Amenity Valuation: The Role of Heritage in the Physical and Social Production of Vancouver by Courtney James Miller B.Arch., University of Kansas, 2004 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advanced Studies in Architecture (MASA) in The Faculty of Graduate Studies University of British Columbia November 2007 © Courtney James Miller, 2007 ii Abstract The intensification of downtown Vancouver is the result of a structured fiscal, design and planning project. Cardinal to this effort is the realization of public amenities through the development process. However, those involved in the struggle to control the provision of amenities deny that no less than the determination of legitimate public goods is at stake in the contest. Employing Bourdieu's understanding of capital and related description of social space, the objective of the thesis is to examine how amenity production is oriented by the public benefit's utility to the dominant interest of capital accumulation. Reviewing the adoption of discretionary zoning and its corollaries to planning permission explicates the relation of a legalized aesthetic to the process of amenitization.The understanding of physical heritage as a public value is among the derivatives of this association with the introduction of planning mechanisms to encourage the retention of historic structures.The subsequent naturalization of heritage as public value and concurrent endowment of its capacity to facilitate development serves as an appropriate vehicle in the consideration of amenity valuation. By specifying the physical form and the legitimated community value of approved development, City reports and bylaws are the primary means of study. Analysis of these documents finds heritage to be the principal amenity realized through development mechanisms and illustrates its substantial influence on the physical and social space of the city. Case studies further support the thesis objective by addressing the constitution of public amenities aligned with the accommodation of the dominant interest; the unbounded consideration of heritage supports the retention of the physical features most conducive to intensification and results in greater development ability in terms of both private capital and in the realization of more bounded social amenities. The misrecognition of this key utility lends considerable authority over the physical transformation of the city and, more importantly, facilitates control of the related social environment.The thesis concludes that heritage serves the ideological continuation of the field of power, and cautions that recent efforts to consider less tangible qualities are symptomatic of this process. iii Table of Contents Abstract^ ii Table of Contents^ iii List of Tables List of Figures^ vi List of Acronyms vii Preface^ viii Acknowledgements^ ix Introduction^ 1 0.1 A Model Vancouver^ 2 0.2 Relevance^ 2 0.3 Exteriorality 3 0.4 Methodology^ 3 0.5 Use and Limitations^ 4 0.6 Structure^ 5 0.7 Notes for Introduction^ 6 Chapter One:Capital Exchange 7 1.1 Introduction^ 8 1.2 Siting Exchange 8 1.3 Social Space^ 10 1.4 Guises of Capital 11 1.5 Misrecognition^ 13 1.6 Statism^ 13 1.7 Conclusion 14 1.8 Notes for Chapter One^ 16 Chapter Two:Discretion As Control 24 2.1 Introduction^ 25 2.2 Ideological States 25 2.3 Naturalized Zoning^ 26 2.4 Amenitization 28 2.5 Legalized Aesthetic^ 33 2.6 Heritage^ 35 2.7 Consecration 41 2.8 Conclusion^ 44 2.9 Notes for Chapter Two^ 46 iv Chapter Three: Production of Heritage^ 56 3.1 Introduction^ 57 3.2 Aestheticized Capital^ 58 3.3 Primacy of Heritage 62 3.4 Collateral Benefits^ 67 3.5 Symbolic Externalities 71 3.6 Conclusion^ 78 3.7 Notes for Chapter Three^ 80 Chapter Four: Structuring Space 87 4.1 Introduction^ 88 4.2 Spatial Currency 88 4.3 Conferment^ 91 4.4 Capital Accumulation^ 95 4.5 Market Discipline 99 4.6 Power and Territory^ 103 4.7 Conclusion^ 105 4.8 Notes for Chapter Four^ 107 Chapter Five: Discussion^ 112 5.1 Introduction 113 5.2 Development Exchange^ 113 5.3 Social Space^ 114 5.4 Avenues of Inquiry 115 5.5 Conclusion^ 116 5.6 Postscript on the Heritage Field^ 117 5.7 Notes for Chapter Five^ 120 Bibliography^ 122 Appendices 135 A Supporting City of Vancouver Reports, By-laws and Policies^ 136 B List of Interviews Conducted^ 145 C BREB Certificate of Approval 146 VList of Tables Table 2.1 Downtown Comprehensive Zoning^ 31 Table 3.1: Land Sales in Downtown Distirct Area Li July 1999 - April 2006^ 61 Table 3.2: Density Implication of Social Amenity Bonusing^ 73 Table 4.1: Heritage Transfer of Density Donor Sites Jan.1993 - Oct. 2005^ 93 Table 4.2: Heritage Density Transfers Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005^ 98 Table 4.3: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan.1993 - Oct.2005 102 v i List of Figures Figure 1.1: Fundamental Guises of Capital^ 12 Figure 2.1: Land Lift Creation Through Rezoning^ 29 Figure 2.2: Downtown CD-1 Zoning^ 30 Figure 2.3: Maximum Density For All Uses Under Zoning By-law as of June 2006^ 32 Figure 2.4: Concurrent Development of Capital and Heritage Policies^ 35 Figure 2.5:Transfer of Density Area^ 37 Figure 2.6: Potential of Heritage Development Mechanisms^ 38 Figure 2.7: Development Intensification through Transfer of Density^ 39 Figure 2.8: Commercial Use of Civic Heritage^ 43 Figure 2.9: Aestheticized Streetscape^ 44 Figure 3.1: Downtown South and Central Business District Shoulder^ 59 Figure 3.2: Land Sales in Downtown Distirct Area L1 July 1999 - April 2006 60 Figure 3.3:Central Business District Shoulder^ 63 Figure 3.4:Transfer of Density within Comprehensive Development^ 64 Figure 3.5: Heritage as Share of Total Community Amenity Contributions 65 Figure 3.6: Heritage Support through Community Amenity Contributions as of June 2006^ 66 Figure 3.7: Density Realization through Heritage^ 69 Figure 3.8: Heritage Expression in Dominant Form of Development^ 70 Figure 3.9: Density Implications of Social Amenity Bonusing^ 72 Figure 3.10: Symbolic Externalities through Amenitization 75 Figure 3.11: Social Amenity Realization through Heritage^ 76 Figure 3.12: Infrastructure Realization through Heritage 78 Figure 4.1:Transferable Density as Share of Total Heritage Incentive^ 90 Figure 4.2: Donor and Receiver Site Distribution Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005 94 Figure 4.3: Density Bank Balance Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005^ 95 Figure 4.4: Heritage Density Transfers Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005 97 Figure 4.5: Social Ability Expressed through Physical Form^ 99 Figure 4.6: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan.1993 - Oct.2005 101 Figure 4.7: Disciplinary Receipt of Heritage Density^ 103 Figure 4.8: Preference of Intangible Heritage^ 106 Figure 5.1:Means of Capital Volume Expansion 114 Figure 5.2: Development Threshold and Assignment of Capital^ 115 Figure 5.3: Heritage Position Taking Relative to the City Bureaucracy 118 List of Acronyms CAC^Community Amenity Contribution CBD^Central Business District DODP Downtown Official Development Plan DPB^Development Permit Board DTES^Downtown Eastside FSR^Floor Space Ratio HBRP^Heritage Building Revitalization Program HDTS^Heritage Density Transfer System HRA^Heritage Revitalization Agreement UDP^Urban Design Panel VI I viii Preface The interest of this thesis is to contribute to the discourse regarding public value and the built environment. While it is the intention of the author to describe the conditions as they are from a position apart from that which is consecrated through symbolic measures,"any scientific discourse of simple enunciation is strongly liable to be perceived either as ratification or as denunciation."' The thesis presents the significant impact of amenity production to the physical and social space of the city. A primary question that should be considered is the ability afforded to the various agents involved by the naturalization of heritage as cultural asset rather than development mechanism.The success of this study may be measured by its relevance to those who engage in this discourse, regardless of their positions within the field. ' Defending his denial of something in reality that resembles what is labelled 'popular culture', Bourdieu references the "Weberian distinction between a judgment of value and a reference to values."Such criticism "amounts to mistaking a reference to values that agents actually effect in objectivity for a value judgment passed by the scientist who studies them."Although the importance to discourse is not what realities "are worth, whether they are good or bad','but rather what they are, this dichotomy"exists in reality in the form of hierarchies inscribed in the objectivity of social mechanisms...as well as in the schemata of classifications, systems of preferences, and tastes, which everybody knows (in practice) to be themselves hiearchized." (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:83-84). ix Acknowledgements Extensive thanks are due to my committee for their generous support during the development of this thesis. Dr. Sherry McKay's advising throughout the process and constructive criticism from John Bass and Dr. Maged Senbel have been formative to this effort.City planners and other professionals, listed in Appendix B, graciously provided further assistance through formal interviews and other inquiries. Steve Brouwers also contributed helpful review. Finally, the support of my family has been much appreciated with special thanks to Nicole for her welcome advice, substantial patience and emotional support. Introduction 20.1 A Model Vancouver Vancouver has emerged as an exemplar for late 20th century urban planning in North America related to the dramatic expansion of capital accumulation experienced by the City in both physical and symbolic terms. Since the late 1980s more than 150 residential highrises have been built within a mile radius of the central business district as the product of the widely promoted fiscal, design and planning project synonymous with the Vancouver Model . 2 Primary to this effort is the realization of public amenities through development that supports both the profitability of the market and municipal interests.The mechanisms that structure this exchange constitute a cardinal site in the struggle to define the physical and social space of the city, a contest in which the determination of the very boundaries of amenity is at stake. 0.2 Relevance Through the municipally defined terms of zoning, the City controls the development potential of the geographically delimited downtown core and effectively determines its spatial elasticity. Since changes adopted through the discretionary process that can be reasonably expected to increase the valuation of a site for the owner are conferred from the public body, the City pursues the delivery of common amenity as fair exchange for this wealth creation.This model pairs the public and private sectors in the development of the city and describes a scene of transaction that brings the definition and valuation of amenities to the fore. As with any social space of capital conversion, not only are the rates of exchange negotiated, but also the very determination of what constitutes a relevant good is in flux. Considering that these agreements significantly shape the physical realm and are made in the public interest, a critical approach to the process is relevant to the general discourse on the city. With the dramatic increase in residential development pressure in urban areas across North America both a product and determinant of local amenities, establishing criterion by which to judge the value of these provisions is indeed problematic.The possibility of benchmarking such a process is further challenged by the ambiguity of the bureaucratic field, the denial of universals in negotiated development and the recognition of complexity in the urban environment. Significant due to its apparently diametric position to new development, property endowed with a heritage value to the community is of particular interest.With the definition of heritage and the proper response to it contested by those who stand to gain or lose in its recognition, its role is highly malleable and its relation to development expressed in a variety of means that may constitute a range of effectiveness in the delivery of public amenities.The selection of heritage among the range of goods produced through development is by no means an indication that it is the sole lens to view this scene of transactions.The role of green spaces and social housing among others would similarly provide a pertinent measure. Rather, heritage provides a suitable study of amenity provision due to its role in both the formal transformation of the built environment and as a facilitator between a variety of municipal interests and development tools. The combined influence of Vancouver's geography, context and policy aids in its current success within the global investment market.While the yield in built form has indeed proved impressive, a degree of scrutiny incommensurately sparse to this dramatic expansion has been directed in recent years to the definition and valuation of the public goods derived from development. 3 Community concern is often raised by the rapid change in urban form, but the substantive reconfiguration in the application of principal development tools seems by comparison to be politically solvent. With Vancouver now at the midpoint between its successful 3Olympic bid and the upcoming 2010 event, the discussion of the nature of value in the city is timely as the city experiences both a vigorous investment stream and increased visibility on the international stage. Contemporary changes in staffing key positions internal to the municipal bureaucracy further substantiate this time as a significant moment to consider the recent use of amenity negotiation.The individuals within the Community Services Group of the City of Vancouver that have arguably had a formative influence on the understanding of the Vancouver model during the past decade have recently departed; the co-directors of planning retired in August and June last year and the director of real estate services left in May 2005.This flux provides both a pertinent moment for reflection as well as the consideration of possibilities currently excluded from public discourse. 0.3 Exteriorality The widespread notion that, by virtue of the subject's familiarity, research on a familiar subject"ought to be easily accessible" misrecognizes that it is precisely this closeness that diminishes the possibility of a critical perspective.4 Suffused with assumptions regarding the limits and, moreover, the very definition of the subject defeats the"objectifying distance" without which the agent takes this familiar world for granted, precisely because he is caught up in it, bound up with it; he inhabits it like a garment...he feels at home in the world because the world is also in him.5 That which may seem common sense, while attractive,"disguises as many truths as it reveals" and supports a "conspiracy of blindness" among those most familiar to the subject.6 Further frustrating social study,the increased fragmentation of disciplines,"each with its monopoly of specialists" and consecrated by language, delineates borders that are neglected by established specialities.' Recognizing only certain currency and ignoring its transferability, the limited universes of science including economics, law and planning define the world through exclusion. While the determination of exchange value in the city is of relevance to a broad number of disciplines, this study approaches the topic from an architectural reading. It is the intention that the unusual position of architecture, straddling the divide between the cultural production of arts such as literature and painting and the codified realm of experts and engineers, as the "profession which is not really one"will serve to overcome some of these limitations. 8 This study seeks to be of value to the non-profession rather than the profession of architecture; while its significance is indeed spatial, its orientation is towards describing the social production of the city. The task, rather than directed at the architectural merit of heritage retention, is to uncover"the structure of the distribution of species of capital which tends to determine the structure of individual or collective stances taken." The distribution of capital conditions both the interest and disposition of the field, informing the positioning of those vested in its determination.This forwards an image of the city that is not limited to the physical realm, but addresses the production of the social environment that conditions it. 0.4 Methodology The thesis seeks to apply certain technologies active in social fields to aid in the understanding of the role of heritage in the realization of the physical environment.The primary source of information is policy documents and other communications accessible to the public through the City's Community Services records. In addition to this information, a series of interviews of actors vested in the process serves to inform the thesis. While helpful in clarifying and locating the argument that follows, these interviews should be considered secondary; references in this document refer to published sources and not to specific comments 4made, and the findings reflected in this thesis are the author's own and there is likely to be conflicts between them and the positions of interviewed subjects. Considering the quantity and range of development in Vancouver, the scope of the study will be limited by geography, program and occasion. Due to its economic, cultural and symbolic significance to the City of Vancouver and its influence in public policy discourse, the downtown core will be the subject of study. False Creek, Burrard Inlet and Stanley Park delineate distinct boundaries, and Main Street completes the compass. While this area is a generally accepted field for policies affecting downtown Vancouver, it is certainly not absolute; Main Street bisects both the Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer and Chinatown areas, while other districts within these bounds require further review as to their relevance.This area, exclusive of site-specific zoning, roughly corresponds to the City-defined Transfer of Density Areas for Historic Preservation, although the latter also includes the Broadway corridor.The chronological range of the study follows the1993 legislation establishing the Heritage Transfer of Density policy to the present, although Chapter Three will clarify the period that particular data sets span. Developments occurring during and after 2002, the year that the City released both a discussion paper on Community Amenity Contributions in financing growth and a commissioned study of the transfer of density, will be of particular relevance due to their contemporaneity. An illustration of heritage within these bounds will be formed through a census of past use of capital transfer, review of relevant policy and determination of trends that illustrate a progressive adaptation of the amenity. Through the utilization of sociological theory, the thesis will diagram the role of heritage in the development of the physical environment and analyze the construction of value in the city. 0.5 Use and Limitations The thesis approaches the valuation of public goods through the consideration of fragments. Supporting the understanding that naturalized fields, by technically circumscribing the discipline, fail to address external influences, this study utilizes a broadly based approach to facilitate greater discourse regarding the nature and cogency of the role of heritage in the city. It is a primary goal to describe the connectivity between value and the built environment in Vancouver, and writing from the architectural discipline supports a generalist approach.While specialist positions can attain a great degree of technical specificity, the consequence of reduction is the failure to adequately address the less bounded consideration of value. It is the intention of this thesis to instead emphasize a range of fragments and, while the fields considered in the following chapters are developed conscientiously, it is ultimately the author's intention to present an argument that encourages further discourse. Although the address of value and the built environment is contested in every urban centre and enunciated by a general movement towards technically delineated partnerships between private value and public goods, the thesis defines as its limits the City of Vancouver.While the experiences of other cities serve as a backdrop to the arguments presented, the complexities in a single city are rich enough to suffice for the content of this study and this focus allows the weaving of several threads in a constrained geographic space. Also, due to its emerging role in recent years as a preeminent model of core development in North America, the experience of the City of Vancouver holds particular relevance as a resource for other municipalities.This focus does serve as a limitation, and the policies and results of other cities are a valuable resource for siting and critically approaching this study, and their experiences are invaluable to widening the contemporary possibilities in Vancouver today. 5Constructing its arguments from a variety of data sets, the thesis adopts a degree of fluidity to allow the utilization of relevant information from a range of disciplines.The delineations relegating the specific information to different fields are highlighted and must be considered when pursuing a generalist approach. It is the emphatic connections between these artificially disparate disciplines that facilitate the study of an active field of inquiry subject to a dynamic progression in its definitions and terms.This, paired with the reliance on data available to the general public, directs the approach of this thesis; the use of publicly accessible information serves both as a relevant platform to approach the expression of common value and as a significant limitation by neglecting certain formative power relations.These limitations notwithstanding, the thesis explores how the coalescence of value and the physical city is expressed and experienced, and considers this scene of transaction of crucial importance to the general discourse pertaining to the material and social determination of Vancouver. 0.6 Structure The thesis consists of three chapters, and it reconciles the interest in providing a concise argument with the need to site divergent disciplines with respect to the thesis through extensive notation at the end of each chapter.Transparency of sources is supported by listing interviews conducted and reports used in the construction of the data sets in the appendices.The first chapter defines the scene of transactions, arguing that the City of Vancouver is the relevant body of study. It describes the social space and how it bears upon the determination of value, explains the different guises of capital at play and their misrecognition and demonstrates how these divergent forms of capital centre in the powers of the state exercised at the municipal level.The second chapter explores how ideology functions to replicate the social structure and traces this movement in conjunction with discretionary zoning. A consideration of amenitization follows, as well as its application within the legalization of aesthetics. Heritage is then examined as a particular example, placed in the Vancouver context through historical review and applied to the development process.The third and fourth chapters focuses on heritage as amenity in the city in order to address the relation of public value and the urban environment. By analyzing the constituent programmes and considering their maturation as a definitive form of control, the role of heritage in development is illustrated through data sets as well as case studies.The conclusion returns to the theoretical foundation laid in the first chapter, emphasizing contested elements and delineating directions for further study. 60.7 Notes for Introduction 2 The residential growth and related amenitization is also promoted as the"Vancouver Miracle."Former councillor Gordon Price notes the'cultural premium' underlying this production of space (D.Ward 2004). • Although the critical consideration of value is limited, in 2002 Vancouver was the only Canadian city that had been subjected to systematic exploration of urban design regulations published in a scholarly journal, highlighting the exposure of Vancouver's policy efforts internationally (Kumar 200:241). 4 Terdiman assigns this assumption to an American context, contrasting it with a generalized Continental social science that"asserts that the mysteries of social existence are densest, not in the behavior of far-off exotic peoples, but in our own everyday usages. Here, familiarity has bred an ignorance which arises not from the strangeness of the object of investigation, but from its very transparency. Living within it, so thoroughly suffused with its assumptions that it is even hard to recall just when we adopt them, we tend to lose the critical perspective which makes 'social science' more than simply a recital of what everyone already knows" (Terdiman 1987:810). • Bourdieu 2000:142-143 6 Terdiman 1987:810 and Thompson 1979:4 • Bourdieu cites historian Richard Bonny—noting that Bonny limits the complexity to his own specialty of history—that the neglected areas are the "border zones" between specialties:"thus, the study of government requires knowledge of the theory of government (i.e., of the history of political thought), knowledge of the practice of government (i.e., of the history of institutions) and finally knowledge of governmental personnel (i.e., of social history)" (Bourdieu 1994:4). • Lipstadt 2003:392 9 Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:114 Chapter One: Capital Exchange 81.1 Introduction The contemporary urban environment is primarily determined through capital exchange sited in the City bureaucratic and political apparatus. While the extension of the state, the municipality exerts direct control within its bounds due to both historic understanding and its expanding autonomy. Broad shifts in disciplinary power, including the erosion of national power through globalization, precipitate the increased ability of local governance. It follows that the exercise of nominative ability, the conferment of honours that hold value on markets controlled by the state, centres in the social space described by the accumulated capital recognized by those active in the determination of the City. 1 °The economistic reduction of the understanding of capital betrays the significant ability vested in social and cultural means. Further, it negates the culmination of these capitals in the state; the very misrecognition of this influence is the key in naturalizing a vision of the City and consecrating objects with public value. 1.2 Siting Exchange The study of exchange value through the legitimated realization of the physical environment concerns the "culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital"that constitutes the state." While this construction is aligned with a "national consciousness','it is the municipality that attends the conversion rates and relevant values within the development process, supporting the assignment of'state' power in this thesis to the City of Vancouver. 12 As an "administrative extension of the provincial" and—further afield—federal government, the Canadian city's interest is both historically based and contemporarily expanding. 13 Through the establishment of legislative practices, emphasis on wealth realization through land development and recent rise of the city state in global politics, the City of Vancouver serves as a primary site in the exercise of nominative power. Although consitutional provisions do not extend powers of self-governance to municipalities, the Canadian city experiences a significant, albeit nonexplicit, degree of autonomy.The British North America Act of 1867 created the dominion of Canada and delineated legislative interests between the federal and provincial powers, conferring the responsibility of land use determination with few exceptions to the provinces and further declaring municipal institutions the "exclusive power of the province legislatures." 14 Upon entering Canada's Confederation in 1871 and passing its first municipal legislation two years later, British Columbia similarly limited municipalities to specific functions. However, the province generally expanded permission to include additional functions as requested and, in 2004 enacted "the most empowering local government statue in Canada" recognizing municipalities as an "order of government." 15 Developing under specific authority since its designation as the earliest Canadian exception to universal provincial legislation, the City of Vancouver has enjoyed throughout the 20'h century many of the abilities only recently extended to other municipalities and maintains a level of autonomy unparalleled in the province. 16 By fostering a civic politic that is "more American than Canadian"this distinction strengthens Vancouver's specific claim to power and emphasizes its functional kinship with American planning." With much of Canadian land use tied to American experiments, it is important to note that the significant legal distinctions influencing the relative autonomy of cities in each country do not have the same gravity in terms of the practical experience of local determination of exchange value: regardless of official designation, cities tend to enjoy"a significant degree of autonomy while experiencing tension with centralization forces.' Vancouver is among only a handful of Canadian municipalities under independent charter and the single instance in British Columbia. 9The origins of this anomaly can be traced to the 1884 decision by Canadian Pacific Railroad (CPR) officials to extend the statutory terminal of the transcontinental railway twelve miles west to a preferred site along Coal Harbour. 19 Anticipating the explosive growth from this selection, within two years the provincial legislature "passed a private bill that incorporated the City of Vancouver to encompass the terminal area" and specified governing powers and the provision of services.20 Titled the Vancouver Incorporation Act, the bill created the municipality's distance from universal provincial legislation and, although it was revised and renamed the Vancouver Charter in 1953, this separation continues today.This distinction allows the city"a very significant scope for policy innovation and direct response to local circumstances." 21 Furthermore, in policy fields largely relegated to senior government, Vancouver exhibits a substantial political will to act"despite constitutional and statutory inferiority."22 Vancouver's intergovernmental activity often centres expectedly on economic interests, and a promotional outlook has characterized the city since its founders "accepted the business view that the functions of the municipal government were to ensure orderly physical growth and provide services to real property: both would enhance land values."23 Council "advertised the city's virtues around the world and encouraged industry through 'bonusing'and other incentives" leading to a "meshing of public and private interests."24 This cooperative approach to land development directs each successive wave of investment characterized by changing centres of international investment capital and dynamic shifts in core land use from industrial production to office investment to residential creation. 25 In its infancy, this latest stage found encouragement in the 1988 sale of the former industrial lands of False Creek North to Hong Kong's wealthiest subject, a decision indicative of the"striking boldness with which politicians, as well as real-estate capitalists, marketed the city overseas"that is credited with directing the influx of Asian monies to Vancouver during subsequent years.26 The province's sale transferred 204 acres on the downtown peninsula on "extremely cheap terms',' ending an ongoing conflict between the city and province regarding the latter's development plans and ushering in a more intensive model of public-private partnership at the municipal leve1. 27 The developer was expected to pay all costs of the city's planning and regulatory work and, through the involvement of the former president of the Crown Corporation controlling the land prior to sale, assured a closeness that set a precedent for later development. 28 A further legacy of the project, along with other large-scale contemporaries, was the early resolution of the provision of community amenities concurrent with allowable market development.29 The realization of these amenities is sited in the city's determinative power over development rights. Through policies implemented over the past quarter century,Vancouver's urban fabric renders visible the considerable influence of the city's planning department. Aligned with "larger global shifts"embodying a "drastic repolarization of the city along political, economic, cultural and geographic linesNancouver has emerged as a prominent model for late 20'h century urban planning. 3° Approaching "urban design as public policy" its core development has garnered accolades for planning and awards for quality of life. 31 The collective identification of the generative policy, physical built form and related lifestyle as the"Vancouver Model" predicates the city, and places emphasis on the Department of Planning, as a primary site for legitimizing exchange value.The weighting of symbolic interest in the planning profession attributable to the expanding role of public-private partnerships at the municipal level extends from the economic challenges that many local governments face: cities are charged with an increasing number of services but remain dependent on grants and "sporadic acts of largess"from senior government. 32 Struggling with this downloading of responsibility without a commensurate shift of powers of direct taxation, municipal governments in Canada and abroad have noted Vancouver's success in funding amenities through development; these levies and contributions are crucial to the model forwarded by the city. 33 With recent 1 0 mayoral activism forwarding urban regions as the"principal economic, social and cultural engines" in the global economy, the determination of exchange value at the municipal level will continue to magnify. 34 The greater autonomy that these efforts seek bolster the claim to power established by City of Vancouver's legislative and economic origins. 1.3 Social Space The city's significant degree of autonomy in the determination of the built environment supports the assertion that nominative power is exercised at the local level. Considering the means of this realization necessitates the study of a"spatially grounded social process"that refuses the problematic reification of the city as an active agent in itself. 35 Efforts to illustrate exchange value as the object of divergent interests at play in the city is best guided by the writings of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu who forwards a general description of social space and understanding of capital. Bourdieu's observations do not diminish by means of their posthumous appropriation to a Canadian context. Rather, their universal appeal struggles against "extreme ethnocentric reduction"and have only through time cleared the more"obdurate obstacles" barring their meaningful appropriation to North American consideration. 36 Significantly, Bourdieu's corpus "forthrightly questions premature specialization and empirical balkanization"and is distinctive in its consideration of fields that cross disciplinary divisions and their corresponding categories of perception." Yet, while forwarding the possibility of reconciling entrenched antagonisms in theory and research, the catholic quality of Bourdieu's half-century of research and publication also accentuates the danger of piecemeal adoption. 38 Acknowledging that the scope of this thesis will nevertheless delimit much of the richness of Bourdieu's work by focusing narrowly on the role of capital in determining exchange value, a preliminary description of the theoretical system of inquiry addressing individual perception and the construction of the social world within structural constraint follows." Approaching the social world requires the consideration of dispositions—habitus—and the reflexive conditioning of relational sets—fields." These concepts designate"bundles of relations"that confront the prominent subjective-objective antinomy of the social sciences by operating in tandem to overcome the divide between the individual and society.'" They form a theory of action that is based at once on recognition of consciousness and the 'thingness' of social fact." Habitus refers to"systems of durable, transposable dispositions"comprising 'habit'and'habitae;they are inculcated, social categories of perception, generate distinction and constitute a veritable—and misrecognized—language." It is the 'feel for the game' or 'practical sense'that inclines agents to act apart from conscious decision ."The generative principle of distinct and distinctive practices, habitus approaches lifestyle through classifications that divide persons, goods and manners.45 Although several antecedents form the lineage of Bourdieu's development of a theory of habitus, it is directly linked to the mid-twentieth century effort to describe architecture as a form of knowledge. In his study Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, art historian Erwin Panofsky identifies a homology of structure between medieval philosophy and gothic architecture and attributes this link to a "principle that regulates the act." 46 Bourdieu later refined Panofsky's observation of a "mental habit',' noting in the postface of the French translation that a system of schema common to clerics and cathedral architects systematically—but not deliberately—orients their choices." His subsequent study of the Berber House as a basis for the theory of habitus reinforces architecture as a "way of knowing the world." 48 Architecture remains a relevant means to study habitus, particularly due to its close relation to authority and the acute congruence of habitus to habitat:"social space tends to be translated, with more or less distortion, into physical space" affording habitus "the possibility of social practice and the site of its reproduction.""The realization of 11 habitat—and architecture—is spatially and temporally beholden to habitus, which, as an "open system of dispositions"constantly subjected to experiences that either reinforce or modify its structures, is a product of history.5° Although habitus is not subject to mechanical determination, it is through the habitus that"the structure which has produced it governs practice...through the mediation of the orientations and limits it assigns to the ha bitus's operations of invention." 51 Within social practice, the"feel for the game"that comprises habitus is conditioned reflexively by the rules of the game of the field; whereas objective relations are"deposited" in the ha bitus, their configuration between positions at any given moment define the field. 52 All objects and agents that enter these spheres of'play' are subject to a "relational configuration endowed with a specific gravity"valid to that field. 53 Hence, the existence of the agent"as fact and as value" is inseparable from the existence of the field as an "autonomous universe."54 It is through her effort to maximize control over the specific, recognized resources, that the agent moves to conserve or transform the field. 55 The position taken is relational and determined by the"totality of the lines of force" since every agent exerts influence proportionate to the capital held of the specific composition and nature rendered autonomous to the field. 56 This specificity separates these social universes and provisions a differentiated society through the recognition that they "cannot be collapsed under an overall societal logic."52 Nevertheless, fields are hierarchically organized and subject to heteronomy, or domination by outside authority, so that fields of cultural production are positioned within the overarching field of power.58 Approaching heritage buildings—social constructions constructed in physical space— through field theory describes the object of research and transcends the false reality of professions that denies recognition that the legitimization of an occupation is a social act in itself. 59 The result is inclusive of the range of agents invested in heritage as structured in Vancouver's built environment and considers the cultural products as "manifestations of the field as a whole, in which all the powers of the field, and all the determinism inherent in its structure and functioning, are concentrated." 6° 1.4 Guises of Capital Resisting reductionism, the identification of a general theory of the economy of fields facilitates the description of the specific form taken by the basic mechanism within each field. 61 Since forces active in the field define the specific capital, capital "does not exist and function except in relation to a field." 62 Recognizing that principles other than "mechanical cause or the conscious intention to maximize one's utility" are not only extant, but also reasonable and, most importantly, apart from conscious computation supports rethinking the orthodox approach to economic capital 63 Central to the discussion of exchange value is a reading of capital that rebukes the colloquial terminology that relegates its use to the economistic generation of income and production of wealth. 64 In failing to consider the possibility of varied means of appropriation this characterization is incomplete; a purely economic reading enables only consumption, fails to consider the increased ability provisioned by immaterial resources and reduces the world to a "discontinuous series of instantaneous mechanical equilibria." 65 Rather, capital is accumulated in forms outside of economic limits that, although not employable through direct exchange, are nevertheless transferable. Recognizing that cultural knowledge and social ability are based on but not reducible to economic accumulation delineates cultural, social and economic as the three "fundamental guises" of capital and outlines a required means of conversion.66 It is this more expansive understanding of capital as the embodied form of accumulated labour that fosters continuity and distinguishes between not equally likely possibilities 67 12 Of these guises, cultural capital "concerns forms of cultural knowledge, competences or dispositions" inculcated through pedagogical action. 68 This type of capital exists in three states:"long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body"constitute embodied cultural capital; cultural goods serve as objectified cultural capital; and conferment of guaranteed qualifications delineate institutionalized cultural capita1.89 Due to its acquisition at a young age akin to hereditary behaviour, embodied cultural capital appears innate and demonstrates class, culture and cultivation. 7° It assumes a fundamental connection to the person and has a profound—albeit widely hidden or symbolic—role in predisposing actors to certain actions.The consideration of objectified cultural capital is only possible in its relation with cultural capital in its embodied state!' Significant to the realization of the city, cultural capital is objectified—and transmissible—in material objects including paintings, dress and buildings. Although materiality accommodates transfer of reified cultural capital through economic exchange, its appropriation is contingent on the possession of the means of consumption.This capacity—the ability to consume cultural goods—is transmissible subject to the same considerations of embodied capital. Analogous to the distinction between economic acquisition of a machine and marshalling the embodied capital necessary to appropriate the cultural capital specific to its use, the ownership of an art object and its consumption are not interchangeable/2 Capital objectified in the form of academic qualifications denotes the institutionalized state.Through conferment of"conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture';institutionalized cultural capital imposes recognition." Furthermore, as a product of economic-made cultural capital, it establishes the value in terms of both cultural capital assigned to a given qualification and the economic value of its exchange. Derived from relationships and networks, social capital is the third fundamental guise of capital. Identified with the membership of a group, social capital is a"collectively-owned resource based on reciprocity." 74 While aligned along collective delineation, key, visible individuals serve as signifiers of the whole." Significantly Figure 1.1: Fundamental Guises of Capital CULTURAL ^ SOCIAL ECONOMIC 13 "social capital is embedded in the built environment where it is sustained and reproduced by architectural programs as spatially structured patterns of social encounter." 76 1.5 Misrecognition While the built environment serves to reproduce capital, the nature of this capital is often misrecognized. With the increased entrepreneurial outlook of the local state encouraging the close cooperation between market and public interests, efforts are validated by economistic technologies and practices. Linked to the "social and cognitive structures of a particular order"these"allegedly universal characteristics"are in fact "immersed or embedded in a particular society"and constitute an "economic common sense." 77 The resulting reduction perpetuates the fallacy of homo oeconomicus—the theoretically minded man of practice—that refuses history for rationality/8 It is the pro forma calculation of financial costs and incentives of development proposals that makes this theory inviolable in the neoliberal creation of the city; bureaucratic educational processes naturalize not only"what amenities cost',' but more importantly what constitutes an amenity and ascribes its worth. 79 Suggesting an explicitly rational and economic criteria, this legalism deduces"practices from the rule that is supposed to govern them"and is"most particularly encouraged by the ordinary representation bureaucracies have of themselves and wish to present of themselves as both productive of and products of regulations."Thus, technological rationality obfuscates the influence of habitus in favour of universality, and it is"doubtless the most formidable obstacle to a true knowledge and understanding of the real functioning of bureaucracies." 8° By denying the dispositions and relations, it conjures decision-making by rational calculation of"actors performing roles or acting in conformity with models." 81 Furthermore, supposing that each decision is ahistorical, legalism denies that actors accumulate cultural and social capital and that the language employed is one of the stakes or rewards of the field. 82 Far from a sharing a homogenous identity, the"weight of different agents depends on their symbolic capital"—the recognition received from the grou p .83 Symbolic capital is "what every kind of capital becomes when it is misrecognized as capital...and therefore recognized as legitimate." 84 Its existence is defined in "relationship with a habitus predisposed to perceive it as a sign"and it is"structured according to the very structures of the space in which it has been engendered." 85 It follows that the determination of exchange value is predicated on symbolic capital and the role of misrecognition in its transfer. A "fake circulation of fake coin','symbolic exchange cannot operate without the"collectively maintained and approved self- deception"in which "agents must refuse to know and above all to recognize it." 88 This deliberate oversight governed by the"most fundamental mechanisms of the social order"characterizes neoliberal realization of the city, wherein planning is a gift exchange requiring the undeclared calculations of involved agents to satisfy the expectations held by each "without appearing to know what they are."87 Only through this "extent of practical kinship"can the actors "enjoy both the advantages accruing from every practical relationship and the symbolic profits secured by the approval socially conferred on practices conforming to the official representation of practices."88 1.6 Statism Confronting the "non-identity of capital and the state (as well as the state and consumers, the 'public')" acknowledges the "political ambiguity of the state as the major support both of regimes of private property 14 and of the public sector" and recognizes that this ambivalence"displaces conflicts into its own specific forms."89 The state, then is the "culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital: capital of physical force or instruments of coercion...economic capital, cultural (or better) informational capital and symbolic capital."90 This concentration proceeds alongside the construction of the corresponding fields and leads to the "emergence of a specific properly statist capital7a "meta-capital granting power over other species of capital and over their holders"that enables the state to exercise power, particularly over the rates of conversion between different species of capital and thereby over the"relations of force between their respective holders."91 The simultaneous incarnation of"objectivity, in the form of specific organizational structures and mechanisms, and in subjectivity in the form of mental structures and categories of perception and thought" provides the basis for symbolic violence:the actions of the state institute matters of culture in both "things and in minds conferring upon the "cultural arbitrary all the appearances of natural . 92 The genesis of the modern state is therefore the"organizational expression of the concentration of symbolic power"that constitutes"a public trove of material and symbolic resources guaranteeing private appropriations." 93 Removed from the"quasi-metaphysical notion"that"presupposes that the state is a well-defined, clearly bounded and unitary reality which stands in relation of externality with outside forces that are themselves clearly identified and defined','the state is instead an "ensemble of administrative or bureaucratic fields... within which agents and...categories of agents, governmental and nongovermental, struggle over this peculiar form of authority consisting of the power to rule via...everything that we normally put under the rubric of state policy." 94 Representations of the state portraying bureaucracy as"a 'universal group' endowed with the intuition of, and a will to, universal interest; or as an 'organ of reflection' and a rational instrument in charge of realizing general interest"wield the power of seduction that pervades the "thought of the bureaucratic thinker" and the"official representation of the official." 95 In the determination of exchange value, the bureaucratic body, although representing divergent and even contrary interests, forwards the facade of a naturalized truth with each project forwarded to the public married to the already realized solution of the given concern. The interests and values associated with the positions of agents within this"emerging bureaucratic universe" closely align with—and indeed give full meaning to—juridical writing that not only constitutes the"theoretical contributions to the knowledge of the state but also...the political strategies aimed at imposing a particular vision of the state."96 1.7 Conclusion With the contraction of the disciplinary state, the municipality has expanded its already substantial role in the determination of the physical environment.This shift has aligned with the reliance on amenity realization through development and the corresponding increase in the role of public-private partnerships. Refuting the reification of the City as an agent in itself, Bourdieu's general description of social space forwards the reflexive conditioning of habitus and fields that serves to describe the struggle of individual agents.The abilities of these agents, as well as the appropriable resources of the field, are constituted through three fundamental guises of capital: cultural, social and economic. Cultural capital is further delineated as embodied, objectified or institutionalized, is intrinsic to the pedagogical process and is of primary importance in both the creation 15 and consumption of heritage resources. Despite the varied forms of capital, bureaucracies misrecognize the influence of habitus and suggest that they are created from and produce universality with their decisions derived from rational calculus.Akin to other fields, the collective misrecognition of capital in the social space of the City vests those resources with legitimacy through their perceived status as symbolic.This denial is fundamental in the concentration of capital in the state, the control of the rates of conversion between constituent guises of capital and the neoliberal realization of the city. Considering the expanding abilities of municipal governments, the convergence of capital in the state identifies the City as the primary site in the exercise of nominative power and determination of public value.Vancouver's progressive adoption of increasingly discretionary planning measures and its related reliance on the amenitized production of space only amplifies the significance of this capital misrecognition. 16 1.8 Notes for Chapter One 10 In modern societies,"social success depends very strictly on an initial act of nomination"and this assigning of a name consecrates preexisting social difference. While the invention of the bureaucratic state is closely tied with the development of schools and universities, the transmission of technical competence conferred by diplomas also reinforces cultural ability. Hence 'civil servants' elevate their interests to the 'progressive' ideology of public service and "cannot make use of the state they claim to serve unless they also serve, however slightly, the universal values with which they identify it" (Bourdieu 1998:22-24). As described in the remainder of the chapter, since the determination of the physical environment is centred in the ability of the City, the exercise of cultural capital garnered through, for instance, the official identification of the planner occurs through the 'Community Services' branch of the City. Further, this identity allows the heritage planner defined by her title within the bureaucracy to consecrate objects as heritage. " Bourdieu: 1994:3-4 12 The national state with its constituent monopoly over physical and symbolic violence certainly acts directly—and at times in conflict with—dominated levels of government in municipal affairs. More importantly, it is central to the symbolic, economic and cultural determination of value, not the least of which is the right to coin money (Bourdieu: 1994:5-7).That the rise of nationalism is bound to the "recognition of the legitimacy of taxation" is formative today with the City of Vancouver directly garnering only 7% of taxes collected in the city in 1999 with the federal and provincial shares amounting to 57% and 36% respectively—figures that roughly align with other major Canadian cities (Bourdieu 1994:7 and Rowe 2001:1). 13 Bish identifies the role of British Columbian local governments as two-fold: they serve as administrative extensions; and are the"mechanisms through which local residents can undertake preferred collective activities"(Bish 1999:2).The duality of siting the city both interior and exterior to the state construct illustrates the complexity of the body's role, although either action occurs within the structure of the field and is ultimately subject to the same constraints. 14 Canada did not achieve full legislative sovereignty until the 1931 passage of the Statute of Westminster, and it was not until the 1982 Canada Act that the nation patriated its constitution.Today, the original British North America Acts and the Canada Act are known generally as the Constitution Acts. Commonly referred to as "creates of the provinces' Canadian municipalities have only those rights extended to them by their respective provinces (BNA Sec. 92-8). 15 The expansion of voluntary functions led to 200-300 identifiable functions in the Municipal Act by 1999 and reforms between 1997 and 1999 "considerably broadened municipal powers to function autonomously"(C.Tindall and S. Tindall 2004:201-202 and Bish 199923-24). 16 Vancouver was the first city chartered under the Canadian dominion, although a royal charter incorporated Saint John in 1785 (P. Smith and Stewart 2003:11 and C.Tindall and S.Tindall 2004:205). ' 7 Vancouver is positioned to maintain its charter in the manner of an "American city dealing with the state legislature" (Tennant 1981).This functional similarity does not conflict with the greater Canadian emphasis on "social programmes and the equitable distribution of resources"resulting in a city that has the"ability to operate within long-term community goals...to maximize the benefits from both private and public expenditures for the public good"described by former Director of Planning Ray Spaxman (Spaxman 1991:89). Rather, it emphasizes the universal challenge of entrepreneurialism regardless of the local state. 18 Differences not withstanding, an excessive interest in the subservient nature of Canadian municipalities in comparison to their American counterparts places an undue emphasis on legal theory over actual practice. Even within the United States, in which opposing viewpoints on the autonomy of cities centre on Iowa Supreme Court Judge John F. Dillon's 1868 ruling that municipal corporations are tenants at will of the state legislatures and the expression of home rule in an 1875 amendment to the Missouri state constitution, the reality is that cities operate somewhere between these extremes (P. Smith and Stewart 2003:2-6). Historically, home rule is not unfamiliar to British Columbia, since prior to confederation the Colony of British Columbia passed a general ordinance creating guidelines for home rule municipalities that applied until 1873 (Bish 1999:17). 19 The Hastings Mill anchored the Granville townsite surveyed in 1870 and known popularly as Gastown.The community of 300 was "economically and politically subservient"to New Westminster with a population of 3,000 (Gutstein 1983:190-191) The role of the CPR has been a primary influence in the urban formation of Vancouver and introduced the meshing of public and private interest as well as the consideration of betterment at the earliest stage of the city's founding.CPR general manager William Van Horne christened Vancouver and incorporated the city with the cooperation of Hastings Mill officials. In return for the rail extension, the province granted 6,275 acres around the terminus with a further 175 acres culled from large private landowners compelled to contribute one-third of the lots in each block they owned recognizing that the would benefit from the railroad's actions (Gutstein 1975:10-11). 17 2° (Bish 1999:18) 21 While British Columbian municipalities may experience a provincial willingness to expand permissible functions, the separate legislation allows the City Council to request directly amendments to the City's charter through private bills (Punter 2003:14-18). Furthermore, the Charter specifically provisions greater local determination of the urban environment; the city council—rather than the province—controls and owns public lands within Vancouver's bounds (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2002:3).Although the province has largely accepted proposals from the city council, it has amended the charter without the city's approval (Tennant 1980:4-5). 22 P. Smith and Stewart substantiate their claim that municipal influence extends beyond its legislative bounds:leading a policy field largely outside of its jurisdiction,Vancouver forwarded the tri-level Vancouver Agreement to become the first Canadian city to pursue a harm-reduction model for non-medical drug use; insulating local policies from senior frustration, the city held a 2003 non-binding plebiscite prior to the visit of the 2010 Olympic Selection Committee; and continuing a long history of engaging in international activities (in 1944 Vancouver became the first city within modern western democracies to enter into an international twinning arrangement, becoming a "sister city" with Odessa), the city forges a "globalist policy stance" involving a variety of international localities as well as pursuing a Cascadia identity with municipalities in the American Northwest (P. Smith and Stewart 2003:19-25). Harvey attributes the increasing reliance on negotiation between international capital and local governing bodies to the "declining powers of the nation state to control multinational money flows" (Harvey 1989:5). Further, the "restructuring of the relationship between capital and the state" has percipitated a "rescaling of urban practices, cultures and functions in the context of changing global relations" evident in the exapnding role of municipal governments, such as Manhattan's mayoral threat during the late 1990s to tow illegally parked cars with diplomatic plates (N. Smith 2002:429). 23 Vancouver's first mayor was a real estate speculator who arrived in Vancouver in early 1886 and property industry businessmen and professionals have widely had a prominent presence in City Hall; in 1972 seven of eleven people on the city council hailed from such occupations (Gutstein 1983:190-191 and Lorimer 1972:96-97).The resulting shift away from the"growth boosterism" identified as the "hallmark of Vancouver politics since the town's founding,"would lead to the adoption of a policy of amenitization centred on aesthetic concerns (Ley 1980:239). 24 Gutstein 1983:191-192 25 Gutstein 1990:117-119 26 This cooperation cast the state as an "agent rather than a regulator of the market" specifically targeting the Pacific Rim (Mitchell 2004:36). 27 The sale, comprising the former industrial lands cleared for the 1986 World Exposition considered a "geographic watershed" integrating Vancouver into global capitalist networks, dovetailed with broader neoliberal trends; the federal dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Act and the 1986 introduction of an investor-immigrant category encouraged foreign investment in development and other real estate-related ventures and further promoted Canada as a politically stable country with a steadily growing economy. (Blomley 2004:51 and Gutstein 1990:95,102,117, 136-138). Characterized as a transformation "from CPR's [Canadian Pacific Railway's] shabby rail yard, to glitzy home of Expo '86, to trendy waterfront community with tens of thousands live and/or play," the project further aligns with what Harvey identifies as a basic strategy of entrepreneurialism with the city focusing on "quality of life" to improve its competitive position through the development of both the physical environment and the urban spectacle:the site not only hosted the exposition coinciding with Vancouver's centennial, but is proximate to the 2010 Winter Olympic Village currently under construction (Cayo 2006 and Harvey 1989:9). 28 Architect Stanley Kwok had two years of experience negotiating with the city on False Creek North when hired as vice- president of Concord Pacific Developments and asked that the city planner and engineers be intimately involved with the city form the beginning. (Gutstein 1990:138-139 and Blore 1999:56). 29 Punter 2003:197 3° N.Smith 1996:6 31 Between 1984 and 2002 Vancouver has won 5 international, 10 national and 16 provincial awards for its planning and consistently ranks highly on Mercer and similar indices for quality of life (Punter 2002:265-266). Furthermore,the city is regularly commended by commercial and trade organizations, and, most prominent among the many political and professional leaders active outside of the city, recently retired Co-Director of the Department of Planning Larry Beasley has worked in municipalities in Canada, United States, China and New Zealand and was appointed a Member of the Order of Canada, the country's highest civilian honour, in July 2004 for his efforts. Noting the number of cities that have studied Vancouver urban design, The Vancouver Sun notes "Vancouver is Vancouver's greatest gift to the world" (McMartin 2006). 18 32 The strong consensus emerging from a 1985 Orleans colloquia on the eroding fiscal base of world cities that"urban governments had to be much more innovative and entrepreneurial" indicates the universality of municipally centred efforts (Rowe 2001:4-6 and Harvey 1989:4).This increasing"entrepreneurialism in urban governance seems to suggest considerable autonomy of local action"(Harvey 1989:14) " Municipal planning has increasing fiscal influence as "cities 'mint' money with their zoning codes to finance a wide array of public amenities"(Kayden 1990:99). 34 The 2001 C5 meeting convened by Jane Jacobs gathered mayors of major Canadian cities and emphasized the importance of the city as"the relevant unit for creation of wealth of nations"(Jacobs 1984 and Rowe 2001:4). 35 Harvey notes the conceptual difficulties of combining the reification of cities with "a language that sees the urban process as an active rather than passive aspect of political-economic development','since it can erroneously appear that cities are identified as agents when "they are mere things"(Harvey 1989:5). Hence, Spaxman's observation that"we will mould the city and the city will mould us" necessitates an understanding of the 'city'as the social space of agents rather than as a physical entity (Spaxman 1991:94). 38 While a number of issues retard the adoption of Bourdieu's theories into foreign contexts, his descriptions reveal the "broad series of patterns" relevant in modern liberal societies (Wacquant 1989:29-32 and Terdiman 1987:806). 37 Wacquant 1989:29 • Garnham 1980:209 39 "Concepts have no definition other than systemic ones, and are designed to be put to work empirically in systematic fashion...[they] can be defined, but only within the theoretical system they constitute, not in isolation" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:96). 4° For Bourdieu, reflexivity entails the"systematic exploration of the 'unthought categories of thought which delimit the thinkable and predetermine the thought'as well as guide the practical carrying out of social inquiry"(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:40). It is the"key to the maintenance of the autonomy that intellecutals, like artists, enjoy"and the basis for resistance to the"neo-liberal commodification of culture" (Lipstadt 2003:394). • Bourdieu insists on the possibility of a 'unified political economy of practice'to circumvent or diffuse these dichromatic approaches (Wacquant 1989:26 and Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:16). Subjectivism, identified by Bourdieu as the "phenomenal form of knowledge focuses on the"individual actor and upon the experiential reality of social action" while objectivism fetishizes structures, the"observable regularities of social action." Hence, as the prior fails to recognize the social determinants of human action, the latter marginalizes agents as"performers of preordained scores or bearers of the structure"(Garnham and Williams: 1980:212). 42 Wacquant 1989:45 43 Habitus"make distinctions between what is good and what is bad, between what is right and what is wrong, between what is distinguished and what is vulgar, and so forth, but the distinctions are not identical.Thus, for instance, the same behavior or even the same good can appear distinguished to one person, pretentious to someone else, and cheap or showy to yet another"(Bourdieu 2006 :72 and Bourdieu 1998:8). 44 Although 'structured structures' in that they incorporate the objective social conditions of their inculcation, habitus can be"collectively orchestrated without being the product of the organizing action of a conductor (R.Johnson 1993:5 and Bourdieu 2006 :72). While displaying autonomy and flexibility that can be traced to her evolution in a world characterized by a degree of looseness, the agent is shaped by external conditions through habitus.Thus, although the agent responds meaningfully to developing situations, improvises the best possible course of action and initiates unexpected moves, the driving force is not conscious calculation, but rather the activated dispositions and classifications of habitus (Peillon 1998:220-221). Bourdieu employs the term social agent in place of individual, person or subject to emphasize the collective nature of identity (Reed-Denahay 2005:168).Through an affinity of style, a group of persons occupying proximate positions in social space share behaviour elements. Merleau-Ponty likens this 'practical systematicity'to the"handwriting of a person who keeps her style, immediately recognisable, when she writes with instruments as diverse as a pencil, a pen or a piece of chalk and on media as different as a sheet of paper and a blackboard" (Bourdieu 2002:28). Hence, while the individual acts with a degree of autonomy, she is disposed to her shared habitus (Reed-Denahay 2005:15). • Bourdieu uses 'lifestyle'to describe a human behaviour that is not monolithic, but rather a 'loose systematicity':"very open, very diverse, but within limits"(Bourdieu 2002:29). Defining this structure as a "program of perception and action 19 realized through empirical work"fosters a broad and shifting diversity of readings and leaves habitus"hand in glove with vagueness and indeterminacy" (Bourdieu 1990:77).Although rejecting 'theoretical parthenogenesis; Bourdieu nevertheless explores the genesis and application of habitus (Bourdieu 1985). However its actualization, the extent of its liberating—or constraining—influence on theory is contested: habitus is criticized diametrically as either a "conceptual straight-jacket"or the very means of free play and creativity (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:132 n85). " Thomas Aquinas' (principium importans ordinem ad actum) writings serve Panosky's argument that a "genuine cause- and-effect relation"connected the Scholastic sense and contemporaneous form of medieval cathedrals.This relation is one of "diffusion rather than direct impact"and forms a commonality that is"bound to form a mental habit no less decisive and all-embracing than that of unconditional clarification" in reproducing habit (Panofsky 1968:20-21,68). 47 Bourdieu translated Panofsky's 1951 work into the French publication titled Architecture Gothique et Pensee Scolastique sixteen years later. Importantly, Bourdieu clarifies that the orientating habitus imbues choices with a finality (though not expressly to an ultimate end) that reveals itself only after the selection (Dianteill, E.2003:530).Bourdieu lauds Panofsky's contribution of providing a convincing explanation for the"structural homologies that he finds between such different areas of intellectual activity as architecture and philosophical thought." Specifically,"what the architects of the Gothic cathedrals unwittingly borrowed from the schoolmen was a...modus operandi, i.e. a 'peculiar method of procedure which must have been the first thing to impress itself upon the mind of the layman wherever it came in touch with that of the schoolman:"Thus the Scholastic literary presentation requiring the"author to make plain and explicit...the arrangement and logic of his argument"also governs the architect as exhibited in the"consumate clarity"of corresponding schemes, despite a varying degree of motifs, of architectural features of Parisian cathedrals. The influence of education on perception means,"what the naive beholder recognizes only as a flower or a battle, the educated beholder can interpret as symbol or myth" (Bourdieu 1968:592). Delineating two levels of interpretation—the first related to"our immediate sensations or experiences (when a peach is described as velvety)" and the second contextualizing the art work"so that its phenomenal meaning is embedded within other levels of meaning"and that a picture can not only represent"The Last Supper; but the images and methods of composition are"treated as cultural symbols belonging to a particular age, a nation or a class—draws the first formulations of 'the cultivated habitus' (Codd 1990:135-136). Bourdieu references Panfosky in 1970 and again in 1977, when he notes that Panofsky"only exceptionally and almost accidentally"abandons the point of view of the interpreter who "represses the question of artistic production...and reduces immediate comprehension to a decoding that is unaware that it is a decoding" (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977:34 and Bourdieu 2006 [19771:1). He also summons Panofsky's 1953 analysis of Roger van der Weyden's Three Magi altarpiece when analyzing advertising material for the housing market (Bourdieu 2005:61). While Dovey states that"habitus is a term borrowed from architecture" (specifically Panofsky), Sapiro notes that Bourdieu had previously drawn on the concept of habitus—although delineated as a set of body techniques (techniques du corps) in the spirit of Marcel Mauss—in his 1962 study of peasant celibacy in Bearn (Dovey 2002:268 and Dianteill, E.2003:547 n4-5). Bourdieu notes connections of his conception of habitus with precedents of Hegel and Husserl, and Wacquant analogizes habitus with Aristotle's phronesis and Plato's orthe doxa in that the agent acts as she 'has to do' without posing it as a goal (Bourdieu 1985:14 and Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:128). 48 Habitus involves architecture by constructing both the"sense of'place'and the sense of one's 'place' in the social hierarchy (Dovey 2002:267-268). By demonstrating the reflexive relation between physical and gender, social and mythic structures, Bourdieu criticizes even meticulously detailed descriptions of the interior space as subject to omission due to their failure to"consider objects and actions as part of a symbolic system" (Bourdieu 1972:98-99). " "Divisions and distinctions of social space...are really and symbolically expressed in physical space appropriated as reified social space" (Bourdieu 2000:134 and Dovey 2002:268-269). °° Although dispositions are durable, since habitus is acquired—distinguishing it from tradition conception of an innate character—it shapes and is shaped by space that is at once social and physical: social divisions including gender, class and age are evident through divisions of physical space into"suburbs, kitchens, playgrounds, classrooms, cafes, factories and bathrooms"and through temporal situations of"meetings, dinner parties, lectures and festivals." Dovey notes that the appeal of relatively stable traditions of dwelling bolster this congruence; while the habitat experiences radical change, the response from the habitus is evolutionary (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:133 and Dovey 2002:269). While Bourdieu's writings often commented on the relation between the physical and social worlds, he made few observations specifically on the profession of architecture. Lipstadt observes that he partially repudiated as structuralist his 1973 essay on the Berber House twenty years after its publication and mostly confined writing on architects to their function as state civil servants or architect-builders until 2003 when he noted that architecture's cultural production was similar to poetry or literature (Lipstadt 2003:391 and Bourdieu 2002:32). 51 Bourdieu 2006 [19771:95 52 Bourdieu frequently illustrates the structure of a field through the analogue of the game, although he cautions that a field is not the product of a deliberate act of creation and its rules are more accurately regularities that are not 20 explicit nor codified, resulting in significant fluidity and complexity (Bourdieu and Wacquant:98,104).To be successful in a game situation, agents need not only knowledge of these rules, but an understanding from experience of how they may be modified. Activities are constructed not simply from external limitations but through "internalisations and placing of limits" by the individual actors on herself (Hillier and Rooksby 2002:7). Fields inform the habitus since embodied feelings are connected to commonsense understandings of the world from a particular social position (Reed-Denahay 2005:2). 53 Wacquant notes a field is a "patterned system of objective forces (much in the manner of a magnetic field)"(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:17). Field theory stems from 18 51i-century developments in fluid dynamics that linked a potential for transmitted force to spatial coordinates in studies involving gravity, electricity and magnetism among others. Its adoption by the social sciences is contested; Bourdieu compared social fields to magnetic fields in 1969, but later castigated those who promote the connection (Martin 2003:4,29 n.22). 54 Habitus is inventive only within the limits of its structures, which are the"embodied sedimentation of the social structures which produced it";the concepts of habitus and field are fully functional only in relation to one another" (Bourdieu 1993:162-163 and Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:19). Objectivity is related to this sedimentation and is produced under—but cannot be reduced to—certain historical conditions. It is the"product of a historic process of progressive collective creation"which neither obeys a plan nor is abandoned to chance."The existence of a field is dependent on agents possessing the disposition necessary to constitute the field, which can only be incorporated into the habitus through participation (Ibid:104 n.56). 55 The field is the"product and prize of a permanent conflict":the"generative, unifying principle of this 'system' is the struggle" (Bourdieu 1993:34). Lipstadt clarifies that it is only through the definitive "contest for authority over the field itself"that the field is possible (Lipstadt 2003:398). 56 Positions are objectively defined in their"existence and in the determination they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential situation (situs) in the structure of the distribution of species of power (or capital) whose possession commands access to the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as well as by their objective relation to other positions"(Bourdieu 1998:32 and Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:97).With the assertion of a new position, there is a displacement of the entire structure affecting the extent and shape of the field that leads to adjustments by other involved agents (Bourdieu 1993:58).Although the analytic comparison of social field and magnetic fields is contested, the interrelation of positions is metaphorically analogous to a magnet:"a social field exerts a force upon all those who come within its range. But those who experience these 'pulls' are generally not aware of their source.As is true with magnetism,the power of a social field is inherently mysterious"(Terdiman 1987:805-806). 57 As practices and works are evaluated against principles specific to each field, society cannot be consolidated to a "seamless totality integrated by systemic functions"(Bourdieu 1993:163 and Bourdieu and Wacqaunt 1992:16-17). " Bourdieu 1993:40-41 59 Identifying the structure and uses of field is the "first precept of method"as the field functions as "conceptual shorthand"that orients the research choices that follow (Bourdieu and Wacquant:228).In applying a theory of fields, Bourdieu questions not only the classifications of occupations but also the "very concept of occupation itself." The notion of profession has the"appearance of neutrality in its favor"through fastening a "true reality"to what is a "social product of a historical work of construction of a group"and its representation.This construction becomes part of the science of the group and the specious bounding of the profession that, despite "efforts at codification and homogenization through certification','rejects that the very definition of legitimacy is part of the stakes of the struggle within the field. As an aggregative effort, the idea of profession supersedes and obliterates all differences that make, for instance, the social space orarchitects"a space of competition (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:242-245). Furthermore, faced with the diametric opposition of an "intellectual or intellectualist art" understandable akin to literature as a "profession that is not really one"and the codified realms of experts and engineers, architecture—commonly considered to be a profession that considers itself an art—"questions the limit of the field under investigation" (Bourdieu 2002:32 and Lipstadt 2003:393-394). Despite the scarcity of writing on architecture as a field in the English language, Lipstadt notes that the relation has been developed to greater lengths in French literature (Lipstadt 2003:392). 60 Referring to Cassirer's Substance and Function, Bourdieu notes that while it is easier to think in terms of realities that can be 'touched with the finger; in a sense7"one must think relationally'to"take as one's object the social work of construction of the pre-constructed object" (Bourdieu 1993:37 and Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:228-229). 61 Capital, investment and interest are among the mechanisms active in each field that are described by the general theory of the economy of fields (Bourdieu 1985:20). 21 62 Capital "confers a power over the field,over the materialized or embodied instruments of production or reproduction whose distribution constitutes the very structure of the field, and over the regularities and the rules which define the ordinary functioning of the field, and thereby over the profits engendered in it" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:101). 63 Bourdieu suggests that economic theory is best considered a particular historically dated and situated theory of fields rather than the founding model from which other theories of capital are derived. (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:119- 120). 64 A. Johnson 1995:28 65 Without considering capital as both inscribed in structures and as the principle "underlying the immanent regularities of the social world; every moment is "perfectly independent."Bourdieu illustrates this imaginary universe as a game of roulette; with each spin "anyone can become anything" (Bourdieu 1986:241). 66 Bourdieu defines capital as"accumulated labor (in its materialized form or its"incorporated',' embodied form) which, when appropriated on a private, i.e., exclusive, basis by agents or groups of agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor"(Bourdieu 1986:243). 67 Understanding capital to take objectified or embodied forms introduces time, accumulation and inertia (Bourdieu 1986:241-242).The"existing fabric of our cities" is that of substantial "social, financial and cultural" investment (Barnett 1974:3). 69 R.Johnson 1993:7 69 Bourdieu 1986:243 70 Embodied cultural capital is realized through a process of "embodiment, incorporation, which, insofar as it implies a labor of inculcation and assimilation, costs time which must be invested personally by the investor (Bourdieu 1986:244- 246).This accumulation—bildung or acculturation—is limited by the capacities of an individual agent and is always subject to the "visible marks"of early acquisition. Bourdieu and Passeron illustrate acquisition and acculturation of linguistic markers within the system of education: bourgeois language can be handled adequately only given an acquired familiarization within the family group and subsequent conversion through stabilizing scholarly intervention. Style always betrays,"in the very utterance, a relation to language which is common to a whole category of speakers because it is the product of the social conditions of the acquisition and use of language" (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990:114-119). Indices are capacities of thought and action manifest, and are similarly legible in "bodily language and facial expression that engenders authority in social situations" (Dovey 2002:270). 7 ' (Bourdieu 1986:246-247) 72 As an overture to consideration of the heritage industry, embodied cultural capital can be employed in person or by proxy—the"basis of the ambiguous status of cadres"that do not possess economically the means of production but derive profit from their own cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986:247). 73 Bourdieu illustrates conferment through the comparison of the last successful candidate from the first unsuccessful one in a competitive recruitment exam; although the difference is likely infinitesimally small, the results consecrates lasting and absolute differences in cultural capital.The"performative magic"of institutionalized cultural capital lends a relative conversional stability between cultural and economic forms.This can be attributed, in part, to its break from the specific limitations of biological embodiment, since it is formally independent of its bearer (Bourdieu 1986:247-248). 74 Crucial to the reproduction of the group is the "alchemy of consecration"that utilizes recognition and concentrates certain agents to act on behalf of the whole (Bourdieu 1984:250-251). 75 Bourdieu 1984:252 76 Dovey 2002:271 77 The dominant discourse forwards the economic world as a "pure and perfect order" (Bourdieu 2005:209-211 and Bourdieu 1998b). 78 Bourdieu opposes habitus to the "Cartesian philosophy of action which is revived today in the tradition of homo oeconomicus as a rational agent, who chooses the best means, the best strategies by a conscious calculation oriented towards the maximisation of profits and, more generally, in the sociological current called 'Methodological Indiivdualism: which accepts the same presuppositions concerning the logic of human action (Bourdieu 2002:28). 22 79 Punter notes that within the CityPlan Neighbourhood Visions programme "communities were learning through pro forma analysis what amenities cost" (Punter 2003:308). 80 Bourdieu 2005:135 81 Bourdieu 2006 :30 82 The common understanding that an official board decision can be passed with the proviso that support not seta precedent denies that the very language of the contest is contested. 83 Bourdieu 1991:72 84 It is better to speak of the"symbolic effects of capilarsince every kind of capital functions as symbolic to different degrees. Dovey comments that it"is the most problematic form of capital to define and there is considerable slippage in Bourdieu's use of it; noting that in his early work it is "largely subsumed under objectified cultural capital" while later it appers as an "individually held resource" (Dovey 2002:271). 85 Bourdieu notes the homology between the structure of symbolic position-takings and that of the space of positions and describes its use in understanding the function and genesis of symbolic production (Bourdieu 2000:177-178,242). The specificity of symbolic capital allows power"acquired in the observance of the rules of the functioning of the field" to oppose all forms of heteronomous power—even that which may be present at the heart of the field—which "certain artists or writers and more widely all holders of cultural capital—experts, administrators, engineers, journalists—may find themselves granted as a counterpart to the technical or symbolic services they render to the dominants" (Bourdieu 1996:221). 86 This theoretical construction "removes the conditions making possible the institutionally organized and guaranteed misrecognition which is the basis of gift exchange and, perhaps, of all the symbolic labour intended to transmute, by the sincere fiction of a disinterested exchange, the inevitable, and inevitably interested relations...into elective relations of reciprocity" (Bourdieu 2006 rl 9771:6,171). Masking the apparent contradiction between the "experienced (or desired) truth of the gift as a generous, gratuitous, unrequited act, and the truth that emerges from the model, which makes it a stage in a relationship of exchange that transcends singular acts of exchange','the time lapse between the gift and countergift forms the gap between phenomenological and structuralist approaches (Bourdieu 2000:191-192). 87 Bourideu 2006 rl 9771:171 and Bourdieu 2000:192 88 Bourdieu 2006 :40 89 Wacquant identifies Bourdieu's 1990 La noblesse d 'Etat as his first effort"to address the question of the state frontally" (Frow 1998:34 and Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:111 n.64). Bourdieu 1994:4-5 91 Bourdieu 1994:4 92 The"instituted institution makes us forget that it issues out a long series of acts of institution (in the active sense) and hence has all the appearances of the natural" (Bourdieu 1994:3-4). Specifically, the "effects of choices made by the state have so completely impressed themselves in reality and in minds that possibilities intitially discarded have become totally unthinkable." Bourdieu explains that, for example, orthography is "designated and guaranteed as normal by law, i.e., by the state, is a social artifact only imperfectly founded upon logical or even linguistic reason; it is the product of a work or normalization and codification, quite analogous to that which the state effects concurrently in other realms of social life."When the state attempts to reform spelling—"to undo by decree what the state had ordered by decree"— those who status depends on writing "mobilize in the name of natural spelling and of the satisfaction, experienced as intrinsicially aesthetic, given by the perfect agreement between mental structures and objective structures—between the mental forms socially instituted in minds through the teaching of correct spelling and the reality designated by words rightfully spelled" (Bourdieu 1994:1-2). Bourdieu views the 'contemporary technocracy' as the -structural (and sometimes genealogical) inheritors' of the noblesse de robe which 'created itself [as a corporate body] by creating the state,'and formulated the hypothesis that 'the state nobility...and educational credentials are born of complementary and correlative inventions - (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:111 n.64). 94 These fields "often take the empirical form of commissions, bureaus and boards"and that the guises of their authority under state policy include legislation, regulations and administrative measures—subsidies, authorizations and 23 restrictions (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:111). Bourdieu cautions that"to think the state" risks "applying to the state categories of thought produced and guaranteed by the state','and that writings devoted to the state often "partake, more or less efficaciously and directly, of the construction of the state, i.e., of its very existence" (Bourdieu 1994:1,3). 95 The understanding that planners are the result of a public undertaking of the ratepayers' purse to address the "not marketable commodity"of the"study and control"of the city illustrates the"official representation of the official"that misrecognizes power as universal interest (Bourdieu 1994:2 and Spaxman 1991:90). 96 Bourdieu 1994:3 Chapter Two: Discretion As Control 25 2.1 Introduction With the City of Vancouver as the relevant holder of state power in the development of the urban environment within its bounds, it widely exercises its influence in the legalization of capital and the determination of its exchange. Rather than diminish its authority, the retirement of Euclidean hegemony— confining zoning to the segregation of land use and limitation of intensity across bulk parcels—in favour of discretionary measures has instead expanded the City's control.This shift during the past quarter century paralleled the erosion of the repressive state and its replacement by increasingly ideological restraints. The city is progressively shaped through amenitization enabled by the union of previously contradictory relations; the refusal of the historical dichotomies of public and private, discretion and zoning, and aesthetics and law leads to an environment of greater control that is realized through the common interest.This effort is exercised through both physical and social space, with the visible effects in the former descriptive of the less tangible shifts in the latter. By tracing the movement towards amenitization as an ideological function intending to replicate the social structure, heritage serves as a particular scene of transaction.With the legitimization of public goods facilitating the misrecognition of involved capital and the deformation of relevant fields, heritage underwrites the "most successful economic development programs in the city's history."97 Based on a "level of trust and cooperation between city authorities and developers that is uncommon...[the realization of heritage] relies on the creativity of both to make these projects work, and a flexibility in policy that, at times, stretches the bureaucratic blinders." 98 The understanding that the"more of the good produced the better"expressed through the mandate to protect"as many resources...as possible" and corresponding refusal that the "overall public interest with a public good" may stagnate or decrease, the expansion of the heritage amenity facilitates the legitimate realization of a particular physical and social environment." 2.2 Ideological States "Any mode of production, and in particular any social formation, involves a process of reproduction of a specific built environment, which is essential to the reproduction of society in general.." 0° Hence, the procedural address of development permit approval and assessment of related charges, are simultaneously technical and "deeply political matters"directly informing the empowered governing structure. 101 More explicitly, in the understanding of classical Marxism, it can be assumed that the dominant mode of production gives birth to social functions and their spaces. 102 Yet, while reproducing the means of production is the primary responsibility of the state apparatus, several empirical problems have arisen since the late 19"' century questioning the existence of a truly independent, wholly repressive state. 103 The relationship between the state and these societal institutions cannot be discussed without considering ideology: the "system of ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or social group." 104 Refining the understanding of the state apparatus, sociologist Louis Althusser describes ideological state apparatuses that operated in conjunction with the traditional Marxist understanding of the repressive state apparatus. 105 Operating primarily through ideology to reproduce the means of production, ideological state apparatuses—while not exclusively determinate—differ from the repressive state apparatus that functions first by repression. It is this regenerative capacity of ideology that enables the state apparatus to survive the political transformation of state power, since it is not the reproduction of the physical means of production, but the reproduction of the ideological means that is paramount to the governing structure. For while the physicality of built form delimits and structures activity, architecture's primary influence in the determination 26 of the urban environment occurs in its close liaison with the dominant ideology through its reflexive conditioning of the state. With the reported decline of the repressive state apparatus noted during recent years, it is the increasing influence of the ideological state apparatuses that affect contemporary society. This shift is recognizable across the entirety of social relations involving the state, with the contemporary urban environment specifically conditioned by first the naturalization of land use limitations and then the subsequent adoption of discretionary controls. 2.3 Naturalized Zoning Within the broader mandate of planning, the district zoning schedule documents the intent, approved use and regulations governing specific areas of the city; zoning by-laws are the"instruments by which the objectives that were formulated into a master plan are carried out." 106 These controls are formative of the contemporary city:they are employed to achieve public objectives, and the "regulations of building form...reflects public values." 107 Zoning originated in the late 19th-century in Continental Europe, and the scientification of urban design in British and North American contexts quickly followed.This expansion in land use controls raised the conceptual issue regarding the origin of development rights, traditionally understood from an American perspective as coming from the "land itself,'up from the bottom' like minerals or crops;" meaning that allowed density—as well as any land use-regulation—is a "limitation rather than a governmental grant of the right to build." However, increasing urbanization and changing means of production, paired with the expanding influence of the welfare state, naturalized planning with the government"setting overall densities and then apportioning them unevenly over the community.' '108 The City of New York adopted the first American comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1916 that, diverging from precedents that insured the separation of noxious or incompatible uses—such as heavy industry and residential—or imposed height limitations to diminish fire risk, introduced regulation to shape the physical form of the city by creating a maximum envelope stepping back from the edges of the site as it rose to preserve light and ventilation for adjacent parcels and streets. By addressing the uncertainty of new tower development to support the maximization of land values and the realization of tax revenue, developers and the City understood this effort to result in mutual financial gain. 109 Increasing complexity in the approach to zoning led to studies for a replacement zoning resolution as early as 1948, although New York City did not enact a new zoning ordinance until 1961 with development form based upon the floor area ratio, or the total building square footage divided by the site size square footage, for a given district zoning."°The zoning resolution also introduced provisions that sought street-level public spaces in the form of plazas and arcades in exchange for bonused density, and specified three approval processes with the most significant amenity spaces being "truly discretionary" and requiring approval of a public body following an open hearing."' Although this signalled a departure from the traditional assumption that"land development can be regulated by ordinance," rarely necessitating variances or special exceptions, North American municipalities were already approving high numbers of appeals requesting variances from zoning requirennents. 112 However, while the courts tolerated the vagueness of standards for consideration of variances, most juridical bodies upheld the myth that legislative enactments satisfactorily governed most zoning cases in order to avoid the "unnecessary and dangerous" prospect of"discretionary power not cast as ancillary to the code."" 3 The municipal council of Point Grey passed Canada's first zoning bylaw in 1922 as a "means for controlling development and stabilizing land values" in this residential community bordering Vancouver. 114 Point Grey, South Vancouver and Vancouver agreed to amalgamation in 1928, and the City of Vancouver adopted its first zoning bylaw following the merger in 1929. 115 Common to both Canada and America is an interpretation of 27 property as a"bundle of rights of which one of the most import is that of the user"that is, at common law, "virtually unlimited and subject only to the restraints imposed by the law of public and private nuisance. .116 Property law has since evolved to consider the use of land limited by terms of restrictive covenants and, due to 1920s recognition that the law"must respond to the changing demands and needs of urban areas," planning and zoning provisions."' However, the "direct adoption of the legislative rationale for zoning complying with the police power"failed to consider the dissimilarities of the Canadian and American legal and constitutional systems especially in terms of compensation, with domestic public authorities able to dramatically increase, or decrease,the value of land by changing the permitted uses,"but, absent express statutory provision to the contrary, the owner is not entitled to compensation."" 8 Hence, although zoning as a device was found Constitutional in the United States in 1926, the determination of the valid use of police power allows a much greater judicial review of land use legislation in particular applications than the corresponding Canadian experience." 9 While the Supreme Court upheld the validity of zoning, aesthetics alone did not constitute a valid purpose for land use measures until 19541 20 The movement away from Euclidean zoning signalled an expansion in the role of planning to determine North American cities.Vancouver's first planning-related use of the possibilities forwarded by the Charter's adoption, the introduction of discretionary zoning in 1956—although its use would not become predominant for another two decades—recognized the limitations of more economistic standards and increasing legitimation of aesthetic claims. 121 The newly adopted bylaw acknowledged that nonconforming uses might be acceptable without rezoning "so long as the negative impacts of these uses could be mitigated." 122 While a more discretionary approach promised to secure the "benefits of diverse uses and imaginative design"through the evaluation of plans based on individual merit the widespread granting of variances betrayed that, even prior to adopting discretionary practices, zoning administrators performed both "a technical and political function." 123 The urban environment in the middle of the twentieth century underwent dramatic change enabled by technological advances and the rapid increase in the valuation of land placing significant pressure to demolish existing buildings and rezone areas for greater density. Although Vancouver's experience lagged by comparison to other urban centres, during the decade beginning in 1965, the office capacity of the downtown core nearly doubled with an increase of about 5.5 million square feet. 124 A vigorous reaction against development practices aligned with wider societal shifts to reform the North American planning apparatus. Critics charged that the city's development was "in the hands of people and corporations who look upon the city as a real estate operation',' replaced fine old downtown buildings with "sleek, shiny towers','and were motivated only by the greatest profit. 125 Although significant procedural changes to the method of reviewing development proposals followed, they—along with political shifts—did not mark a "profound break with the politics of development: 126 Of particular importance, in 1974 the City transitioned to discretionary controls that risked the production of "unpredictable results,"and implicit in the new zoning was a "lower development potential allowed outright, and a greater potential allowed on a discretionary basis." 127 Subjecting development to the achievement of goals and principles measured through guidelines and backed by floor-space initiatives realigned the utilization of repressive force. Increased transparency, weakened political control of initiatives and the disruption of the influence of entrenched members of the previous regime signalled a widely heralded shift in the nature of development based on a system of substantial discretionary control and elaborate zoning and administrative systems based on "clear rules of decision making." 728 Yet, the ideologies on which the city was founded persisted and found new means by which to exert control over the built environment. Following the implementation of discretionary zoning and the negotiated approach that it entailed, municipalities across North America wrestled anew with balancing the individual's right to property with the greater public good. In the interest of"high standards" 28 discretionary zoning was expected to follow personal prejudices and increase the intimacy—and cost—of administrative bodies. 729 2.4 Amenitization In a 1973 memorandum calling for an "added value"tax on the increase in property values resulting from rezoning the City identified rezoning to a higher use as"the greatest gift that the City can give to an owner or developer." 130 The notion that the civic act of rezoning should not bring windfall fortunes to the owner while conferring external costs to the city as a whole had been debated for a century; beginning in nineteenth- century England, planners noted that the civic costs of improvements to infrastructure could be justly borne by the affected individuals due to the increase market valuation of their property. 13 ' This effort aligned with the emerging criticism of the capitalist relation to labour charging that the value of land is not limited to the reward of production, but includes value arising from community growth and therefore"properly belongs to the community."132 The"burgeoning population, increasingly complex socioeconomic problems and pronounced governmental activity"only intensified the pervasiveness of"unreimbursed benefits and loses," and allowing them to"fall where they will" had significant consequences for land-use planning and control. 133 Narrowly construed, betterment can be viewed as the"increase in the value of neighbouring property brought about by a particular improvement,"although the British Uthwatt Committee convened in the 1940s defined betterment more broadly as "any increase in the value of land (including the buildings thereon) arising from central or local government action." 134 This study on development control and urban planning followed the Barlow and Scott Committee finding that"the major obstacle to effect planning was the failure of the existing system to recapture betterment." 135 Since the City limits land supply through planning policy, granting permission for more intensive development or for more profitable use amounts to the shifting of value.' 36 The Uthwatt Committee cited as precedent the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909 as the"closest historic parallel"to their efforts to recapture windfalls to permit compensation for wipeouts and noted that, while"the fairness of the principle of betterment commands general acceptance,"difficulties arise in its practical application." 137 Although the recommendations forwarded failed to be adopted, financial provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 called for the"nationalisation of the development value of land so that private owners were to keep only the value of their real property in its existing use" 138 The Canadian experience with betterment recapture dates to the 1912 adoption of the province of New Brunswick's first comprehensive town planning act that contains provisions clearly modeled from the antecedent English Act. 139 Although a draft for the Town Planning Act for Canada debated in 1914 contained similar language, and several provinces subsequently adopted recapture provisions, no betterment was paid through the structure of this early legislation. 14° Continuing the determination made in the initial wake of failed schemes that the need to recapture betterment does not arouse the public conscience, there seems be limited interest in recapturing betterment except "perhaps as a source of funds for compensation for wipeouts."'" Economically, betterment legislation strikes a"compromise between the minimising of compensation costs to the public on the one hand and the efficient operation of the market on the other." 142 However, its effect is marked on other forms of capital as well, suggesting that a test of proportionality questioning "whether the scale of what is required or sought is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development"is appropriate in legislating betterment. 143 Further complicating this effort is that the manner and situations in which compensation and levies are made affects the cost of planning and will"therefore exert an influence on the amount and type of planning" undertaken."' 29 Amenity contributions allowed the provision of a range of on-site amenities as major redevelopments shifted from municipally-owned undertakings in the 1970s to privatelylcontrolled,"single-ownership downtown waterfront sites." 145 These efforts aligned with the withdrawal of the nation state as expressed through the restructuring of Crown corporations leading to the sale of waterfront lands towards increased partnerships between private capital and local government resulting in"larger, more expensive, and more symbolic developments." 146 As the strategy of densifying the residential population on the downtown peninsula of Vancouver expanded its focus from the industrial rail yards along the water to the city itself, it necessitated a means to provide similar community facilities in the envisioned neighbourhoods to be realized through a number of separate developments. 147 In 1991, City Council approved the Central Area Plan that significantly consolidated the commercial core in favour of residential zoning and solicited a provincial amendment to the Vancouver Charter extending the legal ability to impose cost charges called development cost levies. While these levies generate funding for growth-related costs under existing zoning and have since been applied city-wide, amenity contributions continue to be applicable in privately-initiated rezonings. As rezoning for higher densities increases land values, development is viewed as able to support public amenity costs beyond other established development levies. Referred to as land lift, this rise in value resulting from the density increase serves as the origin for amenity negotiation. While the city's physical land supply is relatively inelastic, planning mechanisms determine the availability of buildable area through density and land use controls. A development proposed at three-times the zoned density of a site would theoretically require triple the site area so that its floor space ratio (FSR) is allowable by-law, a solution that may not be desirable or possible due to the limited availability of building sites [Figure 2.1]. 148 Allowing the proposal to proceed with the increased density on the original site requires discretionary rezoning by means of Council approval, and the more intensive use results in a dramatic increase of the private value of the land through Figure 2.1: Land Lift Creation Through Rezoning Date By-law Effective ul cr% Lel N e— c0 In coo c0 ON 0, 0, 0, a, 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 01 Cl rn 01 01 0, 0 0 0 0 N 30 public policy.ln Figure 2.1 the foremost diagram displays a base case development scenario of complete site coverage at the zoned 7.0 FSR.The middle scenarios similarly conform to this density limit and, while likely requiring municipal development approval, nevertheless are value neutral by maintaining the same density; the taller structure—while over three times the floorspace—is built on a parcel that is larger by the same ratio and, assuming the additional land is available at the same cost per square foot, results in a land value that is also three times the previous examples.' 49 However, the resulting unbuilt site is decidedly non-urban if often replicated and furthermore is improbable in the consideration of the development approved in the last scenario since it requires a site that exceeds the length of the block. Developing the intensified floorspace on the base case site does not conform to area zoning and results in the dramatic increase in value realized through municipal rezoning that is the subject of amenity contributions. Increasingly, divergent uses or densities have exercised zoning for specific sites that entwine codified zoning and direction guidelines through mutual address of procedure concerns as well as "matters of design." 15° Rezoning by-laws crafted for individual sites are scheduled as comprehensive development (CD-1) zoning, enacted through Council approval and are allowed any number of buildings, uses or combination of sites "planned or developed in an integrated fashion." 15 ' Although Council confirmed the first CD-1 rezoning in 1963 in order to address "unique sites or areas or to accommodate special uses or forms of development which do not fit within a standard zoning district schedule,"the zoning has increasingly supplanted downtown area zoning, emphasizing the opportunistic approach to development permission [Figure 2.4. 152 Today, the downtown peninsula is comprised of hundreds of districts scheduled in the zoning by-law, and a dramatic range of permissible density as the scale of individual parcels [Figure 2.3]. 153 CD-1 zoning allows Council through by-law enactment to establish design conditions that must be met prior to approval of Figure 2.2: Downtown CD-1 Zoning Date CD-1 Bylaw Address Use Title 1983 155 5683 650 West Georgia Street Parkade Parkade - Scotia Bank Tower 1984 163 5773 1095 West Hastings Street and 1095 West Pender Street Office Manulife Place / Portal Park 164 5810 601 West Hastings Street Office Price Waterhouse Cooper 169 5852 1003 Pacific Street Residential Crystallis / Seastar 1986 177 5997 1060-1080 Alberni Street Residential The Carlyle 178 6009 1311 Beach Avenue Residential Tudor Manor 182 6057 424 Drake Street Residential Pacific Point 1987 195 6221 988-1014 Beach Avenue Residential 990-1000 Beach 199 6260 1256-1262 Howe Street Nonmarket B'Nai B'Rith Manor 200 6263 1308-1338 Alberni Street Residential Alberni Place / Emerald West 1988 204 6304 Robson Square Complex Civic Robson Square 227 6394 1415 West Georgia Street and 1400 West Pender Street Residential Palais Georgia 228 6420 909 Burrard Street Residential Vancouver Tower 229 6421 900 Burrard Street Residential / Cinema Paramount Place 233 6428 1500-1520 Alberni Street Residential 1500 Alberni 235 6448 131-145 West Pender Street Nonmarket Pendera 1989 239 6486 1275 Burrard Street Residential The Ellington / Radio Station CKWX (demolished) 243 6577 757 West Hastings Street Office Sinclair Centre 248 6564 1523 Davie Street Restaurant Gabriola Mansion 1990 251 6676 888 Beach Avenue (3 towers) Residential 888 Beach 252 6688 901-999 Beach Avenue Residential Coral Court 254 6710 1250 Melville Street Residential Pointe Claire 259 6730 1301-1325 West Pender Street Residential Harbourside Park 260 6731 1215-1239 West Georgia Street Residential Venus 264 6744 101 Terminal Avenue Neighbourhood CityGate 265 6747 International Village (6 sub-areas) Neighbourhood International Village 266 6757 1100, 1200, 1300 Blocks Pacific Boulevard Neighbourhood Yaletown Edge (False Creek North) 1991 271 6787 888 Pacific Street Residential Pacific Promenade / Terraces Building 272 6819 1144-1152 Mainland Street Office / Parkade Yaletown Building 273 6817 833 Helmcken Street, 1067-1095 Howe Street Residential Imperial Tower 278 6885 901 West Hastings Street Parkade Parkade - Hornby Park 279 6884 530-580 Burrard Street, 535-567 Hornby Street Office Bentall 5 1992 287 7006 1255 Burrard Street Residential Milano 1993 289 7088 300 West Georgia Sreet Civic Library Square 297 7156 1200-1300 Pacific Boulevard South (FCN) Neighbourhood Roundhouse Neighbourhood 311 7201 150 Pacific Boulevard North Arena General Motors Place Stadium 312 7200 300 Cardero Street (5 sub-areas) Neighbourhood Marine Neighbourhood 316 7209 526-528 West Hastings Street Residential / Hotel / Office Conference Plaza / Delta Suites / Toronto-Dominion Bank 318 7223 1300 West Georgia Street (2 towers) Residential The Lions 319 7224 1200 Alberni Street Residential The Palisades 321 7232 1601 West Georgia Street, 1601-1650 Bayshore Drive (5 sub-areas) Neighbourhood Bayshore Gardens 322 7235 970 Burrard Street Residential Electra 323 7246 750 Burrard Street Office / Retail Main Branch Library 324 7248 800-1100 Pacific Boulevard Neighbourhood Quayside (False Creek North) 1994 329 7340 300 Robson Street Residential Eight.One.Nine 1995 331 7381 1054-98 Robson Street Retail Robson Centre Place 336 7431 1575-1577 West Georgia Street Residential (unbuilt) 1575 Georgia (office) 1996 342 7516 1100-1114 Burnaby Street Hotel Hostelling International 343 7519 1202-92 West Georgia Street Residential Residences on Georgia / Abbott House 345 7531 910 Beach Avenue Hotel The Meridian 346 7551 350 Robson Street Residential Galileo 348 7556 34 West Pender Street Nonmarket The CBA Manor 349 7592 750 Pacific Boulevard Casino / Entertainment Plaza of Nations 363 7679 201 Burrard Street (4 sub-areas) Exhibition / Residential / Hotel / Office* Convention Centre / Fairmount Pacific Rim / Shaw Tower 364 7681 501 Bute Street (5 sub-areas) Neighbourhood * Harbourgreen Park 365 7677 301 Jervis Street (Marina Neighbourhood sub-area 1 B) Neighbourhood Escala / Coal Harbour Community Centre 366 7675 350-450 Beach Crescent Neighbourhood Beach Crescent (False Creek North) 369 7673 901-967 and 940-990 Seymour Street Residential / Office Metropolitan Towers / The Spot / Dominion Motors 1997 374 7820 1762 Davie Street Residential 02 1998 378 7852 555 Carrall Street Nonmarket S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Multi-Level Care 379 7853 598 Taylor Street Residential Taylor 384 7948 1200 Hamilton Street Hotel Opus Hotel Vancouver 1999 386 7971 1001 Hornby Street, 1050 and 1088 Burrard Street Hotel / Residential Sheraton Hotel / Wall Centre 392 8043 1005 Beach Avenue Residential Alvar 400 8130 600 Nicola Street Residential Dockside Live/Work 401 8122 500-800 Canada Place Way Port Translink / industrial use 2000 403 8193 55-67 East Hastings Street Nonmarket (unbuilt) parking / Lux Theatre (demolished) 2002 409 8439 1128 West Hastings Street Hotel / Residential Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle Hotel / The Vantage 413 8536 801 West Georgia Street Residential / Hotel • 699 Howe / Hotel Georgia 414 8546 600 Granville Street, 602 Dunsmuir Street Residential / Hotel The Hudson / St. Regis Hotel / Gotham Restaurant 415 8587 651 Expo Boulevard Neighbourhood • Spectrum (False Creek North) 416 8592 1175 Broughton Street Nonmarket Millenium Tower 2003 418 8740 488 Robson Street Residential R & R 2004 419 8819 1201 West Hastings Street Residential * Cielo 422 8896 900 Pacific Boulevard Neighbourhood Coopers Park (False Creek North) 423 8925 1475 Howe Street Residential Pomaria 426 8943 1120 West Georgia Street Residential / Hotel Shangri-La 2005 427 8978 1001-1015 Denman Street Residential / Retail (unbuilt) retail 428 8993 33 West Pender Street Residential 33 West Pender 431 9081 811-821 Cambie Street Residential Raffles on Robson 432 9088 950 Quebec Street Residential Creekside 435 9116 1380 Hornby Street Hotel (unbuilt) Leslie House (removed) 440 9167 1750 Davie Street Residential English Bay Tower (retail addition) 441 9170 1211 Melville Street Residential The Ritz 442 9173 898 Seymour Street and 887-897 Richards Street Residential / Parkade* Vita / Dolce 443 9184 826-848 West Hastings Street Residential / Office* Jameson House / Ceperely Rounsfell / Chamber of Mines 444 9190 955 Burrard Street Residential / Childcare Patina / YMCA 445 9204 969 Burrard Street and 1017-1045 Nelson Street Religious / Residential (unbuilt) First Baptist Church 446 9195 1133 West Georgia Street Residential Ritz-Carlton 2006 450 9275 101 and 149 West Hastings Street and 150 West Cordova Street Residential / Institutional / Nonmarket Woodwards / SFU School for Contemporary Arts 2007 455 9460 701 Granville, 701 W Georgia, 777 Dunsmuir, 700 W Pender Office / Hotel / Retail Pacific Centre / Four Seasons Hotel / 6 office towers Notes for Table 2.1: Downtown Comprehensive Zoning Titles of rezoned properties, included to aid in site recognition, are the current building names and italicized text denotes heritage resources associated with the site. These heritage buildings are designated by the City with the exception of those already demolished: although the Lux Theatre was protected within the City's historic districts, fire damage percipitated its removal; and rezoning of 1275 Burrard Street--the site of Radio Station CKWX designed by Ron Thom for Thompson, Berwick & Pratt in 1956, winner of the Massey Medal for Architecture and considered signficant by the Modern Movement Architecture in British Columbia (BCMoMo)--predated the 1992 introduction of Recent Landmark Buildings to the heritage inventory. The use column of the table does not adhere to the definitions of use allowed by the zoning by-law, but rather lists the primary function of the building. For instance, although many of the projects listed include street level retail, commerical use is not listed unless it constitutes a significant portion of the overall development. Similarly, parking is neglected unless it is more than an ancillary component of another use. Nonmarket use refers to various forms of social housing secured by a muncipal Housing Agreement. 1175 Broughton Street, while not limited by a Housing Agreement, is considered nonmarket since it is operated by a non-profit society, subsidized by the regional health board and developed to provide senior housing. Asterisks (*) refer to projects currently under construction, and those marked as unbuilt may be under development but physical construction is not evident on site. The table is assembled from policy reports, development applications and zoning by-laws listed in Appendix A. 32 related development applications. Since site specific rezoning is typically developer initiated and often involves a shift towards more intensive density or the change from industrial to commercial or residential, it is the primary site of betterment collection. In 1989,Vancouver introduced Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) to formalize the city's negotiation for the wealth generated by increased densities or change of use granted in developer-initiated rezonings. Importantly, by realizing betterment through voluntary contributions, CACs circumscribe the problematic legal implementation common to legislation. Although rezoning approval remains at the discretion of City Council, the developer solicits support from the Planning Department by collectively determining with City staff the nature and financial value of the commitment. Unlike other levies that are"very structured',' based on "legal intent"to pay for growth costs and restricted to specific amenities, CACs are"more flexible" contributions, raise funds"not specifically tied"to new growth and are not restricted to a list of amenities, allowing heritage to be addressed through CAC contributions. 154 The discretionary construct of CACs also applies to fee consideration:the City has only the right to request a CAC and cannot require it. However, as the contribution applies only to rezoned situations—that the City is not required to approve—the City will not permit development until a suitable CAC is secured. In 2004, the City Council updated the role of CACs in Vancouver, addressing the "piecemeal pattern" of widely varying rates across scattered sites through the introduction of a citywide framework based on a flat rate. 155 Recognizing the complication of core development due to the many policies affecting density allowances also in place, the same decision reclassified downtown as non-standard, predisposing every project in this area to a "negotiated approach." 156 This process is intrinsically discretionary and "what is deemed fair at one point in time is open to negotiation at a subsequent time." 157 Figure 2.3: Maximum Density For All Uses Under Zoning By-law as of June 2006 33 Since the city's first use of CACs affected large-scale developments such as Coal Harbor and False Creek North, funding often provided in-kind facilities on-site. Cash specified for off-site projects addressing the community followed, while more recently unallocated cash allows even greater flexibility.' 58 Regardless of collection form,the"people in the development must benefit from the CAC'in principle'"and the contributions should address community plans and visions.'" Within the bounds of adopted policy, community needs are considered against opportunities that arise due to the location,owner and circumstance as well as the development economics of the project to determine the use of discretionary funds.'" Developers and City staff—representatives of amenity-related departments--collectively determine the nature and financial commitment. Unlike other levies that are legally circumscribed, the flexibility of CACs allows the City to define an open-ended range of amenities including heritage.These allocations inform the relation of amenities to one another and advance precedents for defining collective priorities. While heritage has limited capital funding opportunities making it reliant on development mechanisms for support, it also is a very flexible value, encourages substantial collateral benefits to the development and produces private space as public amenity, making it a favoured amenity provisioned through amenity contributions. The pro forma analysis, intrinsic to the valuation of both the private and public components of development projects, is not open to public scrutiny to protect the privacy and property of developers, and, while this opacity renders the comparison of negotiated developments difficult, the primary application of CACs is heritage, accounting for the majority of values recorded between 2001 and 2005 for amenity contributions citywide. 161 Further, with the broad number of aesthetically based controls including tower placement guidelines,floorplate maximums, setbacks, height limitations and the city's notorious view cones, the airspace created by onsite heritage in redeveloped areas is necessary to realize the density and placement of towers.The substantial increase of space realized through the creative use of heritage when considered alongside its collateral benefits, illustrates the dramatic constructive potential of heritage as a material. Similarly, with transferred density valued by the City at creation at a rate lower than the equivalent market value of land to encourage its purchase, developers benefit through the control of both donor and receiver sites.The value of heritage to private development is not viewed to be contrary to the realization of its public value. However, the high ratio of the amenity contribution to the uplift value—the increase of property value attributed to upzoning—compared to historical examples of betterment suggests that the private benefit conferred with the public contribution encourages the production of heritage in the city. 2.5 Legalized Aesthetic Through the affirmation of the "vision of that order which is held by the state','it is law that "consecrates the established order."'" Its "constitutive tendency to formalize and to codify" legitimates itself as the "quintessential form of the symbolic power of naming"and "confers upon the reality which arises from its classificatory operations the maximum permanence that any social entity has the power to confer upon another, the permanence which we attribute to objects."' 63 The state defines and provisions meaning to property, and the legal expression of property as the boundary of state power follows, although "it is a boundary government itself draws.Through property and its definition by the judiciary,the state creates, and shifts and recreates its own limits." 164 The naturalness of this arrangement—the "air of neutrality and indifference"—renders space and law together as "purely formal, the epitome of rational abstraction."'" Law reifies the objectiveness of property, consecrating the dominant discourse and obscuring its existence as a bundle of relations—specifically by defining offences as crimes against things rather than as injuries to men." 166 Furthermore, distinction follows the distribution of property; an agent is"characterized by the 34 extent of the space he takes up and occupies (in law)"through his "space consuming" properties. 167 This discourse transcends the limitations of specific legal study by understanding the opposition drawn between universal legislation and the individual case as a false alchemy.168 The struggle of actors within the legal body of a nation state affect the positioning of those central to other presumed sovereign bodies; the observations of the "particular case of the possible"from the French academic field can be read in relation to the limitations of aesthetic law noted in the United States and the specific determination of exchange value in Vancouver.169 Legal assumptions are"thoroughly entrenched" in every day interaction and it is this very durability of the juridical field that legitimates the particular cultural production of the urban environment. 170 Through aesthetic regulation traceable to the mid-14th century, the codifying of beauty through law positions the cultural field within the dominant field of power.' 7 ' The study of aesthetic regulation by the professions of planning and law confirm this observation. In finding beauty to be an individual preference, the juridical perspective denies the possibility of a "final arbiter of taste." 172 Moreover, through the writings of Chancellor of Law John Costonis clarifying that"aesthetic response is a social construct...shaped by the conventions of culture and time','Iegal opinion shares much with Bourdieu's critique of the Kantian aesthetic by understanding taste as "grounded in an empirical social relation."' 73 The difficulties that taste presents to the urban environment are significant:Costonis charges that aesthetic policy converts the false"premise that beauty can be made to answer to abstract canons of aesthetic formalism into the conceit that legal institutions can use these canons to create a visually beautiful environment."' 74 The juridical corollary is that visual beauty has historically served as the exclusive referent of aesthetics, even though form"plays a significant but not dispositive role"when aesthetics is considered in regards to cultural stability and wider social values.' 75 By the mid-20th century the professions of law and planning both understood "public welfare"to include "values which are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary,"and they accepted that it was within the power of local and senior government to "determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy." 176 Whereas previous "statues and ordinances grounded solely on furthering of aesthetic purposes"yielded to accomplishing their practical end on some other basis, contemporaneous juridical decisions resurrected the romantic aphorism of"art for art's sake"by upholding action "solely for aesthetics." 177 Despite this apparent reversal, the involvement of legal technologies and the unmistakable subscription of the professional fields to the power structure of the marketplace refuse all but the most rare possibilities of the autonomous pursuit of beauty and facilitates the misrecognition of exchange value. By conferring the legitimacy of aesthetics as an end in itself, legal opinion affirmed the utility of aesthetics to serve the dominant interest of capital accumulation and seemingly rendered invalid the effort it consecrated if it were not for the symbolic legitimacy extended by that act.The concept of aesthetics is"peculiarly vulnerable to [this] metamorphosis"since its"scope is inherently vague and expansive;"when conceived as ontological fact rather than social construct irconfers upon it an aura of legitimacy"since "everyone is, after all, a lover of 'beauty." 78 Facilitating the "orchestrated production of an urban image" the seemingly unique position of aesthetics in the determination of the built environment forwards "a range of mechanisms for social controrthrough the use of"design to predict, program and control all aspects of public behaviour."' 79 This control is forged through capital hardened in built form and the underlying interest in aesthetics as "opus operatum, work already done, finished"; extensive commentary focuses on physical composition while neglecting the "modus operandi, the manner of acting"that is the style or habitus of the planner. Following this logic planning aesthetics are proclaimed in perpetuity, misrecognizing the process of their realization, marginalizing the continued means of production and naturalizing the intimate connection between the materiality of the city and social and power structures.18° 35 2.6 Heritage Significantly,"preservation law, particularly at the local level, is closest to land use and zoning','and legal opinion has to varying degrees noted over the past century"all planning and zoning is essentially aesthetic in nature." 181 The recognition of aesthetics as a legitimate end in planning encouraged the reconsideration of historic buildings within urban areas, and by the 1960s,"preservation was becoming a planning process with broad ramifications"for North American cities.' 82 The legitimation of heritage and its role in the amenitization of the city coincided with the shift towards discretionary zoning practices; both served ideological roles in the maintenance of the development process despite dramatic structural shifts in planning practice [Figure 2.4].Contemporaneous technological and social changes encouraged the rapid demolition of aging buildings and, by 1974, one-third of the 16,000 structures listed in the United States federal government's 1933 Historic American Buildings Survey had been demolished. Counted among the structures destroyed were some of the "world's...most distinguished buildings"that"enriched, indeed defined the very character of the urban fabric of which they were a part." 183 The loss of iconic structures in major North American cities and the poor reception of their replacements energized a preservationist movement that understood architecture as holding cultural value to the community. 184 The 1967 Council approval of a freeway system for the city involving the destruction of a substantial portion of Chinatown catalyzed resistance against a policy of"economic costs before social costs," and led to an effort to utilize the identification of a historic resource to address a wider orthodoxy of "growth boosterism." 183 In 1971, the provincial declaration of Chinatown and Gastown historic sites under the 1960 Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act designated 220 Vancouver parcels, requiring ministerial approval before Figure 2.4: Concurrent Development of Capital and Heritage Policies CAPITAL POLICY^ Revised CAC policy adoption Financing Growth Report Transfer of density without rezoning Vancouver Charter^ Transfer of density system Discretionary zoning and design review^ Central Area Plan1 Development Cost Levies Community Amenity Contributions • Transfer of Density Policy Facilitated sale of development rights Downtown Official Development Plan? • Municipal ▪ Charter Amendment ^ Provincial A Federal HERITAGE POLICY 1960^ I 1970^ 1980^ i1990^ 2000 Inventory of Historic BuildingsA Area Designations Heritage designation Heritage Conservation Act Heritage Conservation Program • Vancouver Heritage Inventory Heritage Polices and Guidelines Recent Landmarks Study Heritage Conservation Statues Amendments Act D Heritage Interiors Project Gastown Heritage Management Plan Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program • Historic Places Initiative A Archaeologogica I and Historic Sites Protection Act 36 demolition or alteration of the exterior.186 Amended the following year, it remained the province's primary heritage legislation until its replacement in 1977 by the Heritage Conservation Act. Heritage conservation initiatives were discussed at the municipal level in 1972, although the City did not have the authority to designate historic structures—an ability retained at the provincial levels—until the following year when the province changed the Municipal Act and amended the Vancouver Charter"to allow council to designate by by-law individual sites." 182 While the 1971 provincial designation of Gastown was designed as a temporary measure until the amendment of the Vancouver Charter allowing municipal designation, due to legislative inadequacies, the City retained provincial designation, with authority for building alterations delegated to the Director of Planning. 188 Early efforts utilized the creation of historic areas to forestall demolition, with many buildings under these designations continuing to slide into disrepair. Despite the rising legitimization of heritage concerns, the loss of historic buildings outside of these areas continued due to four primary factors: the "unfavorable attitude towards preservation" held by government agencies and the private sector; real estate economics; laws favouring the private landowner when private gain is measured against community benefit; and the failure of government landmark programmes to"grapple realistically" with this legal bias towards private property rig hts. 189 Costonis further delineated the economic reality, noting that rapidly increasing land values placed pressure on historic buildings that were, by comparison, diminutive, physically obsolete and sited on parcels too small to take advantage of the efficiencies available to new, larger-scale construction.' 90 Efforts to remedy the inadequate economic valuation of structures that typically led to demolition led to the creation of development mechanisms, including the transfer of density rights"(TDRs) designed to encourage sending site owners to forego some or all of their property's unused development potential" by allowing revenue from the sale of these rights.191 Conceptually, the key to the transfer of density rights is that the "development potential of privately held land is in part a community asset that government may allocate to enhance the general welfare,"severing the development potential from the land as a "separately marketable item"that provides an "equitable return on land investment"for owners negatively impacted by regulator activity."' 92 It is further an indictment of the historical understanding of the"geographical uniqueness of land,"that fails to acknowledge "land, including its development potential, has a monetary equivalent that can be exchanged." 193 A TDR system directs development away from areas in which the planning authority identifies that there is a public interest in conserving to areas deemed appropriate for growth. Owners within conservation area can enter into a deed restriction that stipulates future allowable development in exchange for development rights that can be sold as a commodity to the transfer area.' 94 Participation in the programme for owners in both areas is voluntary, although the baseline option does not provide as great of development potential as the TDR alternative.Vancouver's transfer of density policy for heritage conservation, similar to many urban centres, encompasses the conservation and.transfer areas in a single geographic bound, roughly defined by the downtown peninsula, Broadway corridor between Burrard and Main and South Granville [Figure 2.51. 195 Within this area, donor sites—parcels encumbered by one or more heritage features—are rezoned or enter into revitalization agreements stipulating reduced development potential onsite and the density is vested as TDRs.The owner of these rights is then able to utilize them on another site or sell them to another owner within the transfer area subject to approval by the Development Permit Board. In this scenario, the transfer district for development rights exists as an 'overlay zone' superimposed upon the density requirements of the existing bulk zones; the total density of the district remains constant with increases on receiver sites balanced by reductions on landmark sites.'96 37 In the early 1970s, buildings iconic to the City of Vancouver also experienced the pressures created by the high value of land relative to the structures occupying them. Christ Church Cathedral, today Vancouver's oldest surviving church and a "primary resource"for the city, was threatened with demolition, defended through a broad consensus regarding its public value and the subject of the introduction of the transfer of density to Vancouver to reach a beneficial outcome for all parties. 197 The public value of the Cathedral is an amalgam of social and historical importance, as well as the building's physical role in anchoring a significant intersection in the city. 198 While the church's 1889 opening services were held under a temporary roof covering the granite basement, in 1894 the sandstone superstructure was completed, and, in 1909 the church was enlarged with the chancel added in 1930. 199 Importantly, the church occupies a pre-eminent location within Vancouver; the intersection of Georgia and Burrard Streets is the cross of the city's two identified ceremonial streets and, when the church was made the cathedral of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in 1929, it was in part because of the importance of the site [Figure 2.6]. 2°1' Yet, beginning in the 1950s, Christ Church Cathedral, along with many other downtown North American churches, faced an erosion of financial resources due to widely experienced demographic shifts, and, by the end of the following decade, these fiscal problems had become acute with the Cathedral facing annual deficits and relying on reserve funds from large bequests to maintain solvency. Seeking to reconcile its operating shortfall and to increase the visibility of the church by opening the sanctuary to the street, the Cathedral proposed to engage its most valuable asset: its land. In the proposal that followed, the existing structure would be razed and a developer would building an office tower, a contemporary cathedral beneath grade and a prominent cross sculpture at the intersection and would provide an annual payment to support ministry expenses. The proposal attracted widespread criticism after it public unveiling, with detractors forming opposition Figure 2.5:Transfer of Density Area 38 groups and aligning it with the "cult of industrial progress and profit"and the growing irrelevance of "institutional religion...in a lost and dying world." 201 More specifically, concern was raised regarding the loss of the oldest surviving church in Vancouver, and the provincial premier compared its physical role to that of Trinity Church in Manhattan as a sanctuary amongst the towering features of modernity. Since vestry votes in 1971 and 1972 indicated a majority support within the congregation, the widespread outcry surprised both the dean and church committee.2°2 The Cathedral's dean explained the discrepancy, noting that to opponents outside the congregation it was "the symbol of an old Anglo Vancouver which was threatened" and later that"if a building is to become a Heritage Building then we might ask/whose Heritage?"' In February 1973, City Council requested the provincial government designate the building a historic site, and withheld a development permit in June. Christ Church Cathedral was formally designated in December of the following year, although it was a distinction that the congregation "did not wish and about which they were not adequately consulted;" in 1976 the Cathedral refused the Heritage Advisory Committee's offer to adorn the building with a heritage plaque. However,during these years the City also worked to broker an agreement between the Church and the owner of much of the remainder of the block to permit the transfer of the residual unused density on the church lands to that of the proposed high rise office building, marking the first instance in the city of the use of transferrable density to achieve heritage conservation goals.2°3 The result was that the Church realized significantly more financial assistance than it would have under the original proposal, and that the"Cathedral has got the best of both worlds:" it carries an element of"timelessness in the heart of the city;"and it has "the viability to do it." 204 Similar to catalysts of the preservation movement in other North American cities, Christ Church Cathedral highlighted both the threat to existing buildings and the powerful potential of transfer of density and other development tools. While the agreement did enable the construction of the largest office building in the city, the broadly expressed Figure 2.6: Potential of Heritage Development Mechanisms 1998 199820001998 1998 / 1499^1998^2001 Downtown South and Yaletown 1998^1998 Downtown South: Burrard - Granville West End^ Established CBD 1999 1999 39 demand to save it from demolition suggests that it indeed served a public interest. 2°5 Through the introduction of transfer of density rights and related mechanisms that served as both design and fiscal tools, heritage efforts could be realized without the extraordinary costs of the city procuring and rehabilitating structures.2°6 In 1983, Vancouver introduced a transfer of density policy allowing the consideration of the transfer of density from one site to another provided that the transfer aided in achieving one of several policy objectives, although it remained largely unutilized for a decade before significant amendments expanded the potential of the heritage amenity. Despite the range of recognized interests, in practice nearly every use of the transfer of density policy that did not involve adjacent parcels has served "to preserve heritage buildings or site," and, as part of the granting of bonus development rights, the Heritage Density Transfer System (HDTS) is the principal mechanism of the heritage amenity. 207 Analogized to a bank, the HDTS permits the conveyance of space by allowing owners of donor sites to sell density to receiver sites, and creates a reserve of space available to development projects seeking to build at densities greater than the area zoning [Figure 2.7).208 Density on heritage sites available for transfer can originate from two sources: residual, or unutilized density of parcels with built density beneath the zoned allowance; and bonused density awarded to compensate the owner for the costs associated with revitalizing a property encumbered by a heritage resource. Although the City generally discourages transfer of density offsite, donor sites are found to be unable to accommodate density onsite without compromising the value of the heritage amenity. Under Vancouver's original policies governing transfer of density, the City required rezoning of involved sites to accommodate each transfer individually. However, amendments approved in 1996 allowed the transfer of up to ten percent of the district zoning FSR without rezoning the receiver site, and the introduction of HRAs rendered unnecessary the rezoning of donor sites following each transfer. 209 Figure 2.7: Development Intensification through Transfer of Density 40 The role of development sites varies greatly with regards to supporting offsite heritage amenities.A receiver site that does not rezone, transferring ten percent or less of the maximum density, essentially utilizes a form of incentive zoning available to projects within the transfer of density area. In this scenario, the density increase is realized through a floorspace-based model with the cost of the density left to the market negotiation between the donor and receiver. Similarly, site rezonings that involve an expectation of an amenity contribution will consider this ten percent transfer of density from a heritage site as the maximum permitted density prior to rezoning, lessening the uplift of the site and corresponding CAC responsibility by a commensurate amount. However, other developments receive a large amount of density with offsite heritage use accounting for much or all of the collected CAC, requiring the City to value the density received in terms of its fiscal worth.This shift involving a financial commitment towards purchasing density either at large or from a specific site has ramifications regarding the liquidity of heritage as amenity. Specifically, receiver sites can be approved to accept density prior to its creation at the heritage site, and it is a transaction reliant on a cash-based model, moving from the abstracted notion of space in the city to the penultimate intangibility of finance. By creating and managing the symbolic act of density transfer, the HDTS departs from traditional planning mechanisms that pursue a territorialized classification of the urban environment. 21°The control of permissible densities, accepted transfer areas and the economic cost of density bonusing allows the City to actively manage this scene of transaction and provides the structural means of capital transformation; density transfer relies on the regulation of buildable space as a fluid economic commodity.The City establishes the rate of exchange for heritage density with density vested at the donor site at the rate of $25 per square foot in 1993.This valuation remained constant until mid-2004 when it doubled to $50 per square foot, and in recent transactions has become more diverse based on land use and management interests on the part of the City. Regardless of the rate when vested, the sale price of density is negotiated between the donor and the receiver site owners, with the value disclosed to the City when it sanctions the transaction.The City maintains a low balance in order to support a relatively high market value of transferable density, and reserves the right to refuse density transfers due to market conditions. The relative decline of the repressive state is evident in the shift of development policy from outright restrictions created through—first provincial and then municipal—legal mechanisms to means of inducement that allow nonconforming use of the general bylaw in exchange for legislated guarantees. In 1974, the province recognized the"need to put conservation into a more urban context','amended the Vancouver Charter and initiated an inventory of historic buildings 2 11 On the advice of the Historic Area Advisory Board established in 1973,twenty buildings were designated the inaugural year of the program and another thirty in 1975. 2 ' 2 However, following the successful lobby by owners for a clause in the provincial heritage legislation requiring compensation for loss in market value resulting from designation, the next fifty designations occurred over two decades.213 This"quid pro quo"system inaugurated by the 1977 adoption of the Heritage Conservation Act, results in a programme reliant on"all carrot and no stick,"seeking voluntary designations unlike the provincial area designation of Chinatown and Gastown in 1971 and designations made in 1974 and 1976 by the City of Vancouver imposing conditions on owners. 214 Instead, through negotiation with the City, owners exchange certain property rights for compensation and waive future claims for the diminished use or value of the building. In 1986, Council revisited municipal heritage policies by reaffirming the "intention for voluntary designation" and adopting "specific development permit guidelines with a separate approval process" marking the beginning of contemporary bonuses and incentives with the planning director empowered to increase the density onsite as long as "conservation, the impacts on liveability and environmental quality, and the appropriateness of requiring heritage designation as a condition of approval were considered."215 The 41 subsequent adoption of the 1987 Heritage Management Plan set"policies, guidelines, incentives and bonuses to ease the administration of the Inventory and the preservation of heritage resources generally, especially those identified in the Inventory." 218 A further 1995 provincial amendment formalized the use of Heritage Revitalization Agreements (HRA) that, since the following year, has outlined the duties and benefits to both the owner of the heritage property and the city. 212 Entering into a covenant likely involves designation of the building, rehabilitation and maintenance in perpetuity, and forfeiture of future claims.ln exchange, the owner is eligible to receive compensation including the relaxation of zoning regulations and bonused density. 2.7 Consecration Heritage value is created and its value established through the consecration of the state. Symbolic capital from heritage professionals, planning officials and the efforts of public bodies convened by these groups is converted to economic resources through development mechanisms and serves to replicate the dominant ideological structure; a primary value of heritage is the stabilizing effect on community.218 The definition of heritage and allocation of resources at play—what should be saved, how it should be saved and what is its role is in the identity of the city—is a struggle over the expression of collective value in the urban environment; there is "no fixed criteria of judgment...the preservation of the architecture and the places and the objects of the past, our judgment must be subjective based on the interests and the affections of the people."21 ° As a classificatory act, consecrating an official vision of heritage involves determining the relative worth of fragmentation, facades and street staging to aestheticize the public realm against the pedagogical and historic interests advocating the preservation of private property as a public value. Historic preservation has been recognized since the 19th century as serving a public use through visual enjoyment, and is increasingly legitimated through the understanding that public use is commensurate with public benefit.22° Heritage structures shape both the physical and symbolic environment, and the city serves as the"best organ of memory man has yet created." 221 Yet the determination of a legitimate heritage is controversial with competing claims to collective memory and taste, and stabilizing cultural heritage through concrete forms faces the added threat of irrelevance if the response to these structures is not maintained. 222 That heritage is defensible in both planning and legal terms is well established in North America, the greater controversy is determining criterion for consecration. The identification and listing of heritage resources is considered a cornerstone of effective management. In 1970 the federal government initiated the Canada Inventory of Historic Buildings (CIHB), and in 1986 the City first adopted a municipal Heritage Inventory, produced by a "consultant team, which drove along every street in Vancouver."223 The Inventory was subsequently updated and renamed the Heritage Register in 1994, when it included 2,200 buildings as well as other environmental elements of architectural or historical value constructed in 1940 or earlier. 224 In 1993 the Recent Landmarks Study identified 100 sites built between 1940 and 1970 for possible inclusion. Qualification for registration for any resource involves the identification of heritage value and or character, and listings are ranked in one of three evaluation groups: primary significance, significant, or contextual. Although some covenants exist to allow greater opportunity for protection or rehabilitation possibilities, listing does not prevent the owner from altering or destroying a registered building. 228 Rather, by allowing the City to regulate the demolition, relocation and alteration of heritage property through by-law, designation serves as the legal means for heritage protection. 228 Of those properties listed, approximately 1 9cYo citywide are designated. 42 The symbolic role of designation in the determination of heritage is expressed in the competition to determine what constitutes legitimate redevelopment of historic resources.The former Vancouver City library, designed by Semmens and Simpson and winner of a Massey Medal for architecture in 1958, failed to meet market expectations due to its low intensity of use and substandard layout for commercial use; four stories tall and valued between $1 and $3 million, the building's economic performance was wanting against the City's expectation of $30 million for land capable of accommodating a 20-storey tower. 227 Following the City's decision to sell the parcel with a pre-approved demolition permit, The Vancouver Sun promoted a common position: the sale was an economic given and, even if heritage was important, the building failed to be beautiful.228 Although the threat of demolition marshalled to its defence those convinced by its architectural merit as a significant example of Modernist aesthetics, likely the"depressed office space market, and not a vigorous community consciousness," was the cause for its reprieve. 229 The City sold the land for $23.2 million, agreeing to rezone the site and allowing 196,824 square feet of transferable density? 30 This substantial amount—it would be a decade before half as much density would be approved for transfer from another heritage site and only the combined amenity and heritage bonuses created at 101 West Hastings Street amount to a larger amount of density originating from any single site—was due in large part to the amount of density possible under area zoning. 231 The controversy over the library did not abate following the rezoning, as Council had failed to"accept the true meaning of heritage designation" defined by critics as protecting "a listed building from unsympathetic alteration." 232 With the black granite facing at street level and louvered facade above removed, interior reorganization involving the demolition of entry mural and mosaic, addition of a penthouse and broadcasting equipment and adornment with various advertisements of its tenants,the rehabilitation dramatically altered the appearance and use of the original structure [Figure 2.8]. Detractors deemed the resulting protected heritage building a less noble fate than demolition, having previously noted the deliberate exclusion of integral components of the building's composition from protection that did not align with the developer's interests.This permissiveness was attributed to the City's approach to "shift its ground depending on the issue at hand" in the interest of"attracting investment." The retention of the building varied from redevelopment of the site insofar as it maintains the massing and urban form, its low profile encourages the visibility of the neighbouring Hotel Vancouver and it provides an aesthetic—if superficial—reminder to patrons of the mid-century public library.ln terms of its position in the legacy of the Modern as a symbol of an era exploiting "industrial and technological advances to serve the interest of society as a whole,"the building's removal from civic service and restructuring of much of its aesthetic is problematic to the representation of this period. 233 While municipal policy considers innate that historic sites embody"economic,social,architectural and cultural development" and serve as an "excellent mirror which reflects the values and circumstances that shaped [them]," it necessarily fails to recognize that this reflection is that of the means and circumstances of their designation, rehabilitation and protection. 234 The former library is both physically and cognitively a site of competition to define heritage.This legitimated form realized through legal designation—the symbolic work of the local state—is explicated through planning mechanisms that bind it to"redevelopment potential." 235 City Council established the Vancouver Heritage Advisory Committee through a 1974 bylaw to advise Council on the "need for preserving heritage buildings, structures and lands which collectively represent... the City's historic and cultural evolution"with emphasis on the costs and benefits of preservation, the compatibility of preservation with other uses and appropriate action respecting designation and subsequent preservation, demolition or other alteration of these elements. 236 Since 1994, the advisory group—comprised of ten community members appointed by the council and one acting councilor serving as liaison—has been known as the Vancouver Heritage Commission. Global movements such as the 1976 UNESCO World Heritage 7-1 . 111 MM. 1111111-1Witt^ sr lJ ,n1fArfil 1—'11531 411141.-7,it 43 Convention signed by the federal government, have influenced the direction of Canadian preservation efforts.237 Stemming from nineteenth-century debates regarding the appropriate approach to heritage conservation, the ideas of heritage have expanded to include a variety of values beyond the physical material of the building itself. Recent Federal Historic Places Initiative (FHPI) emphasis on character-defining elements, including materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations provide a broader criterion of qualification than previous efforts.238 From these efforts, a maturation of a heritage industry has created a body of knowledge and a profession to support it.239 The prominence of aesthetic concerns in heritage, its relation to development in the municipality and the role of development mechanisms in the achievement of wider goals of the City is highlighted in the preparation and execution of recent heritage management plans.The site of Vancouver's first experience with heritage designations has served as the focus of Vancouver's most involved use of the heritage amenity to date.While the 1971 provincial designation of Gastown and Chinatown served to maintain "a distinctive and tangible legacy of a formative period in Canada's economic and physical development,"the protection also encouraged a lack of investment that, combined with wider social trends, continued the deterioration of much of the district. 2" During the last decade renewed revitalization efforts included in its mandate the delivery of an "attractive and inspirational place," recognizing that the public value of heritage Gastown is decidedly aesthetic: the street grid aligned to the original waterfront is manifest in the "closed street vistas, and in wedge-shaped lots that fostered the development of landmark'flatiron' buildings distinctive to the area"and the significance of its urban form focused on the"sawtooth" profile of uneven cornice lines?'" Heritage guidelines for the area encourage the realization of a "genuine heritage area"without a "pedantic compliance with rigid regulations."These efforts tend to be viewed cumulatively with the consecration of Figure 2.8: Commercial Use of Civic Heritage 44 past heritage programmes serving to increase the heritage value of the area for future consideration. Recent heritage assessments have identified the street beautification following Gastown's original designation as the first"Canadian area-wide upgrading initiative for the purpose of heritage conservation" and serves as a resource in itself [Figure 2.9].The public value of heritage is expectedly focused on the streetscape, and while some heritage revitalization agreements limit conversion of the interior, more commonly the interest lies in the creation of interior spaces that appear as though they were "built yesterday, not yesteryear." 242 Following a decade of expansion of the heritage amenity—including the revitalization of some buildings within the city's designated heritage areas—a 2001 report for the Planning Department on "effective heritage conservation strategies and implementation tools to conserve Gastown's historic built environment': noted that, although regulation is necessary,"financial incentives will be more effective... in promoting conservation."243 2.8 Conclusion The original recognition of a codified understanding of planning despite an aesthetic basis and expansion to legalize increasingly discretionary claims to that authority has significant effect in the determination of urban form. With the relevant holder of state power exercised at the municipal level, the City has realized greater control through the legitimization of amenities facilitative of the historically contradictory claims of the public body and private capital.This increasing recognition of heritage as public amenity has catalyzed a rapidly expanding field in terms of the agents and capital involved. Since the value of heritage is not divorced from its ability as a resource in the dominant economic development of the city, its significance Figure 2.9: Aestheticized Streetscape 45 as public good is constructed and the heritage field is a site of contest over the description and bounds of a legitimately recognized product.The development mechanisms that structure the symbolic conversion between economic and other species of capital describe the naturalization of a heritage amenity and provide a means to understand the role of amenitization in the maintenance of a specific physical and social environment. 46 2.9 Notes for Chapter Two 97 The Gastown Heritage Management Plan is credited with generating nearly a half billion dollars of new construction in the Downtown Eastside, although the scale of the programme must be considered in its impact citywide (Fung 2006). 98 Fung 2006 99 With wipeouts—or loss of private value due to public action—due to"plans and regulations from specialized units of government charged with producing a particular public good"disregarding the level of overall public interest, the voluntary designation of historic structures establishes a compensatory environment that requires intensive development to support heritage programmes (City of Vancouver 2002 and Hagman and Misczynski 1978:xxx- xxi). 100Mingione 1981:68 '°'Punter 2002:291-292 '°2The state as"a 'machine'of repression"does not operate unilaterally through violence to command and control the building of every house and storefront, but rather architecture is interpellated by the governing system. While Marx in his correspondence with Kugelmann notes that a child understands that a social formation must reproduce the conditions of production concurrently as it produces lest it will fail, the topographic model of infrastructure and repressive superstructure remains limited in its ability to address the societal means of reproduction (Althusser 1971:127-128). 103The rise of the petty bourgeoisie in France shifted the possession of state power without largely affecting the state apparatus and Foucault's efforts to splinter the subject—and with it the"single locus of great refusal"—further adulterates Marx's traditional model (Althusser 1971:140 and Foucault 1978:95). 104 Prisons and barracks explicitly support the repressive state and the reproduction of the state apparatus through the threat of violence, but the suburban house, cathedral, and department store also shape the social formation through less direct means (Althusser,1971:158) 105The distinction in plurality is significant, as a number of ideological state apparatuses exist with no direct, visible unity while the traditional Marxian description is of a single repressive state apparatus (Althusser 1971:144-145). 106Stein conveys the related albeit different roles of planning and zoning as municipal acts through comments of Stanley J., Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in Seligman v. Belknap, et aL (1941),155 S.W.2d 735:"'planning'connotes the systematic development of an area with particular reference to the location, character and extent of streets, squares, parks and to kindred mapping and charting.'Zoning' relates to the regulation of the use of property,—to structural and architectural designs of buildings; also the character of use to which the property or the buildings within classified or designated districts may be put" (Stein 1971:535). 107New York City's official guide to its planning practices simply declares,"zoning shapes the city"(Lai 1988, City of Vancouver 1994:1 and New York City 1976:7). '°°The influence of planning increased due to greater emphasis"placed on the protection of the public (societal) interest in land through regulator exercise of the police power"(Schnidman 1978:532-533 and Reilly 1973:140) 109Recognizing the discrepancy between the valuation of the land versus the building with the prior often worth several times the latter, it is "reasonable to suppose that some zoning may be intended to 'protect' building values, and many controls may have effects, intended or otherwise, on the worth of buildings"(Miscynski 1973:98). "°Kiefer 2001:639 "'Less significant spaces proceeded either"as of right"with bonused density obtained simply by demonstrating correct area calculations and meeting minimal physical standards or required a certification that involved limited discretion (Kiefer 2001:640-641). 122500 of 9000 permit applications in Philadelphia were appealed with 99% of those requesting variances or exceptions. In Boston over half of all dwelling units constructed during the study period were involved in appeals with an 81% success rate.Two-thirds of variance requests in Austin were approved, as were three-quarters in Milwaukeee (Administrative Discretion in Zoning 1969:673). Although both introduce discretion, the planning rrationale between bulk variances and mechanisms such as transfer of density differs with the latter involving conformation to—rather 47 than deviation from—density regulations (Costonis 1974:160). 13The standards of variances necessarily remained general since its 'very essence" is flexibility, but typically in vague terms the granting of variances should address a hardship related to a specific site, as well as serve to further the "general welfare."This openness forced zoning boards to exercise a discretionary rather than an interpretive function, and local authorities regularly granted variances that did failed to meet even these broad standards.A 1960 Kentucky study found that none of the 47 variances granted were justifiable, and that of these 44 were bulk rather than use variances (Administrative Discretion in Zoning 1969:671-673,682). 14Berelowitz 2005:60 15Gutstein 1983:195 116Todd 1992:22-23 "'Hagman and Juergensmeyer 1986:447 "'The legislative authority to control land use is considered to rest in section 92 of the British North America Act (Milner 1958:131). Subject 13, titled "Property and Civil Rights,"of section 92 carries the "power to destroy or interfere with private rights with respect to property in the province without the necessity of paying compensation,"seeming to"endow municipalities with the ability to direct and control the use of land with no qualification,"although compensation or other remedy is required if rezoning is refused or development blocked "pursuant to statutory planning powers in order,for example,to facilitate the future acquisition of land for public purposes" (Stein 1971:541 and Todd 1992:23). A clause common to Canadian town planning acts invalidating compensation if the provisions could have been enforced without compensation through local by-laws is responsible for the lack of virility of most claims (Milner 1963:105). British Columbia long maintained a provision that"no compensation be paid for property injuriously affected by zoning" until a 1962 amendment provided compensation when property was zoned exclusively for public use with the court granted the "power to examine municipal legislation for its true purpose." In 1974, a real estate company successfully challenged the City of Burnaby, proximate to Vancouver, after land it owned was rezoned from manufacturing to parking—a move invalidated after disclosure of City documents that noted the need for a municipal park-and-ride adjoining proposed transit infrastructure and forwarded purchase as an alternative to zoning changes (Hagman 1978a:233, 235-236). Although significant study is devoted to the legal interpretation of takings and partial takings of property, an issue that technically creates a wide differentiation between American and Canadian legislation, it remains that, regardless of the legal requirement,"elected officials prefer not to significantly reduce development potential, and therefore property value, without offering compensation"(Pruetz 2003:29). 79For a zoning ordinance to be valid in the United States it must be"reasonable in application, and have a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people"(Stein 1971:537).The Supreme Court ruling on Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. during the City Beautiful movement validated zoning as a reasonable exercise of police power.The earliest American precedent is considered the 1896 court ruling allowing the federal government to utilize the power of condemnation to create a memorial establishing eminent domain as a valid means of protecting heritage although failing to clarify the more contentious area of whether or not noxious uses can be limited without compensation (Hagman and Jurgensmeyer 1986:461). "°Hagman and Jurgensmeyer 1986:447 "'The Vancouver Charter provides for development plans that, once adopted by by-law are known as "Official Development Plans."Since these also involve discretion,"commentary related to Vancouver's 'discretionary zoning' commonly refers to a combination of the Zoning and Development By-law and Official Development Plans."The expansion of discretionary zoning measures subsequent to the 1956 Zoning and Development By-law adoption parallels other North American cities, although the Charter allows for a "greater authority for discretionary zoning than is available in other provincial enactments" (City of Vancouver 1994:2-3). 122City Council granted power to the planning authority to exercise judgment if a conditional approval use is warranted (City of Vancouver 1994:2). "'Prior to the adoption of discretionary measures, the city planning department was required to reject nonconforming applications for development permits, although the Board of Variance had the authority to relax by-law provisions (Administrative Discretion in Zoning 1969:670,679 and Gutstein 1975:59). "'Collier 1978:159 125Gutstein 1975:7-9,21 48 126Punter 2003:56 127City of Vancouver 1994:6 128Punter associates the prior with British experience and the latter with that of North America, and emphasizes the inclusion of "an element of design review" (Punter 2003:xv,17). 129Punter 2003:30 130Volrich argued that "it is well-known fact that rezonings often result in an increase to the market value of the land which is twice, three times or four times the original value"and that the increase is "created by the community" (City of Vancouver 1973).The rezoning of 95 acres of the Canadian Pacific Railway's lands for residential use the following year was reported to have transformed the value from $6 million to $50 million (Cayo 2006). 'Despite the Uthwatt Committee's broadly considered tracing of the first English betterment recapture to the seventeenth century, there is general agreement that continuity in related legislation dates to the late nineteenth- century. Harr doubts that the recapture provisions of the 1662 Act identified by Uthwatt Committee were sufficiently broad to constitute betterment and the report itself allows that statutes seeking payment"in respect of benefits received by public improvements" is "somewhat tenuous for long periods." it is agreed that there is no"real break"from the 1890s onward (Harr 1952:95-96 and Young 1943:128). ' 32Political economist Henry George called for"taking for the use of the community of a value that arises not from individual exertion but from the growth of the community,"arguing that this rent"can be taken to the last penny without in the slightest degree lessening the incentive to production."Only through this effort could the contemporaneous abolition of protections restore"natural and equal rights" (George 1949(1886):261-263). Especially urban land was increasingly viewed as "in part a public asset which cities may properly allocate...to achieve community goals,"since"downtown land values are largely the creature of public investment" (Costonis 1975:35). 133The advent of modern zoning constitutes a "marriage of the sacred and the profane"due to the potential of large financial gains or losses to private developers that, when applied to specific sites, sometimes rules the latter greater than the prior (Hagman and Misczynski 1978:xxix and Kayden 1990:113). 734The conservative definition of betterment considered only positive actions by the state, such as the execution of public works, while the more expansive recognized that negative actions, such as the impositions of restrictions on other land that constrains supply and benefits the remaining owners, creates unearned gain as well (Turvey 1957:103, Harvey 1978:422 and Young 1943:126). '"Harvey 1978:422 136Planning provisions do not destroy value, but shifts it;"if permission to develop is refused on one site but granted instead on another, the development value that would have crystallized on the first site is not eliminated, but merely transferred to the second" (Parker 1954:74). 137Young 1943:129 and Hagman 1978c:491 1381n effect, the development charge under the 1947 Act was 100% of the difference between the existing land value and the increase realized through the granting of planning permission (Turvey 1953:303 and Healy, et.a1.1995:28- 29).Although it was expected that the sum paid by the developer after acquiring land at existing use value and fulfilling the development charge levied by the Central Land Board would be equal or less than the market price prior to the Act's passage, political maneuvering to repeal the charge encouraged landowners to either hold land from development or to charge prices at the previous market value.The charge was repealed within seven years, although the government continued with efforts to tax or levy betterment in the interest of controlling land prices and directing development. 139Hagman 1978c:496-497 "'Town Planning Acts passed in Alberta (1913), Nova Scotia (1915), Manitoba (1916) and Saskatchewan (1917) each provided for betterment recapture, while the 1925 British Columbia Town Planning Act opposed these precedents by expressly legislating that no compensation would be paid.The universal provincial experience that betterment recapture was not realized aligned with the specific troubles with the determination and collection of betterment internationally as well as the wider failure of English planning law to be operational in Canada. British Columbia adopted some betterment recapture provisions in 1962, and the most significant provincial experience was the BC Land Commission Act in 1972 that constituted the"most massive downsizing in Canada to that date."The legislature, 49 with endorsement of the BC Federation of Agriculture,"provided that no compensation would be paid for lands designated as agricultural preserves." In 1976, Manitoba removed the last surviving vestiges of Canadian betterment provisions. (Flagman 1978c:496-499,511 and Hagman 1978b:283). "'Hagman 1978c:498-499 142Parker 1954:72 143 'Planning gain' is a uniquely British term referring to the agreement between the developer and planning authority at the crux of the project-led approach to local amenity provision. It is central to the test of proportionality forwarded by the Department of the Environment's Property Advisory Group (Helay 1995:6 and Crow 1998:358). 144Turvey 1953:299 145 Development is controlled by administrative discretion rather than legislative regulation with the municipality authorized to designate development areas in the official community plan. By entering a land-use contract with the City, the developer provides a contribution in exchange for permission, with the City seeking "to recapture the increase in value triggered by the development permission—a type of upzoning tax" (City of Vancouver 2002b and Jacobsen and McHenry 1978:364). 146Douglas and Derksen 2003:68 "'The 'percolation'from large, symbolic developments such as Concord Pacific Place to generalized restructuring of urban space characterizes a pattern of a third wave of gentrification noted by Smith (N. Smith 2002:440-441). 148The City uses FSR for density calculation, although a variety uses within a building, such as storage, mechanical, curtain wall and enclosed balconies are exempt in a limited capacity from floorspace calculation to pursue design and liveability objectives. Dividing the total floor area of the building less the exempted space by the site area yields the building FSR.The result is that the typical tower floorplate calculated as 6,500 square feet is physically around 7,000 square feet (Price 2003). References to density in this thesis omit exempted space unless otherwise noted. 149This illustration assumes a value of $85 per square foot regardless of use.The approved development does not conform exactly to the abstracted cases considering the overly simplified illustration of site density used; a number of spaces within a building are exempted from FSR calculation due to either the accepted method of calculation or as a policy incentive to further a variety of municipal design interests.The resulting envelope is less than an extrusion realizing the building area in the spirit of the other cases, leading to the discrepancy between the 33 stories of the third case and the 37 stories of the approved development. In order to conform to the area zoning of 7.0 FSR, this development would require a site in excess of 340 feet in length as shown in the third example, a problematic proposal since the block is only 260 feet in length and currently occupied by the buildings shown abreast the last example. 150While acknowledging that the absence of guidelines is "problematic for staff, applicants and neighbours,"it does not "preclude discretionary decision making" (City of Vancouver 1994:3,9). 151 Almost all site-specific rezonings result in CD-1 zoning, although the change from one standard zoning district to another may occur due to an "anomaly in existing zoning boundaries, such as a split-zoned site."The 1956 Zoning and Development By-Law contained provisions for"comprehensive unit development"subject to approval by the Technical Planning Board (City of Vancouver 1968 [19561:26-27). Reference the"City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By- law (No.3575) Section 2: Definitions"and City of Vancouver Community Services website. 152City of Vancouver 1968 :163 153 Figure 2.3 illustrates no density capacity for the comprehensively planned neighbourhoods of False Creek North including International Village, Citygate and Coal Harbour. It similarly does not present a maximum density for areas under CWD, BCPED, FCCDD, HA-1, HA-1A and HA-2 zoning since these parcels are without outright FSR limitations. 154DCL funds are limited to parks, childcare, affordable housing and street, sewer, water and drainage infrastructure. In addition to funding these amenities, recent CAC contributions have supported cultural facilities, public art, social and community facilities and environmental concerns (City of Vancouver 2004:1.2.1-1.2.3, 3.1.1-3.1.3). 155The City first published the discussion document in Jun.2002, updating to indicate Council approved policy choices through Feb.2004 (City of Vancouver 2004[20021). 156City of Vancouver 2004[20021:3.2.2 50 "'The fluidity of the Canadian betterment experience, citing that tcost'is not necessarily static since maintenance as well as dedication is now considered (Jacobsen and McHenry 1978:366). 'The City illustrates the discretionary range of CACs in comparison to DCL funds stating,"Council can allocate CACs to any purpose, and to any location, it deems appropriate." Reference Appendix B of the policy report dated Jan.16, 2000 with subject"Interim City-wide Development Cost Levy By-law: Boundary Adjustment & Implementation in Granville Slopes." 159The City's guidelines for determining amenities note that CACs should be"located in the community in which the rezoning takes place and/or serve the site"and"growth related, or meet past deficiencies or other community priorities" (City of Vancouver 2004b). 160City of Vancouver 2004c "'Estimating the value of direct and in-kind contributions involves substantial difficulty due to the piecemeal availability of information regarding contributions, the range and changing nature of their collection and other factors. Noting this limitation, Section 3.3 of this thesis addresses the primacy of heritage among amenity contributions as calculated by both the author and city staff. 162Bourdieu 1987:838 ' 63Terdiman 1987:809 and Bourdieu 1987:838 164That property is both the symbol of limits of governmental authority and the most overtly direct creation of the state requires the misrecognition of power;"self (state)-defined limits only work to sustain constitutionalism as we know it if the reality of self-definition is obscured by the mythic quality of those limits" (Nedelsky 1990:248). 165 13lomley 2004:5 166Steinberg references E.P.Thompson's account of 18t h-century British efforts to protect landed estates as things—apart from its earlier definition as interest—that enables "law to assume, with its robes, the postures of impartiality"and to demonstrate this neutrality by"defending only the inviolability of the ownership of things" (Steinberg 1995:13). This objectification is furthered in the dominant metaphor of property as a "bundle of sticks"of varying dimensions that may be sold individually or broken if necessary derived from the old custom of apportioning land involving the delivery of a "twig or clod of earth" signifying the delivery of possession (Steinberg 1995:15-16,181 n.23). These sticks in the juridical mind are quite physical; they have universally agreed upon identities that allow them to be measured and sold. However, this neglects that, as in its anthropological use, property is descriptive instead of the reflexive conditioning—the "bundle of relations"—of the habitus and field of the involved agents. 167Bourdieu 2000:134-135 168Through"experimental verification of the durability of fields" Bourdieu challenges the regular critique that his observations are dated or geographically delimited (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:75,78-79). Arguing the pertinence to American law of Bourdieu's study of the French juridical system,Terdiman notes that"world of law"is a "constitutive force in modern liberal societies"and that the"broad series of patterns"transcend any individual legal system (Terdiman 1987:806). 169Bourdieu quotes Bachelard to describe "the relational and analogical mode of reasoning fostered by the concept of field [that] enables us to grasp particularity within generality and generality within particularity." Furthermore, he notes that the "high degree of centralization and institutional unification"as well as the delimited barriers to entry of the French academic field create a "highly propitious terrain for uncovering some of the universal laws that tendentially regulate the functioning of all fields" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:75). "law cannot be removed to a "special hermetic category"assigned to the legal profession since its significance is experienced "on the ground" rather than within the bounds of the courtroom (Steinberg 1995:9). "'City council records dating from 1346 describe Siena's efforts to polish and codify desired, informal physical arrangements:"it redounds to the beauty of the city of Siena and to the satisfaction of almost all people of the same city that any edifices that are to be made anew anywhere along the public thoroughfares...proceed in line with the existent buildings, and one building not stand out beyond another, but they shall be disposed and arranged equally so as to be of greatest beauty for the city" (Kostof 1991:70). wHagman and Juergensmeyer reference 18th-century philosopher David Hume's oft quoted argument that"beauty in 51 things exists in the mind that contemplates them" (Hagman and Juergensmeyer 1986:446).The terms law and juridical are used in the manner of legislative—as opposed to court-applied—law since "unlike legislators and administrators, the courts play no direct role in the formulation of particular aesthetic measures."Costonis clariifes that"legislative law is affirmative, derivative and aesthetically oriented: affirmative because it defines positive measures authorizing various forms of public intervention; derivative because its values are extralegal, i.e. societal, in origin; and aesthetically oriented because these values, by definition, are aesthetic in content" (Costonis 1982:384). '"In acknowledging aesthetic response as"a social construct, not an ontological given"Costonis references Berger and Luckmann—whose influential work saw the relationships between structure and agency as dialectical since society forms individuals who create society in a continuous loop—to clarify this "distinction"(Costonis 1982:358 and Berger and Luckmann 1966:170-171). Bourdieu's critique of Kant's theory of pure taste is read most concisely in his "Postscript: Towards a 'Vulgar' Critique of 'Pure' Critiques":"Thus, although it consistently refuses anything resembling an empirical psychological or sociological genesis of taste, each time invoking the magical division between the transcendental and the empirical, the theory of pure taste is grounded in an empirical social relation, as is shown by the opposition it makes between the agreeable and culture, or its allusions to the teaching and educability of taste" (Bourdieu 1984:490). "'The erroneous correlation between abstract canons and a beautiful environment is further troubled by the ramifications of aesthetic policies partaking more of"high farce than of the rule of law"that through "indiscriminate, often quixotic demands have overwhelmed legal institutions, which all too frequently have compromised the integrity of legislative, administrative, and judicial processes in the name of 'beauty.'"Similar to the pursuit of other social goals, legalizing aesthetic impulses can prove detrimental no matter how meritorious the intended result is in isolation (Costonis 1982:12,356,380). '"Costonis 1982:277,375-376 16The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Berman v. Parker ruled that issues such as public safety, health, and morality illustrate the scope of police power but do not limit it (Flagman and Juergensmeyer 1986:447).The expanded reading of public welfare means that cities must"provide an environment which goes beyond efficiency and comfort"and create places that are"inspirational;where the pride of the community is exhibited in the form and fabric of the city; where 'happiness' is as important as 'wealthiness'; where artist flourish as well as bankers" (Spaxman 1991:88).The importance of aesthetics to place is apparent in the dependence of the"selling of the city as a location for activity... upon the creation of an attractive urban imagery"(Harvey 1989:13). "'Literal period opinions express that "beauty is an absolute social good whose pursuit by government requires no justification by reference to some identifiable value beyond itself" (Flagman and Juergensmeyer 1986:446, Costonis 1982:361,392, and Lai 1998:219). Bourdieu describes representations of autonomous production in certain literary and artistic fields "devoid of any determination or any social function"achieving fullest expression in the"theories of'art for art's sake."Correlatively,"in the representation of the legitimate relation to the work of art as an act of're-action' claiming to replicate the original creation and to focus solely on the work in and for itself, without any reference to anything outside it" (Bourdieu 1993:36). '"Costonis 1982:367 '"The successful urban image can create"a sense of social solidarity, civic pride and loyalty to place and even allow the urban image to provide a mental refuge in a world that capital treats as more and more place-less."Social control results from enmeshing urban entrepreneurialism with this search for local identity (Harvey 1989:14). Among these controls is the "abuse of aesthetic powers by suburbanites" (Costonis 1982:366). Planners concede behavioural suburbanization of the core through development of design mechanisms as a primary goal of development, and journalists observe on the Vancouver peninsula—dubbed Smileyville by Blore and Sutherland—the realization of this interest that refuses and pursues the pairing of"formal and behavioural perfection"; wherein planning professionals structure "all the advantages of suburbia; developers "carry this ethos to its privatized extreme" (Blore and Sutherland 1999 and Punter 2003:226). Blore references a city planner's simile that new developments are"like dinner at the Keg [Steakhouse and Barr referring to the"general high quality of the architecture and its dependable middlebrow blandness"by comparison to the franchised, casual dining chain that began in Greater Vancouver prior to expanding its trademark internationally (Blore and Sutherland 1999:58). Crawford's understanding of architectural creation as branding style emphasizing "surface and readable imagery as a useful form of packaging essentially identical structures into more compelling products" is legible in Concord Pacific's development on False Creek in which towers are grouped into neighbourhoods distinguishable through like colour palettes and architectural appointments (Crawford 1991:41). 180Aesthetic commentary describes at length "how such artwork is constructed, its composition, the equilibrium of colours, etc). It does not analyse as such the 'work in progress', as James Joyce said, and the mode of production of that work" (Bourdieu 2002:32 and Barnett 1974:5). 52 181 Duerksen and Goebel define preservation law as a "collage, cutting across and drawing from several other established areas of law: land use and zoning, real property, taxation, local government, constitutional and administrative','and notes that"the standards that dictate governmental behavior in enacting and administering zoning ordinances are virtually identical to those applicable to local landmark and historic district laws" (Duerksen and Goebel 1999). In describing the "invisible web"connecting law and planning, Lai notes that many courts share the perception of New Jersey Judge Ackerman in his 1963 ruling of People v. Stover. New York Court of Appeals Judge John Van Voorhis further argues that"lot area, setback and height restrictions, for example, are based essentially on aesthetic factors" and that aesthetic consideration interwoven with other factors underlie all zoning (Lai 1998:195). Costonis notes from an American perspective that legislation restricting the placement of billboards along highways, advocating for urban renewal and incentive zoning and supporting the historic preservation and neighbourhood conservation movements are aesthetic initiatives. Acceding greater legitimacy, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) ensures "esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings" preserving "important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage" by obligating federal agencies to respond to "social, esthetic and cultural needs" through engagement of the professions of natural and social sciences with the environmental design arts. However, the subsequent implementation of aesthetically drive legislation has led to displacement, delays and—in the words of New York architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable—'Frankenstein zoning' (Costonis 1982:361-362). 182Physical heritage stems from the recognition that spatial adaptation is not a strictly economic phenomenon and that the city is not simply a "natural mechanism whose process lead to a most efficient territorial layout of social activities" (Hosmer 1983:11) 183Costonis notes Chicago's Old Stock Exchange Building and Garrick Theater,demolished in 1972 and 1960, respectively, and New York's Pennsylvania Station demolished in 1964 (Costonis 1974:4).The loss of these structures is widely recognized as catalysts of the American preservation movement with widespread awareness of their destruction, including the inclusion of the demolition of the Old Stock Exchange Building in Life Magazine. Illustrating the rapid pace of replacement in urban environments, the parking garage that replaced the Garrick Theater was subsequently demolished, and recent discussions have considered the removal of much the replacement structures on the Pennsylvania Station site. "'Vancouver's experience with the loss of structures while marked, did not reach the levels of many American cities due to a several year lag noted in several historic developments providing time for the establishment of heritage mechanisms. MacDonald describes this delay between Seattle and Vancouver with the latter following in the construction of the transcontinental railroads, pursuit of Klondike trade, engagement of the automobile, production of merchant ships, and commitment to freeway construction (MacDonald 1987:162). "ley 1980:239-240, Gutstein 1975:151-156,162-166 and Hasson and Ley:1994:235-237 ' 86N.Ward 1988:73 and Barford 1993:6 "zA second bylaw established the Vancouver Heritage Advisory Committe and required designation to involve negotiation with owners as well as consultation with the public and planning director (Punter 2003:53). 188City of Vancouver 2001:12 189Costonis 1974:4 190Costonis 1975:6-10 gl Semantically development credits is more appropriate that development rights since transfer of density programmes create "a commodity that would not exist but for the ordinance"and that the use of this commodity on an appropriate receiver site is subject to a range of development constraints and regulatory limitations (Pruetz 2003:31-32).The terminology used by the City of Vancouver is the transfer of density, but it is ideologically and technically akin to the transfer of development rights, and so the acronym TDR is used interchangeably. ' 92The end goal if for all owners of a resource, such as buildable land, to have the "opportunity for profiting from its development even though in the interest of best possible development, the specific parcel of any given owner may be restricted from use" (Schnidman 1978:532). 193Costonis 1974:35 194Pruetz 2003:30 195Heritage density can is transferrable from but not to sites located in the designated heritage areas encompassing 53 Gastown, Chinatown and Yaletown.Also sites cannot receive transferred density if they are already receiving a hotel or heritage density bonus, contain single room occupancy hotel without arrangement to secure or replace units or are zoned CD-1 without an included provision (City of Vancouver 2002). In early 2006, the City considered a transfer of density outside of the transfer area in Kitsilano, but the effort did not succeed. Reference the administrative report dated Jan. 5, 2006 with subject"2936 West 4th Avenue - Report Back on Heritage Retention Through Transfer of Density." 1 °°The City's use of bonused heritage density impacts this balance (Costonis 1975:128). 192Reference the administrative report dated Mar.12,2002 with subject"690 Burrard - Christ Church Cathedral Interior Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement." 198The Cathedral has been the location of prominent funerals, worship by dignitaries and placement of important memorials (Christ Church Cathedral). ' 99Kalman 1974 200Both Georgia and Burrard Streets—the latter marked the dividing line between the two original district lot surveys that comprised the peninsula, defined distinctly different grids and informed the western and eastern halves of downtown Vancouver—were originally platted with a 30-metre right-of-way rather than the usual 20 metres.The urban design firm Baird Sampson Associate's 1982"Greening Downtown" study for the City of Vancouver confirmed the importance of this pairing in the urban morphology of the city, and subsequent municipal efforts have focused on enhancing the streetscapes of these streets (Berelowitz 2005:44,67-68).The vacant land attracted a premium; at its founding the Church purchased the parcels at more than twice the price of an alternative site further South on Burrard also offered for sale by the Canadian Pacific Railway and now the site of St. Andrews Wesley United Church.The significance of the site was again raised when choosing to move the centre of the diocese to Christ Church. Rev. R.J. Renison recalled in his autobiography that the Chaplain-General of the British Army had been "struck by the site of Christ Church"and noted, "a cathedral should be down town in the heart of the city" (Adams 1989:13,51). 201The "Concerned Congregation of Christ Church Cathedral," which, although it remained anonymous, purported to represent the interests of six hundred Anglicans and a separate group called the "Save Christ Church Cathedral Committee" was also formed (Ibid:79-80). 2°2Although a modest majority-58% of the congregation—authorized the church committee in February, 1971, to prepare plans that involved the demolition of the church, in May, 1972, approval had grown to 72% for the redevelopment.The proposal was unveiled publicly in Nov.1971 (Ibid:77-79). 203The City notes that negotiations occurred in 1974 and 1975, and the Church indicates that an agreement was signed in May,1979.The developer, Daon Development Corp., was the successor to Laing Construction, which had initially planned to build the office tower on church lands.The agreement called for Daon to pay the Church $660,000 before and during construction and commit to annual payments beginning at $225,000 and rising incrementally until the expiration of the 104-year agreement in 2083.ln exchange the Church was limited to its present size, withholding the possibility of construction of a bell tower, and obliged to"preserve and maintain"the building. Reference the administrative report dated Mar.12, 2002 with subject"690 Burrard - Christ Church Cathedral Interior Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement." 204Adams 1989:80-81 2°5Construction ended in 1984 on Park Place, Daon's adjoining development at left in Figure 2.6, and the tower maintains the distinction of the largest office building in the city (City of Vancouver 2006). 2°6The legal basis, particularly in the United States of development rights transfer is controversial specifically because of its hybridized consideration of zoning as both design and fiscal tool (Costonis 1973:105). Although semantics differentiate Canadian and American use of transfer of density programmes, in practice their function is viewed the same. 207Aside from heritage, public objectives include: the creation of public open space or park land; facilitation of development in mixed use zoning; achievement and improvement of urban design; view protection; and single room occupancy protection (City of Vancouver 2002).Only two transfers of density involving remote sites have occurred to realize non-heritage objectives: the Bentall V office tower utilized transferred density from a parcel that was subsequently developed as a municipal parking garage underneath a public plaza; Woodward's authorized the only use of the transfer of density policy for the transfer offsite of density bonused for an amenity provision.TDR programmes are "designed to provide flexibility,"and,among 142 programmes documented by Pruetz, 57 percent 54 consider environmental protection the primary goal with related measures including the protection farmland, hazardous areas, open space, rural character, coastal areas, groundwater supplies, mineral resources and wildlife habitat. While historic preservation is the third largest category following environmental protection and farmland preservation, only 17 programmes address heritage as a primary interest (Pruetz 2003:29-43). 208A development limitation covenant allows density to be held onsite (Barford 1993:10). Density can be transferred from—but not into—heritage areas.The terms of the HRA must be fulfilled or a letter of credit received for the balance to be available for transfer. Once approved, the density is attached to the receiver site title, remaining even if development does not immediately progress. 209Increasing site density by up to ten percent over the maximum density through receipt of density necessitates the approval of the DPB, but does not require a public hearing or Council approval. 210The use of the HDTS is not subject to any adjacency requirements beyond the donor sites location in the transfer of density policy area encompassing the downtown peninsula and portions of the Broadway corridor. Utilizing density transfer to achieve other goals involves more stringent proximity; density transferred for urban design purposes must be within the same block or separated by a single street. 271 City of Vancouver 2004d 212Barford 1993:6 213The replacement of the Historic Sites Protection Act with the Heritage Conservation Act enabled owners "to claim compensation for economic loss suffered from designation','and, as a result,"no site has been unilaterally designated since the Act took effect"(Punter 2003:54 and Barford 1993:7) 214The province tabled the Heritage Conservation Statues Amendments Act in 1993 to address "ambiguity in compensation" (Barford 1993:7) 215 Punter 2003:125-126 216Council also established the Heritage Advisory Committee—and approved its initiation of a Heritage Conservation Program--to advise council, the Heritage Division, City of Vancouver Planning Department to administer the Vancouver Heritage Inventory as part of the Heritage Management Plan and the Historic Area Planning advisory committees for Chinatown, Gastown and First Shaughnessy areas (Barford 1993:7-9). 2 "Punter 2003:126-127 218Costonis 1982:79 219Berelowitz notes that a "telling commentary on our values" is that recognition on the "official so-called Heritage A-List" lends early houses, often built from American pattern books "an architectural pedigree entirely unanticipated by their opportunistic—and in many cases anonymous—builders" (Feis 1983[19661:144 and Berelowitz 2005:190). 22°The interest of heritage programmes is the community's rather than the owner's use of a landmark (Costonis 1974:146 and Costonis 1982:104). 221-his 'retentiveness,' or capacity for cultural inclusion, also results in "digestion and selection."Although Mumford reifies the City by assigning it agency, it is through amenity valuation that individuals struggle to control the official memory consecrated in the urban environment (Mumford 1961:562-563). 222Lynch 1972:53 223Vancouver Sun 1990 ""The City identifies an "emerging trend where community heritage values are not seen to be adequately represented by the Heritage Register,"due to the public call for retention of unlisted structures, and credits a changing understanding of what constitutes heritage. Reference the administrative report dated Jan.5,2006 with subject "2936 West 4th Avenue - Report Back on Heritage Retention Through Transfer of Density." 225Although the City cannot reject redevelopment of registered properties solely based on their listing, the City Council may"withhold approvals and permits to allow time for heritage retention options to be fully explored with the property owner and heritage staff," providing an opportunity for heritage incentives to be leveraged to find a feasible 55 alternative to demolition to the"satisfaction of both the property owner and the City"(City of Vancouver 2004c). 226Municipal designation requires the majority resolution of council and is a "legal covenant authorized by statute and applied against the legal title to land"(Barford 1993:7). 227J. Lee 1992 228Council Reads it Right 1992 229Gruft and Windsor-Liscombe 1992 23°The Vancouver Sun reported in Jul. 1993 that the developer agreed to purchase the site for $23.2 million upon its rezoning to allow the transfer of 181,000 square feet (Lee 1993).This amount totaled 196,824 square feet when sold in Nov. (City of Vancouver 2002a). 231 750 Burrard Street prior to rezoning was considered part of the Established CBD, area A of the Downtown District and the most instensive area zoning of the City with a maximum total of 9.0 FSR for all permitted uses. 232R.Ward 1995 233Gruft and Windsor-Liscombe 1992 234City of Vancouver 2003c 235City of Vancouver 2002a 236City of Vancouver 2004h 237The "fundamental basis for good conservation practice" has been published through a series of charters, beginning with the 1931 Athens Charter (Canada 2003:4).Through a process of downloading control, municipal policy governs the identification and treatment of heritage properties. Although the federal government does not have direct mandate over properties, it still influences the heritage industry by legislating policy and providing incentives to reach its goals of promoting and protecting Canadian heritage (Falkner 1977). 238The expansion of heritage is aligned with the recognition of divergent and minority interests in the City.While postwar planning was"founded on the notion of a consensual and unitary public interest in how land use change and' development should be managed"leaving conflicrat the margins," by the 1980s it was instead "system for managing conflicts between different interests" (Healy 1995:5-6). 238Although the extent of the connection between widespread public interest and organized heritage groups is contestable, the level of participation should be compared to 1990, when Robert Lemon reported disappointment over "the lack of motivation"leading to the cancellation of a University of British Columbia Centre for Continuing Education offering on building preservation due to want of applicants (Vancouver Sun 1990). 240Under provincial designation,the original heritage restrictions regulated all property and by extension every building within the district bounds. Recent incentives developed for Gastown have typically been subsequently applied to Chinatown, including the tax incentive available through the 2001 Gastown Heritage Management Plan extended to Chinatown the following year. 241 City of Vancouver 2001:7-8 242 Fung 2006. 243City of Vancouver 2001:3 Chapter Three: Production of Heritage 57 3.1 Introduction Heritage has a significant impact on the realization of the physical space of the city not only in terms of the amount of buildable space legitimized, but the facilitation of development that deviates from both zoning bylaw and approved policy.Through development mechanisms that structure capital exchange and economise social goods, studying the physical manifestation of heritage forwards a better understanding of its significant role in the social production of the city; a "register of social values,"the environment serves as a "symbol of the identity of a cultural system."244 Three hundred City documents, both amendments to the zoning bylaw and reports to Council, serve as the primary trace of this conversion with development approval specifying the physical form and policy and administrative reports forwarding the legitimated public value of development.These documents are listed in Appendix A, and referenced reports should be considered pertinent to the entire discussions of specific projects.Articles from local periodicals, themselves substantiated as cultural resources in the capital exchange of development, provide further description of this process. The adoption of the scientific and legalised language of policy documents engages the durable economisation that denies the existence of other forms of capital, permits the misrecognition of the influence of social ability and forwards the impartiality of the bureaucratic field. Further, this official record belies the heterogenous body of the state in neglecting to seriously consider that the interests of the various stakeholders within the City itself are in struggle to control the legitimate identification of amenity. Despite the limitations that result from this reduction of capital to its economic employment—and the further bounds attributable to the privileged standing of financial appraisals—the City records provide an important description of the heritage field through quantitative arguments that trace the consecrated definition of amenity through development negotiation.The pairing of public and private interest in the discretionary planning process reifies the conception of heritage through development mechanisms.The utility of heritage in the social and physical transformation of the city is substantial, and its articulation through development forwards the definition of the public value itself. By focusing on the economically, culturally and symbolically significant downtown core, the study approaches a constrained geographic space from data sets corresponding to the development mechanisms that serve the heritage amenity.The material presented is limited by the availability of data as well as the date accessed, and with the range and selection process described upon introduction of the information, the reader should remain mindful of any qualifications.The technical deviations between development tools serve as a significant barrier in approaching heritage since the rationalized understanding forwarded by the planning profession denies the exchangeability—the underlying social connection—of amenitization; upholding the artificial compartmentalization inherent in development mechanisms undermines the recognition that the definition of amenity itself is at stake in the development process.Only though a catholic approach and an awareness of the limitations of policy study, can the physical manifestation provide an illustration of the public value of heritage and the field that supports its production. The chapter begins by describing the correlative expansion of amenitization and downtown residential use as a process based on supporting market performance through the delivery of public goods. Development mechanisms mediating private and City interests define amenities against their utility in supporting this growth. Among the range of public values addressed, heritage has achieved primacy due to its pliancy and the significant collateral benefits associated with its delivery. Its role is key to capital accumulation and it is the preferred means of private wealth creation in conjunction with the realization of more bounded social amenities. 58 3.2 Aestheticized Capital The amenitization of the city is bound to the emergence of a residentialized core from the dominant, office- centred development experience during 1970s.Demonstrating the mutual benefit to both the market and the symbolic efforts of the City, this shift has increasingly relied on aestheticized claims that have proven among the most ideologically durable; a fixation on the aesthetic supports the adoption of a public planning process for a 'livable city' without disruption of the dominant production of the physical and social space of the city.Aestheticized claims site urbanity in the symbolic and describe the City through the production of imagery. Revered as a defining moment in the recognition of Vancouver and the origin of the contemporary period of capital accumulation,"Expo '86 brought more sophisticated public expectations for street life, activity and amenity.Compared to the Expo ambiance, many of the downtown's public environments seem mundane."245 While the large-scale creation of residential space on the former exposition grounds focused on greenspace and the recreational seawall, in the subsequent application of these values to the city itself, heritage has become distinguished as the vanguard of aesthetic efforts with significant influence on the means and form of development. In preparation for the 1988"Symposium on Downtown Vancouver,"the planning department and Vancouver City Planning Commission noted the abandonment of commercial development in favour of a "new residential strength...challenging Vancouver's beliefs about density" as the number of housing units approved during the previous four years"equalled the number built under the prevailing zoning for over a decade and a half."246 From 1988 until the December 1991 adoption of the Central Area Plan the City developed policies implemented through "area studies, rezonings and project planning in the central area."247 In an escalation 'ubiquitous' among cities and "ambitiously and scrupulously planned" by municipal authorities, the "mobilization of urban real-estate markets"served as the preferred vehicle of capital accumulation.2" The focus on the creation of new neighbourhoods fostered "new planning, urban design and consultative strategies reflecting a true collaboration of the public and private sectors." 249 As both a fiscal and design effort, the aestheticization of Vancouver was first tested in an urban context in Downtown South, a "low density warehousing and service commercial area with high vacancy rates"that by the mid 1980s was"clearly [an] under-developed part of the city [and] ripe for redevelopment." 250 Policies adopted in the early 1990s facilitated rapid capital expansion with the 1991 Downtown Official Development Plan (DODP) delineating 14 blocks as area "L" of the Downtown District, christened New Yaletown in reference to the adjoining "compact warehouse district developed in the early 1990s"that would become the City's first Historic Area District schedule established since the 1970s.251 Following a text amendment in 2001 that excluded the block between Mainland and Cambie Streets, the New Yaletown adopted its contemporary identification as area "L1" [Figure 3.1). 252 With forty transactions between July 1999 and April 2006, property within this area accounted for over two-thirds of the recorded land sales in the Downtown District and the selling prices illustrate the dramatic increase associated with the pace of redevelopment of these blocks [Figure 3.2). 253 Although the cumulative effect of this increase is difficult to quantify, BC Assessments values the property comprising the neighbouring exposition lands in excess of $4 billion with about 60 percent attributable to the land, an increase of about"400-fold since 1974 when it was a shabby industrial area." 254 The enacted zoning envisioned a particular product and exercised a significant influence in the design of the area, and the resultant capital accumulation demonstrates the substantial effect of this aestheticized planning effort. Council endorsed rezoning for high-density residential development in 1987 and approved a maximum floor-space ratio of 6.0 FSR a year later, but the adoption of the "Downtown South Goals and Policies" in 1991 settled on a maximum of 5.0 FSR. While early attempts at the introduction of high-density residential forwarded a density formula of 3.0 FSR residential and 2.0 FSR commercial, considered unviable 59 by the development community, the DODP soon reflected a more favourable preference for residential use.255 Achieving the envisioned form of development under the new zoning required "site assemblies...with the associated redevelopment of older small scale commercial and service use buildings'' the maximum permitted density is limited to 3.0 FSR, although corner sites with areas equal to the amalgamation of seven and interior sites joining at least eight of the typical city parcels are allowed 5.0 FSR 256 This zoning structure encourages assemblage visible by parcel involvement in multiple sales in Figure 3.2 and realizes a specific architectural product by permitting no more than "four slim point towers per block." 2" Past periods of rapid escalation in the valuation of land, such as that experienced in the 1960s and 1970s, precipitated the loss of heritage structures through demolition. However, the introduction of development mechanisms that instil economic capital in heritage retention have proved largely sufficient in countering this trend and has allowed heritage to facilitate the dominant form of production.The expansion in the symbolic creation of heritage has been such that the pressure for buildable space has led to the designation of increasing numbers of sites with legitimate heritage resources.The utility of heritage in the creation of private benefit through the provision of public goods has encouraged its position at the vanguard of the aestheticization of the city and area development often involves the creation of icons to bolster claims to the physical and social space. The designation of 1228 Richards Street, the building significant due to its location at a prominent intersection, serves as an early example of the ability of contemporary heritage development mechanisms. Although criticism of the development alluded to the "unexceptional" buildings of Downtown South and engagement in a "boring heritage formula,"the building is now lauded as a"venerable"element within the newly amenitized environment 2 58 Figure 3.1: Downtown South and Central Business District Shoulder DATE OF SALE CO CI)^O^0^O^CD CNJ^(Ni ,S• 6,<<,^CO- 2, -\\*\\ ci'^c, 4,,(s^ 2'sSP ^1es g0+^(2-4, 800 0 700 O 0 u_ Lu 600 0 500co w °- 4004 co (51 300 a oLLI 200 E2a. Luo) 100 -J 0 THREE SALES TWO SALES SINGLE SALE LOT LINES • APRIL 2006 AREA^MAXIMUM PERMITTED^PARCEL INVOLVEMENT DENSITY OF SALE IN ISOUTION (OOP) LAND SALES IN DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AREA L1 JULY 1999 - APRIL 2006 SOURCE REALNET AND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, CITY OF VANCOUVER 61 Table 3.1: Land Sales in Downtown Distirct Area L1 July 1999 - April 2006 Date Cost per sf Land Address Cost (Millions) sf Land^5.0 FSR 1999 $^167 1128 Seymour Street $^2.00 11979 149 1133-1199 Seymour Street 5.82 38986 118 1284 Richards Street 1.42 11979 2000 180 1257 - 1267 Richards Street 5.40 30013 188 1225 Richards Street 5.09 27007 2001 145 1328-1332 Seymour Street 0.87 6011 146 1306-1308 Seymour Street 0.88 6011 163 1248-1250 Richards Street 2.20 13504 178 1055-1085 Homer Street 3.74 20996 240 1272 Richards Street 0.72 3006 200 510 Nelson Street 1.80 9017 2002 186 1017 Richards Street 0.56 3006 141 1021 Richards Street 0.43 3006 175 1033 Richards Street 1.05 6011 286 1001 Homer Street 6.00 20996 261 939 Beatty Street 7.25 27748 299 1261-1295 Seymour Street 6.25 20909 2003 206 1080 Richards Street 0.62 3006 366 1372 Seymour Street 1.10 3006 233 1144-1146 Richards Street 1.40 6011 319 555 Pacific Boulevard 3.57 11195 287 976 Richards Street 3.50 12197 2004 259 905 Richards Street 3.10 11979 266 970 Richards Street 0.80 3006 293 909 Richards Street 0.88 3006 333 1052 Richards Street 1.00 3006 85 Lot 57 1.21 14244 333 1010 Seymour Street 1.00 3006 324 1002 Seymour Street 2.93 9017 352 1066 Richards Street 2.10 5968 328 1022-1026 Seymour Street 2.00 6098 225 1210 Seymour Street 1.35 6011 2005 379 1076-1078 Richards Street 1.14 3006 250 1045 Seymour Street 1.50 6011 505 1033-1035 & 1067 Richards Street 12.12 24002 575 1107-1119 Homer Street 13.80 24002 417 1340 Seymour Street 5.00 11979 512 1036, 1038, 1052, 1066, 1076 & 108C Richards Street 12.30 24002 2006 638 1358-1364 Seymour Street 5.75 9017 699 555 Pacific Boulevard 16.50 23174 Notes for Table 3.1: Land Sales in Downtown District Area Ll July 1999 - April 2006 Sales costs courtesy of RealNet Canada Inc. The permissible zoning in area LI of the Downtown District encourages the amalgamation of parcels to realize four slim towers-a pair on either side of the lane-per block. Those sales denoted as 5.0 FSR occupy corner sites with a minimum frontage of 175 feet and a site area of at least 21,000 square feet or interior sites with a minimum frontage of 200 feet and a site area of at least 24,000 square feet. Although those sites identified as purchased for non-profit use may be able to realize the maximum density on a smaller site provided that at least two-thirds of construction is social housing,Figure 3.2 illustrates that these sites do not deviate significantly from the overall trend in regards to cost and some sites purchased for social housing-including those held by the City-are resold for market use. 62 Increasingly, as"real-estate development becomes a centerpiece of the city's productive economy, an end in itself," heritage exerts significant influence in the realization of the city. 259 Physically replacing the industrial and commercial capacities previously at the centre of local economic growth, real estate development relies on amenitization to provide necessary symbolic support.The result is that it is"significantly more profitable to build residential"since "the amenities that make the district attractive as a place to live...now threaten local [business] growth"26° Further, with the discrepancy between commercial and residential tax rates, the reliance on residential growth places increasing responsibility on funding public services through development mechanisms.This"residentializing of the downtown core" is today seen as"the single most important development of the city"and an unusual precedent among North American cities since the populating of downtown "was an explicit policy. It was planned."26 ' While dramatically reducing the CBD in 1991 to address the unbuilt commercial capacity downtown, the City also framed the rezoning in the interest of business by increasing efficiency through the consolidation of services.Among the many interests served by this 'living first'strategy, was the protection of heritage areas; by designating the CBD away from areas of "major heritage character,"allowing choice of use and excepting heritage buildings from the emphasis on street-fronting retail,the plan recognized historic buildings in fostering "a spirit of place." 262 More importantly, heritage retention provided the single exemption from the policy of"not entertaining site-specific rezonings for higher density residential"following the Central Area Plan emphasis on the need to"delete or [to] not encourage housing" in the newly consolidated CBD.263 This qualification has allocated significant symbolic and valuable economic capital to historic structures in the central core. Further, with the dominant field of economic production directed towards residential creation—although commercial vacancy rates have reached historic lows, no new office tower has started "construction or even been proposed by developers for [the] downtown core in the new century"and the City passed a moratorium to prevent the conversion of additional commercial buildings to housing—the reification of heritage has substantial utility. 264 While the primacy of residential development results from a number of wider trends, the City's policy efforts including its approach to heritage retention has encouraged this preference.The first heritage building engaging the City's transfer of density policy was also "the first office tower in Canada to be converted into residential units"and the ability to facilitate residential development is a common characteristic of most designated heritage structures. 265 It is not that the utility of heritage is limited to housing, but that the realization of heritage is oriented towards the maximization of financial profit that currently binds it with the persistent advance of residential use into the CBD.This aestheticized effort pairing the economic valuation of heritage as amenity with intensified downtown residential production does not happen by circumstance, demonstrating instead the reproduction of the ideological—despite shifts in the physical—means of production. 3.3 Primacy of Heritage Although developers began utilizing CD-1 provisions to realize residential schemes at densities equivalent to commercial zoning in the mid 1980s, the 1989 introduction of CACs and consolidation of the CBD two years later allows the City to leverage significant amenities for private initiated rezoning seeking to further develop residential space.266 Effective in delivering public goods valued by the market, this planning permission structure contains an "inherent bias towards greater development to supply desired amenities." The development over the past 15 years of the half-dozen blocks forming the shoulder of the CBD bordering the residentialized Downtown South demonstrates the early role of heritage and later intensive use of amenitization to redirect the form of development envisioned by the underlying zoning. In 1991, the 63 boundaries of Downtown South did not include the Robson and Seymour Street edges since these blocks met important criteria of the business district, namely that they were "close to transit, not an area with heritage buildings, [and] not an area with, housing or a high desirability for housing" [Figure 3.3]. 267 Identified as the Seymour-Smithe Blocks—unlike New Yaletown—zoning reflected the expectation that the blocks would be a build-out area for the CBD and required 2.0 FSR commercial as a prerequisite for residential construction limited to 3.0 FSR.Within four years the City approved a heritage bonus for a rezoning assembling 90,000 square feet divided into parcels on either side of the 900-block of Seymour Street within this shoulder area of the CBD [Figure 3.4].The public amenity was the retention of the Dominion Motors Building, a 'C' listed building on the Heritage Register lending to the historic character of the designated Orpheum Theatre across Smithe Street.The capitalization of the 1925 commercial structure's symbolic heritage facilitated the extension of the development policies of Downtown South realizing significant residential use by removing the commercial requirement. Although bonused density for heritage retention amounted to 50,000 square feet—an increase in density of the entire site of 11 percent--the rezoning more importantly resulted in the greater fluidity of the density onsite. With the west side of the block limited in height restriction, the rezoning allowed the developer to transfer a total of 77,000 square feet in bonused and residual density across Seymour Street. 268 The two-tower form of development of the receiving parcels included .36 FSR commercial and 6.42 FSR residential with 90 percent of the density in the towers. 269 Two other projects within the Smithe-Seymour blocks approved by 1996 involved heritage designation of onsite structures to increase residential development. With a 1997 recommitment to the restriction of residential use in the CBD, Council reiterated the standing of these shoulder blocks by maintaining density standards and identifying the blocks as the fringe of the CBD Figure 3.3: Central Business District Shoulder Built Density Existing Zoning Rezoning with Heritage Bonus As Built 64 despite the blocks increasing resemblance to the Downtown South 2 70 Although the requirement for 2.0 FSR commercial use remained a prerequisite for residential development, by 2004 interim policies examining commercial capacity identified the Seymour-Smithe blocks, as well as some parcels north of Robson Street as Downtown South-North?" Following the earlier use of heritage to achieve residential density, since 2002 the projects approved for this area have relied on CACs and amenity bonuses to achieve buildings very different from those allowed under area zoning [Table 3.2].These seven projects will upon completion realize 1.24 million square feet of residential floorspace, 239 percent of that allowed under the DODP, while the amount of new commercial excluding parking will amount to 346,000 square feet, or 55 percent of that required by zoning.The ratio between residential and commercial set in 1991 as 3 to 2 has in projects approved since 2002 been 9 to 2. Largely due to a shortfall in development cost levies resulting from the rapid buildout of Downtown South, the inferior zoning—as considered by the dominant mode of production—of the shoulder blocks of the CBD has made it a valuable resource to the City; low-rise civic structures and a planned future park has allowed aggressive rezoning for high density residential use and the realization of a breadth of amenities [Figure 3.5]. 222 Of the seven sites approved between 2002 and 2007, four receive transferable heritage density and a fifth utilizes bonused heritage onsite. Evident in the Seymour-Smithe blocks is the range of civic amenities served by development contributions. The City relies on an opportunistic approach to amenitization to determine the appropriate contribution based on the developer, project and need, and it is within this negotiation that social and cultural ability is as important as economic in legitimizing amenities as public val ues.The pliancy of heritage distinguishes it as the primary public good supported by development contributions and half of all CACs support the retention of historic structures. A citywide survey of 44 CAC collections between January 2003 and October Figure 3.4:Transfer of Density within Comprehensive Development UNALLOCATED ENVIRONMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING STREETS AND PARKS CHILDCARE CULTURE ART 65 2005 undertaken by Planning Department staff found that among allocated values totalling $78 million, contributions towards heritage amounted to $38 million or 49 percent, equal to the combined support for affordable housing, public art, transportation, parks and environmental, cultural, social and community uses.273 A survey of 29 recorded amenity contributions in the study area finds that 57 percent of $104 million allocated served heritage.This amount dwarfed other applications with 14 percent funding childcare, 10 percent affordable housing, 8 percent art, 7 percent neighbourhood parks and infrastructure,4 percent culture and a negligible proportion addressing the environment. Although these range from 1986 to 2005, efforts to determine CAC contributions are more difficult for older rezonings due to the diminished accessibility of policy reports that accurately describe the allocation of anticipated amenity contributions. Narrowing the scope to the twelve rezonings in the study area in 2005 constituting 41 percent of the total survey cases, developers contributed $63 million in allocated funds, or 61 percent of the survey total, with half of these funds serving heritage. Limiting the survey to the cases in a single year reflects the findings for the last twenty by demonstrating the primacy of heritage and the limitation that only affordable housing and childcare otherwise amount to more than 10 percent of total allocations. Although a more comprehensive review of CACs that could overcome the limitations of incomplete and inconsistent data would prove useful in understanding the direction of amenity contributions, each of these studies indicates that 49 percent or more of the allocated CACs serve heritage, making it unequivocally the largest recipient of amenity contributions. Furthermore, the escalation of land prices and increased project densities both serve to compound the scale of CACs.The amount of capital directed towards the heritage amenity through rezoning is increasing and aligned with the"intensification of partnerships between private capital and the local state [that results] in larger, more expensive and more symbolic developments." 274 This expansion underscores the need for"explicit and rigorous examination" of "questions of who gains and who loses" since, Figure 3.5: Heritage as Share of Total Community Amenity Contributions CITYWIDE ^ STUDY AREA ^ STUDY AREA 44 CONTRIBUTIONS 29 CONTRIBUTIONS 12 CONTRIBUTIONS $95.3 M $104.4 M $63.7 M JAN. 2003 - OCT. 2005 ^ JAN.1986 - DEC. 2005 ^ JAN.2005 - DEC.2005 47% ALLOCATED HERITAGE 57% ALLOCATED HERITAGE^50% ALLOCATED HERITAGE 1• ONSITE HERITAGE HERITAGE DENSITY RECEIVER NO HERITAGE OR UNKNOWN CONTRIBUTION EXEMPT SHELL CD-1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE AREA III OTHER III RESIDENTIAL • COMMERCIAL • DOWNTOWN I. DOWNTOWN CONSOLIDATED $10M EQUIVA AME LE NINT TY ^ • INDUSTRIAL RELATIVE MAXIMUM CONDITIONAL DENSITY FOR ALL USES UNDER CURRENT ZONING IN DOWNTOWN CORE WITH CD-1 AMENITY CONTRIBUTION OR EQUIVALENT FOR ONSITE DENSITY JUNE 2006 NOTE DENSITY OF FALSE CREEK NORTH AND COAL HARBOUR CD-1 SITES NOT SHOWN; NO OUTRIGHT LIMITS UNDER CWD, BCPED, FCCDD. HA-1. HA-1A, HA-2 ZONING 67 absent critical review,"the disjunction between the burden of the incentive and the benefit of an amenity grows larger."275 The aggressive realization of heritage through development contributions encourages an increasing division between fiscal incentive and publicly recognized benefit.While the City remains focused on its responsibility to maintain the economic efficacy of heritage mechanisms,the fiscal solvency of an amenity reliant on the abstract and unbounded resource of space rather than direct municipal expenditure is more durable than the constitution of its legitimated definition. 3.4 Collateral Benefits With heritage value defined as the"aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations," it is the determination of heritage itself that is at stake in the development field. 276 Recognition of the value—no less than the power to legitimate an amenity by naming it—of this reward is the condition required for entry into the field. As a largely unbounded and aesthetically derived amenity, heritage results from a "weak consensus [that] virtually guarantees vague standards because lawmakers and administrators have every incentive to submerge potential conflicts rather than expose them by spelling out what the program is intended to do."277 In Vancouver, heritage by-laws specify who is authorized to determine heritage status but not the criterion, municipal policy documents such as the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) refer only to "heritage buildings,"and the City's Heritage Register is limited to broad criterion for evaluation groups. 278 Although it is generally accepted that heritage must address dynamic and disparate public interests regarding the constitution of shared cultural and aesthetic worth, the benefits of not precluding what may serve as a legitimate heritage value diminishes efforts to define what is required. Observations of development-driven amenity programmes note that the"lucrativeness of its prizes and the lack of firm standards for distinguishing winners from losers" inevitably result in excesses. Further, when heritage is identified through development mechanisms, the economic ability afforded by the programme negates the traditional understanding that a building with public significance is brought to the "law's attention only after it has achieved that status in the community's mind."This reversal reinforces that the opportunistic strategy of amenity realization cultivated through discretionary zoning creates "amenities that otherwise might not exist." 279 The support of heritage raises questions common to the provisioning of any amenity through development, especially in regards to the"relationship between the incentive offered by the government and the amenity provided by the developer."280 Although concerns that developers,faced with the"choice between related and unrelated amenities would reduce [the decision] to an economic calculus," providing an "inexpensive unrelated amenity rather than an expensive one,"similar to other economic reductions,the 'calculus' noted denies the existence of the array of capitals that define the field, leading to the likelihood that a fiscally expensive amenity may prove more valuable to developers in the social or symbolic dividends it produces and its future transferability to economic capital.The consideration of contributions within discretionary zoning exacerbates these concerns, initially raised in regards to incentive zoning, since the identification of possible amenities are not scheduled and is itself left to negotiation. A significant manifestation of this effort is the"appeal to aesthetics" that serves to"secure the privatization of public power;" and heritage is distinct in this regard as a public amenity realized under private ownership. 28 ' With designation typically securing the exterior envelope, most revitalization agreements limit the recognition of heritage to those elements that inform the streetscape, leaving ownership and use of the interior space as a collateral benefit. 68 Considering that the immediate environment serves as a "private good, subject to standards of private consumption rather than to the requirements that normally must be met by public actions," consolidating heritage with new construction or otherwise comprehensively developing adjoining heritage sites accrues the owner significant benefits.282 The typically low-rise heritage structures are typologically compatible with the tower and plinth form of development preferred by both the City and the market. Historic structures provision the airspace that is necessary for developments to meet a number of aesthetics-based controls, particularly required spacing between towers, and liveability standards such as the expectation for outdoor amenity space that encourages the rehabilitation of existing rooftops.The compatibility of heritage within this model illustrates the feasibility of retention through redevelopment. It also emphasizes the substantial economic potential derived from the form of development on sites containing historic structures. Beyond the compensatory benefits of bonused density and the more permissive consideration under design guidelines, density is concentrated on the development site itself due to the underdevelopment of the heritage portion and these projects can often achieve a higher ratio of buildable area in the tower itself. The constructive ability of heritage is visible in the approved development of 838 West Hasting Street. Rezoning from Downtown District to CD-1 increased the maximum density on site 329 percent from 7 to 23 FSR, an upzoning of 200,000 square feet of space. 283 Real Estate Services valued density onsite at $85 per square foot, determining a land lift of $16.9 million resulting from rezoning approval.The CAC accepted by Council amounted to 83 percent of the site value increase of which 91 percent supported heritage under development by the owner. Dividing the amenity contribution by the density increase allows the spatial representation of the CAC and demonstrates the influence of heritage on physical form with the red, yellow and orange volumes derived from the owner's contributions to the public heritage amenity [Figure 3.8]. 284 Through an HRA concurrent with rezoning, the City designated two registered structures situated on parcels that comprised half the development site. Considering the remaining half of the development site in isolation, as would have been the situation neglecting involvement of the heritage parcels, the developable potential would have been 36000 square feet under area zoning, or 15 percent of the approved design.The heritage buildings as designated constitute 2 percent of this total with an additional 13 percent realized through agglomeration as density residual to the rehabilitated structures.40 percent of the project density was created through onsite heritage bonusing, 24 percent transferred from a remote site and the remaining 6 percent derived from non-heritage amenity contributions. While the dramatic increase in density illustrates the substantial physical effect of heritage on the urban environment, the most significant market benefit derived from designation is not the area generated itself, but rather its approval for residential use.The pre- eminent market interest precipitating and following the 1993 implementation of contemporary heritage incentives, residential development is not allowed by the DODP in this area without legitimated heritage resources. With the sculpted portion of the tower above the cornice line of the neighbouring buildings entirely housing, residential use amounts to 69 percent of the total floor area of a building that delivers less commercial density than an application conforming to area zoning of 7.0 FSR.838 West Hastings Street is among the recent developments aiding capital accumulation by serving as the vanguard for the amenitization of the CBD.The project's significance due to its authorship by a celebrated international architect is highly symbolic in the City's sustained efforts to compete globally, with the development team heralding it as a landmark, legacy and symbol for the city. 285 Early efforts to attach urban design rationale to designation programmes forwarded the value of historic structures as open space amenities, and landmarks—especially in cities with transfer of density policies only allowing density to be shifted to adjacent parcels—with 'superadjacent' density certainly provide this amenity. 288 Although the lower densities in Vancouver render these "light-and-air" parks less visible than in 2143 SF 2672 SF 6522 SF 6522 SF WATER AND SEWER UPGRADING COST DEDUCTION PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION CITY CHILDCARE ENDOWMENT FUND CITY PUBLIC ART FUND HERITAGE DENSITY TRANSFER 69297 SF ONSITE HERITAGE CONTRIBUTION 113361 SF REALIZED THROUGH AMALGAMATION 36394 SF ALLOWED WITHOUT REZONING OR AMALGAMATION 43638 SF WITHIN HERITAGE BUILDINGS^6566 SF 69 Figure 3.7: Density Realization through Heritage 70 more intensively developed urban areas, the City recognized with the 1989 adoption of view corridors that unbuilt air space can confer a public benefit that extends beyond adjacent owners.Appropriately named 'view cones,' these geometric projections originate from points south of the City and are directed towards the mountain peaks north of the City.282 The result of the aestheticizing abstractions is a series of overlapping triangles of space rising in elevation from the origin to the crown of the aesthetic target that restrict maximum buildable heights established in area zoning or development plans. While these cones are divided into subsections to accommodate existing structures, the City only rarely approves construction that will impact their bounds. 288 The drafting of a view cone overhead presents a significant development restriction that, converse to the light-and-air parks generated by heritage sites, encourages the realization of heritage on sites impacted by view cones.Transferring density outside of the limits of a view cone was one of the primary benefits to designation and rezoning on the 900-block of Seymour Street. Similarly, the significant benefit of including into a residential development the"most significant survivor of a group of otherwise undistinguished automotive workshops" was its influence in maintaining the most marketable form of tower development despite a view cone restriction.Since it was not listed in the Heritage Register, the developer of 1299 Seymour Street in Downtown South requested that the City evaluate the heritage value of the 1920s Federal Motor Company showroom and Chapman's Garage to establish eligibility for bonusing consideration.289 Although the Heritage Commission and Urban Design Panel both noted its value—even if it may not be a 'gem'—more important to the dominant mode of production was the onsite impact of a view corridor. 290 With the existing garage's footprint covering 38 percent of the site area limited to a height of135 feet, its identification as heritage bolstered the developer's argument for a mid-block location unencumbered by the restriction that not only allowed a 300-foot construction, but effectively reduced the street frontage to assure a single tower form of development? 91 Although the resulting increase in density Figure 3.8: Heritage Expression in Dominant Form of Development 71 over the entire site is 3.3 percent, modest in comparison to the 10 percent transfer of density encouraged for Downtown South developments, when the development site is considered in isolation the increase from bonused and residual density amounts to 15 percent. 292 3.5 Symbolic Externalities Economists have traditionally assigned both "physical as well as symbolic externalities"to land use decisions, and much of the City's approach to the range of municipally borne development costs and benefits involve regulating these effects in the urban environment.293 Amenity provision through development intensifies the concern regarding the fiscal and physical impacts of construction increasingly approached singly through planning mechanisms. Considering the significant economic ability of heritage in promoting the form of development privileged by the market, the urban environment endures physical effects from amenity realization. By dispersing density from the point of creation, the transfer of density mechanism externalizes the effect of bonused density as heritage sites already threatened by the potential buildout at area zoning cannot accept the increased floorspace generated as compensation. Further, the reificication of growth encourages the understanding that increasing development potential citywide by transferring bonused density offsite is a positive by-product of heritage retention. Unlike heritage, amenity bonuses confine physical externalities to the immediate environment since density created as compensation for public, social or recreational facilities cannot be transferred without strict limitations. 294 The amenities provided address a broad range of public values and typically result in significant expansion of onsite density. In exchange for bonused floorspace, developers engaged in the Amenity Bonusing Program construct public amenity spaces that meet specifications drawn by the City.The program does not necessitate rezoning, and the bonused density created serves as fair exchange for the cost of the amenity. Unlike the 10 percent of zoned FSR limit to the amount of transferred heritage density that can be received without rezoning or similar restrictions on bonused density for hotel use, the scale of amenity bonuses is subject only to approval by the DPB and Council. Since 2003,the number, scale and concentration of approved amenity bonuses has increased dramatically, and among these all but one has involved heritage [Table 3.4].The concerted effort of planners and designers to control the physical impacts generated by the mounting complexity of projects incorporating varied bonuses and delivering a range of amenities is widely hailed as successful. However, since a given form of development does not serve the delivery of all amenities equally, the potential for significant symbolic externalities—the heritage illustrated through the individual case reflexively shapes the universal expectation of heritage as public benefit—increase with these multifarious value compositions. In consecrating a contribution or bonus through development mechanisms, the City legitimizes the public value that affects not only the meaning ascribed to the particular development, but also that of the generalized amenity. The Planning Department comprehensively manages density bonusing regardless of the interest served, and as a competing source of development potential the Amenity Bonuses Program provides a technical and ideological comparison to heritage incentives. Despite the renewed utilization of amenity bonusing during recent years, the expectations the City places on social amenities bounds the legitimate identification of public goods delivered through the programme to a greater extent than for heritage amenities.The most significant of these demands is the conferment of the space to the City as opposed to the realization of public amenities through private ownership fostered by heritage mechanisms.The City secures the amenity through a head lease for the life of the building and sub-leases it to an approved non-profit responsible for "providing community services and benefits to the publ IC. "295 This was not original policy however, and when r. 0 Lr1 CO rn 0 0 CNI 0 0 (-4 0 rn rn Cr% rn Lf1 0 0 CN Operating Cost Allowance Square Feet Bonused Density rn 72 first utilized in 1975 the program realized the City Stage at 745 Thurlow Street for a term of 10 years at the conclusion of which the space reverted to the building owner with "no further public benefit." 286 Although an unbuilt proposal approved in 1978 for a site across the intersection of Alberni and Bute Streets had similar provisions, beginning in 1981 the City sought life leases and bonused density to the developer in exchange for an operating cost allowance to benefit the non-profit tenant.The original subsidy term of 15 years was lengthened to 20 years for amenity spaces approved after 1988, and recent childcare approvals have provided cash payments to the City Childcare Endowment Fund (CCEF) that currently subsidizes City-owned childcare centres. Construction, land and operational allowance costs cause the proportional relationship between bonused and amenity density to vary, although the ratio along with the actual scale of the density bonus is generally increasing [Figure 3.10]. Programme influences this ratio as well with childcare amenities artificially low due to the inclusion of exterior play area in the calculation, provided at a much lower cost per square foot than enclosed building. Conversely, some arts uses require speciality construction or equipment, inflating the ratio of bonused to amenity density.297 Despite the increasing funds granted for operating costs,the bonused amenity spaces typically require municipal expenditure for capital improvements after the termination of the allowance.298 The early experience with the programme concluded in 1989 after the approval of eleven spaces and the construction of seven with no further approvals for a decade?" Of these, three non-profits maintain their leases today. 3® Amenity bonuses created the Contemporary Art Gallery and Vancouver International Film Centre in Downtown South in 1999 and 2001 respectively, and since 2003, the City has Figure 3.9: Density Implications of Social Amenity Bonusing Date Address Amenity Tenant Costs Density Amenity^Bonus Ratio HDTS 1975 745 Thurlow Street Arts City Stage / private use (1985) none 3250 2816 0.87 1978 1166 Alberni Street Unbuilt Arts Arts Club Theatre none 9499 39380 4.15 1981 885 West Georgia Street Unbuilt Arts Playhouse Theatre 15 years 57000 127399 2.24 1981 1125 Howe Street Arts Pacific Cinecentre 15 years 9499 39380 4.15 1981 1010 Howe Street Unbuilt Arts Inuit Art Museum 15 years 5300 26136 4.93 1981 100-1140 West Pender Street Childcare YWCA Childcare / Vancouver Society of Children's Centres (2003) unknown 14267 48471 3.40 1981 1190 Hornby Street Arts Community Arts Council / Canadian Music Centre (2000) 15 years 3590 22840 6.36 1984 900 Howe Street Social Public Legal Education 15 years 5000 36000 7.20 1984 1161 Melville Street Unbuilt Arts Contemporary Art Gallery 15 years 5300 26136 4.93 1988 925 West Georgia Street Arts Canadian Craft Museum / SFU Chief Dan George Centre (2003) 15 years 9252 39903 4.31 1989 938 Howe Street Arts Alliance for Arts and Culture 20 years 4095 26500 6.47 1998 488 Robson Street Unbuilt Arts Canadian Music Centre 20 years 3116 27191 8.73 1999 955 Richards Street Arts Contemporary Art Gallery 20 years 5496 48713 8.86 2001 1133 Seymour Street Arts Vancouver International Film Centre 20 years 13700 120000 8.76 2003 550 Bute Street Social Vancouver Volunteer Centre 20 years 6000 29250 4.88 receiver 2003 488 Robson Street Arts ArtStarts in Schools 20 years 6040 34000 5.63 receiver 2005 955 Burrard Street Childcare Young Men's Christian Association unknown 15450 107352 6.95 donor 2005 1188 West Pender Street Childcare Vancouver Society of Children's Centres CCEF 11866 52600 4.43 receiver 2005 833 Seymour Street Arts Vancouver Symphony Society 20 years 46572 248192 5.33 2006 101 West Hastings Social outdoor plaza, green space and atrium unknown 25615 179000 6.99 donor 2007 833 Homer Street Childcare unknown CCEF 14957 78503 5.25 receiver 74 approved seven amenities with the first completing construction in 2006.0f these contemporary amenities, all but one involves the transfer of heritage density—two as donors and four as receivers—and three are located in the Seymour-Smithe blocks. Heritage is difficult to delimit in the market and further complicated due to the derivation of its economic utility from the symbolic capital vested by the City. Although all amenities are worth that which can be legitimated through the competition of actors struggling to define the field, the openness of heritage in particular allows significant migration in its application and introduces it as a precursor or'key'to a variety of more bounded amenities. City guidelines privileging development proposals that"use heritage buildings for cultural, social, recreational and education uses" can exacerbate pressures experienced by historic structures by dramatically increasing the amount of density realizable on site and placing the poorly defined standards for heritage against the more rigorous requirements set for other amenities. 3° 1 The rehabilitation of the YMCA building located at 955 Burrard Street required the demolition of approximately 78 percent of the structure while the onsite density was increased by 364 percent, an amount exceeding the area zoning by a multiple of 1.75. Complicating heritage retention was the bonusing of 107,000 square feet of density onsite as compensation for the construction of a childcare and family development centre,14,000 square feet within the amenity and an additional 50,000 square feet of density transferred from a neighbouring parcel rezoned concurrently.302 The amenity bonus, confined to the site and maximizing the expected potential for development, meant the 89,000 square feet of density bonused as compensation for heritage retention was approved for transfer. Considering that 208,000 square feet was permitted under area zoning, the total density amounting to 467,000 square feet including the transferable heritage density that was realized through redevelopment expressed the significant utility of bonusing provisions 303 The development further illustrates that while the constitution of amenities such as childcare are concisely delimited, heritage proves a malleable resource with descriptions of the project stating that the"heritage building, dating from 1941, will be retained" contestable dependent on the conception of legitimate heritage value.304 With Burrard Street attributed ceremonial significance, the long history of public use of the facility and presence of neighbouring buildings with recognized importance, redevelopment of the site involved heritage consideration from an early stage.The significance of heritage retention was such that the October 2003 Urban Design Panel workshop regarding tower placement unanimously favoured locating the tower away from Burrard Street and closer to the smaller-scale adjoining neighbourhood due to the primacy given to the "dominance of the institutional presence"and the facilitation of a "more honest heritage retention of the YMCA."The approved design retained and designated the 4-storey building fronting Burrard Street to the depth of the first structural bay—a distance of 30 feet—with an additional 20-feet along Barclay Street to accommodate a reconstructed one-storey entry. In addition to the common pressures facing heritage retention, the original structure was"fortress-like"and the interests of the YMCA for a more open appearance aligned with the City's and presumably the developer's intention for a more inviting streetscape. 3°5 Akin to the rehabilitation of 900 Burrard Street,the retention of the YMCA building is an expression of the circumstances and values of its rehabilitation more than those that informed its original construction [Figure 3.11]. Further, the complicated amenitization of the site involved substantial symbolic externalities, namely reinforcing the precedent that increased development pressure resulting from amenity bonusing can substantiate rather than denigrate the public value of onsite heritage 306 The problematic meaning assigned to the market utility of heritage employed to achieve other social amenities proved most controversial in the City's struggle to build a civic dance centre. Following the consideration of several municipally owned sites, in 1996 the City committed to the non-profit Dance 75 Foundation a parcel at the northern foot of the Granville Street Bridge and rezoned it to permit development the following year. However, the collapse of the design proposal for aesthetic reasons related to signage placed $3.7 million in senior government funding in jeopardy.307 Although the dance centre's board successfully petitioned for an extension—one of several that had been received—the possibility of further relaxations to the deadline was "unlikely," necessitating a timely conclusion of what had become a 17-year long effort.3°8 After the City agreed to the board's request for a capital grant in lieu of land, attention focused on a nearby site at the corner of Granville and Davie Streets owned by the dance centre's primary benefactor, the Bank of Nova Scotia. Since at the time the branch location was still in operation without major renovation, the "perfectly preserved"1929 temple bank had much of the original banking hall intact and an unaltered facade for the length of the building on both adjoining streets. 309 The integrity of the heritage registered building intensified criticism of the proposal to develop a 5.5 FSR dance centre on the 3.5 FSR zoned site with retention limited to the Granville Street facade for"reasons of cost, programming and architectural design."The incompatibility of the amenity and heritage uses were acknowledged universally, with the City noting that retaining more of the building would "have an impact on the building's identity and desire for a contemporary architectural expression."Although all advisory boards were careful to support the amenity use and decry the heritage implications, the Urban Design Panel applauded the"'stage-set' approach to the bank facade"while the Vancouver Heritage Commission criticized its "facadism." Heritage staff advocated the preservation of the corner portion—the length of the first bay rather than the five feet eventually retained—of the Davie facade noting that all of the 17 designated buildings that preserved only the front facade were mid-block buildings with unadorned common walls and that "providing bonusing to a proposal which retains just a portion of the principle facades would set a significant precedent for the application of Council's heritage policies in the future."Council approval signified "that the amount of heritage retention is Figure 3.10: Symbolic Externalities through Amenitization 76 acceptable for the amount of density bonus needed for the Dance Centre programme," although at the later DPB planning staff clarified that Council determined that"it was not considered to be a precedent." 31 ° Although the"very token preservation effort" was widely considered to fail the City's criteria for earning what amounted to the most substantial heritage bonus awarded to date, the centre did "not qualify for a Social and Recreational Facility density bonus...because the Dance Centre, which [was to become] a tenant, and the landowner [were] not able to vest freehold tenure with the City;" unlike an amenity bonus, heritage provisions allowed the bank to maintain ownership of the site with the Dance Centre's lease expiring after 30 years. 3" A decade after the City first identified the proposed use as a priority"civic cultural facility" and subsequent to the approval of an"unprecedented capital grant" to realize its construction, the social programming could not warrant the density increase, necessitating the bonus ostensively due to the public value of heritage designation. 312 The Bank of Nova Scotia's financial commitment—granted through cash and a "longterm no-cost or low-cost lease"valued at $1.33 million—provided a quarter of the $8.5 million construction budget, roughly equivalent to the institution's previous pledge of $2 million for the dance centre proposal on the city-owned site. 313 Whether or not by conscious decision, the dance centre development proved the City's sign bylaw to be the less flexible of the aesthetic measures debated. While the bank site did result in the protection of the facade of a registered heritage feature, designation came at the expense of much of the historic bank, and the arrangement under heritage measures denied the City ownership of the public amenity itself. Despite public claims to the contrary, this highly publicized development informed what was possible through heritage mechanisms and, more importantly, served a Figure 3.11: Social Amenity Realization through Heritage 77 pedagogical role in clarifying the meaning of heritage for the City and the public at large.The understanding that the development constituted the"edge of credibility"for the City's heritage programme nevertheless reiterated its legitimacy.314 The employment of heritage designation further facilitates those public objectives outside of the bounds of accepted legislation.While the bonusing provisions of the DODP are far reaching and allow the DPB to increase the permitted FSR for"any public, social or recreational facility," bonusing through heritage mechanisms remains the preferred means of public goods delivery. 315 The form of development at 600 Granville Street is a summary of the utility of heritage: it involved the rezoning of several parcels with existing structures to CD-1, substantial increase in density, introduction of residential use to the CBD, delivery of a significant social benefit, addition of historic structures to the heritage register, creation of bonus density for transfer off-site and designation of those heritage elements that proved conducive to redevelopment. In 2001, the eastern side of the 600-block of Granville Street comprised of several buildings dating from 1892 until 1928.3 ' 6 Although a 2001 preliminary application to build a four-storey retail and office building proposed to retain the registered B.C. Electric showroom, development would deny an opportunity to correct a 15-year deficiency by providing universal access to the existing mass transit station underneath the site.317 Discussion between the developer, City and regional district transit body led to rezoning in June 2002 with the inclusion of two historic, previously unregistered, buildings owned by the developer across the lane from the site. 31 ° With a total area of 49,000 square feet, the hotel and restaurant constituted only 3.3 FSR on a parcel permitting 9.0 FSR.The rezoning to residential use was predicated on the designation of these buildings as well as the facades of 648 Granville and the B.C. Electric Showroom, work that in sum generated 66,000 square feet of bonused density. Added to the residual density transferred from across the lane, rezoning permitted an increase from 9.0 to 13.5 FSR on the Granville Street development site.319 Similar to previous examples,the most significant change facilitated by heritage retention was the construction of 318,000 square feet-78 percent of the total development—of residential space in the CBD. Interpretation of the delivery of the transit access and resultant development intensification as a municipal response to the original application misrecognizes the owner's influence on the eventual form of development. 32° Rather, concurrent forwarding of applications, one of which the DPB is obliged to approve due to its adherence to area zoning and a second deemed to be preferable to both the developer and the City, is a predictable outcome of discretionary zoning measures. 321 Considering that during the 1984 design of the transit station the two sites were under common ownership by a development corporation with the assumption that redevelopment in the near future would provide universal access, the developer's purchase of the hotel in 1995 followed by the primary site in May 2001, demolition of the majority of the existing buildings, subsequent submission of a development application to 'underdevelop'the site utilizing 37 percent of the density allowed under area zoning and then placement of this application on hold pending the outcome of rezoning indicates a more calculated approach.322 Similarly, the role of heritage in the discretionary process is understandable since the City's policy of saving as many registered properties as possible twinned with its willingness to recognize the limitations of its inventory forwards heritage as a reliable path to amenity negotiation. Since "the Central Area Plan allows for consideration of this rezoning application because of the significant heritage retention initiatives proposed" it was necessary that"the primary public benefit of the proposed rezoning to residential was the designation, rehabilitation and sensitive integration of the four heritage buildings on site."Technically the entirety of the floorspace generated and change of use was attributed to the merits of heritage designation, despite the arguable primacy held by the social good of universal transit access that was the deficiency of the original proposal. However, beyond the intent to"improve transportation downtown by encouraging greater transit usage,"the Figure 3.12: Infrastructure Realization through Heritage 78 DODP does not include standards for providing transit infrastructure through private development, and the policy reports for rezoning clarify that"the heritage protection elements" provide sufficient public benefit to support approval, although the "inclusion of the universal transit access is also an essential component." 323 The delivery of heritage value should be considered in relation to the two sites amalgamated in rezoning. With the demolition of the existing buildings occupying the Granville Street site less the registered B.C. Electric showroom and 648 Granville Street undertaken the months prior to the original development application, retention of the remaining structures was limited to the street facades. Further, the retention of the showroom facades was comparable not only to the proposal forwarded in the developer's first application, but also a previous design for the site seeking bonused density. 324 The Seymour Street site consisted of a restaurant that required "no conservation work" due to the owner's 1996 rehabilitation and the St. Regis Hotel that, recognizing the value of recent renovations, would undergo a "phased exterior restoration." 325 The registration and designation of these buildings protects them in perpetuity, although their identification appears driven by their utility to the development and tempers the"argument in favour of the rezoning" extended by the inclusion of"three additional heritage structures." 326 3.6 Conclusion The minimal limitations bounding the legitimate identification of heritage lends it significant utility for both municipal and market interests. As a primary means of aestheticization fostered by discretionary planning permission, the use of heritage aids in the maintenance of durable power and social relations despite seemingly consequential shifts in the structure of City politics and the local bureaucratic state. As real estate development expands its role at the centre of Vancouver's productive economy,the pairing of heritage delivery and downtown residential intensification demonstrates the role of amenitization in the reproduction of the ideological means of production. The primacy of heritage among amenities along with its continued position at the vanguard of housing creation in the CBD demonstrates its influence on the physical and social space of the city.Anomalous in its provision of public amenity through private ownership, heritage confers substantial benefits to the dominant market interest of capital accumulation. Its constructive potential facilitates the densification of the downtown core, and social amenities are increasingly provided concurrently with heritage. However, since a given form of development does not address all amenities equally, the malleability of heritage results in symbolic externalities that reflexively shape the understanding of heritage as a public value. 79 80 3.7 Notes for Chapter Three 244Coston is 1982:16 245 City of Vancouver 1988:30 248Ibid:14 242City of Vancouver 1991:1 248 ldentifying this expansion as "governmental, corporate or corporate-governmental partnerships,"the process of gentrification has shifted from a "seemingly serendipitous, unplanned process"that is now the hallmark of planning authority (N. Smith 2002:439.446).The role of aestheticization and its support of the market, is conferred in the periodical article noting that"there's still grub—mostly of the human variety these days"five years after zoning specifically targeted to introduce residential use to Downtown South through the development provision of amenities (Ford 1996). 249City of Vancouver 2003e "°City of Vancouver 1999e 251 Official Development Plans are a central tenet of discretionary zoning that include both regulatory controls and design guidelines (Punter 2003:370)."Downtown South: A Community Plan"describes six sub areas, but the adoption of "Downtown South Goals and Policies"later that year identifies four, excluding blocks previously identified as "Seymour- Smithe"and "Heritage Block"(Punter 2003:100-102 and Vancouver 1993 [1991 ]).The City approved the HA-3 District Schedule for the Yaletown Historic Area in 1996. 252The approved text amendment created a L2 subarea bounded by Smithe, Nelson, Mainland and Cambie Streets for the purposes of accommodating a greater range of commercial use within the existing Showmart Building at 910 Mainland Street while providing for its future redevelopment for residential use. 253 RealNet Canada Inc. began collecting residential land sales data in the Vancouver area in mid-1999.40 of 59 recorded Downtown District land sales were located within area L1.These sites represented over 40% of the 97 land sales documented across all zoning districts on the downtown peninsula. 254 ln 2006,35 of an approximate 55 or 60 planned residential towers had been completed with residential property valued at $3 billion and $1 billion in commercial use.An additional 36 percent of the land is not included, as it is comprised of roads and other public uses. The Vancouver Sun references a 1974 valuation of the land, not including some lots west of Pacific Boulevard, at $6 million and reports the escalation an escalation from $10 million to $4 billion (Cayo 2006). 255City of Vancouver 2003e 256As noted in the DODP, maximum density for a corner site must have a minimum frontage of 175 feet and a site area of at least 21,000 square feet or an interior site with a minimum frontage of 200 feet of at least 24,000 square feet is 5.0 FSR.Also, any site comprised of at least two-thirds social housing is allowed 5.0 FSR.The typical lot in Downtown South is 120 feet deep with a 25-foot frontage with the standard block length of 475 feet divided into 19 parcels. Reference the DODP and policy report dated Sep.4,2001 with subject"Text Amendment - Downtown District Official Development Plan (910 Mainland Street - Showmart Building." 257Punter cites a 1989 Report to Council (Punter 2003:99). 258R.Ward characterizes the Canadian Linen Building as an "unexceptional single-storey Moderne-style laundry"and declares "the new building as a vertical pastiche of the original horizontal structure, even using the same colour palette...[accomplishing] this in such a sanitary way that in 10 years, when the new structure begins to look old, it won't be clear what was built when" (R.Ward 1999b).In 2004, the front page of the Vancouver Sun depicting the residential lifestyle of Downtown South noted the structure as "venerable" (D. Ward 2004). 259 N. Smith 2002:443 28°Baker 2007 261 McMartin 2005 81 262C,-ity of Vancouver 1991:8 263The adoption of the Central Area Plan deleted 8,810,000 square feet of excess downtown office space, resulting in a net reduction in zoned office capacity of the downtown peninsula between 1975 and 1991 of 6,210,000 square feet. In reducing capacity, Policy 3.3 reiterated Policy 1.5 of the Central Area Plan to remove housing use of the remaining central business district (Vancouver 1991:13,15,21). Although the policy forwarded by the Central Area Plan limited residential rezonings in the CBD for the purpose of heritage retention, it was not until February,1997,that housing as a use was deleted. 264 In reporting the lack of new commercial capacity, The Vancouver Sun notes that an impact study is now required prior to changing the use of existing buildings (Boddy 2006).The 2004 adoption of the interim policies for new residential use and conversion of existing office space to residential use maintained the exception for development and rezoning applications that involve registered heritage and buildings worthy of inclusion (City of Vancouver 2005 ). 265Marketer of the residential conversion Sid Landolt notes the distinction in The Vancouver Sun (D.Smith 1995).The 1957 B.C. Electric Building, renamed the B.C. Hydro Building in 1961 after the namesake utility's purchase and amalgamation into a new provincial Crown corporation, is "one of the few modern structures in the city that today is as well-liked by both the public and the profession as it was when it was hailed [upon construction] as 'an architectural dream...the skyscraper of tomorrow"(R.Ward 1996). 266Developers received approvals for over 300 apartments utilizing CD-1 provisions annually 1984 and 1989 (Punter 2003:98). 267City of Vancouver 1991:11 268 Reference the policy report dated May 2,1996 with subject"Proposed Rezoning of 901-67 and 940-90 Seymour Street. 269 Reference the report for the DPB dated Aug.23,1999 regarding 940 Seymour Street. 220Reference the policy report dated Jan.21, 1997 with subject"Policy for Residential Rezonings in the Central Business District and Related Zoning Amenities." 22'City of Vancouver 2005 [20041:2 222Although the City relied on voluntary contributions exacted through site-specific rezonings while awaiting provincial amendment of the Charter to allow the collection of development charges, it later excused developments with pending applications and returned the previously collected contributions once the legislation passed and Council approved the area rezoning for residential use (Taylor 1 991).Combined with an inadequate estimation of the cost of desired amenities, the ratio of buildable lots developed in Downtown South exceeds the degree of amenity currently secured. mAlthough the best assessment of citywide CAC use, the working database has a significant number of unknown values and serves only as an indication of the substantial role of heritage in amenity negotiation resulting from rezoning. Since the survey considers CACs citywide, many projects rely on a flat rate CAC that typically results in a smaller contribution than the negotiated alternative.The size of the heritage amenity is the sum of three values: $6,740,650 retail value of the density purchased or financial heritage contribution; $18,165,950 provided in-kind through restoration work, designation or amenity donation; and $13,441,165 provided in lieu through the value of restoration. In addition to the total of allocated contributions, in additional $7,939,321 was unallocated following CAC rezoning approval. 274 N. Smith 2002:441 275 Kayden 1990:124 276The federal definition is cited, although the municipal definition contains similar language identifying heritage value as "historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth" (Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2003:2 and City of Vancouver 2004c).These areas of heritage significance reflect the 1979 Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) Burra Charter that identified aesthetic, historical, scientific and social categories (Byrne 2003:4). 277 lt is 'predictable'tharvague standards will pervade aesthetic measures" (Costonis 1982:84). 278The municipal definition of heritage value is not included in "Heritage Fact Sheet 1:Vancouver Heritage Conservation 82 Program,"and is noted in second fact sheet in regards to past inclusion of buildings to the Heritage Register (City of Vancouver 2003c and 2004c). 279Costonis 1982:15, 68 and Kayden 1990:101 280Kayden 1990:99,123 2"Costonis 1982:14 282 Nelson 1977:45 "'The increase was determined to be "just over three times the existing FSR" minimizing the perceived effect of a rezoning that accounted for 2.03 FSR in excess of a trebling of onsite density. Reference the policy report dated Apr. 25,2005 with subject"Rezoning at 826-848 West Hastings Street from DD (B) to CD-1 and Heritage Revitalization Agreements at 840 and 848 West Hastings Street." 28'The diagram displays the buildable square feet attributable to each use as a ratio of the total CAC paid divided by the total square feet. Since CACs are considered comprehensively, this approach provides a fair assessment of relative weights of the amenity contributions.The amount of density attributed to heritage is actually higher than stated,with the fiscal worth marginally lower.The April 2005 policy report for rezoning 826-848 West Hastings Street allocated $5 million of the project's CAC to density transferred from 51 East Pender.As reported in February 2006, the project received 97,000 square feet valued at $50 per square foot—the current rate that the city utilizes for vesting transferable heritage density—for a total of $4.85 million. Reducing the increase in area through rezoning from 199,755 to 102,755 square feet and the offered CAC contribution from $14.034 million to $9.184 million, the average value per square foot of the remainder is approximately $89, above the $85 per square foot buildable calculated for land cost in the area. Hence since CACs are considered relative to uplift value, weighting the relative amenity uses by fiscal commitment provides a balanced consideration. Reference the administrative report dated Feb.13,2006 with subject"Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program - 51 East Pender Street DE409639." 285 ln The Vancouver Sun article professing downtown as "inimitable"and noting that the project received "one of the quickest design acceptance decisions by the city," market Bob Rennie declares,"Vancouver is ready for a legacy" (Inimitable Downtown: Cultural, Environmental Sensitivities Guide Jameson House Design 2006). 286Costonis argued that the "acquisition costs of the airspace over landmark buildings should quality as an eligible project cost fundable out of the open space component of HUD's [the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's] Open Space Land Program (Costonis 1975:64). 287A public consultation process in 1989 identified 27 "views of significance,"and Council adopted cones to"protect selected threatened public views"and in the process consecrated thirteen specific viewpoint locations (Punter 2003:99-100 and City of Vancouver 1990 ). 288Phase II of the Wall Centre, approved in 1997, impacted the Queen Elizabeth Park view cone. Subsequent to this intrusion, the particular view cone became "considered more of a view shed where on rare occasions some taller buildings [have been approved in its bounds that] have been seen to enhance the downtown profile." Reference the policy report dated Mar.9,2001 with subject"201 Burrard Street (Burrard Landing):Text Amendment for CD-1 By-law No.7679." 289Category A buildings located in certain areas are automatically eligible for bonusing consideration,while the remaining Category A, along with Category B and C buildings are eligible following Council approval [City of Vancouver 2002 ). 29°Reference the Urban Design Panel minutes for Aug. 20, 2003 regarding 1299 Seymour Street (DE407723). 291 Although the total site width of 325 feet is shorter than the 375-foot City guideline for generating two towers, nearby parcels provide a precedent for multiple structures on this reduced length.The developer considered a single tower to preferable from a marketing perspective and the City determined that retention of the Federal Motor Company showroom would shorten the site sufficiently to make the alternative unviable. Residents of an existing building at 1128 Seymour Street opposed the placement due to the impact on views and privacy and the location raised concerns regarding increased shadowing of Emily Barnes Park (Boddy 2003).The height of the view cone restriction on the site is visible in Figure 3.9 by the change in geometry of the tower near the top of the figure. Reference the report for the DPB dated Sep. 29, 2003 regarding "1299 Seymour Street - DE407723 - Zone DD (Preliminary Application)"and memorandum to the DPB dated Nov.26, 2003 with subject"1299 Seymour Street: DE407723." 83 292The historic building remains on a separate parcel, but the development as a whole is considered jointly with a single site covenant permitting the utilization of bonused density without the transfer of density mechanism. 293 Costonis 1989:58 294 Unlike heritage transfers, donor and receiver pairs that serve open space, urban design, view cone protection, single- room occupancy preservation or mixed use creation must be monogamous, not be"separated by a zoning boundary or use, density or height district restriction boundary in an Official Development Plan, unless the sites involved are both within the same block"and cannot transfer bonused density [City of Vancouver 2002 .Council approved the recommendation to restrict the amenity bonus at 101 West Hastings Street to be available only for use off-site through the"normal Transfer of Density rezoning process,"although the transfer violated two of the transfer of density limitations: the site-specific zoning within the DODP as well as following CD-1 rezoning precluded transfer; and that the size of the 179,000 square foot bonus would be difficult to accommodate on a single receiver site. Reference the policy report dated Feb.28, 2006 with subject"CD-1 Rezoning and Amenity Bonus: Woodward's Site (101 and 149 West Hastings Street and 150 West Cordova Street). 295The Amenity Bonusing Program is permitted through the Official Development Plan and secures facilities in partnership with private development. Reference the administrative reports dated Mar.5,2003 with subject"Amenity Bonus Sublease Renewal - 900 Howe Street,"Jan.2,2007 with subject"Child Care Amenity Bonus at 833 Homer Street" and Jan.30, 2007 with subject"Amenity Bonus Sublease - 639 Hornby Street." 296City reports note the length of the City Stage alternately as 10 and 15 years. Reference the administrative reports dated Sep.4,2001 with subject"Amenity Bonus Proposal - 1133 Seymour Street"and Apr.20,1999 with subject"Amenity Bonus Proposal - 955 Richards Street."The significance of this first use is the absence of the provision for operating costs and the termination of the head lease prior to the life of the building delineated as 99 years.The site as of June 2007 is seeking rezoning for more intensified development. 292The City credits specialty costs associated with the construction of amenity spaces for the Contemporary Art Gallery, Vancouver International Film Centre and Vancouver Symphony Society for the higher ratio of bonused to amenity density for those sites. Similar to other childcare facilities, nearly one-third-7,000 of the 22,450 square feet—of the childcare and family development centre approved for 955 Burrard Street is outdoor play space. If exterior space is omitted, the ratio is 6.99.The recommended floor areas for childcare at this scale of development amounts to 48% of the total reserved for outdoor use, meaning that other childcare amenity bonuses absent the family development centre that has no recommended outdoor component would result in higher ratios if outdoor space were omitted. Reference the policy report dated Mar.3,2005 with subject"Rezoning of 955 Burrard Street (Downtown YMCA) and 969 Burrard Street & 1017-1045 Nelson Street (First Baptist Church): DD (G) and RM-5B to CD-1 and Heritage Revitalization Agreement at 955 Burrard Street." 298Although the obligations of the non-profit operators of amenity bonused spaces include capital repairs, in practice the limited financial ability of these groups and the direction of available resources to programme delivery rather than building infrastructure results in City financed capital repairs to address deterioration of public asserts: funding for improvements to 1125 Howe Street was included in the 1998 Capital Budget; 1190 Hornby Street in 2000;100-1140 West Pender Street and 938 Howe Street in 2003; 300-1140 West Pender Street operating costs were covered for part of 2004 due to the costs incurred by the new tenant to occupy and upgrade the space. Reference the administrative reports allocating capital budgets for relevant years. 2"Although the Pacific Cinecentre was approved as an amenity bonus and is considered such in this study, the City acquired the strata lot due to the bankruptcy of the developer. Reference the administrative report dated Jul.21, 1998 with subject"1998 Capital Budget: City-owned Cultural Facilities."Allowing the change of use of three floors of 1140 West Georgia Street in 1984 to office use led to the creation of an amenity space in exchange for 1,750 square feet on the first floor and 10,289 square feet on the third floor that was sub-leased by the Legal Services Society until 2004 and by Community Legal Assistance Society following. Locating in the same building as the approved childcare facility listed in Suite 100,this space is not listed in administrative reports and, due to the limited availability of information, is not included Table 3.4. Reference the administrative report dated Nov.30, 2004 with subject"Approval of Sublease at #300 - 1140 West Pender Street to the Community Legal Assistance Society."The Pendulum Gallery, comprising the atrium space of 885 West Georgia Street—site of the approved but unbuilt Playhouse Theatre amenity bonus—defines itself as a bonused amenity. While it is secured under a Community Use Agreement, the 5,200 square foot lobby and kinetic sculpture is not mentioned in recent policy reports regarding the Amenity Bonusing Program, suggesting its standing as a public atrium exempted from FSR calculation and the development's public art contribution. 3"As shown in Table 3.4, 100-1140 West Pender Street has changed operators in 2003 with Pooh Corner Childcare as an interim lessee between the mid 1990s and late 2002, while its permanent facility was renovated utilizing CACs. The Community Arts Council and Canadian Craft Museum both proved unable to fund operating costs following the 84 termination of the 15-year operating cost allowance. Although non-profit uses subsequently utilized the spaces, in Mar. 2007 Simon Fraser University (SFU), the successor to the Canadian Craft Museum, terminated its sublease of 639 Hornby Street, the amenity space associated with 925 West Georgia Street. "'City of Vancouver 2002  302The transferred density stemmed from YMCA ownership of land across the lane that was consolidated with parcels owned by the First Baptist Church in a related rezoning application.The actual density onsite is much higher even than reported since the 13,728 square-foot amenity consisting of 69 childcare spaces and a family and child development centre is excluded from FSR calculation. Although the report for the DPB dated Mar.29, 2007 reported an even larger floor area, this excess density was due to area that is typically excluded in by-laws similar to the rezoned YMCA. Reference the policy report dated Mar.3, 2005 with subject"Rezoning of 955 Burrard Street (Downtown YMCA) and 969 Burrard Street 1017-1045 Nelson Street (First Baptist Church): DD (G) and RM-5B to CD-1 and Heritage Revitalization Agreement at 955 Burrard Streerand related report for the DPB and Urban Design Panel minutes. 303This total is the sum of the 364,445 square feet of floor area—slightly under the 365,000 square feet permitted after rezoning and corrected for mechanical spaces expected to be exempt-13,728 square foot amenity space and 89,260 square feet of approved transferable heritage density. 304The Journal of Commerce Report followed the Significant New Rezoning Application heard by Council on Feb.12 proposing to"demolish the existing YMCA building except for the original building fronting Burrard Street"that failed to emphasize that the 20,000 square feet retained constituted only the first structural bay (YMCA Project Will Protect Heritage 2004). "'The physical heritage of the building, originally designed entirely of exposed board-formed concrete, proved at odds with contemporary expectations, and with retention of only those more formal portions clad with brick, this material has been eliminated from its exterior expression (Will 2004). 306Perhaps most paradoxical is the mass marketing for the residential tower:following a pattern familiar to projects incorporating amenity bonuses, as well as many utilizing heritage outside of designated heritage areas, the elaborate portrayals neglect to specifically mention the presence of onsite community amenity or heritage features.Rather,the marketing appropriates the historic associations of the proximate neighbourhood and christens the building Patina with posted renderings failing to discourage the cognitive connection to the depth of the retained heritage. 307The City refused the dance centre's application due to a municipal sign bylaw infraction stemming from the inclusion of a rooftop sign that could display advertising for the centre's major sponsor. Critics argued that the City-owned site between the Granville Street bridge's off-ramps precluded other signage, neighbouring signs for adult entertainment amounted to a less desirable aesthetic and that other bridges and viaducts entering downtown had electronic boards posted (Parry 1997).The issue of signage was one of the earliest tests for legalized aesthetics, and that the $8.8 million dance centre would be refused indicates its continued significance.The federal and provincial governments committed capital funds in 1996 under the Canada/British Columbia Infrastructure Program. 30BThe Vancouver Sun reported in May 1999 that it was necessary to finalize a decision by the deadline on the last day of March 1999 to be eligible for provincial and federal monies established by the extension approved the previous year (Scott 1999). City policy documents reports that the project needed to be complete by March 2000 to qualify for senior government funding. 309The City noted that the "building has survived virtually intact, including period interior furnishings"and the Heritage Interiors Project identified "specific interior features and fixtures" in the bank with heritage value (R.Ward 199c). Reference the policy report dated Mar.18, 1999 with subject "Eligibility for Heritage Density Bonus - 1196 Granville Street (Bank of Nova Scotia Branch)." 3 ' 0Co-director of Planning Beasley noted that Council did not favour rezoning because of the"precedent it would set for other heritage buildings on Granville Street,"favouring accommodating the programme through bonused heritage density. 31 Chair of the Vancouver Heritage Commission Hal Kalman noted the programme lacked "meaningful heritage conservation"and did not believe the applicant's argument justified the "very poor precedent for other developments." Heritage consultant Don Luxton considered it "sacrilege" (Mackie 2000).The 30-year lease term is half the length of the proposed lease to the Dance Foundation at the City-owned lot. Reference the minutes of the DPB and Advisory Panel for Jun.28, 1999, administrative report dated Mar. 28, 1996 with subject"Land Request - Dance Foundation (Vancouver Dance Centre) and policy report dated Mar.19,1999 with subject"Heritage Issues Raised by Dance Centre Proposal - 677 Davie Street." 85 312 In addition to the $900,000 capital grant in lieu of the city-owned site, the Council approved an additional $100,000 grant in Dec.2001 to assist the Dance Foundation in meeting the financial burden of the increased facility cost. Reference the administrative report dated Nov.28, 2001 with subject"Vancouver Dance Foundation - Capital Grant Request." 3 ' 3 Known as the ScotiaBank Dance Centre, the facility was the bank's largest donation to the arts in its history (Parry 1997 and Scott 1999). 314Then acting Co-Director Larry Beasley described the project as an "experimenralong with other controversial heritage amenities during "A Retrospective on Heritage in Vancouver:1976-2006" hosted by Heritage Vancouver on Apr.26, 2006. 315 Reference the Downtown Official Development Plan first adopted in Nov.1975. 316 ln 2001, the B.C. Electric showroom (1928), 608-610 Granville (1898), 616-622 Granville (1889), 832 Granville (1920) and 648 Granville (1892) (Mackie 2001) occupied the purchase site. 317Although Chow in 2002 alluded to the original application including "restoration of several dilapidated buildings," Mackie had previously reported that in "preliminary sketches of the development plan...[that the buildings besides the B.C. Electric] will be knocked down" (Mackie 2001 and Chow 2002).The recent site history presented to Council for rezoning consideration records that the"owner demolished five dilapidated buildings fronting Granville Street while retaining the front facade of a sixth building plus the heritage 'B' B.C. Electric Showroom Building" in the interim between the May 2001 acquisition of the site and the original development application in September. By the May 2002 report the site was "vacant and partially excavated" with the exception of the B.C. Electric and neighbouring facade. Reference the policy report dated May 28,2002 with subject"CD-1 Rezoning - 600 Granville Street & 602 Dunsmuir Street." 318The Province created the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA) in 1998 with the responsibility for transportation planning and funding in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Known as TransLink,the GVTA adopted responsibility for the SkyTrain rapid transit line previously held by the provincial BC Transit (Translink 2004). This distinction is likely significant,since Council declined a 1999 proposed CAC to support a local elementary school on grounds that school funding is a provincial responsibility (Fong 1999). 319 Heritage retention also provided $95,673 in DCL relief and an additional 16,091 square feet of transferable density was created dependent on the owner's election to undertake further heritage restoration.A further 11.829 square feet of the project was exempt from FSR calculation to allow for floorspace used for transit access. 320 The Vancouver Sun reported that before the developers received approval for the original development permit, City staff and transit authorities asked them "to reconsider their original plans with a view to expanding the scope of the project" (Chow 2002). 321 The policy report for rezoning 600 Granville Street noted that"given that the approveable, on-hold development application would contain no office tower and would allow the site to remain underdeveloped for many years relative to currently-permitted FSR, a residential tower with approximately 490 dweling units next to the transit station is preferable to no tower at all." 322The area is in Downtown District area with a maximum permitted density of 9.0 FSR, allowing the 30,000 square foot Granville Street site to accommodate 270,000 square feet.The Sep. 12, 2001 development application proposed 100,000 square feet in office and retail use.The $165 million asking price when listed for sale in July 2000 amounted to $55 per buildable and reflected the desirability of the CBD location (Chow 2000).The developer reported a $12 million purchase amounting to $44 per square foot buildable (Chow 2001). 323The uncertainty in improving GVRD resources through amenity bonusing is evident in the City's review of the business arrangement between the developer and Translink to determine the most appropriate condition of rezoning to ensure construction of the transit access. Rezoning allowed the CD-1 by-law to reflect the requested exemption of floorspace used for transit access from the calculated FSR. 324The Arts, Sciences and Technology Centre occupied the B.C. Electric showroom from 1982 until its 1988 redesign as Science World in the former Expo Centre; the building is dominated by a geodesic dome that was the centrepiece of the 1986 World's Exposition that is attributed symbolic importance to the redevelopment of the city.The science centre was the last occupant of the building with both a multi-block retail development in the eary1990s and 1999 cinema, office and retail proposal both failing to materialize; the latter utilized the full permitted density and a ten percent heritage bonus for retaining the building's facades (Ward 1990). Reference the Urban Design Panel minutes for Feb.10, 86 1999 regarding development application for 650 Dunsmuir Street (600 Granville Street). 325The transferable density associated with the development is limited to a 16,091 square feet that is available owner elects to replace"existing aluminum window frames in the street facades with new wood windows matching period profiles and restore the brick surfaces, cornice and parapet above." 326According to the redevelopment architect the designation amounted to protecting 86% of the block. It is unclear how this figure was calculated, although it is certain that heritage as a significant presence locally; each of the three properties that encompass the block is under municipal designation. Reference the Council meeting minutes for Jul. 25,2002 regarding rezoning 600 Granville Street. Chapter Four: Structuring Space 88 4.1 Introduction While the physical land of the city is relatively inelastic, the amount of available, buildable space results from the symbolic act of planning permission vested in the local state. With physical and social space reflexively conditioned, how the former is created, destroyed or transferred effects the urban environment.The City's Heritage Density Transfer System (HDTS) is a primary means of structuring heritage as an amenity in Vancouver. However, the conventional understanding of this model belies the manifold utility of transferable density in directing capital accumulation and neglects that through the creation and distribution of space the City exerts substantial control over the built environment.The analysis of heritage density generation and use illustrates that the presumption of bureaucratic rationality fails to recognize the range of capitals valued by the development field. Specifically, individuals wield varying volumes of social capital that informs their ability to utilize conveyed space.Transferable density is further found to serve a disciplinary role through its use by the City to regulate the market and conversely by the market to privatize publicly accessible space. 4.2 Spatial Currency Once vested through symbolic capital and made fluid through planning mechanisms, heritage becomes a material value in the construction of the city. Density transfer remains the most direct balance between windfalls and wipeouts; owners of properties encumbered with structures that there is a public interest in retaining can realize capital from the land by selling the development potential to another site. Abstracted, the mechanism allows the conveyance of residual density unrealized by a building with recognized heritage importance to sites within a receiver area. Since the bulk permitted density in the City does not increase, transfers are subject to urban design limitations and the greater number of receiver than donor sites generally results in a disbursement of floorspace, the transfer of development rights is a compensatory system with minimal physical impact. In practice, however, the realization of transferable density is a more active process, with the heritage value of some donor sites first publicly identified through the development proposal and the onerous mandate of meeting the financial burden of encumbered properties leading to the actual creation of new space.The City calculates this bonused density to meet the marginal cost of rehabilitation and heritage is the economic driver of municipal revitalization programmes with incentives for designated historic areas calibrated to meet the economic loss assigned to development in these districts.The characteristics of receiver sites are manifold as well with owners utilizing density transfer to fulfil betterment expectations of the City when rezoning to higher density or introducing non-conforming land use, resolve design concerns following development approval or during construction, occupy public amenity or other exempted space and legalize nonconforming development.The diverse implementation of density transfer results in a heritage amenity that is formative of the City's historic landmarks and its contemporary icons, as well as dozens of obscure aging buildings and mundane new construction. Development permission centres the management of this mechanism with the City and extends substantial control over the built environment in process; the municipality actively manages the density bank by controlling allowed density, accepted transfer areas and value of transferable density when vested, as a means of spatially structured capital accumulation The development appraisal or pro forma analysis is the basis of economizing public goods to balance the costs and benefits afforded to the owner by planning permission. Calculations are undertaken by the 89 developer in most projects seeking heritage bonuses and require agreement from the City of Vancouver Real Estate Services, which in addition to managing the acquisition, sale, leasing and management of City land and buildings, provides professional real estate advice to Council, boards and departments.Through public planning workshops the City has utilized abstracted pro forma analysis as a pedagogical tool exposing "what amenities cost and what could be afforded through different densities." 322 However, while thelhorough analysis of physical form" of specific, proposed developments is available for public review,"these financial arrangements are protected, encouraging "distrust of a system [in which] the whole assessment is not open to public audit."328 Aligned with the initial hesitation to legalize aesthetics, the determination of heritage costs and benefits are complicated to appraise, lending them significant utility in the development process. Amenitization realizes public goods concurrent with development, drawing criticism that the process constitutes a "zoning payoff"and introduces additional externalities in comparison to traditional delivery though tax revenues.329 The City's reliance on an opportunistic approach to planning permission subjects the legitimate determination of amenity to its performance in the marketplace.Accordingly,the openness of heritage identification and private collateral benefits derived from aestheticized creation distinguishes heritage for its utility in capital accumulation. Delivery through the development process also forwards additional security to both the City and market; the understanding of the pro forma analysis as proprietary shields the valuation of amenities from public scrutiny. Beyond limiting detailed economic comparison between projects, amenitization provides significant symbolic protection through the language of gift exchange—contributions, donors and receivers—that encourages the perception that these amenities are provided through the largesse of the development process.The result is the creation of public benefits under private control with less political risk to state power exercised at the municipal level. Heritage far more than any other amenity addressed through development is reliant on these mechanisms. Notwithstanding the personnel costs of policy formation and administration, public fiscal resources are not directly committed to fund the rehabilitation of privately held historic structures. Rather, development permission—compensating owners to deliver this aesthetic good with capital created from development approval of proposals that fail to conform to bulk municipal land use standards—accounts for near the entirety of heritage financing. Even with the more expansive City resources forwarded by the HBRP, municipal cash commitments comprise .5 percent of the $8.5 million compensation to retain 51 East Pender Street with an additional 5 percent realized by foregoing tax revenue. By comparison, transferred density amounted to 82 percent of the incentive and, due to the limitations in federal support, the share of the incentive delivered through the creation of space rises to over 90 percent for similar projects."° The development of the transfer of density mechanism originally served to address the inadequate financial performance of heritage properties due to their underdevelopment; removing the unused density onsite realized the economic return of redevelopment while neutralizing the incentive for demolition.This residual density amounts to the allowable floorspace under current zoning less the area of existing improvements. However, the HDTS is largely a conveyance for bonused density with limited transfers of density realizable under bulk zoning.This can be partially attributed to the low permitted densities in Vancouver in comparison to the larger scaled cores that were the subject of early proposals leading to the creation of the transfer of density mechanism. 331 Facilitating greater City control of development, Vancouver's DODP also reflects substantial zoning reductions since the mid-1960s and, despite their technical appearance,"the drawing of lines has its arbitrary side:"floorspace ratios are "indicative, not scientifically precise, figures"and the methodology behind this calculation increasingly reflects the naturalization of space exempted from inclusion.332 With residual density inadequate to compensate owners to the degree necessary to retain 11 T ii ii It III .1 Ul^ II III-■■■-= ;■= II 1 II I 11-111 90 heritage features, the City largely relies on bonused density as the primary incentive.Of the one dozen donor sites located outside of heritage zoning approved for density transfer between 1993 and 2005, three were under the zoned density and sold residual space. 333 Of the remaining heritage sites:four were developed at a total FSR above area zoning through amalgamation or rezoning;three historic buildings exceeded contemporary maximum as built; one realized the permitted limit through redevelopment; and Christ Church Cathedral, bonused density for interior designation, was effectively at zoned capacity due to its transfer of density agreement preceding the municipal policy. 334 Further, bonused density accounted for 86% of the total transferable density originating from the first seven projects approved under HBRP guidelines. 335 Bonused density has urban design consequences that vary significantly from those envisioned by transfer of density policies that would maintain the same zoned capacity allowed through area zoning.The combination of low permitted maximum densities and aggressive amenitization allows the City to exert far greater control of development projects. Shifting the balance of floorspace creation from zoned capacity to amenity bonusing, however, places significant demands on the methodology used to calculate the generation of this space. Requiring substantial subjectivity, heritage bonusing compares the "value of the land as if unencumbered by the heritage structure" against the value encumbered. 336 Both scenarios consider the "highest and best use"of the site with the unencumbered value determined by the sale price per buildable square foot of comparable sites. 337 The valuation of the encumbered site is more onerous with the land value determined as the residual: considering the market appraisal of the completed development less the hard and soft construction costs and the developer's profit leaves the remainder as the value of the site requiring the incorporation of heritage features.The amount of bonused space awarded is the difference between the value of the land encumbered and unencumbered divided by the market value of land per Figure 4.1:Transferable Density as Share of Total Heritage Incentive Bonus Density transferred to 830 W. Hastings: $ 4,850,000 1,390,693Bonus Density: Notional Residual Density: 717,400 Federal Historic Places Initiative: 1,000,000 Property Tax Exemption: 500,395 50,000Facade Grant: Total Heritage Incentive: $ 8,508,488 91 buildable square foot.The clear protection of the developer's expected profit is the market strength of this approach, and to encourage heritage retention the City may provide a percent premium against the value of the unencumbered land. Since the uniqueness ascribed to heritage buildings precludes the existence of sufficient comparables, the Land Residual Method provides a means to determine a fair market value, although the Supreme Court of Canada noted its "frailties"in that it"entails,to a very large degree, the use of estimation and judgment in the assessment of pretty nearly every factor used in the calculations." 338 Municipal efforts to encourage capital accumulation in the designated historic areas of Chinatown and Gastown and more recently the connecting Hastings Street corridor, precipitated the development of the HBRP specifically to realize revitalization goals and "kick start economic activity." 339 With the primary objective the "full upgrading of heritage buildings...while stimulating economic development,"the influence of market interests in the determination of public values is reflected in policies that consider"more favourably"those heritage projects"proposing a higher level of private investment." 3" Prior to the 2002 adoption of the Gastown Heritage Management Plan, the precursor to the HBRP,the City limited heritage bonusing to the costs of foregoing more intensive development and retaining the historic building itself, a standard that still applies to historic buildings outside of the rehabilitation program's bounds. However, the HBRP while predicated on the major upgrading of historic buildings, uses municipal incentives to meet the economic loss as well as marginal costs associated with development in the area; the City calculates the shortfall as the projected market value after renovation less the property value, renovation costs and profit. 341 Key to the success of the HBRP has been the provision of tax exemptions, the substantial public investment in the symbolic Woodward's Department Store and the creation of an additional density incentive. 342 Identified as notional residual density—HA-2, HA-1 and HA-1A zoning districts are not regulated by a maximum FSR so the maximum allowed density is derived from the zoned height limitation and typical density achieved—this further subsidy is presumed to encourage the retention of small-scaled buildings and, since it is added following bonused density calculation, constitutes a benefit exceeding shortfall costs. 343 4.3 Conferment The transfer of density illustrates the pattern of capital accumulation in the City. Far from organic, the clustering of donor and receiver sites is the result of targeted municipal policy that governs the form of development. Courting investment through density transfer operates on both the donor and receiver sites; heritage policy provides the economic engine to City revitalization strategies and the transfer of density mechanism allows larger, more symbolic structures in the intensified development regions of the peninsula. Considering that only a small minority of transferred density is actually residual, rather than a shifting of capital the HDTS works in conjunction with bonusing provisions in capital creation on all involved development sites. City policy establishes the central areas as the bounds for both donor and receiver sites, although density may not be received in the Gastown and Chinatown zoned historic areas [Figure 3.1]3 44 As their original uses lapsed in the early 1990s,the infancy of the formal HDTS was dominated by density created in response to the unregistered and unprotected status of the City's modernist icons lining Burrard Street [Table 4.1]. In subsequent years, donor sites were centred in the core with the conversion of financial district banking halls to academic programming. Since then, the enhanced incentives under the Gastown Heritage Management Plan and HBRP have dramatically concentrated the creation of transferable density to the Gastown, and more recently, Chinatown historic areas. Although other sites have and continue to introduce substantial amounts of bonus density, much of this floorspace outside of these examples has been realized through amalgamated or rezoned development. In general, rising construction costs and land values 92 as well as the maturation of the industry have increased incentives while policy allowing sites to receive ten percent of the bulk density permission without rezoning has encouraged the dispersal of much these bonuses IFigure 4.3]. The City of Vancouver Heritage Density Exchange information accessed from the Heritage Conservation Program in October 2005 records transfers as well as approved density since the establishment of the HDTS in 1993. Despite the importance of the HDTS to the heritage amenity, its failure to record all density conveyance related to historic structures limits its analytical ability. Its purpose is to serve as"a publicly accessible data base showing the density available for purchase, the vendors of this density and contact information,"resulting in an index of density approved for transfer without an immediate purchaser.345 Thus, transfers involving developers shifting density internally from heritage sites to other properties within their portfolios and owners of receiver sites that agree in principal to purchase density prior to the City approval of transferable density at the donor site are not recorded. Also, since it does not technically invoke the transfer of density policy, donor and receiver pairs conjoined through lot consolidation or comprehensive consideration of heritage sites adjoining development is not included.The use of HDTS data aligns closely with accessed policy reports, although there is variance in the exact amounts of density between development approval and the completed transfer recorded. Any larger discrepancy is noted and while these inconsistencies should be acknowledged, they do not meaningfully impact the interpretation of the thesis as a whole 346 Between January 1994 and October 2005 the HDTS recorded 64 transfers of density between heritage donor and receiver sites within the transfer of density area, as well as one heritage transfer originating outside its bounds and another that provided an open space amenity [Table 4.2]3 47 In total, the HDTS facilitated the transfer of 940,000 square feet of density, of which 85% originated from heritage sites, to 49 receiver sites [Figure 4.3].The total transferable density vested at twenty donor sites amounted to 1.17 million square feet between 1993 and April 2004. Figure 4.4 illustrates the balance of the HDTS as the area between the total density vested and the total transferred.The July 2001 approval of additional transferred density to 1001 Hornby Street led to a visible constriction in the balance, aligning with reports of the year-end balance dropping in 1998 to 25,000 square feet and reaching a nadir of 7,000 square feet the following year:348 However, the adoption of an economic revitalization strategy for the DTES in 2000 that included building upon the area's heritage assets and the progression of policies and studies leading up to the July 2003 approval of the HBRP encouraged increased use of the HDTS from the city's designated heritage areas. Since density is typically not available for transfer until after the heritage work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Heritage Conservation Program—a date that follows approval in principle of the density by an unknown number of months—the white line dividing the field in Figure 4.4 marks the limit of density approved for sites that had successfully transferred density to a receiver site prior to October 2005.This point in early 2004 also denotes the first HRA involving transferable density approved under the HBRP progra m .349 The bank has since grown substantially due to "the success of the Heritage Area Revitalization Program, rising land and construction values and the lack of anticipated Federal incentives." 350 In July 2007, the Planning Department reported that since the establishment of the HBRP the City created 1.85 million square feet for transfer with 2006 approvals accounting for 1.2 million square feet alone—more than approved in the first decade of the bank. Although annual absorption during this period averaged 200,000 square feet per year, or 234% the annual absorption from 1994-2005, the balance has rapidly grown to approximately 1.4 million square feet; less than two years after the data collected in Figure 4.4 the unsold density is now equal to the entire range depicted, dwarfing the historic high prior to approval of the HBRP of 427,000 square feet set in November 2002. If all recent applications and enquiries in process were approved, this total would rise as Date Address Title Register Built Zoning^Area Use Architect 1993 900 Burrard Street BC Electric Building A 1957 CD-1 322 CBD • Sharp Thompson Berwick and Pratt 1993 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library A 1957 CD-1 323 CBD Semmens and Simpson 1995 720 Jervis Street Abbott House A 1898 CD-1 343 Triangle West unknown 1996 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Supply Building B 1929 DD^Downtown South x Townley and Matheson 1996 2750 Granville Street Stanley Theatre A 1930 CD-1 370 South Granville H. H. Simmonds 1997 440 Cambie Street Edgett Building B 1911 DD^Victory Square A. A. Cox 2000 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank of Canada B 1903 DD^Victory Square Dalton and Eveleigh 2000 211 Columbia Street C 1900 / 1911 HA-2^Gastown unknown 2001 3838 Cypress Street Greencroft A 1912 / 1936 FSD (1)^First Shaughnessy unknown / Ross Lort 2002 626 West Pender Street London Building B 1912 DD^CBD Somervell and Putnam 2002 690 Burrard Street Christ Church Cathedral (2) A 1895 / 1940 DD^CBD C.O. Wickenden 2002 55 Water Street Malkin Building B 1907 / 1912 HA-2^Gastown • Parr and Fee 2002 310 Water Street Taylor Building C 1911 HA-2^Gastown • unknown 2002 345 Water Street Greenshields Building (west half) A 1901 HA-2^Gastown • unknown 2002 602 Dunsmuir Street St. Regis Hotel / Gotham Restaurant C / C 1913 / 1933 CD-1 414 CBD x W. T. Whiteway / Max Downing 2002 640 W Pender Street Bank of Montreal A 1916 / 1926 DD^CBD Somervell and Putnam / K. G. Rea 2004 46 Water Street Franks Building C 1888 HA-2^Gastown • unknown 2004 52 Water Street Beulah Mission C 1912 HA-2^Gastown unknown 2004 55 East Cordova Street McLennan and McFeely Building C 1906 / 1925 HA-2^Gastown • Edward Evans Blackmore 2005 5 West Pender Street Chinese Freemasons Building B 1907 HA-1^Chinatown • unknown 2005 36 Water Street Grand and Terminus Hotels (3) A / B 1889 / 1901 HA-2^• Gastown • Noble Stonestreet Hoffar / Emil Guenther (4) 2005 540 Beatty Street Crane Building C 1911 DD^Victory Square • unknown 2005 522 Beatty Street Bowman Block Building C 1906 / 1913 DD^Victory Square • unknown Notes for Table 4.1: Heritage Transfer of Density Donor Sites Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005 The donor address is that of the HRA or other pertinent heritage agreement and the receiver site address is typically that of the development application that considers the density request. The significance of the site's heritage classification as listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register and the date of completion of construction and major renovation follows. Zoning is the current zoning of the site as properties listing CD-1 status adopted those bylaws in conjunction with designation and redevelopment. Use refers to the residential employment of the property: I•) denotes the introduction of residential through the HRA process; (x) indicates heritage structures that are rehabilitated as part of a larger residential project; and (-) marks projects that continue established residential use. Similar to other tables in this thesis, residential use does not preclude ground floor retail application. Live-work use is considered residential since, based upon interviews and inspections of live-work properties, BC Assessment Authority classified 94% of existing units in 2004 as residential space. Although this is a simplification due to the financial benefit derived from not disclosing commercial use, it aligns with the current expectation that the majority of live-work units are relegated entirely to residential use--2004 City policy regulating housing in the CBD subjects all live-work space to residential use limitations. Following the dominant means of capital accumulation during this period, most donor sites involve residential use onsite. Of the remainder: civic use of 750 Burrard Street converted to retail and office; cinema at 2750 Granville Street was renovated for live theatres; three banking halls in the Financial District character area (400 West Hastings Street, 626 West Pender Street and 640 West Pender Street) are now educational institutions; 690 Burrard Street continued in religious use; and general commercial and warehousing uses at 440 Cambie Street, 211 Columbia Street and 52 Water Street are now retail and office applications. (1) 3838 Cypress Street is the only donor site outside the transfer of density area and only the second exterior to the downtown study area (2750 Granville Street is located in South Granville). FSD refers to First Shaughnessy District. (2) Christ Church Cathedral was designated in 1974 and the transfer of density listed is in relation to the designation of interior features and fixtures through the Heritage Interiors Project. (3) 36 Water Street involves the reconstruction and protection of the Grand and Terminus Hotel facades since fire destroyed the latter building in 2000. (4)The design of the Terminus Hotel is alternately credited to Bunning and Kelso with the architect of the neighbouring Grand Hotel considered unknown (Kalman 1974). Table assembled from policy reports and development applications listed in Appendix A. For a more detailed description of live-work use reference policy report dated Aug. 30, 2005 with z2 cc 5 I w 11 0 ui 8 w Occjig LU 0>Z01 (.9 5 0 LUZ b o0,02 1 Z F- < Z Q tt0001 0 z 0 < cy 94 Figure 4.2: Donor and Receiver Site Distribution Jan.1993 - Oct. 2005 Approved for Transfer Transferred to Receiver .2 1997^1998^1999^20001994 2001 200620042002 95 high as 2.4 million square feet. The bourgeoning balance of the HDTS is symptomatic of the City's considerable symbolic work towards heritage recognition, its substantial physical implications to the realization of the urban environment and the cultural ramifications to a clarified understanding of public value. Akin to the 1970s establishment of transfer of density and related mechanisms concentrated on addressing the inability to assess sufficient financial resources to stay the demolition of buildings perceived to have heritage value, the primary focus remains the economic solvency of the tool at the expense of the valuation of heritage as a public interest.Transfer of density was conceived to address "truly meritorious buildings" under threat of demolition and focused on the expansion of the economic ability of the tool rather than a critical approach to determining merit.351 While the emphasis on the utility of heritage to the development process is argued in this thesis, an acute example of the prioritization of ability over meaning is the lack of urgency placed on updating the City's sole effort of identifying the significance of heritage resources. Although market value is similarly assigned to the Vancouver Heritage Register Upgrade Program by its potential to reduce processing time and carrying costs of development involving heritage sites, it proposes to better reflect—and perhaps in the process better describe—community values by creating an "overarching Vancouver Historic Context Statement," placing resources in a framework to clarify the particular embodied heritage value of sites and prioritizing both additions and subtractions from the Register. 352 First prepared for consideration in the 2006 budget, the City postponed funding that was ultimately redirected to support a review of the transfer of density mechanism. 4.4 Capital Accumulation Figure 4.3: Density Bank Balance Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005 Date 96 A single development absorbed a quarter of the total density traded in the first decade of the program—a ratio that raises to 31 percent considering only heritage density transferred—and is responsible for the visible constriction in the balance of approved and received density illustrated in Figure 4.3.1001 Hornby Street provides a useful study in the both the utility of heritage and the misrecognition of capital influence. As with any field, agents are empowered with varying levels of capital and the protagonists of this project, and not surprisingly other examples used in this thesis, constitute a primary influence in determining the bounds of the heritage field. Similar to the Dance Foundation discussed in Section 3.5, a significant beneficiary of the heritage amenity supported by this development was a non-profit organization committed to realizing a cultural facility and pressured by impending government grant deadlines. However, unlike the notoriety garnered by the Dance Centre for its expansive interpretation of heritage, the Stanley Theatre rehabilitation was widely heralded as a success in terms of conservation, but was only achieved through the expedited approval of a controversial development.The design for the hotel at 1001 Hornby Street sought not to become the City's tallest building through a height increase of 50 percent over the DODP limits, but proposed this extra height at the crest of the downtown peninsula where it would infringe upon a view cone.353 When the developer originally announced plans for the complex in 1991, it proposed a 33-storey hotel and 28-storey apartment tower to be completed in 1993 with a 24-storey office tower to follow.354 By the opening of the first two towers in 1994,the third had been approved in principle at 40 storeys.3" The tower was 45-48 stories by the beginning of the next year, and in mid-1996, the Development Permit Board (DPB) considered a 450-foot tall, 46-storey building. 356 This latest proposal tied the development to the rehabilitation of the Stanley Theatre located at 2750 Granville Street, built in 1931 and facing an uncertain fate after its closure six decades later. Supporters founded the Stanley Theatre Society and leased the building in 1994 with the intention of its rehabilitation as a live-performance stage. 357 $2.6 million in Federal and matching provincial funds announced later that year provided much needed public funding and, with the owner's consent, the City bonused density to the Society that allowed an excess of 44,000 square feet for transfer valued at $1.2 million. However, without a receiver for the density, the approaching deadline to complete the purchase at the end of March 1997 risked the forfeiture of senior government funding, and if the rehabilitation failed the City would be faced with the undesirable outcome of the bonused density reverting to the private theatre owner. 358 Accordingly, Council responded to the solicitation for advice by informing the DPB in February—since the site did not require rezoning, the density and height of the project was left to the board's discretion—that it had no objection to the height and that it supported an adjustment of the impacted view cone? 59 Despite some board member's inclination towards awaiting the outcome of the Downtown Skyline Study under development, the urgency of the grant deadline led to approval.The site received 50,000 square feet from the Stanley Theatre and 950 Burrard Street amounting to the maximum 10 percent bonus without rezoning.36° In July 1998 the Planning Department prepared a policy report regarding the rezoning of the site and the proposed receipt of another 184,000 square feet of density.361 Referred to a public hearing in September, the proposal attracted nominal interest even though it proposed a 60 percent increase in floorspace from the approved development permit for Phase 11.362 Since 38 percent of the density was incorporated within the tower envelope by reducing floor-to-floor heights, 29 percent below grade and 33 percent in the podium, the physical impact was nominal and the height of the project—which had already been approved by the DPB—did not increase [Figure 4.6]. Further, the expansion created a market for the entirety of the heritage density generated by the HRA approved for 440 Cambie Street. Indicating the influence of social capital in amenity creation, the Cambie Street project, administered concurrently by the same architectural firm leading the second phase of the hotel complex, provided rehabilitated office space for the Architectural Institute of British Columbia. 363 The application of heritage density demonstrates the significance of social ability in the negotiation process. It is the necessary feel for the game that enables SUMMARY OF HERITAGE TRANSFERS OF DENSITY IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER JANUARY 1993 - OCTOBER 2004 Figure 4.5: Heritage Density Transfers Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005 ^ 97 Date Density (sf) Donor Address Donor Title Receiver Address Receiver Title 1994 20750 900 Burrard Street BC Electric Building 1054-1098 Robson Street Robson Centre Place 38177 900 Burrard Street BC Electric Building 900 Burrard Street Electric Avenue and Paramount Place 1996 9000 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1238 Seymour Street Space 1997 10375 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1762 Davie Street 02 (1) 44000 2750 Granville Street Stanley Theatre 1001 Hornby Street One Wall Centre - Sheraton Hotel and 938 Nelson 6170 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1001 Hornby Street One Wall Centre - Sheraton Hotel and 938 Nelson 1030 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1238 Seymour Street Space 4141 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1128 West Hastings Street Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle Hotel and The Vantage 8400 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 564 Granville Street 570 Granville 1998 1730 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 808 Bute Street (Moxie's restaurant) 433 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1000 Robson Street (Bebe retail) 8805 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1200 Hamilton Street Opus Hotel Vancouver 260 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1238 Seymour Street Space 35000 440 Cambie Street Edgett Building 1001 Hornby Street One Wall Centre - Sheraton Hotel and 938 Nelson 1100 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1128 West Hastings Street Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle Hotel and The Vantage 10500 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1221 Homer Street The Beresford Yaletown 14408 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1200 Hamilton Street Opus Hotel Vancouver 144355 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1001 Hornby Street One Wall Centre - Sheraton Hotel and 938 Nelson 3925 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1068 Hornby Street The Canadian at Wall Centre 1130 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1068 Hornby Street The Canadian at Wall Centre 1999 56.5 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1238 Seymour Street Space 15793 720 Jervis Street Abbott House 1177 West Pender Street Coast Coal Harbour Hotel and 1155 West Pender (2) 9973 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1050 Smithe Street Sterling Cosmopolitan Living 1689 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 885 West Georgia Street HSBC Building 2000 3400 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1138 Melville Street The Orca and Melville Place 2001 2400 211 Columbia Street 401 Burrard Street Government of Canada Building 515 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 928 Richards Street The Savoy Downtown 2002 10492 211 Columbia Street 1010 Richards Street Gallery 3949 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank 1228 West Hastings Street Palladio at Coal Harbour 2854 626 West Pender London Building 828 Cardero Street Fusion 10000 211 Columbia Street 1050 Smithe Street Sterling 18000 626 West Pender London Building 1085 Homer Street The Cossette and Domus 10498 211 Columbia Street 1017-1033 Richards Street Miro 10500 626 West Pender London Building 1001 Homer Street The Bentley 3212 211 Columbia Street 1128 West Hastings Street Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle Hotel and The Vantage 2003 4040 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank 718 Drake Street Best Western Downtown (White Spot restaurant) 17865 310 Water Street Taylor Building 550 Bute Street The Melville Coal Harbour and 1133 Melville 2126 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 988 Richards Street Tribeca Lofts 4500 626 West Pender London Building 531 Beatty Street Metroliving 531 Beatty 4243 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank 189 National Avenue Sussex 5246 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 488 Robson Street R & R Robson and Richards 2004 13239 310 Water Street Taylor Building 189 National Avenue Sussex 26460 640 West Pender Street Bank of Montreal 1201 West Hastings Street Cielo 43018 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 1201 West Hastings Street Cielo 5181 310 Water Street Taylor Building 1628-1654 West 7th Virtu! 19403 52 Water Street 550 Bute Street The Melville Coal Harbour and 1133 Melville 16000 52 Water Street 1475 Howe Street Pomaria 5175 46 Water Street Franks Building 1670-1690 West 8th Ave 1690 W. 8th Ave. 12000 52 Water Street 1082 Seymour Street Freesia 22780 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 901 Mainland Street Yaletown Park 2374 46 Water Street Franks Building 988 Richards Street Tribeca Lofts 190 52 Water Street 822 Seymour Street L'aria on Robson 64 52 Water Street 1245 Homer Street Iliad 2005 4768 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank 538 Smithe Street MoDE 15000 46 Water Street Franks Building 1133 Homer Street Homer + Helmcken 10500 52 Water Street 811-821 Cambie Street Raffles on Robson 2160 52 Water Street 1505 Robson Street Legacy on Robson 598 211 Columbia Street 605 Robson Street Vancouver House 7926 52 Water Street 1256 West Pender Street Flatiron 26497 640 West Pender Street Bank of Montreal 520-550 West 8th Ave Cross Roads 2036 55-99 East Cordova Street McLennan & McFeely Building 605 Robson Street Vancouver House 136 52 Water Street 1238 Seymour Street Space 14311 46 Water Street Franks Building 777 Dunsmuir Street Pacific Centre II (Holt Renfrew) 2921 46 Water Street Franks Building 1750 Davie Street English Bay Tower (retail addition) Notes for Table 4.2: Heritage Density Transfers Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005 Titles of transfer properties, included to assist in recognizing the donor and receiver sites, are the current building names or major tenants. Developments utilizing a single site covenant include the titles of both buildings involved, although the density is typically absorbed in one building based on use. The donor address is that of the HRA or other pertinent heritage agreement and the receiver site address is typically that of the development application that considers the density request. Note that transfers of density from 3838 Cypress Street (Greencroft) are not listed as the donor is outside the study area in Shaughnessy and that the transfer from 901 West Hastings Street to 550 Burrard Street is excluded as it served an open space rather than a heritage amenity. Two receiver sites remained undeveloped after the transfer of density for several years, although both are currently under construction. (1) 1762 Davie Street was approved for rezoning from C-5 to CD-1 in May 1997 to allow an increase from 2.2 to 3.4 FSR with development proceeding only after the approval of a revised development permit in Sep. 2006. (2)An application to construct an office and retail building at 1177 West Pender Street in Apr. 1999 included a transfer of density within the ten percent approvable by the Development Permit Board. The office and retail tower proposal involved the creation of a single site covenant to utilize residual density from the adjacent office building existing at 1155 West Pender Street. Development did not proceed until after approval of a new application for 1180 West Hastings Street in Jan. 2007 that proposed a hotel and retail use, again involving a single site covenant and the addition of the permitted density bonus for hotel construction. Table assembled from Coriolis Consulting evaluation (Vancouver 2002a), City of Vancouver Heritage Conservation Program Heritage Density Exchange information and policy reports and development applications listed in Appendix A. 99 and results from the dominant capital position of the actors—within the City bureaucracy, the architectural profession and finance community—that realize highly symbolic projects.The amenitization of the urban environment derives from the collusion of different interests, and in Vancouver it largely involves the moulding of heritage as a capital conveyance method. 4.5 Market Discipline As illustrated by 1001 Hornby Street, the consideration—and even the nomenclature—of receiver site owners as passive sources of economic capital misrecognizes that varying types of capital are in play and that the conveyance is not unidirectional. Rather, receiver sites pursue or are compelled to purchase heritage density for a variety of reasons that inform this scene of transaction.The majority of owners of intended receiver sites benefit from the predictable outcome of density transfer and design with the assumption of purchasing the requisite floorspace from the available HDTS supply [Table 4.31. Almost all of existing zoning in the study area allows up to ten percent density transfer without rezoning and a limited number of receiver sites also utilize hotel and amenity bonuses concurrently.' 4 Projects bonused up to ten percent are coloured blue in Figure 4.7. Receiver sites that sought over 10 percent density increase or change of allowable use coloured yellow purchased heritage density to reduce landlift calculation or committed heritage funding to meet CAC obligations. Sites that utilized the transfer of density within design development, purchased floorspace to permit the construction of new space or occupation of exempted areas, or were compelled by the City to purchase density to address non-conforming situations are denoted in red.ln utilizing heritage in code enforcement, the language of policy reports notes that both the condition and its resolution through Figure 4.5: Social Ability Expressed through Physical Form 100 heritage density purchase is not preferred. The reliance on CD-1 zoning that requires by-law amendment to alter the form of development, HRAs and other legal agreements that declare responsibilities in perpetuity and fractured ownership patterns resulting from strata titling—buildings owned by corporations comprised of individual unit owners that share common property—exert substantial control over the built environment by seemingly denying much of the evolutionary process that defines urban space. Further, the experience with amenity bonusing and other attempts at sustainable public programming as well as extended conflicts between the City and residents over lease rates of sites developed by the municipality in the 1970s, question the long-term viability of such restrictions.The disciplinary role of the HDTS serves a critical function by facilitating the renegotiation of covenants created for the life of the building.Within a zoning system based on FSR, the authorization for the transfer of up to ten percent of the zoned density serves an important role in legitimizing small-scale development in the city. Although the expansion of floor space within existing structures accounted for over a quarter of recorded transfers, the amount of density transferred was only 6.4% of the total . 365 Of these,three transfers allowed changes while the building was under construction, and the remaining 15 following occupancy. Since most buildings within the heritage transfer area are not built over maximum density, owners can utilize density transfer to legitimize unit alterations or changes of use without rezoning to increase the floor area allowance prescribed by bulk zoning. Similarly, commercial buildings that provide publicly accessible amenity spaces exempt from FSR calculation can later acquire these from the (semi-) public realm through equivalent purchases of heritage density. The City exercises the disciplinary role of amenitization within the diminished repressive state through transfer of density.While serving practical concerns by inducing owners to fund public amenities in exchange for legitimization of non-conforming development, the practice introduces further symbolic externalities to the public consideration of heritage. In 1994, the City approved the development of a "loft apartment building"at the maximum allowed FSR, although it registered its suspicions that the double-height spaces would invite non-permitted construction that would effectively increase the density of the building. 366 These concerns proved well founded, and in May 1997 Council sought the enforcement of building by-law requirements. 367 The developer arranged the purchase of density in June 1996 and in October 1997 to allow the legal approval of some of the loft units, and since then owners of individual or multiple units within the building have arranged 11 separate transfers of density. In total, 11,800 square feet has allowed for 56 loft mezzanines and expansions of 13 of the 22 units being pursued for"infractions due to construction of additional floor area without permits" [Figure 4.8). 368 While the City utilizes heritage density to enforce building by-law, the market involves transfer of density to redress public access to private property. As an amenity derived from development, the City secures public use of private facilities through Community Use Agreements.This arrangement is uncommon with the City recording only eight existing facilities in 2003 and, while the gross availability required is secured by legal contract, the owner typically retains control over the selection of groups able to use the space, the schedule of its availability and the ability to charge the user all costs above the base rental associated with the facility.369A 1985 rezoning application for 718 Drake Street secured a Community Use Agreement to allow the Elks Lodge to utilize space in the proposed development for 24 hours per week without charge. Although the rezoning failed to proceed, the subsequent development application approved in 1996 carried forward the use of the first floor amenity area of the hotel. Also utilizing a hotel bonus, the building realized 5.28 FSR with an additional 4,000 square feet (or .33 FSR) exempt due to the community use agreement. By 2003 the disuse of the space and the owner's concerns regarding the viability of the property led to the transfer of heritage Figure 4.7: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005 ^ 101 Receiver^Date^Donor Density %Increase Rezone Bonus Considered Prior to Development Permit Approval 901 Mainland Street^2004^690 Burrard Street 22780 4.00 1133 Homer Street 2005^46 Water Street 15000 6.80 564 Granville Street^1997^1200 Richards Street 8400 10.00 1000 Robson Street 1998^750 Burrard Street 433 10.00 1221 Homer Street^1998^1200 Richards Street 10500 10.00 1050 Smithe Street 1999^750 Burrard Street 9973 10.00 1177 West Pender Street^1999^720 Jervis Street 15793 10.00 828 Cardero Street^2002 626 West Pender 2854 10.00 1001 Homer Street 2002 626 West Pender 10500 10.00 1010 Richards Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 10492 10.00 1017-1033 Richards Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 10498 10.00 1050 Smithe Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 10000 10.00 1085 Homer Street 2002 626 West Pender 18000 10.00 531 Beatty Street^2003 626 West Pender 4500 10.00 988 Richards Street 2003^690 Burrard Street 2126 10.00 2004 46 Water Street 2374 1082 Seymour Street^2004 52 Water Street 12000 10.00 1628-1654 West 7th 2004 310 Water Street 5181 10.00 1670-1690 West 8th Ave^2004 46 Water Street 5175 10.00 520-550 West 8th Ave^2005 640 West Pender Street 26497 10.00 538 Smithe Street 2005^400 West Hastings Street 4768 10.00 1256 West Pender Street^2005^52 Water Street 7926 10.00 1505 Robson Street^2005^52 Water Street 2160 10.00 1128 West Hastings Street^1997^750 Burrard Street 4141 1.80 hotel 1998^750 Burrard Street 1100 1001 Hornby Street^1997^750 Burrard Street 6170 6.77 hotel 1997^2750 Granville Street 44000 550 Bute Street^2003^310 Water Street 17865 9.00 hotel / amenity 2004 52 Water Street 19403 1750 Davie Street^2005 46 Water Street 2921 7.72 • 488 Robson Street 2003^690 Burrard Street 5246 8.74 amenity 1475 Howe Street^2004 52 Water Street 16000 10.00 • 811-821 Cambie Street^2005^52 Water Street 10500 10.00 • 1762 Davie Street^1997^750 Burrard Street 10375 54.55 • 1054-1098 Robson Street^1994^900 Burrard Street 20750 63.37 • 1200 Hamilton Street^1998^750 Burrard Street 8805 83.33 • 1998^1200 Richards Street 14408 900 Burrard Street^1994^900 Burrard Street 38177 189 National Avenue 2003^400 West Hastings Street 4243 * 2004^310 Water Street 13239 1201 West Hastings Street^2004^690 Burrard Street 43018 2004 640 West Pender Street 26460 Considered Following Development Permit Approval 1001 Hornby Street^1998^750 Burrard Street 144355 24.20 • hotel 1998 440 Cambie Street 35000 Considered During Construction 1068 Hornby Street^1998^750 Burrard Street 1130 0.72 401 Burrard Street 2001^211 Columbia Street 2400 1.12 1138 Melville Street^2000^750 Burrard Street 3400 2.45 1068 Hornby Street 1998 750 Burrard Street 3925 2.49 1228 West Hastings Street^2002 400 West Hastings Street 3949 3.93 Considered Post-Occupancy 1238 Seymour Street^1999^750 Burrard Street 56.5 0.04 1238 Seymour Street 2005 52 Water Street 136 0.09 1238 Seymour Street^1998^750 Burrard Street 260 0.17 822 Seymour Street 2004 52 Water Street 190 0.21 928 Richards Street^2001^750 Burrard Street 515 0.34 1245 Homer Street 2004^52 Water Street 64 0.36 885 West Georgia Street^1999^750 Burrard Street 1689 0.38 1238 Seymour Street^1997^1200 Richards Street 1030 0.69 1128 West Hastings Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 3212 1.00 • 605 Robson Street^2005^211 Columbia Street 598 1.71 2005^55-99 East Cordova Street 2036 777 Dunsmuir Street^2005 46 Water Street 14311 3.00 1238 Seymour Street 1996^1200 Richards Street 9000 6.00 718 Drake Street^2003 400 West Hastings Street 4040 6.70 808 Bute Street 1998^750 Burrard Street 1730 10.00 Notes for Table 4.3: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005 The rezone column denotes if the transfer was involved in a site rezoning, and the bonus column identifies if other density bonusing is utilized on site. The percent density increase attributable to transferred heritage density is calculated: H / (A x D) in which H is the total heritage density transferred, A is the total site area and D is the maximum permitted density for all uses prior to rezoning or bonusing. For developments utilizing a single site covenant, even when density is assigned separately in the process of rezoning or permit approval, the percent density attributable to transferred heritage density is calculated with regards to the entirety of the site. Determining an appropriate base density is problematic when considering those receivers marked with an asterisk (*) due to special zoned districts without outright density limits: (1) Although 1475 Howe Street did not have an outright density limitation under False Creek Comprehensive Development District (FCCDD) zoning, when it was rezoned to CD-1 the City used the recommendation of the Granville Slopes Polices and Neighbourhood Concept Plan associated with FCCDD zoning to establish the permitted FSR. (2) Rezoned to CD-1 in Nov. 1988, 900 Burrard Street is considerably higher density than the DD zoning in the immediate area, but the percent of this increase attributable to transferred heritage density is unclear. (3) 189 National Avenue is one of the last parcels to be developed of the 101-183 Terminal Avenue CD-1 rezoning from industrial, commercial and East False Creek (FC-1) districts approved in 1989. Since buildable area is determined through by-law provisions for this several block CD-1 district in total and a 2003 Council amendment allows the increase in residential density through transfer of heritage density, it is difficult to determine the percent density attributable to transferred heritage density. The increase appears substantial as the sum of the two transfers confers approximately 1.12 FSR on the site. (4) Prior to redevelopment, 1201 West Hastings Street was split between Central Waterfront District (CWD) and Downtown District (DD) zoning. The 1996 adoption of the Coal Harbour Official Development Plan negated the controls of the previous development plan for the CWD leaving the majority of the site without density regulation, and the extension of the Coal Harbour plan the subsequent year left the negotiation of density to the development application process. Since the corner of the site with zoning regulation-DD area G describes the district west of Bute Street-allows 6.0 FSR maximum permitted density for all uses, the existing zoning accommodates only 27,000 square feet or 13% of the proposed development density due to the small portion of the site it regulates. The City recommendation that the developer realizes the remainder through the transfer of density results in an increase attributable to heritage of several times that of the area zoning. As of Oct. 2005, the Heritage Density Exchange accessed from the City of Vancouver Heritage Conservation Program recorded two transfers to 1201 West Hastings Street totalling 69,478 square feet, although the Aug. 2003 policy report on the rezoning recommended a transfer of 188,244 square feet. The table is assembled from policy reports, development applications and zonino by-laws listed in Appendix A. Reason addition to downzoned site (1) change of use (2) (3) (4) increase underground or within envelope building code conformation infill open to below space change of use change of use construction contrary to permit loft expansion loft expansion loft expansion combine units and add stair stairs to roof deck use exempted floor area enclose roof deck loft expansion use exempted floor area retail expansion convert amenity to commercial loft expansion convert amenity to commercial convert amenity to commercial 200 DI 12500 cc 5O 10000 • 7500 CI) 5'41?^ 000 C 1— 15N • 2500 '07 Square Feet Transferred 103 density to the site to change the use from amenity area to restaurant 3 70 Similar reclassifications have led to the closure of publicly accessible atriums—most notably at 777 Dunsmuir Street—allowed under the DODP to be excluded from FSR calculation "up to the lesser of 10 per cent of the permitted floors space or 6,000 square feet."371 4.6 Power and Territory The physical environment responds to shifts in the social and economic profile of the City, and the "dismantling of liberal urban policy" through the withdrawal of senior government and shift of power to the local state has provided "as much a political opportunity as an economic one for new regimes of urban power."372 The exertion of this control has been affected through the amenitization of the City with aesthetic claims providing the greatest utility. The lack of meaningful dialogue regarding these issues,far from a suggestion of their insignificance, is as indicative of the"changing social and cultural geography, twinned with a changing economic geography, as [are] more visible and voluble signs." 3" It is a restructuring of the social profile that is simultaneously the reconsideration of spatial scale,"insofar as the fixation of scales crystallizes the contours of social power...into remade physical landscapes."374 Contrasting Vancouver's reputation for liveability, the Downtown Eastside (DTES) bordering the CBD has the highest concentration of poverty, social problems and heritage buildings in Vancouver.375 As the "most concentrated pocket of poverty and crime in Canada,"the juxtaposition of the area to the neighbouring precincts that stand among the country's richest has attracted increasing attention both domestically and Figure 4.7: Disciplinary Receipt of Heritage Density 104 abroad.378 The municipal address of the DTES is well documented, and this thesis provides only a cursory examination of the role of heritage in the latest revitalization programmes.With the severity of the social conditions, the redevelopment effort is characterized as herculean and the description of the DTES as a 'warzone' by development interests echoes Neil Smith's observations of the 'revanchist city.' 377 While Vancouver's approach to the DTES may prove to—as proponents assert against the experience of numerous urban centres—precipitate limited displacement of the disadvantaged, it nevertheless relies on the City as a "junior if highly active partner to global capital"to direct capital accumulation within its bounds. 378 Central to this restructuring, the City's Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) has succeeded as a substantive exercise in the concomitance of aesthetic policy and capital accumulation by pairing the equivalent of $91 million in municipal funds with private investment totalling $405 million. 378 When the City's policies leading to the drafting of the HBRP aroused conflict between advocates for low-income housing and those committed to heritage conservation—a position understood as aligned with economic revitalization—the City clarified that"heritage is the prime directive." 380 However, while heritage is the vehicle of the programme, the effective use of the HBRP aligns with other examples of development mechanisms that facilitate most notably the dramatic increase in capital accumulation. Further, the concurrent improvement of local social and economic conditions is considered both a product and a requirement of development incentives; without increased attractability to capital investment the City would be required to provide incentives at an unviable scale. 381 While the City forwards increased involvement in the rehabilitation program as evidence of the successful implementation of the HBRP,the predictable result has been the rapid expansion of the density bank to unprecedented levels. Considering current absorption rates, this growth is unsustainable and will require the City through development permission to induce developers to receive greater quantities of density. Hence the effort to direct economic capital to the DTES, with the reflexive shifting of social space, results in greater capital accumulation—by increasing the amount of buildable space—across the transfer of density area. Managing the HDTS requires that heritage density remain attractive to developers both in terms of price per buildable square foot and in the collateral benefits accrued within the discretionary zoning process. The redevelopment of the former Woodwards Department Store—bankrupt and closed since 1993— is the largest, most expensive and symbolic development, intensifying the already durable partnership between capital and the local state. Accordingly, the importance of the Woodward's structure rests in its role as a sign to marshal capital, with the project marketer advocating to"implode it, get the publicity for it so people see that change is really happening."382 The redevelopment demonstrates the fluidity of the definition of heritage and the ability of the related amenity to serve the primary development interest.The City designated the entire building, listed in the 'C'category of the Heritage Register, in 1996 in the process of the development permit application from the previous year. Determined significant due to its standing as "Vancouver's best example of the dominant way of organizing and marketing retail shopping as part of the materialism of the modern era,"the City has led the redevelopment effort since acquiring the site from the province in 20013 83 A complex programme and significant social components notwithstanding, the project now under construction received significant subsidy through a $23.2 million heritage incentive package including 187,000 square feet of transferable density—in addition to 179,000 square feet of transferable density bonused due to the high risk associated with the mixed use development and open space secured by a Community Use Agreement—that supports the goal of the Heritage Conservation Plan to "commemorate a wide range of architectural, historical, social and archaeological values."While recognizing that heritage values are "comprised of both physical and intangible conservation,"the form of development has tended to favour the latter: in October 2005 the Vancouver Heritage Commission reluctantly supported the demolition of the post 1908 facades, and by the following March the"heritage philosophy [had] evolved 105 to include not only physical attributes of the original Woodward's store, but also the cultural and sentimental memories" evoked by the "city icon" [Figure 4.8 ].With physical conservation limited to the rehabilitation of the 1908 Woodward's Building destined to be the city-owned parcel for non-profit use and the"W" sign, along with the reuse of architectural components, the role of"Intangible"efforts—the cultural memories, interpretive program and mural and the"historical inspiration in the design of the new structures on site"—become increasingly important. Although the developer's proposal upon selection in September 2004 aligned with the recommendations of the urban design guidelines adopted previously in March by retaining substantial portions of the remaining facades, the intensification of the programme to aid the financial viability of the project rendered the maintenance of the physical fabric untenable.384 This loss, however, was viewed acceptable due to the"community benefit the increased programming brings to the goal of revitalizing the DTES heritage precinct."The heritage amenity supported through the intensification of development in the City progresses towards an increasingly abstract value:the destruction of the physical fabric, despite the"good intentions" of those involved, can actually better serve a heritage interest through less physical terms when the historic material is incompatible with intended development. Much of the Woodward's heritage is delivered through 'scattering' new interpretative elements and architectural fragments that'echo'the physical building and its history. Reviewing this conservation plan in April 2007,a subcommittee of the Vancouver Heritage Commission lauded the"bridges to the younger generation"formed by the interpretive features and noted as well the "physical reminders for those that do have connection to the old building and department store."' 4.7 Conclusion Heritage density serves to structure the physical and social space of Vancouver.Through management of the Heritage Density Transfer System (HDTS),the City exerts substantial control over the built environment. Analysis of the system describes the varied implementation of transferred density as well as its use by both the market and City as a disciplinary measure. Regardless of its specific application, its nearly complete reliance on the creation of bonused density illustrates the HDTS as foremost a development mechanism that facilitates the dominant interest of capital accumulation. Although the effect on the physical space of the City reflects the quantity of space approved for transfer, the legitimate execution of purchased density is dependent on social ability. Further, with physical and social space reflexively conditioned, the recent adoption of the Heritage Building Revitalization Program (HBRP) signals an intensification of heritage use in the determination of the city. -414,' .^- -.14- r^, 11.1 011 1-4dia ••••^111 Will101101■04^_ -• ,J41 ri -^a 1 EE^1=6 Ai",.' !^.. hi f LCttE 11 ,^• 'I .1 10 VI! i4 !' 107 4.8 Notes for Chapter Four "'Punter 2003:308 328City of Vancouver 2005:9 329 Kayden 1990:101 330 $1 million—or 12 percent of the incentive package—is attributed to a federal grant. In order to stabilize the development, the City awards density equivalent to this value in the HRA pending the approval of the owner's grant application.The October 2006 announcement of the closure of the Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund Program (CHPIF) specified that, although projects that applied prior to this date continued to be processed, there is no guarantee of funding. At least a half-dozen Vancouver buildings have failed to quality due to limitations rendering conversion to strata residential use ineligible, a non-market residential project similarly did not meet the commercial standard and the early closure of the programme has caused another 10 applications and enquiries to default to municipal incentives.The combined impact is 340,000 square feet of transferable bonus density.The high number of disqualifications may be attributed to the City's efforts to aggressively pursue what limited means of funding are available from senior government:while noting "uncertainty"that a project will not qualify since it clearly does not meet federal criterion, the compensation package will still seek the federal incentive and, only in the unlikely occurrence that the grant is received does the municipally bonused density available for transfer reduce by a commensurate amount. Although several Vancouver projects can be considered successfully involved with the programme, as of May 2007 no grants have been awarded to a local rehabilitation. Reference the report dated May 30, 2007 with subject"Closure of Federal Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund Program (CHPIF)." 331 In advocating the utility of transfer of density to save heritage resources, Costonis' 1974 Chicago Plan presented preservation costs based on the 16-FSR base zoning of the Chicago Loop (Costonis 1974:83).The DODP limits density in Vancouver (DD area A) to 9.0 FSR,the highest base density that would be considered in residual density calculation, although much of the downtown with recognized heritage character, such as Granville Street with maximum allowed density of 3.5 FSR, is zoned lower to protect the existing scale of development. In Apr.2006, Seattle increased the base allowable density of its downtown office core (DOC 1) to 6 FSR (City of Seattle 2006).Although this maximum density is quite low, the large scale of development in the City is attributable to its generous incentive zoning provisions that allow a maximum of 20 FSR through various incentives.The Chicago Plan similarly noted dramatic increases, with incentive zoning allowing a half-block development to build at double the base density and a full block to realize over 39 FSR. In comparison DD area A allows 9.9 FSR through heritage transfer or 10.35 FSR for hotel use. Higher densities are only achieved through onsite heritage or amenity bonusing or CD-1 provisions. 332The adoption of the 1956 Zoning and Development By-law introduced FSR limitations for residential and suburban uses, although commercial construction remained subject to height and bulk limitations requiring a tiered physical form based on the width of the governing street (City of Vancouver 1968 [19561:123-128 and Kayden 1990:137 n.156). The previous by-law had allowed all types of commercial and industrial uses less those considered "noxious and offensive"throughout the entire "General Business District,"and few buildings constructed exceeded the 150% street width limit in height before the building area would have to be reduced from complete site coverage.The result rendered the intended 'wedding cake'effect unapparent and led to the aesthetic issue of exposed sidewalls even as they were "the part of the building most readily seen from the street"(City of Vancouver 1956:44-46)."Within months of the adoption of the new by-law that continued the height and bulk limitations,The Technical Planning Board suggested more refined districting and determined 10.0 FSR as the maximum density of the"high density office district" with suitable height and bulk limitations to be determined later. A 1966 amendment allowed the Technical Planning Board to supplant envelope regulations through discretionary provisions to a maximum density of 12.0 FSR (City of Vancouver 1968 [19561:146-147). 333 Located in area A of the Downtown District, 750 Burrard Street is significantly underbuilt.The banking halls at 400 West Hastings Street and 640 West Pender Street—residual density amounted to 29;000 of 135,000 square feet of transferable density—did not achieve the maximum permitted density onsite through renovation for education use. Reference the policy reports regarding the specific heritage agreements. 334900 Burrard Street transferred density to the back parcel of the block through CD-1 provisions, although development did not commence for several years.The HRA for 3838 Cypress Street resulted in the subdivision of the historic structure and construction of two additional residences on the grounds—a heritage retention strategy common to the residential areas of the city—bringing the parcel to the maximum permitted density under the official development plan. Due to the conversion to parking use of the basement floor, retention of 440 Cambie Street resulted in the reduction of density from 4.33 to 3.99 FSR. While area 'C' allows 5.0 FSR, the draft policies for Victory Square considered 108 at that time 3.0 FSR as the maximum base density. Reference policy report dated Nov.3,1997 with subject"Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Density Bonus." 335The complete HBRP applications as of Aug. 2005 approved for transfer 45,522 square feet of residual density and 290,096 square feet of bonused density. Reference Administrative Report dated Oct.11,2005 with subject"Status Report on the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Corridor."Of the four donor sites approved prior to the HBRP policies, 310 Water Street and 345 Water Street were both built at densities approximate to or exceeding the 4.5 FSR assumption in the Gastown Heritage Management Plan—represented at the time by interim policies—for residual density calculation, 55 Water Street involved significant intensification of use onsite and, although 211 Columbia Street had limited floorspace built onsite, its HRA in 2000 preceded density assumptions for HA-2 zoning. 336City of Vancouver 2002  "'Valuation based upon sale price of comparable sites is known as the Market Comparison Approach (City of Vancouver 2002 . 338 ln Halifax (City) v. S. Cunard & Co. the Supreme Court of Canada described land residual:"that method consists of picturing the erection on the site in question of a building which will provide the highest and best use of the site. The cost of the erection of such a building is then calculated.The gross income to be derived from the use of the said building again is calculated and thereby the profit from the operation of the building is ascertained. After making proper allowances for costs and for the profits of the operators, the balance remaining is capitalized and that capital is assigned as the value of the site upon which the building is to be erected." Ruling on the issue of appropriation, the Court deemed that land residual should be used "with great care"for properties without comparables or devoted to a "use much inferior to their highest and best use" (Todd 1992:222-223). "'The HBRP was initially approved for the five-year period from 2003 until 2008 (City of Vancouver 2003a). 340The confluence of these interests is further forwarded by the June 2007 awarding of a Heritage Society Of British Columbia Outstanding Achievement Award to the City for the HBRP (City of Vancouver 2003a).The society recognized the program with its highest-level advocacy distinction for its contribution to the"revitalization of a neighbourhood." Reference administrative report dated Jul.26,2007 with subject"Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) and Transfer of Density Program - Current Status and Proposed Strategy." 341 Reference Appendix C: Summary of Incentives Calculation for Sample Site of administrative report dated Jun.9,2003 with subject"Heritage Incentives Implementation for Gastown and Chinatown." 342The utility of density mechanisms is enhanced by the lessened scrutiny of floorspace. Council regulations necessitating a two-thirds majority to exempt an owner from property taxes are more onerous than the standard required to bonus heritage density. 343Although the maximum height conditionally allowed under HA-1 zoning is 65 feet, HA-1 A zoning is 90 feet and HA-2 zoning is 75 feet, the maximum density used to calculate notional residual density for all areas is 5.5 FSR. Further, when the City extended the HBRP to include Hastings Street corridor, Council established the 5.5 FSR as the density for incentive calculation despite the existing DD area C and Downtown East-Oppenheimer District guidelines allowing 5.0 FSR development.This normalization of theoretical maximum density in heritage areas illustrates the increasing commodification of space. Reference policy report dated Jul. 16, 2003 with subject"Heritage Incentives for Hastings Street"and relevant zoning restrictions. 344 Located in First Shaughenssy District, 3838 Cypress Street is the single exception. 345City of Vancouver 2002a 346The data presented contains an error in regards to a 1999 density transfer of 9,973 square feet from 750 Burrard Street to 1050 Smithe Street.The City of Vancouver Heritage Density Exchange information accessed from the Heritage Conservation Program in Oct.2005 records this transfer in relation to DE404054, approved in 1999 allowing a 10% density bonus for hotel use (the site, located in Downtown District area G, is not eligible for the 15% hotel bonus available in some other areas). Development did not proceed and the owner received approval for DE406228 in 2002 for a residential tower of slightly different proportions, but again requesting a 10% density bonus amounting to 9,973 square feet.This second application is reflected in the Heritage Density Exchange as a 2002 transfer of 10,000 square feet from 211 Columbia Street to 1050 Smithe Street. It is likely that the transfer from 750 Burrard Street did not occur, since it would put the total amount of density received from or vested at the site over the 196,824 square feet reported by the Coriolis Consulting Corp. study (City of Vancouver 2002a). As a result, the thesis records a redundant transfer 109 to 1050 Smithe Street and presents the density of 750 Burrard Street slightly in excess:16 transfers totalling 198,057 square feet rather than 196,824 square feet (15 transfers totalling 188,084 square feet with 5,425 square feet vested on site and 3,315 square feet remaining).Also, the Heritage Density Exchange information questions a 515 square foot transfer from 750 Burrard Street to 928 Richards Street noted in the 2002 review. Due to the documentation by Coriolis—and since approved DE405289 reports the small transfer to enable alterations and a stair—it is included in the study. 347 Data from the City of Vancouver Heritage Conservation Program Heritage Density Exchange information accessed 31 Oct.2005 and policy reports listed in Appendix A. 348City of Vancouver 2002a 349The Planning Department reported in Oct.2005 a balance of only 98,400 square feet indicating a dramatic increase in absorption late in the time range illustrated in Figure X .This is partly attributable to the expectation that 1201 West Hastings Street would receive 188,244 square feet, of which only 37% is represented by information received from the Heritage Conservation Program as of Oct.2005. Resolving this discrepancy would narrow the difference by 118,776 square feet. Reference Administrative Report dated Oct.11,2005 with subject"Status Report on the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Corridor." 336 Reference Administrative Report dated Jul.13, 2007 with subject"Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) and Transfer of Density Program - Current Status and Proposed Strategy." 351 Costonis 1974:136 352Reference policy report dated Mar. 10,2006 with subject"Vancouver Heritage Register Upgrade Program." 353 Montgomery 1996 354Constantineau 1991 355 Parton 1994 356 Daniels 1995 and Bouw 1996 357 R.Ward 1998 358The urgency was such that at the Chair of the Development Permit Board reported at the Feb.6 Standing Committee of Council on Planning and Environment that the preliminary development permit application would need to be concluded at the Feb.10 meeting to meet the deadline. 3591n Aug. 1996 the DPB sent the proposal with its endorsement to Council for consideration due to the significant increase in height (Montgomery 1996). Although Council deferred a response until after consideration of preliminary reports from the Downtown Skyline Study, the impending grant deadline influenced Council's response; Councillor Lynne Kennedy commented,"that we [Council] have no choice" (Bula 1997). 3"The bonus amounted to 6.7% for the entire site, although calculation excluded the existing hotel completed in Phase I per DODP since it had already received a hotel bonus. Reference policy report dated Jul. 9, 1998 with subject"CD-1 Rezoning - 1001 Hornby Street,1050 Burrard Street and 1088 Burrard Street (Wall Centre). 361-he density received from 440 Cambie Street and a second transfer from 950 Burrard Street totalled 179,355 square feet, a decrease of 4,264 square feet from the sum considered in the Jul.1998 policy report. 362The rezoning increased density from 6.54 FSR to 10.47 FSR. 363 By stating that the "design strategy for the rehabilitation of the existing Heritage Building at 440 Cambie Street was to develop, without financial subsidies, a showcase "green" building," indicates the misrecognition of the incentives forwarded through bonused density.The project received 35,000 square feet of bonused density based on the review of the"applicant's pro-forma analysis"covering the costs of retention and upgrading the building and aiding the realization of the firms sustainability objectives, the City's revitalization interests and—by providing an accessible bank of consumable space—the developer's density goals. Council approved of the higher form of development for 1001 Hornby Street in May 1997, the revitalization agreement for 440 Cambie in November and the density transfer presumably following completion of the work the following September. Reference policy report dated Nov.3,1996 with subject"Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Density Bonus for 440 Cambie Street" and project description 110 "440 Cambie Street (AIBC):Vancouver, BC" by Busby + Associates Architects accessible online at www.sustainability.ca . 364Hotel and heritage bonuses cannot apply to the same floorspace. Hence, a mixed use building can bonus the hotel portion 15 percent and can transfer 10 percent heritage density of the remaining floorspace under residential use. Development sites can utilize both amenity and heritage bonusing. 365 1 8 of 64, or 28% of transfers served to legitimize density.These amounted to 48,616 square feet of a total of 757,778 square feet. 366The form of development proved controversial from its initial consideration. Neighbourhood activists contested constructing the double-height spaces since the resulting building would be 300 feet high whereas a typical 23-storey building would be 220 feet. Although Council clarified in 1994 that the DPB should only consider the exterior impact— the full height did conform to the Official Development Plan—it instructed the City to conduct annual inspections due to the expectation that illegal lofts would result and requested that restrictive measures be drawn to prevent similar construction in the future (J. Lee 1994). In 1995, The Vancouver Sun reported that the development, christened 'Space,' derived its appeal from its "volume-versus-square foot philosophy,"although the journals' description focused entirely on the potential realizable area:"all 145 units from the ground to the 21" floor have 16-foot [floor-to-ceiling height is 17-feet] ceilings and range from 300 square feet (with possible 120-foot loft) to 800 square feet (with possible 300-foot loft)" (McQuade 1995). Although residents were not wholly receptive of the added cost of construction conforming to fire code, they were unsympathetic to the more abstract expectation"to 'buy' density" (Sarti 1997). 367 In Apr.1997,the City Building Inspector recommended to Council that a notice be filed against non-conforming strata lots warning prospective buyers of the zoning and by0law contravention. Reference Administrative Report dated Apr. 30,1997 with subject"Warning to Prospective Purchasers of Individual Strata Lots at 1238 Seymour Street." 368 Following a design change in 1995,1238 Seymour contained 223 units with 145 featuring 17-foot ceilings. When pursuing a density transfer in 1998, the applicant reported to the Development Permit Board (DPB) that as many as 60 units in the building had illegal construction; the City noted that at the time of the application eleven owners including the applicant had purchased heritage density to legalize alterations. Reference report for the DPB regarding 1238 Seymour Street dated Jun.4, 2007. 369Reference City of Vancouver document"Community Use Agreements"dated Apr.30, 2003. 370Since the property had already received a hotel bonus, it was not eligible to receive bonused heritage density without rezoning. Considering the restaurant an independent entity legitimated the transfer, although it is not clear how this distinction can justify what amounts to a bonus equal to the totality of the space. However, the 5.62 FSR density following the heritage transfer is less than the 15% bonus typically realized through hotel bonuses. Reference the report for the DPB regarding 718 Drake Street dated Apr.14, 2003. 371 Reference policy report dated Sep.7,2005 with subject"Proposed Elimination of Pacific Centre Atrium and Replacement with Alternative Public Benefit - 777 Dunsmuir Street (Holt Renfrew, Pacific Centre)." 372Contemporary neoliberalism "represents a significant return to the original axioms of liberalism"—that the "free and democratic exercise of individual self-interest led to the optimal collective social good...[and that] private property is the foundation of this self-interest, and free market exchange is its ideal vehicle"—"albeit one galvanized by an unprecedented mobilization not just of national state power but of state power organized and exercised at different geographic scales (N. Smith 2002:349,442). Considering unproblematic the closeness of market and public interest is symptomatic of this faith in the City's amenitization. 373 Smith and Derksen 2003:65 374 N. Smith 2002:435 375The DTES has 17 percent of City's total heritage buildings (Punter 20003:271). 376The Mean Streets of Arcadia 2004 377Marketing interests inculcate the social ailments of the DTES in their efforts to attract investment, casting redevelopment as a colonizing exercise and identifying cultural capital in the'authenticity'of a neighbourhood differentiated not only by address but also by"the local wildlife." As a "perfect illustration,"the Vancouver Sun published the project marketer's anecdote regarding the receipt of a cell phone photo of a woman who had "dropper her drawers"on the sidewalk in front of a potential overseas investor visiting the site (McMartin 2006). 111 378 N. Smith 2002:428 379Reference the Other Report dated May 30, 2007, with subject"Closure of Federal Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund Program (CHPIF)." 380Mulg rew 1999 381 City of Vancouver 2001:3,12 382 Lazarus 2006 383 1n March 2004 the Heritage Commission supported the mandatory retention of the 1903-1908 and 1925 components as well "as much of the rest of the structure as possible." Reference Administrative Reports dated Mar.23, 2004 with subject"Woodward's - 101 West Hastings Street: Urban Design Guidelines"and Mar.8, 2006 with subject"Woodward's Heritage Revitalization Agreement - 101 West Hastings Street (101 West Cordova Street) DE 409942." "'Gregory Henriquez,the project's architect explains that the remainder of the building was not significant as architecture, but rather as an "economic catalyst of the neighbourhood, and what we're doing is replacing it with a 21't- century economic catalyst"(Mackie 2006). 385The Woodward's Heritage Conservation and Interpretation Plan utilizes the"inclusion of new feature elements, finishes, signs and terminology into the project to 'echo' features, elements and familiar names from the Woodward's department store." Reference the Vancouver Heritage Commission agenda for Apr.16,2007 and minutes from Oct.24, 2005 and May 28,2007. Chapter Five: Discussion 113 5.1 Introduction The"most striking" characteristic of the Vancouver Model has been identified as"the triumph of civic over private ambition, or perhaps the successful fusion of the two." 386 Although this narrative identifies the"upward spiraling of market demand" illustrated by the rapid escalation of land prices in Figure 3.2, it discounts that the social effort necessary to build this cooperative approach to development more importantly naturalized the understanding that the market and public strive for the same goals.Through the escalation of policies determinative since the City's founding that favour the generation of economic ability through land improvement, Vancouver's reliance on amenity delivery through development aligns with the neo-liberal observation that"urban policy no longer aspires to guide or to regulate the direction of economic growth so much as to fit itself to the grooves already established by the market in search of the highest returns." 387 With heritage forwarding the greatest utility, its predominance in the allocation of amenity contributions as a "powerful and flexible tool" whose terms "supercede land use regulations," results in the replacement of other municipal policies with the production of heritage. 388 The amenitization of the city in general—and aestheticized production including heritage in particular—is reflexively relevant to the residential highrise construction that represents the dominant economic interest during the past two decades. 5.2 Development Exchange That a public value is conferred through the private rehabilitation and use of historic structures is the result of the naturalization of a legalised aesthetic.The consideration that it is generally accepted as truth that a 'heritage' building should be saved through a gift exchange is the marker of this social effort. 389 The transition in heritage mechanisms from the removal of development pressures placed by bulk allowances to the increased economic ability grafted to heritage through the assignment of bonused value occurred through the committed struggle of developers, architects, planners, politicians, consultants and others seeking the ability to legitimate what constitutes public amenity.The result is that the relation of cultural production and the dominant interest of economic production is not simply an alignment, but rather cultural production through heritage mechanisms is defined by its role in economic production. A development site under Vancouver's low bulk zoning allocations has relatively limited capital value [Figure 5.1]. However, while planning permission for increased density or residential use provides the capital volume expansion denoted by the vertical arrow, it also brings betterment expectations that could be met through financial expenditure, for instance by the allocation of cash to the City under the CAC framework. Also shown is the horizontal path indicating the convertibility of cultural capital to economic that has been naturalized over the past few decades through the City's heritage programme.This symbolic effort is accomplished through the meta-capital of the local state and originally addressed those buildings with iconic status or otherwise broad public concern for their loss.This course to concentrated economic capital is currently brokered through HRAs that exchange cultural worth with bonused density that is readily convertible to financial means. Key to this process is the failure to question who creates the creator; that is, from where does legitimate cultural value originate.The professionalization of the heritage field through academic credentials and public advocacy, as well as the legitimization of tools such as statements of significance, inventories and registers all provide a means to endow objects with cultural capital, illustrated by the vector originating from a low volume, economically based position to the high culturally centred position. Major development CAPITAL VOLUME + Amen itization + CULTURAL CAPITAL - ECONOMIC CAPITAL 5 rD 0 rrd />o. CAPITAL VOLUME - CULTURAL CAPITAL - ECONOMIC CAPITAL + 114 projects seeking heritage benefits retain consultants to generate this cultural acceptability. In the case of Woodward's, each development team had its own expert to promote the fitness of its heritage consideration. The difficulties presented by a legalised aesthetic paired with the substantial collateral benefits from heritage production makes this pathway a financially preferable means for developers to fulfill betterment expectations. 5.3 Social Space This utility of heritage to capital accumulation is not the autonomous consequence of the maturation of the heritage field or the natural reaction to outside market forces. It is instead the exercise of aestheticization to meet the interests of many of the key players: a beautiful city garners the symbolic profits to politicians for vision, bureaucrats for management and professionals for design.The appeal to beauty is reflected in the 1970s mayoral promise tharconsumption should henceforth follow the cannons of good taste"through the beautification of the city itself. 3" The utility of heritage is that it effectively confers aestheticization through development intensification.While critics argue that heritage suffers abuse by developers and planners "who increasingly cosy up to produce travesties in the name of preservation"with the City"so heritage- conscious that no old building can be demolished," its delivery through planning permission rather than capital expenditure lends its significant political solvency and heritage advocates are likely to accept that any cultural production is better than none. 391 Futher, by precluding other means of heritage legitimization outside of development mechanisms the City Figure 5.1: Means of Capital Volume Expansion 115 reflects the"neo-liberal tactic of presenting its policies as the only solution and obscuring alternative or even existing approaches."This constraint of social space assumes that beneficial outcomes are recognized by the market, and is legitimized by the substantial symbolic capital generated by the international recognition of the Planning Department and, with the profession closely associated with the city's academic community, the latter serves an important role in this consecration.392 The social ability of these actors in the field of power, or positions of high aggregate capital, resonates in sustained efforts to embrace a more inclusive idea of heritage that recognizes cultural worth in minority claims.The broad mandate of heritage—to support"aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations"—makes this amenity particularly vulnerable to appropriation. Claims to address the interest of those wielding limited capital serve to more efficiently introduce development into those geographic and social areas at the edge of the current effective implementation of the amenitization process. Already exercised through the HBRP, the assumption that market capital accumulation is secondary to broad public goals and that benefits conferred on the prior through amenitization are only collateral is the important social work in extending the dominance of those with the greatest ability to determine what constitutes public amenity [Figure 5.2]. 5.4 Avenues of Inquiry As noted in Section 0.5,the reliance on publicly accessible information and analysis of technical data is Figure 5.2: Development Threshold and Assignment of Capital CAPITAL VOLUME ± cultural repository architectural landmark development resource urban cache city identity^ light and air park manifold urbanity + CULTURAL CAPITAL facadism CULTURAL CAPITAL - ECONOMIC CAPITAL ECONOMIC CAPITAL ± architectural style aesthetic streetscape tourist attraction business incubator community stability antiquated waste CAPITAL VOLUME 116 best suited to a generalist approach and serves to encourage further discourse on the relation of public values to the environment. Although the thesis did utilize formal interviews to site the study in relation to amenitization, and professionals and staff provided necessary technical clarification, the methodology substantially relied on the collection and analysis of staff reports, advisory and Council minutes and other tracings of the official representation of the official.The alternate approach is to study more closely the habitus of those agents involved in the production of this portrayal. Olds provides one such study regarding issues of globalization and urban change in the Pacific Rim in general and the Concord Pacific development of the former exposition lands in particular. He notes the importance of social capital—described as the "formation of trusting relationships with diverse people"— derived from his employment by the City of Vancouver Planning Department and other institutions.These connections assisted in"opening doors"abroad while his association with overseas institutions facilitated his reception in Vancouver that"would have been less welcoming if [he] had been based at UBC."Olds further comments on the crucial role of cultural capital, with his access based on his "middle-class white Canadian status," his emphasis on the academic nature of his study, as well as more specific abilities relevant to playing the game of uneven power relations during interviews.The result is that'off the record' personal interviews with some participants remaining anonymous in citations are an important source of research information. This uncommon access to "politicians...lawyers, bankers, journalists, academics, chartered surveyor s and community representatives" provides the basis for his understanding of the "nature of the global actors behind the global flows of capital, ideas and images"that produce the urban environment. 393 While it is important to be mindful that, as noted in Section 0.3, closeness diminishes the possibility of a critical perspective, similar studies regarding the issues raised in this thesis by agents positioned within the field of power could a provide a much more complete illustration of the determination of public value. A more comprehensive study on the ideological continuation of the power apparatus despite the well- documented political shift in Vancouver during the 1970s would enrich the understanding of the role of amenitization in capital accumulation. As part of the activism that precipitated this change, Lorimer and Gutstein provide detailed accounts of development in downtown Canadian cities. Although it appears as though ideological controls afforded by public amenity provision as an exchange for development permission have replaced repressive controls legible in the closed meetings of technical planning and variance boards, a more detailed study is warranted. Of interest would be how one of the most significant criticisms of mid-century planning—namely that decisions appeared arbitrary due to limited access—is not regularly levelled contemporarily against the valuation of rather poorly delineated amenities despite their significant utility to the market. Ray Spaxman, planning consultant and former director of Planning for the City of Vancouver, concluded in a recent study commissioned by the City that the greatest challenge to the current heritage policy is the "lack of public transparency in the calculation of the amount of density that should be awarded to a project," clarifying that"this concerns the pro forma for the project and the way the City determines the value of the loss to the owner as a result of heritage designation." 394 5.5 Conclusion It is the close cooperation between private interest and the public body that defines the amenitization of the city with the space generated via a "political process" a "product literally filled with ideology." 395 Far from an economistic reduction, property investment is "socially constructed,"with the definition of public goods 117 derived from the market and the public interest implicated through its "complicitous silence." 396 Provisioning amenities through physical planning supports a structure"built on a level of trust and cooperation between city authorities and developers that [while] uncommon," nevertheless purports to exact from private development publicly defined benefit. 397 Rather, as the production of space—or urbanism--supplants industrialization as the"motive force of capitalist expansion"the use of repression has changed, but the ideological apparatuses have not: mutual interest defines amenity in a manner that creates economic value while achieving legitimization through the misrecognition of vested capital . 398 Economic exchangeability is neglected by characterizing acts as altruistic efforts involving private capital engaged "with an open heart and an open cheque book." 399 It is the "operation of markets"that now serves as"the instrument of social control."48° Unlike the retired repressive state, these controls act as a "self-deforming cast,"continuously changing from one moment to the next. 4°' This erosion of repressive disciplinary means is characterized by the expansion of the ideological, with the amenity-driven Vancouver"one of the most regulated cities in North America in terms of urban design and built form," and, as described by the City's former Co-director of Planning, the public is pleased with the contro1. 482 5.6 Postscript on the Heritage Field As noted in Section 1.6,the state is neither clearly bounded nor unitary, but rather an ensemble of competing agents and categories of agents struggling for the power of rule associated with the state. Far from the official representation of bureaucracy as a rational instrument, this collection of fields includes both government and nongovernmental actors and is a primary site in the consecration of public value.The valuation of heritage as an object differentiates positions in social space, and the consideration of the field of power--those positions of high combined capital volume—results in a linear opposition between high cultural relative to economic capital on the left with the inverse on the right [Figure 5.3].The understanding of value is thus separated between heritage as archive, style or financial asset.The professions that subscribe to these positions are noted beneath and the civic body that defends it above.The Heritage Commission and Urban Design Panel are comprised of professionals and public members appointed by Council, allowed to provide only recommendations and advice regarding their mandated interest, and keep public minutes from open meetings.483 The valuation of heritage as a financial asset is not subject to public advice, but rather is undertaken by the City's Real Estate Services.The demands placed on City planners working in the Heritage Group suggest a centralized position since the programme only rarely addresses preservation, but is charged with the cultural concerns of the department. Regular meetings between heritage and Real Estate Services staff largely determine the approach to particular heritage projects. The heritage industry in Vancouver is centred on a small number of local consultants.These professionals produce cultural goods and, as both critics and dealers, struggle for the "(mis)recognized, legitimate capital called 'prestige' or'authority – in an economy in which the"only legitimate accumulation consists in making a name for oneself, a known, recognized name, a capital of consecration implying a power to consecrate objects...and therefore to give value, and to appropriate the profits from this operation." 494 Only by "concealing from themselves and others the interests at stake in their practice"can they"obtain the means of deriving profits from disinterestedness," since those that do not"condemn themselves, and not only from an ethical or aesthetic point of view, because they deprive themselves of the opportunities open to those who can recognize the specific demands of this universe."That is, influence is garnered and wielded through positions in advocacy groups, publications of articles and books, commissions from the City backing municipal policy and consultation to owners legitimating historic properties solely through the denial of an 118 economic motivation for heritage identification. As noted in Section 0.3,architecture occupies the unusual position of straddling the divide between the cultural production of the arts and the codified realm of the professions. While at times agents within the architectural field deny economic interest, such as through participation in an invited competition offering an honorarium that fails to cover the true financial expenditure of the firm, these statements of artistic disinterest are made within the codified conditions of entry and license regulation of a profession. 405 Further, misrecognition encourages the failure to acknowledge that delayed economic benefit—in the form of commissions—is often realized through the convertibility of cultural capital garnered by involvement in competitions and publication. Although a survey of the architectural firms designing projects receiving heritage density would indicate that many of the projects are designed by a relatively small number of practices, this trend may be explained by the common scale and form of development of the typical receiver project or by the social relationships already established between individual architects and developers. These pairs are most pronounced in the designated heritage areas where firms seem to specialize in utilizing heritage incentives. Development agents seek the maximization of collateral benefit in the remainder of the study area as well with Section 3.4 demonstrating that financial and physical designs are closely related.838 West Hastings Street provides the most significant example of the art of architecture conditioned by heritage development mechanisms with the cantilevered form tracing the line of the airspace of the designated portions of the historic structures. Authored by an internationally based architect, the development further demonstrates the utility of cultural capital, with local periodicals and the project marketers boasting of the prompt municipal approval and trumpeting the design as the vanguard of a city defying imitation.The utility of an architect's cultural capital in the development process is also visible in the proposal for 1153 Figure 5.3: Heritage Position Taking Relative to the City Bureaucracy Heritage Commission Urban Design Panel^Real Estate Services Archive^Style^Asset Preservationists^Designers Developers + CULTURAL CAPITAL CULTURAL CAPITAL — — ECONOMIC CAPITAL ^ ECONOMIC CAPITAL + 1 1 9 West Georgia Street. Following the rejection of the initial proposal by the Urban Design Panel, the developer commissioned Vancouver's most prodigious architect as design consultant and, more importantly, the "ultimate brand name"association.4°6 With the architect's name already attached to"The Erickson"under construction on the former exposition lands, the Georgia project has instead appropriated his signature. 4°7 The association of prominent architects with projects seeking the greatest density result, as shown in Section 3.3, with their involvement with those structures most likely to meet betterment expectations through heritage amenities.Other development less endowed with the cultural and economic capital of its creators often relies on stylistic referents to the onsite heritage. Critics charge that the aesthetic conditioning of new construction amounts to patische and diminishes the heritage resource. 408 Closest to the economic pole are the professions involved with the crafting of the pro forma analysis. Developers, financiers and marketers work in regards to the dominant economic interest, and cultural capital is recognized only in its convertibility to financial means; unlike other fields that recognize prestige in terms of other criterion ultimately exchangeable to economic, success in this field is directly measured in terms of profitability. As illustrated in Section 3.5, project marketing often engages—though seldom more than superficially—the capital associated with cultural objects. A naming of a project after the building that was controversially cleared from the site due to the reduced economic performance of retention strategies demonstrates this effort. At the site where "the only thing remaining from the original building [is] the name,"the decision to 'memoralize'the record shop"just fit. [People] know where it is and people will always say 'that's where the Black Swan record store was."409 Further, the project's marketer notes that there remains a "good deal of the eclectic, trendy and hip qualities of the namesake" and that"there aren't live jazz performances to go to but you might get together for a coffee below." Most closely aligned with this business approach to land development is the City's Real Estate Services and its management of the Property Endowment Fund. Council established the account in 1975 with objectives to generate a reasonable economic return, assemble a land inventory with greatest ability to preserve and increase the asset value, support public objectives and to convert non-strategic holdings to strategic.'" The management of the fund is decidedly market-driven with the City purchasing, assembling and selling sites to maximize return and fund's assets securing the City's credit rating. Its appropriate role in forwarding municipal interests has proven controversial in recent years, especially as escalating land prices and recent high-profile sales have attracted considerable interest to the $1.3 billion account. 4" With few area-wide development sites available for assemblage, the City is set to become the largest landlord in Vancouver, increasing the conflict generated by the City as both owner and regulator of development.'" 2 In 1997, difficulties related to the often noted "conflict of interest in the public sector's identity as land seller and land regulator" led the City to pay a $1 million unallocated Community Amenity Contribution to rezone the City- owned site to CD-1 zoning for a residential tower.413 Occupying the dominant position in the field of power,the judgment of Real Estate Services has a disciplining influence on agents elsewhere in the heritage field.The effect is amplified since, unlike fields of cultural production, even the most autonomous position recognized by the state, the Vancouver Heritage Commission, has as its mandate not only to advise Council on the need for preserving a representative cross- section of heritage structures and lands, but also the compatibility, cost and benefits of preservation. Minutes reflect that at times it is the Commission arguing heritage value from the position of economic performance, suggesting that development mechanisms have encouraged the continued erosion of a meaningful cultural position in the heritage field. 120 5.7 Chapter Five Notes 386Sandercock 2005:41-42 387 N. Smith 2002:441 388City of Vancouver 2003c 389"Development produced these heritage buildings in the first place. We admire them now, but when they were built they were designed to make money.They weren't built because somebody thought,"I'm going to make the city beautiful, so I'm going to build this building.' Developers don't think that way. Cities change and evolve.That's the pleasure of cities." M. Andrews quotes R. Ward (M. Andrews 1993). 390The Vancouver Sun reported Mayor Art Phillips'"unerring instinct for issues that aim at making Vancouver a beautiful city."His personal lifestyle, characterized as a "manual out of The Beautiful People," reflected this vision. Ley quotes articles written between 1974 and 1977 (Ley 1980:239). 391 R.Ward 1999c 392The public interest in the 1970s centred on a desire for a"liveable downtown full of activity and public amenities," as opposed to building priorities set by"developers and multi-national corporations...to suit their own corporate needs" with Council policies "remarkably similar to what the developers wanted in the first place."Although, the interim decades has seen the rise of amenitization, the products and their definitions ideologically accomplish the same work (Douglas and Derksen 2003:75 and Gutstein 1975:21). Co-directors of Planning until 2006, Larry Beasley and Ann McAfee, along senior planning staff Scot Hein, Michael Gordon and Nathan Edelson serve as professors within the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia.The university's publishing branch, UBC Press, distinguishes planning and urban studies as a particular strength, and its publications include the "seminal guide"of the city's efforts, John Punter's "The Vancouver Achievement,"noted by Beasley as a recognition that"urbanists all over North America and even further afield have started to identify Vancouver as a model city for the future" (Punter 2003).The City of Vancouver awarded the book the 2004 City of Vancouver Heritage Award as well as a Honourable Mention for the 2004 Vancouver Book Award, reinforcing the symbolic capital wielded by the City's planning process. Acting Director of Planning Brent Toderian describes the consecrating efforts of his predecessors as raising "the local and national credibility profile, respect and dignity of the planning profession" (Toderian 2006). 3930Ids is forthcoming on the importance of forming "contacts and friends"to his research. He worked both as staff member and later under contract as a researcher for the planning department—the latter through the University of British Columbia Centre for Human Settlements—and also conducted collaborative research with the Canadian International Development Agency and Tongji University in Shanghai (Olds 2001:250-265). His detailed methodology serves as a resource in itself to the relation of capital and the physical and social space of the city. 394City of Vancouver 2005:16 395"Space has been shaped and molded from historical and natural elements, but this has been a political process" (Lefebvre 1976:31). 396Bourdieu 2006 :187-188 397 Fung 2006. 398Smith, N. and Derksen 2003:90 and Lefebvre 1993:435 399Marketer Bob Rennie defines a "responsible [amenity] package"as one that "will protect value"(Vancouver Sun 2004). 400Deleuze 1992:6 401 Controls serve as a "modulation"analogous to a "sieve whose mesh will transmute from point to point,"while disciplinary societies relied on enclosures acting as"distinct castings"or"molds"(Deleuze 1992:4). 402Warson 2004:50 403The Vancouver Heritage Commission established in 1974 as the Vancouver Heritage Advisory Committee includes one Council member and ten members of the community. Addressing the designated historic areas specifically, the Chinatown Historic Area Planning Committee and Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee also convene.The Urban 121 Design Panel includes six members of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, two members of the Association of Professional Engineers, 2 members from the British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects, one representative of the Vancouver Planning Commission, and one representative of the development industry. 404Bourdieu 1993:75 4°5 Lipstadt 2003:392,410 4°6Sasges 2007 4°2The marketer's comments that the building's signature architect'earned every dollar of his outrageous fee,' while made in good humour, also indicate the economic potential of cultural capital—the architect's garnering of a high consultation fee due to his previous design recognition—without explicitly identifying the utility of this symbolic profit, specifically the municipal approval for development and the economic ability to demand higher prices (Parry 2007). Lipstadt identifies that only through publication does the architect as artist "repossess the creation [he] had sold to the client"and achieve a "semblance of aesthetic autonomy"through the ability to"put the signature on the building" (Lipstadt 2003).This literal manifestation illustrates the continuing cooption of cultural referents through aestheticization. 408Preservationists may decry alterations as "violative or at least misrepresentative of the past" (Lai 1998:230). 409Eustace 2006 410Reference the Council minutes from Nov.6, 2001. 411 The Property Endowment fund was reported as $377 million in 1984 and more than tripled its balance by 2006 under now retired Director of Real Estate Services Bruce Maitland (Vancouver Grappling with Tough Economic Times 1984 and Bula 2006). Recent reports have identified the fund's current balance between $1.6 billion and $1.8 billion. 412 Bruce Maitland commented on the future of the Property Endowment Fund in a Jul.12, 2006 panel discussion titled "Looking Forward, Looking Back: A Panel Discussion with Larry Beasley, Ann McAfee and Bruce Maitland" moderated by the Simon Fraser University City Program. With the City's ownership of 60 percent of the land in the newly developed False Creek Official Development Plan, Council acts in its regulatory capacity to establish land use, urban design and development zoning while"ensuring that development of its lands meets financial objectives"as owner. Reference the administrative report dated Nov.2,2006 with subject"Southeast False Creek Redevelopment: Property Endowment Fund Pro Forma Update." 413 Reference Administrative Report dated Mar.18,2004, with subject"Allocation of Community Amenity Contributions received for the rezoning of 550 Taylor Block (Block 17; also known as 599 Carroll Street and bounded by Carrall, Keefer, Taylor and Pender Streets)." Bibliography 123 Books, Articles and Other Publications Adams, N.1989. Living Stones: A Centennial History of Christ Church Cathedral, 1889-1989.Vancouver: Christ Church Cathedral. Administrative Discretion in Zoning.1969. Harvard Law Review. 82(3):668-685. Agnor,W. 1962. Beauty Begins a Comeback:Aesthetic Considerations in Zoning.Journal of Public Law.11:264. Althusser, L.1971 (1969]. Ideology and Ideological State Apperatuses. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 127-186. New York: Monthly Review Press. Andrews, J. 1997.The Struggle for Walden. Humanist. 57(1):30-33. Andrews, M.1993, Dec. 7.Ward Continues to Chip Away at the Monsters in Our Midst. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. C9. Babcock, R. 1990.The City as Entrepreneur: Fiscal Wisdom or Regulatory Folly? In T. Lassar, ed., City Deal Making, 9-44. Washington: ULI-the Urban Land Institute. Baker, L. 2007, Jan. 17.The Zoning Policy that Worked Too Well. The New York Times Late Ed. C10. Ball, M. 2002.The Organisation of Property Development Professions and Practices. In S. Guy and J. Henneberry, eds., Development & Developers: Perspectives on Property. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd. Barford, C. et al.1993.Welcome to Heritage!: An Introductory Guide to Heritage in Vancouver.Vancouver: Community Arts Council of Vancouver. Barnett, J. 1974. Urban Design as Public Policy: Practical Methods for Improving Cities. New York: Architectural Record Books. Berelowitz, L.2005. Dream City: Vancouver and the Global Imagination. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre Publishing. Berger, R and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc. Bish, R. and E. Clemens.1999. Local Government in British Columbia. 3'd ed. Richmond: Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Blake, C.2002. Afterword: What's Pragmatism Got to Do with It? In J. Ockman, ed., The Pragmatist Imagination, 266-273. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Blanco, H.1994. How to Think About Social Problems: American Pragmatism and the Idea of Planning. Westport: Greenwood Press. Blom ley, N.2004. Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property. New York: Routledge. Blore, S. and J. Sutherland.1999, Nov. Building Smileyville. In Vancouver, 49-58, 105. Boddy,T. 2003, Oct. 11. Meet the Space Gang. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. F 17. -.2005, Aug. 10.'Downtown' A Fool's Paradise? The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B2. Book About Internment Will Ruffle Feathers.1986, Sep. 15. The Ottawa Citizen Final Ed. D2. Bourdieu, P. 1968. Outl ine of a Theory of Art Perception. International Social Science Journal. 20(4):589-612. -.1973a.The Berber House. In M. Douglas, ed., Rules and Meanings: The Anthropology of Everyday Knowledge, 98-110 Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. -.1973b.The Three Forms of Theoretical Knowledge. Social Science Information. 12(1):53-80. -.1984. Distinction:A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. 124 -.1985.The Genesis of the Concepts of 'Habitus' and 'Field: Sociocriticism. 1(2):11-24. -.1986.The Forms of Capital.ln J. Richardson, ed., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, 241-258. Westport: Greenwood Press. -.1987.The Force of the Law:Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. The Hastings Law Journal. 38(5):814-853. -.1989. Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory. 7(1):14-25. -.1990. In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press. -.1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. -.1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. -.1994. Rethinking the State:Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field. Sociological Theory.12(1):1-18. -.1996. The Rules of Art. Cambridge: Polity Press. -. 1998a. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press. -.1998b, Dec.The essence of Neoliberalism. Le Monde Diplomatique English Ed. -.1999. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. -.2000. Pascalian Mediations. Cambridge: Polity Press. -.2002. Habitus. In J. Hillier and E. Rooksby, eds., Habitus: A Sense of Place. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. -.2005. The Social Structures of the Economy. Cambridge: Polity Press. -.2006 . Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Bourdieu, P. and L. Wacquant.1992.An invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P. and P. Passeron.1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Bula, F.1997, Feb. 7. City Councillors Give Go-Ahead for Vancouver's Tallest Building: Approval of the Wall Centro Tower is Linked to a $500,000 Deal That Will Allow the Old Stanley Theatre to Be Converted into a New Live-Theatre Space for the City. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B3. -.2001, Jun.26. Shaughnessy Mansion at Centre of Controversy Over Plan to Save it: City Planners Support the Proposal to Divide the Large Property. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B1. -.2006, Mar.31. City's Real-Estate Manager to Retire: Bruce Maitland Has a Reputation as a Tough Negotiator. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B6. Buow, B. 1996, Aug. 12. City Looking at Higher Skyline:Skyline Review Now In Progress. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Al. Byrne, D. et al. 2001. Social Significance:A Discussion Paper. Huntsville: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Ca rrigg, D. 2004, Jun. 13. Shaughnessy Residents Want to Put a Dent in Density Transfers. The Vancouver Courier. 22. Cayo, D.2006, May 4. From Rail Yard to Urban Dream. The Vancouver Sun. Final Ed. B2. Chopra, R. 2003. Neoliberalism as Doxa: Bourdieu's Theory of the State and the Contemporary Indian Discourse on Globalization and Liberalization. Cultural Studies.17(3-4):419-444. Chow,W. 2000, Jul.23. Downtown Site for Sale; Asking Price $16.5 Million:The 30,000-Square-Foot Property is Adjacent to a SkyTrain Station and the Bay Department Store. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Fl. -.2001, May 23. $35-Million Retail-Office Complex Slated for Granville and Dunsmuir:Vancouver Developer Say Defeat of the NDP Means More Buildings Will Be Constructed. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. D1. 125 -.2002, Jul.30. Disabled Access Wins Rezoning: $100-Million Project Encourages City's Approval After Unique Deal Reached With Developer, Wyng Chow Writes. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed.D1. Christ Church Cathedral. Undated. Christ Church Cathedral: A Brief History. Vancouver: Christ Church Cathedral. City of Seattle. 2006, Apr.3. Downtown Zoning Adopted by City Council. City of Seattle: Dept. of Planning and Development. Claxton, M. 2005a, Jan.26. Council Okays 'Monstrous' Condos. Vancouver Courier. -.2005b. City Benefits Bigtime from Cambie Project. Vancouver Courier. Codd, J. 1990. Making Distinctions:The Eye of the Beholder. In R. Harker et al., eds.,An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu:The Practice of Theory. London: Macmillan Press. Collier, R. 1978. Downtown: Metropolitan Focus. In L. Evenden, ed., Vancouver: Western Metropolis, 159-178.Victoria: Univ. of Victoria. Colombo, J. 1984. Canadian Literary Landmarks. Willowdale: Hounslow Press. Costonis, J.1974. Space Adrift: Saving Urban Landmarks through the Chicago Plan. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press. -.1975. Development Rights Transfer: An Exploratory Essay. The Yale Law Journal. 83(1):75-128. -. 1982. Law and Aesthetics: A Critique and a Reformulation of the Dilemmas. Michigan Law Review. 80(3):355-461. -.1989.1cons and Aliens. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press. Constantineau, B.1991, Apr. 9. Hotel Complex to cost $250 million: Huge Hotel, Office Complex Planned for Downtown. The Vancouver Sun 4th ed. C6. Council Reads it Right. 1992, Oct.5. The Vancouver Sun 1" Ed. A10. Cuthbert, A. 2006. The Form of Cities: Political Economy and Urban Design. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Crawford, M. 1991. Can Architects Be Socially Responsible? in D. Ghirardo, ed., Out of Site:A Social Criticism of Architecture. Seattle: Bay Press. Crow, S. 1998. Planning Gain:There Must Be a Better Way. Planning Perspectives.13(4):357-372. Daniels, A. 1995,Jan. 24. Final Piece in Place to Complete Wall Centre:Wall:Still in Concept Stage. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Dl. Deleuze, G. 1992. Postscript on the Societies of Control. October. 59:3-7. Denhez, M. 1979. Protecting the Built Environment. Ottawa: Heritage Canada. (30) Dianteill, E. 2003. Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion:A Central and Peripheral Concern. Theory and Society. 32(5-6):551-565. Dovey, K.1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. New York: Routledge. -.2002.The Silent Complicity of Architecture. In J. Hillier and E. Rooksby, eds., Habitus: A Sense of Place. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. Duerksen, C. and R. Goebel. 1999.Aesthetics, Community Character and the Law. Chicago: American Planning Association. Eustace, C.2006, Dec. 16. Another Black Swan: Former Kitsilano Record Shop Takes Flight as Luxe Four-Storey Apartment Building. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. E1. Evans. A. 2004a. Economics and Land Use Planning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 126 -. 2004b. Economics, Real Estate and the Supply of Land. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Falkner, A.1977. Without Our Past? Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2002. Early Warning: Will Canadian Cities Compete? National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Feiss, C. 1983. Our Lost Inheritance. In D. Maddex, ed., With Heritage So Rich, 113-121. Washington: Preservation Press. Field, B. and J. Conrad.1975. Economic Issues in Programs of Transferable Development Rights. Land Economics. 51(4):331- 340. Fisher,T. 2000. In the Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Flint, J. and Rowlands, R.2003. Commodification, normalisation and intervention: Cultural, Social and Symbolic Capital in Housing Consumption and Governanceiouma/ of Housing and Built Environment. 18:213-232. Fong, P.1999, Jul.28. Council Vetoes School Donation: Councillors Say if Money is Needed for Education, it Should Come from the Province. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Al. Ford, A.1996, Oct. 4. Goin'South: Interest Grows in Downtown Living. The Province Final Ed.A44. Foucault, M.1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1:An Introduction, 93-102. New York: Vintage Books. Freedman, A.1991, Sep. 7. Modernism vs. Money:The Case Unfolds On the West Coast. The Globe and Mail. Cl 1. French, W.1981, Jun.20. No Greater Argument for a Bill of Rights that Is Out of Reach of Politicians: Obasan. The Globe and Mail. E15. Frow, J. 1998. Metacapital: A Response to Pierre Bourdieu. Polygraphy. 10:33-38. Frug,G.1980.The City as Legal Concept. Harvard Law Review. 93(6):1057-1154. Fung, R. 2006, Jun. 24. Gastown's Message to the World. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Ll. Garnham, N. 1984. Extended Review: Bourdieu's 'Distinction'. The Sociological Review. 34(2):423-433. Garnham, N. and R.Williams.1980. Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Culture: An Introduction. Media, Culture and Society. 2(3):225-254. George, H.1949. Protection or Free Trade: An Examination of the Tariff Question, with Especial Regard to the Interests of Labor. New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. Goodman, R. 1995. Introduction. In R. Goodman, ed., Pragmatism:A Contemporary Reader, 1-21. New York. Routledge. Gruft, A. and R.Windsor-Liscombe.1992, Oct.17. For the Love of the Modern, Save the Library. The Vancouver Sun 1" Ed. A15. Gutstein, D. 1975. Vancouver Ltd. Toronto: James Lorimer. -.1983.Vancouver. In W. Magnusson and A. Sancton, eds., City Politics in Canada, 189-221. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. -.1990. The New Landlords: Asian Investment in Canadian Real Estate. Victoria: Porcepic Books. Guy, S. and J. Henneberry. 2002. Approaching Development. In S. Guy and J. Henneberry, eds., Development & Developers: Perspectives on Property. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. 2003. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Canada: Parks Canada. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO). 1942. Report on the Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment (Uthwatt Report). Cmd. 6386. 127 Healy, P. et al. 1995. Negotiating Development: Rationales and Practice for Development Obligations and Planning Gain. London: E & FN Spon. Hagman, D. 1978a. Chapter 10: Planning and Regulatory Acquisition. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation, 222-255. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. -.1978b. Chapter 11: Compensable Regulation. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation, 256-307. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. -. 1978c. Chapter 21: Betterment for Worsenment:The English 1909 Act and Its Progeny. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation, 491-516. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Hagman, D. and D. Misczynski. 1978. Executive Summary. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation, xxix-xliv. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Hagman, D. and J. Juerg ensmeyer. 1986. Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co. Hamilton, S. 1978.The Land Market in Metropolitan Vancouver. In L. Evenden, ed., Vancouver: Western Metropolis, 201-218. Victoria: Univ. of Victoria. Hardwick, W. 1994. Responding to the 1960s: Designing Adaptable Communities in Vancouver. Environment and Behavior. 26(3):338-362. Harker, R. 1990. Education and Cultural Capital. In R. Harker et al., eds., An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu: The Practice of Theory. London: Macmillan Press. Harries, Ka rsten.1996. The Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press. Harvey, D.1985. The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization. Baltimore:John Hopkins Univ. Press. -.1989. From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism:The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography. 71(1):3-17. Hillier, J. 2002. Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. New York: Routeledge. Hillier, J. and E. Rooksby. 2002. Introduction. In J. Hillier and E. Rooksby, eds., Habitus:A Sense of Place. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. Hooray! for Heritage. 2006. Heritage Vancouver Newsletter. 15(3):1 Hosmer, C.1983. Introduction to the New Edition. In D. Maddex, ed., With Heritage So Rich, 9-18.Washington: Preservation Press. Inimitable Downtown: Cultural, Environmental Sensitivities Guide Jameson House Design. 2006, Apr.1. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. K1. Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. -.1984. Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life. New York: Random House. Jacobsen, F. and C. McHenry. 1978. Chapter 14: Exactions on Development Permission. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensationi, 342-366. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Jenkins, R.2002. Pierre Bourdieu: Revised Edition. London: Routledge. Johnson, A.1995. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology:A User's Guide to Sociological Language. Oxwell: Blackwell Publishers. 128 Johnson, L. 2006.Valuing the Arts:Theorising and Realising Cultural Capital in an Australian City. Geographical Research. 44(3):296-309. Johnson, R.1993. Editor's Introduction: Pierre Bourdieu on Art, Literature and Culture. In P. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York:Columbia Univ. Press. Joseph, 1.2002. Reconsidering Pragmatism and the Chicago School. In J.Ockman, ed., The Pragmatist Imagination, 186-195. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Kalman, H.1974. Exploring Vancouver: Ten Tours of the City and Its Buildings. Vancouver: UBC Press. -.1980. The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Ottawa: Parks Canada Kayden,J.1990. Zoning for Dollars: New Rules for an Old Game? Comments on the Municipal Art Society and Nolan Cases. In T. Lassar, ed., City Deal Making, 97-138. Washington: ULI-the Urban Land Institute. Kerr, A. Writing Statements of Significance: Making the Case for Heritage Conservation. May 29, 2003.Vancouver. Kiefer, M. 2001. Privatizing Creation of the Public Realm:The Fruits of New York City's Incentive Zoning Ordinance. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 28(4):637-650. Kogawa,J.1974.A Choice of Dreams.Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd. -.1983.The Enemy Within. In the Toronto Arts Group for Human Rights, ed. The Writer and Human Rights, 206-210.Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys Ltd. Kostof, 5.1991. The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History. London:Thames and Hudson. Kumar, S.2002.Canadian Urban Design Practice:A Review of Urban Design Regulations. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. 11(2):239-263. Lai, R.1988. Law in Urban Design and Planning: The Invisible Web. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Lapoujade, D. 2002. From Network to Patchwork. In J. Ockman, ed., The Pragmatist Imagination, 52-61. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Lazarus, E.2006, Feb.27. Eastside Smarts: How the Woodward's Condo Development in Vancouver's Notorious Downtown Eastside Is Being Marketed as an Intelligent Investment in a Hot Market. Marketing Magazine.16. Lebaron, F.2003. Pierre Bourdieu: Economic Models Against Economism. Theory and Society. 32:551-565. Lee,11992, Oct. 1.Viewpoints Vary on Old Library:Is it a Liability or a Legacy? The Vancouver Sun 1" Ed. B6. -.1993, Jul.23. Library's Fate Rests on Re-zoning Arrangement. The Vancouver Sun 2'd Ed. B1. -.1994,Jan.17. Skinny Tower Gets Big Fat No From Residents. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B1. Lee, M.1997. Relocating Location:Cultural Geography, the Specificity of Place and the City Habitus. In J. McGuigan, ed., Cultural Methodologies, 126-141. London: Sage Publications. Lefebvre, H. 1976. Reflections on the Politics of Space.Antipode 8(2):30-37. -.1993.The Right to the City. In J. Ockman, ed. Architecture Culture, 1943-1968: A Documentary Anthology, 428-436. New York: Columbia Books of Architecture. Lehmann-Rommel, R.2000.The Renewal of Dewey -Trends in the Nineties. Studies in Philosophy and Education 19:187- 218. Lemon, R.1989. Rehabilitation Principles and Guidelines. Victoria: British Columbia Heritage Trust. Ley, D.1980. Liberal Ideology and the Postindustrial City.Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 70(2):238-258. Ley, D. and K. Olds.1988. Landscape as Spectacle: Worlds Fairs and the Culture of Heroic Consumption. Environment and 129 Planning D: Society and Space. 6:191-212. Lipstadt, H. 2003. Can 'Art Professions' be Bourdieuean Fields of Cultural Production? The Case of the Architecture Competition. Cultural Studies.17(X):390-418. Lorimer, J. 1972. A Citizen's Guide to City Politics.Toronto: James Lorimer. Lynch, K.1972. What Time is this Place? Cambridge: MIT Press. MacDonald, N. 1987. Distant Neighbors: A Comparative History of Seattle and Vancouver. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press. Mackie, J.1998, Mar. 14. Heritage at Stake:The Impending Destruction of Some of Vancouver's Most Important Old Buildings Brings Fears of Lost Links with Our Past. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Fl . -.2000, Apr. 12. Curtain Rises on New Dance Centre:Vancouver's Dance Community Applauds Start of Construction of Their Arthur Erickson-Designed Space. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B4. -.2001, Jul.17. 113 Year-Old Granville Building in Peril:Crewe Block Believed To Be Oldest on Granville. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Bl. -.2006, Sep.16. Last Days of a Vancouver Icon. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. D5. Martin, J. 2003.What is Field Theory? American Journal of Sociology.109(1):1-49. Martin, S. 1982, Apr. 10. Joy Kogawa's Novel Has Changed Her Life:It should Change Many Other Lives too. The Globe and Mail. El 6. McGowa n, J. 1998.Towards a Pragmatist Theory of Action. Sociological Theory. 16(3):292-297. McMartin, P.2005, Nov. 7. Setting Only Part of a Great City. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Bl. -.2006, Apr. 8.Woodward's Opens Door to Cutting-Edge Condo Living. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Bl. McQuade, B.1995, May 13. Loft Living Leaves the Old Warehouse Behind: New Buildings Make Up in Amenities What They Lose in Romance. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. E2. -.1996, Apr.27. Heritage Rises In a New Form: A Humble Art Deco Building Becomes the Base of an Upscale Retail-and- Condo Tower in Yaletown. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. El. The Mean Streets of Arcadia; Vancouver's Homeless. 2004, Nov.20. The Economist U.S. Ed. Milner, J. 1958. Cases and Materials on the Law and Administration of Community Planning.Toronto: Publisher. Mingione, E.1981. Social Conflict and the City. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Miscynski, D. 1978. Chapter 5: Land-Use Controls and Property Values. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation, 75-111. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Mitchell, K.2004. Crossing the Neoliberal Line: Pacific Rim Migration and the Metropolis. Philadelphia:Temple Univ. Press. Montgomery, C. 1996, Aug. 13. Bid for the Highest Building Takes Step Upward:Vancouver's Development Board Supports the 135-metre-high Hotel, but Final Approval Will Have To Come from City Council. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Bl. Morley, S. 2002.The Financial Appraisal of Development Projects. In S. Guy and J. Henneberry, eds., Development & Developers: Perspectives on Property. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd. Move Is On to Rouse Public Interest in Heritage Architecture. 1990, Feb.16. The Vancouver Sun 3'd Ed. D4. Mulgrew, 1.1999, Oct. 16. End in Sight for Gastown's Long Struggle to Define Itself: It's Been 28 Years Since the Area Lost Control of Its Future After Being 'Temporarily' Designated a Heritage Site. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B7. Mumford, L.1961. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations and Its Prospects. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 130 Nedelsky, J. 1990. Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism: The Madisonian Framework and Its Legacy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Nelson, R.1977. Zoning and Property Rights: An Analysis of the American System of Land-Use Regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press. New York City.1976. Zoning Handbook: A Guide to the New York City Zoning Resolution. New York: Department of City Planning. Oberlander,J., H. Kalman and R. Lemon.1989. An Introduction to Heritage Conservation. Technical Paper Series (British Columbia Heritage Trust) 9. Panofsky, E.1968 (1951). Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. Cleveland: Meridian Books. Parker, H.1954.The Financial Aspects of Town and Country Planning Legislation. The Economic Journal. 64(253):72-86. Parry, M. 1997, Oct.16. City Sign Bylaw Keeps Plans for Dance Centre in Limbo. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B5. -.2007, Nov. 15. Developer Proud To Put Arthur Erickson on City Skyline. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. C4. Parton, N.1994, Feb.7. Buildings Seem to Disappear at 'New Spirit of Vancouver.' The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B1. Peillon, M.1998. Bourdieu's Field and the Sociology of Welfare.Journal of Social Policy. 27:213-229. Price, G.2003, Nov.1.The Vancouver Style. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association Newsletter. Online: http:// www.spur.org . Province of British Columbia: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture.1991. Carrots: Methods for Local Government to Give Assistance to Heritage Property Owners in British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia. Pruetz, R.1997. Saved by Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights. Burbank: Arje Press. -.2003. Beyond Takings and Givings: Saving Natural Areas, Farmland, and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights and Density Transfer Charges. Marina Del Rey: Arje Press. Punter,J.2002. Urban Design as Public Policy: Evaluating the Design Dimension of Vancouver's Planning System. International Planning Studies. 7(4):265-282. -.2003. The Vancouver Achievement: Urban Planning and Design. Vancouver: UBC Press. Pryke, M. and Du Gay, P.2002. Property Companies and the Remaking of Markets: Stories from the 1990s. In S. Guy and J. Henneberry, eds., Development & Developers: Perspectives on Property. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd. Rajchman, J. 2002. General Introduction. In J. Ockman, ed., The Pragmatist Imagination, 6-15. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Reed-Danahay, D. 2005. Locating Bourdieu. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Reilly,W. 1973. The Use of Land:A Citizen's Policy Guide to Urban Growth. New York: Crowell. Replogle, D.1978. Chapter 18:The Uthwatt Proposal. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation, 422-425. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Rowe, M., ed. 2001. C5: Historic First Meeting of Canadian Mayors with Jane Jacobs. Ideas that Matter 2(1):3-27. Ruvey, R.1957. The Economics of Real Property. London: George Allan and Unwin. Sandercock, L 2005. An Anatomy of Civic Ambition in Vancouver:Towards Humane Density. Hard Design Magazine 22:36- 43. Sandercock, L. and K. Dovey.2002. Pleasure, Politics, and the 'Public Interest': Melbourne's Riverscape Reivatilzation. Journal 131 of American Planning Association. 68(2):151-164. Sarti, R.1997, Feb. 12. Condo Owners Find Renovated Units Violate City Regulations. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. B3. Sasges, M. 2007, Nov.10. Latest Apartment Over Hotel Really,Truly Up There: Ritz-Carleton Homes Will Rise 60 Floors Above Georgia Street. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. K2. Schnidman,F.1978.Chapter 23:Transferable Development Rights (TDR). In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation, 532-552. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Scott, M.1999, May 5. Dream of a Dance Centre an Art of Work. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. A 1 . Shangri-La To Ante Up $17M. 2004, Oct. 2. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. II. Shirvani, H.1985. The Urban Design Process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Shockley, G. 2005.Whither Bourdieuan Cultural Capital?: At the Crossroads of Sociology and Economics. International Institute of Sociology. Shubik, M. 1999. Culture and Commerce.Journal of Cultural Economics. 23(1-2):13-30. Smith, D.1995, Mar. 25. An Electrifying Transformation. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. El 1. Smith, N.1996. The New Urban Frontier. New York: Routledge. -.2002. New Globalism, New Urbanism.Antipode.34(3):427-450. Smith, N. and J. Derksen. 2003. Urban Regeneration: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. In R. Shier, ed., Stan Douglas: Every Building on 100 West Hastings, 59-92.Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press. Smith, P. and Stewart, K.2003. Beavers and Cats Revisited: Creatures and Tenants vs. Municipal Charter(s) and Home Rule. Institue of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University. Sommers, J. and N. Blomley. 2003.The Worst Block in Vancouver. In R. Shier, ed., Stan Douglas: Every Building on 100 West Hastings,18-58. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press. Spaxman, R. 1991. City Planning. In I. Jackson, ed., The Future of Cities in Britain and Canada: Proeedings of a Canada/UK Colloquium, Val Morin,Quebec, Canada, 88-96. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing. Stein, L.1971.The Municipal Power to Zone in Canada and the United States:A Comparative Study. Canadian Bar Review. 49(4):534-556. Steinberg,T. 1995. Slide Mountain of The Folly of Owning Nature. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. Stevens, G. 1996.The Historical Demography of Architects. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 55(4):435- 453. Stuhr, J. 2003.1ntroduction. In J. Stuhr, ed., Pragmatism, Postmodernism, and the Future of Philosophy, 1-6. New York: Routledge. Swartz, D.2003. Drawing Inspiration from Bourdieu's Sociology of Symbolic Power. Theory and Society. 32:519-528. Taylor, C.1991, Oct. 10. Budget-Cutting Politicians are Throwing Away $13 Million. The Vancouver Sun 1" Ed. Al. Tennant, P. 1981.Vancouver Civic Politics, 1929-1980.In L. Feldman, ed., Politics and Government of Urban Canada: Selected Readings. 4th ed., 126-147. Agincourt: Methuen Publications. Terdiman, R. 1987.Translator's Introduction. The Hastings Law Journal. 38(5):805-813. Thompson, L. and B. Hayes. 1991. Companions to Literature:A Teacher's Guide for "Obasan." Mississauga: S.B.F. Media Limited. Thompson, M. 1979. Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 132 Throsby, D.1994.The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics.Journal of Economic Literature. 32(1):1-29. -.1995. Culture, Economics and Sustainability.loumal of Cultural Economics. 19:199-206. -. 1999. Cultural Capital.Journal of Cultural Economics. 23(1-2):3-12. Tindal, C. and S.Tindal. 2004. Local Government in Canada. 6th ed. Scarborough: Nelson Thomson Learning. Todd, E. 1992. The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada: 2"d Edition 1992. Scarborough: Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing. Toderian, B. 2006, Dec.15. On the Shoulder of Giants. Scenario Plus:A Monthly Newsletter for Planners to Exchange News and Views. Turvey, R.1953. Development Charges and the Compensation-Betterment Problem. Economic Journal. 63(250)299-317. Twigg, A.1986. Vancouver and Its Writers. Madeira Park: Harbour Publishing Co. Ltd. Vancouver Grappling with Tough Economic Times.1984, Nov. 9. The Globe and Mail. R8. Wacquant, L.1989.Towards a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory. 6(1):26-63. Ward, D. 2004, Sep.24.The Future is Now. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. Al. Ward, N. 1988. Heritage Conservation:The Built Environment. Environment Canada Working Paper No.44. Ward, R.1988. Heritage Conservation in British Columbia. UBC Law Review 22(1): 61-106. -.1990,Jun.16. Melding the Past with the Future: Not Every Old Building is Worth Saving. But Some Could Be Part of a Creative Downtown Revitalization. The Vancouver Sun 3rd Ed. Dl. -.1995, Feb. 18. Between a Rock and a Hard Place on the Library. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. D5. -.1996, Mar. 9. Ned Pratt: An Architect Ahead of His Time. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. D7. -.1998, Dec. 9. Stanley Makeover Deserves Standing Ovation:The Granville Street Theatre Has Been Updated in a Way that Retains Its History and Its Neighbourhood Character. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. C4. -.1999a, Feb. 10. Cathedral Changes Threaten Its Soul: Christ Church Cathedral Became a Designated Heritage Site in 1974, but now the 110-year-old Building's Character is Being Compromised by Restoration Work that Violates its Integrity. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. C4. -.1999b, Mar.10. Uniform Highrises Sully What Design Should Be: Building Designs in Downtown South Represent a Computer-Aided Conformity that Contradicts the Essence of Architecture. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. C5. -.1999c, Apr. 21. Design for Dance Centre Compromises Everyone. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. C5. Warson, A.2004. Lotus Land Grows Up. Building. 54(5): 48-51. Webb, J. et al.2002. Understanding Bourdieu. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd. Weller, J. 1986, Oct.4.Japanese Girl's Story Spun for Sensitive Youngsters. The Ottawa Citizen Final Ed. H8. Whitehill, W.1966 (1983).The Right of Cities to Be Beautiful. In D. Maddex, ed., With Heritage So Rich, 149-160.Washington: The Preservation Press. Will, G. 2004. Facadism. Vancouver Review. 2. Williams, N.1966. The Structure of Urban Zoning and Its Dynamics in Urban Planning and Development. New York: Buttenheim Publishing Corp. -.1985.American Land Planning Law.Volume 5. Wilmette: Callaghan and Co. 133 Wilson, P. 1992,Jan. 23.'Ugly' Building Worth Saving? The Vancouver Sun 1" Ed. C5. Windsor-Liscombe, R.1992, Feb.3. Library Building an 'Oasis'On Valued Land. The Vancouver Sun 1" ed. A11. YMCA Project Will Protect Heritage.2004, Feb.16. Journal of Commerce. 3. Young, G., ed.1943.Country and Town: A Summary of the Scott and Uthwatt Reports. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Vancouver Municipal Documents Note: Documents listed alphabetically by year released. Most sources dated 1999 or later are accessible through the municipal website at <http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning >.There is also limited online access to earlier sources. Others may be accessed through the Community Services Group Library or the Vancouver City Archives. See Appendix A for full listing of policy documents used in the construction of databases. City of Vancouver.1929. A Plan for the City of Vancouver, British Columbia Including Point Grey and South Vancouver and a General Plan of the Region. Prepared by Harland Bartholomew and Associates.Vancouver:Town Planning Commission. -.1956. City of Vancouver Development Plan: Downtown Vancouver 1955-1976.Vancouver:Technical Planning Board. -.1957.Vancouver Redevelopment Study. Vancouver: Planning Dept. for the Housing Research Committee. -.1968 .Zoning and Development By-Law No. 3575.Vancouver: Planning Dept. -.1981.8 Years After: Case Studies Under Discretionary Zoning in Vancouver. Prepared by Patricia French Ltd.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.1988. Downtown Vancouver: Planning Strategies for a Changing World.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. and Vancouver City-Planning Commission. -.1990 [19891.View Protection Guidelines.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.1991.Central Area Plan:Goals and Land Use Policy.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.1993 . Downtown South Goals and Policies.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.1994. Discretionary Zoning: Backgrounder.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.1997. Hotel Density Increase Limitations for Heritage Density Transfer. -.1998. Downtown Eastside Report #5:Victory Square Area Concept Plan.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.1999a.Vancouver Trends. Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.1999b.Vancouver's Urban Design:A Decade of Achievements.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2001.The Gastown Heritage Management Plan. Prepared by The Spaxman Consulting Group Ltd.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2002a. Evaluation of the City of Vancouver's Heritage Density Transfer System. Prepared by Coriolis Consulting Corp. Vancouver:City Planning Dept. -.2002b. Financing Growth Review:Technical Supplement. Vancouver: City Planning Dept. and City Dept. of Financial Planning and Treasury. -.2002 .Transfer of Density Policy and Procedure.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2002 [19861. Heritage Policies and Guidelines.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2003a. Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program Policies and Procedures for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Street Corridor.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. 134 -.2003b. Heritage Facade Rehabilitation Program Policies and Procedures for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Street Corridor.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2003c. Heritage Fact Sheet 1:Vancouver Heritage Conservation Program.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2003d. Heritage Fact Sheet 5: Municipally Protected Heritage Buildings in Vancouver.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2003e.Vancouver's New Neighbourhoods:Achievements in Planning and Urban Design.Vancouver:City Planning Dept. -.2003 [19751. DD (Except Downtown Sout) C5, C6, HA-1 and HA-2 Character Area Descriptions. -.2004a.Area Calculation and Tracing Overlay Requirements.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004b. Community Amenity Contributions -Through Rezonings.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004c. Heritage Fact Sheet 2:Vancouver Heritage Register.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004d. Heritage Fact Sheet 3: Municipal Heritage Designation.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004e. Heritage Fact Sheet 4: Municipal Revitalization Agreements.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004f. Heritage Fact Sheet 6: Historic Areas: Gastown, Chinatown and Yaletown.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004g. Heritage Fact Sheet 7: Heritage Conservation Principles.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004h. Heritage Fact Sheet 8:Vancouver Heritage Commission.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004i.Woodward'ss Developer Recommendation.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004 . Downtown South Guidelines (Excluding Granville Street).Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2004 . Financing Growth - Paying for City Facilities to Serve a Growing Population:The Role of City-Wide Charges on New Development:Technical Supplement.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. and City Dept. of Financial Planning and Treasury. -.2005. Greencroft Transfer of Density Study. Prepared by The Spaxman Consulting Group Ltd.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2005 .Vancouver Heritage Register.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2005 . Community Amenity Contributions - Through Rezonings.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2005 . Downtown District Interim Policies for New Residential in Areas C and F; and for Conversion of Existing Office Space to Residential Use. Vancouver: City Planning Dept. -.2006. Office Built Form and Characteristics in Downtown Vancouver.Vancouver:City Planning Dept. Appendices 136 Appendix A: Supporting City of Vancouver Reports, By-laws and Policies Reports for Council: Ackerman, R. 2005, Oct.18. Administrative Report. Subject: Civic Theatres Capital Projects. Anonymous.1995,Jun. 6. Policy Report: Building and Development [sic]. Subject: Eligibility for Heritage Density Bonus - 901 Seymour Street. -.1995, Jun 14.Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development:750 Burrard Street D.A. 217660 - CD-1 By-law Number 7246. -.1995,Jun.30. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 1202-92 West Georgia Street. -.1995, Sep. 15. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 1100-1114 Burnaby Street. -.1995,Jan.22. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Heritage Density Transfers in the Central Area. -.1996, Jan.19. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 1005 Beach Avenue. -.1996, May 2. Policy Report: Development and Buildings [sic]. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 901-67 and 940-90 Seymour Street. -.1996, Mar. 28. Administrative Report. Subject: Land Request - Dance Foundation (Vancouver Dance Centre). -.1996,Jul.11.Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development - 811 Hamilton Street D.E.401318 - CD-1 By-law Number 7340 Owner of Development - Bosa Ventures Inc. -.1996,Jul.12. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 2750 Granville Street (Stanley Theatre). -.1996,Jul.16. Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development - 1003 Burnaby Street D.E. 401274 - CD-1 By-;aw Number 7006 Owner of Development - Cressey Development Corp. -.1996, Sep.10. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: 1001 Hornby Street (1000 Burrard Street) - DE401256 Wall Centre Phase II - Hotel Tower Proposal. -.1997,Jan.13. Policy Report. Subject: Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study - Wall Centre II. -.1997, Jan.21. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Policy for Residential Rezonings in the Central Business District and Related Zoning Amenities. -.1997, Mar.12. Policy Report: Building and Development [sic]. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 1762 Davie Street (including Transfer of Heritage Density from 750 Burrard Street). -.1996, Apr.10. Administrative Report. Subject: Dance Foundation (Vancouver Dance Centre) - Site Clarification. -.1997, Apr.30. Administrative Report.Subject:Warning to Prospective Purchasers of Individual Strata Lots at 1238 Seymour Street. -.1997, May 30. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Text Amendment: 550 Burrard Street (Bentall V). -.1997,Jul.15. Policy Report: Building and Development [sic]. Subject: Heritage Density Bonus Policy and Transfer of Density Policy - Proposed Amendments. -.1998, Feb.18. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed CD-1 Text Amendment for 750 Pacific Boulevard. -.2004, Jul.9. Administrative Report. Subject: 750 Pacific Boulevard (Plaza of Nations) - Rezoning Conditions. Baxter,J. 2002, Aug.19. Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development:1005 Beach Avenue. Bayne, K.2005,Jan.17. Administrative Report. Subject: Southeast False Creek Redevelopment: Financial Plan and Strategy. -.2006, Nov.2. Administrative Report. Subject: Southeast False Creek Redevelopment: Property Endowment Fund Pro Forma Update. Beasley, L.2004, Jun. 9. Memorandum. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning of 33 West Pender Street. -.2005, Jan.19. Memorandum. Subject:201 Burrard Street (Burrard Landing): CD-1 Text Amendment. -.2005, Jul.13. Memorandum. Subject: Rezoning of 898 Seymour Street and 887-897 Richards Street from DD to CD-1: Community Amenity Contribution. -.2005,Jun.15. Memorandum. Subject: Rezoning & Heritage Revitalization Agreements - 826-848 West Hastings Street: Building Height and Heritage Revitalization Agreements. Boons, B. 2006, Oct.25. Administrative Report. Subject: 955 Burrard Street - YMCA. 137 -.2006, Nov. 28. Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development: 1762 Davie Street. Brunette,T. 2002,Jan. 11. Administrative Report. Subject: 626 West Pender Street (London Building) - Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2003, Jun.11.Administrative Report: Building and Development [sic]. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement & Designation - 900 Main Street. Brunette,T. and K. Hemmingson.2004, Apr.28. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation for'The Ellison Building'- 1226 Homer Street. Challis, L.2001, Feb.27. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning -1175 Broughton Street. Cho, M.1999, Oct.19.Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development: 940 Seymour Street. D'Agostini, M. 2002,Jul.19. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Gastown Heritage Management Plan. -.2002, Oct.30. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Property Tax Incentives for Heritage Properties in Chinatown. -.2003,Jun.9.Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Incentives Implementation for Gastown and Chinatown. -.2003, Jul.29. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Heritage Incentives for Hastings Street. Drewitt, D. 2006, Nov.1. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Text Amendment:1762 Davie Street. Duncan, A.2002,Jun. 11. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Text Amendment Harbour Green Neighbourhood - 1199 West Hastings - Restaurant. -.2003, Aug.25. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 1201 West Hastings Street. -.2004, Mar.9. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 1380 Hornby Street. -.2004, Mar.9. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 1475 Howe Street. -.2004, Jun.8. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 1001-1015 Denman Street. Flanigan, M. 2004, Sep.20. Administrative Report. Subject: Woodward's - 101 West Hastings Street: Requests for Proposals - Developer Selection. -.2004, Mar. 23. Administrative Report.Subject:Woodward's - 101 West Hastings Street: Urban Design Guidelines. -.2005, Sep. 6. Administrative Report. Subject: Woodward's - 101 West Hastings Street: Design Development Update. Flanigan, M. and P. Mondor.2006, Mar. 21. Memorandum. Subject: Woodward's CD-1 Rezoning. French,T.2004, Apr.19. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Downtown District Interim Policies for Residential. Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee.2001,Jan.17. Recommendation of Gastown as Historic District o fNational Significance. Gates, R. 2004, Nov.30.Administrative Report. Subject: Approval of Sublease at #300-1140 West Pender Street to the Community Legal Assistance Society. Gerwing, K and M. McGuire. 2006, Jul. 4. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Text Amendment - 1128 West Hastings Street. Gordon, M.1999, Sep. 8. Policy Report: Development and Buildings [sic]. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 600 Nicola Street. -.2005, Sep.7. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed Elimination of Pacific Centre Atrium and Replacement with Alternative Public Benefit - 777 Dunsmuir Street (Holt Renfrew, Pacific Centre). Gray, C.2000, Jan.5. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Development of 1125 Pacific Blvd. and CD-1 Text Amendment - Yaletown Edge, Concord Pacific Place. -.2000, Dec.4. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Development of 1299 W. Hastings and Text Amendments to Coal Harbour ODP and Harbour Green CD-1 (Bylaw No.7681). -.2001, Apr.2.Administrative Report. Subject:Amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Development of 1299 W. Hastings St. Harvey, 5.1998, Jan.16. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Amenity Bonus Proposal - 488 Robson Street. -.1998, Jul.21.Administrative Report. Subject: 1998 Capital Budget:City-owned Cultural Facilities. -.1999, Apr. 20. Administrative Report. Subject: Amenity Bonus Proposal - 955 Richards Street. -.2000, Jun.14.Administrative Report. Subject: 837 Davie Street - Lease of Amenity Bonus Facility & Capital Allocation. -.2001, Sep.4.Administrative Report. Subject: Amenity Bonus Proposal - 1133 Seymour Street. -.2001, Nov. 28. Administrative Report. Subject:Vancouver Dance Foundation - Capital Grant Request. -.2003, Mar.5.Administrative Report. Subject: Capital Budget: City-Owned Childcare, Social Service and Cultural Facilities. -.2003, Mar.25. Administrative Report. Subject: Amenity Bonus Sublease Renewal - 900 Howe Street. -.2003, Apr. 7. Administrative Report. Subject: Amenity Bonus Sublease - 639 Hornby Street. -.2003, Apr.25.Administrative Report.Subject:Amenity Bonus Proposal - 550 Bute Street. 138 -.2003, Mar. 5. Administrative Report. Subject: Amenity Bonus Sublease:100-1140 West Pender. -.2005,Jul. 5. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Cultural Amenity Bonus - 819 Seymour Street. Hearn, S.2004, Feb.24. Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development:480 Robson Street. -.2004, Jun.4. Administrative Report.Subject: Form of Development:1201 West Hastings Street. -.2006,May 16.Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development:1011 West Cordova Street. Hemmingson, K. 2005, Oct.11. Administrative Report. Subject: Status Report on the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Corridor. Hemmingson, K. and G. McGeough. 2004, Jan.13. Administrative Report. Subject: 46 Water Street - Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program. -.2004,Jan. 16.Administrative Report. Subject: 52 Water Street - Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program. -.2004. Feb. 9.Administrative Report. Subject:55 East Cordova - Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program. Hlavach,J.1997, Nov.3. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Density Bonus for 440 Cambie Street. -.2000, Jun.16.Administrative Report. Subject: 211 Columbia Street - Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2001,May 17. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: 345 Water Street - Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2001,Jul.9.Administrative Report. Subject: 55 Water Street (Malkin Building) Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2002,Jan. 23. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Pantages Theatre (144 East Hastings) - Heritage Revitalization Agreement and City Financial Support. -.2002, Mar.25. Policy Report: Development and Building.Subject:310 Water Street - Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2003,Jan.15. Administrative Report. Subject: Deletion of Duplicate Designations of Certain Gastown Properties from Part I of the Heritage By-law. Holland, M.1999, Dec.31. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 55-67 East Hastings Street [Lux theatre site]. Howard, R.2002, May 28. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Financing Growth - Paying for Facilities to Serve a Growing Population:The Role of City-Wide Charges on New Development. -.2003, Apr.30. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Financing Growth - Paying for Facilities to Serve a Growing Population:The Role of City-Wide Charges on New Development. Jankovic, Z.2006, Feb.13. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program - 51 East Pender Street DE 409639. Jankovic, Z. and K. Hemmingson. 2005, Jan.24. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program - 5 W Pender Street. -.2005, Mar. 2. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program - 36 Water Street (DE 408442) The Grand Hotel and Terminus Hotel. -.2005, Mar. 2. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation for 522 Beatty Street (DE408442). -.2005, Mar. 2. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation for the Cranew Building at 540 Beatty Street (DE 408200). Jenkins, R., et al.2007,Jul 7. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) and Transfer of Density Program - Current Status and Proposed Strategy. Kemble, M.1999, Mar.19. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Heritage Issues Raised by Dance Centre Proposal - 677 Davie Street. -.2000, Mar. 21. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject:Text Amendment:699 Cardero Street (Bayshore Gardens Neighbourhood). Kloppenborg, A. and J. Gijssen. 2007, Feb.15. Administrative Report. Subject: Amenity Bonus Sublease - 639 Hornby Street. Kozak, G. and J. Burton. 2007, May 30. Other Report: Subject: Closure of Federal Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund Program (CHPIF). MacDonald, R. 2003,Jun.13.Administrative Report. Subject:Yaletown Parking and Park Proposal at 901 Mainland Street. Mauboules, C. and J. Davidson. 2003, Oct.27. Administrative Report. Subject: Single Room Accommodation Permit for 806 Richards Street (Related to DE407615 and a Rezoning for 488 Robson Street). Mauboules, C. and N. Edelson.2003, Sep. 9. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Regulation of Single Room 139 Accomodation. McAfee, 8.2001, Jun. 26. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 1128 West Hastings Street. -.2001, Sep.4. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject:Text Amendment - Downtown District Official Development Plan (910 Mainland - Showmart Building). McAfee, B. and P.Mondor.2005, Jul. 4. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: 1750 Davie Street: Rezoning from C-5 to CD- 1. McGeough, G.1998, Mar.18. Policy Report: Building and Development [sic]. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation - Hotel Georgia, 801 West Georgia Street. -.1999,Jul.13.Administrative Report. Subject:1196 Granville Street (677 Davie Street) - Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement for the Dance Centre. -.2000, May 1.Administrative Report. Subject:400-404 West Hastings Street - Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2001, Apr.24. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation - 3838 Cypress Street (Greencroft). -.2002, Oct.21.Administrative Report. Subject: Bank of Montreal Building (640 West Pender Street) - Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2004, Sep.21.Administrative Report. Subject: 1295 Seymour Street Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2006,Jan. 5. Administrative Report.Subject:2936 West 4th Avenue - Report Back on Heritage Retention through Transfer of Density. -.2006, Mar. 8. Administrative Report. Subject:Woodward's Heritage Revitalization Agreement - 101 West Hastings Street (100 West Cordova Street) DE 409942. McGeough, G. and R.Jenkins.2006, Mar.10. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Vancouver Heritage Register Upgrade Program. McGeough, G. et al.2007, Jun.27. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Rehabilitation and SRA Permit for 337 Smithe Street, the Homer Building and SRA Permit for 335 Smithe Street. McLean, H.2004,Jun.22.Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation - 995 Bute Street. McNaney, K. 2007, Jun. 16. McNeil,Y.2002, Mar. 12. Administrative Report. Subject: 690 Burrard Street - Christ Church Cathedral Interior Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2002, Apr. 30.Administrative Report. Subject:690 Burrard Street - Christ Church Cathedral Interior Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement. -.2003, Aug.25.Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation for 1180 Homer Street. Mondor, P.2001, Oct.31. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning: 955 Burrard Street (Downtown YMCA) and 969 Burrard Street & 1017-1045 Nelson Street (First Baptist Church) - Major Planning Issues. -.2002, Apr.30. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: 801 West Georgia Street (Hotel Georgia): Rezoning from DD to CD- 1. -.2002, Jun.13.Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Comprehensive Development (CD) Rezoning and False Creek North Official Development Plan Amendments:651 Expo Boulevard and 690-696 Beatty Street. -.2002, Jul.19. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: 687 Howe Street: Proposed CD-1 Text Amendment. -.2003, Nov.10. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning at 1120 West Georgia Street and Heritage Revitalization Agreement at 1160 West Georgia Street. -.2004, Feb.11. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning of 900 Pacific Boulevard (False Creek North Area 6A). -.2004, Dec.2. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning of 811-821 Cambie Street. -.2005, Mar. 3. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Rezoning of 955 Burrard Street (Downtown YMCA) and 969 Burrard Street & 1017-1045 Nelson Street (First Baptist Church): DD (G) and RM-5B to CD-1 and Heritage Revita
UBC Theses and Dissertations
Amenity valuation : the role of heritage in the physical and social production of Vancouver Miller, Courtney James 2007
Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
- 24-ubc_2008_spring_miller_courtney_james.pdf [ 18.53MB ]
- JSON: 24-1.0066601.json
- JSON-LD: 24-1.0066601-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066601-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066601-rdf.json
- Turtle: 24-1.0066601-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 24-1.0066601-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: 24-1.0066601-source.json
- Full Text