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. 1976-02-12

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 B42.pdf [ 14.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093901.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093901-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093901-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093901-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093901-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093901-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093901-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093901-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093901.ris

Full Text

A DESIGN PROBE COMPARISON OF REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL ATTITUDES TOWARD REGIONAL TOWN CENTRES CASE STUDY IN BURNABY, B.C. by LARRY B. BEASLEY B.A., 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 this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1976 © Larry B. Beasley, 1976 ii. In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this 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 financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British 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 activities historically found in the city centre. However, because land use control is a Municipal responsibility, the realization of RTCs is dependent upon local acceptance. Therefore the research problem is to discover discrepancies in the RTC notion as seem from a local perspective and to suggest how these might be reconciled. The RTC designated for the Municipality of Burnaby (locally called the 'Metrotown') is used as a case study. Discrepancies in the RTC idea are a function of diverging regional and local opinions that preclude their cooperation on RTC development. Diverging opinions can occur at the levels of broad planning policy, RTC modelling and specific RTC site design. A comparative analysis of regional and local positions is undertaken at these levels. However, RTC cooperation does not require concurrence between the two authorities on all policy matters. Disagreements take shape around specific issues so a 'probe design'--a hypothetical design solution—of the Metrotown site is used to isolate issues. Because design is a local matter, the design probe is done from the local viewpoint and a regional response to the various design aspects is predicted towards the formation of issues. To facilitate design and issue prediction, the local model for the Metrotown is surveyed in consultation with Burnaby planners. 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 analysis. i v. The research predicted issues in the following areas: a. nature of movement--form of streets, transit line/stations and the arrangement of land uses relative to these; b. inclusion of residential neighbourhoods as a dominating RTC activity; c. the development approach--configuration and timing of phasing, use of a Development Corporation and treatment of existing site features; and, d. building forms, quality and costs. The arrangements of transit stations and the transit line 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 its efforts to initiate transit, but also endorse the Municipal proposition of balanced modes for movement within and into the Burnaby- RTC; -b. that the GVRD endorse Burnaby's policy position that the Metrotown be a comprehensive 'settlement' and adjust its conception of the Burnaby RTC accordingly; c. that Burnaby adopt the GVRD's initiative approach for Metrotown imple mentation 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 attract activity. V. Broader differences about handling growth and integrating the RTC with the real site situation are found to exist but to have little impact on RTC design agreements. Thus, the research concludes that differences exist in RTC and Metrotown notions that could stifle regional/local cooperation on RTC development. It is found, however, that these discrepancies are amenable to reconciliation if the two authorities are prepared to accept technical compromises as well as revise their planning policies in the manner recommended. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents Table of Plates Acknowledgement CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION A. What is 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 is the Approach and Method of Analysis? CHAPTER TWO: BROAD POLICY COMPARISON A. GVRD - The Regional Policy Setting Al. Regional Problems A2. Regional Planning Goals & Strategy A3. Role of the RTC in the Regional Strategy B. Burnaby - The Local Policy Setting Bl. Local Problems B2. Local Goals & Strategy B3. Role of Metrotown in the Local Strategy C. Regional and Local Policy Perspective in Comparison CI. View of Growth C2. Importance of the Regional Centre C3. Nature of the Regional Centre C4. Movement CHAPTER THREE: RTC MODELS AND COMPARISON A. The Regional RTC Concept Al. RTC Activity Specifications A2. RTC Size Specifications A3. RTC Transportation Specifications A4. RTC Character Specifications A5. Approach to RTC Development vi i. paoe B. The Local Metrotown Model 70 Bl. Metrotown Activity Specifications 7B2. Metrotown Size Specifications 0 B3. Metrotown Transportation Specifications 76 B4. Metrotown Character Specifications 81 B5. Approach to Metrotown Development 9C. Comparison of Regional and Local Conceptions of the Metrotown 94 CI. Activity Content of the Metrotown 96 C2. Boundaries, Balance and Use RealmsC3. Quality vs. Attraction in Metrotown 98 C4. Movement in Metrotown 100 C5. Integration of Concept and Site 101 C6. Government Role in Metrotown Development 102 CHAPTER FOUR: KINGSWAY/CENTRAL PARK - DESIGN PROBE FOR ISSUES 104 A. Kingsway/Central Park - Its Situation 106 Al. Area Boundaries 111 A2. Existing Land Use & Zoning 114 A3. Existing Planning Schemes 7 A4. Topography & Natural Endowments 119 A5. Area Constraints and Potentials for Metrotown Design 120 B. The Probe Plan - Issues from Design Alternatives 129 Bl. Design Response to Existing Land-Use 130 B2. Movement Systems 13B3. Organization of Use 145 B4. Park Systems 15B5. Metrotown Forms 7 B6. Development Phasing in Metrotown 15CHAPTER FIVE: 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 4 E. Recommendation 4: Policy Revision 176 F. Other Conclusions 178 v.i n. paoe CHAPTER SIX: METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS 182 Bibliography 189 Appendix: General Principles that Comprise Metrotown Concept 194 TABLE OF PLATES ix plate number title page 1. Burnaby Metrotown: Regional Setting 3 2. Multifunctional Centre: Typical Functions 8 3. Model of Analysis 24 4. RTCs Proposed by GVRD 33 5. GVRD's Strategy for Growth6. Burnaby's Hierarchy of Settlements Centres 43 7. GVRD's Activities Mix Comparison 59 8. GVRD's Illustrative List of RTC Major Activities 60 9. GVRD's Model of RTC 63 10. GVRD's Corporations Survey: Requirements of RTCs 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 Activity 75 15. Metrotown: Arrangement of Use Groupings 77 16. Metrotown: Historical City as Guide to Use Balancing 78 17. Metrotown: Activities 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 title page 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: Activity Areas 161 36. Probe Plan: Schematic Physical Forms Structure 162 37. Probe Plan: Phasing Diagram 163 38. Summary of Predicted Issues from Design Process 167 39. Roots of Predicted Issues in Broader Policy 169 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT For assistance in this 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 their co operation during the 4-month period when a local Metrotown model and probe design were being developed, I am deeply grateful to the planning staff in the Municipality of Burnaby. The planners at the Greater Vancouver Regional District 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 it into final form, I will always be indebted to Ms. Sharon Bond. Her fortitude was remarkable. Having received the kind help and support of so many people, I must nonetheless take total responsibility for any errors and omissions which might be discovered in this work. This work is dedicated to Sandy Logan--a patient and kind friend. 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) is the decentralization of jobs, shopping and cultural opportunities away from Vancouver centre closer to where people live in the suburbs. Decentralized and supportive activities are to be concentrated in a net work of regional town centres (RTCs) dispersed at strategic points through out the region. Because this action to decentralize requires regional land use changes beyond the scope of any one municipality, the concept of the RTC has essentially been articulated from the regional perspective. However, local governments have also been concerned about the pattern of land uses and in various jurisdictions 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, B.C., a suburban municipality bordering Vancouver. In this case the local authorities have arranged land uses into three town centres and have desig nated one of these as a Metrotown to become the site of further intensifi cation and diversification of activity to serve overall Municipal require ments. Thinking about the Metrotown, however, is not nearly so far advanced as that of the RTC at the regional level. The GVRD's designated RTC in Burnaby and the Municipality's Metrotown in fact deal with the same site, 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 authorities to cluster activities on that site. Thus, to the 4. casual observer, it would appear that local and regional actions can happily converge. Yet this may not really be the case. It is really dependent upon whether regional and local objectives for the place are compatible. Since differences in conception are bound to result in conflict between the two authorities, it is desirable to predict where agreement is evident and where conflicts could occur and to frame reconciliations from this standpoint. Therefore, the purpose of the present research is to determine if the GVRD's notion of the RTC will stand up under local scrutiny, to isolate dis crepancies from the Municipal perspective and to define how these might be resolved. The intent is to suggest a means through which a concept of the RTC can emerge that both regional and local authorities can embrace and work in cooperation to achieve. To understand the logic behind this purpose, three primary questions which it raises must be answered: i. What is a regional or metro town centre in a general sense (i.e., what common background of definition is 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 it to be achieved? iii. Why orient our analysis from the municipal perspective as a basis for testing the regional view? Before delving into the particulars of this research, we might well answer these overriding questions. A. WHAT IS AN RTC OR METROTOWN? To answer this question, we can first use the concept of the multi functional centre that has been examined in great detail by Victor 5. Gruen. Gruen sets out the idea of a focus of activities where "...as many urban functions of the centre-conforming type as possible (are placed together) in a concentrated and land-conserving manner, counter acting. . .tendencies toward fragmentation, sterility and waste of time and energy." (Gruen, 1973, 97). Centre-conforming uses refer to those that involve high levels of interaction among people relative to land used. In contrast, Gruen talks about uses that would not conform to the require ments of centres—airports, freight yards, warehouses, large industrial plants, agriculture, wildlife preserves, etc. He characterizes these as inappropriate because they are either land extensive, necessitate few participants or are pollution-causing. Mot only must centre uses be care fully selected on the basis of the human interactions they spawn, but there must also be many different uses brought together to achieve a sense of urbanity. Urbanity, says Gruen, has three essential aspects that should be reflected in centres: i. the opportunity for direct human communications; ii. the opportunity for the free exchange of ideas and goods; and, iii. the enjoyment of human freedom as expressed by a nearly inexhaustible access to a multiplicity of choices." (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 all practical purposes in a pedestrian environment. A pedestrian environment necessitates concentration of uses because of its inherently imposed distance maximums beyond which pedestrians will choose not to remain on foot because of the time and effort involved in walking. As prerequisites following: to a successful multifunctional centre, Gruen lists the 6. i. a supporting population of consumers; ii. accessibility of that consumer population to the centre; iii. an available and adequate site; iv. a collection of people motivated to invest in the centre because of some promise of profit (in money or otherwise); and v. a defined team to plan and manage the centre. Having achieved these prerequisites and having selected uses carefully 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 definition. However, for our purposes, the matter of the positioning of that centre within a system of arranged activity 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 adminis trations to the Central Place Theory that has been developed by Christaller, Losch and others (Heilbrun, 1974, 75-103). This theory states that urban activities spatially organize themselves into central nodes serving a complementary region with goods and services. However, this organization of activities, say the theorists, is intimately tied to the maximum distance customers are willing to travel to purchase or consume a product or service. Because people will 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 original theorists concerned themselves primarily with:the macroscale at the inter-city 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, similar arrangements of land use with centres and catchment populations are observed within the city as well as between cities. (Berry.''& Garrison, 1970). Whether right 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 focii providing special, high-order and expensive goods and services as well as jobs for large regionally-defined segments of a city population. We can expect this 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. And we can expect each centre to incorporate most of the functions of lesser centres within its domain for those residents living directly nearby. Therefore the regional or Metrotown centre can be defined as a compact urban place serving that broad regional population within its influence with high order and supportive functions and providing a significant number of jobs. 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 is based primarily on retail consumer data. Specific functions usually found in the multifunctional centre have been articulated by Gruen, de Chiara and Koppelman, Spaeth and others as indicated in the listing of Plate 2. This conception of multiplicity of function and regionality of consumers provides the definition required by our first question. 8. . , Mote: list not exhaustive . commercial retail: - one or two large department stores - junior department stores, variety stores - food markets, drugstores - fashion and apparel - furniture and home furnishings, hardware - miscellaneous boutiques and shops . commercial services: - beauty salons, barbers, shoe repair - cleaner - airline ticket office, travel agent - printing, office supply, photographer - day care . offices: - public administration, government offices, post office, social services, public utilities collection - private administration, banks, lending institutions, real estate, stock broker . professional services: - doctor, dentist, optometrist, health services - lawyer, accounting, insurance - architect, engineer . other business: - non-disturbing industry . education: - specialized schools, technical schools, community colleges - universities . culture - theatres, auditoriums, concert halls entertainment/leisure - eatinc and drinking, restaurants, cafes, pubs - art, music and dance studios - meeting halls, community centres - sports centres, bowling . residential - private homes - hotels and hostels and convention facilities 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 its objective. To answer this, we need first to explain the nature of government powers in place in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Section 92 of the British North America Act, a part of the Constitution of Canada, confers upon the several prov inces formal responsibility 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 British Columbia almost exclusively to local municipal governments. The only exceptions to this were several specific responsibilities delegated to 'special purpose districts' whose boards exercised administration for some particular functions in jurisdictions geographically more extensive than any one munici pality. The Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District and the Vancouver Water District 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 municipalities is not difficult to understand according to Walter Hardwick: ...as recently as the 1940s, 75% of the population of the urbanized Eraser delta lived in the central city, focussed on downtown Vancouver...New Westminster and North Vancouver had strong local economic bases and ...other outlying communities remained somewhat iso lated from one another, with matters of local concern being strikingly different from one municipality to another. (Hardwick, 1974, 175). 10. In more recent years, notes Hardwick, such centralization and/or isolation of residential populations has significantly declined. There is now a growing interdependence among municipalities as related to work places, residential places, shopping, and other social networks. 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 first tendency had been to proliferate the 'special purpose district' 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 citi zens was either that the board had little teeth or that it represented Provincial interference in local affairs. So in 1965 an amendment to the Municipal Act of B.C. was undertaken that "...radically altered the relationship between local government and the Provincial government..." (Collier, 1972, 29). Through this amendment, the Regional Districts were created that integrated a range of regional concerns under one umbrella in each region. A Regional District is defined as a geographical unit (somewhat similar to a county) designed to provide 'joint services' through a public board serving in one of 28 different sub-areas of the province. (Collier, 1972, 29). While this action was touted as simply an administrative convenience by the enacting Provincial government, the possibilities inherent in the amendment have set the stage for the creation of a distinct "fourth level" of government that can deal with matters of a scope larger than local municipal concerns, but too small to be appropriate for exclusive Provincial action. . This conceptualization 11. of the Regional Districts as another level of government, however, must be accepted with certain cautions. The Regional Districts do not have a power of direct taxation. They also do not govern through a directly representative process (except in unincorporated areas of the province). Rather, they requisition funds from each participating municipality (but municipal participation is obligatory) and their decision makers are generally drawn from the ranks of municipal councils. Yet as Collier states, "...it is difficult to argue that in actual fact they do not operate as (another) level of government." (Collier, 1972, 34). Perhaps less as a result of preplanning than of a rapid evolution in responding to growing needs, they now function in a variety of ways like a government. Because they were organized by statute to meet the unique requirements of their specific areas, the urban Regional Districts have taken over many functions formerly handled by urban local governments. They pass bylaws. They have access to funds through their indirect taxing mechanisms. They assist in financing certain selected services in all or portions of their jurisdictions. Important for our present work, they are required by statute to carry out regional land-use planning and the urban Districts do this aggressively. Indeed, the evidence suggests that their role in all these respects may even be growing. All of these activities are directed by elected representatives and imple mented by professional administrative staff. The GVRD is one of these quasi-governmental Regional Districts and, as such, it has powers that local governments must recognize, might well use to their own advantage and certainly cannot ignore. 12. The municipal government, on the other hand, is a well-established body that has been historically delegated the general authority for handling local affairs. These local government entities follow the traditional municipal model. They have a direct power to tax; they have administrative, legislative and quasi-judicial powers relative to local matters. They govern on the basis of directly elected representatives. And, relevant to our concern, they are clearly delegated through the Municipal Act broad powers to regulate the use of land and the type and quality of development within their jurisdictions. Local governments are both entrenched and jealously protective of their bundle of powers. They too cannot be ignored. Thus in the Lower Mainland, the local and regional authorities 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, it is evident that considerations of both a local and regional nature come into play in a tightly intertwined way. We might characterize the situation as one needing a stimulus to redirect historical location trends, a regional matter; as a situation of settling activities into the new decentralized RTC locations, a local matter; and as a situation of creating a critical mass of activities that can become viable and self-sustaining in its own right, a local and regional matter. Local municipalities can do little in the first instance to draw activities away from historically accepted locations except for certain incentive procedures that might well be met with competitive incentives elsewhere and which, in any case, would be prohibitively expensive. The regional authority, however, because of the persuasion it can-exercise as an 'interested third party' and because of it's access 13. to detailed and well-articulated regional planning arguments and policies, may well be more successful at amending historical location trends. At the same time, powers exercised by the local government in zoning and subdivision control make it the crucial party in settling activities into a new area within its jurisdiction. In land use control, the GVRD has primarily one tool--the Official Regional Plan. Because this plan by statute is "...a general scheme without detail..." (B.C., 1974, 3232-3) and is permissive (LMRPB, 1966, 10), the regional administration is helplessly handicapped in forcing local governments to accept activity. The upshot of this situation is that the regional and local establishments must apply their respective resources in a concerted and cooperative manner which makes the reconciliation of their differences regarding RTC development absolutely necessary. C. WHY TEST THE REGIONAL RTC CONCEPT FROM A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE? We have noted that our intention is to test the regional RTC concept from a local point of view and we have posed the question as to why this is necessary. In answer, there are really three reasons. The first concerns the distribution of powers between the two governments. The second concerns the nature of interests and responsibilities held by the two governments. The third concerns the present status of the analyses that have been completed by regional and local planners. The survey of powers noted above indicates that control in implementing the RTC rests not with the GVRD but with the Municipality. As the final author ity on matters of specific land use, the local government must rule on every development that may be proposed for the RTC. This ruling will undoubtedly be based on local requirements. Because regional and local authorities will consider the RTC within different scales of reference, the require-14-ments of the two governments will not necessarily by synonomous. If the regionally conceived RTC does not fulfill local requirements, then the municipality will simply withdraw its support from the RTC program and it will be doomed to failure. Thus, on the basis of their relative powers, the regional RTC concept is subservient to local review and this necessitates a locally based critique of the RTC in our analysis. The feasibility of any new land use proposal is dependent upon whether or not it can be accommodated upon a chosen site. This feasibility 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 site. The vehicle best suited for such a site-specific judgment is the municipal viewpoint where the focus of interests is centred on the physical form and structure of an environment. In comparison, the regional viewpoint is unsuitable because it is couched in broad functional terms that do not lend them selves to a site-specific interpretation. Moreover, the responsibility for achieving a fit between concept and site must settle with the local government who would be blamed if the impact of the RTC is negative to the existing situation. The regional government would only be responsible for the overall idea and not how the RTC took shape on the landscape. Thus the test of the region's RTC as it fits on the chosen site is a local responsibility best handled within a detailed local orientation and this reinforces the necessity to take a local perspective in the analysis. Finally, GVRD and Burnaby thinking on the town centre have not progressed in a parallel 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 their growth strategy and a 'final concept' has been presented for local consideration. In contrast, the Municipality has only dealt with the Metrotown in relatively superficial terms. Thus, the Municipal viewpoint is the 'unknown quantity' that must be specified before the viability of the RTC can be judged. This prescribes the approach as one that must start from the local level. Therefore the analysis looks at the regional RTC from a local viewpoint because local powers, interests and responsibilities bear heavily on whether the RTC can be successful and because the local viewpoint has yet to be articulated 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 this study. Knowing that Municipal endorsement of the regional RTC is crucial to its implementation, we can restate the research problem as follows. The problem is 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 realize the discrepancies in the GVRD's notion of the RTC will 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 will 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 will most definitely differ in their viewpoints at these levels because each government is dealing at a different scale with different policies using different-tools. These differing viewpoints, however, only become relevant when they result in an inability of regional and local parties to cooperate to achieve the RTC. The necessity for cooperation only occurs when a specific aspect of the RTC must be handled and a specific decision must be made. The point is that broader differences simply do not boil into open disagreements until that time and when looking at these broader policies, we have no way to conclude through a simple comparison what policy positions will lead to contentions on the RTC. Consequently, we are forced to go beyond a compara tive analysis. The fact that disagreements emerge clearly only when decisions are to be made is the key to constructing the additional analysis that is required. In the case we are studying, we find that specific action requiring specific decisions occurs primarily when the physical landscape is pro posed to be changed to create the RTC. We know that this physical landscape change is a matter of design. Therefore we can use design to simulate the changing landscape. Kevin Lynch calls this approach a 'design probe' (Lynch, 1971, 230) which he defines as the proposition 17. of a first 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 it is meant to be discarded after it pinpoints the issues. When regional and local authorities disagree on an aspect of the probe design that aspect becomes an issue. For the analysis, the regional and local positions on an issue are predicted by reference to the broader comparisons of policies that preceeds the probe design. We have noted previously, however, that responsibilities for site design and the powers to back up such responsibilities are clearly 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 site must be derived from local policy considerations such that it 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 translation of differences from the general to the specific. In this manner, divergences in viewpoint that are irrelevant to the RTC matter are carved away. The probe design has three functions under these circumstances. The first is to isolate the issues. The second is to show the relationship between these issues and broader policy. These have been discussed. The third relates to the need to define ways to reconcile the regional and local differences that exist on the issues. In talking about the design probe, Lynch notes that "...design is a learning process that gradually uncovers limits, possibilities and criteria..." (Lynch, 1971, 28). As a trial-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 issues can be reconciled. Indeed, Archer observes that "...the art of designing is the art of reconciliation." (Archer, 1963, 71). Thus some issues may be provided with technical resolutions available from the many alternative design solutions with which the designer has experimented. The limit to this capability is where the reconciliation of an issue cannot be achieved without one or both opposing parties changing their broader policies. This is because the design probe and the predicted regional responses are both based on a listing of assumed policy for each of the two governments. Gregory makes the point that " ...the practice of design turns upon some system of values" (Gregory, 1966, 81 ). These values are reflected in policy. As such the design simply cannot discover alternative recon ciliations outside of its policy setting. What is left after the issues have been drawn and some reconciled through technical means is a cluster of issues for which the root policy sources of disagreement must be determined and recommendations for the revision of policy must be made. These recommendations are nothing more than judgments on the efficacy of policy in light of the issues and in relation to other policy. This therefore represents the conclusion of the analysis. The recommended technical resolutions of issues and revisions of policy set a direction 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 analysis. How will 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 will 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 assist in this selection by classifying 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 rationalist framework (Broadbent, 1973, 55-72). In selecting the design method these generic approaches, both of which have eminent historical precedents, have each been considered. The empiricists draw the solution out of the subject being designed and their attention is on "...evidence as received by the senses" (Broadbent, 1973,58). 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 solution, 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 let the solution flow from the site. In contrast, the rationalists are "...concerned with what they know to be true as a result of reasoned thinking" (Broadbent, 1973, 58). The intention of the rationalists is to conceive a process of design that is overt, discreet and comprehensible. Brunon's comment exemplifies the rationalist attitude: 20. ...information must be structured before it can be acted upon in design development...judgments are made on the basis of...structured information rather than made arbitrarily on the basis of unstructured information (Brunon, 1970, 1 & 20). As a method for the probe design that we will employ, the empiricists' framework offers few advantages. Our design is not projected for development use, but rather for the discovery of issues and their policy roots. As such, we require a structured method that encompasses analysis from policy to site design in a connected series of steps. This method is essentially provided by the rationalist framework. Broadbent, Blumrich and Gregory among many others present similar models of the rationalist design method (Broadbent, 1973, 181 ; Blumrich, 1970, 1551 ; Gregory, 1966, 11) and these can be summarized as including essentially the following phases that are relevant to the design probe: i. problem definition and analysis; ii. goals formulation; iii. modelling the ideal solution; and iv. design applicaton of model to subject site. The design approach that has been utilized in the present research reflects this framework although the empiricist aspect will come into play to some extent in the design application phase. Because we are dealing with the design from one viewpoint (municipal) and the prediction of a response from another viewpoint (regional) the design process takes two parallel lines. The same framework is utilized 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 authorities. As Archer says "...there 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, this phase sets the basic directives 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 its planning policy, this phase also becomes the broad policy component in the comparative analysis of the research. The collection 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 is the consideration of a design concept or model for the RTC. This is an important phase because general intentions and policies must be translated into specific criteria. To quote Amos Rapoport: ...(for) the success of any design, we need to know what a 'good environment' is for the given situation, the types of spaces and their relation to the images and schemata, the culturally accepted devices for achieving the transitions, barriers, and definitions of realms, the degree of complexity for different people and types of movement and the like. (Rapoport, 1969, 139). Since the probe design is undertaken from the local viewpoint, the analysis must summarize that viewpoint in sufficient detail to facilitate a compre hensive design consideration of the chosen site. 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. Prior to this research, the local model had not been articulated. Therefore the researcher initiated continuing discussions with Burnaby planners to draw 22. out their concept of the Metrotown and the summary of this concept derives from those discussions. The local planners expressed their Metrotown ideas in terms of general principles and these have been included as an appendix to this analysis for the readers' perusal. The last phase of the probe design is the application of the Metrotown model to the designated site at Kingsway/Central Park in Burnaby. This is the phase of the design process that graphically examines the various design alternatives for fitting the concept to the site. It does this within the framework of constraints that the site presents and these constraints are itemized. It is a process that "...goes 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 details of design are intuitive and not really definable--what Moore has called the 'black box method'. It is the creative step in design and is espoused by a significant grouping of design theorists, notably Osborn, Gordon, Matchett and Broadbent (Moore, 1970, 5). As a response to site conditions, the application phase of the design probe as we will use it here is similar to the empiricist approach noted earlier except that the idealized 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 reflects their consensus for the purposes at hand. The product of the design process is a preliminary land use scheme as it would be locally undertaken. This is called the probe plan'to indicate that it is 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 is then concluded by relating the remaining unreconciled issues with their 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. As a guide to the reader, the complete analytical path has been diagrammed in Plate 3. As a final introductory note, it should be stated that the analysis focusses on a reconciliation of professional differences and it assumes that decisions are made within the rationality of the problem at hand. As such, it does not incorporate that range of political influences that affect a politician's decision on a problem regardless of the interior logic of arguments about that problem.. This is because the more complex political rationality is not amenable to prediction with the analytical tools we have chosen to use. The reconciliation of issues in the political sphere is really a separate though equally significant research problem that the constraints of this study could not accommodate. The reader should know as a background to the present study that the general notion of the multifunctional centre has been endorsed by politicians in both Burnaby and the GVRD. In some respects, the details have been left with the bureaucrats while, of course, the politicians reserve final approvals for themselves. Because the problem is therefore now in the professional realm, this will be the emphasis of the study. Having outlined the purpose and methodology of this research, we can now proceed with the analysis. We will start with a general comparison of policy in the following chapter and move to more specific levels of analysis in later chapters. 24. PHONAL-3 LOCAL, CfiNJ>, aw m&$>\ N/ fl&SjlOHAL, -k LOAL FLAN / f^Utr Roofs OF i*sae& _k K&VlSlflN TO f&ugy FOOTS OF J MOD^U Of AuALT6|5 25. CHAPTER TWO BROAD POLICY COMPARISON The purpose of this chapter is to survey and compare the broad policy setting within which the regional and local conceptions of the town centre have evolved. The major problems indicated by each government will be reviewed. The goals and strategies adopted to respond to these problems will also be outlined. Through this we can isolate the role that each government pro poses the multifunctional centre to play in its planning strategies. The intention of this background work is twofold. It will make comprehensible the specific RTC conceptions to be detailed in the next phase of the analysis. It will also pinpoint where the roles proposed for the RTC are parallel, where they diverge and how this relates to the government's goals and strategies. The findings in this respect will be used later in categorizing and attempting to resolve specific RTC issues. The regional situation and then the local situation will be surveyed followed by a comparison. A. GVRD - THE REGIONAL POLICY SETTING: The origin 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 establish a direction 27. for regional development for the next ten years. The Livable Region planning analysis has focussed specifically on regional problems, goals and strategies. A review of the origin and history of the program will provide perspectives for later discussion of selected details. 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 it essential to the process that planning be grounded in the needs, wants, attitudes of the people living in the area. (Smith, 1974, 2). The initial meetings were positive so the program was formalized in late 1972. GVRD staff met with 40to 50 community groups. Out of this public process a Report on Livability was produced that also incorporated questionnaire data and other GVRD studies. This document formed a guide to a further round of discussions with citizens which in 1975 resulted in the publication of The Livable Region 1976/1986. This document too was reviewed publicly and its principles have now been endorsed by the GVRD Board. While the later citizens' participatory process was not nearly as dynamic as the earlier meetings and was augmented by a more conventional land use approach (Smith, 1974, 3) it is clear that the issues and solutions proposed in the Livability Program reflect a lay as well as: a professional view. 28. Al. Regional Problems: What kinds of problems became evident in this citizen involved planning process? The GVRD seems to have con cluded that almost all regional issues centre around growth and the effects of growth on the region's physical and social environment. They have itemized these problems as follows: a. Growth patterns reflect an imbalanced growth configuration in the region which means that both the costs and benefits of growth are not equally shared by all the region's communities. They summarize this situation as follows: The central municipalities...are largely built up, and the main burden of rapid population growth has been falling on the outlying Municipalities of Surrey, Coquitlam, Delta and Richmond. The burden of growth—providing more roads, utilities, schools and other public services for more people, and minimizing the disruption of people's daily lives—is falling more heavily on some municipalities 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 effort involved in travelling." (GVRD, 1975,7). c. The thrust of development has taken a north/south orien tation in the region which, because of our geography, means more bridges and thus foreseeable major transport costs by public bodies which they can little afford. The GVRD calculates that, with growing population, to keep travel times roughly the same as today will require a fourfold increase in expenditures under a managed growth program and yet this is ...less than one-half the expenditure that will be required if we allow present trends to continue, with people living farther and farther from places of work, education and leisure. (GVRD, 1975,22). d. Because of the region's geographical constraints, there is limited space for continued urban expansion under current density trends: Room to grow in this region is severely limited... by the sea, mountain slopes, floodplains and valuable farm and recreation land. Physical limits to growth restrict the area within which the land market can operate and result in high speculative land prices.... (thus) people are worried about the high cost of housing. (GVRD, 1975, 6-7). e. Open space options in the region are quickly closing as scarce urban land is developed. Too many, valuable natural areas have disappeared and have been converted to housing sites, offices and other urban uses. (Yet)...people want to preserve the natural assets of the region... they want natural places in and close to cities. (GVRD, 1975, 26 & 27). f. With the industrialization of the city, pollution has increased and "people do not want pollution to ruin the clean air 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 citizen response and staff analysis, the central goals for the region have been framed essentially 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 relatively 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 pollution and parks are felt to be relatively well in hand. GVRD programs in sewage treatment, water control, air pollution control (except vehicle emissions) and solid waste disposal are felt to be attacking the pollution problem and urban development management will 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 Livability proposals, however, is the idea of managing and directing 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 essentially to accept predicted growth levels (while still trying to minimize unnecessary growth by working with senior levels of government on immigration policies, etc.) and to manage that growth by "...channelling population growth to the right places in the region" (GVRD, 1975, 5). Thus they propose what they title "A Strategy to Manage Growth". This strategy has essentially three components: a. The creation of a network of RTCs in suburban locations is proposed related to balanced job and residential growth targets for each segment of the region. The Livability Program outlines suggested residential growth targets which they recommend each municipal member of the GVRD to adopt. The program also recommends target ratios of jobs to resident workers for each regional sub-area. And to make these targets feasible, the creation of RTCs is recommented (Plate 4). b. To handle movement problems, a transit-oriented trans portation system is proposed that would link residential areas, RTCs and major work areas. The GVRD notes that a 3 ...good transit system is the backbone of regional development. It will help make Regional Town Centres viable, and in turn, transit-oriented Regional Town Centres will help make high-quality transit 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 affair with a decidedly functional orientation. The kinds of environments that must be evolved are only lightly touched upon. The GVRD does, however, emphasize the interrelatedness of all strategy components and they illustrate this with a nifty little diagram which is shown in Plate 5 . As such it seems the strategy is quite holistic, that it has been defined through a preconceived process and that it would attack the spectrum of regional problems identified by the GVRD. Role of the RTC in the Regional Strategy: As is indicated above, the RTC concept stands at the very centre of regional strategy. The achievement of the overall program, therefore, is dependent on the acceptance and success of the RTC notion. As such the RTC has a strong strategic role to play in GVRD plans and we can itemize this role as follows (after Spaeth, 1976, 20-23): a. The RTCs would be the main place to accept activities proposed for decentralization—shopping, cultural and job-bearing activities. This is important to avoid sprawl that might otherwise result 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 crucial. b. The nature of the RTC as a concentrated activity node within a sub-regional catchment area 'out where people live' means that the RTC takes on a significant role of creating a close home/job and home/other activities interface. c. As already noted, RTCs create focii facilitating efficient and inexpensive public transit as an alternative to the private car. d. By concentrating activity it is hoped that pressures on open space that should be preserved will 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 fair distri bution of growth costs and benefits is paramount. RTCs serve a crucial role in organizing land-use and growth patterns in the growth management strategy. For comparison, we should make a similar survey of the local planning setting that Burnaby examplifies. BURNABY - THE LOCAL POLICY SETTING: While the GVRD's Livability Program has been a relatively straightfoward and organized affair of identifying problems, goals and strategy for regional development, the process at the local level in Burnaby has not been so nearly clearcut. There is certainly no one program through which the planning function has been unfolded. Instead, local policy represents an accretion of studies, reports, citizen/staff rapport and Council and staff decisions. The culmination of this local policy work is the presently accepted idea of directing develop ment within the Municipality into a "hierarchy of settlements". Before examining this concept, we can trace its 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 first overt attempt to cope with this 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 individually serviced as they were opened to redevelop ment. Almost immediately, however, it 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 finally published in 1971 under the title Urban Structure: A Study of Long Range Policies Which Affect the Physical Structure of an Urban Area. This work took a broad visionary perspective. After reviewing various alternative land-use structures, it boldly recommended an "intermittent grid of metrotowns", a series of compact urban settlements surrounded by green space and connected by various transportation linkages (Sixta, 1971, 62,79). While this document was to set a tone for municipal strategy formation, it was felt to be perhaps too conceptual. What was needed in a practtal sense was a way to direct development then occurring within the confines of existing constraints. 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 called Burnaby Community Plans. This document outlined specific site configurations, density guidelines, open space requirements and commercial site 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 differentiation 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 existing patterns and constraints apparent in each area studied and provided practical tools for development control. But Urban Structure and the broad considerations it posited were not forgotten. To "...gain acceptance of the policies contained in the report" (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974,2), the local authorities initiated a series of public meetings to review the report's proposals. The meetings were held occasionally but were well-attended. But in 1973, it was observed by staff participants that "...the nature of public meetings has changed, as.it 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 principle was ...to give the residents of Burnaby a chance to state what their concerns are, in what way they would like to see their Municipality grow, and if they had an image of the future city. (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 3). Actually, the planners realized that Urban Structure would simply never make it through the political process and that the veracity of existing working policy needed to be politically buttressed by public opinion. The findings of the meetings as analyzed by staff in a comparison with in-place policies were published in 1974 under the title, Public Meetings: Phase One. Predictably, this report concluded that the public was opposed to the sweeping proposals of Urban Structure but that the working policies as outlined in the Apartment  Studies etc., met most citizens' concerns. To provide a theoretical footing for these in-place policies, the report salvaged what it could from Urban Structure. Through this integration of theoretical and practical perspectives, the strategy of a settlement hierarchy was finally articulated in a full-blown fashion. Essentially 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, district, town and metrotown) with centres serving complementarily-scaled population groupings. As a reflection of what had essentially already been achieved, this idea in the Public Meetings Report really represented the final dominance of practical day-to-day concerns over theoretical, long-range considerations. The Public Meetings Report, however, is also significant because it brought together for the first time a long history of small-scaled, ad hoc planning decisions as well as public inputs to articulate what was, in fact, an already working policy. Moreover, it did this concisely by stating municipal problems as voiced by the public, tying these to existing policies and relating these policies into a cohesive frame work. This document was consequently politically potent. What local politician would vote against a statement with such apparent public participation and support? Indeed, the document was strongly endorsed by Council and has become the policy benchmark for planning in Burnaby that verifies the collection 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. We can itemize these as follows: a> The local authorities point to growth as a major local problem that is ...progressively eroding the various elements of (a) suburban 1ifestyle...The Municipality which has long been considered a place of residential stability and abundant open space now appears to be losing these amentiies. (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974,1). Established low-density residential neighbourhoods and open space in its natural state are felt to be particularly endangered. b. It is realized that demands are growing for expanded housing choices in Burnaby because of changing demographic and economic conditions. This is particularly relevant to the growth in demand for multiple-family accommodation, say local officials, because no longer does every one desire or can everyone afford the single-family dwelling alter native. c. The historical dependence upon downtown Vancouver has tended to circumscribe the range of services (publicly and privately provided) available to local residents. Suburbs such as Burnaby are tending toward a homogeneity where there will be "...long distances to travel to obtain the conveniences of urban living." (Sixta, 1971,19). d. 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 it is felt, while not really providing new kinds of experiences at 40. the urban level, even threatens to extinguish experience potentials at the rural and natural level: The evenness of urban sprawl has a claustro phobic qua!ity--caused not so much by numbers of people but by sameness... (Sixta, 1971, 24). e. It is felt that there is an imbalance of jobs and residents in Burnaby not necessarily related to the number but to the type of jobs available: The provision of employment opportunities is a necessary part of the development of the Municipality;...(needed is) a diversity of employment opportunities... (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 30, 31). f. Traffic and growing automobile incompatibility with other activities is felt to be a problem. There is common public feeling that ...the transportation systems provided in...the Municipality were too auto-oriented and that these were having a progressively deteriorating effect on the general quality of living in... the area. (Yet)...it was generally agreed that continued use of the automobile in the foreseeable future was inevitable. (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 33, 34). B2. Local Goals and Strategy: Having itemized Municipal problems as indicated by local authorities, we can survey the goals specified to resolve these problems: a. The Municipality has adopted the position that while growth can in all likelihood not be stopped at the local level because it involves policy at all levels of government, it should be avoided where it is patently detrimental. When it does occur, the goal should be to use it "...in pursuit of a higher level of environmental quality" (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 7). 41. b. Since a serious problem in the Municipality is the suburban uniformity and homogeneity that is relatively characteristic, a crucial goal to be achieved is a diversity of services, facilities, jobs, housing types and environmental experiences. This must involve the provision of truly urban services and facilities now available only at Vancouver centre. It must involve the provision of a component of white collar and service jobs to augment the industrial employment base that presently exists. It must involve the continued provision of multiple-family residential accommodation as a balance to the predominantly single-family configuration of the Municipal landscape. And it must involve discouraging the 'sameness' of suburbia ...by adding new things, such as visual strong-points (nodes) and networks (systems), which together structure the homogeneous spread of settlements into recognizable elements, high points, low points and lines...(to accommodate) ...a variety of urban life styles. (Sixta, 1971, 24). c. A strong program to preserve natural open space and policies to protect established cohesive single-family neighbourhoods must be guiding goals. d. To deal with the movement problem, a goal is to lobby higher governments to provide transit 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 conflicts between homes and street noise and pollution. The intent is to strive for a system of efficient balanced modes. Thus the thrust of planning objectives is to use growth to diversify and organize activities while protecting existing amenities. The strategy to be utilized to achieve these goals is essentially three-pronged: open space protection; an aggressive street improvement program; and the direction of new development into the bounded settlement areas that have been defined in the Municipality with a particular emphasis on the Metrotown (see Plate 6). Action on the protection of open space has been timely and compre hensive. Major open space amenities have been preserved either in a "conservation" status, through a regional park designation or through Municipal acquisition. Burnaby Mountain, Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake and significant 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 linear park network is underway. Local residential parks are being provided at a rapid rate through a major parks acquisition program. Associated with these steps is the preservation of the open greenness of established low-density residential neighbourhoods. A policy of designating selected neighbourhoods as enclaves where redevelopment for higher densities and non residential uses will be prohibited is now being actively considered. 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 distinction between heavy upgrading of east/west through-routes and traffic management (with less physical upgrading) on north/south local streets. A substantial expansion of the bus transit system related to Municipal activity 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 its variously sized commercial facilities and closely associated multiple-family districts arranged into integrated units is 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 policies 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 their clients 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 truly 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 alternative activity 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 diversifying Municipal opportunities, the Metrotown is crucial. It is conceived to provide the highest order of shopping and white collar employment to be found in the Municipality. In contrast to the suburban character of Burnaby, the Metrotown is proposed to be the multifunctional urban place envisaged by Gruen. The opportunity for this urban experience will be unique in Burnaby and will allow the accommodation of lifestyles not available or appropriate elsewhere in the Municipality. b. The size of the Metrotown is tied to the idea that it must take a role of accepting a significant component of new growth that cannot be avoided by the Municipality. This will result in several advantages as seen by Burnaby planners: pressure will be lessened for the development of open space reserves and the redevelopment of cohesive low-density neighbourhoods. A critical mass of activity can be achieved that makes a broad range of services and variety of housing feasible. And the tax base of the Municipality will be substantially augmented. c. Finally, the Metrotown will take a role as a distinct activity 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. It also makes feasible the initiation of rail transit that has been 46. regionally discussed and the realistic inclusion of walking as a viable means to move from local place to place. This last point is because the close proximity of shopping and jobs cuts the length of necessary trips for a significant number of citizens. In summary, the Municipality of Burnaby has determined to accept growth when it can be used to enhance local circumstances. The hallmark of local thinking is to diversify choices for the people of Burnaby while preserving existing amenities. In general a range of scaled settlements within the suburban residential and open space landscape is proposed to accomplish Municipal goals. In specific, the Metrotown takes the major role in this respect. The Metrotown is thus proposed as a comprehensive, urbanized assenbly of use whose residential aspect makes it a distinctive municipal settlement. It is apparent that local authorities tend to approach their problems by con cluding what is possible on specific sites. While there is a theoretical line of reasoning in their analysis, their strategy is really a collection of specific problem-solving exercises with a clear land-use orientation. 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 essentially parallel in a broad sense. Both authorities see growth as the central issue to be faced. Both wish to arrange urban activities into perceivable 47. clusters. Both see a strong need to protect open space. And both consider the question of movement a vital one. It might be said that the GVRD and Burnaby are speaking the same language and this enhances their likelihood to co-operate. On the other hand, it is also evident that the perspectives of the two governments are not completely the same even at the broad policy level. In part this is due to the pressures of differing consistencies and in part it is due to the differences in the way the agencies approach their separate problem-solving processes. The GVRD must satisfy a broad collection of groups making diverging demands from relatively powerful positons. Most important in this respect is the necessity to reconcile the powerful local governments within its jurisdiction. Burnaby has a more constricted grouping of interests to resolve because the majority of its constituency has a common suburban viewpoint. Local pressure groups are also not very strong. As a result, the Municipal planners are less constrained by such groups when considering planning policy. -In terms of methodologies used to direct growth, the two agencies have both been concerned with defining problems. However, the GVRD has taken a holistic approach that is basically theoretical whereas Burnaby has taken a pragmatic approach where theory is 48. subservient to practice. Thus the regional strategy has evolved in a linear manner of defining problems then establishing goals then concluding on strategy. The local strategy has evolved simply as a result of separate decisions over time being restated in a strategic framework for political and public consumption. In Burnaby the statement of problems never became overt until after a strategic policy had become a fait accompli and problems were then outlined partially to justify that policy. This of course is generally the result of differing bases of power and responsibility between the two bodies. The GVRD has little specific land-use power and its land-use planning function is really advisory to local authorities. 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 it has few resources and little time to consider its planning approach in an overall fashion. The local government must be practical in its 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, responsibility and approach have significant implications. We therefore can summarize these implications as follows: 49. CI. View of Growth: It has been noted that regional and local authorities consider growth to be a central concern and both generally elect to manage growth rather than try to inhibit it. However the regional plan ners want each municipality to accept an equal share of the burden of growth, either by directly accepting increased populations or by helping those municipalities that will grow the most. The GVRD makes a plea that local areas adopt its growth targets. The local position in Burnaby is to only accept growth as a means to improve the local environment but to avoid growth that is seen as destructive. If this can be achieved within GVRD growth targets, then Burnaby will co-operate. If it feels the targets are too high or too low, Burnaby will ignore them. The criterion for Burnaby is how its environment is affected by new populations and activity as judged by the ongoing specific decisions on various development proposals. While the Metrotown is seen by Burnaby planners as a vehicle to handle growth, its configuration will not be determined by regionally imposed population minimums or maximums but by what the Kingsway/Central Park site can effectively accommodate. The role defined for the Metrotown and the constraints of the actual site will be Burnaby's main determinants. C2. Importance of the Regional Centre: For the GVRD, the Metrotown is but one of several RTCs that it wishes to see developed at the same time. Thus GVRD energies are proposed to be strategically distributed among these centres. While the GVRD gives the Metrotown a priority status it also gives this status equally to the proposed New bO. Westminster RTC and emphasizes the importance of RTCs in Surrey and Coquitlam as.well. In contrast, to Burnaby, the Metrotown is the unique urban phenomenon in the Municipal scheme of things. It is conceived to fulfil Municipal requirements whose demands are growing. Thus, Burnaby will respect little the sympathies to equal treatment expressed by the GVRD. In a competitive situation with other RTCs the Burnaby authorities will want to make sure that Metro-town has the upper hand. Nature of the Regional Centre: The main thrust of GVRD thinking on RTCs is that they should serve the vital function of accepting decentralized activities from Vancouver centre. As such the GVRD defines the term "centre" as a focus of activities serving the requirements of a surrounding population whose numbers will surely increase but who are essentially already in place. Contrasting with this is the Burnaby conception of the Metrotown which evolved out of the need to cope with residential pressures as reflected in the Apartment Studies. 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 is on a comprehensive "settle ment" to house local people, not simply a central core to service outsiders. The separate titles chosen by the two authorities for the place—"Regional Town Centre" and local "Metrotown"--hint at this basic conceptual difference. 51. Movement: The GVRD has as a central platform in its strategy the creation of a viable public rapid-transit linkage connecting its RTCs and the Vancouver CBD. Without this linkage the total strategy would be in jeopardy. The region specifies that with development of the transit alternative, private automobile movement should be de-emphasized and discouraged. Thus for the GVRD the idea predominates that the RTC should be oriented exclusively to transit and accessed almost exclusively by transit. Local authorities are leery of the regional position. While Burnaby planners strongly endorse rapid transit moves, they have heard the transit story told many times by many parties without seeing any firm results. They conclude therefore that municipal strategy cannot be tied to this illusive idea. Rather the reality of the car must be faced. Thus the Metrotown is conceived by local planners to be accessed by a balanced system of modes where transit and automobile.movements are equally provided for. 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 find that problems are similarly defined by the agencies although using different analytical approaches that respond to differing constituencies and power realities. The conceptions, therefore, of growth (its 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 specific conceptions or images of the multifunctional centre in Burnaby. 53, CHAPTER THREE RTC MODELS AND COMPARISON 54. Against the backdrop of policy formulations outlined earlier, 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 will pinpoint where the RTC ideas of the governments diverge at the conceptual level. These differences will be used later in the process of reconciling specific issues between the two governments. The summary of the local concept, however, not only facilitates the comparison which is desired, but it also sets a conceptual direction for the specific Kingsway/Central Park site design which we have proposed to undertake from a local perspective. The regional conceptualization of the RTC is summarized from existing and avail able GVRD reports and staff comments. This is not possible for the local concept. Prior to the present research, Burnaby planners had not articulated a concept for the Metrotown that reflected local staff agreement. Therefore the first necessity of the research was to draw together such a concept. To this end, a four-month period of full-time discussion between the researcher and local planners was initiated in the summer of 1975. In these discussions, the planner's various idealizations of the Metrotown were considered and debated by their colleagues and a series of general design principles was established as a consensus opinion of those planners participating. These general principles comprise the local Metrotown concept and a listing of the principles is attached as an appendix. The summary below is 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 call upon standards and planning conclusions that could be debated ad infinitum. The fact that is relevant to the present analysis is not whether the preconceptions are right or wrong, but that they are views that each authority does endorse and will 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 this, 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 brief, they do illustrate the mindset of government planners on the RTC matter. In the Pub!ic Meetings  Report, Burnaby planners painted the following picture of the Metrotown: The primary purpose is the realization of an integrated and identifiable focus of residential, commercial, and social components for the Municipality. It is envisaged that the inhabitants of the Metrotown together with their supporting facilities and services would provide for a new sense of vitality and attraction. Typically, these supporting facilities 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 likely be developed on a super-block basis and would include a commercial and office element, it would not be modelled after the traditional auto-oriented central business district in terms of general function and characteristics. (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 24). 56. GVRD planners in The Livable Region 1976/1986, in discussing their proposal for a network of RTCs have articulated their preconceived notion of such a place as follows: ...a Regional Town Centre needs to be a certain size. At a minimum it should have a million square feet of office space, gross annual retail sales in the order of $50 million', and be able to draw audiences of several hundred to the theatre or other cultural events... Size is not the only distinguishing aspect of a Regional Town Centre. Equally important are its quality and character. There are features of a city 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 - Activities and facilities should be within comfortable walking distance of one another along a pleasant and interesting street-level environment. Providing good public transit service and reducing space devoted to the automobile are ways to accomplish this. . A widely varied but balanced mixture of activities -A Regional Town Centre should be alive with many different activities from morning to midnight (or later, depending on local preference). It should not be dominated by one activity like office parks or shopping centres. . A human scale - Buildings should not give people a 'boxed-in' feeling and should not block the sun or views. Other qualities...harder 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 fish 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 activity and others which are peaceful. (GVRD, 1975, 18). 57. THE REGIONAL RTC CONCEPT: Our present purpose is to fill out the general impressions and we can begin by examining stated regional specifications for the RTC. Th basic source for these specifications is a draft GVRD background report, Regional Town Centres: A Policy Report (Spaeth, 1976) that is expected to be-published in the immediate future. This report breaks down its RTC description into topics of activity, size, transpor tation and unique characteristics. We will use these same headings and finish our review with a survey of the RTC development approach proposed by the GVRD as this is the basic emphasis of the background report. Al. RTC Activity Specifications: Activity specifications are discussed by the GVRD on the basis of the regional goals that have already been discussed. The guiding idea is to bring jobs, leisure and education closer to suburban homes and to meet surrounding community needs particularly for shopping and services^ The employment emphasis for the RTC is to be in the tertiary sector. On occasion, the RTC has even been called an "Office Centre" (Mann, 1974, 4). The GVRD classifies workplaces as "population-dependent" (activities serving a local resident community), "site-dependent" (activities that must have a certain kind of site to function well), and "site-flexible" (activities where neither consumer populations nor site necessities determine locations) (GVRD, 1974,16). The great majority of RTC jobs will be in site-flexible workplaces and some will be in population-dependent workplaces primarily because these activities will be easiest to draw to the RTC. 58. A major component of these site-flexible office workplaces is proposed to be provided in RTCs by locating large businesses and government office facilities within them. It is assumed that support functions will follow these installations. However, RTC activity should be varied and offices should be augmented with specialized services or trades as well as cultural/leisure opportunities for larger audiences. RTCs thus stand in stark contrast to the uni-functional shopping centres that are now typical in the region (see Plate 7). The GVRD idea is also that office activities that might tend to scatter to alternative smaller centres are to be directed to RTC locations. The report itemizes recommended RTC activities as per the listing in PI ate 8 . RTC Size Specifications: Size is important to attract development and users to the RTC and to house the great amount of activity that the GVRD wants decentralized from downtown Vancouver. The GVRD's size specifications 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 will have to be comparable to that using the downtown of a small city before independent RTC growth can be expected. This is 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 will be office jobs. 59. "THfc, MIX Of ACr/Vrri^6lH £Xl6TlN^ TOWN C&HTf*\&b T+« n=V>f*>5£P MIX Of ACT|Vltl&6 IN fVfX* 6oa*£f3:faVr\D, 1*575, p. 2X3). HO $a*NriT)£5 <SUVEN. 4V.f\.D.'6 Activities MIX 60Mfi\r\|60N , PLATS 7 60. Some Major Regional Town Centre Activities: . Business and Government offices . Art, Music, and Oance Studios . Hotel and Convention Facilities . Department Stores . Commercial Services (such as lawyers, accounting, insurance, printing, and office supply) . Main Banks and Financial Institutions . Community Colleges Vocational Training . Larger Museums and Exhibition Halls . Sports Centres . Theatres . Social Services (such as welfare, doctors' offices, and day care Some Activities 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 Activities Not Appropriate for Regional Town Centres: Industrial Manufacturing . Warehousing and Distributing . Surface Parking . Automobile Sales and Repair SOURCE; (Spaeth, 1976, • J). Dh ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OT RTC MAJOR ACflYlTlfS tot K-k-rn _ centres) PLATS 6 61. c. GVRD findings indicate that Retail and specialized service businesses serving a population of 100,000-150,000 persons will generate annual sales of about $50 million in space totalling about 700,000 sq.ft. but create only about 1,500-2,000 jobs. (Spaeth, 1976, 10). Thus the proposed retail specification for the RTC has now been set at approximately double this research finding. d. Community services and cultural activities in RTCs will employ another 1,000-2,000 workers which maintains about today's ratio between jobs and scale of service in the region.- Based on a background study of GVRD cultural opportunities (Fawcett, 1975), parameters are noted by the GVRD such as theatres to seat 400-500 people and museum/exhibition halls with space over 5,000 sq.ft. e. 2,000-3,000 dwellings should be provided within walking distance of the RTC to create an immediate clientale 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 activities should be fitted onto a site 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 that access be provided primarily by light rapid transit and a transit station should be conveniently near all RTC activities. Movement within the RTC should be accomplished basically on foot and "...a continuous system of pedestrian circulation will be needed" (Spaeth, 1976, 12). The automobile should be limited by discouraging long-term parking and playing down auto access streets. The relationship between RTC use and movement is illustrated by the GVRD diagram in Plate 9.. A4. RTC Character Specifications: Essentially the character of the RTC as articulated by the GVRD's thumbnail sketch above is about as specific a description as the regional planners have provided. The reader will recall that the description talked about a strong pedestrian orientation, a widely varied but balanced mixture of activity (to extend the active period of the place each day), a human scale and a list of experiential qualities. This description has only been further augmented by the following GVRD comments: a. "Although comparable in size and mix of activities, the proposed Regional Town Centres should each respond to the qualities of its specific setting. For example...Central Park Burnaby could take advantage of its centrality to become a head quarters for population-serving businesses..." (Spaeth, 1976, 13). ^.VAP'6 MODPL. Of IMC 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 activities that are popular and interesting even if they are not 'economic' in the strict sense." (Spaeth, 1976, 17). d. "Housing in Regional Town Centres should be for mixed incomes and 1ifestyles...Housing and space for certain types of activities should be combined." (Spaeth, 1976, 19). Referring to RTC character, the GVRD also notes that people living near and using the Centre should be heavily involved in deciding upon the character of the environments to be created in order that people will relate to the urbanity that is achieved. Approach to RTC Development: The GVRD makes an aggressive case that RTCs will not occur on their own. At the same time, the regional planners stress that such development must occur if regional growth is to be accommodated without sacrificing amenities in the region over the next ten years. Thus there is a call by the GVRD for governments to take active initiatives to have the priority RTCs functioning by 1986. On this basis, the GVRD recommends the following immediate government actions: a. RTC design must meet employer needs if it is to attract the necessary business activities to it. To determine these needs, the GVRD has undertaken a "Corporation Survey" (Mann, 1974) and it recommends that RTC designers satisfy these corporation specifications as listed in Plate 10. 65. ~T~. A CLEAR PLAN: . firm decisions about what RTC should be . master plan for Lower Mainland showing RTCs political backing at all government levels . definite statements as to transit routes and stations . relatively firm knowledge of tax structure 2. DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES: . no delay of construction plans . land assembly at government level tax or financing concessions . major commitment by government office users . economical land and rental costs freedom from uneconomic restrictions on site configuration and desi gn . measures to stabilize climate for investment initial and continuing federal and provincial investment and sup port in terms of an economic base, land banks, serviced land, an infrastructure, 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 residential and commercial population in RTC to attract retail businesses 4. TRANSPORTATION: . ease of automobile access . rapid transit between RTC, downtown and outlying areas . definite policy on transit 5. AMENITIES: . impressive setting, unique architecture, and landscaping ('presitge image') . variety shopping, entertainment, and cultural activities 6. BUSINESS CHARACTER: . a substantial banking, legal, accounting, and financial sector in RTCs . establishment of auxiliary head offices in RTCs . grouping of head offices of similar interdependent industries and related service businesses . should include both residential and commercial population . relative 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 full development of RTCs. Thus regional planners have asked permission from their Board to investigate means to ensure this does not occur. Regional planners suggest that government should purchase key sites in RTC areas to ensure maximum development control, stop inappropriate development, and avoidspeculative price increases. Advance purchase of critical rights-of-way is also advocated. Toward these ends a revolving 'Advanced Land Acquisition Fund1 has been endorsed politically and is being established. Government office decentralization is a key to RTC viability as noted above and GVRD recommends that all governments give priority consideration to location choices. Ongoing lobbying by GVRD and local governments to accomplish this is suggested. A range of procedures must be developed to encourage decentralization of activities from Vancouver Centre. The GVRD is now investigating such procedures and has worked with the City of Vancouver in the down-zoning of traditional activity cluster locations in the Broadway and downtown areas of the central city. The renovation of development processing procedures in the municipalities and the creation of a marketing service to inform developers of the RTC location option are to be pursued. 67. f. Transit development is felt to be crucial to the RTCs and the GVRD planners have recommended that their Board seek Letters Patent from the Province to take charge of the Lower Mainland transit planning function from Provincial departments (GVRD, 1975:2,10). g. A clear plan for each RTC should be prepared to illustrate to potential RTC locatees that a complete business and leisure environment will 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 "Official Community Plan". h. The regional planners suggest that the success of the RTC is dependent upon a viable development management process "...that can make decisions effectively while representing the variety of interests that will be involved." (Spaeth, 1976, 36). Leery of existing 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 staff 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 illustrated on the GVRD diagram shown in Plate 11. 68. ,— / MUNICIPAL \ ,fS^P5B6emATlOrJ / TECHNIC*- \ / ^lirt«H/TT \ ADYlGfs ff^OIW 1 ANP / Wear pAfsnawiay liAttttEflN^ PPiQ^rWiMI^ flilAWAL. 6rMW^6 6C6IAL. PLANNING 6«4f\J£; (•fePAfcTH , l?f^, p. ^.Y.FN.P'6 C0ri6m or 1H& DEVELOPMENT CORP. PLATE »l In summary, there can be little argument that the GVRD's concept of the RTC is schematic and sketchy and does not show the kind of cohesiveness and rationale that is evident in the broader 'GVRD growth strategy'. The regional RTC concept is primarily concerned with specifying the prerequisites needed for RTCs to play their role in the growth strategy. The kinds of environments that must be developed for RTCs are thus only given a superficial consideration. Yet this is understandable when we realize that the GVRD would have little power to manipulate local governments into accepting more concrete schemes even if these were prepared. Moreover, this makes it difficult for regional planners to get authorization from their 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 solutions. The onus is really on each local government to give a detailed substance to the RTC that is located within its jurisdiction. Physical environments are really a local matter with the caveat that they will be given careful GVRD scrutiny before being regionally endorsed. As noted above, a local 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. We will summarize those discussions. The basic topic areas—activity, size, transportation, character and approach—that were used in the summary of the regional concept above will also be used in discussing the local concept in order to facilitate later comparisons. Bl. Metrotown Activity Specifications: Burnaby planners conceive the Metrotown as having a dual nature. They stress that it has activities used by a surrounding regional population but that it will also be the home of a large number of people who live "in town" so that much of Metrotown space is only locally significant. Out of this typology the planners build the idea that the Metrotown will have impacts that are different for people living increasingly distant from its centre and to reflect th they develop a concept of influence areas and multiple boundaries as shown in the diagram of Plate 12. On this basis, the planners specify Metrotown activities. Regarding the in-town residential population, the planners choose to utilize a concept of neighbourhoods. The neighbourhoods would be discreet units through which servicing is provided. These units would also have clearly defined edges in order that a sense of territorial identity might develop such that neighbourhood social institutions could form if residents desire. To serve these neighbourhoods, the planners propose that small convenience shopping centres be created 71. op oNfS|HTATION 06OIK5 (ofPofifliNrr[l26 t&fAHWO) ^MHUNIfT iNFWI5N6|g AtSfcA: •AREA WH£f»e 0PrWTUNiri£6 AfifS SXPAhP^P IN A MAvlOf^ WAY BUT PHY6I6A{_ LAHD5cAP£ poee Nor OlAr0|i5 irlrlPDiATP Dja^oPtlgNT AfttSA— • AfS£A Of LANDSCAPE 6+lAN£fl5 -fS^p^YBLOfH^W 066UP6 PLATE 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 illustrated in Plate 13. Regionally significant functions are also differentiated by the planners. Since their goal is to achieve a highly diverse combina tion of urban activities, they first lay out a spectrum of uses to be accommodated in the centre. They say that there should be large shopping facilities directed at serving the surrounding regional market (the key facilities being department stores). The planners also specify that offices be provided. They try to distinguish office types as to the kind of environments and the kinds of support functions that different offices would need. Their typology breaks offices down into three types: i. 'corporate administrative headquarters' - offices of national or international stature; ii. 'middle-market' administrative offices that relate to a regional or sub-regional market area; and iii. 'local service' offices that relate to the local community. The planners specify that the Metrotown must serve a major tourist and entertainment function as well. They therefore conclude that a perceivable node of tourist activities including hotels and convention facilities should be created. They decide that entertain ment functions would be found in the tourist node, but would also locate in all the central areas of the centre. The implication of wvy^via oooooooo I 1 f I i CWH99 MIVJWO? AVHj ^9VJG y_/v_» ~jyxrf TVIIW oai^*- JUi^waa S^MOI o o 74. this listing of activities is that only a very few kinds of uses would be prohibited outright from the Metrotown (such as polluting industries, warehousing and the like) and this is exactly the interpretation that local planners would want. In terms of mixing uses, the local planners find it highly desirable that there be a fine-grained mixture of activities in any one project in the Metrotown centre and a concept as shown in Plate 14 is therefore advocated. The planners feel that this will provide for a maximum interaction among the Metrotowners. However, they are leary of leaving this mix unchecked. Therefore they develop a concept of 'assemblies of use'. Each multi-use assembly would be a grouping of activities that call for similar locational and environ mental circumstances, that tend to support one another and that serve similar consumers. Thus the planners define a 'first order assembly' of activities which would include:the large or middle-market prestige corporate offices, large-scaled and highly specialized commercial facilities, major cultural/recreational/public facilities and the host of uses that are ancillary to these. These would be placed at the symbolic centre of the Metrotown. Also defined is a 'second order assembly' of uses which would include the less prestigious middle-market offices and a collection of smaller commercial and service facilities and appropriate ancillary services. Finally, the planners define a 'third order assembly' of activities which would be composed of small local offices, small independent boutiques and such things as art galleries and artists' studios. These differentiated assemblies would form the continuum for Metrotown activities that are oriented beyond the local in-town population. Moreover, each • 111 fAP^M^ fANUN^ MO]" THIS-OM0S open 6fA^ pE-PfeSTNAN LSYPL i THIS. npiporowH: VEWKAI. MIXTURE or ACTIVITY PLATS 14* 76. assembly would include some residential space for people who choose not to be a part of the separated and self-contained neighbourhoods discussed earlier. What results from the planners' conceptualization of Metrotown activities is an arrangement illustrated in Plate 15. Metrotown Size Specifications: Municipal planners take the view that ultimate size specifications as well as specifications of maximum or minimum amounts of Metro-town activities are not possible or relevant. They suggest that the Metrotown size will depend on what size of site can be defined 'on the ground' without disturbing established surrounding single-family neighbourhoods. They also say that the amounts of activity will depend on how much a defined site can actually accommodate. Essentially, the local view is that the course of events will deter mine the size of the Metrotown. The planners do, however, make some statements that would affect the size of the place as follows: a. Burnaby planners talk about amounts of activities relative to other activities at any stage of Metrotown growth. In this 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 collection of functions will co-exist at all times. This is felt to be necessary to ensure maximum opportunities and choices for the Municipality's citizens. Local planners start by looking at the evolved balance of the historical city (using the empirical research of Smith as shown on Plate 16) and they amend this 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 THM Aftfo HBAYICf IhT^W^ PLATE 19 78. METROPOLITAN PER CAPITA FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES Activities Floor Area Per Capita (sq. ft.) Retail 20-55 Office 2-1Parking (on ground or in structure) 4-16 Public 1- 3.5 Quasi-Public - 3.5 Wholesale 5-1Industrial 2-15 Residential 200-400 SOURCE: (Smith, 1961). nWROlDWH: HlSPnKAL 6I|T At) <« P M% BALAM fUif. 16 79. an armchair estimate of the apportionment of uses in the Metro-town and this is illustrated in Plate 17 (in comparison to the proportion of uses found in Burnaby's existing higher density but nonetheless suburban 'settlements'). b. Burnaby planners also give some size specifications to their in-town neighbourhood concept. They suggest a maximum distance of 10 minutes' walk (approximately 2,200+^ feet) from any residential unit to neighbourhood convenience facilities. They delimit the population of the neighbourhood unit by the number of people that create a viable unit to be serviced. Each neighbour hood would therefore include around 5,000 persons. The planners state, however, that the number of neighbourhoods and consequently the size of the total Metrotown residential population would be determined by actual site constraints and cannot be defined in conceptual terms. c. The only other constraint that the local planners place on size would be the specification about the provision of park space and about the types of physical forms that are to be required in the Metrotown. These will be discussed below. Overall, Burnaby planners stress that the size of the Metrotown should facilitate the bringing together of sufficient numbers of people to cause high levels of interaction to achieve the urbanity that is their stated goal. As such, the planners conceive the Metrotown to have more activities in kind and amount but to take less ground space than the existing 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 ONLY TO AI4-OW RELATIVE COMPARISON. MprfOr0WH:A6tlYr[lE6 MIX COIifArMOOH PLATS 17 81. town centres in Burnaby. Otherwise size specifications are left essentially 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 reflects a balanced dependence on automobile, public transit and pedestrian movement. Automobile movement is felt to be something that cannot be avoided particularly in the immediate future. Therefore the local planners elect to provide an efficient street system using a hierarchy of streets (as shown on Plate 18). However, to protect major portions of the Metrotown from pervasive automobile intrustion, the planners propose that through traffic 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 transit, if it is implemented, will be of a rapid street-car configuration utilizing existing rail lines. They want the transit to travel through and have stations in the Metrotown that will be close to all in-town activities. They want these stations to be integrated with adjacent development to form a mixed-use complex that delivers transit riders directly to where intensive Metrotown activities occur. They also want the transit to directly serve in-town residential neighbourhoods so that these people will not always choose to use their cars when travelling. At the same time, the local planners refuse to depend completely on transit and desire the Metrotown to be arranged so that if necessary, it could be accessed solely by the car over the long run. To provide the 82. AMD DO NOT IN^WJPfc TJrlfc 6f£NT AT S|&r3. PLATE l& 63. MFTWWN: tHrACXl^H-rlOVF3HaiT 111 DSYflxOPHBlIT 6TA666 PI ATE 19 84. possibility of a change-over from auto to transit emphasis in the future, the planners propose to control all major parking facilities (through a 'Metropark' 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 first choice. This means that development must be closely clustered to keep distarces short and that a well-defined, developed and easily usable in-area pedestrian network must be pro vided. The planners specify that the most outlying in-area destinations should be no more than 15 to 20 minutes' (3,300 + to 4,400 + feet) apart for a person on foot. They also suggest that a supportive local mass movement system such as a jitney or buses should be provided to make pedestrain movement highly convenient. In terms of configuration the planners say that pathways should focus on transit stations and on points of intense activity; 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 tie into the proposed park-trail system that will extend throughout Burnaby. Overall, the local concept for Metrotown movement is to provide access into the Metrotown by both transit and automobile and to provide circulation within the Metrotown by pedestrian ways and supportive local public transit (jitney). 85. Metrotown Character Specifications: 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 all projects that is treated so as to be attractive and usable. Rooftops should be developed as open space where possible. Private spaces should be provided that can be manipulated and changed by their users. ATI public spaces should be accessible on a 24-hour basis without restrictions. And major parks now existing on the site 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 will require development of a continuous podium level for pedestrians with car movement and parking below (they dub this the '+15 activity level' since the pedestrian plane would occur at about 15 feet above grade). c. A human scale should be preserved in Metrotown development at all costs using such devices as illustrated in Plate 22. d. The planners say that there should be transitions between differently scaled activities and between related activities occurring at different levels vertically as shown in Plates 23 and 24. 86. PATO A5 [JOCU FOOft Of ACflYltT W A5 LINNM W/PMEffl PARIS At) 5EPARAJDP. UrtrSgLArED AfflYltY MBfROfOWll: VAN0U5 A5PE£fc Of fAM 6PACE 87. 1HI6 NOT f HI6 fl-AliT/M^4VARIo«6qr&IZCP :i rqi 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. THIS: V1£WOF fclHUPINOf SHIpUDpp. , ., - — • 0 c L—] • • DDI "11 N0f THIS: BU1L.P1N4 ttA-bt) WP. N^T THIS: jsusHpTHS To To RELATE To. "THIS: SMALL- pL-PniSHTS 10 PKAVV ATTmrionl METROfOWIi: ASrMS 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 91. e. 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 transit way should be developed completely underground and that streets should either form clear boundaries separating activities or be built 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 priority over all other considerations if a unique place in comparison with other places in Burnaby is to be created. Approach to Metrotown Development: The local approach that is recommended by planners in Burnaby for the development of the Metrotown can be summarized in the following concepts: a. The final form and content of the Metrotown that is outlined conceptually above must be tempered by the real conditions-potentials and constraints—of the actual site. Historically developed land use patterns and in-place buildings and activities must therefore be treated as design determinants to which new development is to be related. 1 PLATE £5 93. Local planners conclude that the development of the Metrotown must be accomplished so as not to overly burden municipal resources or diminish local powers of land use control. Thus the planners see Metrotown as essentially a private-sector undertaking within the context of a clearly developed concept plan prepared by the Municipality. The plan must be flexible however, so that local authorities can change it when they wish and as they see fit. Thus the planners see the Municipality's role as follows: i. to lead, 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 situation; i. to provide normal public services and amenities; v. to articulate the interests of Burnaby citizens to assure that redevelopment reflects these interests; and v. to work with other levels of government to achieve total government action under Burnaby's leadership. Burnaby planners refuse to give a time frame to Metrotown develop ment. They feel that the Kingsway/Central Park site has major areas ready for immediate redevelopment, but that this cannot blind them to the necessity of ensuring that all projects meet their requirements. This is necessary to keep amenity high. It is better to forego development in the short run, say the planners, than to accept something less desirable that will set into motion development trends contrary to public conceptions of the area. 94. While they will not adopt a development freeze, the local planners will also not rush into development but will strive 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 first evident at the level of broad policy now become further articulated. We also find that new areas of difference emerge for the first time. Therefore, this will be our framework for comparing the two agencies' descrip tions of the place. First, however, we must note a fundamental difference between the conceptual positions of the two governments that has been hinted at before but now becomes clearly 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 different angles. Thus what they each describe as their conception or model of the place is different. The GVRD describes the RTC exclusively as it plays a role in their regional growth strategy. Therefore we find that the GVRD's description is a functional one oriented toward defining what types of activities the RTC will house and what amount of each activity will be required. Their guide in this is the desire to change the pattern of activities seen at the regional scale. Descriptions of the exact nature of RTC environments consequently get only a superficial treatment in the GVRD concept. In contrast, Burnaby planners describe Metrotown primarily as an environment. Activity specifications are •95. only used as a lead-in for environmental specifications that become quite detailed. Moreover, questions of amounts of activity 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 this should be so. Basically it is because the two agencies' powers, responsibilities, scales of vision and constituents are not the same. This causes them to define and respond to problems in a different fashion. The GVRD has little power to manipulate land use and is not called to account for specific environmental failures. The Municipality has little control over the deployment of activities outside its jurisdiction and realizes that local land use controls are itsunique responsibility--it must exercise these controls unless it wishes to be blamed and bear the brunt of local people's dissatisfaction with environments. Under these circumstances, the crucial concern in evaluating the two governments' conceptions is not simply to see where they agree and disagree overtly but also where their ideas simply do not interlock with one another in a compatible fashion. Having said this, we can discuss how divergences in broad policy are re-expressed and sharpened with specific content at the RTC/Metrotown conceptual level. 96. CI. Activity Content of the Metrotown: We noted previously that the region wants to share costs and benefits of growth whereas Burnaby wants to maximize its own benefits and minimize its own costs regardless of the problems of other municipalities. At the conceptual level, this policy difference takes on specific meaning. The GVRD talks about a regional specialization in the type of activities to be housed in the Burnaby RTC based on the unique central regional position of the site. They call for 'population-serving' functions in Burnaby. This is done undoubtedly to create a logic to the regional deployment of activities that the GVRD will 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 satisfy the regional objective of fairly distributing growth. The Municipal planners will have little sympathy for such • 'splitting of hairs'. Burnaby wants a broad spectrum of uses within its Metrotown. We saw this previously as the overall thrust of their policy goals. If a development meets the Municipality's many environmental criteria and requirements and does not fall within that small group of uses excluded from Metrotown, then that development will be welcomed. Thus regional and local planners .could come to loggerheads over the uses proposed in certain specific proposals. C2. 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 is that of a 'town centre'. We have noted in comparison that the Municipal idea is that the Metrotown must be a complete 'settlement'. This broad policy difference becomes reflected in various aspects of the two agencies' conceptions of the place. Local planners stress the dual nature of the Metrotown as a regionally significant 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 different significance. Following from this, a different idea of balance emerges. The GVRD seems to define balance as the relationship 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 specific population it serves. The Municipality goes further, however, and talks about the specific balance to be struck between the activities within the centra Local planners say this will depend on thelfnes of dominance and support between uses and on a need to maximize variety or diversity. To the Municipality it is crucial that no one use should dominate. The GVRD mentions this only in passing. Thus when it comes to evaluating specific development the two agencies could find themselves in conflict. If a use shows a balance in its relationship to regional jobs or consumer demands, but also shows an inbalance relative 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 will also be expressed in separate opinions about the arrangement of uses. The GVRD will want to maximize the connection between regional homes and places in Metrotown that provide jobs and services. The Municipality will want to assure this but local planners will also want clear local connections. The result is that GVRD officials do not make locational distinctions between uses in the RTC whereas local planners do make such distinctions as well as further locational distinctions between central uses and separate in-town neighbourhoods. If intra- and inter-RTC linkages conflict, this could cause disagreements between the regional and local officials simply because they place a different value on such linkages. Quality vs. Attraction in Metrotown: We have previously outlined the different importance given to the RTC/Metrotown by the regional and local authorities. We said that GVRD is trying to shepherd a number of RTCs while the Municipality has only the Metrotown to meet its requirements of urbanity. Thus the Metrotown becomes the Municipality's only chance to achieve its goal of diversifying environmental experience in Burnaby. We see this difference become strongly influential in the descriptions put forward for the RTC/Metrotown. 99. GVRD officials talk about quality in developments and the overall environment only as an aspect of the RTCs attraction to facilities that might decentralize to it. Municipal planners want quality development inherently because it creates more desirable environ ments in which to live. The quality aspect is a direct con dition of the Municipal requirement of urbanity. Thus, if the attraction of the place is assured, the GVRD will not apparently quibble about design quality beyond some desired medium quality level. The Municipality, in contrast, will be 'picky' on every proposal. To guide in quality discriminations, Burnaby planners emphasize in-their model a continuing concern that certain special building forms be created, that certain special open space require ments be met, and that certain special characteristics be instilled into development. The guidelines put forward locally, moreover, do not by any means lead to minimum or even moderate levels of amenity. They necessitate maximum amenity which translates into high costs which further translates into a lowering of the attraction of the Metrotown as a development location—from the financial 'profit/loss' viewpoint of the developer. In a situation where GVRD would be trying to convince a developer to choose a Metrotown location but the Municipality would be placing high design and quality standards upon the developer (tending to cut profit margins), then disagreement between the two agencies about how to treat the developer would be bound to occur. TOO. Movement in Metrotown: Finally, we have already discussed the difference between regional and local policies about transportation—the GVRD's emphasis on transit and the Municipality's desire for transit but dependence on the private car until the likelihood of transit is assured. At the level of models, this difference takes on major proportions. The GVRD talks almost solely about the close relationship of the RTC to the transit line and about how automobile movement must be played down completely. The GVRD specifies no auto through-movement in Metrotown and suggests the idea of not even accommodating parking, interior circulation 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, flexible parking arrangements and a hierarchy of streets. The Municipal idea is to minimize the negative impacts of the car but not to deny its relevance and use in Metrotown. This leads toideas of physical forms for Metrotown that are expensive to the developer (the1 +15 Acti vity Level', for example, toseparate pedestrians and cars) and to arrangements that may be difficult to manage. The GVRD would respond that these concepts are not required if cars are excluded. The Municipality, however, feels it has few alternatives if the Metrotown is to be highly accessible to Burnaby's citizens because the transit concept may just be a GVRD dream. Even if it is activated, the Municipality points out that it 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 radically different conceptions of the arrangement of uses and building forms by all appearances. Comparisons of regional and local RTC/Metrotown conceptions not only illustrate how broad policy differences are further articu lated but also what new differences not previously apparent now find expression. We can discuss these as follows. Integration of Concept and Site: The Metrotown model is limited by local planners because they say it must be implemented on a real site. Consequently, its specifications tend to be tentative.and try to tie Metrotown development into existing patterns either with concepts of integration or separation. Thus the local model emphasizes tie-ins with established circulation ways; the integration of existing development into new plans; careful protection of existing surrounding neighbourhoods; and types of forms and arrangements of streets that will provide for transitions. The regional concept, beyond specifying Kingsway/Central Park as the RTC site, does not get site-oriented. As long as activities get decentralized from downtown Vancouver, to the RTCs, and as long as the RTC sites develop as magnets to achieve this, the GVRD will be satisfied. Site con straints are of little relevance to regional decision makers. 102. These viewpoints are less a difference of opinion and more the separate thinking of the agencies simply not fitting together. Therefore, we can expect the Municipality to express objections to certain developments that simply will not be perceived by the GVRD and this could cause friction between the two authorities. Government Role in Metrotown Development: The two governments' concepts for the way development should occur and the role that each authority will take in development illustrate a clear divergence of opinion. The GVRD would be aggressively involved and would initiate development where possible. The Municipality would primarily control development and augment private activities where need arises. The GVRD would re-examine its existing procedures to develop new ways of taking part in RTC development. The Municipality would rely on tested procedures and tools. The GVRD would strive for submission of an 'Official Community Plan' to give continuity. Municipal planners would object to this because they feel it limits their flexibility. Both the GVRD and the Municipality would want to be the guiding public agency in development. The GVRD, knowing the relative distribution of powers between the Municipality and itself, 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, this proposal will cause major contentions. 103. The aggressive posture proposed by the GVRD relates to its goal of having the RTCs functioning self-sufficiently by 1986. This ties in with other initiatives in the regional development strategy. In contrast, the Municipality outlines no specific timeframe for Metrotown development. Indeed, quality control will take priority over questions of time at the local level. The GVRD will likely base many of its arguments with the Municipality when advocating specific development projects on the need to meet regional deadlines. The Municipality will likely be deaf to such arguments. With the regional and local concepts in mind and their comparison completed, we can now proceed to the design phase. Because the design is a local concern, this will 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 parties. We have noted, however, that these disagreements do not become overt until specific actions on changing the landscape of the RTC site 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 is a local responsibility, we will apply the Burnaby Metrotown model already discussed to the Kingsway/Central Park site. This results in what has been called the 'probe plan'. To establish the issues, we rebut, against the probe plan a predicted regional response to each of the plan's aspects, based on our knowledge of regional policy and RTC conceptions. Therefore, the design probe and the definition of issues from the probe is the subject of this chapter. As a preface to the design probe, the existing situation on the site will be reviewed. This is because site realities are a major component of the design process according to local planners. The history and Municipal geographic context of the site is sketched. From this» site boundaries are derived. Existing land use and planning schemes as well as natural characteristics are illustrated. Out of this review, site constraints are defined which we will call 'design givens'. From this background work we proceed to the probe plan and to the specification of issues, positions and possible technical reso lutions of issues that are suggested by the probe plan. Policy shifts to reconcile issues can then be considered in the next chapter. 106. KINGSWAY/CENTRAL PARK - ITS SITUATION: Prior to European influence the Lower Mainland was heavily forested and inhabited by aboriginal peoples who essentially lived at the waters' edges. The interior land masses were their resource caches but their large-scaled manipulation of the natural environment was minimal. With the arrival 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 significant event occurred in 1860 when, for military purposes, a narrow path sufficient for the movement of armed forces from New Westminster to the salt waters of False Creek was cut, this path extending diagonally through the forests of what later became the Municipality of Burnaby. In 1872 this path was widened sufficiently for the passage of a team and the widened alignment became known as the Vancouver Road. Sparse settlement followed until in 1913 it was necessary to make further improvements to this thoroughfare and it was renamed Kingsway. In the early 1890s the Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Company built a tramway connecting the two major communities. The wife of the company president was a New Yorker and in memory of that city's great park, the midpoint of the local tramline was named Central Park and the line itself became known as the Central Park Line. The area around Central Park was first served by the Central Park tram station (at the intersection of the line and Kingsway) and later stations were opened to the east, an early and significant one located at Jubilee Street, a station and street named in honour of the jubilee year of Victoria's reign in which they were opened. In 1892, the Municipality of Burnaby was incorporated and travellers on the Vancouver Road were first provided service by the Royal Oak Hotel. The improvement of that road and the development of the tram spurred the local area's growth and as George Green, the Municipal historian, has said: The development of the Central Park area as a residential district 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 five-acre holdings (this was in 1894). Consequent on this settlement a post office 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 facilities to serve the growing community. Historical 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 installation by the Simpson Sears Company Ltd. of a department store on the south side of Kingsway near the centre of the area's commercial activities. Residential demand was met by the development of apartment accommodation and this trend was strengthened with Municipal designation of the area as an important multiple family housing location in the late 1960s. The natural evolution of the site 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 reflect some specialization of functions for each portion of the Municipal landscape. The Kingsway/Central Park site 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 is a central open valley that has only experienced sparse develop ment. A great part of this valley has now been designated as an administrative/recreational/cultural complex so that the seat of local government and its largest scaled recreational and cultural facilities would be equally access ible to both the North Burnaby and South Burnaby residents. This has been conceived to tie these two urban sub-regions together. The facilities take advantage of a park-like setting arranged around the two major Municipal bodies of water-Deer and Burnaby Lakes. The Metrotown site is on the southern periphery of this central area which will make the central Municipal facilities easily available to the Metrotowners. b. This central park-like area is 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 will ultimately be linked and because the Kingsway/Central Park site is one link in this chain, local planners say that it should have major linear open spaces and the Metrotowners will have a continuous open space resource virtually at their 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 will therefore have access to higher education within the Municipality. The Municipality's major industrial 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 will be extensive industrial job opportunities. The Metrotown will provide regional services for the entire Municipality, as well as for major parts of S.E. Vancouver, but there are also significant 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 its overall regional role, the Metrotown must provide community functions similar to the Brentwood and East Lougheed provision. 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 site occurs at the intersection of Kingsway with Boundary Road/Willingdon/ Royal Oak which provides a natural access for automobiles to the site. (See Plate 27). Ill. Thus, the Kingsway/Central Park site, when developed as a Metro-town will augment the broad sectoral specialization seen in Burnaby. It creates a proximate body of users for the central recreational, cultural and educational resources that Burnaby provides. It creates a better opportunity for housing for the Municipality's industrial workforce. It balances the dense settlements on the north with similar provisions on the south. And by being on the major movement routes, it makes regional functions accessible to all Burnaby citizens. Area Boundaries Therefore, by fitting 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 Municipality. This has been the essential motivation for the immediate study area boundary. To the west is Central Park which is conceived as an important Metrotown element and which is bounded on the west by Boundary Road which is also the Municipality'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 is Royal Oak Avenue which has historically 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 easily definable. 172. PLA175 ZT 113. There is no distinct natural border to the north and there is a real problem of providing a transition between different scales of development at this location. 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 definite border) and running along a line parallel and north of Grange to ultimately intersect with the Burke/ Roundary intersection at the far wpst (the exact border to be determined by site design ). This tentative northern boundary definition allows the Municipality to deal positively with the transition problem but it can be stated that it is the intention of local planners to protect and perserve established single family neigh bourhoods which extend north from the study area. These boundaries provide the perimeter of direct Metrotown development intervention and they are conceived to have a continuing viability over the long run. There is also a ring of surrounding single family neighbourhoods that will be affected by and provided with an expansion of oppor tunities because of the Metrotown. While these neighbourhoods are proposed to be clearly protected from direct Metrotown physical intrustion, they must be considered in dealing with the Metrotown situation. Conceptually, local planners have called this the community influence area. For discussion purposes, its boundaries have been assumed to be Boundary Road (on the west); the 401 Freeway, BCIT and the Deer Lake/Oakalla lands (on the north); Gilley Avenue (on the east); and, Southeast Marine Drive (on the south). It is realized as well that a grouping of 114. residential areas in Vancouver near Boundary will also fall within this influence area and these have been included for analysis in the full realization that Burnaby has no jurisdiction to effect policy relative to these areas. Finally, of course, the entire Municipality has been considered to be effected by Metrotown as will be a significant portion of the larger region. This area constitutes what has been called the regional influence area. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The present purpose does not necessitate a detailed inventory of existing land use. Rather, it is apparent that a collection of major land use groupings is in place and in an attempt to build upon the existing environment, these groupings become important. These existing land uses are illustrated in Plate 28, and can be outlined as follows: a. The area is endowed with major open space at Central Park, the Oakalla/Deer Lake lands (on the area's north-eastern periphery), and Bonsor Park. It also has three school areas closely associated with it, these being Chaffey-Burke School (between Willingdon and Chaffey north of Grange), Marlborough Elementary/Royal Oak Jr. High (on one. site 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 develop ment on the west. The majority of these commercial facilities are essentially older and in various states of repair and at numerous points they immediately abut single-family residential enclaves in poorer condition behind. The area is also characterized by numerous multiple family enclaves generally of the three-storey apartment type with a peppering of 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 Willin-don Avenue. Most of these apartments are at the middle of their life span, their maintenance varies and they are almost exclusively under rental tenure. i. Lobely Park enclave - south of the Kingsway commercial strip, west of Royal Oak, north of Imperial and east of Nelson Avenue. These apartments are older, in general need of maintenance and almost exclusively of a rental nature. i. Sanders Street enclave - north of the Kingsway commercial strip, west of Royal Oak, south of Sanders Street and east of Nelson Avenue. This area has three-storey apartments in good condition, single family dwellings in good condition and newer high density accommodation 116. (some senior citizens' housing). The apartment com ponent is generally of a rental nature and the individual homes are owner-occupied, iv. Grange Street apartment strip - 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 is 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 strip and east of Patterson Avenue. These apartments are of various ages, tenures and conditions but are generally newer and quite substantial. As noted previously, the immediate study area is surrounded by single family developments generally of good condition, well-established and stable. The existing land use is also reflected by current zoning. It should be noted that this zoning does not reflect proposed use as much as the historical situation. The present zoning configuration is illustrated in Plate 29. 117. Existing Planning Schemes: As has already been discussed in some detail, the Kingsway/ Central Park study area has been a designated Municipal town centre for a number of years. As such, it has been an important component in the Municipality's settlement area hierarchy. This fact has clearly 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 is to review these past schemes which are illustrated in Plate 30: a. The most important of these is the Apartment Study. On the basis of the town centre designation, the Apartment Study has provided a specific interpretation of what that concept meant in land use terms. It divided its land use explanation into three areas. Area "L" deals with the town centre proper. It designates a relatively high intensity configuration with an emphasis on comprehensive mixed-use site redevelopment. Area "J" deals with the small area to the north of Central Park at the far westerly extent of the present study area. Because the area was not conceived as integrated with the town centre, it 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 residential component and a band of high density 118. habitation bordering Central Park. While the Apartment Study focussed attention on the study area and laid out a general town centre scheme, it did not address itself to the necessity for integration or to considerations of movement, etc. In order to deal with specific development proposals, it was necessary to further refine the work in the Apartment Study to resolve questions of property configuration, street and walkway alignments and development criteria, especially in areas where redevelopment implied major changes in these elements. This work was laid out in the Community Plans. In practice these community plans have been developed primarily in areas of high density residential 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 Street, Nelson Avenue, Sanders Street, Marlborough Avenue and Bennett Street). The high density residential strip of Apartment Area "M" was refined by Community Plan #2 (with boundaries at Patterson Avenue, Beresford Street, Willingdon Avenue and Maywood Street). Recent redevelopment within the study area has been guided closely by these planning schemes. The designation of the area for Metrotown development, however, has caused a revision by local planners of a number.of the primary assumptions upon which the previous schemes were made. At the same time, these existing plans reflect 119. policy that has been depended upon as being set by area residents and the development community. Consequently where possible, Metrotown design will build upon these past policies and revise them only if such is requisite to the overall concept for the Metrotown. In this sense, while such policies will not be considered irrevocable, they will also not be ignored. A4. Topography and Natural Endowments: The study area is almost exclusively a suburbanized place such that its original natural landscape has been almost completely domesticated. The exception to this is primarily in the large open space resources at Central Park and Deer Lake. Consequently, the thrust of current work will be less to preserve a valuable natural endowment and more to instill 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 distinctive. Except for Burnaby Mountain and Capital Hill at the far north edge of the Municipality, the study area is placed on the highest terrain in Burnaby's environs near the crest 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 is an important municipal feature that enhances the ability to create Metrotown as a significant regional landmark but that increases responsibility 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 characteristic in the Metrotown residential environment. Local planners want this topographical uniqueness to be both respected and exploited. The area's topography is illustrated in Plate 31. A5. Area Constraints and Potentials for Metrotown Design: The application of a generic idea to a specific 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 constraints, 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 this negative definition with one where the existing features are seen as positive assets whose potentials should be exploited. On the basis of this dual nature of 'givens', we have followed local planners' guidance and made the following assumptions that influence the solution that is to be proposed: a. Built Environment - We have assumed as an absolute given those new and relatively 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 illustrated 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 realization that they are Metrotown elements (although controls for those developments did not derive from a comprehensive area review). In addition to these in-place schemes, there has 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 parties, the negotiations occurred on the basis of former assumptions, and it is not felt such limited interactions should narrow Metrotown potentials. There is a significant component of in-place residential accommodation of a medium density nature. With the exception of a few newer structures, these 3-storey apartments will have become obsolete within 10+ years and pressure for their redevelop ment will substantially mount after that period. Considering this as well as the long-term objective of providing a maximum number of residential units in close proximity to the commercial core and transit stations in Metrotown, the medium-density assembly has not been considered a long-term given. On the other hand, in order to assure that these structures will enjoy a complete lifespan, they have been considered as a short-term given. 122. Finally, surrounding the Metrotown are established and stable single- and two-family neighbourhoods that local officials want protected. These present another 'given' as discussed earlier. b. Open Space - The study area has two essential types of open space that are being treated as given in a separate sense. The first of these is the major park space. Central Park, Bonsor Park and Deer Lake/Oakalla are all relevant in this respect. These open space masses are crucial positive elements on the existing landscape that can be well used in the Metrotown ensemble. The guiding assumption in reference to these is that they will be integrated into the development conception but minimum changes to their configuration may be suggested to facili tate their use. Corollary to these major park spaces are also minor spaces at various locations in the study area. These spaces are assumed to be flexible so that open space linkage and quality can be realized. The second type of open space is the school grounds. These spaces will be assumed as given and as valuable endowments but their ultimate use as school space has not been assumed. The ultimate use of school space should be dependent upon the profile of residents that inhabit Metrotown. It may be that the Metrotown population will not support the existing schools in which case a relocation of these schools to more central locations in the child-bearing single-family neighbourhoods surrounding Metrotown would be desirable. Open space givens' are illustrated in Plate 32. Established Movement Patterns - Over time, a number of movement paths have established themselves. Many of these paths based on historical or existing 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 situation or in established plans. Streets assumed as 'given', therefore, are Kingsway, Boundary Road, Imperial Street, Nelson Avenue and Royal Oak Avenue. In addition to the vehicular streets, the location of the transit alignment and the transit 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. The proposed transit type (a light-rapid-transit similar but faster than the conven tional street car) has been taken as given. Whether this facility will movent, above or below grade in Metrotown has not been assumed from the local perspective. Movement 'givens1 are illustrated in Plate 32. Significant Historical Features While the area is not old in epochal terms, as is clear from the historical description above, it does contain structures that are old in terms of Burnaby and that have significance in local history. The Curator of Burnaby's O Q 5 X 112 I HQ 35 a a n Q § fC r 3 Q z X X >0 72 or: v5 wiu.iN«iCort BoaHRW ftp 7Z z; cJtO < < Mi m 5Q- ^ lima: mill \T> \T) vf> 75 r: to. _1 —1 3 § g Quo. — CsJ MN ^- vSN O O O >0 V) < 18 l8S zr O A— vi sT) ii* rS. 3- «n o v5" 7Z JO. > ZL^tf- lil Sip-, ^ S-P iii ^3^> iu •VUM-BO*CfcM,H W!UJM«ieofi BCWNOMtf ftp. 0 129. Heritage Village Historical Museum has surveyed the historical aspects of the area (Adams, 1975) and his findings are also noted in Plate 32. In reference to this work, the following judgment has been made. Certain structures are historically 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 redevelop ment should not be fundamentally frustrated to save them. This view is based upon the following factors: i. Metrotown land is scarce and should be utilized in a maximum way to satisfy current needs, ii. Structures of similar historical or architectural value (or more) exist in other locations in Burnaby and the region, iii. Feasibility for alternative use of old buildings might be minimum because of their physical quality (structure, materials, finishes, etc.). The Curator has suggested that where buildings cannot be retained, the continuation of historical names can provide a connection with the past. This idea is endorsed by local planners. B. THE PROBE PLAN - ISSUES FROM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES: We have now reviewed the study area and specified the constraints it imposes. On the basis of this information coupled with the guidance of the Metrotown model and directions from broad Municipal planning policy, a prototypical design scheme has been prepared that we call the 'probe plan'. This scheme is illustrated in Plates 33-37, and has been evaluated by Burnaby planners. 130. We will now discuss this probe plan by separating it into its various major aspects and specifying the Municipal opinion that the plan reflects and the predicted regional response that would result. In a situation of contradiction, if a technical reconciliation seems apparent this, too, is discussed. Through this process potential issues were regional and local views diverge will be specified and resolved were possible. Bl. Design Response to Existing Land Uses: Both regional and local decision makers have noted that the design for Metrotown should build upon existing 'energies' where possible. While this 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' illustrates that these elements have been integrated fully 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 existing features as influential design determinants will probably not sit well with regional decision makers because these existing features do not reflect the dependence on transit that the region wants in the RTC. The siting 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 131. kely to cause regional/local disagreement until its ramifications to particular 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. Specific transit design decisions are as follows: i. Number of Stations: . Local Position as Designed: The size of the area has necessitated three transit stations, located at approxi mately Boundary Road, Patterson Avenue and Sussex Avenue as shown on the probe plan. The local view is that if fewer stations had been proposed then the size of the area woul'd have had to be restricted. Because area boundaries are based on natural landscape divisions and because existing features to be incorporated in Metrotown are distributed throughout the area, a contraction of boundaries to allow fewer stations is not desirable. . Predicted Regional Response: Based on the regional growth strategy, the regional view is that the trip-time between RTCs and Downtown Vancouver must be kept faster than the trip would take by private automobile. It is estimated by the GVRD that the transit trip between the New Westminster RTC and Vancouver Centre under design now being considered by the Provincial authorities, would only be slightly faster than a similar private auto trip 132. assuming one Metrotown station. Trip-time is made significantly longer with the inclusion of each new station because of the load/unload and deceleration time added for that station. Thus, more than one Metrotown station would not be supported. A second regional concern will be transit costs as a factor in the decision to pursue or drop transit plans in the region. A major transit cost is the construction of stations. Therefore more than one station would also be opposed by the GVRD because it 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 if a local'movement system between.the B.C. Tel complex and the Patterson transit station were installed. This local system (perhaps a jitney) 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 transit authority. This decreases the number of stations to two and lessens transit costs. To further reduce public capital costs of transit, 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 transit stations have been conceived as well integrated into the pedestrian network of the Metrotown as major points of gravity. Each project surrounding a transit station should provide for direct walkways to the station. There is no indication that regional and local authorities will disagree on this point. Nature of Stations: . Local Position as Designed: The proposed plan indicates that stations should be multifunctional places that become fully integrated with abutting multifunctional projects creating a continuous realm of space and activity. Stations should not be separate unifunctional transit terminals because they will not stimulate abutting uses by a continuous direct flow of people if the space for this flow is discontinuous. . Predicted Regional Response: The probable position of the regional authorities will be that the idea of integrated stations is desirable but may be difficult to put into practice. Integrated stations would require high levels of public and private co-ordination between transit authorities and developers and could mean extensively larger capital outlays from the public purse for station construction in the first instance. The expedient approach of regional authorities will probably be to proceed with unifunctional transit stops in suburban areas. 1 . Possible Reconciliation: In line 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 activities of Metrotown could be maintained as a multifunctional integrated facility. To lessen public costs for the Sussex station, develop ment rights might be sold by transit 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. Specialization of Station Users: . Local Position as Designed: In order to achieve a sense of local residents' identity with their in-town neighbourhoods and in order to avoid sharp conflicts between regional and local user movement in Metrotown, the probe plan defines a degree of specialization as to the clientale that each station serves. The Sussex station would predominantly serve those people who come into Metrotown because of regionally significant facilities. The Patterson station . would serve the high-density neighbourhood surrounding it as a means for in-town residents to get to and from jobs and services outside of Metrotown. The Boundary Road station would serve primarily regionally-dispersed B.C. Telephone Co. employees. 135. Predicted Regional Response: The regional authorities would probably have little sympathy for the neighbourhood component of Metrotown to be especially 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 rail transit from their homes. The B.C. Telephone Co. employee population would probably be too small and homogeneous in their station use to warrant another separate station for their own use. Thus the regional authorities would probably not support the specialized nature of transit catchment proposed in the plan. Possible Reconciliation: The deployment of functions shown in the probe plan will inherently cause some specialization of station users if more than one station is provided. The arrangement of uses in the probe plan reflects existing uses of Metrotown land that the local authorities will not choose to ignore. If, as has been proposed as a reconciliation of other differences, the number of transit stations is limited to two, then this disagreement about specialization might also be resolved. Under a two-station arrangement the Patterson station would serve the local neighbour hoods abutting it and would serve the employees of B.C. Telephone Co. The Sussex Station would still serve primarily the Metrotown core. Thus a specializa tion of station users would be accommodated though not as distinctly as was advocated in the probe plan. 136. Both stations could serve the kiss-n-ride movement where spouses drive transit 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 transit, the probe plan indicates that the transit 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 transit would become an important part of the Metrotown park-trail walking system. . Predicted Regional Response: The regional position will likely be that such an undertaking would be prohibitively expensive and that such costs would only be warranted in the Vancouver Centre portion of the transit system. . Possible Reconciliation: Under careful design with appropriate barriers and protections, it is possible that the transit facility could be at grade for a substantial part of its length within the Metrotown. To provide for pedestrian movement across the transit right-of-way, the transit stations could span the right-of-way to become important pedestrian bridges. This would also augment the accepted idea that transit stations become points of draw for pedestrian movement. To facilitate pedestrian cross-movement in locations other than transit stations, at carefully selected points related to the pattern of parks and park trails abutting the transit facility, crossovers of the transit line could be designed as extensions ;of those abutting parks. Crossover points related to Bonsor Park, to the proposed Willingdon linear parkway and within Central Park would fulfill cross over requirements for the proposed plan. It would be important that these facilities not be built as minimum crossover bridges but as ample park extensions (perhaps a 'park mound' under which transit moves). Automobile Ways: i. Auto Movement on a Hierarchy of Streets: . Local Position as Designed: Automobile movement has been conceived, as a direct reflection 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 direct access and interruption. These are proposed to be Kingsway, Imperial, Boundary, Willingdon, Nelson and Royal Oak. These through streets would be fast-moving facilities and they would also accommodate delivery vehicles, 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 is not attractive to through traffic. The Metrotown core would be circled 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 existing 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 subdivision. . Predicted Regional Response: The regional view is that automobiles should primarily not be provided for in the Metrotown with the exception of movement to transit stations from outside the Metrotown and movement of delivery vehicles on restricted rights-of-way. Thus the region will likely not co-operate with local authorities in funding arrangements to renovate the street network that has been proposed. Specifically, the region will probably not quarrel with the through function of Imperial, Boundary or Royal Oak because these are peripheral streets but will quarrel with the through function proposed for Kingsway, Willingdoil^ and Nelson. The ring road or local cul de sacs will 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 street. The designated function of Willingdon beyond through movement is to provide an auto connection between the in-town residential 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 crucial pedestrian walkway. To slow through movement and to discourage all but the most necessary through movement on Willingdon, the alignment of the street is given a curvilinear configuration that does not follow its present straight and direct alignment. These features of the street also allow it to act as a boundary between two viably-sized neighbourhood units. The approach would require directed action by local authori ties to assemble parklands as well as the new alignment for Willingdon and to redevelop the street/parkway. . Predicted Regional Response: Being opposed to through-traffic in the Metrotown, the regional authorities would probably not support the Willingdon proposal. The regional view would be that Willingdon traffic be redirected to peripheral through streets such as Boundary and Royal Oak. This becomes a point at issue if the local authorities approach the regional authori ties for financial cooperation in the assembly and redevelopment efforts of the Willingdon right-of-way. This may be necessary because of the extent of public action that will be required on the proposal, iii. Configuration of Kingsway: . Local Position as Designed: The probe plan reflects a local conception of Kingsway as the most significant 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 activity and access into the Metro-town core. Thus Kingsway has been seen as an integrating element in the Metrotown whose conceptual weight is similar to that of the transit facility. This conclusion reflects a local view that it is simply not feasible to move Kingsway to a peripheral Metro-town location, to sever its through-traffic channel or to move Metrotown activities away from it. While this is not only unfeasible, it is also felt to be undesirable because Kingsway provides the automobile access that is crucial to the vitality of the Metrotown even if transit is installed and particularly if transit is not installed. 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 circulation patterns separated. Access to these frontage properties, however, would not be provided directly from Kingsway but would necessitate movement onto secondary streets. Finally, the vehicular environment of Kingsway would be softened with extensive landscaping, tree planting and the installation of all services underground. . Predicted Regional Response: Again, as an intrustion of through-auto traffic 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 authorities would probably cooperate financially in such a venture. Otherwise financial participation by the region in Kingsway upgrading would probably not be forthcoming. c. Pedestrian Movement: A central and unique aspect, of the Metrotown environment is the proposal that it be developed within a clearly defined pedestrian context with various areas dedicated to exclusive pedestrian use in various types of spaces. All other modes would be conceived to support the move ment of people on foot. This broad concept reflects conceptual statements of both regional and local authori ties and there is no disagreement about the pedestrian character of the town. A survey of the various aspects of pedestrian movement that are proposed in the plan will indicate if this agreement characterizes all pedestrian matters. i. Continuity of Pedestrian Channels: Local planners say there must be a continuity of pedestrian channels that con nect all important Metrotown locations,, These places and their linkages form a pedestrian network that has major paths shown on the probe plan and a capillary system of smaller pathways that would be developed within each development as fully public or semi-public 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 facilities. These 'urban trails' would be integrated into the Municipal-wide park-trail 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 likely to see these parkway connections as a purely local responsibility. iii. Automobile-Pedestrian Separation: . Local Position as Designed: The local planners' specifi cation of complete separation of pedestrians and vehicles in the high activity locations of the Metro-town has led to the proposal that the pedestrian activity level within the Metrotown core occur on an auto-free platform with various elevations. Where there are streets or areas needing direct automobile penetration, the platform would be developed at 15' above grade and would extend over auto activity. In areas where automobiles are not required, the platform would descend gradually back to grade. Cars would circulate at grade and under buildings whereas people would circulate above where there is sun and continuous space. The platform would apply to all areas noted for first and second order activity on the probe plan. All developments within this area would have to be built to the platform concept and would have to relate to elevations of surrounding projects. All pedestrian activity of a public nature or appealing to the general public as consumers would be located on the platform (shops, restaurants, plazas, meeting places, etc.). All major open spaces in the core would be tied to the platform. Public use of the public areas of the platform would be guaranteed on a 24-hour basis. The main entrances to all first and second order activities would occur on the platform. At the periphery, the platform would have broad transitions back to the ground. Predicted Regional Response: In the first instance, the regional authorities would reiterate their 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 fall on potential developers which would make the Metrotown a less attractive place to them, the regional authorities would probably oppose it as inhibiting Metrotown development and thus their decentralization strategy. Support Modes: . Local Position as Designed: In order for catering to pedestrians to be fully exploited, it should be supported by support modes that tie peripheral locations closely to transit and automobile parking points. A jitney line that was proposed conceptually in the local Metrotown model has thus been employed taking the alignment shown on the probe plan. This jitney would primarily make the rail transit a more viable means of access to Metrotown. There fore the local authorities would want the regional authorities to pay for the support mode. Predicted Regional Response: Regional authorities will probably not decry the jitney idea on theoret ical grounds. However, their view would likely 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 jitney is necessitated by a local decision about Metrotown boundaries, it should be paid for by the Municipality. . Possible Reconciliation: The local authorities will not be amenable to making the Metrotown smaller. Neither authority wants to pay for the support mode. Perhaps a Metrotown jitney co-operative could be formed in which all Metrotown core developers would take part. Thus the entrepreneurs that are offered much higher accessibility (and therefore profit opportunities) would directly pay for the jitney provision and could manage the facility to meet their needs. Organization of Use: Local planners outline concepts of organization whereby the various'uses are arranged into assemblies that are inter-dependent and have similar environmental requirements, whereby these mixed-use assemblies can be housed in appropriate physical settings, and whereby these physical settings can be arranged to maximize the affinities between the assemblies they house. The model specifies that regionally-significant uses by differentiated into first, second and third order areas with an integrated tourist focus. It specifies that locally-significant uses be organized into neighbourhoods. These ideas have been followed in the probe plan and can be discussed as follows, a. Town Centre - First Order Area: i. First Order Area Location: . Local Position as Designed: The First Order Area is located at a central point in the Metrotown so as to provide equal connections to transit and auto mobile regional movement and access. This is felt necessary because of the equal importance of transit and cars as a means to reach the Metrotown core and because the site offers large areas of land that are assembled under a few owners and are ripe for redevelopment. The location also reflects existing land use patterns where areas south of the transit right-of-way are currently dedicated to residential use. . Predicted Regional Response: The regional plan ners will not endorse the equal- emphasis on transit and automobiles as means of Metrotown access. Thus the importance given Kingsway in the location decision of the First Order Area will not be backed up by regional authorities. Their view would be that the Metrotown centre should cluster on both sides of transit at the location of the station which would place Kingsway in a distinctly peripheral location. Possible Reconciliation: If uses were arranged within the First Order Area in the location shown on the plan so that a major concentration at the transit station and a major concentration at Kings-way produced opposing magnets and a primary pathway of high activity connected these concentrations, then neither the viability of transit nor automobile access would be sacrificed at the expense of the other. If transit was truly more efficient than the automobile, then this arrangement would also make the station more visible which, in turn, would stimulate transit use. First Order Area Form: The probe plan assumes that the First Order Area will become the most dominant physical feature in the Metrotown. Because both regional and local authorities want a highly visible town centre, this idea of form should cause no disagreement. The First Order area should also incorporate a transition in its physical form from the large-scaled structure of its centre to the small-scaled structure of surrounding developments. This is particularly relevant in terms of the northern border of the area which directly abuts established and existing single-family and small apartment develop ment. This requirement is not likely to cause disagree ment between regional and local planners because regional officials will not attach major relevance -to it. If the requirement, however, necessitates major decreases in density or major added developer costs, then regional officials are likely to get uneasy. Internal Organization of First Order Activities: Each development is proposed to include a fine-grained mix of activities utilizing a vertical differentia tion of use as specified by the Metrotown model. Horizontally there should be a dominance of residential accommodation at the periphery of the First Order Area, a mixture of offices and shopping at the centre, a tourist focus and a cultural/recreational focus as shown on the probe plan. While this specification will not cause major regional/local debate, regional planners who have stressed that all facilities be highly mixed, will likely be uneasy at the extent of use differentiation that the probe plan indicates. They would probably desire that uses not be segregated horizontally but vertically, iv. Subdivision Pattern of First Order Area: . Local Position as Designed: The local planners would require that development in the First Order Area occur in superblocks of single-developer, multi-use development. The reasons for this are that development control and coordination would thus be simplified and a higher quality of development could be negotiated. This becomes particularly relevant because of the platform concept that is proposed. The receipt of square footage for public purposes through levy from developers is also simplified with fewer large developers. Predicted Regional Response: The regional planners would be particularly loath to see few developers because they desire that space design reflect many interpretations by many parties in the RTC. The Regional officials have stressed this point precisely in their RTC conceptual statement. Town Centre - Second Order Area: i. Second Order Area Location: . Local Position as Designed: The Second Order Area has activity that is conceived to have a more direct need for automobile accessibility and visibility and is therefore oriented in the probe plan in a somewhat linear fashion along Kingsway. It would be connected to transit by the jitney and by pedestrian ways through the First Order area. The land costs along Kingsway are also thought to warrant intense development. . Predicted Regional Response: Because the Second Order Area uses transit as its secondary means of accessibility and is oriented specifically to Kingsway, its existence and location would likely be opposed by regional authorities. The regional view would likely be that the discrimination and segregation of second order activities is 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 First Order Area buildings. The Grange frontage of the area would require extensive use of transition forms that are illustrated in the Metrotown model and a similar though less extensive transition would be required south of Kingsway, facing south. The pedestrian platform that is specified for the First Order Area would extend and continue in the Second Order Area to provide a continuous and intensely active pedestrian plane separated vertically from automobile movement. These specifications of form will probably not cause regional opposition except if they raise the costs of construction prohibitively. 150. Internal Organization of Second Order Activities: 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 differentiated vertically. There should also be areas of dominance that are differentiated horizontally with a line of residential accommodation fronting onto Grange Street and looking south on the south side of Kingsway; with the Kingsway frontage used for office and commercial activity; and with the eastern portion of the area dominated by a focus of Tourist accommodation. Except that these proposals differentiate uses beyond what would have been regionally specified, by regional planners, the planners will likely not give major opposition to the internal organization of activities that is shown on the probe plan. Subdivision Pattern of Second Order Area: . Local Position as Designed: In order to facilitate local control devices, the local planners would also desire super-block development of the Second Order Area and the plan reflects 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 likely 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 activities that prefer smaller, less expensive accommodation and do not necessarily need to be 'in the thick of central higher order activity, a location abutting the Second Order Area to the south and the First Order Area to the west is proposed on the probe plan. The location which now has a landscape of older historically relevant residential buildings would be amenable to renovation that could maintain an intimate and charming character while housing Third Order Area activities on small lots inexpensively. Transit connections would be provided indirectly by footways through the First Order Area. . Predicted Regional Response: Regional authorities will probably say that the diversity of the town centre environment would be best served if these third order uses were integrated therein. Valuable centrally located properties, the regional planners would say, .might be better utilized for more dense development. The regional view would likely also be that no core use should have simply indirect access to the transit station. ii. Third Order Area Form: . Local Position as Designed: The Third Order Area would have a small-scaled mix of activity throughout with commercial facilities on the ground and offices, studies, apartments and similar activities on second floors of converted and in-filled structures. Its setting would be parklike with numerous mini-plazas developed publicly. . Predicted Regional Response: While the region would likely not quarrel with the form concept proposed beyond their 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 will house more intense development. Town Centre - Tourist Focus: . Local Position as Designed: A tourist focus that sits as an integrated part of the First and Second Order Areas of the town centre is proposed that is heavily oriented to the visability and accessibility of Kingsway and that ties the First and Second Order Areas together with highly intense pedestrian activity. . Predicted Regional Response: While regional authorities would probably not object to the focus of tourist and entertainment facilities as an integrated part of town centre activity, they would likely encourage this focus to occur directly next to the transit station. They would thus probably oppose the Kingsway location of tourist activities because it depends too completely on automobile access. 153. e. The Neighbourhoods: i. Neighbourhood Areas Defined: . Local Position as Designed: The residential portions of Metrotown have been differentiated into 4000-5000 person neighbourhoods ringing the Metrotown centre following local planners' concepts. Some residential accommodation, however, occurs outside this context and within the First and Second Order Areas as has already been noted. This provides for a diversity of residential lifestyles. . Predicted Regional Response: The specification of an intense component 0f neighbourhoods within the Metro-town would probably not be fundamentally opposed by regional planners. However, they are likely to consider these areas outside their sphere of interest which is the town centre proper. Thus the regional programs operationalized to stimulate RTCs and help local governments in this effort 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 diversified local unit which includes a focus of convenience commercial and community facilities and recreational park space in conformity with the local planners' model, ''here possible, the neighbourhood commercial centre would be tied into transit stations. 154. . Predicted Regional Response: Again, while regional authorities are likely not to oppose the proposed interior arrangements of neighbourhoods, they will also probably not provide special financial support for the purchase of lands that may be needed to implement the arrange ments. iii. Neighbourhood Connection to Transit: . Local Position as Designed: The in-town neighbourhoods are to be connected to transit with pedestrian walkways and a jitney line as shown on the probe plan. Because this augments transit, local authorities will want regional authorities to pay for the jitney line and share in pathway acquisition costs. . Predicted Regional Response: As a system required to serve neighbourhoods that are regionally felt to be a local responsibility the regional authorities will probably want local money to provide the jitney and pedestrian connections. . Possible Reconciliation: The use of a development levy system would provide funding for purchase of path ways and, in part, these could even be secured through the demand of easements in favour of the Municipality for the right of public passage on foot across private property. The previously suggested scheme to finance jitney lines (paid for by the Metrotowners) could also include the residential jitney routes. 155. B4. Park Systems: It has been noted in principle that the Metrotown should reflect the Municipal character of development spaces interspersed within an open space framework. This concept is followed in the probe plan and, in general, would not seem to cause regional/local contentions. Specific aspects of park space are as follows: a. Use of Existing Parklands: All major open spaces now existing in and around the Metrotown are maintained in the probe plan as the primary open space resource. These spaces are augmented with a continuous park-trail system as shown on the probe plan that opens into mini-parks or plazas at all important points. Parks are used to separate neighbourhoods and incompatible uses and each neighbourhood has its own park space. None of these features will likely be opposed by regional authorities. b. Central Park/)akalla Connection: . Local Position as Designed: One of the most unique aspects of the Metrotown site is its 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 its expression as an abatement device for the major through-street running at its centre minimizes its recreational value. They would probably therefore not support the parkway. . Possible Resolution: The proposed parkway and street might be protected from negatively affecting one another through a design that creates strong boundaries between park and street and provides safe passage across the street either in pedestrian over- or under-passes. Central Park Integration: . Local Position as Designed: Central Park's eastern border is proposed to be changed to the seal lopped configuration shown on the probe plan to exploit to a maximum extent the park amenity for high density develop ment along that border. Central Park is further proposed to be accessed for regional users from the Patterson Street and Boundary Road transit stations. . Predicted Regional Response: It is probable that regional authorities will consider changes to Central Park to be a local matter for which they will elect not to be involved. Their view of the use of transit to access the park would probably be that regardless of where stations are, they could provide the access function provided this was ancillary to their main function of 157. accessing the Metrotown centre proper and that park access was not a criteria in station design. B5. Metrotown Forms: Following the principle for overall form in the Metrotown model, a schematic concept for forms is specified in the probe plan. Except as this concept places arbitrarily restrictive conditions on potential Metrotown developers, regional authorities are not likely 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 locally adopted view that Kingsway will remain the focus for Metrotown for some time until transit becomes a viable alternative focus. Also, existing building life spans particularly in the resi dential areas in the southern sector of Metrotown are to be respected, thus making redevelopment of these spaces a long-term proposition. Local authorities would want no time scheduling of phases. . Predicted Regional Response: The region is likely to strongly object to a beginning emphasis on Kingsway. They would probably also be little convinced by the argument of building life spans. Regional authorities would probably say that development at or around station locations would tend to enhance regional efforts to provide transit sooner. This is because it creates a clear demand for the transit. Thus the region would likely call for first phase development at transit stations on both sides and even using air rights over the transit 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 authori ties that emerge from a process of probe design. We can therefore turn to the relationship of issues to policy and the recommendations that will be required at a policy level to achieve clear regional and local cooperation on RTC/Metrotown development. This is the subject of the conclusions.chapter to follow. 164. CHAPTER FIVE SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECONCILE RTC ISSUES 165. We have now completed both a comparative analysis of the broad policies and conceptions for the RTC that are embraced by Burnaby and the GVRD. We have also completed a design probe for the purpose of isolating 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 conceptions has been juxtaposed with a predicted regional response. Thus we have articu lated the apparent discrepancies in the GVRD's notion of the RTC as seen from a local viewpoint and the next requirement is to determine how regional and local disagreements might be resolved. This is the subject of this concluding chapter of the analysis. We have already noted that the probe design suggests possible reconciliations to issues that are of a technical nature. We will deal with these technical resolutions first. We have also noted that some issues will not be amenable to technical resolution and can be seen as indicative of deeper disagreements between GVRD and Burnaby that could lead to a standoff in regional-local cooperation. These issues can be resolved only by suggesting changes in policy. We will deal with recommendations toward this end in the latter part of these conclusions. Through these technical and policy recommendations, a direction is proposed that would allow regional and local cooperation to achieve the Burnaby RTC. In preface to these conclusions, we should make one important point. The issues that have been isolated are very detailed. One might assume that such detailed matters would be of little interest to the GVRD. Their primary orientation is much broader and they have made few comments about site-specific 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 attractive alternative location to Downtown Vancouver. They know that the character of the environment and the mix of activities will affect the attractiveness of the place. They know that if design standards are too high or too low and if use specifications are too restrictive or non-existent then the attractiveness of the RTC will suffer. Therefore the details of Metrotown development become important to them. This is why they make major efforts to put forward a specific concept within the constraints placed on them by their power position. This is why they press for 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 initiate specific design does not mean they will accept any design scheme proposed at the local level. Therefore, a resolution of issues over detailed matters becomes crucial. A. TECHNICAL RESOLUTION OF PREDICTED ISSUES We have defined a technical resolution of an issue as the situation where a design alternative has been discovered in the design probe that would be acceptable to regional and local authorities as a compromise position of agreement not sacrificing more fundamental policy positions of either side. 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 transit stations and right-of-way as well as the internal arrangement of First Order activities and the protection of pedestrians from street traffic, ii. One was a matter of having the Metrotowners pay for jitney service, iii. And one was a matter of using development levies and easements to 167. DESIGN ASPECT NO ISSUE ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View TECHNICAL RESOLUTION PROPOSED POLICY 1 REVISION 1 REQUIRED! H DESIGN ASPECT NO ISSUE ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View TECHNICAL RESOLUTION PROPOSED POLICY REVISION REQUIRED I, Design Response to Existing Landscape Features L. Selected existing fea tures as determinants R. Existing features treated as anomolies III, Movement (cont.) 1 B. Automobile Ways • I 3. Configuration II of Kingsway L. Kingsway through-street as central integrating feature and major access •I JX. Movement A. Transit: to centre. R. No through-traffic in Metrotown. DESIGN ASPECT ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View TJJ.. Organization of Metrotown Use A. Town Centre-lst Order Area (continued) TECHNICAL RESOLUTION PROPOSED 1. Number of Stations Integration of] stations with pedestrian pathway system Nature of Stations 4. Stations to serve special ized transit riders. 5. Nature of Transit Right-of-Way 3 stations required to serve area. Only 1 station desirable because of time and monev. L. Highly integrated multi functional faciltiies. R. Primarily unifunctional to conserve costs. L. One station serves neigh bourhood and one serves core area. L. Maximize use of stations^ no specialization. L. R/W should be under ground through Metro-town . R. R/W to be on-grade. 2 stations proposed by integrating use of 3rd station into these Of 2 stations proposed, the core-serving station would be multi-functional and the other station would be umifunctional. Integration of 3 stations! into 2 intensifies uses while maintaining a degree of specialization of users. Through careful design place part of R/W under ground and part on sur face depending on adjacent land use. 4. Subdivision Pat tern in first order area. C. Pedestrian Movement B. Town Centre-2nd Order Area L. Use superblocks of Com prehensive Development to simplify control. R. Use small development units to give variety. Continuity of pedestrian channels and space. 2. Pedestrian connections to surrounding areas. 3. Auto/Pedestrian Separation Support modes to enhance pedestrian movement. R. In Centre use +15 concept] w/ people above, cars below. Platform too expensive and not required if no cars. L. Use jitney system-region should pay. R. Make Metrotown smaller-if jitney, the local pays. I J£. Organization of Metrotown Use A. Town Centre - 1st Order Area Jitney paid for by Metrotown entrepreneurs 1. Location of second order area. 2. Form of second order area. Internal Organi zation of 2nd order area. Subidivsion Pat tern in 2nd order area. L. R. Lining Kingsway because of automobile require ment. Should not focus on Ki ngsway. R. Use superblocks of Com prehensive Dev. to simplify control. Use -.mall development units to give variety. C. Town Centre-3rd Order Area B. Automobile Ways Auto movement on a hierarchy] of streets. 2. Configuration of Willingdon L. Needed to accommodate autos without pervasive street grids. R. No cars in Metrotown. Through-street in a parkway. No through-traffic in Metrotown. CONTINUED >- Oul CJ t-iOC o_ UJ UJl CONTINUED CONTINUED DESIGN ASPECT ISSUE PREDICTED L= Local View R= Regional View Bl. Organization of Metrotown Use (continued) E. The Neighbourhood TECHNICAL RESOLUTION PROPOSED t-O Ul FTUJ UJ || 1. Neighbourhood II areas defined. L. Neighbourhoods are in-town residential com ponent of Metrotown. R. Neighbourhoods not part of RTC: no assistance. • I 2. Internal Arrange II ment of Neigh-1 bourhoods L. Neighbourhoods each 4000-5000 people with central facilities & parkspace. R. Neighbourhoods not part of RTC: no assistance. • I 3. Neighbourhood 1 Connection to 1 Transit L. Jitney system and walk ways to be paid by region R. Jitney and parkways a local responsibility. Use levy system to get walkways. Jitney part of core-jitney line paid for by Metro towners . [BLPark systems II 1. Location of |l first order II area. L. Central location with equal auto and transit connections. R. Should be located around transit-no auto connec tion-;. If the arrangement of uses created nodes and path ways then transit would be played up without denying cars=design matter Um 1. Location of 3rd II | order area. L. Attached to 1st & 2nd order areas away from transit and road. R. No 3rd order uses and specifically not segregated. • 1 |l 2. Form of first || order area. • Hill 2. Form of 3rd II ||]| order area. L. Small lot renovation of old buildings-small scale. R. Land should be higher used-no part in assembly. • 1 3. Internal de-1 ployment of 1 first order 1 area. • Illlll ^own Centre-IU I Tourist Focus L. Focus on Kingsway for visibility. R. Should be focussed on transit station. • 1 | A. Existing parklands 1 incorporated into I scheme. • 1 B. Central Park/Oakalla 1 Connection via 1 Willingdon parkway. L. Parkway does double duty. R. Auto/park combination dangerous-no through traffic in Metrotown. Design street and park to be clearly divided realms. 1 C. Central Park inte-1 gration with adja-1 cent urban land 1 use. L. Use scalloping and give transit access. R. Central Park a local responsibility. • 1 3C» Overal 1 Form of 1 Metrotown Based on 1 Activity Levels • SI. Pnasing of Metrotown L. Start at Kingsway and work back to transit; no time limit. R. Start at transit; time limit to 1986. • END suirW or mracnsp issues FROM DBSMJN irats runs 58 168. secure parkspace and walkways. These possible reconciliations were laid out in detail in the previous chapter. The predicted issues that can be resolved technically do not reflect fundamental disagreements between the two parties providing that both regional and local authorities endorse the compromises as acceptable. This is because such compromises allow each authority to accept the other authority's policy positions at face value. We can assume that technical reconciliations will be embraced by the GVRD and Burnaby because both know that cooperation is required. In looking at the remaining issues that were predicted through the design process, we find that each of these has roots in more general differences of opinion. We have illustrated 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 authorities 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. All predicted issues about streets including the specifications 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 activity 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 vertical separation of pedestrians and automobiles. 169. DIVERGING VIEWS AT LEVEL OF BROAD PLANNING POLICY R = regional view L = local view _<X DIVERGING VIEWS AT LEVEL OF r~^/ RTC CONCEPTIONS R = regional view L = local view ^) PREDICTED ISSUE AREAS 1. VIEW OF GROWTH: R. Fairly distribute costs & benefits of growth to every Municipality in region L. Take only growth wanted--avoid problem growth. 1. METROTOWN ACTIVITY CONTENT: R. Metrotown specializes as location for population-serving activities. L. Metrotown to have broad range of activities to achieve urbaneness & diversity. Inclusion of 3rd Order Uses 2. IMPORTANCE OF METROTOWN: R. One of several equal RTCs— all must grow together. L. Only chance for diversity— seek regional highest priority status. 2. 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 environ ment. . Treatment for Pedestrian/ Auto Separation . Use of superblock Concept . Design Standards are sub-issue. 3. MOVEMENT: R. Transit is key element in growth strategy. L. Municipal uevelopiient to .iccomrodate car and hope for transit 3. MOVEMENT: R. Total design around transit. L. Equal consideration of transit and auto. 3a. PEDESTPIAM/AUTP SEPARATION R. Should not be needed. L. Required to reconcile auto and people. . 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 4. NATURE OF RTC: R. Town Centre L. Complete .'settlement' 4. BOUNDARIES, BALANCE, USE REALMS: R. Centre in regional catchment area - one boundary, one balance, one central realm of use. L. Centre and town in regional catchment areas- several boundaries, several balances, locally & regionally signifi cant realms. . Neighbourhoods - area defi nitions & arrangement . Provision of parks/parkways outside core . Segregation of core activities 5. INTEGRATION WITH REAL SITE: R. No consideration of real site. L. Concept highly influenced by site constraints & potentials. . Design response to existing land use. 6. APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT: R. Aggressive - new methods -1986 deadline. L. Use conventional controls -no time frame. . Use of superblock concept . Timing of phases rap or PREDICTED issues IN BFO/W roucr 170. As has been discussed, the regional officials favour an RTC that is dominantly served by transit and that provides little accommodation to the car. The local planners favour a balanced dependence on auto mobile and transit accessibility. This disagreement shows itself at both the conceptual and policy levels. The local view is very persuasive. Local planners stress that talk and promises about transit have been coming from senior governments for years without concrete results. They also stress that even if transit were provided, it 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 especially between Metrotown and Vancouver centre or Mew Westminster. Local planners also note that the through functions of certain existing Metrotown streets have been considered 'given elements' in their thinking simply because these routes are entrenched historical features for which no alternative alignments seem feasible or particularly desirable. In contrast, the regional position seems to offer littlP substantive response. Regional authorities have incorporated the transit idea into their growth strategy without even having obtained Letters Patent to take charge of transit planning. Their specific transit studies are sketchy. Moreover, they can offer few solutions to the Municipal problem of getting Burnaby residents into Metrotown except for the reorientation of an already inadequate bus system. All in all, the region's dependence on transit seems precarious. Thus, it appears that the GVRD has two alternatives for resolving this discrepancy in their RTC idea. Either 171. they should produce positive evidence of progress in initiating transit and give a credible time frame for transit development (which the Municipality would accept without hesitation but which seems absolutely unlikely) or they should revise their idea of movement for the RTC. I would recommend that the GVRD pursue its transit goals with no less vigour than it has shown in the past. But I would also recommend that the GVRD accept for the Burnaby RTC the Municipal proposition of striving for a balanced system of movement. The resolution of this policy and conceptual disagreement would also resolve the predicted issues that have been isolated. This is because the Municipal view has never denied the value of transit and has even assumed some form of transit to serve Metrotown in the future. Therefore agreements on street patterns and forms, the location of activities, the separation of people and cars and phasing can occur and transit can still be integrated into the Metrotown when it is available. On this basis the following recommendation for a change in policy is 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 offices, 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 relation of activity levels in the core with sub-regional population levels. And, most 172. importantly, the GVRD does not essentially recognize that the RTC could have a locally significant component of residents tied 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 activities 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 significant component and a locally significant component-it has regional stores, offices and jobs and it has in-town neighbourhoods. The definition of balanced uses takes a more complex form. There is 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 different dependency on and receiving different impacts from Metrotown. These policy and conceptual differences result in the following predicted issues: i. issues concerning the definition, nature and realization of proposed local neighbourhoods; ii. 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 definition of boundaries reflects .an understanding of the different types of impacts of the Metrotown and the different propensities that people will have to use the place. There is no good reason to think just because a sub-regional boundary is struck, all people within that boundary will revise their orientation in favour of the RTC. It is more likely that the degree to which orientation will change will relate to the distance of a potential user from Metrotown. The desire to achieve a balance of activities that will relate each use to its consumers but will also consider the interconnections of uses within the centre is simply more sophisticated than the regional notion. This is because the regional concept of balance could lead to a relatively unifunctional place if demands for one activity are provided for today but demands change tomorrow. The opportunity to revise uses would have already been lost. The local concept would let demands evolve with the provision of new opportunities and it would assure that a broad spectrum of those opportunities are available at all times. The reservations that we have predicted the GVRD would have about the segregation of uses also seems contradictory to their own goals. The local concept would cause uses to be arranged so as to maximize the efficiency of the regionally-significant portion of the town. This is because complementary activities would be placed together and would be:located with respect to how many regional users they draw into Metrotown. Thus by being more efficient the Metrotown centre becomes more viable and this is clearly a regional goal. 174. Finally, by playing down the residential aspect of the Metro- . town, the GVRD may be missing a major opportunity to work with local authorities in achieving the strategic regional goal of providing and implementing growth targets for each municipality. The Municipality has proposed to use the Metrotown's residential component as a means to accommodate further residential growth in Burnaby without disturbing or destroying established lower density neighbourhoods or natural amenities. The Municipality has proposed principles to encourage a diversity of residential types and to assure urban amenity and servicing to in-town residents. The GVRD could exploit these Municipal positions to aug ment its 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 living 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 BURNABY1S POLICY THAT THE METROTOWN BE A COMPREHENSIVE 'SETTLEMENT' AND ADJUST ITS CONCEPTION OF THE BURNABY RTC ACCORDINGLY. D. RECOMMENDATION 3 : POLICY REVISION: While not evident at the level of broad policy, 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 initiating development, marketing the RTC, streamlining procedures for approving RTC development and participating in an RTC Development Corporation that can get things done. The impetus for this is the GVRD's desire to see RTCs functioning and self-sufficient by 1986. Local 175. authorities take a more conservative view. They would participate in the implementation of Metrotown using primarily the tested procedures and controls that have been delegated to them by statute. They would have little interest in a Development Corporation that dilutes their power and feel no compulsion to set time limits for Metrotown development. These differences are reflected in predicted issues about the phasing of the Metrotown and about the. use of superblocks as a means to simplify development control. While the Municipal view would be the safest approach, it may be that a project of the complexity of Metrotown can only be assured implemen tation by experimenting with ways and means as has been proposed by the GVRD. Thus the feasibility of Municipal goals may be dependent on local authorities looking beyond conventional control tools. This should not mean that traditional tools be ignored. The use of super blocks through which more complex solutions can be achieved with less complex coordination and Municipal management would still be a good idea. However, through public initiatives perhaps even finer solutions can be achieved. The specification by local authorities of a time frame for Metrotown development would also be desirable. This is because time limitations give an urgency to calls for support that is not evident when no dead lines are strived for. 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 feel. Thus it is recommended that the GVRD's time frame be used by the Municipality and that local conceptions of phasing be given a temporal dimension. 176. The GVRD argument about the intricacy of public responsibility and the consequent need of a Development Corporation to manage RTCs is also convincing. At the same time, the Municipality's desire to protect its 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 existing GVRD or local powers but would facilitate action. Thus to reconcile differences over the approach to development, the following recommendation is 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 tied to a policy difference between the two governments about the importance of the Metrotown in their planning strategies. The regional view is that the Metrotown is but one of several RTCs that must be developed at the same time and on an equal basis. The local view is that the Metrotown is the sole opportunity to achieve a diverse environment with urbanity within Burnaby and that its development is more important than that of other RTCs. At the conceptual level these contentions take the form of differing ooinions about the nature of a tradeoff that must be achieved between environmental quality and the creation of an attractive climate for development. The regional view is that special impetus for development cannot be directed at the Metrotown. It must be an environment with its own attractive capacity. The local view is that the creation of a quality environment must result even at high developer expense and even if this results in a lessening 177. of the attractiveness of Metrotown as a place to develop. The proposition of high amenity standards, the specification 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 attractive abilities of an RTC is really a regional matter because activities must be attracted from beyond Municipal borders. The GVRD has extensively studied the criteria necessary for a place to be able to draw development to it and has even surveyed candidate corpora tions to see what requirements they would specify of an RTC location. The regional planners as a part of their strategy to decentralize functions from Vancouver centre, have also made lobbying for decentrali zation their active business. They have tried to stimulate policies within Vancouver's downtown to make that historical location focus less attractive. , If the GVRD concludes that abnormally high design standards work against a Metrotown location for many firms, then the Municipality should accept this finding. Indeed, the Municipality's own policy goal to diversify Municipal opportunities may be dependent on this. If development will not occur in the Metrotown, then regardless of the standards of quality that are established, a diverse environment that has urbanity will not result. The Municipality must moderate the quality demanded for development at least to a level that will not preclude such development. The GVRD would insist on this if they are to cooperate in directing development into the Metrotown. This would still provide a quality environment because the GVRD's Corporation Survey showed such an environment to be a positive 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 it unlikely that the GVRD could amend its policies to favour the Metrotown. One might say that 'one RTC does not decentralization make'. The Municipality must realize that the importance it places on Metrotown will not be echoed at the regional level. To make the Metrotown viable, as the local importance of the place would indicate it must be, the Municipality will have to rely on its own initiatives. Thus it is recommended that the Municipality amend its policy position that would expect the GVRD to give Metrotown a priority position beyond that already proposed in GVRD plans. It is also recommended that quality standards be moderated to assure an attractive environment for develop ment. Consequently, expensive pedestrian/vehicular separation proposals should only be initiated where absolutely necessary and the use of super block development units must be used to facilitate 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 authorities has been pinpointed. These areas are as follows: i. different policy views of growth and how it should be strategically treated which, in turn, leads to a conceptual difference about the type of activities to be found in the RTC/Metrotown; and ii. the conceptual difference of how new development in the RTC/ Metrotown must reflect existing land use features on its site. 179. We will deal with these in turn. As to their view of growth, the regional authorities want a fair distribution of costs and benefits of growth among regional sub-'areas. The local view is to take only growth that seem s beneficial' i and avoid other pressures to grow. Towards a fair distribution of growth the region suggests that each RTC specialize in the kinds of uses that it houses. For the Burnaby RTC a catering to 'population-serving' activities is proposed. The Municipal position is only to accept growth that will help to diversify local opportunities. Consequentl within the Metrotown a broad spectrum of activities is proposed to create an environment that would be locally unique because of its urbanity. Such broad spectrum would not be achieved if uses were completely specialized in the Metrotown as the GVRD proposes. These differences are likely to be influential in determining the overall relationship 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 is the question of whether or not third order activities should be developed in the Metrotown core. I submit that this issue is not crucial. If regional authorities decided not to assist in the evolution of third order uses then these could be achieved through Municipal initiatives which have already been recommended. Indeed, the functioning of the land and development markets in the Metrotown may even make such uses in a segregated configuration completely unlikely. Beyond this, it is easy to conclude that the overall nature of the Metrotown will make it predominantly a location choice for population-serving uses. 180. Such uses are desirous of a location within clustered suburban commer cial and service nodes 'near their consumers'. Therefore even with the introduction of a component of uses that is not 'population serving' such as corporate back-up office facilities 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 will parallel the growth specified as a fair share by regional authorities. The fair share doctrine is really directed at the level of overall municipalities--the fair share is to be distributed among municipalities. Burnaby has simply chosen to take a significant part of that growth at one location so that the close association of activities will 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 differences that we have been discussing, is shown to be nonexistent. Cooperation on RTC/Metrotown development is not fundamentally predicated on a resolution of these differences. The final area of difference was discovered at the conceptual level where local Metrotown ideas are oriented to a real site and regional RTC ideas are not site-oriented. We find that the only predicted issue that is tied to this conceptual difference is that concerning the status of existing landscape features in Metrotown design decisions. The predicted local view on the issue was that certain existing features must act as determinants of design. The predicted regional response was that existing features did not reflect the proposed emphasis on transit and were thus generally mislocated so that they should be treated as anomolies in new RTC design. 181. On the one hand, it is logical to say that whether treated as anomolies in design or not, the existing features are bound to influence Metrotown activity patterns because of the activities that they stimulate. Thus it would appear that the best approach is to use these activity energies to meet new objectives. However, the need for this type of reconciliation is unnecessary if regional authorities adopt the recommendation about their position on circulation that was put forward above. If the GVRD revises its concept of movement to one with an emphasis on balanced modes then existing development which is auto-oriented would not be inherently contrary to GVRD concepts. If we realize that such features will be only a minor component in the totally-developed Metrotown, the we see that the use of existing features as design determinants does not preclude a strong transit 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 result because GVRD thinking aboutthe Burnaby RTC is not site-specific. The extent of potentials on the Kingsway/Central Park site and the limited constraints seem to leave the site wide open for the develop ment of almost any kind of Metrotown. 182. METHODOLOGICAL CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS 183. As an epilogue to the research, a few comments can be made about the methodology that was utilized. An outline and reasoning behind the approach and methods of this research was explained in the intro ductory chapter of the analysis. On the basis of the research experience, it is now possible to suggest some methodological shortcomings and propose how these might be avoided. We can also suggest alternative circumstances in which the analytical model that has been developed might be usefully applied. A design-based analysis has its limitations and in doing the research of this study, these limits became apparent. Firstly, it is static. Unless its recommendations are acted upon almost immediately, con ditions may change so that the course of action that is recommended may no longer be most appropriate. This criticism, however, is applicable to most evaluative tools. To avoid this problem, the process could perhaps be streamlined to allow its application in consecutive periods so that changes in either the specific problem or changes in the viewpoints of the parties involved can be incorporated. By looking at these various rounds of analysis, trends might be perceivable that would even allow some degree of projection as to positions "that will likely be taken in the future. The problem with this is that it could become prohibitively complex. A second problem with the methodology is that it presents a complete picture of issues, stances and solutions. This may be an illusion in the sense that there is no way within the methodology to be assured that 184. all necessary ground has been covered. One can only hope that the incremental movement from the general to the specific will tie up most loose ends and encompass all lines of potential disagreement. A significant 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 intuitively as a part of probe design. In both of these situations, the background and prejudices of the designer cannot fail to come into play. Perhaps the best way to deal with bias would be to incorporate a component of critical review by the various parties that are the subject of the analysis. An application of Delphi methods for gathering opinions and reactions might be utilized (Cull, Davidson,Hood, 1975). In a Delphi framework, conclusions at each phase of the analysis would be returned to the relevant parties for review, verification and/or revision. A spinoff of the. Delphi contacts mighfalso be to change some hard attitudes that are held by the influentials. 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 essentially 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 relation 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' realization will ultimately require the 185. cooperation of many other groups. To address itself to all 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 analysis. We have noted that politicians and the political 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 will be building the RTC, the citizens' groups and individuals who will live in and around and who will use the RTC, and a list of other government agencies who have jurisdiction or interest in some aspect of the RTC (including the Federal Government through CMHC and the Provincial Government through its Housing and Transportation Departments). Of course the inclusion of each additional subject group within the analysis makes the research more complex and expensive. We might, however, be able to achieve some input from these additional groups by extending all or part of a Delphi information gathering framework to include input from them. This would at least pick up their superficial response to the conclusions being drawn as the analysis proceeds. This would give some indication of the affect that these groups will have on proposals to reconcile issues between the major groups being studied. On the other hand, the extended Delphi approach would have certain drawbacks. The probe design could be con strued by non-planners as an actual scheme for implementation or as a probable scheme. If these people were opposed to the content of the scheme, a series of reactions might ensue that go well beyond the para meters of the study. This could, in turn, cause anomosity against the study by those planners whose participation is crucial. A second draw back is that responses from groups that are not backed up by a review of their policy setting could make the reconciliation of differences for 186. these groups very difficult. It may be more advantageous to select the crucial parties and concentrate the analysis on these. In a fundamental sense, however, it can be said that the inclusion in the analysis of parties other than the professional planners would likely require alternative data collection and analytical techniques that are foreign to the design probe. This is because these additional groups visualize the RTC problem and define issues from different viewpoints and with different assumptions than those of the planners on which we have concentrated. The planners conceive the RTC in design and 'planning' terms which is essentially the language of the design probe analysis. This is not the case with other parti 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 distinct and separate research problem requiring the formulation of another research methodology in order to be adequately handled. Another limitation of the design-based analysis is that it is clearly physically oriented. Thus the important socio-economic aspects of the subject environment cannot be forthrightly dealt with. Because a number of issues might arise out of these non-physical matters, the analysis cannot include and try to resolve these issues. It is con ceivable that a probe social plan might be developed parallel to the physical scheme. This, however, would require an entire new spectrum of expertise that would complicate the analysis both in how it proceeds and in what it costs. 187. Perhaps the most basic limitation of the approach devised for this study is the fact that even in its present form, it is already relatively complex and requires substantial time. The collection of information and the essentially open-ended design phase both take long hours and effort to complete. Therefore it would be hard to schedule and expen sive to pay for a design probe analysis in practical circumstances. Moreover, the suggestions to make the analysis more comprehensive and rigorous that are discussed above would simply compound this problem. Perhaps both data collection and the design process could be abridged to essentials, but we should realize that the veracity of our con clusions 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 plan ners to define and an idea of how these might be resolved. The analysis has not been extended to include the above methodological possibilities simply because of the constraints that exist on the study. It is apparent, however, that the methodology is flexible and is thus applicable under a variety of carefully selected circumstances. It would seem feasible and advantageous to use the design probe method to deal with almost any situation where different interests must cooperate to achieve environmental change provided the parties have a 'planning' orientation. This is because the analysis deals not only with comparisons of philosophy and policy positions, but also with 188. the specific ramifications these positions can be expected to have on landscape change. Thus more general opinions are focussed on the specific matters that bring on disagreements. It would seem equally feasible 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 this study. Perahps the more common need is to deal with the first type. The design probe would still be valuable in order to draw out the issues that are inherent in a proposed planning scheme. The difference in this type of application is that much of the background data would already be collected and the emphasis would shift from data collection to data review. One motive of this research has been to devise and test a comparative analytical method founded upon design. In conclusion, it might be said that the design probe provides answers that are not now readily available and warnings of future standoffs between different professional groups that must cooperate to achieve their separate objectives. The real uniqueness of the design probe is that it can isolate differences of opinion at a relatively specific level. 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 is a real necessity. Otherwise the design probe may well represent analytical overkill. Having said this, however, if the method does define conflicts that cannot be defined in other ways and therefore leads to more cooperation in a situation where such cooperation is mandatory, then the research was clearly worthwhile. 189. BIBLIOGRAPHY 190. Adams, John. "Curator's Brief on Historical Structures in the Burnaby Metrotown." Xeroxed Report prepared by Curator of Heritage Village Museum for District of Burnaby Planning Department, 16 July 1975. Archer, L. Bruce. "Design Awareness and Planned Creativity." 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. "Design," Science, 168 (26 June 1970), 1551-1554. Boesiger, W. and H. Girsberger. Le Corbusier 1910-65. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967. Broadbent, Geoffrey. Design in Architecture. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. 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 ed., 1969; rpt. Burnaby: District of Burnaby Planning Department, 1971. Burnaby Planning Department. Burnaby Transportation Study to  1985. Burnaby: District of Burnaby Planning Department, 1974:2. Burnaby Planning Department. Community Plans. Burnaby: District of Burnaby Planning Department, 1972. Burnaby Planning Department. The Public Meetings: Phase One. Burnaby: District of Burnaby Planning Department, 1974. Carver, Humphrey. Cities in the Suburbs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962. 191 de Chiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman. Planning Design Criteria. Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1969. Collier, Robert W. "The Evolution of Regional Districts in British Columbia," B.C. Studies, 5(Autumn 1972), pp.29-40. Cull, Elizabeth, Jill Davidson and Nancy Hood. "Annotated Bib liography on Delphi Techniques." Xeroxed Paper Prepared for University of British Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning, 1975. Doxiadis, Constantinos A. "The Coming World--City: Ecumenopolis." Cities of Destiny. Ed. Arnold Toynbee. New York: McGraw-Hill 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 Inc., 1971. Gall ion, Arthur B. and Simon Eisner. The Urban Pattern—City  Planning and Design. 2nd ed., 1950; rpt. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1963. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 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 District. 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 Vicinity. North Vancouver: Shoemaker, McLean and Veitch, 1947. Gregory, S.A., ed. The Design Method. London: Butterworths, 1966. Gruen, Victor and Larry Smith. Shopping Towns U.S.A.: The  Planning of Shopping Centres. 2nd ed., 1960; rpt. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1967. Gruen, Victor. Centres for the Urban Environment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1973. Halprin, Lawrence. Cities. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1963. Hardwick, Walter G. Canadian Cities—Vancouver. Don Mills: Collier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd., 1974. 192. Heilbrun, James. Urban Economics and Public Policy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1974. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. Keller, Suzanne. The Urban Neighbourhood—A Sociological Perspective. New York: Random House, 1968. 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. Official Regional Plan. New Westminster: L.M.R.P.B., 1966. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Regional Districts in the  Lower Mainland. New Westminster: L.M.R.P.B., 1968. Lynch, Kevin. Site Planning. 2nd ed., 1962; rpt. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1971. Mann, Richard C. "Consultants'Draft Comments on the Burnaby Metro-town." Xeroxed Report of Thompson Berwick Pratt and Partners Architects and Planners for District of Burnaby Planning Department, 13 December 1974:2. Mann, Richard C. Greater Vancouver Regional District Corporations  Survey. Vancouver: GVRD, 1974. Moore, Gary T., ed. Emerging Methods in Environmental Design  and Planning. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1970. Nez, George. "Standards for New Urban Development--the Denver Background," Urban Land, 20 May 1961, pp.1-8. Province of British Columbia. Municipal Act. Victoria: Queen's Printer for B.C., 1973. 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 Uni versity Publications, 1969, pp.121-140. Richardson, Harry W. Urban Economics. Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1971. Schoen, El in. "Lawrence Halprin—Humanizing the City Environment," The American Way, Nov. 1972, pp.13-19. Schwilgin, F.A. Town Planning Guideline. Ottawa: Department of Public Works, 1973. 193. Sixta, Gerhard. Urban Structure: A Study of Long Range Policies  Which Affect the Physical Structure of an Urban Area. Burnaby: District of Burnaby Planning Department, 1971. Smith, David. "Monitoring Report on the Public Participation Program of the G.V.R.D." Xeroxed Report for Ministry of State for Urban Affairs 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: A Pol icy Report. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1976. Webber, Melvin M. "The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm." Explorations into Urban Structure. Eds. Melvin Webber et. al. 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 their concept of the Metrotown, the local planners discussed and agreed upon a list of general design principles that they would want to see reflected in the developed Metrotown. The overall local concept has been summarized in the text of the analysis but this appendix presents the complete list of the local planners' general design principles 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 it does. These principles are as follows: 1. The Metrotown is to have a series of boundaries within which specific use (type and balance) must be considered depending upon networks of relations and impact. The immediate development area, however, comprises the only zone of overt physical change. 2. Activity in Metrotown can be organized into dominant and supportive functions—dominant functions relate to office activity, shopping, residence and tourism/entertainment and a multiplicity of secondary functions support these. This matrix of dominance and support consti tutes a general profile of the Metrotowners. 3. A balance of use is one in which many uses co-exist, no one use dominates and an inter-dependent relationship of uses exists (similar to that of the historically evolved city). 4. In the Metrotown, at the microlevel, there should be a fine-grained mix of uses. At the macroscale there should be a differentiation of uses into physical and functional groupings with similar locational/environmental requirements for a similarly scaled audience. 5. In Metrotown, centrally-oriented uses can be organized into first, second and third orders of multiple activity and physical places can be conceived to house these separately scaled assemblies. 6. 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 residential choice. 196. 7. The groupings of multiple use should be arranged so as to maximize their affinity and minimize their conflict. 8. A unique feature of the Burnaby Metrotown should be its open space context which is manifest in a hierarchy of space, a diversity of space types, a multiplicity of special open space amenity features, continuity and a commitment to universal assessibility either publicly provided or privately guaranteed. Open space should be functionally 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 transit stations provide significant points to which organization, function and form in Metrotown can be related. 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 Municipality. 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, it should provide multi-modal alternatives which exploit the advantages of each mode. 14. The profile of activity 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 quality with maximum amenities built into all projects. 16. The evolution of the Metrotown while incorporating the principles that have been stated, should be conceived on the basis of existing site patterns. The local planners also constructed a series of diagrams to illustrate their concepts for the development of the Metrotown and these have been included in the text of the analysis. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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