding one along 33rd Street or another one south of the city. Â You can’t do both folks and to be honest, we are probably at a point where we should just give up on the dream of living in a livable city and just admit that we are all about cars and sprawl.