Open Collections will be undergoing maintenance Monday June 8th, 2020 11:00 – 13:00 PT. No downtime is expected, but site performance may be temporarily impacted.

Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The planning decision-making process of Vancouver’s False Creek : a case study 1968-1974 Elligott, Frederick Joseph 1977

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 E44.pdf [ 8.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094183.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094183-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094183-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094183-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094183-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094183-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094183-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094183-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094183.ris

Full Text

THE PLANNING DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF VANCOUVER'S FALSE CREEK: A CASE STUDY 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 7 2 * by FREDERICK JOSEPH (RICK) ELL IGOTT B.A. SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e c j F r e d e r i c k Joseph (Rick) E l l i g o t t , 1977. r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL 1 9 7 7 In presenting this thesis in partial fulf i l lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Br i t ish Columbia, I agree that the library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my department or his representative. 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 Vancouver, B.C. , Canada. ABSTRACT This study analyses planning and decision-making methods. It is concerned with the soundness both theoretically and pract ical ly of the planning process used for the False Creek area of Vancouver for the period 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 7 4 . Based on a case study, the evolution of the planning process from planning for decisions which . resu1 ted in further planning to planning for action is analysed. In doing so the study monitors the role of the planner, the influence of the pol it ican and the involvement of the cit izen in the planning decision-making process. Data for this study was assembled from numerous Vancouver City Council Minutes, Committee Minutes, Planning Department reports, newspapers (Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province), and a series of personal interviews with many of the actors involved in the process including pol i t icans, planners and c i t izens. Prior to conducting this study there were indications that in False Creek would be found a new and innovative planning process; perhaps even an example of John Friedmann's 'Transactive Planning'. The grand scale of the planning, the existing location of the site next to the down-town area and a changed po l i t i ca l climate a l l pointed to something new. Also the fact that change around the Creek was beginning to occur in early 1 9 7 4 where it had not for thirty years pr ior , suggested a new found process of achieving action. However, upon completing this study, that which had appeared to be a new planning process was in fact largely po l i t ica l domination of the i i planning decision-making process. While change did occur in the aim and roles of the actors in the process, the change was not the result of a new planning philosophy or process. The change was in the po l i t i ca l approach to achieving desired ends. The Vancouver City Council, elected in 1973~74, was dominated by the 'TEAM' party which was elected on a platform of building in False Creek within two years. To accomplish this the TEAM Council established an organizational structure through which the False Creek planners reported directly to the Special Council Committee on False Creek. In doing so the polit icans were not only the main motivating force behind redevelopment on the City owned lands (area 6) in the Creek, but they also became the administrators who controlled preparation of Creek plans. One conclusion of this study is that the influence of the polit ican was the single most important and dominating factor which created and carried out the move to building in area 6 of False Creek. This study also concludes that while the role of the planner varied in False Creek between 1968 and 197^, in the final analysis their role remained unchanged. The planning department was working on overall Creek concept plans between 1968 to 1970. Four years later , in 197^, i t seems a return to that role was emerging. The time in between witnessed the planning department's involvement on City owned lands in the Creek diminish to that of a spectator. Insofar as the involvement of Vancouver residents in False Creek planning is concerned, the general trend was toward less constructive and less influential input. While citizens were consulted during the 1968 to I l l 1 9 7 0 period, with their ideas forming the basis for concept planning, they were channeled, during 1 9 7 3 , through two city bodies (the Social Planning Department and the City Planning Commission) who had, at best, a minor input into the Creek planning process. This situation left citizens in a position of being peripheral to the process. From this study it has become apparent that when the po l i t i c ian controls the planning decision-making process to the extent that they did in False Creek during 1 9 7 3 , not only wil l a transactive process of planning not occur but the roles of the other two main actors, the citizens and the planners, are l ikely to diminish to the point where they have l i t t l e or no importance to or impact on the planning decision-making process. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Purpose 1 Procedure. • 2 Limitations 2 Case Study Setting 4 Footnotes . 23 CHAPTER I I: LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING  DECISION-MAKING PROCESS The Planning decision-making process 2 6 Planning and planners 2 9 Pol i t ics and decision-making 3 3 Citizen Involvement and the Public Interest 3 5 Resume 3 8 Footnotes hO CHAPTER III: CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS PART A: The Significance of the Autumn of 1 9 6 7 . . . . 4 4 PART B: Case Study and Analysis Period One: Spring 1 9 6 8 to Autumn 1 9 7 0 . . . 5 0 Period One Discussion . . . . . 71 Period Two: Autumn 1 9 7 0 to May 1 9 7 2 . . . . 74 Period Two Discussion 9 8 Period Three: June 1 9 7 2 to November 1 9 7 3 . . . 1 0 3 Period Three Discussion . . . . 1 2 8 Period Four: December 1 9 7 3 to April 1 9 7 ^ . . 135 Period Four Discussion 140 Footnotes • V P a g e C H A P T E R I V : C O N C L U S I O N S S t u d y C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . • . . , 173 F i n a l C o m m e n t s • 1 8 3 F o o t n o t e s 1 8 5 B I B L I O G R A P H Y P a r t I : L i t e r a t u r e 1 8 6 P a r t I I : F a l s e C r e e k 1 8 9 A P P E N D I C E S I L i s t o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s 19** II P r i n c i p l e A c t o r s F a l s e C r e e k P l a n n i n g D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g P r o c e s s 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 7 ^ 1 9 5 I I I V a n c o u v e r C i t y C o u n c i l M e m b e r s 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 7 4 • • • 2 0 0 IV L i s t o f P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w s . 2 0 5 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page 1. MAP False Creek Regional Sett ing. . 5 2 . MAP False Creek Locational Features 6 3 . MAP False Creek Sub-Areas . . . 7 4 . MAP False Creek F i l l i ng 9 5 . TABLE Resume: Late 1 9 4 0 ' s to Early 1 9 5 0 ' s . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 6 . TABLE Resume: Mid 1 9 5 0 ' s to Late 1 9 5 0 ' s 19 7 . TABLE Resume: Early 1 9 6 0 ' s to Mid 1 9 6 0 ' s . . . . . . 2 0 8 . TABLE Resume: Mid 1 9 6 0 ' s to Autumn 1 9 6 7 • • 4 9 9 . MAP False Creek Land Ownership 5 5 1 0 . TABLE Resume: April 1 9 6 8 to Autumn 1 9 7 0 7 0 1 1 . TABLE Citizen Involvement in Period One ~/k 1 2 . TABLE Resume: Autumn 1 9 7 0 to May 1 9 7 2 . . 9 7 1 3 . DIAGRAM False Creek Organization Structure 1 9 7 2 . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 14. TABLE Resume: June 1 9 7 2 to November 1 9 7 3 1 2 6 1 5 . DIAGRAM False Creek Organizational Structure 1 9 7 3 129 1 6 . TABLE Resume: December 1 9 7 3 to April 1 9 7 4 1 3 9 1 7 . DIAGRAM False Creek Organizational Structure 1 9 7 4 . . . . . . -. \141 1 8 . DIAGRAM False Creek Realm of Action 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 7 4 . . 1 7 7 1 9 . TABLE Citizen Involvement 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 7 4 1 8 0 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To Professor Brahm Wiesman for his encouragement and continuing confidence . . . my parents for standing by me during very d i f f i c u l t times . . . Ann who throughout December reminded me that out of sight is not out of mind . . . B i l l whose understanding was surpassed only by his promise to never speak to me again if I did not f inish . . . . . . I needed each of you and express my appreciation and thanks to a 11. < v i i i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE 1 The planning decision-making process is the vehicle through which plans are drawn up, po l i t i ca l decisions made, and approved directions pursued. In many institutions this process is fragmented into three isolated and dist inct stages; planning, decision-making and implementation — each with its own actors. When this occurs planning tends to aim toward decisions resulting in further planning. An absence of implementation is character-i s t i c of this s i tuat ion. At the other extreme when decision-makers become involved in planning, and implementation results, the implementation tends to be action for action sake. Alternatively, modern planning is tending toward an integration of the tradit ional ly dist inct stages of the process, which brings together the planner, the pol i t ic ian and the c i t i zen . This situation focuses on action as an evolving product of the planning decision-making process, as opposed to implementation of stat ic plans. This study analyses planning and decision-making methods. It is concerned with the soundness both theoretically and pract ical ly of the development process used for the False Creek area of Vancouver for the period 1968 to 1974. Based on a case study, the evolution of the planning process from planning for 'decisions' to planning for action is analysed. In doing so the study monitors the role of the planner, the influence of the pol i t ic ian and the involvement of the cit izen in the process. In analysing these aspects of the False Creek process, four basic questions are presented and form the focus of the study. These are 1. How did the False Creek planning decision-making process which evolved between 1968 and 1974 reflect the theory and practice of planning? 2 2 . What was the role of the planner in the process? 3 . What influence did the pol i t ic ian exert over the process? 4. How have the citizens of Vancouver been involved? PROCEDURE The basic methodology of this study is one of comparing select aspects of theoretical planning decision-making processes with the real i t ies of an existing si tuat ion. To accomplish this an in-depth case study for the period 1 9 6 8 to 1 9 7 4 has been made of the process of planning False Creek. Data for the case study was assembled from numerous Vancouver City Council Minutes, Committee Minutes, planning department reports, news-papers (Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province), and a series of personal interviews ( l i s t in bibliography) with many of the actors involved in the process, including po l i t i c ians , planners and c i t izens. Also, the author has had considerable exposure to and involvement in the False Creek process through a Federal Government Opportunities for Youth grant in 1 9 7 2 to research and prepare a historical chronology of False Creek, and through working with the False Creek planning team during the summer of 1 9 7 3 , on plans for the Fairview Slopes. LIMITATIONS An important limitation of this study is the magnitude and complex ity of the issue of False Creek. This is evident in the vast amount of information included in the case study which is necessary for understanding what was happening but which is beyond the scope of this study. 3 Another limitation stems from the case study. In researching and writing a "complete story" it is very d i f f i c u l t to trace a l l i n f lu -ences on and participants in the process. This results in reliance in some instances on newspaper reports which are not always total ly re 1i able. . A similar situation arises from the personal interviews where confl ict ing opinions of the same event occasionally occur. The fact that this study is concerned with the planning-decision-making- impl ementat ion process, and that implementation did not take place until after the period documented in the case study may also be considered a limitation of this study. However, the details of implementation are not central to the workings of the process being analysed. Those details form a new and very interesting story for another study. CASE STUDY SETTING The area chosen for this analysis of the p1anning ,decision-making process is a basin adjacent to Vancouver's downtown d is t r i c t called False Creek. See Map 1 for location of the Creek in the City. False Creek presently extends approximately 2£ miles inland, from the east end of English Bay to the Columbia-Quebec Connector, and has a shoreline of approximately 5i miles. It has an established harbor headline, beyond which no f i l l i n g may take place, and has been dredged to a general depth of 20 feet, though some areas are much shallower at low t ide. Maps 2 and 3 indicate location features and o f f i c i a l sub-areas which make up the Creek bas in . The history of False Creek prior to the 1970's is the story of a railroad and its significance to development, and of industry and its impact on a physical area such as the Creek. The story is dominated by constant f i l l i n g of the Creek, repeated studies and plans on the future of the Creek, and the rai lroad. The railroad was f i r s t introduced to False Creek in 1884 by the Canadian Paci f ic Railway. By 1886 the Canadian Paci f ic Railway had laid a ra i l line along the north shore of False Creek, and had bui lt the Kitsi lano Trestle across the Creek to the south shore. (The Kitsi lano Trestle stands to this day.) At the request of Vancouver City Council, the C.P.R. in 1887 located their terminal yards on the north shore of the Creek, between what are now the Granville and Cambie Street bridges. As an incentive to locate their terminal yards on the north shore of False Creek, the City granted the C.P.R. tax exemption on the land for a period of 30 years. MAP 1 FALSE CREEK REGIONAL SETTING MAP 2 FALSE CREEK LOCATIONAL FEATURES Burrard Inlet Key to MAP 2 : 1. Burrard Street Bridge 2. Ki tsilano Trestle 3. Granville Street Bridge h. Cambie Street Bridge 5. Georgia Street Viaduct 6. Columbia - Quebec Connector 7. C.P.R. Rail Yards 8. Granville Island 9- V.I.E.W. Si te 1 0 . Fai rwiew Slopes 11. C.N.R. Rail Yards (False Creek Mud Flats) L 8 Gradually industries moved in ; f i r s t , sawmills, then shipyards, a creasote mill and slaughterhouses, a l l dependent on the estuary for transport of raw materials and finished products. As the industries moved in the railways stretched out their steel arms to feed them. The mud shores were f i l l e d with logs, boulders, mud and garbage, providing more land for indus-t r ia l expansion and choking off the fresh-water creeks.^ In 1913, the dredging of a 350 foot wide 20 foot deep shipping channel began. From the need to dispose of the sand being removed, Granville Island was born and by 1915 was completed. While Granville Island was being created in the western part of the Creek, the mud f la t area east of Main Street stretching to Clarke Drive was being f i l l e d by the Canadian National Railway. The years 1914 to 1916 saw the C.N.R. f i l l the entire False Creek mud f lats area and create their western terminus. False Creek or iginal ly had a water area of more than 500 acres, stretching east, almost to Clarke Drive. Over the years i t has been f i l l e d to the approximately 250 acres of water it is today. (See Map 4 ) . The fact that False Creek bordered the downtown area on the south and east, and acted as a barrier for movement into the downtown peninsula has made the Creek the most often bridged body of water in the region. Not only are there three existing bridges, Burrard, Granvi l le, and Cambie, but also the Kitsi lano Trestle and the Georgia Street Viaduct. In addition, there were ear l ier bridges where a l l three presently stand, as well as a bridge at Main Street. The point to be made here is simply the fact that False Creek has had a signif icant influence on transportation in Vancouver. 9 MAP k FALSE CREEK FlLLING fD O Key to MAP 4 : Original high water mark 1974 high water mark Creek area f i1 led 10 From the standpoint of the bridges influence on the Creek, the constant jumping over the Creek faci1itated by the bridges led to a lack of internal roads around the Creek. The impetus which created the bridges served to isolate the Creek. Whereas the City had given the C.P.R. 30 years tax exemption for locating on the shores of the Creek, they gave the C.N.R. a large tract of land, (known as the False Creek Mud F lats ) , and the right to f i l l in the end of the Creek (the False Creek F lats) . In exchange the City received a promise from the C.N.R. that they would supply roads and sewer services to the Flats and establish a steam-2 ship line from Vancouver. In 1926, Vancouver's f i r s t Town Planning Commission was estab-l ished. Then, on August 2 of their f i r s t year, the Town Planning Commission hired Harland Bartholomew and Associates to prepare a "Comprehensive Town Plan for the City of Vancouver and a Regional Plan of the contiguous or adjacent terr i tory" .3 This f i r s t City Plan dealt with False Creek in a separate section of the report, though it considered the Creek in relationship to the areas surrounding i t . In studying the Creek, Mr. Bartholomew observed that "the False Creek industrial d is t r i c t has been permitted to become an eyesore and a menace to health. Its regeneration is essential to normal c iv ic develop-ment".1* Bartholomew's report, presented to the City on December 28, 1929, suggested bulkheading the Creek into a 600 foot wide 20 foot deep shipping channel, an idea which has been forgotten only recently. Bartholomew's 11 ultimate vision was that "the entire False Creek area may be reclaimed (from its deteriorated condition) and used for purposes more appropriate to a city of a mill ion population. The theory of the plan i s , b r ie f l y , to create greater land values by increasing the desi rabi l i ty of the lands for high-class industries".- ' The 1 9 2 9 Bartholomew plan had l i t t l e impact on False Creek, and l i t t l e changed in the Creek throughout the 1 9 3 0 ' s to the late 1 9 4 . 0 ' s . A few new industries came, many plans and development schemes for the likes of fisherman's wharves were proposed and most often forgotten^, along with considerable f i l l i n g of the Creek, reflect highlights of these times. False Creek grew smaller and more fet id as industries poured their wastes into the water.7 Significant during this time was the very poor quality f i l l , such as sawdust and junk-garbage, which found its way into the Creek, and which would become an important consideration of future development plans for the Creek. In light of growing pressures from businesses and cit izens a l ike , to do 'something' with False Creek, City Council in March, 1 9 4 8 established a special False Creek Planning and Development Committee to unite al l parties with an interest in the Creek. From discussions of concerned part ies, a disagreement between the City Council and the Town Planning Commission over future plans for the o Creek, and the coincidental fact that the then Alderman Halford Wilson happened to have been v is i t ing Toronto, seen that Toronto had similar water-front problems as Vancouver had in False Creek, and had hired 12 Mr. E. L . Cousins to draw up plans, which to Alderman Wilson looked good,9 City Council decided to hire Mr. Cousins as a consultant for False Creek. Thus the 1950 False Creek Development Study was undertaken, to look at railways, waterways, sawmills, and the general economic condi-tion of the Creek. Three years after it was authorized by City Council and 20 months after it began its work, the False Creek Development Survey was discontinued. It had amassed a l l possible data but found i tse l f with nothing to rec-ommend. 10 Keeping in mind the problems stemming from the complex owner-ship pattern which existed in the Creek;^ The survey seems to have fal len over the stumbling block which had tripped a l l previous attempts to obtain a feasible development pro-gram. A plan, no matter how rea l i s t i c in an engineering way, can have small chance of mat-er ia l i z ing i f it is administratively unrealis-t i c . Because a l l the False Creek planning up to 1953 was directed solely at solving engin-eering problems to the virtual exclusion of any consideration of the administrative problems, the well engineered cart was always in front of the po l i t i ca l h o r s e . ^ This situation which existed surrounding the 1950 False Creek Development Study should be considered in light of the fact that the consul-13 tant, Mr. E. " L i Cousins, was a 'railway man1 from years gone by, who could hardly be expected to produce recommendations which might threaten the railways stranglehold on False Creek. In October 1955, two years after he had completed the 1950 False Creek Development Study and two years after he had fai led to supply the City 13 with any substantial recommendations from the three year study, Mr. E. L. Cousins presented a report, based on his 1950 to 1953 survey work,' to City Council. Cousins now recommended that two committees be established; one consisting of major land owners around False Creek, and the other being a technical committee. Cousins did present several alternative schemes for developing the Creek, none of which were pursued. / The two committees he recommended were established in 1956. Following the establishment of the two committees, and continu-ing throughout the late 1 9 5 0 ' s , was a process of realizing the complexity and the problems of the False Creek basin. The ineff ic ient use of land around the Creek, the polluted condition of the Creek waters, the ownership situation and the leasehold patterns reflect only a portion of the complex-i ty , and a few of the problems which existed. As awareness of False Creek grew, so concern for the area grew. City Council, on January 13, 1959, reappointed the False Creek Development Committee it -estab 11shed or ig inal ly in 1956. The Committee was authorized, under the chairmanship of Alderman Halford Wilson, to "ca l l together interested parties in order that recommendations may be made to Council in respect to proceeding upon recommendations contained in the Cousins' Report". 1^ It was l i t t l e more than two months later , on March 2k, 1959, that the newly re-appointed special committee recommended to Council that the planning department be instructed to carry out a 'high pr ior i ty ' study concerning the relocation of the False Creek harbour head l ine .^ This is signif icant not only because Council requested 'high pr ior i ty 1 work on False Creek from the planning department, but also because this was the heginning of major efforts by the planning department, over the next few years, to improve the situation which existed in False Creek. The plight of the Creek was further articulated and publicized by the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board's 1959 industrial survey. The survey indicated that a long run potential demand existed for industrial sites such as those found in False Creek. The survey also brough to light many deficiencies which hindered industrial growth in False Creek. The dissatisfactions were the restrictions imposed on navigation by the Trestle and by the shallow channel, the lack of adequate road access, t ra f f i c congestion and an array of administrative and financial f a c t o r s " . ^ In September, I960 the Director of Planning, Mr. George Fountain, reported to City Council that there existed many long leases on False Creek land, and that any cleaning up of Creek conditions or redevelopment 18 of the area would be d i f f i c u l t until these leases expired in 1971. Fountain went on to say that some industries should not be in the Creek, especially the wood processing industries which use the Creek as a large booming ground. He also stated that the road system around the Creek was inadequate, the air and the water was polluted, and the land and the water were being ineff ic ient ly and uneconomically used. December 2 0 , i 9 6 0 saw the Special False Creek Committee present a report in principle to City Council, that the Creek would be a secondary harbour and industrial area. Counci1 adopted this statement of principle direction for the C r e e k ^ and was promised a concrete plan for the Creek 15 by the committee within six months. Considerable optimism existed at this time, as Planning Director Mr. George Fountain reported that an atmosphere of cooperation had been reached between major land owners and government agencies inter-ested in the Creek .^ The cooperation was in fact in the form of a technical committee which included the railway interests, the Provincial and Federal governments, the National Harbours Board, major industrial land owners around the Creek and two planning department staff members, Mr. Gerard Farry and Mr. Franklin 21 Wiles. The important point here is that it was no surprise that the planners, working closely with an industrial ly oriented technical committee, produced industrial plans for the Creek. As the planning department continued working on False Creek, an updated version of Harland Bartholomew's 1928 ideas for the Creek seemed to 22 emerge. Ideas of a high-class industrial area, a narrow shipping channel an improved road access around the Creek, a l l originated in Bartholomew's 1938 plan, a l l were refined in the early 1960 's to suit the times. , On the advice of the City Engineering Department, solutions to the c irulat ion and access problems around the Creek began to material ize. The idea of the Columbia-Quebec Major Street Connector was born and presented to City Council in January, 1962, by the Special False Creek Committee, as one of several ways to improve the road circulation system around the 23 Creek. This idea, along with others aimed at finding the ways and means of achieving better industrial use of the Creek, passed through a series of 16 2k planning department reports on the rehabil itation of False Creek. During this time (late 1962 through early 1964) the Director of Planning Mr. G. F. Fountain left the City, and Mr. Harry Pickstone took the position of Acting Director. Then, in early 1964, Mr. W. E. Graham became the Director of P1ann i ng. May, 1964 saw Mr. Graham present his report "Notes on Unified Management", in which cooperation between the major False Creek owners was seen as the key to rehabil itation of the Creek.^5 On July 2 2 , 1964, the Planning Department presented "The Columbia-Quebec Major Street Connection and False Creek Rehabilitation" report^ to council for approval. By the end of 1964 the major land owners affected by the connector, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, Ocean Cement, and Deeks-McBride, had agreed to the project . 2 ? In A p r i l , 1965 the Board of Administration on behalf of City Council approved the connector. ° Work began on the connector shortly afterwards, and with property owners causing delays^ in a couple of instances, was not completed until the summer of 1973-Through the mid 1960 's planning and policy continued toward more intense industrial use of the Creek. In addit ion, several sawmill f i res had, by the 1 9 6 0 ' s , removed a l l but one of the major sawmills around the Creek. Large portions of the Creek were left vacant or underutilized as storage yards. Thus more intensive uses of the land were feasible. During this time industries such as Ocean Cement, Deeks-McBride and Johnston Terminals began pressuring City Council for formal assurance that False Creek would remain an industrial a r e a . ^ 17 The Planning Department continued work on the Harbour Headline, the ra i l s i tuat ion, and the leasehold policy in the Creek. The situation as it existed, moving into the later 1960 's saw the City str iv ing to clean up False Creek and make it an economical high-class industrial area. Stemming from this underutil ization and general run-down conditions which permiated the Creek over time, was the stigma attached to the Creek. As far back as the 1930's and hO's Vancouver residents had been disturbed about the blighted conditions of the lands around the Creek, and the quality of the water in the Creek. In more recent times, this d issat is -faction with the condition of the Creek has been a motivating factor in people pushing for a change in land use around the Creek. The water quality issue has served to make people question whether a change in use is even feasible around such poor water quality. Another aspect of the Creek which contributes to its unique situation for planning is the fact that other than a small live-aboard floating home community there are no permanent residents l iv ing around the Creek. Tradit ional ly , planning would suggest that cit izen involvement should stem from the residents of an area. Without residents in.False Creek, the City found i tse l f in a situation of having to involve a l l people of Vancouver in the process, a task which is by nature impossible. Events between 19^0 and the mid 1960's have been summarized on Tables 5 , 6 , and 7-In retrospect, to this point in Creek redevelopment, l i t t l e action had taken place and uncertainties as to what should be done s t i l l loomed ominously around the Creek. 18 TABLE 5 RESUME: LATE 1 9 4 0 ' s - EARLY 1 9 5 0 ' s TREND clean up the Creek - more econimical industrial use - f ish dock talk REPORTS 1 9 5 0 False Creek Development Study 1951 Railway Services as Related to the Industrial Use of False Creek 1 9 5 2 Preliminary Appreciation of the Development of the Wood Converting Industries in False Creek 1 9 5 3 The Economic Study of the False Creek Industrial Area MAIN PLAYERS consultant Mr. E. L. Cousins Council: False Creek Planning and Development Committee RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS studies without follow-up action Council established False Creek Planning and Development Committee Council hired consultant Mr. E. L. Cousins began removing squatters from the False Creek Flats planned f ish dock for the Creek SCOREBOARD - concern no d i rect ion - no poli cy COMMENTS much talk, no action small steps for Council, no steps for False Creek 19 TABLE 6 RESUME: MID 1950's - LATE 1950's TREND - Creek as a secondary harbor - better use of the Creek by industries located there - much f ish dock talk REPORTS - 1955 Report on False Creek, Cousins - 1959 False Creek Planning and Development Committee Report MAIN PLAYERS consultant Mr. E. L. Cousins Alderman Halford Wilson and the False Creek Planning and Development Committee RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS Creek becomes high pr ior i ty area City committees and Creek landowners talk Council establishes a landowner committee and a technical committee Federal wharf opens for commercial f leet boats SCOREBOARD - much concern some direction toward more industrial use - no policy COMMENTS - City acting without a clear idea of where it was going - a time for talk, tea meetings, and agreement that something must be done 20 TABLE 7 RESUME: EARLY 1960's - MID 1960's TREND industrial future for Creek assured city planning department produces numerous reports aimed at creating a high-class industrial area in the Creek REPORTS 1960 False Creek Development Study 1961 False Creek Development Study 1962 Technical Committee on False Creek Development Report 1963 False Creek Rehabilitation Report 1964 False Creek Rehabilitation Report 1964 Notes on Unified Management 1964 The Columbia-Quebec Major Street Connector and False Creek 1964 Report on False Creek Rehabilitation 1965 False Creek Report MAIN PLAYERS City Planning Department False Creek Planning and Development Committee City Engineering Department (advisory) RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS Council adopts in principle False Creek as a secondary harbor Council approves actions toward an upgraded industrial area; -new harbor head 1ine, shipping channel, Columbia-Quebec Connector considerable effort studying leasehold policy and rai l situation SCOREBOARD much concern directions set for high-class industrial area, secondary harbor some policies set, some actions COMMENTS - revival of 1928 Harland Bartholomew concept for False Creek - wheels in motion for industrial future 21 In the context of this study two important aspects of the. Creek emerge from this period. The f i r s t is that the Creek being located next to Vancouver's downtown core area has considerable potential for planning to occur toward redevelopment. Combine this with the condition of existing development in the Creek and the entire area is extremely 'r ipe for develop-ment' . The second emerging aspect of the Creek was the variety of actors who were involved. Po l i t i c ians , planners and private enterprise were a l l showing considerable interest in the future of the Creek. Citizens at this point were involved only in as much as they complained about the eyesore condition of the Creek. The variety of actors and important location when combined with diverse land uses, ownership and physical barriers made False Creek a complex and challenging redevelopment situation. It is the planning decision-making process which tackled the potential of the Creek that wi l l be analysed through the remainder of this study. This chapter has outlined the intent for this study, a histor ical perspective on the area, and pertinent setting and background data necessary to understand the topic False Creek. Chapter II presents a discussion of l i terature outlining various aspects, of the planning decision-making process. The role of the planner, influence of the pol i t ican and involvements of citizens in the process are also discussed. Chapter I I I is the case study against which the theory outlined in Chapter I I wi11 be compared. Following each period in the case study, a point form resume of the period is presented, along with an analysis 22 discussion of the questions this thesis focusses on. Chapter IV presents the points which have been discussed in Chapter III and summarizes these into basic conclusions. 23 FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER I 1. The Province, September 2 8 , 1957, p. 11 2 . Gary Bannerman, "Alderman Wilson Wins City Windfal l - - $ 2 . 7 5 M i l l i on" , The Province, July 1 5 , 1972, p. 15 3 . Harland Bartholomew, A Plan for the City of Vancouver, Town Planning Commission, City of Vancouver, 1929, p. 10 4. Ibid. , p. 147 5. Ibid. 6. See the Vancouver City Archives records on Fish Docks—False Creek especially 1935-1949 7. The Province, September 2 8 , 1957, p. 11 8 . Dennis M. Churchi l l , False Creek Development, Masters Thesis, Department of Economics, Pol i t ica l Science, and Sociology, University of Br i t ish Columbia, November, 1953, p. 200 9 . Personal interview with Mr. Wilson 10. Churchi l l , Op. C i t . , p. 201 11. The major land owners were the C.P.R. (Canadian Paci f ic Rai1 road) , the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, B.C. E lec t r i c , with the City of Vancouver owning only a small amount of land. 12. Churchi l l , Op. C i t . , p. 202 13- Personal Interview, Mr. Harry Pickstone, Deputy Director, Vancouver Planning Department. 14. E. L. Cousins, Report on False Creek, October, 1955 15. Vancouver City Council Minutes, January 13, 1959 16. Vancouver City Planning Department, History of False Creek Development  Study, Apri1 , 1964, p. 1 17. June Fukui, False Creek: A Background Report for the Vancouver Board of  Trade, School of Community and Regional Planning, 'U.B.C. , 1968, p. 85 18. The Province, September 9 , 1960, p.6 24 19. Vancouver City Planning Department, History of False Creek Development  Study, Apri1 , 1964, p. 3 2 0 . The Province, December 2 0 , i 9 6 0 2 1 . Interview with Professor Brahm Wiesman, Acting Director, Community and Regional Planning School, U.B.C. Professor Wiesman was a member of the Vancouver City Planning Department at that time. 2 2 . Ibid. 2 3 . The Province, January 17, 1962 24. See: False Creek Rehabi1itat ion,Report, October, 1963; False Creek  RehabTT? tatlon Report, February, 1964; The Columbia-Quebec Major Street  Connection and False Creek Rehabil itation, July 2 2 , 1964 2 5 . W. E. Graham, Notes on Unified Management, May, 1964, Vancouver Planning Department 26. Vancouver Planning Department, The Columbia-Quebec Major Street Connection  and False Creek Rehabilitation, July 2 2 , 1964 27. Fukui, Op. C i t . , p. 94 2 8 . Ibid. 2 9 . Ibid. 3 0 . The Province, May 2 5 , 1966, and Vancouver City Council Minutes, October 24, 1967. CHAPTER I I LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 25 LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING DECISION-MAKING PROCESS This chapter is an overview of the forces which have t radi t ion-al ly shaped planning-decision-making processes. Specif ical ly the planning-decision-making process is discussed, with particular reference to the role of the planner, the influence of the p o l i t i c i a n , and the involvement of the c i t i zen . In response to the four main questions this thesis examines, as outlined in Chapter I, this chapter is divided into four basic discussions and a resume. The f i r s t discussion is of process, outlining the necessity to deal with planning-decision-making as a continuum without making planning, decision-making, and implementation separate act iv i t ies in the process. The second discussion reflects on planning and the planner in relation to his heritage, a bureaucratic organization, and p o l i t i c s . Just as the planner finds himself encumbered with circumstances, so the polit ican is influenced. The third discussion is on pol i t ics and decision-making, and focuses on the pol i t ican 's situation in the decision-making process. Citizen involvement and the public interest are discussed last , in such a way as to outline where cit izens have been involved in planning, and how their 1 interests 1 have been considered. A short resume discussion closes this chapter. 26 PLANNING-DECISION-MAKING PROCESS The idea that planning and imple-mentation are two dist inct and separable act iv i t ies dies hard. Planning, it is said , leads to the formulation of plans; imple-mentation is concerned with carrying them out. The intervening step is a decision. Where in one light it is said that a decision separates planning and implementation, it could in another light be said that a decision links planning and implementation, and in fact creates a continuous process from tradit ional ly separate ac t i v i t ies . If planning and implementation are' separated inst i tut ional ly , as is often the case, the plans "are shelved 2 away", or "are l ikely to be rejected, ignored or radically altered by the po l i t i ca l decision-makers."^ Implementation of plans produced this way often requires "a large application of power and, thus generates consid-erable resistance and al ienation." ' 4 Further, " fai lures of planners and implementers to understand one another's motivations and l imitations, and the fai lure of both to understand the po l i t i ca l context in which they oper-ate, are at the root of the overall problem. In viewing planning and implementation linked by decisions, it is possible to overcome the hurdle of planning for decisions to undertake further planning in favor of planning for action. If the focus of planning is shifted from decisions to action, it is possible to assert that any action that is deliberate is also to a certain degree planned. The problem is no longer how to make decisions more " rat ional" , but how to improve the quality of the action.*^ 27 John Friedmann inhis ar t ic le "Notes on Societal Action"' 7 proposes an action-planning model^ which "fuses action and planning into a single operation so that the conceptual distinctions of pianning-decision-implementation-recycling are washed out."^ It is the elimination of the somewhat a r t i f i c i a l l y imposed dist inction between planning and implemen-tation, which has tradit ional ly isolated the planning decision-making process into phases or steps, that directs our focus to action and process. As Friedmann points out, "the common denominator of a l l effective planning is that planning must be 'actionable' and as such must be an integral part of an organization's decision-making and managerial processes" .^ ! Planning is not merely concerned with the ef f ic ient instrumentation of objectives; it is also a process by which society may discover its future. Our traditional emphasis has been upon the physical c i t y , conceived as a r t i -fact ; upon the spatial arrangement of act iv i ty locations, conceived as land-use pattern; and upon the urban settlement, conceived as a unitary place. We have sought to influence the forms of each of these, with the purpose of improving certain behavioural aspects of the society. Yet we have neglected the con-ception of the city as a social system in action.12 With our past emphasis centering on physical plans, not only have we used economics as a yardstick-crutch against economically unquanti-f iable social concerns, but we have fal len into the p i t f a l l of physical plans, by emphasizing a "desired future state, without a clear view of the processes by which that state is achieved."^ Again this points to the 28 separation of planning and implementation, a hurdle which must be over-come in order to realize that planning and implementation are l i t t l e more than Jables attached to actions comprising a process ad infinitum. At the same time process should not create a situation where the end product becomes irrelevant, so long as the process was good or proper. John Friedmann in his book Retracking America: A Theory of  Transactive Plann ing attributed the problem of plans not being implemented to a weak or non-existent link between knowledge and a c t i o n . ^ Friedman explains this situation as" planners (with the knowledge) relating primarily to other planners or related professionals, and producing documents written more to maintain their image to their colleagues than to aid the cl ient decision-maker. The solution to this problem, Friedmann believes l ies in improving the communicative relationships between individual planners and c l ients . As an interactive model of planning, "transactive planning changes knowledge into action through an unbroken sequence of interpersonal re la -t i o n s . " 1 5 Within transactive planning, Friedmann identified two inseparable levels of communication. The f i r s t is person-centered communication which he terms the ' l i f e of dialogue'. The second is subject-matter-related communication "which is sustained by the primary relation of d ialogue. . . Both levels are indispensable to planning. Where they become disassociated, thought is reduced to theorems and action to pure energy." 1^ Friedmam' s transactive planning is based on interpersonal relat ion-ships where an individual's ab i l i t y to work with another individual is para-mount. This is an interesting and dist inct ly different process from his 29 earl ier references to action planning, where the implementabi1ity of plans was the main aim of the process. Both of these focuses of the planning process are relevant, however transactive planning would l ikely be more susceptible to breaking down in bureaucratic organizations where individ-uals simply cannot manage to communicate well . PLANNING AND PLANNERS Planners are influenced greatly by their heritage, the bureaucratic organization they are part of, and the pol i t ic ians and po l i t -ical structure they find themselves working under and being directed by. The placement of the planning function in the decision-making system is determined largely by forces outside the planning f i e l d . Far more controll ing are the soc ia l , economic, and po l i t i ca l forces which shape the structure and role of government; which define the system of checks and balances; which momentarily resolve the balance of powers among the several levels of government, among the regions of the country, and of competing interest groups. Far more important is the impact of emerging ideas confl ict ing aspirations, and the perception or the lack thereof with respect to City devel-opment, current needs, and future pros-pects. The weight given different ideas, values, and aspirations is more l ikely to determine at any given time how strongly the planner f i t s into the decision-making system. Figuratively, the planner is like the g i r l with a big bust when Twiggy is in sty le . She has a lot to of fer , and can even be well used; but she's not favored with Saturday night dates, and she goes to the movies with her g i r l f r iends . 1 ? 30 With the role of the planner being set largely by forces outside his control , the planner tradit ional ly assumed the role of professional technician. A generalist who, when challenged had not easily identif iable strength such as an engineer or economist, and as a result had l i t t l e to fa l l back on other than a physical land-use plan and qualitative arguments. The planners heritage is of an emphasis on physical design, a reliance on physical U t o p i a s , and a distrust for local g o v e r n m e n t . 1 ° Planning was i n i t i a l l y conceived as a set of rules and structures designed to keep po l i t i cs out of urban development. Because land use control had an enormous impact on land values, the chances of graft were considerable. Reformers attempted to eliminate this temptation by minimizing discret ion. Planning regula-tions were formulated to establish in advance the conditions under which changes in land use would be allowed. This heritage has led to "a simple minded premise of a world in which planners lay out optimal courses to selected goals, bureaucracies translate these courses into action, and implementation follows as neatly 20 as building construction follows a blueprint." Where traditional planning focused on physical designs, more recent 'action planning' focuses on social-economic-ecological concerns which includes deliberation and choice as pervasive, ongoing a c t i v i t i e s . , not to be identif ied as dist inct ive phases prior to act ion; they are— inseparately—a part of i t . " Reinforcing action planning, "the common denominator of a l l effective planning is that it must be 'actionable' and as such must be an integral part of an organization's decision-making and 31 managerial p r o c e s s e s . . . " ^ Planning, in this l ight , is a process by 7 k which sc ient i f i c and technical knowledge is joined to organized action. Where planning has striven to be comprehensive and to focus on the preparation of a master plan, "a single document that presents a tidy blueprint for the sometime future," 2 - ' the emphasis is shift ing to a "process and program oriented act i v i t y . " "Planning is now viewed as a continuous process of moving towards provisional goals rather than the delineation of an ideal end state to be achieved at some future date . . . The planner now emphasizes a variety of middle-range or short-range programs, con-tinuously moving and redefining targets." 27 With the emphasis of the process changing away from the production of "end states", toward actions and programs, " . . . c i t i e s _ a r e asking planners not to hide themselves in planning commissions which exist often as ivory towers erected by c iv ic leaders who consider themselves above p o l i t i c s ; instead they are demanding that planners become active advisors to city h a l l , so that they can participate in the day-to-day decision-making process." 2 " Complicating the planner's position in the decision-making process are the bureaucracies which earmark larger c i t i es . Nowadays, most c i t ies have planning departments to carry out the appropriate act iv i t ies related to the functioning and future of the community. Depending on the specif ic city and its bureaucratic organization, planners often find them-selves in a position of either being isolated as the only people producing plans for the community, or being so encumbered with others producing plans 32 that no agreeable solution or direction can emerge. The isolation planners suffer from often stems from the bureaucratic structure within which they plan. . The danger here is that by "being isolated as the only plan maker in the community, public agencies as well as the public i tse l f may have suffered from incomplete and shallow analysis of potential direct ions ."29 Not only is incomplete and shallow analysis a danger of bureaucratic planning, but so is staff frustration and eventual demoralization. "In the case of the New York City Planning Department, the personal dominance exerted by the chairman over the staff limits its role to the area of 'housekeeping' ac t i v i t ies . The antiprofessionalism, the lack of accounta-ab i l i t y in the Community Renewal Program, and the frequent use of consultants have resulted in the demoralization of the staff and the diminution of professional work."^ Another complicating real ity for planners is the fact of l i fe that pol i t ic ians are ultimately responsible for decision-making. Planners deal with the process of planning and implementation, while polit icans intervene to make a decision. While planners have in the past tried " . . . t o insulate planning from the sordid po l i t ica l system, the pol i t ic ian has always been the '1 ink' between plans and implementation. In order to assure planners plan for 'action' rather than plans, isolating them from the po l i t i cs of decision-making, serves only to make decisions the barrier rather than the link between planning and implementation. In real i ty , planning " . . . i n -31 vites po l i t i ca l and social values to be examined and debated."-^ With planning moving away from the production of ideal end-state master plans toward process aimed at act iv i ty or implementation, the planner finds himself in a much more complex demanding posit ion. Where, in the past, 33 the planner could plead no responsibil ity for decision-making or imple-mentation, now he finds himself to be a responsible participant in the ongoing process. He is now a participant joined by the pol i t ic ian and c i t i zen , sharing responsibi1ity at a l l stages of the planning decision-making-implementation process. POLITICS AND DECISION-MAKING The question is not whether planning wi l l reflect p o l i t i c s , but whose pol i t ics wi l l i t ref lect . What values and whose values wi l l planners seek to implement.^2 In the case of planners who work for a bureaucratic department, city council is their primary cl ient because it is the f inal policy making authority in municipal government.^ The result is sometimes planning not for the public or community good, but for the po l i t i c ians . This is not to say pol i t ic ians do not have honorable ends in mind, but in real i ty , local elected o f f i c i a l s are pre-dominately part time public servants, involved primarily in their private bus-iness ac t i v i t i es , and with l i t t l e expertise in government. In addition, they tend to be people who are local in o r ig in , rooted deeply in traditions and economic circum-stances of the p a s t . . . . In addition, studies of the behavior of po l i t i ca l leaders in local government suggest that they are strongly indisposed toward the making of decisions involving conf l ict within the community. Case after case analyzing local development decisions reveals pub-l i c o f f i c i a l s seeking to avoid making tough decisions, to avoid confronting issues before it is absolutely necessary to confront them,and, where decisions must be made, to defer to "experts" or to other levels of government or to de l -egate responsibil ity to nongovernmental 34 groups which can reach some sort of a consensus. Local government is particularly sensitive to pressures from local groups. Development decisions often involve threats—either to the prop-erty rights of some residents or, more dangerously, to their image of the commu-nity in which they l i ve . Either kind of threat is l ikely to evoke the most impas-sioned responses from direct ly affected factions of the population. Local elec-ted o f f i c i a l s are poorly equipped to respond to these pressures. They must necessarily value the current applied pressures more highly than the less spe-c i f i c sentiments of the rest of the pub-1ic or the long-run needs of the commu-nity. Their very tenure in off ice depends upon such an evaluation. Only within narrow limits do they have the possibi l i ty or the power to delegate decision-making to others less vulner-able to local particularisms and short term concerns. ' As a consequence of these charac-ter is t ics of the public decision-making process large numbers of urgently needed decisions are put off indefinitely . This process of avoiding decisions involving conf l ict hinges total ly on the individual decision-maker, as "almost every decision with which they are faced involves so many diverse groups making different demands that final disposition of the issue is impossible. The best that can be expected is that some kind of compromise can be arranged which wi l l work, at least for the present, so that other confl icts can be resolved."3 The signif icant point which arises here is that "since each decision is a compromise solution and no group receives what is really wanted, each 36 decision has within it the seeds of future conf l i c t . " 35 Polit ic ians then, much like planners, find themselves in a position over which they have l i t t l e control. Where the pol i t ic ian influences the planner, the public influences the po l i t i c ian . It must also be realized that an unbiased value-free decision-maker can hot exist , as "values are inescapable elements of any rational decision-making p rocess . "^ Of importance here is that "appropriate policy is determined through a process of po l i t i ca l debate. The right course of action is always a matter of choice, never a fact;3^ and that no matter how competent and well intentioned, a decision-maker can never make an important decision on grounds that are not in some degree arbitrary or nonlogical-. He must select from among incompatible alternatives each of which is preferable in terms of a different but defensible view of the public inter-est.39 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST . . . .people are usually the objects rather than the subjects of c i v ic action: they are acted upon by others, but rarely do they themselves in i t iate a c t i o n . . . . c i t y -wide c iv ic and po l i t i ca l forces seek to police them, vote them, and redevelop them.40 People who are objects rather than subjects of c iv ic action have no input or influence over the planning of their community. They find them-selves in a position of being limited to pure adaptive actions and completely dependent on forces beyond their control . John Friedmann terms such people 'reactive' and contrasts them with 'active' people, who have a capacity to pursue autonomously definite ends.^ 36 Prior to the movement of recent years, toward cit izen involve-ment, cit izens have l i t t l e or no input or role in the planning-decision-making process. Public participation was considered ineff ic ient and time consuming by planners, who also believed that people did not know what they wanted and that they as trained technicians knew better of people's needs than the people did. As a result , planners and elected o f f i c i a l s identif ied the "public interest"; a "course of action which best serves the public as a w h o l e . T h i s assumed that a community's goals could be "measured at least roughly as to importance and welded into a single hierarchy of community ob jec t i ves . "^ It also seemed that the public believed the planner possessed special ab i l i t i es for determining their interests, and had a marked responsibil ity for their interests. Where planners are called upon to arbitrate public conf l icts the public defers to the professional's judgement as if it were authoritative and based upon some f inal pr inciples. •> Of importance here is the belief in a unified public interest. "Planners. . . .have been distracted by the pursuit of consensual goals that would maximize the i l lus ive general public interest. As a result , goals defined by the process are so broad that they are of almost no use in 46 making day-to-day decisions about development." Not only have planners been distracted by the search for a unified public interest but that such consensual goals are non-existant. Wheaton suggests that "there is no genera1 pub 1ic interest which exists in some form of continuing state about which consensual goals can be articulated in any meaningful way. Rather, the public interest should be reagarded as a 37 highly dynamic complex of varied i n t e r e s t s . " ^ In other words, a unified public interest almost never exists in the real world, and as a substitute for c i t izen involvement or input it becomes l i t t l e more than a po l i t i ca l 48 goa 1. Let us turn our attention from the public interest to the real i t ies of involving citizens in the planning-decision-making process. "The idea of cit izen participation is a l i t t l e l ike eating spinach: no one is against i t in pr inciple because i t is good for you. Participation of the governed in their government i s , in theory, the cornerstone of democracy--49 a revered idea that is vigorously applauded by v i r tual ly everyone." In the past, cit izens have seldom participated directly in the formulation of plans. Any participation cameafter plans were part ia l ly or entirely developed, and involved at best a limited segment of the community."^ . . . . c i t i z e n participation has t radi -t ionally occurred after the fact and has involved only a few 'key' members of the commun i t y . ^ Adding to the situation is the fact that planners have not been able to maintain the interest of the general public over extended periods of time. This however is probably due to the dilemma of c i t izen involvement that "planning must and should precede action, although action is necessary to secure the interest of citizens and thus the support of their part icipation. Planning is unreal action. The involvement of cit izens 52 in something which is not real i s , at best, very d i f f i c u l t to achieve." 38 Complicating the issue even more is the fact that cit izen participation very often becomes a competition among cit izen organiza-tions., each attempting to get its particular values reflected in the p i an.'53 This diversity of interests raises the question of whether decision-making should be the result of "rational reasoning and factual research or the end consensus product of intergroup pressure . " ^ In spite of the problems involved in cit izen part ic ipat ion, it can be agreed that it is necessary, and must occur prior to the drawing of plans. Participation occurring after plans are complete is not in fact part ic ipat ion, but reaction. The question of how cit izens should be involved in the planning-decision-making process is one which must be answered only in the context of an actual situation. To philosophize one area's participation strat -egies onto another area is to impose a r t i f i c i a l restrictions on involvement, and can serve only to inhibit and influence the resulting input. P a r t i c i -pation should be shaped with the participants, and should be aimed at establishing goals and plans acceptable to the community, not at the just i f i cat ion of decisions already made. RESUME Keeping in mind that "one generation's Utopias (often) turn out to be purgatories for future generat ions" ,^ the aim of a planning-decision-making process should be to f u l f i l l the needs of the present population, while preserving some f l e x i b i l i t y for future populations. This f l e x i b i l i t y needs to be present not only in physical structures, but also in the process we use to plan-decide-implement urban development. 39 With the basic focus of planning evolving from 'end state' master planning to continuous process planning for action, the traditional role of the planner has changed. No longer is the planner able to remain isolated from pol i t ics and decision-making, if in fact he ever was, outside of his own mind. The new role of the planner is one based much more on communication and part ic ipat ion; communication with his ' c l ient ' and with any and a l l other actors in the planning decision-making process; p a r t i c i -pation in the process of planning, to plan with ci t i zens and decision-makers rather than for people. The nature of planning and the extent to which these emerging trends are evident in the False Creek planning process wil l be analyzed in the case study of Chapter III. 4o FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER I I 1. John Friedmann, "Notes on Societal Action", J . A . I . P . , September, 1969, •p. 311 2 . Ibid. 3. - Amitai Etz ioni , The Active Soc?ety--A Theory of Societal and Pol i t ica l Processes, New York, the Free Press, 1968, p. k86 ' k. Ibid. 5- Robert A. Levine, Public Planning: Failure and Redirection, Basic Books Inc., New York, 1972, p. k 6. John Friedmann, "Notes on Societal Action", p. 311 7. Ibid. 8. Action-planning fuses action (implementation) and planning into a single operation or process, whereas the classical decision model of the planning process outlines four dist inct steps; (1) preparation of alternative plans by planners; (2) adoption of one of these plans by deciders; (3) imple-mentation of the chosen plan by administrators; and (k) recycling infor-mation concerning the results of implementation to planners who use this information to revise the current plan. (Friedmann,"Notes on Societal Action", 1969) 9 . John Friedmann, "Notes on Societal Action", p. 312 10. Ibid. 11. John Friedmann,Retracking America, Garden. City, New York, Anchor Press-Doubleday, 1973, p. k 12. Melvin M. Webber, "The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm" in Explorations into Urban Structure, Melvin Mr. Webber et. a l . , University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1964, p. 93 13. John W. Dyckman, "Summary: Planning and Metropolitan Systems" in Explorations into Urban Structure, Melvin M. Webber, et. a l . , p. 235 14. John Friedmann, Retrack?ng America, p. 172 15. Ibid. , p. 171 16. Ibid. , p. 178 41 17- Henry Cohen, "The Changing Role of the Planner in the Decision-Making Process" in.Urban Planning in Transition edited by Ernest Erber, Grossman Publications, New York, 1970, pps. 174-175, 18. David C. Ranney, Planning and Pol i t ics in the Metropolis, Charles E. Merri l l Publishers, Columbus, Ohio, 1969, pps. 42-43 " A brief discussion in Ranney's book dealing with the planner's heritage follows from pages 42-43: The planner comes into the planning process with a set of values and procedures that have been strongly influenced by certain events which were a part of the evolution of the planning movement. These events we have called the planner's heritage. Part of this heritage is an environmental deterministic view of urban problems. As planning evolved, a tremendous stress was placed on the physical aspects of the community. The belief that a good physical environment would wipe out the social and economic i l l s faced by c i t ies and that well conceived physical development would prevent new urban communities from acquiring these problems was the reason for planning's traditional physical or ien-tation. The stress on the physical environment required a set of standards for land use. Such standards have been largely derived from a number of ideal community conceptions. These physical Utopias have been a very important part of the planners' heritage because so many of the planning procedures and standards in use today have been taken directly from ideaJ community propositions. The third aspect of the planners' heritage that has influenced professional values and practices is the association between the planning movement and the municipal reform movement. Many of the municipal reformers' attitudes toward the local government were also held by the planners. The "good govern-ment" attitude that shunned "po l i t i cs " and "po l i t i c ians" became a part of the planners' bundle of professional attitudes and values. In.recent years, the planners' conception of "po l i t i c s " has become s l ight ly more sophisticated. But the suspicious attitude toward government that resulted from the early 20th century exposure to machine po l i t i cs s t i l l lingers on. Thus, an emphasis on physical design, a reliance on physical U t o p i a s , and a distrust for local government have been the major manifes-tations of the planners' heritage. 19. Francine F. Rabinovitz, City Pol i t ics and Planning, Atherton Press, New York, 1969, pps. 8-9 2 0 . Robert A. Levine, Public Planning: Failure and Redirection, Basic Books Inc., New York, 1972, p. 14 ' 21. John Friedmann,"Notes on Societal Action", J . A . I . P . , September, 1969 22. Ibid. , p. 312 42 23. Raymond E. K i tche l l , "Planning: A System for Action" in Fred R. Brown (ed.) Management: Concepts and Practices, Washington: G.P.O. , 1967> p. 82 : :  Zk. John Friedmann, Retracking America, p. 246 2 5 . Ira M. Robinson, Deci s ion-Making i n Urban PIann ? ng , Sage Publications, Beverly H i l l s , 1972, p. 9 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid. , pps. 9 and 10 2 9 . Paul Davidoff, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning", J . A . I . P . , Vol. 31, No. k, November, 1965, p. 332 30. Beverly Moss Spo.tt, A Proposal to Change the Structure of City Planning: Case Study of New York City, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1971, p. 23 31. Paul Davidoff, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning", p.. 331 32. Norton E. Long, "Planning and Pol i t ics in Urban Development", J . A . I . P . , November, 1959, p. 168 33. T. J . Kent, The Urban General Plan, Chandler Publishing Co., San Francisco, 1964, p\ 15 34. William L. C. Wheaton, "Public and Private Agents of Change in Urban Expansion" in Exploration Into Urban Structure, Melvin M. Webber, (ed.) et . a l . , University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1964, pps. 176-7 35. Carl A. McCandless, Urban Government and P o l i t i c s , McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1970, p. 17 36. Ibid. 37. Paul Davidoff and Thomas Reiner, " A Choice Theory of Planning", J .A . I .P . , Vol. 28, May, 1962, 38. Paul Davidoff, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning", p. 332 39. Edward C. Banfield, Pol i t ica l Influence, The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1961 , p. 329 40. James Q. Wilson, "Planning and Po l i t i c s : Citizen Participation in Urban Renewal", J . A . I . P . , Vol. 29, November, 1963 , P- 245 43 41. John Friedmann, "Notes on Societal Action", p. 315 42. Peter Grenell , "Planning for Invisible People: Some Consequences of Bureaucratic Values and Practices", in Freedom to Bui1d, J .F .C . Turner and.R. Fichter (ed.), The MacMi1lan Co. , New York, 1972, p. 97 4 3 . David C. Ranney, Planning and Pol i t ics in the Metropolis, Charles E. Merri l l Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1969, p. 40 44. Alan A. Altshuler, The City Planning Process: A Polit?ca1 Analys?s , p. 301-2 4 5 . William L. C. Wheaton and Margaret F. Wheaton, "Identifying the Public Interest: Values and Goals", in Urban Planning in Transit ion, Ernest Erber (ed.), Grossman Publishers, New York, 1970, p. 153 46. C. David Loeks, "The Individual's Identification of Self - Interest" in Urban Planning in Transit ion, Ernest Erber (ed.), p. 165 47. R. A. McAfee, Toward a Process for User Oriented Multi-Dimensional  Program Evaluation.in the Context of Canadian Housing Policy, doctoral dissertat ion, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of Br i t ish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. , 1975, p. 18 48. Herbert J . Gans, "Commentary", J .A . I .P . , Vol 3 9 , #1, January, 1973, p. 10 4 9 . Sherry R. Arnstein, "A Ladder of Citizen Part ic ipat ion" , J . A . I . P . , Vol. 3 5 , #4, July, 1969, p. 216 50. David C. Ranney, Planning and Pol i t ics in the Metropolis, p. 155 5 1 . Ibid. 5 2 . Robert A. Aleshire, "Planning and Citizen Part ic ipation: Cost, Benefits and Approaches", Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 5, #4, June, 1970, pps. 373-4 5 3 . David C. Ranney, Op. Cit . , p. 156 5 4 . Robert A. Aleshire, Op. C i t . , p. 372 55. H. Wentworth Eldredge (ed.) , Taming Megalopolis: Volume II How to Manage  an Urbanized V/orld, headnote Chapter 17, Anchor Books, New York, 1967, p. 764 ~ CHAPTER I I I CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS Chapter III is divided into two parts; Part A, The Significance of the Autumn of 1967, and Part B, The Case Study and Analysis. Part A looks briefly into some of the more signif icant factors which contributed to the change in policy philosophy on the part of City Council from industrial to recreation-residential land uses. The Autumn of 1967 is s ignif icant because it was the beginning of the end of industrial intention on the part of city o f f i c i a l s . Part B is an in-depth case study of the False Creek planning decision-making process, from the Spring of 1968 to A p r i l , 197^. The case study is divided into four periods; Spring, 1968 to Autumn, 1970; Autumn, 1970 to May, 1972; June, 1972 to November, 1973, and; December, 1973 to A p r i l , 1974. Each period of the case study wil l be followed by an analysis-discussion of what has taken place during that time. It is in these resume discussions that the four main questions asked at the beginning of this study are investigated. Point form summaries are also presented at the end of each period of the case study. PART A: The Significance of the Autumn of 1967 The Autumn of 1967 in the historical perspective of False Creek represents the c r i t i c a l time when policy for an industrial Creek began to die, and serious thoughts of residential -recreation developments rose to the public eye. In the Autumn of 1967, Vancouver City Council was faced with what appeared at the time anything but a decision of paramount importance. The situation on hand consisted of several leases of land around False Creek k5 expiring, deteriorating conditions in the Creek, less than total use of the land bordering the Creek, and a desire on the part of City Council to assure^ the concerned False Creek businesses of tenure, thereby allowing them to expand or upgrade their f a c i l i t i e s . In a motion at Council on October 2k, 1967, Alderman Ed Sweeney, himself an owner of a business located on False Creek moved THAT WHEREAS the City has been advised of the concern of certain industries located on land leased in the False Creek industrial area as to the continuance of their leases; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT it is Council's policy at this time, that the land ' abutting False Creek be retained as an indus-* • i 1 t r ia l area. 1 While the motion was not carried unanimously by Council, it was carr ied, establishing what was intended to be a long-term policy retaining False Creek as a high-quality industrial area. In the Council discussion of Alderman Sweeney's motion, consid-eration was given to possibi1 i t ies of False Creek being an intensively 2 developed secondary harbour, or a major recreational area for city wide use ; however neither of these ideas received serious attention, especially not the thought of recreation-park space in False Creek. As a direct result of City Council approving a long-term industrial policy for False Creek, the Parks Board, on October 3 0 , 1967, stated that 3 a vote should be held to determine the future of the Creek. V/hile the Parks Board sought the means of a public vote on the Creek's future, Vancouver newspapers carried stories of the public, cit izens of Vancouver, wanting recreational development in False Creek. 46 In an effort to have City Council recind their policy favouring in -dustrial use of the Creek, Parks Board Commissioner Mr. J .E . Mai kin proposed 1,000 foot wide landscaped shoreline park area around the entire Creek, 4 with three 400 boat marinas and a bird sanctuary. In order to fu l ly appreciate and understand the situation which existed in the autumn of 1967 it is necessary to look a few years into the past and see where the idea of recreation-residential development of the Creek gained recognition and momentum. As the City moved slowly toward plans for better industrial use of False Creek there existed what can be termed a low-key movement favouring a change in False Creek use away from industry, toward residential and recreational ac t i v i t i es . The movement had several players of d i f fer ing signif icance, a few of whom are discussed below. The Canadian Pacif ic Railway, after being accused by the City planning department in March, 1964, of witholding land from the general industrial market and keeping large chunks of land for a few industries instead of making small parceIs avai1able, 5 began to assess its land.as to its most profitable use. Mr. Fred Joplin was the C.P.R. representative in touch with False Creek and while it was not evident unti l a couple of years later, he began considering a l l poss ib i l i t ies for the C.P.R. land. With a growing realization on the part of the C.P.R. that rai l yards were not* the 'best' use of their land, the C.P.R. began laying the ground work for Marathon Realty, their newly formed real estate, planning and developing branch, to enter the Creek picture in 1968. At, this < time, . y ; Mr. Joplin publicly stated that the C.P.R. was open to any progressive hi scheme for False Creek. Mr. Joplin also stated that it was up to the City to take the lead in developing the False Creek area. In March, 1966 Alderman R. Williams publicy took the position that industry should be moved from False Creek in favour of parks and possible high-r ise housing.^ Noteworthy here is the fact that while industrial plans were being prepared by the planning department during the early to mid 1960's, Mr. Barry Chaster, then a member of the City Planning Department, was working on 'other' uses of the land surrounding the Creek. His invest i -gations focussed on open space as the 'best use1 of the lands. Mr. Chaster 8 envisioned an extension of English Bay around the shoreline of False Creek. Another member of the recreation-residential movement was a professor from the University of Br i t ish Columbia's Geography Department 9 named Dr. Walter Hardwick. Having studied the sawmills of False Creek as part of his doctoral work, Professor Hardwick had found that the sawmills, which tend to be unsightly, generally stayed in False Creek becuase they were on long-term leases affording very low land costs. Professor Hardwick was also involved in debates on the future of the downtown area, which led him to the belief that industry did not seem to be the best use of False Creek. At the same time, a colleague of Professor Hardwick, Professor 10 E.R. Higbee, began pushing the concept of the executive c i ty . As part of this concept Professor Higbee, in a report to City Council in November, 1967, suggested that proper development of. False Creek would stress the creation of an environment attractive to the construction of off ice buildings and high-rise apartments. 48 While Professors Hardwick and Higbee campaigned from the Geography Department of U . B . C , Professor W. Gerson had a class of his 11 his architecture students study the poss ib i l i t ies of False Creek. In the spring of 1966 these students along with Professor Gerson proposed that False Creek become a major amenity area, to provide the necessary related services to the downtown core and surrounding urban area. Vancouver architect Mr. Warnett Kennedy was another active 12 advocate of a change in policy for False Creek. Mr. Kennedy fe l t that the City could no longer afford to allow False Creek to remain an indus-t r ia l centre, and that more revenue would come in to the City by moving residential and recreational f a c i l i t i e s into the area. The Parks Board, after considering the future of False Creek for a time, in February, 1967 resolved to develop long-term park and recrea-13 tional objectives for the False Creek area. While not al l members of the movement advocating a change in False Creek away from industry have been discussed, enough have been mentioned to i'l lust rate'that such a movement did exist basically academic in nature and that it ran paral lel to the City 's industrial plans for the Creek until the autumn of 1967-It was the autumn of 1967 that saw the City 's industrial push cross paths with the residential -recreation movement, the impact of which wi l l be discussed in Part B of this chapter. Table 8 summarizes the events from the mid 19601s to the autumn of 1967. 49 TABLE 8 RESUME: MID 1960 's - AUTUMN 1967 TREND controversy over Creek's future move from industrial to res ident ia l , recrea-t ional , commercial thoughts REPORTS - see period resume for early 1960 's to mid 1960 's in Chapter I MAIN PLAYERS - City Planning Department - Counci1 - Vancouver Parks Board - Marathon Realty - Professors Walter Hardwick, Ed Higbee, and Wolfgang Gerson from U.B.C. RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS - residential -recreational movement through the mid 1960 's questions industrial future of the Creek - Council adopts long-term industrial policy for the Creek in October, 1967 - considerable public reaction results - Parks Board wants public vote on the Creek's future - Planning department recommends Council reconsider its industrial policy -^Council votes to reconsider industrial policy in favor of possible park, o f f i c e , and apart-ment development in March, 1968 SCOREBOARD - new found concerns - reassessment of directions - long term industrial policy COMMENTS - Council adopting the long-term industrial policy in October 1967 brought to the fore questions on False Creek's future which had not been asked around City Hall 50 PART B CASE STUDY  PERIOD ONE: Spring 1968 to Autumn 1970 This period follows on the heels of the Autumn 1967 discussion, and begins as a continuation of i t . While the Parks Board continued to campaign for a public vote on the future of False Creek and for recreation development in the Creek, the City planning department was assessing the Creek situation in l ight of Council's October, 1967 industrial pol icy. The results of the planning department's considerations came before City Council on March 26, 1968. The report1 recommended that Council reconsider its October, 1967 policy advocating the maintenance of False Creek as a high quality industrial area. Other points presented in the report included; that i t may no longer be val id to think of False Creek as a secondary harbour, something done in the 1930's, 1950's and 1960's; that much of False Creek is underdeveloped; some industries may be forced to leave the Creek if industries offering higher economic returns could be found; and that "uses like extensive ornamental parks, of f ice towers and residential uses would be d i f f i c u l t to introduce 15 into this area of False Creek without large scale redevelopment". Council accepted in principle the planning report and then voted to re-examine the industrial policy set out in October, 1967. It was also decided at this time that False Creek would be considered part of the down-town area, with any future actions hinging upon the policy plan being prepared by the planning department for the downtown area. The motion adopted by Council stated; 51 that the Director of Planning be instructed to prepare statements on revised goals and policies for False Creek and that these be contained in the proposed policy plan for Downtown now being prepared by the Long Range Planning Division for submission in stages to Council. It wil l then be circulated to interested parties for comment and wi l l take account of the views expressed herein On. Apr i l .30, 1968, in a communication to City Council, the Parks Board supported the planning department's March 26, 1968 report, and requested that the Parks Board be included in any future planning of False Creek.^ The Director of Planning, Mr. Graham, agreed to meet with the Parks Board. While the future of False Creek was being reassessed as part of the Downtown plans, the City and the Provincial Government were carrying on informed discussions concerning the exchange of City owned Burnaby Mountain lands and Provincially owned False Creek lands located on the south 18 shore between the Cambie and Granville Street bridges. In early negotiations there was disagreement as to the value of 19 the lands, especially on the value of the False Creek land. It is interesting to note at this point, that Alderman Marianne Linhell and the Director of Planning, Mr. B i l l Graham went to considerable lengths to ensure that the City received 'top dol lar ' for the Burnaby Mountain land. Linnell and Graham went so far as to attend a Burnaby Council meeting and express intent on behalf of the City of Vancouver to apply for rezoning of the City's land from 'cemetary use' to 'residentia 1-commercial . 2 0 u s e * This move was made to demonstrate the true value of the land in 52 l ight of the possible exchange of it for the Provincially owned land on the south shore of False Creek. In a communication to Vancouver City Council in May, 1968, the Provincial Government noted that appraisers for the City and Province were in agreement on the value of the City owned land, but that differences of opinion existed over the False Creek land value. The Province stated it 21 was prepared to negotiate the value of this land. City Council referred the matter to the Board of Administration with directives to arrange the necessary negotiations. Then, in August, 1968, the City Planning Department presented 22 its report on Downtown Vancouver which was requested on 'high pr ior i ty ' in the autumn of 1967. In this report, eleven 'key issues' were posed. One of these 'key issues' was directed at False Creek, and asked the following question: A great deal of Downtown land around False Creek is not very intensively used. What is the best use for this land, in the long run? Industry, Apartments, Parks, or other uses.^3 Further into the report questions were again asked.concerning False Creek; . . . .what should the future of this land be? . . .w i l l a changing pattern of port development make waterfront land now occupied by industry available for other uses? Are ineff ic ient industrial operations pre-empting land that should be developed other ways? Is False Creek an essential part of the harbour complex, or should this area be used for other purposes such as parks and apartments?^4 53 Underlying the information and questions of this report seemed to be the assumption that change, no matter the kind, was the best thing for False: Creek. The rundown condition of the Creek and the lack of noticeable action remedying the 's ick creek' in past years, meant the people of Vancouver were ripe for change in False Creek. The Downtown report asked for ideas, opinions, suggestions for change, and provided the f i r s t oppor-tunity for the public to voice their opinions on the Creek. While the response to the Downtown report was in the order of 25 eighteen submissions considerable comment was made concerning the future 26 of False Creek. The Downtown Issues report also marked the f i r s t time the 27 new three-step proposal-citizen input-response system of planning ' formally 28 adopted by City Council in September, 1968 was used. (This is explained in footnote 27 and wil l appear later in this chapter when used for planning False Creek). Through the summer of 1968 the City was s t i l l faced with the problem of trying to plan an area it did not own in False Creek. However, negotiations were continuing over the exchange of City owned Burnaby Mountain land for the Provincially owned south shore lands of False Creek. The situation to this time consisted of l i t t l e action either by the owners of Creek land (mainly the railways and the City) or the City, and a considerable amount of talk, especially by the City. F inal ly , on November 19, 1968, agreement was reached over the 29 land values of Burnaby Mountain and the False Creek lands. City Council accepted these values and moved that the exchange of lands be as of 54 30 January 1 , 1969, if possible. With the exchange of lands o f f i c i a l l y in sight, the City was about to gain the opportunity to 'do' something in False Creek. The south shore land between the Cambie and Granville Bridges was ripe for development where the City 's land east of Cambie Street was not. The opportunity would be the City's to leave the ' a l l talk no action' dilemma which they had been caught in for many years. Less than a month after the City and the Province had agreed in principle to exchange the lands, thereby giving most of the south shore of False Creek, between the Cambie and Granville Street Bridges, to the City (map 9 indicates the major land owners), the Canadian Paci f ic Railway announced a $ 185 mil l ion apartment housing complex for their land 31 across from the City 's on the north shore of False Creek. Almost in the same breath, the Canadian Paci f ic Railway suggested swapping their 'o ld ' Shaughnessy Golf Course land for the City 's recently 32 acquired land on the south shore of False Creek. A "Province" newspaper editor ial in December, 1968 discussed the land swap proposed by the C.P.R. in such a way as to question the way 33 Vancouver City Council set up development p r io r i t ies . In essence, the editor ial suggested that i f the City was going to determine False Creek's future and not the C.P.R. , the City should rezone the C.P.R. holdings on the north side of the Creek, and adjust the taxes accordingly. The editor ial further stated that Ci.ty Council should then rezone its south shore holdings for apartment development and offer it to the highest bidder. Combining the situation of Council being questioned as to who was making the decisions in False Creek, the City or the C.P.R. , with factors pushing a change in Creek policy from harbour and industrial to MAP 9 FALSE CREEK LAND OWNERSHIP 1968 residential and p a r k , such as growing public pressure, more attractive economics offered by residential development, and the development of an alternate location for some False Creek industries at Roberts Bank,^ pressures began to mount on the planning department and especially the Director of Planning, Mr. Graham, to 'start the ball ro l l ing ' in False Creek. In December, 1968, the planning department produced a report inviting citizens and groups to participate in the planning p rocess .^ The report was the f i r s t stage in the process of preparing a City Plan. The report was also the f i r s t since the City acquired land on the south shore of the Creek, and stated that the "improvement of the False Creek 36 Area" was an existing objective of the City. Where the August, 1968 Downtown report suggested change for False Creek, the December, 1968 "City of Vancouver Plan - Part I - The Issues" report suggested changes away from industrial use. The City's economy is changing: service employment is becoming more important, and industry relatively less important. Also, City land prices are increasing beyond what most industries can a f f o r d . . . i t is doubtful whether a l l of False Creek (Should remain in industrial use. ' False Creek is a problem indus-t r ia l area. The report goes on to say that: The demand for apartment-zoned land could be met by rezoning more of the conversion d is t r ic ts in the Inner Area, including part of False Creek.^ 57 False Creek has inherent poten-1 t ia l for park purposes because of its central location in the Inner Area, its waterway, and the relatively low value of buildings that would have to be removed. 0 and for f inal descriptive flavour the report so l i c i t ing public views noted that False Creek, with its dilapadated buildings and open storage areas, sep-arates Downtown from the rest of the City by a ring of visual squalor. The public response to the December, 1968 report was much the same as the response to the August, 1968 report. The public wanted change, especially toward park-recreation oriented type developments. January, 1969 brought a new City Council, the same as the old one except for the inclusion of a representative of the academic community, Dr. Walter Hardwick, of the Geography Department at U.B.C. This was s ig -ni f icant as it began the movement away from a Council dominated by an industrial point of view. hi In a February 8 , 1969 newspaper ar t ic le the C.P.R. was credited with stating they would begin construction of a $22 mil l ion hotel complex on their north shore Creek land between the Granville and Burrard Street Bridges on September 1 , 1969-On February 11 , 1969,- Deputy Superintendent W.C. Livingstone of the Park Board appeared before City Council and urged the Mayor and Aldermen to be progressive in their attitude toward beaut?ficat ion of False Creek, so that the inner-city waterway could ultimately be used for park and 58 recreation. J Mr. Livingstone further asked Council to provide without charge, as soon as possible, a 400 boat marina in False Creek. In mid A p r i l , 1969, Marathon Realty, the C.P.R. 's real estate, planning and development arm, proposed a $250 mill ion housing and marina development on 190 acres of their land on the north shore of False Creek. 4 4 The proposal was a much as surprise as Marathon's f i r s t proposal in December, 1968, and would house 20,000 people in 11,000 mostly high-r ise units. This plan was monumental in nature and reflected architect Mr. Zoltan Kiss' large scale style of design, as well as the general ' train 45 of architectural thought' existing during the times. In presenting the massive proposal, Mr. J.D. Mooney, the General Manager of Marathon Realty, proposed changing the name of False Creek to 46 Edgewater Park, and to this end suggested a public contest. While the Creek retained its name, and no development began immediately from Marathon Realty's most recent plans, awareness of possi -b i l i t i e s for the Creek grew. The C.P.R. through Marathon Realty had begun to push the City towards action on the Creek. The City, on the other hand, stated that development of City owned land on the south shore of the Creek would not begin for about four years, as many leases do not expire until December 30, 1970. The City was, however, beginning to move on the Creek at this time, as Mr. D. Hayward, Assistant Director of Planning in charge of 47 Advanced Planning and Research was preparing a set of development concepts on False Creek, for public reaction. In light of th is , the City was content to wait, a game Marathon Realty was beginning to learn. 59 Much l ike a calm b e f o r e a storm, very l i t t l e happened for a couple of months. A suggestion by Alderman H. Wilson to have areas of False Creek designated for disposition of excavated material from Vancouver 48 construction s i tes , was referred to the City Engineer for consideration. The Parks Board reacted to Marathon Realty's A p r i l , 19^9 proposal by stating that the density should be decreased from 20,000 people to 49 10,000 people and the park area increased to at least 50 acres. An informal reply to the Parks Board suggestions by Mr. J.D. Mooney of Marathon Realty made the point that these changes would make the project uneconomical.5^ The situation as it existed moving into the summer of 19&9 showed; Marathon Realty planning residential -recreational development for their Creek land; the City Planning Department drawing up concepts for public reaction on the future of the Creek as well as generally thinking of the Creek as unsuitable for industry (as suggested in the December, 1968 City of Vancouver Plan report); and public opinion moving toward a change from industrial to park development for. False Creek. In spite of the general movement which has just been stated, City Council voted to extend the lease of Vancouver Iron and Engineering Works (VIEW), a major industry in False Creek, which was at a financial loss, and in fact bankrupt. The motion by Alderman Bird 60 that the City Council advise Vancouver Iron and Engineering Works that the City would be prepared to re-new the VIEW lease for a period of five years after expiry of the present lease in 1970, subject to terms satisfactory to the City, with an option for renewal on an annual basis for a further five years at the City's discretion assuming that the City becomes owner of the site.51 The motion carried seven to three with Aldermen Calder, Hardwick and Phil ips voting against i t . It was also resolved at this time that other False Creek lease extensions be reviewed individually by the Director of Planning for report back to Council.52 Having stated their position on the VIEW lease, City Council went about their regular business, occasionally discussing leases and 53 f i 11ing of the Creek. Then, on September 23, 1969 the Board of Administration submitted the following Park Board resolution concerning the VIEW lease. . . . . t h e Board urge Council to reconsider the lease extension and draw Counci11s attention to the fact that the Board presented a plan for park development of False Creek on February 11, 1969 which was referred to the Standing Committee of Council on Planning, Development and Trans-portation, and further, that in February, 1969 the Board resolution was sent to City Council requesting a marina site in False Creek.^ 61 In response to the Park Board resolution moved by Alderman Rankin was carr ied; That the Park Board resolution be received and the Board advised that when the general question of use of land and water areas in False Creek is under study by the Council, the Park Board wi l l be given an oppor-tunity of presenting its views.55 During October, the issue of the VIEW lease became more prom-inent. Public reaction began to mount, as the realization of what an extension of the VIEW lease would mean became more apparent. VIEW is the f inancial ly beset carcass of a once booming company whose empty buildings and idle cranes have become, in the past two weeks, a symbol of the whole problem of False Creek development--a planning vacuum. It has become a symbol of the city machinery's inabi l i ty to provide infor-mation fast enough to allow proper judgment of both private needs and public good. And in a broader sense, it is a casualty of a h istor ic shif t in thinking on what should be done with the C r e e k . 5 ° A Calgary based f i rm, Canadian Hydrocarbons Limited had picked up the option to purchase VIEW, dependent on being able to obtain a ten year lease. Remembering that in July, 1969, Council had approved in principle a f ive year lease for VIEW, a ten year lease did not on f i r s t glance seem too far removed. Times were changing, however, and in November, 1969 the issue of lease terms and planning for False Creek came to a head, over VIEW. City Council was sp l i t on what to do, Canadian Hydrocarbons was cautious and unsure, the City Planning 62 Department was busy working on development concepts for the Creek, and the public, especially groups such as the Community Arts Council, and the Citizens Council on Civic Development, were actively campaigning against any extension of industrial leases in False Creek.^ Both Canadian Hydrocarbons and City Council began receiving 58 numerous letters against any extension of the VIEW lease. The controversy on City Council centered around Alderman Ph i 11 i ps, Ca.l der, and Hardwick strongly objecting to any lease extension for VIEW, becuase i t would jeopardize redevelopment plans for False Creek. Speaking of the VIEW lease, Alderman Calder stated that; VIEW is a key property. If you give VIEW a 10-year lease you can't do anything there--how can you develop the area i f the worst offender remains?-3" On the other hand, Mayor Campbell, Aldermen Linnell and Rankin campaigned for the jobs and tax revenue VIEW represented to the City. In Mayor Campbell's words: There isn' t a nickel of City money available for False Creek development, VIEW is going to s i t there for five years anyway and cost us half a mi 11 ion dollars in rent and taxes. What's more 300 or 400 could have been employed, many of them men out of work since the plant shut down.^ O In the heat of the debate, on November 10, 1969, the Calgary firm withdrew their application for a five year extension on the VIEW lease. This was not the end of the issue however, as debate within Council and cit izen protests continued. 63 On November 15, 1969, f ive days after the Calgary firm with-drew their VIEW lease extension application, a newspaper ar t ic le^ 1 quoted Aldermen Ph i l l i ps , Calder, and Hardwick as blaming Mayor Campbell for much of the VIEW situation. The opposing Aldermen blame Campbell for much of the controversy. They say he refused to hear the planner at Monday's meeting on VIEW although the planner was prepared to give them a preliminary report on long-awaited False Creek Development proposals. In addition, the mayor went against an ear l ier agreement to wait for the report and against senior staff recommendations that leases be restricted to f ive years. ^ To th is , Alderman Walter Hardwick added that To make a decision when a nine month City staff report on alternatives was nearly ready is fo l ly . . .we need to have pol icy, not the Mayor throwing sand in the gears. 3 The controversy continued into December, 1969, with growing involvement on the part of c i t izens. On December 16, 1969 City Council received a petition signed by approximately 380 persons, on behalf of the Fairview Slopes area, protesting the decision of City Council to further extend the VIEW lease and requesting L ". Gh a public hearing on the matter.. The Fairview people were str iving to preserve the residential nature of the Slopes, in the face of numerous commercial act iv i t ies which were rapidly in f i l t rat ing the area. 64 Coincidentally, Canadian Hydrocarbons cancelled their plans to revive the VIEW plant, on December 1.6, 1969, the same day the Fairview petit ion reached City Council. The issue which had sp l i t City Council and aroused public reaction, no longer existed. Mayor Campbell's closing remark was that; The deal is dead--and VIEW wi l l be a dead monument to the obstruc-t ionists on City Council. -5 VIEW was indeed dead, though the memory of i t was to live on, and in one sense f u l f i l l Mayor Campbell's prophecy. VIEW did in fact become a dead monument, and until its f inal and total demolition in the Summer of 1973, haunted the City 's efforts to plan False Creek. With the VIEW controversy dominating Council's time, newspaper headlines, and the public 's interest, the long awaited planning department report on development concepts for False Creek^^, though presented in November, 1969, did not gain much attention until January, 1970, when it was formally released for public comment. On November 13, 1969, the report was presented to the Standing Committee of Council on Planning, Development and Transportation, and shortly afterwards to Council for information. City Council then asked that "concerned c i t i zens , acting in their own right, or as part of an organization or group, be invited to express their opinions on these a l ter -67 native development concepts." Along with the development concepts report, the planning depart-ment presented reports on the phasing of development, and the planning procedures for the Creek. The development phasing suggested that the 65 City owned land on the south shore of the Creek between VIEW and Johnston Terminals could be available for marketing by 1973 with completion by . 1 9 7 6 . ? The proposed change in planning procedure was from the three part method of reporting on planning matters, to a modification of this method which would shorten the process and lessen the need for detailed 69 documents. 3 (The two procedures are discussed br ief ly in footnote 6 9 ) . With the new planning procedure, the development phasing, and the absence of the VIEW controversy, a new optimism seemed to develop on City Council. The die-hard thoughts of an industrial Creek seemed to dissappear in favour of changes toward residentia 1-recreational uses. A motion by Alderman Phi l l ips on January 7 , 1970 i l lustrates this change. Alderman Phi l l ips moved THAT, if and when the City 's land on False Creek is developed for res i -dential purposes, provision be made in the planning of the area for the inc lu -sion of a signif icant amount of low cost, Publi c, Private and senior c i t i -zens housing. 7^ 3 The motion carried without too much debate. Whi le information discusisons on Granville Island had begun as far back as March, 1968,^ 1 l i t t l e v is ib le progress or changes had been made. However, with Council's new found visions for the Creek, Granville Island, complete with wall -to-wall industry, presented i tse l f as a somewhat incompatable neighbour to residential development on the City owned south shore lands. Concern began to grow, and was reflected in the newspapers, as City Of f ic ia ls asked the National Harbours Board to study the Island's 66 future and not renew industrial leases on the island for long terms.^ 2 The f i r s t part of 1970 saw the City take their f i r s t truly positive step towards redevelopment of False Creek, with the public d i s t r i -bution of the concepts report. In histor ical perspective a couple of very signif icant seeds were planted by the False Creek Development Concept report. One was that residential and recreational uses were def initely possible in False Creek; the other was that "economic, physical, social and aesthetic 73 benefits can be achieved by the redevelopment of False Creek." Most signif icant here is the statement that economic benefits can be achieved through redevelopment of the Creek. What appeared a simple statement in 1970 has become an unwritten assumption in 197^, where any development of 7b False Creek must stand more or less on its own economic feet. After being granted a two week deferral for presentation of the report on submissions to the development concepts, ' the Director of Plannning, Mr. Graham, presented the planning department's report on the: 76 submissions to Council on March 17, 1970. From a response of th i r ty -s ix groups and individuals, (including cit izens groups, business associations, c i v ic boards and commissions, and individuals) a definite ant i - industr ial feeling existed concerning the future of the Creek. It was also clear from the general comments that the public (people who responded) was in favour of recreation or park type development of False Creek. Some support for residential and commercial development was evident, though not as dominant as the public 's tendancy to favour park-recreation u s e s . ^ (See footnote 77 for highlights of the submissions). 67 Following consideration of the report on submissions to the five concepts, City Council, on April 14, 1970, formally resolved that concepts 78 one and three would no longer be considered options for False Creek. This move eliminated any industrial poss ib i l i t ies for the future of the Creek. Further to this decision, Council instructed the planning depart-ment to work on overall plans for Concepts two, four, and five (concept II, Residential-Recreational uses, concept IV, Residential Commercial and Recreational uses, and concept V, Recreational and Residential Commercial uses) and report to Council with information on t ransi t , family accommo-. 7 9 dation, transportation, etc. With Creek planning sett l ing in to a less controversial status, and the Creek's future moving away from industrial uses, a lu l l settled over False Creek. VIEW had been defeated, citizens had been consulted through the five concepts report, and directions had been set for planning the Creek's future. May 2 6 , 1970 saw City Council request a report on the phasing 80 of development in False Creek. The Board of Administration in conjunction with the planning 81 department brought forth a staging report near the end of July, 1970. The phasing was for an early 1973 construction start on Stage I the City owned land between Willow and Alder Streets on the south shore of the Creek; Stage II the redevelopment of Granville Island; Stage III the development of the area west of the Granville Bridge; and Stage IV the development of the Johnston Terminals land on the south shore near the Cambie Street Bridge. 68 With redevelopment of the Creek set to begin in approximately three years and the City seemingly committed to residential -recreational development of the Creek, the problem of who should draw up the plans for the Creek arose. The question of whether False Creek should be planned 'in-house' (by the planning department) or outside City Ha l l , by consul-82 tants under the guidance of the City , arose. As for the ' in-house' route, the planning department did not have adequate staf f . It was questioned at this time whether the City could assemble the necessary 83 expertise to develop the Creek. Certainly the City lacked the ab i l i t y 84 to develop land, as it had never done so in the past. Insofar as using consultants was concerned, the city bureaucracy (senior planning s ta f f , City.Commissioner, and City pol i t ic ians) fe l t that consultants offered more expertise and f l e x i b i l i t y than the City could employ or use for False Creek; could save considerable time as the City would have to search for s taf f ; and offered the City an opportunity for a new approach to planning False Creek, as the City in past years had not demonstrated 85 the abi l i ty to plan and develop the Creek in any way. The conclusion of this debate resulted in the decision that overa Creek policy planning would be done in house under the direction of Mr. Dick Hayward, and that detailed planning for the City owned lands of area 6 would be handled by a consultant. It is interesting to note here a point made in a newspaper ar t ic l on August 7 , 1970 that people had been discussing redevelopment of False Creek for over 30 years,.only six months ear l ier city o f f i c i a l s fe l t it would be another 25 years before the Creek could be redeveloped, and now 86 the City planning department saw redevelopment beginning in three years. 69 After the decision was made to use consultants for planning False Creek, the Assistant Director of Planning in charge of Civic Development, Mr. Harry Pickstone, was given the task of searching out consultant groups which could possibly handle the job of planning False Creek. Mr. Pickstone did not advertise publicly for consultants, but personally notif ied the major consulting firms who might be interested 87 in and capable of handling the job. The aim here was to find a diver-s i f ied group of consultants who could cope and plan in accordance with the spectacular opportunity the Creek offered, and create a new, exciting and innovative type of environment. Mr. Pickstone then interviewed nine consulting groups who had expressed an interested in planning the Creek, and asked them for detailed proposals of how they would handle the job. A short l i s t of three consultant groups evolved, from which Thompson, Berwick, Pratt, and Partners emerged as the 'chosen' group. Thompson, Berwick, Pratt, and Partners (T.B.P. & P.) were selected because they seemed to be s l ight ly further advaned in their thinking of False Creek, and had gone to greater lengths to find expert opinion and advice on the 88 Creek. It is interesting to note here that T.B.P. & P. were architect consultants by trade, and were in essence branching out into the area of total planning. At the same time it seems the City interests represented by Assistant Director of Planning, Mr. H.W. Pickstone were wanting a 89 design in the architectural sense for False Creek, rather than a plan. Thus between A p r i l , 1968 and the autumn of 1970, the major thrust was the consultation with citizens and the redirection of thought toward a residential-recreationa1 Creek. This period is summarized in Table 10. 70 TABLE 10 RESUME: APRIL 1968 - AUTUMN 1970 TREND - residential -recreational future assured City looks for ideas on what to do in False Creek REPORTS 1968 False Creek Report (to Council) 1968 Downtown Vancouver: Part I, The Issues (included the Creek) 1968 City of Vancouver Plan: Part I, The Issues (included the Creek) 1969 False Creek: Development Concepts 1970 Report on Submissions, Replies to the False Creek Five Concepts MAIN PLAYERS City Planning Department Marathon Realty RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS False Creek considered part of the downtown area City exchanges its Burnaby Mountain land for Province's Creek land (south shore between Granville and Cambie) Marathon Realty proposes high density housing for north shore of Creek Vancouver Iron and Engineering Works debate raises industry vs. park-residential develop-ment for the last time, in the autumn of I 9 6 9 City produces five concepts for Creek develop-ment, circulates these to the public, and uses response to help plan Creek's future City studies poss ib i l i t ies of changing use of Granvilie Is land SCOREBOARD res i dent ial - recreat ional policy of no industry d i rect ?on set COMMENTS 71 PERIOD ONE DISCUSSION The Planning Decision-Making Process during this period was a series of isolated steps. Planning was carried out to help Council make decisions without consideration of whether or not the proposals were imple-mentable. Council constantly requested goals and policy statements from the planning department. The p i t f a l l here is that without translating these goals and directions into actions, the planning was largely unimplementable. Additional studies always had to be carried out to establish the means of implementing the goals. This process was very traditional planning for decisions, where planning and implementation were separated by a decision, rather than linked by i t . At the opposite end of the process, Council was tending to make decisions based on "past days" pol ic ies . Extension of the VIEW lease in 1 9 6 9 was consistent with policies of the early 1 9 6 0 ' s when False Creek was planned to remain an industrial area; it was not, however, a demonstration of " insightful leadership" in light of the public's demonstrated desire for change in the Creek, and the planning department's reports suggesting the same. The role of the planner during this period was bordering on the "action planning" concepts later enunciated by Friedmann. While remaining ' a technical advisor to Council by conceptualizing futures for the Creek, the planner twice asked the public what they would like to see around the Creek, and prepared alternate concepts for public comment. Following the public response to the alternate concepts, the planners communicated the public 's recommendations to Council. 72 The influence of the pol i t ic ian during this period was important more for the lack of direction provided than for the leadership. The s i t -uation-can be generalized to the majority of Council members making.decisions based solely on past pol icies with l i t t l e or no regard for the future ^directions which were evolving. Only a minority on Council vocally pressed for change. In the face of a growing movement away from industry in False Creek, Council chose to approve the extension of an industrial lease (VIEW) for f ive years. On the surface this was a very minor decision. In reality it represented a blunt rejection of the public responses to planning depart-ment reports sol ic i ted for Council. It also represented a step back toward sol id i fy ing an industrial future for the Creek. In the face of the City acquiring land on the south shore of the Creek, and the planning department's advice to seek "better" uses for Creek lands, Council did not take the "lead" that their position afforded them the opportunity to. Instead they chose, as many Councils before them, to proliferate the status quo in Creek action, while talking of change. Council's influence during this period was minimal to non-existent in so far as str iv ing toward a non-indus-t r ia l Creek, though the presence of several Aldermen who were pressing for consideration of other options no doubt provided some support to planners and ci tizens. Involvement of Citizens in this period of False Creek planning was select and l imited, yet very s ignif icant . The message of change away from industry in False Creek turned out to be a very d i f f i c u l t one for Council to grasp. Beginning in August, 1968 when the public was asked for ideas 73 a n d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r t h e f u t u r e o f t h e C r e e k i n t h e D o w n t o w n R e p o r t , t h e p u b l i c r e s p o n d e d i n f a v o r o f c h a n g e . A g a i n , i n r e s p o n s e t o a D e c e m b e r , 1968 r e p o r t - o n V a n c o u v e r I s s u e s , p e o p l e w a n t e d c h a n g e a w a y f r o m i n d u s t r y t o w a r d p a r k - r e c r e a t i o n u s e s . B o t h o f t h e s e o c c a s i o n s w e r e s u g g e s t i o n / i d e a c o l l e c -t i o n i n n a t u r e w h e r e t h e p u b l i c ' s v i e w s a n d o p i n i o n s w e r e s o l i c i t e d . T h e n , d u r i n g A u g u s t t h r o u g h O c t o b e r , 1969, f o l l o w i n g a C o u n c i l r e s o l u t i o n t o e x t e n d t h e i n d u s t r i a l l e a s e o f V I E W , a b r o a d r a n g e o f c i t i z e n s a c t i v e l y p r o t e s t e d t o C o u n c i l . T h i s i n v o l v e m e n t , w h i l e b e i n g r e a c t i v e , s a w p e t i t i o n s , n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s , a n d g e n e r a l p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n t o c o n t i n u a t i o n o f i n d u s t r y i n t h e C r e e k . T h e p o i n t t o b e m a d e h e r e i s t h a t t w i c e p e o p l e w e r e a s k e d w h a t t h e y f e l t t h e f u t u r e o f t h e C r e e k s h o u l d b e , t w i c e t h e y r e s p o n d e d i n f a v o r o f c h a n g e a w a y f r o m i n d u s t r y , y e t s t i l l C o u n c i l s a w f i t t o e x t e n d t h e i n d u s t r i a l l e a s e . T h e c i t i z e n s o f V a n c o u v e r b y v o i c i n g s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e l e a s e e x t e n s i o n d i d i n f l u e n c e t h e o w n e r s o f V I E W , C a n a d i a n H y d r o -c a r b o n s , t o c a n c e l t h e i r f u t u r e p l a n s i n F a l s e C r e e k . J a n u a r y , 1970 s a w t h e C i t y a s k p e o p l e t o c h o o s e f r o m f i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e y p r e f e r r e d f o r t h e f u t u r e o f t h e C r e e k . T h e p u b l i c r e s p o n s e i n M a r c h , 1970 w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v i o u s r e s p o n s e s , a g a i n s t i n d u s t r y , f a v o r i n g c h a n g e . T h e i n v o l v e -m e n t o f c i t i z e n s d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , S p r i n g , 1968 t o A u t u m n , 1970 c a n b e g e n e r a l i z e d i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e : 7b TABLE 11 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN PERIOD ONE DATE 1968 1968 1969 1970 AUGUST DECEMBER AUTUMN JANUARY EVENT Downtown Report Vancouver Issues Report VIEW False Creek Issues Report CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Suggestion, Consultation Suggestion Protest Reactive-Response to Al ternatives Also signif icant during this period was the move the City made to establish a formal, identif iable planning process which involved the public. (Footnote 27, Chapter III outlines the process). The intent was for public comments to be sol ic i ted on major planning reports prior to Council making a decision. PERIOD TWO: AUTUMN 1970 TO MAY 1972 On November 17, 1970 City Council after considering a report on Consultants from the Director of Planning, approved the appointment of a group of consultants headed by Thompson, Berwick, Pratt and Partners to: a) extend the work of the Policy Plan as a framework within which the development of City lands between Burrard and Cambie can be carried out. b) prepa're the Development Plan for the City owned land between Burrard and Cambie Streets. 75 c) prepare detailed material including bidding documents for the f i r s t stage of City development between Willow and Alder Streets .? 0 While the planning department worked out the precise terms of reference and fee structure for the consultant work on the south side of the Creek, Marathon Realty appeared in the newspapers, much as it had before, with news of their plans for the north shore of False Creek. This time, Mr. David Mooney, General Manager of Marathon Realty Limited, while speaking to U.B.C. Commerce students and alumni at a Bayshore Inn gathering, stated that Marathon hoped to begin construction of their False Creek development by the end of 1971. Mr. Mooney further stated that he anticipated no delays 91 or problems getting approval from the City for the scheme. The f i r s t phase of the Marathon scheme consisted of 2 , 0 0 0 r es i -dential units mostly in high-r ise apartment buildings. Remembering that Marathon's ear l ier plans had met with considerable negative response due. to their scale and density, it seems at f i r s t glance, that Marathon was pushing what no one wanted. This was not the case, however, as Marathon 92 had just completed a survey of the West End, an area similar to their proposed False Creek Development. Marathon had set out in A p r i l , 1970 to find out what people who would l ikely live in their development needed and desired. In the words of Marathon Realty: A vital part of the planning process for Marathon's False Creek development was the determination of prospective tenants' needs and desires. Realizing that the in i t ia l stage of the development would probably attract 76 the typical West End resident, . Marathon decided to undertake a study of the residents attitudes toward West End l iv ing. It was fe l t that the study would provide Marathon with demographic and behavioural data to allow for more effective planning in the proposed False Creek project.93 To carry out the study, Marathon hired Professor J.D. Forbes, R.F. Kelly, and M.A. Goldberg, from the Faculty of Commerce at U.B.C. 94 Armed with the results of their West End survey, Marathon proceeded toward the construction phase, enjoying a new found confidence. They had disproven the myths that the West End population was unstable, fu l l of swingers, and highly mobile, by proving the contrary to be the case. They found that to the resident population, the West End was not an objection-able place to l ive. In other words Marathon had found the market and were intent on producing a marketable-profitable product. Looking back to the City side of the Creek, on January 12 , 1971 City Council formally approved terms of reference for the consultants 95 96 T. B. P. and P. to carry out the 'preliminary phase' of the work. The terms of reference for the preliminary phase of work were to: . . . . c o n s i s t of the assembly of information and data including work already carried out by the City and other organizations, the design of the complete study and a c r i t i c a l path control procedure and establ ish-ing a l iaison with other groups and individuals carrying out related work during this phase, but the main purpose is to establish a framework for the fu l l study, its cost and its timing.97 77 It was further agreed that the consultant costs for the preliminary phase of the study would not exceed $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 and should be completed by the end of February, 1971. To ful ly understand the process centering around consultant planning in False Creek it is necessary to step back to November, 1970 for a moment. When City Council approved the idea of consultants for False Creek, headed by T.B.P. & P., Mr. Harry Pickstone, Assistant Director of Planning who had been responsible for finding consultants proposed the establishment of the False Creek Study Group. This group was established in November 1970 a n d consisted of C.E. Pratt , P.M. Merrick, R.J. Cave, and R.C. Mann of T .B.P. 6 P., H.W. Pickstone of the Vancouver Planning Depart-ment, and consultants R.B. Walkey, G.W. Brawn, K.H. Gi l lespie and Hans 99 B1umenfeId. The intent behind the establishment of this group was to involve the cl ient (City of Vancouver, represented by Mr. H.W. Pickstone) with the consulting professionals, and assure the general direction pursued by the consultants would be in accordance with general intentions City Council and 100 the Planning Department held for the Creek. The Study Group was the guiding vehicle for consultant work in False Creek. The group began discussing the poss ib i l i t ies and problems of False Creek in November, 1970, and was well into the study by January, 1971 101 when Council formally approved the consultant terms of reference. On March 2 2 , 1971 the consultants T.B.P. & P. submitted through the False Creek Study Group, Progress Report #1 to the Assistant Director 102 of Planning in charge of Civic Development, Mr. H.W. Pickstone. 78 Mr. Picks tone prepared a short report for the Board of Administration and passed the two reports on to the Board of Administration for presentation 103 to Counci1. While progress Report #1 was making its way through the City Hall channels to City Council, the Provincial Government approved the sale of 12.3 acres of Crown land on the north shore of False Creek east 104 of the Cambie Street Bridge, to Marathon Realty Limited. The approval was simply the formality of closing the deal, as negotiations and arrangements had been under way for some time. Vancouver City Council had dealt with the matter September 1, 1970 when they approved the Board of Administration recommendation: That the Provincial Director of Lands be informed that the City welcomes the transfer of t i t l e provided that it is the intention of Marathon Realty Co. Ltd. to develop the land so transferred for res ident ia l , commercial, and recrea-tional purposes and with the request that a public waterfront access easement be registered against the t i t les of the lands so transferred, such easement to be drawn in terms satisfactory to the Corp-oration Counsel and the Director of Planning and to be effective on the redevelopment of the lands. -> The City had been assured in February, 1971 that "Marathon Realty has agreed to provide a continuous waterfront pedestrian walkway (excluding any frontages required for marinas) at the time redevelopment 106 is carried out." that time The Director of Planning and Civic Development reported that the pedestrian waterfront walkway could be secured at through 79 an easement registered against the t i t l e of the property and would be a , . 1 0 7 condition of necessary rezoning. Also of significance during the time City Hall was processing Progress Report #1, was the City Council meeting of March 2 6 , 1971. Discussion stemmed from a letter dated January 2 8 , 1971 addressed to the 108 Mayor and Members of Council, from the Chairman of the Parks Board. The letter contained a Park Board resolution That as the Park Board is an elected Board, and should be in on the planning and development of the south shore of False Creek, the Planning Department be requested to meet with the Park Board to discuss the proposed development, and further request the Planning Department for the terms of reference supplied to architects for the False Creek development.1 0? Upon receiving the Park Board resolution in January, 1971, Council had referred it to the Board of Administration for consideration. Two months later , on March 2 6 , 1971, the Board of Administration returned a recommendation from the Director of Planning and Civic Development to Counci1 that the Park Board be informed that the Superintendent of Parks, as a member of the Technical Planning Board, is kept in touch with the planning as it develops and that it seems more appropri-ate for the Park Board to be brought into the picture when the report has been pre-sented to Council rather than b e f o r e . ' 1 0 Also of significance during the period of City Hal l ' s processing Progress Report #1 was Marathon Realty presenting another proposal report for their land on the north shore of False Creek. 1 1 1 Where their A p r i l , 1969 80 proposal had been for 20,000 people, this proposal was for 14,000 people in 7,000 highrise and 2,000 low rise units included an elementary school, 150,000 square feet of commercial space, a 500 boat marina, and 25 acres of public park. The report made the point that . . . . i n -depth studies have demon-strated that we have the opportunity to create a unique residential commu-nity for 14,000 people in a variety of housing types. Market demand is such that.this can be accomplished over 10 years. The project is technically feasible and has won enthusiastic pub-1ic support. ^ 2 Toward the end of the Marathon report, in a section called "Implementation and Timing", three statements can be isolated which indi -cate a great deal of optimism existed within Marathon over development of their land on False Creek. Technical studies have confirmed the feas ib i l i t y of building a residen-t ia l community in False Creek. Market studies indicate high demand for accommodation close to the City core and competitive areas are almost f u l l . No major problems stand in the way of an immediate start of the proposed f i r s t stage and steady growth is ant i -cipated after that at a rate of about 1,000 units per year. ^ 3 Then on April 20, 1971 Progress Report #1 came to City Council, and the Director of Planning and Civic Development's report on the consultant work from the Board of Administration was passed, setting aside a total of 114 $270,000 for consultant work in planning False Creek. At this time the 81 terms of reference suggested by T.B.P. & P . 1 1 5 in their March 2 2 , 1971 Progress Report #1 for Part II of the work were accepted by Council. May, 1971 brought Progress Report #2 from the consultants, through the False Creek Study Group and into the City Hall channels.\^ As described by T .B.P. & P. , Progress Report #2 was "a comprehensive comment on the Long Range Planning Policy as suggested by the City Planning Depart-ment and constituted an interim report on progress toward Report # 3 . " ^ ^ Progress Report #2 was received and accepted by City Council on June 2 9 , 1 9 7 1 . 1 1 8 Also of note at the June 2 9 , 1971 City Council meeting was Council's discussion of Granville Island as being the "keystone" to develop-ment of the False Creek basin and their approval of stepping up negotiations 119 with Ottawa to get control of the Island. Early August, 1971 saw Marathon Realty in the media's eye once again, unveiling the f i r s t stage of their False Creek development or iginal ly put forth in A p r i l , 1971. It was suggested : that- applicat ion for rezoning the area would be made in the Autumn of 1971 with construction beginning in 1973. The f i r s t stage would cover 43 acres midway between the Cambie and Granville Street bridges at the foot of Davie Street, with buildings covering 120 13 acres, parks 12 acres, roads 9 acres, and a marina 9 acres. In September, 1971 the consultants T.B.P. & P. submitted Progress Report #3 to the City, through the False Creek Study Group. The report entit led False Creek Proposals contained thirty recommendations aimed at establishing a broad development pattern for the False Creek 121 r J . . Basin. (See footnote 121 for these recommendations;. 82 Among the recommendations put forth in the report were proposals to maintain the existing water area acreage, limit the residential popu-lation of the Creek to 30,000 persons, and the inclusion of Vancouver citizens in planning the Creek's future. Spec i f ica l l y , recommendation #30 stated that All or portions of the content of this report should be circulated widely to the citizens of Vancouver and various methods to obtain feedback from the pro-posals and ideas therein should be i n i -t iated. 122 During September, 197V, while the T.B.P. S P. Report #3 was moving through the City Hall channels, the planning department produced a report entit ied Proposed Policies for the Redevelopment of False Creek. The report was the planning department's follow-up to the five concepts report and submissions, and was requested by City Council on April 14, 1970. It must be remembered that while both of these reports were dated September, 1971, neither was 'publ ic ly ' released then. The planning department report was based on . . . .prev ious ly established policies by the City; findings from various studies on False Creek; reported False Creek Con-cepts 2, b, and 5; public replies to these concepts, and subsequent discussion of the same. ^ There are two signif icant aspects concerning this report which bear pointing out. The f i r s t aspect is the timing of the report. It seems very questionable why the planning department would be drawing up policy guidelines for the Creek when the City was spending approximately a quarter 83 of a mil l ion dollars for consultants to do the same work. Reflecting on this however, and realizing from past examples the time sequences of reports passing through City Hall channels, the planning department report was apparently delayed by the Technical Planning Board and surfaced the 124 same time as T.B.P. & P. Report #3 s t r i c t l y through coincidence. The second aspect of considerable importance wi l l surface in histor ical perspective, and that is the statement that the planning depart-ment report was based on, among other things, previously established po l -ic ies . Many of the previously established pol icies were aimed at creating an industrial False Creek. A prime example was the policy which set out a revised harbor headling creating a shipping channel and turning bays geared to industrial development and which was treated as a given by the City planning department. It should also be noted here that the consultants T.B.P. & P. had access to the City planning department report in draft form, and used 125 it as an input to their Progress Report #3. With the two September, 1971 reports on False Creek policy guide-lines en route to City Council through the established channels, Council business proceeded as usual. In a Director of Planning and Civic Development report through the Board of Administration to City Council on September 21, 1971, a letter from Mr.W.S. Harvey of False Creek Marinas Limited to the Mayor and Alderman, dated August 21, 1971, asked for an opportunity to present a proposal for the construction and operation of a major public small boat 126 marina. Mr. Harvey further stated in his letter that he had applied on 84 March 25, 1971 to lease the Giroday Sawmill site and had not received a reply. City Council, in dealing with this matter, concluded that the application to create a marina in False Creek was premature because consul-127 tant work on the Creek was not complete. It is interesting to note that Council refused to allow a public marina development in FalseCreek, (which was compatible in nature to future plans for the Creek), on September 21, 1971 because plans for the Creek were not far enough advanced, then on October 5, 1971, just over two weeks later , and prior to either of the September, 1971 reports reaching them, Council approved completion of the Quebec-Columbia Connector, (which was 128 industrial in nature, planned to service an industrial False Creek). In a motion put forth by Alderman Hardwick that . . . . t h e Council re-affirm its 1962 policy in regard to the Columbia-Quebec Connector....129 two conclusions were carried. These conclusions were; 1. Completion of the small f i l l i n g in process and proposed at the east end of False Creek should proceed, since the City is legally committed to this . Furthermore, the effect in reducing total water area is small and termination of f i l l i n g at this stage would leave small bays which would be very d i f f i c u l t to keep clean. Completion of t h i s . f i l l i n g wil l clean up backwaters in the east end of the Creek and permit the cement company to construct its conveyor so that it can continue its operations as per the 1962 agreement with the City. , 8 5 2. Since no construction of the Col -umbia-Quebec roadway is scheduled until late 1972, well after completion of the current studies by Consultants on False Creek, there is no need for Council action at this time. After the reports of the Consultants are in , the maj^gr wi l l be brought before Council Though City Council realized the need for overall planning and coordination of redevelopment in False Creek, they did not have the infor-mation base on which to make 'meaningful' decisions. Their decisions were based on information and agreements of the early and mid 1960's, as is i l lustrated with the decision to complete the Columbia-Quebec connector. As to Council's decisions on the Creek's future, they could do l i t t l e more than avoid making decisions. The result was a game such as played at City Council'on September 21, 1971 and October 5, 1971, of putting things off or making decisions distant enough to seemingly afford a future opportunity for recons ideration. The October 5, 1971 Council meeting also saw the beginning of debate and City actions to stop people from polluting False Creek any more than it already was. A Board of Administration report to Council singled out Scott Poultry, Meyer Franks, Western Bridge, C P . Transport, and Bay 131 Lumber Company as polluters of the Creek. It was fe l t that a l l but Meyer Franks, a barrel cleaning operation, would either be leaving the Creek or controll ing the pollution problem in the near future. There was considerable debate as to what should be done about Meyer Franks, which had been warned several times in the past to clean up their operation, and had promised to do so. It was decided that their 86 business licence for 1972 would not be renewed. On the 19th of October, 1971 Alderman Hardwick forma 1ly inquired 132 at Council as to the status of the September, 1 9 7 1 False Creek reports. The Director of Planning and Civic Development replied that the planning department report and the consul tans report were expected in the near future. The coming of November, 1971 brought the beginning of a debate over f i l l i n g parts of False Creek. A newspaper ar t ic le by Mr. Hall Lieren was the f i r s t public indication of inconsistencies in the planning of False r , 133 Creek. Mr. Leiren in his ar t ic le noted that two reports on future Creek development were soon to be released by the City. It is understood the consultant report wi l l recommend a halt to f i l l i n g in the Creek, that it be developed as a people-oriented waterfront resource. However, a planning department source had leaked the information that the City report wi l l recommend at least some f i l l i n g be done but not completely out to the harbour headline.^4 The ar t ic le went on to discuss how the harbor headline was moved further from the shore a few years ear l ier when an industrial future was planned for the Creek. This made more water area available or vulnerable to f i l l i n g . The situation as it ex ists , points out Mr. Leiren, is that City o f f i c i a l s say the situation has changed now that the intention is largely to make False Creek resident ial . They say there is no intention of f i l l i n g in right up to the harbor headline. However, it is worth noting that the City has not made any application to the Federal Government to have the harbor head-line restored to its original p o s i t i o n J 3 5 87 To add to the controversy the Marathon Realty Phase I proposal 136 included f i l l i n g in 29 acres of Creek water. At the same time the City was planning to f i l l in 3 acres of Creek water in completing the Columbia-Quebec connector. Mr. Lieren quoted Mr. B i l l Curt is , Deputy City Engineer as saying in relation to the connector f i l l i n g that . . . . t h ree acres represents a very small portion of the 260 acres of water . . . . Fai1ure to complete fi11 ing would leave a smal1 bay which would accumulate debris due to poor t idal act ion. 1 3 7 A reply to Mr. Curtis' statements came in Mr. Leiren's closing comment that . . . . a s long as planning and engineering o f f i c i a l s continue to think in terms of 'mud f l a t s ' and debris traps, rather than thinking of the Creek as an irreplacable waterfront resource, they wi l l continue to think in terms. of a nuisance that would best be eliminated. In dealing extensively with Mr. Leirens a r t i c l e , the intent was not only to set out the beginning of a controversy, but to show how a newspaper ar t ic le can make a very strong case for or against something. I this instance the question of why the situation appears as i t does must be asked, a question we have reflected on ear l ier in this chapter. It must also be noted that art ic les such as Mr. Leiren's carry enormous influence on public opinion and subsequent actions-reactions to the City and the City 's plans. So great is this impact that i t must be considered a part of the planning-decision-making process in False Creek. At the November 2 3 , 1971 Counci1 meeting Alderman Bird referred to the f i l l i n g in of False Creek and complaints which had been received 88 as a result. Alderman Bird fe l t that Council should take the necessary 139 action in order to control the f i l l i n g situation of the Creek. In a discussion of the f i l l s i tuat ion, the Corporation Counsel explained the legal posit ion, where the owner of the waterfront land can apply to the owner of the water lots, the Federal Government in some cases, the Provincial Government in other cases, for a permit to f i l l in the water lot to the harbor headline. The City has no legal control over the granting of permits to f i l l water lots in False Creek. Oh November 26, 1971 the City released to the public T.B.P. & P. progress report #3 on proposals for False Creek. To the City Council meeting on November 30, 1971 the Board of Administration sent the following report: In accordance with Council instruc-tions regarding reports of outside consul-tants, it is noted that a report entit led "False Creek Proposals" has been received from the False Creek Study Group. This wi l l be report on to Council in the near future. In the meantime, a copy of the consultant's report is made available to each member of Council to give maximum time for its study. ' ™ Council received the Board of Administration report for information; the September, 1971 consultants report had reached City Council. Early December, 1971 saw the public release of the City Planning 1 Department's September, 1971 report on proposals for the redevelopment of False Creek. Remembering that this report had been requested by City Council some eighteen months pr ior , took into account considerable past pol icy, an surfaced coincidenta1ly the same as the T.B.P. £ P. proposals report, it should not have been compared to the consultants report as though it held 89 the same status. A prime example of how the report was misinterpreted, and how newspapers can present a deceiving picture, was a series of newspaper art ic les in early December, 1971. . 1 4 1 The art ic les stated that planners foresaw extensive fi11ing of the Creek, continuous industrial development over the next 30 years, and that the planning department advocated f i l l i n g in the Creek one week and no f i l l i n g the next. Al l that in fact happened was the planning department, after seeing the consultant's report, decided to take a stronger stand on f i l l i n g 142 in line with what T.B.P. & P. were recommending. One could question, however, the wisdom of the planning department releasing the report in light of T.B.P. & P. report #3. The City, wanting to move toward actual redevelopment in the Creek, began searching for a means to achieve the resident ial - recreat ional -commercial ends envisioned. To this end, City Council, on December 7, 1971, adopted four procedural recommendations on False Creek, along with the policy that the Standing Council Committee on Planning and Development consider the entire False Creek matter, including six functional recommendations put forth by 143 the Board of Administration. (See footnote 143 for the six functional recommendations). Included in the Board of Administration report dated December 2, 1971 was the Director of Planning and Civic Development recommendation that . . . . a f t e r having heard the views of the Planning Commission, the Parks Board, and the School Board, the Standing Commi-ttee on Planning and Development review the reports and recommend to Council acceptable pol ic ies to guide immediate and future development in False Creek.144 90 With the acceptance of the precedural recommendations, a motion put forth by Alderman Hardwick was carried requesting the Director of Planning and Civic Development . . . . t o report further on a method by which the City could gain control of the f i l l i n g of future water areas, including, if necessary a revision of the Harbor Head l ine . 1 4 5 On. December 16, 1971, Council's Standing Committee on Planning and Development began discussions on False Creek as directed by City Council, 146 and on December 21, 1971 presented a set of recommendations to Council. (See footnote 146 for these recommendations). The essence of the standing Committee's report was to outline more spec i f i ca l l y , than had been done in the past, certain tasks and responsibi l i t ies in need of attention. Such things as the amount of open space, the population density for the Creek, poss ib i l i t ies for a development corporation, a design for Area 6, the maintenance of the water area, so l i c i t ing landowners' views around the Creek, and dealing with the railway situation appeared on the pr ior i ty l i s t of tasks. On January 18, 1972, City Council established a special council committee on False Creek, as a result of a Board of Administration recomm-endation of December 7, 1971 THAT Council establish a special committee to discuss with the railway companies the matter of noise abatement, operating schedules and other factors considered detrimental to the quiet of the adjacent residential areas. 91 and the Standing Committee on Planning and Development recommendation That Council establish a special committee to discuss with the railway companies the removal of the line in the a r e a . • The committee was made up of three Council members, A1derman Hardwick (chairman), Alderman Broome, and Alderman Sweeney, and was given the task of dealing with and negotiating for removal of the rai l lines around False Creek. (See footnote 1^9 for the terms of reference of the committee). The terms of reference were open to revision by the committee i t s e l f , with the underlying intent that the committee would assist with . redevelopment plans and help Council form pol ic ies for False Creek. . The committee evolved from Alderman Hardwick, supported by the City Manager, Mr. Sutton-Brown, suggesting such a committee be established, to Mayor Campbell. Using the rational that if the committee "bombed" in planning False Creek the opposition, Alderman Walter Hardwick would get . the blame, and if it succeeded, Council as a whole would benefit, the mayor approved establishtng the committee. Responsibility for producing policy guidelines for Creek develop-ment was placed squarely on the shoulders of the newly established Council Committee, and it was to this end that Alderman Hardwick (chairman of the committee) turned his attention. Remembering that the Standing Committee on Planning and Development was, on December 7, 1971, instructed by Council to produce acceptable policy guidelines after consulting the 151 Vancouver City Planning Commission, Parks Board and School Board, and that the Special Council Committee in taking over the responsibi1ity for 92 producing policy guidelines was obliged to consider the opinions of,the Commission and Boards, the f i r s t part of 1972 saw the Parks Board and the City Planning Commission actively studying False Creek. It was March, 1972 when signs of the Commission's and Board's efforts in studying False .Creek began to reach City Council. On March 7 , 1972 a Parks Board request to be heard in delegation by City Council concerning space in False Creek for marina was referred to the Special Council Committee on False Creek after the Director of Planning and Civic Development reported that the consultant's report and the City planning department's report allowed for approximately 1 ,000 marina berths in the long term and that Decisions on the location, timing, method of development and operation of any permanent marins in False Creek cannot be made until the consultant work is com-pleted. 1 5 2 On March 7 , City Council unanimously carried a motion asking the C.P.R. not to sign a 20 year agreement with B.C. Hydro for operating rights on the south side of the Creek and the Kitsi lano Trest le , until Council's Special False Creek Committee had had an opportunity to discuss and make 153 known their position on the term of the operating agreement. As the Parks Board campaigned for marina space in the Creek, so they began campaigning for the inclusion of larger amounts of park area than were presently being planned. More spec i f i ca l l y , Park Board Commi-ssioner J . Malkin publicly c r i t i c i zed the lack of ' large' park open spaces 154 and the proposed housing density. • / 93 On March 2 8 , 1972 Council's Special False Creek Committee presented to Counci1, development guidelines for False Creek, based on previous studies, citizens replies to the development concept proposals and revisions of the Proposed Policies report from T.B.P. & P. of September, 1971. The guidelines were intended to "outline future development and redevelopment in the area and to influence development in a predictable way. Put another way, the report reflected the Committee's objectives to produce a policy document, have it passed by Council, and set up a 1 5 6 system for planning and developing False Creek. City Council accepted the Committee's guidelines for information and adopted them in principle establishing a much needed yardstick on which to base decisions and set directions. (See footnote 157 for the pol ic ies adopted in p r inc ip le ) . . While numerous requests and statements for more park in False Creek had appeared at various times, the thought of the City 's 85 acres being ' a l l ' park began to grow. The Parks Board in early A p r i l , 1972 had taken the position that a l l 85 City owned acres should be park. This stand seems to reflect the traditional Park Board stance of asking for more park area than they and everyone else feels is necessary feasible. Toward the end of A p r i l , 1972 came the long awaited False Creek Study Group--T.B.P. £ P. Report #h and 5 . Report #k was a more detailed and concentrated projection of the previous report (Report #3) and wi l l serve as a Policy Plan for the City owned land on the South Shore. Report #5 was termed a cal l for proposals from the develop-ment industry for the implementation of physical planning and construction of a pro-ject strategical ly located on City land.159 On May 16, 1972 the Consultant's Report #k and #5 was received by Council with the resolution that . . . . t h e Vancouver City Planning Commis-sion, the Special Committee on False Creek, and the Department of Planning and Civic Devel-opment prepare as quickly as possible a digest of the report for wide public c i rculat ion. The consultant report made f ifteen recommendations, representing a composite of the resolutions of Report #3, the proposals of Report #4, and the strategies of Report #5, aimed at creating a new, exciting urban environ-ment for Vancouver. While Report #h and #5 had been making its way through the City Hall channels to Council, the question of the City needing an economic consultant had arose. Alderman W, Hardwick and City Commissioner Gerald Sutton-Brown had apparently discussed the issue at great length, and Alder-man Hardwick had contacted Mr. D. S tuc l i f fe , who had been Development Manager with Dominion Construction in B.C. for several years. Alderman Hardwick had talked with Mr. Sutc l i f fe in regard to economic consulting 160 for the City as far back as November, 1971. Decision on an economic consultant was not pursued at that time beyond this stage. Instead another need was perceived within the planning department, and that was for develop-ment of f icer for False Creek. City Council, on April 25, 1972, approved a new senior position within the Planning and Civic Development Department 95 speci f ica l ly for the False Creek development, and as was noted in the Board of Administration report, April 21, 1972, to Council, The individual f i l l i n g this position should not be a planner but should be someone \ who has experience in the development busin-ess and has the ab i l i t y to carry forward the work done by the Advance Planning and Research Division and the Consultants into actual devel-opment on the g r o u n d . ^ With the submission of the last consultant report the City began moving toward implementation procedures. In an ar t ic le in the Br i t ish Columbia Business Journal, Mr. D.'Mann of T .B.P. 6 P. discussed the consultants perspective on False Creek. It is s ignif icant to note that in response to the question of what should the False Creek Basin look l ike , Mr. Mann answered In a nutshell i t must be physically and physiologically clean l ike the suburbs; plus it must be social ly and psychologically potent 1 ike the urban core. The f i r s t cr i ter ion ensures biological survival ; the second cr i ter ion ensures human s u r v i v a 1 J ° 2 In the way of this 'honorable' end combining the 'best' of two worlds into one 'super' environment Mr. Mann identif ied two kinds of central problems, which as i f predictive forces have come to be paramount in False Creek. The f i r s t involves the fact that when economic issues are considered together with social issues, resolutions are bound to favor the former because we have time tested methods of dealing with money. We have not yet devel-oped a methodology for dealing with social values. The second kind of problems involve not what you do, but how you do i t . To summarize these secondary issues--there are four: over-coming inertia of incumbent industrial use; 96 maintaining constant involvement with the public large; s i te preparation; devel-opment phasing and control. This latter point, phasing and control , is the c r i t i ca l factor of success. Phasing must be super-sensitive to market conditions — control must be quality environmental control. For the remainder of this case study, it is worthwhile keeping these two kinds of problems in mind so as to appreciate with clairvoyance many of the occurrences. Thus between the Autumn of 1970 and May, 1972 the major thrust was the preparation of the consultant reports. Table 12 summarizes this period. TABLE 12 97 RESUME: AUTUMN 1970 - MAY 1972 TREND; new image for False Creek moving from thought to conceptual policy REPORTS 1971 Progress Report #1 - T .B.P. £ P. 1971 False Creek Development, Marathon Realty 1971 Progress Report #2 - T .B.P. £ P. ; An Interim Report Towards a Development Plan for False Creek 1971 Progress Report #3 - T .B.P. £ P. ;False Creek Proposals 1971 Proposed Policies for the Redevelopment of False Creek 1972 Guidelines for False Creek Development 1972 Progress Report §k £ #5, T .B.P. £ P. , False Creek Proposals MAIN PLAYERS Consulants Thompson, Berwick, Pratt and Partners Marathon Realty City Planning Department Special Council Committee re: False Creek (Jan. 22) Alderman Walter Hardwick RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS City hires Consultants Marathon Realty revises plans Consultant Reports #1 - #3 long awaited Planning Department report confuses the issue Council approves completion of Columbia-Quebec connector Council establishes a Special Committee to prepare guidelines for Creek redevelopment City adopts policy guidelines from Special Commit-tee for False Creek review process set. in. mot ion to take concepts and create plans for implementation SCOREBOARD Creek direction definite basic pol icies set to include housing, park, marina etc. review planning process set in motion 98 COMMENTS - having chosen the consultant means of planning False Creek, the City received the reports and adopted policies - Council went through a period of making decisions without information PERIOD TWO DISCUSSION The planning decision-making process during this period can be divided into two basic phases. The f i r s t being the time when Council was waiting for the consultant reports to be completed and the second being the time when Council was beginning to in i t iate actions as a result of the consultant reports. The second phase was also a period of confusion arising from the planning department preparing a report which was not consistent with the consultant report directions Council was beginning to act on. The process in the f i r s t part of this period (up to December, 1971) was typified by Council avoiding most decisions concerning the Creek. The reasoning for this was simply that Council, knowing the consultant reports were being prepared did not want to make decisions until alternate futures for the Creek were outlined. In most part Council adhered to the avoiding decisions policy except in the case of the Quebec-Columbia connector. In this instance, on October 5, 1971 ., prior to either, of the September, 1971 consultant or Planning Department reports reaching Council, they approved the completion of the connector. This approval of an industrial ly conceived and oriented road, even without the September, 1971 reports, was against the grain of planning for a residential -recreation Creek. The p i t f a l l which character-99 ized period one of this case study, where Council made decisions based on yesterday's po l ic ies , in spite of today's intent, continued into period two as Council demonstrated a lack of leadership and strength. The second phase of the process during this period stemmed from consultant report #3. The report set out proposals aimed at creating a residential -recreational future for the Creek. Council, acting on the Director of Planning and Civic Development's recommendation began reviewing the policy report at its Standing Committee on Planning and Development, with the intent of determining acceptable pol ic ies to guide immediate and future Creek development. These considerations led to the establishment of a Special Council Committee on False Creek in January, 1972. The establishment of this Special Council Committee marked the f i r s t step in a series of organizational structure changes which led to planning for action as opposed to planning for decisions resulting in further planning. This fact is emphasized by Council setting up the Committee to produce guidelines so development could begin. Diagram 13 outlines the organizational structure for this period. These two phases of the palnning decision-making process during this period were focussed on the polit icans since they were the only active participants in the process. Outside the formal City process the consultants were writing their reports. The planning department was basically watching over the consultant workings and forwarding the reports to Council. They were also, however, preparing a report on the Creek which by this stage of the process was a negative rather than positive contribution to the process. Special Council Committee On False Creek Parks Board Clerk Di rector Of Planning Assistant Director Of Planning And Civic Development Pu.bl ic I nput Vancouver City Council Vancouver Ci ty Planning Commission Board Of Administration Parks Board Consultants Director Of Finance Department Di rector Of Properties £ Insurance Corporation Counsel Deputy Di rector Of Engineering Department Publi c I nput DIAGRAM 13 FALSE CREEK ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 1972 101 The v is ib le role of the planner and the planning department during this period was generally that of an administrative watchdog over the con-sultants. Behind the scenes that role was very different. Stemming from a request Council had made in Apr i l , 1970 for follow-up policies to the Development Concepts report of January, 1970, the planning department had continued to produce overall pol ic ies for the Creek while the consulants produced plans for area six. On the surface these two thrusts seem compat-ible and both necessary. The consultants used a draft copy of the planning department report as input to their reports. However, communication from the consultants to the planning department apparently did not occur. As a result the consultant and planning department both reported simultaneously in September, 1971, presenting different and incompatible po l ic ies . The planning department report, prepared by the long range planning division was based on previously established directions and was inconsistent with emerging directions being put forward not only by Council, the consultants and c i t i zens , but also by the Assistant Director of Civic Development of the planning department who was part of the consultant team. It appears that where changes in policy occurred quickly, as they had through this period of Creek development, the planning department had d i f f i cu l t y responding and keeping pace. Where the planning department should have adjusted their planning for the Creek, they seem to have been unable or unwilling to recognize the fact that parts of the policy statement they were producing was no longer required or that it presented inappropriate directions. The influence of the pol i t ic ian during this period was controlled by the information Council received to aid them in their decision-making. 102 During the early stages of the consultant workings Council received no previews or preliminary reports to aid them with interim decisions. This was due to the fact that the Board of Administration was f i l te r ing infor -mation and reports for Council. The City Commissioner, prior to the estab-lishment of the Special Council Committee on False Creek, would hold smaller items which did not require decisions or action until a signif icant report or issue arose which warranted Council's time. This lack of information being passed through the process served to isolate the po l i t ic ians . Friedmann in his discussion of transactive planning attributes much of the lack of plan implementation to the lack of communication between actors in the process. In the later stages of this period when Council established the Special Council Committee on False Creek the communication problem was overcome and the resultant influence of the pol i t ic ian changed markedly. The po l i t i ca l decision-makers by becoming involved in more of the planning aspects of the process were participating in information exchanges at the committee level , which afforded them the opportunity to deal with the Creek in more deta i l . The direct result of more participation in the process and better information exchanges were more informed decisions on the future of the Creek. Diagram 1 3 o u t l i n e s the organizational structure which existed at that time, and i l lustrates the working relationship which was beginning to develop between, the planners and the po l i t i c ians . The key to this period was the in i t iat ion of a constant information flow to and from the pol I t ic ian, which began to increase the po l i t i c ian 's influence in and/or on the process. 103 The involvement of cit izens during this period was minimal. Citizens were indirectly involved in Creek planning through Marathon Realty's study which confirmed a desire in people for inner city housing. Insofar as cutizens involved with the City, the only reference to the public came with the completion of the consultant reports. Council directed the planning department to prepare a brochure outlining the major points of the consultant work for wide public d istr ibut ion. PERIOD THREE: JUNE 1972 to NOVEMBER 1973 With the complete series of consultant reports in hand City Council directed the Special False Creek Committee to proceed with Granville Island and the railway issue, as well as "investigate tangible ways and 165 means of opening up space in the area for the public this summer." At the same time, Council directed City Staff , speci f ica l ly the planning depart-ment, to report within 90 days on: 1. Establishment of a development pro-gram including proposals to secure developer performance. 2 . Establishment of a staging plan with alternatives for those components which are not directly within control of the City. 3 . Establishment of a Capital Works Program. b. A financing and income outline to include the desirabi1ity of leasing or sel l ing the land. 166 5 . Marketing proposals for the f i r s t stage. On June 2 0 , 1972 a report dated May, 1972 from the Vancouver City Planning Commission was presented to Council and referred to the Special Council Committee on False Creek for consideration. The report supported the concept of residential -recreational mix in the Creek to an eventual 104 population no greater than 3 0 , 0 0 0 people. With the City Planning Commission, the Consultants T.B.P. & P., and the City Planning Department supporting housing in False Creek, only the Parks Board advocated no housing. On the Special Council Committee Aldermen Hardwick and Broome favoured housing on the City owned land, while Alderman Sweeney fe l t a l l 85 acres should be park-. This park vs. housing debate replaced the long time industrial vs. residential-recreationa1 debate, and was s t i l l al ive and prominent in 1974. After Council decided on the general direction of False Creek redevelopment, the trend moved toward action. The Federal Government announced through Urban Affairs Minister Ron Basford a cost sharing program for studies on False Creek. Specif ical ly the Federal Government announced that C.M.H.C. is providing a $ 2 0 , 5 0 0 grant to assist the B.C. Central Credit Union with their feas ib i l i t y study of a mixed residen-tial-commercial-recreational complex on 10 acres of land on the south side of False Creek near the Burrard Bridge. The Urban Affairs Ministry is funding the development of plans that wi l l extend and support City of Vancouver plans for False Creek redevelopment. The Federal Government is reviewing leg i -slation regarding support for the relocation of railroad crossings.168 With the Federal Government pledging support, the Credit Union put forth the third commercial-residential-recreational proposal, for area 10-of False Creek. Marathon Realty through these times maintained a low key approach of waiting for the City to decide on basic pol ic ies before pushing for actual development. The City, since being presented the 105 consultants Report #4 and #5 was deciding how to review and implement the reports. To this end the Parks Board on July 18, 1972 in a letter to Council dated July 6 asked Council to "engage a planning consultant to 169 review the False Creek plans." Also on July 18, 1972 a Department of Planning and Civic Develop-ment report to Council on the public pamphlet council had requested two months ear l ie r , in May, stated that This matter has been discussed at length by the chairman of the Special Committee and the Director of Planning. It was concluded that because of the nature of the work and because of the present very heavy workload on the department, the only rea l i s t i c way to publish such a document was to retain outside h e l p J 7 0 To this end, Council approved $9,000 to cover printing costs. The important point here, however, is that regardless of the reason, produc-tion of the public pamphlet which was requested 'as quickly as possible' had not even begun a fu l l two months after Council had instructed the City Planning Commission, the Special Committee on False Creek, and the Depart-ment of Planning and Civic Development to prepare the pamphlet. Early August, 1972 saw the leak of the 'in-house' debate over whether or not to create a special agency or development corporation to 171 handle redevelopment of the Creek. City Commission Gerald. Sutton-Brown and Planning Director B i l l Graham argued that the redevelopment should be handled ' in -house' , while City Planning Commission Chairman John Leckie and False Creek Committee Chairman, Alderman Walter Hardwick argued for a special agency. 106 The lengthy debate of issues such as this, reflect the uncertainty which existed within City Hall concerning False Creek, and how to handle its redevelopment. Over the course of the summer, the Federal Government, was reviewing legislation which would provide support for relocating railway track in areas such as False Creek and had indicated that such support would be forthcoming. In light of th is , City Council authorized its Special Committee to select consultants to undertake Part I of the proposed 172 railway study, at an expenditure not to exceed $10,000. Staffing of the False Creek project became an important issue at that time. Mr. Don Hickley had been assigned to False Creek in July, 1972 with instructions to come up with plans for development from the T.B.P. & P. reports. Mr. Hickley was at this time the City representative on a joint study of Granville Island sponsored by the Federal Government. Shortly after being put in charge of False Creek Planning, Mr. Hickley hired a planner, Mr. Gordon Shanks, to assist him. Together they began to tackle the False Creek problem, and together they realized the task was much too big for two people. The result was the request to Council for additional staff to form a special False Creek planning team. The Director of Planning and Civic Development on October 3 , 1972 presented a progress report on the Creek to Council. Very signif icant was the recommendation for an increase in planning s ta f f , to form a Planning 173 Team for False Creek. Council approved the hiring of f ive new planners speci f ica l ly for False Creek. 107 Another recommendation approved was That the City Engineer be instructed to investigate methods of obtaining Federal or Provincial assistance through a V/inter Works or other, simi1ar program for a clean-up of City owned lands in Area 6 and 10 in False Creek and any other preparatory work  that might be sui tab! e. * There are two important facets to Council directly requesting involvement in False Creek from the tngfneering Department. One is the City beginning to discuss the question of funding redevelopment of the Creek, looking speci f ical ly at Winter Works and railway relocation money available from the Federal Government. The other important point here is that in light of the newly approved positions in the planning department's False Creek Team not having been f i l l e d , thp planning department did not offer suff ic ient staff to handle the tasks; therefore the engineering department was called upon, and for the f i r s t time in several years the planning depart-ment, was not the only c iv ic department involved in False Creek redevelop-175 ment. The engineering department became an active participant in the Creek process, with Deputy City Engineer Mr. B i l l Curtis in charge. The planning department, especially the advanced planning and research d iv is ion, was losing control of long range planning for the Creek, not only to the engineering department, but also to Mr. Hickley, a reality 176 which did not s i t well with that div is ion. At the same time as Council was instructing the engineering department to pursue the funding issue, City Council formally approved the 108 funds for the planning department's staff to handle redevelopment of False 177 Creek. Don Hickley was formally named False Creek coordinator, to head the new s taf f . As a result of Council's deliberations and news coverage which stemmed from them, general public interest in the Creek began to grow again. The Vancouver Composite Committee, made up of representatives of various volunteer community organizations sponsored boat tours of the Creek as part of their annual series of programs dealing with development of the City. More than kOQ people took advantage of the water tours to see the Creek f i rst hand. Following these tours, held on the Thanksgiving weekend in early October, False Creek was the subject of a Channel 10 Plan Van show. This program was sponsored by the Community Planning Association of Canada, an organization of individuals concerned with planning. During the same week False Creek was the topic of a Judy LaMarsh open line radio show. Considering the boat tours, the television program and the open line show, the future of False Creek was gaining considerable public awareness and interest. (The author was involved in this series of activi t ies). Toward the end of October, 1972, the Granville Island Committee, consisting of o f f i c i a l s from the Urban Affairs Ministry, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the National Harbours Board, and the City of 178 Vancouver released, through Urban Affairs Minister Ron Basford, the Granville Island Report. This report dealt with the industrial real i t ies of the Island, such as the lease terms, and ended by proposing the Island be an urban park. 109 With Granville Island being Federally owned, winter works money and railway relocation funds being Federally al located, the importance and presence of the Federal Governmental was beginning to become more evident; a presence which while remaining somewhat low-key could.well be the most c r i t i c a l quantity in redeveloping the Creek. For without Federal funds and cooperation, not only could the City not afford to redevelop the Creek, but it could not change the industrial nature of Granville Island. Almost lost in the works at City Ha l l , the public pamphlet requested in May, 1972 by Council was receiving finishing touches, soon to be released to the public. The situation in the Autumn of 1972 consisted of the planning department handing False Creek to Don Hickley to transform the general concepts and plans into speci f ic pol icies and directions; the engineering department with B i l l Curtis seeking winter works money from the Federal Government for a seawall which had not at this point been planned to coordinate with other possible Creek land uses. In the 1972 Civic Election False Creek became an election issue with the eventual winning party TEAM using a platform of promising to building in False Creek within two years. It is noteworthy here that TEAM was very much a reform party based on ideals such as cit izen p a r t i c i -pation and local area planning.. The roots of TEAM seem to have been based in the academic world, as four of the TEAM candidates elected were U.B.C. professors. 110 On November 7, 1972 a communication from the Parks Board was presented to Council, requesting that a member of the Parks Board be appointed to the False Creek Committee. In spite of the fact that Park Board off icers are elected just like Council, a motion by Alderman Wilson was carr ied, THAT a member of the Park Board be invited to attend meetings of the False Creek Committee on an ex o f f i c i o , non-voting bas is.179 Once again the Park Board had o f f i c i a l l y been effect ively denied a formal say in planning False Creek. In mid-November, Marathon Realty suggested a scaled down plan for residential development along the north shore of False Creek. Where Marathon had suggested 20,000 people in A p r i l , ^^6^, 14,000 people in • 1 80 March, 1971, they now proposed 9,000 people. The scaling down of the development was a result of Marathon eliminating any land f i l l of the Creek waters, an issue which had met with opposition in ear l ier Marathon proposals. One day in December should be the resume t i t l e of False Creek happenings in December, 1972. The day was December 19th, at which time City Council received Part I of the Railway Study, the long awaited public pamphlet, and an engineering department report on funding for seawall 181 development. The railway study report was in the form of a brief prepared by Acres Consultants on behalf of the City for presentation to the Canadian Transport Commission. The intent was to secure funding from the Commission for an in-depth study of the rai l s i tuat ion. The public 111 pamphlet requested in May, 1972 as a digest of T .B.P. & P. Report §b and #5 for public information and distr ibut ion, was presented to Council, with the suggestion that the Executive Coordinator of the Vancouver City Planning Commission, Mrs. Hilda Symonds be placed in charge of contacting organizations, organizing meetings with the public, col lecting feedback on the pamphlet, and preparing a summary report of public reaction. The pamphlet was received and Mrs. Symonds placed in charge of the feedback 182. process. The engineering department report on funding for False Creek redevelopment dealt speci f ica l ly with monies available to construct a seawall. Council accepted the report and instructed the City Engineer to pursue the issue. The new year, 1973, brought a different Council and promises of action in developing False Creek. The TEAM dominated Council had used as one of its election platforms "building something" in False Creek. The cal1 was for action. Two TEAM members elected, Mayor Phi l l ips and Alderman Hardwick, were among those who, as early as November, 1969, supported redevelopment of the Creek to residential-recreational uses. The f i r s t actions the new, somewhat inexperienced Council (seven out of eleven were rookies) took, which had marked impact on False Creek were the f i r ing of City Commissioner Gerald Sutton-Brown and Planning Director B i l l Graham, within a month or so of one another. The f i r ing of Sutton-Brown changed the entire power-decision making structure around City Ha l l , a topic which wi l l be discussed at the end of this period. 112 While the new Council was getting its feet wet, Don Hickley was assembling the False Creek Planning Team. A site off ice was approved on 1 the City owned south shore of the Creek, from February 1 , 1973. The Team consisted of Neil Griggs, a planner; Gordon Shanks, a planner; Ed Roffey, an Urban Land Economist; Pat Lau, an architect ; Craig Campbell, a landscape architect; and False Creek Coordinator Don Hickley, an architect. The aim was to establish a wel1-rounded, mult i -d iscipl inary team, capable of reviewing T .B.P. & P. work. The False Creek Team's terms of reference were basically to review the T.B.P. S P. reports, and outline a plan for the City owned land.of Area 6 . It should be remembered here that the planning team was new to the False Creek issue, and in essence had to spend considerable time orienting themselves prior to carrying out any actual planning. While the team was being assembled, Council heard reports and discussed the seawall and Area 10 between the Granville and Burrard Street Bridges. City Council, on January 16, . 1973, voted to allocate $ 1 . 2 5 mill ion toward building a seawall in Area 6 i f the Federal Government would 184 come up with the other $ 2 . 2 5 mill ion needed. The Special False Creek Committee held a closed-door meeting in mid-January to hear a report on Area 10 from the consultants for the 185 study, T .B.P. & P. The use of the area was outlined as mixed residen-t ia l and commercial with water orientation. Later in January the long awaited public brochure out 1ining the consultant proposals was presented to Council. The brochure was released to the public in mid-February. 113 City Council on January 3 0 , 1973, noted that the Special False Creek Committee had written to the National Harbours Board requesting that no existing leases be extended, and recommended that a formal approach be made by the Mayor to the National Harbours Board requesting that the land now under lease to Francis Millerd & Co. be turned over to the City for a nominal sum for development as a park and/or open space.1^6. By February, 1973 the False Creek Team was assembled, and on February 2 1 s t began a five day orientation tr ip in San Francisco. The orientation trip was aimed at providing the Team with f i r s t hand information on developments in San Francisco which are very similar to poss ib i l i t ies in False Creek. On February 2 7 , 1973 City Council reinforced the March, 1972 187 policy of no more log booming west of the Cambie Street Bridge. This action came in the face of an application by Mr. Er ic Sonner, president of Bay Forest Products, for a 5 year lease on the log storage area mid way between the Cambie and Granville Bridges, on the north side of the Creek. Only one week ear l ier Mr. Sonner had received approval in principle of the 188 lease from the Special False Creek Committee. Also oh February 27 Council unanimously approved the motion that notices to vacate be given to tenants of the VIEW buildings as of June 15, 1973, West Coast Salvage as of October 31 , 197 2*, and Clays Marina as of 189 October 3 1 , 1973- " A further action taken by Council in February was to approve sharing the cost of a Local Initiatives Project to clean up around False 114 Creek, at an expense to the City of $51,537- (This grant helped create False Creek Park, a temporary people place used for the public program in the summer of 1973)-While Council was moving to approve guidelines and plans for the Creek as soon as possible, and the planning department was assembling the False Creek Team, the Vancouver City Planning Commission was busy with the task of holding meetings and setting out a public involvement program for False Creek. One such meeting was held on February 1 5 , 1973 in the auditorium of the Vancouver Real Estate Board as part of the "on-going , ! publi c program. The advertised purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways in which the people of Vancouver might be encouraged and assisted to participate in the planning of False Creek.1 ? ° By March, 1973 the False Creek Team was beginning to catch up on the False Creek s i tuat ion, and in a meeting March 16th with the Special Committee on False Creek agreed on the following objectives for the Team. a. Develop basin guidelines to a general level . b. Formulate a basin plan based upon agreed guidelines. c. Develop sub area guidelines for each sub area to a level whereby they can be opera-tionalized as development c r i t e r i a . d. Formulate sub area plans based upon basin and sub area guidelines and the uniqueness of the sub areas. ^ It serves well to remember these objectives for the False Creek Team as considerable controversy arises later in 1973 concerning the success or fai lure of the Team. About the time False Creek Team began to settle into its tasks, a new, important variable appeared in the person of 115 Mr. Doug Sutc l i f fe . Apparently Alderman Hardwick's Special Commitee had, through discussions with Mr. Su tc l i f fe , arranged for him to act as per diem consultant on development matters until October, 1973, when he would take over redevelopment of the City owned land in Area 6 as the City 's develop-ment consultant. This move cast shadows over the position of False Creek Coordinator held by Don Hickley, as Doug Sutc l i f fe seemed to represent 'big brother' overseeing the process. At this point in time, planning for False Creek was in the hands of the False Creek Team, with some specif ic consultant tasks being handled through the engineering department. Attention began to focus on the problem of involving the public in planning False Creek. The Vancouver City Planning Commission was outlining a public program, as mentioned ear l ie r , some cit izen feedback was coming to the Special Committee and the False Creek Team. However, none of these avenues really involved people to an extent acceptable to the citizens themselves. To remedy this Situat ion, the Planning Commission, on request of City Council, set about selecting citizens to form a review panel for False Creek plans. The aim here was to choose cit izens with some specif ic expertise which would benefit the review of Creek plans. At the same time plans were being laid by the City 's Social Planning Department, a separate department from the City Planning Department, to conduct an "active" public involvement program around a public space being created in Area 6. Social Planning's program included an on-site Information o f f i c e , displays, recreation events and such; things aimed at attracting the public to the City owned land, and exposing them to the poss ib i l i t ies which exist . Throughout the Spring, these two public involve-ment programs were being set up, independent of each other and from the 116 False Creek planning team. While the City was spending considerable time discussing marinas on their side of False Creek, Marathon Realty presented a marina proposal for 393 boats to the Special False Creek Committee and to Council, and 192 received approval in pr inciple. Toward the end of A p r i l , word came from Ottawa that the City 's 193 application for $ 2 . 3 mil l ion for the False Creek seawall had been approved. Shortly afterward it was announced that work would begin in December, 1973 on the seawall. This was prior to f inal planning decisions on the uses and shape of Creek development being made. As could be expected from the City 's intention to involve cit izens in planning the Creek (Vancouver City Planning Commission setting up a review panel and Social Planning a public program) public reaction, comment, and act iv i ty concerning False Creek began to grow. influencing public opinion and leading the way in situations offering a hint of controversy newspapers, in this case the Vancouver Sun, came down c r i t i c a l l y without understanding the situation. Specif ical ly an ar t ic le in the Vancouver Sun by Hal Leiren raked TEAM Council members over the coals for a lack of action, speci f ical ly c i t ing Council's indecision as hindering False Creek 194 redevelopment by holding up Marathon Realty's marina development. The ar t ic le placed blame for this on the False Creek Team which in the words of Mr. Leiren "seems pathologically afraid of sticking its neck out on 195 , anything. So far it has done l i t t l e but recommend more studies". In retrospect i t is fa i r to state in defence of the Team that f i r s t they had only been involved in the Creek a couple of months, and that secondly they 117 were hired to review T.B.P. & P. reports over a period more in line with six months, not to make recommendations on development permit applications. Also active at this time, the False Creek Citizens Coalition mainly residents of the Fairview Slopes, made presentations to the Special Committee, s i g -196 nail ing their desire for involvement. During this period the False Creek Planning Team reported directly to the Special Council Committee on False Creek. This was a change from the procedure of reporting through the planning department and the Board of Administration. June brought a False Creek progress report from the Planning Team, outlining what had happened and would be happening in the Creek. The report was intended also to "provide perspective to the Guidelines report 197 soon to be released." Prior to the Guidelines report, came an announcement from the Federal Government that responsibil ity for development of Granville Island has been transferred from the National Harbours Board to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This move effect ively saved the City from having to deal with the National Harbours Board, which had been a formidable task in the past, and painted a future for the Island which promised to be compatible with the City 's plans. Then came the False Creek Policies and Actions report from the False Creek Team. It was greeted by a headline of "Report muddies the 198 water", and raised questions concerning the amount and type of housing as well as the income mix of future residents of the Creek, The report was intended to "provide the basis for , and lead to actual develop-199 ment". ft included a review of previous work, an outline of pol ic ies 118 for adoption or consideration and indications of actions which should be taken. Upon presentation to City Council on July 3 , 1973 heated debate arose over what housing mix was appropriate for a l l lands comprising the 200 False Creek Basin. Alderman Harcourt (a young, social ly concerned . 'storefront' lawyer) favoured a mix stressing middle and low income groups, Alderman Bowers, a professor of engineering at U.B.C., favoured a mix patterned after that of the Greater Vancouver area, while soc ia l i s t lawyer Alderman Rankin favoured low income and/or "working" people. No decision was made on housing mix at the July 3 r d meeting. The Vancouver City Planning Commission was requested to get views from the public and report 201 back to Council by September 1 5 , 1 9 7 3 . Council did approve at this meeting, a standard of 5 . 8 1 acres of parkland for each 1 , 0 0 0 population throughout the Creek Basin. July, 1973 saw the opening of an "instant park".on part of Area 6 as the focal point of the Social Planning Department's public program^ The program was just beginning to create interest when the staff coordinator was f ired for going beyond her terms of reference and trying to gather c i t izen input to alter the False Creek Team's planning. It was not so signif icant that the coordinator was f i red , but that the publicity which ensued was in large part negative. Over the course of the summer the entire program suffered from a lack of under-standing of the planning issues, unique to the Creek, and a lack of infor-mation to give to the public. In light of the debate over housing or park for the City owned Area 6 lands and the recent Council discussion, the recently defeated and now:minority on Council Civic Non-Partisan Association (NPA) publicly took 119 the position that no housing should be built on City owned land between the Cambie and Granville Street Bridges along the south shore of False Creek. The NPA stated that the lands should be "designed and planted 202 as the finest public park and gardens in the Western World." As the summer progressed, so the demolition of the once very controversial VIEW buildings progressed. Recalling the Autumn of 1969, the then Mayor Campbell stated that VIEW would become a dead monument to the obstructionists on City Council. Almost as i f Campbell had the power to make VIEW such a monument, the abandoned (part ial ly used for minor act iv i t ies) structure over the years became a symbol of the City 1 s inabi1 ity to do anything in False Creek. The feeling among City Of f ic ia ls was that until VIEW was gone the City could not proceed in False Creek redevelopment. It is not surprising then, that the VIEW structures caused one f inal controversy in their last moments. The essence of the f inal debate was one of trying to preserve at least one of the large structures, and use it for a market place or other people act iv i ty . Needless to say, because the structures were symbolically " e v i l " to the City, and protests came very late in the game, (after contracts were let e t c . ) , they were torn to the ground, in the name of progress, action, and redevelopment of False Creek. In another corner of City Hall the Planning Commission through Executive Coordinator, Mrs. Hilda Symonds, was pursuing the Council directive to establish a Review Panel for public discussion on the res i -dential section of the land use portion of the False Creek Policies and Actions Report. Where the Planning Commission was directed to have the public review residential po l ic ies , the False Creek Committee was s imi lar i l y directed to establ ish, in consultation with the Planning Commission and the 120 203 Parks Board, a Review Panel for Open Space. - . No matter what the original resolutions, the Planning Commission set up both review panels, one to review, and recommend open space amounts for the Creek, and the other to determine a desirable income mix and implementation strategy for that mix. (See footnote 204 for the l i s t of people on each panel). It should be noted that these review panels were not or ig inal ly designed to be "general" c i t izen part ic ipat ion, but rather were seen as an opportunity to have select special ists from various discipl ines comment on and contribute to the False Creek plans. From mid-July to mid-September the panels met amongst themselves, and with the False Creek Team, in a process of working (verbal) inputs to plans being drawn up. While the review panels carried on, the Social Planning Department's public program continued, centering around the newly created, temporary park in Area 6. Part of the act iv i ty at the park was an Opportunities For Youth funded "Image Survey" conducted by U.B.C. Architecture students under the direction of Stan King. By using a visual medium of sketches, approximately 1,000 people made known their preferences for False Creek. The end result 205 of this work was a report resume-interpretation of the findings. Some of the most popular images included cycl ing, outdoor concerts, lunch in the park, waterside market, farmers market, marina and sa i l i ng , and lagoon boating. While the City found i tse l f wrapped in housing debates, review panels, public programs, seawalls and such, B.C. Central Credit Union and Marathon Realty were actively trying to work out f inal plans suitable to the City. The problem was that the City did not have its complete set of basin guidelines and sub area plans, and therefore was on one hand s ta l l ing these 121 thes-e. two developments while on the other hand trying to encourage them. Add to this the efforts of CMHC to phase industry out of Granville Island and you have a situation where numerous isolated energies present themselves, working to improve and develop sections of the Creek. While the City listened to the participating agencies, the real ity of the s i t u -ation offered l i t t l e more than frustrat ion. Lost in the excitement and confusion'of the summer was the City 's act iv i t ies on the Fairview Slopes. Remembering that T .B.P. 6 P. had strongly recommended the Slopes and Flats become one community, the City had hired a U.B.C. Planning student (the author) to assess the problems, set out the necessary background information, and make recommendations aimed at fac i l i ta t ing revisions to the CRM-2 and CRM-3 resident ial -206 commercial mix zoning. The Slopes at this time suffered from a problem of diminishing numbers of houses, more commercial buildings, and po l i t i ca l l y aware and active residents. During the summer, a second planning student was assigned to the Slopes. The two students spoke with the majority of the business establishments, and many of the resident people in outlining an information base, c r i t i ca l issues, concepts for development, a sketch plan and recommendations. However, no actions were taken at this time to remedy the Slopes problems. V/ith the end of the summer came the end of the VIEW buildings and the Social Planning Department's Public Program. S t i l l active were the Review Panels, the housing debate, the False Creek Team, and the engineering department's seawall planning. Marking the end of the summer was a seminar on False Creek in which Mr. Brahm Wiesman, Acting Director of the Community and Regional 122 Planning School at U.B.C. set out in his address, two scenarios; In one he said a developer might come along and promise a Milton Hotel, a 40-storey off ice building, a discount store, Canada's largest automobile showroom and a 500-berth marina in exchange for development right to the City land. If that scenario doesn't develop, he said, there wil l be increasing pressure for False Creek to be turned into merely open space for parks. . . .207 Professor Weisman's second scenario of pressures for open space was to become more than simply an academic statement, as the controversy which was to arise in the Spring of 197^ over park versus housing would attest to. On August 2 8 , 1973. Council unanimously approved that the Parks Board . . . .operate a marina on the south shore of False Creek adjacent to sub-area 6 and that the Parks Board be requested to appoint a con-sultant on marina design to start work with the False Creek Team at the earl iest possible moment. ®° Recalling that City Council on July 3 , 1973 postponed making a decision on housing in False Creek until September 15, 1973, in l ight of considerable debate, it is not surprising that a major controversy erupted at the end of September, 1973 when Council's special False Creek Committee had not presented the False Creek Team's plans for area 6 to Council for final decisions. A game of pass the hot Creek potato was played, as is evidenced through newspaper art ic les alone. (See footnote 209 for a few references). 123 September brought an end to the act iv i t ies of the Planning Commission 1s Revi ew Panels. Since the review panels were made up of c i t -izens,with expertise in housing and open space the intent was for the panels to have a "working" input to the planners during the summer. The panels went to considerable lengths in discussing housing and open space in False Creek, though they never really tackled the residential section of the Policies and Actions Report, as Council had requested of them. The PIanning Commission pushed for a concensus report for a f inal output from the panels. This was contradictory to the basic nature of the panels assembled. People were chosen for their diverse interests and expertise, indicating that their ultimate conclusions might never be expected to form a concensus. The fact that the panels really did not provide the an t i c i -pated input tends to indicate that they fe l l over the traditional False Creek stumbling block of lack of direction and in this case perhaps guidance. The final judgment on the cit izen involvement act iv i t ies of the City over the Summer of 1973 was somewhat cool , with the review panels 'tr ipping o f f 210 into phi 1isophical discussions, and the on-site public program of ' Social planning suffering from a lack of knowledge and understanding of False Creek. Throughout the Fall of 1973 the engineering department, in cooper-ation with the False Creek Team designed a seawall for area 6, which led to considerable discussion over how. the seawall could be bui lt before plans for area 6 were complete. October brought a series of reports from the engineering depart-ment to City Council, concerning the seawall. Authority to tender'prices , stockpile material on s i te , apply for further grants from the Federal 124 211 Government for dredging marina s i tes , and f i n a l l y , unanimous approval . 2 1 2 of the location and design of the seawall. With November came word that f inal Creek Basin pol icies and development plans for area 6 would be coming to City Council on November 2 0 t h , In light of this the Vancouver City Planning Commission submitted a report representing the public opinion they had found over the summer, and which they had fed to the planners as a working input, to Council less than a week before the planners reports were to be submitted. The f i r s t recommen-dation in this Planning Commission report stated that The False Creek Basin should be p r i -marily established as a public place, rather than a series of private neighbour-hood enclaves. and that Area 6 should be a major open space with low-rise pub-l i c use structures . 1 4 While the intent of this report was unquestionably good, its timing served only to make it appear that the planners had drawn up plans without the Planning Commission input, and that City Counci1 was making a decision without the information they had requested on July 3 , 1973. The Planning Commission did meet once with the False Creek Planning Team ear l ier in the process, as a working input to Creek planning. Then, on November 2 0 t h the planning reports on area 6 came before Council, and without the usual amount of confusion and indecision received . 215 , • 21 unanimous approval. The Basin pol icies were now a "set" . Area 6 plans offered four development alternatives the second of which, a family residen-t ia l scheme with a signif icant open space, was recommended by the planning 125 team, and accepted by Council. As well as adopting a plan for area 6 , Council directed Doug Stuc l i f fe to "prepare detailed procedural plans for 218 the physical, social and economic development for the f i r s t stage". of area 6 development, and for the Director of Planning to "make application 218 to rezone the lands involved in the f i r s t phase of the development". One week after Council had approved plans for area 6 , Council approved a trunk sewer line and water main to service the proposed develop 219 ment. By the end of this period the City owned land of area 6 in False Creek had po l ic ies , a plan, and the makings of a seawall and marina. This period between June, 1972 and November, 1973 is summarized on Table U . ' TABLE \k 126 RESUME: JUNE 1972 - NOVEMBER 1973 TREND concept policy to development guidelines park vs. housing controversy for City land trend toward action REPORTS 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 Area 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 Panel 1973 1973 1973 1973 Fal se Fal se Granv i Fal se Fal se 10 Fal se Fal se Fal se Fa i rv i Fal se s Fal se Report Fal se Area 6 Creek Progress Report Creek: A Public Information Report l ie Is 1 and Study Creek Railway Study: Part I Creek Proposed Land Use Planning for Creek Soi1 Study Creek Progress Report Creek: Policies and Actions ew Slopes Summer 1973 Creek Preliminary Report of the Review Creek Image Survey on False Creek Development Creek Policies the development opportunity MAIN PLAYERS Alderman Walter Hardwick and Special Council Committee Mr. Don Hickley, City Planning Department False Creek Planning Team (February, 1973 on) Mr. B i l l Curtis, City Engineering Department Marathon Realty and B.C. Central Credit Union RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS Engineering Department leaves advisory role, taking on active role in Creek redevelopment Don Hickley enters Creek picture to take concept reports toward specif ic pol ic ies and directions Marathon Realty scales down residential proposal to 9 , 0 0 0 people City produces public pamphlet new Council elected f i r ing of City Commissioner Gerald Sutton-Brown and Director of Planning, B i l l Graham assembly of False Creek Team consultants outline plans for Area 10 City hires Mr. Doug Sutc l i f fe as consultant fu l l -time as of October, 1973, per diem t i l l then 127 RESUME: JUNE 1972 - NOVEMBER 1973 CONTINUED RESULTS AND HAPPENINGS CONTINUED - Planning Commission runs review panels - Policies and Actions debated by Counci1, final decision on housing put off - instant park in False Creek with public involvement program - protests over demolition of VIEW - Council approves final basin policies and Area 6 pians SCOREBOARD - basin wide policy guidelines complete - much concern, str iv ing for direction and action COMMENTS - push for development came in light of consid-erable uncertainty over what should be done with City 1 and - the park vs. housing debate never sett led, especially in the eyes of the public - too much concern for action by pol i t ic ians - danger exists of 'moving too fast' into development. A new problem for False Creek - lots of 'token' non-fruitful c i t izen foo-for-rah 128 PERIOD THREE DISCUSSION The planning decision making process during period three focussed heavily on action but did not achieve the interactive level of planning Friedmann refers to as transactive planning. While the implemen-tab i l i t y of plans is the main.aim of action planning the interpersonal relationships of the planning process as a continuum is the focus of transactive planning. During this period it cannot be questioned that achieving action was the focus of the process. The po l i t i c ians , having been elected on a platform of building in False Creek within two years, moved quickly to create a workable planning process. The False Creek Team was established, the Director of Planning and the City Commissioner were f ired and a develop-ment consultant was brough into the scene. The organizationaT structure of this period is outlined in Diagram 15. Was it the changes in the organizational structure or was it something else which moved False Creek quickly through planning and into the implementation phase of the process? The traditional City Hallchannels of bureaucracy were abandoned in favor of assembling a l l the resources necessary to deal with False Creek in a mini-process. In the 1973 Creek process, plans were produced by the False Creek Team and related directly/ to the' Special Council Committee on False Creek. Where input was required from other bodies the Council Committee acted in a coordinating role. The key element here is that with the Council Committee coordinating the process, and being intent on action, any input which was not necessary for action was effect ively by-passed. Examples of this are the Social Planning Depart-ment's public information program and image survey, and the Planning Special Council Committee On False Creek Development Consultant Parks Board Vancouver City Council Clerk Di rector Of Plann ing Assistant Director Of Planning And Civic Development False Creek Planning Team Vancouver C i ty Planning Commission Board Of Administrat ion Di rector Of Finance Department Di rector Of Properties & Insurance Corporation Counsel; Deputy Di rector Of Engineering Department Consultants Social Planning Department Public 1 mage Program Survey Parks Public Rev i ew Board 1 nput Panels DIAGRAM 15 FALSE CREEK ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 1973 ho 1 3 0 Commissions review panels and public program. Taken one step further, not only were some actors in the process by-passed but the actors included in the process were not directly l inked. The False Creek Team and the Development Consultant worked on the Creek, reported directly to the Council Committee, but did not work together. It is this lack of a l l the actors being involved, and the lack of communication between the various actors in the process which i l lustrates why the False Creek process was not an example of Friedmann's transactive planning. However, with the intent of this process focussing on implemen-tation, the False Creek process was a good example of planning for action. It was the TEAM commitment to action which focussed enough necessary energies to make False Creek appear as a smooth running ef f ic ient process. The reality of the situation was simply that the po l i t ica l domination of the process was suff ic ient to achieve action where no action had occurred for thirty years prior. The role of the planner and the planning department during this period of Creek development shifted from the administrator-watchdog role discussed in period two, to a more active role as interpreter and plan developer. The signif icant aspect of the planner's role during this period was the specif ic terms of reference under which they functioned. The planners were directed to produce actionable plans. This reflected very closely the general orientation of the process toward achieving action as opposed to concepts or directions. One very encumbering aspect of the planning team's role was the close involvement of the Special Council Committee on False Creek. Following the planning team's production of draft pol icies and actions the 131 Council Committee members spent two days at the s i te off ice reviewing and altering the plans. This period shows the d i f f i c u l t position planners are placed in during a period of rapid change. Council, shortly after being elected to o f f i ce , part ia l ly on a promise to develop the Creek created a special planning team. Before the team could be assembled, let along assess and develop pol icies for the Creek, Council, wishing action had moved ahead of its advisors by making decisions which later added constraints to the planning process. The decision to build the seawal1 prior to f inal iz ing area 6 plans is a case in point. Clearly, traditional and time consuming bureaucratic planning procedures appear innappropriate in periods of rapid change, as this period was. The influence of the pol i t ic ian during this period was an impor-tant aspect of False Creek development. Where the pol i t ic ian participated in the process as a decision-maker in period one; and where he began to participate in planning aspects of the process toward the end of period two; the polit ican became the dominant force in the process during period three. During this period changes in the organizational structure created a situation where the pol it ican through the Special Council Committee.on False Creek had a subgroup of a department (the False Creek Team) reporting directly to that Council Committee. The traditional channels through the Director of Planning and the City Commissioner were no longer used for False Creek items. Members of Council, through the Special Council Committee on False Creek in effect became the planners, legislators and administrators for False Creek. 132 While this involvement of the pol i t ic ian was the main factor to plans being actionable in 1973, i t also served to place considerable question and controversy on the credibi1 ity•of plans which were produced. This does not suggest that plans produced were not good, but that if planners and other participants in the planning decision-making process do not feel a professional job has been done in the production of plans, then the plans become statements of action for actions sake in the mind of the planner. In addition, they may receive less than enthusiastic support from staff directed to implement plans produced this way. The po l i t ica l influence during this period, while fac i l i ta t ing implementable plans, dominated the process to the extent of forcing action for' actions sake. The involvement of cit izens in this period was characterized by various act iv i t ies either involving citizens or informing them. Following the series of consultant reports the City had received on the Creek, and prior to the public brochure outlining the consultant proposals being released, various citizens and cit izen groups began a process of se l f -education. Very l i t t l e information concerning the Creek had been presented publicly for a considerable period of time. Many citizens wanted to know what was happening. The boat tours, the open line radio show and the television program, al l of which took place during mid-October, 1972 began to f i l l the information void. The next cit izen action was the release of the brochure outlining the consultant report proposals. The brochure was released in December, 1973 along with instructions from Council that the Vancouver City Planning Commission should organize meetings to discuss the Creek proposals with the public and receive any comments which may resul 133 These meetings were held but generally turned out to be an inadequate vehicle to response to the consultant proposals. The results of this shortcoming was the establishment of two cit izen advisory panels to review the proposals. While the intent of these cit izen advisory panels was good the citizens who ended up participating were generally profession-als who had some relationship to the subject being discussed. These panels then were very select cit izen involvement, and certainly not general public response to the consultant proposals. While the review panels were proceeding the City 's Social Planning Department init iated a public information program to famil iarize Vancouver residents with the Creek and the plans the City had for the lands surrounding i t . This program saw the creation of a temporary park in area 6, aimed at drawing people to the s i te . Pub 1ic act iv i t ies such as walking tours, band sessions and education meetings were held on s i te . An image survey was conducted at this time for those who vis ited the Creek to determine what physical image or form people preferred around the Creek. All of these act iv i t ies did serve to heighten the public 's awareness of the Creek. In fact the inforamtion-education program began to raise many people's desires to participate in the formulation of plans. A good example of this was the cit izen protest which stemmed from the City moving to demolish the VIEW buildings as had been planned for considerable time. The key realization for this period of the case study is that while the Social Planning Department was busy educating people, col lecting feedback and encouraging people to part icipate, the False Creek team was. formulating the pol icies and actions plans. In e f fect , the public 's ideas • 1 3 4 were being conveyed to agencies and departments not directly involved with the planning and development process. 135 PERIOD FOUR: DECEMBER 1973 to APRIL 1974 Following the approval of plans for area 6 two questions remained unanswered. The f i r s t one was financing; how could the City find the necessary funds to build on its land? The second question was administrative; what structure would be necessary to implement area 6 plans? The funding question came before Council on December 7» 1973. The Director of. Finance and Mr. Stucl i f fe recommended that: The Minister of Housing be requested to petit ion CMHC on the City 's behalf to authorize a loan of up to $10 mil l ion for the development of City-owned property in Area 6 of the False Creek B a s i n . 2 2 0 Council approved unanimously the recommendation, along with a request that the Corporation Counsel look into the City 's authority to borrow the stated funds. Lost in the rush of act iv i ty toward development were three facts. F i r s t , Mr. Doug Sutc l i f fe became a fu l l time development consultant for area 6 of False Creek on October 1, 1973; second CMHC, in late November, created a mini-park on two-thirds of an acre on the eastern tip of Granville Island adjacent to the City 's area 6 development s i te ; and th i rd , that the decision was made on November 20 , 1973 to dissolve the Special Council Committee on False Creek as of the end of 1973-With the basin wide policy guidel ines complete, and Doug Sutc l i f fe pushing for development of area 6, based on the concept plan adopted by Council on November 2 0 , the False Creek Planning Team was disbanded. In its place the construction/development oriented False Creek Development Group under the Direction of Mr. Sutc l i f fe was established. 136 During this time the idea of enl ist ing three design teams to prepare plans for area 6 arose. The thought was for these teams to compete in preparing the designs, with the best one being implemented. Ending the year, construction began on the area 6 seawall, and the Federal Government approved the City 's application for a $10 mil l ion loan to aid redevelopment of the City 's land in area 6. Reflecting back for a moment, Marathon Realty was busy preparing their phase I development on the north shore of False Creek, and were actually involved in creating their marina just west of the Cambie Street Bridge. January, 1974 was much like the calm after the storm, or in another sense the calm before the storm. Having survived the late 1973 contro-versies and problems, planning and development of the Creek appeared to be running smoothly. While the Special Council Committee on False Creek had been dissolved, chairman Alderman Walter Hardwick was s t i l l involved with the Creek as chairman of the Standing Council Committee on Civic Development. The Development Consultant, Mr. Doug Sutc l i f fe , was also made responsible to this committee. February 5, 1974 brought a problem to City Council via the Director of Finance in the form of the City not having the authority under the Vancouver Charter to borrow $10 mil l ion from the Federal Govern-221 ment. After hearing the report, Council voted unanimously to have the Director of Legal Services and the Corporation Counsel prepare appropri-ate amendments to the Charter, for submission to the Provincial Govern-ment for approval. 137 February also brought the resignation of Craig Campbell, who had been landscape architect for the False Creek Team, and had designed the area 6 seawall. The significance of Campbell's resignation was not 222 the actual resignation, but the minority report he submitted to the City and newspapers at that time. The report accused the City of deceiving the public and generally making "a blunder of c lassic propor-t ion . " Needless to say the newspapers thrived on the report (see footnote 223) and the "c r i t i cs at large" continued their attack on City planners and o f f i c i a l s . Progress toward development was not to be deterred however, as on February 5, 1974 City Council approved three comprehensive design teams to draw up within two months plans for developing 38 City owned acres on 224 the south side of False Creek. Council also approved a 20 member c i t izens' advisory panel to make recommendations on the latest phase of Creek development, and a procedure for public involvement in the selection of a design concept and identif ication of people interested in l iving in 225 False Creek. Footnote 226 outlines the procedure the Development Consultant recommended and which was adopted by Council. Throughout February and March, there came considerable questioning of the City 's wisdom in building housing in area 6. So great was the public outcry that Council decided to hold a public meeting in the Council Chambers on April 2, 1974 to hear briefs on the City 's plans. The meeting was held and the controvery of housing versus park stole the show. While the City had progressed from concept to requesting design teams to prepare housing plans, the public continued to press for park. While discussions of park versus housing continued, the City had reached.a definite milestone in Creek development. Plans for a residential recreational community/environment were being implemented on the City owned land of area 6 in False Creek. The emphasis had definitely shifted away from planning toward physical building. It is this shif t in emphasis which marks the end of the case study which has focussed on the planning process. The period between December, 1973 and Apr i l , 1974 is summarized on Table 16. 139 T A B L E 16 R E S U M E : D E C E M B E R 1973 - A P R I L 1974 T R E N D h i n t s o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n C i t y s e a r c h i n g f o r f i n a n c i n g f u l l s p e e d t o w a r d p a r k v e r s u s h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t R E P O R T M A I N P L A Y E R S - 1974 T h r e e d e s i g n t e a m r e p o r t s f o r a r e a 6 D o u g S u t c l i f f e , C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t C o n s u l t a n t M a r a t h o n R e a l t y a n d B . C . C e n t r a l C r e d i t U n i o n E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t C o n s u l t a n t D e s i g n T e a m s R E S U L T S AND H A P P E N I N G S E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t b e g i n s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s e a w a l1 i n a r e a 6 E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t b e g i n s f i n a l i z i n g t r u n k s e w e r a n d w a t e r l i n e s i n a r e a 6 M a r a t h o n R e a l t y b u i l d s a m a r i n a C i t y m o v e s t o a m e n d C i t y C h a r t e r i n o r d e r t o b o r r o w $10 m i l l i o n f r o m F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t f o r r e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a r e a 6 c o n s i d e r a b l e p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r C i t y ' s p l a n s f o r a r e a 6, a l o n g w i t h p u b l i c i t y o v e r F a l s e C r e e k T e a m m e m b e r q u i t t i n g t h r e e d e s i g n t e a m s p r e p a r e p l a n s f o r a r e a 6 S C O R E B O A R D s o m e a c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t n o f i n a l p l a n s m u c h c o n t r o v e r s y COMMENTS c r i t i c a l m o m e n t h a s a r r i v e d w h e n C i t y s h o u l d s p e n d t i m e h o n e s t l y a n d s i n c e r e l y d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p u b l i c n e e d f o r c o n s t a n t v e h i c l e t o h a n d l e c i t i z e n i n p u t a n d i n f o r m a t i o n 1 40 PERIOD FOUR DISCUSSION The planning decision-making process during this period began to withdraw from the total action orientation of period three. The Special Council Committee on False Creek was dissolved and the False Creek Planning Team was disbanded. This did not indicate a return to the t radi -tional isolated stages of the pre-action oriented process but rather that orientation of the process had shifted from planning to development (imple-mentation). The implementation organizational structure of 1 9 7 4 is outlined in Diagram 1 7 . The basic planning decision making process while involving different committees and groups was similar to the 1 9 7 3 process outlined in Diagram two. The relationship where the False Creek Planning Team reported directly to the po l i t i ca l committee level remained unchanged, other than the fact that the Planning Team was replaced by the Development Group. At that point in time any plans which were necessary for area 6 development were produced by the development group. This meant that only actionable plans were produced by the people charged with the responsibil ity of implementing those plans. The process while s t i l l focussing on action was concerned more with development during this period as the base planning had been completed. The role of the planner and the planning department during this brief period in early 1 9 7 4 was reduced to that of a spectator where the City owned lands of area 6 were concerned. Any planning decisions required for area 6 were studied by the False Creek Development Group and forwarded through the Standing Committee on Planning and Civic Development to Council. Standing Council Committee On Civic Development Vancouver City Council Clerk Vancouver City Planning Commission Board Of Administration Parks Board Publ i c I nput False Creek Development Group Ci ti zen Three Advisory Des i gn Panel Teams Di rector Of Finance Department Di rector Of Properties & Insurance Assistant Director Of Planning S Civic Development Corporation Counsel Deputy Di rector Of Engineering Department Consul tan ts DIAGRAM 17 FALSE CREEK ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 1974 142 The role of the planning department for the areas aside from area 6 moved to a conceptual level similar to the days of much planning and nonaction anywhere in the Creek. The challenge for the planner in the remainder of the Creek is to maintain the positive thrust and residen-t ia l nature of area 6 planning and development. The influence of the pol i t ic ian during this period shifted toward that of a more traditional decision-maker who makes decisions on the information presented him by his s taf f , as opposed to the in i t ia tor , planner, administrator who participates in a l l aspects of the process. Evidence of this stems from the Special Council Committee on False Creek which dealt only with the Creek being dissolved in favor of a standing Council Committee which dealt with more issues than simply False Creek. Also, once physical development had begun in the Creek TEAM's election promise to the citizens of Vancouver had been f u l f i l l e d . The need for action to continue at such a rapid pace was no longer nearly so po l i t i ca l l y urgent. The involvement of citizens in this period of Creek development focussed on citizens questioning the wisdom of housing in the Creek. . The ad hoc protesting led to special meetings being arranged for cit izens and Council to discuss the issue. While thiswas occurring, development was continuing in area 6. Any changes in plans had to be channeled through the Development Group who, realizing the need to involve the public,set out a very specif ic program of cit izen participation and a.c i t izen advi-sory panel. The intent was to focus any involvement on action rather than questioning past decisions. Since this was only beginning at the end of this case study the 143 effectiveness of such a process could only be speculation. However, since development was the development group's terms of reference, there would be l i t t l e room for cit izen influence simply by the nature of the develop-ment process. Involvement of citizens is generally more possible and positive during the plan formulation rather than during the actual construc-t ion. 144 , FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER I I I-PART A THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AUTUMN OF 1967 1. Vancouver City Council Minutes, Motion by Alderman Sweeney, October 2 4 , 2. Vancouver City Council Minutes, October 2k, 1967- -3- The Province, October 3 1 , 1967. k. Vancouver Newspaper Ar t i c les , October, 1967 5. The Vancouver Sun, March 3 1 , 1964 6. Personal Interview with Marathon Realty representative, Jim Lowden and John Webster 7. The Province, March 2 , 1966 ; and The Vancouver Sun, March k, 1966 8. Personal Interview with Professor Brahm Wiesman, himself a member of the City Planning Department during this period. 9. Personal Interview with Professor Hardwick 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. The Vancouver Sun, December 1, 1967 13. City of Vancouver Planning Department, False Creek Development Concepts, January 16, 1970, page k CHAPTER MI-PART B CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS  PERIOD ONE: SPRING 1968 to. AUTUMN 1970 14. City of Vancouver Planning Department, False Creek, report to Council on March 26 , 1968, March 15 , 1968 15• Ibid. 16. Vancouver City Council Minutes, March 26 , 1968 17. Vancouver City Council Minutes, April 3 0 , 1968 145 18. Exactly how talks of the land exchange began are somewhat vague. In talking with different people (who do not wish to be quoted) i t seems the then City Commissioner, Mr. Gerald Sutton-Brown of the Board of Administration conducted early discussions on behalf of the City. 19- Vancouver City Council Minutes, May 30, 1968 20 . Personal interview with Alderman Marianne Linnell 21 . Communication from the Provincial Government, Vancouver City Council  Minutes, May 30 , 1968 22 . Vancouver Planning Department, Downtown Vancouver Part I-The Issues, August, 19.68 23 . Ibid. , page 9 24. Ibid. , Page 29 -30 2 5 . Department of Planning and Civic Development, Report on Submissions  Downtown Vancouver Development Concepts, City of Vancouver, 1971, page 1 26. Personal interview with Mr. Harry Pickstone, Deputy Director, Vancouver Planning Department 27 . The new three-step system of reporting f i r s t used for the Downtwon report: -wi l l point out the issues which wi l l affect the development of a plan and define the present situation in order to allow others to comment before pol icies are set out. -wi l l present alternative pol icies for City development and make recommendations to City Council based on study and on submissions from the Town Planning Commission, the Down-town Plan Citizens' Committee and other public bodies and individuals. •will recommend f inal policies to Council for consideration and adoption along with methods of implementation. . Source: Intermet Project C, The Vancouver Report, 1972, Appendix, page 9 28 . Intermet Project C, The Vancouver Report, 1972, Appendix, page 9 Part I Part I I Part I I I 146 2 9 . Vancouver City Council Minutes, November 1 9 , 1968 Land values agreed on: False Creek land 85.452 acres $2,939,458 Burnaby Mountain land 200 acres 2,515,350 30. Ibid. 3 1 . The Province, December 7, 1968 and December 8, 1968 3 2 . The Vancouver Sun, December 9, 1968 and The Province, December 1 0 , 1968 33- The Province, ed i to r ia l , December 1 0 , 1968 34. Keith Bradbury, The Vancouver Sun, December 20, 1968 35- Vancouver Planning Department, City of Vancouver Plan, Part I, The  Issues, December, 1968 3 6 . Ibid. , page 2 37. Ibid., page 21 3 8 . Ibid. , page 25 39- Ibid. , page 19 40. Ibid., page 33 h\ . Ibid. , page 37 42. The Vancouver Sun, February 8, 1969 43. Vancouver City Council Minutes, February 11, 1969 and The Vancouver Sun, February 12, 1969 , page 8 44. The Province, April 18, I 9 6 9 and The Vancouver Sun, April 18, 1969 and April 19, 1969 45. Personal interview with Mr. Jim Lowden of Marathon Realty 46. The Vancouver Sun, April 1 8 , 1969, and April 21,19 6 9 47. City of Vancouver Planning Department, False Creek Development Concepts, January 16, 1970 48. Vancouver City Council Minutes, June 10, 1969 kS. Vancouver City Council Minutes, Letter from the Park Board through the Board of Administration report of July 1 1 , 1 9 6 9 , Council July 15, 1 9 ^ 9 -The Province, July 12, 1969 147 5 0 . Pat Hurshowy, The Province, July 1 2 , 1969 5»1 • Vancouver City Council Minutes, July 8 , 1969 5 2 . Ibid. 53- Vancouver City Council Minutes, July 15 , 1969 and August 5 , 1969 5 4 . Park Board Resolution of September 1 9 , 1 9 6 9 , presented to City Council September 2 3 , 1969 5 5 . Ibid. 5 6 . Dave Ablett, "City Planner Dreams on False Creek Cruise", The Vancouver  Sun, November 15, 1969, page 21 5 7 . Ibid. . 5 8 . Personal interview with Alderman Walter Hardwick 59- Dave Ablett , Op. C i t . , page 21 6 0 . Ibid. 6 1 . Ibid. 6 2 . Ibid. 6 3 . Alderman Walter Hardwick, The Vancouver Sun, November 15 , 1 9 6 9 , page 21 64. Vancouver City Council Minutes, December 16, 1969 6 5 . Mayor Tom Campbell, The Vancouver Sun, November 15, 1 9 6 9 , page 2 1 . 6 6 . City of Vancouver Planning Department, False Creek Development Concepts, November 1 3 , 1969 Essence of the five development concepts, as described in the concept report. Concept 1 . Full Industrial Development Redevelopment of False Creek and the Fairview Slopes for 1ight industrial uses. Concept 2 . Residential and Recreational Development A predominantly residential area with a fu l l range of multiple dwelling types and with a l l anci l lary public and commercial fac i1 i t ies . 148 Re s i den t i a l and I n d u s t r i a l Development A l low cont inued i n d u s t r i a l usage of pa r t of Fa l se Creek; prov ide f o r a d d i t i o n a l " i n n e r c i t y apartment development"; p rov ide some s o l u t i o n to the demand f o r p u b l i c and commercial marinas. Res ident ia l -Commerc ia 1 and Recreat iona l Development A r e s i d e n t i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l a rea , i n c l ud i n g commercial developments compat ib le w i th m u l t i p l e dwel1 ing areas. Rec reat iona l and Res ident ia l -Commerc ia 1 Development Create a major park and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t y in Fa l se Creek to meet expanding c i t y - w i d e open space needs; in add i t i on redevelop remaining Fa l se Creek lands and the Fa i r v i ew Slopes f o r a combination of h igh dens i t y r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial uses. 67. I b i d . , page 1 68. Minutes of the Standing Committee of Counci l on P l ann ing , Development and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , November 27 , 1969. The Vancouver Sun, November 2 8 , 1969 and The P rov ince , November 2 8 , 1969. 69. The proposed changes in p lann ing procedure. I. The method of r epo r t i n g on major p lann ing mat te r s , fo l l owed s i nce October 1 , 1 9 6 8 . Part I - s e t t i n g out the issues . Part II - p re sen t i ng the a l t e r n a t i v e s and p r o v i d i n g f o r p u b l i c d i s cu s s i on before d e c i s i o n by Counci l Part III -recommending f i n a l p o l i c i e s f o r implementat ion. I I. The suggested rev i sed procedure. " I t is proposed that the t h ree -pa r t r epo r t i ng be mod i f i ed . Instead, the p lann ing department, a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the Techn ica l P lann ing ' Board, would prepare in format ion r e l a t i n g to a l t e r n a t i v e courses of a c t i o n on Downtown and l a t e r the C i t y . The a l t e r n a t i v e s would be in s l i g h t l y more d e t a i l e d form than those presented to Counc i l r e cen t l y on Fa lse Creek. They would con s i s t of schematic diagrams together w i t h a w r i t t e n summary o f background i n f o rmat i on , but would not be a d e t a i l e d r epo r t . Fo l lowing d e l i v e r y of a report re ference d i r e c t l y to C o u n c i l , or p r e f e r ab l y to the Standing Committee on P lann ing , Development and Trans -p o r t a t i o n , the proposa ls would be l a i d over f o r a p u b l i c meeting to enable i n t e re s t ed community groups and i n d i v i d u a l s to hear the same Concept 3. Concept 4. Concept 5-149 presentation after which they would prepare written comments on the pro-posals for submission to Council. The Town Planning Commission would be asked to consider and report on the proposals at this stage. After receiving written sub-missions, City Council would then select one of the alternative pol icies or a modification thereof. The planning department along with the Technical Planning Board, would then set out proposals in detail for consideration and approval by Council, such as rezoning or other necessary action, including details of engineering, property acquisit ion, transportation, e t c . , as the need arises but based on the plan approved by Council. The net effect is to eliminate Part I in future cases and modify printed documents tradit ional ly provided in such cases." Source--1 b i d . , page 3 " 4 . 7 0 . Vancouver City Council Minutes, January 7, 1970" 71 . City of Vancouver Planning Department, (Report to Council, March 2 6 , 1968) March, 15, 1968. The Province, March 19, 1968 72. The Province, January 17, 1970 73- City of Vancouver Planning Department, False Creek Development Concepts, November 13 , 1969, page 8 74. While the c i ty ' s concern for the economic independence of development in False Creek exists , it cannot really be pinned down. Through interviews the only response received was that it exists. Testimony to this comes in reports from the finance department every once in a while, and the influence the economics seem to have on Council decisions. Spec i f ica l ly , reference can be made to Council endorsing an alternative from a November, 1973 Area 6 report which showed a balance between economics and aesthetics. 75 . Vancouver City Council Minutes, March 3 , 1970 76. Vancouver City Council Minutes, March 17, 1970 77. City of Vancouver Planning Department, Replies to False Creek Five  Concepts, Report on Submissions, March 1970 Highlights of the submissions were (as stated in the report): The statements for consideration of development of False Creek are summarized as follows: * Phasing-out of industry is necessary to encourage redevelop-ment 150 Planning of False Creek must be based on the needs of a l l the people. 'Redevelopment.shou1d provide accommodation for different income groups, age levels, and household types. False Creek must not become another West End. The soc ia l , recreational, entertainment and aesthetic needs of the residents must be f u l f i l l e d . Proper controls must be introduced so. that views wil l be protected. This wil l require a radical departure from the neatly-separated land uses and necessitate a new form of thinking and legis lat ion. The water area should be retained or enlarged and kept clean and free from pol1ution. The shore line should be developed to create a stimulating walkway and scenic drive al l around the Creek. A new street pattern, in harmony with the topography, should be devised for the Fairview Slopes. Transportation needs must be assessed before any redevelop-ment occurs. The automobile, however, must not be'allowed to dominate the environment of False Creek. There should be a much smaller percentage of land taken up in streets than there is now in the City. Al l parking should be covered or underground. Redevelopment of False Creek must not be based primarily oh short range financial considerations, but rather on the long range environmental impact upon i tse l f and the region. A model should be built showing the various proposals out-lined in the concepts. An international design competition the maximum potential for this area of Vancouver. is suggested to adjacent to the ach ieve centre 151 " A joint public/private redevelopment Agency is required i f the potential integrated development, combining public and private uses of False Creek, is to be realized. 78. Vancouver City Council Minutes, April 14, 1970 79- Ibid. 80. Vancouver City Council Minutes, May 2 6 , 1970 81 . Board of Administration Report to Vancouver City Council, July 3 1 , 1970, and The Vancouver Sun, August 3, 1970 82 . Personal interview with Mr. Harry Pickstone, Deputy Director, City Planning Department 83. Ibid. 84. Personal interview with Mr. Murray James of the City Clerks Off ice, Vancouver City Hall 85. From personal interviews with people close to or involved in the decision to use consultants for planning False Creek, the situation seemed to consist of Mr. Gerald Sutton-Brown, from the Board of Administration, and Mr. B i l l Graham, the Director of Planning, discussing at length how to handle False Creek planning, and deciding the consultant route would be best for the City. They favoured consultants not only because the City lacked staff and expertise, but because consultants offered 'something new and excit ing' which the City seemed to lack. City Council had very l i t t l e i f any involvement in the decision. 86. The Province, August 7, 1970, page k 87. Personal interview with Mr. Harry Pickstone, Deputy Director, Vancouver City Planning Department 88. Ibid. 89. Personal interview with Mr. Brahm Wiesman CHAPTER III, PART B, PERIOD TWO-AUTUMN 1970 - MAY, 1972 90 . Board of Administration report of January 8, 1971 91 . The Vancouver Sun, November 26 , 1970, page 51 152 92 . Marathon Realty Company Limited, West End Survey, conducted by resear-chers R.F. Kelly, J.D. Forbes and M.A. Goldberg, Spring and Summer, 1970 93 . Ibid. , page 1 94. Conclusions of Marathon's 1970 West End Survey were very br ie f l y : 1. The West End population is bi-modal in its age distr ibut ion. 2. The West End population is typified by low and lower middle incomes. 3- The population is also remarkably stable. k. The population views i tse l f as being stable. .5. The V/est End owes its success in attracting residents to its great central i ty . 95- Council adopted the suggestion that the consultants work be considered in two stages—Part I, the preparation of a detailed program for the complete study, and Part II, the major study. 96. Vancouver City Council Minutes, January 12, 1971 97- Board of Administration report of January 8, 1971, to Council January 12, 1971 98. Ibid. 99. Personal interview with Mr. R.C. Mann 100. Personal interview with Mr. H.W. Pickstone 101. Personal interview with Mr. R.C. Mann 102. Thompson, Berwick, Pratt, and Partners, letter dated March 22, 1971 from  the False Creek Study Group to.Mr.. H.W. Pickstone, Assistant Director of  Planning and Civic Development, re: Progress Report #1 Procedure and Budgets for. the False Creek Study 103. Board of Administration report, to City Counci 1 , March 24, 1971, and personal interview with Mr. H.W. Pickstone 104. The Vancouver Sun, March 25, 1971, page 19 105. Vancouver City Council Minutes, September 1, 1970 106. Board of Administration report on the Director of Planning and Civic Development's report, February 12, .1971. 107. Ibid. 108. Chairman of the Board of Parks and Public Recreation, letter to Mayor and members of Council, February 2 8 , 1971 109. Ibid. 110. Board of Administration report of March 2 6 , 1971, to Council March 3 0 , 1971, of the Director of Planning and Civic Development's report 111. Marathon Realty Vancouver, False Creek, Apr i l , 1971 112. Ibid., page 3 113. Ib id . , page 13 114. Vancouver City Council Minutes, April 2 0 , 197.1 115. The terms of reference for Part II of the Consultant work by T.B.P. 6 P. were: a) comment on and extend the work of the Policy Plan as a framework within which the development of City lands between Burrard and Cambie can be carried out; b) prepare the development plan and c r i te r ia for the City owned land between Burrard and Cambie Streets. c) s o l i c i t actual development proposals based upon planning and development c r i te r ia and make arrangements for a City sponsored p i lot project involving suff ic ient land area to ensure development progression. Source: T.B.P. s P. Progress Report #1 , March 22 , 1971 116. False Creek Study Group, Progress Report #2 - An Interim Report Towards  a Development Plan for False Creek, May, 1971 117- False Creek Study Group, False Creek Proposals, September, 1971, page 4 118. Vancouver City Council Minutes, June 2 9 , 1971 119. Vancouver City Council Minutes, June 2 9 , 1971 120. Personal interview with Mr. J . Lowden and Mr. J . Webster of Marathon Realty and The Vancouver Sun, August 5, 1971 154 False Creek Study Group, T.B.P. & P., False Creek Proposals, Report #3, September, 1971 RECOMMENDATION #1. The present area of water should be main-tained. If it is necessary to f i l l any area, a similar area should be excavated to an equal extent. RECOMMENDATION #2. The City should proceed in discussions with interested parties with the aim of securing control over the extent of the water area in the False Creek Basin. RECOMMENDATION #3. The general description of land use as shown on the maps and tables on page 25 should be adopted. RECOMMENDATION #4. The total eventual residential population of the basin should be within the limits shown on graphs on page 28 , and should not exceed 30 ,000 persons. RECOMMENDATION #5. Optimum land use should be determined before land value is assessed. RECOMMENDATION #6. It should be recognized that land values wi l l vary (according to the abi l i ty of the users to pay) in areas where land use intensity is a constant. RECOMMENDATION #7. Controls should be designed to ensure some income groups are not 'forced out' by natural inf lat ion of real estate value. RECOMMENDATION #8. The temptation to secure short term cash benefits by encouraging 'high r ise' speculation should be resisted. RECOMMENDATION #9. Front end costs should be financed by. ensuring long term high quality environment such that residents will be wi l l ing to spend a higher percentage of income for shelter. RECOMMENDATION #10. Commercial and off ice act iv i ty should be encouraged in designated areas to help realize economic benefit to the basin and the City at large. RECOMMENDATION #11. Quality environment should be incorporated in al l parts of the development as proximity to the Core of the City in i tse l f wi l l not ensure economic success. RECOMMENDATION #12. While terminal f a c i l i t i e s may or may not impede ideal long range development, truck t ra f f i c wil l impede desired results in.the f i r s t phases of south side development. Attention should be focussed on this problem. 155 RECOMMENDATION #13. Negotiations should begin with the railway companies with a view to planning for noise abatement, eventual route changes and conversion of some of the trackage to a form of local trans i t . RECOMMENDATION §\k. Automobile distribution systems in the False Creek Basin should be designed to respect a graduation of t ra f f i c intensity, thereby serving the recommended population without destroying the quality of l i f e and the cohesiveness of the communities in the area. The range of intensity at community and neighbourhood scales should be from very quiety to very busy. RECOMMENDATION #15. The final success of the effort to rebuild False Creek wi l l be dependent upon adequate transit systems from both sides to the downtown area. Consideration should be given to the incorporation and integration of a local system which encircles the Creek. RECOMMENDATION #16. In order to create a viable pedestrian domain, the development in the Basin should follow the recommendations of 3.21 Pedestrian Web Connects Urban Nuclei and 1.2k Pedestrian Paths Are Expanding Loops. RECOMMENDATION #17- Continued efforts should be made to reduce, and ultimately remove, log booms from the False Creek Area. RECOMMENDATION #18. A space on Granville Island, and a major open space at the east end of the Creek should be created as soon as poss i b1e. RECOMMENDATION #19. To ensure a variety of urban public spaces throughout every development, spaces should be integrated by means of linear park spaces connecting act iv i ty centres. RECOMMENDATION #20. Negotiations should begin with railway o f f i c i a l s regarding noise abatement; continued pressure should be brought to bear to relocate industrial use; continued efforts should be maintained to remove log storage in the Creek; and industrial waste dumping should be more di l igently controlled. RECOMMENDATION #21. Development pol ic ies should either encour-age intensive development immediately adjacent to the bridges at suff ic ient scale to reduce the overwhelming effect of the bridges, or remove future development far from them. RECOMMENDATION #22. In shaping the water area of False Creek, large bays should be located between bridge spans, rather than under or close beside them. 156 RECOMMENDATION #23. Small marinas should be encouraged in False Creek. They should be limited in s ize, dispersed along the water's edge and be restricted in their water coverage and use of the shoreline. Service fac i l i t y for boat maintenance should be encouraged in the westerly end of the Creek. Boathouses should be forbidden in the Creek. RECOMMENDATION #24. With reference to the Fairview Slopes it is recommended that an interim development procedure should be adopted until the consultant's work in the subsequent reports can be accommo-dated into a Policy Plan for the area. Speci f ica l ly : 1. Change existing zoning in Area 7 from present industrial des-ignation to low intensity residential occupancy; e .g . duplex and/or low density 2 -storey row house designation. 2. Pursue the planning of the area as a whole, based upon the recommendations above for household distribution and population intensity (much of this can be done during the forthcoming work of Report #4). 3- Pending the completion of the framework planning, proposals which exceed the adopted new zoning should be judged on an individual basis. The assessment should be made by the extent to which such proposals successfully respect the concepts expressed in this report. 4. Adopt at its completion, the framework plan and declare a concept of physical community which wil l guide future development in the area. •' • RECOMMENDATION #25. The Slopes/Flats (Areas 6 and 7) should support a residential population range of between 12,000 and 13,000 persons, and between 6,000 and 7,000 households. Approximately 13% of the households on the Flats should be family households, and about 8% of the households on the Slopes should be family households. We are also able to recommend the following land use proportions: Area 6: (The water to 6 t h Avenue) 45 .5 acres Res.; 3 -0 acres Comm.; 21 .0 acres Park; 4.0 acres School Area 7. ( 6 t h Avenue to 8 t h Avenue) 42.3 acres Res.; 2 .8 acres Comm.; 9-2 acres Park. Area 8. ( 8 t h Avenue to \ block south of Broadway) 8.3 acres Res.; 30 acres Comm. 157 RECOMMENDATION #26. The area on the north side of the Creek, between Burrard and Granville Bridges should be developed with accommodations and act iv i ty typical of an interchange area. Speci-f i c a l l y , commercial, o f f i c e , ferry, shopping and hotel f a c i l i t i e s should be encouraged. RECOMMENDATION #27- In Area 2 on the north side of the Creek (between Granville and Connaught Bridges) there should be 45-3 acres of residential use, 2.2 acres of commercial use, 11.0 acres of public park, 4.0 acres of school as required, and about 10 acres of c i rcu la -tion space. The range of family accommodation should be from 2% to 6% (the lower limits being feasible only i f families have no young children), the range of population should be between 6632 and 7396 , and the number of households between 4174 and 4875. RECOMMENDATION #28. Special intensive study of the area east of the Connaught Bridge on the north side should be undertaken as soon as possible. The purpose of the study should be to determine possible land use in adjacent areas so that compatible use can be designed in the subject area. . RECOMMENDATION #29. Consideration should be given to the for-mation of a False Creek Development Corporation. RECOMMENDATION #30. Al l or portions of the content of this report should be circulated widely to the citizens of Vancouver and various methods to obtain feedback from the proposals and ideas therein should be in i t iated. 122. Ibid. , page 8 123. City of Vancouver, Department of Planning and Civic Development, Proposed Policies for Redevelopment of False Creek, September, 1971 page 1. 124. Personal interview with Mr. Harry Pickstone, Deputy Director, City Planning Department, Vancouver. 125. Ibid. 126. Mr. W.S. Harvey, Secretary-Treasurer, False Creek Marinas Limited, Letter to the Mayor and Aldermen, Vancouver City Council, August 2 1 , 1971. 127- Vancouver City Council Minutes, September 2 1 , 1971 128. Vancouver City Council Minutes, October 5 , 1971 129. Ibid. 130. Ibid. 158 131. Board of Administration report of October 1, 1971 to Council on October 5, 1971 / 132. Vancouver City Council Minutes, October 19, 1971 133. Hall Leiren, Sun City Hall reporter, "Development threatens to swallow False Creek", The Vancouver Sun, November 2, 1971, page 56 134. Ibid. 135. Ibid. 136. Ibid. 137. Mr. B i l l Curtis, Deputy City Engineer, in "Development threatens to swallow False Creek", Hall Leiren, The Vancouver Sun, November 2, 1971, page 56 138. Mr. Hall Leiren, Op. Ci t . 139. Vancouver City Council Minutes, November 23, 1971 140. Board of Administration report of November 26, 1971 to City Council, November 30, 1971 141. The Vancouver Sun, December 2, 1971. The Vancouver Sun, December 4, 1971 The Province, December 4, 1971 142. Personal interview with Mr. Harry Pickstone, Deputy Director, City Planning Department, Vancouver. 143. Vancouver City Council Minutes, December 7, 1971 The six (6) functional recommendations are as follows: (1) THAT Council accept the principle that the present area of water should not be materially diminished and request the Director of Planning and Civic Development to report further on a method by which the City cou1d gain control of the f i l l i n g of further water areas including, if necessary, a revision of the Harbour Head 1ine. (2) THAT the design of Area 6 (Fairview Flats) proceed immediately on the basis that the water area is not materially dimished and generally taking account of the 'patterns' contained in the Consul-tants Progress Report #3; and which the densities recommended by the Consultants for the f i r s t stage of development. 159 (3) THAT the Director of Planning and Civic Development bring in f inal recommendations to Council on the matters of the amount of open space and population density having heard the views of Council after receiving this report; this to be treated as a matter of urgency and bearing in mind the difference between the Consultants' Report #3 and the Policy Plan. (4) THAT Council establish a special committee to discuss with the railway companies the matter of noise abatement, operating schedules and other factors considered detrimental to the quiet enjoyment of the adjacent residential areas. (5) THAT Council receive the recommendation of the Consultants r e l -ative to the formation of a False Creek Development Corporation and direct the Consultants to report back in more deta i l , (implementation of development proposals is the responsibil ity of the Assistant Director, Civic Development). (6) THAT Council do not approve the Consultants; recommendation #24 for the interim rezoning of the Fairview Slopes and request the Director of Planning and Civic Development to report in detail on the partial rezoning to CRM-1 outlined in the Planning Department comments on recommendation #24 on Page 7 of Appendix I and as one of the alternative courses of action recommended previously. \kk. Ibid. 145. Ibid. 146. Standing Council Committee on Planning and Civic Development, December 16, 1971, report to City Council December 21, 1971 The Standing Committee's recommendations: (a) that the Director of Planning and Civic Development report back to Council as soon as possible on the feasibi1ity of adding Area 10 to the Consultants' terms, of reference. (b) that the request of False Creek Marinas Limited for the lease of the property commonly known as Girody Saw Mil ls be tabled pending the possible report by the Consultants on developmental proposals for Area 10. 160 (c) that the Board of Administration, the Director of Planning and Givic Development and the Consultants proceed with the devel-opment of an informational sheet and that such informational sheet be forwarded to land owners and land occupiers in the : False Creek Basin requesting their comment. (d) that the Planning Department be advised that Council approve in principle of the concept of the City of Vancouver setting standards for the development of City-owned lands for developers to respond to and instruct the Director of Planning to report back on the implications of the implementation of this proposed poli cy. (e) that Council accept the principle that the present area of water should not be materially diminished and request the Director of Planning and Civic Development to report further on a method by which the City could gain control of the f i l l i n g of further water areas including, i f necessary, a revision of the Harbour Head Ii ne. (f) that the design of Area 6 (Fairview Flats) proceed immediate-ly on the basis that the water area is not materially dimin-ished and generally taking account of the 'patterns' contained in the Consultants' Progress Report #3; and with the densities not greater than recommended by the Consultants for the f i r s t stage of development. (g) that the Director of Planning and Civic Development bring in final recommendations to Council on the matters of the amount of open space and population density having heard the views of Council after receiving this report; this to be treated as a matter of urgency and bearing in mind the difference between the Consultants' Report #3 and the Policy Plan including the wide "see through". (h) that Council establish a special committee to discuss with the 'railway companies the removal of the line in that area. (i) that Council receive the recommendation of the Consultants r e l -ative to the formation of a False Creek Development Corporation and direct the Consultants to report back in more d e t a i l . ' (Implementation of development proposals is the responsibil ity of the Assistant Director Civic Development). 161 (j) that Council do not approve the Consultants' recommendation #24 for the interim rezoning of the Fairview Slopes and request the Director of Planning and Civic Development to report in detail on the partial zoning to CRM-1 outlined in the Planning • Department comments on recommendation #24 on Page 7 of Appendix I and as one of the alternatives course of action recommended previously, such report to take into account the wide "see through" pr inciple. 147. Vancouver City Council Minutes, December 7, 1971 148. Minutes of the Standing Committee on Planning and Development, December 16, 1971 ~ ~ 149. Vancouver City Counci1 Minutes, January 18, 1972 The terms of reference for the Special Council Committee on False Creek. 1. absorb the functions of the Special Commitee on Granville Island. 2. absorb the functions of the Special Committee on False Creek Consultants' Progress. 3. meet with the railway companies to seek the removal or relocation of the rai l lines paral lel ing 6th Avenue; investigate other transportation problems and other roles. 4. deal with comments requested by Council December 21, 1971, after they have been presented to the Standing Committee on Planning and Development. 5- in i t iate discussions with property owners on the coordin-ation of development in the False Creek study area. 6. assist in reviewing proposals for redevelopment of City land in such form as they may be received after the adoption by Council of policies which wil l stem from the consultants and Board of Administration reports on False Creek. 7- recommend amendments to these terms of reference as exper-ience proves advisable. 150. Personal interview with Alderman Walter Hardwick 151. Vancouver City Council Minutes, December 7, 1971 152. Vancouver City Council Minutes, March 7, 1972 162 153. Ibid. 154. Personal interview with Alderman Walter Hardwick; also The Province, March 28, 1972 and The Vancouver Sun, March 28, 1972, page 35 155. Special Council Committee: re: False Creek, Guidelines for False Creek  Development, City of Vancouver, March, 1972, page k 156. Personal interview with Mr. R. Mann and personal interview with Alderman W. Hardwick 157- The development guidelines adopted in principle by City Council on March 28, 1972: I. GENERAL Future sub-area development should be judged against the following general guidelines: Land Uses: residential , commercial, recreational. Industrial uses may be considered in relationship to central city requirements. Env i ronment: to be improved through new forms of design and mixture of compatible uses related to adequate open space. Type of Development: comprehensive design to ensure viabi1ity without prejudicing development in adjacent areas. Transport: an adequate street system to serve al l expected t r a f f i c requirements within the area, to provide for future mass transit f a c i l i t i e s , and to provide linking with adjacent areas. Pedestrian Circulation: continuous throughout areas with separation from vehicular t ra f f i c wherever possible. Shoreline: shall be accessible to the public and should be given an irregular alignment to permit widenings of the water basin for creation of bays, views and useable water frontage. Al l shoreline should be permanently stabi l ized when redeveloped. Views: heights and bulk of buildings to be arranged to permit views for project residents, while also permitting optimum views of the Downtown prof i le and North Shore mountains from other adjacent City locations. Pub 1ic Open Space: to be designed suff ic ient in area, size and con-tinuity to provide openness between building complexes, and to serve the area population. 163 Dens i ty: acceptance of any proposal shall be dependent upon the overall design meeting the c r i te r ia outlined above. The net density of each of the residential clusters of the approved design shall have the density specified in the c r i te r ia for the specif ic sub-area. II. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Total Eventual Residential Population of al l the sub-areas should not exceed 30,000. The Popu1 at ion mix should not undly emphasize on class or age group. Residential Development should be grouped to afford a minimum area occupied by streets and provide ample open space between building complexes. May include studio, one, two, three and more bedroom units, in townhouses, garden apartments and mult i -storey buiIdings. , Residential Buildings may incorporate other uses, such as local commercial, community f a c i l i t i e s and day care centres. 111. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Commercial Development in family residential areas should be of d is t r i c t and local character as required. General commercial devel-opment may be permitted in other areas. Commercial development, including marinas, may be integrated with compatible uses. IV. WATER AREA A Water Area at least equal to that existing in January, 1972 in each Sub-area should be maintained. If some f i l l i n g is required, an equal area should be excavated. Marina Fac i l i t ies should be limited in numbers, size and capacities in order to not overcrowd the Creek. V. OPEN SPACE Publ ic Open Space: in the planning area it is intended that neigh-bourhood, community and public parks be provided relative to the population. Public open space should be dedicated in each development in the amount of 2 .0 acres per 1,000 of population. This public open space should not include areas of school grounds, marinas and open water, but may include al l land used for neighbourhood and community parks. Private Open Space shall be provided around al l buildings in addition to the Public Open space and shall be at least equal to the yard and light angle requirements of the corresponding appropriate sections of the Zoning and Development By-law. Public Open Space, i f possible, should be continuous through-out the development permitting as much pedestrian separation from vehicular t ra f f i c as possible. Public Waterfront Access: should be retained around the entire Creek and around Granville Island so as to connect the English Bay Beach area with Vanier Park. Such open space may include pedestrian walkways, bicycle paths and s i t t ing areas. VI. POLLUTION CONTROL Log booming and storage west of Connaught Bridge should be d is -continued immediately, log booming and storage east of Connaught Bridge should be discontinued as soon as pract ica l . No discharge of pollutants shall be permitted. Proposed uses causing either noise or a i r pol1ution shou1d not be permi tted. VII. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Existing Industries may continue operations, provided they are compatible with overall Creek development. New Industries of a character compatible with overall Creek development which are related to marine f a c i l i t i e s or serve Downtown may be permitted. Al l Major Rail Fac i l i t ies should be removed as soon as possible. 158. False Creek Study Group, False Creek Proposals, Report #k and #5, A p r i l , 1972, page h 159. Ibid. , page h 160. Personal interview with Alderman W. Hardwick 165 161. Director of Planning and Civic Development, Report through the Board of Administration report, April 21, 1972 to City Council April 25 , 1972 162. Mr. D. Mann, "False Creek Basin offers opportunity of the decade", Br i t ish Columbia Business Journal, A p r i l , 1972, page 38 163. Ibid. , page 39 164. Vancouver City Council Minutes, May 16, 1972 PART B PERIOD THREE - JUNE 1972 - NOVEMBER 1973 165. Vancouver City Council Minutes, May 16, 1972 166. Director of Planning and Civic Development, False Creek, Progress  Report September, 1972, City of Vancouver, 1972, page 1 167. Personal interview with Alderman Walter Hardwick and Neale Adams, "Housing or a park for False Creek?", The Vancouver Sun, June 24, 1972, page 6 168. Vancouver City Council Minutes, July 10, 1972 169. Vancouver City Council Minutes, July 18, 1972 170. Ibid. 171. See these two newspaper art ic les for a brief outline of the contro-versy. The Vancouver Sun, August 2, 1972, page 14 and The Province, August 3, 1972, page 2 172. Vancouver City Council Minutes, September 26, 1972 173- Vancouver City Council Minutes, Ocotber 3, 1972 and Director of Planning and Civic Development, False Creek Progress Report, September, 1972, City of Vancouver, 1972 174. Vancouver City Council Minutes, October 3, 1972 175- Personal interview with Alderman Walter Hardwick 176. Ibid. 177. Vancouver City Council Minutes, Ocotber 3, 1972 17&. The Granville Island Committee: Mr. Larry Marks of the National Harbours Board Mr. Don Hickley of the City Planning Department 166 Mr. K. B. Ganong of C.M.H.C. Mr. Cyril Rosenberg of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs 179- Vancouver City Council Minutes, November 7, 1972 180 . False Creek Committee Minutes, November 14, 1972 and The Vancouver  Sun, November 15, 1972, page 17 181. Vancouver City Minutes, December 19, 1972 182. Ibid. 183. Vancouver City Council Minutes, January 16, 1973 184. Ibid. 185. The Province, January 19, 1973, page 9 186. Vancouver City Council Minutes, January 30 , 1973 187. Vancouver City Council Minutes, February 2 7 , 1973 188. Minutes of Special Council Committee re: False Creek, February 2 0 , 1973 189. Vancouver City Council Minutes, February 27 , 1973 190. Vancouver City Planning Commission, Citizen Participation in the  Planning of False Creek, February 15, 1973, page 1 191. Notes on March 16, 1973, Discussion Between False Creek Team and the  Members of Special Committee re: False Creek, Planning Department, Ci ty of Vancouver 192. Vancouver City Council Minutes, May 1, 1973 193. The Province, April 28 , 1973, page 31 194. The Vancouver Sun, May 8, 1973, page 6 195. Ibid. 196. Author present at meeting 197. Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Progress Report, June, 1973, page 21 198. The Province, June 27, 1973, page 25 167 199- Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Policies and  Act ions, June, 1973, page 3 200. Vancouver City Council Minutes, July 3, 1973 2 0 1 . Ibid. 202. Non-Partisan Association Position Paper on False Creek, July, 1973 203. Vancouver City Council Mjnutes, July 3, 1973 20k. FALSE CREEK REVIEW PANELS (1) HOUSING MR, JOHN CUMING Associate Manager, Property Investments, Great-West Life Assurance Company. MR. JOHN D'EATH President, Canadian Freehold Properties; National Vice-President, Community Planning Association of Canada; Vice-President, Downtown Business Association; Vice-President, B.C. Red Cross. PROFESSOR WOLFGANG GERS0N MRS. ROSEMARY HAMILTON MR. JAMES HOUSTON MRS. ANN JARRELL Professor, U.B.C. School of Architecture. Assistant Director, Social Policy and Research, United Community Services; Director, United Housing Foundation; Director, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-President, Community Builders. L.I.P. Project Coordinator for "Crossreach"; Resident of Fairview. 168: DR. ROBERT KELLY Urban Sociologist, Faculty of Commerce, U . B . C , Di rector of the I . I .P .S . Project. MRS. ANN McAFFEE Doctoral student, Community and Regional Planning, working on social implications of hous i ng poli cy. MR. JOHN POOLE Pres ident, Limi ted. Dawson. Developments MR. P.R.U..STRATTON Honorary Treasurer, Vancouver Housing Association; Director, B.C. Housing Foundation. MR. TERRANCE TANNER Architect, Chairman, Greater Vancouver Chapter, Architectural Institute of B.C. ; Chairman, Royal Architectural Institute, Task Force on Environment. (2) OPEN SPACE MRS. COLIN BAKER Housewife; member of Civic Arts Committee, Community Arts Counc i1. MR. JOHN BULL Long time chairman, Parks and Open Spaces Committee of the Board of Trade. MR. DAVID COX Member, Coast Floating Homes Association. MR. MICHAEL CRAMPTON C.B.C Producer. MR. DARRYL FOREMAN Arch i tect. 16S MR. LARRY KILLAM President, Town Group Realty Limited, Gas town. DR. JOHN NEILL U.B.C. Faculty of Agriculture; Fellow of the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects. DR. RICHARD SEATON Environmental Psychologist, U.B.C. School of ARchitecture. MR.. JACK SHADBOLT Art is t . MR. GERALD THOMSON President, Building Owners' and Managers Association of Canada; Vice-President, B.O.M.A. Inter-national; President, Downtown Business Association, member of boards and committees of several community groups. MRS. REBECCA WATSON Former Parks Commissioner; Honorary Member, Save Our Park-lands Association; Honorary Governor, Botanical Garden Association; member of several community groups boards or commi ttees. 205 . Mary Zagoudakis and others, False Creek Image Survey, Summer, 1973 206. Rick E l l igott and John Zacharias, Fairview S1 opes: Summer 1973, False Creek Team, September, 1973 207. The Vancouver Sun, August 29 , 1973, page 40 209. The Province, September 2 2 , 1973, page 27 The Province, September 26 , 1973, page kh The Vancouver Sun, September 26, 1973, page US The Prov i nee, September 2 9 , 1973, page 33 210. Ann McAfee, Member of the Housing Review Panel 211 . Vancouver City Council Minutes, Ocotber 9 , 1973 170 212. Vancouver City Council Minutes, Ocotber 30 , 1973 213. Vancouver City Planning Commission, Report on False Creek Devel-opment, November, 1973, page 1 214. Ibid., page 1 215 . Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Pol ic ies , November, 1973 216. False Creek Team, Area 6 The Development Opportunity, November, 1973 217 . Vancouver City Council Minutes, November 2 0 , 1973 218 . Ibid. 219 . Vancouver City Council Minutes, November 2 7 , 1973 PART B PERIOD FOUR - DECEMBER 1973 - APRIL 1974 220. Vancouver.City Council Minutes, December 11 , 1973 221 . Vancouver City Council Minutes, February 5, 1974 222. Craig S. Campbell, The False Creek Fo l l ies : A Minority Report, February, 1974 223. The Province, February 5, 1974, page 23 The Vancouver Sun, February 5, 1974, page 2 The Vancouver Sun, February 14, 1974, page 51 224. Vancouver City Council Minutes, February 5, 1974 225 . Ibid. 226. The procedure for Public Involvement in the selection of a design concept and identif ication of people interested in l iv ing in False Creek, as outlined by the Development Consultant, Mr. Doug Sutc l i f fe . 1. Our schedule cal ls for the three design concepts with plans, models and perspectives to be completed by the 22nd of A p r i l . 2. The Citizens' Advisory Panel wil l provide advice to the design, teams during the development of the three design concepts. 3. The three design concepts wil l be explained at Council 23 rd of April to be attended by the Citizens' Advisory Panel, City s taf f , Park and School representatives, City Planning Commi-ssion. 171 4. The Cit izen's Advisory Panel would be requested to prepare and submit to the Development Consultant evaluations including recommendations on the three concepts, for forwarding to the Director of Planning by 2 1 s t May. 5. Following the Council meeting 23 rd Ap r i l , the models and appro-priate descriptive material of the three concepts wil l be d is -played over a four week period at various locations around the City, during which time individual citizens wi l l be invited to review the concepts and record their opinions. The Devel-opment Consultant wi l l col lect and summarize these opinions and submit them to the Director of Planning by the 2 1 s t May. 6. Following the Council meeting 23 rd Ap r i l , the Park Board, the School Board and the Vancouver City Planning Commission wi l l be invited to evaluate the three concepts and submit their evaluation and recommendations to the Director of Planning by the 2 1 s t May. 7. Following the Council meeting 23 rd A p r i l , the Director of Planning wil l commence an internal evaluation of the three concepts following the normal process with the Technical Planning Board, Design Panel etc. This review should be complete by 2 1 s t May. 8. Following the 2 1 s t May the Director of Planning wil l summarize for report to Council the internal and external inputs as described above. 9. The various recommendations and inputs wil l be reviewed under the chairmanship of the Director of Planning by a f ive person group consisting of the Director of Planning, an Architect, the Development Consultant and two others representing the development and engineering f ie lds . 10'. The Director of Planning wil l submit the report of the group described in 9. together with his report described in 8. to Council, to be considered by Council on 11th June. 11. Vancouver City Council taking into account the reports from the Director of Planning and any other relevant material wil l make a decision as to the concept which wil l be advanced for public hearing. 172 12. It is anticipated that the public hearing wil l be called and a decision reached on rezoning before the end of June. 13- It is anticipated that the CD1 zoning by-law wil l have some controlled f l e x i b i l i t y , as for example the division of building areas into uses. 14. It is hoped that applications from Marathon and Area 10 can be advanced to the public hearing at the same time." Source: Minutes to Standing Committee on Civic Development, February 5, 1974 172a CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS 173 CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSIONS Recent planning theory typified by Friedmann's work on transactive planning suggested that modern planning, while aiming toward implementabi1ity of plans, focusses on communication in such a way as to change knowledge 1 into action through an 'unbroken sequence of interpersonal relat ionships' . The theory further suggests that interpersonal communication can overcome the traditional p i t f a l l of planning, decision-making and implementation functioning as separate isolated phases of the planning process. If such were true, then situations where planning aims toward decisions which result in furter planning should not occur. In looking at False Creek it appeared at the outset of this study that the three main actors of the planning decision-making process (planners, pol i t ic ians and citizens) were involved as participants in a modern transactive planning process (as outlined by Friedmann in his book Retracking America) during the period of 19&8 to 1974. Furthermore it seemed that in order to change the nature of the Creek and to achieve physical implementation where l i t t l e had occurred for thirty years prior a new and improved planning process was necessary. It was the outward appearance of a new process and the feeling that such a process must have been evolving, since the traditional one had proven less than successful in the Creek, that provided the impetus for this study. While changes did occur in the aim and roles of the actors in the planning decision-making process during the period of this study, the changes were not the result of a new planning philosophy and/or process, but rather a demonstration of the impact of increased po l i t i ca l 174 involvement in and influence over the planning process. This chapter outlines conclusions for each of the basic questions - presented in the introduction. Question 1. How did the False Creek planning decision-making process which evolved between 1968 and 1974 reflect the theory and practice of planning? Conclusion 1. While the focus of the False Creek planning decision-making process did shift toward action, and a greater degree of communication was achieved in that process, the process was not an example of modern interactive or transactive planning. There is a basic shortcoming in the False Creek process which became apparent throughout this case study and which separates the Creek process from modern interactive or transactive planning. While the process focussed on action and involved communication, it was not bui l t on and functioning around that communication. The interpersonal communication which would have had to be in the form of dialogue between planners, pol i t ic ians and citizens was basically a series of related monologues. Related in that they al l focussed on False Creek, monologues because discussion and mutual participation in the process was lost in the po l i t ica l 175 commitment to build on the City owned lands of area 6, which dominated the process by 1973-Where a new organizational structure had emerged, by 1973, to help fac i l i ta te action in the Creek (Diagrams 13, 15 and 1 6 ) , the structure did not encourage or in fact allow dialogue to occur between the planners and polit icans and the c i t izens. The" 1973 structure isolated ci t izen involvement into a situation where input was channeled through two bodies, the Social Planning Department and the City Planning Commission, neither of which were active participants in the planning decision-making process. This resulted in c i t izen energies having l i t t l e or no impact on the process during this time. Communication between the planner and the pol i t ic ian appeared closer to dialogue yet tended to be po l i t i ca l monologue. With the election of a TEAM dominated Council for 1973 the opportunities for dialogue while appearing to increase in fact decreased. The close relationship between the False Creek Planning Team and the Special Council Committee on False Creek meant l i t t l e more than the pol i t ic ians had become actively involved in the process as planners and administrators as well as decision-makers . - . With the pol it ican controll ing planning as well as decision-making and with cit izen involvement having been channeled into a peripheral role, that which appeared to be a new planning process was in fact an example of po l i t i ca l manipulation of the planning decision-making process. Question 2. What was the role of the planner in the process? 176 Conclusion 2. While the production of plans was carried out in a new team oriented approach, the impetus behind this change was not a new role of the planner nor of the planning depart-ment. Where at the outset of this study it appeared that a new planning process was evolving in False Creek, it was evident throughout the case study that this was not the situation. While the role of the planner varied in False Creek, in the final analysis the role remained unchanged. Diagram 18, False Creek Realm of Action 1967-1974, outlines the role of the planner and i l lustrates the relationship between the planning department and the creation of plans for the Creek, especially for area 6. As is evident in Diagram 18 there were two dist inct streams of planning which existed during this period. One stream working in the planning department on concept plans for the entire Creek, and the other working closer to the pol i t ica l , level to in i t iate action on the City owned lands of area 6. The overall Creek concept stream grew from the City 's decision to change the nature of the Creek and moved through the production of alternate concepts and into the preparation of a refined concept for the Creek. This stream of planning was quite traditional and dealt with planning as a logical progression of steps. The area 6 stream grew from the City acquiring land in area 6 and moved through concept plans and into action. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REALM OF ACTION CITY COUNCIL O "D 73 r n r — O T3 > i — > •z. m —I — o 2 2 -n m CT o ~o o r- z > o z m m —| 7J cz > 73 > o 73 -o m o H > —I O 73 O N 00 V O v o V O o V O — J VO N) —I x> n —• — Q) O . Q) 3 3 3 CD 3 -h Oi O — -1 r t CD o - i • n 3 CD Q) CD rt 7~ — < CD w —• Oi Oi o 01 "I J O — 3 CD c r f Q - 01 —••< w -1 ON CD w X > "1 — i — I 01 O 0) 3 3 -3 I Q I Q 3 CD 3 i n O 3 rT CL -I Ol O CD CD n- o .CD C O — Tr -i r r ui CD 0) — =i o O 3 - h CD a. CD o DJ 1 3 Ul - 1 3 -I — r t Ol —• CD 01 01 O 01 0) 3 -ti 7T 3 -ti w 3 ON — r t 3 O I Q O O O o 3 -I < CD CD O CD -1 CD 7T 01 X > — VO -t-- — -h n —1 O o • "I 3 DO in • 01 c -1 —-• CD rt Oi Di 3 • ON rt in O 01 O -| 3 CD o Oi CD m T n -I CD CD O CD O m (D - i — TJ 7T CD D_ CD W Oi CD i C rt 3 in in — rt C CD O — CD in 3 Oi Oi — O 3 X I ON Ol X ) in , X ) r> 01 — rt X I -n ~\ — rt Ol —> o - i 3 CD ' Ol CD Ol Oi n 01 « < . 3 CD rt Ol 01 —-o r 3 -h 3 — ~ o 01 CD 3 3 in -h in 3 CD ~\ 3 CD ON —• "O —• rt 3 rt -I 3 o O I Q in CD I Q - i rt CD l / l CD 7T X > O O 3 Ol c r I Q Q . -n • -| < CD - i C -I CD Ol Ol CD CD CD CD — o < —• 3 CD -1 Q_ Oi — c CD in 3 7T Ol Q . X I —* CD —• —• - h ON O 3 —• O O rt X ) o I Q 3 O 3 -1 CD CD 3 CD rt 7C--h n rt Q . O o O CD - i 3 O in —• Ol c —• in - I —• - i —• CD rt CD O Ol an 3 ON rt in CD CD* H n m rt > CD 2 D -178 The important dist inction between the two Creek thrusts occurred in 1971. The overall concept stream became dormant and the area 6 stream continued toward action. By 1973 the area 6 stream had evolved into a p o l i t i c a l l y controlled action oriented process which reported direct ly to a Council Committee. This left the planning department in the position of being 'spectators' where area 6 was concerned. Question 3. What influence did the po l i t i c ian exert over the process? Conclusion 3> The influence of the pol i t ican was the single most important and dom-inating factor which created and carried out the move to action planning. The pol i t ic ian was not only the major motivating force behind redevelopment in area 6 of False Creek but also the administrator who controlled preparation of the plans. As Norton E. Long stated in his a r t i c le "Planning and Pol i t ics in Urban Development" the question is not whether planning will reflect po l i t i cs , but whose pol i t ics wil l it 2 reflect? While Long referred to the fact that pol i t ics is a part of a l l planning it does not serve to suggest that pol i t ics being part of a planning process is a bad thing. In fact quite the contrary is true. However, in the case of False Creek it was the extreme to which the elected decision makers po l i t i cs dominated the move to action that became a 'problem'. This situation resulted in unilateral actions where multi -179 lateral ones would have been more appropriate. What had appeared to be the emergence of a new planning process turned out to be an example of how the carrying out of an election platform promise by an elected party can control the entire planning decision-making process. Question k. How have the cit izens of Vancouver been involved? Conclusion 4. Citizen involvement in False Creek was more constructive and influen-t ia l prior to the move to action planning where it was forced into a peripheral role with minimal relevance. Between 1968 and 1970 c i t izen participation in the planning of False Creek occurred in the form of genuine input through a process of reports and responses. This form of part ic ipat ion, while being limited in its scale and impact, was fed directly into the planning decision-making process. The ideas of Vancouver residents during this period aided the po l i t i ca l decision-makers in changing the nature of the Creek. Table 19 resumes the cit izen involvement throughout this study. With the move to planning for action in False Creek came what appeared on the surface to be more avenues for cit izens to partake in Creek planning. In effect what was happening through 1973 could best be described as therapeutic involvement; 'involvement' which made people feel better but which had l i t t l e or no impact on the planning process. The fact Period and Date Event Type Of Involvement PERIOD 1 1968 Augus t Downtown Report Suggestion Input December Vancouver Issues Report Suggestion Input t— 1969 Autumn V.I.E.W. Controversy Protest Q_ Z 1970 January False Creek Issues Report Response Input PERIOD 2 None PERIOD 3 1972 October Boat Tours/TV Program/Radio Program Self Education December Public Pamphlet On Consultant Work Information 1973 February Public Response Meetings Response O h-Ap r i 1 Review Panels Select Advisory =3 LU O-Summer Public Information Program Information < LU Summer Image Survey Suggestion n: I— Summer V.I.E.W. Controversy Protest PERIOD 4 1974 February Housing vs Park Controversy Protest SL CO February Ci tizen Panel Select Advisory •z. LU February Procedure For Public Involvement Token i£ O 1-TABLE 19 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 1968 TO 1974 181 that c it izen energies were being channeled through two bodies (the, Vancouver City Planning Commission and the Social Planning Department) having, at best, a peripheral role in the process meant there existed no actual avenue of involvement. Not only that, the cit izens were being misled into believing that they were helping to plan the City, when in fact they were accomplishing very l i t t l e . Question 5. Have ' internal ' forces of Vancouver c i t i zens , planners and pol i t ic ians or 'external' forces of societal trends shaped False Creek? Conclusion 5- The development philosophy of False Creek has and s t i l l does reflect societal movements external to the Creek. Eric Tr ist explains these movements as a "d r i f t " toward post-3 industrialism. From the late I800's, when False Creek was subjected to the rai lroad, to the early 19'60's, the Creek was a monument to the industrial ethic which had evolved over the prior two hundred years. Financiers and industr ial ists were the po l i t i ca l l y influencial establ ish-ment shaping the Creek. Natural resources were treated as inexhaustible and pollution was perceived within safety l imits . Culture stressed 182 quantity, achievement, and independence with organizations being mechanistic and competitive. Planning was a combination of comprehensive master plans and short term reaction to c r i s i s . False Creek developed around the idea of industrial growth and its societal values. Then, as concern for quality increased, especially concerning the natural and urban environ-ment, so the fear that natural resources were exhaustible and pollution was beyond safety limits grew. The f i r s t evidence of this in False Creek appeared in the late 1950's when citizens began pushing the City to clean up False Creek. Thoughts turned to less-pol lut ion "high-class" industries. "High-class" industries represents a movement away from the goods and goods related services of industrialism toward the tertiary and person related services of post- industrial ism. The major change in Creek philosophy came when the financial - industrial establishment which had for many years dominated City Council was replaced by the scientists and professionals of post- industrial ism. Cultural values such as se l f - , actualization replaced achievement, inter-dependence replaced independence, organizations were viewed as organic with collaborative relations instead of mechanistic and competitive, and planning focussed on mid-range plans, anticipating c r i s i s , instead of short term plans responding to c r i s i s . The industrial quantity emphasis was questioned, with housing and open space becoming more acceptable alternatives. While post- industrial ism fostered social consciousness, it also accented another process, "namely the permanent presence of a large, heterogeneous and growing class of disadvantaged individuals unequipped to meet the higher requirements now obtaining as a condition of entering, or maintaining a position in, the changed occupational structure, and trapped in poverty." 183 In response to the growing number of people disadvantaged, because they are unequipped, or because of inflationary trends in society, an intellectual movement to help these people has evolved. Po l i t i c ians , due to their social conscience or to good pol i t ics spearhead this movement. Establishing policies for False Creek led to considerable debate over the provision of housing and related community f a c i l i t i e s for people with lower incomes. Another post- industrial movement which has crept into debates on False Creek is the concern for ecology. This includes preser-vation of the natural physical environment, and maintenance of open space for 'healthy' human existence. In False Creek the open space ecology-health movement remains somewhat middle-class, confl ict ing with the needs of disadvantaged people for housing and community f a c i l i t i e s . Both post-industrial movements are present however, and are continuing to influence the future shape of False Creek, just as the industrial movement shaped the Creek in past years. • FINAL COMMENTS This study strove to gain insight into the planning decision-making process by comparing a case study of a planning process to a theoretical planning process identif ied as 'Transactive Planning' by John Friedmann. In Friedmann's theory pianners , cit izens and pol i t ic ians interact to plan and implement mutually desired actions. In False Creek it appeared that a l l actors were not participating at a signif icant level of influence and therefore that transactive planning was not present. More spec i f i ca l l y , during 1973 the pol i t ic ian played a dominant role in the process, often to the exclusion of citizens and with minimal input from City planning department staff . As Friedmann suggests.where any one actor or group of actors creates, administers and judges the process there is an inherent danger of oversight and single interest in the process. History wi l l judge whether or not such oversights have occurred in False Creek. Perhaps more important than discovering that False Creek does not represent an example of transactive planning is the question that in light of the fact it was not present in False Creek, is it l ikely to be present anywhere ? Should planners be str iv ing toward interactive planning or not ? It is undisputable that planning should aim toward action, which interactive planning does. It is also beyond question that planning is based on the needs, hopes and expectations of planners, pol i t ic ians and cit izens. The main drawback of interactive planning is not so much a problem of the theory but a problem with the ab i l i t y of people to apply i t . Interactive planning depends on the three main actors establishing very close working relationships, and participating with the po l i t i ca1, professional or interest group pressures rather than for them. The key problem here is the actors abi l i ty or inabi l i ty to participate without succumbingto the pressures placed on him, or becoming defensive regarding his area of expertise. Friedmann's theory breaks down at this point. If for no other reason, Friedmann's theory is just that, a thoery. In practical terms his faith in people to participate and communicate , while being undoubtedly desirable, requires a new expertise to.implement. 185 It would seem then, that while False Creek did not turn out to be an example of transactive planning, this should not in Itself be considered negative. Case studies of the planning process, such as that experienced in False Creek, provide additional evidence of the roles and responsibi l i t ies of the actors and of the actions required to implement a complex planning process. FOOTNOTES  CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS 1. John Friedmann, Retracking America A Theory of Transactive Planning, Garden City, New York, Anchor Press-Doubleday, 1973. 2. Norton E. Long, "Planning and Pol i t ics in Urban Development", J .A. I .P November, 1959, page 168 3. Eric Tris't, "Urban North America—The Challenge of the Next 30 Years" Plan Canada, Vol. 10, No. 3 , 1970, page k k. Ibid, pages 9 and 10 185a BIBLIOGRAPHY 186 BIBLIOGRAPHY PART I: LITERATURE - BOOKS Al tshuler , Alan A. , The City Planning Process: A Pol i t ica l Analysis. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1965 Baker, John H., Urban Pol i t ics in America. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971, especially Chapter 11 , Planning and Land Use Controls Banfield, Edward C , Pol i t ical Influence. New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961 Barnett, Jonathan, Urban Design as Public Policy. New York, Architec-tural Record, 1974 Dimock, Marshall Edward & Dimock, Gladys 0 . Public Administration. New York, Holt, Reinhard S Winston, Inc., 1964 ". El ridge, H. Wentworth, Taming Megalopolis: Volume II How to Manage an Urbanized World. Garden City, New York, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1967 Erber, Ernest, ed . , Urban Planning in Transition. New York, Grossman Publishers, 1970 Etz ioni , Amitai, The Active Society—A Theory of Societal and Pol i t ica l  Processes"? New York, The Free Press, 1968 Fl inn, Thomas A . , Local Government and Po l i t i cs . Glenview, I l l ino is , Scott, Foresman and Co., 1970 Friedmann, John, Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, New York, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973 ~ Gans, Herbert J . , People and Plans. New York, Basic Books Inc., 1968 Kent, T . J . , The Urban General Plan. San Francisco, Chandler Publishing C o . , 1 9 6 4 Kramer', Ralph M. & Specht, Harry, eds. , Readings in Community Organization  Practice. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.., Prentice-Hal l , 1969 Levine, Robert A . , Pub 1?c P1anning: Failure and Redirection. New York, Bas ic Books Inc., 1972 McCandless, Carl A . , Urban Government and Po l i t i cs . New York, McGraw-Hi11 Book Co., 1970 187 Meyerson, Martin & Banfield, Edward C , Po l i t i c s , Planning and the Publ ic  Interest. New York, The Free Press, 1955 Rabinovitz, Francine F., City Pol i t ics and Planning. New York, Atherton Press, 1969 Ranney, David C. , Planning and Pol i t ics in the Metropolis. Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merri l l Publishing Co., 1969 Robinson, Ira M., Decision Making in Urban Planning. Beverly H i l l s , Sage Publications, 1972 Sewel1, John, Up Aga ins t C? ty Ha 11 . Toronto, James Lewis & Samuel Publishers, 1972 Spatt, Beverly Moss, A Proposal to Change the Structure of City Planning: Case Study of New York City. London, Praeger Publishers, 1971 Vancouver Urban Research Group, Forever Deceiving You: The Pol i t ics of  Vancouver Development. Vancouver, Local Initiatives Project, 1972 Walker, Robert, The Planning Function in Urban Government, Second Edit ion, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1950 PART I: LITERATURE - ARTICLES IN BOOKS Altshuler, Alan, "Decision-Making and the Trend Toward P lura l i s t i c Planning", Urban Planning in Transit ion, Ernest Erber ed. New York, Grossman Publishers, 1970, pps. 183-186 Cohen, Henry, "The Changing Role of the Planner in the Decision-Making Process", Urban Planning in Transit ion, Ernest Erber, ed. New York, Grossman Publishers, 1970, pps. 174-182 Loeks, C. David, "The Individual's Identification of Self - Interest" , Urban Planning in Transit ion, Ernest Erber, ed . , New York, Grossman Publishers, 1970, pps. 171-173 Ross, Charles R., "Public Participation and Decision-Making", Urban  Planning in Transit ion, Ernest Erber, e d . , New York, Grossman Publishers, 1970, pss. 171-173 188 Webber, Melvin M., "Urban Place and Nonplace Urban Realm", Exploration into Urban Structure, Melvin Mr. Webber, et. a l . , Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964, pps. 79-153 Wheaton, William C , and Wheaton, Margaret F., "Identifying the Public Interest: Values and Goals", Urban Planning in Transit ion, Ernest Erber, ed . , New York, Grossman Publishers, 1970, pps. 152-164 Wheaton, William L.D., "Public and Private Agents of Change in Urban Expansion", Exploration into Urban Structure, Melvin M. Webber, et. a l . , Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964, pps. 154-196 PART I: LITERATURE - PERIODICAL ARTICLES Aleshire, Robert A . , "Planning and Citizen Part ic ipation: Costs, Benefits and Approaches", Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 5 , #4, June, 1970, pps. 369-93 Arnstein, Sherry R. , "A Ladder of Citizen Part ic ipat ion", Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, Vol. 3 5 , #4, July, 1969, pps. 216 -224 ~ Beckman, Norman, "The Planner as a Bureaucrat", Journal of the American  Institute of Planners, Vol. 3 0 , #4, November, 1964, pps. 323-27 Bolan, Richard S . , "Community Decision Behaviour: The Culture of Planning", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, September, 1969, pps. 301-310 Bolan, Richard S . , "Emerging Views of Planning", Journal of the American  Institute of Planners, Vol. 3 3 , #4, July, 1967 , pps. 233 -45 Bolan, Richard S . , "The Social Relations of the Planner", Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, November, 1971 , pps. 386-396 Cartwright, T . J . , "Problems, Solutions and Strategies: A Contribution to the Theory and Practice of Planning", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 3 9 , #3, May, 1973, pps. 179-87 Davidoff, Paul £ Reiner, Thomas, "A Choice Theory of Planning", Journa1  of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 28 , May, \3o~2~, pps. 103-115 Davidoff, Paul, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning", Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, Vol. 3 1 , #4, November, 1965 pps. 311-318 189 Friedmann, John, "Notes on Societal Action", Journal of the American  Insti tute of Planners, September, 1969, pps. 311-318 Friedmann, John, "Planning, Process, and Social Values", Diogenes,. #17, Spring, 1957 Friedmann, John, "The Public Interest and Community Part ic ipation: Toward a Reconstruction of Public Pol icy" , Journal of the  American Institute of P1anners, Vol. 39 , #1, January, 1973, pps. 2, 4 -7 Gans, Herbert J . , Commentary on "The Public Interest and Community Part ic ipation: Toward a Reconstruction of Public Pol icy" , Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 3 9 , #1, January, 1973, pps. 3, 10-12 Gerecke, Kent, "An Evaluation of Canadian Urban Planning", Occas ional  Paper No. 10, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, 1973 Mann, Lawrence D., "Studies in Community Decision-Making", Journal of the Ameri can Institute of Planners, Vol. 30 , #1, February, , 1964, pps. 58 -65 ~~ " Mocine, Corwin R., "Urban Physical Planning and the 'New Planning 1 ", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 3 2 , #4, July, 1966, pps. 2 34 -7 Perks, W.T., "Basic Components of the Planning Process", PLAN CANADA, Vol. 11 , #2, 1971, pps. 88 -105 Singer, Ronald, "The Planner as Value-Neutral: A Useless Myth?", PLAN CANADA, Vol 11 , #2, 1971, pps. 107-113 Tr is t , Er ic , "Urban North America—The Chal lenge of the Next Thirty Years: A Social Psychological Viewpoint", PLAN CANADA, Vol. 10, #3, 1970, pps. 4-20 Wilson, James Q. , "Planning and Po l i t i cs : Citizen Participation in Urban Renewal", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 2 9 , November, 1963, pps. 242-249 ' : ~~ PART I I: FALSE CREEK Acres Consulting Services Limited, False Creek Railway Study Part I, Vancouver, December, 1972 190 Bartholomew, Harland and Associates, A Plan for the City of Vancouver, Vancouver Town Planning Commission, City of Vancouver, 1929 Britannia Design, B.C. Central Credit Union False Creek Project, Vancouver Campbell, Craig S . , The False Creek Fo l l ies : A Minority Report, Vancouver, February, 1974 ' Churchi l l , Dennis M., False Creek Development (a Master of Arts Thesis) Department of Economics, Pol i t ica l Science and Sociology, University of Br i t ish Columbia, November, 1953 Cousins, E .L . , Report on False Creek, City of Vancouver, October, 1955 Data Sheets on Development Issues, False Creek, O.F.Y. Project, Booklet Booklet #1, City of Vancouver, September, 1973 E l l igo t t , Rick, and Zacharias, John, Fairview Slopes—Summer 1973 » City of Vancouver, September, 1973 E l l i go t t , Rick, False Creek--Newspaper Clipping F i les , unpublished Fukui, June, False Creek: A Background Report for the Vancouver Board of  Trade, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of Br i t ish Columbia, 1968 Intermet, The Vancouver Report, Project C, 1972 Mann, D., "False Creek Basin Offers Opportunity of the Decade", Br i t i sh.  Columbia Business Journal, Vancouver, A p r i l , 1972, pps. 38 -9 Marathon Realty Company Limited, False Creek, Vancouver, Ap r i l , 1971 Marathon Realty Company Limited, False Creek, (A public pamphlet) Vancouver, Summer 1973 -Marathon Realty Company Limited, Marathon Realty Presentation to the False  Creek Committee, Vancouver, August 2 , 1973 Non-Partisan Association, Position Paper on False Creek, Vancouver, July, 1973. Province of Brit ish Columbia, Vancouver Charter, Quenn's Printer, V ictor ia , 1971 The Province, (numerous newspaper art ic les) The Vancouver Sun, (numerous newspaper art ic les) 191 Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners, False Creek—Proposed Land-Use  Planning for Area 10, City of Vancouver, January, 1973 Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners, Letter dated March 22, 1971 from the False Creek Study Group to Mr. H.W. Pickstone, Assistant Director of Planning and Civic Development, re: Progress Report #1--Procedure and Budgets for the False Creek Study Thompson, Berwick, Pratt £ Partners, Progress Report #1, re: False Creek Study, Vancouver, March 22, 1971 Thompson, Berwick, Pratt £ Partners, Progress Report §2—An Interim Report Towards a Development Plan for False Creek, Vancouver, May, 1971 Thompson, Berwick, Pratt £ Partners, Progress Report #3—False Creek  Proposals, Vancouver, September, 1971 Thompson, Berwick, Pratt £ Partners, Progress Report #k and #5 False  Creek Proposals, Vancouver, Ap r i l , 1972 Vancouver City, False Creek: A Public Information Report, City of Vancouver, October, 1972 Vancouver City Board of Administration, (numerous reports to City Council) Vancouver City Clerk, Municipal Year Book, City of Vancouver, 1966-1973 Vancouver City Council, Of f ic ia l Council Minutes Vancouver City Council Special Committee re: False Creek, Gu idelines for  False Creek Development, City of Vancouver, March, 1972 Vancouver City Council Special Committee re: False Creek, Of f ic ia l  Mi nutes Vancouver City Council Standing Committee on Planning and Civic Develop-ment, Of f ic ia l Minutes Vancouver City Council Standing Committee on Planning and Civic Develop-ment (report to Counci1 December 21, 1971), City of Vancouver, December 16, 1971 Vancouver City Council Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation, Of f ic ia l Minutes Vancouver City Planning Commission, Citizen Participation in the Planning  of False Creek, City of Vancouver, February 15, 1973 192 Vancouver City Planning Commission, False Creek—Citizen Involvement, City of Vancouver, April 16, 1973 v Vancouver City Planning Commission, Report on False Creek Development, City of Vancouver, November, 1973 Vancouver City Planning Commission, Summary of the False Creek Seminar, City of Vancouver, August 2 9 , 1973 Vancouver City Planning Commission False Creek Committee, Report of the  Committee appointed to consider proposals for False Creek, City of Vancouver, May, 1972 Vancouver City Planning Commission False Creek Review Panels, False Creek—  A Preliminary Report, City of Vancouver, September, 1973 Vancouver City Planning Commission False Creek Review Panels, Of f ic ia l  Minutes, City of Vancouver Vancouver City Planning Department, Area 6 - -The Development Opportunity, City of Vancouver, November, 1973 Vancouver City Planning Department, City of Vancouver Plan Part I--The Issues, City of Vancouver, December, 1968 Vancouver City Planning Department, Downtown Vancouver Part I--The  I ssues , City of Vancouver, August, 1968 ' ~~ Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek (information report to . City Council), March 15, 19ol5 Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Development Concepts, City of Vancouver, January 1Z~, 1970 " ~~ Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Pol ic ies , City of Vancouver, November, 1973 Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Policies and Actions, City of Vancouver, June, 1973 Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Progress Report, City of Vancouver, September, 1972 Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Progress Report, City of Vancouver, June, 1973 Vancouver City Planning Department, Fa 1se Creek Rehab i1 i tat i on Report, City of Vancouver, October, 1963 Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Rehabilitation Report, City of Vancouver, February, 1964 Vancouver City Planning Department, History of False Creek Development  Study, Apr i1, 1964 Vancouver City Planning Department, Notes on March 16, 1973 Discussion  Between False Creek Team and the Members of Special Committee  Re: False Creek, City of Vancouver, March, 1973 Vancouver City Planning Department, Notes on Unified Management, City of Vancouver, May, 1964 Vancouver City Planning Department, Proposed Policies for Redevelopment  of False Creek, City of Vancouver, September, 1971 Vancouver City Planning Department, Replies to False Creek Five Concepts, Report on Submissions, City of Vancouver, March, 1970 Vancouver City Planning Department, Report on Submissions Downtown  Vancouver Development Concepts, City of Vancouver, 1971 Vancouver City Planning Department, The Columbia-Quebec Major Street Connection and False Creek Rehabil itation, City of Vancouver, July 2 2 , 1964 Vancouver City Social Planning Department, Script of False Creek Boat  Tour Materia 1 , City of Vancouver, Summer, 1973 Vancouver City Social Planning Department, Take a Walk Along the False Creek Waterfront, City of Vancouver, Summer, 1973 Zagoudakis, Mary et. aU ,• False. Creek' Image Survey, Vancouver, Summer 1973 193a APPENDICES APPENDIX I: ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS STUDY Canadian National Railway Canadian Pacif ic Railway Non-Partisan Association Thompson, Berwick, Pratt and Partners The Electors Action Movement University of Br i t ish Columbia Vancouver Iron and Engineering Works 195 APPENDIX . I I  PRINCIPLE ACTORS FALSE CREEK PLANNING  DECISION - MAKING PROCESS 1968 t o 1974 T h i s a p p e n d i x i s d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s ; one o u t l i n i n g g r o u p s and t h e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e c a s e s t u d y ( C h a p t e r I I I ) o f t h i s t h e s i s . A . GROUPS A d v a n c e d P l a n n i n g and R e s e a r c h O c c a s i o n a l l y c a l l e d Long Range P l a n n i n g , t h i s d i v i s i o n o f the C i t y P l a n n i n g Depar tment was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r e p a r i n g c o n c e p t u a l p l a n s f o r the C i t y . T h i s d i v i s i o n i s p r e s e n t l y te rmed o v e r a l l p l a n n i n g . B o a r d o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n T h i s i s t h e s t a f f body o r d e p a r t m e n t w h i c h c o o r d i n a t e s C i t y a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n f o r C o u n c i l . C i t y d e p a r t m e n t s g e n e r a l l y r e p o r t t o C o u n c i l t h r o u g h t h i s b o d y . D u r i n g t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 's M r . G. S u t t o n - B r o w n was C i t y C o m m i s s i o n e r , head o f t h e B o a r d o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a l o n g w i t h M r . L. Ryan C i t y P l a n n i n g Depar tment T h i s i s the C i t y d e p a r t m e n t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p r e p a r a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s and p l a n s f o r t h e C i t y . T h i s d e p a r t m e n t i s d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e S o c i a l P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t . F a l s e C r e e k Deve lopment Group The s t a f f g r o u p a s s e m b l e d under t h e d i r e c t i o n o f M r . Doug S u t c l i f f e i n e a r l y 1974 t o f a c i l i t a t e p h y s i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e C i t y owned l a n d s o f A r e a 6 . 196 F a l s e C r e e k P l a n n i n g Team The p l a n n i n g g r o u p a s s e m b l e d i n F e b r u a r y 1973 under t h e d i r e c t i o n o f Mr . D. H i c k l e y ( a r c h i t e c t ) t o i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n c e p t p l a n s f o r A r e a 6 p r o d u c e d by Thompson, B e r w i c k , P r a t t and P a r t n e r s . I n c l u d e d i n t h e p l a n n i n g team were M r . G. Shanks ( p l a n n e r ) , M r . N. G r i g g s ( p l a n n e r ) , M r . E. R o f f e y ( u r b a n e c o n o m i s t ) , M r . P . Lau ( a r c h i t e c t ) , and M r . C. C a m p b e l l ( l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t ) . The team was d i s b a n d e d by t h e end o f 1973 f o l l o w i n g c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e i r t a s k . F a l s e C r e e k Rev iew P a n e l s E s t a b l i s h e d i n mid 1973 t o r e v i e w t h e h o u s i n g mix and open s p a c e r e c o -mmendat ions f o r A r e a 6. The p a n e l s c o n s i s t e d o f s e l e c t r e s o u r c e p e r s o n s who p o s e s s e d some e x p e r t i s e o r k n o w l e d g e o f s u b j e c t s i n q u e s t i o n . M a r a t h o n R e a l t y The r e a l e s t a t e and d e v e l o p m e n t b r a n c h o f t h e C a n a d i a n P a c i f i c R a i l w a y ( C . P . R . ) . N a t i o n a l H a r b o u r s B o a r d T h i s i s a d e p a r t m e n t o f t h e F e d e r a l Government r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d m i n i s -t r a t i o n o f h a r b o u r s and o t h e r w a t e r w a y s such as F a l s e C r e e k and B u r r a r d I n l e t . N o n - P a r t i s a n A s s o c i a t i o n T h i s i s a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a t t h e c i v i c l e v e l , c i a t e d w i t h c o n s e r v a t i v e b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s . w h i c h i s g e n e r a l l y a s s o -197 S o c i a l P l a n n i n g Depar tment T h i s d e p a r t m e n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r e p a r i n g t h e C i t y ' s i n p u t i n t o c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l p r o g r a m s . I t i s d i s t i n c t f rom t h e C i t y P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t . S p e c i a 1 C o u n c i 1 Commit tee on F a l s e C r e e k A C o u n c i l Commit tee fo rmed i n 1 9 7 2 under t h e c h a i r m a n s h i p o f A l d e r m a n W a l t e r H a r d w i c k t o p r e p a r e g u i d e l i n e s f o r C r e e k d e v e l o p m e n t . S t a n d i n g Commit tee on P l a n n i n g and C i v i c Deve lopment T h i s i s a s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e o f C o u n c i l w h i c h d e a l s w i t h i s s u e s s u c h as p l a n n i n g and d e v e l o p m e n t . The E l e c t o r s A c t i o n Movement (TEAM) , T h i s i s a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a t the c i v i c l e v e l , g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be " a c a d e m i c r e f o r m i s t " i n n a t u r e . Thompson, B e r w i c k , P r a t t and P a r t n e r s The V a n c o u v e r c o n s u l t i n g f i r m c h o s e n i n 1971 by t h e C i t y t o p r e p a r e p l a n s f o r A r e a 6 . V a n c o u v e r C i t y C o u n c i l The o f f i c i a l e l e c t e d body f o r t h e C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r w h i c h g o v e r n s t h r o u g h powers e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e V a n c o u v e r C h a r t e r . C o u n c i l i s c o m p r i s e d o f a Mayor and ten a l d e r m e n . 19.8 V a n c o u v e r C i t y P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n T h i s c o m m i s s i o n c o n s i s t s o f c i t i z e n s a p p o i n t e d by C o u n c i l t o a d v i s e them on C i t y p l a n n i n g m a t t e r s . B. INDIVI DUALS T i t l e s r e f l e c t p o s i t i o n s h e l d d u r i n g t h e c a s e s t u d y o f t h i s t h e s i s . M r . B. C u r t i s Deputy C i t y E n g i n e e r M r . B. Graham D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g M r . W. H a r d w i c k A l d e r m a n (TEAM) M r . D. Hayward A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r o f A d v a n c e d P l a n n i n g and R e s e a r c h M r . D. H i c k l e y A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g and C i v i c Deve lopment M r . D. Mann C o n s u l t a n t P l a n n e r w i t h Thompson , B e r w i c k , P r a t t and P a r t n e r s M r . H. P i c k s t o n e Deputy D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g M r . D. S u t c l i f f e Deve1opment C o n s u l t a n t f o r F a l s e C r e e k M r . G. S u t t o n - B r o w n Ci t y Commi ss i o n e r APPENDIX III: VANCOUVER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 1958-1974 1958 Mayor Aldermen F.J. Hume D. A, R. F. E. J. F.C. R.F. A.E. H.D. G. Adams T. Alsbury Atheron M. Baker Caldwel1 Cornett Mi 1 ler Orr Sprott Wi1 son A. W. 1959 Mayor Al dermen A.T. Alsbury D. G. Adams R. Atherton F.M. Baker E. A. Caldwell J.W. Cornett F. Fredrickson E.A. Jamieson W.G. Rathie A.E. Sprott H.D. Wilson I 9 6 0 Mayor A.T. Alsbury Aldermen D.G. Adams R. Atherton B.M. Baker B.A. Emery F. Fredrickson E.A. Jamieson J .S .C . Moffi tt W.G. Rathie W.A. Street H.D. Wilson 1961 Mayor A.T. Alsbury Aldermen E.G. Adams R. Atherton F.M. Baker B.A. Emery F. Fredrickson M.E. Linnell J.S.'C. Moffitt W.G. Rathie W.A. Street H.D. Wilson 1962 Mayor A.T. Alsbury Aldermen E.G. Adams F.M. Baker W.O. Banfield A. E. McB. Bel 1-1rving T . J . Campbel1 B. A. Emery F. Fredrickson M.E. Linnel 1 W.G. Rathie H.D. Wilson 1963 Mayor W.G. Rathie Aldermen E.G. Adams W.O. Banfield A. E. McB. Bel l - I rv ing H.S. Bird E. J . Broome T . J . Campbel1 B. A. Emery F. Fredrickson M.E. Linnell P.J. Lipp 1 9 6 4 Mayor _ W.G. Rathie Aldermen E.G. Adams A.T. Alsbury A. E.McB. Bel 1-1rving H.S. Bird E.J. B roome T . J . Campbell B. A. Emery M.E. Linnell P.J. Lipp H.D. Wilson 1 9 6 5 Mayor W.G. Rathie Aldermen E.G. Adams W.O. Banfield A. E. McB. Bel l - I rv ing H.S. Bird E.J. B roome T . J . Campbel1 B. A. Emery P.J. Lipp R.A. Williams H.D. Wilson 1966 Mayor W.G. Rathie Aldermen E-G. Adams A.T. Alsbury R. Atherton H.S. Bird E.J. B roome P.W.N. Graham M.E. Linnel1 H. Rankin E.C. Sweeney H.D. Wilson 1967-1968 Mayor T . J . Campbell Aldermen E.G. Adams A.T. Alsbury R. Atherton U.S. Bird E.J. Broome P.W.N. Graham M.E. Linnell H. Rankin E.C. Sweeney H.D. Wilson 1969-1970 Mayor Al dermen T . J . Campbel1 E. H. E. B. W. M, A, H, E H, Adams Bi rd Broome Calder Hardwi ck L i nne 1 1 Phi 1 ips Rankin C. Sweeney D, Wilson 1971-1972 Mayor Al dermen T . J . Campbel1 E.G. H.S. E.J. B'.K. W. M. A. H. E. H, Adams Bird B roome Calder G. Hardwick E. Linnel 1 Phi 1ips Rankin C. Sweeney D. Wilson 204 1973-1974 Mayor A. Phi 1ips Aldermen F. Bowers W. Gi bson M. Harcourt W.G. Hardwick M.E. Linnell D. Marzari G. Massey V.S. Pendakur H. Rankin J . J . Volrich 205 APPENDIX IV: PERSONAL INTERVIEWS The following personal interviews were conducted in January-February, 1974 in researching this study: Curt is , B i l l , Deputy City Engineer, Vancouver Engineering Department Griggs, Ne i l , Coordinator False Creek Team, Vancouver Planning Department Hardwick, Walter, Alderman, City of Vancouver Hickley, Don, Assistant Director, Planning and Civic Development, City of Vancouver James, Murray, City Clerk's Off ice, Vancouver City L inne l l , Marianne, Alderwoman, City of Vancouver Lowden, Jim, Planner, Marathon Realty Mann, Dick, Thompson, Berwick, Pratt and Partners McAfee, Ann, False Creek Review Panels Pickstone, Harry, Deputy Director, City of Vancouver Planning Department Shanks, Gordon, False Creek Team ' • Sutc l i f fe , Doug, Development Consultant for False Creek, City of Vancouver Planning Department Symonds, Hilda, Executive Coordinator, Vancouver City Planning Commission Webster, John, Planning Director, Marathon Realty Wiesman, Brahm, Acting Director, Community and Regional PIanning School, U.B.C. Wilson, Halford, Past Alderman, City of Vancouver 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094183/manifest

Comment

Related Items