Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Amenity valuation : the role of heritage in the physical and social production of Vancouver Miller, Courtney James 2007

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_2008_spring_miller_courtney_james.pdf [ 18.53MB ]
JSON: 1.0066601.json
JSON-LD: 1.0066601+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0066601.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0066601+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0066601+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0066601+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0066601 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

Amenity Valuation:The Role of Heritage in the Physical andSocial Production of VancouverbyCourtney James MillerB.Arch., University of Kansas, 2004A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Advanced Studies in Architecture (MASA)inThe Faculty of Graduate StudiesUniversity of British ColumbiaNovember 2007© Courtney James Miller, 2007iiAbstractThe 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, thoseinvolved in the struggle to control the provision of amenities deny that no less than the determination oflegitimate public goods is at stake in the contest. Employing Bourdieu's understanding of capital and relateddescription of social space, the objective of the thesis is to examine how amenity production is oriented bythe public benefit's utility to the dominant interest of capital accumulation.Reviewing the adoption of discretionary zoning and its corollaries to planning permission explicates therelation of a legalized aesthetic to the process of amenitization.The understanding of physical heritage asa public value is among the derivatives of this association with the introduction of planning mechanismsto encourage the retention of historic structures.The subsequent naturalization of heritage as public valueand concurrent endowment of its capacity to facilitate development serves as an appropriate vehicle in theconsideration of amenity valuation.By specifying the physical form and the legitimated community value of approved development, City reportsand bylaws are the primary means of study. Analysis of these documents finds heritage to be the principalamenity realized through development mechanisms and illustrates its substantial influence on the physicaland social space of the city. Case studies further support the thesis objective by addressing the constitutionof public amenities aligned with the accommodation of the dominant interest; the unbounded considerationof heritage supports the retention of the physical features most conducive to intensification and results ingreater development ability in terms of both private capital and in the realization of more bounded socialamenities.The misrecognition of this key utility lends considerable authority over the physical transformation of thecity and, more importantly, facilitates control of the related social environment.The thesis concludes thatheritage serves the ideological continuation of the field of power, and cautions that recent efforts to considerless tangible qualities are symptomatic of this process.iiiTable of ContentsAbstract ^  iiTable of Contents ^ iiiList of TablesList of Figures^ viList of Acronyms viiPreface^ viiiAcknowledgements ^ ixIntroduction ^ 10.1 A Model Vancouver^ 20.2 Relevance^ 20.3 Exteriorality 30.4 Methodology^ 30.5 Use and Limitations ^ 40.6 Structure ^ 50.7 Notes for Introduction ^ 6Chapter One:Capital Exchange 71.1 Introduction ^ 81.2 Siting Exchange 81.3 Social Space ^ 101.4 Guises of Capital  111.5 Misrecognition^ 131.6 Statism ^ 131.7 Conclusion 141.8 Notes for Chapter One ^ 16Chapter Two:Discretion As Control 242.1 Introduction ^ 252.2 Ideological States 252.3 Naturalized Zoning ^ 262.4 Amenitization 282.5 Legalized Aesthetic ^ 332.6 Heritage ^ 352.7 Consecration 412.8 Conclusion^ 442.9 Notes for Chapter Two ^ 46ivChapter Three: Production of Heritage ^ 563.1 Introduction ^ 573.2 Aestheticized Capital ^ 583.3 Primacy of Heritage 623.4 Collateral Benefits ^ 673.5 Symbolic Externalities 713.6 Conclusion^ 783.7 Notes for Chapter Three ^ 80Chapter Four: Structuring Space 874.1 Introduction ^ 884.2 Spatial Currency 884.3 Conferment ^ 914.4 Capital Accumulation ^ 954.5 Market Discipline 994.6 Power and Territory^ 1034.7 Conclusion^ 1054.8 Notes for Chapter Four ^ 107Chapter Five: Discussion ^ 1125.1 Introduction 1135.2 Development Exchange^ 1135.3 Social Space ^ 1145.4 Avenues of Inquiry 1155.5 Conclusion ^ 1165.6 Postscript on the Heritage Field ^ 1175.7 Notes for Chapter Five ^ 120Bibliography^ 122Appendices 135A Supporting City of Vancouver Reports, By-laws and Policies ^ 136B List of Interviews Conducted ^ 145C BREB Certificate of Approval 146VList of TablesTable 2.1 Downtown Comprehensive Zoning ^ 31Table 3.1: Land Sales in Downtown Distirct Area Li July 1999 - April 2006 ^ 61Table 3.2: Density Implication of Social Amenity Bonusing ^ 73Table 4.1: Heritage Transfer of Density Donor Sites Jan.1993 - Oct. 2005 ^ 93Table 4.2: Heritage Density Transfers Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005 ^ 98Table 4.3: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan.1993 - Oct.2005 102viList of FiguresFigure 1.1: Fundamental Guises of Capital ^ 12Figure 2.1: Land Lift Creation Through Rezoning ^ 29Figure 2.2: Downtown CD-1 Zoning ^ 30Figure 2.3: Maximum Density For All Uses Under Zoning By-law as of June 2006 ^ 32Figure 2.4: Concurrent Development of Capital and Heritage Policies ^ 35Figure 2.5:Transfer of Density Area ^ 37Figure 2.6: Potential of Heritage Development Mechanisms ^ 38Figure 2.7: Development Intensification through Transfer of Density ^ 39Figure 2.8: Commercial Use of Civic Heritage ^ 43Figure 2.9: Aestheticized Streetscape^ 44Figure 3.1: Downtown South and Central Business District Shoulder ^ 59Figure 3.2: Land Sales in Downtown Distirct Area L1 July 1999 - April 2006 60Figure 3.3:Central Business District Shoulder ^ 63Figure 3.4:Transfer of Density within Comprehensive Development ^ 64Figure 3.5: Heritage as Share of Total Community Amenity Contributions 65Figure 3.6: Heritage Support through Community Amenity Contributions as of June 2006 ^ 66Figure 3.7: Density Realization through Heritage ^ 69Figure 3.8: Heritage Expression in Dominant Form of Development ^ 70Figure 3.9: Density Implications of Social Amenity Bonusing ^ 72Figure 3.10: Symbolic Externalities through Amenitization 75Figure 3.11: Social Amenity Realization through Heritage ^ 76Figure 3.12: Infrastructure Realization through Heritage 78Figure 4.1:Transferable Density as Share of Total Heritage Incentive^ 90Figure 4.2: Donor and Receiver Site Distribution Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005 94Figure 4.3: Density Bank Balance Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005 ^ 95Figure 4.4: Heritage Density Transfers Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005 97Figure 4.5: Social Ability Expressed through Physical Form ^ 99Figure 4.6: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan.1993 - Oct.2005 101Figure 4.7: Disciplinary Receipt of Heritage Density ^ 103Figure 4.8: Preference of Intangible Heritage ^ 106Figure 5.1:Means of Capital Volume Expansion 114Figure 5.2: Development Threshold and Assignment of Capital ^ 115Figure 5.3: Heritage Position Taking Relative to the City Bureaucracy 118List of AcronymsCAC^Community Amenity ContributionCBD^Central Business DistrictDODP Downtown Official Development PlanDPB^Development Permit BoardDTES^Downtown EastsideFSR^Floor Space RatioHBRP^Heritage Building Revitalization ProgramHDTS^Heritage Density Transfer SystemHRA^Heritage Revitalization AgreementUDP^Urban Design PanelVIIviiiPrefaceThe 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 fromthat which is consecrated through symbolic measures,"any scientific discourse of simple enunciation isstrongly liable to be perceived either as ratification or as denunciation."' The thesis presents the significantimpact of amenity production to the physical and social space of the city. A primary question that should beconsidered is the ability afforded to the various agents involved by the naturalization of heritage as culturalasset rather than development mechanism.The success of this study may be measured by its relevance tothose 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 areference to values that agents actually effect in objectivity for a value judgment passed by the scientist who studiesthem."Although the importance to discourse is not what realities "are worth, whether they are good or bad','butrather what they are, this dichotomy"exists in reality in the form of hierarchies inscribed in the objectivity of 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).ixAcknowledgementsExtensive thanks are due to my committee for their generous support during the development of thisthesis. 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 AppendixB, graciously provided further assistance through formal interviews and other inquiries. Steve Brouwers alsocontributed helpful review. Finally, the support of my family has been much appreciated with special thanksto Nicole for her welcome advice, substantial patience and emotional support.Introduction20.1 A Model VancouverVancouver has emerged as an exemplar for late 20th century urban planning in North America related to thedramatic 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 centralbusiness district as the product of the widely promoted fiscal, design and planning project synonymous withthe Vancouver Model .2 Primary to this effort is the realization of public amenities through development thatsupports both the profitability of the market and municipal interests.The mechanisms that structure thisexchange constitute a cardinal site in the struggle to define the physical and social space of the city, a contestin which the determination of the very boundaries of amenity is at stake.0.2 RelevanceThrough the municipally defined terms of zoning, the City controls the development potential of thegeographically delimited downtown core and effectively determines its spatial elasticity. Since changesadopted through the discretionary process that can be reasonably expected to increase the valuation of asite for the owner are conferred from the public body, the City pursues the delivery of common amenity asfair exchange for this wealth creation.This model pairs the public and private sectors in the developmentof the city and describes a scene of transaction that brings the definition and valuation of amenities to thefore. As with any social space of capital conversion, not only are the rates of exchange negotiated, but alsothe very determination of what constitutes a relevant good is in flux. Considering that these agreementssignificantly shape the physical realm and are made in the public interest, a critical approach to the processis relevant to the general discourse on the city. With the dramatic increase in residential developmentpressure 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 ofbenchmarking such a process is further challenged by the ambiguity of the bureaucratic field, the denial ofuniversals 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 heritagevalue to the community is of particular interest.With the definition of heritage and the proper response toit contested by those who stand to gain or lose in its recognition, its role is highly malleable and its relationto development expressed in a variety of means that may constitute a range of effectiveness in the deliveryof public amenities.The selection of heritage among the range of goods produced through development isby no means an indication that it is the sole lens to view this scene of transactions.The role of green spacesand social housing among others would similarly provide a pertinent measure. Rather, heritage provides asuitable study of amenity provision due to its role in both the formal transformation of the built environmentand 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 theglobal investment market.While the yield in built form has indeed proved impressive, a degree of scrutinyincommensurately sparse to this dramatic expansion has been directed in recent years to the definition andvaluation of the public goods derived from development. 3 Community concern is often raised by the rapidchange in urban form, but the substantive reconfiguration in the application of principal development toolsseems by comparison to be politically solvent. With Vancouver now at the midpoint between its successful3Olympic bid and the upcoming 2010 event, the discussion of the nature of value in the city is timely asthe 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 substantiatethis time as a significant moment to consider the recent use of amenity negotiation.The individuals withinthe Community Services Group of the City of Vancouver that have arguably had a formative influence onthe understanding of the Vancouver model during the past decade have recently departed; the co-directorsof planning retired in August and June last year and the director of real estate services left in May 2005.Thisflux provides both a pertinent moment for reflection as well as the consideration of possibilities currentlyexcluded from public discourse.0.3 ExterioralityThe widespread notion that, by virtue of the subject's familiarity, research on a familiar subject"ought to beeasily accessible" misrecognizes that it is precisely this closeness that diminishes the possibility of a criticalperspective.4 Suffused with assumptions regarding the limits and, moreover, the very definition of the subjectdefeats the"objectifying distance" without which the agent takes this familiar world for granted, preciselybecause he is caught up in it, bound up with it; he inhabits it like a garment...he feels at home in the worldbecause the world is also in him.5 That which may seem common sense, while attractive,"disguises as manytruths as it reveals" and supports a "conspiracy of blindness" among those most familiar to the subject.6Further frustrating social study,the increased fragmentation of disciplines,"each with its monopoly ofspecialists" 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 includingeconomics, law and planning define the world through exclusion. While the determination of exchangevalue in the city is of relevance to a broad number of disciplines, this study approaches the topic from anarchitectural reading. It is the intention that the unusual position of architecture, straddling the dividebetween the cultural production of arts such as literature and painting and the codified realm of expertsand engineers, as the "profession which is not really one"will serve to overcome some of these limitations. 8This study seeks to be of value to the non-profession rather than the profession of architecture; while itssignificance is indeed spatial, its orientation is towards describing the social production of the city. Thetask, rather than directed at the architectural merit of heritage retention, is to uncover"the structure of thedistribution of species of capital which tends to determine the structure of individual or collective stancestaken." The distribution of capital conditions both the interest and disposition of the field, informing thepositioning of those vested in its determination.This forwards an image of the city that is not limited to thephysical realm, but addresses the production of the social environment that conditions it.0.4 MethodologyThe thesis seeks to apply certain technologies active in social fields to aid in the understanding of therole of heritage in the realization of the physical environment.The primary source of information is policydocuments and other communications accessible to the public through the City's Community Servicesrecords. In addition to this information, a series of interviews of actors vested in the process serves to informthe thesis. While helpful in clarifying and locating the argument that follows, these interviews should beconsidered secondary; references in this document refer to published sources and not to specific comments4made, and the findings reflected in this thesis are the author's own and there is likely to be conflicts betweenthem and the positions of interviewed subjects. Considering the quantity and range of development inVancouver, 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 publicpolicy discourse, the downtown core will be the subject of study. False Creek, Burrard Inlet and StanleyPark delineate distinct boundaries, and Main Street completes the compass. While this area is a generallyaccepted field for policies affecting downtown Vancouver, it is certainly not absolute; Main Street bisectsboth the Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer and Chinatown areas, while other districts within these boundsrequire further review as to their relevance.This area, exclusive of site-specific zoning, roughly correspondsto the City-defined Transfer of Density Areas for Historic Preservation, although the latter also includes theBroadway corridor.The chronological range of the study follows the1993 legislation establishing the HeritageTransfer of Density policy to the present, although Chapter Three will clarify the period that particular datasets span. Developments occurring during and after 2002, the year that the City released both a discussionpaper on Community Amenity Contributions in financing growth and a commissioned study of the transferof 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 developmentof the physical environment and analyze the construction of value in the city.0.5 Use and LimitationsThe thesis approaches the valuation of public goods through the consideration of fragments. Supportingthe understanding that naturalized fields, by technically circumscribing the discipline, fail to address externalinfluences, this study utilizes a broadly based approach to facilitate greater discourse regarding the natureand cogency of the role of heritage in the city. It is a primary goal to describe the connectivity between valueand the built environment in Vancouver, and writing from the architectural discipline supports a generalistapproach.While specialist positions can attain a great degree of technical specificity, the consequence ofreduction is the failure to adequately address the less bounded consideration of value. It is the intentionof this thesis to instead emphasize a range of fragments and, while the fields considered in the followingchapters are developed conscientiously, it is ultimately the author's intention to present an argument thatencourages further discourse.Although the address of value and the built environment is contested in every urban centre and enunciatedby a general movement towards technically delineated partnerships between private value and publicgoods, the thesis defines as its limits the City of Vancouver.While the experiences of other cities serve as abackdrop to the arguments presented, the complexities in a single city are rich enough to suffice for thecontent 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.Thisfocus does serve as a limitation, and the policies and results of other cities are a valuable resource for sitingand critically approaching this study, and their experiences are invaluable to widening the contemporarypossibilities in Vancouver today.5Constructing its arguments from a variety of data sets, the thesis adopts a degree of fluidity to allow theutilization of relevant information from a range of disciplines.The delineations relegating the specificinformation 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 ofan active field of inquiry subject to a dynamic progression in its definitions and terms.This, paired withthe reliance on data available to the general public, directs the approach of this thesis; the use of publiclyaccessible information serves both as a relevant platform to approach the expression of common value andas 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, andconsiders this scene of transaction of crucial importance to the general discourse pertaining to the materialand social determination of Vancouver.0.6 StructureThe thesis consists of three chapters, and it reconciles the interest in providing a concise argument withthe need to site divergent disciplines with respect to the thesis through extensive notation at the end ofeach chapter.Transparency of sources is supported by listing interviews conducted and reports used in theconstruction of the data sets in the appendices.The first chapter defines the scene of transactions, arguingthat the City of Vancouver is the relevant body of study. It describes the social space and how it bearsupon the determination of value, explains the different guises of capital at play and their misrecognitionand demonstrates how these divergent forms of capital centre in the powers of the state exercised at themunicipal level.The second chapter explores how ideology functions to replicate the social structure andtraces this movement in conjunction with discretionary zoning. A consideration of amenitization follows, aswell 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 thirdand fourth chapters focuses on heritage as amenity in the city in order to address the relation of public valueand the urban environment. By analyzing the constituent programmes and considering their maturation asa definitive form of control, the role of heritage in development is illustrated through data sets as well as casestudies.The conclusion returns to the theoretical foundation laid in the first chapter, emphasizing contestedelements and delineating directions for further study.60.7 Notes for Introduction2 The residential growth and related amenitization is also promoted as the"Vancouver Miracle."Former councillorGordon 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 beensubjected to systematic exploration of urban design regulations published in a scholarly journal, highlighting theexposure 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 sciencethat"asserts that the mysteries of social existence are densest, not in the behavior of far-off exotic peoples, but in ourown everyday usages. Here, familiarity has bred an ignorance which arises not from the strangeness of the object ofinvestigation, but from its very transparency. Living within it, so thoroughly suffused with its assumptions that it is evenhard to recall just when we adopt them, we tend to lose the critical perspective which makes 'social science' more thansimply a recital of what everyone already knows" (Terdiman 1987:810). Bourdieu 2000:142-1436 Terdiman 1987:810 and Thompson 1979:4 Bourdieu cites historian Richard Bonny—noting that Bonny limits the complexity to his own specialty of history—thatthe neglected areas are the "border zones" between specialties:"thus, the study of government requires knowledge ofthe theory of government (i.e., of the history of political thought), knowledge of the practice of government (i.e., of thehistory of institutions) and finally knowledge of governmental personnel (i.e., of social history)" (Bourdieu 1994:4). Lipstadt 2003:3929 Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:114Chapter One:Capital Exchange81.1 IntroductionThe contemporary urban environment is primarily determined through capital exchange sited in theCity bureaucratic and political apparatus. While the extension of the state, the municipality exerts directcontrol within its bounds due to both historic understanding and its expanding autonomy. Broad shifts indisciplinary power, including the erosion of national power through globalization, precipitate the increasedability of local governance. It follows that the exercise of nominative ability, the conferment of honours thathold value on markets controlled by the state, centres in the social space described by the accumulatedcapital recognized by those active in the determination of the City. 1 °The economistic reduction of theunderstanding of capital betrays the significant ability vested in social and cultural means. Further, itnegates the culmination of these capitals in the state; the very misrecognition of this influence is the key innaturalizing a vision of the City and consecrating objects with public value.1.2 Siting ExchangeThe 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." Whilethis construction is aligned with a "national consciousness','it is the municipality that attends the conversionrates and relevant values within the development process, supporting the assignment of'state' powerin this thesis to the City of Vancouver. 12 As an "administrative extension of the provincial" and—furtherafield—federal government, the Canadian city's interest is both historically based and contemporarilyexpanding.13 Through the establishment of legislative practices, emphasis on wealth realization through landdevelopment and recent rise of the city state in global politics, the City of Vancouver serves as a primary sitein the exercise of nominative power.Although consitutional provisions do not extend powers of self-governance to municipalities, the Canadiancity experiences a significant, albeit nonexplicit, degree of autonomy.The British North America Act of 1867created the dominion of Canada and delineated legislative interests between the federal and provincialpowers, conferring the responsibility of land use determination with few exceptions to the provinces andfurther declaring municipal institutions the "exclusive power of the province legislatures." 14 Upon enteringCanada's Confederation in 1871 and passing its first municipal legislation two years later, British Columbiasimilarly limited municipalities to specific functions. However, the province generally expanded permissionto include additional functions as requested and, in 2004 enacted "the most empowering local governmentstatue in Canada" recognizing municipalities as an "order of government." 15 Developing under specificauthority since its designation as the earliest Canadian exception to universal provincial legislation, the Cityof Vancouver has enjoyed throughout the 20'h century many of the abilities only recently extended to othermunicipalities and maintains a level of autonomy unparalleled in the province. 16 By fostering a civic politicthat is "more American than Canadian"this distinction strengthens Vancouver's specific claim to powerand emphasizes its functional kinship with American planning." With much of Canadian land use tied toAmerican experiments, it is important to note that the significant legal distinctions influencing the relativeautonomy of cities in each country do not have the same gravity in terms of the practical experience oflocal determination of exchange value: regardless of official designation, cities tend to enjoy"a significantdegree of autonomy while experiencing tension with centralization forces.' Vancouver is among only ahandful 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 toextend the statutory terminal of the transcontinental railway twelve miles west to a preferred site along CoalHarbour.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 specifiedgoverning powers and the provision of services.20 Titled the Vancouver Incorporation Act, the bill created themunicipality's distance from universal provincial legislation and, although it was revised and renamed theVancouver Charter in 1953, this separation continues today.This distinction allows the city"a very significantscope for policy innovation and direct response to local circumstances." 21 Furthermore, in policy fields largelyrelegated to senior government, Vancouver exhibits a substantial political will to act"despite constitutionaland statutory inferiority."22Vancouver's intergovernmental activity often centres expectedly on economic interests, and a promotionaloutlook has characterized the city since its founders "accepted the business view that the functions of themunicipal government were to ensure orderly physical growth and provide services to real property: bothwould enhance land values."23 Council "advertised the city's virtues around the world and encouragedindustry through 'bonusing'and other incentives" leading to a "meshing of public and private interests."24This cooperative approach to land development directs each successive wave of investment characterizedby changing centres of international investment capital and dynamic shifts in core land use from industrialproduction to office investment to residential creation. 25 In its infancy, this latest stage found encouragementin the 1988 sale of the former industrial lands of False Creek North to Hong Kong's wealthiest subject, adecision indicative of the"striking boldness with which politicians, as well as real-estate capitalists, marketedthe city overseas"that is credited with directing the influx of Asian monies to Vancouver during subsequentyears.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 andushering in a more intensive model of public-private partnership at the municipal leve1. 27 The developerwas expected to pay all costs of the city's planning and regulatory work and, through the involvementof the former president of the Crown Corporation controlling the land prior to sale, assured a closenessthat set a precedent for later development. 28 A further legacy of the project, along with other large-scalecontemporaries, was the early resolution of the provision of community amenities concurrent with allowablemarket development.29The 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 theconsiderable 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 hasemerged as a prominent model for late 20'h century urban planning. 3° Approaching "urban design as publicpolicy" its core development has garnered accolades for planning and awards for quality of life. 31 Thecollective identification of the generative policy, physical built form and related lifestyle as the"VancouverModel" predicates the city, and places emphasis on the Department of Planning, as a primary site forlegitimizing exchange value.The weighting of symbolic interest in the planning profession attributableto the expanding role of public-private partnerships at the municipal level extends from the economicchallenges that many local governments face: cities are charged with an increasing number of servicesbut remain dependent on grants and "sporadic acts of largess"from senior government. 32 Struggling withthis downloading of responsibility without a commensurate shift of powers of direct taxation, municipalgovernments in Canada and abroad have noted Vancouver's success in funding amenities throughdevelopment; these levies and contributions are crucial to the model forwarded by the city. 33 With recent1 0mayoral activism forwarding urban regions as the"principal economic, social and cultural engines" in theglobal economy, the determination of exchange value at the municipal level will continue to magnify. 34The greater autonomy that these efforts seek bolster the claim to power established by City of Vancouver'slegislative and economic origins.1.3 Social SpaceThe city's significant degree of autonomy in the determination of the built environment supports theassertion that nominative power is exercised at the local level. Considering the means of this realizationnecessitates the study of a"spatially grounded social process"that refuses the problematic reification of thecity as an active agent in itself. 35 Efforts to illustrate exchange value as the object of divergent interests atplay in the city is best guided by the writings of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu who forwards a generaldescription of social space and understanding of capital. Bourdieu's observations do not diminish by meansof 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 itsconsideration 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, thecatholic quality of Bourdieu's half-century of research and publication also accentuates the danger ofpiecemeal adoption. 38 Acknowledging that the scope of this thesis will nevertheless delimit much of therichness 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 theconstruction of the social world within structural constraint follows."Approaching the social world requires the consideration of dispositions—habitus—and the reflexiveconditioning of relational sets—fields." These concepts designate"bundles of relations"that confront theprominent subjective-objective antinomy of the social sciences by operating in tandem to overcome thedivide between the individual and society.'" They form a theory of action that is based at once on recognitionof consciousness and the 'thingness' of social fact." Habitus refers to"systems of durable, transposabledispositions"comprising 'habit'and'habitae;they are inculcated, social categories of perception, generatedistinction 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 ofdistinct 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 atheory of habitus, it is directly linked to the mid-twentieth century effort to describe architecture as a formof knowledge. In his study Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, art historian Erwin Panofsky identifies ahomology 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',' notingin the postface of the French translation that a system of schema common to clerics and cathedral architectssystematically—but not deliberately—orients their choices." His subsequent study of the Berber House as abasis for the theory of habitus reinforces architecture as a "way of knowing the world." 48 Architecture remainsa relevant means to study habitus, particularly due to its close relation to authority and the acute congruenceof 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 of11habitat—and architecture—is spatially and temporally beholden to habitus, which, as an "open system ofdispositions"constantly subjected to experiences that either reinforce or modify its structures, is a productof history.5° Although habitus is not subject to mechanical determination, it is through the habitus that"thestructure which has produced it governs practice...through the mediation of the orientations and limits itassigns to the ha bitus's operations of invention." 51Within social practice, the"feel for the game"that comprises habitus is conditioned reflexively by the rules ofthe game of the field; whereas objective relations are"deposited" in the ha bitus, their configuration betweenpositions 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, theexistence of the agent"as fact and as value" is inseparable from the existence of the field as an "autonomousuniverse."54 It is through her effort to maximize control over the specific, recognized resources, that the agentmoves to conserve or transform the field.55 The position taken is relational and determined by the"totalityof the lines of force" since every agent exerts influence proportionate to the capital held of the specificcomposition and nature rendered autonomous to the field. 56 This specificity separates these social universesand provisions a differentiated society through the recognition that they "cannot be collapsed under anoverall societal logic."52 Nevertheless, fields are hierarchically organized and subject to heteronomy, ordomination by outside authority, so that fields of cultural production are positioned within the overarchingfield 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 thatdenies recognition that the legitimization of an occupation is a social act in itself. 59 The result is inclusive ofthe range of agents invested in heritage as structured in Vancouver's built environment and considers thecultural products as "manifestations of the field as a whole, in which all the powers of the field, and all thedeterminism inherent in its structure and functioning, are concentrated." 6°1.4 Guises of CapitalResisting reductionism, the identification of a general theory of the economy of fields facilitates thedescription of the specific form taken by the basic mechanism within each field. 61 Since forces active in thefield define the specific capital, capital "does not exist and function except in relation to a field." 62 Recognizingthat principles other than "mechanical cause or the conscious intention to maximize one's utility" are not onlyextant, but also reasonable and, most importantly, apart from conscious computation supports rethinkingthe orthodox approach to economic capital 63 Central to the discussion of exchange value is a readingof capital that rebukes the colloquial terminology that relegates its use to the economistic generation ofincome and production of wealth.64 In failing to consider the possibility of varied means of appropriationthis characterization is incomplete; a purely economic reading enables only consumption, fails to considerthe increased ability provisioned by immaterial resources and reduces the world to a "discontinuous seriesof instantaneous mechanical equilibria." 65 Rather, capital is accumulated in forms outside of economic limitsthat, although not employable through direct exchange, are nevertheless transferable. Recognizing thatcultural knowledge and social ability are based on but not reducible to economic accumulation delineatescultural, social and economic as the three "fundamental guises" of capital and outlines a required means ofconversion.66 It is this more expansive understanding of capital as the embodied form of accumulated labourthat fosters continuity and distinguishes between not equally likely possibilities 6712Of 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 dispositionsof the mind and body"constitute embodied cultural capital; cultural goods serve as objectified culturalcapital; and conferment of guaranteed qualifications delineate institutionalized cultural capita1.89 Due toits acquisition at a young age akin to hereditary behaviour, embodied cultural capital appears innate anddemonstrates class, culture and cultivation.7° It assumes a fundamental connection to the person andhas a profound—albeit widely hidden or symbolic—role in predisposing actors to certain actions.Theconsideration of objectified cultural capital is only possible in its relation with cultural capital in its embodiedstate!' Significant to the realization of the city, cultural capital is objectified—and transmissible—in materialobjects including paintings, dress and buildings. Although materiality accommodates transfer of reifiedcultural capital through economic exchange, its appropriation is contingent on the possession of the meansof consumption.This capacity—the ability to consume cultural goods—is transmissible subject to thesame considerations of embodied capital. Analogous to the distinction between economic acquisition of amachine and marshalling the embodied capital necessary to appropriate the cultural capital specific to itsuse, the ownership of an art object and its consumption are not interchangeable/2 Capital objectified in theform of academic qualifications denotes the institutionalized state.Through conferment of"conventional,constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture';institutionalized cultural capital imposesrecognition." Furthermore, as a product of economic-made cultural capital, it establishes the value in termsof both cultural capital assigned to a given qualification and the economic value of its exchange. Derivedfrom relationships and networks, social capital is the third fundamental guise of capital. Identified withthe membership of a group, social capital is a"collectively-owned resource based on reciprocity." 74 Whilealigned along collective delineation, key, visible individuals serve as signifiers of the whole." SignificantlyFigure 1.1: Fundamental Guises of CapitalCULTURAL^ SOCIALECONOMIC13"social capital is embedded in the built environment where it is sustained and reproduced by architecturalprograms as spatially structured patterns of social encounter." 761.5 MisrecognitionWhile 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 betweenmarket 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 resultingreduction perpetuates the fallacy of homo oeconomicus—the theoretically minded man of practice—thatrefuses history for rationality/8 It is the pro forma calculation of financial costs and incentives of developmentproposals that makes this theory inviolable in the neoliberal creation of the city; bureaucratic educationalprocesses naturalize not only"what amenities cost',' but more importantly what constitutes an amenity andascribes its worth. 79 Suggesting an explicitly rational and economic criteria, this legalism deduces"practicesfrom the rule that is supposed to govern them"and is"most particularly encouraged by the ordinaryrepresentation bureaucracies have of themselves and wish to present of themselves as both productive ofand products of regulations."Thus, technological rationality obfuscates the influence of habitus in favour ofuniversality, and it is"doubtless the most formidable obstacle to a true knowledge and understanding of thereal functioning of bureaucracies." 8° By denying the dispositions and relations, it conjures decision-makingby 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 capitaland that the language employed is one of the stakes or rewards of the field. 82Far from a sharing a homogenous identity, the"weight of different agents depends on their symboliccapital"—the recognition received from the grou p .83 Symbolic capital is "what every kind of capital becomeswhen 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 verystructures of the space in which it has been engendered." 85 It follows that the determination of exchangevalue is predicated on symbolic capital and the role of misrecognition in its transfer. A "fake circulationof 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 oversightgoverned by the"most fundamental mechanisms of the social order"characterizes neoliberal realizationof the city, wherein planning is a gift exchange requiring the undeclared calculations of involved agents tosatisfy the expectations held by each "without appearing to know what they are."87 Only through this "extentof practical kinship"can the actors "enjoy both the advantages accruing from every practical relationshipand the symbolic profits secured by the approval socially conferred on practices conforming to the officialrepresentation of practices."881.6 StatismConfronting 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 property14and of the public sector" and recognizes that this ambivalence"displaces conflicts into its own specificforms."89 The state, then is the "culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital: capitalof physical force or instruments of coercion...economic capital, cultural (or better) informational capital andsymbolic capital."90 This concentration proceeds alongside the construction of the corresponding fieldsand leads to the "emergence of a specific properly statist capital7a "meta-capital granting power over otherspecies of capital and over their holders"that enables the state to exercise power, particularly over the ratesof conversion between different species of capital and thereby over the"relations of force between theirrespective holders."91 The simultaneous incarnation of"objectivity, in the form of specific organizationalstructures and mechanisms, and in subjectivity in the form of mental structures and categories of perceptionand thought" provides the basis for symbolic violence:the actions of the state institute matters of culture inboth "things and in minds conferring upon the "cultural arbitrary all the appearances of natural . 92 The genesisof the modern state is therefore the"organizational expression of the concentration of symbolic power"thatconstitutes"a public trove of material and symbolic resources guaranteeing private appropriations." 93Removed from the"quasi-metaphysical notion"that"presupposes that the state is a well-defined, clearlybounded and unitary reality which stands in relation of externality with outside forces that are themselvesclearly 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 thispeculiar form of authority consisting of the power to rule via...everything that we normally put under therubric of state policy."94 Representations of the state portraying bureaucracy as"a 'universal group' endowedwith the intuition of, and a will to, universal interest; or as an 'organ of reflection' and a rational instrumentin charge of realizing general interest"wield the power of seduction that pervades the "thought of thebureaucratic 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 facadeof a naturalized truth with each project forwarded to the public married to the already realized solution ofthe given concern. The interests and values associated with the positions of agents within this"emergingbureaucratic universe" closely align with—and indeed give full meaning to—juridical writing that not onlyconstitutes the"theoretical contributions to the knowledge of the state but also...the political strategiesaimed at imposing a particular vision of the state."961.7 ConclusionWith the contraction of the disciplinary state, the municipality has expanded its already substantial role inthe determination of the physical environment.This shift has aligned with the reliance on amenity realizationthrough development and the corresponding increase in the role of public-private partnerships. Refuting thereification of the City as an agent in itself, Bourdieu's general description of social space forwards the reflexiveconditioning of habitus and fields that serves to describe the struggle of individual agents.The abilities ofthese agents, as well as the appropriable resources of the field, are constituted through three fundamentalguises of capital: cultural, social and economic. Cultural capital is further delineated as embodied, objectifiedor institutionalized, is intrinsic to the pedagogical process and is of primary importance in both the creation15and consumption of heritage resources. Despite the varied forms of capital, bureaucracies misrecognize theinfluence of habitus and suggest that they are created from and produce universality with their decisionsderived from rational calculus.Akin to other fields, the collective misrecognition of capital in the social spaceof the City vests those resources with legitimacy through their perceived status as symbolic.This denialis fundamental in the concentration of capital in the state, the control of the rates of conversion betweenconstituent guises of capital and the neoliberal realization of the city. Considering the expanding abilitiesof municipal governments, the convergence of capital in the state identifies the City as the primary site inthe exercise of nominative power and determination of public value.Vancouver's progressive adoption ofincreasingly discretionary planning measures and its related reliance on the amenitized production of spaceonly amplifies the significance of this capital misrecognition.161.8 Notes for Chapter One10 In modern societies,"social success depends very strictly on an initial act of nomination"and this assigning of aname consecrates preexisting social difference. While the invention of the bureaucratic state is closely tied withthe development of schools and universities, the transmission of technical competence conferred by diplomas alsoreinforces 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 withwhich they identify it" (Bourdieu 1998:22-24). As described in the remainder of the chapter, since the determinationof the physical environment is centred in the ability of the City, the exercise of cultural capital garnered through, forinstance, 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: 1994:3-412 The national state with its constituent monopoly over physical and symbolic violence certainly acts directly—andat times in conflict with—dominated levels of government in municipal affairs. More importantly, it is central to thesymbolic, 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 withthe City of Vancouver directly garnering only 7% of taxes collected in the city in 1999 with the federal and provincialshares amounting to 57% and 36% respectively—figures that roughly align with other major Canadian cities (Bourdieu1994:7 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).Theduality 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 wasnot until the 1982 Canada Act that the nation patriated its constitution.Today, the original British North America Actsand 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 reformsbetween 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 Johnin 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 programmesand the equitable distribution of resources"resulting in a city that has the"ability to operate within long-termcommunity maximize the benefits from both private and public expenditures for the public good"describedby former Director of Planning Ray Spaxman (Spaxman 1991:89). Rather, it emphasizes the universal challenge ofentrepreneurialism regardless of the local state.18 Differences not withstanding, an excessive interest in the subservient nature of Canadian municipalities in comparisonto their American counterparts places an undue emphasis on legal theory over actual practice. Even within the UnitedStates, in which opposing viewpoints on the autonomy of cities centre on Iowa Supreme Court Judge John F. Dillon's1868 ruling that municipal corporations are tenants at will of the state legislatures and the expression of homerule in an 1875 amendment to the Missouri state constitution, the reality is that cities operate somewhere betweenthese extremes (P. Smith and Stewart 2003:2-6). Historically, home rule is not unfamiliar to British Columbia, sinceprior to confederation the Colony of British Columbia passed a general ordinance creating guidelines for home rulemunicipalities that applied until 1873 (Bish 1999:17).19 The Hastings Mill anchored the Granville townsite surveyed in 1870 and known popularly as Gastown.The communityof 300 was "economically and politically subservient"to New Westminster with a population of 3,000 (Gutstein1983:190-191) The role of the CPR has been a primary influence in the urban formation of Vancouver and introducedthe meshing of public and private interest as well as the consideration of betterment at the earliest stage of thecity's founding.CPR general manager William Van Horne christened Vancouver and incorporated the city with thecooperation of Hastings Mill officials. In return for the rail extension, the province granted 6,275 acres around theterminus with a further 175 acres culled from large private landowners compelled to contribute one-third of the lots ineach block they owned recognizing that the would benefit from the railroad's actions (Gutstein 1975:10-11).172° (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 privatebills (Punter 2003:14-18). Furthermore, the Charter specifically provisions greater local determination of the urbanenvironment; 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 citycouncil, 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:leadinga policy field largely outside of its jurisdiction,Vancouver forwarded the tri-level Vancouver Agreement to become thefirst Canadian city to pursue a harm-reduction model for non-medical drug use; insulating local policies from seniorfrustration, 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 withinmodern western democracies to enter into an international twinning arrangement, becoming a "sister city" withOdessa), the city forges a "globalist policy stance" involving a variety of international localities as well as pursuing aCascadia identity with municipalities in the American Northwest (P. Smith and Stewart 2003:19-25). Harvey attributesthe increasing reliance on negotiation between international capital and local governing bodies to the "decliningpowers of the nation state to control multinational money flows" (Harvey 1989:5). Further, the "restructuring of therelationship between capital and the state" has percipitated a "rescaling of urban practices, cultures and functions inthe context of changing global relations" evident in the exapnding role of municipal governments, such as Manhattan'smayoral 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 industrybusinessmen and professionals have widely had a prominent presence in City Hall; in 1972 seven of eleven people onthe city council hailed from such occupations (Gutstein 1983:190-191 and Lorimer 1972:96-97).The resulting shift awayfrom the"growth boosterism" identified as the "hallmark of Vancouver politics since the town's founding,"would lead tothe adoption of a policy of amenitization centred on aesthetic concerns (Ley 1980:239).24 Gutstein 1983:191-19225 Gutstein 1990:117-11926 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 "geographicwatershed" integrating Vancouver into global capitalist networks, dovetailed with broader neoliberal trends; the federaldismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Act and the 1986 introduction of an investor-immigrant categoryencouraged foreign investment in development and other real estate-related ventures and further promoted Canadaas 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 homeof Expo '86, to trendy waterfront community with tens of thousands live and/or play," the project further aligns withwhat Harvey identifies as a basic strategy of entrepreneurialism with the city focusing on "quality of life" to improve itscompetitive position through the development of both the physical environment and the urban spectacle:the site notonly hosted the exposition coinciding with Vancouver's centennial, but is proximate to the 2010 Winter Olympic Villagecurrently 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 withthe city form the beginning. (Gutstein 1990:138-139 and Blore 1999:56).29 Punter 2003:1973° N.Smith 1996:631 Between 1984 and 2002 Vancouver has won 5 international, 10 national and 16 provincial awards for its planning andconsistently ranks highly on Mercer and similar indices for quality of life (Punter 2002:265-266). Furthermore,the cityis regularly commended by commercial and trade organizations, and, most prominent among the many political andprofessional leaders active outside of the city, recently retired Co-Director of the Department of Planning Larry Beasleyhas worked in municipalities in Canada, United States, China and New Zealand and was appointed a Member of theOrder of Canada, the country's highest civilian honour, in July 2004 for his efforts. Noting the number of cities thathave studied Vancouver urban design, The Vancouver Sun notes "Vancouver is Vancouver's greatest gift to the world"(McMartin 2006).1832 The strong consensus emerging from a 1985 Orleans colloquia on the eroding fiscal base of world cities that"urbangovernments had to be much more innovative and entrepreneurial" indicates the universality of municipally centredefforts (Rowe 2001:4-6 and Harvey 1989:4).This increasing"entrepreneurialism in urban governance seems to suggestconsiderable 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 arrayof public amenities"(Kayden 1990:99).34 The 2001 C5 meeting convened by Jane Jacobs gathered mayors of major Canadian cities and emphasized theimportance 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 urbanprocess as an active rather than passive aspect of political-economic development','since it can erroneously appearthat cities are identified as agents when "they are mere things"(Harvey 1989:5). Hence, Spaxman's observation that"wewill mould the city and the city will mould us" necessitates an understanding of the 'city'as the social space of agentsrather 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 1980:20939 "Concepts have no definition other than systemic ones, and are designed to be put to work empirically in systematicfashion...[they] can be defined, but only within the theoretical system they constitute, not in isolation" (Bourdieu andWacquant 1992:96).4° For Bourdieu, reflexivity entails the"systematic exploration of the 'unthought categories of thought which delimit thethinkable and predetermine the thought'as well as guide the practical carrying out of social inquiry"(Bourdieu andWacquant 1992:40). It is the"key to the maintenance of the autonomy that intellecutals, like artists, enjoy"and the basisfor 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 dichromaticapproaches (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 torecognize the social determinants of human action, the latter marginalizes agents as"performers of preordained scoresor bearers of the structure"(Garnham and Williams: 1980:212).42 Wacquant 1989:4543 Habitus"make distinctions between what is good and what is bad, between what is right and what is wrong, betweenwhat is distinguished and what is vulgar, and so forth, but the distinctions are not identical.Thus, for instance, the samebehavior or even the same good can appear distinguished to one person, pretentious to someone else, and cheap orshowy to yet another"(Bourdieu 2006 [1977]:72 and Bourdieu 1998:8).44 Although 'structured structures' in that they incorporate the objective social conditions of their inculcation, habituscan be"collectively orchestrated without being the product of the organizing action of a conductor (R.Johnson1993:5 and Bourdieu 2006 [1977]:72). While displaying autonomy and flexibility that can be traced to her evolutionin 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 actionand initiates unexpected moves, the driving force is not conscious calculation, but rather the activated dispositionsand 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 likensthis 'practical systematicity'to the"handwriting of a person who keeps her style, immediately recognisable, when shewrites with instruments as diverse as a pencil, a pen or a piece of chalk and on media as different as a sheet of paperand a blackboard" (Bourdieu 2002:28). Hence, while the individual acts with a degree of autonomy, she is disposed toher shared habitus (Reed-Denahay 2005:15). Bourdieu uses 'lifestyle'to describe a human behaviour that is not monolithic, but rather a 'loose systematicity':"veryopen, very diverse, but within limits"(Bourdieu 2002:29). Defining this structure as a "program of perception and action19realized through empirical work"fosters a broad and shifting diversity of readings and leaves habitus"hand in glovewith vagueness and indeterminacy" (Bourdieu 1990:77).Although rejecting 'theoretical parthenogenesis; Bourdieunevertheless explores the genesis and application of habitus (Bourdieu 1985). However its actualization, the extentof 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 relationis one of "diffusion rather than direct impact"and forms a commonality that is"bound to form a mental habit no lessdecisive 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 Scolastiquesixteen years later. Importantly, Bourdieu clarifies that the orientating habitus imbues choices with a finality (thoughnot expressly to an ultimate end) that reveals itself only after the selection (Dianteill, E.2003:530).Bourdieu laudsPanofsky's contribution of providing a convincing explanation for the"structural homologies that he finds betweensuch different areas of intellectual activity as architecture and philosophical thought." Specifically,"what the architectsof the Gothic cathedrals unwittingly borrowed from the schoolmen was a...modus operandi, i.e. a 'peculiar methodof procedure which must have been the first thing to impress itself upon the mind of the layman wherever it camein touch with that of the schoolman:"Thus the Scholastic literary presentation requiring the"author to make plainand explicit...the arrangement and logic of his argument"also governs the architect as exhibited in the"consumateclarity"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, theeducated beholder can interpret as symbol or myth" (Bourdieu 1968:592). Delineating two levels of interpretation—thefirst related to"our immediate sensations or experiences (when a peach is described as velvety)" and the secondcontextualizing the art work"so that its phenomenal meaning is embedded within other levels of meaning"and that apicture can not only represent"The Last Supper; but the images and methods of composition are"treated as culturalsymbols 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"onlyexceptionally and almost accidentally"abandons the point of view of the interpreter who "represses the questionof 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 Rogervan der Weyden's Three Magi altarpiece when analyzing advertising material for the housing market (Bourdieu2005:61). While Dovey states that"habitus is a term borrowed from architecture" (specifically Panofsky), Sapiro notesthat 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 2002:268and Dianteill, E.2003:547 n4-5). Bourdieu notes connections of his conception of habitus with precedents of Hegel andHusserl, 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 socialhierarchy (Dovey 2002:267-268). By demonstrating the reflexive relation between physical and gender, social andmythic structures, Bourdieu criticizes even meticulously detailed descriptions of the interior space as subject toomission 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 asreified 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 innatecharacter—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 habitatexperiences radical change, the response from the habitus is evolutionary (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:133 andDovey 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 repudiatedas structuralist his 1973 essay on the Berber House twenty years after its publication and mostly confined writing onarchitects to their function as state civil servants or architect-builders until 2003 when he noted that architecture'scultural production was similar to poetry or literature (Lipstadt 2003:391 and Bourdieu 2002:32).51 Bourdieu 2006 [19771:9552 Bourdieu frequently illustrates the structure of a field through the analogue of the game, although he cautions thata field is not the product of a deliberate act of creation and its rules are more accurately regularities that are not20explicit nor codified, resulting in significant fluidity and complexity (Bourdieu and Wacquant:98,104).To be successfulin a game situation, agents need not only knowledge of these rules, but an understanding from experience of howthey may be modified. Activities are constructed not simply from external limitations but through "internalisationsand placing of limits" by the individual actors on herself (Hillier and Rooksby 2002:7). Fields inform the habitus sinceembodied 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)"(Bourdieuand Wacquant 1992:17). Field theory stems from 1851i-century developments in fluid dynamics that linked a potentialfor transmitted force to spatial coordinates in studies involving gravity, electricity and magnetism among others. Itsadoption by the social sciences is contested; Bourdieu compared social fields to magnetic fields in 1969, but latercastigated 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 socialstructures 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 isproduced under—but cannot be reduced to—certain historical conditions. It is the"product of a historic process ofprogressive collective creation"which neither obeys a plan nor is abandoned to chance."The existence of a field isdependent on agents possessing the disposition necessary to constitute the field, which can only be incorporated intothe 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 thestruggle" (Bourdieu 1993:34). Lipstadt clarifies that it is only through the definitive "contest for authority over the fielditself"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, agentsor 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 theirobjective relation to other positions"(Bourdieu 1998:32 and Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:97).With the assertion ofa new position, there is a displacement of the entire structure affecting the extent and shape of the field that leadsto adjustments by other involved agents (Bourdieu 1993:58).Although the analytic comparison of social field andmagnetic fields is contested, the interrelation of positions is metaphorically analogous to a magnet:"a social field exertsa force upon all those who come within its range. But those who experience these 'pulls' are generally not aware oftheir 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 1993:40-4159 Identifying the structure and uses of field is the "first precept of method"as the field functions as "conceptualshorthand"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." Thenotion 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 partof the science of the group and the specious bounding of the profession that, despite "efforts at codification andhomogenization through certification','rejects that the very definition of legitimacy is part of the stakes of the strugglewithin the field. As an aggregative effort, the idea of profession supersedes and obliterates all differences that make, forinstance, 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 asa "profession that is not really one"and the codified realms of experts and engineers, architecture—commonlyconsidered 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 Englishlanguage, Lipstadt notes that the relation has been developed to greater lengths in French literature (Lipstadt2003:392).60 Referring to Cassirer's Substance and Function, Bourdieu notes that while it is easier to think in terms of realities thatcan be 'touched with the finger; in a sense7"one must think relationally'to"take as one's object the social work ofconstruction 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 generaltheory of the economy of fields (Bourdieu 1985:20).2162 Capital "confers a power over the field,over the materialized or embodied instruments of production or reproductionwhose distribution constitutes the very structure of the field, and over the regularities and the rules which define theordinary 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 fieldsrather than the founding model from which other theories of capital are derived. (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:119-120).64 A. Johnson 1995:2865 Without considering capital as both inscribed in structures and as the principle "underlying the immanent regularitiesof the social world; every moment is "perfectly independent."Bourdieu illustrates this imaginary universe as a game ofroulette; 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 socialenergy 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 (Bourdieu1986:241-242).The"existing fabric of our cities" is that of substantial "social, financial and cultural" investment (Barnett1974:3).69 R.Johnson 1993:769 Bourdieu 1986:24370 Embodied cultural capital is realized through a process of "embodiment, incorporation, which, insofar as it implies alabor 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 alwayssubject to the "visible marks"of early acquisition. Bourdieu and Passeron illustrate acquisition and acculturation oflinguistic markers within the system of education: bourgeois language can be handled adequately only given anacquired 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 speakersbecause it is the product of the social conditions of the acquisition and use of language" (Bourdieu and Passeron1990:114-119). Indices are capacities of thought and action manifest, and are similarly legible in "bodily language andfacial 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 byproxy—the"basis of the ambiguous status of cadres"that do not possess economically the means of production butderive profit from their own cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986:247).73 Bourdieu illustrates conferment through the comparison of the last successful candidate from the first unsuccessfulone in a competitive recruitment exam; although the difference is likely infinitesimally small, the results consecrateslasting and absolute differences in cultural capital.The"performative magic"of institutionalized cultural capital lends arelative conversional stability between cultural and economic forms.This can be attributed, in part, to its break from thespecific 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 concentratescertain agents to act on behalf of the whole (Bourdieu 1984:250-251).75 Bourdieu 1984:25276 Dovey 2002:27177 The dominant discourse forwards the economic world as a "pure and perfect order" (Bourdieu 2005:209-211 andBourdieu 1998b).78 Bourdieu opposes habitus to the "Cartesian philosophy of action which is revived today in the tradition of homooeconomicus as a rational agent, who chooses the best means, the best strategies by a conscious calculationoriented towards the maximisation of profits and, more generally, in the sociological current called 'MethodologicalIndiivdualism: which accepts the same presuppositions concerning the logic of human action (Bourdieu 2002:28).2279 Punter notes that within the CityPlan Neighbourhood Visions programme "communities were learning through proforma analysis what amenities cost" (Punter 2003:308).80 Bourdieu 2005:13581 Bourdieu 2006 [1977]:3082 The common understanding that an official board decision can be passed with the proviso that support not setaprecedent denies that the very language of the contest is contested.83 Bourdieu 1991:7284 It is better to speak of the"symbolic effects of capilarsince every kind of capital functions as symbolic to differentdegrees. Dovey comments that it"is the most problematic form of capital to define and there is considerable slippagein Bourdieu's use of it; noting that in his early work it is "largely subsumed under objectified cultural capital" whilelater 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 positionsand 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 "certainartists or writers and more widely all holders of cultural capital—experts, administrators, engineers, journalists—mayfind themselves granted as a counterpart to the technical or symbolic services they render to the dominants" (Bourdieu1996:221).86 This theoretical construction "removes the conditions making possible the institutionally organized and guaranteedmisrecognition which is the basis of gift exchange and, perhaps, of all the symbolic labour intended to transmute, bythe sincere fiction of a disinterested exchange, the inevitable, and inevitably interested relations...into elective relationsof 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 ita stage in a relationship of exchange that transcends singular acts of exchange','the time lapse between the gift andcountergift forms the gap between phenomenological and structuralist approaches (Bourdieu 2000:191-192).87 Bourideu 2006 rl 9771:171 and Bourdieu 2000:19288 Bourdieu 2006 [1977]:4089 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 1994:4-591 Bourdieu 1994:492 The"instituted institution makes us forget that it issues out a long series of acts of institution (in the active sense) andhence has all the appearances of the natural" (Bourdieu 1994:3-4). Specifically, the "effects of choices made by the statehave so completely impressed themselves in reality and in minds that possibilities intitially discarded have becometotally 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 awork or normalization and codification, quite analogous to that which the state effects concurrently in other realms ofsocial 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 asintrinsicially aesthetic, given by the perfect agreement between mental structures and objective structures—betweenthe mental forms socially instituted in minds through the teaching of correct spelling and the reality designated bywords rightfully spelled" (Bourdieu 1994:1-2).Bourdieu views the 'contemporary technocracy' as the -structural (and sometimes genealogical) inheritors' of thenoblesse 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 andWacquant 1992:111 n.64).94 These fields "often take the empirical form of commissions, bureaus and boards"and that the guises of their authorityunder state policy include legislation, regulations and administrative measures—subsidies, authorizations and23restrictions (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:111). Bourdieu cautions that"to think the state" risks "applying to the statecategories 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 "notmarketable commodity"of the"study and control"of the city illustrates the"official representation of the official"thatmisrecognizes power as universal interest (Bourdieu 1994:2 and Spaxman 1991:90).96 Bourdieu 1994:3Chapter Two:Discretion As Control252.1 IntroductionWith the City of Vancouver as the relevant holder of state power in the development of the urbanenvironment within its bounds, it widely exercises its influence in the legalization of capital and thedetermination 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 ofdiscretionary measures has instead expanded the City's control.This shift during the past quarter centuryparalleled 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 contradictoryrelations; the refusal of the historical dichotomies of public and private, discretion and zoning, and aestheticsand law leads to an environment of greater control that is realized through the common interest.Thiseffort is exercised through both physical and social space, with the visible effects in the former descriptiveof the less tangible shifts in the latter. By tracing the movement towards amenitization as an ideologicalfunction intending to replicate the social structure, heritage serves as a particular scene of transaction.Withthe legitimization of public goods facilitating the misrecognition of involved capital and the deformationof relevant fields, heritage underwrites the "most successful economic development programs in thecity's history."97 Based on a "level of trust and cooperation between city authorities and developers that isuncommon...[the realization of heritage] relies on the creativity of both to make these projects work, and aflexibility in policy that, at times, stretches the bureaucratic blinders." 98 The understanding that the"more ofthe good produced the better"expressed through the mandate to protect"as many 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 socialenvironment."2.2 Ideological States"Any mode of production, and in particular any social formation, involves a process of reproduction ofa specific built environment, which is essential to the reproduction of society in general.." 0° Hence, theprocedural address of development permit approval and assessment of related charges, are simultaneouslytechnical and "deeply political matters"directly informing the empowered governing structure. 101More explicitly, in the understanding of classical Marxism, it can be assumed that the dominant modeof production gives birth to social functions and their spaces. 102 Yet, while reproducing the means ofproduction is the primary responsibility of the state apparatus, several empirical problems have arisensince the late 19"' century questioning the existence of a truly independent, wholly repressive state. 103 Therelationship between the state and these societal institutions cannot be discussed without consideringideology: the "system of ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or social group." 104Refining the understanding of the state apparatus, sociologist Louis Althusser describes ideological stateapparatuses that operated in conjunction with the traditional Marxist understanding of the repressive stateapparatus. 105 Operating primarily through ideology to reproduce the means of production, ideological stateapparatuses—while not exclusively determinate—differ from the repressive state apparatus that functionsfirst by repression. It is this regenerative capacity of ideology that enables the state apparatus to survive thepolitical 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 thephysicality of built form delimits and structures activity, architecture's primary influence in the determination26of the urban environment occurs in its close liaison with the dominant ideology through its reflexiveconditioning of the state. With the reported decline of the repressive state apparatus noted during recentyears, 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 contemporaryurban environment specifically conditioned by first the naturalization of land use limitations and then thesubsequent adoption of discretionary controls.2.3 Naturalized ZoningWithin the broader mandate of planning, the district zoning schedule documents the intent, approveduse and regulations governing specific areas of the city; zoning by-laws are the"instruments by whichthe objectives that were formulated into a master plan are carried out." 106 These controls are formative ofthe contemporary city:they are employed to achieve public objectives, and the "regulations of buildingform...reflects public values." 107 Zoning originated in the late 19th-century in Continental Europe, and thescientification of urban design in British and North American contexts quickly followed.This expansionin land use controls raised the conceptual issue regarding the origin of development rights, traditionallyunderstood from an American perspective as coming from the "land itself,'up from the bottom' likeminerals or crops;" meaning that allowed density—as well as any land use-regulation—is a "limitationrather than a governmental grant of the right to build." However, increasing urbanization and changingmeans of production, paired with the expanding influence of the welfare state, naturalized planning withthe government"setting overall densities and then apportioning them unevenly over the community.' '108The City of New York adopted the first American comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1916 that, divergingfrom precedents that insured the separation of noxious or incompatible uses—such as heavy industry andresidential—or imposed height limitations to diminish fire risk, introduced regulation to shape the physicalform of the city by creating a maximum envelope stepping back from the edges of the site as it rose topreserve light and ventilation for adjacent parcels and streets. By addressing the uncertainty of new towerdevelopment to support the maximization of land values and the realization of tax revenue, developers andthe City understood this effort to result in mutual financial gain. 109 Increasing complexity in the approachto zoning led to studies for a replacement zoning resolution as early as 1948, although New York City didnot enact a new zoning ordinance until 1961 with development form based upon the floor area ratio, or thetotal building square footage divided by the site size square footage, for a given district zoning."°The zoningresolution also introduced provisions that sought street-level public spaces in the form of plazas and arcadesin exchange for bonused density, and specified three approval processes with the most significant amenityspaces 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 beregulated by ordinance," rarely necessitating variances or special exceptions, North American municipalitieswere already approving high numbers of appeals requesting variances from zoning requirennents. 112However, while the courts tolerated the vagueness of standards for consideration of variances, most juridicalbodies upheld the myth that legislative enactments satisfactorily governed most zoning cases in order toavoid the "unnecessary and dangerous" prospect of"discretionary power not cast as ancillary to the code."" 3The municipal council of Point Grey passed Canada's first zoning bylaw in 1922 as a "means for controllingdevelopment 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 firstzoning bylaw following the merger in 1929. 115 Common to both Canada and America is an interpretation of27property 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. .116Property 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 zoningcomplying with the police power"failed to consider the dissimilarities of the Canadian and Americanlegal and constitutional systems especially in terms of compensation, with domestic public authoritiesable to dramatically increase, or decrease,the value of land by changing the permitted uses,"but, absentexpress statutory provision to the contrary, the owner is not entitled to compensation."" 8 Hence, althoughzoning as a device was found Constitutional in the United States in 1926, the determination of the validuse of police power allows a much greater judicial review of land use legislation in particular applicationsthan 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 movementaway from Euclidean zoning signalled an expansion in the role of planning to determine North Americancities.Vancouver's first planning-related use of the possibilities forwarded by the Charter's adoption, theintroduction of discretionary zoning in 1956—although its use would not become predominant for anothertwo decades—recognized the limitations of more economistic standards and increasing legitimation ofaesthetic claims. 121 The newly adopted bylaw acknowledged that nonconforming uses might be acceptablewithout rezoning "so long as the negative impacts of these uses could be mitigated." 122 While a morediscretionary approach promised to secure the "benefits of diverse uses and imaginative design"throughthe evaluation of plans based on individual merit the widespread granting of variances betrayed that, evenprior to adopting discretionary practices, zoning administrators performed both "a technical and politicalfunction."123The urban environment in the middle of the twentieth century underwent dramatic change enabled bytechnological advances and the rapid increase in the valuation of land placing significant pressure todemolish existing buildings and rezone areas for greater density. Although Vancouver's experience laggedby comparison to other urban centres, during the decade beginning in 1965, the office capacity of thedowntown core nearly doubled with an increase of about 5.5 million square feet. 124 A vigorous reactionagainst development practices aligned with wider societal shifts to reform the North American planningapparatus. Critics charged that the city's development was "in the hands of people and corporations wholook upon the city as a real estate operation',' replaced fine old downtown buildings with "sleek, shinytowers','and were motivated only by the greatest profit. 125 Although significant procedural changes to themethod 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 transitionedto discretionary controls that risked the production of "unpredictable results,"and implicit in the new zoningwas a "lower development potential allowed outright, and a greater potential allowed on a discretionarybasis."127 Subjecting development to the achievement of goals and principles measured through guidelinesand 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 ofthe previous regime signalled a widely heralded shift in the nature of development based on a system ofsubstantial discretionary control and elaborate zoning and administrative systems based on "clear rules ofdecision making." 728 Yet, the ideologies on which the city was founded persisted and found new means bywhich to exert control over the built environment. Following the implementation of discretionary zoningand the negotiated approach that it entailed, municipalities across North America wrestled anew withbalancing the individual's right to property with the greater public good. In the interest of"high standards"28discretionary zoning was expected to follow personal prejudices and increase the intimacy—and cost—ofadministrative bodies. 7292.4 AmenitizationIn a 1973 memorandum calling for an "added value"tax on the increase in property values resulting fromrezoning the City identified rezoning to a higher use as"the greatest gift that the City can give to an owner ordeveloper."130 The notion that the civic act of rezoning should not bring windfall fortunes to the owner whileconferring 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 borneby the affected individuals due to the increase market valuation of their property.13' This effort aligned withthe emerging criticism of the capitalist relation to labour charging that the value of land is not limited to thereward of production, but includes value arising from community growth and therefore"properly belongsto the community."132 The"burgeoning population, increasingly complex socioeconomic problems andpronounced 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.133Narrowly construed, betterment can be viewed as the"increase in the value of neighbouring propertybrought about by a particular improvement,"although the British Uthwatt Committee convened in the 1940sdefined 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 planningfollowed the Barlow and Scott Committee finding that"the major obstacle to effect planning was the failureof 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 ofvalue.' 36 The Uthwatt Committee cited as precedent the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909 as the"closesthistoric 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 itspractical application."137 Although the recommendations forwarded failed to be adopted, financial provisionsof the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 called for the"nationalisation of the development value of landso that private owners were to keep only the value of their real property in its existing use" 138 The Canadianexperience with betterment recapture dates to the 1912 adoption of the province of New Brunswick's firstcomprehensive town planning act that contains provisions clearly modeled from the antecedent EnglishAct. 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 thestructure of this early legislation. 14° Continuing the determination made in the initial wake of failed schemesthat the need to recapture betterment does not arouse the public conscience, there seems be limitedinterest 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 coststo the public on the one hand and the efficient operation of the market on the other." 142 However, its effectis marked on other forms of capital as well, suggesting that a test of proportionality questioning "whetherthe scale of what is required or sought is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposeddevelopment"is appropriate in legislating betterment. 143 Further complicating this effort is that the mannerand situations in which compensation and levies are made affects the cost of planning and will"thereforeexert an influence on the amount and type of planning" undertaken."'29Amenity contributions allowed the provision of a range of on-site amenities as major redevelopments shiftedfrom municipally-owned undertakings in the 1970s to privatelylcontrolled,"single-ownership downtownwaterfront sites." 145 These efforts aligned with the withdrawal of the nation state as expressed through therestructuring of Crown corporations leading to the sale of waterfront lands towards increased partnershipsbetween private capital and local government resulting in"larger, more expensive, and more symbolicdevelopments." 146 As the strategy of densifying the residential population on the downtown peninsula ofVancouver expanded its focus from the industrial rail yards along the water to the city itself, it necessitateda means to provide similar community facilities in the envisioned neighbourhoods to be realized through anumber of separate developments. 147 In 1991, City Council approved the Central Area Plan that significantlyconsolidated the commercial core in favour of residential zoning and solicited a provincial amendment tothe 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 beenapplied city-wide, amenity contributions continue to be applicable in privately-initiated rezonings. Asrezoning for higher densities increases land values, development is viewed as able to support public amenitycosts beyond other established development levies. Referred to as land lift, this rise in value resulting fromthe density increase serves as the origin for amenity negotiation. While the city's physical land supply isrelatively inelastic, planning mechanisms determine the availability of buildable area through density andland use controls. A development proposed at three-times the zoned density of a site would theoreticallyrequire triple the site area so that its floor space ratio (FSR) is allowable by-law, a solution that may not bedesirable or possible due to the limited availability of building sites [Figure 2.1]. 148 Allowing the proposal toproceed with the increased density on the original site requires discretionary rezoning by means of Councilapproval, and the more intensive use results in a dramatic increase of the private value of the land throughFigure 2.1: Land Lift Creation Through RezoningDate By-law Effectiveul cr% Lel N e—c0 In coo c0 ON 0, 0, 0, a, 0 0 0 001 01 01 01 Cl rn 01 01 0, 0 0 0 0  N N30public policy.ln Figure 2.1 the foremost diagram displays a base case development scenario of complete sitecoverage at the zoned 7.0 FSR.The middle scenarios similarly conform to this density limit and, while likelyrequiring 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 sameratio and, assuming the additional land is available at the same cost per square foot, results in a land valuethat is also three times the previous examples.' 49 However, the resulting unbuilt site is decidedly non-urban ifoften replicated and furthermore is improbable in the consideration of the development approved in the lastscenario since it requires a site that exceeds the length of the block. Developing the intensified floorspaceon the base case site does not conform to area zoning and results in the dramatic increase in value realizedthrough municipal rezoning that is the subject of amenity contributions.Increasingly, divergent uses or densities have exercised zoning for specific sites that entwine codified zoningand 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 in1963 in order to address "unique sites or areas or to accommodate special uses or forms of developmentwhich do not fit within a standard zoning district schedule,"the zoning has increasingly supplanteddowntown area zoning, emphasizing the opportunistic approach to development permission [Figure 2.4. 152Today, the downtown peninsula is comprised of hundreds of districts scheduled in the zoning by-law, anda dramatic range of permissible density as the scale of individual parcels [Figure 2.3]. 153 CD-1 zoning allowsCouncil through by-law enactment to establish design conditions that must be met prior to approval ofFigure 2.2: Downtown CD-1 ZoningDate CD-1 Bylaw Address Use Title1983 155 5683 650 West Georgia Street Parkade Parkade - Scotia Bank Tower1984 163 5773 1095 West Hastings Street and 1095 West Pender Street Office Manulife Place / Portal Park164 5810 601 West Hastings Street Office Price Waterhouse Cooper169 5852 1003 Pacific Street Residential Crystallis / Seastar1986 177 5997 1060-1080 Alberni Street Residential The Carlyle178 6009 1311 Beach Avenue Residential Tudor Manor182 6057 424 Drake Street Residential Pacific Point1987 195 6221 988-1014 Beach Avenue Residential 990-1000 Beach199 6260 1256-1262 Howe Street Nonmarket B'Nai B'Rith Manor200 6263 1308-1338 Alberni Street Residential Alberni Place / Emerald West1988 204 6304 Robson Square Complex Civic Robson Square227 6394 1415 West Georgia Street and 1400 West Pender Street Residential Palais Georgia228 6420 909 Burrard Street Residential Vancouver Tower229 6421 900 Burrard Street Residential / Cinema Paramount Place233 6428 1500-1520 Alberni Street Residential 1500 Alberni235 6448 131-145 West Pender Street Nonmarket Pendera1989 239 6486 1275 Burrard Street Residential The Ellington / Radio Station CKWX (demolished)243 6577 757 West Hastings Street Office Sinclair Centre248 6564 1523 Davie Street Restaurant Gabriola Mansion1990 251 6676 888 Beach Avenue (3 towers) Residential 888 Beach252 6688 901-999 Beach Avenue Residential Coral Court254 6710 1250 Melville Street Residential Pointe Claire259 6730 1301-1325 West Pender Street Residential Harbourside Park260 6731 1215-1239 West Georgia Street Residential Venus264 6744 101 Terminal Avenue Neighbourhood CityGate265 6747 International Village (6 sub-areas) Neighbourhood International Village266 6757 1100, 1200, 1300 Blocks Pacific Boulevard Neighbourhood Yaletown Edge (False Creek North)1991 271 6787 888 Pacific Street Residential Pacific Promenade / Terraces Building272 6819 1144-1152 Mainland Street Office / Parkade Yaletown Building273 6817 833 Helmcken Street, 1067-1095 Howe Street Residential Imperial Tower278 6885 901 West Hastings Street Parkade Parkade - Hornby Park279 6884 530-580 Burrard Street, 535-567 Hornby Street Office Bentall 51992 287 7006 1255 Burrard Street Residential Milano1993 289 7088 300 West Georgia Sreet Civic Library Square297 7156 1200-1300 Pacific Boulevard South (FCN) Neighbourhood Roundhouse Neighbourhood311 7201 150 Pacific Boulevard North Arena General Motors Place Stadium312 7200 300 Cardero Street (5 sub-areas) Neighbourhood Marine Neighbourhood316 7209 526-528 West Hastings Street Residential / Hotel / Office Conference Plaza / Delta Suites / Toronto-Dominion Bank318 7223 1300 West Georgia Street (2 towers) Residential The Lions319 7224 1200 Alberni Street Residential The Palisades321 7232 1601 West Georgia Street, 1601-1650 Bayshore Drive (5 sub-areas) Neighbourhood Bayshore Gardens322 7235 970 Burrard Street Residential Electra323 7246 750 Burrard Street Office / Retail Main Branch Library324 7248 800-1100 Pacific Boulevard Neighbourhood Quayside (False Creek North)1994 329 7340 300 Robson Street Residential Eight.One.Nine1995 331 7381 1054-98 Robson Street Retail Robson Centre Place336 7431 1575-1577 West Georgia Street Residential (unbuilt) 1575 Georgia (office)1996 342 7516 1100-1114 Burnaby Street Hotel Hostelling International343 7519 1202-92 West Georgia Street Residential Residences on Georgia / Abbott House345 7531 910 Beach Avenue Hotel The Meridian346 7551 350 Robson Street Residential Galileo348 7556 34 West Pender Street Nonmarket The CBA Manor349 7592 750 Pacific Boulevard Casino / Entertainment Plaza of Nations363 7679 201 Burrard Street (4 sub-areas) Exhibition / Residential / Hotel / Office* Convention Centre / Fairmount Pacific Rim / Shaw Tower364 7681 501 Bute Street (5 sub-areas) Neighbourhood * Harbourgreen Park365 7677 301 Jervis Street (Marina Neighbourhood sub-area 1 B) Neighbourhood Escala / Coal Harbour Community Centre366 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 Motors1997 374 7820 1762 Davie Street Residential 021998 378 7852 555 Carrall Street Nonmarket S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Multi-Level Care379 7853 598 Taylor Street Residential Taylor384 7948 1200 Hamilton Street Hotel Opus Hotel Vancouver1999 386 7971 1001 Hornby Street, 1050 and 1088 Burrard Street Hotel / Residential Sheraton Hotel / Wall Centre392 8043 1005 Beach Avenue Residential Alvar400 8130 600 Nicola Street Residential Dockside Live/Work401 8122 500-800 Canada Place Way Port Translink / industrial use2000 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 Vantage413 8536 801 West Georgia Street Residential / Hotel • 699 Howe / Hotel Georgia414 8546 600 Granville Street, 602 Dunsmuir Street Residential / Hotel The Hudson / St. Regis Hotel / Gotham Restaurant415 8587 651 Expo Boulevard Neighbourhood • Spectrum (False Creek North)416 8592 1175 Broughton Street Nonmarket Millenium Tower2003 418 8740 488 Robson Street Residential R & R2004 419 8819 1201 West Hastings Street Residential * Cielo422 8896 900 Pacific Boulevard Neighbourhood Coopers Park (False Creek North)423 8925 1475 Howe Street Residential Pomaria426 8943 1120 West Georgia Street Residential / Hotel Shangri-La2005 427 8978 1001-1015 Denman Street Residential / Retail (unbuilt) retail428 8993 33 West Pender Street Residential 33 West Pender431 9081 811-821 Cambie Street Residential Raffles on Robson432 9088 950 Quebec Street Residential Creekside435 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 Ritz442 9173 898 Seymour Street and 887-897 Richards Street Residential / Parkade* Vita / Dolce443 9184 826-848 West Hastings Street Residential / Office* Jameson House / Ceperely Rounsfell / Chamber of Mines444 9190 955 Burrard Street Residential / Childcare Patina / YMCA445 9204 969 Burrard Street and 1017-1045 Nelson Street Religious / Residential (unbuilt) First Baptist Church446 9195 1133 West Georgia Street Residential Ritz-Carlton2006 450 9275 101 and 149 West Hastings Street and 150 West Cordova Street Residential / Institutional / Nonmarket Woodwards / SFU School for Contemporary Arts2007 455 9460 701 Granville, 701 W Georgia, 777 Dunsmuir, 700 W Pender Office / Hotel / Retail Pacific Centre / Four Seasons Hotel / 6 office towersNotes for Table 2.1: Downtown Comprehensive ZoningTitles 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 aredesignated 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 of1275 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 ModernMovement 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 listedinclude 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 ofanother 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 considerednonmarket 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, andthose 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 inAppendix A.32related development applications. Since site specific rezoning is typically developer initiated and ofteninvolves a shift towards more intensive density or the change from industrial to commercial or residential, itis the primary site of betterment collection.In 1989,Vancouver introduced Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) to formalize the city's negotiationfor 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 problematiclegal implementation common to legislation. Although rezoning approval remains at the discretion of CityCouncil, the developer solicits support from the Planning Department by collectively determining withCity 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 alsoapplies 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 Citywill not permit development until a suitable CAC is secured. In 2004, the City Council updated the roleof CACs in Vancouver, addressing the "piecemeal pattern" of widely varying rates across scattered sitesthrough the introduction of a citywide framework based on a flat rate. 155 Recognizing the complication ofcore development due to the many policies affecting density allowances also in place, the same decisionreclassified downtown as non-standard, predisposing every project in this area to a "negotiated approach." 156This process is intrinsically discretionary and "what is deemed fair at one point in time is open to negotiationat a subsequent time." 157Figure 2.3: Maximum Density For All Uses Under Zoning By-law as of June 200633Since the city's first use of CACs affected large-scale developments such as Coal Harbor and False CreekNorth, funding often provided in-kind facilities on-site. Cash specified for off-site projects addressing thecommunity followed, while more recently unallocated cash allows even greater flexibility.' 58 Regardlessof collection form,the"people in the development must benefit from the CAC'in principle'"and thecontributions 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 andcircumstance as well as the development economics of the project to determine the use of discretionaryfunds.'" Developers and City staff—representatives of amenity-related departments--collectively determinethe nature and financial commitment. Unlike other levies that are legally circumscribed, the flexibility of CACsallows the City to define an open-ended range of amenities including heritage.These allocations inform therelation of amenities to one another and advance precedents for defining collective priorities.While heritage has limited capital funding opportunities making it reliant on development mechanismsfor support, it also is a very flexible value, encourages substantial collateral benefits to the developmentand produces private space as public amenity, making it a favoured amenity provisioned through amenitycontributions. The pro forma analysis, intrinsic to the valuation of both the private and public componentsof 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 applicationof CACs is heritage, accounting for the majority of values recorded between 2001 and 2005 for amenitycontributions citywide. 161 Further, with the broad number of aesthetically based controls including towerplacement guidelines,floorplate maximums, setbacks, height limitations and the city's notorious viewcones, the airspace created by onsite heritage in redeveloped areas is necessary to realize the density andplacement of towers.The substantial increase of space realized through the creative use of heritage whenconsidered alongside its collateral benefits, illustrates the dramatic constructive potential of heritage as amaterial. Similarly, with transferred density valued by the City at creation at a rate lower than the equivalentmarket value of land to encourage its purchase, developers benefit through the control of both donor andreceiver sites.The value of heritage to private development is not viewed to be contrary to the realizationof its public value. However, the high ratio of the amenity contribution to the uplift value—the increase ofproperty value attributed to upzoning—compared to historical examples of betterment suggests that theprivate benefit conferred with the public contribution encourages the production of heritage in the city.2.5 Legalized AestheticThrough the affirmation of the "vision of that order which is held by the state','it is law that "consecratesthe 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 itsclassificatory operations the maximum permanence that any social entity has the power to confer uponanother, the permanence which we attribute to objects."' 63 The state defines and provisions meaning toproperty, and the legal expression of property as the boundary of state power follows, although "it is aboundary 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 andindifference"—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 existenceas a bundle of relations—specifically by defining offences as crimes against things rather than as injuriesto men." 166 Furthermore, distinction follows the distribution of property; an agent is"characterized by the34extent of the space he takes up and occupies (in law)"through his "space consuming" properties. 167 Thisdiscourse transcends the limitations of specific legal study by understanding the opposition drawn betweenuniversal legislation and the individual case as a false alchemy.168 The struggle of actors within the legalbody of a nation state affect the positioning of those central to other presumed sovereign bodies; theobservations of the "particular case of the possible"from the French academic field can be read in relation tothe limitations of aesthetic law noted in the United States and the specific determination of exchange valuein Vancouver.169 Legal assumptions are"thoroughly entrenched" in every day interaction and it is this verydurability of the juridical field that legitimates the particular cultural production of the urban environment. 170Through aesthetic regulation traceable to the mid-14th century, the codifying of beauty through lawpositions the cultural field within the dominant field of power.' 7 ' The study of aesthetic regulation by theprofessions 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 writingsof Chancellor of Law John Costonis clarifying that"aesthetic response is a social construct...shaped by theconventions of culture and time','Iegal opinion shares much with Bourdieu's critique of the Kantian aestheticby understanding taste as "grounded in an empirical social relation."' 73 The difficulties that taste presentsto the urban environment are significant:Costonis charges that aesthetic policy converts the false"premisethat beauty can be made to answer to abstract canons of aesthetic formalism into the conceit that legalinstitutions can use these canons to create a visually beautiful environment."' 74 The juridical corollary isthat visual beauty has historically served as the exclusive referent of aesthetics, even though form"plays asignificant but not dispositive role"when aesthetics is considered in regards to cultural stability and widersocial values.' 75By 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 thatit was within the power of local and senior government to "determine that the community should bebeautiful as well as healthy." 176 Whereas previous "statues and ordinances grounded solely on furthering ofaesthetic purposes"yielded to accomplishing their practical end on some other basis, contemporaneousjuridical decisions resurrected the romantic aphorism of"art for art's sake"by upholding action "solely foraesthetics." 177 Despite this apparent reversal, the involvement of legal technologies and the unmistakablesubscription of the professional fields to the power structure of the marketplace refuse all but the most rarepossibilities of the autonomous pursuit of beauty and facilitates the misrecognition of exchange value. Byconferring the legitimacy of aesthetics as an end in itself, legal opinion affirmed the utility of aesthetics toserve the dominant interest of capital accumulation and seemingly rendered invalid the effort it consecratedif it were not for the symbolic legitimacy extended by that act.The concept of aesthetics is"peculiarlyvulnerable to [this] metamorphosis"since its"scope is inherently vague and expansive;"when conceived asontological fact rather than social construct irconfers upon it an aura of legitimacy"since "everyone is, afterall, a lover of 'beauty." 78 Facilitating the "orchestrated production of an urban image" the seemingly uniqueposition of aesthetics in the determination of the built environment forwards "a range of mechanisms forsocial controrthrough the use of"design to predict, program and control all aspects of public behaviour."' 79This 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 whileneglecting the "modus operandi, the manner of acting"that is the style or habitus of the planner. Followingthis 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 themateriality of the city and social and power structures.18°352.6 HeritageSignificantly,"preservation law, particularly at the local level, is closest to land use and zoning','and legalopinion has to varying degrees noted over the past century"all planning and zoning is essentially aestheticin nature."181 The recognition of aesthetics as a legitimate end in planning encouraged the reconsideration ofhistoric buildings within urban areas, and by the 1960s,"preservation was becoming a planning process withbroad ramifications"for North American cities.' 82 The legitimation of heritage and its role in the amenitizationof the city coincided with the shift towards discretionary zoning practices; both served ideological rolesin 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 agingbuildings and, by 1974, one-third of the 16,000 structures listed in the United States federal government's1933 Historic American Buildings Survey had been demolished. Counted among the structures destroyedwere some of the "world's...most distinguished buildings"that"enriched, indeed defined the very characterof the urban fabric of which they were a part." 183 The loss of iconic structures in major North Americancities and the poor reception of their replacements energized a preservationist movement that understoodarchitecture as holding cultural value to the community. 184The 1967 Council approval of a freeway system for the city involving the destruction of a substantial portionof Chinatown catalyzed resistance against a policy of"economic costs before social costs," and led to an effortto utilize the identification of a historic resource to address a wider orthodoxy of "growth boosterism." 183In 1971, the provincial declaration of Chinatown and Gastown historic sites under the 1960 Archaeologicaland Historic Sites Protection Act designated 220 Vancouver parcels, requiring ministerial approval beforeFigure 2.4: Concurrent Development of Capital and Heritage PoliciesCAPITAL POLICY^ Revised CAC policy adoptionFinancing Growth ReportTransfer of density without rezoningVancouver Charter^ Transfer of density systemDiscretionary zoning and design review^ Central Area Plan1Development Cost LeviesCommunity Amenity Contributions  Transfer of Density PolicyFacilitated sale of development rightsDowntown Official Development Plan? Municipal▪ Charter Amendment^ ProvincialA FederalHERITAGE POLICY1960^ I 1970^ 1980^ i1990^ 2000Inventory of Historic BuildingsAArea DesignationsHeritage designationHeritage Conservation ActHeritage Conservation Program  Vancouver Heritage InventoryHeritage Polices and GuidelinesRecent Landmarks StudyHeritage Conservation Statues Amendments Act DHeritage Interiors ProjectGastown Heritage Management PlanHeritage Building Rehabilitation Program  Historic Places Initiative AArchaeologogica I and Historic Sites Protection Act36demolition or alteration of the exterior.186 Amended the following year, it remained the province's primaryheritage legislation until its replacement in 1977 by the Heritage Conservation Act. Heritage conservationinitiatives were discussed at the municipal level in 1972, although the City did not have the authority todesignate historic structures—an ability retained at the provincial levels—until the following year when theprovince changed the Municipal Act and amended the Vancouver Charter"to allow council to designate byby-law individual sites." 182 While the 1971 provincial designation of Gastown was designed as a temporarymeasure until the amendment of the Vancouver Charter allowing municipal designation, due to legislativeinadequacies, the City retained provincial designation, with authority for building alterations delegated tothe Director of Planning. 188Early efforts utilized the creation of historic areas to forestall demolition, with many buildings under thesedesignations continuing to slide into disrepair. Despite the rising legitimization of heritage concerns, theloss of historic buildings outside of these areas continued due to four primary factors: the "unfavorableattitude 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 thefailure of government landmark programmes to"grapple realistically" with this legal bias towards privateproperty rig hts. 189 Costonis further delineated the economic reality, noting that rapidly increasing land valuesplaced pressure on historic buildings that were, by comparison, diminutive, physically obsolete and sited onparcels too small to take advantage of the efficiencies available to new, larger-scale construction.' 90 Efforts toremedy the inadequate economic valuation of structures that typically led to demolition led to the creationof development mechanisms, including the transfer of density rights"(TDRs) designed to encourage sendingsite owners to forego some or all of their property's unused development potential" by allowing revenuefrom the sale of these rights.191 Conceptually, the key to the transfer of density rights is that the "developmentpotential of privately held land is in part a community asset that government may allocate to enhance thegeneral welfare,"severing the development potential from the land as a "separately marketable item"thatprovides an "equitable return on land investment"for owners negatively impacted by regulator activity."' 92It is further an indictment of the historical understanding of the"geographical uniqueness of land,"thatfails to acknowledge "land, including its development potential, has a monetary equivalent that can beexchanged." 193A TDR system directs development away from areas in which the planning authority identifies that there isa public interest in conserving to areas deemed appropriate for growth. Owners within conservation areacan enter into a deed restriction that stipulates future allowable development in exchange for developmentrights that can be sold as a commodity to the transfer area.' 94 Participation in the programme for owners inboth areas is voluntary, although the baseline option does not provide as great of development potential asthe TDR alternative.Vancouver's transfer of density policy for heritage conservation, similar to many urbancentres, encompasses the conservation and.transfer areas in a single geographic bound, roughly defined bythe downtown peninsula, Broadway corridor between Burrard and Main and South Granville [Figure 2.51. 195Within this area, donor sites—parcels encumbered by one or more heritage features—are rezoned or enterinto revitalization agreements stipulating reduced development potential onsite and the density is vestedas TDRs.The owner of these rights is then able to utilize them on another site or sell them to another ownerwithin the transfer area subject to approval by the Development Permit Board. In this scenario, the transferdistrict for development rights exists as an 'overlay zone' superimposed upon the density requirements ofthe existing bulk zones; the total density of the district remains constant with increases on receiver sitesbalanced by reductions on landmark sites.'9637In the early 1970s, buildings iconic to the City of Vancouver also experienced the pressures created by thehigh value of land relative to the structures occupying them. Christ Church Cathedral, today Vancouver'soldest surviving church and a "primary resource"for the city, was threatened with demolition, defendedthrough a broad consensus regarding its public value and the subject of the introduction of the transferof density to Vancouver to reach a beneficial outcome for all parties. 197 The public value of the Cathedralis an amalgam of social and historical importance, as well as the building's physical role in anchoring asignificant intersection in the city. 198 While the church's 1889 opening services were held under a temporaryroof covering the granite basement, in 1894 the sandstone superstructure was completed, and, in 1909 thechurch was enlarged with the chancel added in 1930. 199 Importantly, the church occupies a pre-eminentlocation within Vancouver; the intersection of Georgia and Burrard Streets is the cross of the city's twoidentified ceremonial streets and, when the church was made the cathedral of the Anglican Diocese of NewWestminster in 1929, it was in part because of the importance of the site [Figure 2.6]. 2°1' Yet, beginning inthe 1950s, Christ Church Cathedral, along with many other downtown North American churches, faced anerosion of financial resources due to widely experienced demographic shifts, and, by the end of the followingdecade, these fiscal problems had become acute with the Cathedral facing annual deficits and relying onreserve funds from large bequests to maintain solvency. Seeking to reconcile its operating shortfall andto increase the visibility of the church by opening the sanctuary to the street, the Cathedral proposed toengage its most valuable asset: its land. In the proposal that followed, the existing structure would be razedand a developer would building an office tower, a contemporary cathedral beneath grade and a prominentcross 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 oppositionFigure 2.5:Transfer of Density Area38groups and aligning it with the "cult of industrial progress and profit"and the growing irrelevance of"institutional a lost and dying world." 201 More specifically, concern was raised regarding the lossof the oldest surviving church in Vancouver, and the provincial premier compared its physical role to that ofTrinity Church in Manhattan as a sanctuary amongst the towering features of modernity. Since vestry votesin 1971 and 1972 indicated a majority support within the congregation, the widespread outcry surprisedboth the dean and church committee.2°2 The Cathedral's dean explained the discrepancy, noting that toopponents 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?"' InFebruary 1973, City Council requested the provincial government designate the building a historic site, andwithheld a development permit in June. Christ Church Cathedral was formally designated in December ofthe following year, although it was a distinction that the congregation "did not wish and about which theywere not adequately consulted;" in 1976 the Cathedral refused the Heritage Advisory Committee's offerto adorn the building with a heritage plaque. However,during these years the City also worked to brokeran agreement between the Church and the owner of much of the remainder of the block to permit thetransfer 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 conservationgoals.2°3 The result was that the Church realized significantly more financial assistance than it would haveunder the original proposal, and that the"Cathedral has got the best of both worlds:" it carries an elementof"timelessness in the heart of the city;"and it has "the viability to do it."204 Similar to catalysts of thepreservation movement in other North American cities, Christ Church Cathedral highlighted both the threatto existing buildings and the powerful potential of transfer of density and other development tools. Whilethe agreement did enable the construction of the largest office building in the city, the broadly expressedFigure 2.6: Potential of Heritage Development Mechanisms1998 1998200019981998 / 1499^1998^2001Downtown South and Yaletown1998^1998Downtown South: Burrard - GranvilleWest End^ Established CBD1999199939demand to save it from demolition suggests that it indeed served a public interest. 2°5Through the introduction of transfer of density rights and related mechanisms that served as both designand fiscal tools, heritage efforts could be realized without the extraordinary costs of the city procuringand rehabilitating structures.2°6 In 1983, Vancouver introduced a transfer of density policy allowing theconsideration of the transfer of density from one site to another provided that the transfer aided in achievingone of several policy objectives, although it remained largely unutilized for a decade before significantamendments expanded the potential of the heritage amenity. Despite the range of recognized interests, inpractice nearly every use of the transfer of density policy that did not involve adjacent parcels has served "topreserve heritage buildings or site," and, as part of the granting of bonus development rights, the HeritageDensity 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 thanthe 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 bonuseddensity awarded to compensate the owner for the costs associated with revitalizing a property encumberedby a heritage resource. Although the City generally discourages transfer of density offsite, donor sites arefound 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 sitesto accommodate each transfer individually. However, amendments approved in 1996 allowed the transfer ofup to ten percent of the district zoning FSR without rezoning the receiver site, and the introduction of HRAsrendered unnecessary the rezoning of donor sites following each transfer. 209Figure 2.7: Development Intensification through Transfer of Density40The role of development sites varies greatly with regards to supporting offsite heritage amenities.A receiversite that does not rezone, transferring ten percent or less of the maximum density, essentially utilizes a formof incentive zoning available to projects within the transfer of density area. In this scenario, the densityincrease is realized through a floorspace-based model with the cost of the density left to the marketnegotiation between the donor and receiver. Similarly, site rezonings that involve an expectation of anamenity contribution will consider this ten percent transfer of density from a heritage site as the maximumpermitted density prior to rezoning, lessening the uplift of the site and corresponding CAC responsibility by acommensurate amount. However, other developments receive a large amount of density with offsite heritageuse accounting for much or all of the collected CAC, requiring the City to value the density received in termsof its fiscal worth.This shift involving a financial commitment towards purchasing density either at large orfrom a specific site has ramifications regarding the liquidity of heritage as amenity. Specifically, receiver sitescan be approved to accept density prior to its creation at the heritage site, and it is a transaction reliant on acash-based model, moving from the abstracted notion of space in the city to the penultimate intangibilityof finance. By creating and managing the symbolic act of density transfer, the HDTS departs from traditionalplanning mechanisms that pursue a territorialized classification of the urban environment.21°The controlof permissible densities, accepted transfer areas and the economic cost of density bonusing allows the Cityto 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 Cityestablishes the rate of exchange for heritage density with density vested at the donor site at the rate of $25per square foot in 1993.This valuation remained constant until mid-2004 when it doubled to $50 per squarefoot, and in recent transactions has become more diverse based on land use and management interests onthe part of the City. Regardless of the rate when vested, the sale price of density is negotiated between thedonor and the receiver site owners, with the value disclosed to the City when it sanctions the transaction.TheCity maintains a low balance in order to support a relatively high market value of transferable density, andreserves 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 outrightrestrictions created through—first provincial and then municipal—legal mechanisms to means ofinducement 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 theVancouver Charter and initiated an inventory of historic buildings 211 On the advice of the Historic AreaAdvisory Board established in 1973,twenty buildings were designated the inaugural year of the programand another thirty in 1975.2 ' 2 However, following the successful lobby by owners for a clause in the provincialheritage legislation requiring compensation for loss in market value resulting from designation, the next fiftydesignations occurred over two decades.213 This"quid pro quo"system inaugurated by the 1977 adoption ofthe Heritage Conservation Act, results in a programme reliant on"all carrot and no stick,"seeking voluntarydesignations unlike the provincial area designation of Chinatown and Gastown in 1971 and designationsmade in 1974 and 1976 by the City of Vancouver imposing conditions on owners. 214 Instead, throughnegotiation with the City, owners exchange certain property rights for compensation and waive future claimsfor 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 thebeginning of contemporary bonuses and incentives with the planning director empowered to increasethe density onsite as long as "conservation, the impacts on liveability and environmental quality, and theappropriateness of requiring heritage designation as a condition of approval were considered."215 The41subsequent adoption of the 1987 Heritage Management Plan set"policies, guidelines, incentives andbonuses 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 useof Heritage Revitalization Agreements (HRA) that, since the following year, has outlined the duties andbenefits to both the owner of the heritage property and the city. 212 Entering into a covenant likely involvesdesignation of the building, rehabilitation and maintenance in perpetuity, and forfeiture of future claims.lnexchange, the owner is eligible to receive compensation including the relaxation of zoning regulations andbonused density.2.7 ConsecrationHeritage value is created and its value established through the consecration of the state. Symbolic capitalfrom heritage professionals, planning officials and the efforts of public bodies convened by these groups isconverted to economic resources through development mechanisms and serves to replicate the dominantideological structure; a primary value of heritage is the stabilizing effect on community.218 The definitionof heritage and allocation of resources at play—what should be saved, how it should be saved and whatis its role is in the identity of the city—is a struggle over the expression of collective value in the urbanenvironment; there is "no fixed criteria of judgment...the preservation of the architecture and the places andthe objects of the past, our judgment must be subjective based on the interests and the affections of thepeople."21 ° As a classificatory act, consecrating an official vision of heritage involves determining the relativeworth of fragmentation, facades and street staging to aestheticize the public realm against the pedagogicaland historic interests advocating the preservation of private property as a public value. Historic preservationhas been recognized since the 19th century as serving a public use through visual enjoyment, and isincreasingly 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"bestorgan of memory man has yet created." 221 Yet the determination of a legitimate heritage is controversial withcompeting claims to collective memory and taste, and stabilizing cultural heritage through concrete formsfaces the added threat of irrelevance if the response to these structures is not maintained. 222 That heritage isdefensible in both planning and legal terms is well established in North America, the greater controversy isdetermining 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 1986the City first adopted a municipal Heritage Inventory, produced by a "consultant team, which drove alongevery street in Vancouver."223 The Inventory was subsequently updated and renamed the Heritage Registerin 1994, when it included 2,200 buildings as well as other environmental elements of architectural orhistorical value constructed in 1940 or earlier. 224 In 1993 the Recent Landmarks Study identified 100 sites builtbetween 1940 and 1970 for possible inclusion. Qualification for registration for any resource involves theidentification 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 opportunityfor protection or rehabilitation possibilities, listing does not prevent the owner from altering or destroyinga registered building.228 Rather, by allowing the City to regulate the demolition, relocation and alteration ofheritage property through by-law, designation serves as the legal means for heritage protection. 228 Of thoseproperties listed, approximately 1 9cYo citywide are designated.42The symbolic role of designation in the determination of heritage is expressed in the competition todetermine what constitutes legitimate redevelopment of historic resources.The former Vancouver Citylibrary, designed by Semmens and Simpson and winner of a Massey Medal for architecture in 1958, failed tomeet market expectations due to its low intensity of use and substandard layout for commercial use; fourstories tall and valued between $1 and $3 million, the building's economic performance was wanting againstthe City's expectation of $30 million for land capable of accommodating a 20-storey tower. 227 Followingthe City's decision to sell the parcel with a pre-approved demolition permit, The Vancouver Sun promoteda common position: the sale was an economic given and, even if heritage was important, the buildingfailed to be beautiful.228 Although the threat of demolition marshalled to its defence those convinced by itsarchitectural 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 Thissubstantial amount—it would be a decade before half as much density would be approved for transfer fromanother heritage site and only the combined amenity and heritage bonuses created at 101 West HastingsStreet amount to a larger amount of density originating from any single site—was due in large part to theamount of density possible under area zoning. 231 The controversy over the library did not abate followingthe rezoning, as Council had failed to"accept the true meaning of heritage designation" defined by critics asprotecting "a listed building from unsympathetic alteration." 232 With the black granite facing at street leveland louvered facade above removed, interior reorganization involving the demolition of entry mural andmosaic, addition of a penthouse and broadcasting equipment and adornment with various advertisementsof its tenants,the rehabilitation dramatically altered the appearance and use of the original structure [Figure2.8]. Detractors deemed the resulting protected heritage building a less noble fate than demolition, havingpreviously noted the deliberate exclusion of integral components of the building's composition fromprotection that did not align with the developer's interests.This permissiveness was attributed to the City'sapproach 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 andurban form, its low profile encourages the visibility of the neighbouring Hotel Vancouver and it provides anaesthetic—if superficial—reminder to patrons of the mid-century public library.ln terms of its position inthe legacy of the Modern as a symbol of an era exploiting "industrial and technological advances to servethe interest of society as a whole,"the building's removal from civic service and restructuring of much of itsaesthetic is problematic to the representation of this period. 233 While municipal policy considers innate thathistoric sites embody"economic,social,architectural and cultural development" and serve as an "excellentmirror which reflects the values and circumstances that shaped [them]," it necessarily fails to recognize thatthis reflection is that of the means and circumstances of their designation, rehabilitation and protection. 234The former library is both physically and cognitively a site of competition to define heritage.This legitimatedform realized through legal designation—the symbolic work of the local state—is explicated throughplanning mechanisms that bind it to"redevelopment potential." 235City Council established the Vancouver Heritage Advisory Committee through a 1974 bylaw to adviseCouncil 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, thecompatibility of preservation with other uses and appropriate action respecting designation and subsequentpreservation, demolition or other alteration of these elements. 236 Since 1994, the advisory group—comprisedof ten community members appointed by the council and one acting councilor serving as liaison—has beenknown as the Vancouver Heritage Commission. Global movements such as the 1976 UNESCO World Heritage7-1.111 MM. 1111111-1Witt^ sr lJ,n1fArfil1—'11531411141.-7,it43Convention signed by the federal government, have influenced the direction of Canadian preservationefforts.237 Stemming from nineteenth-century debates regarding the appropriate approach to heritageconservation, the ideas of heritage have expanded to include a variety of values beyond the physical materialof 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 broadercriterion of qualification than previous efforts.238 From these efforts, a maturation of a heritage industry hascreated a body of knowledge and a profession to support it.239The prominence of aesthetic concerns in heritage, its relation to development in the municipality andthe role of development mechanisms in the achievement of wider goals of the City is highlighted in thepreparation and execution of recent heritage management plans.The site of Vancouver's first experiencewith heritage designations has served as the focus of Vancouver's most involved use of the heritage amenityto date.While the 1971 provincial designation of Gastown and Chinatown served to maintain "a distinctiveand tangible legacy of a formative period in Canada's economic and physical development,"the protectionalso encouraged a lack of investment that, combined with wider social trends, continued the deteriorationof much of the district.2" During the last decade renewed revitalization efforts included in its mandate thedelivery of an "attractive and inspirational place," recognizing that the public value of heritage Gastown isdecidedly 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 thearea"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 "pedanticcompliance with rigid regulations."These efforts tend to be viewed cumulatively with the consecration ofFigure 2.8: Commercial Use of Civic Heritage44past heritage programmes serving to increase the heritage value of the area for future consideration. Recentheritage assessments have identified the street beautification following Gastown's original designation asthe first"Canadian area-wide upgrading initiative for the purpose of heritage conservation" and serves asa resource in itself [Figure 2.9].The public value of heritage is expectedly focused on the streetscape, andwhile some heritage revitalization agreements limit conversion of the interior, more commonly the interestlies in the creation of interior spaces that appear as though they were "built yesterday, not yesteryear." 242Following a decade of expansion of the heritage amenity—including the revitalization of some buildingswithin the city's designated heritage areas—a 2001 report for the Planning Department on "effectiveheritage 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 promotingconservation."2432.8 ConclusionThe original recognition of a codified understanding of planning despite an aesthetic basis and expansionto legalize increasingly discretionary claims to that authority has significant effect in the determination ofurban form. With the relevant holder of state power exercised at the municipal level, the City has realizedgreater control through the legitimization of amenities facilitative of the historically contradictory claims ofthe public body and private capital.This increasing recognition of heritage as public amenity has catalyzeda rapidly expanding field in terms of the agents and capital involved. Since the value of heritage is notdivorced from its ability as a resource in the dominant economic development of the city, its significanceFigure 2.9: Aestheticized Streetscape45as public good is constructed and the heritage field is a site of contest over the description and bounds ofa legitimately recognized product.The development mechanisms that structure the symbolic conversionbetween economic and other species of capital describe the naturalization of a heritage amenity andprovide a means to understand the role of amenitization in the maintenance of a specific physical and socialenvironment.462.9 Notes for Chapter Two97 The Gastown Heritage Management Plan is credited with generating nearly a half billion dollars of new construction inthe Downtown Eastside, although the scale of the programme must be considered in its impact citywide (Fung 2006).98 Fung 200699 With wipeouts—or loss of private value due to public action—due to"plans and regulations from specialized unitsof 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 intensivedevelopment to support heritage programmes (City of Vancouver 2002[1986] 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 thebuilding of every house and storefront, but rather architecture is interpellated by the governing system. While Marxin his correspondence with Kugelmann notes that a child understands that a social formation must reproduce theconditions of production concurrently as it produces lest it will fail, the topographic model of infrastructure andrepressive superstructure remains limited in its ability to address the societal means of reproduction (Althusser1971:127-128).103The rise of the petty bourgeoisie in France shifted the possession of state power without largely affecting the stateapparatus and Foucault's efforts to splinter the subject—and with it the"single locus of great refusal"—furtheradulterates 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 thethreat of violence, but the suburban house, cathedral, and department store also shape the social formation throughless direct means (Althusser,1971:158)105The distinction in plurality is significant, as a number of ideological state apparatuses exist with no direct, visible unitywhile 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 StanleyJ., Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in Seligman v. Belknap, et aL (1941),155 S.W.2d 735:"'planning'connotes the systematicdevelopment of an area with particular reference to the location, character and extent of streets, squares, parks and tokindred mapping and charting.'Zoning' relates to the regulation of the use of property,—to structural and architecturaldesigns of buildings; also the character of use to which the property or the buildings within classified or designateddistricts 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 ofVancouver 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) interestin 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 severaltimes the latter, it is "reasonable to suppose that some zoning may be intended to 'protect' building values, and manycontrols 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 correctarea 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 an81% 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 betweenbulk variances and mechanisms such as transfer of density differs with the latter involving conformation to—rather47than deviation from—density regulations (Costonis 1974:160).13The standards of variances necessarily remained general since its 'very essence" is flexibility, but typically in vagueterms 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 Kentuckystudy found that none of the 47 variances granted were justifiable, and that of these 44 were bulk rather than usevariances (Administrative Discretion in Zoning 1969:671-673,682).14Berelowitz 2005:6015Gutstein 1983:195116Todd 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 (Milner1958:131). Subject 13, titled "Property and Civil Rights,"of section 92 carries the "power to destroy or interfere withprivate rights with respect to property in the province without the necessity of paying compensation,"seemingto"endow municipalities with the ability to direct and control the use of land with no qualification,"althoughcompensation or other remedy is required if rezoning is refused or development blocked "pursuant to statutoryplanning powers in order,for example,to facilitate the future acquisition of land for public purposes" (Stein 1971:541and Todd 1992:23). A clause common to Canadian town planning acts invalidating compensation if the provisionscould have been enforced without compensation through local by-laws is responsible for the lack of virility of mostclaims (Milner 1963:105). British Columbia long maintained a provision that"no compensation be paid for propertyinjuriously affected by zoning" until a 1962 amendment provided compensation when property was zoned exclusivelyfor public use with the court granted the "power to examine municipal legislation for its true purpose." In 1974, a realestate company successfully challenged the City of Burnaby, proximate to Vancouver, after land it owned was rezonedfrom manufacturing to parking—a move invalidated after disclosure of City documents that noted the need for amunicipal park-and-ride adjoining proposed transit infrastructure and forwarded purchase as an alternative to zoningchanges (Hagman 1978a:233, 235-236). Although significant study is devoted to the legal interpretation of takings andpartial takings of property, an issue that technically creates a wide differentiation between American and Canadianlegislation, it remains that, regardless of the legal requirement,"elected officials prefer not to significantly reducedevelopment 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 substantialrelation to the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people"(Stein 1971:537).The SupremeCourt ruling on Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. during the City Beautiful movement validated zoning as areasonable exercise of police power.The earliest American precedent is considered the 1896 court ruling allowing thefederal government to utilize the power of condemnation to create a memorial establishing eminent domain as a validmeans of protecting heritage although failing to clarify the more contentious area of whether or not noxious uses canbe 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 "OfficialDevelopment 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."Theexpansion of discretionary zoning measures subsequent to the 1956 Zoning and Development By-law adoptionparallels other North American cities, although the Charter allows for a "greater authority for discretionary zoning thanis 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 nonconformingapplications 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 1978:159125Gutstein 1975:7-9,2148126Punter 2003:56127City of Vancouver 1994:6128Punter associates the prior with British experience and the latter with that of North America, and emphasizes theinclusion of "an element of design review" (Punter 2003:xv,17).129Punter 2003:30130Volrich argued that "it is well-known fact that rezonings often result in an increase to the market value of the landwhich is twice, three times or four times the original value"and that the increase is "created by the community" (City ofVancouver 1973).The rezoning of 95 acres of the Canadian Pacific Railway's lands for residential use the following yearwas 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 theseventeenth 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 sufficientlybroad to constitute betterment and the report itself allows that statutes seeking payment"in respect of benefitsreceived by public improvements" is "somewhat tenuous for long periods." it is agreed that there is no"real break"fromthe 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 fromindividual exertion but from the growth of the community,"arguing that this rent"can be taken to the lastpenny without in the slightest degree lessening the incentive to production."Only through this effort could thecontemporaneous abolition of protections restore"natural and equal rights" (George 1949(1886):261-263). Especiallyurban land was increasingly viewed as "in part a public asset which cities may properly achieve communitygoals,"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 largefinancial gains or losses to private developers that, when applied to specific sites, sometimes rules the latter greaterthan 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 publicworks, while the more expansive recognized that negative actions, such as the impositions of restrictions on other landthat constrains supply and benefits the remaining owners, creates unearned gain as well (Turvey 1957:103, Harvey1978:422 and Young 1943:126).'"Harvey 1978:422136Planning provisions do not destroy value, but shifts it;"if permission to develop is refused on one site but grantedinstead on another, the development value that would have crystallized on the first site is not eliminated, but merelytransferred to the second" (Parker 1954:74).137Young 1943:129 and Hagman 1978c:4911381n effect, the development charge under the 1947 Act was 100% of the difference between the existing land valueand 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 andfulfilling the development charge levied by the Central Land Board would be equal or less than the market price priorto the Act's passage, political maneuvering to repeal the charge encouraged landowners to either hold land fromdevelopment or to charge prices at the previous market value.The charge was repealed within seven years, althoughthe government continued with efforts to tax or levy betterment in the interest of controlling land prices and directingdevelopment.139Hagman 1978c:496-497"'Town Planning Acts passed in Alberta (1913), Nova Scotia (1915), Manitoba (1916) and Saskatchewan (1917) eachprovided for betterment recapture, while the 1925 British Columbia Town Planning Act opposed these precedentsby expressly legislating that no compensation would be paid.The universal provincial experience that bettermentrecapture was not realized aligned with the specific troubles with the determination and collection of bettermentinternationally as well as the wider failure of English planning law to be operational in Canada. British Columbiaadopted some betterment recapture provisions in 1962, and the most significant provincial experience was the BCLand Commission Act in 1972 that constituted the"most massive downsizing in Canada to that date."The legislature,49with endorsement of the BC Federation of Agriculture,"provided that no compensation would be paid for landsdesignated as agricultural preserves." In 1976, Manitoba removed the last surviving vestiges of Canadian bettermentprovisions. (Flagman 1978c:496-499,511 and Hagman 1978b:283)."'Hagman 1978c:498-499142Parker 1954:72143'Planning gain' is a uniquely British term referring to the agreement between the developer and planning authority atthe crux of the project-led approach to local amenity provision. It is central to the test of proportionality forwarded bythe Department of the Environment's Property Advisory Group (Helay 1995:6 and Crow 1998:358).144Turvey 1953:299145 Development is controlled by administrative discretion rather than legislative regulation with the municipalityauthorized to designate development areas in the official community plan. By entering a land-use contract with theCity, the developer provides a contribution in exchange for permission, with the City seeking "to recapture the increasein value triggered by the development permission—a type of upzoning tax" (City of Vancouver 2002b and Jacobsenand McHenry 1978:364).146Douglas and Derksen 2003:68"'The 'percolation'from large, symbolic developments such as Concord Pacific Place to generalized restructuring ofurban 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 andliveability objectives. Dividing the total floor area of the building less the exempted space by the site area yields thebuilding FSR.The result is that the typical tower floorplate calculated as 6,500 square feet is physically around 7,000square 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 conformexactly to the abstracted cases considering the overly simplified illustration of site density used; a number of spaceswithin a building are exempted from FSR calculation due to either the accepted method of calculation or as a policyincentive to further a variety of municipal design interests.The resulting envelope is less than an extrusion realizing thebuilding area in the spirit of the other cases, leading to the discrepancy between the 33 stories of the third case andthe 37 stories of the approved development. In order to conform to the area zoning of 7.0 FSR, this development wouldrequire a site in excess of 340 feet in length as shown in the third example, a problematic proposal since the block isonly 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 toanother may occur due to an "anomaly in existing zoning boundaries, such as a split-zoned site."The 1956 Zoning andDevelopment By-Law contained provisions for"comprehensive unit development"subject to approval by the TechnicalPlanning 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 [1956]:163153 Figure 2.3 illustrates no density capacity for the comprehensively planned neighbourhoods of False Creek Northincluding International Village, Citygate and Coal Harbour. It similarly does not present a maximum density for areasunder 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. Inaddition to funding these amenities, recent CAC contributions have supported cultural facilities, public art, social andcommunity facilities and environmental concerns (City of Vancouver 2004[2002]: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 choicesthrough Feb.2004 (City of Vancouver 2004[20021).156City of Vancouver 2004[20021:3.2.250"'The fluidity of the Canadian betterment experience, citing that tcost'is not necessarily static since maintenance as wellas 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 toany purpose, and to any location, it deems appropriate." Reference Appendix B of the policy report dated Jan.16, 2000with subject"Interim City-wide Development Cost Levy By-law: Boundary Adjustment & Implementation in GranvilleSlopes."159The City's guidelines for determining amenities note that CACs should be"located in the community in which therezoning 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 availabilityof information regarding contributions, the range and changing nature of their collection and other factors. Noting thislimitation, Section 3.3 of this thesis addresses the primacy of heritage among amenity contributions as calculated byboth the author and city staff.162Bourdieu 1987:838' 63Terdiman 1987:809 and Bourdieu 1987:838164That property is both the symbol of limits of governmental authority and the most overtly direct creation of the staterequires the misrecognition of power;"self (state)-defined limits only work to sustain constitutionalism as we know it ifthe reality of self-definition is obscured by the mythic quality of those limits" (Nedelsky 1990:248).165 13lomley 2004:5166Steinberg references E.P.Thompson's account of 18t h-century British efforts to protect landed estates as things—apartfrom its earlier definition as interest—that enables "law to assume, with its robes, the postures of impartiality"andto 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 dimensionsthat may be sold individually or broken if necessary derived from the old custom of apportioning land involving thedelivery of a "twig or clod of earth" signifying the delivery of possession (Steinberg 1995:15-16,181 n.23). These sticksin the juridical mind are quite physical; they have universally agreed upon identities that allow them to be measuredand sold. However, this neglects that, as in its anthropological use, property is descriptive instead of the reflexiveconditioning—the "bundle of relations"—of the habitus and field of the involved agents.167Bourdieu 2000:134-135168Through"experimental verification of the durability of fields" Bourdieu challenges the regular critique that hisobservations are dated or geographically delimited (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:75,78-79). Arguing the pertinenceto American law of Bourdieu's study of the French juridical system,Terdiman notes that"world of law"is a "constitutiveforce 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 offield [that] enables us to grasp particularity within generality and generality within particularity." Furthermore, he notesthat the "high degree of centralization and institutional unification"as well as the delimited barriers to entry of theFrench academic field create a "highly propitious terrain for uncovering some of the universal laws that tendentiallyregulate 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 isexperienced "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 physicalarrangements:"it redounds to the beauty of the city of Siena and to the satisfaction of almost all people of the samecity that any edifices that are to be made anew anywhere along the public thoroughfares...proceed in line with theexistent buildings, and one building not stand out beyond another, but they shall be disposed and arranged equally soas 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 in51things exists in the mind that contemplates them" (Hagman and Juergensmeyer 1986:446).The terms law and juridicalare 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"legislativelaw is affirmative, derivative and aesthetically oriented: affirmative because it defines positive measures authorizingvarious forms of public intervention; derivative because its values are extralegal, i.e. societal, in origin; and aestheticallyoriented 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 andLuckmann—whose influential work saw the relationships between structure and agency as dialectical since societyforms individuals who create society in a continuous loop—to clarify this "distinction"(Costonis 1982:358 and Bergerand 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 empiricalpsychological or sociological genesis of taste, each time invoking the magical division between the transcendentaland the empirical, the theory of pure taste is grounded in an empirical social relation, as is shown by the opposition itmakes 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 theramifications 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 integrityof 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 1982:277,375-37616The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Berman v. Parker ruled that issues such as public safety, health, and moralityillustrate the scope of police power but do not limit it (Flagman and Juergensmeyer 1986:447).The expanded readingof public welfare means that cities must"provide an environment which goes beyond efficiency and comfort"andcreate 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).Theimportance 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 nojustification by reference to some identifiable value beyond itself" (Flagman and Juergensmeyer 1986:446, Costonis1982:361,392, and Lai 1998:219). Bourdieu describes representations of autonomous production in certain literary andartistic fields "devoid of any determination or any social function"achieving fullest expression in the"theories of'artfor 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 toanything 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 theurban image to provide a mental refuge in a world that capital treats as more and more place-less."Social controlresults from enmeshing urban entrepreneurialism with this search for local identity (Harvey 1989:14). Among thesecontrols is the "abuse of aesthetic powers by suburbanites" (Costonis 1982:366). Planners concede behaviouralsuburbanization of the core through development of design mechanisms as a primary goal of development, andjournalists observe on the Vancouver peninsula—dubbed Smileyville by Blore and Sutherland—the realization of thisinterest that refuses and pursues the pairing of"formal and behavioural perfection"; wherein planning professionalsstructure "all the advantages of suburbia; developers "carry this ethos to its privatized extreme" (Blore and Sutherland1999 and Punter 2003:226). Blore references a city planner's simile that new developments are"like dinner at theKeg [Steakhouse and Barr referring to the"general high quality of the architecture and its dependable middlebrowblandness"by comparison to the franchised, casual dining chain that began in Greater Vancouver prior to expandingits trademark internationally (Blore and Sutherland 1999:58). Crawford's understanding of architectural creationas branding style emphasizing "surface and readable imagery as a useful form of packaging essentially identicalstructures into more compelling products" is legible in Concord Pacific's development on False Creek in which towersare 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 ofcolours, etc). It does not analyse as such the 'work in progress', as James Joyce said, and the mode of production of thatwork" (Bourdieu 2002:32 and Barnett 1974:5).52181 Duerksen and Goebel define preservation law as a "collage, cutting across and drawing from several other establishedareas of law: land use and zoning, real property, taxation, local government, constitutional and administrative','andnotes that"the standards that dictate governmental behavior in enacting and administering zoning ordinancesare 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 ofNew Jersey Judge Ackerman in his 1963 ruling of People v. Stover. New York Court of Appeals Judge John Van Voorhisfurther 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 notesfrom an American perspective that legislation restricting the placement of billboards along highways, advocatingfor urban renewal and incentive zoning and supporting the historic preservation and neighbourhood conservationmovements 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 naturalaspects 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 ofNew 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 thatthe city is not simply a "natural mechanism whose process lead to a most efficient territorial layout of social activities"(Hosmer 1983[1966]: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 widelyrecognized 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 rapidpace of replacement in urban environments, the parking garage that replaced the Garrick Theater was subsequentlydemolished, and recent discussions have considered the removal of much the replacement structures on thePennsylvania Station site."'Vancouver's experience with the loss of structures while marked, did not reach the levels of many American citiesdue to a several year lag noted in several historic developments providing time for the establishment of heritagemechanisms. MacDonald describes this delay between Seattle and Vancouver with the latter following in theconstruction of the transcontinental railroads, pursuit of Klondike trade, engagement of the automobile, production ofmerchant 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 involvenegotiation with owners as well as consultation with the public and planning director (Punter 2003:53).188City of Vancouver 2001:12189Costonis 1974:4190Costonis 1975:6-10gl Semantically development credits is more appropriate that development rights since transfer of density programmescreate "a commodity that would not exist but for the ordinance"and that the use of this commodity on an appropriatereceiver site is subject to a range of development constraints and regulatory limitations (Pruetz 2003:31-32).Theterminology used by the City of Vancouver is the transfer of density, but it is ideologically and technically akin to thetransfer 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 itsdevelopment even though in the interest of best possible development, the specific parcel of any given owner may berestricted from use" (Schnidman 1978:532).193Costonis 1974:35194Pruetz 2003:30195Heritage density can is transferrable from but not to sites located in the designated heritage areas encompassing53Gastown, Chinatown and Yaletown.Also sites cannot receive transferred density if they are already receiving a hotelor heritage density bonus, contain single room occupancy hotel without arrangement to secure or replace units orare zoned CD-1 without an included provision (City of Vancouver 2002[1983]). In early 2006, the City considered atransfer of density outside of the transfer area in Kitsilano, but the effort did not succeed. Reference the administrativereport dated Jan. 5, 2006 with subject"2936 West 4th Avenue - Report Back on Heritage Retention Through Transfer ofDensity."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 InteriorDesignation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement."198The Cathedral has been the location of prominent funerals, worship by dignitaries and placement of importantmemorials (Christ Church Cathedral).' 99Kalman 1974200Both Georgia and Burrard Streets—the latter marked the dividing line between the two original district lot surveys thatcomprised the peninsula, defined distinctly different grids and informed the western and eastern halves of downtownVancouver—were originally platted with a 30-metre right-of-way rather than the usual 20 metres.The urban designfirm Baird Sampson Associate's 1982"Greening Downtown" study for the City of Vancouver confirmed the importanceof this pairing in the urban morphology of the city, and subsequent municipal efforts have focused on enhancingthe streetscapes of these streets (Berelowitz 2005:44,67-68).The vacant land attracted a premium; at its founding theChurch purchased the parcels at more than twice the price of an alternative site further South on Burrard also offeredfor sale by the Canadian Pacific Railway and now the site of St. Andrews Wesley United Church.The significance of thesite was again raised when choosing to move the centre of the diocese to Christ Church. Rev. R.J. Renison recalled in hisautobiography 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, purportedto represent the interests of six hundred Anglicans and a separate group called the "Save Christ Church CathedralCommittee" 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 theredevelopment.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 signedin May,1979.The developer, Daon Development Corp., was the successor to Laing Construction, which had initiallyplanned to build the office tower on church lands.The agreement called for Daon to pay the Church $660,000 beforeand during construction and commit to annual payments beginning at $225,000 and rising incrementally until theexpiration of the 104-year agreement in 2083.ln exchange the Church was limited to its present size, withholdingthe possibility of construction of a bell tower, and obliged to"preserve and maintain"the building. Reference theadministrative report dated Mar.12, 2002 with subject"690 Burrard - Christ Church Cathedral Interior Designation andHeritage Revitalization Agreement."204Adams 1989:80-812°5Construction ended in 1984 on Park Place, Daon's adjoining development at left in Figure 2.6, and the tower maintainsthe 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 becauseof its hybridized consideration of zoning as both design and fiscal tool (Costonis 1973:105). Although semanticsdifferentiate Canadian and American use of transfer of density programmes, in practice their function is viewed thesame.207Aside from heritage, public objectives include: the creation of public open space or park land; facilitation ofdevelopment in mixed use zoning; achievement and improvement of urban design; view protection; and singleroom occupancy protection (City of Vancouver 2002[1983]).Only two transfers of density involving remote sites haveoccurred to realize non-heritage objectives: the Bentall V office tower utilized transferred density from a parcel thatwas subsequently developed as a municipal parking garage underneath a public plaza; Woodward's authorized theonly use of the transfer of density policy for the transfer offsite of density bonused for an amenity provision.TDRprogrammes are "designed to provide flexibility,"and,among 142 programmes documented by Pruetz, 57 percent54consider 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 wildlifehabitat. While historic preservation is the third largest category following environmental protection and farmlandpreservation, 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 transferredfrom—but not into—heritage areas.The terms of the HRA must be fulfilled or a letter of credit received for thebalance to be available for transfer. Once approved, the density is attached to the receiver site title, remaining even ifdevelopment does not immediately progress.209Increasing site density by up to ten percent over the maximum density through receipt of density necessitates theapproval 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 ofdensity policy area encompassing the downtown peninsula and portions of the Broadway corridor. Utilizing densitytransfer to achieve other goals involves more stringent proximity; density transferred for urban design purposes mustbe within the same block or separated by a single street.271 City of Vancouver 2004d212Barford 1993:6213The replacement of the Historic Sites Protection Act with the Heritage Conservation Act enabled owners "to claimcompensation for economic loss suffered from designation','and, as a result,"no site has been unilaterally designatedsince 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 incompensation" (Barford 1993:7)215 Punter 2003:125-126216Council also established the Heritage Advisory Committee—and approved its initiation of a Heritage ConservationProgram--to advise council, the Heritage Division, City of Vancouver Planning Department to administer the VancouverHeritage Inventory as part of the Heritage Management Plan and the Historic Area Planning advisory committees forChinatown, Gastown and First Shaughnessy areas (Barford 1993:7-9).2 "Punter 2003:126-127218Costonis 1982:79219Berelowitz 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 theiropportunistic—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 1974:146and Costonis 1982:104).22 1-his 'retentiveness,' or capacity for cultural inclusion, also results in "digestion and selection."Although Mumford reifiesthe City by assigning it agency, it is through amenity valuation that individuals struggle to control the official memoryconsecrated in the urban environment (Mumford 1961:562-563).222Lynch 1972:53223Vancouver Sun 1990""The City identifies an "emerging trend where community heritage values are not seen to be adequately represented bythe Heritage Register,"due to the public call for retention of unlisted structures, and credits a changing understandingof 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 Councilmay"withhold approvals and permits to allow time for heritage retention options to be fully explored with theproperty owner and heritage staff," providing an opportunity for heritage incentives to be leveraged to find a feasible55alternative 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 andapplied against the legal title to land"(Barford 1993:7).227J. Lee 1992228Council Reads it Right 1992229Gruft and Windsor-Liscombe 199223°The Vancouver Sun reported in Jul. 1993 that the developer agreed to purchase the site for $23.2 million upon itsrezoning to allow the transfer of 181,000 square feet (Lee 1993).This amount totaled 196,824 square feet when sold inNov. (City of Vancouver 2002a).231 750 Burrard Street prior to rezoning was considered part of the Established CBD, area A of the Downtown District andthe most instensive area zoning of the City with a maximum total of 9.0 FSR for all permitted uses.232R.Ward 1995233Gruft and Windsor-Liscombe 1992234City of Vancouver 2003c235City of Vancouver 2002a236City of Vancouver 2004h237The "fundamental basis for good conservation practice" has been published through a series of charters, beginningwith the 1931 Athens Charter (Canada 2003:4).Through a process of downloading control, municipal policy governsthe identification and treatment of heritage properties. Although the federal government does not have directmandate over properties, it still influences the heritage industry by legislating policy and providing incentives to reachits 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.Whilepostwar 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 managingconflicts between different interests" (Healy 1995:5-6).238Although the extent of the connection between widespread public interest and organized heritage groups iscontestable, 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 Educationoffering on building preservation due to want of applicants (Vancouver Sun 1990).240Under provincial designation,the original heritage restrictions regulated all property and by extension everybuilding within the district bounds. Recent incentives developed for Gastown have typically been subsequentlyapplied to Chinatown, including the tax incentive available through the 2001 Gastown Heritage Management Planextended to Chinatown the following year.241 City of Vancouver 2001:7-8242 Fung 2006.243City of Vancouver 2001:3Chapter Three:Production of Heritage573.1 IntroductionHeritage has a significant impact on the realization of the physical space of the city not only in terms ofthe amount of buildable space legitimized, but the facilitation of development that deviates from bothzoning bylaw and approved policy.Through development mechanisms that structure capital exchange andeconomise social goods, studying the physical manifestation of heritage forwards a better understandingof its significant role in the social production of the city; a "register of social values,"the environment servesas a "symbol of the identity of a cultural system."244 Three hundred City documents, both amendments tothe zoning bylaw and reports to Council, serve as the primary trace of this conversion with developmentapproval specifying the physical form and policy and administrative reports forwarding the legitimatedpublic value of development.These documents are listed in Appendix A, and referenced reports should beconsidered pertinent to the entire discussions of specific projects.Articles from local periodicals, themselvessubstantiated as cultural resources in the capital exchange of development, provide further description ofthis process.The adoption of the scientific and legalised language of policy documents engages the durableeconomisation that denies the existence of other forms of capital, permits the misrecognition of theinfluence of social ability and forwards the impartiality of the bureaucratic field. Further, this official recordbelies the heterogenous body of the state in neglecting to seriously consider that the interests of the variousstakeholders within the City itself are in struggle to control the legitimate identification of amenity. Despitethe limitations that result from this reduction of capital to its economic employment—and the furtherbounds attributable to the privileged standing of financial appraisals—the City records provide an importantdescription of the heritage field through quantitative arguments that trace the consecrated definition ofamenity through development negotiation.The pairing of public and private interest in the discretionaryplanning process reifies the conception of heritage through development mechanisms.The utility of heritagein the social and physical transformation of the city is substantial, and its articulation through developmentforwards the definition of the public value itself.By focusing on the economically, culturally and symbolically significant downtown core, the studyapproaches a constrained geographic space from data sets corresponding to the development mechanismsthat serve the heritage amenity.The material presented is limited by the availability of data as well as thedate 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 toolsserve as a significant barrier in approaching heritage since the rationalized understanding forwarded bythe planning profession denies the exchangeability—the underlying social connection—of amenitization;upholding the artificial compartmentalization inherent in development mechanisms undermines therecognition that the definition of amenity itself is at stake in the development process.Only though acatholic approach and an awareness of the limitations of policy study, can the physical manifestation providean 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 useas a process based on supporting market performance through the delivery of public goods. Developmentmechanisms mediating private and City interests define amenities against their utility in supporting thisgrowth. Among the range of public values addressed, heritage has achieved primacy due to its pliancy andthe significant collateral benefits associated with its delivery. Its role is key to capital accumulation and it isthe preferred means of private wealth creation in conjunction with the realization of more bounded socialamenities.583.2 Aestheticized CapitalThe 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 andthe symbolic efforts of the City, this shift has increasingly relied on aestheticized claims that have provenamong the most ideologically durable; a fixation on the aesthetic supports the adoption of a public planningprocess for a 'livable city' without disruption of the dominant production of the physical and social space ofthe city.Aestheticized claims site urbanity in the symbolic and describe the City through the production ofimagery. Revered as a defining moment in the recognition of Vancouver and the origin of the contemporaryperiod 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 seemmundane."245 While the large-scale creation of residential space on the former exposition grounds focusedon 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 themeans and form of development.In preparation for the 1988"Symposium on Downtown Vancouver,"the planning department andVancouver 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 unitsapproved during the previous four years"equalled the number built under the prevailing zoning for overa decade and a half."246 From 1988 until the December 1991 adoption of the Central Area Plan the Citydeveloped policies implemented through "area studies, rezonings and project planning in the centralarea."247 In an escalation 'ubiquitous' among cities and "ambitiously and scrupulously planned" by municipalauthorities, the "mobilization of urban real-estate markets"served as the preferred vehicle of capitalaccumulation.2" The focus on the creation of new neighbourhoods fostered "new planning, urban designand consultative strategies reflecting a true collaboration of the public and private sectors." 249 As both afiscal and design effort, the aestheticization of Vancouver was first tested in an urban context in DowntownSouth, a "low density warehousing and service commercial area with high vacancy rates"that by the mid1980s was"clearly [an] under-developed part of the city [and] ripe for redevelopment." 250 Policies adoptedin 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 referenceto the adjoining "compact warehouse district developed in the early 1990s"that would become the City'sfirst Historic Area District schedule established since the 1970s.251 Following a text amendment in 2001 thatexcluded the block between Mainland and Cambie Streets, the New Yaletown adopted its contemporaryidentification as area "L1" [Figure 3.1).252 With forty transactions between July 1999 and April 2006, propertywithin this area accounted for over two-thirds of the recorded land sales in the Downtown District and theselling 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 valuesthe property comprising the neighbouring exposition lands in excess of $4 billion with about 60 percentattributable to the land, an increase of about"400-fold since 1974 when it was a shabby industrial area." 254The enacted zoning envisioned a particular product and exercised a significant influence in the design ofthe area, and the resultant capital accumulation demonstrates the substantial effect of this aestheticizedplanning effort. Council endorsed rezoning for high-density residential development in 1987 and approveda maximum floor-space ratio of 6.0 FSR a year later, but the adoption of the "Downtown South Goals andPolicies" in 1991 settled on a maximum of 5.0 FSR. While early attempts at the introduction of high-densityresidential forwarded a density formula of 3.0 FSR residential and 2.0 FSR commercial, considered unviable59by the development community, the DODP soon reflected a more favourable preference for residentialuse.255 Achieving the envisioned form of development under the new zoning required "site assemblies...withthe associated redevelopment of older small scale commercial and service use buildings'' the maximumpermitted density is limited to 3.0 FSR, although corner sites with areas equal to the amalgamation of sevenand interior sites joining at least eight of the typical city parcels are allowed 5.0 FSR 256 This zoning structureencourages assemblage visible by parcel involvement in multiple sales in Figure 3.2 and realizes a specificarchitectural 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 developmentmechanisms that instil economic capital in heritage retention have proved largely sufficient in counteringthis trend and has allowed heritage to facilitate the dominant form of production.The expansion in thesymbolic creation of heritage has been such that the pressure for buildable space has led to the designationof increasing numbers of sites with legitimate heritage resources.The utility of heritage in the creation ofprivate benefit through the provision of public goods has encouraged its position at the vanguard of theaestheticization of the city and area development often involves the creation of icons to bolster claims to thephysical and social space. The designation of 1228 Richards Street, the building significant due to its locationat a prominent intersection, serves as an early example of the ability of contemporary heritage developmentmechanisms. Although criticism of the development alluded to the "unexceptional" buildings of DowntownSouth and engagement in a "boring heritage formula,"the building is now lauded as a"venerable"elementwithin the newly amenitized environment 2 58Figure 3.1: Downtown South and Central Business District ShoulderDATE OF SALECOCI)^O^0^O^CDCNJ^(Ni,S•6,<<,^CO-2,-\\*\\ci'^c,4,,(s^ 2'sSP^1es^g0+^(2-4,8000700O0u_Lu 6000 500cow°- 4004co(51 300aoLLI 200E2a.Luo) 100-J0THREE SALESTWO SALESSINGLE SALELOT LINES   APRIL 2006AREA^MAXIMUM PERMITTED^PARCEL INVOLVEMENTDENSITY OF SALE INISOUTION (OOP)LAND SALES IN DOWNTOWNDISTRICT AREA L1JULY 1999 - APRIL 2006SOURCE REALNET AND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, CITY OF VANCOUVER61Table 3.1: Land Sales in Downtown Distirct Area L1 July 1999 - April 2006Date Cost per sf Land Address Cost (Millions) sf Land^5.0 FSR1999 $^167 1128 Seymour Street $^2.00 11979149 1133-1199 Seymour Street 5.82 38986118 1284 Richards Street 1.42 119792000 180 1257 - 1267 Richards Street 5.40 30013188 1225 Richards Street 5.09 270072001 145 1328-1332 Seymour Street 0.87 6011146 1306-1308 Seymour Street 0.88 6011163 1248-1250 Richards Street 2.20 13504178 1055-1085 Homer Street 3.74 20996240 1272 Richards Street 0.72 3006200 510 Nelson Street 1.80 90172002 186 1017 Richards Street 0.56 3006141 1021 Richards Street 0.43 3006175 1033 Richards Street 1.05 6011286 1001 Homer Street 6.00 20996261 939 Beatty Street 7.25 27748299 1261-1295 Seymour Street 6.25 209092003 206 1080 Richards Street 0.62 3006366 1372 Seymour Street 1.10 3006233 1144-1146 Richards Street 1.40 6011319 555 Pacific Boulevard 3.57 11195287 976 Richards Street 3.50 121972004 259 905 Richards Street 3.10 11979266 970 Richards Street 0.80 3006293 909 Richards Street 0.88 3006333 1052 Richards Street 1.00 300685 Lot 57 1.21 14244333 1010 Seymour Street 1.00 3006324 1002 Seymour Street 2.93 9017352 1066 Richards Street 2.10 5968328 1022-1026 Seymour Street 2.00 6098225 1210 Seymour Street 1.35 60112005 379 1076-1078 Richards Street 1.14 3006250 1045 Seymour Street 1.50 6011505 1033-1035 & 1067 Richards Street 12.12 24002575 1107-1119 Homer Street 13.80 24002417 1340 Seymour Street 5.00 11979512 1036, 1038, 1052, 1066, 1076 & 108C Richards Street 12.30 240022006 638 1358-1364 Seymour Street 5.75 9017699 555 Pacific Boulevard 16.50 23174Notes for Table 3.1: Land Sales in Downtown District Area Ll July 1999 - April 2006Sales costs courtesy of RealNet Canada Inc. The permissible zoning in area LI of the Downtown District encourages the amalgamationof 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 siteswith 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 feetand 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 themaximum density on a smaller site provided that at least two-thirds of construction is social housing,Figure 3.2 illustrates that thesesites do not deviate significantly from the overall trend in regards to cost and some sites purchased for social housing-includingthose held by the City-are resold for market use.62Increasingly, as"real-estate development becomes a centerpiece of the city's productive economy, an end initself," heritage exerts significant influence in the realization of the city. 259 Physically replacing the industrialand commercial capacities previously at the centre of local economic growth, real estate developmentrelies on amenitization to provide necessary symbolic support.The result is that it is"significantly moreprofitable to build residential"since "the amenities that make the district attractive as a place to live...nowthreaten local [business] growth"26° Further, with the discrepancy between commercial and residential taxrates, the reliance on residential growth places increasing responsibility on funding public services throughdevelopment mechanisms.This"residentializing of the downtown core" is today seen as"the single mostimportant development of the city"and an unusual precedent among North American cities since thepopulating of downtown "was an explicit policy. It was planned."26' While dramatically reducing the CBD in1991 to address the unbuilt commercial capacity downtown, the City also framed the rezoning in the interestof business by increasing efficiency through the consolidation of services.Among the many interests servedby 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 onstreet-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 rezoningsfor higher density residential"following the Central Area Plan emphasis on the need to"delete or [to] notencourage housing" in the newly consolidated CBD.263This qualification has allocated significant symbolic and valuable economic capital to historic structuresin the central core. Further, with the dominant field of economic production directed towards residentialcreation—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 theCity passed a moratorium to prevent the conversion of additional commercial buildings to housing—thereification of heritage has substantial utility. 264 While the primacy of residential development results from anumber of wider trends, the City's policy efforts including its approach to heritage retention has encouragedthis preference.The first heritage building engaging the City's transfer of density policy was also "thefirst office tower in Canada to be converted into residential units"and the ability to facilitate residentialdevelopment is a common characteristic of most designated heritage structures. 265 It is not that the utilityof heritage is limited to housing, but that the realization of heritage is oriented towards the maximizationof financial profit that currently binds it with the persistent advance of residential use into the CBD.Thisaestheticized effort pairing the economic valuation of heritage as amenity with intensified downtownresidential production does not happen by circumstance, demonstrating instead the reproduction of theideological—despite shifts in the physical—means of production.3.3 Primacy of HeritageAlthough developers began utilizing CD-1 provisions to realize residential schemes at densities equivalentto commercial zoning in the mid 1980s, the 1989 introduction of CACs and consolidation of the CBD twoyears later allows the City to leverage significant amenities for private initiated rezoning seeking to furtherdevelop residential space.266 Effective in delivering public goods valued by the market, this planningpermission 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 borderingthe residentialized Downtown South demonstrates the early role of heritage and later intensive use ofamenitization to redirect the form of development envisioned by the underlying zoning. In 1991, the63boundaries of Downtown South did not include the Robson and Seymour Street edges since these blocksmet important criteria of the business district, namely that they were "close to transit, not an area withheritage buildings, [and] not an area with, housing or a high desirability for housing" [Figure 3.3]. 267 Identifiedas the Seymour-Smithe Blocks—unlike New Yaletown—zoning reflected the expectation that the blockswould be a build-out area for the CBD and required 2.0 FSR commercial as a prerequisite for residentialconstruction limited to 3.0 FSR.Within four years the City approved a heritage bonus for a rezoningassembling 90,000 square feet divided into parcels on either side of the 900-block of Seymour Street withinthis shoulder area of the CBD [Figure 3.4].The public amenity was the retention of the Dominion MotorsBuilding, a 'C' listed building on the Heritage Register lending to the historic character of the designatedOrpheum Theatre across Smithe Street.The capitalization of the 1925 commercial structure's symbolicheritage facilitated the extension of the development policies of Downtown South realizing significantresidential use by removing the commercial requirement. Although bonused density for heritage retentionamounted to 50,000 square feet—an increase in density of the entire site of 11 percent--the rezoning moreimportantly resulted in the greater fluidity of the density onsite. With the west side of the block limited inheight restriction, the rezoning allowed the developer to transfer a total of 77,000 square feet in bonusedand residual density across Seymour Street. 268 The two-tower form of development of the receiving parcelsincluded .36 FSR commercial and 6.42 FSR residential with 90 percent of the density in the towers. 269 Twoother projects within the Smithe-Seymour blocks approved by 1996 involved heritage designation of onsitestructures to increase residential development.With a 1997 recommitment to the restriction of residential use in the CBD, Council reiterated the standing ofthese shoulder blocks by maintaining density standards and identifying the blocks as the fringe of the CBDFigure 3.3: Central Business District ShoulderBuilt DensityExisting ZoningRezoning withHeritage BonusAs Built64despite the blocks increasing resemblance to the Downtown South 2 70 Although the requirement for 2.0 FSRcommercial use remained a prerequisite for residential development, by 2004 interim policies examiningcommercial capacity identified the Seymour-Smithe blocks, as well as some parcels north of Robson Street asDowntown South-North?" Following the earlier use of heritage to achieve residential density, since 2002 theprojects approved for this area have relied on CACs and amenity bonuses to achieve buildings very differentfrom those allowed under area zoning [Table 3.2].These seven projects will upon completion realize 1.24million square feet of residential floorspace, 239 percent of that allowed under the DODP, while the amountof new commercial excluding parking will amount to 346,000 square feet, or 55 percent of that required byzoning.The ratio between residential and commercial set in 1991 as 3 to 2 has in projects approved since2002 been 9 to 2. Largely due to a shortfall in development cost levies resulting from the rapid buildout ofDowntown South, the inferior zoning—as considered by the dominant mode of production—of the shoulderblocks of the CBD has made it a valuable resource to the City; low-rise civic structures and a planned futurepark has allowed aggressive rezoning for high density residential use and the realization of a breadth ofamenities [Figure 3.5].222 Of the seven sites approved between 2002 and 2007, four receive transferableheritage 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 contributionbased on the developer, project and need, and it is within this negotiation that social and cultural ability isas important as economic in legitimizing amenities as public val ues.The pliancy of heritage distinguishesit as the primary public good supported by development contributions and half of all CACs support theretention of historic structures. A citywide survey of 44 CAC collections between January 2003 and OctoberFigure 3.4:Transfer of Density within Comprehensive DevelopmentUNALLOCATEDENVIRONMENTAFFORDABLE HOUSINGSTREETS AND PARKSCHILDCARECULTUREART652005 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 supportfor affordable housing, public art, transportation, parks and environmental, cultural, social and communityuses.273 A survey of 29 recorded amenity contributions in the study area finds that 57 percent of $104 millionallocated served heritage.This amount dwarfed other applications with 14 percent funding childcare, 10percent affordable housing, 8 percent art, 7 percent neighbourhood parks and infrastructure,4 percentculture and a negligible proportion addressing the environment. Although these range from 1986 to2005, efforts to determine CAC contributions are more difficult for older rezonings due to the diminishedaccessibility 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 totalsurvey cases, developers contributed $63 million in allocated funds, or 61 percent of the survey total, withhalf of these funds serving heritage. Limiting the survey to the cases in a single year reflects the findingsfor the last twenty by demonstrating the primacy of heritage and the limitation that only affordablehousing and childcare otherwise amount to more than 10 percent of total allocations. Although a morecomprehensive review of CACs that could overcome the limitations of incomplete and inconsistent datawould prove useful in understanding the direction of amenity contributions, each of these studies indicatesthat 49 percent or more of the allocated CACs serve heritage, making it unequivocally the largest recipientof amenity contributions. Furthermore, the escalation of land prices and increased project densities bothserve to compound the scale of CACs.The amount of capital directed towards the heritage amenity throughrezoning is increasing and aligned with the"intensification of partnerships between private capital andthe local state [that results] in larger, more expensive and more symbolic developments." 274 This expansionunderscores 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 ContributionsCITYWIDE^ STUDY AREA^ STUDY AREA44 CONTRIBUTIONS 29 CONTRIBUTIONS 12 CONTRIBUTIONS$95.3 M $104.4 M $63.7 MJAN. 2003 - OCT. 2005^ JAN.1986 - DEC. 2005^JAN.2005 - DEC.200547% ALLOCATED HERITAGE 57% ALLOCATED HERITAGE^50% ALLOCATED HERITAGE1  ONSITE HERITAGEHERITAGE DENSITY RECEIVERNO HERITAGE OR UNKNOWNCONTRIBUTION EXEMPTSHELL CD-1DESIGNATED HERITAGE AREAIII OTHERIII RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWNI. DOWNTOWN CONSOLIDATED$10MEQUIVAAME LENINTTY^   INDUSTRIALRELATIVE MAXIMUM CONDITIONAL DENSITY FOR ALL USESUNDER CURRENT ZONING IN DOWNTOWN CORE WITH CD-1AMENITY CONTRIBUTION OR EQUIVALENT FOR ONSITE DENSITYJUNE 2006NOTE 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 ZONING67absent critical review,"the disjunction between the burden of the incentive and the benefit of an amenitygrows larger."275 The aggressive realization of heritage through development contributions encourages anincreasing division between fiscal incentive and publicly recognized benefit.While the City remains focusedon its responsibility to maintain the economic efficacy of heritage mechanisms,the fiscal solvency of anamenity reliant on the abstract and unbounded resource of space rather than direct municipal expenditureis more durable than the constitution of its legitimated definition.3.4 Collateral BenefitsWith heritage value defined as the"aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance orsignificance for past, present or future generations," it is the determination of heritage itself that is at stakein the development field.276 Recognition of the value—no less than the power to legitimate an amenityby naming it—of this reward is the condition required for entry into the field. As a largely unbounded andaesthetically derived amenity, heritage results from a "weak consensus [that] virtually guarantees vaguestandards because lawmakers and administrators have every incentive to submerge potential conflicts ratherthan expose them by spelling out what the program is intended to do."277 In Vancouver, heritage by-lawsspecify who is authorized to determine heritage status but not the criterion, municipal policy documentssuch as the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) refer only to "heritage buildings,"and the City'sHeritage Register is limited to broad criterion for evaluation groups. 278 Although it is generally acceptedthat heritage must address dynamic and disparate public interests regarding the constitution of sharedcultural and aesthetic worth, the benefits of not precluding what may serve as a legitimate heritage valuediminishes efforts to define what is required. Observations of development-driven amenity programmesnote 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, theeconomic ability afforded by the programme negates the traditional understanding that a building withpublic significance is brought to the "law's attention only after it has achieved that status in the community'smind."This reversal reinforces that the opportunistic strategy of amenity realization cultivated throughdiscretionary zoning creates "amenities that otherwise might not exist." 279The 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 amenityprovided by the developer."280 Although concerns that developers,faced with the"choice between relatedand unrelated amenities would reduce [the decision] to an economic calculus," providing an "inexpensiveunrelated amenity rather than an expensive one,"similar to other economic reductions,the 'calculus' noteddenies the existence of the array of capitals that define the field, leading to the likelihood that a fiscallyexpensive amenity may prove more valuable to developers in the social or symbolic dividends it producesand its future transferability to economic capital.The consideration of contributions within discretionaryzoning exacerbates these concerns, initially raised in regards to incentive zoning, since the identification ofpossible amenities are not scheduled and is itself left to negotiation. A significant manifestation of this effortis the"appeal to aesthetics" that serves to"secure the privatization of public power;" and heritage is distinctin this regard as a public amenity realized under private ownership.28' With designation typically securing theexterior envelope, most revitalization agreements limit the recognition of heritage to those elements thatinform the streetscape, leaving ownership and use of the interior space as a collateral benefit.68Considering that the immediate environment serves as a "private good, subject to standards of privateconsumption rather than to the requirements that normally must be met by public actions," consolidatingheritage with new construction or otherwise comprehensively developing adjoining heritage sites accruesthe owner significant benefits.282 The typically low-rise heritage structures are typologically compatible withthe tower and plinth form of development preferred by both the City and the market. Historic structuresprovision 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 outdooramenity space that encourages the rehabilitation of existing rooftops.The compatibility of heritage withinthis model illustrates the feasibility of retention through redevelopment. It also emphasizes the substantialeconomic potential derived from the form of development on sites containing historic structures. Beyond thecompensatory 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 portionand 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 to23 FSR, an upzoning of 200,000 square feet of space.283 Real Estate Services valued density onsite at $85 persquare foot, determining a land lift of $16.9 million resulting from rezoning approval.The CAC accepted byCouncil amounted to 83 percent of the site value increase of which 91 percent supported heritage underdevelopment by the owner. Dividing the amenity contribution by the density increase allows the spatialrepresentation of the CAC and demonstrates the influence of heritage on physical form with the red, yellowand orange volumes derived from the owner's contributions to the public heritage amenity [Figure 3.8]. 284Through an HRA concurrent with rezoning, the City designated two registered structures situated onparcels that comprised half the development site. Considering the remaining half of the development site inisolation, as would have been the situation neglecting involvement of the heritage parcels, the developablepotential would have been 36000 square feet under area zoning, or 15 percent of the approved design.Theheritage buildings as designated constitute 2 percent of this total with an additional 13 percent realizedthrough agglomeration as density residual to the rehabilitated structures.40 percent of the project densitywas created through onsite heritage bonusing, 24 percent transferred from a remote site and the remaining6 percent derived from non-heritage amenity contributions. While the dramatic increase in density illustratesthe substantial physical effect of heritage on the urban environment, the most significant market benefitderived 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 heritageincentives, residential development is not allowed by the DODP in this area without legitimated heritageresources. With the sculpted portion of the tower above the cornice line of the neighbouring buildingsentirely housing, residential use amounts to 69 percent of the total floor area of a building that deliversless commercial density than an application conforming to area zoning of 7.0 FSR.838 West HastingsStreet is among the recent developments aiding capital accumulation by serving as the vanguard for theamenitization of the CBD.The project's significance due to its authorship by a celebrated internationalarchitect is highly symbolic in the City's sustained efforts to compete globally, with the development teamheralding it as a landmark, legacy and symbol for the city. 285Early efforts to attach urban design rationale to designation programmes forwarded the value of historicstructures as open space amenities, and landmarks—especially in cities with transfer of density policiesonly allowing density to be shifted to adjacent parcels—with 'superadjacent' density certainly provide thisamenity.288 Although the lower densities in Vancouver render these "light-and-air" parks less visible than in2143 SF2672 SF6522 SF6522 SFWATER AND SEWER UPGRADING COST DEDUCTIONPUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTIONCITY CHILDCARE ENDOWMENT FUNDCITY PUBLIC ART FUNDHERITAGE DENSITY TRANSFER 69297 SFONSITE HERITAGE CONTRIBUTION 113361 SFREALIZED THROUGH AMALGAMATION 36394 SFALLOWED WITHOUT REZONING OR AMALGAMATION 43638 SFWITHIN HERITAGE BUILDINGS^6566 SF69Figure 3.7: Density Realization through Heritage70more intensively developed urban areas, the City recognized with the 1989 adoption of view corridors thatunbuilt 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 towardsthe mountain peaks north of the City.282 The result of the aestheticizing abstractions is a series of overlappingtriangles of space rising in elevation from the origin to the crown of the aesthetic target that restrictmaximum buildable heights established in area zoning or development plans. While these cones are dividedinto subsections to accommodate existing structures, the City only rarely approves construction that willimpact their bounds. 288 The drafting of a view cone overhead presents a significant development restrictionthat, converse to the light-and-air parks generated by heritage sites, encourages the realization of heritageon sites impacted by view cones.Transferring density outside of the limits of a view cone was one of theprimary benefits to designation and rezoning on the 900-block of Seymour Street. Similarly, the significantbenefit of including into a residential development the"most significant survivor of a group of otherwiseundistinguished automotive workshops" was its influence in maintaining the most marketable form oftower development despite a view cone restriction.Since it was not listed in the Heritage Register, thedeveloper of 1299 Seymour Street in Downtown South requested that the City evaluate the heritage valueof the 1920s Federal Motor Company showroom and Chapman's Garage to establish eligibility for bonusingconsideration.289 Although the Heritage Commission and Urban Design Panel both noted its value—evenif it may not be a 'gem'—more important to the dominant mode of production was the onsite impactof a view corridor. 290 With the existing garage's footprint covering 38 percent of the site area limited to aheight of135 feet, its identification as heritage bolstered the developer's argument for a mid-block locationunencumbered by the restriction that not only allowed a 300-foot construction, but effectively reduced thestreet frontage to assure a single tower form of development?91 Although the resulting increase in densityFigure 3.8: Heritage Expression in Dominant Form of Development71over the entire site is 3.3 percent, modest in comparison to the 10 percent transfer of density encouragedfor Downtown South developments, when the development site is considered in isolation the increase frombonused and residual density amounts to 15 percent.2923.5 Symbolic ExternalitiesEconomists 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 involveregulating these effects in the urban environment.293 Amenity provision through development intensifies theconcern regarding the fiscal and physical impacts of construction increasingly approached singly throughplanning mechanisms. Considering the significant economic ability of heritage in promoting the form ofdevelopment privileged by the market, the urban environment endures physical effects from amenityrealization. By dispersing density from the point of creation, the transfer of density mechanism externalizesthe effect of bonused density as heritage sites already threatened by the potential buildout at area zoningcannot accept the increased floorspace generated as compensation. Further, the reificication of growthencourages the understanding that increasing development potential citywide by transferring bonuseddensity offsite is a positive by-product of heritage retention. Unlike heritage, amenity bonuses confinephysical externalities to the immediate environment since density created as compensation for public, socialor recreational facilities cannot be transferred without strict limitations. 294 The amenities provided addressa broad range of public values and typically result in significant expansion of onsite density. In exchangefor bonused floorspace, developers engaged in the Amenity Bonusing Program construct public amenityspaces that meet specifications drawn by the City.The program does not necessitate rezoning, and thebonused density created serves as fair exchange for the cost of the amenity. Unlike the 10 percent of zonedFSR limit to the amount of transferred heritage density that can be received without rezoning or similarrestrictions on bonused density for hotel use, the scale of amenity bonuses is subject only to approval bythe DPB and Council. Since 2003,the number, scale and concentration of approved amenity bonuses hasincreased dramatically, and among these all but one has involved heritage [Table 3.4].The concerted effortof planners and designers to control the physical impacts generated by the mounting complexity of projectsincorporating 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 forsignificant symbolic externalities—the heritage illustrated through the individual case reflexively shapes theuniversal expectation of heritage as public benefit—increase with these multifarious value compositions.In consecrating a contribution or bonus through development mechanisms, the City legitimizes thepublic value that affects not only the meaning ascribed to the particular development, but also that of thegeneralized amenity.The Planning Department comprehensively manages density bonusing regardless of the interest served, andas a competing source of development potential the Amenity Bonuses Program provides a technical andideological comparison to heritage incentives. Despite the renewed utilization of amenity bonusing duringrecent years, the expectations the City places on social amenities bounds the legitimate identification ofpublic goods delivered through the programme to a greater extent than for heritage amenities.The mostsignificant of these demands is the conferment of the space to the City as opposed to the realization ofpublic amenities through private ownership fostered by heritage mechanisms.The City secures the amenitythrough 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 whenr.0 Lr1COrn 00CNI00(-40rnrn Cr%rnLf100CNOperating Cost AllowanceSquare FeetBonused Densityrn72first utilized in 1975 the program realized the City Stage at 745 Thurlow Street for a term of 10 years at theconclusion of which the space reverted to the building owner with "no further public benefit."286 Althoughan unbuilt proposal approved in 1978 for a site across the intersection of Alberni and Bute Streets had similarprovisions, beginning in 1981 the City sought life leases and bonused density to the developer in exchangefor an operating cost allowance to benefit the non-profit tenant.The original subsidy term of 15 yearswas lengthened to 20 years for amenity spaces approved after 1988, and recent childcare approvals haveprovided cash payments to the City Childcare Endowment Fund (CCEF) that currently subsidizes City-ownedchildcare centres.Construction, land and operational allowance costs cause the proportional relationship between bonusedand amenity density to vary, although the ratio along with the actual scale of the density bonus is generallyincreasing [Figure 3.10]. Programme influences this ratio as well with childcare amenities artificially low dueto the inclusion of exterior play area in the calculation, provided at a much lower cost per square foot thanenclosed building. Conversely, some arts uses require speciality construction or equipment, inflating the ratioof bonused to amenity density.297 Despite the increasing funds granted for operating costs,the bonusedamenity spaces typically require municipal expenditure for capital improvements after the termination ofthe allowance.298 The early experience with the programme concluded in 1989 after the approval of elevenspaces and the construction of seven with no further approvals for a decade?" Of these, three non-profitsmaintain their leases today.3® Amenity bonuses created the Contemporary Art Gallery and VancouverInternational Film Centre in Downtown South in 1999 and 2001 respectively, and since 2003, the City hasFigure 3.9: Density Implications of Social Amenity BonusingDate Address Amenity Tenant Costs DensityAmenity^Bonus RatioHDTS1975 745 Thurlow Street Arts City Stage / private use (1985) none 3250 2816 0.871978 1166 Alberni Street Unbuilt Arts Arts Club Theatre none 9499 39380 4.151981 885 West Georgia Street Unbuilt Arts Playhouse Theatre 15 years 57000 127399 2.241981 1125 Howe Street Arts Pacific Cinecentre 15 years 9499 39380 4.151981 1010 Howe Street Unbuilt Arts Inuit Art Museum 15 years 5300 26136 4.931981 100-1140 West Pender Street Childcare YWCA Childcare / Vancouver Society of Children's Centres (2003) unknown 14267 48471 3.401981 1190 Hornby Street Arts Community Arts Council / Canadian Music Centre (2000) 15 years 3590 22840 6.361984 900 Howe Street Social Public Legal Education 15 years 5000 36000 7.201984 1161 Melville Street Unbuilt Arts Contemporary Art Gallery 15 years 5300 26136 4.931988 925 West Georgia Street Arts Canadian Craft Museum / SFU Chief Dan George Centre (2003) 15 years 9252 39903 4.311989 938 Howe Street Arts Alliance for Arts and Culture 20 years 4095 26500 6.471998 488 Robson Street Unbuilt Arts Canadian Music Centre 20 years 3116 27191 8.731999 955 Richards Street Arts Contemporary Art Gallery 20 years 5496 48713 8.862001 1133 Seymour Street Arts Vancouver International Film Centre 20 years 13700 120000 8.762003 550 Bute Street Social Vancouver Volunteer Centre 20 years 6000 29250 4.88 receiver2003 488 Robson Street Arts ArtStarts in Schools 20 years 6040 34000 5.63 receiver2005 955 Burrard Street Childcare Young Men's Christian Association unknown 15450 107352 6.95 donor2005 1188 West Pender Street Childcare Vancouver Society of Children's Centres CCEF 11866 52600 4.43 receiver2005 833 Seymour Street Arts Vancouver Symphony Society 20 years 46572 248192 5.332006 101 West Hastings Social outdoor plaza, green space and atrium unknown 25615 179000 6.99 donor2007 833 Homer Street Childcare unknown CCEF 14957 78503 5.25 receiver74approved 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 arelocated in the Seymour-Smithe blocks.Heritage is difficult to delimit in the market and further complicated due to the derivation of its economicutility from the symbolic capital vested by the City. Although all amenities are worth that which can belegitimated through the competition of actors struggling to define the field, the openness of heritage inparticular allows significant migration in its application and introduces it as a precursor or'key'to a variety ofmore bounded amenities. City guidelines privileging development proposals that"use heritage buildings forcultural, social, recreational and education uses" can exacerbate pressures experienced by historic structuresby dramatically increasing the amount of density realizable on site and placing the poorly defined standardsfor heritage against the more rigorous requirements set for other amenities. 3°1 The rehabilitation of theYMCA building located at 955 Burrard Street required the demolition of approximately 78 percent of thestructure while the onsite density was increased by 364 percent, an amount exceeding the area zoning by amultiple of 1.75. Complicating heritage retention was the bonusing of 107,000 square feet of density onsiteas compensation for the construction of a childcare and family development centre,14,000 square feetwithin the amenity and an additional 50,000 square feet of density transferred from a neighbouring parcelrezoned concurrently.302 The amenity bonus, confined to the site and maximizing the expected potentialfor development, meant the 89,000 square feet of density bonused as compensation for heritage retentionwas approved for transfer. Considering that 208,000 square feet was permitted under area zoning, the totaldensity amounting to 467,000 square feet including the transferable heritage density that was realizedthrough redevelopment expressed the significant utility of bonusing provisions 303The development further illustrates that while the constitution of amenities such as childcare are conciselydelimited, heritage proves a malleable resource with descriptions of the project stating that the"heritagebuilding, dating from 1941, will be retained" contestable dependent on the conception of legitimate heritagevalue.304 With Burrard Street attributed ceremonial significance, the long history of public use of the facilityand presence of neighbouring buildings with recognized importance, redevelopment of the site involvedheritage consideration from an early stage.The significance of heritage retention was such that the October2003 Urban Design Panel workshop regarding tower placement unanimously favoured locating the toweraway from Burrard Street and closer to the smaller-scale adjoining neighbourhood due to the primacy givento the "dominance of the institutional presence"and the facilitation of a "more honest heritage retention ofthe YMCA."The approved design retained and designated the 4-storey building fronting Burrard Street tothe depth of the first structural bay—a distance of 30 feet—with an additional 20-feet along Barclay Streetto accommodate a reconstructed one-storey entry. In addition to the common pressures facing heritageretention, the original structure was"fortress-like"and the interests of the YMCA for a more open appearancealigned with the City's and presumably the developer's intention for a more inviting streetscape. 3°5 Akinto the rehabilitation of 900 Burrard Street,the retention of the YMCA building is an expression of thecircumstances and values of its rehabilitation more than those that informed its original construction [Figure3.11]. Further, the complicated amenitization of the site involved substantial symbolic externalities, namelyreinforcing the precedent that increased development pressure resulting from amenity bonusing cansubstantiate rather than denigrate the public value of onsite heritage 306The problematic meaning assigned to the market utility of heritage employed to achieve other socialamenities proved most controversial in the City's struggle to build a civic dance centre. Following theconsideration of several municipally owned sites, in 1996 the City committed to the non-profit Dance75Foundation a parcel at the northern foot of the Granville Street Bridge and rezoned it to permit developmentthe following year. However, the collapse of the design proposal for aesthetic reasons related to signageplaced $3.7 million in senior government funding in jeopardy.307 Although the dance centre's boardsuccessfully petitioned for an extension—one of several that had been received—the possibility of furtherrelaxations to the deadline was "unlikely," necessitating a timely conclusion of what had become a 17-yearlong effort.3°8 After the City agreed to the board's request for a capital grant in lieu of land, attention focusedon 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 unalteredfacade for the length of the building on both adjoining streets.309 The integrity of the heritage registeredbuilding intensified criticism of the proposal to develop a 5.5 FSR dance centre on the 3.5 FSR zoned sitewith retention limited to the Granville Street facade for"reasons of cost, programming and architecturaldesign."The incompatibility of the amenity and heritage uses were acknowledged universally, with the Citynoting that retaining more of the building would "have an impact on the building's identity and desire for acontemporary architectural expression."Although all advisory boards were careful to support the amenityuse and decry the heritage implications, the Urban Design Panel applauded the"'stage-set' approach to thebank facade"while the Vancouver Heritage Commission criticized its "facadism." Heritage staff advocatedthe preservation of the corner portion—the length of the first bay rather than the five feet eventuallyretained—of the Davie facade noting that all of the 17 designated buildings that preserved only the frontfacade were mid-block buildings with unadorned common walls and that "providing bonusing to a proposalwhich retains just a portion of the principle facades would set a significant precedent for the application ofCouncil's heritage policies in the future."Council approval signified "that the amount of heritage retention isFigure 3.10: Symbolic Externalities through Amenitization76acceptable for the amount of density bonus needed for the Dance Centre programme," although at the laterDPB 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 earningwhat amounted to the most substantial heritage bonus awarded to date, the centre did "not qualify fora Social and Recreational Facility density bonus...because the Dance Centre, which [was to become] atenant, 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 leaseexpiring after 30 years. 3 " A decade after the City first identified the proposed use as a priority"civic culturalfacility" 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 dueto the public value of heritage designation. 312 The Bank of Nova Scotia's financial commitment—grantedthrough cash and a "longterm no-cost or low-cost lease"valued at $1.33 million—provided a quarter ofthe $8.5 million construction budget, roughly equivalent to the institution's previous pledge of $2 millionfor the dance centre proposal on the city-owned site. 313 Whether or not by conscious decision, the dancecentre 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, designationcame at the expense of much of the historic bank, and the arrangement under heritage measures deniedthe City ownership of the public amenity itself. Despite public claims to the contrary, this highly publicizeddevelopment informed what was possible through heritage mechanisms and, more importantly, served aFigure 3.11: Social Amenity Realization through Heritage77pedagogical role in clarifying the meaning of heritage for the City and the public at large.The understandingthat the development constituted the"edge of credibility"for the City's heritage programme neverthelessreiterated its legitimacy.314The employment of heritage designation further facilitates those public objectives outside of the boundsof accepted legislation.While the bonusing provisions of the DODP are far reaching and allow the DPBto increase the permitted FSR for"any public, social or recreational facility," bonusing through heritagemechanisms remains the preferred means of public goods delivery. 315 The form of development at 600Granville Street is a summary of the utility of heritage: it involved the rezoning of several parcels with existingstructures to CD-1, substantial increase in density, introduction of residential use to the CBD, delivery of asignificant social benefit, addition of historic structures to the heritage register, creation of bonus densityfor 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 from1892 until 1928.3' 6 Although a 2001 preliminary application to build a four-storey retail and office buildingproposed to retain the registered B.C. Electric showroom, development would deny an opportunity tocorrect a 15-year deficiency by providing universal access to the existing mass transit station underneaththe site.317 Discussion between the developer, City and regional district transit body led to rezoning in June2002 with the inclusion of two historic, previously unregistered, buildings owned by the developer acrossthe lane from the site. 31 ° With a total area of 49,000 square feet, the hotel and restaurant constituted only3.3 FSR on a parcel permitting 9.0 FSR.The rezoning to residential use was predicated on the designationof these buildings as well as the facades of 648 Granville and the B.C. Electric Showroom, work that in sumgenerated 66,000 square feet of bonused density. Added to the residual density transferred from across thelane, rezoning permitted an increase from 9.0 to 13.5 FSR on the Granville Street development site.319 Similarto previous examples,the most significant change facilitated by heritage retention was the construction of318,000 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 municipalresponse to the original application misrecognizes the owner's influence on the eventual form ofdevelopment.32° Rather, concurrent forwarding of applications, one of which the DPB is obliged to approvedue to its adherence to area zoning and a second deemed to be preferable to both the developer andthe City, is a predictable outcome of discretionary zoning measures. 321 Considering that during the 1984design of the transit station the two sites were under common ownership by a development corporationwith the assumption that redevelopment in the near future would provide universal access, the developer'spurchase of the hotel in 1995 followed by the primary site in May 2001, demolition of the majority ofthe existing buildings, subsequent submission of a development application to 'underdevelop'the siteutilizing 37 percent of the density allowed under area zoning and then placement of this applicationon hold pending the outcome of rezoning indicates a more calculated approach.322 Similarly, the role ofheritage in the discretionary process is understandable since the City's policy of saving as many registeredproperties as possible twinned with its willingness to recognize the limitations of its inventory forwardsheritage as a reliable path to amenity negotiation. Since "the Central Area Plan allows for consideration ofthis rezoning application because of the significant heritage retention initiatives proposed" it was necessarythat"the primary public benefit of the proposed rezoning to residential was the designation, rehabilitationand sensitive integration of the four heritage buildings on site."Technically the entirety of the floorspacegenerated and change of use was attributed to the merits of heritage designation, despite the arguableprimacy 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,"theFigure 3.12: Infrastructure Realization through Heritage78DODP does not include standards for providing transit infrastructure through private development, and thepolicy reports for rezoning clarify that"the heritage protection elements" provide sufficient public benefit tosupport approval, although the "inclusion of the universal transit access is also an essential component." 323The 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 developmentapplication, retention of the remaining structures was limited to the street facades. Further, the retentionof the showroom facades was comparable not only to the proposal forwarded in the developer's firstapplication, but also a previous design for the site seeking bonused density. 324 The Seymour Street siteconsisted of a restaurant that required "no conservation work" due to the owner's 1996 rehabilitation andthe St. Regis Hotel that, recognizing the value of recent renovations, would undergo a "phased exteriorrestoration."325 The registration and designation of these buildings protects them in perpetuity, althoughtheir identification appears driven by their utility to the development and tempers the"argument in favour ofthe rezoning" extended by the inclusion of"three additional heritage structures." 3263.6 ConclusionThe minimal limitations bounding the legitimate identification of heritage lends it significant utility forboth municipal and market interests. As a primary means of aestheticization fostered by discretionaryplanning permission, the use of heritage aids in the maintenance of durable power and social relationsdespite seemingly consequential shifts in the structure of City politics and the local bureaucratic state. Asreal estate development expands its role at the centre of Vancouver's productive economy,the pairing ofheritage delivery and downtown residential intensification demonstrates the role of amenitization in thereproduction of the ideological means of production. The primacy of heritage among amenities alongwith its continued position at the vanguard of housing creation in the CBD demonstrates its influenceon the physical and social space of the city.Anomalous in its provision of public amenity through privateownership, 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 areincreasingly provided concurrently with heritage. However, since a given form of development does notaddress all amenities equally, the malleability of heritage results in symbolic externalities that reflexivelyshape the understanding of heritage as a public value.79803.7 Notes for Chapter Three244Coston is 1982:16245 City of Vancouver 1988:30248Ibid:14242City of Vancouver 1991:1248 ldentifying this expansion as "governmental, corporate or corporate-governmental partnerships,"the process ofgentrification has shifted from a "seemingly serendipitous, unplanned process"that is now the hallmark of planningauthority (N. Smith 2002:439.446).The role of aestheticization and its support of the market, is conferred in theperiodical article noting that"there's still grub—mostly of the human variety these days"five years after zoningspecifically targeted to introduce residential use to Downtown South through the development provision of amenities(Ford 1996).249City of Vancouver 2003e"°City of Vancouver 1999e251 Official Development Plans are a central tenet of discretionary zoning that include both regulatory controls and designguidelines (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 DistrictSchedule for the Yaletown Historic Area in 1996.252The approved text amendment created a L2 subarea bounded by Smithe, Nelson, Mainland and Cambie Streets forthe purposes of accommodating a greater range of commercial use within the existing Showmart Building at 910Mainland 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 recordedDowntown District land sales were located within area L1.These sites represented over 40% of the 97 land salesdocumented 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 propertyvalued at $3 billion and $1 billion in commercial use.An additional 36 percent of the land is not included, as it iscomprised of roads and other public uses. The Vancouver Sun references a 1974 valuation of the land, not includingsome 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 2003e256As noted in the DODP, maximum density for a corner site must have a minimum frontage of 175 feet and a site areaof at least 21,000 square feet or an interior site with a minimum frontage of 200 feet of at least 24,000 square feet is5.0 FSR.Also, any site comprised of at least two-thirds social housing is allowed 5.0 FSR.The typical lot in DowntownSouth 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 OfficialDevelopment Plan (910 Mainland Street - Showmart Building."257 Punter cites a 1989 Report to Council (Punter 2003:99).258 R.Ward characterizes the Canadian Linen Building as an "unexceptional single-storey Moderne-style laundry"anddeclares "the new building as a vertical pastiche of the original horizontal structure, even using the same colourpalette...[accomplishing] this in such a sanitary way that in 10 years, when the new structure begins to look old, it won'tbe clear what was built when" (R.Ward 1999b).In 2004, the front page of the Vancouver Sun depicting the residentiallifestyle of Downtown South noted the structure as "venerable" (D. Ward 2004).259 N. Smith 2002:44328°Baker 2007261 McMartin 200581262C ,-ity of Vancouver 1991:8263The adoption of the Central Area Plan deleted 8,810,000 square feet of excess downtown office space, resulting in anet 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 remainingcentral business district (Vancouver 1991:13,15,21). Although the policy forwarded by the Central Area Plan limitedresidential rezonings in the CBD for the purpose of heritage retention, it was not until February,1997,that housing as ause was deleted.264 In reporting the lack of new commercial capacity, The Vancouver Sun notes that an impact study is now required priorto changing the use of existing buildings (Boddy 2006).The 2004 adoption of the interim policies for new residentialuse and conversion of existing office space to residential use maintained the exception for development and rezoningapplications that involve registered heritage and buildings worthy of inclusion (City of Vancouver 2005 [2004]).265Marketer of the residential conversion Sid Landolt notes the distinction in The Vancouver Sun (D.Smith 1995).The 1957B.C. Electric Building, renamed the B.C. Hydro Building in 1961 after the namesake utility's purchase and amalgamationinto a new provincial Crown corporation, is "one of the few modern structures in the city that today is as well-liked byboth the public and the profession as it was when it was hailed [upon construction] as 'an architectural dream...theskyscraper of tomorrow"(R.Ward 1996).266Developers received approvals for over 300 apartments utilizing CD-1 provisions annually 1984 and 1989 (Punter2003:98).267City of Vancouver 1991:11268 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 BusinessDistrict and Related Zoning Amenities."22'City of Vancouver 2005 [20041:2222Although the City relied on voluntary contributions exacted through site-specific rezonings while awaiting provincialamendment of the Charter to allow the collection of development charges, it later excused developments withpending applications and returned the previously collected contributions once the legislation passed and Councilapproved the area rezoning for residential use (Taylor 1 991).Combined with an inadequate estimation of the cost ofdesired amenities, the ratio of buildable lots developed in Downtown South exceeds the degree of amenity currentlysecured.mAlthough the best assessment of citywide CAC use, the working database has a significant number of unknown valuesand 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 smallercontribution than the negotiated alternative.The size of the heritage amenity is the sum of three values: $6,740,650retail value of the density purchased or financial heritage contribution; $18,165,950 provided in-kind throughrestoration 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 rezoningapproval.274 N. Smith 2002:441275 Kayden 1990:124276The federal definition is cited, although the municipal definition contains similar language identifying heritage valueas "historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth" (Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2003:2 andCity of Vancouver 2004c).These areas of heritage significance reflect the 1979 Australia ICOMOS (International Councilon Monuments and Sites) Burra Charter that identified aesthetic, historical, scientific and social categories (Byrne2003:4).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 Conservation82Program,"and is noted in second fact sheet in regards to past inclusion of buildings to the Heritage Register (City ofVancouver 2003c and 2004c).279Costonis 1982:15, 68 and Kayden 1990:101280Kayden 1990:99,1232"Costonis 1982:14282 Nelson 1977:45"'The increase was determined to be "just over three times the existing FSR" minimizing the perceived effect of arezoning 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 RevitalizationAgreements 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 thetotal square feet. Since CACs are considered comprehensively, this approach provides a fair assessment of relativeweights of the amenity contributions.The amount of density attributed to heritage is actually higher than stated,withthe 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 projectreceived 97,000 square feet valued at $50 per square foot—the current rate that the city utilizes for vesting transferableheritage density—for a total of $4.85 million. Reducing the increase in area through rezoning from 199,755 to 102,755square feet and the offered CAC contribution from $14.034 million to $9.184 million, the average value per square footof 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 commitmentprovides a balanced consideration. Reference the administrative report dated Feb.13,2006 with subject"HeritageBuilding 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 thequickest 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 projectcost 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"protectselected threatened public views"and in the process consecrated thirteen specific viewpoint locations (Punter2003:99-100 and City of Vancouver 1990 [1989]).288Phase II of the Wall Centre, approved in 1997, impacted the Queen Elizabeth Park view cone. Subsequent to thisintrusion, the particular view cone became "considered more of a view shed where on rare occasions some tallerbuildings [have been approved in its bounds that] have been seen to enhance the downtown profile." Reference thepolicy report dated Mar.9,2001 with subject"201 Burrard Street (Burrard Landing):Text Amendment for CD-1 By-lawNo.7679."289Category A buildings located in certain areas are automatically eligible for bonusing consideration,while theremaining Category A, along with Category B and C buildings are eligible following Council approval [City ofVancouver 2002 [1986]).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, nearbyparcels provide a precedent for multiple structures on this reduced length.The developer considered a single towerto preferable from a marketing perspective and the City determined that retention of the Federal Motor Companyshowroom would shorten the site sufficiently to make the alternative unviable. Residents of an existing building at1128 Seymour Street opposed the placement due to the impact on views and privacy and the location raised concernsregarding increased shadowing of Emily Barnes Park (Boddy 2003).The height of the view cone restriction on thesite is visible in Figure 3.9 by the change in geometry of the tower near the top of the figure. Reference the report forthe DPB dated Sep. 29, 2003 regarding "1299 Seymour Street - DE407723 - Zone DD (Preliminary Application)"andmemorandum to the DPB dated Nov.26, 2003 with subject"1299 Seymour Street: DE407723."83292The historic building remains on a separate parcel, but the development as a whole is considered jointly with a singlesite covenant permitting the utilization of bonused density without the transfer of density mechanism.293 Costonis 1989:58294 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 boundaryor use, density or height district restriction boundary in an Official Development Plan, unless the sites involved areboth within the same block"and cannot transfer bonused density [City of Vancouver 2002 [1983].Council approvedthe recommendation to restrict the amenity bonus at 101 West Hastings Street to be available only for use off-sitethrough the"normal Transfer of Density rezoning process,"although the transfer violated two of the transfer of densitylimitations: the site-specific zoning within the DODP as well as following CD-1 rezoning precluded transfer; and thatthe size of the 179,000 square foot bonus would be difficult to accommodate on a single receiver site. Reference thepolicy report dated Feb.28, 2006 with subject"CD-1 Rezoning and Amenity Bonus: Woodward's Site (101 and 149 WestHastings Street and 150 West Cordova Street).295The Amenity Bonusing Program is permitted through the Official Development Plan and secures facilities inpartnership with private development. Reference the administrative reports dated Mar.5,2003 with subject"AmenityBonus 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 datedSep.4,2001 with subject"Amenity Bonus Proposal - 1133 Seymour Street"and Apr.20,1999 with subject"AmenityBonus Proposal - 955 Richards Street."The significance of this first use is the absence of the provision for operatingcosts and the termination of the head lease prior to the life of the building delineated as 99 years.The site as of June2007 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 amenitydensity for those sites. Similar to other childcare facilities, nearly one-third-7,000 of the 22,450 square feet—of thechildcare and family development centre approved for 955 Burrard Street is outdoor play space. If exterior space isomitted, 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 developmentcentre 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 969Burrard Street & 1017-1045 Nelson Street (First Baptist Church): DD (G) and RM-5B to CD-1 and Heritage RevitalizationAgreement at 955 Burrard Street."298Although the obligations of the non-profit operators of amenity bonused spaces include capital repairs, in practicethe limited financial ability of these groups and the direction of available resources to programme delivery rather thanbuilding infrastructure results in City financed capital repairs to address deterioration of public asserts: funding forimprovements to 1125 Howe Street was included in the 1998 Capital Budget; 1190 Hornby Street in 2000;100-1140West Pender Street and 938 Howe Street in 2003; 300-1140 West Pender Street operating costs were covered for partof 2004 due to the costs incurred by the new tenant to occupy and upgrade the space. Reference the administrativereports 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 Cityacquired the strata lot due to the bankruptcy of the developer. Reference the administrative report dated Jul.21, 1998with subject"1998 Capital Budget: City-owned Cultural Facilities."Allowing the change of use of three floors of 1140West Georgia Street in 1984 to office use led to the creation of an amenity space in exchange for 1,750 square feet onthe first floor and 10,289 square feet on the third floor that was sub-leased by the Legal Services Society until 2004and by Community Legal Assistance Society following. Locating in the same building as the approved childcare facilitylisted 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 Subleaseat #300 - 1140 West Pender Street to the Community Legal Assistance Society."The Pendulum Gallery, comprising theatrium space of 885 West Georgia Street—site of the approved but unbuilt Playhouse Theatre amenity bonus—definesitself as a bonused amenity. While it is secured under a Community Use Agreement, the 5,200 square foot lobby andkinetic sculpture is not mentioned in recent policy reports regarding the Amenity Bonusing Program, suggesting itsstanding 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 asan 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 the84termination of the 15-year operating cost allowance. Although non-profit uses subsequently utilized the spaces, inMar. 2007 Simon Fraser University (SFU), the successor to the Canadian Craft Museum, terminated its sublease of 639Hornby Street, the amenity space associated with 925 West Georgia Street."'City of Vancouver 2002 [1983]302The transferred density stemmed from YMCA ownership of land across the lane that was consolidated with parcelsowned by the First Baptist Church in a related rezoning application.The actual density onsite is much higher even thanreported since the 13,728 square-foot amenity consisting of 69 childcare spaces and a family and child developmentcentre is excluded from FSR calculation. Although the report for the DPB dated Mar.29, 2007 reported an even largerfloor 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 969Burrard Street 1017-1045 Nelson Street (First Baptist Church): DD (G) and RM-5B to CD-1 and Heritage RevitalizationAgreement 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 afterrezoning and corrected for mechanical spaces expected to be exempt-13,728 square foot amenity space and 89,260square feet of approved transferable heritage density.304The Journal of Commerce Report followed the Significant New Rezoning Application heard by Council on Feb.12proposing to"demolish the existing YMCA building except for the original building fronting Burrard Street"that failedto emphasize that the 20,000 square feet retained constituted only the first structural bay (YMCA Project Will ProtectHeritage 2004)."'The physical heritage of the building, originally designed entirely of exposed board-formed concrete, proved at oddswith contemporary expectations, and with retention of only those more formal portions clad with brick, this materialhas been eliminated from its exterior expression (Will 2004).306Perhaps most paradoxical is the mass marketing for the residential tower:following a pattern familiar to projectsincorporating amenity bonuses, as well as many utilizing heritage outside of designated heritage areas, the elaborateportrayals neglect to specifically mention the presence of onsite community amenity or heritage features.Rather,themarketing appropriates the historic associations of the proximate neighbourhood and christens the building Patinawith 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 inclusionof a rooftop sign that could display advertising for the centre's major sponsor. Critics argued that the City-owned sitebetween the Granville Street bridge's off-ramps precluded other signage, neighbouring signs for adult entertainmentamounted to a less desirable aesthetic and that other bridges and viaducts entering downtown had electronic boardsposted (Parry 1997).The issue of signage was one of the earliest tests for legalized aesthetics, and that the $8.8 milliondance centre would be refused indicates its continued significance.The federal and provincial governments committedcapital 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 ofMarch 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 seniorgovernment funding.309The City noted that the "building has survived virtually intact, including period interior furnishings"and the HeritageInteriors 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 GranvilleStreet (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 forother heritage buildings on Granville Street,"favouring accommodating the programme through bonused heritagedensity.31 Chair of the Vancouver Heritage Commission Hal Kalman noted the programme lacked "meaningful heritageconservation"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 theproposed lease to the Dance Foundation at the City-owned lot. Reference the minutes of the DPB and Advisory Panelfor Jun.28, 1999, administrative report dated Mar. 28, 1996 with subject"Land Request - Dance Foundation (VancouverDance Centre) and policy report dated Mar.19,1999 with subject"Heritage Issues Raised by Dance Centre Proposal -677 Davie Street."85312 In addition to the $900,000 capital grant in lieu of the city-owned site, the Council approved an additional $100,000grant 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 GrantRequest."3' 3 Known as the ScotiaBank Dance Centre, the facility was the bank's largest donation to the arts in its history (Parry 1997and Scott 1999).314Then acting Co-Director Larry Beasley described the project as an "experimenralong with other controversial heritageamenities 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) and648 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 besidesthe B.C. Electric] will be knocked down" (Mackie 2001 and Chow 2002).The recent site history presented to Councilfor rezoning consideration records that the"owner demolished five dilapidated buildings fronting Granville Streetwhile retaining the front facade of a sixth building plus the heritage 'B' B.C. Electric Showroom Building" in the interimbetween the May 2001 acquisition of the site and the original development application in September. By the May 2002report 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 DunsmuirStreet."318The Province created the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA) in 1998 with the responsibility fortransportation planning and funding in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Known as TransLink,the GVTAadopted 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 schoolon 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 wascreated dependent on the owner's election to undertake further heritage restoration.A further 11.829 square feet ofthe 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, Citystaff and transit authorities asked them "to reconsider their original plans with a view to expanding the scope of theproject" (Chow 2002).321 The policy report for rezoning 600 Granville Street noted that"given that the approveable, on-hold developmentapplication would contain no office tower and would allow the site to remain underdeveloped for many years relativeto currently-permitted FSR, a residential tower with approximately 490 dweling units next to the transit station ispreferable 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 squarefoot Granville Street site to accommodate 270,000 square feet.The Sep. 12, 2001 development application proposed100,000 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 millionpurchase 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 businessarrangement between the developer and Translink to determine the most appropriate condition of rezoning to ensureconstruction of the transit access. Rezoning allowed the CD-1 by-law to reflect the requested exemption of floorspaceused 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 asScience World in the former Expo Centre; the building is dominated by a geodesic dome that was the centrepiece ofthe 1986 World's Exposition that is attributed symbolic importance to the redevelopment of the city.The science centrewas 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 percentheritage bonus for retaining the building's facades (Ward 1990). Reference the Urban Design Panel minutes for Feb.10,861999 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 ownerelects to replace"existing aluminum window frames in the street facades with new wood windows matching periodprofiles 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 unclearhow this figure was calculated, although it is certain that heritage as a significant presence locally; each of the threeproperties 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 Space884.1 IntroductionWhile the physical land of the city is relatively inelastic, the amount of available, buildable space results fromthe symbolic act of planning permission vested in the local state. With physical and social space reflexivelyconditioned, how the former is created, destroyed or transferred effects the urban environment.The City'sHeritage Density Transfer System (HDTS) is a primary means of structuring heritage as an amenity inVancouver. However, the conventional understanding of this model belies the manifold utility of transferabledensity in directing capital accumulation and neglects that through the creation and distribution of spacethe City exerts substantial control over the built environment.The analysis of heritage density generationand use illustrates that the presumption of bureaucratic rationality fails to recognize the range of capitalsvalued by the development field. Specifically, individuals wield varying volumes of social capital thatinforms their ability to utilize conveyed space.Transferable density is further found to serve a disciplinaryrole through its use by the City to regulate the market and conversely by the market to privatize publiclyaccessible space.4.2 Spatial CurrencyOnce vested through symbolic capital and made fluid through planning mechanisms, heritage becomesa material value in the construction of the city. Density transfer remains the most direct balance betweenwindfalls and wipeouts; owners of properties encumbered with structures that there is a public interest inretaining 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 heritageimportance 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 sitesgenerally results in a disbursement of floorspace, the transfer of development rights is a compensatorysystem with minimal physical impact. In practice, however, the realization of transferable density is a moreactive process, with the heritage value of some donor sites first publicly identified through the developmentproposal and the onerous mandate of meeting the financial burden of encumbered properties leadingto the actual creation of new space.The City calculates this bonused density to meet the marginal cost ofrehabilitation and heritage is the economic driver of municipal revitalization programmes with incentivesfor designated historic areas calibrated to meet the economic loss assigned to development in thesedistricts.The characteristics of receiver sites are manifold as well with owners utilizing density transfer to fulfilbetterment expectations of the City when rezoning to higher density or introducing non-conforming landuse, resolve design concerns following development approval or during construction, occupy public amenityor other exempted space and legalize nonconforming development.The diverse implementation of densitytransfer results in a heritage amenity that is formative of the City's historic landmarks and its contemporaryicons, as well as dozens of obscure aging buildings and mundane new construction. Developmentpermission centres the management of this mechanism with the City and extends substantial control overthe built environment in process; the municipality actively manages the density bank by controlling alloweddensity, accepted transfer areas and value of transferable density when vested, as a means of spatiallystructured capital accumulationThe development appraisal or pro forma analysis is the basis of economizing public goods to balancethe costs and benefits afforded to the owner by planning permission. Calculations are undertaken by the89developer in most projects seeking heritage bonuses and require agreement from the City of Vancouver RealEstate Services, which in addition to managing the acquisition, sale, leasing and management of City landand buildings, provides professional real estate advice to Council, boards and departments.Through publicplanning workshops the City has utilized abstracted pro forma analysis as a pedagogical tool exposing "whatamenities cost and what could be afforded through different densities." 322 However, while thelhoroughanalysis of physical form" of specific, proposed developments is available for public review,"these financialarrangements are protected, encouraging "distrust of a system [in which] the whole assessment is not opento public audit."328 Aligned with the initial hesitation to legalize aesthetics, the determination of heritagecosts 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 processconstitutes a "zoning payoff"and introduces additional externalities in comparison to traditional deliverythough tax revenues.329 The City's reliance on an opportunistic approach to planning permission subjectsthe legitimate determination of amenity to its performance in the marketplace.Accordingly,the opennessof heritage identification and private collateral benefits derived from aestheticized creation distinguishesheritage for its utility in capital accumulation. Delivery through the development process also forwardsadditional security to both the City and market; the understanding of the pro forma analysis as proprietaryshields the valuation of amenities from public scrutiny. Beyond limiting detailed economic comparisonbetween projects, amenitization provides significant symbolic protection through the language of giftexchange—contributions, donors and receivers—that encourages the perception that these amenities areprovided through the largesse of the development process.The result is the creation of public benefits underprivate 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 arenot directly committed to fund the rehabilitation of privately held historic structures. Rather, developmentpermission—compensating owners to deliver this aesthetic good with capital created from developmentapproval of proposals that fail to conform to bulk municipal land use standards—accounts for near theentirety of heritage financing. Even with the more expansive City resources forwarded by the HBRP, municipalcash commitments comprise .5 percent of the $8.5 million compensation to retain 51 East Pender Street withan additional 5 percent realized by foregoing tax revenue. By comparison, transferred density amounted to82 percent of the incentive and, due to the limitations in federal support, the share of the incentive deliveredthrough 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 financialperformance of heritage properties due to their underdevelopment; removing the unused density onsiterealized the economic return of redevelopment while neutralizing the incentive for demolition.This residualdensity 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 realizableunder bulk zoning.This can be partially attributed to the low permitted densities in Vancouver in comparisonto the larger scaled cores that were the subject of early proposals leading to the creation of the transferof density mechanism. 331 Facilitating greater City control of development, Vancouver's DODP also reflectssubstantial zoning reductions since the mid-1960s and, despite their technical appearance,"the drawingof lines has its arbitrary side:"floorspace ratios are "indicative, not scientifically precise, figures"and themethodology behind this calculation increasingly reflects the naturalization of space exempted frominclusion.332 With residual density inadequate to compensate owners to the degree necessary to retain11T ii ii It III .1Ul^II III-■■■-= ;■=II 1 II I11-11190heritage features, the City largely relies on bonused density as the primary incentive.Of the one dozen donorsites located outside of heritage zoning approved for density transfer between 1993 and 2005, three wereunder the zoned density and sold residual space.333 Of the remaining heritage sites:four were developedat a total FSR above area zoning through amalgamation or rezoning;three historic buildings exceededcontemporary maximum as built; one realized the permitted limit through redevelopment; and Christ ChurchCathedral, bonused density for interior designation, was effectively at zoned capacity due to its transfer ofdensity agreement preceding the municipal policy. 334 Further, bonused density accounted for 86% of thetotal transferable density originating from the first seven projects approved under HBRP guidelines. 335Bonused density has urban design consequences that vary significantly from those envisioned by transfer ofdensity policies that would maintain the same zoned capacity allowed through area zoning.The combinationof low permitted maximum densities and aggressive amenitization allows the City to exert far greatercontrol of development projects. Shifting the balance of floorspace creation from zoned capacity to amenitybonusing, however, places significant demands on the methodology used to calculate the generationof this space. Requiring substantial subjectivity, heritage bonusing compares the "value of the land as ifunencumbered 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 buildablesquare foot of comparable sites. 337 The valuation of the encumbered site is more onerous with the landvalue determined as the residual: considering the market appraisal of the completed development less thehard and soft construction costs and the developer's profit leaves the remainder as the value of the siterequiring the incorporation of heritage features.The amount of bonused space awarded is the differencebetween the value of the land encumbered and unencumbered divided by the market value of land perFigure 4.1:Transferable Density as Share of Total Heritage IncentiveBonus Density transferred to 830 W. Hastings: $ 4,850,0001,390,693Bonus Density:Notional Residual Density: 717,400Federal Historic Places Initiative: 1,000,000Property Tax Exemption: 500,39550,000Facade Grant:Total Heritage Incentive: $ 8,508,48891buildable square foot.The clear protection of the developer's expected profit is the market strength of thisapproach, and to encourage heritage retention the City may provide a percent premium against the valueof the unencumbered land. Since the uniqueness ascribed to heritage buildings precludes the existenceof 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 ofestimation and judgment in the assessment of pretty nearly every factor used in the calculations." 338Municipal efforts to encourage capital accumulation in the designated historic areas of Chinatown andGastown and more recently the connecting Hastings Street corridor, precipitated the development ofthe HBRP specifically to realize revitalization goals and "kick start economic activity." 339 With the primaryobjective the "full upgrading of heritage buildings...while stimulating economic development,"the influenceof market interests in the determination of public values is reflected in policies that consider"morefavourably"those heritage projects"proposing a higher level of private investment." 3" Prior to the 2002adoption of the Gastown Heritage Management Plan, the precursor to the HBRP,the City limited heritagebonusing 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 meetthe economic loss as well as marginal costs associated with development in the area; the City calculates theshortfall as the projected market value after renovation less the property value, renovation costs and profit. 341Key to the success of the HBRP has been the provision of tax exemptions, the substantial public investment inthe symbolic Woodward's Department Store and the creation of an additional density incentive. 342 Identifiedas notional residual density—HA-2, HA-1 and HA-1A zoning districts are not regulated by a maximum FSR sothe maximum allowed density is derived from the zoned height limitation and typical density achieved—thisfurther subsidy is presumed to encourage the retention of small-scaled buildings and, since it is addedfollowing bonused density calculation, constitutes a benefit exceeding shortfall costs. 3434.3 ConfermentThe transfer of density illustrates the pattern of capital accumulation in the City. Far from organic, theclustering of donor and receiver sites is the result of targeted municipal policy that governs the form ofdevelopment. Courting investment through density transfer operates on both the donor and receiversites; heritage policy provides the economic engine to City revitalization strategies and the transfer ofdensity mechanism allows larger, more symbolic structures in the intensified development regions of thepeninsula. Considering that only a small minority of transferred density is actually residual, rather than ashifting of capital the HDTS works in conjunction with bonusing provisions in capital creation on all involveddevelopment 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]344As their original uses lapsed in the early 1990s,the infancy of the formal HDTS was dominated by densitycreated in response to the unregistered and unprotected status of the City's modernist icons lining BurrardStreet [Table 4.1]. In subsequent years, donor sites were centred in the core with the conversion of financialdistrict banking halls to academic programming. Since then, the enhanced incentives under the GastownHeritage Management Plan and HBRP have dramatically concentrated the creation of transferable densityto the Gastown, and more recently, Chinatown historic areas. Although other sites have and continue tointroduce substantial amounts of bonus density, much of this floorspace outside of these examples has beenrealized through amalgamated or rezoned development. In general, rising construction costs and land values92as well as the maturation of the industry have increased incentives while policy allowing sites to receiveten percent of the bulk density permission without rezoning has encouraged the dispersal of much thesebonuses IFigure 4.3].The City of Vancouver Heritage Density Exchange information accessed from the Heritage ConservationProgram in October 2005 records transfers as well as approved density since the establishment of theHDTS in 1993. Despite the importance of the HDTS to the heritage amenity, its failure to record all densityconveyance related to historic structures limits its analytical ability. Its purpose is to serve as"a publiclyaccessible data base showing the density available for purchase, the vendors of this density and contactinformation,"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 theirportfolios and owners of receiver sites that agree in principal to purchase density prior to the City approvalof transferable density at the donor site are not recorded. Also, since it does not technically invoke thetransfer of density policy, donor and receiver pairs conjoined through lot consolidation or comprehensiveconsideration of heritage sites adjoining development is not included.The use of HDTS data alignsclosely with accessed policy reports, although there is variance in the exact amounts of density betweendevelopment approval and the completed transfer recorded. Any larger discrepancy is noted and while theseinconsistencies should be acknowledged, they do not meaningfully impact the interpretation of the thesis asa whole 346Between January 1994 and October 2005 the HDTS recorded 64 transfers of density between heritage donorand receiver sites within the transfer of density area, as well as one heritage transfer originating outside itsbounds and another that provided an open space amenity [Table 4.2]3 47 In total, the HDTS facilitated thetransfer 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 squarefeet between 1993 and April 2004. Figure 4.4 illustrates the balance of the HDTS as the area between thetotal density vested and the total transferred.The July 2001 approval of additional transferred density to1001 Hornby Street led to a visible constriction in the balance, aligning with reports of the year-end balancedropping in 1998 to 25,000 square feet and reaching a nadir of 7,000 square feet the following year:348However, the adoption of an economic revitalization strategy for the DTES in 2000 that included buildingupon the area's heritage assets and the progression of policies and studies leading up to the July 2003approval 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 thesatisfaction of the Heritage Conservation Program—a date that follows approval in principle of the densityby an unknown number of months—the white line dividing the field in Figure 4.4 marks the limit of densityapproved for sites that had successfully transferred density to a receiver site prior to October 2005.This pointin early 2004 also denotes the first HRA involving transferable density approved under the HBRP progra m .349The bank has since grown substantially due to "the success of the Heritage Area Revitalization Program, risingland and construction values and the lack of anticipated Federal incentives." 350 In July 2007, the PlanningDepartment reported that since the establishment of the HBRP the City created 1.85 million square feet fortransfer with 2006 approvals accounting for 1.2 million square feet alone—more than approved in the firstdecade 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 millionsquare feet; less than two years after the data collected in Figure 4.4 the unsold density is now equal to theentire range depicted, dwarfing the historic high prior to approval of the HBRP of 427,000 square feet setin November 2002. If all recent applications and enquiries in process were approved, this total would rise asDate Address Title Register Built Zoning^Area Use Architect1993 900 Burrard Street BC Electric Building A 1957 CD-1 322 CBD  Sharp Thompson Berwick and Pratt1993 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library A 1957 CD-1 323 CBD Semmens and Simpson1995 720 Jervis Street Abbott House A 1898 CD-1 343 Triangle West unknown1996 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Supply Building B 1929 DD^Downtown South x Townley and Matheson1996 2750 Granville Street Stanley Theatre A 1930 CD-1 370 South Granville H. H. Simmonds1997 440 Cambie Street Edgett Building B 1911 DD^Victory Square A. A. Cox2000 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank of Canada B 1903 DD^Victory Square Dalton and Eveleigh2000 211 Columbia Street C 1900 / 1911 HA-2^Gastown unknown2001 3838 Cypress Street Greencroft A 1912 / 1936 FSD (1)^First Shaughnessy unknown / Ross Lort2002 626 West Pender Street London Building B 1912 DD^CBD Somervell and Putnam2002 690 Burrard Street Christ Church Cathedral (2) A 1895 / 1940 DD^CBD C.O. Wickenden2002 55 Water Street Malkin Building B 1907 / 1912 HA-2^Gastown  Parr and Fee2002 310 Water Street Taylor Building C 1911 HA-2^Gastown  unknown2002 345 Water Street Greenshields Building (west half) A 1901 HA-2^Gastown  unknown2002 602 Dunsmuir Street St. Regis Hotel / Gotham Restaurant C / C 1913 / 1933 CD-1 414 CBD x W. T. Whiteway / Max Downing2002 640 W Pender Street Bank of Montreal A 1916 / 1926 DD^CBD Somervell and Putnam / K. G. Rea2004 46 Water Street Franks Building C 1888 HA-2^Gastown  unknown2004 52 Water Street Beulah Mission C 1912 HA-2^Gastown unknown2004 55 East Cordova Street McLennan and McFeely Building C 1906 / 1925 HA-2^Gastown  Edward Evans Blackmore2005 5 West Pender Street Chinese Freemasons Building B 1907 HA-1^Chinatown  unknown2005 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  unknown2005 522 Beatty Street Bowman Block Building C 1906 / 1913 DD^Victory Square  unknownNotes for Table 4.1: Heritage Transfer of Density Donor Sites Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005The 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. Thesignificance 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 currentzoning 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 alarger 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 relegatedentirely 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 duringthis 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 livetheatres; 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 BurrardStreet 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 withz2 cc 5 Iw11 0 ui 8w OccjigLU 0>Z01(.9 5 0LUZ bo0,02 1Z F-< ZQ tt00010 z0 <cy94Figure 4.2: Donor and Receiver Site Distribution Jan.1993 - Oct. 2005Approved for TransferTransferred to Receiver.21997^1998^1999^20001994 2001 20062004200295high as 2.4 million square feet.The bourgeoning balance of the HDTS is symptomatic of the City's considerable symbolic work towardsheritage recognition, its substantial physical implications to the realization of the urban environment and thecultural ramifications to a clarified understanding of public value. Akin to the 1970s establishment of transferof density and related mechanisms concentrated on addressing the inability to assess sufficient financialresources to stay the demolition of buildings perceived to have heritage value, the primary focus remainsthe economic solvency of the tool at the expense of the valuation of heritage as a public interest.Transferof density was conceived to address "truly meritorious buildings" under threat of demolition and focusedon the expansion of the economic ability of the tool rather than a critical approach to determining merit.351While the emphasis on the utility of heritage to the development process is argued in this thesis, an acuteexample of the prioritization of ability over meaning is the lack of urgency placed on updating the City's soleeffort of identifying the significance of heritage resources. Although market value is similarly assigned to theVancouver Heritage Register Upgrade Program by its potential to reduce processing time and carrying costsof development involving heritage sites, it proposes to better reflect—and perhaps in the process betterdescribe—community values by creating an "overarching Vancouver Historic Context Statement," placingresources in a framework to clarify the particular embodied heritage value of sites and prioritizing bothadditions and subtractions from the Register. 352 First prepared for consideration in the 2006 budget, the Citypostponed funding that was ultimately redirected to support a review of the transfer of density mechanism.4.4 Capital AccumulationFigure 4.3: Density Bank Balance Jan. 1993 - Oct.2005Date96A single development absorbed a quarter of the total density traded in the first decade of the program—aratio that raises to 31 percent considering only heritage density transferred—and is responsible for thevisible constriction in the balance of approved and received density illustrated in Figure 4.3.1001 HornbyStreet 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 determiningthe bounds of the heritage field. Similar to the Dance Foundation discussed in Section 3.5, a significantbeneficiary of the heritage amenity supported by this development was a non-profit organizationcommitted 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 StanleyTheatre rehabilitation was widely heralded as a success in terms of conservation, but was only achievedthrough the expedited approval of a controversial development.The design for the hotel at 1001 HornbyStreet sought not to become the City's tallest building through a height increase of 50 percent over theDODP limits, but proposed this extra height at the crest of the downtown peninsula where it would infringeupon a view cone.353 When the developer originally announced plans for the complex in 1991, it proposeda 33-storey hotel and 28-storey apartment tower to be completed in 1993 with a 24-storey office towerto follow.354 By the opening of the first two towers in 1994,the third had been approved in principle at 40storeys.3" The tower was 45-48 stories by the beginning of the next year, and in mid-1996, the DevelopmentPermit Board (DPB) considered a 450-foot tall, 46-storey building. 356 This latest proposal tied the developmentto the rehabilitation of the Stanley Theatre located at 2750 Granville Street, built in 1931 and facing anuncertain fate after its closure six decades later. Supporters founded the Stanley Theatre Society and leasedthe building in 1994 with the intention of its rehabilitation as a live-performance stage. 357 $2.6 million inFederal 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 squarefeet for transfer valued at $1.2 million. However, without a receiver for the density, the approaching deadlineto complete the purchase at the end of March 1997 risked the forfeiture of senior government funding, andif the rehabilitation failed the City would be faced with the undesirable outcome of the bonused densityreverting to the private theatre owner. 358 Accordingly, Council responded to the solicitation for advice byinforming the DPB in February—since the site did not require rezoning, the density and height of the projectwas left to the board's discretion—that it had no objection to the height and that it supported an adjustmentof the impacted view cone? 59 Despite some board member's inclination towards awaiting the outcome ofthe Downtown Skyline Study under development, the urgency of the grant deadline led to approval.The sitereceived 50,000 square feet from the Stanley Theatre and 950 Burrard Street amounting to the maximum 10percent bonus without rezoning.36° In July 1998 the Planning Department prepared a policy report regardingthe rezoning of the site and the proposed receipt of another 184,000 square feet of density.361 Referred to apublic hearing in September, the proposal attracted nominal interest even though it proposed a 60 percentincrease in floorspace from the approved development permit for Phase 11.362 Since 38 percent of the densitywas incorporated within the tower envelope by reducing floor-to-floor heights, 29 percent below gradeand 33 percent in the podium, the physical impact was nominal and the height of the project—which hadalready been approved by the DPB—did not increase [Figure 4.6]. Further, the expansion created a marketfor the entirety of the heritage density generated by the HRA approved for 440 Cambie Street. Indicatingthe influence of social capital in amenity creation, the Cambie Street project, administered concurrently bythe same architectural firm leading the second phase of the hotel complex, provided rehabilitated officespace for the Architectural Institute of British Columbia. 363 The application of heritage density demonstratesthe significance of social ability in the negotiation process. It is the necessary feel for the game that enablesSUMMARY OF HERITAGE TRANSFERS OFDENSITY IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVERJANUARY 1993 - OCTOBER 2004Figure 4.5: Heritage Density Transfers Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005^ 97Date Density (sf) Donor Address Donor Title Receiver Address Receiver Title1994 20750 900 Burrard Street BC Electric Building 1054-1098 Robson Street Robson Centre Place38177 900 Burrard Street BC Electric Building 900 Burrard Street Electric Avenue and Paramount Place1996 9000 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1238 Seymour Street Space1997 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 Nelson6170 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1001 Hornby Street One Wall Centre - Sheraton Hotel and 938 Nelson1030 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1238 Seymour Street Space4141 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1128 West Hastings Street Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle Hotel and The Vantage8400 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 564 Granville Street 570 Granville1998 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 Vancouver260 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1238 Seymour Street Space35000 440 Cambie Street Edgett Building 1001 Hornby Street One Wall Centre - Sheraton Hotel and 938 Nelson1100 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1128 West Hastings Street Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle Hotel and The Vantage10500 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1221 Homer Street The Beresford Yaletown14408 1200 Richards Street Canadian Linen Co. Building 1200 Hamilton Street Opus Hotel Vancouver144355 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1001 Hornby Street One Wall Centre - Sheraton Hotel and 938 Nelson3925 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1068 Hornby Street The Canadian at Wall Centre1130 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1068 Hornby Street The Canadian at Wall Centre1999 56.5 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1238 Seymour Street Space15793 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 Living1689 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 885 West Georgia Street HSBC Building2000 3400 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 1138 Melville Street The Orca and Melville Place2001 2400 211 Columbia Street 401 Burrard Street Government of Canada Building515 750 Burrard Street Vancouver Public Library 928 Richards Street The Savoy Downtown2002 10492 211 Columbia Street 1010 Richards Street Gallery3949 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank 1228 West Hastings Street Palladio at Coal Harbour2854 626 West Pender London Building 828 Cardero Street Fusion10000 211 Columbia Street 1050 Smithe Street Sterling18000 626 West Pender London Building 1085 Homer Street The Cossette and Domus10498 211 Columbia Street 1017-1033 Richards Street Miro10500 626 West Pender London Building 1001 Homer Street The Bentley3212 211 Columbia Street 1128 West Hastings Street Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle Hotel and The Vantage2003 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 Melville2126 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 988 Richards Street Tribeca Lofts4500 626 West Pender London Building 531 Beatty Street Metroliving 531 Beatty4243 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank 189 National Avenue Sussex5246 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 488 Robson Street R & R Robson and Richards2004 13239 310 Water Street Taylor Building 189 National Avenue Sussex26460 640 West Pender Street Bank of Montreal 1201 West Hastings Street Cielo43018 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 1201 West Hastings Street Cielo5181 310 Water Street Taylor Building 1628-1654 West 7th Virtu!19403 52 Water Street 550 Bute Street The Melville Coal Harbour and 1133 Melville16000 52 Water Street 1475 Howe Street Pomaria5175 46 Water Street Franks Building 1670-1690 West 8th Ave 1690 W. 8th Ave.12000 52 Water Street 1082 Seymour Street Freesia22780 690 Burrard Street Christ Church 901 Mainland Street Yaletown Park2374 46 Water Street Franks Building 988 Richards Street Tribeca Lofts190 52 Water Street 822 Seymour Street L'aria on Robson64 52 Water Street 1245 Homer Street Iliad2005 4768 400 West Hastings Street Royal Bank 538 Smithe Street MoDE15000 46 Water Street Franks Building 1133 Homer Street Homer + Helmcken10500 52 Water Street 811-821 Cambie Street Raffles on Robson2160 52 Water Street 1505 Robson Street Legacy on Robson598 211 Columbia Street 605 Robson Street Vancouver House7926 52 Water Street 1256 West Pender Street Flatiron26497 640 West Pender Street Bank of Montreal 520-550 West 8th Ave Cross Roads2036 55-99 East Cordova Street McLennan & McFeely Building 605 Robson Street Vancouver House136 52 Water Street 1238 Seymour Street Space14311 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. 2005Titles of transfer properties, included to assist in recognizing the donor and receiver sites, are the current building names or major tenants. Developments utilizing a singlesite 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 orother 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 WestHastings 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 ofdensity 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 approvalof 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 theDevelopment Permit Board. The office and retail tower proposal involved the creation of a single site covenant to utilize residual density from the adjacent office buildingexisting 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 hoteland 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 andpolicy reports and development applications listed in Appendix A.99and results from the dominant capital position of the actors—within the City bureaucracy, the architecturalprofession and finance community—that realize highly symbolic projects.The amenitization of the urbanenvironment derives from the collusion of different interests, and in Vancouver it largely involves themoulding of heritage as a capital conveyance method.4.5 Market DisciplineAs illustrated by 1001 Hornby Street, the consideration—and even the nomenclature—of receiver siteowners as passive sources of economic capital misrecognizes that varying types of capital are in play andthat the conveyance is not unidirectional. Rather, receiver sites pursue or are compelled to purchase heritagedensity for a variety of reasons that inform this scene of transaction.The majority of owners of intendedreceiver sites benefit from the predictable outcome of density transfer and design with the assumption ofpurchasing the requisite floorspace from the available HDTS supply [Table 4.31. Almost all of existing zoningin the study area allows up to ten percent density transfer without rezoning and a limited number of receiversites also utilize hotel and amenity bonuses concurrently.' 4 Projects bonused up to ten percent are colouredblue in Figure 4.7. Receiver sites that sought over 10 percent density increase or change of allowable usecoloured yellow purchased heritage density to reduce landlift calculation or committed heritage fundingto meet CAC obligations. Sites that utilized the transfer of density within design development, purchasedfloorspace to permit the construction of new space or occupation of exempted areas, or were compelled bythe City to purchase density to address non-conforming situations are denoted in red.ln utilizing heritage incode enforcement, the language of policy reports notes that both the condition and its resolution throughFigure 4.5: Social Ability Expressed through Physical Form100heritage density purchase is not preferred.The reliance on CD-1 zoning that requires by-law amendment to alter the form of development, HRAs andother legal agreements that declare responsibilities in perpetuity and fractured ownership patterns resultingfrom strata titling—buildings owned by corporations comprised of individual unit owners that sharecommon property—exert substantial control over the built environment by seemingly denying much of theevolutionary process that defines urban space. Further, the experience with amenity bonusing and otherattempts at sustainable public programming as well as extended conflicts between the City and residentsover lease rates of sites developed by the municipality in the 1970s, question the long-term viability of suchrestrictions.The disciplinary role of the HDTS serves a critical function by facilitating the renegotiation ofcovenants created for the life of the building.Within a zoning system based on FSR, the authorization forthe transfer of up to ten percent of the zoned density serves an important role in legitimizing small-scaledevelopment in the city. Although the expansion of floor space within existing structures accounted forover a quarter of recorded transfers, the amount of density transferred was only 6.4% of the total . 365 Ofthese,three transfers allowed changes while the building was under construction, and the remaining 15following occupancy. Since most buildings within the heritage transfer area are not built over maximumdensity, owners can utilize density transfer to legitimize unit alterations or changes of use without rezoningto increase the floor area allowance prescribed by bulk zoning. Similarly, commercial buildings that providepublicly 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 throughtransfer of density.While serving practical concerns by inducing owners to fund public amenities in exchangefor legitimization of non-conforming development, the practice introduces further symbolic externalities tothe 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 constructionthat would effectively increase the density of the building. 366 These concerns proved well founded, and inMay 1997 Council sought the enforcement of building by-law requirements. 367 The developer arranged thepurchase 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 transfersof density. In total, 11,800 square feet has allowed for 56 loft mezzanines and expansions of 13 of the 22 unitsbeing pursued for"infractions due to construction of additional floor area without permits" [Figure 4.8). 368While the City utilizes heritage density to enforce building by-law, the market involves transfer of density toredress public access to private property. As an amenity derived from development, the City secures publicuse of private facilities through Community Use Agreements.This arrangement is uncommon with the Cityrecording only eight existing facilities in 2003 and, while the gross availability required is secured by legalcontract, the owner typically retains control over the selection of groups able to use the space, the scheduleof its availability and the ability to charge the user all costs above the base rental associated with thefacility.369A 1985 rezoning application for 718 Drake Street secured a Community Use Agreement to allow theElks Lodge to utilize space in the proposed development for 24 hours per week without charge. Although therezoning failed to proceed, the subsequent development application approved in 1996 carried forward theuse of the first floor amenity area of the hotel. Also utilizing a hotel bonus, the building realized 5.28 FSR withan additional 4,000 square feet (or .33 FSR) exempt due to the community use agreement. By 2003 the disuseof the space and the owner's concerns regarding the viability of the property led to the transfer of heritageFigure 4.7: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005^ 101Receiver^Date^Donor Density %Increase Rezone BonusConsidered Prior to Development Permit Approval901 Mainland Street^2004^690 Burrard Street 22780 4.001133 Homer Street 2005^46 Water Street 15000 6.80564 Granville Street^1997^1200 Richards Street 8400 10.001000 Robson Street 1998^750 Burrard Street 433 10.001221 Homer Street^1998^1200 Richards Street 10500 10.001050 Smithe Street 1999^750 Burrard Street 9973 10.001177 West Pender Street^1999^720 Jervis Street 15793 10.00828 Cardero Street^2002 626 West Pender 2854 10.001001 Homer Street 2002 626 West Pender 10500 10.001010 Richards Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 10492 10.001017-1033 Richards Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 10498 10.001050 Smithe Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 10000 10.001085 Homer Street 2002 626 West Pender 18000 10.00531 Beatty Street^2003 626 West Pender 4500 10.00988 Richards Street 2003^690 Burrard Street 2126 10.002004 46 Water Street 23741082 Seymour Street^2004 52 Water Street 12000 10.001628-1654 West 7th 2004 310 Water Street 5181 10.001670-1690 West 8th Ave^2004 46 Water Street 5175 10.00520-550 West 8th Ave^2005 640 West Pender Street 26497 10.00538 Smithe Street 2005^400 West Hastings Street 4768 10.001256 West Pender Street^2005^52 Water Street 7926 10.001505 Robson Street^2005^52 Water Street 2160 10.001128 West Hastings Street^1997^750 Burrard Street 4141 1.80 hotel1998^750 Burrard Street 11001001 Hornby Street^1997^750 Burrard Street 6170 6.77 hotel1997^2750 Granville Street 44000550 Bute Street^2003^310 Water Street 17865 9.00 hotel / amenity2004 52 Water Street 194031750 Davie Street^2005 46 Water Street 2921 7.72 •488 Robson Street 2003^690 Burrard Street 5246 8.74 amenity1475 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 14408900 Burrard Street^1994^900 Burrard Street 38177189 National Avenue 2003^400 West Hastings Street 4243 *2004^310 Water Street 132391201 West Hastings Street^2004^690 Burrard Street 430182004 640 West Pender Street 26460Considered Following Development Permit Approval1001 Hornby Street^1998^750 Burrard Street 144355 24.20 • hotel1998 440 Cambie Street 35000Considered During Construction1068 Hornby Street^1998^750 Burrard Street 1130 0.72401 Burrard Street 2001^211 Columbia Street 2400 1.121138 Melville Street^2000^750 Burrard Street 3400 2.451068 Hornby Street 1998 750 Burrard Street 3925 2.491228 West Hastings Street^2002 400 West Hastings Street 3949 3.93Considered Post-Occupancy1238 Seymour Street^1999^750 Burrard Street 56.5 0.041238 Seymour Street 2005 52 Water Street 136 0.091238 Seymour Street^1998^750 Burrard Street 260 0.17822 Seymour Street 2004 52 Water Street 190 0.21928 Richards Street^2001^750 Burrard Street 515 0.341245 Homer Street 2004^52 Water Street 64 0.36885 West Georgia Street^1999^750 Burrard Street 1689 0.381238 Seymour Street^1997^1200 Richards Street 1030 0.691128 West Hastings Street^2002^211 Columbia Street 3212 1.00 •605 Robson Street^2005^211 Columbia Street 598 1.712005^55-99 East Cordova Street 2036777 Dunsmuir Street^2005 46 Water Street 14311 3.001238 Seymour Street 1996^1200 Richards Street 9000 6.00718 Drake Street^2003 400 West Hastings Street 4040 6.70808 Bute Street 1998^750 Burrard Street 1730 10.00Notes for Table 4.3: Receiver Use of Density Transfer Jan. 1993 - Oct. 2005The 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 percentdensity 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 Dis the maximum permitted density for all uses prior to rezoning or bonusing. For developments utilizing a single site covenant, even when density is assignedseparately in the process of rezoning or permit approval, the percent density attributable to transferred heritage density is calculated with regards to the entiretyof the site. Determining an appropriate base density is problematic when considering those receivers marked with an asterisk (*) due to special zoned districtswithout 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 wasrezoned to CD-1 the City used the recommendation of the Granville Slopes Polices and Neighbourhood Concept Plan associated with FCCDD zoning to establishthe 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 increaseattributable 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 Councilamendment allows the increase in residential density through transfer of heritage density, it is difficult to determine the percent density attributable to transferredheritage 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 adoptionof the Coal Harbour Official Development Plan negated the controls of the previous development plan for the CWD leaving the majority of the site without densityregulation, and the extension of the Coal Harbour plan the subsequent year left the negotiation of density to the development application process. Since thecorner 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 existingzoning accommodates only 27,000 square feet or 13% of the proposed development density due to the small portion of the site it regulates. The Cityrecommendation that the developer realizes the remainder through the transfer of density results in an increase attributable to heritage of several times that of thearea zoning. As of Oct. 2005, the Heritage Density Exchange accessed from the City of Vancouver Heritage Conservation Program recorded two transfers to 1201West 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.Reasonaddition to downzoned site(1)change of use(2)(3)(4)increase underground or within envelopebuilding code conformationinfill open to below spacechange of usechange of useconstruction contrary to permitloft expansionloft expansionloft expansioncombine units and add stairstairs to roof deckuse exempted floor areaenclose roof deckloft expansionuse exempted floor arearetail expansionconvert amenity to commercialloft expansionconvert amenity to commercialconvert amenity to commercial200DI12500cc5O10000 7500CI)5'41?^5000C1—15N 2500'07Square FeetTransferred103density to the site to change the use from amenity area to restaurant 3 70 Similar reclassifications have led tothe closure of publicly accessible atriums—most notably at 777 Dunsmuir Street—allowed under the DODPto be excluded from FSR calculation "up to the lesser of 10 per cent of the permitted floors space or 6,000square feet."3714.6 Power and TerritoryThe 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 tothe local state has provided "as much a political opportunity as an economic one for new regimes of urbanpower."372 The exertion of this control has been affected through the amenitization of the City with aestheticclaims providing the greatest utility. The lack of meaningful dialogue regarding these issues,far from asuggestion of their insignificance, is as indicative of the"changing social and cultural geography, twinnedwith a changing economic geography, as [are] more visible and voluble signs." 3" It is a restructuring ofthe social profile that is simultaneously the reconsideration of spatial scale,"insofar as the fixation of scalescrystallizes the contours of social power...into remade physical landscapes."374Contrasting Vancouver's reputation for liveability, the Downtown Eastside (DTES) bordering the CBD hasthe highest concentration of poverty, social problems and heritage buildings in Vancouver.375 As the "mostconcentrated pocket of poverty and crime in Canada,"the juxtaposition of the area to the neighbouringprecincts that stand among the country's richest has attracted increasing attention both domestically andFigure 4.7: Disciplinary Receipt of Heritage Density104abroad.378 The municipal address of the DTES is well documented, and this thesis provides only a cursoryexamination of the role of heritage in the latest revitalization programmes.With the severity of the socialconditions, the redevelopment effort is characterized as herculean and the description of the DTES asa 'warzone' by development interests echoes Neil Smith's observations of the 'revanchist city.' 377 WhileVancouver's approach to the DTES may prove to—as proponents assert against the experience of numerousurban 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 tothis restructuring, the City's Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) has succeeded as a substantiveexercise 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 policiesleading to the drafting of the HBRP aroused conflict between advocates for low-income housing and thosecommitted to heritage conservation—a position understood as aligned with economic revitalization—theCity 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 mostnotably the dramatic increase in capital accumulation. Further, the concurrent improvement of local socialand 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 anunviable scale.381 While the City forwards increased involvement in the rehabilitation program as evidenceof the successful implementation of the HBRP,the predictable result has been the rapid expansion of thedensity bank to unprecedented levels. Considering current absorption rates, this growth is unsustainable andwill require the City through development permission to induce developers to receive greater quantities ofdensity. 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 transferof density area. Managing the HDTS requires that heritage density remain attractive to developers both interms of price per buildable square foot and in the collateral benefits accrued within the discretionary zoningprocess.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 partnershipbetween capital and the local state. Accordingly, the importance of the Woodward's structure rests in itsrole as a sign to marshal capital, with the project marketer advocating to"implode it, get the publicity forit so people see that change is really happening."382 The redevelopment demonstrates the fluidity of thedefinition of heritage and the ability of the related amenity to serve the primary development interest.TheCity designated the entire building, listed in the 'C'category of the Heritage Register, in 1996 in the processof the development permit application from the previous year. Determined significant due to its standingas "Vancouver's best example of the dominant way of organizing and marketing retail shopping as partof the materialism of the modern era,"the City has led the redevelopment effort since acquiring the sitefrom the province in 2001383 A complex programme and significant social components notwithstanding,the project now under construction received significant subsidy through a $23.2 million heritage incentivepackage including 187,000 square feet of transferable density—in addition to 179,000 square feet oftransferable density bonused due to the high risk associated with the mixed use development and openspace 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 recognizingthat heritage values are "comprised of both physical and intangible conservation,"the form of developmenthas tended to favour the latter: in October 2005 the Vancouver Heritage Commission reluctantly supportedthe demolition of the post 1908 facades, and by the following March the"heritage philosophy [had] evolved105to include not only physical attributes of the original Woodward's store, but also the cultural and sentimentalmemories" evoked by the "city icon" [Figure 4.8].With physical conservation limited to the rehabilitation of the 1908 Woodward's Building destined to bethe 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"historicalinspiration in the design of the new structures on site"—become increasingly important. Although thedeveloper's proposal upon selection in September 2004 aligned with the recommendations of the urbandesign 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 ofthe physical fabric untenable.384 This loss, however, was viewed acceptable due to the"community benefit theincreased programming brings to the goal of revitalizing the DTES heritage precinct."The heritage amenitysupported through the intensification of development in the City progresses towards an increasinglyabstract 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 isincompatible 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 Commissionlauded 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 ConclusionHeritage density serves to structure the physical and social space of Vancouver.Through management ofthe 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 boththe market and City as a disciplinary measure. Regardless of its specific application, its nearly completereliance on the creation of bonused density illustrates the HDTS as foremost a development mechanismthat facilitates the dominant interest of capital accumulation. Although the effect on the physical space ofthe City reflects the quantity of space approved for transfer, the legitimate execution of purchased densityis dependent on social ability. Further, with physical and social space reflexively conditioned, the recentadoption of the Heritage Building Revitalization Program (HBRP) signals an intensification of heritage use inthe determination of the city.-414 ,'.^ - -. 14-r ^,11 .1 0111-4 dia•••• ^ 111Will101101■04 ^_- ^ • ^ ,J41 ri- ^ a 1EE ^ 1=6 Ai",.'! ^ .. hi fLCt tE 11, ^  'I .1 10 VI!i4!'1074.8 Notes for Chapter Four"'Punter 2003:308328City of Vancouver 2005:9329 Kayden 1990:101330 $1 million—or 12 percent of the incentive package—is attributed to a federal grant. In order to stabilize thedevelopment, the City awards density equivalent to this value in the HRA pending the approval of the owner'sgrant application.The October 2006 announcement of the closure of the Commercial Heritage Properties IncentiveFund 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 limitationsrendering conversion to strata residential use ineligible, a non-market residential project similarly did not meet thecommercial standard and the early closure of the programme has caused another 10 applications and enquiriesto default to municipal incentives.The combined impact is 340,000 square feet of transferable bonus density.Thehigh number of disqualifications may be attributed to the City's efforts to aggressively pursue what limited meansof funding are available from senior government:while noting "uncertainty"that a project will not qualify since itclearly does not meet federal criterion, the compensation package will still seek the federal incentive and, only in theunlikely occurrence that the grant is received does the municipally bonused density available for transfer reduceby a commensurate amount. Although several Vancouver projects can be considered successfully involved with theprogramme, 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 presentedpreservation costs based on the 16-FSR base zoning of the Chicago Loop (Costonis 1974:83).The DODP limits densityin 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 alloweddensity of 3.5 FSR, is zoned lower to protect the existing scale of development. In Apr.2006, Seattle increased the baseallowable density of its downtown office core (DOC 1) to 6 FSR (City of Seattle 2006).Although this maximum densityis quite low, the large scale of development in the City is attributable to its generous incentive zoning provisions thatallow a maximum of 20 FSR through various incentives.The Chicago Plan similarly noted dramatic increases, withincentive zoning allowing a half-block development to build at double the base density and a full block to realize over39 FSR. In comparison DD area A allows 9.9 FSR through heritage transfer or 10.35 FSR for hotel use. Higher densitiesare 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 suburbanuses, although commercial construction remained subject to height and bulk limitations requiring a tiered physicalform 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 andoffensive"throughout the entire "General Business District,"and few buildings constructed exceeded the 150% streetwidth limit in height before the building area would have to be reduced from complete site coverage.The resultrendered the intended 'wedding cake'effect unapparent and led to the aesthetic issue of exposed sidewallseven as they were "the part of the building most readily seen from the street"(City of Vancouver 1956:44-46)."Withinmonths of the adoption of the new by-law that continued the height and bulk limitations,The Technical PlanningBoard suggested more refined districting and determined 10.0 FSR as the maximum density of the"high density officedistrict" with suitable height and bulk limitations to be determined later. A 1966 amendment allowed the TechnicalPlanning 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 400West Hastings Street and 640 West Pender Street—residual density amounted to 29;000 of 135,000 square feet oftransferable 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 developmentdid not commence for several years.The HRA for 3838 Cypress Street resulted in the subdivision of the historicstructure and construction of two additional residences on the grounds—a heritage retention strategy common to theresidential areas of the city—bringing the parcel to the maximum permitted density under the official developmentplan. Due to the conversion to parking use of the basement floor, retention of 440 Cambie Street resulted in thereduction of density from 4.33 to 3.99 FSR. While area 'C' allows 5.0 FSR, the draft policies for Victory Square considered108at that time 3.0 FSR as the maximum base density. Reference policy report dated Nov.3,1997 with subject"HeritageRevitalization Agreement and Density Bonus."335The complete HBRP applications as of Aug. 2005 approved for transfer 45,522 square feet of residual density and290,096 square feet of bonused density. Reference Administrative Report dated Oct.11,2005 with subject"StatusReport on the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Corridor."Of the fourdonor sites approved prior to the HBRP policies, 310 Water Street and 345 Water Street were both built at densitiesapproximate to or exceeding the 4.5 FSR assumption in the Gastown Heritage Management Plan—represented atthe time by interim policies—for residual density calculation, 55 Water Street involved significant intensification ofuse onsite and, although 211 Columbia Street had limited floorspace built onsite, its HRA in 2000 preceded densityassumptions for HA-2 zoning.336City of Vancouver 2002 [1986]"'Valuation based upon sale price of comparable sites is known as the Market Comparison Approach (City of Vancouver2002 [1986].338 ln Halifax (City) v. S. Cunard & Co. the Supreme Court of Canada described land residual:"that method consists ofpicturing 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 saidbuilding again is calculated and thereby the profit from the operation of the building is ascertained. After makingproper allowances for costs and for the profits of the operators, the balance remaining is capitalized and that capitalis assigned as the value of the site upon which the building is to be erected." Ruling on the issue of appropriation, theCourt 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 BritishColumbia Outstanding Achievement Award to the City for the HBRP (City of Vancouver 2003a).The society recognizedthe 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) andTransfer of Density Program - Current Status and Proposed Strategy."341 Reference Appendix C: Summary of Incentives Calculation for Sample Site of administrative report dated Jun.9,2003with subject"Heritage Incentives Implementation for Gastown and Chinatown."342The utility of density mechanisms is enhanced by the lessened scrutiny of floorspace. Council regulations necessitatinga two-thirds majority to exempt an owner from property taxes are more onerous than the standard required to bonusheritage density.343Although the maximum height conditionally allowed under HA-1 zoning is 65 feet, HA-1 A zoning is 90 feet and HA-2zoning is 75 feet, the maximum density used to calculate notional residual density for all areas is 5.5 FSR. Further, whenthe City extended the HBRP to include Hastings Street corridor, Council established the 5.5 FSR as the density forincentive calculation despite the existing DD area C and Downtown East-Oppenheimer District guidelines allowing5.0 FSR development.This normalization of theoretical maximum density in heritage areas illustrates the increasingcommodification of space. Reference policy report dated Jul. 16, 2003 with subject"Heritage Incentives for HastingsStreet"and relevant zoning restrictions.344 Located in First Shaughenssy District, 3838 Cypress Street is the single exception.345City of Vancouver 2002a346The data presented contains an error in regards to a 1999 density transfer of 9,973 square feet from 750 Burrard Streetto 1050 Smithe Street.The City of Vancouver Heritage Density Exchange information accessed from the HeritageConservation 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 bonusavailable in some other areas). Development did not proceed and the owner received approval for DE406228 in 2002for a residential tower of slightly different proportions, but again requesting a 10% density bonus amounting to 9,973square feet.This second application is reflected in the Heritage Density Exchange as a 2002 transfer of 10,000 squarefeet 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 reportedby the Coriolis Consulting Corp. study (City of Vancouver 2002a). As a result, the thesis records a redundant transfer109to 1050 Smithe Street and presents the density of 750 Burrard Street slightly in excess:16 transfers totalling 198,057square feet rather than 196,824 square feet (15 transfers totalling 188,084 square feet with 5,425 square feet vestedon site and 3,315 square feet remaining).Also, the Heritage Density Exchange information questions a 515 squarefoot transfer from 750 Burrard Street to 928 Richards Street noted in the 2002 review. Due to the documentation byCoriolis—and since approved DE405289 reports the small transfer to enable alterations and a stair—it is included inthe study.347 Data from the City of Vancouver Heritage Conservation Program Heritage Density Exchange information accessed 31Oct.2005 and policy reports listed in Appendix A.348City of Vancouver 2002a349The Planning Department reported in Oct.2005 a balance of only 98,400 square feet indicating a dramatic increase inabsorption late in the time range illustrated in Figure X .This is partly attributable to the expectation that 1201 WestHastings Street would receive 188,244 square feet, of which only 37% is represented by information received from theHeritage Conservation Program as of Oct.2005. Resolving this discrepancy would narrow the difference by 118,776square feet. Reference Administrative Report dated Oct.11,2005 with subject"Status Report on the Heritage BuildingRehabilitation Program for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Corridor."336 Reference Administrative Report dated Jul.13, 2007 with subject"Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) andTransfer of Density Program - Current Status and Proposed Strategy."351 Costonis 1974:136352Reference policy report dated Mar. 10,2006 with subject"Vancouver Heritage Register Upgrade Program."353 Montgomery 1996354Constantineau 1991355 Parton 1994356 Daniels 1995 and Bouw 1996357 R.Ward 1998358The urgency was such that at the Chair of the Development Permit Board reported at the Feb.6 Standing Committeeof Council on Planning and Environment that the preliminary development permit application would need to beconcluded 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 significantincrease in height (Montgomery 1996). Although Council deferred a response until after consideration of preliminaryreports from the Downtown Skyline Study, the impending grant deadline influenced Council's response; CouncillorLynne 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 PhaseI per DODP since it had already received a hotel bonus. Reference policy report dated Jul. 9, 1998 with subject"CD-1Rezoning - 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 squarefeet, 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 wasto develop, without financial subsidies, a showcase "green" building," indicates the misrecognition of the incentivesforwarded through bonused density.The project received 35,000 square feet of bonused density based on the reviewof the"applicant's pro-forma analysis"covering the costs of retention and upgrading the building and aiding therealization of the firms sustainability objectives, the City's revitalization interests and—by providing an accessiblebank of consumable space—the developer's density goals. Council approved of the higher form of development for1001 Hornby Street in May 1997, the revitalization agreement for 440 Cambie in November and the density transferpresumably following completion of the work the following September. Reference policy report dated Nov.3,1996with subject"Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Density Bonus for 440 Cambie Street" and project description110"440 Cambie Street (AIBC):Vancouver, BC" by Busby + Associates Architects accessible online at .364 Hotel and heritage bonuses cannot apply to the same floorspace. Hence, a mixed use building can bonus the hotelportion 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 757,778square feet.366The form of development proved controversial from its initial consideration. Neighbourhood activists contestedconstructing the double-height spaces since the resulting building would be 300 feet high whereas a typical 23-storeybuilding 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 dueto the expectation that illegal lofts would result and requested that restrictive measures be drawn to prevent similarconstruction 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 entirelyon the potential realizable area:"all 145 units from the ground to the 21" floor have 16-foot [floor-to-ceiling height is17-feet] ceilings and range from 300 square feet (with possible 120-foot loft) to 800 square feet (with possible 300-footloft)" (McQuade 1995). Although residents were not wholly receptive of the added cost of construction conforming tofire 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 stratalots 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. Whenpursuing a density transfer in 1998, the applicant reported to the Development Permit Board (DPB) that as many as 60units in the building had illegal construction; the City noted that at the time of the application eleven owners includingthe applicant had purchased heritage density to legalize alterations. Reference report for the DPB regarding 1238Seymour Street dated Jun.4, 2007.369 Reference 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 withoutrezoning. Considering the restaurant an independent entity legitimated the transfer, although it is not clear howthis distinction can justify what amounts to a bonus equal to the totality of the space. However, the 5.62 FSR densityfollowing the heritage transfer is less than the 15% bonus typically realized through hotel bonuses. Reference thereport 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 andReplacement 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 anddemocratic exercise of individual self-interest led to the optimal collective social good...[and that] private propertyis the foundation of this self-interest, and free market exchange is its ideal vehicle"—"albeit one galvanized by anunprecedented mobilization not just of national state power but of state power organized and exercised at differentgeographic scales (N. Smith 2002:349,442). Considering unproblematic the closeness of market and public interest issymptomatic of this faith in the City's amenitization.373 Smith and Derksen 2003:65374 N. Smith 2002:435375The DTES has 17 percent of City's total heritage buildings (Punter 20003:271).376The Mean Streets of Arcadia 2004377Marketing interests inculcate the social ailments of the DTES in their efforts to attract investment, castingredevelopment as a colonizing exercise and identifying cultural capital in the'authenticity'of a neighbourhooddifferentiated not only by address but also by"the local wildlife." As a "perfect illustration,"the Vancouver Sun publishedthe project marketer's anecdote regarding the receipt of a cell phone photo of a woman who had "dropper herdrawers"on the sidewalk in front of a potential overseas investor visiting the site (McMartin 2006).111378N. Smith 2002:428379 Reference the Other Report dated May 30, 2007, with subject"Closure of Federal Commercial Heritage PropertiesIncentive Fund Program (CHPIF)."380Mulg rew 1999381 City of Vancouver 2001:3,12382 Lazarus 2006383 1n March 2004 the Heritage Commission supported the mandatory retention of the 1903-1908 and 1925 componentsas well "as much of the rest of the structure as possible." Reference Administrative Reports dated Mar.23, 2004 withsubject"Woodward's - 101 West Hastings Street: Urban Design Guidelines"and Mar.8, 2006 with subject"Woodward'sHeritage 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 asarchitecture, 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'sdepartment store." Reference the Vancouver Heritage Commission agenda for Apr.16,2007 and minutes from Oct.24,2005 and May 28,2007.Chapter Five:Discussion1135.1 IntroductionThe"most striking" characteristic of the Vancouver Model has been identified as"the triumph of civicover private ambition, or perhaps the successful fusion of the two." 386 Although this narrative identifiesthe"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 moreimportantly naturalized the understanding that the market and public strive for the same goals.Throughthe escalation of policies determinative since the City's founding that favour the generation of economicability through land improvement, Vancouver's reliance on amenity delivery through development alignswith the neo-liberal observation that"urban policy no longer aspires to guide or to regulate the directionof economic growth so much as to fit itself to the grooves already established by the market in search ofthe highest returns."387 With heritage forwarding the greatest utility, its predominance in the allocation ofamenity contributions as a "powerful and flexible tool" whose terms "supercede land use regulations," resultsin the replacement of other municipal policies with the production of heritage. 388 The amenitization of thecity in general—and aestheticized production including heritage in particular—is reflexively relevant tothe residential highrise construction that represents the dominant economic interest during the past twodecades.5.2 Development ExchangeThat a public value is conferred through the private rehabilitation and use of historic structures is the resultof 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 transitionin heritage mechanisms from the removal of development pressures placed by bulk allowances to theincreased economic ability grafted to heritage through the assignment of bonused value occurred throughthe committed struggle of developers, architects, planners, politicians, consultants and others seeking theability to legitimate what constitutes public amenity.The result is that the relation of cultural production andthe dominant interest of economic production is not simply an alignment, but rather cultural productionthrough 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 [Figure5.1]. However, while planning permission for increased density or residential use provides the capital volumeexpansion denoted by the vertical arrow, it also brings betterment expectations that could be met throughfinancial expenditure, for instance by the allocation of cash to the City under the CAC framework. Also shownis the horizontal path indicating the convertibility of cultural capital to economic that has been naturalizedover the past few decades through the City's heritage programme.This symbolic effort is accomplishedthrough the meta-capital of the local state and originally addressed those buildings with iconic status orotherwise broad public concern for their loss.This course to concentrated economic capital is currentlybrokered through HRAs that exchange cultural worth with bonused density that is readily convertible tofinancial means. Key to this process is the failure to question who creates the creator; that is, from where doeslegitimate cultural value originate.The professionalization of the heritage field through academic credentialsand public advocacy, as well as the legitimization of tools such as statements of significance, inventoriesand registers all provide a means to endow objects with cultural capital, illustrated by the vector originatingfrom a low volume, economically based position to the high culturally centred position. Major developmentCAPITAL VOLUME +Amen itization+ CULTURAL CAPITAL- ECONOMIC CAPITAL5rD0rrd/>o.CAPITAL VOLUME -CULTURAL CAPITAL -ECONOMIC CAPITAL +114projects seeking heritage benefits retain consultants to generate this cultural acceptability. In the case ofWoodward'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 fromheritage production makes this pathway a financially preferable means for developers to fulfill bettermentexpectations.5.3 Social SpaceThis utility of heritage to capital accumulation is not the autonomous consequence of the maturation of theheritage field or the natural reaction to outside market forces. It is instead the exercise of aestheticization tomeet the interests of many of the key players: a beautiful city garners the symbolic profits to politicians forvision, bureaucrats for management and professionals for design.The appeal to beauty is reflected in the1970s mayoral promise tharconsumption should henceforth follow the cannons of good taste"through thebeautification of the city itself.3" The utility of heritage is that it effectively confers aestheticization throughdevelopment 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 thancapital expenditure lends its significant political solvency and heritage advocates are likely to accept that anycultural production is better than none. 391Futher, by precluding other means of heritage legitimization outside of development mechanisms the CityFigure 5.1: Means of Capital Volume Expansion115reflects the"neo-liberal tactic of presenting its policies as the only solution and obscuring alternative or evenexisting approaches."This constraint of social space assumes that beneficial outcomes are recognized by themarket, and is legitimized by the substantial symbolic capital generated by the international recognition ofthe Planning Department and, with the profession closely associated with the city's academic community,the latter serves an important role in this consecration.392The social ability of these actors in the field of power, or positions of high aggregate capital, resonates insustained efforts to embrace a more inclusive idea of heritage that recognizes cultural worth in minorityclaims.The broad mandate of heritage—to support"aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritualimportance or significance for past, present or future generations"—makes this amenity particularlyvulnerable to appropriation. Claims to address the interest of those wielding limited capital serve to moreefficiently introduce development into those geographic and social areas at the edge of the current effectiveimplementation of the amenitization process. Already exercised through the HBRP, the assumption thatmarket capital accumulation is secondary to broad public goals and that benefits conferred on the priorthrough amenitization are only collateral is the important social work in extending the dominance of thosewith the greatest ability to determine what constitutes public amenity [Figure 5.2].5.4 Avenues of InquiryAs noted in Section 0.5,the reliance on publicly accessible information and analysis of technical data isFigure 5.2: Development Threshold and Assignment of CapitalCAPITAL VOLUME ±cultural repositoryarchitectural landmarkdevelopment resourceurban cachecity identity^ light and air parkmanifold urbanity+ CULTURAL CAPITAL facadism CULTURAL CAPITAL -ECONOMIC CAPITAL ECONOMIC CAPITAL ±architectural styleaesthetic streetscapetourist attractionbusiness incubatorcommunity stabilityantiquated wasteCAPITAL VOLUME116best suited to a generalist approach and serves to encourage further discourse on the relation of publicvalues to the environment. Although the thesis did utilize formal interviews to site the study in relationto amenitization, and professionals and staff provided necessary technical clarification, the methodologysubstantially relied on the collection and analysis of staff reports, advisory and Council minutes and othertracings of the official representation of the official.The alternate approach is to study more closely thehabitus 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 ingeneral and the Concord Pacific development of the former exposition lands in particular. He notes theimportance 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.Theseconnections assisted in"opening doors"abroad while his association with overseas institutions facilitated hisreception in Vancouver that"would have been less welcoming if [he] had been based at UBC."Olds furthercomments on the crucial role of cultural capital, with his access based on his "middle-class white Canadianstatus," his emphasis on the academic nature of his study, as well as more specific abilities relevant to playingthe game of uneven power relations during interviews.The result is that'off the record' personal interviewswith 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 andcommunity representatives" provides the basis for his understanding of the "nature of the global actorsbehind the global flows of capital, ideas and images"that produce the urban environment.393 While itis important to be mindful that, as noted in Section 0.3, closeness diminishes the possibility of a criticalperspective, similar studies regarding the issues raised in this thesis by agents positioned within the field ofpower 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 ofamenitization in capital accumulation. As part of the activism that precipitated this change, Lorimer andGutstein provide detailed accounts of development in downtown Canadian cities. Although it appearsas though ideological controls afforded by public amenity provision as an exchange for developmentpermission have replaced repressive controls legible in the closed meetings of technical planning andvariance boards, a more detailed study is warranted. Of interest would be how one of the most significantcriticisms of mid-century planning—namely that decisions appeared arbitrary due to limited access—is notregularly levelled contemporarily against the valuation of rather poorly delineated amenities despite theirsignificant utility to the market. Ray Spaxman, planning consultant and former director of Planning for theCity of Vancouver, concluded in a recent study commissioned by the City that the greatest challenge to thecurrent heritage policy is the "lack of public transparency in the calculation of the amount of density thatshould be awarded to a project," clarifying that"this concerns the pro forma for the project and the way theCity determines the value of the loss to the owner as a result of heritage designation." 3945.5 ConclusionIt is the close cooperation between private interest and the public body that defines the amenitization ofthe city with the space generated via a "political process" a "product literally filled with ideology." 395 Far froman economistic reduction, property investment is "socially constructed,"with the definition of public goods117derived from the market and the public interest implicated through its "complicitous silence." 396 Provisioningamenities through physical planning supports a structure"built on a level of trust and cooperation betweencity authorities and developers that [while] uncommon," nevertheless purports to exact from privatedevelopment publicly defined benefit. 397 Rather, as the production of space—or urbanism--supplantsindustrialization as the"motive force of capitalist expansion"the use of repression has changed, but theideological apparatuses have not: mutual interest defines amenity in a manner that creates economic valuewhile achieving legitimization through the misrecognition of vested capital . 398 Economic exchangeability isneglected by characterizing acts as altruistic efforts involving private capital engaged "with an open heartand an open cheque book." 399 It is the "operation of markets"that now serves as"the instrument of socialcontrol."48° Unlike the retired repressive state, these controls act as a "self-deforming cast,"continuouslychanging from one moment to the next.4°' This erosion of repressive disciplinary means is characterizedby the expansion of the ideological, with the amenity-driven Vancouver"one of the most regulated cities inNorth America in terms of urban design and built form," and, as described by the City's former Co-director ofPlanning, the public is pleased with the contro1. 4825.6 Postscript on the Heritage FieldAs noted in Section 1.6,the state is neither clearly bounded nor unitary, but rather an ensemble of competingagents and categories of agents struggling for the power of rule associated with the state. Far from theofficial representation of bureaucracy as a rational instrument, this collection of fields includes bothgovernment and nongovernmental actors and is a primary site in the consecration of public value.Thevaluation of heritage as an object differentiates positions in social space, and the consideration of the fieldof power--those positions of high combined capital volume—results in a linear opposition between highcultural relative to economic capital on the left with the inverse on the right [Figure 5.3].The understandingof value is thus separated between heritage as archive, style or financial asset.The professions that subscribeto these positions are noted beneath and the civic body that defends it above.The Heritage Commission andUrban Design Panel are comprised of professionals and public members appointed by Council, allowed toprovide only recommendations and advice regarding their mandated interest, and keep public minutes fromopen meetings.483 The valuation of heritage as a financial asset is not subject to public advice, but rather isundertaken by the City's Real Estate Services.The demands placed on City planners working in the HeritageGroup suggest a centralized position since the programme only rarely addresses preservation, but is chargedwith the cultural concerns of the department. Regular meetings between heritage and Real Estate Servicesstaff largely determine the approach to particular heritage projects.The heritage industry in Vancouver is centred on a small number of local consultants.These professionalsproduce cultural goods and, as both critics and dealers, struggle for the "(mis)recognized, legitimate capitalcalled 'prestige' or'authority – in an economy in which the"only legitimate accumulation consists in makinga name for oneself, a known, recognized name, a capital of consecration implying a power to consecrateobjects...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 meansof deriving profits from disinterestedness," since those that do not"condemn themselves, and not onlyfrom an ethical or aesthetic point of view, because they deprive themselves of the opportunities open tothose who can recognize the specific demands of this universe."That is, influence is garnered and wieldedthrough positions in advocacy groups, publications of articles and books, commissions from the City backingmunicipal policy and consultation to owners legitimating historic properties solely through the denial of an118economic motivation for heritage identification.As noted in Section 0.3,architecture occupies the unusual position of straddling the divide between thecultural production of the arts and the codified realm of the professions. While at times agents within thearchitectural field deny economic interest, such as through participation in an invited competition offeringan honorarium that fails to cover the true financial expenditure of the firm, these statements of artisticdisinterest 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 ofcommissions—is often realized through the convertibility of cultural capital garnered by involvement incompetitions and publication. Although a survey of the architectural firms designing projects receivingheritage density would indicate that many of the projects are designed by a relatively small number ofpractices, this trend may be explained by the common scale and form of development of the typical receiverproject 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 utilizingheritage incentives. Development agents seek the maximization of collateral benefit in the remainder of thestudy area as well with Section 3.4 demonstrating that financial and physical designs are closely related.838West Hastings Street provides the most significant example of the art of architecture conditioned by heritagedevelopment mechanisms with the cantilevered form tracing the line of the airspace of the designatedportions of the historic structures. Authored by an internationally based architect, the development furtherdemonstrates the utility of cultural capital, with local periodicals and the project marketers boasting of theprompt municipal approval and trumpeting the design as the vanguard of a city defying imitation.Theutility of an architect's cultural capital in the development process is also visible in the proposal for 1153Figure 5.3: Heritage Position Taking Relative to the City BureaucracyHeritage Commission Urban Design Panel^Real Estate ServicesArchive^Style^AssetPreservationists^Designers Developers+ CULTURAL CAPITAL CULTURAL CAPITAL —— ECONOMIC CAPITAL^ ECONOMIC CAPITAL +1 1 9West Georgia Street. Following the rejection of the initial proposal by the Urban Design Panel, the developercommissioned 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"underconstruction on the former exposition lands, the Georgia project has instead appropriated his signature. 4°7The association of prominent architects with projects seeking the greatest density result, as shown in Section3.3, with their involvement with those structures most likely to meet betterment expectations throughheritage amenities.Other development less endowed with the cultural and economic capital of its creatorsoften relies on stylistic referents to the onsite heritage. Critics charge that the aesthetic conditioning of newconstruction amounts to patische and diminishes the heritage resource. 408Closest 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 culturalcapital is recognized only in its convertibility to financial means; unlike other fields that recognize prestigein terms of other criterion ultimately exchangeable to economic, success in this field is directly measured interms of profitability. As illustrated in Section 3.5, project marketing often engages—though seldom morethan superficially—the capital associated with cultural objects. A naming of a project after the buildingthat was controversially cleared from the site due to the reduced economic performance of retentionstrategies 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 willalways say 'that's where the Black Swan record store was."409 Further, the project's marketer notes that thereremains a "good deal of the eclectic, trendy and hip qualities of the namesake" and that"there aren't live jazzperformances 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 andits management of the Property Endowment Fund. Council established the account in 1975 with objectivesto generate a reasonable economic return, assemble a land inventory with greatest ability to preserve andincrease 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 sellingsites to maximize return and fund's assets securing the City's credit rating. Its appropriate role in forwardingmunicipal interests has proven controversial in recent years, especially as escalating land prices and recenthigh-profile sales have attracted considerable interest to the $1.3 billion account. 4" With few area-widedevelopment 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 landregulator" 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.413Occupying the dominant position in the field of power,the judgment of Real Estate Services has adisciplining influence on agents elsewhere in the heritage field.The effect is amplified since, unlike fields ofcultural production, even the most autonomous position recognized by the state, the Vancouver HeritageCommission, 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. Minutesreflect 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 culturalposition in the heritage field.1205.7 Chapter Five Notes386Sandercock 2005:41-42387 N. Smith 2002:441388City of Vancouver 2003c389"Development produced these heritage buildings in the first place. We admire them now, but when they were builtthey were designed to make money.They weren't built because somebody thought,"I'm going to make the citybeautiful, so I'm going to build this building.' Developers don't think that way. Cities change and evolve.That's thepleasure 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 beautifulcity."His personal lifestyle, characterized as a "manual out of The Beautiful People," reflected this vision. Ley quotesarticles written between 1974 and 1977 (Ley 1980:239).391 R.Ward 1999c392The public interest in the 1970s centred on a desire for a"liveable downtown full of activity and public amenities," asopposed to building priorities set by"developers and multi-national suit their own corporate needs"with Council policies "remarkably similar to what the developers wanted in the first place."Although, the interimdecades has seen the rise of amenitization, the products and their definitions ideologically accomplish the samework (Douglas and Derksen 2003:75 and Gutstein 1975:21). Co-directors of Planning until 2006, Larry Beasley andAnn McAfee, along senior planning staff Scot Hein, Michael Gordon and Nathan Edelson serve as professors withinthe School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia.The university's publishingbranch, 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 recognitionthat"urbanists all over North America and even further afield have started to identify Vancouver as a model city forthe future" (Punter 2003).The City of Vancouver awarded the book the 2004 City of Vancouver Heritage Award as wellas a Honourable Mention for the 2004 Vancouver Book Award, reinforcing the symbolic capital wielded by the City'splanning process. Acting Director of Planning Brent Toderian describes the consecrating efforts of his predecessors asraising "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 staffmember and later under contract as a researcher for the planning department—the latter through the Universityof British Columbia Centre for Human Settlements—and also conducted collaborative research with the CanadianInternational Development Agency and Tongji University in Shanghai (Olds 2001:250-265). His detailed methodologyserves as a resource in itself to the relation of capital and the physical and social space of the city.394City of Vancouver 2005:16395"Space has been shaped and molded from historical and natural elements, but this has been a political process"(Lefebvre 1976:31).396Bourdieu 2006 [1977]:187-188397 Fung 2006.398Smith, N. and Derksen 2003:90 and Lefebvre 1993:435399Marketer Bob Rennie defines a "responsible [amenity] package"as one that "will protect value"(Vancouver Sun 2004).400 Deleuze 1992:6401 Controls serve as a "modulation"analogous to a "sieve whose mesh will transmute from point to point,"whiledisciplinary societies relied on enclosures acting as"distinct castings"or"molds"(Deleuze 1992:4).402Warson 2004:50403The Vancouver Heritage Commission established in 1974 as the Vancouver Heritage Advisory Committee includesone Council member and ten members of the community. Addressing the designated historic areas specifically, theChinatown Historic Area Planning Committee and Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee also convene.The Urban121Design Panel includes six members of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, two members of the Associationof Professional Engineers, 2 members from the British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects, one representative ofthe Vancouver Planning Commission, and one representative of the development industry.404 Bourdieu 1993:754°5 Lipstadt 2003:392,4104°6Sasges 20074°2The marketer's comments that the building's signature architect'earned every dollar of his outrageous fee,' whilemade in good humour, also indicate the economic potential of cultural capital—the architect's garnering of a highconsultation fee due to his previous design recognition—without explicitly identifying the utility of this symbolicprofit, specifically the municipal approval for development and the economic ability to demand higher prices (Parry2007). Lipstadt identifies that only through publication does the architect as artist "repossess the creation [he] hadsold to the client"and achieve a "semblance of aesthetic autonomy"through the ability to"put the signature on thebuilding" (Lipstadt 2003).This literal manifestation illustrates the continuing cooption of cultural referents throughaestheticization.408 Preservationists may decry alterations as "violative or at least misrepresentative of the past" (Lai 1998:230).409 Eustace 2006410 Reference 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 undernow retired Director of Real Estate Services Bruce Maitland (Vancouver Grappling with Tough Economic Times 1984and 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 bythe Simon Fraser University City Program. With the City's ownership of 60 percent of the land in the newly developedFalse Creek Official Development Plan, Council acts in its regulatory capacity to establish land use, urban design anddevelopment zoning while"ensuring that development of its lands meets financial objectives"as owner. Reference theadministrative report dated Nov.2,2006 with subject"Southeast False Creek Redevelopment: Property EndowmentFund Pro Forma Update."413 Reference Administrative Report dated Mar.18,2004, with subject"Allocation of Community Amenity Contributionsreceived for the rezoning of 550 Taylor Block (Block 17; also known as 599 Carroll Street and bounded by Carrall, Keefer,Taylor and Pender Streets)."Bibliography123Books, Articles and Other PublicationsAdams, N.1989. Living Stones: A Centennial History of Christ Church Cathedral, 1889-1989.Vancouver: Christ ChurchCathedral.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 ArtsCouncil 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 ColumbiaMunicipalities.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: GreenwoodPress.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, 98-110Harmondsworth: 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 [1977]. 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 isLinked to a $500,000 Deal That Will Allow the Old Stanley Theatre to Be Converted into a New Live-Theatre Space forthe 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 toDivide 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. TheVancouver 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 onGlobalization 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 toa 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 ofthe 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 DealReached 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 andDevelopment.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 PierreBourdieu:The Practice of Theory. London: Macmillan Press.Collier, R. 1978. Downtown: Metropolitan Focus. In L. Evenden, ed., Vancouver: Western Metropolis, 159-178.Victoria: Univ. ofVictoria.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 FinalEd. 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: AshgatePublishing.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 ApartmentBuilding. 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 theEnvironment and the Economy.Feiss, C. 1983[1966]. 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 MinnesotaPress.Flint, J. and Rowlands, R.2003. Commodification, normalisation and intervention: Cultural, Social and Symbolic Capital inHousing 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 Comefrom 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 andMail. 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 andSociety. 2(3):225-254.George, H.1949[1886]. Protection or Free Trade: An Examination of the Tariff Question, with Especial Regard to the Interests ofLabor. 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 (UthwattReport). Cmd. 6386.127Healy, 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 forWipeouts: 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 ValueCapture 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 PlanningOfficials.Hagman, D. and D. Misczynski. 1978. Executive Summary. In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfalls for Wipeouts: LandValue 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: WestPublishing 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: ThePractice 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:JohnHopkins 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: AshgatePublishing.Hooray! for Heritage. 2006. Heritage Vancouver Newsletter. 15(3):1Hosmer, C.1983[1966]. 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 SunFinal 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 PlanningOfficials.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: BlackwellPublishers.128Johnson, 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 CulturalProduction: 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 CanadaKayden,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. BostonCollege 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 UrbanResearch. 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: PrincetonArchitectural Press.Lazarus, E.2006, Feb.27. Eastside Smarts: How the Woodward's Condo Development in Vancouver's Notorious DowntownEastside 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. NewYork: 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 and129Planning D: Society and Space. 6:191-212.Lipstadt, H. 2003. Can 'Art Professions' be Bourdieuean Fields of Cultural Production? The Case of the ArchitectureCompetition. 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 OldBuildings 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 ofTheir 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 SunFinal 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 andMail. 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 TheyLose 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 forWipeouts: 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 Supportsthe 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 LostControl 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.130Nedelsky, 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: MITPress.New York City.1976. Zoning Handbook: A Guide to the New York City Zoning Resolution. New York: Department of CityPlanning.Oberlander,J., H. Kalman and R. Lemon.1989. An Introduction to Heritage Conservation. Technical Paper Series (BritishColumbia 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: .Province of British Columbia: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture.1991. Carrots: Methods for LocalGovernment to Give Assistance to Heritage Property Owners in British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer for BritishColumbia.Pruetz, R.1997. Saved by Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transferof Development Rights. Burbank: Arje Press.-.2003. Beyond Takings and Givings: Saving Natural Areas, Farmland, and Historic Landmarks with Transfer ofDevelopment 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: PrincetonArchitectural 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: LandValue 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. Journal131of 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 FloorsAbove Georgia Street. The Vancouver Sun Final Ed. K2.Schnidman,F.1978.Chapter 23:Transferable Development Rights (TDR). In D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, eds., Windfallsfor 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. InternationalInstitute 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 WestHastings,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/UKColloquium, 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: SelectedReadings. 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.132Throsby, D.1994.The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics.Journal of EconomicLiterature. 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 ThomsonProfessional Publishing.Toderian, B. 2006, Dec.15. On the Shoulder of Giants. Scenario Plus:A Monthly Newsletter for Planners to Exchange News andViews.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 aCreative 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 thatRetains 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. TheVancouver Sun Final Ed. C4.-.1999b, Mar.10. Uniform Highrises Sully What Design Should Be: Building Designs in Downtown South Represent aComputer-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.133Wilson, 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 DocumentsNote: Documents listed alphabetically by year released. Most sources dated 1999 or later are accessible through themunicipal website at < >.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 AppendixA 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 Vancouverand a General Plan of the Region. Prepared by Harland Bartholomew and Associates.Vancouver:Town PlanningCommission.-.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 [1956].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 VancouverCity-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 [1991]. 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: CityPlanning 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 FinancialPlanning and Treasury.-.2002 [1983].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 StreetCorridor.Vancouver: City Planning Dept.134-.2003b. Heritage Facade Rehabilitation Program Policies and Procedures for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings StreetCorridor.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 [1991]. Downtown South Guidelines (Excluding Granville Street).Vancouver: City Planning Dept.-.2004 [2002]. Financing Growth - Paying for City Facilities to Serve a Growing Population:The Role of City-Wide Chargeson New Development:Technical Supplement.Vancouver: City Planning Dept. and City Dept. of Financial Planning andTreasury.-.2005. Greencroft Transfer of Density Study. Prepared by The Spaxman Consulting Group Ltd.Vancouver: City PlanningDept.-.2005 [1986].Vancouver Heritage Register.Vancouver: City Planning Dept.-.2005 [1999]. Community Amenity Contributions - Through Rezonings.Vancouver: City Planning Dept.-.2005 [2004]. Downtown District Interim Policies for New Residential in Areas C and F; and for Conversion of ExistingOffice Space to Residential Use. Vancouver: City Planning Dept.-.2006. Office Built Form and Characteristics in Downtown Vancouver.Vancouver:City Planning Dept.Appendices136Appendix A: Supporting City of Vancouver Reports, By-laws and PoliciesReports 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-lawNumber 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 SeymourStreet.-.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-lawNumber 7340 Owner of Development - Bosa Ventures Inc.-.1996,Jul.12. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 2750 Granville Street (StanleyTheatre).-.1996,Jul.16. Administrative Report. Subject: Form of Development - 1003 Burnaby Street D.E. 401274 - CD-1 By-;awNumber 7006 Owner of Development - Cressey Development Corp.-.1996, Sep.10. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: 1001 Hornby Street (1000 Burrard Street) - DE401256Wall 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 BusinessDistrict and Related Zoning Amenities.-.1997, Mar.12. Policy Report: Building and Development [sic]. Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 1762 Davie Street (includingTransfer 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 1238Seymour 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 ofDensity Policy - Proposed Amendments.-.1998, Feb.18. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Proposed CD-1 Text Amendment for 750 PacificBoulevard.-.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 ProForma 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 andHeritage 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 andDesignation 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 GreenNeighbourhood - 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 fNationalSignificance.Gates, R. 2004, Nov.30.Administrative Report. Subject: Approval of Sublease at #300-1140 West Pender Street to theCommunity Legal Assistance Society.Gerwing, K and M. McGuire. 2006, Jul. 4. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Text Amendment - 1128West 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 andReplacement 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 TextAmendment - Yaletown Edge, Concord Pacific Place.-.2000, Dec.4. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Development of 1299 W. Hastings and TextAmendments 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 Developmentof 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 RehabilitationProgram for Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings Corridor.Hemmingson, K. and G. McGeough. 2004, Jan.13. Administrative Report. Subject: 46 Water Street - Heritage BuildingRehabilitation 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 DensityBonus 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 RevitalizationAgreement.-.2002,Jan. 23. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Pantages Theatre (144 East Hastings) - HeritageRevitalization 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 fromPart 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 aGrowing 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 GrowingPopulation:The Role of City-Wide Charges on New Development.Jankovic, Z.2006, Feb.13. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program - 51 East Pender StreetDE 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) TheGrand 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 CranewBuilding at 540 Beatty Street (DE 408200).Jenkins, R., et al.2007,Jul 7. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) and Transferof Density Program - Current Status and Proposed Strategy.Kemble, M.1999, Mar.19. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: Heritage Issues Raised by Dance CentreProposal - 677 Davie Street.-.2000, Mar. 21. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject:Text Amendment:699 Cardero Street (BayshoreGardens 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 IncentiveFund 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 806Richards 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 Room139Accomodation.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 OfficialDevelopment 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 Agreementand Designation - Hotel Georgia, 801 West Georgia Street.-.1999,Jul.13.Administrative Report. Subject:1196 Granville Street (677 Davie Street) - Designation and HeritageRevitalization Agreement for the Dance Centre.-.2000, May 1.Administrative Report. Subject:400-404 West Hastings Street - Designation and Heritage RevitalizationAgreement.-.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 andHeritage 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 Transferof 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 HeritageRegister Upgrade Program.McGeough, G. et al.2007, Jun.27. Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Rehabilitation and SRA Permit for 337 SmitheStreet, the Homer Building and SRA Permit for 335 Smithe Street.McLean, H.2004,Jun.22.Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation - 995 ButeStreet.McNaney, K. 2007, Jun. 16.McNeil,Y.2002, Mar. 12. Administrative Report. Subject: 690 Burrard Street - Christ Church Cathedral Interior Designationand Heritage Revitalization Agreement.-.2002, Apr. 30.Administrative Report. Subject:690 Burrard Street - Christ Church Cathedral Interior Designation andHeritage Revitalization Agreement.-.2003, Aug.25.Administrative Report. Subject: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation for 1180 HomerStreet.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 CreekNorth 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 HeritageRevitalization Agreement at 1160 West Georgia Street.-.2004, Feb.11. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning of 900 Pacific Boulevard (False Creek North Area6A).-.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 969Burrard Street & 1017-1045 Nelson Street (First Baptist Church): DD (G) and RM-5B to CD-1 and Heritage RevitalizationAgreement at 955 Burrard Street.-.2005, Mar.7. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning of 1211 Melville Street.-.2005, Apr. 25. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Rezoning at 826-848 West Hastings Street from DD(B) to CD-1 and140Heritage Revitalization Agreements at 840 and 848 West Hastings Street.-.2005, Jun.7. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Rezoning of 872-898 Seymour Street and 887-897 Richards Streetfrom DD('C') to CD-1.-.2005, Jul. 8. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: 1133 West Georgia Street: Rezoning from DD to CD-1.-.2005. Sep. 15. Memorandum. Subject:1133 West Georgia Street: Rezoning from DD to CD-1 Recommendation:Community Amenity Contribution.-.2006, Feb 14. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Text Amendment:201 Burrard Street (Height).Mondor, P. et. al. 2003, Sep. 4. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Cultural Amenity Bonus, Heritage Density Transferand CD-1 Rezoning:488 Robson Street.Mondor, P. and R. Segal. 2007, May 1. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 1409-1477 WestPender Street.Mondor, P. and S. Harvey. 2006, Feb.17. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning and Amenity Bonus:Woodward's Site (101 and 149) West Hastings Street and 150 West Cordova Street).Morris, V.2005, Mar.23. Administrative Report. Subject: Community Amenity Bonus - 1188 West Pender.-.2007, Jan. 2. Administrative Report. Subject: Child Care Amenity Density Bonus at 833 Homer Street.-.2007, Feb. 6. Administrative Report. Subject: Amendment to Childcare Amenity Density Bonus at 833 Homer Street.Mortensen, M. and G. McGeough. 2004, Sep.21. Administrative Report. Subject: 1295 Seymour Street Designation andHeritage Revitalization Agreement.Murphy, D.1999, Mar.18. Policy Report: Building and Development [sic]. Subject: Eligibility for Heritage Density Bonus- 1196 Granville Street (Bank of Nova Scotia Branch).Naylor, M. and I. Smith. 2001, Jul. 17. Policy Report: Development and Building.Subject: Downtown South - Update onDevelopment Cost Levy (DCL) Revenue and Provision of Neighbourhood Facilities and Amenities.Patterson, J.2004, Mar. 18. Administrative Report. Subject: Allocation of Community Amenity Contributions received forthe rezoning of 550 Taylor Street (Block 17; also known as 599 Carroll [sic] Street and bounded by Carrall, Keefer,Taylorand Pender Streets).Pecarski, R. 2000, Jan.16. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Interim City-wide Development Cost Levy By-law:Boundary Adjustment & Implementation in Granville Slopes.Ramslie, D. 2007, Apr. 17. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Downtown South Public Benefits Strategy for 2007-2021and Amendment to Development Cost Levy By-Law.Riley, A.2004, May 4. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 33 West Pender Street.Riley, A. and T. French. 2005, Aug.30. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Live-Work Use in the Victory Square, Gastown,Chinatown and Hastings Street Areas."Robinson, D.2003, Nov.21. Administrative Report. Subject: Renewal of Sub Lease, Legal Services Society, #300-1140 WestPender Street.Thomsett, D.2002, May 28. Policy Report: Development and Building. Subject: CD-1 Rezoning - 600 Granville Street & 602Dunsmuir Street.Young, C. and S. Blown. 2005, Jun. 4. Administrative Report. Subject: Design Work of CityGate II Childcare Centre - 941Main Street.Zeng,Y. and N. Edelson. 2006, Jan.31. Policy Report: Urban Structure. Subject: Downtown District Official DevelopmentPlan Amendment for Victory Square.Reports for the Development Permit BoardDevelopment Permit Staff Committee. 1997, Nov.3. Report:564 Granville Street - DE402436 - DD (Complete Application).-.1998, Mar. 23. Report:1221 Homer Street - DE402673 - DD (Complete Application).-.1998, Apr.20. Report: 808 Bute Street (1172-1188 Robson Street) - DE403047 - DD (Complete Application).-.1998, Apr.20. Report:1000 Robson Street - DE402992 - DD (Complete Application).-.1998, Jun.1. Report:1238 Seymour Street - DE403131 (Complete Application).-.1998, Oct. 5. Report: 1068 Hornby Street - DE403543 and DE403598 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.1998, Nov.2. Report:65 Water Street - DE403392 - Zone HA-2 (Complete Application).141-.1999, Apr.19. Report:1177 West Pender Street - DE403824 - Zone DD (Preliminary Application).-.1999, Apr.19. Report:1238 Seymour Street - DE403978 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.1999, Jun.14. Report:1050 Smithe Street (1050 Haro) - DE404054 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.1999, Jul.26. Report: 885 West Georgia Street - DE404179 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2000, Feb.21. Report:699 Cardero Street DE404701 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2000, Feb.21. Report: 1529 West Pender Street - DE404754 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2000, Apr. 3. Report:1138 Melville Street - DE404833 - Zone DD (Complete).-.2000, Apr.17. Report:1299 West Hastings Street - DE404821 - Zone CD-1 (Preliminary).-.2000. May 15. Report: 550 Burrard Street - DE404803 - Zone CD-1 (Preliminary Application).-.2000, May 15. Report:1239 West Cordova Street - DE404441 - Zone CD-1 (Preliminary Application). 1281 West CordovaStreet - DE404757 - Zone CD-1 (Preliminary Application).-.2000, Jul.24. Report:1299 West Hastings Street - DE404821 - Zone CD-1 (Complete after Preliminary).-.2001, May 14. Report:401 Burrard Street - DE405133 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2001, Jul.23. Report: 928 Richards Street - DE405289 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2001, Aug. 7. Report: 1133 Seymour Street - DE405395 - Zone DD (Preliminary Application).-.2001, Sep.17. Report: 1010 Richards Street - DE405778 - Zone DD (Preliminary Application).-.2001, Oct. 15. Report: 298 Thurlow Street - DE406001 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2001, Nov. 13. Report: 1055 Homer Street - DE405652 - Zone DD (Complete after Preliminary) and 1085 Homer Street- DE406084 - Zone DD (Complete after Preliminary).-.2002, Feb.4. Report:1011 Richards Street - DE406304 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2002, Feb. 18. Report: 901 Beatty Street - DE406240 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2002, Apr.15. Report: 828 Cardero Street - DE406407 - Zone C-5 (Complete Application).-.2002, Apr. 15. Report:1050 Smithe Street - DE406228 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2002, Mar. 18. Report:822 Seymour Street - DE406340 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-. 2002, Jun.10. Report: 900 Burrard Street - DE406534 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2002, Sep. 30. Report:555 Homer Street - DE406781 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2002, Oct.15. Report: 900 Burrard Street - DE406534 - Zone CD-1 (Complete after Preliminary).-.2002, Oct. 15. Report: 1001 Homer Street - DE406854 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2003, Apr. 14. Report: 610 Granville Street - DE407219 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2003, Apr.14. Report: 718 Drake Street - DE407352 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2003, Apr. 14. Report: 901 Mainland Street - DE407235 - Zone DD (Preliminary Application).-.2003, Jun. 9. Report: 1169 West Cordova Street - DE407402 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2003, Jul. 7. Report: 651 Expo Boulevard - DE407454 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2003, Sep.15. Report: 531 Beatty Street - DE407649 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2003, Sep.29. Report: 488 Robson Street - DE407615 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2003, Sep.29. Report: 1299 Seymour Street - DE407723 - Zone DD (Preliminary Application).-.2003, Nov. 26. Memorandum. 1299 Seymour Street: DE407723.-.2003, Dec.8. Report: 901 Mainland Street - DE407235 - Zone DD (Complete after Preliminary).-.2004, Mar. 1. Report: 550 Bute Street - DE407110 - Zone DD (Complete after Preliminary) 1133 Melville Street- DE407782 - Zone DD (Complete after Preliminary) and Technical Analysis.-.2004, Mar. 1. Report: 1201 West Hastings Street - DE408040 - Zone CD-1 (Pending) (Complete Application).-.2004, Mar. 29. Report: 1650 West 7th Avenue - DE407884 - Zone C-3A (Complete Application).-.2004, Apr. 26. Report: 1082 Seymour Street - DE408246 - Zone DD (Complete Application) and Technical Analysis.-.2004, Aug.16. Report: 750 Pacific Boulevard - DE408622 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application).-.2004. Sep. 8. Report: 1455 Howe Street - DE408522 - Zone CD-1 (Complete Application) and Technical Analysis.-.2004, Nov. 8. Report: 538 Smithe Street - DE408385 - Zone DD (Complete Application).-.2004, Nov. 22. Report: 822 Seymour Street (Complete Application) DE408776 - Zone DD.-.2004, Dec.20. Report: 605 Robson Street (Complete Application) DE 408590 - Zone DD.-.2004, Dec.20. Report: 1245 Homer Street - Specific Address 1247 Homer Street (Complete Application) DE408892- Zone DD.-.2004, Dec.20 (report dated 2004, Nov.24). Report: 525 West Broadway (Preliminary Application) DE 408752 - Zone C-3A.142-.2005, Jan. 31 (report dated 2004, Dec.22). Report: 1139 West Cordova Street (Complete Application) DE408870 - ZoneCD-1.-.2005, Feb.28 (report dated 2005, Feb.2). Report:1690 West 8th Avenue (Complete Application) DE408976 - Zone C-3A.-.2005, May 9 (report dated 2005, Apr.27). Report: 1501 Robson Street (Complete Application) DE409145 - Zone C-6.-.2005,Jun.8 (report dated 2005,Jun.8).821 Report: Cambie Street (Complete Application) DE 409233 - Zone CD-1(Pending).-.2005,Jun. 20. Report:1277 Melv