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

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1976_A8 B42.pdf [ 14.22MB ]
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

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 i i . In presenting this thesis in partial fulf i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Br i t ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t 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 f inancial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of Br i t ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date 20 April 1976 i i i . Abstract In The Livable Region 1976/1986, the Greater Vancouver Regional D is t r i c t (GVRD) proposes the creation of a series of regional town centres (RTCs) --decentralized suburban clusters of ac t iv i t ies h i s tor i ca l ly found in the c i ty centre. However, because land use control is a Municipal responsib i l i ty , the real ization 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 ( local ly 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 pol icy, RTC modelling and specif ic RTC s i te 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 a l l policy matters. Disagreements take shape around speci f ic 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 f a c i l i t a t e 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 l ine/stations and the arrangement of land uses relat ive to these; b. inclusion of residential neighbourhoods as a dominating RTC act iv i ty ; c. the development approach--configuration and timing of phasing, use of a Development Corporation and treatment of existing s ite features; and, d. building forms, quality and costs. The arrangements of transit stations and the transit l ine as well as the provision of support modes are provided with technical reconci l iat ions. The remaining issues are proposed to be reconciled by the following recommendations: a. that the GVRD continue i t s efforts to in i t i a te t rans i t , but also endorse the Municipal proposition of balanced modes for movement within and into the Burnaby- RTC; -b. that the GVRD endorse Burnaby's policy position that the Metrotown be a comprehensive 'settlement' and adjust i ts conception of the Burnaby RTC accordingly; c. that Burnaby adopt the GVRD's i n i t i a t i v e approach for Metrotown 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 ac t iv i ty . V . Broader differences about handling growth and integrating the RTC with the real s i te situation are found to exist but to have l i t t l e impact on RTC design agreements. Thus, the research concludes that differences exist in RTC and Metrotown notions that could s t i f l e regional/local cooperation on RTC development. It is found, however, that these discrepancies are amenable to reconci l iat ion i f the two authorities are prepared to accept technical compromises as well as revise their planning pol ic ies 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 A l . Regional Problems A2. Regional Planning Goals & Strategy A3. Role of the RTC in the Regional Strategy B. Burnaby - The Local Policy Setting B l . 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 A l . RTC Act iv i ty 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 B l . Metrotown Act iv i ty Specifications 70 B2. Metrotown Size Specifications 70 B3. Metrotown Transportation Specifications 76 B4. Metrotown Character Specifications 81 B5. Approach to Metrotown Development 91 C. Comparison of Regional and Local Conceptions of the Metrotown 94 CI. Act iv i ty Content of the Metrotown 96 C2. Boundaries, Balance and Use Realms 96 C3. 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 A l . Area Boundaries 111 A2. Existing Land Use & Zoning 114 A3. Existing Planning Schemes 117 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 130 B3. Organization of Use 145 B4. Park Systems 155 B5. Metrotown Forms 157 B6. Development Phasing in Metrotown 157 CHAPTER 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 174 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 t i t l e 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 Growth 33 6. Burnaby's Hierarchy of Settlements Centres 43 7. GVRD's Act iv i t ies Mix Comparison 59 8. GVRD's I l lustrat ive L is t of RTC Major Act iv i t ies 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 Act iv i ty 75 15. Metrotown: Arrangement of Use Groupings 77 16. Metrotown: Historical City as Guide to Use Balancing 78 17. Metrotown: Act iv i t ies 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 t i t l e 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: Act iv i ty 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 D is t r i c t were also very helpful and I thank them. For taking on and completing with a smile the major task of typing the manuscript and putting i t into f inal form, I wi l l 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 responsibi l i ty for any errors and omissions which might be discovered in this work. This work is dedicated to Sandy Logan--a patient and kind fr iend. 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 D is t r i c t (GVRD) is the decentralization of jobs, shopping and cultural opportunities away from Vancouver centre closer to where people l i ve in the suburbs. Decentralized and supportive ac t iv i t ies 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 essential ly been articulated from the regional perspective. However, local governments have also been concerned about the pattern of land uses and in various jur isdict ions 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 s i te of further i n t e n s i f i -cation and d ivers i f icat ion of act iv i ty 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 l e v e l . The GVRD's designated RTC in Burnaby and the Municipality's Metrotown in fact deal with the same s i te , 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 ac t iv i t ies on that s i te . Thus, to the 4. casual observer, i t would appear that local and regional actions can happily converge. Yet this may not real ly be the case. It is rea l ly dependent upon whether regional and local objectives for the place are compatible. Since differences in conception are bound to result in conf l i c t between the two authorit ies, i t is desirable to predict where agreement is evident and where conf l icts could occur and to frame reconci l iations from this standpoint. Therefore, the purpose of the present research is to determine i f the GVRD's notion of the RTC wi l l 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 i t raises must be answered: i . What is a regional or metro town centre in a general sense ( i . e . , what common background of def init ion is being used by both parties)? i i . Why should two levels of administration have to be involved in RTC development and have to agree on conceptions of the place in order for i t to be achieved? i i i . 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 f i r s t 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 ac t iv i t i es where " . . . a s 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, s t e r i l i t y and waste of time and energy." (Gruen, 1973, 97). Centre-conforming uses refer to those that involve high levels of interaction among people relat ive 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, w i ld l i f e 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-fu l l y 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; i i . the opportunity for the free exchange of ideas and goods; and, i i i . the enjoyment of human freedom as expressed by a nearly inexhaustible access to a mult ip l i c i ty 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 a l l practical purposes in a pedestrian environment. A pedestrian environment necessitates concentration of uses because of i t s inherently imposed distance maximums beyond which pedestrians wi l l choose not to remain on foot because of the time and effort involved in walking. As prerequisites following: to a successful multifunctional centre, Gruen l i s t s the 6. i . a supporting population of consumers; i i . access ib i l i ty of that consumer population to the centre; i i i . an available and adequate s i te ; iv . a col lect ion of people motivated to invest in the centre because of some promise of prof i t (in money or otherwise); and v. a defined team to plan and manage the centre. Having achieved these prerequisites and having selected uses careful ly 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 def in i t ion . However, for our purposes, the matter of the positioning of that centre within a system of arranged act iv i ty 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 Chr ista l ler , Losch and others (Heilbrun, 1974, 75-103). This theory states that urban act iv i t ies spat ia l ly organize themselves into central nodes serving a complementary region with goods and services. However, this organization of a c t i v i t i e s , say the theorists, is intimately t ied to the maximum distance customers are wi l l ing to travel to purchase or consume a product or service. Because people wi l l travel longer and further for products of higher value and more occasional demand, we observe a sorting out of centres into a nested hierarchy of smaller and larger nodes serving smaller and larger catchment populations. The original theorists concerned themselves primarily with:the macroscale at the inter-c i ty 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 c i ty as well as between c i t i e s . (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 foc i i providing specia l , high-order and expensive goods and services as well as jobs for large regionally-defined segments of a c i ty 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 i ts domain for those residents l i v ing direct ly nearby. Therefore the regional or Metrotown centre can be defined as a compact urban place serving that broad regional population within i ts influence with high order and supportive functions and providing a s ignif icant 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 reta i l consumer data. Specific functions usually found in the multifunctional centre have been art iculated by Gruen, de Chiara and Koppelman, Spaeth and others as indicated in the l i s t i n g of Plate 2. This conception of mult ip l ic i ty of function and regionality of consumers provides the def init ion required by our f i r s t question. 8. . , Mote: l i s t not exhaustive . commercial r e t a i l : - 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 - a i r l ine t icket o f f i ce , travel agent - pr int ing, of f ice supply, photographer - day care . of f ices: - public administration, government o f f i ces , post o f f i ce , social services, public u t i l i t i e s col lect ion - private administration, banks, lending inst i tut ions, 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 - universit ies . culture - theatres, auditoriums, concert halls entertainment/leisure - eatinc and drinking, restaurants, cafes, pubs - a r t , music and dance studios - meeting hal ls , community centres - sports centres, bowling . residential - private homes - hotels and hostels and convention f a c i l i t i e s SOURCES: (Gruen, 1973, 105); (Gruen, 1960, 55,56); (Spaeth, 1976, 7); (Chiara/Koppelman, 1969, s.12-3,12-4); and (Schwilgiri, . 1973, 9. B. V.'HY DO REGIONAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE TO COOPERATE IN RTC DEVELOPMENT? It has been noted that our second necessity is to indicate why the local and regional levels of administration have to be involved in RTC development and have to reach consensus in order for either to achieve i ts objective. To answer th is , we need f i r s t to explain the nature of government powers in place in the Lower Mainland of Br it ish Columbia. Section 92 of the Br it ish North America Act, a part of the Constitution of Canada, confers upon the several prov-inces formal responsibi l i ty 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 Br i t ish Columbia almost exclusively to local municipal governments. The only exceptions to this were several specif ic responsibi l i t ies delegated to 'special purpose d i s t r i c t s ' whose boards exercised administration for some particular functions in jur isdict ions geographically more extensive than any one munici-pa l i ty . The Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage D is t r i c t and the Vancouver Water D ist r ic t established in B.C. in 1914 and 1926 respectively are examples of this practice (Hardwick, 1974, 173). The tenacity of the simple dichotomous system of government composed of the province and local municipalities is not d i f f i c u l t to understand according to Walter Hardwick: . . .as recently as the 1940s, 75% of the population of the urbanized Eraser delta l ived in the central c i t y , 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 str ik ingly different from one municipality to another. (Hardwick, 1974, 175). 10. In more recent years, notes Hardwick, such central ization and/or isolation of residential populations has s igni f icant ly 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 f i r s t tendency had been to prol i ferate the 'special purpose d i s t r i c t ' concept. For our purposes, perhaps the most important of these was the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board established in 1948 to handle regional issues through a planning process. This was a Provincial board, however and the Province concluded that the expense for such an operation should be paid by the local governments who benefitted. The view among c i t i -zens was either that the board had l i t t l e teeth or that i t represented Provincial interference in local a f f a i r s . So in 1965 an amendment to the Municipal Act of B.C. was undertaken that " . . . r a d i c a l l y altered the relationship between local government and the Provincial government..." (Col l ier , 1972, 29). Through this amendment, the Regional Distr icts were created that integrated a range of regional concerns under one umbrella in each region. A Regional D is t r i c t is defined as a geographical unit (somewhat similar to a county) designed to provide ' jo int services' through a public board serving in one of 28 different sub-areas of the province. (Co l l ier , 1972, 29). While this action was touted as simply an administrative convenience by the enacting Provincial government, the poss ib i l i t ies inherent in the amendment have set the stage for the creation of a d ist inct "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 Distr icts as another level of government, however, must be accepted with certain cautions. The Regional Distr icts do not have a power of direct taxation. They also do not govern through a d irect ly representative process (except in unincorporated areas of the province). Rather, they requisit ion 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 Col l ier states, " . . . i t is d i f f i c u l t to argue that in actual fact they do not operate as (another) level of government." (Col l ier , 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 l ike a government. Because they were organized by statute to meet the unique requirements of their specif ic areas, the urban Regional Distr icts 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 a l l or portions of their jur isd ict ions . Important for our present work, they are required by statute to carry out regional land-use planning and the urban Distr icts do this aggressively. Indeed, the evidence suggests that their role in a l l these respects may even be growing. Al l of these ac t iv i t ies are directed by elected representatives and imple-mented by professional administrative staf f . The GVRD is one of these quasi-governmental Regional Distr icts and, as such, i t 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 h is tor i ca l ly delegated the general authority for handling local a f fa i rs . These local government entit ies follow the tradit ional municipal model. They have a direct power to tax; they have administrative, leg is lat ive and quasi-judicial powers relat ive to local matters. They govern on the basis of d irect ly elected representatives. And, relevant to our concern, they are c lear ly delegated through the Municipal Act broad powers to regulate the use of land and the type and quality of development within their jur isd ict ions . 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, i t is evident that considerations of both a local and regional nature come into play in a t ight ly intertwined way. We might characterize the situation as one needing a stimulus to redirect historical location trends, a regional matter; as a situation of sett l ing ac t iv i t ies into the new decentralized RTC locations, a local matter; and as a situation of creating a c r i t i c a l mass of ac t iv i t ies that can become viable and self-sustaining in i t s own r ight, a local and regional matter. Local municipalities can do l i t t l e in the f i r s t instance to draw act iv i t ies away from h is tor i ca l ly accepted locations except for certain incentive procedures that might well be met with competitive incentives elsewhere and which, in any case, would be prohibit ively expensive. The regional authority, however, because of the persuasion i t can-exercise as an 'interested third party' and because of it's access 13. to detailed and well-articulated regional planning arguments and pol ic ies , may well be more successful at amending histor ical location trends. At the same time, powers exercised by the local government in zoning and subdivision control make i t the crucial party in sett l ing act iv i t ies into a new area within i t s ju r i sd i c t ion . In land use control , the GVRD has primarily one tool--the Of f ic ia l Regional Plan. Because this plan by statute is " . . . a general scheme without d e t a i l . . . " (B.C. , 1974, 3232-3) and is permissive (LMRPB, 1966, 10), the regional administration is helplessly handicapped in forcing local governments to accept ac t iv i ty . 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 reconci l iat ion 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 real ly three reasons. The f i r s t concerns the distr ibution of powers between the two governments. The second concerns the nature of interests and responsib i l i t ies 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 f inal author-i ty on matters of speci f ic land use, the local government must rule on every development that may be proposed for the RTC. This rul ing wi l l undoubtedly be based on local requirements. Because regional and local authorities wi l l consider the RTC within different scales of reference, the require-1 4 -ments of the two governments wi l l not necessarily by synonomous. If the regionally conceived RTC does not f u l f i l l local requirements, then the municipality wi l l simply withdraw i ts support from the RTC program and i t wi l l be doomed to fa i lure . Thus, on the basis of their relat ive powers, the regional RTC concept is subservient to local review and this necessitates a loca l ly based cr it ique of the RTC in our analysis. The f e a s i b i l i t y of any new land use proposal is dependent upon whether or not i t can be accommodated upon a chosen s i te . This f e a s i b i l i t y can only be judged by comparing what kind of place is desired and what kind of place can be achieved within the framework of a real s i te . The vehicle best suited for such a s i te-spec i f i c 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 i t is couched in broad functional terms that do not lend them-selves to a s i te-spec i f i c interpretation. Moreover, the responsibi l i ty for achieving a f i t between concept and s i te must sett le with the local government who would be blamed i f the impact of the RTC is negative to the existing s ituat ion. 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 i t f i t s on the chosen s i te is a local responsibi l i ty best handled within a detailed local orientation and this reinforces the necessity to take a local perspective in the analysis. F inal ly , 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 ' f ina l concept' has been presented for local consideration. In contrast, the Municipality has only dealt with the Metrotown in re lat ive ly superf ic ial terms. Thus, the Municipal viewpoint is the 'unknown quantity' that must be specif ied before the v i a b i l i t y of the RTC can be judged. This prescribes the approach as one that must start from the local l eve l . Therefore the analysis looks at the regional RTC from a local viewpoint because local powers, interests and responsib i l i t ies 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 i ts 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 real ize t h e discrepancies in the GVRD's notion of the RTC wi l l be a function of the divergence of municipal opinion from that of regional authorities at the level of broad policy and at the level of conceiving the town centre. Therefore we wi l l have to complete a comparative analysis of policy and conceptions in order to trace the divergence. We can assume, of course, that the two govern-ments wi l l most def in i te ly d i f fer in their viewpoints at these levels because each government is dealing at a different scale with different pol ic ies using di f ferent-tools . These di f fer ing viewpoints, however, only become relevant when they result in an inab i l i ty of regional and local parties to cooperate to achieve the RTC. The necessity for cooperation only occurs when a specif ic aspect of the RTC must be handled and a speci f ic 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 pol ic ies , we have no way to conclude through a simple comparison what policy positions wi l l lead to contentions on the RTC. Consequently, we are forced to go beyond a compara-t ive analysis. The fact that disagreements emerge c lear ly 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 f ind that speci f ic action requiring specif ic 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 ca l ls this approach a 'design probe' (Lynch, 1971, 230) which he defines as the proposition 17. of a f i r s t solution to an environmental design problem so that the designer can come face to face with the issues that surround the problem. The design probe is based on schematic information and i t is meant to be discarded after i t pinpoints the issues. When regional and local authorities disagree on an aspect of the probe design that aspect becomes an issue. For the analysis, the regional and local positions on an issue are predicted by reference to the broader comparisons of pol ic ies that preceeds the probe design. We have noted previously, however, that responsibi l i t ies for s i te design and the powers to back up such responsib i l i t ies are c learly in the realm of the local government. This being the case, the probe design cannot be an ad hoc exercise by the designer. The simulated changes in the environment of the RTC s ite must be derived from local policy considerations such that i t becomes a local design solution against which a probable regional reaction can be compared. The regional reaction can also be derived from broader regional policy so that the juxtaposition of the regional and local view around issues represents a translation of differences from the general to the spec i f i c . 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 f i r s t is to isolate the issues. The second is to show the relationship between these issues and broader pol icy. 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 l imi ts , poss ib i l i t ies and c r i t e r i a . . . " (Lynch, 1971, 28). As a t r i a l -18. and-error exercise that surveys a broad range and combination of possible solutions to each aspect of the overall design problem, the design process suggests ways that disagreements around some issues can be reconciled. Indeed, Archer observes that " . . . the art of designing is the art of reconci l iat ion." (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 l imit to this capabil ity is where the reconci l iat ion of an issue cannot be achieved without one or both opposing parties changing their broader po l i c ies . This is because the design probe and the predicted regional responses are both based on a l i s t i n g of assumed policy for each of the two governments. Gregory makes the point that " . . . the practice of design turns upon some system of values" (Gregory, 1966, 81 ). These values are reflected in pol icy. As such the design simply cannot discover alternative recon-c i l i a t ions outside of i ts policy sett ing. What is l e f t 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 eff icacy of policy in l ight of the issues and in relation to other pol icy. 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 wil l this design process be undertaken? There 19. are many design methods and Archer laments that Unfortunately, the science of design method has not yet reached a degree of sophistication which wi l l permit the use of agreed axioms, or even the use of agreed terminology. (Archer, 1963,72). The need is to select a design method that is suited to the evaluative function to which the probe design is oriented. Broadbent does assist in this selection by c lassi fy ing 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 rat ional is t framework (Broadbent, 1973, 55-72). In selecting the design method these generic approaches, both of which have eminent histor ical 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 s i te . In contrast, the rat ional ists are "...concerned with what they know to be true as a result of reasoned thinking" (Broadbent, 1973, 58). The intention of the rat ional ists is to conceive a process of design that is overt, discreet and comprehensible. Brunon's comment exemplifies the rat ional ist att itude: 20. . . . information must be structured before i t can be acted upon in design development...judgments are made on the basis of . . . s tructured information rather than made a rb i t ra r i l y on the basis of unstructured information (Brunon, 1970, 1 & 20). As a method for the probe design that we wi l l 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 s ite design in a connected series of steps. This method is essential ly provided by the rat ional is t framework. Broadbent, Blumrich and Gregory among many others present similar models of the rat ional is t design method (Broadbent, 1973, 181 ; Blumrich, 1970, 1551 ; Gregory, 1966, 11) and these can be summarized as including essential ly the following phases that are relevant to the design probe: i . problem def init ion and analysis; i i . goals formulation; i i i . modelling the ideal solution; and iv . design applicaton of model to subject s i t e . The design approach that has been ut i l i zed in the present research ref lects this framework although the empiricist aspect wi l l 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 paral lel l ines . The same framework is u t i l i zed 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 authorit ies. 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 i t s planning pol icy, this phase also becomes the broad policy component in the comparative analysis of the research. The col lect ion 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 specif ic c r i t e r i a . To quote Amos Rapoport: . . . ( f o r ) the success of any design, we need to know what a 'good environment' is for the given s i tuat ion, the types of spaces and their relation to the images and schemata, the cu l tura l ly accepted devices for achieving the transit ions, barr iers, and definit ions of realms, the degree of complexity for different people and types of movement and the l i k e . (Rapoport, 1969, 139). Since the probe design is undertaken from the local viewpoint, the analysis must summarize that viewpoint in suff ic ient detail to f a c i l i t a t e a compre-hensive design consideration of the chosen s i te . 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 art iculated. Therefore the researcher in i t iated 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 s i te at Kingsway/Central Park in Burnaby. This is the phase of the design process that graphically examines the various design alternatives for f i t t i n g the concept to the s i te . It does this within the framework of constraints that the s i te 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 detai ls of design are intu i t ive and not real ly definable--what Moore has called the 'black box method'. It is the creative step in design and is espoused by a s ignif icant grouping of design theorists, notably Osborn, Gordon, Matchett and Broadbent (Moore, 1970, 5). As a response to s i te conditions, the application phase of the design probe as we wi l l use i t here is similar to the empiricist approach noted ear l ier except that the idealized model is an equally inf luential 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 ref lects their consensus for the purposes at hand. The product of the design process is a preliminary land use scheme as i t would be loca l ly undertaken. This is called the probe plan'to indicate that i t 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 reconci l iations 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 f inal introductory note, i t should be stated that the analysis focusses on a reconci l iat ion of professional differences and i t assumes that decisions are made within the rat ional i ty of the problem at hand. As such, i t does not incorporate that range of po l i t i ca l influences that affect a po l i t i c ian ' s decision on a problem regardless of the inter ior logic of arguments about that problem.. This is because the more complex po l i t i ca l rat ional i ty is not amenable to prediction with the analytical tools we have chosen to use. The reconci l iat ion of issues in the po l i t i ca l sphere is rea l ly a separate though equally s ignif icant 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 pol i t ic ians in both Burnaby and the GVRD. In some respects, the detai ls have been l e f t with the bureaucrats while, of course, the pol i t ic ians reserve f inal approvals for themselves. Because the problem is therefore now in the professional realm, this wi l l be the emphasis of the study. Having outlined the purpose and methodology of this research, we can now proceed with the analysis. We wi l l start with a general comparison of policy in the following chapter and move to more specif ic levels of analysis in later chapters. 24. PHONAL-3 LOCAL, CfiNJ>, aw m&$>\ N / fl&SjlOHAL, - k L O A L FLAN / f^Utr Roofs OF i*sae& _ k K & V l S l f l N T O 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 wi l l be reviewed. The goals and strategies adopted to respond to these problems wi l l also be outl ined. Through this we can isolate the role that each government pro-poses the multifunctional centre to play in i ts planning strategies. The intention of this background work is twofold. It wi l l make comprehensible the specif ic RTC conceptions to be detailed in the next phase of the analysis. It wil l also pinpoint where the roles proposed for the RTC are p a r a l l e l , where they diverge and how this relates to the government's goals and strategies. The findings in this respect wi l l be used later in categorizing and attempting to resolve specif ic RTC issues. The regional situation and then the local situation wi l l be surveyed followed by a comparison. A. GVRD - THE REGIONAL POLICY SETTING: The origin and basic powers of the GVRD have already been outl ined. 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 spec i f i ca l ly on regional problems, goals and strategies. A review of the origin and history of the program wil l provide perspectives for later discussion of selected deta i ls . 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 staf f . The exercise was based on an approach to planning that considered i t essential to the process that planning be grounded in the needs, wants, attitudes of the people l iv ing in the area. (Smith, 1974, 2). The i n i t i a l meetings were positive so the program was formalized in late 1972. GVRD staff met with 40to 50 community groups. Out of this public process a Report on L ivab i l i ty was produced that also incorporated questionnaire data and other GVRD studies. This document formed a guide to a further round of discussions with cit izens which in 1975 resulted in the publication of The Livable Region 1976/1986. This document too was reviewed publicly and i t s principles have now been endorsed by the GVRD Board. While the later c i t izens ' participatory process was not nearly as dynamic as the ear l ier meetings and was augmented by a more conventional land use approach (Smith, 1974, 3) i t is clear that the issues and solutions proposed in the L ivab i l i ty Program ref lect a lay as well as : a professional view. 28. A l . Regional Problems: What kinds of problems became evident in this c i t i zen involved planning process? The GVRD seems to have con-cluded that almost a l l 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 ref lect an imbalanced growth configuration in the region which means that both the costs and benefits of growth are not equally shared by a l l the region's communities. They summarize this situation as follows: The central munic ipal i t ies . . .are largely bu i l t up, and the main burden of rapid population growth has been fa l l ing on the outlying Municipalities of Surrey, Coquitlam, Delta and Richmond. The burden of growth—providing more roads, u t i l i t i e s , schools and other public services for more people, and minimizing the disruption of people's dai ly l i v e s — i s f a l l i n g 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 t rave l l ing ." (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 l i t t l e afford. The GVRD calculates that, with growing population, to keep travel times roughly the same as today wi l l require a fourfold increase in expenditures under a managed growth program and yet this is ...less than one-half the expenditure that wi l l be required i f we allow present trends to continue, with people l iv ing farther and farther from places of work, education and le isure. (GVRD, 1975,22). d. Because of the region's geographical constraints, there is l imited space for continued urban expansion under current density trends: Room to grow in this region is severely l i m i t e d . . . by the sea, mountain slopes, floodplains and valuable farm and recreation land. Physical l imits to growth res t r i c t 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 s i tes , off ices and other urban uses. (Yet).. .people want to preserve the natural assets of the reg ion. . . they want natural places in and close to c i t i e s . (GVRD, 1975, 26 & 27). f . With the industr ia l izat ion of the c i t y , pollution has increased and "people do not want pollution to ruin the clean a i r and clean water or shatter the quiet which has attracted so many of them here."(GVRD, 1975,7). Regional Planning Goals and Strategy: In response to the problems defined by the GVRD from c i t izen response and staff analysis, the central goals for the region have been framed essential ly 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 re lat ive ly 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, r iver-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 f e l t to be re lat ive ly well in hand. GVRD programs in sewage treatment, water control , a i r pollution control (except vehicle emissions) and sol id waste disposal are f e l t to be attacking the pollution problem and urban development management wil l augment these programs. The GVRD also has an aggressive program to purchase and develop public park space throughout the region. The main framework for the GVRD's L ivab i l i ty 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 essential ly to accept predicted growth levels (while s t i l l trying to minimize unnecessary growth by working with senior levels of government on immigration po l i c ies , etc.) and to manage that growth by " . . .channel l ing population growth to the right places in the region" (GVRD, 1975, 5). Thus they propose what they t i t l e "A Strategy to Manage Growth". This strategy has essential ly 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 L ivab i l i ty 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 l ink residential areas, RTCs and major work areas. The GVRD notes that a 3 ...good transit system is the backbone of regional development. It wil l help make Regional Town Centres viable, and in turn, transit-oriented Regional Town Centres wi l l 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 a f fa i r with a decidedly functional orientation. The kinds of environments that must be evolved are only l i ght ly touched upon. The GVRD does, however, emphasize the interrelatedness of a l l strategy components and they i l lus t rate this with a ni f ty l i t t l e diagram which is shown in Plate 5 . As such i t seems the strategy is quite h o l i s t i c , that i t has been defined through a preconceived process and that i t would attack the spectrum of regional problems identif ied 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 ac t iv i t i es proposed for decentralization—shopping, cultural and job-bearing a c t i v i t i e s . This is important to avoid sprawl that might otherwise result from moves to 33. 60W&: <K,VftD,l975,fxlCJi 4VKD.' 6 6TfAT^iT fOK R^OWtH decentralize. The lack of usable land in the region makes the avoidance of sprawl c ruc ia l . b. The nature of the RTC as a concentrated act iv i ty node within a sub-regional catchment area 'out where people l i v e ' means that the RTC takes on a s ignif icant role of creating a close home/job and home/other ac t iv i t ies interface. c. As already noted, RTCs create foc i i f a c i l i t a t i n g e f f i c ient and inexpensive public transit as an alternative to the private car. d. By concentrating act iv i ty i t is hoped that pressures on open space that should be preserved wi l l be lessened. In summary, the GVRD sees most regional problems as being related to growth. It recommends that growth should be managed to solve these problems and the idea of a fa i r d i s t r i -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 L ivab i l i ty Program has been a re lat ive ly straightfoward and organized a f fa i r 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, c i t izen/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 i t s evolution in the policy documents of the Municipality. Perhaps the primary motivating force behind local planning has been the onslaught of development experienced by Burnaby in recent years. The f i r s t overt attempt to cope with 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 individual ly serviced as they were opened to redevelop-ment. Almost immediately, however, i t was clear that a total rethinking of land-use policy would be desirable because of the spectrum of development requests that tended to accompany apartment construction. Thus a survey of the structure of local land-use was undertaken in the late 1960s and f i n a l l y published in 1971 under the t i t l e Urban Structure: A Study of Long Range Policies Which Affect the Physical Structure of an Urban Area. This work took a broad visionary perspective. After reviewing various alternative land-use structures, i t boldly recommended an "intermittent grid of metrotowns", a series of compact urban settlements surrounded by green space and connected by various transportation linkages (Sixta, 1971, 62,79). While this document was to set a tone for municipal strategy formation, i t was f e l t to be perhaps too conceptual. What was needed in a practta l 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 specif ic s i te configurations, density guidelines, open space requirements and commercial s i te 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 di f ferentiat ion 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 i t posited were not forgotten. To " . . .ga in acceptance of the pol ic ies contained in the report" (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974,2), the local authorities in i t iated a series of public meetings to review the report's proposals. The meetings were held occasionally but were well-attended. But in 1973, i t was observed by staff participants that " . . . the nature of public meetings has changed, a s . i t is clear that people no longer want ready answers" (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974,3). Therefore the scope of the meetings was broadened to a review of the overall planning approach in Burnaby, the emphasis on the concepts in Urban Structure was dropped and the schedule of meetings was regularized. The new guiding principle was . . . t o give the residents of Burnaby a chance to state what their concerns are, in what way they would l ike to see their Municipality grow, and i f they had an image of the future c i ty . (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 3). Actually, the planners realized that Urban Structure would simply never make i t through the po l i t i ca l process and that the veracity of existing working policy needed to be p o l i t i c a l l y buttressed by public opinion. The findings of the meetings as analyzed by staff in a comparison with in-place pol ic ies were published in 1974 under the t i t l e , Public Meetings: Phase One. Predictably, this report concluded that the public was opposed to the sweeping proposals of Urban Structure but that the working pol ic ies as outlined in the Apartment  Studies e t c . , met most c i t izens ' concerns. To provide a theoretical footing for these in-place po l i c ies , the report salvaged what i t could from Urban Structure. Through this integration of theoretical and practical perspectives, the strategy of a settlement hierarchy was f ina l l y articulated in a full-blown fashion. Essential ly this concept stressed that higher density uses should be clustered and that these clusters should be arranged to create a conscious scaling of settlements (neighbourhood, community, d i s t r i c t , town and metrotown) with centres serving complementarily-scaled population groupings. As a ref lect ion of what had essent ia l ly already been achieved, this idea in the Public Meetings Report real ly represented the f inal dominance of practical day-to-day concerns over theoret ical , long-range considerations. The Public Meetings Report, however, is also s ignif icant because i t brought together for the f i r s t time a long history of small-scaled, ad hoc planning decisions as well as public inputs to art iculate what was, in fact , an already working pol icy. Moreover, i t did this concisely by stating municipal problems as voiced by the public, tying these to existing pol ic ies and relating these pol ic ies into a cohesive frame-work. This document was consequently p o l i t i c a l l y potent. What local po l i t i c ian 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 ver i f ies the col lect ion 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 authorit ies. 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 1i festy le . . .The Municipality which has long been considered a place of residential s tab i l i t y 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 i ts natural state are f e l t to be part icular ly endangered. b. It is realized that demands are growing for expanded housing choices in Burnaby because of changing demographic and economic conditions. This is part icular ly relevant to the growth in demand for multiple-family accommodation, say local o f f i c i a l s , because no longer does every one desire or can everyone afford the single-family dwelling a l ter-native. c. The histor ical dependence upon downtown Vancouver has tended to circumscribe the range of services (publ ic ly and privately provided) available to local residents. Suburbs such as Burnaby are tending toward a homogeneity where there wi l l be " . . . l ong distances to travel to obtain the conveniences of urban l i v i n g . " (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 c i t i zen . Uncontrolled suburbanization i t is f e l t , while not real ly providing new kinds of experiences at 40. the urban leve l , even threatens to extinguish experience potentials at the rural and natural leve l : 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 f e l t that there is an imbalance of jobs and residents in Burnaby not necessarily related to the number but to the type of jobs avai lable: The provision of employment opportunities is a necessary part of the development of the Municipality;. . .(needed is) a diversity of employment opportunit ies. . . (Burnaby Planning Department, 1974, 30, 31). f. Traf f ic and growing automobile incompatibility with other act iv i t ies is f e l t 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 l i v ing i n . . . the area. ( Y e t ) . . . i t 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 authorit ies, we can survey the goals specif ied to resolve these problems: a. The Municipality has adopted the position that while growth can in a l l l ikel ihood not be stopped at the local level because i t involves policy at a l l levels of government, i t should be avoided where i t is patently detrimental. When i t does occur, the goal should be to use i t " . . . i n 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 re lat ive ly character ist ic , a crucial goal to be achieved is a diversity of services, f a c i l i t i e s , jobs, housing types and environmental experiences. This must involve the provision of truly urban services and f a c i l i t i e s now available only at Vancouver centre. It must involve the provision of a component of white co l lar 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 i t 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 l i n e s . . . ( t o accommodate) . . . a variety of urban l i f e styles. (Sixta, 1971, 24). c. A strong program to preserve natural open space and pol ic ies 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 l eve l . 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 conf l icts between homes and street noise and pol lut ion. The intent is to strive for a system of e f f i c ient balanced modes. Thus the thrust of planning objectives is to use growth to diversify and organize ac t iv i t ies while protecting existing amenities. The strategy to be ut i l i zed to achieve these goals is essential ly 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 acquisit ion. Burnaby Mountain, Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake and s ignif icant segments of the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet foreshores have been handled through these means. Major ravine areas have been acquired and a plan to connect these ravines with other parklands to create a l inear 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 wi l l 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 dist inct ion between heavy upgrading of east/west through-routes and t r a f f i c management (with less physical upgrading) on north/south local streets. A substantial expansion of the bus transit system related to Municipal act iv i ty centres is proposed whereas r a i l - t r a n s i t proposals of senior governments are endorsed but not seriously depended upon. The recommendations of the report are now being implemented. The hierarchy of settlements with i t s variously sized commercial f a c i l i t i e s and closely associated multiple-family d i s t r i c t s 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 pol ic ies 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 c l ients 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 act iv i ty 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 c ruc ia l . It is conceived to provide the highest order of shopping and white co l lar 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 wil l be unique in Burnaby and wi l l allow the accommodation of l i f es ty les not available or appropriate elsewhere in the Municipality. b. The size of the Metrotown is t ied to the idea that i t must take a role of accepting a s ignif icant component of new growth that cannot be avoided by the Municipality. This wil l result in several advantages as seen by Burnaby planners: pressure wi l l be lessened for the development of open space reserves and the redevelopment of cohesive low-density neighbourhoods. A c r i t i c a l mass of act iv i ty can be achieved that makes a broad range of services and variety of housing feasible. And the tax base of the Municipality wi l l be substantially augmented. c. F ina l ly , the Metrotown wil l take a role as a d is t inct act iv i ty 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 in i t ia t ion of ra i l transit that has been 46. regionally discussed and the r e a l i s t i c inclusion of walking as a viable means to move from local place to place. This last point is because the close proximity of shopping and jobs cuts the length of necessary tr ips for a s ignif icant number of c i t i zens . In summary, the Municipality of Burnaby has determined to accept growth when i t can be used to enhance local circumstances. The hallmark of local thinking is to diversi fy 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 spec i f i c , the Metrotown takes the major role in this respect. The Metrotown is thus proposed as a comprehensive, urbanized assenbly of use whose residential aspect makes i t a d ist inct ive municipal settlement. It is apparent that local authorities tend to approach their problems by con-cluding what is possible on spec i f ic s i tes . While there is a theoretical l ine of reasoning in their analysis, their strategy is rea l ly a col lect ion of specif ic 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 essential ly paral lel in a broad sense. Both authorities see growth as the central issue to be faced. Both wish to arrange urban ac t iv i t i es into perceivable 47. clusters. Both see a strong need to protect open space. And both consider the question of movement a v ita l one. It might be said that the GVRD and Burnaby are speaking the same language and this enhances their l ikel ihood to co-operate. On the other hand, i t is also evident that the perspectives of the two governments are not completely the same even at the broad policy leve l . In part this is due to the pressures of d i f fer ing cons istenc ies and in part i t is due to the differences in the way the agencies approach their separate problem-solving processes. The GVRD must satisfy a broad col lect ion of groups making diverging demands from re lat ive ly powerful positons. Most important in this respect is the necessity to reconcile the powerful local governments within i ts ju r i sd ic t ion . Burnaby has a more constricted grouping of interests to resolve because the majority of i ts 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 pol icy. -In terms of methodologies used to direct growth, the two agencies have both been concerned with defining problems. However, the GVRD has taken a ho l i s t i c approach that is basical ly theoretical whereas Burnaby has taken a pragmatic approach where theory is 48. subservient to practice. Thus the regional strategy has evolved in a l inear 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 po l i t i ca l and public consumption. In Burnaby the statement of problems never became overt unti l after a strategic policy had become a fa i t accompli and problems were then outlined part ia l ly to just i fy that pol icy. This of course is generally the result of d i f fer ing bases of power and responsibi l i ty between the two bodies. The GVRD has l i t t l e specif ic land-use power and i ts land-use planning function is rea l ly advisory to local authorit ies. Burnaby, in contrast, has major land-use powers delegated by the Province in the zoning and development approval clauses of the Municipal Act. As such, Burnaby must cope with the pervasive and increasing pressure of immediate development and i t has few resources and l i t t l e time to consider i ts planning approach in an overall fashion. The local government must be practical in i ts 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, responsibi l i ty and approach have signif icant 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 i t . However the regional plan-ners want each municipality to accept an equal share of the burden of growth, either by d irect ly accepting increased populations or by helping those municipalities that wil l grow the most. The GVRD makes a plea that local areas adopt i ts 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 wi l l co-operate. If i t feels the targets are too high or too low, Burnaby wi l l ignore them. The cr i ter ion for Burnaby is how i ts environment is affected by new populations and act iv i ty as judged by the ongoing specif ic decisions on various development proposals. While the Metrotown is seen by Burnaby planners as a vehicle to handle growth, i ts configuration wi l l not be determined by regionally imposed population minimums or maximums but by what the Kingsway/Central Park s i te can effect ively accommodate. The role defined for the Metrotown and the constraints of the actual s i te wi l l be Burnaby's main determinants. C2. Importance of the Regional Centre: For the GVRD, the Metrotown is but one of several RTCs that i t wishes to see developed at the same time. Thus GVRD energies are proposed to be strategical ly distributed among these centres. While the GVRD gives the Metrotown a pr ior i ty status i t also gives this status equally to the proposed New bO. Westminster RTC and emphasizes the importance of RTCs in Surrey and Coquitlam as.wel l . In contrast, to Burnaby, the Metrotown is the unique urban phenomenon in the Municipal scheme of things. It is conceived to f u l f i l Municipal requirements whose demands are growing. Thus, Burnaby wi l l respect l i t t l e the sympathies to equal treatment expressed by the GVRD. In a competitive situation with other RTCs the Burnaby authorities wil l 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 v i ta l function of accepting decentralized ac t iv i t ies from Vancouver centre. As such the GVRD defines the term "centre" as a focus of ac t iv i t i es serving the requirements of a surrounding population whose numbers wi l l surely increase but who are essential ly 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 "sett le-ment" to house local people, not simply a central core to service outsiders. The separate t i t l e s chosen by the two authorities for the place—"Regional Town Centre" and local "Metrotown"--hint at this basic conceptual difference. 51. Movement: The GVRD has as a central platform in i t s strategy the creation of a viable public rapid-transit linkage connecting i ts RTCs and the Vancouver CBD. Without this linkage the total strategy would be in jeopardy. The region specifies that with development of the transit a lternative, 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 posit ion. 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 i l l u s i v e idea. Rather the rea l i ty 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 s imilar ly defined by the agencies although using different analytical approaches that respond to d i f fer ing constituencies and power r e a l i t i e s . The conceptions, therefore, of growth ( i ts 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 specif ic conceptions or images of the multifunctional centre in Burnaby. 53, CHAPTER THREE RTC MODELS AND COMPARISON 54. Against the backdrop of policy formulations outlined ear l ie r , we can now move to a consideration of the models for the RTC that have been constructed by the regional and local planners as guides for RTC design and implementation decisions. In this chapter, the regional and local models are summarized and then compared. The comparison wi l l pinpoint where the RTC ideas of the governments diverge at the conceptual l eve l . These differences wi l l be used later in the process of reconcil ing specif ic issues between the two governments. The summary of the local concept, however, not only fac i l i ta tes the comparison which is desired, but i t also sets a conceptual direction for the speci f ic Kingsway/Central Park s i te design which we have proposed to undertake from a local perspective. The regional conceptualization of the RTC is summarized from existing and ava i l -able GVRD reports and staff comments. This is not possible for the local concept. Prior to the present research, Burnaby planners had not art iculated a concept for the Metrotown that reflected local staf f agreement. Therefore the f i r s t necessity of the research was to draw together such a concept. To this end, a four-month period of ful l-t ime discussion between the researcher and local planners was in i t iated 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 part ic ipat ing. These general principles comprise the local Metrotown concept and a l i s t i n g 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 cal l 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 wi l l use in taking action on the RTC. Thus we can expect these views to stand at the opposite poles in regional and local disagreements over RTC issues. Having said th i s , we can proceed with the survey and comparison of RTC models. By way of preface, we can state thumbnail sketches that have been published by regional and local planners to arouse public interest in the idea of the regional centre. While these sketches are br ief , they do i l lus t ra te 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 real izat ion of an integrated and identi f iable focus of res ident ia l , commercial, and social components for the Municipality. It is envisaged that the inhabitants of the Metrotown together with their supporting f a c i l i t i e s and services would provide for a new sense of v i t a l i t y and attract ion. Typical ly , these supporting f a c i l i t i e s would be developed within a pedestrian environment and would include a series of linked malls and plazas incorporating a wide range of commercial and social opportunities. While the Metrotown would l ike ly be developed on a super-block basis and would include a commercial and of f ice element, i t would not be modelled after the tradit ional auto-oriented central business d i s t r i c t in terms of general function and character ist ics . (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 s ize. At a minimum i t should have a mil l ion square feet of off ice space, gross annual reta i l 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 i ts quality and character. There are features of a c i ty 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 - Act iv i t ies and f a c i l i t i e s 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 th is . . A widely varied but balanced mixture of ac t iv i t i es -A Regional Town Centre should be al ive with many different act iv i t ies from morning to midnight (or later , depending on local preference). It should not be dominated by one act iv i ty l ike of f ice 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 qual i t ies . . .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 f ish 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 act iv i ty and others which are peaceful. (GVRD, 1975, 18). 57. THE REGIONAL RTC CONCEPT: Our present purpose is to f i l l out the general impressions and we can begin by examining stated regional specif ications for the RTC. Th basic source for these specif ications 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 i ts RTC description into topics of ac t iv i ty , s ize , transpor-tation and unique character ist ics . We wi l l use these same headings and f in ish our review with a survey of the RTC development approach proposed by the GVRD as this is the basic emphasis of the background report. A l . RTC Act iv i ty Specif ications: Act iv i ty specif ications 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 part icular ly for shopping and services^ The employment emphasis for the RTC is to be in the tert iary sector. On occasion, the RTC has even been cal led an "Office Centre" (Mann, 1974, 4). The GVRD c lass i f ies workplaces as "population-dependent" (act iv i t ies serving a local resident community), "site-dependent" (act iv i t ies that must have a certain kind of s i te to function wel l ) , and "s i te- f lex ib le" (act iv i t ies where neither consumer populations nor s i te necessities determine locations) (GVRD, 1974,16). The great majority of RTC jobs wi l l be in s i te - f lex ib le workplaces and some wi l l be in population-dependent workplaces primarily because these ac t iv i t i es wi l l be easiest to draw to the RTC. 58. A major component of these s i te- f lex ib le of f ice workplaces is proposed to be provided in RTCs by locating large businesses and government off ice f a c i l i t i e s within them. It is assumed that support functions wi l l follow these insta l lat ions . However, RTC act iv i ty should be varied and off ices 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 off ice act iv i t ies that might tend to scatter to alternative smaller centres are to be directed to RTC locations. The report itemizes recommended RTC ac t iv i t i es as per the l i s t i n g in PI ate 8 . RTC Size Specif ications: Size is important to attract development and users to the RTC and to house the great amount of act iv i ty 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 wi l l have to be comparable to that using the downtown of a small c i ty before independent RTC growth can be expected. This is the rationale for this specif icat ion. b. An overall employment target should be from 7,000-10,000 jobs. As has been noted, the majority of these wi l l be of f ice jobs. 59. "THfc, MIX Of ACr/Vrri^6lH £Xl6TlN^  TOWN C&HTf*\&b T+« n=V>f*>5£P MIX O f ACT|Vltl&6 IN fVfX* 6oa*£f3:faVr\D, 1*575, p. 2X3). HO $a*NriT)£5 <SUVEN. 4V.f\.D.'6 Activities MIX 60Mfi\r\|60N , PLATS 7 60. Some Major Regional Town Centre Act iv i t i es : . Business and Government off ices . Art, Music, and Oance Studios . Hotel and Convention F a c i l i t i e s . Department Stores . Commercial Services (such as lawyers, accounting, insurance, pr int ing, and off ice supply) . Main Banks and Financial Institutions . Community Colleges Vocational Training . Larger Museums and Exhibition Halls . Sports Centres . Theatres . Social Services (such as welfare, doctors' o f f i ces , and day care Some Act iv i t ies 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 Act iv i t ies Not Appropriate for Regional Town Centres: Industrial Manufacturing . Warehousing and Distributing . Surface Parking . Automobile Sales and Repair SOURCE; (Spaeth, 1976, • J). D h ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OT RTC MAJOR AC f lY lT l f S tot K-k-rn _ centres) PLATS 661. c. GVRD findings indicate that Retail and specialized service businesses serving a population of 100,000-150,000 persons wi l l generate annual sales of about $50 mil l ion in space tota l l ing about 700,000 sq . f t . but create only about 1,500-2,000 jobs. (Spaeth, 1976, 10). Thus the proposed reta i l specif ication for the RTC has now been set at approximately double this research f inding. d. Community services and cultural ac t i v i t i es in RTCs wi l l 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 . f t . e. 2,000-3,000 dwellings should be provided within walking distance of the RTC to create an immediate c l ientale 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 ac t iv i t ies should be f i t ted onto a s ite 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 Specif ications: GVRD desire's t h a t access be provided primarily by l ight rapid transit and a transit station should be conveniently near a l l RTC a c t i v i t i e s . Movement within the RTC should be accomplished basical ly on foot and " . . . a continuous system of pedestrian c irculat ion wi l l 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 i l lustrated by the GVRD diagram in Plate 9 . . A4. RTC Character Specif ications: Essential ly the character of the RTC as articulated by the GVRD's thumbnail sketch above is about as specif ic a description as the regional planners have provided. The reader wil l recal l that the description talked about a strong pedestrian orientation, a widely varied but balanced mixture of act iv i ty (to extend the active period of the place each day), a human scale and a l i s t of experiential qua l i t ies . This description has only been further augmented by the following GVRD comments: a. "Although comparable in size and mix of a c t i v i t i e s , the proposed Regional Town Centres should each respond to the qual it ies of i ts specif ic sett ing. For example...Central Park Burnaby could take advantage of i ts central i ty to become a head-quarters for population-serving businesses. . ." (Spaeth, 1976, 13). ^ . V A P ' 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 ac t iv i t i es that are popular and interesting even i f they are not 'economic' in the s t r i c t sense." (Spaeth, 1976, 17). d. "Housing in Regional Town Centres should be for mixed incomes and 1ifestyles. . .Housing and space for certain types of ac t iv i t ies should be combined." (Spaeth, 1976, 19). Referring to RTC character, the GVRD also notes that people l i v ing near and using the Centre should be heavily involved in deciding upon the character of the environments to be created in order that people wi l l relate to the urbanity that is achieved. Approach to RTC Development: The GVRD makes an aggressive case that RTCs wi l l not occur on their own. At the same time, the regional planners stress that such development must occur i f regional growth is to be accommodated without sacr i f i c ing amenities in the region over the next ten years. Thus there is a ca l l by the GVRD for governments to take active in i t ia t ives to have the pr ior i ty RTCs functioning by 1986. On this basis, the GVRD recommends the following immediate government actions: a. RTC design must meet employer needs i f i t is to attract the necessary business act iv i t ies to i t . To determine these needs, the GVRD has undertaken a "Corporation Survey" (Mann, 1974) and i t recommends that RTC designers satisfy these corporation specif ications as l i s ted in Plate 10. 65. ~T~. A CLEAR PLAN: . firm decisions about what RTC should be . master plan for Lower Mainland showing RTCs po l i t i ca l backing at a l l government levels . def inite statements as to transit routes and stations . re lat ively 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 of f ice users . economical land and rental costs freedom from uneconomic restr ict ions on s ite configuration and desi gn . measures to stabi l ize climate for investment i n i t i a l 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 reta i l businesses 4. TRANSPORTATION: . ease of automobile access . rapid transit between RTC, downtown and outlying areas . definite policy on transit 5. AMENITIES: . impressive sett ing, unique architecture, and landscaping ('presitge image') . variety shopping, entertainment, and cultural ac t iv i t ies 6. BUSINESS CHARACTER: . a substantial banking, legal , accounting, and financial sector in RTCs . establishment of auxi l iary head off ices in RTCs . grouping of head off ices of similar interdependent industries and related service businesses . should include both residential and commercial population . relat ive 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 fu l l 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 c r i t i c a l rights-of-way is also advocated. Toward these ends a revolving 'Advanced Land Acquisition Fund1 has been endorsed p o l i t i c a l l y and is being established. Government of f ice decentralization is a key to RTC v iab i l i t y as noted above and GVRD recommends that a l l governments give pr ior i ty 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 ac t iv i t ies from Vancouver Centre. The GVRD is now investigating such procedures and has worked with the City of Vancouver in the down-zoning of traditional act iv i ty cluster locations in the Broadway and downtown areas of the central c i ty . 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 f e l t 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 t r a n s i t planning function from Provincial departments (GVRD, 1975:2,10). g. A clear plan for each RTC should be prepared to i l lus t rate to potential RTC locatees that a complete business and leisure environment wi l l be provided. To ensure that development conforms to the plan and that continuity of the plan over time is retained, the GVRD recommends that each local RTC plan be registered with Provincial authorities as an "Off ic ia l Community Plan". h. The regional planners suggest that the success of the RTC is dependent upon a viable development management process " . . . t h a t can make decisions effect ively while representing the variety of interests that wi l l 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 staf f to help prepare plans and programs as well as administering and marketing the development. (Spaeth, 1976,36) The "Development Corporation" would have representation from municipal, regional and Provincial authorities and would have a structure as i l lustrated on the GVRD diagram shown in Plate 11. 68. ,— / MUNICIPAL \ ,fS^ P 5 B 6 e m A T l O r J / TECHNIC*- \ / ^ l i r t « H / T T \ ADYlGfs ff^OIW 1 A N P / W e a r pAfsnawiay l iA t t t tE f lN^ P P i Q ^ r W i M I ^ f l i l AWAL . 6rMW^6 6C6IAL. PLANNING 6«4f\J£; (•fePAfcTH , l? f^, p. ^.Y.FN.P'6 C 0 r i 6 m o r 1H& DEVELOPMENT CORP. PLATE »l In summary, there can be l i t t l e argument that the GVRD's concept of the RTC 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 superf ic ial consideration. Yet this is understandable when we realize that the GVRD would have l i t t l e power to manipulate local governments into accepting more concrete schemes even i f these were prepared. Moreover, this makes i t d i f f i c u l t for regional planners to get authorization from 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 real ly on each local government to give a detailed substance to the RTC that is located within i ts ju r i sd i c t ion . Physical environments are real ly a local matter with the caveat that they wi l l 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 wi l l summarize those discussions. The basic topic areas—act iv i ty , s i ze , transportation, character and approach—that were used in the summary of the regional concept above wi l l also be used in discussing the local concept in order to f a c i l i t a t e later comparisons. B l . Metrotown Act iv i ty Specif ications: Burnaby planners conceive the Metrotown as having a dual nature. They stress that i t has act iv i t ies used by a surrounding regional population but that i t wil l also be the home of a large number of people who l ive "in town" so that much of Metrotown space is only loca l ly s igni f icant . Out of this typology the planners build the idea that the Metrotown wil l have impacts that are different for people l i v ing increasingly distant from i ts centre and to ref lect 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 a c t i v i t i e s . Regarding the in-town residential population, the planners choose to u t i l i z e a concept of neighbourhoods. The neighbourhoods would be discreet units through which servicing is provided. These units would also have c lear ly defined edges in order that a sense of t e r r i t o r i a l identity might develop such that neighbourhood social inst itutions could form i f 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 0PrWTUNir i£6 AfifS SXPAhP^P IN A MAvlOf^ WAY BUT PHY6I6A{_ LAHD5cAP£ p o e e Nor OlAr0|i5 ir l r lPDiATP Dja^oPtlgNT AfttSA— • AfS£A O f LANDSCAPE 6+lAN£fl5 -fS^p^YBLOfH^W 066UP6 P L A T E IZ. 72. within each neighbourhood and that each neighbourhood have local public park spaces as well as a social/recreation centre. These concepts are pulled together by the planners into a neighbourhood model that is i l lust rated in Plate 13. Regionally s ignif icant functions are also differentiated by the planners. Since their goal is to achieve a highly diverse combina-tion of urban a c t i v i t i e s , they f i r s t lay out a spectrum of uses to be accommodated in the centre. They say that there should be large shopping f a c i l i t i e s directed at serving the surrounding regional market (the key f a c i l i t i e s being department stores). The planners also specify that off ices be provided. They try to distinguish of f ice types as to the kind of environments and the kinds of support functions that different off ices would need. Their typology breaks off ices down into three types: i . 'corporate administrative headquarters' - off ices of national or international stature; i i . 'middle-market' administrative off ices that relate to a regional or sub-regional market area; and i i i . ' local service' off ices that relate to the local community. The planners specify that the Metrotown must serve a major tourist and entertainment function as wel l . They therefore conclude that a perceivable node of tourist ac t iv i t ies including hotels and convention f a c i l i t i e s should be created. They decide that entertain-ment functions would be found in the tourist node, but would also locate in a l l the central areas of the centre. The implication of w v y ^ v i a o o o o o o o o I 1 f I i CWH99 MIVJWO? AVHj ^ 9VJG y_/v_» ~jyxrf TVIIW o a i ^ * - JUi^waa S^MOI o o 74. this l i s t ing of ac t iv i t ies is that only a very few kinds of uses would be prohibited outright from the Metrotown (such as polluting industries, warehousing and the l ike) and this is exactly the interpretation that local planners would want. In terms of mixing uses, the local planners find i t highly desirable that there be a fine-grained mixture of ac t iv i t ies in any one project in the Metrotown centre and a concept as shown in Plate 14 is therefore advocated. The planners feel that this wil l 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 ac t iv i t ies that cal l for similar locational and environ-mental circumstances, that tend to support one another and that serve similar consumers. Thus the planners define a ' f i r s t order assembly' of ac t iv i t ies which would include:the large or middle-market prestige corporate o f f i ces , large-scaled and highly specialized commercial f a c i l i t i e s , major cultural/recreational/public f a c i l i t i e s and the host of uses that are anci l lary 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 off ices and a col lect ion of smaller commercial and service f a c i l i t i e s and appropriate anci l lary services. F inal ly , the planners define a ' th ird order assembly' of act iv i t ies which would be composed of small local o f f i ces , small independent boutiques and such things as art gal ler ies and a r t i s t s ' studios. These differentiated assemblies would form the continuum for Metrotown act iv i t ies 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: V E W K A I . 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 ear l i e r . What results from the planners' conceptualization of Metrotown act iv i t ies is an arrangement i l lustrated in Plate 15. Metrotown Size Specif ications: Municipal planners take the view that ultimate size specif ications as well as specif ications of maximum or minimum amounts of Metro-town act iv i t ies are not possible or relevant. They suggest that the Metrotown size wi l l depend on what size of s i te can be defined 'on the ground' without disturbing established surrounding single-family neighbourhoods. They also say that the amounts of act iv i ty wi l l depend on how much a defined s ite can actually accommodate. Essential ly , the local view is that the course of events wi l l 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 ac t iv i t ies relat ive to other ac t iv i t ies 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 col lect ion of functions wi l l co-exist at a l l times. This is f e l t to be necessary to ensure maximum opportunities and choices for the Municipality's c i t izens . Local planners start by looking at the evolved balance of the histor ical c i ty (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 T H M Aftfo HBAYICf IhT^W^ PLATE 19 78. METROPOLITAN PER CAPITA FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES Act iv i t ies Floor Area Per Capita (sq. f t . ) Retail 20-55 Office 2-15 Parking (on ground or in structure) 4-16 Public 1- 3.5 Quasi-Public 1- 3.5 Wholesale 5-15 Industrial 2-15 Residential 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 i l lust rated 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 specif ications 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 f a c i l i t i e s . They delimit the population of the neighbourhood unit by the number of people that create a viable unit to be serviced. 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 s i te constraints and cannot be defined in conceptual terms. c. The only other constraint that the local planners place on size would be the specif ication about the provision of park space and about the types of physical forms that are to be required in the Metrotown. These wi l l be discussed below. Overal l , Burnaby planners stress that the size of the Metrotown should f a c i l i t a t e the bringing together of suff ic ient 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 act iv i t ies 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 R E L A T I V E COMPARISON. MprfOr0WH:A6tlYr[lE6 MIX COIifArMOOH PLATS 17 81. town centres in Burnaby. Otherwise size specifications are le f t essential ly undefined and this is done on purpose by the planners to ensure design f l e x i b i l i t y . Metrotown Transportation Specif ications: Burnaby planners adopt a concept of transportation into and within the Metrotown that ref lects a balanced dependence on automobile, public transit and pedestrian movement. Automobile movement is f e l t to be something that cannot be avoided part icular ly in the immediate future. Therefore the local planners elect to provide an e f f i c ient street system using a hierarchy of streets (as shown on Plate 18). However, to protect major portions of the Metrotown from pervasive automobile intrust ion, the planners propose that through t r a f f i c be diverted around development spaces (as shown in Plate 19) and that cul-de-sacs be used to give access to individual properties. The planners assume that t rans i t , i f i t is implemented, wi l l be of a rapid street-car configuration u t i l i z i n g existing r a i l l ines . They want the transit to travel through and have stations in the Metrotown that wi l l be close to a l l in-town a c t i v i t i e s . They want these stations to be integrated with adjacent development to form a mixed-use complex that delivers transit riders d irect ly to where intensive Metrotown act iv i t ies occur. They also want the transit to d i rect ly serve in-town residential neighbourhoods so that these people wi l l not always choose to use their cars when t rave l l ing . At the same time, the local planners refuse to depend completely on transit and desire the Metrotown to be arranged so that i f necessary, i t could be accessed solely by the car over the long run. To provide the 82. A M D D O N O T I N ^ W J P f c T J r l f c 6 f £ N T A T S | & r 3 . PLATE l& 63. MFTWWN: tHrACXl^ H-rlOVF3HaiT 111 DSYflxOPHBlIT 6TA666 PI ATE 19 84. poss ib i l i ty of a change-over from auto to transit emphasis in the future, the planners propose to control a l l major parking f a c i l i t i e s (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 f i r s t choice. This means that development must be closely clustered to keep distarces short and that a well-defined, developed and easi ly 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 j i tney 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 act iv i ty ; that pathways should bisect development spaces to funnel the appropriate pedestrians into these areas; and that pedestrian crossroads should become important public meeting places. To integrate the Metrotown with surrounding areas, the planners specify that pathways should t ie into the proposed park-t r a i l system that wi l l extend throughout Burnaby. Overal l , the local concept for Metrotown movement is to provide access into the Metrotown by both transit and automobile and to provide c irculat ion within the Metrotown by pedestrian ways and supportive local public transit ( j i tney) . 85. Metrotown Character Specif ications: The basic character of the Metrotown say the local planners, should be one of high amenity and maximum urbanity. In conceptual terms, the planners translate this into the following aspects: a. Parks and open space should be major Metrotown features that are evident and accessible from almost any Metrotown vantage point. Open space should be provided within a l l 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 restr ic t ions . And major parks now existing on the s i te should be protected and expanded. The planners' open space notions are i l lustrated 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 wi l l require development of a continuous podium level for pedestrians with car movement and parking below (they dub this the '+15 act iv i ty leve l ' since the pedestrian plane would occur at about 15 feet above grade). c. A human scale should be preserved in Metrotown development at a l l costs using such devices as i l lustrated in Plate 22. d. The planners say that there should be transitions between di f ferent ly scaled act iv i t ies and between related ac t iv i t ies occurring at different levels ver t i ca l ly 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 f A M 6PACE 87. 1HI6 NOT f HI6 fl-AliT/M^4VARIo«6qr&IZCP :i r q i PLAN VI0W" 1HI6 MOT THIS 1WI6 w NcTTHI6 INTfcsfATION WITH PU&UC, OT£N 6PA6^ HISTIWOWH: 6HAfV6T^(6Tl66 Of PLATS Z.I HOT THIS- HI^Hf Of PU1LD1H4 JSXfo^p. THIS: V1£WOF fclHUPINOf SHIpUDpp. , ., - — • 0 c L—] • • DDI " 1 1 N0f THIS: BU1L.P1N4 ttA-bt) W P . N T^ THIS: jsusHpTHS To To RELATE To. "THIS: SMALL- pL-PniSHTS 10 PKAVV ATTmrionl METROfOWIi: A S r M S Of HIIHAH SCALP PLATE ZZ 89. l i t u i 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) wil l 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 act iv i t ies or be bui l t over or under so as not to disrupt a c t i v i t i e s . The local planners stress that the provision of amenity in the Metrotown as directed by the above amenity concepts must take the highest pr ior i ty over a l l other considerations i f 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 fo r the development of the Metrotown can be summarized in the following concepts: a. The f inal form and content of the Metrotown that is outlined conceptually above must be tempered by the real c o n d i t i o n s -potentials and constraints—of the actual s i te . H is tor ica l ly developed land use patterns and in-place buildings and act iv i t ies 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 essential ly a private-sector undertaking within the context of a c lear ly developed concept plan prepared by the Municipality. The plan must be f lex ib le however, so that local authorities can change i t when they wish and as they see f i t . 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 s i tuat ion; i . to provide normal public services and amenities; v. to art iculate the interests of Burnaby cit izens to assure that redevelopment ref lects 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 s i te has major areas ready for immediate redevelopment, but that this cannot bl ind them to the necessity of ensuring that a l l 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 wi l l set into motion development trends contrary to public conceptions of the area. 94. While they wi l l not adopt a development freeze, the local planners wil l also not rush into development but wil l str ive to create the best environment that the convergence of time and conditions can achieve. C. COMPARISON OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE METROTOWN In comparing regional and local conceptions of the RTC/Metrotown we find that the differences that were f i r s t evident at the level of broad policy now become further art iculated. We also find that new areas of difference emerge for the f i r s t time. Therefore, this wi l l be our framework for comparing the two agencies' descrip-tions of the place. F i rs t , 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 d i f ferent. The GVRD describes the RTC exclusively as i t plays a role in their regional growth strategy. Therefore we f ind that the GVRD's description is a functional one oriented toward defining what types of ac t iv i t ies the RTC wi l l house and what amount of each act iv i ty wi l l be required. Their guide in this is the desire to change the pattern of ac t iv i t ies seen at the regional scale. Descriptions of the exact nature of RTC environments consequently get only a superf ic ial treatment in the GVRD concept. In contrast, Burnaby planners describe Metrotown primarily as an environment. Act iv i ty specif ications are •95. only used as a lead-in for environmental specifications that become quite detai led. Moreover, questions of amounts of act iv i ty 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 i t is because the two agencies' powers, respons ib i l i t ies , 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 l i t t l e power to manipulate land use and is not called to account for specif ic environmental fa i lures . The Municipality has l i t t l e control over the deployment of ac t iv i t ies outside i ts jur isd ict ion and realizes that local land use controls are itsunique responsib i l i ty--i t must exercise these controls unless i t wishes to be blamed and bear the brunt of local people's dissat isfact ion 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 th is , we can discuss how divergences in broad policy are re-expressed and sharpened with speci f ic content at the RTC/Metrotown conceptual leve l . 96. CI. Act iv i ty Content of the Metrotown: We noted previously that the region wants to share costs and benefits of growth whereas Burnaby wants to maximize i ts own benefits and minimize i ts own costs regardless of the problems of other municipalit ies. At the conceptual l eve l , this policy difference takes on specif ic meaning. The GVRD talks about a regional special ization in the type of ac t iv i t ies to be housed in the Burnaby RTC based on the unique central regional position of the s i te . They cal l for 'population-serving' functions in Burnaby. This is done undoubtedly to create a logic to the regional deployment of ac t iv i t ies that the GVRD wi l l work toward. It is also done to give a reasoning behind why the GVRD may encourage certain functions to go to RTCs other than Metrotown to satisfy the regional objective of f a i r l y distr ibut ing growth. The Municipal planners wi l l have l i t t l e sympathy for such • ' sp l i t t ing of ha i r s ' . Burnaby wants a broad spectrum of uses within i ts Metrotown. We saw this previously as the overall thrust of their policy goals. If a development meets the Municipality's many environmental c r i te r ia and requirements and does not fa l l within that small group of uses excluded from Metrotown, then that development wi l l be welcomed. Thus regional and local planners . c o u l d come to loggerheads over the uses proposed in certain speci f ic 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 s ignif icant 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 s ignif icance. Following from th i s , 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 speci f ic population i t serves. The Municipality goes further, however, and talks about the specif ic balance to be struck between the ac t iv i t ies within the centra Local planners say this wi l l depend on t h e l f n e s of dominance and support between uses and on a need to maximize variety or d ivers i ty . To the Municipality i t is crucial that no one use should dominate. The GVRD mentions this only in passing. Thus when i t comes to evaluating specif ic development the two agencies could find themselves in conf l i c t . If a use shows a balance in i ts relationship to regional jobs or consumer demands, but also shows an inbalance relat ive 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 wi l l also be expressed in separate opinions about the arrangement of uses. The GVRD wil l want to maximize the connection between regional homes and places in Metrotown that provide jobs and services. The Municipality wi l l want to assure this but local planners wi l l also want clear local connections. The result is that GVRD o f f i c i a l s do not make locational dist inctions between uses in the RTC whereas local planners do make such dist inctions as well as further locational dist inctions between central uses and separate in-town neighbourhoods. If intra- and inter-RTC linkages conf l i c t , this could cause disagreements between the regional and local o f f i c i a l s 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 authorit ies. We said that GVRD is trying to shepherd a number of RTCs while the Municipality has only the Metrotown to meet i ts requirements of urbanity. Thus the Metrotown becomes the Municipality's only chance to achieve i ts goal of diversifying environmental experience in Burnaby. We see this difference become strongly inf luential in the descriptions put forward for the RTC/Metrotown. 99. GVRD o f f i c i a l s talk about quality in developments and the overall environment only as an aspect of the RTCs attraction to f a c i l i t i e s that might decentralize to i t . Municipal planners want quality development inherently because i t creates more desirable environ-ments in which to l i v e . The quality aspect is a direct con-dit ion of the Municipal requirement of urbanity. Thus, i f the attraction of the place is assured, the GVRD wil l not apparently quibble about design quality beyond some desired medium quality leve l . The Municipality, in contrast, wi l l 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 i n s t i l l e d into development. The guidelines put forward loca l l y , 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 'prof i t/ 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 prof i t margins), then disagreement between the two agencies about how to treat the developer would be bound to occur. TOO. Movement in Metrotown: F inal ly , we have already discussed the difference between regional and local pol ic ies about transportation—the GVRD's emphasis on transit and the Municipality's desire for t ransi t but dependence on the private car until the l ikel ihood 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 l ine 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, inter ior c i rculat ion ways and other automobile provisions within the RTC except in a minimum way. The Municipality refuses to close the automobile option for access to Metrotown and, rather, talks about providing balanced modes, f lex ib le parking arrangements and a hierarchy of streets. The Municipal idea is to minimize the negative impacts of the car but not to deny i ts relevance and use in Metrotown. This leads toideas of physical forms for Metrotown that are expensive to the developer ( t h e 1 +15 A c t i -vity Leve l ' , for example, toseparate pedestrians and cars) and to arrangements that may be d i f f i c u l t to manage. The GVRD would respond that these concepts are not required i f cars are excluded. The Municipality, however, feels i t has few alternatives i f the Metrotown is to be highly accessible to Burnaby's cit izens because the transit concept may just be a GVRD dream. Even i f i t is activated, the Municipality points out that i t would be more useful to regional travel than to the travel of local people into the Metrotown. Thus, while both the regional and local planners want a strong emphasis on walking in Metrotown--101 they want a predominantly pedestrian environment—their separate conceptions of access lead to radical ly different conceptions of the arrangement of uses and building forms by a l l appearances. Comparisons of regional and local RTC/Metrotown conceptions not only i l lus t rate how broad policy differences are further art icu lated but also what new differences not previously apparent now find expression. We can discuss these as follows. Integration of Concept and S i te: The Metrotown model is l imited by local planners because they say i t must be implemented on a real s i t e . Consequently, i t s specifications tend to be tentative.and try to t ie Metrotown development into existing patterns either with concepts of integration or separation. Thus the local model emphasizes t ie- ins with established c irculat ion ways; the integration of existing development into new plans; careful protection of existing surrounding neighbourhoods; and types of forms and arrangements of streets that wi l l provide for transit ions. The regional concept, beyond specifying Kingsway/Central Park as the RTC s i te , does not get s ite-oriented. As long as ac t iv i t i es get decentralized from downtown Vancouver, to the RTCs, and as long as the RTC sites develop as magnets to achieve th is , the GVRD wi l l be sat is f ied . Site con-straints are of l i t t l e relevance to regional decision makers. 102. These viewpoints are less a difference of opinion and more the separate thinking of the agencies simply not f i t t i n g together. Therefore, we can expect the Municipality to express objections to certain developments that simply wi l l not be perceived by the GVRD and this could cause f r i c t ion between the two authorit ies. Government Role in Metrotown Development: The two governments' concepts for the way development should occur and the role that each authority wi l l take in development i l lus t rate a clear divergence of opinion. The GVRD would be aggressively involved and would in i t ia te development where possible. The Municipality would primarily control development and augment private ac t iv i t ies where need ar ises. The GVRD would re-examine i ts existing procedures to develop new ways of taking part in RTC development. The Municipality would rely on tested procedures and tools. The GVRD would str ive for submission of an 'Of f i c ia l Community Plan' to give continuity. Municipal planners would object to this because they feel i t l imits their f l e x i b i l i t y . Both the GVRD and the Municipality would want to be the guiding public agency in development. The GVRD, knowing the relative distr ibution of powers between the Municipality and i t s e l f , would want a semi-autonomous development corporation to control RTC development. Of course such an arrangement would give the GVRD an equal status with the Municipality on the matter of controls--which the GVRD has not to date enjoyed. Needless to say, this proposal wi l l cause major contentions. 103. The aggressive posture proposed by the GVRD relates to i ts goal of having the RTCs functioning se l f - su f f i c ient ly by 1986. This t ies in with other in i t i a t i ves in the regional development strategy. In contrast, the Municipality outlines no specif ic timeframe for Metrotown development. Indeed, quality control wil l take pr ior i ty over questions of time at the local l e v e l . The GVRD wil l l i ke ly base many of i ts arguments with the Municipality when advocating speci f ic development projects on the need to meet regional deadlines. The Municipality wi l l l i ke ly 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 wi l l be the approach used and we can expect the differences in conception to show themselves again when we evaluate design choices-104. CHAPTER FOUR KINGSWAY/CENTRAL PARK - DESIGN PROBE FOR ISSUES' 105. We have now made comparisons of regional and local positions at the level of broad planning policy and at the town centre conceptual l eve l . 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 specif ic actions on changing the landscape of the RTC s i te 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 responsibi l i ty , we wi l l apply the Burnaby Metrotown model already discussed to the Kingsway/Central Park s i t e . This results in what has been called the 'probe p lan ' . 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 def init ion of issues from the probe is the subject of this chapter. As a preface to the design probe, the existing situation on the s i te wi l l be reviewed. This is because s i te rea l i t i es are a major component of the design process according to local planners. The history and Municipal geographic context of the s i te is sketched. From this» s ite boundaries are derived. Existing land use and planning schemes as well as natural characteristics are i l lus t rated . Out of this review, s i te constraints are defined which we wi l l ca l l 'design givens'. From this background work we proceed to the probe plan and to the specif ication of issues, positions and possible technical reso-lutions of issues that are suggested by the probe plan. Policy shi fts 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 essential ly l ived at the waters' edges. The inter ior land masses were their resource caches but their large-scaled manipulation of the natural environment was minimal. With the arr ival of the Europeans, white settlements were established at Langley and elsewhere and a colonial capital was ultimately located at New Westminster. For our purposes the next s ignif icant event occurred in 1860 when, for mi l i tary purposes, a narrow path suff ic ient 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 suf f ic ient ly for the passage of a team and the widened alignment became known as the Vancouver Road. Sparse settlement followed until in 1913 i t was necessary to make further improvements to this thoroughfare and i t was renamed Kingsway. In the early 1890s the Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Company bui l t a tramway connecting the two major communities. The wife of the company president was a New Yorker and in memory of that c i t y ' s great park, the midpoint of the local tramline was named Central Park and the l ine i t s e l f became known as the Central Park Line. The area around Central Park was f i r s t served by the Central Park tram station (at the intersection of the l ine and Kingsway) and later stations were opened to the east, an early and s ignif icant one located at Jubilee Street, a station and street named in honour of the jubilee year of V ictor ia 's reign in which they were opened. In 1892, the Municipality of Burnaby was incorporated and travel lers on the Vancouver Road were f i r s t 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 histor ian, has said: The development of the Central Park area as a residential d i s t r i c t dates from the dividing of the large Reserves which up to that time had stretched continuously from Patterson Avenue to Royal Oak Avenue into four- and f ive-acre holdings (this was in 1894). Consequent on this settlement a post of f ice became a necessity. (Green, 1947,13). The area continued to thrive with the movement of people away from established Vancouver areas toward more amenable locations and with the development of a mixture of commerical f a c i l i t i e s 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 insta l lat ion by the Simpson Sears Company Ltd. of a department store on the south side of Kingsway near the centre of the area's commercial a c t i v i t i e s . Residential demand was met by the development of apartment accommodation and 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 s ite 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 ref lect some special ization 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 i ts largest scaled recreational and cultural f a c i l i t i e s would be equally access-ible to both the North Burnaby and South Burnaby residents. This has been conceived to t ie these two urban sub-regions together. The f a c i l i t i e s take advantage of a park-like setting arranged around the two major Municipal bodies of water-Deer and Burnaby Lakes. The Metrotown s i te is on the southern periphery of this central area which wi l l make the central Municipal f a c i l i t i e s easi ly 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 wi l l ultimately be linked and because the Kingsway/Central Park s ite is one l ink in this chain, local planners say that i t should have major l inear open spaces and the Metrotowners wi l l have a continuous open space resource v i r tua l ly 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 wi l l 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 wil l be extensive industrial job opportunities. The Metrotown wi l l provide regional services for the entire Municipality, as well as for major parts of S.E. Vancouver, but there are also s ignif icant dense commercial/residential settlements that serve community needs in North Burnaby at Brentwood and East Lougheed. We have noted these settlements as well as the hierarchy of smaller settlements previously. Therefore in the south, beyond i ts overall regional ro le , 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 s i te occurs at the intersection of Kingsway with Boundary Road/Willingdon/ Royal Oak which provides a natural access for automobiles to the s i te . (See Plate 27). Ill. Thus, the Kingsway/Central Park s i te , when developed as a Metro-town wi l l augment the broad sectoral special ization 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, i t makes regional functions accessible to a l l Burnaby c i t i zens . Area Boundaries Therefore, by f i t t i n g the Municipal settlement pattern to the concept of boundaries that has been set out in the Metrotown model (Plate 12) we derive a boundaries configuration as shown on Plate 27. We see that these boundaries use the natural divisions that have become evident with the urbanization of the 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 h is tor i ca l ly 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 easi ly definable. 172. PLA175 ZT 113. There is no d ist inct natural border to the north and there is a real problem of providing a transit ion 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 l ine paral lel and north of Grange to ultimately intersect with the Burke/ Roundary intersection at the far wpst (the exact border to be determined by s i te design ). This tentative northern boundary def init ion allows the Municipality to deal posit ively with the transit ion problem but i t can be stated that i t 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 v i a b i l i t y over the long run. There is also a ring of surrounding single family neighbourhoods that wi l l be affected by and provided with an expansion of oppor-tunities because of the Metrotown. While these neighbourhoods are proposed to be c lear ly protected from direct Metrotown physical intrust ion, they must be considered in dealing with the Metrotown situat ion. Conceptually, local planners have cal led this the community influence area. For discussion purposes, i ts boundaries have been assumed to be Boundary Road (on the west); the 401 Freeway, BCIT and the Deer Lake/Oakalla lands (on the north); Gi l ley 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 wi l l also fa l l within this influence area and these have been included for analysis in the fu l l real ization that Burnaby has no jur isd ict ion to effect policy relat ive to these areas. F inal ly , of course, the entire Municipality has been considered to be effected by Metrotown as wi l l be a s ignif icant portion of the larger region. This area constitutes what has been cal led the regional influence area. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The present purpose does not necessitate a detailed inventory of existing land use. Rather, i t is apparent that a col lect ion of major land use groupings is in place and in an attempt to bui ld upon the existing environment, these groupings become important. These existing land uses are i l lustrated i n 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 i t , these being Chaffey-Burke School (between Willingdon and Chaffey north of Grange), Marlborough Elementary/Royal Oak Jr . High (on one. s i te 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 f a c i l i t i e s are essential ly 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 o f higher density accommodation. These areas can be itemized as follows: i . Maywood enclave - north of Imperial, south of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority right-of-way and east of Wi l l in -don Avenue. Most of these apartments are at the middle of their l i f e span, their maintenance varies and they are almost exclusively under rental tenure. i . Lobely Park enclave - south of the Kingsway commercial s t r ip , 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 s t r i p , west of Royal Oak, south of Sanders Street and east of Nelson Avenue. This area has three-storey apartments in good condition, single family dwellings in good condition and newer high density accommodation 116. (some senior c i t i zens ' housing). The apartment com-ponent is generally of a rental nature and the individual homes are owner-occupied, iv . Grange Street apartment str ip - 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, v i . North-Kathleen enclave - north of the B.C. Hydro and Power right-of-way, west of Willingdon Avenue, south of the Kingsway commercial str ip 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 ref lect proposed use as much as the histor ical s i tuat ion. The present zoning configuration is i l lustrated in Plate 29. 117. Existing Planning Schemes: As has already been discussed in some d e t a i l , the Kingsway/ Central Park study area has been a designated Municipal town centre for a number of years. As such, i t has been an important component in the Municipality's settlement area hierarchy. This fact has c learly 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 i l lustrated 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 specif ic interpretation of what that concept meant in land use terms. It divided i t s land use explanation into three areas. Area "L" deals with the town centre proper. It designates a re lat ive ly high intensity configuration with an emphasis on comprehensive mixed-use s ite 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, i t was treated as a separate mini-community with a small commercial focus surrounded by a band of medium-density multiple family development. Area "M" deals with the area to the south of the town centre bounded by the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority right-of-way, Imperial Street and Patterson Avenue. This was thought of as exclusively an apartment zone with a major medium-density residential component and a band of high density 118. habitation bordering Central Park. While the Apartment Study focussed attention on the study area and la id out a general town centre scheme, i t did not address i t s e l f to the necessity for integration or to considerations of movement, etc. In order to deal with specif ic development proposals, i t was necessary to further refine the work in the Apartment Study to resolve questions of property configuration, street and walkway alignments and development c r i t e r i a , especially in areas where redevelopment implied major changes in these elements. This work was la id 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 str ip 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 ref lect 119. policy that has been depended upon as being set by area residents and the development community. Consequently where possible, Metrotown design wi l l build upon these past pol ic ies and revise them only i f such is requisite to the overall concept for the Metrotown. In this sense, while such pol ic ies wi l l not be considered irrevocable, they wi l l also not be ignored. A4. Topography and Natural Endowments: The study area is almost exclusively a suburbanized place such that i ts 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 wi l l be less to preserve a valuable natural endowment and more to i n s t i l l a new component of greenery and landscaped spaces. The overall form of the land, however, is not erased with.the onslaught of urbanization and the topography of the study area is d is t inct ive . Except for Burnaby Mountain and Capital H i l l 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 a b i l i t y to create Metrotown as a s ignif icant regional landmark but that increases responsibi l i ty 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 characterist ic in the Metrotown residential environment. Local planners want this topographical uniqueness to be both respected and exploited. The area's topography is i l lustrated in Plate 31. A5. Area Constraints and Potentials for Metrotown Design: The application of a generic idea to a specif ic 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 def init ion 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. Bui lt Environment - We have assumed as an absolute given those new and re lat ive ly intensively developed building complexes that are constructed, under construction or have been given Council authorization via completion of the rezoning process. These building complexes are i l lustrated 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 real izat ion 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 part ies, the negotiations occurred on the basis of former assumptions, and i t is not f e l t such limited interactions should narrow Metrotown potentials. There is a s ignif icant component of in-place residential accommodation of a medium density nature. With the exception of a few newer structures, these 3-storey apartments wi l l have become obsolete within 10+ years and pressure for their redevelop-ment wi l l substantial ly 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 wi l l enjoy a complete l i fespan, they have been considered as a short-term given. 122. F inal ly , surrounding the Metrotown are established and stable single- and two-family neighbourhoods that local o f f i c i a l s want protected. These present another 'given' as discussed ear l ie r . b. Open Space - The study area has two essential types of open space that are being treated as given in a separate sense. The f i r s t of these is the major park space. Central Park, Bonsor Park and Deer Lake/Oakalla are a l l relevant in this respect. These open space masses are crucial positive elements on the existing landscape that can be well used in the Metrotown ensemble. The guiding assumption in reference to these is that they wi l l be integrated into the development conception but minimum changes to their configuration may be suggested to f a c i l i -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 f lex ib le so that open space linkage and quality can be real ized. The second type of open space is the school grounds. These spaces wi l l 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 prof i le of residents that inhabit Metrotown. It may be that the Metrotown population wi l l 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 i l lustrated 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 'g iven ' , 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 l ight-rapid-transit similar but faster than the conven-tional street car) has been taken as given. Whether this f a c i l i t y wi l l movent, above or below grade in Metrotown has not been assumed from the local perspective. Movement 'givens1 are i l lustrated in Plate 32. Signif icant Historical Features While the area is not old in epochal terms, as is clear from the histor ical description above, i t 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 5 Q - ^ l i m a : m i l l \T> \T) vf> 75 r: to. _1 — 1 3 § g Quo. — CsJ MN ^ - vSN O O O >0 V) < 18 l8 S zr O A — vi sT) i i * rS. 3- «n o v5" 7Z JO. > Z L ^ t f - l i l Sip-, ^ S - P i i i ^ 3 ^ > iu •VUM-BO*CfcM,H W!UJM«ieofi BCWNOMtf ftp. 0 129. Heritage Vil lage Historical Museum has surveyed the histor ical 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 h i s tor i ca l l y invaluable and should be preserved—the Kingsway Funeral Chapel and St. John the Divine Church (Burnaby's oldest standing church). The remainder of structures and building assemblies noted by the Curator should be incorporated into new projects but 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 ut i l i zed in a maximum way to satisfy current needs, i i . Structures of similar h istor ical or architectural value (or more) exist in other locations in Burnaby and the region, i i i . Feas ib i l i ty for alternative use of old buildings might be minimum because of their physical quality (structure, materials, f in ishes, e t c . ) . The Curator has suggested that where buildings cannot be retained, the continuation of h istor ical 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 specif ied the constraints i t imposes. On the basis of this information coupled with the guidance of the Metrotown model and directions from broad Municipal planning pol icy, a prototypical design scheme has been prepared that we ca l l the 'probe p lan ' . This scheme is i l lustrated in Plates 33-37, and has been evaluated by Burnaby planners. 130. We wi l l now discuss this probe plan by separating i t into i ts various major aspects and specifying the Municipal opinion that the plan ref lects and the predicted regional response that would result . In a situation of contradiction, i f a technical reconci l iat ion seems apparent th is , too, is discussed. Through this process potential issues were regional and local views diverge wi l l be specif ied and resolved were possible. B l . 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, i t s exact interpretation in the probe plan can be expected to be contentious as follows: . Local Position as Designed: A comparison of the probe plan with the itemized 'given elements' i l lust rates that these elements have been integrated fu l l y into the design. The design process treats these as determinants that have a basic influence on the arrangement of the place. . Predicted Regional Response: Treating existing features as inf luential design determinants wi l l probably not s i t well with regional decision makers because these existing features do not ref lect the dependence on transit that the region wants in the RTC. The s i t ing 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 i ts 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. Specif ic transit design decisions are as follows: i . Number of Stations: . Local Pos i t ion 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 i f fewer stations had been proposed then the size of the area woul'd have had to be restr icted. 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 t r i p -time between RTCs and Downtown Vancouver must be kept faster than the t r ip would take by private automobile. It is estimated by the GVRD that the transit t r ip between the New Westminster RTC and Vancouver Centre under design now being considered by the Provincial authorit ies, would only be s l ight ly faster than a similar private auto t r ip 132. assuming one Metrotown station. Trip-time is made s igni f icant ly 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 wil l 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 i t increases costs. Possible Reconciliation: The Boundary Road station that has been designed would primarily serve the 5000-employee B.C. Telephone Co. complex. This station might be removed i f a local'movement system between.the B.C. Tel complex and the Patterson transit station were insta l led . This local system (perhaps a j itney) 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 t ransit , the Patterson station might be desig-nated as a secondary stop providing only loading/unloading accommodation rather than being a large-scaled f a c i l i t y . 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 transi t station should provide for direct walkways to the stat ion. There is no indication that regional and local authorities wi l l disagree on this point. Nature of Stations: . Local Position as Designed: The proposed plan indicates that stations should be multifunctional places that become fu l l y integrated with abutting multifunctional projects creating a continuous realm of space and ac t iv i ty . Stations should not be separate unifunctional transit terminals because they wi l l not stimulate abutting uses by a continuous direct flow of people i f the space for this flow is discontinuous. . Predicted Regional Response: The probable position of the regional authorities wi l l be that the idea of integrated stations is desirable but may be d i f f i c u l t 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 f i r s t instance. The expedient approach of regional authorities wi l l probably be to proceed with unifunctional transit stops in suburban areas. 1 . Possible Reconcil iation: In l ine 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 ac t iv i t ies of Metrotown could be maintained as a multifunctional integrated f a c i l i t y . To lessen public costs for the Sussex stat ion, 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 conf l icts between regional and local user movement in Metrotown, the probe plan defines a degree of special ization as to the c l ientale that each station serves. The Sussex station would predominantly serve those people who come into Metrotown because of regionally s ignif icant f a c i l i t i e s . The Patterson station . would serve the high-density neighbourhood surrounding i t as a means for in-town residents to get to and from jobs and services outside of Metrotown. The Boundary Road station would serve primarily regionally-dispersed B.C. Telephone Co. employees. 135. Predicted Regional Response: The regional authorities would probably have l i t t l e sympathy for the neighbourhood component of Metrotown to be especially served by a transit stat ion. The regional concept is that area residents whether within or surrounding should use a supporting bus system to connect into r a i l 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 t ransi t catchment proposed in the plan. Possible Reconcil iation: The deployment of functions shown in the probe plan wi l l inherently cause some special ization of station users i f more than one station is provided. The arrangement of uses in the probe plan ref lects existing uses of Metrotown land that the local authorities wil l not choose to ignore. If, as has been proposed as a reconci l iat ion of other differences, the number of transit stations is l imited to two, then this disagreement about special ization might also be resolved. Under a two-station arrangement the Patterson station would serve the local neighbour-hoods abutting i t and would serve the employees of B.C. Telephone Co. The Sussex Station would s t i l l serve primarily the Metrotown core. Thus a special iza-tion of station users would be accommodated though not as d is t inct ly 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 t rans i t , the probe plan indicates that the transit f a c i l i t y 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-trai l walking system. . Predicted Regional Response: The regional position wi l l l i ke ly be that such an undertaking would be prohibit ively expensive and that such costs would only be warranted in the Vancouver Centre portion of the transit system. . Possible Reconcil iation: Under careful design with appropriate barriers and protections, i t is possible that the transit f a c i l i t y could be at grade for a substantial part of i ts 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 f a c i l i t a t e pedestrian cross-movement in locations other than transit stations, at careful ly selected points related to the pattern of parks and park t r a i l s abutting the transit f a c i l i t y , crossovers of the transit l ine could be designed as extensions ;of those abutting parks. Crossover points related to Bonsor Park, to the proposed Willingdon l inear parkway and within Central Park would f u l f i l l cross-over requirements for the proposed plan. It would be important that these f a c i l i t i e s not be bui l t 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 Posit ion as Designed: Automobile movement has been conceived, as a direct ref lect ion 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 f a c i l i t i e s 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 attract ive to through t r a f f i c . The Metrotown core would be c i rc led 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 restr icted rights-of-way. Thus the region wi l l l i ke ly not co-operate with local authorities in funding arrangements to renovate the street network that has been proposed. Spec i f i ca l ly , the region wi l l probably not quarrel with the through function of Imperial, Boundary or Royal Oak because these are peripheral streets but wi l l quarrel with the through function proposed for Kingsway, Willingdoil^ and Nelson. The ring road or local cul de sacs wi l l also probably not be regionally supported, i i . 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 a l l but the most necessary through movement on Willingdon, the alignment of the street is given a curvi l inear configuration that does not follow i ts present straight and direct alignment. These features of the street also allow i t to act as a boundary between two viably-sized neighbourhood units. The approach would require directed action by local authori-t ies to assemble parklands as well as the new alignment for Willingdon and to redevelop the street/parkway. . Predicted Regional Response: Being opposed to through-t r a f f i c in the Metrotown, the regional authorities would probably not support the Willingdon proposal. The regional view would be that Willingdon t r a f f i c be redirected to peripheral through streets such as Boundary and Royal Oak. This becomes a point at issue i f the local authorities approach the regional authori-t ies for f inancial 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 wi l l be required on the proposal, i i i . Configuration of Kingsway: . Local Position as Designed: The probe plan ref lects a local conception of Kingsway as the most s ignif icant 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 act iv i ty 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 f a c i l i t y . This conclusion ref lects a local view that i t is simply not feasible to move Kingsway to a peripheral Metro-town location, to sever i ts through-traffic channel or to move Metrotown act iv i t ies away from i t . While this is not only unfeasible, i t i s also f e l t to be undesirable because Kingsway provides the automobile access that is crucial to the v i t a l i t y of the Metrotown even i f transit is instal led and part icular ly i f transit is not insta l led . To preserve the uninterrupted through-function of Kingsway, the plan proposes clustering important places along each side of the street and connecting these with pedestrian bridges that keep car and people c irculat ion patterns separated. Access to these frontage properties, however, would not be provided d irect ly from Kingsway but would necessitate movement onto secondary streets. F inal ly , the vehicular environment of Kingsway would be softened with extensive landscaping, tree planting and the insta l lat ion of a l l services underground. . Predicted Regional Response: Again, as an intrustion of through-auto t r a f f i c into the Metrotown, the proposals 141. ' for Kingsway would probably not be given regional support. The regional desire would be to move the Kingsway alignment to a peripheral location and regional authorities would probably cooperate f inanc ia l ly in such a venture. Otherwise financial part ic ipation 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 i t be developed within a c lear ly defined pedestrian context with various areas dedicated to exclusive pedestrian use in various types of spaces. Al l other modes would be conceived to support the move-ment of people on foot. This broad concept ref lects conceptual statements of both regional and local authori-t ies 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 wi l l indicate i f this agreement characterizes a l l pedestrian matters. i . Continuity of Pedestrian Channels: Local planners say there must be a continuity of pedestrian channels that con-nect a l l important Metrotown locations,, These places and their linkages form a pedestrian network that has major paths shown on the probe plan and a capi l lary system of smaller pathways that would be developed within each development as fu l l y public or semi-public rights-of-way. Neither authority would 142. disagree on this proposal. i i . Pedestrian Connections to Surrounding Areas: The pedestrian system is proposed to be ultimately extended outward to provide walking connections between outlying areas surrounding Metrotown and core Metrotown f a c i l i t i e s . These 'urban t r a i l s ' would be integrated into the Municipal-wide park-t r a i l walkway system. There is no overt disagreement between the regional and local authorities on this matter although not having conceived this as a crucial aspect of Metrotown, the regional authorities are l ike ly to see these parkway connections as a purely local responsibi l i ty . i i i . Automobile-Pedestrian Separation: . Local Position as Designed: The local planners' spec i f i -cation of complete separation of pedestrians and vehicles in the high act iv i ty locations of the Metro-town has led to the proposal that the pedestrian act iv i ty 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 ac t iv i ty . In areas where automobiles are not required, the platform would descend gradually back to grade. Cars would c irculate at grade and under buildings whereas people would c irculate above where there is sun and continuous space. The platform would apply to a l l areas noted for f i r s t and second order act iv i ty on the probe plan. Al l developments within this area would have to be bui l t to the platform concept and would have to relate to elevations of surrounding projects. Al l pedestrian act iv i ty of a public nature or appealing to the general public as consumers would be located on the platform (shops, restaurants, plazas, meeting places, e t c . ) . Al l 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 a l l f i r s t and second order ac t iv i t ies would occur on the platform. At the periphery, the platform would have broad transitions back to the ground. Predicted Regional Response: In the f i r s t 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 fa l l on potential developers which would make the Metrotown a less attractive place to them, the regional authorities would probably oppose i t as inhibit ing Metrotown development and thus their decentralization strategy. Support Modes: . Local Position as Designed: In order for catering to pedestrians to be fu l l y exploited, i t should be supported by support modes that t ie peripheral locations closely to transit and automobile parking points. A j i tney l ine that was proposed conceptually in the local Metrotown model has thus been employed taking the alignment shown on the probe plan. This j i tney would primarily make the r a i l t ransit 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 wi l l probably not decry the j itney idea on theoret-ical grounds. However, their view would l i ke ly be that rather than providing complex in-town support modes, the area of the town should be contracted with development more compact. Moreover, because the j i tney is necessitated by a local decision about Metrotown boundaries, i t should be paid for by the Municipality. . Possible Reconcil iation: The local authorities wi l l not be amenable to making the Metrotown smaller. Neither authority wants to pay for the support mode. Perhaps a Metrotown j itney co-operative could be formed in which a l l Metrotown core developers would take part. Thus the entrepreneurs that are offered much higher access ib i l i ty (and therefore prof i t opportunities) would d irect ly pay for the j i tney provision and could manage the f a c i l i t y 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 a f f i n i t i e s between the assemblies they house. The model specif ies that regional ly-s ignif icant uses by differentiated into f i r s t , second and third order areas with an integrated tourist focus. It specifies that loca l ly-s ign i f i cant uses be organized into neighbourhoods. These ideas have been followed in the probe plan and can be discussed as follows, a. Town Centre - F i rst Order Area: i . F i rst Order Area Location: . Local Position as Designed: The F i rst 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 f e l t 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 ref lects 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 wi l l 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 F i rst Order Area wi l l not be backed up by regional authorit ies. 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 d i s t inct ly peripheral location. Possible Reconcil iation: If uses were arranged within the F i rst 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 act iv i ty connected these concentrations, then neither the v i a b i l i t y of transit nor automobile access would be sacr i f iced at the expense of the other. If transit was truly more e f f i c ient than the automobile, then this arrangement would also make the station more v i s ib le which, in turn, would stimulate transit use. F i rs t Order Area Form: The probe plan assumes that the F i rs t Order Area wi l l become the most dominant physical feature in the Metrotown. Because both regional and local authorities want a highly v is ib le town centre, this idea of form should cause no disagreement. The F i rst Order area should also incorporate a transit ion in i ts physical form from the large-scaled structure of i ts centre to the small-scaled structure of surrounding developments. This is part icular ly relevant in terms of the northern border of the area which direct ly abuts established and existing single-family and small apartment develop-ment. This requirement is not l ike ly to cause disagree-ment between regional and local planners because regional o f f i c i a l s wi l l not attach major relevance -to i t . If the requirement, however, necessitates major decreases in density or major added developer costs, then regional o f f i c i a l s are l ike ly to get uneasy. Internal Organization of F i rst Order Ac t iv i t i es : Each development is proposed to include a fine-grained mix of ac t iv i t ies u t i l i z i n g a vertical d i f ferent ia-tion of use as specif ied by the Metrotown model. Horizontally there should be a dominance of residential accommodation at the periphery of the F i rst Order Area, a mixture of off ices and shopping at the centre, a tourist focus and a cultural/recreational focus as shown on the probe plan. While this specif ication wi l l not cause major regional/local debate, regional planners who have stressed that a l l f a c i l i t i e s be highly mixed, wi l l l i ke ly be uneasy at the extent of use dif ferentiat ion that the probe plan indicates. They would probably desire that uses not be segregated horizontally but ver t i ca l ly , iv . Subdivision Pattern of F i rs t Order Area: . Local Position as Designed: The local planners would require that development in the F i rst Order Area occur in superblocks of single-developer, multi-use development. The reasons for this are that development control and coordination would thus be simplif ied and a higher quality of development could be negotiated. This becomes part icular ly relevant because of the platform concept that is proposed. The receipt of square footage for public purposes through levy from developers is also simplif ied with fewer large developers. Predicted Regional Response: The regional planners would be part icular ly loath to see few developers because they desire that space design ref lect many interpretations by many parties in the RTC. The Regional o f f i c i a l s 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 act iv i ty that is conceived to have a more direct need for automobile access ib i l i ty and v i s i b i l i t y and is therefore oriented in the probe plan in a somewhat l inear fashion along Kingsway. It would be connected to transit by the j itney and by pedestrian ways through the F i rst 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 i ts secondary means of access ib i l i ty and is oriented spec i f i ca l ly to Kingsway, i ts existence and location would l i ke ly be opposed by regional authorit ies. The regional view would l i ke ly be that the discrimination and segregation of second order ac t iv i t ies 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 transit ion forms that are i l lustrated in the Metrotown model and a similar though less extensive transit ion would be required south of Kingsway, facing south. The pedestrian platform that is specified for the F i rst Order Area would extend and continue in the Second Order Area to provide a continuous and intensely active pedestrian plane separated ver t i ca l ly from automobile movement. These specif ications of form wil l probably not cause regional opposition except i f they raise the costs of construction prohibit ively . 150. Internal Organization of Second Order Ac t iv i t i es : 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 ver t i ca l l y . There should also be areas of dominance that are differentiated horizontally with a l ine of residential accommodation fronting onto Grange Street and looking south on the south side of Kingsway; with the Kingsway frontage used for of f ice and commercial act ivity; and with the eastern portion of the area dominated by a focus of Tourist accommodation. Except that these proposals d i f ferent iate uses beyond what would have been regionally specif ied, by regional planners, the planners wi l l l i ke ly not give major opposition to the internal organization of ac t iv i t ies that is shown on the probe plan. Subdivision Pattern of Second Order Area: . Local Position as Designed: In order to f a c i l i t a t e local control devices, the local planners would also desire super-block development of the Second Order Area and the plan ref lects th is . . Predicted Regional Response: Because regional planners want to see many kinds of space designed by many people in the RTC, the subdivision proposals of the Second Order Area would l i ke ly 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 ac t iv i t ies that prefer smaller, less expensive accommodation and do not necessarily need to be ' in the thick o f central higher order ac t iv i ty , a location abutting the Second Order Area to the south and the F irst Order Area to the west is proposed on the probe plan. The location which now has a landscape of older h i s tor i ca l l y relevant residential buildings would be amenable to renovation that could maintain an intimate and charming character while housing Third Order Area act iv i t ies on small lots inexpensively. Transit connections would be provided indirect ly by footways through the F i rst Order Area. . Predicted Regional Response: Regional authorities wil l probably say that the diversity of the town centre environment would be best served i f these third order uses were integrated therein. Valuable central ly located properties, the regional planners would say, .might be better ut i l i zed for more dense development. The regional view would l ike ly also be that no core use should have simply indirect access to the transit stat ion. i i . Third Order Area Form: . Local Position as Designed: The Third Order Area would have a small-scaled mix of act iv i ty throughout with commercial f a c i l i t i e s on the ground and offices, studies, apartments and similar ac t iv i t ies on second floors of converted and i n - f i l l e d structures. Its setting would be parklike with numerous mini-plazas developed publ ic ly. . Predicted Regional Response: While the region would l ike ly 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 wi l l house more intense development. Town Centre - Tourist Focus: . Local Position as Designed: A tourist focus that s i ts as an integrated part of the F i rst and Second Order Areas of the town centre is proposed that is heavily oriented to the v i s a b i l i t y and access ib i l i ty of Kingsway and that t ies the F i rst and Second Order Areas together with highly intense pedestrian ac t iv i ty . . Predicted Regional Response: While regional authorities would probably not object to the focus of tourist and entertainment f a c i l i t i e s as an integrated part of town centre ac t iv i ty , they would l i ke ly encourage this focus to occur d i rect ly next to the transit stat ion. They would thus probably oppose the Kingsway location of tourist ac t iv i t ies because i t 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 F i rst and Second Order Areas as has already been noted. This provides for a diversity of residential l i f e s t y l e s . . Predicted Regional Response: The specif ication of an intense component 0 f neighbourhoods within the Metro-town would probably not be fundamentally opposed by regional planners. However, they are l ike ly 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. i i . Neighbourhood Arrangement: . Local Position as Designed: Each neighbourhood has. been designed in the probe plan as a d ivers i f ied local unit which includes a focus of convenience commercial and community f a c i l i t i e s and recreational park space in conformity with the local planners' model, ''here possible, the neighbourhood commercial centre would be tied into transit stations. 154. . Predicted Regional Response: Again, while regional authorities are l ike ly not to oppose the proposed interior arrangements of neighbourhoods, they wi l l also probably not provide special f inancial support for the purchase of lands that may be needed to implement the arrange-ments. i i i . Neighbourhood Connection to Transit: . Local Position as Designed: The in-town neighbourhoods are to be connected to transit with pedestrian walkways and a j i tney l ine as shown on the probe plan. Because this augments t rans i t , local authorities wi l l want regional authorities to pay for the j i tney l ine and share in pathway acquisition costs. . Predicted Regional Response: As a system required to serve neighbourhoods that are regionally fe l t to be a local responsibil ity the regional authorities wi l l probably want local money to provide the j itney and pedestrian connections. . Possible Reconcil iation: 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 j itney l ines (paid for by the Metrotowners) could also include the residential j i tney routes. 155. B4. Park Systems: It has been noted in principle that the Metrotown should ref lect 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: Al l 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-trai l system as shown on the probe plan that opens into mini-parks or plazas at a l l important points. Parks are used to separate neighbourhoods and incompatible uses and each neighbourhood has i t s own park space. None of these features wi l l l i ke ly be opposed by regional authorit ies. b. Central Park/)akalla Connection: . Local Position as Designed: One of the most unique aspects of the Metrotown s i te is i ts location between and abutting two major open space opportunities—Central Park on the west and theOakail a lands (to be developed as a park) on the east. An important need is to connect these spaces through the Metrotown to provide a continuous pedestrian pathway within primarily a park setting (except in the Metrotown core) and to maximize access of the major parklands to most Metrotowners by foot. The primary component in this linkage is the Willingdon parkway as shown on the probe plan. Predicted Regional Response: The regional view would probably be that the parkway is a worthwhile project but that i ts expression as an abatement device for the major through-street running at i ts centre minimizes i t s recreational value. They would probably therefore not support the parkway. . Possible Resolution: The proposed parkway and street might be protected from negatively 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 wi l l consider changes to Central Park to be a local matter for which they wi l l 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 anci l lary to their main function of 157. accessing the Metrotown centre proper and that park access was not a c r i te r ia 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 a rb i t ra r i l y rest r i c t ive conditions on potential Metrotown developers, regional authorities are not l i ke ly 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 loca l ly adopted view that Kingsway wi l l remain the focus for Metrotown for some time until transit becomes a viable alternative focus. Also, existing building l i f e spans part icular ly in the r e s i -dential areas in the southern sector of Metrotown are to be respected, thus making redevelopment of these spaces a long-term proposition. Local authorities would want no time scheduling of phases. . Predicted Regional Response: The region is l i ke ly to strongly object to a beginning emphasis on Kingsway. They would probably also be l i t t l e convinced by the argument of building l i f e spans. Regional authorities would probably say that development at or around station locations would tend to enhance regional efforts to provide transit sooner. This is because i t creates a clear demand for the trans i t . Thus the region would l i ke ly cal l for f i r s t phase development at transit stations on both sides and even using a i r 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-t ies that emerge from a process of probe design. We can therefore turn to the relationship of issues to policy and the recommendations that wi l l 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 pol ic ies and conceptions for the RTC that are embraced by Burnaby and the GVRD. We have also completed a design probe for the purpose of isolat ing 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 art icu-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 reconcil iations to issues that are of a technical nature. We wi l l deal with these technical resolutions f i r s t . We have also noted that some issues wi l l 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 pol icy. We wi l l deal with recommendations toward this end in the lat ter 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 l i t t l e interest to the GVRD. Their primary orientation is much broader and they have made few comments about s i te-specif ic 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 ac t iv i t ies wi l l affect the attractiveness of the place. They know that i f design standards are too high or too low and i f use specifications are too rest r ic t ive or non-existent then the attractiveness of the RTC wi l l suffer. Therefore the detai ls of Metrotown development become important to them. This is why they make major efforts to put forward a specif ic concept within the constraints placed on them by their power posit ion. 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 i n i t i a t e specif ic design does not mean they wi l l accept any design scheme proposed at the local l eve l . Therefore, a resolution of issues over detailed matters becomes cruc ia l . 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 sacr i f i c ing 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 F i rst Order act iv i t ies and the protection of pedestrians from street t r a f f i c , i i . One was a matter of having the Metrotowners pay for j i tney service, i i i . 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 P R O P O S E D 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 I I I , 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 fac i l t i i es . 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 f i r s t 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 i f no cars. L. Use jitney system-region should pay. R. Make Metrotown smaller-i f 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 >- O u l C J t - iOC o_ UJ U J l 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 F T U J 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 fac i l i t ies & 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 . [ B L P a r k s y s t e m s II 1. Location of |l f i r s t 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 f i rs t || 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 f i r s t order 1 area. • Illlll ^ o w n Centre-IU I Tourist Focus L. Focus on Kingsway for v i s ib i l i ty . 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 traff ic 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 • S I . P n a s i n g of Metrotown L. Start at Kingsway and work back to transit; no time l imit. 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 reconcil iations were la id out in detail in the previous chapter. The predicted issues that can be resolved technically do not ref lect 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 reconcil iations wi l l be embraced by the GVRD and Burnaby because both know that cooperation is required. In looking at the remaining issues that w e r e predicted through the design process, we find that each of these has roots in more general differences of opinion. We have i l lustrated 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 . Al l predicted issues about streets including the specif ications for a hierarchy of streets and for the function and form of Kingsway and Willingdon; i i . the issues concerned with the location and orientation of act iv i ty assemblies in the Metrotown core; i i i . 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 act iv i t ies . L. Metrotown to have broad range of activit ies 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 def i-nitions & arrangement . Provision of parks/parkways outside core . Segregation of core activit ies 5. INTEGRATION WITH REAL SITE: R. No consideration of real s i te. 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 B F O / W roucr 170. As has been discussed, the regional o f f i c i a l s favour an RTC that is dominantly served by transit and that provides l i t t l e accommodation to the car. The local planners favour a balanced dependence on auto-mobile and transit access ib i l i ty . This disagreement shows i t s e l f 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 i f transit were provided, i t would serve only a small proportion of Municipal residents for which the Metrotown is conceived to provide services. It would be most useful for broad regional movements especial ly 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 histor ical features for which no alternative alignments seem feasible or part icular ly desirable. In contrast, the regional position seems to offer l i t t l P s ub s t an t i v e 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 specif ic 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. Al l in a l l , the region's dependence on transit seems precarious. Thus, i t 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 in i t i a t ing 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 i ts transit goals with no less vigour than i t has shown in the past. But I would also recommend that the GVRD accept for the Burnaby RTC the Municipal proposition of str iv ing 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 a c t i v i t i e s , the separation of people and cars and phasing can occur and transit can s t i l l be integrated into the Metrotown when i t is avai lable. 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 of f i ces , 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 act iv i ty levels in the core with sub-regional population levels . And, most 172. importantly, the GVRD does not essential ly recognize that the RTC could have a loca l ly s ignif icant component of residents t ied 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 ac t iv i t ies set within an established lower density environment. Local authorities would house approximately 5,000 people in each neighbourhood area and they would surround the centre with these in-town neighbourhoods. Thus the Metrotown has a regionally s ignif icant component and a loca l ly s ignif icant component-i t has regional stores, off ices and jobs and i t has in-town neighbourhoods. The def init ion 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 a c t i v i t i e s . 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 def in i t ion , nature and real izat ion of proposed local neighbourhoods; i i . issues related to the provision and character of parks and parkways outside the Metrotown core perimeter; and i i i . issues related to the intensity and segregation of uses in the core. 173. Again, we find the local view persuasive. The def init ion of boundaries ref lects .an understanding of the different types of impacts of the Metrotown and the different propensities that people wi l l have to use the place. There is no good reason to think just because a sub-regional boundary is struck, a l l people within that boundary wi l l revise their orientation in favour of the RTC. It is more l ike ly that the degree to which orientation wi l l change wi l l relate to the distance of a potential user from Metrotown. The desire to achieve a balance of ac t iv i t ies that wi l l relate each use to i ts consumers but wi l l 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 re lat ive ly unifunctional place i f demands for one act iv i ty 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 i t would assure that a broad spectrum of those opportunities are available at a l l times. The reservations that we have predicted the GVRD would have about the segregation of uses also seems contradictory to their own goals. The local concept would cause uses to be arranged so as to maximize the eff ic iency of the regional ly-s ignif icant portion of the town. This is because complementary ac t iv i t i es would be placed together and would be:located with respect to how many regional users they draw into Metrotown. Thus by being more e f f i c ient the Metrotown centre becomes more viable and this is c lear ly a regional goal. 174. F inal ly , 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 l i v ing 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 pol icy, 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 in i t i a t ing 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 se l f -suf f i c ient 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 l i t t l e interest in a Development Corporation that di lutes their power and feel no compulsion to set time l imits 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, i t 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 f e a s i b i l i t y 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 s t i l l be a good idea. However, through public in i t ia t ives perhaps even f iner solutions can be achieved. The specif ication by local authorities of a time frame for Metrotown development would also be desirable. This is because time l imitations give an urgency to ca l l s 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 f e e l . Thus i t 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 intr icacy of public responsibi l i ty and the consequent need of a Development Corporation to manage RTCs is also convincing. At the same time, the Municipality's desire to protect i ts power is understandable. Perhaps the best resolution would be the creation of a Metrotown Development Corporation to take i n i t i a t i v e action in the Metrotown while maintaining local processes of development control . This would not deny existing GVRD or local powers but would f a c i l i t a t e action. Thus to reconcile differences over the approach to development, the following recommendation 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 t ied 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 i ts development is more important than that of other RTCs. At the conceptual level these contentions take the form of d i f fer ing 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 i ts own attractive capacity. The local view is that the creation of a quality environment must result even at high developer expense and even i f this results in a lessening 177. of the attractiveness of Metrotown as a place to develop. The proposition of high amenity standards, the specif icat ion 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 a b i l i t i e s of an RTC is real ly a regional matter because act iv i t ies must be attracted from beyond Municipal borders. The GVRD has extensively studied the c r i t e r i a necessary for a place to be able to draw development to i t and has even surveyed candidate 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 decentral i-zation their active business. They have tr ied to stimulate pol ic ies within Vancouver's downtown to make that histor ical location focus less attract ive. , If the GVRD concludes that abnormally high design standards work against a Metrotown location for many firms, then the Municipality should accept this f inding. Indeed, the Municipality's own policy goal to diversify Municipal opportunities may be dependent on th is . If development will not occur in the Metrotown, then regardless of the standards of quality that are established, a diverse environment that has urbanity wi l l not result . The Municipality must moderate the quality demanded for development at least to a level that wil l not preclude such development. The GVRD would ins is t on this i f they are to cooperate in directing development into the Metrotown. This would s t i l l provide a quality environment because the GVRD's Corporation Survey showed such an environment to be a 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 i t unlikely that the GVRD could amend i ts pol ic ies to favour the Metrotown. One might say that 'one RTC does not decentralization make'. The Municipality must real ize that the importance i t places on Metrotown wil l not be echoed at the regional l eve l . To make the Metrotown viable, as the local importance of the place would indicate i t must be, the Municipality wi l l have to rely on i ts own i n i t i a t i v e s . Thus i t is recommended that the Municipality amend i ts policy position that would expect the GVRD to give Metrotown a pr ior i ty 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 in i t ia ted where absolutely necessary and the use of super block development units must be used to f a c i l i t a t e development rather than to extract unreal levies from the developer. RECOMMENDATION 4: IT IS RECOMMENDATD THAT THE MUNICIPALITY OF BURNABY-' RESPECT THE GVRD* POLICY OF THE BURNABY RTC AS ONE AMONG SEVERAL EQUALLY EVOLVING RTCS AND MODERATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS TO CREATE A METROTOWN THAT CAN INDEPENDENTLY ATTRACT ACTIVITY. F. OTHER CONCLUSIONS: The above discussion of necessary policy revisons leaves only two substantive areas where disagreement between regional and local authorities has been pinpointed. These areas are as follows: i . different policy views of growth and how i t should be strategical ly treated which, in turn, leads to a conceptual difference about the type of ac t iv i t ies to be found in the RTC/Metrotown; and i i . the conceptual difference of how new development in the RTC/ Metrotown must ref lect existing land use features on i ts s i te . 179. We wi l l deal with these in turn. As to their view of growth, the regional authorities want a fa i r distr ibution of costs and benefits of growth among regional sub-'areas. The local view is to take only growth that seem s benef ic ia l ' i and avoid other pressures to grow. Towards a fa i r distr ibution of growth the region suggests that each RTC special ize in the kinds of uses that i t houses. For the Burnaby RTC a catering to 'population-serving' ac t iv i t ies is proposed. The Municipal position is only to accept growth that wi l l help to diversify local opportunities. Consequentl within the Metrotown a broad spectrum of ac t iv i t i es is proposed to create an environment that would be loca l ly unique because of i ts urbanity. Such broad spectrum would not be achieved i f uses were completely specialized in the Metrotown as the GVRD proposes. These differences are l i ke ly to be inf luential 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 act iv i t ies should be developed in the Metrotown core. I submit that this issue is not c r u c i a l . If regional authorities decided not to assist in the evolution of third order uses then these could be achieved through Municipal in i t ia t ives 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 th is , i t is easy to conclude that the overall nature of the Metrotown wil l make i t predominantly a location choice for population-serving uses. 180. Such uses are desirous of a location within clustered suburban commer-c ia l 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 off ice f a c i l i t i e s or even wholesaling showrooms, the predominant character of the Metrotown as a place serving people would not be prejudiced. It is also easy to conclude that the growth proposed by local authorities wi l l parallel the growth specif ied as a fa i r share by regional authorit ies. The fa i r share doctrine is real ly directed at the level of overall municipalit ies--the fa i r share is to be distributed among municipal it ies. Burnaby has simply chosen to take a s ignif icant part of that growth at one location so that the close association of ac t iv i t i es wi l l create a type of environment that Burnaby wants. Therefore a discrepancy in the GVRD's RTC notion that might be indicated by the policy and conceptual 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 f inal area of difference was discovered at the conceptual level where local Metrotown ideas are oriented to a real s i te and regional RTC ideas are not s ite-oriented. We find that the only predicted issue that is t ied 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 ref lect 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, i t is logical to say that whether treated as anomolies in design or not, the existing features are bound to influence Metrotown act iv i ty patterns because of the act iv i t ies that they stimulate. Thus i t would appear that the best approach is to use these act iv i ty energies to meet new objectives. However, the need for this type of reconci l iat ion is unnecessary i f regional authorities adopt the recommendation about their position on c irculat ion that was put forward above. If the GVRD revises i ts 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 real ize that such features wi l l be only a minor component in the tota l ly -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 s i te -spec i f i c . The extent of potentials on the Kingsway/Central Park s i te and the l imited constraints seem to leave the s i te 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 u t i l i z e d . 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, i t 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 i t s l imitations and in doing the research of this study, these l imits became apparent. F i r s t l y , i t is s ta t i c . Unless i ts 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 c r i t i c i sm, however, is applicable to most evaluative tools. To avoid this problem, the process could perhaps be streamlined to allow i ts application in consecutive periods so that changes in either the speci f ic 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 wi l l l i ke ly be taken in the future. The problem with this is that i t could become prohibit ively complex. A second problem with the methodology is that i t presents a complete picture of issues, stances and solutions. This may be an i l lusion in the sense that there is no way within the methodology to be assured that 184. a l l necessary ground has been covered. One can only hope that the incremental movement from the general to the specif ic wi l l t ie up most loose ends and encompass a l l l ines of potential disagreement. A s ignif icant 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 intu i t ive ly as a part of probe design. In both of these s ituations, the background and prejudices of the designer cannot f a i l to come into play. Perhaps the best way to deal with bias would be to incorporate a component of c r i t i c a l review by the various parties that are the subject of the analysis. An application of Delphi methods for gathering opinions and reactions might be ut i l i zed (Cull, Davidson,Hood, 1975). In a Delphi framework, conclusions at each phase of the analysis would be returned to the relevant parties for review, ver i f icat ion and/or revis ion. A spinoff of the. Delphi contacts mighfalso be to change some hard attitudes that are held by the in f luent ia ls . 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 essential ly 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 relat ion-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' real izat ion wi l l ultimately require the 185. cooperation of many other groups. To address i t s e l f to a l l levels of cooperation, the research would have to consider these additional groups. Thus the narrowness of subject groups defined for the research stands as a shortcoming of the analysis. We have noted that pol i t ic ians and the po l i t i ca l 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 wi l l be building the RTC, the c i t i zens ' groups and individuals who wi l l l ive in and around and who wi l l use the RTC, and a l i s t of other government agencies who have jur isd ict ion or interest in some aspect of the RTC (including the Federal Government through CMHC and the Provincial Government through i t s Housing and Transportation Departments). Of course the inclusion of each additional subject group within the analysis makes the research more complex and expensive. We might, however, be able to achieve some input from these additional groups by extending a l l or part of a Delphi information gathering framework to include input from them. This would at least pick up their superf ic ial response to the conclusions being drawn as the analysis proceeds. This would give some indication of the affect that these groups wi l l have on proposals to reconcile issues between the major groups being studied. On the other hand, the extended Delphi approach would have certain drawbacks. 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 c ruc ia l . A second draw-back is that responses from groups that are not backed up by a review of their policy setting could make the reconci l iat ion of differences for 186. these groups very d i f f i c u l t . It may be more advantageous to select the crucial parties and concentrate the analysis on these. In a fundamental sense, however, i t can be said that the inclusion in the analysis of parties other than the professional planners would l i ke ly require alternative data col lect ion and analytical techniques that are foreign to the design probe. This is because these additional groups visual ize 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 essential ly the language of the design probe analysis. This is not the case with other par t i -cipants in the RTC development process. These other parties (as itemized above) are influenced by forces that are simply not wholly definable using the design probe methodology. Thus, a consideration of the attitudes of participants other than planners stands as a d is t inct and separate research problem requiring the formulation of another research methodology in order to be adequately handled. Another l imitation of the design-based analysis is that i t is c learly physically oriented. Thus the important socio-economic aspects of the subject environment cannot be forthr ight ly 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 paral lel to the physical scheme. This, however, would require an entire new spectrum of expertise that would complicate the analysis both in how i t proceeds and in what i t costs. 187. Perhaps the most basic l imitat ion of the approach devised for this study is the fact that even in i ts present form, i t is already re lat ively complex and requires substantial time. The col lect ion of information and the essential ly open-ended design phase both take long hours and effort to complete. Therefore i t 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 col lect ion and the design process could be abridged to essentials, but we should real ize 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 poss ib i l i t ies simply because of the constraints that exist on the study. It is apparent, however, that the methodology is f lex ib le and is thus applicable under a variety of careful ly 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 specif ic ramifications these positions can be expected to have on landscape change. Thus more general opinions are focussed on the specif ic 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 pol icy. The second type of evaluation was used in this study. Perahps the more common need is to deal with the f i r s t type. The design probe would s t i l l 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 sh i f t from data col lect ion to data review. One motive of this research has been to devise and test a comparative analytical method founded upon design. In conclusion, i t might be said that the design probe provides answers that are not now 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 i t can isolate differences of opinion at a re lat ive ly speci f ic l eve l . On the other hand, the tedious and expensive nature of the research would indicate that the design probe should only be used when such spec i f i c i ty is a real necessity. Otherwise the design probe may well represent analytical o v e r k i l l . Having said th is , however, i f the method does define conf l icts 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 Vil lage Museum for D is t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 16 July 1975. Archer, L. Bruce. "Design Awareness and Planned Creat iv i ty ." 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: D ist r ic t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1971. Burnaby Planning Department. Burnaby Transportation Study to  1985. Burnaby: D is t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1974:2. Burnaby Planning Department. Community Plans. Burnaby: D ist r ic t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1972. Burnaby Planning Department. The Public Meetings: Phase One. Burnaby: D ist r ic t of Burnaby Planning Department, 1974. Carver, Humphrey. Cit ies in the Suburbs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962. 191 de Chiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman. Planning Design C r i t e r i a . Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1969. Co l l ie r , Robert W. "The Evolution of Regional Distr icts in Br i t ish Columbia," B.C. Studies, 5(Autumn 1972), pp.29-40. Cu l l , Elizabeth, J i l l Davidson and Nancy Hood. "Annotated Bib-liography on Delphi Techniques." Xeroxed Paper Prepared for University of Br i t ish Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning, 1975. Doxiadis, Constantinos A. "The Coming World--City: Ecumenopolis." Cit ies of Destiny. Ed. Arnold Toynbee. New York: McGraw-Hi l l Book Company, 1967. Fawcett, Brian. "Cultural Opportunities in Greater Vancouver." Xeroxed Report for G.V.R.D., 1975. Fruin, John J . Pedestrian-^ Planning and Design. New York: Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners 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 D i s t r i c t . The Livable Region 1976/1986  --Decisions Taken by the G.V.R.D. Board of Directors on  Further Actions to Implement the Livable Region Proposals  to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1975:2. . Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . The Livable Region 1976/1986  --Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1975. Green, George. History of Burnaby and V ic in i ty . 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. C i t i es . New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1963. Hardwick, Walter G. Canadian Cities—Vancouver. Don Mi l l s : Collier-Macmillan Canada, L t d . , 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 C i t ies . New York: Vintage Books, 1961. Kel ler , 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. Of f i c ia l Regional Plan. New Westminster: L.M.R.P.B., 1966. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Regional Distr icts 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 D is t r i c t of Burnaby Planning Department, 13 December 1974:2. Mann, Richard C. Greater Vancouver Regional D is t r i c t 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 Br it ish Columbia. Municipal Act. V ictor ia: 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 i n . "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 Pol ic ies  Which Affect the Physical Structure of an Urban Area. Burnaby: D ist r ic t 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. a l . Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964, pp.79-153. * Source material not quoted in text but used as background information and in discussions with Burnaby planners. 194. APPENDIX GENERAL PRINCIPLES THAT COMPRISE METROTOWN CONCEPT 195. It has been noted that in framing their concept of the Metrotown, the local planners discussed and agreed upon a l i s t 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 l i s t 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 i t does. These principles are as follows: 1. The Metrotown is to have a series of boundaries within which specif ic 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. Act iv i ty in Metrotown can be organized into dominant and supportive functions—dominant functions relate to of f ice ac t iv i ty , shopping, residence and tourism/entertainment and a mul t ip l i c i ty of secondary functions support these. This matrix of dominance and support consti-tutes a general prof i le 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 h is tor ica l ly evolved c i t y ) . 4. In the Metrotown, at the microlevel, there should be a fine-grained mix of uses. At the macroscale there should be a di f ferentiat ion of uses into physical and functional groupings with similar locational/environmental requirements for a s imi lar ly scaled audience. 5. In Metrotown, centrally-oriented uses can be organized into f i r s t , second and third orders of multiple act iv i ty 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 a f f i n i t y and minimize their conf l i c t . 8. A unique feature of the Burnaby Metrotown should be i ts open space context which is manifest in a hierarchy of space, a diversity of space types, a mult ip l ic i ty of special open space amenity features, continuity and a commitment to universal assess ib i l i ty 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 s ignif icant 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, i t should provide multi-modal alternatives which exploit the advantages of each mode. 14. The prof i le of act iv i ty 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 bui l t into a l l projects. 16. The evolution of the Metrotown while incorporating the principles that have been stated, should be conceived on the basis of existing s i te patterns. The local planners also constructed a series of diagrams to i l lus t rate their concepts for the development of the Metrotown and these have been included in the text of the analysis. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items