UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A design probe comparison of regional and municipal attitudes toward regional town centres : case study.. Beasley, Larry B. 1976

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1976_A8 B42.pdf [ 14.22MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0093901.json
JSON-LD: 1.0093901+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0093901.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0093901+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0093901+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0093901+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0093901 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0093901.txt
Citation
1.0093901.ris

Full Text

A DESIGN PROBE COMPARISON OF REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL ATTITUDES TOWARD REGIONAL TOWN CENTRES CASE STUDY IN BURNABY, B.C.  by B.A.,  LARRY B. BEASLEY Simon Fraser University, 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1976 ©  Larry B. Beasley, 1976  ii.  In presenting this thesis in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s  thesis  for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives.  It is understood that copying or publication  of this thesis for f i n a n c i a l  gain shall not be allowed without my  written permission.  School of Community and Regional  Planning  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date  20 April 1976  iii. Abstract  In The Livable Region 1976/1986, the Greater Vancouver Regional  District  (GVRD) proposes the creation of a series of regional town centres  (RTCs)  --decentralized suburban clusters of a c t i v i t i e s h i s t o r i c a l l y found in the c i t y centre.  However, because land use control i s a Municipal  the r e a l i z a t i o n of RTCs is dependent upon local acceptance.  responsibility,  Therefore the  research problem i s to discover discrepancies in the RTC notion as seem from a local perspective and to suggest how these might be reconciled. RTC designated for the Municipality of Burnaby ( l o c a l l y c a l l e d the  The 'Metrotown')  is used as a case study.  Discrepancies in the RTC idea are a function of diverging regional and local opinions that preclude t h e i r cooperation on RTC development.  Diverging  opinions can occur at the levels of broad planning p o l i c y , RTC modelling and s p e c i f i c RTC s i t e design.  A comparative analysis of regional and local  positions is undertaken at these l e v e l s .  However, RTC cooperation does not  require concurrence between the two authorities on a l l  policy matters.  Disagreements take shape around s p e c i f i c issues so a 'probe d e s i g n ' - - a hypothetical design s o l u t i o n — o f the Metrotown s i t e i s used to i s o l a t e  issues.  Because design i s a local matter, the design probe is done from the local viewpoint and a regional response to the various design aspects i s predicted towards the formation of issues. the local model planners.  To f a c i l i t a t e design and issue p r e d i c t i o n ,  for the Metrotown i s surveyed in consultation with Burnaby  The regional model as published is also summarized.  Issues are  then proposed to be reconciled either through technical resolutions  that  become apparent in the process of probe design or by revisions of broader policy along lines suggested in the comparative a n a l y s i s .  i v.  The research predicted issues in the following areas: a.  nature of movement--form of s t r e e t s , t r a n s i t l i n e / s t a t i o n s and the arrangement of land uses r e l a t i v e to these;  b.  inclusion of r e s i d e n t i a l  neighbourhoods as a dominating RTC a c t i v i t y ;  c.  the development approach--configuration and timing of phasing, use of a Development Corporation and treatment of e x i s t i n g s i t e features; and,  d.  building forms, q u a l i t y and c o s t s .  The arrangements of t r a n s i t stations and the t r a n s i t l i n e as well as the provision of support modes are provided with technical  reconciliations.  The remaining issues are proposed to be reconciled by the following recommendations: a.  that the GVRD continue i t s e f f o r t s to i n i t i a t e t r a n s i t , but also endorse the Municipal proposition of balanced modes for movement within and into the Burnaby- RTC; -  b.  that the GVRD endorse Burnaby's p o l i c y position that the Metrotown be a comprehensive 'settlement' and adjust i t s conception of the Burnaby RTC accordingly;  c.  that Burnaby adopt the GVRD's i n i t i a t i v e approach for Metrotown implementation including ideas of a Development Corporation and timed phasing but that the GVRD adopt a position to respect Municipal control devices; and  d.  that Burnaby respect GVRD policy that the Burnaby RTC be one among several equally evolving RTCs and moderate development requirements to create a Metrotown that can independently a t t r a c t  activity.  V.  Broader differences about handling growth and integrating the RTC with the real s i t e s i t u a t i o n are found to exist but to have l i t t l e impact on RTC design agreements.  Thus, the research concludes that differences e x i s t in RTC and Metrotown notions that could s t i f l e regional/local cooperation on RTC development.  It  i s found, however, that these discrepancies are amenable to r e c o n c i l i a t i o n i f the two authorities are prepared to accept technical compromises as well as revise t h e i r planning p o l i c i e s in the manner recommended.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract Table of Contents Table of Plates Acknowledgement CHAPTER ONE:  INTRODUCTION  A.  What i s an RTC or Metrotown:  B.  Why do Regional and Local Authorities Have to Cooperate on RTC Development?  C.  Why Test the Regional RTC Concept from a Municipal Perspective?  D.  What i s the Approach and Method of Analysis?  CHAPTER TWO: A.  GVRD - The Regional Policy Setting Al. A2. A3.  B.  Regional Problems Regional Planning Goals & Strategy Role of the RTC in the Regional Strategy  Burnaby - The Local Policy Setting Bl. B2. B3.  C.  BROAD POLICY COMPARISON  Local Problems Local Goals & Strategy Role of Metrotown in the Local Strategy  Regional and Local Policy Perspective in Comparison CI. C2. C3. C4.  CHAPTER THREE: A.  View of Growth Importance of the Regional Centre Nature of the Regional Centre Movement RTC MODELS AND COMPARISON  The Regional RTC Concept Al. A2. A3. A4. A5.  RTC A c t i v i t y S p e c i f i c a t i o n s RTC Size Specifications RTC Transportation Specifications RTC Character Specifications Approach to RTC Development  vi i . paoe B.  C.  The Local Metrotown Model  70  Bl. B2. B3. B4. B5.  70 70 76 81 91  Comparison of Regional and Local Conceptions of the Metrotown CI. C2. C3. C4. C5. C6.  CHAPTER FOUR: A.  A c t i v i t y Content of the Metrotown Boundaries, Balance and Use Realms Quality vs. Attraction in Metrotown Movement in Metrotown Integration of Concept and Site Government Role in Metrotown Development KINGSWAY/CENTRAL PARK - DESIGN PROBE FOR ISSUES  Kingsway/Central Al. A2. A3. A4. A5.  B.  Metrotown A c t i v i t y Specifications Metrotown Size S p e c i f i c a t i o n s Metrotown Transportation Specifications Metrotown Character Specifications Approach to Metrotown Development  Park - Its Situation  Area Boundaries Existing Land Use & Zoning Existing Planning Schemes Topography & Natural Endowments Area Constraints and Potentials for Metrotown Design  94 96 96 98 100 101 102 104 106 111 114 117 119 120  The Probe Plan - Issues from Design Alternatives  129  Bl. B2. B3. B4. B5. B6.  130 130 145 155 157 157  CHAPTER FIVE:  Design Response to Existing Land-Use Movement Systems Organization of Use Park Systems Metrotown Forms Development Phasing in Metrotown SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSIONS—RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECONCILE RTC ISSUES  164  A.  Technical Resolutions of Predicted Issues  166  B.  Recommendation 1 - Policy Revision  168  C.  Recommendation 2:  Policy Revision  171  D.  Recommendation 3:  Policy Revision  174  E.  Recommendation 4:  Policy Revision  176  F.  Other Conclusions  178  v.i n . paoe CHAPTER SIX:  METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS  Bibliography Appendix:  General P r i n c i p l e s that Comprise Metrotown Concept  182 189 194  TABLE OF PLATES  ix  plate number  title  page  1.  Burnaby Metrotown:  Regional Setting  2.  Multifunctional  3.  Model of Analysis  24  4.  RTCs Proposed by GVRD  33  5.  GVRD's Strategy for Growth  33  6.  Burnaby's Hierarchy of Settlements Centres  43  7.  GVRD's A c t i v i t i e s Mix Comparison  59  8.  GVRD's I l l u s t r a t i v e L i s t of RTC Major A c t i v i t i e s  60  9.  GVRD's Model of RTC  63  Centre:  Typical  Functions  Requirements of RTCs  3 8  10.  GVRD's Corporations Survey:  65  11.  GVRD's Concept of the Development Corporation  68  12.  Metrotown:  Influence Areas and Boundaries  71  13.  Metrotown:  Neighbourhood Diagram  73  14.  Metrotown:  Vertical Mixture of A c t i v i t y  75  15.  Metrotown:  Arrangement of Use Groupings  77  16.  Metrotown:  H i s t o r i c a l City as Guide to Use Balancing  78  17.  Metrotown:  A c t i v i t i e s Mix Comparison.,  80  18.  Metrotown:  Hierarchy of Streets for Speed and Purpose  82  19.  Metrotown:  Through Movement in Development Spaces  83  20.  Metrotown:  Various Aspects of Park Space  86  21.  Metrotown:  Characteristics of Personal Open Space  87  22.  Metrotown:  Aspects of Human Scale  88  23.  Metrotown:  Building Forms for Height Transitions  89  24.  Metrotown:  Vertical Transition Walking Plane  90  25.  Metrotown:  Balance of Height and Coverage  92  X. plate number  page  title  26.  Metrotown's Municipal Context  109  27.  Metrotown Boundaries  112  28.  Kingsway/Central  Park:  Existing Land Use  124  29.  Kingsway/Central  Park:  Existing Zoning  125  30.  Kingsway/Central  Park:  Existing Planning Schemes  126  31.  Kingsway/Central  Park:  Existing Topography  127  32.  Kingsway/Central  Park:  Elements Assumed as 'Given' in Area Probe Design  128  33.  Probe Plan:  Overall Scheme  159  34.  Probe Plan:  Movement Framework  160  35.  Probe Plan:  A c t i v i t y Areas  161  36.  Probe Plan:  Schematic Physical  37.  Probe Plan:  Phasing Diagram  38.  Summary of Predicted Issues from Design Process  167  39.  Roots of Predicted Issues in Broader Policy  169  Forms Structure  162 163  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  For assistance in t h i s research, my thanks go to Dr. Henry Hightower and Professor Gordon Stead of the School of Community and Regional Planning. They have been valuable advisors. For t h e i r cooperation during the 4-month period when a local Metrotown model and probe design were being developed, I am deeply grateful to the planning s t a f f in the Municipality of Burnaby. The planners at the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t were also very helpful and I thank them. For taking on and completing with a smile the major task of typing the manuscript and putting i t into f i n a l form, I w i l l always be indebted to Ms. Sharon Bond. Her f o r t i t u d e was remarkable. Having received the kind help and support of so many people, I must nonetheless take total r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for any errors and omissions which might be discovered in t h i s work.  This work is dedicated to Sandy Logan--a patient and kind f r i e n d .  1.  CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION  2.  One essential element in the program to achieve The Livable Region 1976/ 1986 that has been proposed by the Greater Vancouver Regional  District  (GVRD) i s the decentralization of jobs, shopping and c u l t u r a l  opportunities  away from Vancouver centre closer to where people l i v e in the suburbs. Decentralized and supportive a c t i v i t i e s are to be concentrated in a network of regional town centres (RTCs) dispersed at s t r a t e g i c points throughout the region.  Because this action to decentralize requires regional  use changes beyond the scope of any one municipality, RTC has e s s e n t i a l l y been a r t i c u l a t e d from the regional  land  the concept of the perspective.  However, local governments have also been concerned about the pattern of land uses and in various j u r i s d i c t i o n s within the region  there has been  a tendency to define and evolve concentrations of suburban uses into more or less urbanized town centres.  One such example exists in Burnaby,  a suburban municipality bordering Vancouver.  B.C.,  In this case the local  a u t h o r i t i e s have arranged land uses into three town centres and have designated one of these as a Metrotown to become the s i t e of further i n t e n s i f i cation and d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of a c t i v i t y to serve overall Municipal ments.  require-  Thinking about the Metrotown, however, i s not nearly so far advanced  as that of the RTC at the regional  level.  The GVRD's designated RTC in Burnaby and the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s Metrotown in fact deal with the same s i t e , an area on either side of Kingsway adjacent to Central Park and extending approximately to Royal Oak Avenue> indicated in Plate 1.  It is the intention of both regional and local  to c l u s t e r a c t i v i t i e s on that s i t e .  Thus, to the  authorities  4. casual observer, i t would appear that local and regional actions can happily converge.  Yet t h i s may not r e a l l y be the case.  upon whether regional and local differences  It i s r e a l l y dependent  objectives for the place are compatible.  Since  in conception are bound to r e s u l t in c o n f l i c t between the two  a u t h o r i t i e s , i t is desirable to predict where agreement is evident and where c o n f l i c t s could occur and to frame r e c o n c i l i a t i o n s from this  standpoint.  Therefore, the purpose of the present research i s to determine i f the GVRD's notion of the RTC w i l l stand up under local scrutiny, to i s o l a t e crepancies  dis-  from the Municipal perspective and to define how these might  be resolved.  The intent i s to suggest a means through which a concept  of the RTC can emerge that both regional and local a u t h o r i t i e s can embrace and work in cooperation to achieve.  To understand the l o g i c behind this purpose, three primary questions which i t raises must be answered: i.  What i s a regional or metro town centre in a general sense ( i . e . , what common background of d e f i n i t i o n i s being used by both parties)?  ii.  Why should two levels of administration have to be involved in RTC development and have to agree on conceptions of the place in order for i t to be achieved?  iii.  Why orient our analysis from the municipal perspective as a basis for testing the regional view?  Before delving into the p a r t i c u l a r s of this research, we might well answer these overriding questions.  A. WHAT IS AN RTC OR METROTOWN? To answer this question, we can f i r s t use the concept of the m u l t i functional centre that has been examined in great d e t a i l by Victor  5. Gruen.  Gruen sets out the idea of a focus of a c t i v i t i e s where " . . . a s  many urban functions of the centre-conforming type as possible  (are  placed together) in a concentrated and land-conserving manner, countera c t i n g . . .tendencies toward fragmentation, s t e r i l i t y and waste of time and energy."  (Gruen, 1973, 97).  Centre-conforming uses refer to those  that involve high levels of interaction among people r e l a t i v e to land used. In contrast, Gruen talks about uses that would not conform to the requirements of c e n t r e s — a i r p o r t s ,  f r e i g h t yards, warehouses, large  plants, a g r i c u l t u r e , w i l d l i f e preserves, e t c .  industrial  He characterizes these as  inappropriate because they are either land extensive, necessitate few participants or are p o l l u t i o n - c a u s i n g .  Mot only must centre uses be care-  f u l l y selected on the basis of the human interactions they spawn, but there must also be many d i f f e r e n t uses brought together to achieve a sense of urbanity.  Urbanity, says Gruen, has three essential aspects that should  be r e f l e c t e d in centres: i. ii. iii.  the opportunity for d i r e c t human communications; the opportunity f o r the free exchange of ideas and goods; and, the enjoyment of human freedom as expressed by a nearly access to a m u l t i p l i c i t y of choices."  inexhaustible  (Gruen, 1973, 85).  The aspects of concentration and land-conservation in Gruen's concept refer to that necessity for intimate human contact in a town centre that can only be accomplished for a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes in a pedestrian environment. A pedestrian environment necessitates concentration of uses because of i t s inherently imposed distance maximums beyond which pedestrians w i l l  choose  not to remain on foot because of the time and e f f o r t involved in walking.  As prerequisites to a successful multifunctional centre, Gruen l i s t s following:  the  6. i. ii. iii. iv.  a supporting population of consumers; a c c e s s i b i l i t y of that consumer population to the centre; an available and adequate s i t e ; a c o l l e c t i o n of people motivated to invest in the centre because of some promise of p r o f i t (in money or otherwise); and  v.  a defined team to plan and manage the centre.  Having achieved these prerequisites and having selected uses c a r e f u l l y and created with and for them a concentrated area where people come into face-to-face contact, the multifunctional  urban  centre comes into being.  Thus in terms of the character and form of the regional or metro town centre, we have a broad d e f i n i t i o n .  However, for our purposes, the matter  of the positioning of that centre within a system of arranged a c t i v i t y nodes is equally  important.  The regional or metro town centre that is conceived by the GVRD and the Municipality suggests strongly the adherence of planners in both administrations to the Central Place Theory that has been developed by C h r i s t a l l e r , Losch and others (Heilbrun, 1974, 75-103). This theory states that urban a c t i v i t i e s s p a t i a l l y organize themselves into central nodes serving a complementary region with goods and s e r v i c e s . However, this organization of a c t i v i t i e s ,  say the t h e o r i s t s ,  is  intimately  t i e d to the maximum distance customers are w i l l i n g to travel to purchase or consume a product or s e r v i c e .  Because people w i l l travel longer and  further for products of higher value and more occasional demand, we observe a sorting out of centres into a nested hierarchy of smaller and larger nodes serving smaller and larger catchment populations.  The o r i g i n a l theorists concerned themselves primarily with:the macroscale at the i n t e r - c i t y level  in a rural context.  Heilbrun cautions that  7. "intrametropolitan patterns are not explained by central place theory" (Heilbrun, 1974, 103).  Yet, Berry and Garrison, in reviewing empirical  work, conclude that in a general sense, s i m i l a r arrangements of land use with centres and catchment populations are observed within the c i t y as well as between c i t i e s .  (Berry.''& Garrison, 1970).  Whether r i g h t or wrong  (based on theory or convenience), GVRD and local planners seem to espouse the second view and out of this thinking has evolved a vernacular of intra-urban places for which the neighbourhood centre, the community centre and and regional centre have become typical examples.  Thus we would expect each urban  area to have regional f o c i i providing s p e c i a l , high-order and expensive goods and services as well as jobs for large regionally-defined segments of a c i t y population.  We can expect t h i s regional segment to be divided  into communities with centres serving each community with general consumer goods and services.  We can expect each community to be divided into  neighbourhoods with centres serving the immediately and constantly demanded convenience requirements of each neighbourhood. centre  And we can expect each  to incorporate most of the functions of lesser centres within  i t s domain for those residents l i v i n g d i r e c t l y nearby. regional or Metrotown  Therefore the  centre can be defined as a compact urban place  serving that broad regional population within i t s influence with high order and supportive functions and providing a s i g n i f i c a n t number of j o b s . Moreover, the size of the supporting population for a regional centre has been set by the theorists at between 100,000-300,000 persons with 250,000 as the typical average population (Nez, 1961; de Chiara and Koppelman, 1969). This i s based primarily on r e t a i l consumer data. found  S p e c i f i c functions usually  in the multifunctional centre have been a r t i c u l a t e d by Gruen,  de Chiara and Koppelman, Spaeth and others as indicated in the l i s t i n g of Plate 2.  This conception of m u l t i p l i c i t y of function and r e g i o n a l i t y of  consumers provides the d e f i n i t i o n required by our f i r s t question.  8. .  . , retail: commercial -  .  .  l i s t not exhaustive  one or two large department stores junior department stores, variety stores food markets, drugstores fashion and apparel f u r n i t u r e and home furnishings, hardware miscellaneous boutiques and shops  commercial -  Mote:  services:  beauty salons, barbers, shoe repair cleaner a i r l i n e t i c k e t o f f i c e , travel agent p r i n t i n g , o f f i c e supply, photographer day care  offices: - public administration, government o f f i c e s , post o f f i c e , social services, public u t i l i t i e s c o l l e c t i o n - private administration, banks, lending i n s t i t u t i o n s , real stock broker  .  professional  estate,  services:  - doctor, d e n t i s t , optometrist, health services - lawyer, accounting, insurance - a r c h i t e c t , engineer .  other business: - non-disturbing industry  .  education: - specialized schools, technical - universities  .  schools, community colleges  culture - theatres, auditoriums, concert h a l l s entertainment/leisure -  .  eatinc and drinking, restaurants, cafes, pubs a r t , music and dance studios meeting h a l l s , community centres sports centres, bowling  residential - private homes - hotels and hostels and convention f a c i l i t i e s SOURCES: (Gruen, 1973, 105); (Gruen, 1960, 55,56); (Spaeth, 1976, 7); (Chiara/Koppelman, 1969, s.12-3,12-4); and (Schwilgiri, . 1973,  9. B.  V.'HY DO REGIONAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE TO COOPERATE IN RTC DEVELOPMENT? It has been noted that our second necessity is to indicate why the local and regional levels of administration have to be involved in RTC development  and have to reach consensus in order for either to  achieve i t s objective.  To answer t h i s , we need f i r s t to explain the  nature of government powers in place in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia.  Section 92 of the B r i t i s h North America Act, a  part of the Constitution of Canada, confers upon the several provinces formal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for local government.  Thus, action at  the local level must be founded upon delegated powers from the Provincial Government.  Prior to the mid-1960s these powers were  delegated in B r i t i s h Columbia almost exclusively to local municipal governments.  The only exceptions to this were several  specific  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s delegated to 'special purpose d i s t r i c t s ' whose boards exercised administration for some p a r t i c u l a r functions  in  j u r i s d i c t i o n s geographically more extensive than any one municipality.  The Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage D i s t r i c t and the  Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t established in B.C. in 1914 and 1926 respectively are examples of this practice  (Hardwick, 1974, 173).  The  tenacity of the simple dichotomous system of government composed of the province and local m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s not d i f f i c u l t to understand according to Walter Hardwick: . . . a s recently as the 1940s, 75% of the population of the urbanized Eraser delta l i v e d in the central c i t y , focussed on downtown Vancouver...New Westminster and North Vancouver had strong local economic bases and . . . o t h e r outlying communities remained somewhat i s o lated from one another, with matters of local concern being s t r i k i n g l y d i f f e r e n t from one municipality to another. (Hardwick, 1974, 175).  10. In more recent years, notes Hardwick, such c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and/or of r e s i d e n t i a l  populations has s i g n i f i c a n t l y declined.  There is now a growing  interdependence among municipalities as related to work places, places, shopping, and other social networks.  isolation  residential  Consequently as the region  has matured, more and more issues have come to the fore which are larger than any one municipality.  To handle these regional  issues, the f i r s t  tendency had been to p r o l i f e r a t e the 'special purpose d i s t r i c t '  concept.  For our purposes, perhaps the most important of these was the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board established in 1948 to handle regional issues through a planning process.  This was a Provincial  board, however  and the Province concluded that the expense for such an operation should be paid by the local governments who benefitted.  The view among c i t i -  zens was either that the board had l i t t l e teeth or that i t Provincial  interference in local a f f a i r s .  represented  So in 1965 an amendment to the  Municipal Act of B.C. was undertaken that " . . . r a d i c a l l y altered the relationship between local (Collier,  1972, 29).  government and the Provincial  government..."  Through this amendment, the Regional  Districts  were created that integrated a range of regional concerns under one umbrella in each region. A Regional D i s t r i c t i s defined as a geographical unit (somewhat s i m i l a r to a county) designed to provide ' j o i n t services' through a public board serving in one of 28 d i f f e r e n t sub-areas of the province. ( C o l l i e r , 1972, 29). While this action was touted as simply an administrative convenience by the enacting Provincial government, the p o s s i b i l i t i e s  inherent in the  amendment have set the stage for the creation of a d i s t i n c t "fourth l e v e l " of government  that can deal with matters of a scope larger than local  municipal concerns, but too small to be appropriate for exclusive Provincial a c t i o n . . This  conceptualization  11. of the Regional D i s t r i c t s as another level of government, however, must be accepted with certain cautions.  The Regional  D i s t r i c t s do not have a power of d i r e c t taxation. govern through a d i r e c t l y representative process in unincorporated areas of the province). from each p a r t i c i p a t i n g municipality  They also do not (except  Rather, they r e q u i s i t i o n funds  (but municipal p a r t i c i p a t i o n  is  obligatory) and t h e i r decision makers are generally drawn from the ranks of municipal c o u n c i l s .  Yet as C o l l i e r s t a t e s , " . . . i t  is d i f f i c u l t to argue  that in actual fact they do not operate as (another) level of government." ( C o l l i e r , 1972, 34).  Perhaps less as a r e s u l t of preplanning than of a  rapid evolution in responding to growing needs, they now function in a variety of ways l i k e a government.  Because they were organized by statute  to meet the unique requirements of t h e i r s p e c i f i c areas, the urban Regional D i s t r i c t s have taken over many functions formerly handled by urban local governments.  They pass bylaws.  i n d i r e c t taxing mechanisms.  They have access to funds through t h e i r  They a s s i s t in financing certain selected  services in a l l or portions of t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n s .  Important for our  present work, they are required by statute to carry out regional planning and the urban D i s t r i c t s do this aggressively. suggests that t h e i r role in a l l  land-use  Indeed, the evidence  these respects may even be growing.  All  of these a c t i v i t i e s are directed by elected representatives and implemented by professional  administrative s t a f f .  one of these quasi-governmental  The GVRD i s  Regional D i s t r i c t s and, as such, i t has  powers that local governments must recognize, might well use to t h e i r own advantage and c e r t a i n l y cannot ignore.  12. The municipal government, on the other hand, is a well-established body that has been h i s t o r i c a l l y delegated the general local a f f a i r s . municipal model.  authority for handling  These local government e n t i t i e s follow the t r a d i t i o n a l They have a d i r e c t power to tax; they have administrative,  l e g i s l a t i v e and q u a s i - j u d i c i a l  powers r e l a t i v e to local matters.  govern on the basis of d i r e c t l y elected representatives.  They  And, relevant  to our concern, they are c l e a r l y delegated through the Municipal Act broad powers to regulate the use of land and the type and q u a l i t y of development within t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n s .  Local governments are both  entrenched and jealously protective of t h e i r bundle of powers.  They  too cannot be ignored.  Thus in the Lower Mainland, the local and regional a u t h o r i t i e s share powers to deal with local  issues that are sorted out in part on a subject  basis and in part on the basis of the scale of a problem.  In the case of  the regional or Metro town centre concept, i t i s evident that considerations of both a local and regional nature come into play in a t i g h t l y way.  intertwined  We might characterize the s i t u a t i o n as one needing a stimulus to  redirect historical  location trends, a regional matter; as a s i t u a t i o n  of s e t t l i n g a c t i v i t i e s into the new decentralized RTC l o c a t i o n s , a local matter; and as a s i t u a t i o n of creating a c r i t i c a l mass of a c t i v i t i e s that can become viable and s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g in i t s own r i g h t , a local and regional matter.  Local municipalities can do l i t t l e  in the f i r s t  instance  to draw a c t i v i t i e s away from h i s t o r i c a l l y accepted locations except for certain incentive procedures that might well be met with competitive incentives elsewhere and which, in any case, would be p r o h i b i t i v e l y expensive.  The regional authority, however, because of the persuasion  i t can-exercise as an 'interested t h i r d party' and because of it's access  13. to detailed and w e l l - a r t i c u l a t e d regional planning arguments and p o l i c i e s , may well be more successful at amending h i s t o r i c a l trends.  At the same time,  location  powers exercised by the local government in  zoning and subdivision control make i t the crucial party in s e t t l i n g a c t i v i t i e s into a new area within i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . the GVRD has primarily one tool--the O f f i c i a l  In land use c o n t r o l ,  Regional Plan.  Because  t h i s plan by statute is " . . . a general scheme without d e t a i l . . . " 1974, 3232-3)  and is permissive (LMRPB, 1966, 10),  (B.C.,  the regional  administration is helplessly handicapped in forcing local governments to accept a c t i v i t y .  The upshot of t h i s s i t u a t i o n is that the regional  and local establishments must apply t h e i r respective resources in a concerted and cooperative manner which makes the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of t h e i r differences regarding RTC development absolutely C.  necessary.  WHY TEST THE REGIONAL RTC CONCEPT FROM A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE? We have noted that our intention i s to t e s t the regional RTC concept from a local point of view and we have posed the question as to why t h i s necessary.  In answer, there are r e a l l y three reasons.  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of powers between the two governments.  is  The f i r s t concerns The second  concerns the nature of interests and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s held by the two governments.  The t h i r d concerns the present status of the analyses that  have been completed by regional and local  The survey  planners.  of powers noted above indicates that control in implementing the  RTC rests not with the GVRD but with the Municipality.  As the f i n a l  author-  i t y on matters of s p e c i f i c land use, the local government must rule on every development that may be proposed for the RTC. be based on local requirements.  This r u l i n g w i l l  Because regional and l o c a l  undoubtedly  authorities  w i l l consider the RTC within d i f f e r e n t scales of reference, the require-  1  ments of the two governments w i l l not necessarily by synonomous. the regionally conceived RTC does not f u l f i l l  4  -  If  local requirements, then the  municipality w i l l simply withdraw i t s support from the RTC program and i t w i l l be doomed to f a i l u r e .  Thus, on the basis of t h e i r r e l a t i v e powers,  the regional RTC concept is subservient to local review and this necessitates a l o c a l l y based c r i t i q u e of the RTC in our a n a l y s i s .  The f e a s i b i l i t y of any new land use proposal is dependent upon whether or not i t can be accommodated upon a chosen s i t e .  This f e a s i b i l i t y can  only be judged by comparing what kind of place is desired and what kind of place can be achieved within the framework of a real s i t e .  The vehicle  best suited for such a s i t e - s p e c i f i c judgment i s the municipal  viewpoint  where the focus of interests i s centred on the physical form and structure of an environment.  In comparison, the regional viewpoint is  unsuitable  because i t is couched in broad functional terms that do not lend themselves to a s i t e - s p e c i f i c  interpretation.  Moreover, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  for achieving a f i t between concept and s i t e must s e t t l e with the local government who would be blamed i f the impact of the RTC i s negative to the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . for the overall  The regional government would only be responsible  idea and not how the RTC took shape on the landscape.  Thus the test of the region's RTC as i t f i t s on the chosen s i t e i s a local r e s p o n s i b i l i t y best handled within a detailed local  orientation  and this reinforces the necessity to take a local perspective in the analysis.  F i n a l l y , GVRD and Burnaby thinking on the town centre have not progressed in a p a r a l l e l  fashion.  From a lengthy planning process, the GVRD has  15. determined to use the RTCs to carry out growth management objectives. The regional planners have resolved conceptual problems between the RTC notion and t h e i r growth strategy and a ' f i n a l concept' has been presented for local consideration.  In contrast, the Municipality has only dealt  with the Metrotown in r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l terms.  Thus, the Municipal  viewpoint is the 'unknown quantity'  that must be s p e c i f i e d before the  v i a b i l i t y of the RTC can be judged.  This prescribes the approach as  one that must s t a r t from the local  level.  Therefore the analysis looks at the regional RTC from a local  viewpoint  because local powers, interests and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s bear heavily on whether the RTC can be successful and because the local viewpoint has yet to be a r t i c u l a t e d so that an evaluation of the RTC might be made.  D.  WHAT IS THE APPROACH AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS? Having answered the above questions, we can now outline the approach and method of analysis that have been adopted for t h i s study. Municipal endorsement of the regional  RTC is c r u c i a l to i t s  we can restate the research problem as follows.  Knowing that implementation,  The problem i s to define  discrepancies in the GVRD's notion of the RTC as seem from a local perspective and to suggest ways that such discrepancies might be resolved. Because the situations and opinions of decision makers among the various municipalities  in the region are not synomous or interchangeable and cannot  be generalized, we have selected the Municipality of Burnaby and the Burnaby RTC (Metrotown) as a case study for the research.  16. By stating the problem in this way, we r e a l i z e  t  h  e  discrepancies in the  GVRD's notion of the RTC w i l l be a function of the divergence of municipal opinion from that of regional authorities at the level of broad policy and at the level of conceiving the town centre.  Therefore we w i l l have  to complete a comparative analysis of policy and conceptions in order to trace the divergence.  We can assume, of course, that the two govern-  ments w i l l most d e f i n i t e l y d i f f e r in t h e i r viewpoints at these l e v e l s because each government is dealing at a d i f f e r e n t scale with d i f f e r e n t p o l i c i e s using d i f f e r e n t - t o o l s .  These d i f f e r i n g viewpoints, however,  only become relevant when they r e s u l t in an i n a b i l i t y of regional and local parties to cooperate to achieve the RTC.  The necessity for cooperation only occurs when a s p e c i f i c aspect of the RTC must be handled and a s p e c i f i c decision must be made. that broader differences simply do not boil  The point i s  into open disagreements  until  that time and when looking at these broader p o l i c i e s , we have no way to conclude through a simple comparison what policy positions w i l l contentions on the RTC.  lead to  Consequently, we are forced to go beyond a compara-  tive analysis.  The fact that disagreements emerge c l e a r l y only when decisions are to be made i s the key to constructing the additional analysis that is required. In the case we are studying, we f i n d that s p e c i f i c action requiring s p e c i f i c decisions occurs primarily when the physical posed to be changed to create the RTC. landscape change is a matter of design. simulate  the changing landscape.  'design probe'  (Lynch,  1971, 230)  landscape i s pro-  We know that this  physical  Therefore we can use design to  Kevin Lynch c a l l s this approach a which he defines as the proposition  17. of a f i r s t solution to an environmental design problem so that the designer can come face to face with the issues that surround the problem. The design probe is based on schematic information and i t is meant to be discarded after i t pinpoints the issues.  When regional and local authorities disagree on an aspect of the probe design that aspect becomes an issue.  For the a n a l y s i s ,  the regional and local  positions on an issue are predicted by reference to the broader comparisons of p o l i c i e s that preceeds the probe design. We have noted previously, however, that r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for s i t e design and the powers to back up such r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are c l e a r l y in the realm of the local government.  This being the case, the probe design cannot be  an ad hoc exercise by the designer.  The simulated changes in the  environment of the RTC s i t e must be derived from local policy considerations such that i t becomes a local design solution against which a probable regional reaction can be compared.  The regional reaction can also be  derived from broader regional policy so that the juxtaposition of the regional and local view around issues represents a t r a n s l a t i o n of differences from the general to the s p e c i f i c .  In this manner, divergences in viewpoint  that are i r r e l e v a n t to the RTC matter are carved away.  The probe design has three functions under these circumstances. i s to i s o l a t e the issues.  The f i r s t  The second is to show the relationship between  these issues and broader p o l i c y .  These have been discussed.  The t h i r d  relates to the need to define ways to reconcile the regional and local differences that e x i s t on the issues.  In talking about the design probe,  Lynch notes that " . . . d e s i g n is a learning process that gradually uncovers l i m i t s , p o s s i b i l i t i e s and c r i t e r i a . . . "  (Lynch,  1971, 28).  As a t r i a l -  18. and-error exercise that surveys a broad range and combination of possible solutions to each aspect of the overall design problem, the design process suggests ways that disagreements around some reconciled.  issues can be  Indeed, Archer observes that " . . . t h e art of designing is  the art of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . "  (Archer, 1963, 71).  Thus some issues may  be provided with technical resolutions available from the many a l t e r n a t i v e design solutions with which the designer has experimented.  The l i m i t to  this c a p a b i l i t y is where the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of an issue cannot be achieved without one or both opposing parties changing t h e i r broader p o l i c i e s . This i s because the design probe and the predicted regional responses are both based on a l i s t i n g of assumed policy for each of the two governments. Gregory makes the point that  " . . . t h e practice of design turns upon  some system of values" (Gregory, 1966, 81 ). in p o l i c y .  These values are r e f l e c t e d  As such the design simply cannot discover a l t e r n a t i v e recon-  c i l i a t i o n s outside of i t s policy s e t t i n g .  What i s l e f t after the issues have been drawn and some reconciled through technical means is a c l u s t e r  of  issues for which the root p o l i c y sources  of disagreement must be determined and recommendations for the r e v i s i o n of policy must be made.  These recommendations are nothing more than  judgments on the e f f i c a c y of policy in l i g h t of the issues and in r e l a t i o n to other p o l i c y .  This therefore represents the conclusion of the a n a l y s i s .  The recommended technical resolutions of issues and revisions of policy set a d i r e c t i o n through 'Which the analysis suggests regional and local cooperation on the development of the Burnaby RTC can be achieved.  The design process is therefore the crucial methodological tool that is used in the a n a l y s i s .  How w i l l this design process be undertaken?  There  19. are many design methods and Archer laments that Unfortunately, the science of design method has not yet reached a degree of sophistication which w i l l permit the use of agreed axioms, or even the use of agreed terminology. (Archer, 1963,72). The need is to select a design method that is suited to the evaluative function to which the probe design is oriented.  Broadbent does a s s i s t  in this selection by c l a s s i f y i n g into two types the processes of design that are now commonly used—those that are based on an empirical  frame-  work and those that are based on a r a t i o n a l i s t framework (Broadbent, 1973, 55-72).  In selecting the design method these generic  of which have eminent h i s t o r i c a l  approaches, both  precedents, have each been considered.  The empiricists draw the solution out of the subject being designed and t h e i r attention i s on " . . . e v i d e n c e as received by the senses" 1973,58).  (Broadbent,  The design method of Lawrence Halprin examplifies the  empirical approach: His point—the fundamental one—is that working towards predetermined goals is a bad approach to design or to anything because en route to the preordained s o l u t i o n , the real problems and opportunities are often overlooked. (Schoen, 1972, 14). Thus the empiricists set to work on each design problem without establishing a path of design and they l e t the solution flow from the s i t e .  In contrast, the r a t i o n a l i s t s are "...concerned with what they know to be true as a r e s u l t of reasoned thinking" (Broadbent, 1973, 58). intention of the r a t i o n a l i s t s  is to conceive a process of design that  i s overt, discreet and comprehensible. rationalist  attitude:  The  Brunon's comment exemplifies the  20. . . . i n f o r m a t i o n must be structured before i t can be acted upon in design development...judgments are made on the basis o f . . . s t r u c t u r e d information rather than made a r b i t r a r i l y on the basis of unstructured information (Brunon, 1970, 1 & 20). As a method for the probe design that we w i l l employ, the e m p i r i c i s t s ' framework offers few advantages.  Our design is not projected for  development use, but rather for the discovery of issues and t h e i r policy roots.  As such, we require a structured method that encompasses analysis  from policy to s i t e design in a connected series of steps. is e s s e n t i a l l y provided by the r a t i o n a l i s t framework.  This method  Broadbent,  Blumrich  and Gregory among many others present s i m i l a r models of the r a t i o n a l i s t design method  (Broadbent, 1973, 181 ; Blumrich, 1970, 1551 ; Gregory,  1966, 11) and these can be summarized as including e s s e n t i a l l y the following phases that are relevant to the design probe: i. ii. iii. iv.  problem d e f i n i t i o n and a n a l y s i s ; goals formulation; modelling the ideal s o l u t i o n ; and design applicaton of model to subject s i t e .  The design approach that has been u t i l i z e d in the present research r e f l e c t s t h i s framework although the e m p i r i c i s t aspect w i l l come into play to some extent in the design application phase. design from one viewpoint  Because we are dealing with the  (municipal) and the prediction of a response  from another viewpoint (regional) the design process takes two p a r a l l e l lines.  The same framework is u t i l i z e d along two paths for both parties and  comparisons are made at each phase.  We can review this process as follows.  The probe design begins by reviewing the problems that have been defined by regional and local a u t h o r i t i e s .  As Archer says " . . . t h e r e can be no solution  21. without a problem...design begins with a need."  (Archer,1963, 70).  We then look at the goals and strategies that the separate authorities have devised to handle these problems.  Thus, t h i s phase sets the  basic d i r e c t i v e s for the locally-conceived probe design as well as for the prediction of a regional response to aspects of the design that are at issue.  Because the matrix of problems, goals and strategies that lead the  two authorities to the concept of the RTC are founded on a total  review  by each government of i t s planning p o l i c y , t h i s phase also becomes the broad policy component in the comparative analysis of the research.  The  c o l l e c t i o n of the information for this phase is accomplished by reference to the published policy documents of Burnaby and the GVRD.  The second phase of the probe design i s the consideration of a design concept or model for the RTC.  This i s an important phase because general  and p o l i c i e s must be translated into s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a .  intentions  To quote Amos Rapoport:  . . . ( f o r ) the success of any design, we need to know what a 'good environment' i s for the given s i t u a t i o n , the types of spaces and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to the images and schemata, the c u l t u r a l l y accepted devices for achieving the t r a n s i t i o n s , b a r r i e r s , and d e f i n i t i o n s of realms, the degree of complexity for d i f f e r e n t people and types of movement and the l i k e . (Rapoport, 1969, 139). Since the probe design i s undertaken from the local viewpoint, the analysis must summarize that viewpoint in s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l to f a c i l i t a t e a comprehensive design consideration of the chosen s i t e .  However, the regional con-  ception of the RTC must also be reviewed in order to predict a regional reaction to aspects of the probe design.  This work therefore not only  provides a foundation for probe design, but also allows a comparative analysis of the separate RTC models of the two agencies.  Information about  the regional model is drawn from published documents of the GVRD. t h i s research, the local model had not been a r t i c u l a t e d .  Prior to  Therefore the  researcher i n i t i a t e d continuing discussions with Burnaby planners to draw  22. out t h e i r concept of the Metrotown and the summary of this concept derives from those discussions.  The local planners expressed t h e i r Metrotown  ideas in terms of general p r i n c i p l e s and these have been included as an appendix to this analysis for the readers'  perusal.  The l a s t phase of the probe design is the application of the Metrotown model to the designated s i t e at Kingsway/Central Park in Burnaby.  This  is the phase of the design process that graphically examines the various design alternatives for f i t t i n g the concept to the s i t e .  It does t h i s  within the framework of constraints that the s i t e presents and these constraints are itemized.  It is a process that " . . . g o e s on inside the  designer's head and partly out of reach of his conscious control" (Moore, 1970,4).  As such the intimate judgments and decisions of the designer  on the d e t a i l s of design are i n t u i t i v e and not r e a l l y d e f i n a b l e - what Moore has c a l l e d the 'black box method'.  It i s the  creative step in design and i s espoused by a s i g n i f i c a n t grouping of design t h e o r i s t s , notably Osborn, Gordon, Matchett and Broadbent (Moore, 1970,  5).  As a response to s i t e conditions, the application phase of  the design probe as we w i l l use i t here i s s i m i l a r to the e m p i r i c i s t approach noted e a r l i e r except that the i d e a l i z e d model is an equally influential  input to the designer.  In this Metrotown probe design, the  researcher has acted as the designer but the design solution has been supervised by the Burnaby planners and r e f l e c t s t h e i r consensus for the purposes at hand.  The product of the design process i s a preliminary  land use scheme as i t would be l o c a l l y undertaken.  This i s c a l l e d the  probe plan'to indicate that i t i s not directed at implementation.  From  the probe design, as already discussed, the issue areas are defined, regional and local positions are predicted and technical  reconciliations  of differences are suggested where these have become evident.  00 c _» •  The total analysis i s then concluded by r e l a t i n g the remaining unreconciled issues with t h e i r policy roots and policy differences derived from the comparative analysis in order to recommend changes in policy that are consequently indicated.  This has been discussed above.  the reader, the complete a n a l y t i c a l  As a guide to  path has been diagrammed in  Plate 3.  As a f i n a l introductory note, i t should be stated that the analysis focusses on a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of professional differences and i t assumes that decisions are made within the  r a t i o n a l i t y of the problem at hand.  such, i t does not incorporate that range of p o l i t i c a l  As  influences that  a f f e c t a p o l i t i c i a n ' s decision on a problem regardless of the i n t e r i o r l o g i c of arguments about that problem.. This i s because the more complex political  r a t i o n a l i t y i s not amenable to prediction with the a n a l y t i c a l  tools we have chosen to use. political  The r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of issues in the  sphere i s r e a l l y a separate though equally s i g n i f i c a n t  problem that the constraints of this study could not accommodate.  research The  reader should know as a background to the present study that the general notion of the multifunctional  centre has been endorsed by p o l i t i c i a n s  in both Burnaby and the GVRD.  In some respects, the d e t a i l s have been  l e f t with the bureaucrats while, of course, the p o l i t i c i a n s reserve f i n a l approvals for themselves.  Because the problem is therefore now in the  professional realm, t h i s w i l l be  the emphasis of the study.  Having outlined the purpose and methodology of this research, we can now proceed with the a n a l y s i s .  We w i l l  s t a r t with a general comparison of policy  in the following chapter and move to more s p e c i f i c levels of analysis l a t e r chapters.  in  24.  LOCAL,  PHONAL-  3  N/  CfiNJ>, aw m&$>\  -k  fl&SjlOHAL,  LOAL  FLAN  /  _k f^Utr Roofs OF i*sae&  K&VlSlflN T O  f&ugy FOOTS OF  MOD^U Of AuALT6|5  J  25.  CHAPTER TWO BROAD POLICY COMPARISON  The purpose of this chapter is to survey and compare the broad p o l i c y setting within which the regional and local of the town centre have evolved.  The major problems  by each government w i l l be reviewed.  conceptions  indicated  The goals and strategies  adopted to respond to these problems w i l l also be o u t l i n e d . Through this we can i s o l a t e the role that each government proposes the multifunctional centre to play in i t s planning s t r a t e g i e s . The intention of t h i s background work is twofold.  It w i l l make  comprehensible the s p e c i f i c RTC conceptions to be detailed in the next phase of the a n a l y s i s .  It w i l l also pinpoint where the  roles proposed for the RTC are p a r a l l e l , where they diverge and how t h i s relates to the government's goals and s t r a t e g i e s . The findings in this respect w i l l be used l a t e r in categorizing and attempting to resolve s p e c i f i c RTC issues.  The regional  s i t u a t i o n and then the local s i t u a t i o n w i l l be surveyed followed by a comparison. A.  GVRD - THE REGIONAL POLICY SETTING: The o r i g i n and basic powers of the GVRD have already been outlined.  It was noted that one of the major functions as-  signed to  the GVRD has been regional planning.  As regional  issues become increasingly important, the planning role of the GVRD continues to expand. A recent product of this planning function has been the "Livable Region Programme" through which the GVRD has attempted to e s t a b l i s h a d i r e c t i o n  27. for regional development for the next ten years.  The Livable  Region planning analysis has focussed s p e c i f i c a l l y on regional problems, goals and s t r a t e g i e s .  A review of the o r i g i n and history of  the program w i l l provide perspectives  for l a t e r discussion of  selected d e t a i l s . The public program began in the spring of 1972 with a series of public meetings to present to the public a body of information that had been collected by planning  staff.  The exercise was based on an approach to planning that considered i t essential to the process that planning be grounded in the needs, wants, attitudes of the people l i v i n g in the area. (Smith, 1974, 2 ) . The i n i t i a l meetings were positive so the program was formalized in late 1972.  GVRD s t a f f met with 40to 50 community groups.  Out of  this public process a Report on L i v a b i l i t y was produced that also incorporated questionnaire data and other GVRD studies. document  This  formed a guide to a further round of discussions  with c i t i z e n s which in 1975 resulted in the publication of The Livable Region 1976/1986. publicly  This document too was reviewed  and i t s p r i n c i p l e s have now been endorsed by the  GVRD Board.  While the l a t e r c i t i z e n s '  p a r t i c i p a t o r y process  was not nearly as dynamic as the e a r l i e r meetings and was augmented by a more conventional land use approach (Smith, 1974, 3)  i t i s c l e a r that the issues and solutions proposed  in the L i v a b i l i t y Program r e f l e c t a lay as well as a :  professional  view.  28. Al.  Regional  Problems:  What kinds of problems became evident in this involved planning process? cluded that almost a l l  citizen  The GVRD seems to have con-  regional  issues centre around growth  and the effects of growth on the region's physical and social environment. a.  They have itemized these problems as follows:  Growth patterns r e f l e c t an imbalanced growth configuration in the region which means that both the costs and benefits of growth are not equally shared by a l l the region's communities.  They summarize this s i t u a t i o n as follows:  The central m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . . . a r e l a r g e l y b u i l t up, and the main burden of rapid population growth has been f a l l i n g on the outlying M u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Surrey, Coquitlam, Delta and Richmond. The burden of growth—providing more roads, u t i l i t i e s , schools and other public services for more people, and minimizing the disruption of people's d a i l y l i v e s — i s f a l l i n g more heavily on some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s than on others. (GVRD, 1975,5). b.  The pattern of growth has caused an expanded time/distance between common origins and destinations in the region: "People want to reduce the time and e f f o r t involved in travelling."  c.  (GVRD, 1975,7).  The thrust of development has taken a north/south o r i e n tation in the region which, because of our geography, means more bridges and thus foreseeable major transport costs by public bodies which they can l i t t l e  afford.  The GVRD calculates that, with growing population, to keep travel times roughly the same as today w i l l  require  a fourfold increase in expenditures under a managed growth program and yet t h i s  is  ...less than one-half the expenditure that w i l l be required i f we allow present trends to continue, with people l i v i n g farther and farther from places of work, education and l e i s u r e . (GVRD, 1975,22). d.  Because of the region's geographical c o n s t r a i n t s ,  there  is limited space for continued urban expansion under current density trends: Room to grow in t h i s region is severely l i m i t e d . . . by the sea, mountain slopes, floodplains and valuable farm and recreation land. Physical l i m i t s to growth r e s t r i c t the area within which the land market can operate and r e s u l t in high speculative land p r i c e s . . . . (thus) people are worried about the high cost of housing. (GVRD, 1975, 6-7). e.  Open space options in the region are quickly c l o s i n g as scarce urban land i s developed. Too many, valuable natural areas have disappeared and have been converted to housing s i t e s , o f f i c e s and other urban uses. ( Y e t ) . . . p e o p l e want to preserve the natural assets of the r e g i o n . . . they want natural places in and close to c i t i e s . (GVRD, 1975, 26 & 27).  f.  With the i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of the c i t y , p o l l u t i o n has increased and "people do not want p o l l u t i o n to ruin the clean a i r and clean water or shatter the quiet which has attracted so many of them here."(GVRD, 1975,7).  Regional Planning Goals and Strategy: In response to the problems defined by the GVRD from c i t i z e n response and s t a f f a n a l y s i s , the central goals for the region have been framed e s s e n t i a l l y as follows:  30. a.  Growth is to be controlled through decentralization related to the capacity of each part of the region to handle growth.  b.  Jobs and services are to be r e l a t i v e l y balanced with population levels in each part of the region.  c.  Transportation is to be used to shape growth patterns in the region and public modes are to be emphasized.  d.  Regional open space amenities—mountain slopes,  river-  banks, nature conservation areas, and small or large wilderness areas—are to be protected and opened up for public use. In terms of regional problems only the matters of p o l l u t i o n and parks are f e l t to be r e l a t i v e l y well in hand. programs in sewage treatment, water c o n t r o l , a i r control  GVRD pollution  (except vehicle emissions) and s o l i d waste disposal  are f e l t to be attacking the pollution problem and urban development management w i l l augment these programs. The GVRD also has an aggressive program to purchase and develop public park space throughout the region.  The main framework for the GVRD's L i v a b i l i t y  proposals,  however, is the idea of managing and d i r e c t i n g growth to meet regional goals.  The region has ruled out both the  "Zero Growth" and the "Expansion Means Progress" (GVRD, 1975, 5)  poles of the growth argument.  Rather, the  regional authorities have proposed e s s e n t i a l l y to accept predicted growth l e v e l s (while s t i l l  trying to minimize  unnecessary growth by working with senior l e v e l s of government on immigration p o l i c i e s , e t c . ) and to manage that growth by " . . . c h a n n e l l i n g population growth to the r i g h t places in the region" (GVRD, 1975, 5).  Thus they propose what they  t i t l e "A Strategy to Manage Growth".  This strategy has  e s s e n t i a l l y three components: a.  The creation of a network of RTCs in suburban locations i s proposed related to balanced job and r e s i d e n t i a l growth targets for each segment of the region.  The  L i v a b i l i t y Program outlines suggested r e s i d e n t i a l  growth  targets which they recommend each municipal member of the GVRD to adopt.  The program also recommends target  r a t i o s of jobs to resident workers for each regional sub-area.  And to make these targets f e a s i b l e , the  creation of RTCs is recommented ( P l a t e b.  4).  To handle movement problems, a t r a n s i t - o r i e n t e d portation system i s proposed that would l i n k areas, RTCs and major work areas.  trans-  residential  The GVRD notes that a  3 ...good t r a n s i t system is the backbone of regional development. It w i l l help make Regional Town Centres v i a b l e , and in turn, t r a n s i t - o r i e n t e d Regional Town Centres w i l l help make high-quality t r a n s i t services economically possible. (GVRD, 1975, 10). Under this scheme the automobile would be de-emphasized. c.  To protect and develop regional open space, an  "open  space conservancy" is proposed. The proposed strategy is a rather broad brush a f f a i r with a decidedly functional o r i e n t a t i o n .  The kinds of environments  that must be evolved are only l i g h t l y touched upon.  The  GVRD does, however, emphasize the interrelatedness of a l l strategy components and they i l l u s t r a t e this with a n i f t y l i t t l e diagram which i s  shown in Plate 5 .  As such i t seems the  strategy i s quite h o l i s t i c , that i t has been defined through a preconceived process and that i t would attack the spectrum of regional problems i d e n t i f i e d by the GVRD. Role of the RTC in the Regional  Strategy:  As i s indicated above, the RTC concept stands at the very centre of regional strategy.  The achievement of the overall  program, therefore, i s dependent on the acceptance and success of the RTC notion.  As such the RTC has a strong  s t r a t e g i c role to play in GVRD plans and we can itemize t h i s role as follows (after Spaeth, 1976, 20-23): a.  The RTCs would be the main place to accept a c t i v i t i e s proposed for decentralization—shopping, c u l t u r a l and job-bearing a c t i v i t i e s .  This is important to avoid  sprawl that might otherwise r e s u l t from moves to  33.  60W&:  <K,VftD,l975,fxlCJi  4VKD.'  6  6TfAT^iT fOK ^ROWtH  decentralize.  The lack of usable land in the region  makes the avoidance of sprawl c r u c i a l . b.  The nature of the RTC as a concentrated a c t i v i t y node within a sub-regional catchment area 'out where people l i v e ' means that the RTC takes on a s i g n i f i c a n t role of creating a close home/job and home/other a c t i v i t i e s interface.  c.  As already noted, RTCs create f o c i i f a c i l i t a t i n g  efficient  and inexpensive public t r a n s i t as an a l t e r n a t i v e to the private car. d.  By concentrating a c t i v i t y i t i s hoped that pressures on open space that should be preserved w i l l be lessened.  In summary, the GVRD sees most regional problems as being related to growth.  It recommends that growth should be  managed to solve these problems and the idea of a f a i r d i s t r i bution of growth costs and benefits i s paramount.  RTCs serve  a c r u c i a l role in organizing land-use and growth patterns the growth management strategy.  in  For comparison, we should  make a s i m i l a r survey of the local planning setting that Burnaby examplifies. BURNABY - THE LOCAL POLICY SETTING: While the GVRD's L i v a b i l i t y Program has been a r e l a t i v e l y straightfoward and organized a f f a i r of i d e n t i f y i n g problems, goals and strategy for regional development, the process at the local level  in Burnaby has not been so nearly c l e a r c u t .  There i s c e r t a i n l y no one program through which the planning function has been unfolded.  Instead, local policy represents  an accretion of studies, reports, c i t i z e n / s t a f f Council and s t a f f decisions.  rapport and  The culmination of this  local  p o l i c y work i s the presently accepted idea of d i r e c t i n g development within the Municipality into a "hierarchy of settlements". Before examining this concept, we can trace i t s  evolution  in the policy documents of the Municipality.  Perhaps the primary motivating force behind local planning has been the onslaught of development experienced by Burnaby in recent years.  The f i r s t overt attempt to cope with t h i s  development trend was the publication in 1966 of a skeletal concept for apartment locations known as the Burnaby Apartment Study 1966.  Primarily concerned with minimizing public  servicing  outlays, the Municipality concluded that new multiple-family development must be concentrated into sub-communities that could be i n d i v i d u a l l y serviced as they were opened to redevelopment.  Almost immediately, however, i t was clear that a total  rethinking  of land-use policy would be desirable because of the spectrum of development requests that tended to accompany apartment construction.  Thus a survey of the structure of local  land-use  was undertaken in the late 1960s and f i n a l l y published in 1971 under the t i t l e Urban Structure:  A Study of Long Range P o l i c i e s  Which Affect the Physical Structure of an Urban Area.  This  work took a broad visionary perspective.  After reviewing  various a l t e r n a t i v e land-use structures, i t boldly recommended an "intermittent grid of metrotowns", a series of compact urban settlements surrounded by green space and connected by various transportation linkages ( S i x t a , 1971, 62,79).  While this document was to set a tone for municipal  strategy  formation, i t was f e l t to be perhaps too conceptual.  What was  needed in a p r a c t t a l sense was a way to d i r e c t development occurring within the confines of e x i s t i n g constraints.  then  Staff  attention returned to the Apartment Study which was expanded in 1969 and 1971 and is presently again under review.  To augment  the Apartment Study, a detailed sub-area design guide was also published in 1972 c a l l e d Burnaby Community Plans.  This document  outlined s p e c i f i c s i t e configurations, density guidelines, open space requirements and commercial s i t e designations and, thus gave design form to each sub-area.  In the revised Apartment  Study and Community Plans, we see not only a concentration of apartments, but also a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the apartment areas as to scale and an expanding emphasis on the other kinds of land uses that needed to accompany apartment development in each area.  The analyses were dependent upon e x i s t i n g patterns  and constraints apparent in each area studied and provided p r a c t i c a l tools for development c o n t r o l .  But Urban Structure and the broad considerations i t were not forgotten.  posited  To " . . . g a i n acceptance of the p o l i c i e s  contained in the report" (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974,2),  the local authorities i n i t i a t e d a series of public meetings to review the report's proposals.  The meetings were held  occasionally but were well-attended.  But in 1973, i t was  observed by s t a f f participants that " . . . t h e nature of public meetings has changed, a s . i t is clear that people no longer want ready answers" (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974,3). Therefore the scope of the meetings was broadened to a review of the overall planning approach in Burnaby, the emphasis on the  concepts in Urban Structure was  dropped and the schedule of meetings was regularized.  The  new guiding p r i n c i p l e was . . . t o give the residents of Burnaby a chance to s t a t e what t h e i r concerns are, in what way they would l i k e to see t h e i r Municipality grow, and i f they had an image of the future c i t y . (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 3 ) .  A c t u a l l y , the planners r e a l i z e d that Urban Structure would simply never make i t through the p o l i t i c a l process and that the veracity of existing working policy needed to be p o l i t i c a l l y buttressed by public opinion. as  The findings of the meetings  analyzed by s t a f f in a comparison with in-place  policies  were published in 1974 under the t i t l e , Public Meetings: Phase One.  Predictably, this report concluded that the  public was opposed to the sweeping proposals of Urban Structure but that the working p o l i c i e s as outlined in the Apartment Studies e t c . , met most c i t i z e n s ' theoretical  concerns.  To provide a  footing for these in-place p o l i c i e s , the report  salvaged what i t could from Urban Structure. integration of theoretical and practical  Through t h i s  perspectives, the  strategy of a settlement hierarchy was f i n a l l y a r t i c u l a t e d in  a full-blown fashion.  E s s e n t i a l l y this concept stressed  that higher density uses should be clustered and that these clusters should be arranged to create a conscious  scaling  of settlements (neighbourhood, community, d i s t r i c t ,  town  and metrotown) with centres serving complementarily-scaled population groupings.  As a r e f l e c t i o n o f what had e s s e n t i a l l y  already been achieved, this idea in the Public Meetings Report r e a l l y represented the f i n a l dominance of p r a c t i c a l  day-to-day  concerns over t h e o r e t i c a l , long-range considerations.  The Public Meetings Report, however, i s also  significant  because i t brought together for the f i r s t time a long history of small-scaled, ad hoc planning decisions as well as public inputs to a r t i c u l a t e what was, in f a c t , an already working policy.  Moreover, i t did this concisely by stating municipal  problems as voiced by the p u b l i c , tying these to e x i s t i n g p o l i c i e s and r e l a t i n g these p o l i c i e s into a cohesive framework.  This document was consequently p o l i t i c a l l y  potent.  What local p o l i t i c i a n would vote against a statement with such apparent public p a r t i c i p a t i o n and support?  Indeed, the  document was strongly endorsed by Council and has become the p o l i c y benchmark f o r planning in Burnaby that v e r i f i e s the c o l l e c t i o n of past work and decisions by the planners.  Local Problems: To understand the goals and strategy adopted in Burnaby, we must review the problems that have been isolated by municipal  authorities. a >  We can itemize these as follows:  The local authorities point to growth as a major local problem that is . . . p r o g r e s s i v e l y eroding the various elements of (a) suburban 1 i f e s t y l e . . . T h e Municipality which has long been considered a place of residential s t a b i l i t y and abundant open space now appears to be losing these amentiies. (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974,1). Established low-density r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods and open space in i t s natural state are f e l t to be p a r t i c u l a r l y endangered.  b.  It i s r e a l i z e d that demands are growing for expanded housing choices in Burnaby because of changing demographic and economic conditions.  This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y  relevant  to the growth in demand for multiple-family accommodation, say local o f f i c i a l s ,  because no longer does every one desire  or can everyone afford the single-family dwelling a l t e r native. c.  The h i s t o r i c a l dependence upon downtown Vancouver has tended to circumscribe the range of services ( p u b l i c l y and p r i v a t e l y provided) a v a i l a b l e to local residents.  Suburbs  such as Burnaby are tending toward a homogeneity where there w i l l be " . . . l o n g distances to travel to obtain the conveniences of urban l i v i n g . " d.  ( S i x t a , 1971,19).  Related to this concept of homogeneity is the trend toward a circumscribed range of choice in the types of experiences that are available to the Burnaby citizen.  Uncontrolled suburbanization i t is  felt,  while not r e a l l y providing new kinds of experiences at  40. the urban l e v e l , even threatens to extinguish experience potentials at the rural and natural l e v e l : The evenness of urban sprawl has a c l a u s t r o phobic qua!ity--caused not so much by numbers of people but by sameness... ( S i x t a , 1971, 24). e.  It is f e l t that there is an imbalance of jobs and residents in Burnaby not necessarily related to the number but to the type of jobs a v a i l a b l e : The provision of employment opportunities i s a necessary part of the development of the M u n i c i p a l i t y ; . . . ( n e e d e d is) a d i v e r s i t y of employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . . . (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 30, 31).  f.  T r a f f i c and growing automobile incompatibility with other activities  is f e l t to be a problem.  There is common  public feeling that . . . t h e transportation systems provided i n . . . t h e Municipality were too auto-oriented and that these were having a progressively deteriorating effect on the general q u a l i t y of l i v i n g i n . . . the area. ( Y e t ) . . . i t was generally agreed that continued use of the automobile in the foreseeable future was i n e v i t a b l e . (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 33, 34). B2.  Local Goals and Strategy: Having itemized Municipal problems as indicated by local a u t h o r i t i e s , we can survey the goals s p e c i f i e d to resolve these problems: a.  The Municipality has adopted the position that while growth can in a l l l i k e l i h o o d not be stopped at the local because i t involves policy at a l l  level  levels of government,  i t should be avoided where i t is patently detrimental. When i t does occur, the goal should be to use i t  "...in  pursuit of a higher level of environmental quality" Planning Department, 1974, 7 ) .  (Burnaby  41. b.  Since a serious problem in the Municipality is the suburban uniformity and homogeneity that i s r e l a t i v e l y  characteristic,  a c r u c i a l goal to be achieved i s a d i v e r s i t y of s e r v i c e s , f a c i l i t i e s , jobs, housing types and environmental  experiences.  This must involve the provision of t r u l y urban services and f a c i l i t i e s  now available only at Vancouver centre.  It  must involve the provision of a component of white c o l l a r and service jobs to augment the i n d u s t r i a l employment base that presently e x i s t s .  It must involve the continued  provision of multiple-family r e s i d e n t i a l accommodation as a balance to the predominantly single-family of the Municipal landscape.  configuration  And i t must involve discouraging  the 'sameness' of suburbia . . . b y adding new things, such as visual strongpoints (nodes) and networks (systems), which together structure the homogeneous spread of settlements into recognizable elements, high points, low points and l i n e s . . . ( t o accommodate) . . . a variety of urban l i f e s t y l e s . ( S i x t a , 1971, 24). c.  A strong program to preserve natural open space and p o l i c i e s to protect established cohesive single-family  neighbourhoods  must be guiding goals. d.  To deal with the movement problem, a goal i s to lobby higher governments to provide t r a n s i t at the regional  level.  A more immediate goal, however, is to upgrade Municipal road systems in order to assure convenient and comprehensible access to Municipal destinations and to minimize c o n f l i c t s between homes and s t r e e t noise and p o l l u t i o n .  The intent  is to s t r i v e for a system of e f f i c i e n t balanced modes.  Thus the thrust of planning objectives is to use growth to d i v e r s i f y and organize a c t i v i t i e s while protecting e x i s t i n g amenities.  The strategy to be u t i l i z e d to achieve these goals i s three-pronged:  essentially  open space protection; an aggressive street  improvement program; and the d i r e c t i o n of new development into the bounded settlement areas that have been defined in the Municipality with a p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the Metrotown (see Plate 6).  Action on the protection of open space has been timely and comprehensive.  Major open space amenities have been preserved either  in a "conservation" status, through a regional park designation or through Municipal a c q u i s i t i o n .  Burnaby Mountain, Burnaby  Lake, Deer Lake and s i g n i f i c a n t segments of the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet foreshores have been handled through these means.  Major ravine areas have been acquired and a plan to  connect these ravines with other parklands to create a l i n e a r park network is underway.  Local r e s i d e n t i a l  parks are being  provided at a rapid rate through a major parks a c q u i s i t i o n program.  Associated with these steps i s the preservation of  the open greenness of established low-density neighbourhoods.  residential  A policy of designating selected neighbourhoods  as enclaves where redevelopment for higher densities and nonresidential considered.  uses w i l l  be prohibited is now being a c t i v e l y  43.  44. To deal with movement, the Burnaby Transportation Study to 1985 was published in early 1974.  The study advocates continued  improvement of automobile routes with a d i s t i n c t i o n between heavy upgrading of east/west through-routes and t r a f f i c management (with less physical upgrading) on north/south local s t r e e t s .  A  substantial expansion of the bus t r a n s i t system related to Municipal a c t i v i t y centres is proposed whereas  rail-transit  proposals of senior governments are endorsed but not seriously depended upon.  The recommendations of the report are now being  implemented.  The hierarchy of settlements with i t s variously sized commercial f a c i l i t i e s and c l o s e l y associated multiple-family  districts  arranged into integrated units i s presently well-established as the basis for development decisions.  The Public Meetings  Report notes that Since the adoption of the Apartment Study 1966, apartment development in the Municipality has been regulated on the basis of the p o l i c i e s underlying each of the 17 apartment development areas. (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 17). Commercial and service uses related to apartments have tended to also focus in the apartment areas because this is where t h e i r c l i e n t s are.  The designation in 1974 of the Metrotown is an attempt,  say local planners, to use this proven location trend as a means of providing a t r u l y urban component within the settlement hierarchy.  This urban focus would stand in unique contrast to  the sprawling suburban town centres now in place around Brentwood and Lougheed Malls.  This suggests the role of the Metrotown in  the Municipal development strategy and,this is discussed below.  45. B3.  Role of Metrotown in the Local Setting: With the maturing of a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t y centres in Burnaby, the Metrotown takes on an important and expanding role in Municipal strategy that can be summarized as follows: a.  As to the matter of d i v e r s i f y i n g Municipal the Metrotown is c r u c i a l .  opportunities,  It i s conceived to provide  the highest order of shopping and white c o l l a r employment to be found in the Municipality.  In contrast to the suburban  character of Burnaby, the Metrotown i s proposed to be multifunctional  urban place envisaged by Gruen.  for t h i s urban experience w i l l  the  The opportunity  be unique in Burnaby and  w i l l allow the accommodation of l i f e s t y l e s not a v a i l a b l e or appropriate elsewhere in the Municipality. b.  The size of the Metrotown i s t i e d to the idea that  it  must take a role of accepting a s i g n i f i c a n t component of new growth that cannot be avoided by the Municipality. This w i l l r e s u l t in several advantages as seen by Burnaby planners:  pressure w i l l be lessened for the  development of open space reserves and the redevelopment of cohesive low-density neighbourhoods.  A c r i t i c a l mass  of a c t i v i t y can be achieved that makes a broad range of services and variety of housing f e a s i b l e .  And the tax  base of the Municipality w i l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y augmented. c.  F i n a l l y , the Metrotown w i l l take a role as a d i s t i n c t a c t i v i t y focus to which movement can be oriented.  This  relates to the selection of major automobile routes as well as to the re-orientation of bus service. makes f e a s i b l e the i n i t i a t i o n of r a i l  It also  t r a n s i t that has been  46. regionally discussed and the r e a l i s t i c  inclusion of walking  as a viable means to move from local place to place.  This  l a s t point is because the close proximity of shopping and jobs cuts the length of necessary t r i p s for a s i g n i f i c a n t number of c i t i z e n s .  In summary, the Municipality of Burnaby has determined to accept growth when i t can be used to enhance local  circumstances.  The hallmark of local thinking is to d i v e r s i f y choices for the people of Burnaby while preserving e x i s t i n g amenities. In general a range of scaled settlements within the suburban r e s i d e n t i a l and open space landscape is proposed to accomplish Municipal goals.  In s p e c i f i c , the Metrotown takes the major  role in this respect.  The Metrotown is thus proposed as a  comprehensive, urbanized assenbly of use whose r e s i d e n t i a l makes i t a d i s t i n c t i v e municipal settlement.  aspect  It is apparent that  local authorities tend to approach t h e i r problems by concluding what i s possible on s p e c i f i c s i t e s . a theoretical  While there i s  l i n e of reasoning in t h e i r analysis,  strategy i s r e a l l y a c o l l e c t i o n of s p e c i f i c exercises with a clear land-use o r i e n t a t i o n .  their  problem-solving Therefore,  the municipal approach can be characterized as decidedly pragmatic.  REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY PERSPECTIVES IN COMPARISON: Regional and local policy can be seen to be e s s e n t i a l l y p a r a l l e l a broad sense. to be faced.  Both authorities see growth as the central  in  issue  Both wish to arrange urban a c t i v i t i e s into perceivable  47. clusters.  Both see a strong need to protect open space.  both consider the question of movement a v i t a l one.  And  It might  be said that the GVRD and Burnaby are speaking the same language and this enhances t h e i r l i k e l i h o o d to co-operate.  On the  other hand, i t is also evident that the perspectives of the two governments are not completely the same even at the broad policy l e v e l .  In part this is due to the pressures  of d i f f e r i n g c o n s i s t e n c i e s and in part i t is due to the differences in the way the agencies approach t h e i r separate problem-solving processes.  The GVRD must s a t i s f y a broad c o l l e c t i o n of groups making diverging demands from r e l a t i v e l y powerful positons.  Most important in  this respect is the necessity to reconcile the powerful governments within i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n .  local  Burnaby has a more  constricted grouping of interests to resolve because the majority of i t s constituency has a common suburban viewpoint. groups are also not very strong.  Local pressure  As a r e s u l t , the Municipal  planners  are less constrained by such groups when considering planning policy.  -  In terms of methodologies used to d i r e c t growth, the two agencies have both been concerned with defining problems.  However, the  GVRD has taken a h o l i s t i c approach that is b a s i c a l l y  theoretical  whereas Burnaby has taken a pragmatic approach where theory i s  48. subservient to p r a c t i c e .  Thus the regional strategy has evolved  in a l i n e a r manner of defining problems then establishing goals then concluding on strategy.  The local strategy has evolved  simply as a r e s u l t of separate decisions over time being restated in a strategic framework for p o l i t i c a l and public consumption. In Burnaby the statement of problems never became overt u n t i l a f t e r a s t r a t e g i c policy had become a f a i t accompli and problems were then outlined p a r t i a l l y to j u s t i f y that p o l i c y .  This of  course is generally the r e s u l t of d i f f e r i n g bases of power and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y between the two bodies.  The GVRD has  little  s p e c i f i c land-use power and i t s land-use planning function i s r e a l l y advisory to local a u t h o r i t i e s .  Burnaby, in contrast,  has major land-use powers delegated by the Province in the zoning and development approval clauses of the Municipal Act.  As  such, Burnaby must cope with the pervasive and increasing pressure of immediate development and i t has few resources and l i t t l e time to consider i t s planning approach in an overall The local government must be practical  fashion.  in i t s planning to  survive as a viable development and land-use control agency.  With respect to the perspective taken by the two agencies on the question of development patterns and the regional centre, these differences in constituency, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and approach have s i g n i f i c a n t implications. implications as follows:  We therefore can summarize these  49. CI.  View of Growth: It has been noted that regional and local authorities  consider  growth to be a central concern and both generally e l e c t to manage growth rather than try to i n h i b i t i t .  However the regional plan-  ners want each municipality to accept an equal share of the burden of growth, either by d i r e c t l y accepting increased populations or  by helping those municipalities that w i l l  grow the most.  The GVRD makes a plea that local areas adopt i t s growth targets.  The local position in Burnaby i s to only accept  growth as a means to improve the local environment but to avoid growth that i s seen as destructive.  If t h i s can  be achieved within GVRD growth targets, then Burnaby w i l l co-operate.  If i t feels the targets are too high or too low,  Burnaby w i l l  ignore them.  The c r i t e r i o n for Burnaby i s how  i t s environment is affected by new populations and a c t i v i t y as judged by the ongoing s p e c i f i c decisions on various development proposals. planners will  While the Metrotown i s seen by Burnaby  as a vehicle to handle growth, i t s  configuration  not be determined by regionally imposed population minimums  or maximums but by what the Kingsway/Central Park s i t e can e f f e c t i v e l y accommodate.  The role defined for the Metrotown  and the constraints of the actual s i t e w i l l be Burnaby's main determinants. C2.  Importance of the Regional Centre: For the GVRD, the Metrotown i s but one of several RTCs that i t wishes to see developed at the same time.  Thus  GVRD energies are proposed to be s t r a t e g i c a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d among these centres.  While the GVRD gives the Metrotown a p r i o r i t y  status i t also gives this status equally to the proposed New  bO. Westminster RTC and emphasizes the importance of RTCs in Surrey and Coquitlam a s . w e l l .  In contrast, to Burnaby, the  Metrotown is the unique urban phenomenon in the Municipal scheme of things.  It i s conceived to f u l f i l  requirements whose demands are growing. will  Municipal  Thus, Burnaby  respect l i t t l e the sympathies to equal treatment expressed  by the GVRD.  In a competitive s i t u a t i o n with other RTCs  the Burnaby a u t h o r i t i e s w i l l want to make sure that Metrotown has the upper hand. Nature of the Regional Centre: The main thrust of GVRD thinking on RTCs i s that they should serve the v i t a l function of accepting decentralized from Vancouver centre.  As such the GVRD defines  activities  the term  "centre" as a focus of a c t i v i t i e s serving the requirements of a surrounding population whose numbers w i l l  surely  increase but who are e s s e n t i a l l y already in place.  Contrasting  with t h i s is the Burnaby conception of the Metrotown which evolved out of the need to cope with r e s i d e n t i a l as r e f l e c t e d in the Apartment Studies.  pressures  Burnaby thus  espouses the idea of a population-serving centre but local authorities see much of the population served as being new to the area, drawn there as a part of Metrotown development.  The local emphasis i s on a  comprehensive  "settle-  ment" to house local people, not simply a central core to service outsiders.  The separate t i t l e s chosen by the  two authorities for the place—"Regional Town Centre" and local  "Metrotown"--hint at t h i s basic conceptual  difference.  51. Movement: The GVRD has as a central platform in i t s strategy the creation of a viable public r a p i d - t r a n s i t linkage i t s RTCs and the Vancouver CBD. strategy would be in jeopardy.  connecting  Without this linkage the total The region s p e c i f i e s that with  development of the t r a n s i t a l t e r n a t i v e , private automobile movement should be de-emphasized and discouraged.  Thus  for the GVRD the idea predominates that the RTC should be oriented exclusively to t r a n s i t and accessed almost exclusively by t r a n s i t . the regional p o s i t i o n .  Local authorities are leery of While Burnaby planners  strongly endorse rapid t r a n s i t moves, they have heard the t r a n s i t story t o l d many times by many p a r t i e s without seeing any firm r e s u l t s .  They conclude therefore that  municipal strategy cannot be tied to this i l l u s i v e Rather the r e a l i t y of the car must be faced.  idea.  Thus the  Metrotown i s conceived by local planners to be accessed by a balanced system of modes where t r a n s i t and automobile.movements are equally provided f o r .  Thus, in summary, we see an agreement in the essence but diverging views in the  specifics of land-use strategy and  the role of the multifunctional centre in that strategy. We f i n d that problems are s i m i l a r l y defined by the agencies although using d i f f e r e n t a n a l y t i c a l approaches that respond to d i f f e r i n g constituencies and power r e a l i t i e s .  The  conceptions, therefore, of growth ( i t s use and management),  the importance and nature of the regional centre and the necessities of movement tend to diverge between the agencies as has been outlined above.  We can now use this broad  background in a review of s p e c i f i c conceptions or images of the multifunctional  centre in Burnaby.  53,  CHAPTER THREE RTC MODELS AND COMPARISON  54.  Against the backdrop of policy formulations outlined e a r l i e r , we can now move to a consideration of the models for the RTC that have been constructed by the regional and local planners as guides for RTC design and implementation decisions.  In this chapter, the regional and local models are summarized  and then compared.  The comparison w i l l  pinpoint where the RTC ideas of the  governments diverge at the conceptual l e v e l .  These differences w i l l be used  l a t e r in the process of r e c o n c i l i n g s p e c i f i c issues between the two governments. The summary of the local concept, however, not only f a c i l i t a t e s the comparison which i s desired, but i t also sets a conceptual d i r e c t i o n for the s p e c i f i c Kingsway/Central Park s i t e design which we have proposed to undertake from a local  perspective.  The regional conceptualization of the RTC is summarized from e x i s t i n g and a v a i l able GVRD reports and s t a f f comments. concept.  This is not possible for the local  Prior to the present research, Burnaby planners had not a r t i c u l a t e d  a concept for the Metrotown that r e f l e c t e d local s t a f f agreement.  Therefore  the f i r s t necessity of the research was to draw together such a concept.  To  t h i s end, a four-month period of f u l l - t i m e discussion between the researcher and local planners was i n i t i a t e d in the summer of 1975.  In these discussions,  the planner's various i d e a l i z a t i o n s of the Metrotown were considered and debated by t h e i r colleagues and a series of general design p r i n c i p l e s was established as a consensus opinion of those planners p a r t i c i p a t i n g .  These general  p r i n c i p l e s comprise the local Metrotown concept and a l i s t i n g of the p r i n c i p l e s i s attached as an appendix. The summary below i s therefore based on these discussions.  55. It should be noted that this research makes no attempt to judge the preconceptions and opinions incorporated into the regional and local models either from a theoretical or philosophical  viewpoint.  The models c a l l  planning conclusions that could be debated ad i n f i n i t u m .  upon standards and The fact that i s  relevant to the present analysis is not whether the preconceptions are r i g h t or wrong, but that they are views that each authority does endorse and w i l l use in taking action on the RTC.  Thus we can expect these views to stand  at the opposite poles in regional and local disagreements over RTC issues. Having said t h i s , we can proceed with the survey and comparison of RTC models.  By way of preface, we can state thumbnail sketches that have been published by regional and local planners to arouse public interest in the idea of the regional centre.  While these sketches are b r i e f ,  mindset of government planners on the RTC matter.  they do i l l u s t r a t e the In the Pub!ic Meetings  Report, Burnaby planners painted the following picture of the Metrotown:  The primary purpose is the r e a l i z a t i o n of an integrated and i d e n t i f i a b l e focus of r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, and social components for the M u n i c i p a l i t y . It is envisaged that the inhabitants of the Metrotown together with t h e i r supporting f a c i l i t i e s and services would provide f o r a new sense o f v i t a l i t y and a t t r a c t i o n . T y p i c a l l y , these supporting f a c i l i t i e s would be developed within a pedestrian environment and would include a series of linked malls and plazas incorporating a wide range of commercial and social opportunities. While the Metrotown would l i k e l y be developed on a super-block basis and would include a commercial and o f f i c e element, i t would not be modelled after the t r a d i t i o n a l auto-oriented central business d i s t r i c t in terms of general function and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 24).  56. GVRD planners in The Livable Region 1976/1986, in discussing their proposal for a network of RTCs have a r t i c u l a t e d  their  preconceived notion of such a place as follows: . . . a Regional Town Centre needs to be a certain s i z e . At a minimum i t should have a m i l l i o n square feet of o f f i c e space, gross annual r e t a i l sales in the order of $50 million', and be able to draw audiences of several hundred to the theatre or other cultural e v e n t s . . . Size i s not the only distinguishing aspect of a Regional Town Centre. Equally important are i t s q u a l i t y and character. There are features of a c i t y which residents of the Region say are essential to them and which are also admired in urban places around the world. We propose that these features be created as an essential part of any Regional Town Centre: . A strong pedestrian orientation - A c t i v i t i e s and f a c i l i t i e s should be within comfortable walking distance o f one another along a pleasant and i n t e r e s t i n g s t r e e t level environment. Providing good public t r a n s i t service and reducing space devoted to the automobile are ways to accomplish t h i s . . A widely varied but balanced mixture of a c t i v i t i e s A Regional Town Centre should be a l i v e with many d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s from morning to midnight (or l a t e r , depending on local preference). It should not be dominated by one a c t i v i t y l i k e o f f i c e parks or shopping centres. . A human scale - Buildings should not give people a 'boxed-in' f e e l i n g and should not block the sun or views. Other q u a l i t i e s . . . h a r d e r to describe .  (include):  Trees, plants, grass or flowers.  . A variety of shapes, textures, colours and movements to catch the eye. . The smells of a bakery, a f i s h market, a flower shop or the sea. .  The sound of a fountain, music or even a foghorn.  . Contrast in experiences, noisy places, quiet places, places which are bustling with a c t i v i t y and others which are peaceful. (GVRD, 1975, 18).  57. THE REGIONAL RTC CONCEPT: Our present purpose is to f i l l  out the general impressions and we  can begin by examining stated regional s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for the RTC. Th basic source for these s p e c i f i c a t i o n s report, Regional Town Centres:  is a draft GVRD background  A Policy Report (Spaeth, 1976) that is  expected to be published in the immediate future. -  down i t s RTC description into topics of a c t i v i t y , tation and unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  This report breaks size,  transpor-  We w i l l use these same  headings and f i n i s h our review with a survey of the RTC development approach proposed by the GVRD as this i s the basic emphasis of the background report. Al.  RTC A c t i v i t y  Specifications:  A c t i v i t y s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are discussed by the GVRD on the basis of the regional goals that have already been discussed. The guiding idea i s to bring jobs,  l e i s u r e and education  closer to suburban homes and to meet surrounding community needs p a r t i c u l a r l y for shopping and services^  The employment  emphasis for the RTC is to be in the t e r t i a r y sector.  On  occasion, the RTC has even been c a l l e d an "Office Centre" (Mann, 1974, 4 ) .  The GVRD c l a s s i f i e s workplaces as  "population-dependent"  ( a c t i v i t i e s serving a local  resident  community), "site-dependent" ( a c t i v i t i e s that must have a certain kind of s i t e to function w e l l ) , and " s i t e - f l e x i b l e " ( a c t i v i t i e s where neither consumer populations nor s i t e necessities determine locations)  (GVRD, 1974,16).  The  great majority of RTC jobs w i l l be in s i t e - f l e x i b l e workplaces and some w i l l be in population-dependent workplaces primarily because these a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be easiest to draw to the RTC.  58. A major component of these s i t e - f l e x i b l e o f f i c e workplaces is  proposed to be provided in RTCs by locating large  businesses and government o f f i c e f a c i l i t i e s within them. It i s assumed that support functions w i l l follow these installations.  However, RTC a c t i v i t y should be varied and  o f f i c e s should be augmented with specialized services or trades as well as c u l t u r a l / l e i s u r e opportunities for larger audiences.  RTCs thus stand in stark contrast to the u n i -  functional shopping centres region (see Plate 7).  that are now typical  in the  The GVRD idea is also that  o f f i c e a c t i v i t i e s that might tend to scatter to a l t e r n a t i v e smaller centres are to be directed to RTC locations.  The report itemizes recommended RTC a c t i v i t i e s  as per the l i s t i n g in PI ate 8 . RTC Size S p e c i f i c a t i o n s : Size i s important to a t t r a c t development and users to the RTC and to house the great amount of a c t i v i t y that the GVRD wants decentralized from downtown Vancouver.  The GVRD's  size s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for the RTC are as follows: a.  The overall size of consumer population to be served by each RTC has been set by the GVRD in a range from 2-300,000 people.  The demographic size of the user group w i l l  have to be comparable to that using the downtown of a small c i t y before independent RTC growth can be expected.  This i s the rationale for  this  specification. b.  An overall employment target should be from 7,000-10,000 jobs.  As has been noted, the majority of these w i l l be  o f f i c e jobs.  59.  "THfc, MIX Of  ACr/Vrri^6lH £Xl6TlN^ TOWN  C&HTf*\&b  T+« n=V>f*>5£P MIX O f ACT|Vltl&6 IN fVfX* 6oa*£f3:faVr\D, 1*575, p. 2X3). HO $a*NriT)£5 <SUVEN.  4V.f\.D.' Activities MIX 60Mfi\r\|60N 6  ,  PLATS 7  60.  Some Major Regional Town Centre A c t i v i t i e s : . Business and Government o f f i c e s . A r t , Music, and Oance Studios . Hotel and Convention F a c i l i t i e s . Department Stores . Commercial Services (such as lawyers, accounting, insurance, p r i n t i n g , and o f f i c e supply) . Main Banks and Financial Institutions . Community Colleges Vocational Training . Larger Museums and Exhibition Halls . Sports Centres . Theatres . Social Services (such as welfare, doctors' o f f i c e s , and day care centres) Some A c t i v i t i e s Appropriate for Regional Town Centres and Other Centres: . Market and Shops . Branch Banks . Community Centres . Smaller Museums and Exhibition Halls . Meeting Halls . Restaurants and Cafes Intown Housing . Bowling, Bingo, and other Commercial Recreation Some A c t i v i t i e s Not Appropriate for Regional Town Centres: Industrial Manufacturing . Warehousing and D i s t r i b u t i n g . Surface Parking . Automobile Sales and Repair  SOURCE;  D  (Spaeth, 1976, •  h  J).  ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OT RTC MAJOR A C f l Y l T l f S PLATS 6 tot  K-k-rn  _  61. c.  GVRD findings indicate that Retail and specialized service businesses serving a population of 100,000-150,000 persons w i l l generate annual sales of about $50 m i l l i o n in space t o t a l l i n g about 700,000 s q . f t . but create only about 1,500-2,000 jobs. (Spaeth, 1976, 10). Thus the proposed r e t a i l  s p e c i f i c a t i o n for the RTC  has now been set at approximately double this  research  finding. d.  Community services and cultural a c t i v i t i e s  in RTCs w i l l  employ another 1,000-2,000 workers which maintains about today's r a t i o between jobs and scale of service in the region.-  Based on a background study of GVRD  c u l t u r a l opportunities  (Fawcett, 1975), parameters  are noted by the GVRD such as theatres to seat 400-500 people and museum/exhibition h a l l s with space over 5,000 s q . f t . e.  2,000-3,000 dwellings should be provided within walking distance of the RTC to create an immediate c l i e n t a l e of 6,000-9,000 people and to house about 1/5 of the RTC work force.  The emphasis in this housing should be  to provide a wide choice of housing types and tenures and high-rise condominium apartments should not comprise the sole housing provision. f.  RTC a c t i v i t i e s should be f i t t e d onto a s i t e in the order of 100-200 acres but room for e>pansion should be provided.  Thus RTCs should ultimately be conceived to .  be about 1 mile in diameter.  62. A3.  RTC Transportation  Specifications:  GVRD desire's t h a t access be provided primarily by l i g h t rapid t r a n s i t and a t r a n s i t station should be conveniently near a l l RTC a c t i v i t i e s .  Movement within the  RTC  should be  accomplished b a s i c a l l y on foot and " . . . a continuous system of pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n w i l l be needed" (Spaeth, 1976, 12). The automobile should be limited by discouraging long-term parking and playing down auto access s t r e e t s . The relationship between RTC use and movement i s  illustrated  by the GVRD diagram in Plate 9 . . A4.  RTC Character  Specifications:  E s s e n t i a l l y the character of the RTC as a r t i c u l a t e d by the GVRD's thumbnail sketch above i s about as s p e c i f i c a description as the regional planners have provided. reader w i l l r e c a l l that the description talked about  The a strong  pedestrian o r i e n t a t i o n , a widely varied but balanced mixture of a c t i v i t y (to extend the active period of the place each day), a human scale and a l i s t of experiential  qualities.  This description has only been further augmented by the following GVRD comments: a.  "Although comparable in size and mix of a c t i v i t i e s , the proposed Regional Town Centres should each respond to the q u a l i t i e s of i t s s p e c i f i c s e t t i n g . For example...Central Park Burnaby could take advantage of i t s c e n t r a l i t y to become a headquarters for population-serving b u s i n e s s e s . . . " (Spaeth, 1976, 13).  ^ . V A P ' MODPL. Of IMC 6  PLAfP 9  b.  "Regional Town Centres should not be uniform designs created by planners, architects or monolithic development consortiums." (Spaeth, 1976, 15).  c.  "Regional Town Centres should include a c t i v i t i e s that are popular and interesting even i f they are not 'economic' in the s t r i c t sense." (Spaeth, 1976, 17).  d.  "Housing in Regional Town Centres should be f o r mixed incomes and 1 i f e s t y l e s . . . H o u s i n g and space for certain types of a c t i v i t i e s should be combined." (Spaeth, 1976, 19).  Referring to RTC character, the GVRD also notes that people l i v i n g near and using the Centre should be heavily  involved  in deciding upon the character of the environments to be created in order that people w i l l r e l a t e to the urbanity that i s achieved. Approach to RTC Development: The GVRD makes an aggressive case that RTCs w i l l not occur on t h e i r own.  At the same time, the regional planners stress  that such development must occur i f regional growth i s to be accommodated without s a c r i f i c i n g amenities in the region over the next ten years.  Thus there i s a c a l l by the GVRD  for governments to take active i n i t i a t i v e s to have the p r i o r i t y RTCs functioning by 1986.  On t h i s b a s i s , the  GVRD recommends the following immediate government a c t i o n s : a.  RTC design must meet employer needs i f i t i s to a t t r a c t the necessary business a c t i v i t i e s to i t .  To determine  these needs, the GVRD has undertaken a "Corporation Survey" (Mann, 1974) and i t recommends that RTC designers s a t i s f y these corporation s p e c i f i c a t i o n s as l i s t e d in Plate 10.  65. ~T~.  A  . . . . 2.  PLAN: firm decisions about what RTC should be master plan for Lower Mainland showing RTCs p o l i t i c a l backing at a l l government levels d e f i n i t e statements as to t r a n s i t routes and stations r e l a t i v e l y firm knowledge of tax structure  CLEAR  DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES: . no delay of construction plans . land assembly at government level tax or financing concessions . major commitment by government o f f i c e users . economical land and rental costs freedom from uneconomic r e s t r i c t i o n s on s i t e configuration and desi gn . measures to s t a b i l i z e climate for investment i n i t i a l and continuing federal and provincial investment and support in terms of an economic base, land banks, serviced land, an i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , and room for expansion  3.  HOUSING: . provision of substantial housing close by RTCs . greater allowable density concentrations of housing in town centres to make them economically feasible for developers . provision of high r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial population in RTC to a t t r a c t r e t a i l businesses  4.  TRANSPORTATION: . ease of automobile access . rapid t r a n s i t between RTC, downtown and outlying areas . d e f i n i t e policy on t r a n s i t  5.  AMENITIES: . impressive s e t t i n g , unique a r c h i t e c t u r e , and landscaping ('presitge image') . variety shopping, entertainment, and c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s  6.  BUSINESS CHARACTER: . a substantial banking, l e g a l , accounting, and f i n a n c i a l sector in RTCs . establishment of a u x i l i a r y head o f f i c e s in RTCs . grouping of head o f f i c e s of s i m i l a r interdependent industries and related service businesses . should include both r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial population . r e l a t i v e freedom to set hours of sale  SOURCE:  (Mann, 1974).  The GVRD recommends that action be taken to ensure that speculative land price increases do not prevent f u l l development of RTCs.  Thus regional planners have  asked permission from t h e i r Board to investigate means to ensure this does not occur. Regional planners suggest that government should purchase key s i t e s in RTC areas to ensure maximum development c o n t r o l , stop inappropriate development, and avoidspeculative price increases. of c r i t i c a l  Advance purchase  rights-of-way i s also advocated.  Toward  these ends a revolving 'Advanced Land A c q u i s i t i o n Fund  1  has been endorsed p o l i t i c a l l y and is being  established. Government o f f i c e decentralization is a key to RTC v i a b i l i t y as noted above and GVRD recommends that a l l governments give p r i o r i t y consideration to location choices.  Ongoing lobbying by GVRD and local  governments to accomplish t h i s i s suggested. A range of procedures must be developed to encourage decentralization of a c t i v i t i e s from Vancouver Centre. The GVRD is now investigating  such procedures and has  worked with the City of Vancouver in the down-zoning of t r a d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t y c l u s t e r locations in the Broadway and downtown areas of the central The renovation of  city.  development processing procedures  in the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and the creation of a marketing service to inform developers of the RTC location option are to be pursued.  67. f.  Transit development is f e l t to be c r u c i a l to the RTCs and the GVRD planners have recommended that t h e i r Board seek Letters Patent from the Province to take charge of the Lower Mainland t r a n s i t planning function from Provincial departments (GVRD, 1975:2,10).  g.  A clear plan for each RTC should be prepared to i l l u s t r a t e to potential RTC locatees that a complete business and l e i s u r e environment w i l l be provided. To ensure that development conforms to the plan and that continuity of the plan over time is retained, the GVRD recommends that each local RTC plan be registered with Provincial authorities as an " O f f i c i a l  Community  Plan". h.  The regional planners suggest that the success of the RTC is dependent upon a viable development management process " . . . t h a t can make decisions e f f e c t i v e l y while representing the variety of interests that w i l l be involved."  (Spaeth, 1976, 36).  Leery of e x i s t i n g local  procedures, the GVRD recommends the establishment of a "Development Corporation" to take control of RTC management: It could be funded from a Revolving Fund and should have a professional s t a f f to help prepare plans and programs as well as administering and marketing the development. (Spaeth, 1976,36) The "Development Corporation" would have representation from municipal, regional and Provincial  authorities  and would have a structure as i l l u s t r a t e d on the GVRD diagram shown in Plate 11.  68.  ,—  /  MUNICIPAL  \ ,fS^P5B6emATlOrJ  /  TECHNIC*ADYlGfs ff^OIW  / ^lirt«H/TT 1 ANP  \  W e a r  \ /  pAfsnawiay  liAttttEflN^ PPiQ^rWiMI^ f l i l A W A L . 6rMW^6  6C6IAL. PLANNING  6«4f\J£; (•fePAfcTH , l ? f ^ , p.  ^.Y.FN.P'  6  C 0 r i 6 m o r 1H& DEVELOPMENT  CORP. PLATE »l  In summary, there can be l i t t l e argument that the GVRD's concept of the RTC i s schematic and sketchy and does not show the kind of cohesiveness and rationale that is evident in the broader 'GVRD growth s t r a t e g y ' .  The regional RTC concept  i s primarily concerned with specifying the prerequisites needed for RTCs to play t h e i r role in the growth strategy. The kinds of environments that must be developed for RTCs are thus only given a s u p e r f i c i a l  consideration.  Yet t h i s  is  understandable when we r e a l i z e that the GVRD would have l i t t l e power to manipulate local governments into accepting more concrete schemes even i f these were prepared.  Moreover,  this makes i t d i f f i c u l t for regional planners to get authorization from t h e i r Board to complete more detailed work on RTC environments.  The regional scheme, however, does  specify the essentials advocated by the GVRD and acts as the base from which the GVRD can evaluate local design s o l u t i o n s .  The onus i s r e a l l y on each local government to give a detailed substance to the RTC that i s located within i t s  jurisdiction.  Physical environments are r e a l l y a local matter with the caveat that they w i l l be given careful GVRD scrutiny being regionally endorsed.  As noted above, a local  before concept  for the Burnaby Metrotown has been developed and summarizing this concept is the next necessity.  70. THE LOCAL METROTOWN MODEL: The Metrotown model was prepared through a series of discussions between the researcher and local planners as has already been noted. summarize those discussions.  The basic topic a r e a s — a c t i v i t y ,  We w i l l size,  transportation, character and approach—that were used in the summary of the regional concept above w i l l also be used in discussing the local concept in order to f a c i l i t a t e l a t e r comparisons. Bl.  Metrotown A c t i v i t y  Specifications:  Burnaby planners conceive the Metrotown as having a dual nature. They stress that i t has a c t i v i t i e s used by a surrounding regional population but that i t w i l l also be the home of a large number of people who l i v e "in town" so that much of Metrotown space is only locally significant.  Out of t h i s typology the planners b u i l d the  idea that the Metrotown w i l l  have impacts that are d i f f e r e n t  for  people l i v i n g increasingly distant from i t s centre and to r e f l e c t th they develop a concept of influence areas and multiple boundaries as shown in the diagram of Plate 12.  On t h i s b a s i s , the planners specify Metrotown a c t i v i t i e s .  Regarding  the in-town r e s i d e n t i a l population, the planners choose to u t i l i z e a concept of neighbourhoods.  The neighbourhoods would be discreet  units through which servicing is provided.  These units would also  have c l e a r l y defined edges in order that a sense of  territorial  i d e n t i t y might develop such that neighbourhood social could form i f residents d e s i r e .  institutions  To serve these neighbourhoods, the  planners propose that small convenience shopping centres be created  71.  op oNfS|HTATION 06OIK5 (ofPofifliNrr[l26 t&fAHWO) ^ M H U N I f T iNFWI5N6|g AtSfcA:  •AREA WH£f»e 0 P r W T U N i r i £ 6 AfifS S X P A h P ^ P IN A MAvlOf^ WAY B U T PHY6I6A{_ L A H D 5 c A P £ p o e e N o r OlAr0|i5  irlrlPDiATP Dja^oPtlgNT AfttSA— • AfS£A O f LANDSCAPE 6+lAN£fl5 -fS^p^YBLOfH^W 066UP6  P L A T E IZ.  72. within each neighbourhood and that each neighbourhood have local public park spaces as well as a social/recreation centre.  These  concepts are pulled together by the planners into a neighbourhood model that is i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 13.  Regionally s i g n i f i c a n t functions are also d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the planners.  Since t h e i r goal i s to achieve a highly diverse combina-  tion of urban a c t i v i t i e s , they f i r s t lay out a spectrum of uses to be accommodated in the centre.  They say that there should be  large shopping f a c i l i t i e s directed at serving the surrounding regional market (the key f a c i l i t i e s  being department s t o r e s ) .  planners also specify that o f f i c e s be provided.  The  They try to d i s t i n g u i s h  o f f i c e types as to the kind of environments and the kinds of support functions that d i f f e r e n t o f f i c e s would need.  Their typology breaks  o f f i c e s down into three types: i.  'corporate administrative headquarters' - o f f i c e s of national or international  ii.  stature;  'middle-market' administrative o f f i c e s that r e l a t e to a regional or sub-regional market area; and  iii.  ' l o c a l s e r v i c e ' o f f i c e s that relate to the local  community.  The planners specify that the Metrotown must serve a major t o u r i s t and entertainment function as w e l l .  They therefore conclude that  a perceivable node of t o u r i s t a c t i v i t i e s convention f a c i l i t i e s  should be created.  including hotels and They decide that entertain-  ment functions would be found in the t o u r i s t node, but would also locate in a l l  the central areas of the centre.  The implication of  wvy^via C W H 9 9 MIVJWO? AVHj ^9VJG y_/v_» ~jyxrf TVIIW o a i ^ * - J U i ^ w a a S ^ M O I  o  o  I  o  o  o  o  o  o  1 f I i  o o  this l i s t i n g of a c t i v i t i e s  74. is that only a very few kinds of uses would  be prohibited outright from the Metrotown (such as p o l l u t i n g  industries,  warehousing and the l i k e ) and this is exactly the interpretation that local planners would want.  In terms of mixing uses, the local planners f i n d i t highly desirable that there be a fine-grained mixture of a c t i v i t i e s  in any one  project in the Metrotown centre and a concept as shown in Plate 14 i s therefore advocated.  The planners feel that this w i l l  for a maximum interaction among the Metrotowners. leary of leaving this mix unchecked. concept of 'assemblies of u s e ' .  provide  However, they are  Therefore they develop a  Each multi-use assembly would be a  grouping of a c t i v i t i e s that c a l l for s i m i l a r locational and environmental circumstances, that tend to support one another and that serve s i m i l a r consumers.  Thus the planners define a ' f i r s t order assembly'  of a c t i v i t i e s which would include:the large or middle-market prestige corporate o f f i c e s , large-scaled and highly s p e c i a l i z e d commercial f a c i l i t i e s , major c u l t u r a l / r e c r e a t i o n a l / p u b l i c of uses that are a n c i l l a r y to these. symbolic centre of the Metrotown.  f a c i l i t i e s and the host  These would be placed at the  Also defined i s a 'second order  assembly' of uses which would include the less prestigious middlemarket o f f i c e s and a c o l l e c t i o n of smaller commercial and service f a c i l i t i e s and appropriate a n c i l l a r y s e r v i c e s .  F i n a l l y , the planners  define a ' t h i r d order assembly' of a c t i v i t i e s which would be composed of small local o f f i c e s ,  small independent boutiques and such things  as a r t g a l l e r i e s and a r t i s t s '  studios.  These d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  assemblies would form the continuum for Metrotown a c t i v i t i e s are oriented beyond the local  in-town population.  that  Moreover, each  •  fAP^M^  111  fANUN^  MO]" THIS-  OM0S  open 6fA^  pE-PfeSTNAN LSYPL  THIS. i  npiporowH: V E W K A I .  MIXTURE  or ACTIVITY  PLATS 14*  76. assembly would include some r e s i d e n t i a l space for people who choose not to be a part of the separated and self-contained neighbourhoods discussed e a r l i e r .  What results from the planners'  of Metrotown a c t i v i t i e s  Metrotown Size  conceptualization  is an arrangement i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 15.  Specifications:  Municipal planners take the view that ultimate size  specifications  as well as s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of maximum or minimum amounts of Metrotown a c t i v i t i e s are not possible or relevant.  They suggest that the  Metrotown size w i l l depend on what size of s i t e can be defined 'on the ground' without disturbing established surrounding single-family neighbourhoods.  They also say that the amounts of a c t i v i t y w i l l  depend on how much a defined s i t e can a c t u a l l y accommodate. Essentially,  the local view is that the course of events w i l l  mine the s i z e of the Metrotown.  deter-  The planners do, however, make  some statements that would a f f e c t the s i z e of the place as follows: a.  Burnaby planners talk about amounts of a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i v e to other a c t i v i t i e s at any stage of Metrotown growth.  In t h i s  context, they propose a concept of uses being balanced so that no one type of use can claim the majority of Metrotown space and so that a mutually-dependent c o l l e c t i o n of functions w i l l co-exist at a l l times.  This i s f e l t to be necessary to ensure  maximum opportunities and choices for the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s  citizens.  Local planners s t a r t by looking at the evolved balance of the historical  c i t y (using  the empirical research of Smith as  shown on Plate 16) and they amend t h i s to account for the unique status of the Metortown as a centre.  Their conclusions  represent  BonHaw of  mvftovynn GONZ CAlKftlh6[ TO m$\OHkUX  POUHPAKT  Of HfcTfVTfOVYM f<*/TOS INO^lPIHc^ IK-TOWN NEl^fieoarSHOCP A01VITI&6 T H M Aftfo HBAYICf I h T ^ W ^  PLATE 19  78.  METROPOLITAN PER CAPITA FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES Activities  Floor Area Per Capita (sq. f t . )  Retail  20-55  Office  2-15  Parking (on ground or in structure)  4-16  Public  1- 3.5  Quasi-Public  1- 3.5  Wholesale  5-15  Industrial  2-15  Residential  SOURCE:  200-400  (Smith, 1961).  nWROlDWH: HlSPnKAL 6I|T At) < « P M% BALAM fUif. 16  79. an armchair estimate of the apportionment of uses in the Metrotown and this is i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 17 (in comparison to the proportion of uses found in Burnaby's e x i s t i n g higher density but nonetheless suburban 'settlements').  b.  Burnaby planners also give some size s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to t h e i r in-town neighbourhood concept.  They suggest a maximum distance  of 10 minutes' walk (approximately 2,200+^ feet) from any residential  unit to neighbourhood convenience f a c i l i t i e s .  They  delimit the population of the neighbourhood unit by the number of people that create a viable unit to be serviced. hood would therefore include around 5,000 persons.  Each neighbourThe planners  s t a t e , however, that the number of neighbourhoods and consequently the size of the total Metrotown r e s i d e n t i a l  population would be  determined by actual s i t e constraints and cannot be defined in conceptual  c.  terms.  The only other constraint that the local planners place on size would be the s p e c i f i c a t i o n about the provision of park space and about the types of physical forms that are to be required in the Metrotown.  These w i l l be discussed below.  O v e r a l l , Burnaby planners stress that the size of the Metrotown should f a c i l i t a t e the bringing together of s u f f i c i e n t numbers of people to cause high levels of interaction to achieve the urbanity that is t h e i r stated goal.  As such, the planners  conceive the Metrotown to have more a c t i v i t i e s  in kind and  amount but to take less ground space than the e x i s t i n g suburban  80.  (80NnS  J  86NITS  I  •2.0NIT6  \  5 UNITS  MY.OFUtB m<i>mUZM&fT DOttlttATEP SY SHOPPING 6BKTP»B  ((.UNITS  |  4-UNlT*  I  Jl UNITS  MIX Of Of& PROF*6£D fOft HPrKOTOWH UMIT^UAHTIPICATIO^ INDICATED O N L Y TO  AI4-OW  RELATIVE  COMPARISON.  MprfOr0WH:A6tlYr[lE6 MIX COIifArMOOH  P L A T S 17  81. town centres in Burnaby.  Otherwise s i z e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are  left  e s s e n t i a l l y undefined and this is done on purpose by the planners to ensure design  flexibility.  Metrotown Transportation  Specifications:  Burnaby planners adopt a concept of transportation into and within the Metrotown that r e f l e c t s a balanced dependence on automobile, public t r a n s i t and pedestrian movement.  Automobile movement is  felt  to be something that cannot be avoided p a r t i c u l a r l y in the immediate future.  Therefore the local planners e l e c t to provide  an e f f i c i e n t street system using a hierarchy of streets on Plate 18).  (as shown  However, to protect major portions of the Metrotown  from pervasive automobile i n t r u s t i o n , the planners propose that through t r a f f i c be diverted around development spaces (as shown in Plate 19) and that cul-de-sacs be used to give access to individual properties.  The planners assume that t r a n s i t ,  i f i t is implemented, w i l l be of a  rapid s t r e e t - c a r configuration u t i l i z i n g e x i s t i n g r a i l l i n e s .  They  want the t r a n s i t to travel through and have stations in the Metrotown that w i l l be close to a l l  in-town a c t i v i t i e s .  They want these  stations to be integrated with adjacent development to form a mixed-use complex that delivers t r a n s i t riders d i r e c t l y to where intensive Metrotown a c t i v i t i e s occur.  They also want the t r a n s i t to  d i r e c t l y serve in-town r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods so that these people w i l l not always choose to use t h e i r cars when t r a v e l l i n g .  At the same  time, the local planners refuse to depend completely on t r a n s i t and desire the Metrotown to be arranged so that i f necessary, be accessed s o l e l y by the car over the long run.  i t could  To provide the  82.  A M D D O NOT IN^WJPfc TJrlfc 6f£NT A T S|&r3.  PLATE l&  63.  MFTWWN: tHrACXl^H-rlOVF3HaiT 111 DSYflxOPHBlIT 6TA666  PIATE 19  84. p o s s i b i l i t y of a change-over from auto to t r a n s i t emphasis in the future, the planners propose to control a l l major parking (through a 'Metropark'  facilities  public parking authority) so that parking  could be phased out as desired.  For movement within the Metrotown, the planners conceive that walking should be the f i r s t choice.  This means that development must be  c l o s e l y clustered to keep distarces short and that a well-defined, developed and e a s i l y usable in-area pedestrian network must be provided.  The planners specify that the most outlying in-area destinations  should be no more than 15 to 20 minutes' apart for a person on f o o t .  (3,300 + to 4,400 + feet)  They also suggest that a supportive local  mass movement system such as a j i t n e y or buses should be provided to make pedestrain movement highly convenient.  In terms of configuration  the planners say that pathways should focus on t r a n s i t stations and on points of intense a c t i v i t y ; that pathways should bisect development spaces to funnel the appropriate pedestrians into these areas; and that pedestrian crossroads should become important public meeting places.  To integrate the Metrotown with surrounding areas, the  planners specify that pathways should t i e into the proposed parktrail  system that w i l l extend throughout Burnaby.  O v e r a l l , the local concept for Metrotown movement is to  provide  access into the Metrotown by both t r a n s i t and automobile and to provide c i r c u l a t i o n within the Metrotown by pedestrian ways and supportive local public t r a n s i t  (jitney).  85. Metrotown Character S p e c i f i c a t i o n s : The basic character of the Metrotown say the local planners, should be one of high amenity and maximum urbanity.  In conceptual terms, the  planners translate this into the following aspects: a.  Parks and open space should be major Metrotown features that are evident and accessible from almost any Metrotown vantage point. Open space should be provided within a l l so as to be a t t r a c t i v e and usable. as open space where p o s s i b l e .  projects that is  treated  Rooftops should be developed  Private spaces should be provided  that can be manipulated and changed by t h e i r users.  ATI public  spaces should be accessible on a 24-hour basis without r e s t r i c t i o n s . And major parks now e x i s t i n g on the s i t e should be protected and expanded.  The planners' open space notions are  illustrated  in Plates 20 and 21. b.  Pedestrian and automobile movement should be separated and in the core of the Metrotown the planners specify that this w i l l require development of a continuous podium level for pedestrians with car movement and parking below (they dub t h i s the '+15 a c t i v i t y level'  since the pedestrian plane would occur at about 15 feet  above grade). c.  A human scale should be preserved in Metrotown development at a l l costs using such devices as i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 22.  d.  The planners say that there should be t r a n s i t i o n s between d i f f e r e n t l y scaled a c t i v i t i e s and between related a c t i v i t i e s occurring at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s v e r t i c a l l y as shown in Plates 23 and  24.  86.  PATO A5 [JOCU  FOOft Of ACflYltT  W  A5 L I N N M W/PMEffl  PARIS At) 5EPARAJDP. UrtrSgLArED AfflYltY  MBfROfOWll: VAN0U5 A5PE£fc Of f A M 6PACE  87.  1HI6  NOT f HI6  fl-AliT/M^4VARIo«6qr&IZCP  :i r q i PLAN VI0W" 1HI6  MOT THIS  1WI6  w  NcTTHI6  INTfcsfATION WITH PU&UC, OT£N 6PA6^  HISTIWOWH: 6HAfV6T^(6Tl66 Of PLATS Z.I  HOT THIS- HI^Hf Of PU1LD1H4 JSXfo^p.  , ., L—]  •  THIS: V1£WOF fclHUPINOf SHIpUDpp.  -—• 0c • DDI  "11 N0f THIS: BU1L.P1N4 ttA-bt) W P .  N^T THIS: jsusHpTHS To  To RELATE To.  "THIS: SMALL- pL-PniSHTS 10 PKAVV ATTmrionl  METROfOWIi: A S r M S Of HIIHAH SCALP  PLATE ZZ  89.  litui  mnrrnfrT iiiniiTh^ir^  jlllll  THIS... X8  J AMPtHb-  Trnrrillllllirllllf  TTTl^lllllllTOllllllllllllllllllfT  tt°F£ Oftm THIS  numow- w^cn rwirion mm  rim PLATS 2.4  e.  91. There should be a balance, say the planners, between building heights and coverage (Plate 25) but the planners conclude that high density uses (in both the neighbourhoods and the core) will  have to predominate in order to bring together the greatest  number of people while keeping distances short.  f.  The planners state that the t r a n s i t way should be developed completely underground and that streets should e i t h e r form c l e a r boundaries separating a c t i v i t i e s or be b u i l t over or under so as not to disrupt  activities.  The local planners stress that the provision of amenity in the Metrotown as directed by the above amenity concepts must take the highest p r i o r i t y over a l l other considerations i f a unique place in comparison with other places in Burnaby i s to be created.  Approach to Metrotown Development: The local approach that i s recommended by planners in Burnaby f o r the development of the Metrotown can be summarized in the following concepts: a.  The f i n a l  form and content of the Metrotown that i s  conceptually above must be tempered by the real potentials and c o n s t r a i n t s — o f the actual s i t e .  outlined  conditionsHistorically  developed land use patterns and in-place buildings and a c t i v i t i e s must therefore be treated as design determinants to which new development is to be r e l a t e d .  1  PLATE £5  93. Local planners conclude that the development of the Metrotown must be accomplished so as not to overly burden municipal or diminish local powers of land use c o n t r o l .  resources  Thus the planners  see Metrotown as e s s e n t i a l l y a private-sector undertaking within the context of a c l e a r l y developed concept plan prepared by the Municipality.  The plan must be f l e x i b l e however, so that local  authorities can change i t when they wish and as they see f i t . Thus the planners see the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s role as follows: i.  to l e a d , guide and control the overall scheme and separate developments to achieve a unified and comprehensible product;  i.  to stimulate provisions that would not come about in an unrestricted development s i t u a t i o n ;  i.  to provide normal public services and amenities;  v.  to a r t i c u l a t e the interests of Burnaby c i t i z e n s to assure that redevelopment r e f l e c t s these i n t e r e s t s ; and  v.  to work with other l e v e l s of government to achieve t o t a l government action under Burnaby's  leadership.  Burnaby planners refuse to give a time frame to Metrotown development.  They feel that the Kingsway/Central  Park s i t e has major  areas ready f o r immediate redevelopment, but that t h i s cannot b l i n d them to the necessity of ensuring that a l l projects meet t h e i r requirements.  This is necessary to keep amenity high.  It  i s better to forego development in the short run, say the planners, than to accept something less desirable that w i l l set into motion development trends contrary to public conceptions of the area.  94. While they w i l l  not adopt a development freeze, the local  w i l l also not rush into development  but w i l l  planners  s t r i v e to create the  best environment that the convergence of time and conditions can achieve.  C.  COMPARISON OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE METROTOWN In comparing regional and local conceptions of the RTC/Metrotown we find that the differences that were f i r s t evident at the level of broad policy now become further a r t i c u l a t e d .  We also f i n d that  new areas of difference emerge for the f i r s t time.  Therefore,  this w i l l be our framework for comparing the two agencies' tions of the place. a  First,  descrip-  however, we must note  fundamental difference between the conceptual positions of the  two governments that has been hinted at before but now becomes c l e a r l y expressed with ramifications for the rest of the comparison. GVRD and Burnaby planners look at the RTC/Metrotown and go into a modelling process from d i f f e r e n t angles.  Thus what they each  describe as t h e i r conception or model of the place is  different.  The GVRD describes the RTC exclusively as i t plays a role in t h e i r regional growth strategy.  Therefore we f i n d that the GVRD's  description is a functional one oriented toward defining what types of a c t i v i t i e s the RTC w i l l house and what amount of each a c t i v i t y w i l l be required.  Their guide in this is the desire to change the pattern  of a c t i v i t i e s seen at the regional scale.  Descriptions of the exact  nature of RTC environments consequently get only a s u p e r f i c i a l treatment in the GVRD concept. In contrast, Burnaby planners describe Metrotown primarily as an environment.  A c t i v i t y s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are  •95. only used as a lead-in for environmental s p e c i f i c a t i o n s that become quite d e t a i l e d .  Moreover, questions of amounts of a c t i v i t y to  be strived for in a general sense are not considered relevant.  Thus,  Burnaby's description takes a physical land use orientation for which organization of use, physical patterns and building/space containers become the emphasized matters.  We have already discovered why t h i s should be so.  Basically i t  because the two agencies' powers, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and constituents are not the same.  is  scales of v i s i o n  This causes them to define and  respond to problems in a d i f f e r e n t fashion.  The GVRD has  little  power to manipulate land use and is not c a l l e d to account for s p e c i f i c environmental f a i l u r e s .  The Municipality has l i t t l e  control over the deployment of a c t i v i t i e s outside  its  and r e a l i z e s that local land use controls are itsunique  jurisdiction responsibility--  i t must exercise these controls unless i t wishes to be blamed and bear the brunt of local people's d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with environments. Under these circumstances, the c r u c i a l concern in evaluating the two governments' conceptions i s not simply to see where they agree and disagree overtly but also where t h e i r ideas simply do not interlock with one another in a compatible  fashion.  Having said t h i s , we can discuss how divergences  in broad p o l i c y are  re-expressed and sharpened with s p e c i f i c content at the RTC/Metrotown conceptual  level.  96. CI.  A c t i v i t y Content of the Metrotown: We noted previously that the region wants to share costs and benefits of growth whereas Burnaby wants to maximize i t s own benefits and minimize i t s own costs regardless of the problems of other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  At the conceptual l e v e l , this  difference takes on s p e c i f i c meaning.  policy  The GVRD talks about a  regional s p e c i a l i z a t i o n in the type of a c t i v i t i e s to be housed in the Burnaby RTC based on the unique central regional of the s i t e . Burnaby.  They c a l l for  'population-serving'  position  functions  in  This i s done undoubtedly to create a l o g i c to the  regional deployment of a c t i v i t i e s that the GVRD w i l l work toward.  It is also done to give a reasoning behind why the  GVRD may encourage certain functions to go to RTCs other than Metrotown to s a t i s f y the regional objective of f a i r l y growth.  The Municipal  • ' s p l i t t i n g of h a i r s ' . within i t s Metrotown.  distributing  planners w i l l have l i t t l e sympathy for such Burnaby wants a broad spectrum of uses We saw this previously as the overall  thrust of t h e i r p o l i c y goals.  I f a development meets the  M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s many environmental c r i t e r i a and requirements and does not f a l l within that small group of uses excluded from Metrotown, then that development w i l l be welcomed. and local  planners  . c o u l d come to loggerheads over the uses  proposed in certain s p e c i f i c  C2.  Thus regional  proposals.  Boundaries, Balance and Use Realms: We have already noted that the GVRD sees the Burnaby RTC as meeting the consumer and job requirements of a regional  catchment  97. population.  Thus the nature of the place to the GVRD i s that of  a 'town c e n t r e ' .  We have noted in comparison that the Municipal  idea i s that the Metrotown must be a complete 'settlement'.  This  broad policy difference becomes r e f l e c t e d in various aspects of the two agencies' conceptions of the place. stress  Local  planners  the dual nature of the Metrotown as a regionally  s i g n i f i c a n t focus and a local self-contained community.  Thus  while the GVRD talks about a centre with a bounded catchment area, the Municipality talks about a series of boundaries each with a d i f f e r e n t s i g n i f i c a n c e . idea of balance emerges.  Following from t h i s , a d i f f e r e n t  The GVRD seems to define balance as the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between regional residents and RTC jobs or services.  The Municipality talks about the total range of  environmental attributes and how each must be balanced with the s p e c i f i c population i t serves.  The Municipality goes f u r t h e r ,  however, and talks about the s p e c i f i c balance to be struck between the a c t i v i t i e s within the centra  Local planners say this w i l l  depend on t h e l f n e s of dominance and support between uses and on a need to maximize variety or diversity.  To the Municipality i t is c r u c i a l  should dominate.  that no one use  The GVRD mentions t h i s only in passing.  Thus when i t comes to evaluating s p e c i f i c development the two agencies could f i n d themselves in c o n f l i c t .  If a use shows  a balance in i t s relationship to regional jobs or consumer demands, but also shows an inbalance r e l a t i v e to other uses in the centre (for example, by tending to dominate), then a problem would emerge between Burnaby and the GVRD.  98. This difference in concept w i l l also be expressed in separate opinions about the arrangement  of uses.  The GVRD w i l l want to  maximize the connection between regional homes and places in Metrotown that provide jobs and services.  The Municipality w i l l  want to assure this but local planners w i l l also want c l e a r local connections.  The r e s u l t i s that GVRD o f f i c i a l s do not  make locational d i s t i n c t i o n s between uses in the RTC whereas local planners do make such d i s t i n c t i o n s as well as further locational d i s t i n c t i o n s between central uses and separate i n town neighbourhoods.  If i n t r a - and inter-RTC linkages  conflict,  t h i s could cause disagreements between the regional and local officials  simply because they place a d i f f e r e n t value on such  linkages.  Quality vs. Attraction in Metrotown: We have previously outlined the d i f f e r e n t importance given to the RTC/Metrotown by the regional and local a u t h o r i t i e s .  We  said that GVRD i s t r y i n g to shepherd a number of RTCs while the Municipality has only the Metrotown to meet i t s requirements of urbanity.  Thus the Metrotown becomes the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s  only chance to achieve i t s goal of d i v e r s i f y i n g environmental experience in Burnaby. influential  We see t h i s difference become strongly  in the descriptions put forward for the RTC/Metrotown.  99. GVRD o f f i c i a l s  talk about quality in developments and the overall  environment only as an aspect of the RTCs a t t r a c t i o n to that might decentralize to i t .  facilities  Municipal planners want q u a l i t y  development inherently because i t creates more desirable environments in which to l i v e .  The q u a l i t y aspect is a d i r e c t con-  d i t i o n of the Municipal requirement of urbanity.  Thus, i f the  a t t r a c t i o n of the place is assured, the GVRD w i l l not apparently quibble about design quality beyond some desired medium q u a l i t y level.  The Municipality,  proposal.  in contrast, w i l l be 'picky' on every  To guide in q u a l i t y discriminations, Burnaby planners  emphasize i n - t h e i r model a continuing concern that certain special building forms be created, that certain special open space requirements be met, and that certain special c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s be i n s t i l l e d into development.  The guidelines put forward l o c a l l y , moreover, do  not by any means lead to minimum or even moderate l e v e l s of amenity.  They necessitate maximum amenity which translates  into high costs which further translates into a lowering of the a t t r a c t i o n of the Metrotown as a development location—from the financial  'profit/loss'  viewpoint of the developer.  In  a s i t u a t i o n where GVRD would be trying to convince a developer to choose a Metrotown location but the Municipality would be placing high design and q u a l i t y standards upon the developer (tending to cut p r o f i t margins), then disagreement between the two agencies about how to treat the developer would be bound to occur.  TOO. Movement in Metrotown: F i n a l l y , we have already discussed the difference between regional and local p o l i c i e s about transportation—the GVRD's emphasis on t r a n s i t and the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s desire for t r a n s i t but dependence on the private car t r a n s i t i s assured.  until the l i k e l i h o o d of  At the l e v e l of models, this  takes on major proportions.  difference  The GVRD talks almost s o l e l y about  the close r e l a t i o n s h i p of the RTC to the t r a n s i t l i n e and about how automobile movement must be played down completely.  The  GVRD s p e c i f i e s no auto through-movement in Metrotown and suggests the idea of not even accommodating parking,  interior  c i r c u l a t i o n ways and other automobile provisions within the RTC except in a minimum way.  The Municipality refuses to close  the automobile option for access to Metrotown and, rather,  talks  about providing balanced modes, f l e x i b l e parking arrangements and a hierarchy of s t r e e t s .  The Municipal  idea i s to minimize  the negative impacts of the car but not to deny i t s and use in Metrotown.  relevance  This leads toideas of physical forms  for Metrotown that are expensive to the developer ( t h e +15 A c t i 1  v i t y L e v e l ' , for example, toseparate pedestrians and cars) and to arrangements that may be d i f f i c u l t to manage.  The GVRD  would respond that these concepts are not required i f cars are excluded.  The Municipality,  however, feels i t has few alternatives  i f the Metrotown is to be highly accessible to Burnaby's because the t r a n s i t concept may j u s t be a GVRD dream.  citizens  Even  i f i t is a c t i v a t e d , the Municipality points out that i t would be more useful to regional travel than to the travel of local people into the Metrotown.  Thus, while both the regional and  local planners want a strong emphasis on walking in Metrotown--  101 they want a predominantly pedestrian environment—their separate conceptions of access lead to r a d i c a l l y  different  conceptions of the arrangement of uses and building forms by all  appearances.  Comparisons of regional and local RTC/Metrotown conceptions not only i l l u s t r a t e how broad policy differences are further  articu  lated but also what new differences not previously apparent now f i n d expression.  We can discuss these as follows.  Integration of Concept and S i t e : The Metrotown model is limited by local planners because they say i t must be implemented on a real s i t e .  Consequently,  its  s p e c i f i c a t i o n s tend to be tentative.and try to t i e Metrotown development into e x i s t i n g patterns either with concepts of integration or separation.  Thus the local model emphasizes  t i e - i n s with established c i r c u l a t i o n ways; the integration of e x i s t i n g development into new plans; careful protection of e x i s t i n g surrounding neighbourhoods; and types of forms and arrangements of streets that w i l l provide for  transitions.  The regional concept, beyond specifying Kingsway/Central Park as the RTC s i t e , does not get s i t e - o r i e n t e d .  As long as  a c t i v i t i e s get decentralized from downtown Vancouver, to the RTCs, and as long as the RTC s i t e s develop as magnets to achieve t h i s , the GVRD w i l l be s a t i s f i e d .  S i t e con-  s t r a i n t s are of l i t t l e relevance to regional decision makers.  102. These viewpoints are less a difference of opinion and more the separate thinking of the agencies simply not f i t t i n g together.  Therefore, we can expect the Municipality to express  objections to certain developments that simply w i l l not be perceived by the GVRD and this could cause f r i c t i o n between the two a u t h o r i t i e s . Government Role in Metrotown Development: The two governments' concepts for the way development should occur and the role that each authority w i l l take in development i l l u s t r a t e a clear divergence of opinion.  The GVRD would be  aggressively involved and would i n i t i a t e development where possible.  The Municipality would primarily control  and augment private a c t i v i t i e s where need a r i s e s .  development The GVRD  would re-examine i t s existing procedures to develop new ways of taking part in RTC development.  The Municipality would r e l y  on tested procedures and t o o l s .  The GVRD would s t r i v e for  submission of an ' O f f i c i a l  Community Plan' to give c o n t i n u i t y .  Municipal planners would object to this because they feel limits their f l e x i b i l i t y .  it  Both the GVRD and the Municipality would  want to be the guiding public agency in development.  The GVRD, knowing  the r e l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n of powers between the Municipality and i t s e l f ,  would want a semi-autonomous development corporation  to control RTC development.  Of course such an arrangement would  give the GVRD an equal status with the Municipality on the matter of controls--which the GVRD has not to date enjoyed. Needless to say, t h i s proposal w i l l cause major contentions.  103. The aggressive posture proposed by the GVRD relates to i t s goal of having the RTCs functioning s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t l y by 1986. This t i e s in with other i n i t i a t i v e s in the regional development strategy.  In contrast, the Municipality outlines no s p e c i f i c  timeframe for Metrotown development.  Indeed, quality control  w i l l take p r i o r i t y over questions of time at the local The GVRD w i l l  level.  l i k e l y base many of i t s arguments with the  Municipality when advocating s p e c i f i c development projects on the need to meet regional deadlines.  The Municipality w i l l  l i k e l y be deaf to such arguments.  With the regional and local concepts in mind and t h e i r comparison completed, we can now proceed to the design phase.  Because the  design is a local concern, this w i l l be the approach used and we can expect the differences in conception to show themselves again when we evaluate design choices-  104.  CHAPTER FOUR KINGSWAY/CENTRAL PARK - DESIGN PROBE FOR ISSUES'  105.  We have now made comparisons of regional and local positions at the level of broad planning policy and at the town centre conceptual level.  We have thus discovered potential areas of disagreement on  the RTC between regional and local p a r t i e s .  We have noted, however,  that these disagreements do not become overt until s p e c i f i c actions on changing the landscape of the RTC s i t e must be taken.  As a scenario  of how the authorities might attempt to change the landscape, we have proposed to use a design probe.  Because the matter of design  i s a local r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , we w i l l apply the Burnaby Metrotown model already discussed to the Kingsway/Central Park s i t e . in what has been c a l l e d the 'probe p l a n ' . we  rebut,  This results  To establish the issues,  against the probe plan a predicted regional response to  each of the plan's aspects, based on our knowledge of regional and RTC conceptions.  policy  Therefore, the design probe and the d e f i n i t i o n  of issues from the probe i s the subject of this chapter.  As a preface to the design probe, the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n on the s i t e w i l l be reviewed.  This is because s i t e r e a l i t i e s are a major  component of the design process according to local planners. and Municipal geographic context of the s i t e i s sketched. s i t e boundaries are derived.  From this»  Existing land use and planning schemes  as well as natural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are i l l u s t r a t e d .  Out of this  review, s i t e constraints are defined which we w i l l c a l l givens'.  The history  'design  From this background work we proceed to the probe plan and  to the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of issues, positions and possible technical lutions of issues that are suggested by the probe plan.  Policy  to reconcile issues can then be considered in the next chapter.  resoshifts  106. KINGSWAY/CENTRAL PARK - ITS SITUATION: Prior to European influence the Lower Mainland was heavily forested and inhabited by aboriginal peoples who e s s e n t i a l l y l i v e d at the waters' edges.  The i n t e r i o r land masses were t h e i r  resource caches but t h e i r large-scaled manipulation of the natural environment was minimal.  With the a r r i v a l of the Europeans,  white settlements were established at Langley and elsewhere and a colonial capital was ultimately located at New Westminster.  For  our purposes the next s i g n i f i c a n t event occurred in 1860 when, for m i l i t a r y purposes, a narrow path s u f f i c i e n t for the movement of armed forces from New Westminster to the s a l t waters of False Creek was cut, this path extending diagonally through the forests of what l a t e r became the Municipality of Burnaby.  In 1872 this  path was widened s u f f i c i e n t l y for the passage of a team and the widened alignment became known as the Vancouver Road.  Sparse  settlement followed until in 1913 i t was necessary to make further improvements to t h i s thoroughfare and i t was renamed Kingsway.  In the early 1890s the Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Company b u i l t a tramway connecting the two major communities.  The wife  of the company president was a New Yorker and in memory of that c i t y ' s great park, the midpoint of the local tramline was named Central Park and the l i n e i t s e l f became known as the Central Park Line.  The area around Central Park was f i r s t served by the Central  Park tram station (at the intersection of the l i n e and Kingsway) and l a t e r stations were opened to the east, an early and s i g n i f i c a n t one located at Jubilee Street, a station and street named in honour of the j u b i l e e year of V i c t o r i a ' s reign in which they were opened.  In 1892, the Municipality of Burnaby was incorporated and t r a v e l l e r s on the Vancouver Road were f i r s t provided service by the Royal Oak H o t e l .  The improvement of that road and the  development of the tram spurred the local area's growth and as George Green, the Municipal h i s t o r i a n , has s a i d : The development of the Central Park area as a r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t dates from the dividing of the large Reserves which up to that time had stretched continuously from Patterson Avenue to Royal Oak Avenue into four- and f i v e acre holdings (this was in 1894). Consequent on this settlement a post o f f i c e became a necessity. (Green, 1947,13). The area continued to thrive with the movement of people away from established Vancouver areas toward more amenable locations and with the development of a mixture of commerical f a c i l i t i e s serve the growing community.  Historical  to  settlements at  Kingsway/Patterson, Jubilee and Royal Oak merged.  In the early  1950s, the importance of the place as a commercial focus was assured with the i n s t a l l a t i o n by the Simpson Sears Company L t d . of a department store on the south side of Kingsway near the centre of the area's commercial a c t i v i t i e s .  Residential demand  was met by the development of apartment accommodation and t h i s trend was strengthened with Municipal designation of the area as an important multiple family housing location in the l a t e 1960s.  The natural evolution of the s i t e has therefore set the  stage for Metrotown development.  Conditions in the Municipality as a whole have evolved to make Metrotown development at Kingsway/Central Park a desirable happening.  108. Through the years, the broad pattern of the Municipality has evolved  to r e f l e c t some s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of functions for each  portion of the Municipal landscape.  The Kingsway/Central  Park  s i t e relates to this pattern as follows (see Plate 26): a.  Urbanization has occurred so as to create somewhat separate communities in north and south Burnaby.  Between these i s a  central open valley that has only experienced sparse development. as  A great part of this valley has now been designated an administrative/recreational/cultural  complex so  that the seat of local government and i t s largest scaled recreational and cultural f a c i l i t i e s would be equally accessi b l e to both the North Burnaby and South Burnaby residents. This has been conceived to t i e these two urban sub-regions together.  The f a c i l i t i e s take advantage of a park-like  setting arranged around the two major Municipal bodies of waterDeer and Burnaby Lakes.  The Metrotown s i t e is on the southern  periphery of this central area which w i l l make the central Municipal f a c i l i t i e s e a s i l y available to the Metrotowners. b.  This central park-like area i s one part of a crescent-shaped chain of major park or open space reserves that extends from Burnaby Mountain on the northeast to Central Park on the southwest.  This chain of open space w i l l ultimately be linked  and because the Kingsway/Central Park s i t e is one l i n k t h i s chain,  in  local planners say that i t should have major l i n e a r  open spaces and the Metrotowners w i l l have a continuous open space resource v i r t u a l l y at t h e i r doorsteps.  109.  11 At Burnaby Mountain and Canada Way/Willingdon are the educational centres of Simon Fraser University and the B.C. Institute of Technology.  Metrotowners w i l l therefore have  access to higher education within the Municipality. The M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s major i n d u s t r i a l areas are those extending along Lougheed/401 Freeway and those in the Big Bend Area. Thus at the periphery of the influence area of the Metrotown w i l l be extensive i n d u s t r i a l job opportunities. The Metrotown w i l l  provide regional services for the e n t i r e  Municipality, as well as for major parts of S.E. Vancouver, but there are also s i g n i f i c a n t dense commercial/residential settlements that serve community needs in North Burnaby at Brentwood and East Lougheed.  We have noted these  settlements as well as the hierarchy of smaller settlements previously.  Therefore in the south, beyond i t s  overall  regional r o l e , the Metrotown must provide community functions s i m i l a r to the Brentwood and East Lougheed p r o v i s i o n . Major east/west movement in and through Burnaby occurs on Hastings in the north, Lougheed Highway and Canada Way. in the centre and Kingsway and Marine Drive in the south.. Major north/south movement occurs on Boundary Road, Willingdon and Royal Oak in the west, on Sperling/Gilley in the centre and on North Road in the east.  The Metrotown s i t e occurs  at the intersection of Kingsway with Boundary Road/Willingdon/ Royal Oak which provides a natural access for automobiles to the s i t e .  (See Plate 27).  Ill. Thus, the Kingsway/Central  Park s i t e , when developed as a Metro-  town w i l l augment the broad sectoral s p e c i a l i z a t i o n seen in Burnaby.  It creates a proximate body of users for the central  r e c r e a t i o n a l , cultural and educational resources that Burnaby provides.  It creates a better opportunity for housing for the  M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s i n d u s t r i a l workforce.  It balances the dense  settlements on the north with s i m i l a r provisions on the south. And by being on the major movement routes, i t makes regional functions accessible to a l l  Burnaby c i t i z e n s .  Area Boundaries Therefore, by f i t t i n g the Municipal settlement pattern to the concept of boundaries that has been set out in the Metrotown model (Plate 12) we derive a boundaries configuration as shown on Plate 27.  We see that these boundaries use the natural  divisions  that have become evident with the urbanization of the M u n i c i p a l i t y . This has been the essential motivation for the immediate study area boundary.  To the west i s Central Park which i s conceived as  an important Metrotown element and which i s bounded on the west by Boundary Road which i s also the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s  border.  The western study area boundary, therefore, has been considered to be Boundary Road.  To the south is Imperial Street which  acts as a clear border between higher and lower density development and which, thus, has been considered the southern boundary of the study area.  To the east i s Royal Oak Avenue which has  h i s t o r i c a l l y been the edge of multiple-family accommodation in the area and which therefore has been conceived as the eastern study area boundary.  The northern boundary is not so e a s i l y definable.  172.  PLA175 ZT  113. There i s no d i s t i n c t natural border to the north and there is a real problem of providing a t r a n s i t i o n between d i f f e r e n t of development at this l o c a t i o n .  scales  Consequently the study area's  northern border has been kept somewhat tentative and can be described as running west along Dover Street from Royal Oak Avenue to Sussex (as a d e f i n i t e border) and running along a l i n e p a r a l l e l and north of Grange to ultimately i n t e r s e c t with the Burke/ Roundary intersection at the far wpst (the exact border to be determined by s i t e design ). This tentative northern boundary d e f i n i t i o n allows the Municipality to deal p o s i t i v e l y with the t r a n s i t i o n problem but i t can be stated that i t i s the intention  of  local planners to protect and perserve established single family neighbourhoods which extend north from the study area. provide the perimeter they  These boundaries  of d i r e c t Metrotown development intervention and  are conceived to have a continuing v i a b i l i t y over the long run.  There is also a ring of surrounding single family neighbourhoods that w i l l be affected by and provided with an expansion of opport u n i t i e s because of the Metrotown.  While these neighbourhoods  are proposed to be c l e a r l y protected from d i r e c t Metrotown physical i n t r u s t i o n , they must be considered in dealing with the Metrotown s i t u a t i o n .  Conceptually, local planners have  c a l l e d t h i s the community influence area.  For discussion purposes,  i t s boundaries have been assumed to be Boundary Road (on the west); the 401 Freeway, BCIT and the Deer Lake/Oakalla lands (on the north); G i l l e y Avenue (on the e a s t ) ; and, Southeast Marine Drive (on the south).  It is realized as well that a grouping of  114. r e s i d e n t i a l areas in Vancouver near Boundary w i l l also  fall  within this influence area and these have been included for analysis in the f u l l  r e a l i z a t i o n that  Burnaby has no j u r i s d i c t i o n  to e f f e c t policy r e l a t i v e to these areas.  F i n a l l y , of course, the entire Municipality has been considered to be effected by Metrotown as w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the larger region.  This area constitutes what has been c a l l e d  the regional influence area. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The present purpose does not necessitate a detailed inventory of e x i s t i n g land use.  Rather, i t i s apparent that a c o l l e c t i o n of  major land use groupings i s in place and in an attempt to b u i l d upon the e x i s t i n g environment, these groupings become important. These e x i s t i n g land uses are i l l u s t r a t e d  i n  Plate 28,  and can be outlined as follows: a.  The area i s endowed with major open space at Central the Oakalla/Deer Lake lands (on the area's periphery), and Bonsor Park.  Park,  north-eastern  It also has three school areas  c l o s e l y associated with i t , these being Chaffey-Burke School (between Willingdon and Chaffey north of Grange), Marlborough Elementary/Royal Oak J r . High (on one. s i t e at Royal Oak, Dover, Nelson and Sanders in the northeast corner of the study area), and Maywood School (south of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority right-of-way and north of Imperial in the southeast part of the study area.  115. Continuous commercial development extends along Kingsway from edge to edge of the study area which has become focussed at Simpson Sears on the east, at Burnaby Centre in the centre near Patterson and at the new B.C. Telephone development on the west.  The majority of these commercial  facilities  are e s s e n t i a l l y older and in various states of r e p a i r and at numerous points they immediately abut single-family  residential  enclaves in poorer condition behind. The area i s also characterized by numerous multiple family enclaves generally of the three-storey apartment type with a peppering o f higher density accommodation.  These areas can  be itemized as follows: i.  Maywood enclave - north of Imperial, south of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority right-of-way and east of W i l l i n don Avenue.  Most of these apartments are at the middle  of t h e i r l i f e span, t h e i r maintenance varies and they are almost exclusively under rental i.  tenure.  Lobely Park enclave - south of the Kingsway commercial s t r i p , west of Royal Oak, north of Imperial and east of Nelson Avenue.  These apartments are o l d e r , in general  need of maintenance and almost exclusively of a rental nature. i.  Sanders Street enclave - north of the Kingsway commercial s t r i p , west of Royal Oak, south of Sanders Street and east of Nelson Avenue.  This area has three-storey  apartments in good c o n d i t i o n , single family dwellings in good condition and newer high density accommodation  116. (some senior c i t i z e n s ' housing).  The apartment com-  ponent is generally of a rental nature and the individual homes are owner-occupied, iv.  Grange Street apartment s t r i p - extending from Sussex Avenue to Barker Avenue along the north side of Grange Street.  These apartments are of various ages, conditions,  and tenures. v.  Sandell Street enclave - south of Sandell Street, west of Jersey Avenue, north of Kingsway and east of Smith Avenue.  This i s a tiny enclave of older rental apartments  in some need of repair with the exception of a newly-rezoned and under construction three-storey condominium apartment complex fronting on Jersey, vi.  North-Kathleen enclave - north of the B.C. Hydro and Power right-of-way, west of Willingdon Avenue, south of the Kingsway commercial s t r i p and east of Patterson Avenue. These apartments are of various ages, tenures and conditions but are generally newer and quite s u b s t a n t i a l .  As noted previously, the immediate study area i s surrounded by single family developments generally of good condition, well-established and s t a b l e .  The e x i s t i n g land use i s also r e f l e c t e d by current zoning.  It  should be noted that this zoning does not r e f l e c t proposed use as much as the h i s t o r i c a l  situation.  The present zoning  configuration i s i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 29.  117. Existing Planning Schemes: As has already been discussed in some d e t a i l , the Kingsway/ Central Park study area has been a designated Municipal town centre for a number of years.  As such, i t has been an important  component in the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s settlement area hierarchy.  This  fact has c l e a r l y influenced Municipal thinking and development of the area.  Its importance in the overall Municipal  settlement  pattern has caused a good deal of planning attention to be paid to the area over time, and this work has been communicated in a number of planning documents.  The intent now i s to review these  past schemes which are i l l u s t r a t e d a.  in Plate 30:  The most important of these i s the Apartment Study.  On the  basis of the town centre designation, the Apartment Study has provided a s p e c i f i c interpretation of what that concept meant in land use terms. three areas.  It divided i t s land use explanation into  Area "L" deals with the town centre proper.  It  designates a r e l a t i v e l y high i n t e n s i t y configuration with an emphasis on comprehensive mixed-use s i t e redevelopment.  Area  " J " deals with the small area to the north of Central Park at the f a r westerly extent of the present study area.  Because  the area was not conceived as integrated with the town centre, i t was treated as a separate mini-community with a small commercial focus surrounded by a band of medium-density multiple family development.  Area "M" deals with the area to the south  of the town centre bounded by the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority right-of-way,  Imperial Street and Patterson  Avenue.  This  was thought of as exclusively an apartment zone with a major medium-density r e s i d e n t i a l component and a band of high density  118. habitation bordering Central  Park.  While the Apartment Study focussed attention on the study area and l a i d out a general town centre scheme, i t did not address i t s e l f to the necessity for integration or to considerations of movement, etc.  In order to deal with s p e c i f i c development  proposals, i t was necessary to further refine the work in the Apartment Study to resolve questions of property configuration, street and walkway alignments and development c r i t e r i a , e s p e c i a l l y in areas where redevelopment implied major changes in these elements.  This work was l a i d out in the Community Plans.  In practice these community plans have been developed primarily in areas of high density r e s i d e n t i a l use because of the major infrastructural  changes that this development type necessitates.  Apartment Area "L" was further developed by Community Plan #1 (with boundaries at Kingsway, Olive Avenue and Patterson Avenue) and Community Plan #4 (with boundaries at Sussex Avenue, Dover S t r e e t , Nelson Avenue, Sanders Street, Marlborough Avenue and Bennett S t r e e t ) .  The high density r e s i d e n t i a l  strip  of Apartment Area "M" was refined by Community Plan #2 (with boundaries at Patterson Avenue, Beresford S t r e e t , Willingdon Avenue and Maywood S t r e e t ) .  Recent redevelopment within the study area has been guided c l o s e l y by these planning schemes.  The designation of the  area for Metrotown development, however, has caused a r e v i s i o n by local planners of a number.of the primary assumptions upon which the previous schemes were made. time, these e x i s t i n g plans  reflect  At the same  119. policy that has been depended upon as being set by area residents and the development community.  Consequently where p o s s i b l e ,  Metrotown design w i l l build upon these past p o l i c i e s and revise them only i f such i s requisite to the overall for the Metrotown.  concept  In this sense, while such p o l i c i e s  will  not be considered irrevocable, they w i l l also not be ignored. A4.  Topography and Natural Endowments: The study area i s almost exclusively a suburbanized place such that i t s o r i g i n a l natural landscape has been almost completely domesticated.  The exception to this i s primarily in the large  open space resources at Central Park and Deer Lake.  Consequently,  the thrust of current work w i l l be less to preserve a valuable natural endowment and more to i n s t i l l  a new component of  greenery and landscaped spaces.  The overall form of the land, however, is not erased with.the onslaught of urbanization and the topography of the study area is d i s t i n c t i v e .  Except for Burnaby Mountain and Capital  Hill  at the far north edge of the M u n i c i p a l i t y , the study area i s placed on the highest t e r r a i n in Burnaby's environs near the c r e s t of a ridge that extends in an arc approximately along Kingsway and Edmonds.  The area slopes to the north down to  the Deer Lake basin and down to the south to the Big Bend Delta. Topographically, therefore, the Metrotown location i s an important municipal feature that enhances the a b i l i t y to create Metrotown as a s i g n i f i c a n t regional landmark but that increases r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that the physical structure of the  120. area not create a disjointed image disruptive to the regional landscape.  The topography also provides an almost unlimited  potential for views that can be a very positive in the Metrotown r e s i d e n t i a l environment. topographical  characteristic  Local planners want this  uniqueness to be both respected and exploited.  The area's topography is i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 31.  A5.  Area Constraints and Potentials for Metrotown Design: The application  of a generic idea to a s p e c i f i c area incor-  porates as a necessary point of departure, a judgment as to what physical features must be considered as 'given' elements in the design process.  In one sense, these 'givens' can be  considered to be c o n s t r a i n t s , i . e .  "...elements we can 'put up  with' because we either cannot do anything about them, or we choose to do nothing to change them".  (Mann, 1974:2, 1 ).  In another sense, however, one can temper t h i s negative d e f i n i t i o n with one where the e x i s t i n g features are seen as positive assets whose potentials should be exploited.  On the basis of  this dual nature of ' g i v e n s ' , we have followed local  planners'  guidance and made the following assumptions that influence the solution that is to be proposed: a.  B u i l t Environment - We have assumed as an absolute given those new and r e l a t i v e l y intensively developed building complexes that are constructed, under construction or have been given Council authorization via completion of the rezoning process.  These building complexes are  i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 32.  These complexes could not  be expected to redevelop in the near future,  121. are generally of a scale that relates to the new scale of Metrotown, and have in some cases been developed with a r e a l i z a t i o n that they are Metrotown elements  (although  controls for those developments did not derive from a comprehensive area review). schemes, there has  In addition to these in-place  been contact and preliminary negotiations  with a number of developers concerning potential Metrotown developments.  While these negotiations provide knowledge  about trends and expectations in the area, they have not been assumed as givens because the Municipality has not entered into firm commitments with the various p a r t i e s , the negotiations occurred on the basis of former assumptions, and i t i s not f e l t such limited interactions should narrow Metrotown p o t e n t i a l s .  There is a s i g n i f i c a n t  component of in-place r e s i d e n t i a l accommodation of a medium density nature.  With the exception of a few newer  s t r u c t u r e s , these 3-storey apartments w i l l have become obsolete within 10+ years and pressure for t h e i r redevelopment w i l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y mount a f t e r that period.  Considering  t h i s as well as the long-term objective of providing a maximum number of r e s i d e n t i a l units in close proximity to the commercial core and t r a n s i t stations in Metrotown, the medium-density assembly has not been considered a longterm given.  On the other hand, in order to assure that  these structures w i l l enjoy a complete l i f e s p a n , they have been considered as a short-term given.  122. F i n a l l y , surrounding the Metrotown are established and stable s i n g l e - and two-family neighbourhoods that o f f i c i a l s want protected.  local  These present another 'given' as  discussed e a r l i e r . b.  Open Space - The study area has two essential  types of  open space that are being treated as given in a separate sense.  The f i r s t of these is the major park space.  Central Park, Bonsor Park and Deer Lake/Oakalla are a l l relevant in this respect.  These open space masses are  crucial positive elements on the e x i s t i n g landscape that can be well used in the Metrotown ensemble.  The guiding  assumption in reference to these i s that they w i l l be integrated into the development conception but minimum changes to t h e i r configuration may be suggested to f a c i l i tate t h e i r use.  Corollary to these major park spaces are  also minor spaces at various locations in the study area. These spaces are assumed to be f l e x i b l e so that open space linkage and q u a l i t y can be r e a l i z e d . open space is the school grounds.  The second type of  These spaces w i l l be  assumed as given and as valuable endowments but t h e i r ultimate use as school space has not been assumed.  The  ultimate use of school space should be dependent upon the p r o f i l e of residents that inhabit Metrotown.  It may be  that the Metrotown population w i l l not support the e x i s t i n g schools in which case a relocation of these schools to more central locations in the child-bearing  single-family  neighbourhoods surrounding Metrotown would be d e s i r a b l e . space givens' are i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 32.  Open  Established Movement Patterns -  Over time, a number  of movement paths have established themselves.  Many of  these paths based on h i s t o r i c a l or e x i s t i n g destinations can be considered subject to manipulation as a part of Metrotown design.  On the other hand, certain movement  patterns are relevant at the regional level either in the existing s i t u a t i o n or in established plans.  Streets  assumed as ' g i v e n ' , therefore, are Kingsway, Boundary Road, Imperial Street, Nelson Avenue and Royal Oak Avenue.  In addition to the vehicular s t r e e t s , the location of the t r a n s i t alignment and the t r a n s i t type defined by regional decision makers has been taken as given.  The designated  alignment coincides with the existing B.C. Hydro and Power Authority right-of-way which bisects the study area. - Slight divergences, however, from this designated right-of-way may be proposed in the design. (a l i g h t - r a p i d - t r a n s i t  The proposed t r a n s i t type  s i m i l a r but faster than the conven-  tional street car) has been taken as given.  Whether t h i s  f a c i l i t y w i l l movent, above or below grade in Metrotown has not been assumed from the local perspective.  Movement  'givens are i l l u s t r a t e d in Plate 32. 1  Significant Historical  Features  While the area is not old in epochal terms, as i s c l e a r from the h i s t o r i c a l description above, i t does contain structures that are old in terms of Burnaby and that have s i g n i f i c a n c e in local h i s t o r y .  The Curator of Burnaby's  a a  n  O Q  I  5 X  112  or:  r 3  HQ  Q § Q X  35  fC  z X  >0  v5  72  wiu.iN«iCort  BoaHRW ftp  cJtO  r:  to.  < <  _1 Mi  m  5 Q -  — CsJ MN  O  O  vSN >0 V)  ^-  O  o  zr O  < —  A—  1  ^  lima: 7Z  z;  Quo.  8  mill \T> \T) vf>  75  l S 18  3 §  g  vi sT) i i *  rS.  3- «n  v5"  7Z  JO. >  ZL^tf- lil  Sip-, ^ S-P  iii  ^3^>  iu  •VUM-BO*CfcM,H  W!UJM«ieofi  BCWNOMtf ftp. 0  129. Heritage V i l l a g e H i s t o r i c a l Museum has surveyed the h i s t o r i c a l aspects of the area (Adams, 1975) and his findings are noted in Plate 32.  also  In reference to this work, the following  judgment has been made.  Certain structures are h i s t o r i c a l l y  invaluable and should be preserved—the Kingsway Funeral Chapel and St. John the Divine Church (Burnaby's oldest standing church). The remainder of structures and building assemblies noted by the Curator should be incorporated into new projects but redevelopment should not be fundamentally frustrated to save them.  This  view i s based upon the following f a c t o r s : i.  Metrotown land is scarce and should be u t i l i z e d in a maximum way to s a t i s f y current needs,  ii.  Structures of s i m i l a r h i s t o r i c a l or a r c h i t e c t u r a l value (or more) e x i s t in other locations in Burnaby and the region,  iii.  F e a s i b i l i t y for a l t e r n a t i v e use of old buildings might be minimum because of t h e i r physical q u a l i t y materials, f i n i s h e s ,  (structure,  etc.).  The Curator has suggested that where buildings cannot be retained, the continuation of h i s t o r i c a l with the past. B.  THE  PROBE  names can provide a connection  This idea is endorsed by local  planners.  PLAN - ISSUES FROM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES:  We have now reviewed the study area and s p e c i f i e d the constraints imposes.  it  On the basis of this information coupled with the guidance  of the Metrotown model and directions from broad Municipal  planning  p o l i c y , a prototypical design scheme has been prepared that we c a l l the 'probe p l a n ' .  This scheme i s i l l u s t r a t e d in Plates 33-37, and has  been evaluated by Burnaby planners.  130. We w i l l now discuss this probe plan by separating i t into i t s  various  major aspects and specifying the Municipal opinion that the plan r e f l e c t s and the predicted regional response that would r e s u l t . In a s i t u a t i o n of c o n t r a d i c t i o n , i f a technical r e c o n c i l i a t i o n seems apparent t h i s , too, i s discussed.  Through this process potential  issues were regional and local views diverge w i l l be s p e c i f i e d and resolved were Bl.  possible.  Design Response to Existing Land Uses: Both regional and local decision makers have noted that the design for Metrotown should b u i l d upon e x i s t i n g where p o s s i b l e .  'energies'  While t h i s general idea gets agreement,  its  exact interpretation in the probe plan can be expected to be contentious as follows: . Local Position as Designed:  A comparison of the probe plan  with the itemized 'given elements'  i l l u s t r a t e s that these  elements have been integrated f u l l y into the design.  The  design process treats these as determinants that have a basic influence on the arrangement of the place. .  Predicted Regional Response:  Treating e x i s t i n g features as  i n f l u e n t i a l design determinants w i l l probably not s i t well  with  regional decision makers because these e x i s t i n g features do not r e f l e c t the dependence on t r a n s i t that the region wants in the RTC.  The s i t i n g and design of these features shows  a dependence on and accommodation of the automobile that would be contrary to regional RTC intentions. B2.  Movement Systems: Movement systems have been used as a framework for the arrangement of land uses in the probe plan.  This broad intention is not  kely to cause regional/local disagreement u n t i l  its  131. ramifications  to p a r t i c u l a r movement elements are discussed as follows: Transit: Transit is shown in the plan to run along the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority right-of-way.  S p e c i f i c t r a n s i t design  decisions are as follows: i.  Number of Stations: .  Local P o s i t i o n as Designed:  The s i z e of the area  has necessitated three t r a n s i t s t a t i o n s , located at approximately Boundary Road, Patterson Avenue and Sussex Avenue as shown on the probe plan.  The local view i s that  if  fewer stations had been proposed then the size of the area woul'd have had to be r e s t r i c t e d .  Because area  boundaries are based on natural landscape d i v i s i o n s and because e x i s t i n g features to be incorporated in Metrotown are d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the area, a contraction of boundaries to allow fewer stations  is  not d e s i r a b l e . .  Predicted Regional Response:  Based on the regional  growth strategy, the regional view is that the t r i p time between RTCs and Downtown Vancouver must be kept faster than the t r i p would take by private automobile. It is estimated by the GVRD that the t r a n s i t t r i p between the New Westminster RTC and Vancouver Centre under design now being considered by the Provincial a u t h o r i t i e s , would only be s l i g h t l y faster than a similar private auto t r i p  132. assuming one Metrotown s t a t i o n .  Trip-time is made  s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer with the inclusion of each new station because of the load/unload and deceleration time added for that s t a t i o n .  Thus, more than one  Metrotown station would not be supported. regional concern w i l l  A second  be t r a n s i t costs as a factor  in the decision to pursue or drop t r a n s i t plans in the region. stations.  A major t r a n s i t cost i s the construction  of  Therefore more than one station would also be  opposed by the GVRD because i t increases costs. Possible Reconciliation:  The Boundary Road station that  has been designed would primarily serve the 5000-employee B.C. Telephone Co. complex.  This station might be removed  i f a local'movement system between.the B.C. Tel complex and the Patterson t r a n s i t station were i n s t a l l e d . This local system (perhaps a j i t n e y ) could also serve people whose destination is within Central Park.  Thus  the local movement provision could be financed by combined public-private co-operation by B.C. Telephone Co., the Municipality and the regional t r a n s i t authority. This decreases the number of stations to two and lessens t r a n s i t costs. costs of t r a n s i t ,  To further reduce  public capital  the Patterson station might be desig-  nated as a secondary stop providing only loading/unloading accommodation rather than being a large-scaled  facility.  133. Station Integration with Pedestrian Network: The t r a n s i t stations have been conceived as well  integrated  into the pedestrian network of the Metrotown as major points of gravity.  Each project surrounding a t r a n s i t  station should provide f o r d i r e c t walkways to the s t a t i o n . There is no indication that regional and local w i l l disagree on this  authorities  point.  Nature of Stations: .  Local Position as Designed:  The proposed plan indicates  that stations should be multifunctional places that become f u l l y integrated with abutting multifunctional projects creating a continuous realm of space and activity.  Stations should not be separate unifunctional  t r a n s i t terminals because they w i l l not stimulate abutting uses by a continuous d i r e c t flow of people i f the space for t h i s flow i s discontinuous. .  Predicted Regional Response:  The probable position  of the regional a u t h o r i t i e s w i l l be that the idea of integrated stations i s desirable but may be d i f f i c u l t to put into p r a c t i c e .  Integrated stations would  require high levels of public and private co-ordination between t r a n s i t authorities and developers and could mean extensively larger capital outlays from the public purse for station construction in the f i r s t  instance.  The expedient approach of regional authorities probably be to proceed with unifunctional stops in suburban areas.  will  transit  1 .  Possible R e c o n c i l i a t i o n :  In l i n e with the idea of  reducing the number of stations that has already been discussed, the Patterson station might become a unifunctional  stop whereas the Sussex station which  serves the core a c t i v i t i e s of Metrotown could be maintained as a multifunctional  integrated  facility.  To lessen public costs for the Sussex s t a t i o n , development rights might be sold by t r a n s i t authorities to the private sector for the purpose of constructing the additional multifunctional  component.  If these  rights were sold to an abutting project developer, then integration could be maximized. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n of Station Users: .  Local Position as Designed: sense of local residents'  In order to achieve a  i d e n t i t y with t h e i r in-town  neighbourhoods and in order to avoid sharp c o n f l i c t s between regional and local user movement in Metrotown, the probe plan defines a degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n as to the c l i e n t a l e that each station serves.  The Sussex  station would predominantly serve those people who come into Metrotown because of regionally facilities.  significant  The Patterson station .  would serve the high-density neighbourhood surrounding i t as a means for in-town residents to get to and from jobs and services outside of Metrotown. Road station would serve primarily B.C. Telephone Co.  employees.  The Boundary  regionally-dispersed  135. Predicted Regional Response:  The regional  authorities  would probably have l i t t l e sympathy for the neighbourhood component of Metrotown to be e s p e c i a l l y served by a transit station.  The regional concept is that area  residents whether within or surrounding should use a supporting bus system to connect into r a i l from t h e i r homes.  transit  The B.C. Telephone Co. employee  population would probably be too small and homogeneous in t h e i r station use to warrant another separate station for t h e i r own use.  Thus the regional a u t h o r i t i e s would  probably not support the s p e c i a l i z e d nature of t r a n s i t catchment proposed in the plan. Possible R e c o n c i l i a t i o n :  The deployment of functions  shown in the probe plan w i l l inherently cause some s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of station users i f more than one station i s provided.  The arrangement of uses in the probe  plan r e f l e c t s e x i s t i n g uses of Metrotown land that the local a u t h o r i t i e s w i l l not choose to ignore.  If, as  has been proposed as a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of other differences, the number of t r a n s i t stations is  limited  to two, then t h i s disagreement about s p e c i a l i z a t i o n might also be resolved.  Under a two-station arrangement  the Patterson station would serve the local  neighbour-  hoods abutting i t and would serve the employees of B.C. Telephone Co.  The Sussex Station would s t i l l  serve primarily the Metrotown core.  Thus a s p e c i a l i z a -  tion of station users would be accommodated though not as d i s t i n c t l y as was advocated in the probe plan.  136. Both stations could serve the k i s s - n - r i d e movement where spouses drive t r a n s i t riders to and from stations from surrounding homes not within walking distance. v.  Nature of Transit Right-of-Way: .  Local Position as Designed:  Because of the noise and  dangers imposed on adjacent areas by the movement of t r a n s i t , the probe plan indicates that the t r a n s i t facility  is placed underground between Imperial  Street  on the east and Patterson Avenue on the west,  this  being the highly built-up area of Metrotown.  The  ground surface above the t r a n s i t would become an important part of the Metrotown p a r k - t r a i l  walking  system. .  Predicted Regional Response:  The regional position w i l l  l i k e l y be that such an undertaking would be p r o h i b i t i v e l y expensive and that such costs would only be warranted in the Vancouver Centre portion of the t r a n s i t system. .  Possible R e c o n c i l i a t i o n :  Under careful design with  appropriate barriers and protections,  i t is possible  that the t r a n s i t f a c i l i t y could be at grade f o r a substantial part of i t s length within the Metrotown. To provide for pedestrian movement across the t r a n s i t right-of-way, the t r a n s i t stations could span the right-of-way to become important pedestrian bridges. This would also augment the accepted idea that t r a n s i t stations become points of draw for pedestrian movement. To f a c i l i t a t e pedestrian cross-movement in locations other than t r a n s i t s t a t i o n s , at c a r e f u l l y selected points  related to the pattern of parks and park t r a i l s abutting the t r a n s i t f a c i l i t y ,  crossovers of the  t r a n s i t l i n e could be designed as extensions ;of those abutting parks.  Crossover points related to  Bonsor Park, to the proposed Willingdon l i n e a r parkway and within Central Park would f u l f i l l over requirements for the proposed plan. be important that these f a c i l i t i e s  cross-  It would  not be b u i l t as  minimum crossover bridges but as ample park extensions (perhaps a 'park mound' under which t r a n s i t moves).  Automobile Ways: i.  Auto Movement on a Hierarchy of Streets: .  Local P o s i t i o n as Designed:  Automobile movement has  been conceived, as a d i r e c t r e f l e c t i o n of the local model of Metrotown, to occur on a hierarchy of streets as follows:  through-movement is to be accommodated  on streets that are designed for a minimum of d i r e c t access and i n t e r r u p t i o n .  These are proposed to be  Kingsway, Imperial, Boundary, Willingdon, Nelson and Royal Oak.  These through streets would be fast-moving  f a c i l i t i e s and they would also accommodate delivery v e h i c l e s , these functions being accomplished without pressing environmental hardships on abutting land uses. Local movement from place to place in the Metrotown would be provided on a ring or .loop road in a way that i s not a t t r a c t i v e to through t r a f f i c .  The Metrotown  core would be c i r c l e d by a renovated, continuous Dover/ Grange/Beresford route.  The local neighbourhoods to  138. the south would be provided with a loop road provided by connecting e x i s t i n g street rights-of-way.  Access  to individual properties would be provided by short cul de sacs which are not shown on the probe plan but would be determined by the nature of land assembly and s u b d i v i s i o n . .  Predicted Regional Response:  The regional view i s  that automobiles should primarily not be provided for in the Metrotown with the exception of movement to t r a n s i t stations from outside the Metrotown and movement of d e l i v e r y vehicles on r e s t r i c t e d rights-of-way. Thus the region w i l l l i k e l y not co-operate with local authorities in funding arrangements to renovate the street network that has been proposed.  Specifically,  the region w i l l probably not quarrel with the through function of Imperial, Boundary or Royal Oak because these are peripheral streets but w i l l quarrel with the through function proposed for Kingsway, Willingdoil^ and Nelson.  The ring road or local cul de sacs  w i l l also probably not be regionally supported, ii.  Configuration of Willingdon: .  Local Position as Designed:  Willingdon is proposed  in the probe plan as a major Metrotown s t r e e t .  The  designated function of Willingdon beyond through movement is to provide an auto connection between the in-town r e s i d e n t i a l  neighbourhoods in the southern  sector of Metrotown with the core assembly in the north.  139. To assure quiet and privacy to abutting properties, the street is proposed to occur within a broad parkway band that would do double duty as a c r u c i a l pedestrian walkway.  To slow through movement and to  discourage a l l but the most necessary through movement on Willingdon, the alignment of the street is given a c u r v i l i n e a r configuration that does not follow present straight and d i r e c t alignment.  its  These features  of the street also allow i t to act as a boundary between two v i a b l y - s i z e d neighbourhood u n i t s .  The  approach would require directed action by local authorit i e s to assemble parklands as well as the new alignment for Willingdon and to redevelop the street/parkway. .  Predicted Regional Response: traffic  Being opposed to through-  in the Metrotown, the regional  authorities  would probably not support the Willingdon proposal. The regional view would be that Willingdon t r a f f i c be redirected to peripheral through streets such as Boundary and Royal Oak.  This becomes a point at issue  i f the local authorities approach the regional authorit i e s for f i n a n c i a l cooperation in the assembly and redevelopment e f f o r t s of the Willingdon right-of-way. This may be necessary because of the extent of public action that w i l l be required on the proposal, iii.  Configuration of Kingsway: .  Local Position as Designed:  The probe plan r e f l e c t s  a local conception of Kingsway as the most s i g n i f i c a n t regional street in the Metrotown environs that serves  140. through movement but that also gives the Metrotown an imageability to automobile through-travellers and acts as a focus of a c t i v i t y and access into the Metrotown core.  Thus Kingsway has been seen as an integrating  element in the Metrotown whose conceptual weight i s s i m i l a r to that of the t r a n s i t f a c i l i t y .  This  conclusion r e f l e c t s a local view that i t i s simply not f e a s i b l e to move Kingsway to a peripheral  Metro-  town l o c a t i o n , to sever i t s through-traffic channel or to move Metrotown a c t i v i t i e s away from i t .  While this  i s not only unfeasible, i t i s also f e l t to be undesirable because Kingsway provides the automobile access that i s crucial  to the v i t a l i t y of the Metrotown even i f  t r a n s i t is i n s t a l l e d and p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t r a n s i t not i n s t a l l e d .  is  To preserve the uninterrupted through-  function of Kingsway, the plan proposes  clustering  important places along each side of the street and connecting these with pedestrian bridges that keep car and people c i r c u l a t i o n patterns separated.  Access to  these frontage properties, however, would not be provided d i r e c t l y from Kingsway but would necessitate movement onto secondary s t r e e t s .  F i n a l l y , the vehicular  environment of Kingsway would be softened with extensive landscaping,  tree planting and the i n s t a l l a t i o n of  a l l services underground. .  Predicted Regional Response:  Again, as an i n t r u s t i o n of  through-auto t r a f f i c into the Metrotown, the proposals  141. ' for Kingsway would probably not be given regional support.  The regional desire would be to move the  Kingsway alignment to a peripheral location and regional a u t h o r i t i e s would probably cooperate in such a venture.  Otherwise f i n a n c i a l  financially  participation  by the region in Kingsway upgrading would probably not be forthcoming. c.  Pedestrian Movement: A central and unique aspect, of the Metrotown environment i s the proposal that i t be developed within a c l e a r l y defined pedestrian context with various areas dedicated to exclusive pedestrian use in various types of spaces. A l l other modes would be conceived to support the movement of people on f o o t .  This broad concept r e f l e c t s  conceptual statements of both regional and local  authori-  t i e s and there i s no disagreement about the pedestrian character of the town.  A survey of the various aspects  of pedestrian movement that are proposed in the plan w i l l indicate i f this agreement characterizes a l l  pedestrian  matters. i.  Continuity of Pedestrian Channels:  Local planners say  there must be a continuity of pedestrian channels that connect a l l  important Metrotown locations,,  These places and  t h e i r linkages form a pedestrian network that has major paths shown on the probe plan and a c a p i l l a r y system of smaller pathways that would be developed within each development as f u l l y public or semipublic rights-of-way.  Neither authority would  142. disagree on this proposal. ii.  Pedestrian Connections to  Surrounding Areas:  The pedestrian system is proposed to be ultimately extended outward to provide walking connections between outlying areas surrounding Metrotown and core Metrotown f a c i l i t i e s .  These 'urban t r a i l s '  would be integrated into the Municipal-wide parkt r a i l walkway system.  There is no overt disagreement  between the regional and local authorities on this matter although not having conceived this as a crucial aspect of Metrotown, the regional  authorities  are l i k e l y to see these parkway connections as a purely local iii.  responsibility.  Automobile-Pedestrian Separation: .  Local Position as Designed: The local planners'  specifi-  cation of complete separation of pedestrians and vehicles in the high a c t i v i t y locations of the Metrotown has led to the proposal that the pedestrian a c t i v i t y level within the Metrotown core occur on an auto-free platform with various elevations. Where there are streets or areas needing d i r e c t automobile penetration, the platform would be developed at 15' above grade and would extend over auto a c t i v i t y .  In areas where automobiles are  not required, the platform would descend gradually back to grade.  Cars would c i r c u l a t e at grade and  under buildings whereas people would c i r c u l a t e above where there is sun and continuous space. The platform would apply to a l l areas noted for f i r s t and second order a c t i v i t y on the probe plan. A l l developments within this area would have to be b u i l t to the platform concept and would have to r e l a t e to elevations of surrounding projects.  All  pedestrian a c t i v i t y of a public nature or appealing to the general public as consumers would be located on the platform (shops, restaurants, plazas, meeting places, e t c . ) .  A l l major open spaces in the core  would be t i e d to the platform.  Public use of the  public areas of the platform would be guaranteed on a 24-hour basis.  The main entrances to a l l  f i r s t and second order a c t i v i t i e s would occur on the platform.  At the periphery, the platform  would have broad t r a n s i t i o n s back to the ground. Predicted Regional Response:  In the f i r s t  instance, the regional authorities would r e i t e r a t e t h e i r view that automobiles in Metrotown are undesirable.  Thus they would probably say that the  major proposal for a pedestrian platform would be an unnecessary expense.  Because the platform  expense would f a l l on potential developers which would make the Metrotown a less a t t r a c t i v e place to them, the regional authorities would probably oppose i t as i n h i b i t i n g Metrotown development and thus t h e i r decentralization  strategy.  Support Modes: .  Local Position as Designed:  In order for catering  to pedestrians to be f u l l y exploited, i t should be supported by support modes that t i e peripheral locations closely to t r a n s i t and automobile parking points.  A j i t n e y l i n e that was proposed conceptually  in the local Metrotown model has thus been employed taking the alignment shown on the probe plan. This j i t n e y would primarily make the r a i l  transit  a more viable means of access to Metrotown.  There-  fore the local authorities would want the regional a u t h o r i t i e s to pay for the support mode. Predicted Regional Response:  Regional  authorities  w i l l probably not decry the j i t n e y idea on theoreti c a l grounds.  However, t h e i r view would l i k e l y be  that rather than providing complex in-town support modes, the area of the town should be contracted with development more compact.  Moreover, because  the j i t n e y i s necessitated by a local decision about Metrotown boundaries, i t should be paid for by the Municipality. .  Possible R e c o n c i l i a t i o n :  The local  authorities  w i l l not be amenable to making the Metrotown smaller. Neither authority wants to pay for the support mode. Perhaps a Metrotown j i t n e y co-operative could be formed in which a l l Metrotown core developers would take part.  Thus the entrepreneurs that are offered  much higher a c c e s s i b i l i t y (and therefore  profit  opportunities) would d i r e c t l y pay for the j i t n e y  provision and could manage the f a c i l i t y to meet t h e i r needs. Organization of Use: Local planners outline concepts of organization whereby the various'uses are arranged into assemblies that are inter-dependent and have s i m i l a r environmental  requirements,  whereby these mixed-use assemblies can be housed in appropriate physical s e t t i n g s , and whereby these physical arranged to maximize the a f f i n i t i e s they house.  between the assemblies  The model s p e c i f i e s that  uses by d i f f e r e n t i a t e d into f i r s t ,  regionally-significant  second and t h i r d order  areas with an integrated t o u r i s t focus. locally-significant  settings can be  It s p e c i f i e s  that  uses be organized into neighbourhoods.  These ideas have been followed in the probe plan and can be discussed as follows, a.  Town Centre - F i r s t Order Area: i.  F i r s t Order Area Location: .  Local Position as Designed:  The F i r s t Order Area i s  located at a central point in the Metrotown so as to provide equal connections to t r a n s i t and automobile regional movement and access.  This is  felt  necessary because of the equal importance of t r a n s i t and cars as a means to reach the Metrotown core and because the s i t e offers large areas of land that are assembled under a few owners and are ripe for redevelopment.  The location also r e f l e c t s  e x i s t i n g land use patterns where areas south of the t r a n s i t right-of-way are currently dedicated to r e s i d e n t i a l use. .  Predicted Regional Response:  The regional plan-  ners w i l l not endorse the equal- emphasis on t r a n s i t and automobiles as means of Metrotown access.  Thus  the importance given Kingsway in the location decision of the F i r s t Order Area w i l l not be backed up by regional a u t h o r i t i e s .  Their view would be  that the Metrotown centre should c l u s t e r on both sides of t r a n s i t at the location of the station which would place Kingsway in a d i s t i n c t l y  peripheral  location. Possible R e c o n c i l i a t i o n :  If uses were arranged  within the F i r s t Order Area in the location shown on the plan so that a major concentration at the t r a n s i t station and a major concentration at Kingsway produced opposing magnets and a primary pathway of high a c t i v i t y connected these concentrations, then neither the v i a b i l i t y of t r a n s i t nor automobile access would be s a c r i f i c e d at the expense of the other.  If t r a n s i t was t r u l y more e f f i c i e n t than  the automobile, then this arrangement would also make the s t a t i o n more v i s i b l e which, in t u r n , would stimulate t r a n s i t use. F i r s t Order Area Form: The probe plan assumes that the F i r s t Order Area w i l l become the most dominant physical feature in the  Metrotown.  Because both regional and local  authorities  want a highly v i s i b l e town centre, this idea of form should cause no disagreement.  The F i r s t Order area  should also incorporate a t r a n s i t i o n in i t s  physical  form from the large-scaled structure of i t s centre to the small-scaled structure of surrounding developments. This is p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant in terms of the northern border of the area which d i r e c t l y abuts established and e x i s t i n g single-family and small apartment development.  This requirement is not l i k e l y to cause disagree-  ment between regional and local regional -to i t .  officials  planners  because  w i l l not attach major relevance  If the requirement, however, necessitates major  decreases in density or major added developer costs, then regional  officials  are l i k e l y to get uneasy.  Internal Organization of F i r s t Order A c t i v i t i e s : Each development i s proposed to include a fine-grained mix of a c t i v i t i e s u t i l i z i n g a vertical  differentia-  t i o n of use as s p e c i f i e d by the Metrotown model. Horizontally there should be a dominance of r e s i d e n t i a l accommodation at the periphery of the F i r s t Order Area, a mixture of o f f i c e s and shopping at the centre, a t o u r i s t focus and a cultural/recreational shown on the probe plan.  While this  focus as  specification  w i l l not cause major regional/local debate, regional planners  who have stressed that a l l f a c i l i t i e s be  highly mixed, w i l l l i k e l y be uneasy at the extent of  use d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n that the probe plan i n d i c a t e s . They would probably desire that uses not be segregated horizontally but v e r t i c a l l y , iv.  Subdivision Pattern of F i r s t Order Area: .  Local Position as Designed:  The local  planners  would require that development in the F i r s t Order Area occur in superblocks of single-developer, use development.  multi-  The reasons for this are that  development control and coordination would thus be s i m p l i f i e d and a higher q u a l i t y of development could be negotiated.  This becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y  relevant  because of the platform concept that is proposed. The receipt of square footage for public purposes through levy from developers is also s i m p l i f i e d with fewer large developers. Predicted Regional Response:  The regional  planners  would be p a r t i c u l a r l y loath to see few developers because they desire that space design r e f l e c t many interpretations by many parties in the RTC. Regional o f f i c i a l s  The  have stressed this point precisely  in t h e i r RTC conceptual  statement.  Town Centre - Second Order Area: i.  Second Order Area Location: .  Local Position as Designed:  The Second Order Area  has a c t i v i t y that is conceived to have a more d i r e c t need for automobile a c c e s s i b i l i t y and v i s i b i l i t y and is therefore oriented in the probe plan in a somewhat l i n e a r fashion along Kingsway.  It would be  connected to t r a n s i t by the j i t n e y and by pedestrian  ways through the F i r s t Order area.  The land costs  along Kingsway are also thought to warrant intense development. .  Predicted Regional Response:  Because the Second  Order Area uses t r a n s i t as i t s secondary means of a c c e s s i b i l i t y and is oriented s p e c i f i c a l l y to Kingsway, i t s existence and location would l i k e l y be opposed by regional a u t h o r i t i e s .  The regional  view would l i k e l y be that the discrimination and segregation of second order a c t i v i t i e s  i s contrary to  the highly mixed and compact conception of the RTC that they specify. Second Order Area Form: The probe plan assumes that Second Order Area building forms would be less dominant than F i r s t Order Area buildings.  The Grange frontage of the area would  require extensive use of t r a n s i t i o n forms that are i l l u s t r a t e d in the Metrotown model and a s i m i l a r though less extensive t r a n s i t i o n would be required south of Kingsway, facing south.  The pedestrian platform that  i s s p e c i f i e d for the F i r s t Order Area would extend and continue in the Second Order Area to provide a continuous and intensely active pedestrian plane separated v e r t i c a l l y from automobile movement. s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of form w i l l  These  probably not cause regional  opposition except i f they raise the costs of construction prohibitively.  150. Internal Organization of Second Order A c t i v i t i e s : Following local planners.  1  concepts, there is proposed in the  probe plan a highly-mixed combination of uses in the Second Order Area that is d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  vertically.  There should also be areas of dominance that are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d horizontally with a l i n e of r e s i d e n t i a l accommodation fronting onto Grange Street and looking south on the south side of Kingsway; with the Kingsway frontage used for o f f i c e and commercial a c t i v i t y ; and with the eastern portion of the area dominated by a focus of Tourist accommodation.  Except that these proposals  d i f f e r e n t i a t e uses beyond what would have been r e g i o n a l l y s p e c i f i e d , by regional planners, the planners w i l l  likely  not give major opposition to the internal organization of a c t i v i t i e s that i s shown on the probe plan. Subdivision Pattern of Second Order Area: .  Local Position as Designed:  In order to f a c i l i t a t e  local control devices, the local planners would also desire super-block development of the Second Order Area and the plan r e f l e c t s .  this.  Predicted Regional Response:  Because regional  planners want to see many kinds of space designed by many people in the RTC, the subdivision proposals of the Second Order Area would l i k e l y be opposed.  151. c.  Town Centre - Third Order Area: i.  Third Order Area Location: .  Local Position as Designed:  Because this Third Order  Area would house a c t i v i t i e s that prefer smaller,  less  expensive accommodation and do not necessarily need to be ' i n the thick o f  central higher order  activity,  a location abutting the Second Order Area to the south and the F i r s t Order Area to the west is proposed on the probe plan.  The location which now has a  landscape of older h i s t o r i c a l l y relevant  residential  buildings would be amenable to renovation that could maintain an intimate and charming character while housing Third Order Area a c t i v i t i e s on small  lots  inexpensively. Transit connections would be provided i n d i r e c t l y by footways through the F i r s t Order Area. .  Predicted Regional Response: will  Regional  authorities  probably say that the d i v e r s i t y of the town centre  environment would be best served i f these t h i r d order uses were integrated therein.  Valuable c e n t r a l l y  located properties, the regional planners would say, .might be better u t i l i z e d for more dense development. The regional view would l i k e l y also be that no core use should have simply i n d i r e c t access to the t r a n s i t station. ii.  Third Order Area Form: .  Local Position as Designed:  The Third Order Area would  have a small-scaled mix of a c t i v i t y throughout with commercial f a c i l i t i e s on the ground and offices, studies,  apartments and s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s on second f l o o r s of converted and i n - f i l l e d structures.  Its  setting  would be parklike with numerous mini-plazas developed publicly. .  Predicted Regional Response: likely  While the region would  not quarrel with the form concept proposed  beyond t h e i r larger opposition to the entire area, they would probably elect not to take part in public land purchases in the area for park or mini-plaza development.  The regional view would probably be that  monies might be spent on more pressing land assembly situations that w i l l house more intense development. Town Centre - Tourist Focus: .  Local Position as Designed:  A t o u r i s t focus that s i t s as  an integrated part of the F i r s t and Second Order Areas of the town centre is proposed that i s heavily oriented to the v i s a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y of Kingsway and that t i e s the F i r s t and Second Order Areas together with highly intense pedestrian .  activity.  Predicted Regional Response:  While regional  authorities  would probably not object to the focus of t o u r i s t and entertainment f a c i l i t i e s as an integrated part of town centre a c t i v i t y ,  they would l i k e l y encourage this focus  to occur d i r e c t l y next to station.  the t r a n s i t  They would thus probably oppose the Kingsway  location of t o u r i s t a c t i v i t i e s  because i t depends too  completely on automobile access.  153. e.  The Neighbourhoods: i.  Neighbourhood Areas Defined: .  Local Position as Designed:  The r e s i d e n t i a l  portions  of Metrotown have been d i f f e r e n t i a t e d into 4000-5000 person neighbourhoods ringing the Metrotown centre following  local planners'  concepts.  Some r e s i d e n t i a l accommodation, however, occurs outside this context and within the F i r s t and Second Order Areas as has already been noted. for a d i v e r s i t y of r e s i d e n t i a l .  Predicted Regional Response: intense component  0  f  This provides  lifestyles. The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of an  neighbourhoods within the Metro-  town would probably not be fundamentally opposed by regional  planners.  However, they are l i k e l y to  consider these areas outside t h e i r sphere of i n t e r e s t which is the town centre proper.  Thus the regional  programs operationalized to stimulate RTCs and help local governments in t h i s e f f o r t would probably be defined by the regional government as not applicable to the neighbourhood portion of Metrotown. ii.  Neighbourhood Arrangement: .  Local Position as Designed:  Each neighbourhood has.  been designed in the probe plan as a d i v e r s i f i e d local unit which includes a focus of convenience commercial and community f a c i l i t i e s and recreational park space in conformity with the local model,  planners'  ''here possible, the neighbourhood  commercial centre would be tied into t r a n s i t  stations.  154. .  Predicted Regional Response:  Again, while regional  authorities are l i k e l y not to oppose the proposed i n t e r i o r arrangements of neighbourhoods, they w i l l also probably not provide special f i n a n c i a l  support for the purchase  of lands that may be needed to implement the arrangements. iii.  Neighbourhood Connection to T r a n s i t : .  Local Position as Designed:  The in-town neighbourhoods  are to be connected to t r a n s i t with pedestrian walkways and a j i t n e y l i n e as shown on the probe plan. this augments t r a n s i t ,  Because  local authorities w i l l want  regional a u t h o r i t i e s to pay f o r the j i t n e y l i n e and share in pathway a c q u i s i t i o n costs. .  Predicted Regional Response:  As a system required to  serve neighbourhoods that are regionally f e l t to be a local r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  the regional authorities w i l l  probably want local money to provide the j i t n e y and pedestrian connections. .  Possible R e c o n c i l i a t i o n :  The use of a development  levy system would provide funding for purchase of pathways and, in part, these could even be secured through the demand of easements in favour of the Municipality for the r i g h t of public passage on foot across private property.  The previously suggested scheme to finance  j i t n e y l i n e s (paid for by the Metrotowners) could also include the r e s i d e n t i a l j i t n e y routes.  155. B4.  Park Systems: It has been noted in p r i n c i p l e that the Metrotown should r e f l e c t the Municipal character of development spaces interspersed within an open space framework.  This concept  i s followed in the probe plan and, in general, would not seem to cause regional/local  contentions.  S p e c i f i c aspects of park space are as follows: a.  Use of Existing Parklands: A l l major open spaces now e x i s t i n g in and around the Metrotown are maintained in the probe plan as the primary open space resource.  These spaces are augmented with a  continuous p a r k - t r a i l  system as shown on the probe plan  that opens into mini-parks or plazas at a l l  important points.  Parks are used to separate neighbourhoods and incompatible uses and each neighbourhood has i t s own park space.  None  of these features w i l l l i k e l y be opposed by regional authorities. b.  Central Park/)akalla Connection: .  Local Position as Designed:  One of the most unique  aspects of the Metrotown s i t e is i t s location between and abutting two major open space opportunities—Central Park on the west and theOakail a lands (to be developed as a park) on the east.  An important need is to connect  these spaces through the Metrotown to provide a continuous pedestrian pathway within primarily a park setting (except in the Metrotown core)  and to maximize access  of the major parklands to most Metrotowners by foot.  The primary component in this linkage is the Willingdon parkway as shown on the probe plan. Predicted Regional Response:  The regional view would  probably be that the parkway is a worthwhile project but that i t s expression as an abatement device for the major through-street running at i t s centre minimizes i t s recreational  value.  They would probably therefore  not support the parkway. .  Possible Resolution:  The proposed parkway and street  might be protected from negatively a f f e c t i n g one another through a design that creates strong boundaries between park and street and provides safe passage across the street e i t h e r in pedestrian over- or under-passes.  Central Park Integration: .  Local Position as Designed:  Central Park's eastern  border i s proposed to be changed to the seal lopped configuration shown on the probe plan to e x p l o i t to a maximum extent the park amenity for high density development along that border.  Central Park i s  further  proposed to be accessed for regional users from the Patterson Street and Boundary Road t r a n s i t .  Predicted Regional Response:  stations.  It is probable that  regional authorities w i l l consider changes to Central Park to be a local matter for which they w i l l e l e c t not to be involved.  Their view of the use of t r a n s i t to  access the park would probably be that regardless of where stations are, they could provide the access function provided this was a n c i l l a r y to t h e i r main function of  157. accessing the Metrotown centre proper and that park access was not a c r i t e r i a in station design. B5.  Metrotown Forms: Following the p r i n c i p l e for overall form in the Metrotown model, a schematic concept for forms is s p e c i f i e d in the probe plan. Except as this concept places a r b i t r a r i l y r e s t r i c t i v e  conditions  on potential Metrotown developers, regional authorities are not l i k e l y to worry about the overall form of the place that is proposed in the local design. B6.  Development Phasing in Metrotown: .  Local Position as Designed:  A concept of phasing is  included  in the probe plan and represents the l o c a l l y adopted view that Kingsway w i l l remain the focus for Metrotown for some time until t r a n s i t becomes a viable a l t e r n a t i v e  focus.  Also, e x i s t i n g building l i f e spans p a r t i c u l a r l y in the r e s i dential areas in the southern sector of Metrotown are to be respected, thus making redevelopment of these spaces a longterm proposition.  Local a u t h o r i t i e s would want no time  scheduling of phases. .  Predicted Regional Response:  The region is l i k e l y to strongly  object to a beginning emphasis on Kingsway.  They would  probably also be l i t t l e convinced by the argument of building l i f e spans.  Regional authorities would probably say that  development at or around station locations would tend to enhance regional e f f o r t s to provide t r a n s i t sooner. i s because i t creates a clear demand for the t r a n s i t . the region would l i k e l y c a l l  This Thus  for f i r s t phase development at  t r a n s i t stations on both sides and even using a i r rights over  the t r a n s i t alignment.  The region would also oppose a  phasing concept that did not have a temporal dimension directed toward substantial development completion by 1986.  We have now defined the issues between regional and local t i e s that emerge from a process of probe design.  authori-  We can therefore  turn to the relationship of issues to policy and the recommendations that w i l l be required at a policy level to achieve clear regional and local cooperation on RTC/Metrotown development. the subject of the conclusions.chapter to follow.  This  is  164.  CHAPTER FIVE SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECONCILE RTC ISSUES  165.  We have now completed both a comparative analysis of the broad p o l i c i e s and conceptions for the RTC that are embraced by Burnaby and the GVRD. We have also completed a design probe for the purpose of i s o l a t i n g areas of issue between the two governments.  We have used the information from  the comparative analysis as a means of predicting the nature of disagreements on each issue and the probe design which is developed from local has been juxtaposed with a predicted regional response.  conceptions  Thus we have a r t i c u -  lated the apparent discrepancies in the GVRD's notion of the RTC as seen from a local  viewpoint and the next requirement i s to determine how regional and  local disagreements might be resolved.  This is the subject of t h i s concluding  chapter of the a n a l y s i s .  We have already noted that the probe design suggests possible to issues that are of a technical nature. resolutions f i r s t .  reconciliations  We w i l l deal with these technical  We have also noted that some issues w i l l not be amenable  to technical resolution and can be seen as i n d i c a t i v e of deeper disagreements between GVRD and Burnaby that could lead to a standoff in r e g i o n a l - l o c a l cooperation.  These issues can be resolved only by suggesting changes in p o l i c y .  We w i l l deal with recommendations toward this end in the l a t t e r part of these conclusions.  Through these technical and policy recommendations, a d i r e c t i o n  i s proposed that would allow regional and local cooperation to achieve the Burnaby RTC.  In preface to these conclusions, we should make one important point. issues that have been isolated are very d e t a i l e d .  The  One might assume that  such detailed matters would be of l i t t l e interest to the GVRD.  Their primary  orientation is much broader and they have made few comments about s i t e s p e c i f i c matters.  Yet the work of the GVRD planners would not seem to support  166. this assumption.  It must be remembered that the  GVRD  wants the RTC to  be an a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e location to Downtown Vancouver.  They know that  the character of the environment and the mix of a c t i v i t i e s w i l l a f f e c t the attractiveness of the place.  They know that i f design standards are too  high or too low and i f use s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are too r e s t r i c t i v e or non-existent then the attractiveness of the RTC w i l l s u f f e r .  Therefore the d e t a i l s of  Metrotown development become important to them.  This is why they make major  e f f o r t s to put forward a s p e c i f i c concept within the constraints placed on them by t h e i r power p o s i t i o n .  This is why they press f o r the creation of  an RTC development corporation so that they can have some control over how the RTC evolves.  Simply because they are not in a position to i n i t i a t e  specific  design does not mean they w i l l accept any design scheme proposed at the local level. A.  Therefore, a resolution of issues over detailed matters becomes c r u c i a l .  TECHNICAL RESOLUTION OF PREDICTED ISSUES We have defined a technical resolution of an issue as the s i t u a t i o n where a design a l t e r n a t i v e has been discovered in the design probe that would be acceptable to regional and local a u t h o r i t i e s as a compromise position of agreement not s a c r i f i c i n g more fundamental positions of either s i d e .  policy  In discussing the various design aspects  of the probe plan, we noted such technical compromises where these seemed apparent.  The previous discussion of predicted issues is summarized  in the chart shown in Plate 38.  The technical resolutions that were noted  can be itemized as follows: i.  A number of these were purely a matter of design as related to the character, number and functions of t r a n s i t stations and right-of-way as well as the internal arrangement of F i r s t Order a c t i v i t i e s and the protection of pedestrians from street  ii. iii.  traffic,  One was a matter of having the Metrotowners pay for j i t n e y  service,  And one was a matter of using development levies and easements to  Design Response to Existing Landscape Features  L. R.  III, 1 I II  3 stations required to serve area. Only 1 station desirable because of time and monev.  3. Configuration of Kingsway  L.  5.  B.  Nature of Transit Rightof-Way  L. R.  Highly integrated multifunctional f a c i l t i i e s . Primarily unifunctional to conserve costs.  Of 2 stations proposed, the core-serving station would be multi-functional and the other station would be umifunctional.  L.  One station serves neigh bourhood and one serves core area. Maximize use of stations^ no specialization.  Integration of 3 stations! into 2 intensifies uses while maintaining a degree of specialization of users.  L.  L. R.  R/W should be underground through Metrotown . R/W to be on-grade.  2.  Configuration of Willingdon  Through careful design place part of R/W underground and part on surface depending on adjacent land use.  4. Subdivision Pattern in f i r s t order area.  1. Location of second order area.  R.  Needed to accommodate autos without pervasive street grids. No cars in Metrotown.  Through-street in a parkway. No through-traffic in Metrotown.  >- O u l  DESIGN ASPECT  C J t-iOC  L. R.  Use superblocks of Comprehensive Development to simplify control. Use small development units to give variety.  || II  1. Neighbourhood areas defined.  Support modes to enhance pedestrian movement.  IJ £ .  L. R.  2. Internal Arrange ment of Neighbourhoods  1 1 1 1  Use jitney system-region should pay. Make Metrotown smalleri f jitney, the local pays.  Jitney paid f o r by Metrotown entrepreneurs  Subidivsion Pattern in 2nd order area.  1. Location of f i r s t order area.  L.  2. Form of f i r s t order area.  3. Internal deployment of f i r s t order area.  CONTINUED  • •  R.  I 1 1  Use superblocks of Comprehensive Dev. to simplify control. Use -.mall development units to give variety.  C. Town Centre-3rd Order Area  Central location with equal auto and transit connections. Should be located around transit-no auto connection-;.  If the arrangement of uses created nodes and pathways then transit would be played up without denying cars=design matter  Um II |  1. Location of 3rd order area.  L. R.  Hill II ||]|  2. Form of 3rd order area.  L. R.  Illlll IU I  ^ CentreTourist Focus o w n  L. R.  Attached to 1st & 2nd order areas away from transit and road. No 3rd order uses and specifically not segregated. Small lot renovation of old buildings-small scale. Land should be higher used-no part in assembly. Focus on Kingsway for visibility. Should be focussed on transit station.  L. R.  Lining Kingsway because of automobile requirement. Should not focus on Ki ngsway.  Internal Organi zation of 2nd order area.  Organization of Metrotown Use A. Town Centre - 1st Order Area  R. |l ||  In Centre use +15 concept] w/ people above, cars below. Platform too expensive and not required i f no cars.  L. R.  3. Neighbourhood Connection to Transit  [BL 3. Auto/Pedestrian Separation  TECHNICAL RESOLUTION PROPOSED  t-O  Ul  FTUJ UJ  Bl. Organization of Metrotown Use (continued) E. The Neighbourhood  I II 1 L.  ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View  UJ U J l  2. Form of second order area.  2. Pedestrian connections to surrounding areas.  II |l II L.  TECHNICAL RESOLUTION PROPOSED  o_  R.  Automobile Ways Auto movement on a hierarchy] of streets.  ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View  B. Town Centre-2nd Order Area  R. Stations to serve special ized transit riders.  •I  to centre. No through-traffic in Metrotown.  Continuity of pedestrian channels and space.  Integration of] stations with pedestrian pathway system  4.  Kingsway through-street as central integrating feature and major access  C. Pedestrian Movement  2 stations proposed by integrating use of 3rd station into these  DESIGN ASPECT  TJJ.. Organization of Metrotown Use A. Town Centre-lst Order Area (continued)  R.  1. Number of Stations  TECHNICAL RESOLUTION PROPOSED  Movement (cont.) B. Automobile Ways  JX. Movement A. Transit:  Nature of Stations  ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View  REQUIRED  •  Selected existing features as determinants Existing features treated as anomolies  H DESIGN ASPECT  POLICY REVISION  PROPOSED  NO  TECHNICAL RESOLUTION  ISSUE  1 I,  ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View  POLICY  NO  ISSUE  DESIGN ASPECT  REVISION 1 REQUIRED!  167.  P a r k  s  y  R.  Neighbourhoods each 40005000 people with central f a c i l i t i e s & parkspace. Neighbourhoods not part of RTC: no assistance.  Jitney system and walk- Use levy system to get ways to be paid by region walkways. Jitney and parkways a Jitney part of core-jitney local responsibility. line paid for by Metrotowners .  s t e m s  •  | 1 I  A. Existing parklands incorporated into scheme.  1 1 1  B. Central Park/Oakalla Connection via Willingdon parkway.  L. R.  Parkway does double duty. Design street and park to be clearly divided realms. Auto/park combination dangerous-no through t r a f f i c in Metrotown.  1 1 1  C. Central Park integration with adjacent urban land use.  L.  Use scalloping and give transit access. Central Park a local responsibility.  •1 1  •  L.  • •  Neighbourhoods are intown residential component of Metrotown. Neighbourhoods not part of RTC: no assistance.  1 3C» Overal 1 Form of 1 Metrotown Based on 1 Activity Levels  SI.  P n a  •1  s i n g of Metrotown  R.  •  • L. R.  •  Start at Kingsway and work back to transit; no time l i m i t . Start at t r a n s i t ; time limit to 1986.  END  CONTINUED  CONTINUED  suirW or mracnsp issues FROM DBSMJN irats runs 58  168. secure parkspace and walkways. These possible r e c o n c i l i a t i o n s were l a i d out in d e t a i l chapter.  in the previous  The predicted issues that can be resolved t e c h n i c a l l y do not  r e f l e c t fundamental disagreements between the two parties providing that both regional and local a u t h o r i t i e s endorse the compromises as acceptable. This is because such compromises allow each authority to accept the other a u t h o r i t y ' s policy positions at face value. reconciliations will  be embraced by the GVRD and Burnaby because both  know that cooperation i s required. w  e  r  e  We can assume that technical  In looking at the remaining issues that  predicted through the design process, we f i n d that each of these has  roots in more general differences of opinion.  We have i l l u s t r a t e d this  geneology of issues in the chart shown in Plate 39.  This provides  direction  to changes in policy that would be required for the two a u t h o r i t i e s to reach consensus on the RTC/Metrotown.  B.  RECOMMENDATION 1:  POLICY REVISION  The major area of disagreement which appears as the root cause of a number of predicted issues concerns the views of the two governments about how people should get access to and move around in the Metrotown. We can itemize the design issues founded on this disagreement as follows: i.  A l l predicted issues about streets including the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s  for  a hierarchy of streets and for the function and form of Kingsway and Willingdon; ii.  the issues concerned with the location and orientation of a c t i v i t y assemblies in the Metrotown core;  iii.  the issue related to the geography of phasing that has been proposed; and  iv.  in large part, the issue about the v e r t i c a l and automobiles.  separation of pedestrians  169.  DIVERGING VIEWS AT LEVEL OF BROAD PLANNING POLICY  _<X r  ~^/  R = regional view L = local view  1.  2.  3.  VIEW OF GROWTH:  RTC CONCEPTIONS  1.  METROTOWN ACTIVITY CONTENT:  Fairly distribute costs & benefits of growth to every Municipality in region  R.  Metrotown specializes as location for populationserving a c t i v i t i e s .  L.  Take only growth wanted-avoid problem growth.  L.  Metrotown to have broad range of a c t i v i t i e s to achieve urbaneness & diversity.  IMPORTANCE OF METROTOWN: R.  One of several equal RTCs— all must grow together.  L.  Only chance for diversity— seek regional highest p r i o r i t y status.  MOVEMENT:  L.  2.  3.  Transit is key element in growth strategy. Municipal uevelopiient to .iccomrodate car and hope for transit  NATURE OF RTC: R.  Town Centre  L.  Complete .'settlement'  ^ )  PREDICTED ISSUE AREAS  R = regional view L = local view  R.  R.  4.  DIVERGING VIEWS AT LEVEL OF  3a.  4.  ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OR RTC ATTRACTION: R.  Quality cannot be so high as to stop entry of development --attraction is primary need.  L.  Quality must be major factor to achieve urbane environment.  MOVEMENT: R.  Total design around transit.  L.  Equal consideration of transit and auto.  PEDESTPIAM/AUTP SEPARATION R.  Should not be needed.  L.  Required to reconcile auto and people.  BOUNDARIES, BALANCE, USE REALMS: R.  L.  5.  6.  Centre in regional catchment area - one boundary, one balance, one central realm of use. Centre and town in regional catchment areas- several boundaries, several balances, locally & regionally significant realms.  Inclusion of 3rd Order Uses  .  Treatment for Pedestrian/ Auto Separation  .  Use of superblock Concept  .  Design Standards are subissue.  .  Hierarchy of streets  .  Willingdon Function 4 Form  .  Kingsway Function & Form  .  Kincsway Focus: 1st, 2nd Order Areas A Tourists  .  Geography of Phasing  .  Treatment for Pedestrian/ Auto SeDaration  .  Neighbourhoods - area d e f i nitions & arrangement  .  Provision of parks/parkways outside core  .  Segregation of core a c t i v i t i e s  .  Design response to existing land use.  .  Use of superblock concept  .  Timing of phases  INTEGRATION WITH REAL SITE: R.  No consideration of real site.  L.  Concept highly influenced by site constraints & potentials.  APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT: R.  Aggressive - new methods 1986 deadline.  L.  Use conventional controls no time frame.  rap or PREDICTED issues IN B F O / W roucr  170. As has been discussed, the regional  officials  favour an RTC that is  dominantly served by t r a n s i t and that provides l i t t l e accommodation to the car.  The local  planners  favour a balanced dependence on auto-  mobile and t r a n s i t a c c e s s i b i l i t y . both the conceptual and policy  This disagreement shows i t s e l f at  levels.  The local view is very persuasive.  Local planners stress that talk  and promises about t r a n s i t have been coming from senior governments for years without concrete r e s u l t s .  They also stress that even i f  t r a n s i t were provided, i t would serve only a small proportion of Municipal residents for which the Metrotown is conceived to provide services.  It  would be most useful for broad regional movements e s p e c i a l l y between Metrotown and Vancouver centre or Mew Westminster.  Local  planners  also note that the through functions of certain e x i s t i n g Metrotown streets have been considered 'given elements' in t h e i r thinking simply because these routes are entrenched h i s t o r i c a l  features for which no  a l t e r n a t i v e alignments seem f e a s i b l e or p a r t i c u l a r l y  desirable.  In contrast, the regional position seems to o f f e r l i t t l P response.  substantive  Regional authorities have incorporated the t r a n s i t idea into  t h e i r growth strategy without even having obtained Letters Patent to take charge of t r a n s i t planning.  Their s p e c i f i c t r a n s i t studies are sketchy.  Moreover, they can o f f e r few solutions to the Municipal problem of getting Burnaby residents into Metrotown except for the reorientation of an already inadequate bus system. on t r a n s i t seems precarious.  All  in a l l , the region's dependence  Thus, i t appears that the GVRD has two  alternatives for resolving this  discrepancy in t h e i r RTC idea.  Either  171. they should produce p o s i t i v e evidence of progress in i n i t i a t i n g  transit  and give a credible time frame for t r a n s i t development (which the Municipality would accept without hesitation but which seems absolutely unlikely) or they should revise t h e i r idea of movement for the RTC. I would recommend that the GVRD pursue i t s t r a n s i t goals with no less vigour than  i t has  shown in the past.  But I would also recommend  that the GVRD accept for the Burnaby RTC the Municipal proposition of s t r i v i n g for a balanced system of movement.  The resolution of t h i s  policy and conceptual disagreement would also resolve the predicted issues that have been i s o l a t e d .  This i s because the Municipal view  has never denied the value of t r a n s i t and has even assumed some form of t r a n s i t to serve Metrotown in the future.  Therefore agreements on  street patterns and forms, the location of a c t i v i t i e s , the separation of people and cars and phasing can occur and t r a n s i t can s t i l l integrated into the Metrotown when i t i s a v a i l a b l e .  On this  be  basis  the following recommendation for a change in p o l i c y i s made: RECOMMENDATION 1 : IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE GVRD CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS TO INITIATE TRANSIT BUT THAT THE GVRD ALSO ENDORSE THE MUNICIPAL PROPOSITION OF BALANCED MODES FOR MOVEMENT WITHIN AND INTO THE BURNABY RTC. C.  RECOMMENDATION 2.:  POLICY REVISION:  A second block of predicted issues can be traced back to basic  differences  in policy positions between the two governments about the nature of the RTC/Metrotown.  The GVRD sees the RTC as a town centre accommodating  o f f i c e s , commerce and jobs to serve the requirements of a surrounding regional population.  Therefore at the conceptual level the GVRD  recognizes only a central core and a single-bounded sub-region of consumers.  The GVRD defines balance simply as the r e l a t i o n of a c t i v i t y  levels in the core with sub-regional population l e v e l s .  And, most  172. importantly, the GVRD does not e s s e n t i a l l y recognize that the RTC could have a l o c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t component of residents t i e d to the centre.  (They specify 6-9,000 in-town residents at most.)  In contrast, local decision makers define the Metrotown as a complete and comprehensive settlement of higher density a c t i v i t i e s set within an established lower density environment.  Local authorities would house  approximately 5,000 people in each neighbourhood area and they would surround the centre with these in-town neighbourhoods.  Thus the Metrotown  has a regionally s i g n i f i c a n t component and a l o c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t componenti t has regional stores, o f f i c e s and jobs and i t has in-town neighbourhoods. The d e f i n i t i o n of balanced uses takes a more complex form.  There i s  balance between regional population served and central services as well as balance between in-town populations and services and between various activities.  To activate balance concepts, local planners use a series of  boundaries that define areas, with d i f f e r e n t dependency on and receiving d i f f e r e n t impacts from Metrotown.  These policy and conceptual differences r e s u l t in the following predicted issues: i.  issues concerning the d e f i n i t i o n , nature and r e a l i z a t i o n of proposed local  ii.  neighbourhoods;  issues related to the provision and character of parks and parkways outside the Metrotown core perimeter; and  iii.  issues related to the intensity and segregation of uses in the core.  173. Again, we find the local view persuasive.  The d e f i n i t i o n of boundaries  r e f l e c t s .an understanding of the d i f f e r e n t types of impacts of the Metrotown and the d i f f e r e n t propensities that people w i l l the place.  have to use  There is no good reason to think j u s t because a sub-regional  boundary is struck, a l l people within that boundary w i l l orientation in favour of the RTC.  revise t h e i r  It is more l i k e l y that the  degree to which orientation w i l l change w i l l r e l a t e to the distance of a potential user from Metrotown. a c t i v i t i e s that w i l l  The desire to achieve a balance of  r e l a t e each use to i t s consumers but  w i l l also consider the interconnections of uses within the centre i s simply more sophisticated than the regional notion.  This is because  the regional concept of balance could lead to a r e l a t i v e l y  unifunctional  place i f demands for one a c t i v i t y are provided for today but demands change tomorrow. lost.  The opportunity to revise uses would have already been  The local concept would l e t demands evolve with the provision  of new opportunities and i t would assure that a broad spectrum of those opportunities are available at a l l  times.  The reservations that we have predicted the GVRD would have about the segregation of uses also seems contradictory to t h e i r own goals.  The  local concept would cause uses to be arranged so as to maximize the e f f i c i e n c y of the r e g i o n a l l y - s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the town.  This  i s because complementary a c t i v i t i e s would be placed together and would be:located with respect to how many regional users they draw into Metrotown.  Thus by being more e f f i c i e n t the  Metrotown centre becomes more viable and t h i s is c l e a r l y a regional goal.  174. F i n a l l y , by playing down the r e s i d e n t i a l town,  aspect of the Metro- .  the GVRD may be missing a major opportunity to work with local  authorities in achieving the s t r a t e g i c regional  goal of providing  and implementing growth targets for each m u n i c i p a l i t y . has proposed to use the Metrotown's r e s i d e n t i a l accommodate further r e s i d e n t i a l  The Municipality  component as a means to  growth in Burnaby without disturbing  or destroying established lower density neighbourhoods or natural amenities.  The Municipality has proposed p r i n c i p l e s to encourage a  d i v e r s i t y of r e s i d e n t i a l to in-town residents.  types and to assure urban amenity and s e r v i c i n g  The GVRD could exploit these Municipal positions to aug  ment i t s residential development goals. Thus, we would conclude that the GVRD should cooperate where possible with Municipal authorities  in the provision of  parks, parkways and services.needed to make Metrotown neighbourhoods desirable l i v i n g units.  The GVRD should also support the Municipal  conceptions of balance, boundaries and the arrangement of in-town uses. Therefore the following recommendation is put forward: RECOMMENDATION 2: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE GVRD ENDORSE BURNABY S POLICY THAT THE METROTOWN BE A COMPREHENSIVE 'SETTLEMENT' AND ADJUST ITS CONCEPTION OF THE BURNABY RTC ACCORDINGLY. 1  D.  RECOMMENDATION 3  :  POLICY REVISION:  While not evident at the level of broad p o l i c y , we have noted that a divergence of opinion emerged at the conceptual level concerning the approach to implementing the RTC/Metrotown that each agency has selected to use.  The regional authorities wish to take an aggressive stance  by i n i t i a t i n g development, marketing the RTC, streamlining procedures f o r approving RTC development and p a r t i c i p a t i n g in an RTC Development Corporation that can get things done.  The impetus for this is the GVRD's  desire to see RTCs functioning and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t by 1986.  Local  175. authorities take a more conservative view.  They would p a r t i c i p a t e  in  the implementation of Metrotown using primarily the tested procedures and controls that have been delegated to them by statute. have l i t t l e  They would  interest in a Development Corporation that d i l u t e s  their  power and feel no compulsion to set time l i m i t s for Metrotown development.  These differences are r e f l e c t e d in predicted issues about the phasing of the Metrotown and about the. use of superblocks as a means to simplify development c o n t r o l .  While the Municipal view would be the safest approach, i t may be that a project of the complexity of Metrotown can only be assured implementation by experimenting with ways and means as has been proposed by the GVRD.  Thus the f e a s i b i l i t y of Municipal goals may be dependent on local  authorities looking beyond conventional control t o o l s . mean that t r a d i t i o n a l  tools be ignored.  This should not  The use of super blocks through  which more complex solutions can be achieved with less complex coordination and Municipal management would s t i l l  be a good idea.  However, through  public i n i t i a t i v e s perhaps even f i n e r solutions can be achieved.  The s p e c i f i c a t i o n by local a u t h o r i t i e s of a time frame for Metrotown development would also be d e s i r a b l e .  This i s because time l i m i t a t i o n s  give an urgency to c a l l s f o r support that i s not evident when no deadl i n e s are s t r i v e d f o r .  Moreover, the adoption of the GVRD's time frame  would give added weight to Municipal claims for assistance from the GVRD because the regional authorities would comprehend the urgency as one that they themselves f e e l .  Thus i t is recommended that the  GVRD's time frame be used by the Municipality and that local of phasing be given a temporal dimension.  conceptions  176. The GVRD argument about the i n t r i c a c y of public r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the consequent need of a Development Corporation to manage RTCs i s also convincing.  At the same time, the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s desire to protect  i t s power is understandable.  Perhaps the best resolution would be  the creation of a Metrotown Development Corporation to take  initiative  action in the Metrotown while maintaining local processes of development control.  This would not deny e x i s t i n g GVRD or local powers but would  f a c i l i t a t e action. Thus to reconcile differences over the approach to development, the following recommendation i s made: RECOMMENDATION 3 IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE MUNICIPALITY OF BURNABY ADOPT THE GVRD'S INITIATIVE CONCEPT FOR METROTOWN IMPLEMENTATION INCLUDING THE IDEAS OF A DEVELOPMENT TIMETABLE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BUT THAT THE GVRD ADOPT A POSITION TO RESPECT MUNICIPAL CONTROL DEVICES. :  E.  RECOMMENDATION 4:  POLICY REVISION  Another group of issues is t i e d to a policy difference between the two governments about the importance of the Metrotown in t h e i r planning strategies.  The regional view is that the Metrotown i s but one of  several RTCs that must be developed at the same time and on an equal basis.  The local view i s that the Metrotown i s the sole opportunity  to achieve a diverse environment with urbanity within Burnaby and that i t s development i s more important than that of other RTCs.  At the conceptual  level these contentions take the form of d i f f e r i n g ooinions about the nature of a tradeoff that must be achieved between environmental and the creation of an a t t r a c t i v e climate for development. view i s that special Metrotown.  quality  The regional  impetus for development cannot be directed at the  It must be an environment with i t s own a t t r a c t i v e  capacity.  The local view is that the creation of a q u a l i t y environment must r e s u l t even at high developer expense and even i f this results in a lessening  177. of the attractiveness of Metrotown as a place to develop.  The proposition of high amenity standards, the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of expensive means of pedestrian/auto separation and the use of super blocks to create continuous high amenity space by few developers--these are the predicted issues that are based on the broader policy and conceptual  differences  outlined immediately above.  The question of the a t t r a c t i v e a b i l i t i e s of an RTC is r e a l l y a regional matter because a c t i v i t i e s must be attracted from beyond Municipal  borders.  The GVRD has extensively studied the c r i t e r i a necessary for a place to be able to draw development to i t and has even surveyed candidate corporations to see what requirements they would specify of an RTC l o c a t i o n . The regional  planners  as a part of t h e i r strategy to decentralize  functions from Vancouver centre, have also made lobbying for d e c e n t r a l i zation t h e i r active business.  They  have t r i e d to stimulate p o l i c i e s  within Vancouver's downtown to make that h i s t o r i c a l  location focus less  a t t r a c t i v e . , If the GVRD concludes that abnormally high design standards work against a Metrotown location for many firms, then the Municipality should accept t h i s f i n d i n g .  Indeed, the M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s own policy goal  to d i v e r s i f y Municipal opportunities may be dependent on t h i s .  If  development will not occur in the Metrotown, then regardless of the standards of quality that are established, a diverse environment that has urbanity w i l l not r e s u l t .  The Municipality must moderate the quality  demanded for development at least to a level that w i l l not preclude such development.  The GVRD would i n s i s t on this i f they are to cooperate in  d i r e c t i n g development into the Metrotown.  This would s t i l l  provide a  quality environment because the GVRD's Corporation Survey showed such an environment to be a p o s i t i v e asset.  178. This conclusion, of course, also relates to the importance placed on the Metrotown.  The very nature of regional strategy and regional  pressures  makes i t unlikely that the GVRD could amend i t s p o l i c i e s to favour the Metrotown.  One might say that 'one RTC does not decentralization make'.  The Municipality must r e a l i z e that the importance i t places on Metrotown w i l l not be echoed  at the regional l e v e l .  To make the Metrotown v i a b l e ,  as the local importance of the place would indicate i t must be, the Municipality w i l l have to rely on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e s . Thus i t i s recommended that the Municipality amend i t s policy position that would expect the GVRD to give Metrotown a p r i o r i t y position beyond that already proposed in GVRD plans.  It is also recommended that quality  standards be moderated to assure an a t t r a c t i v e environment for development.  Consequently, expensive pedestrian/vehicular  separation  proposals should only be i n i t i a t e d where absolutely necessary and the use of super block development units must be used to f a c i l i t a t e development rather than to extract unreal levies from the developer. RECOMMENDATION 4: IT IS RECOMMENDATD THAT THE MUNICIPALITY OF BURNABY-' RESPECT THE GVRD* POLICY OF THE BURNABY RTC AS ONE AMONG SEVERAL EQUALLY EVOLVING RTCS AND MODERATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS TO CREATE A METROTOWN THAT CAN INDEPENDENTLY ATTRACT ACTIVITY.  F.  OTHER CONCLUSIONS: The above discussion of necessary policy revisons leaves only two substantive areas where disagreement between regional and local a u t h o r i t i e s has i.  been pinpointed.  These areas are as follows:  d i f f e r e n t policy views of growth and how i t should be s t r a t e g i c a l l y treated which, in turn, leads to a conceptual difference about the type of a c t i v i t i e s to be found in the RTC/Metrotown; and  ii.  the conceptual difference of how new development in the RTC/ Metrotown must r e f l e c t e x i s t i n g land use features on i t s  site.  179. We w i l l deal with these in t u r n . As to t h e i r view of growth, the regional authorities want a f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs and benefits of growth among regional The local view is to take only growth that and avoid other pressures to grow.  sub-'areas.  seem s b e n e f i c i a l ' i  Towards a f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n of  growth the region suggests that each RTC s p e c i a l i z e in the kinds of uses that i t houses.  For the Burnaby RTC a catering to  serving' a c t i v i t i e s is proposed.  'population-  The Municipal position is only to  accept growth that w i l l help to d i v e r s i f y local o p p o r t u n i t i e s . within the Metrotown a broad spectrum of a c t i v i t i e s  Consequentl  i s proposed to  create  an environment that would be l o c a l l y unique because of i t s urbanity. broad spectrum would not be achieved i f uses were completely  Such  specialized  in the Metrotown as the GVRD proposes.  These differences are l i k e l y to be i n f l u e n t i a l  in determining the  overall r e l a t i o n s h i p between Burnaby and the GVRD in the coming years. However, we find that on the Metrotown matter, the only predicted issue that would be founded on disagreements about the use of growth i s the question of whether or not t h i r d order a c t i v i t i e s should be developed in the Metrotown core.  I submit that this issue i s not c r u c i a l .  If  regional authorities decided not to a s s i s t in the evolution of t h i r d order uses then these could be achieved through Municipal which have already been recommended.  initiatives  Indeed, the functioning of the  land and development markets in the Metrotown may even make such uses in a segregated configuration completely u n l i k e l y .  Beyond t h i s ,  i t i s easy to conclude that the overall nature of the Metrotown w i l l make i t predominantly a location choice for population-serving uses.  180. Such uses are desirous of a location within clustered suburban commerc i a l and service nodes 'near t h e i r consumers'.  Therefore even with  the introduction of a component of uses that is not  'population  serving' such as corporate back-up o f f i c e f a c i l i t i e s or even wholesaling showrooms, the predominant character of the Metrotown as a place serving people would not be prejudiced.  It is also easy to conclude that the  growth proposed by local authorities w i l l  p a r a l l e l the growth s p e c i f i e d  as a f a i r share by regional a u t h o r i t i e s .  The f a i r share doctrine is  r e a l l y directed at the level of overall m u n i c i p a l i t i e s - - t h e f a i r share i s to be d i s t r i b u t e d among m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  Burnaby has simply  chosen to take a s i g n i f i c a n t part of that growth at one location so that the close association of a c t i v i t i e s w i l l create a type of environment that Burnaby wants.  Therefore  a discrepancy in the GVRD's  RTC notion that might be indicated by the policy and conceptual that we have been discussing, i s shown to be nonexistent.  differences  Cooperation  on RTC/Metrotown development i s not fundamentally predicated on a resolution of these d i f f e r e n c e s .  The f i n a l area of difference was discovered at the conceptual  level  where local Metrotown ideas are oriented to a real s i t e and regional RTC ideas are not s i t e - o r i e n t e d .  We find that the only predicted issue  that i s t i e d to t h i s conceptual difference i s that concerning the status of e x i s t i n g landscape features in Metrotown design decisions.  The  predicted local view on the issue was that certain e x i s t i n g features must act as determinants of design.  The predicted regional  response  was that e x i s t i n g features did not r e f l e c t the proposed emphasis on t r a n s i t and were thus generally mislocated so that they should be treated as anomolies in new RTC design.  181. On the one hand, i t i s l o g i c a l to say that whether treated as anomolies in design or not, the e x i s t i n g features are bound to influence Metrotown a c t i v i t y patterns because of the a c t i v i t i e s that they stimulate.  Thus  i t would appear that the best approach is to use these a c t i v i t y energies to meet new objectives.  However, the need for t h i s type of  r e c o n c i l i a t i o n is unnecessary i f regional a u t h o r i t i e s adopt the recommendation about t h e i r position on c i r c u l a t i o n that was put forward above.  If the GVRD revises i t s concept of movement to one with an  emphasis on balanced modes then e x i s t i n g development which i s autooriented would not be inherently contrary to GVRD concepts.  If we  r e a l i z e that such features w i l l be only a minor component in the t o t a l l y developed Metrotown, the we see that the use of e x i s t i n g features as design determinants does not preclude a strong t r a n s i t and pedestrian orientation from evolving in the town.  Thus we would conclude that  the predicted issue does not imply a unique weakness in the GVRD's ideas about RTCs.  There seems to be no fundamental problems that  r e s u l t because GVRD thinking aboutthe Burnaby RTC i s not s i t e - s p e c i f i c . The extent of potentials on the Kingsway/Central Park s i t e and the l i m i t e d constraints seem to leave the s i t e wide open for the development of almost any kind of Metrotown.  182.  CHAPTER SIX METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS  183.  As an epilogue to the research, a few comments can be made about the methodology that was u t i l i z e d .  An o u t l i n e and reasoning behind the  approach and methods of this research was explained in the i n t r o ductory chapter of the a n a l y s i s .  On the basis of the research experience,  i t is now possible to suggest some methodological shortcomings and propose how these might be avoided.  We can also suggest a l t e r n a t i v e  circumstances in which the a n a l y t i c a l model that has been developed might be usefully a p p l i e d .  A design-based analysis has i t s l i m i t a t i o n s and in doing the research of t h i s study, these l i m i t s became apparent.  Firstly,  i t is  static.  Unless i t s recommendations are acted upon almost immediately, conditions may change so that the course of action that is recommended may no longer be most appropriate. applicable to most evaluative t o o l s .  This c r i t i c i s m , however, i s To avoid this problem, the process  could perhaps be streamlined to allow i t s application in consecutive periods so that changes in either the s p e c i f i c problem or changes in the viewpoints of the parties involved can be incorporated.  By looking at  these various rounds of a n a l y s i s , trends might be perceivable that would even allow some degree of projection as to positions "that w i l l be taken in the future.  likely  The problem with this i s that i t could become  p r o h i b i t i v e l y complex.  A second problem with the methodology i s that i t presents a complete picture of issues, stances and s o l u t i o n s .  This may be an i l l u s i o n in  the sense that there is no way within the methodology to be assured that  184. a l l necessary ground has been covered.  One can only hope that the  incremental movement from the general to the s p e c i f i c w i l l most loose ends and encompass a l l  l i n e s of potential  t i e up  disagreement.  A s i g n i f i c a n t problem with the methodology is the matter of researcher bias.  The methodology presents various avenues for bias to enter the  analysis.  The most important of these avenues are when agency docu-  ments must be interpretated and when design alternatives are considered i n t u i t i v e l y as a part of probe design.  In both of these s i t u a t i o n s ,  the background and prejudices of the designer cannot f a i l play.  to come into  Perhaps the best way to deal with bias would be to incorporate  a component of c r i t i c a l  review by the various parties that are the  subject of the a n a l y s i s .  An a p p l i c a t i o n of Delphi methods for gathering  opinions and reactions might be u t i l i z e d (Cull, Davidson,Hood, 1975).  In  a Delphi framework, conclusions at each phase of the analysis would be returned to the relevant parties for review, v e r i f i c a t i o n and/or r e v i s i o n . A spinoff of the. Delphi contacts m i g h f a l s o be to change some hard attitudes that are held by the i n f l u e n t i a l s .  A second approach might be to undertake  the probe design not by using a single designer, but a group of designers. In this way separate individual design biases would be e s s e n t i a l l y equalized. Both the Delphi and group design methods, however, would add time and money to the costs of the study. The analysis used in the present study considers the positions and r e l a t i o n ships between  two major groups that are at the centre of decision  making for the Burnaby RTC—the planners in  Burnaby and the GVRD.  Without doubt, however, the RTCs' r e a l i z a t i o n w i l l ultimately require the  185. cooperation of many other groups.  To address i t s e l f to a l l  levels  of cooperation, the research would have to consider these additional groups.  Thus the narrowness of subject groups defined for the research  stands as a shortcoming of the a n a l y s i s . and the p o l i t i c a l  We have noted that  politicians  aspects of RTC decisions were not considered.  Just  as important in the development of the RTC, however, are such groups as the development community who w i l l groups and individuals who w i l l  be building the RTC, the c i t i z e n s '  l i v e in and around and who w i l l use the  RTC, and a l i s t of other government agencies who have j u r i s d i c t i o n or interest in some aspect of the RTC (including the Federal Government through CMHC and the Provincial Government through i t s Housing and Transportation Departments).  Of course the inclusion of each additional  subject group within the analysis makes the research more complex and expensive. additional  We might, however, be able to achieve some input from these groups by extending a l l or part of a Delphi  gathering framework to include input from them. l e a s t pick up t h e i r s u p e r f i c i a l as the analysis proceeds.  information This would at  response to the conclusions being drawn  This would give some indication of the a f f e c t  that these groups w i l l have on proposals to reconcile issues between the major groups being studied.  On the other hand, the extended Delphi  approach would have certain drawbacks. strued by  non-planners  a probable scheme.  If these  The probe design could be con-  as an actual scheme for implementation or as people were opposed to the content of the  scheme, a series of reactions might ensue that go well beyond the parameters of the study.  This could, in turn, cause anomosity against the  study by those planners whose p a r t i c i p a t i o n is c r u c i a l .  A second draw-  back i s that responses from groups that are not backed up by a review of t h e i r policy setting could make the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of differences  for  186.  these groups very d i f f i c u l t .  It may be more advantageous to s e l e c t  the c r u c i a l parties and concentrate the analysis on these.  In a  fundamental sense, however, i t can be said that the inclusion in the analysis of parties other than the professional  planners would  l i k e l y require a l t e r n a t i v e data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y t i c a l that are foreign to the design probe.  techniques  This i s because these additional  groups v i s u a l i z e the RTC problem and define issues from d i f f e r e n t viewpoints and with d i f f e r e n t assumptions than those of the planners on which we have concentrated.  The planners conceive the RTC in  design and 'planning' terms which i s e s s e n t i a l l y the language of the design probe a n a l y s i s .  This is not the case with other p a r t i -  cipants in the RTC development process.  These other parties  (as  itemized above) are influenced by forces that are simply not wholly definable using the design probe methodology.  Thus, a consideration  of the attitudes of participants other than planners stands as a d i s t i n c t and separate research problem requiring the formulation of another research methodology in order to be adequately handled.  Another l i m i t a t i o n of the design-based analysis i s that i t is physically oriented.  clearly  Thus the important socio-economic aspects of  the subject environment cannot be f o r t h r i g h t l y dealt with.  Because  a number of issues might a r i s e out of these non-physical matters, the analysis cannot include and try to resolve these issues.  It i s con-  ceivable that a probe social plan might be developed p a r a l l e l physical scheme.  to the  T h i s , however, would require an entire new spectrum  of expertise that would complicate the analysis both in how i t proceeds and in what i t c o s t s .  187.  Perhaps the most basic l i m i t a t i o n of the approach devised for t h i s study i s the fact that even in i t s present form, i t is already complex and requires substantial time.  relatively  The c o l l e c t i o n of information  and the e s s e n t i a l l y open-ended design phase both take long hours and e f f o r t to complete.  Therefore i t would be hard to schedule and expen-  sive to pay for a design probe analysis in p r a c t i c a l  circumstances.  Moreover, the suggestions to make the analysis more comprehensive and rigorous that are discussed above would simply compound t h i s problem. Perhaps both data c o l l e c t i o n and the design process could be abridged to e s s e n t i a l s , but we should r e a l i z e that the veracity of our conclusions changes with the depth and extent of the data.  Even with the above shortcomings, the approach as used in this study has provided a summation of issues one would expect professional ners to define and an idea of how these might be resolved. has not been extended to include the above methodological simply because of the constraints that e x i s t on the study.  plan-  The analysis possibilities It i s  apparent, however, that the methodology i s f l e x i b l e and is thus applicable under a variety of c a r e f u l l y selected circumstances.  It would seem feasible and advantageous to use the design probe method to deal with almost any s i t u a t i o n where d i f f e r e n t interests must cooperate to achieve environmental change provided the parties have a 'planning' o r i e n t a t i o n .  This is because the analysis deals not only  with comparisons of philosophy and policy p o s i t i o n s , but also with  188.  the s p e c i f i c ramifications these positions can be expected to have on landscape change.  Thus more general opinions are focussed on the  s p e c i f i c matters that bring on disagreements.  It would seem equally  f e a s i b l e to use the method to evaluate planning schemes that are actually proposed as well as planning schemes that seem to flow from policy.  The second type of evaluation was used in t h i s study.  Perahps the more common need is to deal with the f i r s t type. design probe would s t i l l  The  be valuable in order to draw out the issues  that are inherent in a proposed planning scheme.  The difference  in  t h i s type of a p p l i c a t i o n i s that much of the background data would already be c o l l e c t e d and the emphasis would s h i f t from data c o l l e c t i o n to data review.  One motive of t h i s research has been to devise and test a comparative analytical  method founded upon design.  In conclusion, i t might be  said that the design probe provides answers that are not now r e a d i l y available and warnings of future standoffs between d i f f e r e n t  professional  groups that must cooperate to achieve t h e i r separate objectives. real uniqueness of the design probe i s that i t can i s o l a t e of opinion at a r e l a t i v e l y s p e c i f i c l e v e l .  The  differences  On the other hand, the  tedious and expensive nature of the research would indicate that the design probe should only be used when such  specificity  i s a real necessity.  Otherwise the design probe may well  represent a n a l y t i c a l  overkill.  Having said t h i s , however, i f the  method does define c o n f l i c t s that cannot be defined in other ways and therefore leads to more cooperation in a s i t u a t i o n where such cooperation i s mandatory, then the research was c l e a r l y worthwhile.  189.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  190. Adams, John. "Curator's Brief on Historical Structures in the Burnaby Metrotown." Xeroxed Report prepared by Curator of Heritage V i l l a g e Museum for D i s t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 16 July 1975. Archer, L. Bruce. "Design Awareness and Planned C r e a t i v i t y . " Xeroxed Transcript of Electrohome Lectures in Vancouver, 1973. Archer, L. Bruce. "Systematic Method for Designers—Part Two: The Nature of Designing," Design, 174 (June 1963), pp.70-73. Armstrong, Regina Belz. The Office Industry: Patterns of Growth and Location—A Report of the Regional Plan Association. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1972. Berry, Brian J . and William L. Garrison. "Recent Developments of Central Place Theory." Urban Economics—Theory, Development and Planning. Eds. William H. Leahy, David L. McKee and Robert D. Dean. New York: The Free Press, 1970, pp.117-128. Blumrich, Josef F. 1551-1554.  "Design,"  Science, 168 (26 June 1970),  Boesiger, W. and H. Girsberger. Le Corbusier 1910-65. York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967. Broadbent, Geoffrey. Design in Architecture. John Wiley and Sons, 1973.  New  New York:  Brunon, Joseph. "Architectural Programming—The Interaction of Frames of Reference." Xeroxed Project Report No. 4001, Programming and Research Department, Stone Marraccini and Patterson Architects and Planners, 1970. Burnaby Planning Department. Apartment Study 1969. 2nd e d . , 1969; r p t . Burnaby: D i s t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1971. Burnaby Planning Department. Burnaby Transportation Study to 1985. Burnaby: D i s t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1974:2. Burnaby Planning Department. Community Plans. of Burnaby Planning Department, 1972.  Burnaby:  District  Burnaby Planning Department. The Public Meetings: Phase One. Burnaby: D i s t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1974. Carver, Humphrey.  C i t i e s in the Suburbs.  Toronto Press, 1962.  Toronto:  University of  191 de Chiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman. Planning Design C r i t e r i a . Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1969. C o l l i e r , Robert W. "The Evolution of Regional D i s t r i c t s in B r i t i s h Columbia," B.C. Studies, 5(Autumn 1972), pp.29-40. C u l l , Elizabeth, J i l l Davidson and Nancy Hood. "Annotated Bibliography on Delphi Techniques." Xeroxed Paper Prepared for University of B r i t i s h Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning, 1975. Doxiadis, Constantinos A. "The Coming World--City: Ecumenopolis." C i t i e s of Destiny. Ed. Arnold Toynbee. New York: McGrawH i l l Book Company, 1967. Fawcett, Brian. "Cultural Opportunities in Greater Vancouver." Xeroxed Report for G.V.R.D., 1975. Fruin, John J . Pedestrian-^ Planning and Design. New York: Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners I n c . , 1971. Gall i o n , Arthur B. and Simon Eisner. The Urban Pattern—City Planning and Design. 2nd e d . , 1950; r p t . New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., I n c . , 1963. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . The Livable Region 1976/1986 --Decisions Taken by the G.V.R.D. Board of Directors on Further Actions to Implement the Livable Region Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1975:2. . Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . The Livable Region 1976/1986 --Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1975. Green, George. History of Burnaby and V i c i n i t y . Shoemaker, McLean and Veitch, 1947. Gregory, S . A . , ed. 1966.  The Design Method.  London:  North Vancouver: Butterworths,  Gruen, Victor and Larry Smith. Shopping Towns U.S.A.: The Planning of Shopping Centres. 2nd e d . , 1960; r p t . New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1967. Gruen, V i c t o r . Centres for the Urban Environment. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1973. Halprin, Lawrence. Corp., 1963.  Cities.  New York:  New York:  Reinhold Publishing  Hardwick, Walter G. Canadian Cities—Vancouver. Collier-Macmillan Canada, L t d . , 1974.  Don M i l l s :  192. Heilbrun, James. Urban Economics and Public P o l i c y . St. Martin's Press, 1974.  New York:  Jacobs, Jane. The Death and L i f e of Great American C i t i e s . York: Vintage Books, 1961. K e l l e r , Suzanne. The Urban Neighbourhood—A Sociological New York: Random House, 1968.  New  Perspective.  Livable Region Program Advisory Committee. Public Response to the Livable Region Program: Proposals to Manage Growth in Greater Vancouver. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1975. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. O f f i c i a l New Westminster: L.M.R.P.B., 1966.  Regional Plan.  Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Regional D i s t r i c t s in the Lower Mainland. New Westminster: L.M.R.P.B., 1968. Lynch, Kevin. S i t e Planning. The MIT Press, 1971.  2nd e d . , 1962; r p t . Cambridge:  Mann, Richard C. "Consultants'Draft Comments on the Burnaby Metrotown." Xeroxed Report of Thompson Berwick Pratt and Partners Architects and Planners for D i s t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 13 December 1974:2. Mann, Richard C. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Survey. Vancouver: GVRD, 1974. Moore, Gary T . , ed. Emerging Methods in Environmental and Planning. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1970.  Corporations Design  Nez, George. "Standards for New Urban Development--the Denver Background," Urban Land, 20 May 1961, pp.1-8. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Printer for B.C., 1973.  Municipal Act.  Victoria:  Queen's  Rapoport, Amos. "Some Aspects of the Organization of Urban Space." Response to Environment. Eds. Gary J . Coates and Kenneth M. Moffett. Raleigh: North Carolina State Univ e r s i t y Publications, 1969, pp.121-140. Richardson, Harry W. I n c . , 1971.  Urban Economics.  Baltimore:  Penguin Books  Schoen, El i n . "Lawrence Halprin—Humanizing the C i t y Environment," The American Way, Nov. 1972, pp.13-19. Schwilgin, F.A. Town Planning Guideline. Public Works, 1973.  Ottawa:  Department of  193. S i x t a , Gerhard. Urban Structure: A Study of Long Range P o l i c i e s Which Affect the Physical Structure of an Urban Area. Burnaby: D i s t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1971. Smith, David. "Monitoring Report on the Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program of the G.V.R.D." Xeroxed Report for Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s and G.V.R.D., 16 October 1974. Smith, Larry. "Space for the CBD's Functions." Internal Structure of the City--Readings on Space and Environment. Ed. Larry S. Bourne. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1971. Spaeth, Douglas J . Regional Town Centres: Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1976.  A Pol icy Report.  Webber, Melvin M. "The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm." Explorations into Urban Structure. Eds. Melvin Webber et. a l . Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964, pp.79-153.  *  Source material not quoted in text but used as background information and in discussions with Burnaby planners.  194.  APPENDIX GENERAL PRINCIPLES THAT COMPRISE METROTOWN CONCEPT  195. It has been noted that in framing t h e i r concept of the Metrotown, the local planners discussed and agreed upon a l i s t of general design p r i n c i p l e s they would want to see r e f l e c t e d in the developed Metrotown.  that  The overall  local concept has been summarized in the text of the analysis but t h i s appendix presents the complete l i s t of the local planners' general design p r i n c i p l e s because these have not been published elsewhere.  They are pre-  sented for the reader's further understanding of why the probe plan takes the form that i t does.  These p r i n c i p l e s are as follows:  1.  The Metrotown use (type and relations and the only zone  2.  A c t i v i t y in Metrotown can be organized into dominant and supportive functions—dominant functions r e l a t e to o f f i c e a c t i v i t y , shopping, residence and tourism/entertainment and a m u l t i p l i c i t y of secondary functions support these. This matrix of dominance and support c o n s t i tutes a general p r o f i l e of the Metrotowners.  3.  A balance of use i s one in which many uses c o - e x i s t , no one use dominates and an inter-dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p of uses exists (similar to that of the h i s t o r i c a l l y evolved c i t y ) .  4.  In the Metrotown, at the m i c r o l e v e l , there should be a fine-grained mix of uses. At the macroscale there should be a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of uses into physical and functional groupings with s i m i l a r locational/environmental requirements for a s i m i l a r l y scaled audience.  5.  In Metrotown, c e n t r a l l y - o r i e n t e d uses can be organized into f i r s t , and t h i r d orders of multiple a c t i v i t y and physical places can be conceived to house these separately scaled assemblies.  6.  is to have a series of boundaries within which s p e c i f i c balance) must be considered depending upon networks of impact. The immediate development area, however, comprises of overt physical change.  second  In Metrotown, local uses can be physically organized into a series of multi-functional neighbourhoods that house and serve the majority of . the in-town population—a minority of people, however, should be housed in the centre, outside the neighbourhood context thus broadening r e s i d e n t i a l choice.  196. 7.  The groupings of multiple use should be arranged so as to maximize t h e i r a f f i n i t y and minimize t h e i r c o n f l i c t .  8.  A unique feature of the Burnaby Metrotown should be i t s open space context which i s manifest in a hierarchy of space, a d i v e r s i t y of space types, a m u l t i p l i c i t y of special open space amenity features, continuity and a commitment to universal a s s e s s i b i l i t y either p u b l i c l y provided or p r i v a t e l y guaranteed. Open space should be f u n c t i o n a l l y conceived.  9.  Movement systems provide a structure around which the Metrotown assembly should be arranged.  10.  Transit movement is assumed as an important access mode into Metrotown such that the t r a n s i t stations provide s i g n i f i c a n t points to which organization, function and form in Metrotown can be r e l a t e d .  11.  In Metrotown, the automobile should be adequately provided for but not allowed to dominate—automobile ways should be developed in a hierarchy based on speed and purpose, there should be a clear separation between foot and auto movement, and the roadway should be exploited as a bounding rather than intruding device. Substantial parking should be controlled and managed by the M u n i c i p a l i t y .  12.  The Metrotown must be.a predominantly pedestrian place: providing well developed and complete walkway linkages of various types; conceived in a walking increment of distances; and provided with modes that support pedestrian movement.  13.  While the Metrotown must be a predominantly pedestrian place, i t should provide multi-modal alternatives which e x p l o i t the advantages of each mode.  14.  The p r o f i l e of a c t i v i t y should act as a general guide to the physical form and massing of development in Metrotown.  15.  The physical forms and materials of Metrotown must be of a high design q u a l i t y with maximum amenities b u i l t into a l l projects.  16.  The evolution of the Metrotown while incorporating the p r i n c i p l e s that have been stated, should be conceived on the basis of e x i s t i n g s i t e patterns.  The local planners also constructed a series of diagrams to i l l u s t r a t e  their  concepts for the development of the Metrotown and these have been included in the text of the a n a l y s i s .  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 166 0
Canada 37 2
Republic of Korea 14 0
China 13 1
Ukraine 6 0
United Kingdom 5 0
France 4 0
Finland 3 0
Japan 3 0
Germany 2 0
Russia 2 0
South Africa 1 0
Unknown 1 0
City Views Downloads
San Francisco 96 0
Cupertino 48 0
Unknown 29 1
Vancouver 16 1
Shenzhen 10 1
Burnaby 9 1
Seoul 9 0
Ashburn 9 0
Helsinki 3 0
Seongnam-si 3 0
Tokyo 3 0
Daejeon 2 0
Wilmington 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093901/manifest

Comment

Related Items