UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

East Richmond, a proposal for heritage conservation of a rural landscape Jackson, Brian John 1980

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 J33.pdf [ 20.17MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094866.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094866-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094866-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094866-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094866-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094866-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094866-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094866-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094866.ris

Full Text

EAST RICHMOND: A PROPOSAL FOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION OF A RURAL LANDSCAPE BY BRIAN JOHN JACKSON B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1980 Brian John Jackson, 1980 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit 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 by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community § _ £ Regional Planning Department of & & The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 15 September 1980 i i ABSTRACT Tn recent years, the conservation of r u r a l landscapes has become an important concern, However, t h i s concern usually takes the form of conserving/ the productive c a p a b i l i t i e s of the r u r a l landscape. The conservation of I n t a n g i b l e values which r u r a l landscapes also possess has l a r g e l y been ignored. The fundamental concern of t h i s paper i s to i d e n t i f y and analyze a ser i e s of i n t a n g i b l e values, s p e c i f i c a l l y heritage values, within a r u r a l landscape. The major purpose, herein, i s to devise a heritage inventory of a l l the widely scattered and diverse scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage values of a s p e c i f i c r u r a l landscape. Once the inventory i s complete, the secondary purpose i s to determine how the heritage can be conserved and enhanced while allowing necessary urban and r u r a l development to continue. I chose the r u r a l landscape of East Richmond as my case study. East Richmond, located on the urban-rural f r i n g e of Greater Vancouver, i s at a ^ c r i t i c a l point i n i t s a g r i c u l t u r a l development. Richmond's urban development, which had p r i m a r i l y been confined to West Richmond, i s now encroaching on the fringes of the study area and reaching such a magnitude that the remaining scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage values of the r u r a l landscape are now r a p i d l y diminishing. Before the r u r a l landscape's heritage values are inventoried, I examine the case study area i n terms of i t s prehistory, l o c a t i o n , natural features, development patterns, planning and land uses. This l a s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the landscape i s i n t e g r a l to heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes, where a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses, which give the landscape much, of i t s heritage values, a,re generally encouraged, while land uses which are a e s t h e t i c a l l y or function-a l l y incompatible with the r u r a l landscape are discouraged. i i i I ba,sed the method of this thesis on a scenic descriptive analysis method in order to inventory the landscape's scenic heritage values,, altering the method to reflect land uses, as well,as significant historical and cultural features, I subdivided the landscape into nine sub-areas or ''sensitivity zones,'' based primarily on vegetation and present and future land uses in each zone, which are analyzed for their scenic, cultural or historical heritage values. I then determined landscape quality objectives for each sensitivity zone, ranging from preservation to modification, in order to re^emphasxze the rural or natural landscape of East Richmond, conserving and enhancing the existing heritage. As a result of this research, I am convinced of the importance of suburban communities such as Richmond developing a sound heritage conservation program. The cultural, historical and scenic aspects of heritage must be addressed by the local government in order to achieve the greatest public benefit from planning in the rural environment. In order that this benefit is assured, I have outlined fourteen recommendations, which, i f implemented, would not only help to conserve and enhance the existing rural landscape, but would also creates a more informed public and administration, together which form a more complete basis for the decision-making process. I conclude the thesis by examining the prospects for heritage conservation of rural landscapes, the planner's role in heritage conservation, and the need for further research. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . , , , , , , , , , , . , , , . . . , . • • • • ! l i LIST OF TABLES , , v i i LIST OF FIGURES . , . . . . , . . . < < v i i i LIST OF MAPS • « i « t » * * « » t t t « « > t t » - t t t » xi-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION , , . « 1 I. Goal and Objectives , . . , . 1 I I . Problem Statement . . . . 2 I I I . Rationale f o r Heritage Conservation . 3 IV. Need f o r t h i s Research 4 V. Method , . , 5 VI. D e f i n i t i o n s , , . , 6 VII. Outline of Organization 7 CHAPTER TWO THE EVOLUTION OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION . « 11 I. Background . , 11 I I . Heritage Conservation of Rural, l a n d s c a p e s 0 15 I I I . L e g i s l a t i v e Responses to Heritage Conservation . . 18 IV. Rationale f o r Rural Conservation =21 V. Beauty i n Landscape 23 CHAPTER THREE THE RURAL LANDSCAPE OF EAST RICHMOND . . . 29 I, Introduction 29 I I . Location 29 A. Location of Richmond 29 B. Location of Study Area 30 I I I . Prehistory 32 TV. Natural Features 33 A. Vegetafcation , , . . « . . , . . 33 B, S o i l s . , , t . « t « » t « « i « ' i 35 IV, A g r i c u l t u r a l History , , » t « * t t » , « * < i 37 V, Deyelopment Patterns t t ' t » t * t i , t * * t * « - i 39 VI. Planning , . , . . . « . « * , » * « t * « t. « « t 41 V Page CHAPTER FOUR LAND USE t , , , , , . 46 I, Introduction , , , , , « , , , , t , { , , , , « , , , t 46 II, Rural Land Uses , , « • , , , t t » « , . » . , » . 48 III, Urban-Rural Fringe Land Use t , , , t , t , , % , , , 48 £V« East Richmond's Land Uses 50 A, Introduction t . 50 B, Agricultural Land Use 51 C, Residential Land Use 52 D, Commercial/Industrial Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . 55 E, Public/Utility/Institutional Land Uses 61 a ) Public,.„.„,„.» , • • 61 C2) Utility , 62 (3) Institutional. . , , 64 F, Land Uses on the Periphery 65 V, Conclusions , , , , , t , . , « , , . , , , , , , , , . 65 CHAPTER FIVE DESCRIPTIVE INVENTORY OF EAST RICHMOND . . . . 70 I. Introduction , 70 II. Landscape Analysis Methods , 70 III. Assumptions, , 74 IV. The Visual Management System 75 A. History 75 B. Criticisms of the VMS 76 C. Spallumcheen Valley: A Visual Analysis 77 V. Study Method „ 78 A. Outline of Method 78 B. Conditions and Scope 82 C. Data Sources . , 82 D. "View From the Road" , 83 E. Sensitivity Zones , , , , . . » , . , . , , . , t • 84 1 , North Arm Sensitivity Zone , l t , t 86 2 , Central R,iver Road Sensitivity Zone \ t , t , , t 89 3 , East R,tver Road Sensitivity Zone* 94 4 , Hamilton Sensitivity Zone , , , t t , t . , t ^ , 98 5 , Southeast Dyke Sensitivity Zone t , , , , t t , t 100 Pagea 6, Southeast Industrial Sensitivity Zone , , t . , 103 7, South Arm Sensitivity Zone, , , , t , , , , t , 107 8, Number Six Road Se'nsitiyity Zone I l l 9, Central East Richmond Sensitivity Zone , t , , 114 VI, Summary . . , . , , . , « . , t t « » , , , 120 CHAPTER SIX A HERITAGE CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR EAST RICHMOND. . . . . . 125 I, Summary of the Case Study Rural Landscape. , 125 II, Landscape Quality Objectives for Sensitivity Zones. , 125 III, General Recommendations. , 134 IV, The Role of the Planner 143 Vt Further Study , , . . , 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY 148 APPENDIX 1 153 APPENDIX 2 157 APPENDIX 3 , 159 y i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Land Uses in East Richmond , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , 51 2 Variety Ratings, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 80 3 Summary of Descriptive Inventory ,121, 122 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Paged 1 Landscape of East Richmond (Photograph). , , « , ,. « , » . « 30 2 Landscape of West Richmond (Photograph) , t , , , , , , , . 32 3 Farmhouse on River Road (Photograph) t . . , . , 53 4 New Residential Construction (Photograph) 54 5 ''For Sale" River Road (Photograph) 55 6 "For Sale" Number Eight Road (Photograph) 56 7 "For Sale" Nelson Road (Photograph) « 56 8 East Richmond Dyke, (Photograph) , . t , . , , . . 62 9 Utility Site (Photograph) . . , « . , , , . « . , , . . . . 64 10 Model of Method 78 11 "Industry versus Farms" (Photograph). . . . 87 12 River view: Boats (Photograph) , . 89 13 River view: Log Booms (Photograph) 89 14 River Road: Urban (Photograph) 90 15 River Road: Rural (Photograph) 91 16 River Road: Boats (Photograph) 92 17 River Road: Rotting Boat sheds (Photograph) 92 18 Fishing along the Fraser (Photograph) . . . 93 19 East Richmond Elementary School ( P h o t o g r a p h ) 9 3 20 River Road Forest ( P h o t o g r a p h ) 9 5 21 East Riyer Road Sand Dump (Photograph) t • » * « , * « t t « t « 96 22 Fishing Boats on the South Arm (Photograph) % l , . , t * , 101 23 Cement Plants on the South Arm (Photograph) , t , t . , t t 104 24 Pan Abode ( P h o t o g r a p h ) 1 0 5 i x Ftgure Page 25 Proposed I n d u s t r i a l Park (Photograph) , t t t , t , t , , t , 106 26 Panoramic View of the Fraser River (Photograph) , , , t , . , 108 27 South, Arm Bog (Photograph), , , , , » « t « , t «. . , , , < , 109 28 An E c l e c t i c Landscape (Photograph), t , , t t ,, , ., , . , » , 112 29 Blundell Peat Co, (Photograph), 113 30 New Housing on Number Six Road (Photograph) 113 31 The Central East Richmond Landscape (Photograph). t 115 32 The Ephemeral East Richmond Landscape (Photograph) 116 33 Power Lines Across East Richmond (Photograph) , 117 34 New r e s i d e n t i a l construction i n East Richmond (Photograph). . 118 35 The Keur Barn (Photograph) , . . „ , , 119 36 Old Boat Sheds (Photograph) 127 37 New i n d u s t r i a l buildings along River Road ( P h o t o g r a p h ) . . . . 128 38 Possible Mini-Parks (Photograph) 130 39 An i n t a c t East Richmond farm (Photograph) 132 40 Trees along Westminster Highway (Photograph) 133 41 Planting to screen new r e s i d e n t i a l construction (Photograph).„ 133 42 Planting to screen new r e s i d e n t i a l construction (Photograph). 133 43 Vegetable and F r u i t stand on Westminster Highway(Photograph). 135 44 Screening program for e x i s t i n g commercial and i n d u s t r i a l builda>ngsd:(PihotQgraph),rtTC-":.136 45 Screening program for e x i s t i n g commercial and i n d u s t r i a l buildings (Photograph) , 136 46 Roadside plantings using native plants (Photograph) t , , , , 138 47 R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of an old farmhouse (Photograph) t t t .. , t , 139 48 Suburban^style new home i n East Richmond (Photograph) , t , . 141 X Figure Page 49 D, May family house (Photograph) , , , , , , , , , , t ,, , ,159 50 Savage Holdings Ltd, house ( P h o t o g r a p h ) , 1 5 9 51 G, E, McKay house (Photograph) « , , , , , , , , > , , , , . . ,159 52 N. S« Mahal family, house (Photograph), .160 53 B, Y, Jang family house (Phofograph) 160 54 A. C. Gilmore family house .(Photograph). 160 55 J, Savage family house (Photograph) 161 56 Mitchell Farms Ltd. Marm .(Phonograph) 161 57 T. Devries barn, .(Phonograph) 161 58 G, H. Keur barn (photograph) . , .162 XI LIST OF MAPS '#ap P a 8 e X Study A'JTGS, t t t f t i t ^ t t * . * i * % i •. t ? * « t « « t * 31 2 Vegetation of East Richmond (J-858 - 1880), , , , , t , , , « .34 3 Commercial/Industrial areas of East Richmond , , , . . « . . ,58 4 U t i l i t y Corridor Across East Richmond, . , . . , , . « , . . . 6 3 ' 5 S e n s i t i v i t y Zones of East Richmond , , , 84 6 Richmond T r a i l s Plan Proposal, 140 x i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 would l i k e to acknowledge^the help of my two advisors, Dr, Michael Seelig and Dr t William Rees; Michael Se e l i g ., f or i n s p i r i n g me with the concern f o r the conservation of our heritage; William Rees, f or i n s p i r i n g me with the concern f o r the conservation of writing paper. I would also l i k e to acknowledge three people without whose help and support I might not have f i n i s h e d ; i t i s to these three i n d i v i d u a l s that t h i s thesis i s dedicated: To Doug, who said I should, To Tima, who said I would, And to my mother, who said I could. Chapter One INTRODUCTION I. Goal and Objectives One of the fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of urban and regional planning i s that i t constitutes a comprehensive a n a l y s i s , focussing upon a l l the i n t e r a c t i o n s between man and h i s environment.''' I t , thereby, necessitates the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a complete range of values inherent i n any given area of landscape. Im-p l i c i t i n t h i s i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n goals and objectives which lend toward a f e a s i b l e framework of study. "Either we believe i n the long-term i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of possible goals and the choosing of p o l i c i e s to lead us 2 some way towards them, or the word 'planning' i s a dead l e t t e r . " The fundamental concern of t h i s paper i s to i d e n t i f y and analyze a ser i e s of values, s p e c i f i c a l l y heritage values, within the landscape of a case study area. It i s i n t h i s context that the ultimate goal of t h i s research paper has been reached: To encourage the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and conservation of East Richmond's scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage. The major challenge,herein, i s to devise a heritage inventory of a l l the widely scattered and diverse scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l resources. By t h i s means, i t may be possible to protect these important resources and to maximize t h e i r benefits for the residents of East Richmond. The objectives are e s s e n t i a l l y s i x f o l d : (1) To examine the evolution of the concept of heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes i n order to document heritage conservation's h i s t o r i c a l bases, terms of reference, and scope. 2 (2) To i d e n t i f y the h i s t o r i c a l , p h y s i c a l , and c u l t u r a l development of the study area i n order to provide a basis from which to examine the land-scape. (3) To analyze the v a r i e t y of land uses i n the study area i n order to demonstrate that the majority of aesthetic c o n f l i c t s r e s u l t from competing urban and r u r a l land uses. (4) To develop a means by which i t i s possible to inventory the heritage resources of the study area with scenic, c u l t u r a l , or h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . (5) To posi t various conservation recommendations based on data obtained from the d e s c r i p t i v e inventory i n order to maintain or enhance the heritage resources of the study area. (6) To examine the r o l e of the planner i n heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes. I I . Problem Statement The c e n t r a l problem of t h i s research i s to develop a means by which an a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape's heritage, including the scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r -i c a l aspects of that heritage, can be e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d . Once the h e r i -tage of the landscape has been i d e n t i f i e d , the problem then becomes one of how the heritage can be conserved while allowing necessary urban and r u r a l development to continue. Underlying the ce n t r a l problems of t h i s thesis i s a la r g e r conceptual problem which can broadly be defined as the public's i n a b i l i t y to comprehend the f u l l value of r u r a l landscapes. This has resulted i n the present lopsided 3 approach to r u r a l conservation. In a Province as economically, geograph- .=> i c a l l y , c u l t u r a l l y , and s o c i a l l y diverse as B r i t i s h Columbia, the r u r a l land-3 scape provides a r i c h heritage f o r future generations. Yet, the r u r a l landscape has received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a t tention. While there has been serious concern f o r B r i t i s h Columbia's dwindling a g r i c u l t u r a l resources since 4 the early 1970's, the primary focus of conservation has been an economic ra t i o n a l e which considers only the present and future production c a p a b i l i t i e s of the r u r a l landscape. The a v a i l a b l e comment on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r u r a l landscape as a c u l t u r a l , scenic, or h i s t o r i c resource has been met only with weak or i n d i r e c t responses. Part of the purpose of t h i s research i s to make the public more aware of the f u l l value of the a g r i c u l t u r a l landscapes around them. I I I . Rationale f o r Heritage Conservation Heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes i s based on a s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l need to maintain our a g r i c u l t u r a l landscapes as open spaces, pre-serving and enhancing the land, b u i l d i n g s , and structures f o r the benefit of future generations. Heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes serves a dual purpose: i t increases the public's awareness of some of the intangible benefits of the r u r a l landscapes around them (clean a i r , open green spaces, old buildings, r u r a l l i f e s t y l e s ) ; i t o f f e r s an opportunity f o r urban residents "t'o look at and otherwise enjoy now and i n the future ""' the r u r a l landscapes around them. T r a d i t i o n a l r u r a l conservation attempts based on economic or productive r a t i o n a l e s are generally unable to deal with the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l needs to r e t a i n and enhance our r u r a l environments, concentrating on preserving only the land i t s e l f , with the end r e s u l t being that the heritage of the r u r a l environment i s often overlooked or destroyed. 4 IV. Need for t h i s Research In the f i e l d of heritage conservation, generally, there i s a c r i t i c a l > need for mmofe research; a need to i d e n t i f y heritage resources of r u r a l communities and to protect them from continuously encroaching urban uses. The resources of r u r a l communities are being a l t e r e d d a i l y and the s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l l i n k s with the past are being o b l i t e r a t e d , destroy-ing the r e l a t i o n s h i p man once shared with the land and a l i e n a t i n g him from the environment i n which he l i v e s . In e f f e c t , t h i s s i t u a t i o n flows d i r e c t l y from the problem (discussed under. Problem Statement) of the lack of awareness on the part of the public regarding the heritage values i n t h e i r r u r a l land-scapes and, i n turn, t h i s lack of action or protest regarding t h e i r changes. This paper attempts to f i l l the need to i d e n t i f y the heritage values of a r u r a l landscape which, to date, has been overlooked by the p u b l i c , p o l i t i c i a n s and administrators. By bringing to l i g h t these values, perhaps the increased public awareness w i l l stop, or, at l e a s t , modify the rapid change which has marred the landscape. There i s also a need i n heritage conservation to develop a framework from which a l l aspects of heritage may be analyzed. To date, no such frame-work exi s t s f o r , t r a d i t i o n a l l y , heritage conservation concentrated on the h i s t o r i c aspect of heritage. In the area of East Richmond, s p e c i f i c a l l y , there i s a very r e a l need for research i n the f i e l d of heritage conservation since the study area has recently been subject to extensive urbanization. During the 1960's and 1970's, Richmond was the s i t e of much r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l development, though i t was l a r g e l y confined to West Richmond. Because of the ever- ' increasing population and demand for i n d u s t r i a l space, the land i n West 5 Richmond i s currently at a premium. The vast farmland of East Richmond i s now the target of developers. Even within the l a s t two months, two major projects have been announced by senior l e v e l s of government which w i l l s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t Richmond's remaining farmland. Further development w i l l continue i n the study area without concern for i t s aesthetic and f u n c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u n t i l a r a d i c a l change i n s t r a t -egy i s made. My paper intends to i d e n t i f y the heritage components of the landscape and to point out d i r e c t i v e s i n order to protect them. V. Method The s p e c i f i c methods used i n t h i s research are as follows: (1) A survey of the a v a i l a b l e material relevant to heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes. (2) An analysis of the case study area's land base, including i t s phys i c a l , c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l development as well as i t s past and present land uses. (3) A review of the changing perception of land use and land value which p r e c i p i t a t e d the development of heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes. (4) A v i s u a l survey of the case study area's landscape for a one year period. (5) A d e s c r i p t i v e inventory of the landscape's major scenic, c u l t u r a l , and h i s t o r i c a l features. (6) A seri e s of recommendations, based on the d e s c r i p t i v e inventory, to protect, maintain or enhance the r u r a l landscape's heritage. The case study method has been adopted for the purposes of t h i s paper i n order to comprehensively investigate an e x i s t i n g r u r a l landscape with respect to i t s heritage components. A scenic heritage analysis technique has been used i n order to f u l l y inventory these scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l components. VI. D e f i n i t i o n s As the f i e l d of heritage conservation has changed and expanded, some confusion and contradiction'.has emerged with respect to c e r t a i n terms. To assure a clear understanding of the basic vocabulary, d e f i n i t i o n s are following: "Heritage" - r e f e r s to objects, b u i l d i n g s , s i t e s or landscapes of c u l t u r a l , scenic, or h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to the l o c a l area, municipality, region, province or nation. "Resource" - r e f e r s to the c o l l e c t i v e means possessed by any area f o r i t s own support or defense; a stock org reserve upon which one can draw when necessary. "Preservation" - r e f e r s to the protection of an area from i n j u r y or destruction; includes methods such as reconstruction and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n order^to preserve former appearance and/or function. "Conservation" - Conservation, unlike preservation, i s based on p r i n c i p a l s .-. and p o l i c i e s of resource management. While for some, conservation may be synonymous with preservation, conservation presents a more com-promise view, recognizing the resource and e c o l o g i -c a l l i m i t s , accepting the need for s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l realism, concerning i t s e l f with long-term rather than short-term acti o n , and r e a l i z i n g that the v a r i a b i l i t y of the whole i s not necessar-i l y dependent on the s u r v i v a l " o f one part. Conservation i s concerned with ACTION rather than no action; i n most case i t implies p o s i t i v e USE rather than s t e r i l i z a t i o n or preservation i n a museum-like way. Conservation thus implies a preparedness to accept some, and possibly c o n s i d - ^ erable, change i n resources and/or t h e i r context. "Rural" - r e f e r s to an area which has t r a d i t i o n a l country, pastoral or a g r i c u l t u r a l connotations. In the context of t h i s research t h i s term is i i n t e r -changeable with ' a g r i c u l t u r a l . ' 7 'Landscape" - Landscapes are distinguished as s p a t i a l e n t i t i e s possessing d i s t i n c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which divide them from the greater, u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d environ-ment ... and which are encapsulated as mental images i n the experience of the observer. These d e f i n i t i o n s come from a v a r i e t y of sources, mostly American and B r i t i s h . Although i t would be more desirable to employ Canadian d e f i n i t i o n s , there has yet to be commonly accepted standard d e f i n i t i o n s of terms proposed for Canada. VII. Outline of Organization The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to develop a means to i d e n t i f y and inven-tory the scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c heritage of a r u r a l landscape, employ-ing the case study method. For t h i s purpose, the r e s t of t h i s research i s divided into f i v e chapters. The second chapter discusses the t h e o r e t i c a l concepts behind heritage conservation, analyzing the development of heritage conservation as well as considering the concepts of beauty, aesthetics and land value i n landscape. The third- chapter introduces the case study area, tra c i n g the landscape's h i s t o r y and development. The fourthchapter d i s s e c t s the landscape i n terms of i t s land uses, focusing on the aesthetic and func-t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s that r e s u l t from urban and r u r a l land uses i n proximity to one another. The f i f t h chapter sets f o r t h the method used i n the research, that of the d e s c r i p t i v e inventory approach. Before the s p e c i f i c method i s applied i n the case study area, the h i s t o r i c a l development of the method i s traced, i t s advantages and l i m i t a t i o n s i n comparison to other scenic landscape analyses are noted, and recent applications are examined. The s i x t h and f i n a l chapter, using the scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l information obtained from the d e s c r i p t i v e inventory, proposes various conservation s t r a t e g i e s , o u t l i n i n g 8 recommendations i n d e t a i l as to how these st r a t e g i e s can be developed i n order to maintain or enhance the heritage of the landscape. The conclusion examines the r o l e of the planner i n r e l a t i o n to the heritage conservation of r u r a l areas. 9 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER ONE C.S. H o l l i n g and M. Goldberg, "Ecology and Planning," Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planning, July, 1971. 2 G. Ashworth, "Natural Resources and the Future Shape of B r i t a i n , " The Planner, Vol. 60(7) July/August 1974, c i t e d by.J.Davidson and G.Wibberley, Planning and the Rural Environment (Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1977), p. 212. 3 Lopsided planning i s defined as planning which considers only the economic value of a g r i c u l t u r a l land. 4 Eventually r e s u l t i n g i n one of North America's strongest a g r i c u l t u r a l conservation l e g i s l a t i o n — the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. ^ J . Davidson and G. Wibberley, Planning and the Rural Environment (Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1977), p. 90. ^The P r o v i n c i a l government announced on February 20, 1980, that i t w i l l undertake the construction of another bridge across the South Arm of the Fraser River, l i n k i n g Richmond, Vancouver, and New Westminster to the south-Lern m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of the region. While the bridge, i t s e l f , may not serious-l y disrupt the remaining farmland of the study area, the increased access that i t w i l l provide to the farmland w i l l heighten pressure to develop portions of the area as commercial and i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s . The Federal Government;, who owns the Richmond l a n d f i l l on the South Arm of the Fraser River, recently announced that a plan to develop the s i t e as a large i n d u s t r i a l park i s under review. I f t h i s presently i n a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n i s developed, i t w i l l require m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s to upgrade access to the s i t e , and, more importantly, w i l l cut across farmland, further sub-d i v i d i n g i t into even smaller units of land which might not be economically f e a s i b l e to farm. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t w i l l l i k e l y destroy one of Richmond's l a s t remaining peat bogs. ^Adapted from the d e f i n i t i o n of heritage i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Heritage Conservation Act. g H. W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, eds., The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford!: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964) 9 Adapted from the d e f i n i t i o n of preservation used by the U.S. National Trust For H i s t o r i c Preservation. Davidson and Wibberley, op. c i t . , p. 71. i : L I b i d . Landscape Research Group, Symposium on Land Use and Landscape Quality, University of Reading, March, 1971, p. 11.3. 11 Chapter Two THE EVOLUTION OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION I. Background The concept'of heritage i s now f a m i l i a r to most of us. Yet, i f one reviews the a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e , the scope and nature of heritage v a r i e s widely. The l i t e r a t u r e has l a r g e l y concentrated on h i s t o r i c a l aspects of the heritage of old buildings and objects. However, according to the d e f i n i t i o n of heritage set f o r t h i n Chapter One, 'heritage' includes objects, bui l d i n g s , s i t e s or landscapes of c u l t u r a l , scenic or h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to the l o c a l area, municipality, province or nation. Often, the l i t e r a t u r e , while attempting to be comprehensive i n nature, concentrates on only one aspect of heritage. The terms 'heritage' and ' h i s t o r i c ' are usually thought to be synonymous, with both evoking an image of a p a r t i c u l a r b u i l d i n g or structure associated with an important person, i n s t i t u t i o n or event i n history.''' More recently, buildings or groups of buildings of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e were deemed as heritage because of the unique b u i l d i n g materials, b u i l d i n g technique, or 2 s t y l e employed i n construction, or because of the prominence of the a r c h i t e c t . The a s s o c i a t i v e and a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t e r i a are both c u l t u r a l and, to some extent, h i s t o r i c a l i n character. I t i s on the basis of these two c r i t e r i a that the majority of our heritage has been selected. Yet, these two c r i t e r i a are unable to deal with those objects, b u i l d i n g s , and e s p e c i a l l y s i t e s and landscapes, which are part of our heritage p r i m a r i l y because of t h e i r scenic s i g n i f i c a n c e . In the l a s t decade, we have been moving toward a more compre-12 hensive concept of heritage conservation which takes into consideration the t o t a l environment. " I t i s only i n the t o t a l environment that we can assess the aesthetic q u a l i t i e s of a PARTICULAR place, a PARTICULAR view, a PARTICULAR landscape." 3 U n t i l the 1940's, the major focus i n heritage conservation i n North America was the " i s o l a t e d jewels of buildings and s i t e s where thunderously 4 important h i s t o r i c a l events took place." Eventually, concern spread to buildings and d i s t r i c t s of exceptional a r c h i t e c t u r a l value. Heritage move-ments started i n several North American c i t i e s i n the 1950's and 1960's, preserving whole areas of c i t i e s f o r t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r a l or h i s t o r i c values.^ However, c i t i e s soon ran out of these 'jewels' of buildings and d i s t r i c t s . Gradually, i n t e r e s t i n g buildings and d i s t r i c t s became more varied; heritage conservation no longer focuse.d s o l e l y on important commercial buildings and r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Buildings and d i s t r i c t s became s i g n i f i c a n t not only for t h e i r h i s t o r i c and a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s , but "...also f o r the sense of time, place and community they ... provide for changing communities." The development of heritage landscape conservation rode "...the c o a t t a i l s of a r c h i t e c t u r a l conservancy to the mutual benefit to both."^ Yet, the focus remained p r i m a r i l y on the buildings and structures; the landscape was viewed merely as an adjunct to the bu i l d i n g s . The concept of landscapes having heritage value, i n and of themselves, did not evolve u n t i l knowledge of the environmental, s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of open spaces had grown s u b s t a n t i a l l y . This knowledge depended on advances i n psychology, sociology, ecology and geography. The environmental movement also played an important r o l e i n the development of heritage conservation of r u r a l areas as we know i t today. 13 "Conservation, as a movement, developed i n the l a t e nine-teenth century i n response to the environmental destruction and waste of natural resources generated by uncontrolled p r o f i t taking. I t became a process for sound sustained y i e l d management of resources, amenities and development ac t i o n . " An i n t e r e s t i n the conservation of selected aspects of Canadian heritage developed as early as the 1880's. In Canada, as i n the United States, t h i s concern was directed toward the dwindling number of wilderness areas. In 1885, the Federal Government created National Parks at .Jasper and Banff, s e t t i n g aside for public use and enjoyment some of the most picturesque landscapes i n Canada. The government of the time f e l t that wilderness land-scapes were quickly disappearing and that steps were necessary to prevent further destruction. While these landscapes would not be considered wilder-ness per se by today's s t r i c t e c o l o g i c a l standards (where wilderness i s defined as a landscape t o t a l l y devoid of man's infl u e n c e ) , the i n i t i a l conser-vation movement i n Canada was marked by concern toward r e l a t i v e l y untouched, remote areas. Wilderness has long been associated with the North American l i f e s t y l e , holding a c e r t a i n a t t r a c t i o n which has been r e f l e c t e d i n our l i t e r a t u r e , music and a r t . The f i r s t true North American l i t e r a t u r e dealt p r i m a r i l y with man's struggle i n the wilderness; early country music and f o l k song roman-t i c i z e d the struggle; turn-of-the-century art attempted to portray both the immensity of the North American landscape and i t s foreboding, untamed nature. "The a t t r i b u t e s most d i s t i n c t i v e of America and Americans are due to the 9 impression of the wilderness and the l i f e that accompanied i t . " Gradually, the emphasis of conservation s h i f t e d from wilderness areas to include areas which had undergone some form of modification by man. Yet, while heritage conservation of landscapes resulted from a c e r t a i n amount of 14 ' t a i l g a t i n g ' the environmental movement, the two movements have remained separate. "They (ecology and environmental movements) do not seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y interested i n such e s o t e r i c ideas as b u i l d -ing new ecologies at the i n t e r f a c e between man and nature. Yet,only through sYgh ideas can a new and more b e a u t i f u l landscape emerge." At the same time as the environmental movement was gaining i n importance, the growing i n t e r e s t i n our c u l t u r a l 'roots,' or i d e n t i t y , was becoming a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the development of heritage conservation. The t o t a l f a b r i c of the landscape i s complete only when the c u l t u r a l l i n k s with the past have been established. "Indeed, we should think of the landscape as a document, l i k e ra book or an oration, or a code of laws. When properly 'read' the landscape establishes a dramatic sense of continuity with the past." Thus, t h i s c u l t u r a l l i n k with the past that landscape provides, together with the landscape's scenic, h i s t o r i c and environmental a t t r i b u t e s , form the basis upon which the heritage conservation of landscapes emerged. However, the state of heritage conservation philosophy as re l a t e d to the landscape i s 12 i n i t s infancy. While recent trends are encouraging a broader approach to heritage conservation, which would include scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l aspects of the landscape, the focus of heritage groups and the l i t e r a t u r e remains on buildings and structures i n urban areas. Even i n the National Parks programme, which i s one of the primary instruments through which land-scapes have been considered as heritage i n the past, "...the conservancy of 13 heritage landscapes has received attention but only i n token ways." In sum, the evolution of he'ritage conservation, from the protection of 15 Individual buildings to the protection of e n t i r e landscapes, resulted from broader a r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l concerns, from the growing environmental movement as well as changing concepts of land value and land use. The h e r i -tage appreciation for landscapes also emerged from the new regard accorded the t o t a l environment, " I t i s the t o t a l environment of a d i s t r i c t — i t s b u i l d i n g s , settings, uses, mixes of people — that now count rather than merely the appearance of the b u i l d i n g s , and the text-book information on t h e i r h i s t o r y . " I I . Heritage Conservation of Rural Landscapes rRural conservation' as used here i s the "...protection of the country-side and includes the preservation of buildings and v i l l a g e s of c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , the protection of the surrounding open space, and the enhance-ment of the l o c a l economy and s o c i a l institutions."'''"' In short, heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the t o t a l environment or ' f a b r i c ' . This i s best exemplified by means of four inseparable p r i n c i p l e s : "...(1) preserving a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t b u i l d i n g s , structures, and v i l l a g e s i n t e g r a l to the countryside; (2) protecting the countryside i t s e l f ; (3) encouraging compatible economic development that can assure the v i a b i l -i t y of r u r a l areas, and (4) promoting thg well-being of the present population of these areas." The concern i n heritage conservation for the t o t a l environment appears to be s i m i l a r to what can broadly be defined as comprehensive planning. Un-fortunately, l i t t l e has been attempted i n the way of e i t h e r comprehensive planning or heritage conservation of r u r a l landscapes. Comprehensive planning i n the r u r a l environment i s s t i l l i n the i n i t i a l stage; the emphasis of planning having t r a d i t i o n a l l y been on the urban centres. Rural environments 16 were thought to be analagous to urban environments and r u r a l planners employed urban planning tools such as zoning or land use contracts. "Being anchored i n the t r a d i t i o n of c i t y planning, i t ( r u r a l planning) tends to focus on the phy s i c a l development of a community and thus i s reduced to a kind of sector planning, i . e . planning for land u s e s . " ^ Yet, a g r i c u l t u r a l areas have a multitude of i n t a n g i b l e land uses (not j u s t one man-assigned land function) which are not generally taken into account. While the intent of r u r a l planning i s to be comprehensive, " i n p r a c t i c e i t i s l i m i t e d to land use and p h y s i c a l 18 i n f r a s t r u c t u r e planning." I t i s now recognized that r u r a l areas are very much d i f f e r e n t from urban areas, requiring more f l e x i b l e and imaginative planning techniques "...which focus on how a c t i v i t i e s are c a r r i e d out on the 19 land and not on what the a c t i v i t i e s are." Rural planners have f a i l e d to keep pace with the t e c h n i c a l and p h i l o -sophical developments i n urban planning and, to some extent, natural resource planning. In p a r t i c u l a r , they have r e s i s t e d attempts to analyze systematically 20 inta n g i b l e elements of the r u r a l environment. Whereas there have been s i g n i f i c a n t urban studies which attempt to explore urban values, r u r a l areas continue to be evaluated s o l e l y i n terms of t h e i r economic value. S i m i l a r l y , i n heritage conservation, techniques which have been developed to protect heritage i n urban areas have been applied to r u r a l environments with only l i m i t e d success. The emphasis i n heritage conservation i n the past has been on the PRESERVATION of heritage, using techniques developed for heritage protection i n urban areas, such as r e s t o r a t i o n and reconstruction, which protect and preserve onlv the p h y s i c a l environment. Nowhere have the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the heritage with i t s environment and with i t s past, present, and possible future functions been considered. This had l e d to two h i s t o r i c trends i n heritage conservation: 17 (1) 'Museumization' of heritage, where the p h y s i c a l i n t e g r i t y was maintained, but the f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r i t y was severely a f f e c t e d . (2) The l o c a t i o n a l l y random s e l e c t i o n of heritage objects, buildings and s i t e s without consideration of t h e i r s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with other heritage and natural features and the b u i l t environment. Heritage conservation of the r u r a l environment must stress these i n t e r -r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the elements of the b u i l t environment, including, but not being l i m i t e d to heritage, the population, and the natural environment. One of the goals of heritage conservation i n a r u r a l environment i s to maintain or enhance the a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses while promoting higher l e v e l s of use by the general p u b l i c . However, except for very recent e f f o r t s i n the eastern United States, t h i s objective has not been r e a l i z e d . The f a i l u r e r e s u l t s from planners adopting urban heritage techniques, s p e c i f i c a l l y preservation techniques, f o r use i n r u r a l areas. In the r u r a l environment, s t r i c t preservation techniques, which do not allow for modification of the object, b u i l d i n g , or landscape, are generally inoperable. The preservation of a l l farmland i s not a r e a l i s t i c p o l i c y given today's growing population and i t s burgeoning demand for land; urban development cannot be stopped i n a g r i c u l t u r a l areas i n order to preserve the heritage values of r u r a l landscapes. "The countryside i s not an i n e r t composition l i k e a painted' p i c t u r e , but a l i v i n g e n t i t y which cannot survive as a museumpiece." At the same time, the changes that have taken place i n our r u r a l landscapes, at such a rapid pace, do not allow the necessary planning to preserve h i s t o r i c c u l t u r a l or scenic a t t r i b u t e s . Urban land uses have r a p i d l y replaced a g r i -c u l t u r a l land uses; i n d u s t r i a l buildings have replaced barns; cars have replaced cows. In the future, man w i l l l i k e l y continue to disturb the a g r i c u l t u r a l 18 landscape either by replacing i t completely with urban land uses or by continuing to p o l l u t e i t , pave i t , surround i t , or ignore i t . Once change has been accepted as i n e v i t a b l e , then clear strategies may be designed i n order to protect the farmland's remaining productive v i a b i l i t y as well as to ensure that the landscape's inherent scenic, c u l t u r a l , and h i s t o r i c a l a t t r i b u t e s or values are not t o t a l l y destroyed. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , conservation measures based on an economic or productive r a t i o n a l e have been employed to protect farmland, however, a d d i t i o n a l conser-vation measures are needed to protect other, l e s s tangible, aspects of the r u r a l areas. To ignore such a t t r i b u t e s i s to debase a part of ourselves. For, "to move through such a countryside i s to experience a mirror of our-selves, a witness to our i d e n t i t y , to see continuity with our past, to touch 22 our heritage." I l l . Legislative-Responses to Heritage Conservation In Canada, under the provisions of the B r i t i s h North America Act, the j u r i s d i c t i o n over heritage conservation i s i m p l i c i t l y delegated to the p r o v i n c i a l governments. While there i s no s p e c i f i c mention of heritage i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n , several sections make i t c l e a r that heritage f a l l s within p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n : 1. S. 92(13) gives the p r o v i n c i a l government the j u r i s d i c t i o n over Property and C i v i l r i g h t s i n the province thereby allowing the province, or the municipal delgates, the authority to l e g i s l a t e property and i t s use. 2. S. 92(15) a l l o c a t e s the function of "the imposition of punishment by 23 Fine, Penalty or Imprisonment f o r enforcing any law of the Province" to the province thereby allowing the l e g i s l a t u r e , or i t s municipal delgate, not 19 only to l e g i s l a t e on matters concerning property, which includes heritage, but also to impose punishment for offenses against the l e g i s l a t i o n or by-laws. 3. S. 92(16) gives the province the r i g h t to govern over "generally 2 A a l l matters of a merely l o c a l or private nature i n the Province." The only d i r e c t l e g i s l a t i v e response to heritage conservation i n 25 B r i t i s h Columbia was passed on August 18, 1977. The Heritage Conservation Act gave the province, or m u n i c i p a l i t i e s therein, the power to designate land (or buildings or s i t e s ) as heritage. While the purpose of the Act i s "...to encourage and f a c i l i t a t e the protection and conservation of heritage property 26 i n the Province," conservation of landscapes, s p e c i f i c a l l y conservation of r u r a l landscapes, has remained a low p r i o r i t y . To date, the main focus of the Heritage Conservation Branch, which was set up i n 1977 to administer the provisions of the Act , has been on urban heritage, e s p e c i a l l y buildings and 27 s i t e s of h i s t o r i c a l or c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Thus, while we, i n B r i t i s h Columbia, have the l e g i s l a t i o n and the research c a p a b i l i t y ( i n the form of the Heritage Conservation Branch research s t a f f ) , our r u r a l landscapes con-tinue to be l a r g e l y ignored for t h e i r heritage values. While the Heritage Conservation Act has been i n e f f e c t f o r two and one h a l f years, the actual number of buildings designated as heritage has, i n f a c t , declined from that i n previous years!' This decline does not so much represent a dwindling i n t e r e s t i n heritage but, rather, represents h e s i t a t i o n the part of-municipal governments to designate heritage under the provisions of the Act which c a l l f o r a d i s c r e t i o n a r y compensation to be paid to owners i f the value of t h e i r property diminishes once i t has been so designated. Where a municipal council designates a b u i l d i n g , structure or lands as heritage and t h i s designation decreases the economic value of the b u i l d i n g , structure or land, "the cou n c i l may, by by-law, provide a grant, loan, tax 28 r e l i e f , or other compensation to the owner-," which " s h a l l be deemed f u l l 29 and f a i r compensation for loss or damage..." The municipal governments are reticent", to designate buildings or structures, l e t alone landscapes, as heritage because they are f e a r f u l that the owners of the s i t e s w i l l claim massive amounts for ' f u l l and f a i r ' compensation. These claims f or compensa-t i o n r e s u l t from the owners' perceptions of heritage designation as a measure which reduces t h e i r freedom to do with the land what they wish and, thereby, reduces the value of t h e i r land. In addition, and perhaps moreimportantly, r u r a l landscapes have not received much conservation attention i n B r i t i s h Columbia because the public generally believes that t h e i r r u r a l landscapes are being conserved under the provisions of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. The Act was based on a p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y of preservation of farmland for present and future prod-uction values of the land. Yet, the l e g i s l a t i o n also includes provisions f or 30 the general preservation of farms, which can be interpreted as including heritage value of farms and farmland. In 1975, when the present administation came to power i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the t i t l e and wording of the l e g i s l a t i o n , as well as the scope of the Commission was a l t e r e d . While the changes i n the l e g i s l a t i o n did not a f f e c t the wording of the aforementioned provisions, they did s h i f t the emphasis to s t r i c t l y ' a g r i c u l t u r a l ' land, hence, the r e v i s i o n i n name from the 'Land Commission Act' to the ' A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act'. These changes c u r t a i l e d the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission's budding i n t e r e s t s i n r u r a l heritage conservation completely. Conservation l e g i s l a t i o n based on a productive incentive simply cannot be employed to conserve areas for heritage r a t i o n a l e . While the Land 21 Commission'has the p o t e n t i a l to expand i t s r o l e i n r u r a l heritage, the present Commission cannot adequately deal with the complexity of the scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage values. " E x i s t i n g regulatory controls cannot protect the c u l t u r a l landscape e f f e c t i v e l y since they were designed to protect other values •— s o c i a l , economic,, or e c o l o g i c a l . Secur-ing amenity benefits from e x i s t i n g controls i s at best a stop-gap, f o r c e d - f i t procedure that does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e protecting - perceptual, sensed q u a l i t i e s from functional^ or e c o l o g i c a l q u a l i t i e s . " IV. Rationale for Rural Conservation Rural landscapes possess a v a r i e t y of values. In the past however, r u r a l landscapes have been valued s o l e l y on the basis of an economic r a t i o n a l e . Most conservation p o l i c i e s have been based on the economic value of the land, or, more p r e c i s e l y , on the productive or non-productive value of the land. However, conservation of r u r a l landscapes has three major r a t i o n a l e categories, not simply one, upon which conservation may be based: the economic, the e c o l o g i c a l , and the aesthetic (which includes s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , psychological and h i s t o r i c a l values). The economic r a t i o n a l e f o r r u r a l conservation may be categorized into three d i s t i n c t p r i n c i p l e s : (1) The value of the farmland i n the production of marketable goods and services i s the most obvious f a c t o r i n the economic r a t i o n a l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y given the many a g r i c u l t u r a l assets as well as other a g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d uses such as horse stables, r i f l e ranges, golf p r a c t i c e ranges,etc. "Values associated with these economic goods and services are obvious, they are items that enter into the marketplace and provide a return to the farmer, and, as 32 such, confer value on the farmland and the farm assets generally." 22 02) The close connections between a g r i c u l t u r e and other sectors of the economy are further dimensions of the economic r a t i o n a l e . In a province such 33 as B r i t i s h Columbia, where two out of f i f t e e n : workers (thirteen per cent) are employed i n a g r i c u l t u r e or a g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d i n d u s t r i e s , the state of the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry can a f f e c t the economy of the en t i r e province. Therefore, any s i g n i f i c a n t decline i n the amount of a g r i c u l t u r a l land without a corresponding increase i n production can r e s u l t not only i n s t e a d i l y increas-ing food imports but, because of these l i n k s with other sectors of the economy, can also r e s u l t i n dramatic repercussions throughout the enti r e economy. (3) Further, i t has recently been recognized that there i s a measurable economic value of the land as a factor of a g r i c u l t u r a l production i n the future. In B r i t i s h Columbia, the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, r e l y i n g on objective s o i l , climate and vegetation data, determined a g r i c u l t u r a l reserves with t h i s future p o t e n t i a l i n mind. The economic r a t i o n a l e has predominated as the primary basis for most conservation p o l i c i e s . However, as Aldo Leopold has suggested, there i s a fundamental flaw with the economic r a t i o n a l e f o r conservation: "A system of conservation based s o l e l y on economic s e l f -i n t e r e s t i s hopelessly lopsided. I t tends to ienore. and thus eventually eliminate many elements of the land commun-i t y that lack commercial value, but are (as f^ar as we know) e s s e n t i a l to i t s healthv functioning. 1 1 The second r a t i o n a l e f o r conservation i s based upon the p r i n c i p l e s of ecoloev. E c o l o a i s t s have lone recoenized that the a g r i c u l t u r a l areas con-t r i b u t e f a r more to an e c o l o g i c a l 'balance' than urban areas. The e c o l o g i c a l values of a g r i c u l t u r a l areas include groundwater recharge, reducing runoff (and therefore reducing flooding problems), f i l t e r i n g and absorbing large 23 amounts of p a r t i c u l a t e and gaseous p o l l u t a n t s , v e n t i l a t i n g adjacent urban areas, as well as providing habitat for w i l d l i f e and birds i n the open f i e l d s and edges. 35 The aesthetic r a t i o n a l e i s based on three e s o t e r i c ideas : (1) objects, buil d i n g s , landscapes, etc. should be conserved because they e x i s t (which i s a c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l r a t i o n a l e — i . e . they have survived the elements and man's interference, therefore they are s i g n i f i c a n t by the very fa c t that they are s t i l l here); (2) objects, bui l d i n g s , landscapes, etc. should be conserved because they represent a r i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and l i v i n g things (which i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e l i g i o u s r a t i o n a l e ) , and (3) objects, buil d i n g s , landscapes, etc. should be conserved because they give opportun-i t i e s f o r r i c h e r experiences (which i s the foundation for the educative r a t i o n a l e ) . The conservation dilemma i s that these non-economic, d i f f i c u l t to quantify 'aesthetic' r a t i o n a l e s f o r conservation have, to date, l a r g e l y been ignored, with each conservation attempt s t i l l having to be j u s t i f i e d i n economic terms. V. Beauty i n Landscape There has never been a consensus as to what natural beauty or aesthetics 3 6 a c t u a l l y i s . What may appear b e a u t i f u l to one person, may appear ordinary to another; what appears diverse and i n t e r e s t i n g to one person may appear c l u t t e r e d and unorganized to another, and so on. "There can be no objective, interpersonal intergroup value i n landscape. Nor can there be any objective, 37 interpersonal, intergroup determination of what i s natural beauty." If beauty i n landscape i s defined i n terms of our i n t u i t i v e and emotion-a l enjoyment of landscape, the concept of beauty changes over time and with ; 24 the mores of the cult u r e . While i n t h i s century North Americans have come to appreciate and cherish wilderness areas, raw nature was condemned by 38 early North Americans, The form and content of beauty derives not only from the subject but also from the spectator, including "the inherent p h y s i o l o g i c a l , emotionale, and psychological makeup of the observer; the rel a t i o n s h i p s between the observer and society; the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the 39 observer and the objects," I f we have a multitude of observers each with t h e i r own perceptions of the landscape, based on previous experiences, person-40 a l values, s o c i a l and economic well-being, and future expectations, c l e a r l y , i t i s impossible to incorporate a l l of these perceptions into a landscape a n a l y s i s . Instead, the researcher must attempt to f a i r l y repres-/, • 41 ent the varying perceptions of the t y p i c a l observers. I t becomes evident that no matter how many attempts are made to approach the question of the beauty of any given landscape, the evaluation must necessa r i l y be subjective. This i s not an apology, but rather, a statement of f a c t . 25 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER TWO ^The number of i l l u s t r a t i o n s of t h i s kind of heritage are endless: George Washington's house at Mount Vernon, the Carnegie l i b r a r y and Chri s t Church cathedral i n Vancouver, etc, 2 Again, the l i s t of these buildings or structures i s endless: The Vancouver Hotel, the old P r o v i n c i a l courthouse, homes i n Oak Park (Chicago) designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, etc. 3 J. Appleton, The Experience of Landscape, (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1975), p, 243. 4 Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Committee, Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Proposed  H i s t o r i c Preservation Program, (an unpublished d r a f t ) , Chapter IV, p. 3. ^The r e s u l t s of t h i s early movement i n North America are s t r i k i n g l y evident: Beacon H i l l i n Boston, Vieux Carre i n New Orleans, Pioneer Square i n Seattle, o l d Montreal, Cabbagetown i n Toronto, Gastown i n Vancouver, etc. ^Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Committee, I b i d . , p.5. In the early 1970's, the f i g h t to save the Birk's b u i l d i n g i n downtown Vancouver t y p i f i e d t h i s emerging broader heritage concern. The general public r a l l i e d behind the cause of preserving a b u i l d i n g that was neither an a r c h i t e c t u r a l masterpiece, nor was i t associated with any p a r t i c u l a r person, group or event of note, (except, of course, with the commercial establishment from which the b u i l d i n g got i t s name — the Birk's jewelry company) But rather the Birk's b u i l d i n g was one of the l a s t remaining important vestages of the old commercial centre of Vancouver and, as such, was worthy of saving f o r i t s place i n the develop-ment of Vancouver's commercial core. ^ J . J . Stewart, "Canada's Landscape Heritage," Landscape Planning, Vol. 6, No. 2, August, 1979, p. 221. g G. Eckbo, " Q u a l i t a t i v e Values i n the Landscape," Landscape Assessment, ed. E.R.Zube (Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975), p. 34. 9 Aldo Leopold as c i t e d by Roderick'Nash i n " Q u a l i t a t i v e Land,Values: The H i s t o r i c a l ^ P e r s p e c t i v e , " ^Landscape Assessment, ed. E. R. Zube (Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975), p. 11. •^Eckbo, l o c . c i t . Nash, op. c i t . , p. 16. 26 12 Stewart, op. c i t . , p. 221. 1 3 T V , Ibid, 14 Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Committee, op. c i t . , p. 5. "^National Trust for H i s t o r i c Preservation, "Fact Sheet: Rural P r o j e c t , " Printed by the Mid-Atlantic F i e l d O f f i c e of the National Trust for H i s t o r i c Preservation, p, 1. 1 6 l b i d . , p. 2. "^ M. A. Qadeer, "Issues and Approaches of Rural Community Planning i n Canada," Plan Canada, V o l . 19, No. 2, (June, 1979), p. 113. 18 I b i d . , p. 114. 19 Ibid. , p. 115. 20 J. Davidson and G. Wibberley, Planning and the Rural Environment, (Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1977), p.188. 21 N. Fairbrother, New Lives, New Landscapes, (New York: A l f r e d A Knopf, 1970), p. 5. 22 Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Committee, op. c i t . , p. 39. 23 B r i t i s h North America Act, S. 92(15). 24 B r i t i s h North America Act, S. 92(16) 25 P r i o r to the passing of the present Heritage Conservation Act, heritage conservation was.entwined with the planning section i n the Municipal Act, where any planning t o o l delegated to the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s could be used to pro-tect heritage within the municipality. Thus, even i f B r i t i s h Columbia did not have s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n dealing with heritage conservation, the municipal-i t i e s would s t i l l be able to enact strong conservation measures under the Municipal Act. 26 . B r i t i s h Columbia Heritage Conservation Act, S. 1, Statement of purpose, (1977) 27 While recent discussions with Branch d i r e c t o r s i n d i c a t e that a s h i f t i n emphasis i s occurring, whereby greater stress w i l l be placed on the h e r i -tage of r u r a l communities and landscapes, t h i s s h i f t has not yet occurred. 27 28 B r i t i s h Columbia Heritage Conservation Act, S. 11(A), 1977. 29 B r i t i s h Columbia Heritage Conservation Act, S. 11(5), 1977. To date, only one municipality i n B r i t i s h Columbia •— Richmond — has taken the i n i t i a t i v e and designated land as heritage. While there might have been a precedent-setting court case to decide the ' f u l l and f a i r ' compensation issue, the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond neatly sidestepped the thorny issue by purchasing the land outright a f t e r designating i t as heritage. 30 B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S. 7, reads as follows: " I t i s the objective of the commission to (a) preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land (b) encourage the establishment, maintenance, and preservation of farms, and encourage uses of land i n an a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve compatible with a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes, and (c) advise and a s s i s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and regional d i s t r i c t s i n the .<=> preparation and production of the land reserve plans required for the purpose of t h i s Act." 31 C. Gailbreathe, " C r i t e r i a f o r Defining the H i s t o r i c and C u l t u r a l Landscape," From selected papers from the Conference on Conserving the H i s t o r i c a l and C u l t u r a l Landscape, (Washington: Preservation Press, National Trust for H i s t o r i c Preservation, 1975), p. 9. 32 CR. Bryant and L.H. Russwurm, "The Impact of Nonr-Farm Development on A g r i c u l t u r e : A synthesis," Plan Canada, Vol. 19, No. 2, (June, 1979), p. 123. 33 W. Rees and C. Davis, "Keeping the Options Open," An unpublished paper presented at a conference conducted by the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t on Growth i n the Lower Mainland , 1977. 34 Aldo Leopold as c i t e d i n David .Ehrenfeld, The Arrogance of Humanism„ (New York: Oxford Un i v e r s i t y Press, 1978), p. 188. 35 The aesthetic r a t i o n a l e f or conservation may best be summed up i n terms of the nonhumanist group of conservation r a t i o n a l e s as posited by David Ehrenfeld! i n his book, The Arrogance of Humanism. The humanist approach, where-by any system of thought or action i s concerned with merely human i n t e r e s t s accepts conservation i n a piecemeal fashion, but only at a p r i c e , with a l o g i c a l reason needed for saving each and every part. 36 The Oxford Dictionary d e f i n i t i o n i s somewhat ambiguous: "Aesthetic - belonging to the appreciation of the b e a u t i f u l , having such appreciation, i n accordance with the p r i n c i p l e s of good t a s t e . " 37 C.W. Stillman, "This F a i r Land," Landscape Assessment, ed. E.R. Zube (Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975), p. 24. 28 3 8 I b i d . 39 I.C. Laurie,"Aesthetic Factors i n V i s u a l Evaluations," Landscape i Assessment, ed. E.R. Zube (.Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975), p. 107. 40 E.R. Zube, ed., Landscape Assessment (Stroudsburg: Downden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975), p. 59, 41 Stillman, op. c i t . , p. 24. Stillman l i s t s three requirements f o r researchers who undertake evaluations of landscape beauty: (1) a p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g f o r nature as a resource i n the t o t a l i t y of l i f e ; (2) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the- s o c i a l system that e i t h e r produces, or values, the landscape i n question; (3) attachment to what i s . c a l l e d the 'paranoid s t y l e . o f p o l i t i c s . . -29 Chapter Three THE RURAL LANDSCAPE OF EAST RICHMOND I. Introduction The preceding chapter traced the evolution of the heritage concept respecting i n d i v i d u a l buildings as well as e n t i r e landscapes. Herein, I treat the area of East Richmond as a case study to i l l u s t r a t e the a p p l i c a -t i o n of the heritage r a t i o n a l e to a s p e c i f i c landscape to maintain and improve that landscape. F i r s t , I delineate the study area; second, describe i t s geographical and geological features, and t h i r d , discuss i t s h i s t o r i c a l development and planning h i s t o r y . I I . Location A. Location of Richmond "The islands of Richmond maintain a precarious existence at the mouth of the Fraser. Of the 47 miles of natural land area, one quarter l i e s seventeen feet above sea l e v e l and the remaining three quarters, between four and s i x and one h a l f feet above sea l e v e l . Richmond i s t r u l y a c h i l d of the Fraser River and the Sea." Richmond i s comprised of over twenty f i v e islands i n the Fraser River Delta of southwest B r i t i s h Columbia. P r i o r to land routes and a i r t r a v e l , the Fraser was one of the most important transportation routes i n Western Canada. The s t r a t e g i c l o c a t i o n of the islands was well appreciated by early s e t t l e r s . 30 B. Location of Study Area The study area i s that portion of Lulu Island shown on Map 1. While there i s farmland i n other parts of Richmond, and contiguous with the study area, the l a t t e r i s the most i n t a c t r u r a l landscape i n Richmond. East Richmond i s arguably not an outstanding example of a r u r a l landscape, given the p a s t o r a l expanse of the Fraser Valley, however the fa c t that East Richmond l i e s only eight miles from Vancouver's City H a l l , and has survived r e l a t i v e l y i n t a c t a t t e s t s to i t s regional uniqueness. As F i g s , 1 and 2 i n d i c a t e the East Richmond landscape provides an appealing contrast to the tawdry suburban texture of West Richmond, which has oozed over the r i c h farmland. F i g . 1 Landscape of East Richmond MAP : 1: STUDY AREA 3? F i g . 2 Landscape of West Richmond I I I . Prehistory Richmond's twenty f i v e islands were b u i l t up by the Fraser River from 2 " g l a c i a l deposit o v e r l a i n with sand and s i l t washed downstream." They reached 3 sea l e v e l approximately 2500 years ago and have gradually formed a bow-shaped del t a . The de l t a , however, i s s t i l l changing and w i l l do so as long as the r i v e r flows. I t now extends eastward from the S t r a i t of Georgia for sixteen miles. The western edge runs twenty miles from Point Grey to English B l u f f near Point Roberts. H i s t o r i c a l l y , the islands were v i r t u a l l y uninhabitable due to the yearly flooding of the Fraser River. "For a thousand years p r i o r to settlement, Richmond consisted of i n s e c t - i n f e s t e d , scrub-covered islands separated by shallow waterways and frequently washed over by r i v e r floods and win-33 ter storms. So unpleasant was i t that no l o c a l Indian considered i t a f i t place to l i v e . " IV. Natural Features A, Vegetation The early vegetation on the islands consisted e s s e n t i a l l y of grasses and shrubs since these alone could survive the regular flooding of the Fraser River. "The deciduous and coniferous trees were generally con-fined to the higher r i v e r banks, beach ridges, and other areas which remained dryer. The larger bogs had a water table at or near the surface throughout the year which i n h i b i t e d decomposition and produced very acid conditions which could only be tolerated by a few species of plants (sphagnum, cranberry, blueberry, labrador tea and p i n e ) . " The types of vegetation growing i n Richmond at the end of the nineteenth century are i d e n t i f i e d on Map 2 . The area was made up almost e x c l u s i v e l y of p r a i r i e grasses, cranberry marshes, moss with scrub'pine or scrub. "Today only remnants of the o r i g i n a l vegetation remain i n a r e l a t i v e l y natural state — most s i g n i f i c a n t the larger bogs and marshes. The lowland vegetation as shown has been almost e n t i r e l y replaced^by a g r i c u l t u r a l , r e s i d e n t i a l or commercial land uses..." There are several s i t e s i n the study area remaining more or le s s i n t h e i r natural state. Much of the land along the eastern portion of River Road i s s t i l l covered by cedar, hemlock, spruce, alder, willow, yew and crabapple trees. In addition, much of the o r i g i n a l vegetation along the South Arm dyke has been retained. Today the vegtation i n the study area l a r g e l y consists of crops and grasses, c u l t i v a t e d by man. MAP 2 VEGETATION"OF EAST RICHMOND (Source mP Moss wit h scrub pine cbP Cranberry marsh g P r a i r i e grass gWhhca P r a i r i e grass w i t h .shrubs Willow Mixed woodland Mixed wet (Cedar, hemlock spruce, a l d e r ) Spruce Labrador Tea Freshwater marsh Old Channel of Fraser River V e g e t a t i o n of the Southwestern F r a s e r Lowland) 5 0 , 0 0 0 W Cw Ch SW ItcbP c t 3 5 B. S o i l s The s o i l s of East Richmond d i f f e r considerably from those of West Rich-mond as a r e s u l t of the complex nature of the sedimentation process. The eastern portion of Lulu Island was the f i r s t landform i n the d e l t a . As sediment continued to be deposited over centuries, the si z e and number of islands i n the d e l t a expanded. Moreover, vegetation began to grow as the islands became more stable and as the flooding became l e s s frequent; further, as the vegetation grew and died, organic material was b u i l t up, forming the basis of present day s o i l s . While an .analysis of the formation of the lowland s o i l s of the Fraser River d e l t a i s not pertinent to t h i s discussion, i t i s important to note the major differences i n s o i l classes i n the study area and to see how they influenced the development of a g r i c u l t u r e i n the area. After the l a s t g l a c i a l period ( c i r c a 10,000 B. C ) , the o u t l i n e of present day East Richmond emerged. At t h i s time, however, Lulu Island was divided into two separate islands by a channel which flowed from the South Arm of the Fraser River to the North Arm. The channel i s indicated on Map 2. The presence of t h i s old r i v e r channel i s indicated by the s o i l v a r i a t i o n . On both sides of what was the old r i v e r channel there are extensive peat beds. "Peat occupies depressions that were formerly r i v e r channels, which, a f t e r abandonment by the r i v e r were not completely f i l l e d by deposition from flood waters. The depressions have been gradually f i l l e d by organic matter and i n places have been b u i l t up a few feet above high t i ^ e l e v e l and now form the highest parts of the delta lands." The abandonment of the old channel i s so recent that organic decomposition necessary for peat formation, has not occurred. There i s a d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between the grade of s o i l and the approxi-36 mate time that an area has been b u i l t up above the high t i d e l e v e l . The areas with the best s o i l (most s u i t a b l e f o r agr i c u l t u r e ) are those which have recently r i s e n and formed land; the areas with the poorest s o i l s (peat) are those which have reached the highest elevation. As early as the 1850's the peat s o i l s of East Richmond were considered poor s o i l s . This, more than anything else, prevented extensive a g r i c u l t u r a l development i n East Richmond. "...much of the land i n the eastern sections of the muni-c i p a l i t y was considered unsuitable, or, at best, d i f f i c u l t to farm. The peat bog, which spread over the area east of Number Three Road was seen as a nuisance and a hazard to farming. It i s perhaps a misnomer to l a b e l peat a 'poor s o i l ' since peat has a high organic content which i s p e r f e c t l y suited to the growing of cranberries, and to some extent, blueberries. In addition, peat has many other uses as a 9 f u e l , i n s u l a t i o n , and stock feed. Generally, however, peat drains poorly and was considered useless f o r growing most crops. When the value of peat i t s e l f was recognized and su i t a b l e crops which thrived on peat were foundjEast Richmond began to develop. The s o i l s of West Richmond, on the other hand, were considered perfect for the growing of almost anything. "The a l l u v i a l and de l t a s o i l s are mostly clay loam or s i l t y loam s o i l s , but some c l a y s o i l s occur. They are character-ized by an abundance of organic matter, both i n the surface s o i l and i n the s u b s o i l , which together with t h e i r f i n e -grained c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , render them f e r t i l e . Their good waterholding capacity and the nearness to the surface of the groundwater, causes them to^be highly productive even i n exceptionally dry seasons." Hence, the differ e n c e i n the q u a l i t y of the s o i l s between East and West 37 Richmond resulted i n differences i n the development of t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r e . This i s most dramatically manifest i n the twentieth century whereby East Richmond has remained an a g r i c u l t u r a l area while West Richmond has advanced as an urban centre. IV. A g r i c u l t u r a l History "We are going to i n v i t e your attention for a moment to a Very d i f f e r e n t scene-— a f i e l d with verdure clad, and p l a i n s of emerald, whose paths drop fatness; where the cow looks .^or the milkmaild, and the lambs troop together i n play." This poetic i n v i t a t i o n to take advantage of the many f r u i t s of Richmond appeared i n a l o c a l New Westminster newspaper i n 1862. At that time only a few people were farming i n the d e l t a , but the a g r i c u l t u r a l p o t e n t i a l was already obvious. The a g r i c u l t u r a l development of East Richmond occurred much l a t e r than that of West Richmond and Sea Island. The f i r s t s e t t l e r i n West Richmond was Hugh McRoberts who purchased 1600 acres on the North Arm of the Fraser River i n 1861. The e a r l i e s t communities were n a t u r a l l y oriented toward the r i v e r as i t provided the major means of transportation. By the 1880's New Westmin-ster was the population centre of the Lower Mainland. In the 1860's and 1870's s e t t l e r s gradually moved to the North and South Arms of the Fraser River on both Lulu and Sea Islands. However, farming did not begin i n earnest u n t i l dykes had been b u i l t to protect the land from annual spring floods. Even s t i l l , extensive farming was hindered by the vast peat bogs which were considered useless. I t was not u n t i l the 1920's that the value of peat and peat bogs was f i n a l l y r e a l i z e d . 38 15 "The same peat which provides the good growing environment for b e r r i e s has been found to be useful i n many independent products as w e l l , including i n s u l a t i o n , deodorent, chicken l i t t e r , stock feed and packing sheets, and i t i s ujed as a r e f i n i n g agent i n the manufacturing of magnesium." 13 U n t i l very recently, Richmond supplied almost h a l f of Canada's peat. Moreover, once the surface layers of the peat were removed, the s o i l s prov-ided an excellent base f o r cranberries. "Although the r a i s i n g of cranberries on a large scale for sauce and other products i s a very old industry i n the east, i t i s very new and unusual i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The wild cranberry, or VACCINIUM QUADRIPETALUM, has been grow-ing i n peat bogs on the coast of B r i t i s h Columbia for years before someong decided to grow a c u l t i v a t e d cran-berry for p r o f i t . " The f i r s t cranberry bog on Lulu Island was set out by A. Smith i n 1924 Today, Richmond i s considered to be the cranberry c a p i t a l of Canada, i f not North America. A handful of cranberry growers i n East Richmond supply ninety 16 per cent of t o t a l Canadian production. In addition to a booming cranberry industry, blueberry and strawberry farms also f l o u r i s h i n East Richmond. Blueberries grow i n e i t h e r organic or mineral s o i l s and, therefore, tend to be located on the edges of the peat s o i l s . ^ Strawberries t h r i v e i n clay s o i l s and are mostly planted i n farms 18 which are located along the old r i v e r channel. Several East Richmond 19 f a m i l i e s , e s p e c i a l l y the May brothers, c u l t i v a t e strawberries on a large 20 scale, s e l l i n g approximately 250 - 300 tons of strawberries each year. Another a g r i c u l t u r a l industry i n Richmond i s r a i s i n g c a t t l e f o r beef and dairy products. In West Richmond, Samuel Brighouse began a dairy farm i n 1864 21 on 697 acres of land. In East Richmond, on the other hand, c a t t l e r a i s i n g 22 did not take hold u n t i l the 1920's. 39 While the a g r i c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y of East Richmond i s r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f , even i n comparison to West Richmond, i t i s c l e a r that a g r i c u l t u r e has played a v i t a l r o l e i n the development of the present landscape. V. Development Patterns The patterns of development on Lulu Island were i n i t i a l l y determined by the Fraser River. In November, 1879, however, Lulu Island and Sea Island were incorporated into the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond and within a few years dykes and ditches and roads were constructed. These amenities resulted i n a broader d i s t r i b u t i o n of the population and, consequently, a wider c u l t i v a t i o n of the land. However, i t was the erection of the Fraser Street Bridges i n 1894, l i n k i n g Richmond to Vancouver, which heralded the rapid growth of East Rich-mond. "The construction of the bridges changed many aspects of Richmond l i f e , bringing the growing municipality into d i r e c t and more regular contact with the booming community on Burrard I n l e t . Residents of Richmond were more e a s i l y able to transport t h e i r farm goods to market and return with dry goods, groceries and water, using t h e i r own wagons and horses for the e n t i r e t r i p . " In 1902 the C.P.R. i n i t i a t e d a r a i l l i n e between False Creek and Steves-ton, stopping at several small communities i n West Richmond (Eburne, Brighouse, and Bridgeport) which further strengthened the t i e s between West Richmond and Vancouver. In 1914 the C.N.R. introduced a l i n e along the South Arm of the Fraser between New Westminster and Steveston. However, i t was destroyed by f i r e two years l a t e r , reconstructed, and then shut down again i n 1917, t h i s time fo r f i f t e e n years. While East Richmond was temporarily e a s i l y accessible by 40 r a i l t r a v e l , the constant problem of smoldering peat f i r e s detered settlement The period between the two world wars was marked by a gradual increase i n the population of Richmond. However, the settlement of East Richmond was s t i l l l a r g e l y confined along the North Arm of the Fraser River and also along Westminster Highway, and Number Six Road. P r i o r to the 1950's, a l l commercial and i n d u s t r i a l development was li m i t e d to West Richmond; i t was concentrated along the r a i l l i n e i n the communities of Steveston, an established town with f i s h i n g and canning indus-t r i e s , Eburne, and Bridgeport. A f t e r World War I I , the s i t u a t i o n changed r a d i c a l l y . Subdivisions planned for veterans were established along the r a i l l i n e which, by the 1940's, was a commuter l i n e serving people who worked i n Vancouver and l i v e d i n Richmond. (It i s i r o n i c to note the rever s a l of the o r i g i n a l purpose of the l i n e which was pr i m a r i l y to take f i n i s h e d canned good from Steveston to Vancouver for shipping. More than anything e l s e , however, i t was the widespread use of the auto-mobile that opened up East Richmond to settlement. When the Oak Street Bridg was completed i n 1957 i t heralded a population explosion from which Richmond has s t i l l not recovered. The t r i c k l e of new residents quickly became a flood Subdivisions sprang up overnight and Richmond was promoted as the young couples dream. In 1959, the Deas Tunnel ( l a t e r renamed the George Massey Tunnel) under the South Arm of the Fraser River was opened, and was linked to Vancouver by a new divided highway. With t h i s new highway crossing Richmond, i t paved the way for further r e s i d e n t i a l development i n southwest Richmond, but perhaps more importantly, made large-scale r e s i d e n t i a l development possible i n commun i t i e s further up the Fraser V a l l e y . 41 In keeping with the i n f l u x of r e s i d e n t i a l development i n the post-war boom, commercial and i n d u s t r i a l i n d u s t r i e s quickly moved to Richmond, encour 1 aged by the promise of cheap land. What started with rather modest r i v e r -oriented businesses, was soon inundated with large-scale enterprises, such as Crown Zellerbach, LaFarge Cement, and Delta Flour M i l l s . Richmond was often been l a b e l l e d a bedroom community of Vancouver. How-ever, i t sought to refute the t i t l e by encouraging the construction of a plethora of public amenities and f a c i l i t i e s to complement the commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l growth, i n the hope of creating a municipality where people not only l i v e d but also worked, recreated and shopped. The public expenditure i n West Richmond only encouraged further commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l develop-ment i n Brighouse which quickly became the core of Richmond. VI. Planning The municipality of Richmond i s , i n e f f e c t , divided into two separate landscapes, one r u r a l , the other urban. For a v a r i e t y of reasons, such as poor s o i l f o r building, i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y and cost of s e r v i c i n g , East Richmond has remained predominantly a g r i c u l t u r a l . However, the differences between East and West Richmond are not s o l e l y the r e s u l t of economic market devices and natural features, but are part of a conscious development p o l i c y on the part of the municipality to r e s t r i c t urban development to West Richmond. Where roads and basic services have been upgraded and expanded i n West Richmond, they have almost been abandoned i n East Richmond. The p o t e n t i a l remains, therefore, to plan f o r East Richmond as a r e l a t i v e l y i n t a c t r u r a l environment. However, one must question why East Richmond was not developed to anywhere near the same extent as West Richmond. 42 S u p e r f i c i a l l y the differences between the rate of r e s i d e n t i a l and commer-c i a l development may be a t t r i b u t e d to the poor s o i l conditions of East Rich-mond. However, improved b u i l d i n g technology has long since negated the influence of s o i l upon development. The land freeze i n i t i a t e d by the P r o v i n c i a l Government i n 1972, followed by l e g i s l a t i o n to monitor and control land use changes i n r u r a l areas, cer-t a i n l y l i m i t e d the amount of a g r i c u l t u r a l conversion. However, as early as 24 1970 Richmond had i n s t i g a t e d a housing p o l i c y which recommended that r e s i -d e n t i a l development be contained to West Richmond (the eastern boundary of which was defined by the 1970 R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use Study as the 499 Freeway). In retrospect, the 1970 study was s i m p l i s t i c i n i t s approach, (not foreseeing a massive trend to multiple family u n i t s ) , but nonetheless, was concerned with the prospect of an increasing population and i t s need for new accommoda-t i o n . Disregarding the option of r e s t r i c t i n g population growth i n Richmond, that being u n r e a l i s t i c , the study attempted to channel the r e s i d e n t i a l growth spreading across Richmond i n t o growth areas. The 1970 study emphasized that r e s i d e n t i a l development was unnecessary i n East Richmond because of the large amount of developable vacant land i n West Richmond. In addition, the p o l i c y of r e s t r i c t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l development to the west ha l f of Richmond was based "on the need to preserve valuable / 25 a g r i c u l t u r a l land and to prevent c o s t l y urban sprawl." Thus, the 1970 Study recognized the value of the farmland, not only f or i t s production c a p a b i l i t i e s and employment p o s s i b i l i t i e s , but also because " i t provides ,.26 open space for ac t i v e and passive recreation. The commercial and i n d u s t r i a l p o l i c y of Richmond, unlike the r e s i d e n t i a l p o l i c y , i s not c l e a r . I n d u s t r i a l and commercial development was encouraged at almost any cost. 43 "To encourage those businesses which require a great deal of property, Richmond, into the 1970's, has maintained large open spaces i n proximity to important transportation routes as well as a lower c o m p e t i t i v e t a x r a t e . " Therefore, the construction of commercial and i n d u s t r i a l parks was promoted a l l over Richmond, including several areas i n East Richmond. Land along the North and South Arms of the Fraser River was zoned for i n d u s t r i a l use. In 1968, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t ' s predecessor, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, published a study e n t i t l e d Our Southwestern Shores, which advocated, among other things, that the North and 28 South Arms of the Fraser eventually be zoned long range i n d u s t r i a l areas. Much of the land that has been zoned i n d u s t r i a l i n the study area remains vacant. However, planners are now concerned about a shortage of developable i n d u s t r i a l land. While the present development patterns of East and West Richmond are r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t , these differences may eventually be blurred as a g r i c u l t -u r a l and vacant land i n East Richmond give way to urban uses. Yet, i t i s the differences between development patterns and land uses which contribute to an area's value as a heritage landscape (by acting as a contrast, or provid-ing a scenic, c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l landscape s i g n i f i c a n t to the whole muni-c i p a l i t y ) . When evaluating a r u r a l landscape f o r heritage value, the c o n f l i c t between urban and r u r a l land uses reduces the aesthetic i n t e g r i t y of the landscape. If planning for land uses recognizes the possible aesthetic differences and accepts that r u r a l landscapes may be of s i g n i f i c a n t heritage value to the municipality, then these c o n f l i c t s can be eliminated or, at l e a s t , ameliorated. 44 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER THREE L e s l i e Ross, Ch i l d of the Fraser (Richmond: Richmond 1979 Centennial Society, 1979), p. XI. Throughout the text I have c a l l e d the study area "East Richmond" Technically, the study area i s a c t u a l l y East Lulu Island, Lulu Island being only one of the twenty f i v e islands which comprise the Mun i c i p a l i t y of Richmond. 2 Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Our Southwestern Shores (New Westminster: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, September, 1968), p. 12. 3 Ross, l o c . c i t . A The Richmond Review, "Nature," July 25, 1979, p. 13. This a r t i c l e appeared i n a s p e c i a l section of The Richmond Review published to commemorate Richmond's centennial. ^Environment Canada, Lands Directorate. From a map of the "Vegetation of the Southwestern Fraser Lowlands, 1858 - 1880." 6T,..d Ibxd. W^. A. Johnston, Sedimentation of the Fraser River Delta (Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 123, 1921), p. 32. ^Ross, op. c i t . , p. 111. 9 These other uses were unknown u n t i l t h i s century. "^Ross, op. c i t . , p. 31. ^ T h e B r i t i s h Columbian, "A V i s i t To Richmond," September 13, 1862, p.3, as c i t e d i n The History of Richmond, published by the Richmond Centennary Committee, 1967, p. 2. 12 Ross, op. c i t . , p. 138. 13 T .„ , l o c . C i t . ' Edith Shaw, "Development of the Cranberry Industry on Lulu Island," An unpublished a r t i c l e written f o r the i n t e r e s t of the municipality's h i s t o r -i c a l society (Richmond Archives), 1957, p, 1. l o c . c i t . 45 16 Ross, op, c i t . , p. 138. "^From a tape-recording of an interview with Fred Shaw^a blueberry farmer, conducted by the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond's Leisure Services Depart-ment, 1973. 18 Strawberries have been grown on a large-scale basis i n East Richmond since 1916 19 The three May brothers, sons of one of the pioneer East Richmond fa m i l i e s each grow ..about t h i r t y acres of strawberries. 20 From a tape-recording of an interview with Norman May, conducted by the Municipality's Leisure Services Department, 1973. 21 Ross, op. c i t . , p. 32. 22 Now East Richmond farmers are p r i m a r i l y c a t t l e ranchers, having given up the r a i s i n g of large-scale f r u i t and vegetable crops (except for straw-b e r r i e s and cranberries) f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons, in c l u d i n g cost, personal preference and competition from the United States and Mexico. 23 Ross, op. c i t . , p. 57. 24 As early as 1957 the Planning Department discouraged r e s i d e n t i a l development i n East Richmond. In the 1966 report by the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, t h i s p o l i c y was f i r s t made e x p l i c i t . 25 Richmond Planning Department, R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use Study, (Richmond: Richmond Planning Department, 1970), p. 12. l o c . c i t . 27 Ross, op. c i t . , p . 171. 28 -This study also encouraged the b u i l d i n g of long-range port and port-oriented industry on Sturgeon Banks, as part of the Greater Vancouver Port Development. 46 Chapter Four LAND USE I. Introduction The word 'landscape' i s defined as the sum t o t a l of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that d i s t i n g u i s h a c e r t a i n area, giving i t a unique pattern i n contrast to other kinds of areas.''' While the topography and natural vegetation are the dominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wilderness areas, the past and present land use patterns are the major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of landscapes which have been a l t e r -ed by man. Such landscapes are further c l a s s i f i e d into urban and r u r a l landscapes. On the surface urban and r u r a l landscapes appear very d i f f e r e n t i n that the term 'urban' implies the b u i l t environment, while the term ' r u r a l ' suggests an area dominated by topography and vegetation, much l i k e that of the natural environment. Nonetheless, both urban and r u r a l landscapes are subjected to the influence of man, manifested by various land uses. Landscapes are, of course, made up of a d i v e r s i t y of land uses. Planners, examining urban and r u r a l areas, commonly adopt the narrowest d e f i n i t i o n of land use; they consider only the r e s i d e n t i a l , i n d u s t r i a l , commercial useage to which man d i r e c t l y puts the land, and overlooks the multitude of secondary or intangible uses that the land o f f e r s . On the other hand, e c o l o g i s t s , examin-ing wilderness areas, understand that wilderness landscapes have multiple land uses; the land acts simultaneously as a scenic a t t r a c t i o n , watershed, a i r p o l l u t i o n f i l t e r and w i l d l i f e habitat. The d e f i n i t i o n of land use i s broader than merely the employment of a s i t e or area so as to derive revenue or bene-2 f i t . Land use also r e f e r s to the function of the land's area and natural 47 resources as i t pertains to man. In other words, planners must go beyond the narrow concepts of land use, to consider the plethora of i n d i r e c t , i n t a n g i b l e and public uses that a landscape, a l t e r e d by -man, has to o f f e r . These uses have a value to man understood only recently. "Local land use control has f a i l e d because i t has considered only the f i r s t h a l f of the d e f i n i t i o n of planning proposed by Benton MacKay (.1928) — our desires. And even of our desires, over-riding importance^has been given to only one — the desire f o r economic gain." Instead of considering t o t a l use value, or value that i s based on land's worth to a l l the residents of the municipality planners have accepted the c l a s s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of land value, which r e f e r s p r i m a r i l y to the economic (productive) value of land or an area, and secondarly, to i t s l o c a t i o n a l value ( i t s proximity to market, population or resources). At any given time and place the landscape expresses the values that have 4 shaped human development, r e s u l t i n g i n the land use patterns we see today. O r i g i n a l l y , these values were associated with the p r o v i s i o n of food and s h e l -ter. Land was valued p r i m a r i l y as a factor of production, "...land became useful as i t became productive of food, f i b r e and minerals, or as i t was pre-pared to accommodate homes and the structures of industry and commerce.""' In t h i s century, the wealth of our society has increased, the l e v e l of technology has become more sophisticated, and s o c i e t a l views have changed r a d i c a l l y . Society has begun to question the economic theories that deter-mined land value only i n terms of i t s production c a p a b i l i t i e s and l o c a t i o n . The questions that have arisen regarding other possible values of land have only recently affected the v i s i o n of land. Innovative planning, l a r g e l y i n urban areas, has r e f l e c t e d the change i n perception by applying multiple land use techniques. 48 I I . Rural Land Uses The a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape provides an excellent example of multiple uses of land. While the importance of the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y has been recognized, r u r a l areas also provide an environmental function by acting as a watershed, habitat f o r w i l d l i f e , and a i r p o l l u t i o n f i l t e r . A l b e i t , a natural wilderness may f u l f i l l these functions more e f f i c i e n t l y , nonetheless, the r u r a l landscape has s i g n i f i c a n t environmental uses. Moreover, r u r a l land-scapes, e s p e c i a l l y those within close proximity to large urban areas, o f f e r a contrast i n colour, texture, form and topography to the * accoutrements of urban l i f e . Further, the r u r a l landscape i l l u s t r a t e s land uses that once characterized-Jmost urban areas. Our present planning tools cannot adequately quantify these i n d i r e c t uses, and hence the importance of the i n d i r e c t uses has tended to be v a s t l y under-estimated. But, i f society i s to consider the t o t a l value of the land uses, as broadly defined i n the introduction, then these other uses must be included. Rural areas are composed not merely of a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses but also over-" lapping i n t a n g i b l e uses. While a g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d s may hold a valuable crop, they too have a scenic value to the passerby, an e c o l o g i c a l use i n the envir-onment, as well as a socio-psychological use to the community. I I I . Urban-Rural Fringe Land Use In r u r a l areas a g r i c u l t u r e i s the dominant land use, but the urban-rural f r i n g e i s characterized by f u n c t i o n a l and v i s u a l uncertainty about i t s domin-ant use. " I t contains s u b s t a n t i a l , i f discontinuous areas of urban development mixed with stretches of more extensive and 49 t r a d i t i o n a l l y r u r a l uses l i k e agriculture....These uses are strongly affected ( b e n e f i c i a l l y as well as to t h e i r detriment) by the presence of urban a c t i v i t y , . . There are other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of. the f r i n g e : notably that i t contains an assortment of urban uses which are not wanted i n , or cannot a f f o r d , the c i t y and are inappropriate f or the open countryside, but nevertheless, rgquire a l o c a t i o n near to the population which they serve." The urban-rural f r i n g e i s r a r e l y s t a t i c ; the pressures of the adjacent urban environment are constantly consuming more a g r i c u l t u r a l land, pushing the fr i n g e further and further away from the urban centre. The danger l i e s i n the fa c t that once r u r a l land has been converted to urban uses, the change i s almost i r r e v e r s i b l e . The basis of any r u r a l heritage landscape conservation program i s the determination of the categories of desirable land uses for the area. Inher-ent i n t h i s approach i s the judici o u s r e s o l u t i o n of the dimensions and prop-ortions of the i n d i v i d u a l land uses, i n add i t i o n to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of possible i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between land uses. As a p r e r e q u i s i t e to such a program the e x i s t i n g land uses i n the study area must be examined i n d e t a i l . The case study approach employing a landscape which i s both r u r a l and urban i n character necess a r i l y demands an examination of the kind and form of land uses i n r u r a l landscapes and on the i n t e r f a c e between urban and r u r a l landscapes, commonly c a l l e d the urban-rural f r i n g e . The c o n f l i c t s that a r i s e between competing land uses on the urban-rural fr i n g e have resulted i n land-scapes which are d i s f u n c t i o n a l , uneconomic, and a e s t h e t i c a l l y u n a t t r a c t i v e . The focus of t h i s chapter i s the examination of the heritage values of land uses of the East Richmond case study landscape. The manner i n which the land i s used helps to determine the q u a l i t y of the landscape's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Once i t i s understood how the land uses a f f e c t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the landscape, recommendations can then be developed to enhance the area's 50 heritage values, minimizing the c o n f l i c t between competing land uses. To date, planners have concentrated on economic and physi c a l techniques to mini-mize c o n f l i c t between land uses, r e s u l t i n g i n un d e r u t i l i z e d landscapes on the urban-rural f r i n g e that are a e s t h e t i c a l l y unappealing, IV. East Richmond's Land Uses A. Introduction East Richmond has a f a i r l y simple land use pattern, r e f l e c t i n g i t s a g r i -c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y which developed from a r i v e r - o r i e n t a t i o n to a road-orientation. The present land use pattern i s influenced by increasing pressure, e s p e c i a l l y on the urban-rural f r i n g e , to convert farmland to nonagricultural functions. While a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses p r e v a i l i n the study area's core, the land use pattern on the boundaries i s s i m i l a r to other areas on the urban-rural f r i n g e i n that there i s no clear d i s t i n c t i o n s between urban and r u r a l functions. As the i n d i v i d u a l land uses of the study area are examined i n t h i s chapter, i t w i l l become clear that there are s i g n i f i c a n t areas of aesthetic c o n f l i c t between them. The present c o n f l i c t s only detract s l i g h t l y from the v i s u a l q u a l i t i e s of the whole r u r a l landscape. Hcwever, the number of c o n f l i c t s are increasing, and, as w i l l be shown, the importance of regulating change i n a man-made landscape, such as a r u r a l landscape, cannot be underestimated. There are four primary land uses i n the study area: a g r i c u l t u r a l (or vacant), r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial/industrial, and what can be broadly termed p u b l i c / u t i l i t y / i n s t i t u t i o n a l . Other scenic evaluations include many more land use c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , however, the land uses i n East Richmond are l i m i t e d to the above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The acreages devoted to each of the land uses i n the study"area are indicated i n Table 1. 51 Table 1 Land Uses in East Richmond Agricultural (or vacant) Residential Commercial/Industrial Public/Utility/Tnstitutional 7250 acres 150 550 50 TOTAL 8000 acres B. Agricultural Land Use Despite increasing urban pressures, the dominant function- in the study area is s t i l l agricultural. Of the 8000 acres in East Richmond, approx-imately 6500 acres are designated agricultural under the British Columbia Agricultural Land Commission classification. Within this broad agricultural classification are a multitude of agricultural functions which characterize East Richmond's landscape, including the growing of strawberries, blueberries, cranberries and 'vegetables, raising of cattle for dairy and beef, and the fallowing of fields. The multitude of uses, varying in intensity, result in a heterogeneous landscape with a diversity of tones, textures, colours and images. Regardless of the season, the agricultural landscape of East Richmond is constantly alive with activity and colour. In Spring, strawberries begin to ripen early in May and continue to be harvested through June. In Summer, the blueberry season starts in July and ends with the first frost in the f a l l . In the Summer and Autumn, the vegetable gardens of the truck farms cause traffic problems on Westminster Highway as residents of Vancouver flock to Richmond to buy fresh produce. In late Fall and early Winter, the cranberries are harvested. Although the cranberry fields are peat beds which have been caryed out, and therefore cannot be seen from the road, the whir of heli-52 copters, used to harvest cranberries, i s a f a m i l i a r sound for several weeks at the end of the year. While a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses dominate East Richmond's landscape today, pressures to convert the farmland to nonagricultural uses have increased. The boundaries of the r u r a l landscape have begun to recede as the number of r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, and i n d u s t r i a l uses of land expand i n the area. C. R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use While West Richmond i s r a p i d l y becoming urbanized by an increasing number of apartments, townhouses and condominiums, East Richmond i s p r i m a r i l y characterized by single-family detached houses on- large l o t s or farms. There are v i r t u a l l y no multiple-family units i n the study area with the exception of a few duplexes and basement su i t e s , which has resulted i n very low d e n s i t i e s . There are two r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods i n the study area. The larger of the two neighbourhoods i s Hamilton, located near the New Westminster border. It i s an older subdivision, planned i n the 1940's, which has undergone very l i t t l e change i n the l a s t t h i r t y years. For the l a s t decade, Hamilton has experienced some i n f i l l of yacant property, and subdivision of some of the larger properties. The f i n a l e f f e c t i s of an e c l e c t i c mixture of large and small l o t s , new and old houses, and suburban and r u r a l atmospheres. Beside a newly constructed three bedroom bungalow on a standard one s i x t h acre l o t might be a t h i r t y year old house on f i v e acres, complete with chickens and goats. The second neighbourhood, the only formal subdivision i n the study area, i s the Fedoruk subdivision, located north of Westminster Highway, between Number Seven and Number Eight Roads, The f i f t y homes of the Fedoruk subdiv-i s i o n were b u i l t i n the mid 1950's with the developer's expectation that the 53 majority of Richmond's farmland would eventually be converted to r e s i d e n t i a l uses.^ Fortunately, t h i s has not happened, and the Fedoruk subdivision r e -mains i n the middle of a prime a g r i c u l t u r a l area, a conspicuous reminder of poor planning and the c o s t l y e f f e c t s of sprawl ( i n terms of high costs of s e r v i c i n g the l o t s , non-existent transportation for residents, poor f i r e and p o l i c e protection, etc.) The majority of the houses i n the study area are farmhouses and l a r g e -l o t s ingle-family houses scattered along the major roads. At f i r s t glance, several areas have more of a t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t i a l appearance with s i n g l e -family houses on standard suburban l o t s i n a continuous row. However, houses on one side of the road usually face open f i e l d s on the other side. In addition, farms or forested areas border the rear of most of the r e s i d e n t i a l properties. F i g . 3 Farmhouses on River Road On River Road, the si x t y three occupied houses are separated by vacant l o t s , farms, ind u s t r i e s or government property. 54 F i g . 4 New Residential Construction Other r e s i d e n t i a l construction includes several new houses recently b u i l t i n what appears to be the middle of pastures, looking out of place. This has been occurring as the c h i l d r e n of the pioneer East Richmond farming f a m i l i e s marry and s e t t l e down i n the area to farm. The large family farms are subdivided and new houses are b u i l t bv the vouna farmers. East Richmond i s homogeneous i n terms of i t s r e s i d e n t i a l development. Despite two suburban r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods i n the study area, the over-g a l l density i s very low, averaging l e s s than f i v e persons per gross acre. The preponderance of single-family houses on large l o t s and farms, account for such a low density. R e s i d e n t i a l land use has not been the primary reason for the large amount of land which has been converted to nonagricultural uses i n the study area. The problem l i e s elsewhere. It i s the increasing i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of East Richmond which encroaches p h y s i c a l l y and a e s t h e t i c a l l y on the r u r a l landscape. 55 9 D. Commercial/Industrial Land Use There has been a considerable increase i n the number of i n d u s t r i a l / commercial concerns i n East Richmond i n the l a s t f i v e years. The primary forces behind the t r a n s i t i o n of land from a g r i c u l t u r a l uses i n the study area have been commercial and i n d u s t r i a l concerns, anxious to locate on r e l a t i v e l y cheap; f l a t , serviced land within close proximity to Vancouver. The new commercial and i n d u s t r i a l buildings are located i n areas which concentrate r e t a i l i n g , wholesaling, d i s t r i b u t i n g , warehousing, manufacturing, and l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l functions together i n one 'park.' New i n d u s t r i a l parks have been b u i l t at various locations i n the study area. In an e f f o r t to expand i t s commercial and i n d u s t r i a l base, Richmond has zoned several areas i n East Richmond to a t t r a c t new enterprises. Richmond's desire to a t t r a c t new businesses, and to locate some of the businesses and industries i n East Richmond i s not questionned here. However, the almost hap-hazard pattern of rezoning to commercial/industrial uses i s very disturbing. ^  F i g . 5 "For Sale": River Road 56 The "For Sale" signs posted on farmland near the new commercial/industrial areas are i n d i c a t i v e of a trend which may be gaining i n momentum. F i g . 7 "For Sale" Nelson Road 57 The commercial/industrial areas are located on the fringes of the study area, along the r i v e r (River Road, and the eastern portion of the i s l a n d ) , and on Number Six Road, (which forms the western border of the study area). Six commercial/industrial areas have been defined and are shown on Map 3. 1, The Burrows Road commercial/industrial area contains the larges t concentration of commercial and i n d u s t r i a l concerns i n the study area. Analyzing a land use map of a l l of Richmond, i t i s possible to argue that t h i s area was merely a l o g i c a l extension of the expanding commercial and i n d u s t r i a l develop-ment occurring near the Knight Street Bridge, west of Number Six Road. But i t i s seen that the new development on Burrows Road sets a dangerous precedent for the r u r a l area east of Number Six Road. U n t i l recently, commercial and i n d u s t r i a l development i n the northeast section of the study area was located along River Road, oriented towards the Fraser River, and r e l a t i v e l y unobtrusive. The Burrows Road area heralds large-scale commercial and i n d u s t r i a l develop-ment east of Number Six Road, encouraging even more in d u s t r i e s to locate along the r i v e r as the land becomes serviced and developable. While services, such as hydro, water, sewer and telephone l i n e s can be extended to the new business-es, the development puts a d d i t i o n a l stress upon a road system which i s merely adequate for low density r e s i d e n t i a l or a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s . Present through t r a f f i c along River Road and Number Six Road i s r e l a t i v e l y minimal, since Westminster Highway provides a f a s t , s t r a i g h t east-west connector; the Knight Street Bridge extension connects to south and east Richmond. However, increasing commercial and i n d u s t r i a l development i n t h i s corner of the study area, coupled with other commercial/industrial developments along River Road (examined i n the following sections), w i l l eventually require a large c a p i t a l expenditure to replace the e x i s t i n g narrow roads. If such development continues there w i l l be increasing c o n f l i c t s between MAP 3: COMMERCIAL'/ INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF EAST RICHMOND 59 slow-moving farm vehicles which s t i l l use River and Number Six Roads (as well as most roads i n East Richmond) and the large-volume truck t r a f f i c which has been generated by the new businesses. V i s u a l l y , the commercial/industrial development on Burrows Road i s an obvious i n t r u s i o n into the r u r a l area. There have been minimal e f f o r t s to reduce the v i s u a l c o n f l i c t between open f i e l d s of the farms on one side, and the concrete, asphalt and glass on the other. 2, The Savage Road commercial/industrial area has recently experienced an i n f l u x of new businesses. In the l a s t ten years there has been l i t t l e further conversion of farmland to nonagricultural land uses, with most of the new development i n f i l l i n g the area. However, the Burrows Road area has been extended to the point where connection between the two areas i s not only f e a s i b l e , but i s almost i n e v i t a b l e . This would probably encourage developers 12 to expand the Savage Road area further into the farmland. 3. The River Road commercial/industrial area stretches from Number Six Road to the border of New Westminster. Along River Road the ind u s t r i e s range i n age, s i z e and function, from older i n d u s t r i e s which are f u n c t i o n a l l y connected to the Fraser River (Byrn P i l e Driving & Dredging, Septre Dredging, Tom-Mac Shipyards, and Tree Island Steel Company), to small, new i n d u s t r i e s which have no r e l a t i o n s h i p with the r i v e r (Fraser Nursery, Dick's Used Auto Parts.) The businesses and in d u s t r i e s i n t h i s area are dispersed along the four mile length of River Road, with the majority located on the south side of the road. The narrow road's i n a b i l i t y to support heavy t r a f f i c i s one of the major reasons why River Road has not i n d u s t r i a l i z e d as quickly as other areas of Richmond. While'road transportation f o r industry may be inadequate, r a i l transportation i s excellent. The Canadian National Railway provides an 6.0 excellent connection between Richmond and Vancouver, v i a the Canadian National t r e s s l e bridge. 4. The fourth commercial/industrial areta known as the Fraser River I n d u s t r i a l and Marine Park (owned by F a r r e l l Estates Ltd.) i s presently under construction. The area i s located south of Westminster Highway, neighbouring the r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhood of Hamilton, at the eastern edge of Richmond. 13 According to the Richmond Planning Department , the development of a commercial/industrial park i n t h i s area r e s u l t s from the o r i g i n a l exclusion of t h i s property from the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. The s i t e , which i s only marginally able to support a g r i c u l t u r e , has been used as a sand dump for many years. The concept behind the development of t h i s l o c a t i o n i s that the new i n d u s t r i a l park would complement the adjacent Shelter Bay Marine, presently under construction, and other e x i s t i n g f i s h - r e l a t e d i n d u s t r i e s and f a c i l i t i e s located at the extreme eastern end of Richmond. The s i t e i s i n the i n i t i a l stages of construction with the ground only now being readied f o r water and sewer serv i c e s . Whether t h i s area w i l l a c t u a l l y consist of marine-related 14 i n d u s t r i a l and commercial businesses i s unknown: 5. The f i f t h l o c a t i o n represents a t r i o of cement plants: LaFarge Cement, Canada Cement LaFarge , and Conforce Products Ltd. LaFarge Cement has been at t h i s l o c a t i o n since 1956, and with i t s subsidiary, Canada Cement 'LaFarge , i s now one of the largest employers i n Richmond, employing - . . 15 over two hundred persons. The concrete plants dominate the southern horizon of East Richmond. The massive cement and s t e e l structures are a s t r i k i n g contrast to the f l a t pasture land of the farms i n the foreground, with the imposing urban structures domin-ating what i s s t i l l e s s e n t i a l l y a r u r a l environment. Upon closer examination, the cement dust from the LaFarge f a c t o r i e s covers the grass and vegetation l i k e a grey snowfall, While the factory may be imposing on the landscape, providing an i n t e r e s t i n g contrast to an a g r i c u l t u r a l area, u l t i m a t e l y i t proves to be a graphic reminder of the environmental i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of ' i n d u s t r i a l and r u r a l functions, 6. The commercial/industrial area recently completed on the northeast corner of Number Six Road and Westminster Highway i s an example of obvious land use c o n f l i c t ; i t appears to be almost t o t a l l y i l l o g i c a l i n terms of 16 land use planning on the urban-rural f r i n g e . The small scale of the develop-ment i t s e l f does not seem to threaten the a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape to the east. However, i f one takes into consideration the increasing a c c e s s i b i l i t y arid ; recent changes i n zoning i n the area, the new i n d u s t r i a l park i s se t t i n g a zoning precedent which may further expedite i n d u s t r i a l expansion along Westminster Highway into the predominantly a g r i c u l t u r a l heart of East Richmond. 1 7 E. P u b l i c / U t i l i t y / l r i s t i t u t i o n a l (1) Public The Federal government, or Crown Corporation thereof, does not occupy any land i n East Richmond, However, the North Fraser Harbour Commission owns approximately f i v e acres, located on the r i v e r side of River Road. At present, t h i s s i t e i s being leased to Sceptre Dredging. In addition, the Harbour Commission also owns ten acres on the south side of River Road, between Number Six and Savage Roads (this s i t e i s vacant at present). The P r o v i n c i a l government ; owns four small pieces of property i n the study area t o t a l l i n g ' approximately f i f t e e n acres. The M u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond i s the largest public owner of land i n 62 East Richmond. Yet, i n terms of acreage, i t owns very l i t t l e , a t o t a l of only twenty to t h i r t y acres (which includes portions of the dyke). F i g . 8 East Richmond Dyke Almost h a l f of the land owned by the mu n i c i p a l i t y i n the study area i s long narrow pieces of land along the dyke surround the i s l a n d . Most of t h i s land i s vacant. (2) U t i l i t y There i s only one major u t i l i t y s i t e i n the study area, located at Number Six Road and Bridgeport Road. The s i t e , occupied by B. C. Hydro, i s owned by the P r o v i n c i a l Government. Most other u t i l i t i e s do not own land i n the area, instead they have obtained easements from the farmers which allows the U t i l i t i e s to b u i l d power l i n e s across the land. The major co r r i d o r of wires diagonally crosses Richmond from north to south as shown on Map 4. 64 F i g . 9 U t i l i t y S ite There has been no attempt to screen-the pipes and wires of t h i s u t i l i t y s i t e which v i s i b l y intrudes onto the r u r a l landscape. (3) I n s t i t u t i o n a l The only i n s t i t u t i o n a l land uses i n the study area are two elementary schools. Hamilton Elementary, located on G i l l e y Road, i s the only a c t i v e school, with 89 students and s i x teachers. In the past decade the enrolment has been d e c l i n i n g as fewer ch i l d r e n now l i v e i n the Hamilton r e s i d e n t i a l area. East Richmond Elementary School, located on Number Eight Road, near River 18 Road, was closed i n 1935 , a r e s u l t of education and budget cuts. The school b u i l d i n g and yard have been maintained by municipal employees for the l a s t f o r t y f i v e years. 65 F. Land Uses on the Periphery The zoning changes of 1978 and 1979 on the periphery of the study area are i n d i c a t i v e of the increasing pressure to convert farmland to n o r a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses, e s p e c i a l l y i n d u s t r i a l and commercial uses. The aforementioned Number Six Road and Westminster Highway commercial/industrial area i s only one mile from the commercial/industrial parks located on the western periphery of the study area, on Cambie and Jacombs Roads. The mile of farmland between the two commercial/industrial developments i s about to undergo a major trans-formation. In 1977, three hundred acres, located east and west of the Knight Street Bridge extension were released from the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. To date, no buildings have been constructed, however plans are being prepared for yet another i n d u s t r i a l park. With.-the consolidation of the i r r e g u l a r i n d u s t r i a l and commercial zoning i n East Richmond into one large area, East Richmond's commercial/industrial zone now p a r a l l e l s the Knight Street Bridge extension from the North Arm of the Fraser River to Westminster Highway, stretching almost h a l f the width of Richmond. The commercial/industrial development on the northeast"corner of Westminster Highway and Number Six Road, appearing i s o l a t e d on the r u r a l landscape represents the kind of development which w i l l l i k e l y be seen on the periphery i n the future. V. Conclusions East Richmond's a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape i s , i n e f f e c t , a landscape com-posed of a d i v e r s i t y of land uses, from heavy i n d u s t r i a l (LaFarge Cement) to natural open space (southern and eastern portions of the study area). The centre of the study area remains predominantly a g r i c u l t u r a l i n i t s land use, economic a c t i v i t y and v i s u a l features. However, the mixed land uses on the boundaries of the study area diminish the a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape's v i s u a l impact, as i n t e n s i f y i n g n o n a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses have been i n s e n s i t i v e l y located i n what i s s t i l l e s s e n t i a l l y a r u r a l landscape. While East Richmond remains l a r g e l y a g r i c u l t u r a l , the landscape on the urban-rural f r i n g e i s changing dramatically from one which t r a d i t i o n a l l y has been dominated by a g r i c u l t u r e , to one which i s more akin to an urban-rural fri n g e landscape, where the dominant land use i s unknown. On the northern and eastern boundaries of the study area, urban and r u r a l land uses converge i n what appears to be an indiscriminate manner, juxtaposing a g r i c u l t u r a l , r e s i -d e n t i a l , commercial, public and u t i l i t y land uses i n one small area. On the western boundary, the a g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d s and natural areas of trees and peat bogs slowly give way to the older r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhood of Hamilton. F i n a l l y , on the southern boundary, the cows and horses on the pasture are dwarfed by the cement plants and cement products. There are several sub-areas within the study area i n which there are obvious c o n f l i c t s . The commercial/industrial areas at Number Six Road and Westminster Highway and Burrows Road are both immediately adjacent to a g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d s . Yet both developments heighten the aesthetic c o n f l i c t between urban and r u r a l functions because the s i t i n g and design of the b u i l d -ings almost contemptuously disregards the aesthetic appeal of the adjacent open space. The cement walls of the new buildings act l i k e f o r t i f i c a t i o n s , r e p e l l i n g the r u r a l environment which surrounds them. The commercial and i n d u s t r i a l buildings have been b u i l t i n r u r a l environments i n the same manner and s t y l e as i n an urban s e t t i n g . Few attempts have been made to design commercial and i n d u s t r i a l buildings that take advantage of the unique r u r a l landscape, without detracting from i t s r u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The value of the a g r i c u l t u r a l land use of East Richmond includes the obvious economic resource of r i c h , raw farmland, but also encompasses the scenic v i s t a s of the thousands of acres of crops and c a t t l e , the c u l t u r a l context of the municipally or r e g i o n a l l y unique development pattern and the h i s t o r i c a l assets of old farmhouses and outbuildings. Once these int a n g i b l e land uses are recognized, one begins to v i s u a l i z e an integrated approach to planning f o r conservation i n r u r a l environments, incorporating a heritage strategy as part of a comprehensive master plan for the area, emphasizing the d i v e r s i t y , the character of the r u r a l landscape,linking i t f u n c t i o n a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y to the rest of the community. 68 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER FOUR """Department of Research and Planning, C i t y of Duluth, The Language of  Open Space (Duluth: Department of Research and Planning, May, 1975), p. 111. 2 Ibi d . , p, 113, 3 J, E, Wuenscher and J. M. S t a r r e t t , Landscape Compartmentalization: An E c o l o g i c a l Approach to Land Use Planning (Durham: Water Resources Research I n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y of North Carolina, 1973), p. 1. 4 G. Eckbo, " Q u a l i t a t i v e Values i n the Landscape," Landscape Assessment ed. E. R. Zube (Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975), p.32. ~*R. S. Whaley, "The Economics of a View," i n Landscape Assessment, p. 39. J , Davidson add G. Wibberley, Planning and the Rural Environment (Oxford and New York: Peragamon Press, 1977), p. 110. ^Even as l a t e as the 1960's residential'development proposals were being submitted to the Planning Department. A l l of the plans were refused because of the municipal p o l i c y of no large-scale r e s i d e n t i a l growth i n East Richmond. Richmond Planning Department, R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use Study (Richmond Planning Department, 1970). 9 While most studies separate commercial from i n d u s t r i a l land uses, f o r the purposes of t h i s research i t was not necessary to do so. With<':the excep-t i o n of LaFarge Cement, which has been i n East. Richmond f o r twenty years, the i n d u s t r i a l firms l o c a t i n g i n the study area have tended to be small-scale , l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l or l i g h t manufacturing, and hence almost i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from commercial uses. X U T h e "For Sale" signs promise development of the s i t e as commercial/ i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s . However, the l o c a t i o n a l drawbacks, combined with the i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y of heavy truck transportation, the i s o l a t i o n of s i t e s i n the midst of farmland • which i s s t i l l included i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves), and the lack of potable water, obviates any major i n d u s t r i a l -i z a t i o n i n East Richmond at the present time. "'""'"The municipality of Richmond b u i l t these roads i n the 1920's as farm roads, not a n t i c i p a t i n g either the surge i n automobile ownership or the growth of Richmond, 12 Ian Chang, Richmond Municipal Planner,stated that to h i s knowledge no such connection i s planned'between the two developments. However, he was 69 unable to say whether the Engineering Department had the connection i n mind when the roads were l a i d out, 13 1 have spoken to several planners of the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond at various times f o r a v a r i e t y of purposes over the l a s t two years. The bulk of the planning information of t h i s research i s from conversations 1 have had with Ian Chang. 14 Given the f i s h i n g industry's present doldrums, coupled with r i s i n g f u e l costs f o r the p r i v a t e pleasure boat operator, i t does not appear that marine-related i n d u s t r i e s i n Greater Vancouver would be prepared to expand or relocate, or new marine-related i n d u s t r i e s would l i k e l y require an expensive s i t e i n a new commercial/industrial park. Hence, the commercial/industrial park, which was intended to be.marine-oriented, complemented by the adjacent f i s h i n g industry a c t i v e i n t h i s l o c a t i o n , w i l l l i k e l y become j u s t another i n d u s t r i a l park, ^^The t o t a l employment of a l l three plants i s over three hundred persons according to B. Overgaard, plant manager of Canada Cement LaFarge. 16 The new commercial/industrial area replaced Riverdale Lumber, which went out of business. Hence, the property was excluded from the o r i g i n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves boundaries. In addition, when the developer applied to the Planning Department, s i t e was already zoned commercial, leaving the Planning Department no a l t e r n a t i v e but to approve what has become an odd mix of r e t a i l , wholesale, automotive, and various other commercial businesses. ^ T h e u t i l i t y , p u b l i c and i n s t i t u t i o n a l land uses have been grouped into one c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r the purposes of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n since there i s only a small land area which i s i n t h i s category. Nonetheless the impact of these three land uses on the landscape i s very v i s i b l e . 18 According to Richmond School Board sources. 70 Chapter Five DESCRIPTIVE INVENTORY OF EAST RICHMOND I, Introduction This chapter provides an a n a l y t i c framework to determine the heritage Values of the case study landscape. While the framework encompasses a l l aspects of heritage conservation, including c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l values, the greatest emphasis i n on scenic resources. In addition, t h i s paper provides an examination of the h i s t o r i c a l development of the methods and terminology. Further, a v i s u a l analysis of the Spallumcheen Valley i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l be presented to i l l u s t r a t e how the study method may be applied to inventory a r u r a l landscape. I I . Landscape Analysis Methods In recent years approaches have been developed to describe or analyze scenic q u a l i t i e s of r u r a l landscapes. To date, the l i t e r a t u r e on landscape analysis may be divided into three categories: d e s c r i p t i v e inventories, public evaluations, and economic analyses.*' To f u l l y appreciate the choice of methods for t h i s t h e s i s , a b r i e f examination of a l l three i s necessary. Each approach has obvious l i m i t a t i o n s stemming from i t s r e l a t i v e l y recent development. However, each approach provides a v a l i d means f o r analyzing the scenic resources of a landscape. Descriptive inventory i s the oldest and most widely used approach. I t e n t a i l s describing the landscape i n terms of scenic elements, including vegetation, land form, and land use. It can be c a r r i e d one step further 71 by r a t i n g scenic elements on the basis of c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a designed by the researcher. Quantitative inventory i s a recent development, having been promoted by "large-scale land-use planning, new data analysis techniques and hardware, growing demand for o b j e c t i v i t y , and the introduction of new 2 d i s c i p l i n e s to environmental research." Descriptive inventory i s perhaps best for d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s . However, i t tends to be too s p e c i f i c with the t o t a l e f f e c t of the landscape often l o s t i n the concentration on d e t a i l s . The landscape's t o t a l e f f e c t r e s u l t s from not only the elements of the landscape but also the i n t e r a c t i o n s between the elements. Thus, a r a i s e d dyke may be an element of the landscape, but, i t i s not of any p a r t i c u l a r scenic s i g n i f i c a n c e unless the elevated p o s i t i o n of the dyke provides a view of the adjacent landscape. Furthermore, while an old farmhouse i s an element of the landscape, i t i s only when the out-buildings and f i e l d s complement the house that the scenic s i g n i f i c a n c e of the b u i l d i n g becomes obvious. / The perception of scenic beauty often d i f f e r s according to one's back-ground, education and personal tastes. In looking at landscape analysis methods, the major issue i s often that landscapes cannot be adequately surveyed by one i n d i v i d u a l or group of researchers. In comparison to the approaches discussed below, however, the d e s c r i p t i v e inventory approach involves a mini-mum number of value judgments of scenic beauty. The other approaches s p e c i f i c a l l y involve the analysis of landscapes according to the general p u b l i c ' s values, or s p e c i a l i s t s ' values, The other approaches tend to increase the complexity of the perception of scenic beauty at the research stage. In sum, d e s c r i p t i v e inventories are r e l a t i v e l y simple, inexpensive and f l e x i b l e . The f l e x i b i l i t y i s important when analyzing landscapes with unique features, p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l elements. 72 The public preference approach, also categorized into quantitative and nonquantitatiye methods, responded to an increased demand for c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the planning process. Verbal surveys and questionnaires are the roost common nonquantiatiye public preference approaches. The inherent problems are s i m i l a r to any survey method; apathetic respondents, manipula-t i v e questionnaires, and inaccurate data a l l contribute to a general i n e f f i c i -ency and u n r e l i a b i l i t y . These public evaluations, whether quantitative or nonquantitative,rely upon the perceptions of a number of people, from diverse backgrounds and educations. The respondents are often unable to d i s t i n g u i s h between scenic preference (the areas that they would personally use) and scenic beauty (the areas that they would merely enjoy). Further, unless the respondents have personally v i s i t e d the landscape i n question, they are susceptable to many kinds of research bias — the researcher's b i a s , the media's bia s , etc. However, the most d i f f i c u l t problem with the public preference approach Is that respondents' at t i t u d e s do not necessar i l y correspond to t h e i r behav-iour. T.A. Heberlein, who i s engaged i n landscape analysis research i n the for e s t industry, states: " I t i s u n l i k e l y that knowledge of user at t i t u d e s can help the manager eit h e r predict or change user behaviour since the bulk of the empirical material studies suggest there i s no clear linear r e l a t i o n s h i p between single attitudes and behaviour," The quantitative public preference approach attempts to quantify the respondent's answers to questionnaires or surveys. But the success of such an approach "depends on the r e l i a b i l i t y of the inputs on which they are based 4 and on the subjective i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the coders." This approach r e l i e s upon diverse public opinions and atti t u d e s which often make the r e s u l t s 73 untenable, or, at best, extremely complex. The public preference approach provides excellent information as to general public's aesthetic preferences which i s useful i n analyzing a land-scape's scenic q u a l i t i e s . Recent development i n survey techniques are being used i n conjunction with the d e s c r i p t i v e inventory approach i n order to ident-i f y the s a l i e n t scenic elements and to analyze the public's impression of those elements. While more empirical study i s necessary to advance these research developments, such a complex and time consuming multiple approach i s f a r beyond the scope and means of t h i s paper. The f i n a l means of scenic landscape analysis i s the economic analysis approach. ''Traditionally, economic analyses have generally f a i l e d to account for unmarketed (nonpecuniary) resources, such as aes t h e t i c s . " ^ The -more recent attempts at p r i c i n g aspects of aesthetics have f a i l e d to provide an adequate d o l l a r f i g u r e . The most commonly accepted method used to deter-mine a d o l l a r value i s 'willingness to pay' ( i . e . how much i s a passenger i n a car w i l l i n g to pay i n order to preserve aspects of the view?). Inherent i n t h i s method are several problems: "Reported 'willingness to pay' values are often too high, for they are usually acquired i n response to hypothetical s i t u a t i o n s . Respondents may believe they w i l l never be asked to pay, so they overstate t h e i r w i llingness to pay i n hopes of preserving the scenic resource." While the measure of scenic beauty has not yet been determined, i t s d o l l a r value i s somewhat a b s t r a c t l y estimated by the economic analysis approach. There are several u n s e t t l i n g questions here; Who a c t u a l l y uses and/or enjoys scenic resources, what scenic resources are used and/or enjoyed, when do people a c t u a l l y use and/or enjoy these resources, where are the scenic resources used and enjoyed, and f i n a l l y how does one measure 'use' and 'enjoyment' of scenic resources as separate functions? The economic analysis approach i s a v a l i d , though questionable, means of evaluating a landscape's scenic q u a l i t i e s . It i s s t i l l i n the r u d i -mentary stages of development and, therefore, w i l l not be useful f or the purpose of t h i s paper. In sum, a l l three approaches have advantages and l i m i t a t i o n s - Any method selected to analyze a landscape requires c a r e f u l thought as to i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y . Equally important, i s that the method must be "based on experience, v a l i d and r e l i a b l e ,.. adaptable to d i f f e r e n t planning s i t u a t i o n s and simple and inexpensive to use."^ • I I I , Assumptions There are four assumptions underlying the method of t h i s paper: (1) Expected images e x i s t . The mention of a r u r a l landscape evokes c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : green f i e l d s , o l d farmhouses and outbuildings, cows and horses, and wide open spaces. "The image produced represents the know-l e d g a b i l i t y , expectedness, romanticism and emotionalism associated with g features within the area." While the components may vary, the o v e r a l l image tends to be r e l a t i v e l y standard. C2) Aesthetic concern v a r i e s . I t i s evident that reactions to the aesthetic value of any given landscape v a r i e s . However, i t i s important that a scenic analysis take into account the v a r i e t y of concerns, from those who haye a vested i n t e r e s t i n the area to those who simply pass through the area. (3) Diverse landscape j s important. One of the p o s i t i v e elements of the analysis of a landscape i s the v a r i a b i l i t y of the colour, tone, form and 75 texture, The d i v e r s i t y of the landscape should be one of the major c r i t e r i o n 9 on which p a r t i c u l a r landscapes are singled out for s p e c i a l protection. While large-scale monoculture farming Ceg. p r a i r i e wheat f i e l d s ) may also constitute a scenic landscape, the concepts of distance and perspective are important i n t h i s type of r u r a l landscape. One small f i e l d of wheat may not be p a r t i c u l a r -l y scenic, but when the f i e l d stretches to the horizon, i t becomes an explosion of gold tones, swaying i n the wind l i k e amber waves, almost a l i v e i n i t s move-ment . (A) A H lands are viewed. The landscapes that are presently under research for t h e i r scenic, c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e are located near urban areas. They are usually viewed from an automobile, or from a vantage p o s i t i o n — i . e . high elevations, or t r a i n s , or a i r c r a f t s . TV, The V i s u a l Management System A. History The V i s u a l Management System, developed by the Forest Service of the United States Department of A g r i c u l t u r e i n the early 1970's, i s a d e s c r i p t i v e inventory. I t was designed as a nonquainti'tative method for describing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or elements of a landscape. In the l a s t decade, the V i s u a l Management System (hereafter referred to as VMS, or simply, the System) was used by the f o r e s t industry i n the United States and Canada to minimize aesthetic and scenic c o n f l i c t i n wilderness areas caused by commercial f o r e s t r y operations. Despite the f o r e s t landscape bias of the o r i g i n a l system, i t was soon r e a l i z e d that i t was possible to extrapolate the VMS to landscapes other than wilderness forest areas. 76 In A p r i l , 1975, the B r i t i s h Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat CELUCS) sponsored aworkshop,entitled "Landscape Architecture and the V i s u a l Resource," Through t h i s workshop, the VMS was introduced to several departments of the P r o v i n c i a l Government concerned with aesthetic c o n f l i c t s between land uses, landscape's scenic q u a l i t i e s , or landscape architecture, The p a r t i c i p a n t s of the workshop attempted to explore the System's a p p l i c a b i l i t y to B r i t i s h Columbia's landscapes. While there were some i n i t i a l reservations, the system was credited with a workable d e s c r i p t i v e framework f o r analyzing a landscape's aesthetic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In order to more f u l l y understand both the VMS and i t s d e r i v a t i v e used i n t h i s research, the system's terms and bases are outlined i n Appendicis 1 and 2. B, C r i t i c i s m of the VMS The chief c r i t i c i s m s of the VMS focus on i t s s u b j e c t i v i t y and i t s use which has been l i m i t e d to natural or wilderness areas. The VMS does r e l y on subjective judgments with respect to degrees of v a r i e t y , importance of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features, and the measures of s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s . However, the VMS only seeks to i d e n t i f y the s a l i e n t landscape features, t h e i r r e l a t i v e impact on the viewer, and the amount of further a l t e r a t i o n that the landscape can handle without the o r i g i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s being t o t a l l y destroyed. The VMS, as such, minimizes the number of subjective decisions. Other methods that attempt to quantify the features of the landscape by r e l y i n g on subject-ive responses, n e c e s s a r i l y involve an increased bias i n the research. Jay Appleton pointed out i n The Experience of Landscape that these "...studies introduce so much subjective assessment into the preparation of t h e i r mater-i a l s that i t s subsequent processing by 'objective' methods never c a r r i e s con-V i c t i o n . " The second c r i t i c i s m of the VMS i s i t s l i m i t e d usefulness. Although the VMS was designed f o r forest landscapes, recent studies have indicated that i t i s adaptable to other landscapes. I f the VMS i s modified to take land uses into consideration, then i t s usefulness as a scenic landscape analysis method i s enhanced. The Spallumcheen Va l l e y study provides an i l l u s t r a t i o n of how i t i s possible to modify the VMS to a r u r a l landscape. C, Spallumcheen V a l l e y : A V i s u a l Analysis The B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission adapted the VMS to a r u r a l landscape, publishing a v i s u a l analysis of the Spallumcheen Va l l e y i n 1976, The study, e n t i t l e d Spallumcheen: The V i s u a l Environment — A Land- scape S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis, u t i l i z e d the VMS's d e s c r i p t i v e framework to analyze the r u r a l v a l l e y ' s scenic features. The study subdivided the Valley into d i s c r e t e sub-areas based on "...topography, landform, slope, aspect, a c c e s s i b i l i t y , vegetative patterns and e x i s t i n g land uses. S p a t i a l 'flow' or v i s u a l o r i e n t a t i o n viewpoints and v i s t a s contributed as well to zonal def m i t i o n s . While the Spallumcheen V a l l e y study was based on the p r i n c i p a l s of the VMS, i t was s u b s t a n t i a l l y modified. The VMS categorizes a study area's land-scape according to v a r i e t y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape q u a l i t i e s and s e n s i t i v i t y , comprising v i s u a l management zones, and, f i n a l l y , determines the V i s u a l Quality Objectives. In contrast, the Spallumcheen V a l l e y study f i r s t cate-gorizes the landscape into v i s u a l management zones, or ' s e n s i t i v i t y zones,' and then determines the degree of v a r i e t y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape q u a l i t i e s , and s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s for each d i s c r e t e zone. 78 The Spallumcheen Valley study appears to reverse the order of the VMS. However, upon closer- examination, the Spallumcheen V a l l e y study i m p l i c i t l y ' takes into account the VMS's c r i t e r i a f o r zonal d e f i n i t i o n when the landscape i s categorized into d i s c r e t e s e n s i t i v i t y zones. Thus, the major differ e n c e between the two approaches i s that the VMS analyzes the en t i r e landscape, whereas the Spallumcheen Valley study emphasises the subdivisions of the landscapes. If a landscape i s made up of one or two land uses (or none at a l l i n the case of wilderness forest areas) then the general approach of the VMS i s appropriate. However, i f the landscape i s more complex, comprising a number of land uses, the more de t a i l e d approach of the Spallumcheen Va l l e y study i s desirable. The o r i g i n a l VMS i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to adequtely analyze urban or r u r a l landscapes with t h e i r multitude of land uses. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the VMS i s unable to describe the con f l i c t s , between various land uses or the c o n f l i c t between land uses and the remaining natural areas to the same extent as the technique used i n the Spallumcheen V a l l e y study. V. Study Method A. Outline of Method The method of t h i s thesis i s based on the VMS's d e s c r i p t i v e inventory framework. It has been a l t e r e d to r e f l e c t the scenic and c u l t u r a l value of c e r t a i n land uses, s p e c i f i c a l l y a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses. Fig, 10 . i l l u s t r a t e s the model of the method used i n t h i s research. The study method proceeds i n three general steps; CI) resource analysis C2) inventory of v i s u a l , c u l t u r a l , h i s t o r i c a l and p h y s i c a l features (.3) landscape q u a l i t y objectives and recommendations 79 F i g . 10 Model of Method Resource Analysis Inventory Product iNatural iFeatures i ( s o i l s , rvegetation, letc.) Land Use Subdivision of Landscape into S e n s i t i v i t y Zones C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Landscape: - dominance elements - v a r i a b l e factors - deviations n Variety Ratings - minimal, common, d i s t i n c t i v e jUnique c u l t u r a l or j i h i s t o r i c a l features i J_ — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ^ Landscape Quality Obj e c t i v e s : - Preservation - Retention - P a r t i a l Retention - M o d i f i c a t i o n - R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Recommendations 80 The f i r s t step consists of an analysis of the natural features and land uses which constitute the v i s u a l resource. This i s c a r r i e d out i n Chapters One and Two, where the natural features, including s o i l s and vegetation, a g r i c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y and land uses, including a g r i c u l t u r a l , r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial and i n d u s t r i a l , are discussed i n d e t a i l . The second step involves the subdivision of the landscape into s e n s i t i v -i t y zones as defined i n the Spallumcheen study. These zones are determined by the number and extent of i n d i v i d u a l land uses as w e l l as the types of vegetation and o v e r a l l v a r i e t y i n the case study area. Once the landscape has been divided into s e n s i t i v i t y zones, d e s c r i p t i v e inventories of the v i s u a l , c u l t u r a l , h i s t o r i c resources of each zone are undertaken. The d e s c r i p t i v e inventories provide the necessary information to guide future development goals. Each zone has i t s own land uses, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, degree of v a r i e t y and unique features. Each i s inventoried for i t s dominance elements, v a r i a b l e f a ctors and deviations from the landscape. Included i n t h i s step are v a r i e t y ratings based on natural features, s p e c i f i c a l l y vegetation, and land uses. The v a r i e t y r a t i n g s , ranging from minimal to d i s t i n c t i v e , are estimated on the basis of the guidelines: i n Table 2. F i n a l l y , the inventory includes a d e s c r i p t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c features. Unlike the Spallumcheen Study, or?.the VMS, t h i s des-c r i p t i v e inventory focuses on features which are part of the landscape's v i s u a l appearance, but have a d d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The emphasis i s warrented as urban land uses encroach on the r u r a l landscape, threatening not only the landscape's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c q u a l i t i e s but also i t s c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c features as w e l l . The t h i r d step of the study method investigates landscape q u a l i t y 81 Table 2 Variety Ratings -.-.-Distinctive Common Minimal Vegetation High degree of patterns i n vegetation Large old-growth timbei Unusual or outstanding d i v e r s i t y i n plant species wCohtinuouspvegetative cover with interspersed patterns Mature but not outstanding old-growth Common d i v e r s i t y i n plant species Continuous vegetative cover with l i t t l e or no pattern Land Use D i v e r s i t y of a g r i c u l t -urbah land uses, or mixture of urban and r u r a l land uses compl plementary to the natural or r u r a l landscape D i v e r s i t y of urban and r u r a l land uses r e s u l t i n g i n occasional c o n f l i c t with r u r a l or natural landscape or urban land uses may be present, but do not domin-ate landscape's o v e r a l l character D i v e r s i t y of urban or r u r a l land uses which c o n f l i c t a e s t h e t i c a l l y and f u n c t i o n a l l y or Urban land uses which dominate the natural and r u r a l landscape J 'Overall variety High contrast within zone, or contrast to entir e landscape. Moderate contrast Monotony 82 objectives such as preservation, retention, modification, or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the zone's natural features and land uses, and makes recommendations to achieve these objectives. B. Conditions and Scope This research i s not intended to replace, or duplicate, comprehensive planning i n East Richmond. The major focus of t h i s research i s the v i s u a l , c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l features of the landscape with the f i n a l r e s u l t directed to how heritage conservation can be used to help maintain or enhance the q u a l i t i e s of the r u r a l landscape. This paper does not tackle the ad-v i s a b i l i t y of encouraging i n d u s t r i a l or r e s i d e n t i a l uses i n the study area, although the implications of these urban uses i n r u r a l areas are somewhat sel f - e v i d e n t . Instead, t h i s paper concentrates on examining the heritage value of the present landscape i n order to ameliorate present aesthetic land use c o n f l i c t s , perhaps preventing future c o n f l i c t s . Any v i s u a l analysis of a landscape i s , by nature, very subjective. "This i s no apology. Coupled with a s c i e n t i f i c approach to i t s components, the v i s u a l landscape often reveals to us what we've known a l l along but f o r 12 which we could f i n d no defensible language." C. Data Sources A e r i a l photographs, prepared by the Richmond Planning Department, provide an overview of a l l Lulu Island, c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i n g some of the more obvious v i s u a l r u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the landscape. Land use, land ownership and zoning maps, a l l at the 1:30,000 scale, are included to supplement the v i s u a l information obtained from the a e r i a l photographs',. 83 Extensive photographic coverage of the study area i s used to corroborate preliminary findings on land uses, areas with aesthetic c o n f l i c t , and to i d e n t i f y areas with obvious scenic, c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l data for t h i s inventory has been c o l l e c t e d from a v a r i e t y of sources including interviews with residents, h i s t o r y books on Richmond, the Richmond Archives, and the Richmond H i s t o r i c a l Society. Several f i e l d t r i p s were made to the study area between J u l y , 1979 and March, 1980, The f i e l d t r i p s were undertaken i n a l l seasons, i n various weather conditions, during daylight hours. I t was f e l t that l i m i t i n g the analysis to only one season under optimal conditions did not provide an adequate landscape a n a l y s i s . Instead, the f u l l range of seasons and weather conditions provides an excellent chronicle of the r u r a l landscape's changing dominant features, a c t i v i t i e s and land uses. 13 D. "View From the Road" Certain vantage points were chosen to best view the East Richmond land-scape. The roads, c r i s s c r o s s i n g the study area i n a g r i d pattern, are well suited f o r a v i s u a l a n a l y s i s . The Richmond landscape i s almost p e r f e c t l y f l a t and the built-up roads provide the only ra i s e d viewpoints. Hence, the de s c r i p t i v e inventory of the landscapes: T.in East Richmond p r i m a r i l y r e l i e s on these 'views: from the road.' Although Richmond i s completely surrounded by the Fraser River, any view of the study area from the r i v e r i s , for the most part, blocked by the dykes. Only when the l e v e l of the r i v e r i s high, or when the dyke i s low i n r e l a t i o n to the land, does the r i v e r a f f o r d views of the East Richmond landscape. For the purposes of most landscape analyses the view from the road would 84 s u f f i c e . East Richmond, however, has the unique 'honour' of being d i r e c t l y under the f l i g h t path of Canada's t h i r d l a r g e s t a i r p o r t . This means that the landscape i s seen from the a i r by thousands of people. While the view from the road i s the primary consideration of t h i s d e s c r i p t i v e inventory, the a e r i a l perspective has not been overlooked. SENSITIVITY ZONES The Study area i s subdivided into nine s e n s i t i v i t y zones l i s t e d below and marked on Map 5: S e n s i t i v i t y Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 North Arm I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Central River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Hamilton S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Southeast Dyke S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Southeast I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone South Arm S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Number Six Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Central East Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The f l a t , a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape of East Richmond precludes topography playing a c r u c i a l r o l e i n determining the boundaries of the s e n s i t i v i t y zones. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the absence of s i g n i f i c a n t land forms or rock formations means that the zonal d e f i n i t i o n s are based p r i m a r i l y on the land uses and vegetation, including natural areas as well as crops and pastures planted by man. 85 MAP 5: SENSITIVITY ZONES OF EAST RICHMOND T North Arm S e n s i t i v i t y Zone - Central River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone - East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone - Hamilton S e n s i t i v i t y Zone - Southeast Dyke S e n s i t i v i t y Zone = Southeast I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone - South Arm S e n s i t i v i t y Zone 8 «- NiimberASix Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone 9 T*- Central East Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zon< SCALE: 1 inch = 1 mile NORTH ARM SENSITIVITY ZONE 87 1. North Arm I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The North Arm I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone i s defined i n terms of i t s commercial and i n d u s t r i a l land uses. While there are remnants of natural vegetation and former a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses, they have l i t t l e v i s u a l impact. The commercial and i n d u s t r i a l structures dominate the zone's landscape. The v i s u a l appeal wi t h i n the zone i s minimal with boxlike b u i l d i n g s giving the i n d u s t r i a l landscape a very bland appearance. F i g . 11 "Industry versus Farms" This type of development epitimizes the c l a s s i c farmer-developer c o n f l i c t i n the urban-rural f r i n g e . The commercial and i n d u s t r i a l concerns on one side of the road almost seem to be taunting the farmers on the other side, discouraging them from working hard on the land, knowing that eventually a high p r i c e w i l l be of f e r e d , one that w i l l be impossible to refuse The North Arm I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone, once the s i t e of t h r i v i n g dairy and vegetable farms, retains no h i s t o r i c a l or c u l t u r a l features and s e r i o u s l y detracts from the scenic value of East Richmond's landscape. In aesthetic landscape terms, the commercial and i n d u s t r i a l land uses are negative deviations from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r u r a l landscape of East Richmond. CENTRAL RIVER ROAD SENSITIVITY ZONE 89 2. Central River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone While urban land uses are prevalent i n the Central River Road S e n s i t i v -i t y Zone, there are s t i l l many large open spaces, i n the form of farmland, natural stands of trees, and vacant land. River Road provides a su i t a b l e view of the various land uses on one side, and the Fraser River on the other. F i g . 12 River view: Boats F i g . 13 River view: Log booms Although the view from the road i s of both farmland and r i v e r , the viewer's eyes are constantly drawn to the r i v e r and i t s a t t r a c t i v e q u a l i t i e s : the motion of the r i v e r , changing colours of the water, the range of r i v e r -oriented a c t i v i t i e s along i t s banks, and the views of the other bank and beyond 90 River Road and the Fraser River make up the dominant l i n e s of the study area. The r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial and i n d u s t r i a l structures are also s i g -n i f i c a n t , but they are balanced by the textures and colours of natural areas and farmlands, The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscapes constantly change from the predominantly r u r a l to the urban. Furthermore, the axes of the Fraser River and River Road provide a main l i n e of d i r e c t i o n with the viewer's a t t e n t i o n enframed by the r i v e r to the north and the natural stands of trees to the south. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r u r a l or urban land uses i s af f e c t e d by a v a r i e t y of f a c t o r s : atmospheric conditions, seasons, length of time the landscape i s viewed, and observer p o s i t i o n . During the summer, colour i s a dominant element, with the green f o l i a g e overpowering the i n d u s t r i a l aspects. On the other hand, i n winter, the forms of the grey buildings and accoutrements of urban land uses predominate. F i g . 14 River Road: Urban The p o s i t i o n of the observer influences the o v e r a l l impression of the landscape. From one viewpoint the zone appears very ur-ban, with i n d u s t r i a l buildings r i s i n g up two to three s t o r i e s . 91 F i g . 15 River Road: Rural From another vantage point t h i s zone seems r u r a l , with the farm-houses and outbuildings evoking an image of a p a s t o r a l l i f e that has not changed i n twenty years. 4 I t might be argued that a l l urban land uses i n t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y zone are negative deviations from the zone's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. However, i t i s only the most recently b u i l t , large-scale i n d u s t r i a l structures, which, because of t h e i r sheer s i z e and poor s i t i n g , s p o i l the pleasant e c l e c t i c nature here. Most of the land to the south of River Road has been zoned i n d u s t r i a l for some time, but, due to high costs for s e r v i c i n g of u t i l i t i e s , poor access, and lack of potable water i n the area, i n d u s t r i a l development has been very slow. At present, there are only one or two large-scale i n d u s t r i a l structures i n the zone and hence the negative deviation i s moderate. However, with the increasing demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l land, t h i s zone w i l l eventually be targeted for i n d u s t r i a l growth. Therein l i e s an opportunity to prevent further aesthetic c o n f l i c t . I f the p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are to be maintained 92 or enhanced, immediate steps must be taken to prevent the negative impact of such new development. S u p e r f i c i a l l y , t h i s zone appears to have no redeeming or s i g n i f i c a n t features, but looking more c l o s e l y , the Central River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone i s r i c h i n both h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l features. The photographs below i l l u s t r a t e some of the more i n t e r e s t i n g features of t h i s zone. F i g . 16 93 F i g , 18 Fishing along the Fraser Along the banks of the Fraser, tucked away be-tween i n d u s t r i a l ] and commercial buildings, are some favou r i t e f i s h i n g spots ofl l o c a l residents.[ While only a fewl feet away from the t r a f f i c on River Road, the sandy bank of the r i v e r , combined with the overhanging trees and patches of grass, o f f e r small, but pleasant sanctuaries from urban l i f e . While some experts say that the North Arm i s now too polluted f o r the major salmon runs crowds of fishermen can be found along the banks of the North Arm any Sunday afternoon, from spring to l a t e autumn, a t t e s t i n g to the fact that good f i s h i n g can s t i l l be found. F i g . 19 East Richmond Elementary Of the i n d i v i d u a l buildings which are of h i s t o r i c a l importance, only one b u i l d i n g s t i l l remains i n t h i s zone. The East Richmond School on Number Eight Road, closed i n 1935, i s i n r e l a t i v e l y good con-d i t i o n , having been maintained by the Richmond School Board f o r the l a s t t h i r t y years. EAST RIVER ROAD SENSITIVITY ZONE 95 3. East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone represents one of the most i n t a c t natural landscapes i n Richmond, The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s p r i m a r i l y seen from two major routes <— River Road and Westminster Highway. However, the emphasis, here, i s upon the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape perceived from River Road. From River Road, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s generally enclosed, with a wall of trees to the south and the north bank of the Fraser River to the north. F i g . 20 River Road Forest The mass of cedar, hemlock, b i r c h , spruce, willow and alder trees dominates the landscape during each seasons, from every angle. Even the r i v e r becomes a secondary feature to the f o r e s t of towering trees p a r a l l e l i n g River Road for over a mile. There i s an element of surprise i n discovering a nat-u r a l forested area along River Road which adds to the impact of the forest on the viewer. At times t h i s zone adopts ephemeral landscape c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e s p e c i a l l y i n the autumn, with c o l o u r f u l , f a l l i n g leaves or thick fog giving the area a 96 unique atmosphere. The ephemeral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can also be a t t r i b u t e d to l i g h t i n g : at dusk, during almost any season, the b a c k l i g h t i n g of the sun casts long, eerie shadows across the road. F i g . 21 East River Road Sand Dump There are two major negative deviations from the natural forested landscape. One s i t e on River Road i s being used as a sand dump. In general, there i s a broad v a r i e t y of natural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone. The forested landscape presents a strong contrast to the urban land uses i n West Richmond, as w e l l as the a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses i n East Richmond. Only a few such natural areas are l e f t i n Richmond, and these are not e a s i l y accessible (by automobile, b i c y l e , or by f o o t ) . In addition to i t s scenic value, the East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone has an e c o l o g i c a l importance as one of the few remaining habitats f o r w i l d l i f e and birds on Lulu Island. I t has even been rumoured that deer s t i l l roam i n the f o r e s t . This zone also provides a i r p o l l u t i o n f i l t e r s and ground water f i l t e r s 97 which have important e c o l o g i c a l repercussions for the region. Moreover, i t i s worthy of note that the forest of t h i s zone houses the largest witches coven i n B r i t i s h Columbia.^ However, the exact l o c a t i o n of the coven i s uncertain; i t i s unknown, then, whether witches are s t i l l s e c r e t l y congregating i n the depths of Richmond's f o r e s t . The f o r e s t that dominates the East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone and gives the area i t s scenic, e c o l o g i c a l and, to some extent, c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , i s zoned i n d u s t r i a l . The majority of the land i s owned by MacMillan Bloedel, although developments plans have not been i n i t i a t e d . I t i s imperative that the f u l l values of t h i s zone be c a r e f u l l y considered, that planning and conservation measures be undertaken to ensure that the scenic, c u l t u r a l and e c o l o g i c a l q u a l i t i e s of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape are not completely destroyed. HAMILTON SENSITIVITY ZONE 99 4, Hamilton S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The Hamilton S e n s i t i v i t y Zone i s p r i m a r i l y characterized by single-family r e s i d e n t i a l land use. S t i l l , remnant a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses and natural areas give an o v e r a l l impression of a semi-rural, semi-urban area. While the row upon row of houses perhaps constitute a good example of the 1940's s t y l e suburb, they o f f e r no aesthetic or scenic v a r i e t y and no h i s t o r i c a l or c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . However, Hamilton residents have a f a r greater worry than the scenic or c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e i r neighbourhood. They are concerned with the recently announced plans for the Annacis Island crossing oyer the South Arm of the Fraser River. In the opinion of l o c a l residents, t h i s new crossing-w i l l almost c e r t a i n l y destroy the character of t h e i r neighbourhood, since the highway w i l l l i t e r a l l y cross t h e i r front yards. Those houses not destroyed or moved by the construction of the crossing i t s e l f or the interchange, w i l l l i k e l y be quickly displaced by urban commercial s t r i p development which t r a d i t i o n a l l y centres around such interchanges. In sum, while only the landscape c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Hamilton S e n s i t i v i t y Zone are being considered here, the residents of the Zone are worried about t h e i r future i n what they consider to be a quiet r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhood. What i s to be t h e i r fate? A recent Richmond Review headline has already proclaimed that "East Richmond Property must be Expropriated" i n 6rder f o r the new project to go ahead. "'Those people are hurt, and there's damn l i t t l e you can do to soothe that hurt,' he (Mike 0'Conner, the regional engineer) said, addjlng that s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s crop up a l l over the province." SOUTHEAST DYKE SENSITIVITY ZONE 101 5, Southeast Dyke S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The Southeast Dyke S e n s i t i v i t y Zone represents not simply a r u r a l land-scape, but a wholly i s o l a t e d f i s h i n g community, poised on the banks of the Fraser River. It i s completely oriented towards the r i v e r and i s e s s e n t i a l l y kept a l i v e by f i s h i n g - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , from boat b u i l d e r s to net r e p a i r e r s , from pleasure c r a f t r e n t a l s to u n o f f i c i a l r e t a i l f i s h o u t l e t s . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s at once d e t a i l e d , panoramic and ephemeral. The d e t a i l e d landscape of the old and new f i s h i n g sheds and t i n y fishermen's houses on the edge of the r i v e r contrasts the panoramic view of the Fraser River and beyond to Annacis Island and Delta. F i g . 2 2 Fish i n g Boats on the South Arm At any time of the year, on a misty morning, a sunny a f t e r -noon, or a rainy evening, the moored f i s h i n g boats form an ephemeral landscape, as the water r e f l e c t s the multi-coloured boat h u l l s and hundreds of ships' masts, bobbing up and down with the movement of the r i v e r . 102 The form of the boats and f i s h i n g industry-related buildings dominate the landscape's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , with the texture of the boats, t h e i r nets and f i s h i n g apparatus, also playing an important r o l e i n the character of the landscape. The colours are generally muted, varying i n a multitude of blue and grey tones r e f l e c t i n g the r i v e r ' s changing colours. It i s obvious that the v a r i e t y within the zone i t s e l f and i n r e l a t i o n to the e n t i r e study area i s considerable. The v i s u a l contrast between t h i s zone and the adjacent r e s i d e n t i a l , a g r i c u l t u r a l , and i n d u s t r i a l land uses i s both unique and refreshing. But the f i s h i n g industry-related landscape pro-vides not only a scenic landscape, but also an important h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l landscape as an example of Richmond's r i v e r s i d e landscape of o l d . SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL SENSITIVITY ZONE 104 6. Southeast I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Although the land i n t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y zone has long been earmarked for I n d u s t r i a l uses, i t l a r g e l y remains vacant. While t h i s paper i s being written however, land i s being cleared and i n d u s t r i a l plans f o r the area are being r e a l i z e d . Eventually, the e n t i r e landscape of t h i s zone, as i n the North Arm I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone, w i l l be dominated by i n d u s t r i a l and commercial land uses. At present, the only i n d u s t r i a l buildings i n t h i s zone are the long-established t r i o of cement plants and Pan Abode Industries. Of the four present i n d u s t r i a l landowners, only Pan Abode i s located along Westminster Highway, the major thoroughfare. The other three cement plants are situated along the South Arm dyke, over a mile away from Westminster Highway. F i g . 23 Cement Plants on the South Arm While the distance reduces the impact of these large i n d u s t r i a l structures somewhat, they dominate the southern horizon. 105 F i g , 24 Pan Abode The Pan Abode branch o f f i c e i s an example of excellent s i t i n g and design being applied i n a commercial and I n d u s t r i a l property. Pan Abode, which s p e c i a l i z e s i n the construction of log-frame buildings, e s p e c i a l l y houses, b u i l t i t s administrative branch o f f i c e i n the log-frame s t y l e with the storage and packing f a c i l i t i e s placed behind the o f f i c e b u i l d i n g , r e l a t i v e l y hidden from view. The b u i l d i n g i s situated approximately f i f t y feet away from the road with a large green lawn i n fr o n t , g i v i n g the passerby a view of a pleasant, country-like b u i l d i n g and a laree oDen Ereen soace. uses, i t i s f r u i t l e s s to describe the present landscape i n terms of i t s natural stands of bush, trees and green spaces. In the very near future, the forms and l i n e s of buildings and other i n d u s t r i a l elements w i l l c e r t a i n l y dominate the landscape. The On-site drawings of a proposed i n d u s t r i a l park indicate that the forms of the buildings w i l l be s i m i l a r to those used i n most i n d u s t r i a l parks or estates, 106 F i g . 25 Proposed I n d u s t r i a l Park The designs or s i t i n g techniques reveal no innovative e f f o r t s to ameliorate the i n e v i t a b l e aesthetic c o n f l i c t between the commercial and i n d u s t r i a l buildings and the natural areas and adjacent farmland. FRASER RWER INDUSTRIAL & MARINE PARK being developed by F A R R E L L E S W E S LVD. In sum, the Southeast I n d u s t r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y Zone i s i n a state of change; the land i s e i t h e r i n i n d u s t r i a l use, recently cleared f o r construction, or waiting approval and financing. The natural landscape i s quickly d i s -appearing beneath the developer's bulldozer, taking with i t any unique c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l features that t h i s zone once bore. SOUTH ARM SENSITIVITY ZONE 108 7. South Arm S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The South Arm S e n s i t i v i t y Zone i s comprised almost e n t i r e l y of bog forest and i s l a r g e l y i n a c c e s s i b l e . The bog f o r e s t , covering three square miles, i s covered by small co n i f e r and bi r c h trees, wild cranberry bushes, s a l a l and other vegetation that thrive on peat s o i l s . As such, i t i s considerably different from the neighbouring a g r i c u l t u r a l zone to the north, the i n d u s t r i a l zone to the east, and the r e s i d e n t i a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l zone to the west. From a distance, the v i s u a l impact of the bog i s minimal due to the low shrub and bush mix of the vegetation. The bog i s accessible only v i a Number Six Road, through the Number Six Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone {discussed i n the following sec t i o n ) . As one leaves the Number Six Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone, the t r a n s i t i o n i s immediately apparent. The change from the a g r i c u l t u r a l and r e s i d e n t i a l landscape on Number Six Road to the natural landscape of the peat bog i s obvious to the viewer. At f i r s t the landscape appears to be enclosed with the mass of trees on both sides of the road, however, when the road turns and p a r a l l e l s the South Arm dyke, the landscape i s q u ^ e ^ a n o r a m ^ c ^ ^ ^ Panoramic View of the Fraser River F i g . 26 109 In some respects the landscape i s d e t a i l e d . The textures and l i n e s of i n d i v i d u a l trees, and the colour of small open areas become dominant, replac-ing the mass of hundreds of trees which overwhelms the l a r g e r panoramic land-scape. At the Richmond l a n d f i l l s i t e , the bog f o r e s t abruptly ends. (In f a c t , the smell of the dump announces i t s proximity f a r i n advance of actual p h y s i c a l evidence) F i g . 27 South Arm Bog The contrast i n t h i s zone i s at times s t a r t l i n g with the thick bog f o r e s t sudder l y giving way to large oper f i e l d s , providing views eastward across the land-scape of the e n t i r e study area. From overhead, t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y zone appears to be a continuous bog f o r e s t , with the l a n d f i l l s i t e being the only negative d e v i a t i o n . Because of the nature of the bog forest and i t s poor s u i t a b i l i t y f o r b u i l d i n g , t h i s area has remained i n almost i t s o r i g i n a l state, meaning, of course, that there are no s i g n i f i c a n t c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r i c a l features i n t h i s area. However, s i m i l a r 110 to the deciduous f o r e s t i n the East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone, t h i s area has unique e c o l o g i c a l features which, although not a part of a heritage inventory per se, are of note. / 112 8. The Number Six Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The long, narrow Number Six Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone i s distinguished by r e s i d e n t i a l and s p e c i a l i z e d a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses. Alhtough the eastern boundary of the study area i s defined by Number Six Road, t h i s zone extends beyond the boundary to the end of the properties on the west side of the road, From the major vantage p o s i t i o n , Number Six Road, an e c l e c t i c landscape emerges, with r e s i d e n t i a l , a g r i c u l t u r a l , and commercial land uses mixed with remnant natural areas and small stands of trees. F i g . 28 An e c l e c t i c landscape The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s at once panoramic and d e t a i l e d . The rows of large s i n g l e - f a m i l y houses tend to hide the more sweeping views of the f i e l d s of blueberries and trees behind. The houses, roads, ditches, driveways, and powerlines dominate the foreground view. However, the blueberry farms and the forested areas comprise the middleground view, creating a nice f o i l against the suburban stage front. Hence, the sequence of land uses, from foreground to middle-ground never remains s t a t i c . The majority of the structures i n the Number Six Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone have been constructed i n the l a s t t h i r t y years and, therefore, are without 113 h i s t o r i c importance. An exception to t h i s i s the B l u n d e l l Peat Company Ltd,, which s t i l l digs, packages and s e l l s peat. F i g . 29 Blundell Peat Cc. The peat company i s of c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t as one of the l a s t large commercia] peat operations i n Richmond. With the renewed in t e r e s t i n the value of peat as a f u e l source, th i s s i t e may be of i n t e r e s t to Richmond residents F i g . 30 New housing on Number Six Road The major devia-t i o n i n the land-scape i s a s t r i p r e s i d e n t i a l dev-elopment along Number Six Road. Farm road f r o n t -ages have been divided into small r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s ; 'Mock Tudor' and 'Dutch C o l o n i a l ' s t y l e s have been randomly super-imposed on the r u r a l landscape. 114 115 9. Central East Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The Central East Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zone i s comprised almost e n t i r e l y of a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses. At almost any time, under most conditions, and from any vantage point, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape of t h i s extremely large zone i s panoramic, with l i t t l e sense of boundary. From the centre of the zone, the landscape stretches for miles i n each d i r e c t i o n . To the north, the flatness of the farmland i s contrasted by the h i l l s of Vancouver and the coast mountains on the horizon; to the south, the farmland slowly gives way to bog forest of the South Arm S e n s i t i v i t y Zone; to the east, on a c l e a r day, Mt. Baker appears to begin on the other side of Delta instead of f i f t y miles away; and f i n a l l y , to the west, commercial and i n d u s t r i a l buildings seem to have sprung up overnight. The ephemeral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s f l a t r u r a l landscape are best appreciated i n choice conditions. During sunrises, Mt. Baker i s c l e a r l y outlined i n pink and orange hues. S i m i l a r l y , during sunsets, the colours of the landscape r e f l e c t the colours of the horizon, but f o r a few b r i e f minutes. F i g , 31 The Central East Richmond Landscape The r u r a l residents of East Richmond proudly claim that one has not seen a r e a l sunset u n t i l experiencing the sun s e t t i n g over the almost l i m i t -l e s s horizon of t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape. 116 F i g . 32 The Ephemeral East Richmond Landscape Occasionally, billowy white cumulo-nimbus clouds appear to hover over the farmland, t h e i r huge shapes d e l i c a t e l y and temporarily balancing the f l a t n e s s of the land. A l l of the ephemeral landscapes depend, of course, on c e r t a i n weather conditions, observer p o s i t i o n s , seasonal and other v a r i a b l e f a c t o r s . However, i t i s safe to say that i t i s not unusual or impossible for an a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape to have ephemeral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which add to the scenic or aesthetic appeal of the landscape. The dominant elements of the landscape are the v a r i e t y of l i n e s created by roads, ditches, u t i l i t y poles and wires, fences and plowed f i e l d s . While other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features are also present, t h e i r dominance i s far more r e l i a n t on v a r i a b l e f a c t o r s . For example, from the l a t e spring to l a t e autumn, colour and texture of the landscape are important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; i n winter, with most of the trees bare and f i e l d s unplowed, the forms of the 117 buildings become more s i g n i f i c a n t . The p r i n c i p l e of dominance most applicable i n t h i s zone i s the axis o r i e n t a t i o n of the observer. The landscape i s perceived from the major roads i n the area, running east-to-west and north-to-south i n an almost perfect g r i d pattern. Thus, the axes of the landscape are c l e a r l y defined and the observer's attention i s d i r e c t i o n a l i z e d to a great extent because of these axes. The deviations from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape of a zone usually consist of buildings and other non-agricultural land uses. However, the u t i l i t y c o r r i d o r , crossing East Richmond on the diagonal, i s an example of a non-agricultural land use w e l l suited to d i r e c t the viewer's eye from the foreground to the background views. F i g . 33 Power Lines Across East Richmond In t h i s case the s i n g l e l i n e u t i l i t y c o r r i d o r i s not s o l e l y a negative deviation but may also be seen as a p o s i t i v e feature. 118 Fi g , 34 New r e s i d e n t i a l construction i n East Richmond The admission of a few single-family houses i n a r u r a l area i s not t r a d i t i o n a l l y considered a negative deviation. But when the s t y l e and s i t i n g of new houses i n the Central Ejfcst Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zone may reasonably be c l a s s i f i e d as such. In terms of area, the largest deviation from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i n t h i s zone i s the Green Acres Golf Course on Number Six Road , between Westminster Highway and Cambie Roads. Yet, the g o l f course's fairways and greens, together with the plantings separating the courses, n i c e l y complement the adjacent farmland. The aesthetic c o n f l i c t i s r e l a t i v e l y minimal, and with the exception of the odd wandering g o l f b a l l being swallowed by a cow on the adjacent pasture, the ph y s i c a l c o n f l i c t i s minimal as w e l l . There are several structures of h i s t o r i c i n t e r e s t i n the Central East Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zone. Photographs of these structures appear as Appendix 3, Of s p e c i a l note i s an unusal barn b u i l t at the turn of the century by the Keur family, 119 F i g . 35 The Keur Barn The twelve-sided barn i s the only one l e f t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Besides the h i s t o r i c a l and a r c h i t e c t u r a l importance of i t s design, the barn i s also i n t e r e s t i n g because of i t s l o c a t i o n immediately adjacent to the LaFarge Cement factor y , which presents a dramtic statement of the r u s t i c worn barn being overshadowed by the enormous bulk of the cement fact o r y . In sum, the Central East Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zone emerges o v e r a l l as a t y p i c a l B r i t i s h Columbia r u r a l landscape, complete with constant reminders that urban land uses are slowly taking over. 120 VI. ' Summary In Table 3 the r e s u l t s of the de s c r i p t i v e inventory of the landscape of East Richmond are summarized, What i s immediately apparent from the inventory as presented i n the table and the text i s the vast d i v e r s i t y of landscape types, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscapes, v a r i e t y , dominance factors and h i s t o r i c a l and scenic features, i n what i s generally perceived of as a homogeneous, rather uninteresting r u r a l landscape. Now that the s e n s i t i v i t y zones, each with t h e i r own unique scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l features have been i d e n t i f i e d , the next step i s the determination of landscape q u a l i t y objectives for each of the nine s e n s i t i v i t y zones outlined i n t h i s chapter. Once these landscape q u a l i t y objectives have been posited, i t w i l l be possible to make recommendations as to how these objectives may be r e a l i z e d i n order to main-t a i n or enhance the landscape of each s e n s i t i v i t y zone and hence the landscape of the enti r e study area. Table 3; Summary of Descriptive Inventory S e n s i t i y i t y Zone Present Land Use Characteristic Landscape Dominance Elements (colour, texture, :orm, l i n e ) 3 r i n c i p l e s Df Dominance Deviations from land= scape /ariety sf zone Signi f i c a n t h i s t o r y i c a l or c u l t u r a l features 1. North Arm In d u s t r i a l Commercial/ I n d u s t r i a l Defined by comm-a r c i a l and i n -d u s t r i a l land j s e s Form of structures Contrast of Duildings with farmland Commercial/ Industrial Duildings Minimal NONE •2. Central River Road Mixed res-i d e n t i a l / commercial/ a g r i c u l t u r -a l Panoramic and D c c a s i o n a l l y l e t a i l e d jine of tever Road md r i v e r Contrast of var-iety of land ises and b u i l d -ings lew commer-ci a l and Industrial D u i l d i n g s Common Did farm houses,boat sheds and boats, last Richmond School, f i s h i n g sanctuaries 3. East River Road Undeveloped natural area Enclosed, ephemeral, md d e t a i l e d Form of trees, l i n e Df r i v e r axis of r i v e r and lyke, enframement Df trees sites c l e a r -id for f u -;ure indus-: r i a l uses Di s t i n c t i v e Fishing sanctuaries, bitches coven, l a s t remaining stand of D r i g i n a l f o r est 4. Hamilton Re s i d e n t i a l Defined by r e s i d e n t i a l Land use Form of louses sequence of house after house, l o t after l o t , Lntact res-i d e n t i a l Landscape Minimal NONE 5. Southeast Dyke Commercial/ I n d u s t r i a l Panoramic and nuite d e t a i l e d Form of Duildings, texture of fis h i n g Doafesed contrast of th i s zone to others i n study area ' intact f i s h -ing commun-7 Lty Di s t i n c t i v e f i s h i n g industry.^! related a c t i v i t i e s 6. Southeast I n d u s t r i a l I n d u s t r i a l / Vacant / J i l l be defined sy commercial and i n d u s t r i a l Form of structures Contrast of Duildings Commercial/ i n d u s t r i a l D u i l d i n g s (Possible) Minimal NONE h-1 Table 3 con't: Summary of Descriptive Inventory S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Present Land Use Cha r a c t e r i s t i c Landscape Dominance Elements Principles Df Dominance Deviations from land-scape Variety of zone Significant h i s -t o r i c a l or c u l t u r a l features 7, South Arm Undeveloped natural area L a n d f i l l inclosed and ephemeral Texture and l i n e of bog forest Contrast of fo r -est with other areas; enframe-nent by bog on Dn side, r i v e r Dn other l a n d f i l l s i t e D i s t i n c t i v e [ntact bog fo r e s t 8. Number Six Road Res i d e n t i a l / vacant/ ag a g r i c u l t u r a l Panoramic and detailed Form of structures l i n e s of blueberry bushes i n rows Contrast of agr agriculture and re s i d e n t i a l Some r e s i -dential areas Common 'eat Manufacturer, )lueberry farms. 9, Central East R i c h r -mond sAgrieuIfcurl al/vacant, = r e s i d e n t i a l Panoramic Line of roads, powerlines, fences etc, ^xis of roads, upen spaceiis a surprise (con-t r a s t to West Richmond) Some r e s i -dential and commercial buildings r Distinctive! 1 )ld farmhouses, farm .and, cranberry farming, 12-sided >arn N J N5 123 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER FIVE M;, Arthur, T, C. Daniel and R.S, Boster, "Scenic Assessment; An Overview;" Landscape Planning, V o l , 4 0-977), p, 110 2 I b j d , , p, 114, 3 T,A, Heberlien, " S o c i a l and Psychological Assumptions of User At t i t u d e Surveys: The Case of the Wilderness Scale," Journal of Leisure  Resources. Vol. 5, No, 3, p. 1, 4 Arthur et. a l . , op. c i t . , p, 118. 5 I b i d . , p. 123. 6 I b i d . , p. 124. ^Ibid., p, 126. g F. Newby, "Environmental Impact Appraisal of proposed developments i n the Harney Peak Area of the Black H i l l s P a c i f i c Southwest Forest and Range Experimenfct Station," Forest Service, United States Department of A g r i c u l t u r e as quoted i n National Forest Landscape Management , Forest Service, United States Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , A g r i c u l t u r a l Handbook #462, p. 2. 9 J. Davidson and G. Wibberley, Planning and the Rural Environment (Oxford and New York: Peragamon Press, 1977), p. 90. ^ J , Appleton, The ^Experience of Landscape (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1975), p. 244. "'""'"W. C. Yeomans, Spallumcheen: The V i s u a l Environment ( B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission, 1976), p. 46. 12 Ibid., p. 10. 13 This heading i s taken from a book by D. Appleyard, K. Lynch and J.R.Meyer e n t i t l e d View From the Road which i s a v i s u a l d e s c r i p t i o n of landscapes along major roads i n the eastern United States, 14 Another s i t e of approximately f i f t e e n to twenty acres bordering Westminster Highway has been cleared and the s l a s h burned. The Planning Department of Richmond has been unable to answer questions concerning t h i s s i t e , or the reasons for c l e a r i n g i t . I t simply remains as part of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. 124 X J B r i a n Lee, reporter f o r The Richmond Review, took the author to the s i t e several years ago. At that time the R, C< M* P, was monitoring the a c t i v i t i e s of the s i t e quite c l o s e l y . I t i s unknown whether the s i t e i s s t i l l i n use today, 16 The Richmond Review, ^East Richmond Property Must Be Expropriated," February 20, 1980, p, 1, 17 This example i s not given i n the hopes that a l l the i n d u s t r i a l and commercial development i n the future be constructed l i k e log cabins. Log-frame cabins are no more part of the r u r a l character of East Richmond than boxlike warehouses and barnlike commercial b u i l d i n g s . This example, none-theless, i l l u s t r a t e s that good design and s i t i n g of commercial and indus-t r i a l buildings i n r u r a l areas i s , i n f a c t , p o s s i b l e . 125 Chapter Six A HERITAGE CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR EAST RICHMOND I. Summary of the Case Study Rural Landscape The case study provided i n t e r e s t i n g i n s i g h t s into the scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l resources, which are gradually being diminished. C l e a r l y , the study landscape has reached a c r i t i c a l turning point i n i t s development. To a great extent, urban development has been confined to West Richmond, but i t i s gradually moving toward the urban-rural f r i n g e of the study area, p h y s i c a l l y and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y hemming the r u r a l landscape i n from a l l sides. While the farmland i t s e l f i s protected by l e g i s l a t i o n , the pressures of urban development i s reaching such a magnitude that many people, including some of the farmers, believe i t i n e v i t a b l e that the remaining farmland w i l l be absorb The method of t h i s paper concentrates on the scenic heritage of the East Richmond landscape. This emphasis i s warranted, given the widely scattered nature of the c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l resources. C l e a r l y what i s needed now are general landscape q u a l i t y objectives which w i l l re-emphasize the r u r a l f a b r i c of East Richmond, protect and enhance i t s h i s t o r i c a l , scenic and c u l t u r a l heritage, and also permit s e l e c t i v e development. From these obectiv recommendations can then be made which w i l l specify municipal programs, p o l i c and studies. U . Landscape Quality Objectives f o r S e n s i t i v i t y Zones Eihaverlsolated f i y e objectives: preservation, Retention, P a r t i a l Retention, M o d i f i c a t i o n and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , Each i s keyed to the v a r i e t y 126 and significance of scenic, cultural and historical features in the individ-1 ual sensitivity zone;-: Preservat ion Retention partial Retention Modification Rehabilitation Only very minor changes, usually to enhance the ecology of the area, can be made. Alterations, except for very low visual impact facilities, are prohibited. Object, building or landscape may only repeat form, line, colour and texture which are fre-quently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident. Alterations of objects, buildings or landscapes must be visually subordinate to characteristics of landscape in terms of form, line, colour and texture. Generally, alterations may be in-evidence in the middleground and background views, but not intrusive in the foreground. Objects, buildings or landscapes which require some alteration to their present physical state in order to minimize aesthetic conflict with the rural landscape. Activities like buildings and signs should borrow from estab-lished form, line, colour and texture so completely and at such a scale that their visual characteristics are compatible with the rural landscape. Objects, buildings, or landscapes which require considerable alteration to reduce aesthetic conflict with the rural landscape. Rehabil-itation activities should be in conformity with form, line, colour and texture of the rrural landscape, 1. The North Arm Sensitivity Zone In order to integrate this zone with the rural landscape of the study area, the visual quality objective calls for REHABILITATION, especially at the interface between industrial and agricultural land uses on the fringe, This should take the form of plant screening, berms, or linear parks to 127 buffer the two a e s t h e t i c a l l y incompatible land uses; e x t e r i o r modification of e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r i a l and commercial buildings of t h i s zone should also be encouraged, 2, Central River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone In view of t h i s zone's e c l e c t i c landscape, i t s foreground value f o r scenic features, and i t s s e n s i t i v i t i y to development, the landscape q u a l i t y objectives c a l l f o r PARTIAL RETENTION and MODIFICATION. F i g . 36 Old Boat Sheds Wherever possib l e , the abandoned farmhouses, boat sheds and boats should be retained and modified. The v i a b l e farms and farmhouses should also be conserved with some exterior modification, In addition, the farm should be encouraged to preserve the remnant natural areas and roadside planting and to supplement these green areas with a d d i t i o n a l plantings. 128 F i g . 37 New i n d u s t r i a l buildings along River Road The stark, new i n d u s t r i a l buildings of t h i s zone need modif-i c a t i o n i n the form of plant or fence screening to minimize t h e i r negative e f f e c t on the landscape. In addition, the r i v e r s i d e sanctuaries along the north side of the dyke should be retained and enhanced with a d d i t i o n a l plantings, or even wooden pi c n i c tables. The East Richmond schoolhouse should be preserved i n i t s present state. I t should also be made us e f u l . 3, East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The landscape v a r i e t y of t h i s zone i s high with most of the v i s u a l reception involving foreground and middleground views from River Road. I t should therefore be PRESERVED, and, wherever possi b l e , enhanced, E f f o r t s should be directed towards the protection and improvements of the v i s u a l resource. As f a r as the c u l t u r a l ' a t t r i b u t e ' of t h i s zone i s concerned, i t 129 2 i s f e l t that the s i t e i n the f o r e s t should not be preserved ; rather, i t i s hoped that as t h i s area becomes more widely used by Richmond residents the s i t e i n the forest w i l l be destroyed, 4, Hamilton S e n s i t i v i t y Zone Q In i t s present p h y s i c a l state the landscape q u a l i t y objective for Hamilton should e n t a i l PARTIAL RETENTION of the r e s i d e n t i a l landscape, allow-ing r e s i d e n t i a l i n f i l l . At the same time i t should encourage preservation of remnant natural areas and roadside plantings. With the guaranteed construction of the Annacis Island Bridge, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to p r e dict a landscape q u a l i t y objective f o r the future of Hamilton's r e s i d e n t i a l landscape given the imminent construction of a major thoroughfare through the centre of the neighbourhood. This s e n s i t i v i t y zone has minimal, i f any, c u l t u r a l , scenic or h i s t o r i c a l heritage value; any values that i t does have as a quiet r e s i -d e n t i a l neighbourhood are quite l i k e l y about to be destroyed. 5, Southeast Dyke S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The landscape q u a l i t y objective i n t h i s zone c a l l s f or RETENTION of i t s r i v e r - o r i e n t e d , f i s h i n g industry-related q u a l i t i e s . Given the presently high l e v e l of commercial a c t i v i t y i n t h i s area i t would r e a l i s t i c a l l y be d i f f i c u l t to preserve i t s buildings and views. Wherever possible, the r i v e r and boat views should be maintained and enhanced; at present, views are only to be found from gravel parking l o t s , 130 Fig, 38 Possible Mini-Parks The. addition of some plantings and tables would provide a place for the local workmen to eat their lunches as well as provide an out-of-the-way place for the public to sit and watch the fishing-related industries, the b oats, and, of course, the Fraser River itself, 6, Southeast Industrial Sensitivity Zone If the buildings of this industrial zone follow the pattern of most industrial buildings, the landscape quality objective would call for MODIFICATION. However, since industrial development has not yet started in earnest, this zone presents an opportunity to plan for the successful integra-tion of industrial land uses into a predominantly rural and natural landscape. The judicious use of natural vegetation, such as wild cranberries and blue-berries, salal, and birch trees, should help in ameliorating the almost inevit-able aesthetic conflicts. More importantly, the implementation of innovative building designs, particularly the cedar-sided west-coast architectural designs are essential to the integration of urban land uses with the rural landscape. 131 The s i t i n g of the buildings should ensure a buffer between i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d -ings and the adjacent a g r i c u l t u r a l and natural landscape, i f the aesthetics of the landscape are considered at t h i s pre^construction stage, future mod-i f i c a t i o n of the zone would be avoided. The area would serve as a model f o r future i n d u s t r i a l parks on, or adjacent to, r u r a l landscapes. The three e x i s t i n g major i n d u s t r i a l structures (LaFarge Cement, Canada Cement LaFarge, and Conforce Produces Ltd.) are of such a s i z e and scale that they cannot be screened, or hidden from view. However, the aesthetic c o n f l i c t of the large structures with the immediate adjacent farm-land c a l l s f o r some screening. A concerted e f f o r t i s needed to soften the c o n f l i c t between such enormous i n d u s t r i a l buildings and the adjacent farmland. 7. South Arm S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The landscape q u a l i t y objective for t h i s zone c a l l s f o r PRESERVATION of the e x i s t i n g v i s u a l features, s p e c i f i c a l l y the bog f o r e s t . Where development i s permitted, i t should be i n keeping with the low p r o f i l e of the bog. Generally, any development should be required to leave a s p e c i f i e d minimum amount of bog vegetation as a buffer between the road and the b u i l d i n g . 8, Number Six Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The landscape q u a l i t y objectives of t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y zone should involve PRESERVATION of roadside plantings and remnant natural areas, MODIFICATION of r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial bu i l d i n g s with the use of a d d i t i o n a l natural screening, and RETENTION of the views of blueberry f i e l d s , Wherever possible making the f i e l d s more v i s i b l e from the road t Development i n t h i s zone should be low p r o f i l e and preferably r e s i d e n t i a l , The e x i s t i n g commercial operation, 132 the Blundell Peat Co, Ltd., should be modified to allows v i s i t o r s to tour the peat production process, 9, Central East Richmond S e n s i t i v i t y Zone The f l a t n e s s of Central East Richmond provides an unimpeded view of•the a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape. For t h i s reasons the landscape q u a l i t y objectives of t h i s zone are c r i t i c a l , c a l l i n g for RETENTION of the a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape's y i s u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , PRESERVATION or RETENTION of the h i s t o r i c a l b u i l d i n g s , and MODIFICATION of the a c t i v i t i e s along major roads to improve the views of the landscape. I f development i s allowed i t should repeat the form, l i n e , colour and texture of the f l a t , a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n order to protect i t s v i s u a l , h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . Buffer zones or l i n e a r parks should be provided to minimize major aesthetic land use c o n f l i c t s . F i g . 39 An i n t a c t East Richmond farm The majority of the i n t a c t farms, old farm houses and out-buil d i n g s , should be retained, with the rare twelve-sided barn i n t h i s zone preserved. 133 Fi g . 40 Trees along Westminster Highway The t a l l trees p a r a l l e l i n g Westminster Highway should be main-tained, even with the eventual widening of Westminster Highway to four lanes. F i g s . 41 and 42 Planting to screen new r e s i d e n t i a l construction The construction of new single-family houses should be tempered by the use of plantings and screenings to lessen t h e i r harsh impact on the f l a t , r u r a l landscape. I n d u s t r i a l and commercial development, and u t i l i t y s i t e s , along the major roads should also be modified i n t h i s manner. 134 111, General Recommendations As a r e s u l t of t h i s research, I am convinced that suburban communities such as Richmond should develop a sound heritage conservation program as part of the o v e r a l l plan for the community. The c u l t u r a l , h i s t o r i c a l , environ-mental and scenic aspects of heritage must be addressed by the l o c a l govern-ment i n order to achieve the greatest p u b l i c benefit from planning i n the r u r a l environment. In order that t h i s benefit i s assured, these general recommendations are offered: 1, Analyse e x i s t i n g l e g a l mechanismsttohhelp conserve the scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage of the r u r a l landscape. Discussion The l i s t of these mechanisms would greatly a s s i s t municipal planners, government employeess, pr i v a t e s o c i e t i e s or foundations, and private land-owners i n choosing the l e g a l technique best suited to the heritage conser-v a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r area. The l i s t would include:such measures as: Aa) l e g i s l a t i v e provisions (b) outright purchase of key properties Ce) expropriation (d) scenic or conservation easements Ce) p r i v a t e actions Cf) tax incentives 2. Develop design guidelines f o r the r u r a l landscape, including: Ca) e x t e r i o r s of farmhouses, r e s i d e n t i a l buildings and outbuildings Ob) e x t e r i o r s of i n d u s t r i a l buildings Cc) e x t e r i o r s of f r u i t and vegtable roadside stands. Discussion Design guidelines are one way of c o n t r o l l i n g and channeling the d i r e c t i o n and form of changes so that the q u a l i t y of the views, the landscapes, and the buildings are not t o t a l l y destroyed. A l l developments proposed for the r u r a l landscape would be evaluated to help avoid the creation of unsightly or 135 inappropriate structures, or the destruction of scenic, c u l t u r a l or h i s t o r -i c a l features. The design guidelines would be of a voluntary nature, with perhaps the l o c a l Richmond Chamber of Commerce o f f e r i n g incentives to b u s i -nesses which modify t h e i r designs to be more i n keeping with the r u r a l landscape, Local newspapers would p u b l i c i z e the r e s u l t s widely, promoting the idea of better corporate c i t i z e n s and public awareness of the r u r a l landscape and i t s features. F i g . 43 Vegetable and F r u i t stand on Westminster Highway Structures l i k e t h i s might be avoided with the implementation of voluntary design guidelines, ich would 3. Develop a r e s i d e n t i a l land use strategy for Richmond. Discussion Update the 1970 R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use Study i n l i e u of 1980 information and trends. As a r e s u l t of the major changes i n the l a s t decade, the presei information i s Inadequate f o r future p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n . 136 4. Develop an i n d u s t r i a l strategy for Richmond. Discussion In t h i s strategy, options for future i n d u s t r i a l development i n East Richmond should be emphasized. Where i n d u s t r i a l development i s i n e v i t a b l e , the strategy should c l e a r l y give preference to i n d u s t r i e s and development areas that minimize the negative v i s u a l impact on the present r u r a l and natural landscape. 5. Develop a program to encourage present i n d u s t r i a l and commercial b u i l d i n g owners to lessen the aesthetic impact of the structures on the r u r a l landscape. Discussion This program should encourage plant and/or fence screening for additions to e x i s t i n g structures that are not i n keeping with the r u r a l or natural landscape. The owners would be compensated with property tax breaks which would be allowed up to a c e r t a i n percentage of the t o t a l cost of the land-scaping. Again, the successful projects would be widely p u b l i c i z e d . 137 6, Analyse the impacts of the present l a r g e - s c a l e developments proposed for the study area, Discussion The Annacis Island crossing and the proposed i n d u s t r i a l park on the s i t e of the Richmond l a n d f i l l should be analyzed f o r t h e i r p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l and environmental impacts on the landscape of East Richmond and the municipality of Richmond. The l o c a l newspaper has claimed that disruptions of theSaEast Richmond landscape caused by the Annacis Island crossing and Westminster Highway widening w i l l be formidible, c u t t i n g East Richmond into two north and south sections, whose future v i a b i l i t y as farming areas w i l l be i n doubt. 7, Examine the economic and ph y s i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y of providing p u b l i c a l l y maintained l i n e a r parks as buffers between c o n f l i c t i n g land uses. Discussion Linear parks, co n s i s t i n g of narrow bands of land with trees and shrubbery and perhaps bike t r a i l s , provide one of the best ways to minimize major aesthetic c o n f l i c t s between land use i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s paper. They can be created either through outright purchase of the property, or, preferably, through the negotiation of scenic easements with the landowners. Scenic easements would allow the landowner to r e t a i n possession of the land while giving the municipality the authority to develop the land f o r l i n e a r park purposes. Generally, scenic easements are given i n return f o r property tax r e l i e f or other compensation. Scenic easements generally run with the land i n perpetuity, providing the same advantages as outright purchase and allow-ing the community to develop the s i t e , but without the disadvantage of a large c a p i t a l expenditure purchasing the s i t e . 138 8, Develop a program to protect and enhance e x i s t i n g roadside plantings and remnant natural areas. Discussion This program would e n t a i l i d e n t i f y i n g and using native Richmond plants and trees, such as wild blueberries, cranberries, s a l a l , and b i r c h trees, using them wherever possible on p u b l i c a l l y owned land, also encouraging t h e i r use on p r i v a t e l y owned land. F i g , 46 Roadside plantings using native plants Both roadside plantings and remnant natural areas add g r e a t l y to the r u r a l landscape's v i s u a l i n t e r e s t and v a r i e t y . 8. Explore the p o s s i b i l i t y of integrating the proposed Richmond T r a i l s Plan into the r u r a l landscape. Discussion The Richmond T r a i l s Plan, ussued i n February, 1980, proposes a system of c y c l i n g , walking and equestrian paths throughout Richmond, including the study area. The present plan c a l l s for the construction of t r a i l s along Riyer Road and the south dyke, with no access to the centre of East Richmond's 139 r u r a l landscape,as shown on Map 6. This recommendation would involve working with Richmond's Department of Leisure Services, presenting the information obtained from the descrip-t i v e inventory, to a l t e r the plan somewhat to include t r a i l s that would cross the study landscape, incorporating the concept of l i n e a r parks wherever possible, 10. Develop a Rural R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Program. Discussion This program would be aimed at r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l structures with two s p e c i f i c purposes: (1) The program would a s s i s t farmhouse owners to r e p a i r and r e h a b i l -i t a t e the exte r i o r s of t h e i r houses and outbuildings, i n c l u d i n g barns, according the p r i n c i p l e s of the aforementioned design g u i d e l i n e s . In return for such r e h a b i l i t a t i o n the municipality would o f f e r some grant, loan or property tax incentive. F i g . 47 R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of an old farmhouse This program would a s s i s t owners with property tax incentives to maintain e x i s t i n g old farmhouses i n the area. MAP 6: RICHMOND TRAILS PLAN PROPOSAL 141 (2) The program would also encourage suburban-style homeowners to Introduce additional screenings such as plantings or fences to minimize any aesthetic c o n f l i c t s with a g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d s , I f e e l that the cost of suck a program i n terms of l o s t tax revenue would eventually be more than made up by intangible benefits to the municipality's residents, Fig. 48 Suburban-style new home in East Richmond This program would also assist owners of new homes with a tax incentive to provide additional screening. 11, Examine the demand for, and economic f e a s i b l i l i t y of, obtaining the forested area of the East River Road S e n s i t i v i t y Zone for construction of a natural campsite. Discussion This s i t e would be developed primarily as a campsite since the muni-c i p a l i t y has already preserved one large s i t e i n Richmond for a Nature Park. The forest of t h i s zone would provide an excellent location for a much needed 142 short-term camping f a c i l i t y i n Richmond, At present there i s only one 3 p u b l i c a l l y owned campsite i n the e n t i r e Greater Vancouver region. The s i t e was found to have a high p o t e n t i a l f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use by the Lands Directorate, F i s h e r i e s and Environment \Canada i n 1977, The develop-ment of t h i s s i t e as a campsite would be a creative adjunct to the Richmond T r a i l s plan, where Richmond residents could cycle, or walk to a r e l a t i v e l y remote area of t h e i r own municipality, enjoy f i s h i n g i n the Fraser River, and camping i n a t a l l f o r e s t . 12, Study the economic f e a s i b i l i t y of, and demand for a demonstration farm, including a program of work weeks on the farm f o r l o c a l students. Discussion Demonstration projects i n the United States, funded by the National 4 Trust f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation have proven to be extremely useful i n the preservat-ionoof the community's r u r a l heritage as well as i n making the c i t i z e n s more aware of t h e i r resources and getting them involved with conser-vat i o n rather than leaving conservation up to professionals and bureaucrats. 13, Develop a comprehensive educational program i n conjunction with the Richmond School Board and the Richmond C u l t u r a l Centre to integrate the municipality's h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l development into the school.^s curriculum. Discussion The educational program would encourage 'farm days' where the younger ch i l d r e n would be taken to a farm for the day. Furthermore, the program would involve the creation of a separate course at the senior l e v e l of high school which would examine the municipality's history and development. The program would develop an audio v i s u a l presentation of the r u r a l landscape's scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage to be presented to 143 administrators, politicians, and the general public t Finally, the program Would entail working with the ..Richmond Cultural Centre to promote farming as a way of l i f e and the heritage of rural landscapes, using photographic displays, displays of farm implements and machinery, etc, 14, Develop a system of road markers throughout the rural landscape to point out significant historical, cultural, and scenic heritage features of the rural landscape. Discussion Without the implementation of the other recommendations listed here, i t is doubtful whether this recommendation would be applicable. If these other recommendations are not followed, i t would be impractical to mark the scattered features of the landscape as they are today. However, if i t is assumed that a l l of the recommendations will be implemented, then this recommendation becomes a part of the overall scheme for the East Richmond rural landscape heritage conservation. In sum, i f these recommendations are realized, a comprehensive picture of the farming landscape would emerge. The recommendations would outline the area's potential uses, its present and future problems, creating a more informed public, and administration, together which form a more complete basis for the heritage conservation decision-making process. IV. The Role of the Planner Our rural landscapes are complex economic, social, scenic, cultural and historical resources which can no longer be taken-for granted as solely factors of production in the economic process. It is seen that the planner 144 has four s p e c i f i c r o l e s to play i n i d e n t i f y i n g and protecting those resources; (a). Monitor The most obvious r o l e that a planner must play i s i n monitoring present f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and municipal p o l i c i e s , programs and l e g i s l a t i o n which d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t heritage conservation, By doing so, he can assess the effectiveness of present p o l i c i e s and determine whether, and where, a d d i t i o n a l p o l i c i e s , programs, etc. are warranted. (bl Educator The planner also has an important r o l e i n making the public more aware of the heritage resources i n the r u r a l landscapes around them, stimulating t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n the area's history'and development. An informed and interested public i s e s s e n t i a l to the success of any heritage conservation program. In assuming an educative r o l e , the planner ult i m a t e l y adopts a r o l e of advocating the examination of a l t e r n a t i v e s i n planning. In r u r a l landscapes, where the changes are often i r r e v e r s i b l e , i t i s up to the planner, or the informed public he helps create, to question the changes that are occurring; the planner becomes an advocate f o r a heritage conservation r a t i o n a l e , questionning new development which i s based on an economic r a t i o n a l e of highest and best use, (c) Mediator Often when the public becomes aware of the int a n g i b l e resources of r u r a l landscapes a great deal of c o n f l i c t r e s u l t s from the p u b l i c , on the one hand, trying to save eyery object, b u i l d i n g or piece pf land, and the developers, on the other hand, wanting to tear down and develop everything. While t h i s i s an extreme example, nonetheless, p o l i t i c a l pressures from both 145 sides are often quite strong. The planner's r o l e becomes one of a mediator, attempting to resolve c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t i n the hopes of reaching some kind of compromise between the two extremes, (d) Innovator F i n a l l y , the planner's r o l e i s to be an innovator, s e i z i n g opportunities to promote the well-being of the area's economic, p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , and h i s t o r i c a l environment. The success of such a r o l e helps to create a community which has character and q u a l i t y , a d i s t i n c t i d e n t i t y awith roots and culture of i t s own; a community, which, while looking forward to the future, has not forgotten i t s past. V, Further Study The scenic, c u l t u r a l , and h i s t o r i c a l d e s c r i p t i v e landscape inventory of the case study area has shown that r u r a l landscapes consist of a v a r i e t y of heritage resources. But the r u r a l landscape of the case study area i s only a small part of the l a r g e r r u r a l landscape of the Fraser V a l l e y . The Fraser V a l l e y , also faces the problem of dwindling heritage resources which i t s municipal governments and residents can no longer a f f o r d to ignore. 1 propose that a comprehensive scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage inventory be undertaken of the e n t i r e Lower Mainland. There i s an e x i s t i n g framework with \\<.,. which such an inventory could e a s i l y be integrated. In 1978, the Federal government i n i t i a t e d an inter-governmental environmental study of the lower Fraser River and the surrounding area. To date, the terms of reference f o r the study l i m i t research to only e c o l o g i c a l concerns i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y , 1 f e e l that a scenic, c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l heritage inventory of the Lower Mainland i s an important component of that environment, 146 and, as such, should Be studied i n conjunction with the e c o l o g i c a l component. Once research such as t h i s has shown that the heritage values of a r u r a l landscape are r e a l , and of s i g n i f i c a n c e to the municipality or region, i t would be f o l l y f o r anyone undertaking a comprehensive analysis of an import-ant environment such as the Fraser V a l l e y , to ignore the multitude of intangible scenic, c u l t u r a l , and h i s t o r i c a l heritage values. 147 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER, SIX """The. landscape q u a l i t y objectives as outlined i n t h i s chapter have been adapted from the V i s u a l Management System's V i s u a l Q u a l i t y Objectives which were used i n the Spallumcheen V a l l e y study, 2 The R,C,M,P, have been monitoring t h i s s i t e f or several years i n the hopes of gathering information as to the a c t i v i t i e s of the witches. No current information i s a v a i l a b l e due to the secrecy over the whole matter. 3 The M u n i c i p a l i t y of Delta operates a campsite near the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, 4 A demonstration farm project would l i k e l y involve the purchase of a farm by the municipality or a p u b l i c a l l y subsidized p r i v a t e organization which would then operate the farm with the assistance of school c h i l d r e n , and older students interested i n a g r i c u l t u r a l - r e l a t e d career f i e l d s . 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1, Books Appleton, J, The Experience of Landscape. London: John Wiley and Sons?,, 1975, Appleyard, D,, K, Lynch and J. Myer, View From the Road. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, published f o r the J o i n t Centre f o r Urban Studies of M.I.T. and Harvard, 1964, Bacon, W. R, and P. F. Hansen, The V i s u a l Management System. Washington: Forest Service, U<?S.?.rDepartment of Agriculture.; 1972. .. Bonham-Carter, V. The S u r v i v a l of the English Countryside. Trowbridge: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1971. C h r i s t i a n , G, Tomorrow's Countryside, London: John Murray, 1966, Daniel, T, C, and R. S, Boster. Measuring Landscape AEsthetics: The Scenic  Beauty Estimation Method. Washington: Forest Service, U. S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1976. Davidson, J . and G. Wibberley. Planning and the Rural Environment. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. Derry, A., H. W, Jandl, C, D. Shull and J . Thorman, Guidelines for Local  Surveys: A Basis f o r Preservation Planning. Washington: National Register of H i s t o r i c Places, November, 1977. Dondis, D. A. APPrimer of V i s u a l L i t e r a c y . Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1973. Fairbrother, N. New L i v e s , New Landscapes. New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1970. Ehrenfeld, D. The Arrogance of Humanism. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. Falkner, A, Without Our Past? Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1977. Fowler, H, W. and F. G, Fowler, eds. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford; OOxford Uni v e r s i t y Press, 1964, Johnston, W, A, Sedimentation of the Fraser River Delta, Ottawa; Thomas Mulvey CGeological Survey of Canada). Memoir 125, 1923, Kidd, T, History of Richmond M u n i c i p a l i t y . Richmond; Richmond P r i n t e r s Ltd,, 1973 149 Lynch., K, Managing the Sense of a Region, Cambridge; The M,I,T, Press, 1976, , What Time ts-'This'Place? Cambridge; The M,I\T, Press, 1972, 'MeHargj Iivm, Design With Nature, Garden City; Natural History Press, Published for the American Museum of Natural History, 1969, Rawson, M. I l l Fares the Land. Ottawa} Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, 1976, Richmond Historical and Museum Advisory Committee. A History of Richmond. Author: 1971. Ross, L. Child of the Fraser. Richmond: Richmond 1979 Centennial Society, 1979. Troughton, M. J,, J, Gordon and S. Brown, eds. The Countryside in Ontario. London; The University of Western Ontario, 1974. Wuenscher, J. E. and J. M Starrett. Landscape Compartmentalization: An Ecological Approach to Land Use Planning. Durham: Environmental Manage-ment Program, School of Forestry, Duke University (Water Resources Research Institute), December, 1973. Zube, E. H., R. 0. Brush, and J. G. Fabos, eds. Landscape Assessment: Value,  Perceptions and Resources. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson, Ross, Inc., 1975. 2, Periodicals Arthur, L. M,, T.CC. Daniel, and R. S, Boster. "Scenic Assessment: An Overview," Landscape Planning, 4: 109 - 129, 1977. Bradley, M. D. "Future Opportunities for Open Space," Landscape Planning, 2: 13 - 22, 1975. Brandon, P, "Identifying Historic Landscapes," Historic Landscapes: Identification, Recording and Management, Occasional Paper of the Department of Geography, Polytechnic of North London, March, 1978, Bryant, C, R. and L. H, Russwurm, "The Impact of Non-Farm Development on Agriculture: A Synthesis," plan Canada, 19/2, June, 1979, p?'--122-139. Carlson, A. A , VOn the Possibility of quantifying Scenic Beauty," Landscape  planning, 4: 131 - 172, 1977, Dorney, R. S, and D. W, Hoffman, "Development of Landscape Planning Concepts and Management Strategies for an Urbanizing Agricultural Region," Landscape Planning, 6: 151 - 177, 1979, 150 Reberlein, T, A. " S o c i a l and Psychological Assumptions of User Attitude Surveys; The Case of the Wilderness Scale," Journal of Leisure Resources, Vol, 5, No, 3, 1973, H o l l i s , C, and M. Goldberg., "Ecology and Planning," Journal of the American  I n s t i t u t e of Planning, J u l y , 1971, Qadeer, M. A, "Issues and Approaches of Rural Community Planning i n Canada," Plan Canada, 19/2, June, 1979, pp. 106 -121, Richmond Review, The. rJuiy 25, 19>79. . February,20, 1980. Saarinen, T. F. Perception of Environment. Association of American Geographer Resource Paper, No. 5, 1969. Scott, 0. R, " U t i l i z i n g History to E s t a b l i s h C u l t u r a l and Physical Identity i n the Landscape," Landscape Planning, 6: 179 - 203, 1979. Stewart, J, J , "Canada's Landscape Heritage," Landscape Planning, 6: 215 -235, 1979. 3, Other Sources B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. Open Space: An Inventory of  Opportunities. October, 1975. Department of Research and Planning, C i t y of Duluth. The Language of Open  Space. Author: May, 1975. Forest Service, U. S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , National Forest Landscape  Management.^Vol. 1, A g r i c u l t u r a l Handbook No. 434, 1973. Forest Service, U. S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , National Forest Landscape  Management, Vol. 2, A g r i c u l t u r a l Handbook No. 462, 1974. Galbreath 1aC9"Criteria f o r Defining the H i s t o r i c and C u l t u r a l Landscape." A paper presented at the Conference on Conserving the H i s t o r i c and C u l t u r a l Landscape. Denver, Colorado, May 2 - 3, 1975, Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Open Space Conseryancy; Manual of Legal Techniques, Author: November, 1978, Jenkinson, T, "Recreation and Conservation; A Programme to Preserve Open Sp< i n the Expanding Metropolitan Area," Unpublished M.A* Thesis (University of B r i t i s h Columbia: School of Community and Regional Planning), 1961, 151 Landscape Research. Group, "Landscape as Experience.^" Unpublished paper presented at the Symposium on Land Use and Landscape Quality, Univer-s i t y of Reading, March., 1971, Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Our Southwestern Shores, Author: 1968, May, Norman, A transcribed conversation with Norman May, a l o c a l East Richmond farmer, conducted by the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond's Leisure Services Department, 1973 (Richmond Archives). . National Trust f or H i s t o r i c Preservation, "Fact Sheet: The Rural P r o j e c t . " Author: 1979, "Information Sheet Number 19: Rural Conservation." Author: 1979, Rees, W, and Cc.vDavis. "Keeping the Options Open," An unpublished apaper presented at a conference on Growth i n Greater Vancouver, conducted by the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1977. Richmond Planning Department. R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use Study. Author: November, 1970. Shaw, Edith. "Development of Cranberry Industry i n Richmond." (Mimeograph) Available at Richmond Archives, 1957, Shaw, Fred. A transcribed conversation with Fred Shaw, a blueberry farmer A i n East Richmond, conducted by the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond's Leisure Services Department, 1973 (Richmond Archives). Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Committee.""Agricultural Preservation: Environmental, So c i a l and C u l t u r a l Factors of Farmland Retention," Author: October, 1977. Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Committee. "Proposed H i s t o r i c Preservation Program of the Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s , " Draft of Chapters IV and VI (Mimeograph), 1977, Sugarloaf Regional T r a i l s Committee. "Scenic Byways: A Study of Scenic Roads i n Western Montgomery County," July, 1977. Yeomans, W. C. Adams River — A Resource Analysis. Analysis Interpretation D i v i s i o n , Resource Analysis Branch, M i n i s t r y of the Environment, V i c t o r i a , May, 1977, Tecoawso .' Landscape Architecture arid the V i s u a l Resource, Proceedings and Workshop summary, V i c t o r i a ; Environment and Land Use Committee Sec r e t a r i a t , 1975, , Spallumcheen; The V i s u a l Environment, B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, 1976, 152 4, Local Plans Maryland National C a p i t a l Park and Planning Commission, Design Guidelines  Handbook f o r H i s t o r i c Preservation. Washington, 1979, , Master Plan and Ordinance f o r H i s t o r i c preservation i n Montgomery County, Maryland, A p r i l , 1979, ' ' , Olney Master Plan, (Preliminary D r a f t : A p r i l , 1979). , P o o l e s v i l l e and V i c i n i t y Master Plan. June, 1979. Natural Area Preserves Advisory Committee. Oregon's Natural Area Preserves  Program. 3rd Bie n n i a l report to the State Land Board, Salem, Oregon, January, 1979, Piedmont Environmental Council. Fauquier V i s u a l Analysis, Warrenton, V i r g i n i a , November, 1974. , L i t t l e River V'.lley Analysis. Warrenton, V i r g i n i a , November, 1974. 153 Appendix 1 Throughout t h i s thesis c e r t a i n terms and concepts, have been mentioned which, evoke d i f f e r i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . In order to lessen the confusion over possible d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the use of the terms and concepts, the explanations are given below; " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Landscape" — The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s the nat-u r a l l y established landscape. I t v i s u a l l y represents the basic vegetativee. patterns, landforms, rock formations, and water forms which are common to the scene being viewed. The o v e r a l l impression created by a landscape cannot be r i g i d l y c l a s s i f i e d . However, a number of terms that are us e f u l i n describing the char-acter of a p a r t i c u l a r landscape, or, as i s more often the case, segments within the landscape, have been developed: "PANORAMIC" l i t t l e or no sense of boundary r e s t r i c t i o n . Foreground (one quarter mile to one hal f mile from observer) or middleground (three to f i v e miles from the observer) objects do not s u b s t a n t i a l l y block viewing of back-ground (from middleground to i n f i n i t y ) . Examples of t h i s kind of landscape would be p r a i r i e wheat f i e l d s , or view of d i s -tant mountains. "FEATURE" dominated by a feature object (or group of o b j e c t s ) . While the feature i s usually a matter of conjecture, for an object to be i d e n t i f i e d as a feature, the surround-ing objects must be v i s u a l l y subordinate. Features are usually landmarks. B.C. examples would be H e l l ' s Gate, the Lions etc. "ENCLOSED" large or small spaces surrounded by a con-tinuous grouping of objects, usually d e f i n -ed by wall and f l o o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In an example of a lake surrounded by trees, the lake surface i s the f l o o r with the trees surrounding the lake acting as the walls. "EOCAL" a landscape which, tends to converge upon I t s e l f as d i s t a n c e i n c r e a s e s . An example of t h i s k i n d of landscape would be a r i v e r gorge, 154 "CANOPIED "DETAILED" characterized by an immediate overhead plane, generally tree coyer within a f o r e s t . An example of t h i s landscape type would be portions of the drive through Stanley Park which are completed covered over by trees, t i e d to the immediate foreground. Because of the demand for a great deal of time for observation, t h i s landscape type r e -quires a slow pace and a c a r e f u l eye f o r d e t a i l . An example of t h i s landscape type would be small sections of the f o r e s t . Generally, the de t a i l e d landscape i s a mierocosm-of the larger landscape i n which i t i s found. "EPHEMERAL" only c e r t a i n influences produce an ephem-e r a l e f f e c t upon the landscape: atmospheric conditions ( e s p e c i a l l y fog, sunrises, sun-sets, clouds), r e f l e c t e d and projected images (shadows, mirrored objects), d i s -placements ( f a l l e n leaves, windblown object s ) , signs of animal habit a t i o n (spider webs, animal tracks or animal s i g h t i n g s ) . Dominance elements of the landscape are the simplest v i s u a l recognition part of which make up the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. Four elements compete formdominance i n any land-scape: FORM, LINE, COLOUR, and TEXTURE, with a l l four elements usually present i n varying degrees: 'FORM" "LINE" "COLOUR" mass of the object or of a combination of objects that appears u n i f i e d ( i n two dimensions the word 'shape' i s used). l i n e i s appoint that has been extended. I t i s anything that i s arranged i n a row or sequence. Examples: shorelines, powerlines roadways, etc, enables us to differenti^feeo objects even though other elements may be s i m i l a r or identical-. Colour dominance depends on the observer''?- p o s i t i o n , with foreground col--oursj/usually more dominant and distant colours muted by the atmosphere. 155 "TEXTURE" dominance va r i e s dramatically with d i s ^ a tance. The texture of a s t a l k of wheat i s quite i n t r i c a t e from a few inches away; from one hundred feet away the s t a l k becomes an i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e part of the f i e l d } from 10,000 feet away, the f i e l d s become merged. The texture of each image i s almost t o t a l dependent upon distance. contrast sequence axis convergence codominance enframement Six p r i n c i p l e s of v i s u a l dominance of form, l i n e , colour and texture i n a landscape; - where great contrast i s immediately appar-ent , r e p e t i t i o n of dominance of form, l i n e , colour, or texture main l i n e or d i r e c t i o n , motion, growth or extension attention focussed i n small area where two major features are i d e n t i f i e d d i r e c t s viewer's attention inwards Eight v a r i a b l e factors a f f e c t how dominance elements are seen: motion l i g h t atmospheric conditions season distance most powerful, cannattract and hold obser-ver's attention (avalanche, fallingswater) v i s u a l impact of objectvdependson how they r e f l e c t l i g h t , and d i r e c t i o n of l i g h t . impact of form, l i n e , colour, and texture reduced by cloud, fog, etc., hence evalu-a t i o n may be d i s t o r t e d . each season a f f e c t s the dominance elements, with spring and f a l l generally i n f l u e n c i n g colour's dominance highly correlated with perception of colour and texture d e t a i l observer p o s i t i o n elevation of observer i n r e l a t i o n to object he i s viewing i s important. 156 si z e of part r e l a t i v e to the whole, with distance a f f e c t i n g scale r e l a t i o n s h i p s length of time object observed influences observer's perceptions — seeing takes time. 157 Appendix 2 While the VMS employs a sophisticated mapping system to complement recently developed analysis techniques, i t conserves the standard t h e o r e t i c a l Base, The VMS i s outlined i n terms of f i v e d i s t i n c t stages or phases: PHASE I : I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Land Base Any landscape a n a l y s i s , regardless of the s p e c i f i c method, involves some kind of inventory of the landscape's components The f i r s t phase of the VMS i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the components of the landscape, or the landsbase, including topography, landforms, rock formations, bodies of water, and land uses, PHASE I I : Description of the Study Area i n terms of i t s Landscape Character- i s t i c s The second phase of the VMS i s the d e s c r i p t i o n of the landcape i n terms of i t s o v e r a l l impression to the observer, i t s dominance factors and i t s deviations from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. PHASE 111: D i v i s i o n of landscape into v a r i e t y classes The t h i r d phase of the VMS c l a s s i f i e s the landscape features into three d i f f e r e n t degrees: (a) D i s t i n c t i v e - r e f e r s to areas where features of unusual or outstanding v i s u a l q u a l i t y . (b) Common re f e r s to areas where features contain v a r i e t y but tend to be seen i n great q u a n t i t i e s . (c) Minimal - r e f e r s to areas whose features have l i t t l e change i n form, l i n e , colour, or texture ( i . e . a l l those areas not included under d i s t i n c t i v e or common). PHASE IV: Employment of Landscape S e n s i t i v i t y Levels Landscape s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s are the measure of i n d i v i d u a l ' s concern f o r the scenic q u a l i t y . The fourth phase of VMS determines s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s of areas within the landscape, based on the uses of the area and t r a v e l accesses through the area. Three s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s are generally employed, i d e n t i f y i n g varying user concerns f o r the v i s u a l landscape; (al Level 1 ^ Highest S e n s i t i v i t y ; Those landscapes along major t r a v e l r o u t e s i n c l u d i n g highways, f l i g h t paths of major a i r p o r t s , or r i v e r s or water bodies which, are heavily used. 1 158 (hi Level 2 -r- Average S e n s i t i v i t y ; Those landscapes which r>are.>along a r t e r i a l roads, etc, ( c l Leyel 3 Lowest S e n s i t i v i t y ; Those landscapes which are presently i n a c c e s s i b l e to the majority of observers, S e n s i t i v i t y l e y e l s are estimated f o r major travel routes, use areas, and water bodies and then combined f or an estimation of the o v e r a l l s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l f o r area. Por example, a study area dissected by a major highway would probably receive a Level 1 s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l , since the highway provides access f o r many people. On the other hand, a study area crossed by a seldom used country road would rate a r e l a t i v e l y low s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l . PHASE V: Ap p l i c a t i o n of V i s u a l Quality Objectives Once the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape has been described, i t s v a r i e t y and Vi s u a l features analyzed, and i t s s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s estimated, then the Vi s u a l Quality Objectives are calculated, based on a l l the information c o l l e c t e d . The VMS's V i s u a l Quality Objectives are used as landscape manage-ment a l t e r n a t i v e s which determine the degrees of acceptable a l t e r a t i o n of the landscape. 159 F l g - ^ 9 14731 Cambie Road (D. May f a m i l y ) 5051 Number Seven Road (G. E. Mackay) Fig. 54 6220 Number E i g h t Road (A. C. G i l m o r e ) §• 5 5 15400 Cambie Road ( J . Savage) Fig. 57 18331 W e s t m i n s t e r H i g h w a y ( T . D e v r i e s ) 162 F i g . 58 6980 Number Nine Road (G. H. Keur) 

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.831.1-0094866/manifest

Comment

Related Items