Vancouver's ALR under threat [Archive] - SkyscraperCity

PDA

View Full Version : Vancouver's ALR under threat


VAN-TO
December 5th, 2004, 06:00 AM
Do you think the ALR is under threat of collapsing? Should municipalities be allowed to take so much land for alternative development?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

City Business

Gordon Price

GVRD's livable region plan in danger of succumbing to unlivable urban sprawl

From Queensland in Australia to the Queen City of Ontario (that's Toronto, folks), governments are doing a swift turnaround and deciding to tackle sprawl. Surprising, then, that the one region that has successfully managed urban expansion for three decades is in danger of succumbing to the forces that created the problem in the first place. And that, folks, is our region: the GVRD.

The southeast corner of Queensland, stretching 240 kilometres on either side of Brisbane, is Australia's fastest growing conurbation, famous for its laissez-faire attitude to development. Right now on the Gold Coast they're erecting what will be the world's tallest residential building, the Q1, at 80 storeys. But most people who move to the region come with an image of an upscale "Queenslander" in their heads: a low-slung, single-family house, with a wide verandah on a large lot, open to unspoiled nature. Problem: a lot less unspoiled nature remains as urban sprawl overtakes the bush.

The politicians began to pay attention when a state government fell after trying to run a road through a koala reserve.

And so, a few weeks ago, the state government released in record time a draft plan that will establish an urban footprint to maintain open spaces between cities, increase lot densities, shift growth away from the coast and accommodate half of the next million people through infill and redevelopment.

Two days later, on the other side of the world, the government of Ontario announced its greenbelt initiative: a 1.8-million-acre buffer where farms, small communities and open spaces will be protected from development. The consequence, of course, is that densities will have to increase, infrastructure will shape growth rather than just serve it, and greater emphasis will be put on redevelopment in existing centres rather than on greenfield sites. In other words, Queensland in the Queen City.

As reports noted, it's a similar strategy to the one that has shaped the growth of the Vancouver area. The Globe and Mail quoted ex-Premier Dave Barrett: "If it hadn't been for the Agricultural Land Reserve, Vancouver today would be a bloody mess."

The NDP's creation of the ALR in 1973 even helped inspire the most famous urban-growth boundary in America, the one that surrounds Portland, Oregon.

The ALR also became the basis of the "Green Zone" that currently constrains sprawl in the Lower Mainland - one of four pillars that make up the Livable Region Strategic Plan, passed under Gordon Campbell's leadership of the GVRD in 1996. Though Vancouverites don't generally appreciate its significance, the rest of the world does. Most recently the plan was chosen from more than 500 submissions as the one that demonstrated "Best Practices to Improve the Living Environment" at the prestigious 2002 Dubai International Awards.

So it's odd, if not depressing, to see the continued attempts to erode the basis of our achievement. Let us count the ways.

Currently, 3,000 acres of prime farmland are being proposed for removal from the ALR in the Lower Mainland. Land owners are repeatedly trying to get 900 acres out of Barnston Island adjacent to Surrey. Chilliwack has already got 200 acres out for industrial development and is now targeting at least 400 for residential. Abbotsford is looking to take out 900 acres for "industrial" purposes, even though there's a very low vacancy rate on agricultural lands, the foundation of its No. 1 industry. Langley and Mission are making rumblings about removals. Maple Ridge has 10 applications before the Agricultural Land Commission. Even Burnaby is trying to get ALR lands removed from its Big Bend for big box development.

Here's Peter Simpson, CEO of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, with some food for thought: "We don't have to build on treed land. Instead, we could build homes on the flat, treeless lands called the Agricultural Land Reserve."

Just kidding, he says - or maybe not.

Transport Minister Kevin Falcon, who says he's only trying to solve a congestion problem, wants to widen the Trans-Canada all the way to Langley, which will, in the words of the Livable Region Coalition, "likely transform the region for the foreseeable future into a sprawling, low-density, automobile-dependent urban agglomeration."

It has everywhere else.

Some good news, though. The Liberal convention in Whistler just rejected a motion that called for the land commission to be "modernized" so that local municipalities could more easily remove lands for other uses.

Maybe Gordon Campbell, who has been missing in action on some of the issues that he championed at the municipal level, finally made his opinion known.

Regardless, it would be close to tragic to see the Lower Mainland, which was a pioneer 30 years ago, reverse course just as the rest of the world is trying to catch up to us.

Gordon Price, an adjunct professor of community and regional planning at UBC, is a former Vancouver city councillor. His e-mail address is pricetags@shaw.ca. His column appears monthly.

Westcoast604
December 5th, 2004, 11:59 AM
Good article.

I'm in favour of the ALR however I do feel that lands near the city that are surrounded by urban growth should be conisdered for removal, such as Richmond and parts of Delta. Sprawl is inevitable in my opinion as long as cities continue to grow. The compact region plan will work to an extent, but the fact of the matter is, not everyone wants to live in compact neighbourhoods. The picture perfect suburbs are what families want. So instead of spreading out into the Valley, just fill in near the city first. East Richmond is basically a space of farmland in the centre of a U shape of urban development, prime for new communities.

thryve
March 19th, 2005, 03:13 AM
Let Vancouver sprawl and it won't be Vancouver. I hope to God that Vancouver won't change its ways!!!

VAN-TO
March 19th, 2005, 04:48 AM
Good article.
East Richmond is basically a space of farmland in the centre of a U shape of urban development, prime for new communities.

I agree. Why should suburbs be built in far-flung Langley and not in Richmond? Makes more sense protecting Langley's farmland. ~

Sometimes I wonder why Richmond's City Centre is located by the YYR, and not somewhere quieter on East Richmond where there's isn't ear-ringing planes flying overhead or dizzying federal height restrictions.

Nutterbug
March 19th, 2005, 06:04 AM
I agree. Why should suburbs be built in far-flung Langley and not in Richmond? Makes more sense protecting Langley's farmland. ~
Something to do with soil quality, maybe? Possibly something to do with being on the river delta? I dunno. I'm no agricultural expert.

Nutterbug
March 19th, 2005, 06:10 AM
I'm in favour of the ALR however I do feel that lands near the city that are surrounded by urban growth should be conisdered for removal, such as Richmond and parts of Delta. Sprawl is inevitable in my opinion as long as cities continue to grow. The compact region plan will work to an extent, but the fact of the matter is, not everyone wants to live in compact neighbourhoods. The picture perfect suburbs are what families want.
They should stop being so spoiled fussy, and learn a thing or two from the Europeans and Asians, who can pack ten times as many people in the same amount of space.

VAN-TO
March 19th, 2005, 06:12 AM
They should stop being so spoiled fussy, and learn a thing or two from the Europeans and Asians, who can pack ten times as many people in the same amount of space.

I found your statement kind of ironic, since you live in Coquitlam, lol.

My friends place at Westwood Plateau is practically Sprawlsville. ~

sukh
March 20th, 2005, 01:25 PM
Yeah, but sooner or later its going to sprawl, how long can they expect not to break new land?

yesheh
March 21st, 2005, 03:47 AM
Compared to richmond, langley's farmland is absolutly useless. The only things that really grow well there are chicken barns and rich people's hobby farms. There is one exception, which is glen valley, which is right on the fraser river flood plain. there is also some good land west of walnut grove, but south langley's land is all but useless. Compare that to richmond, which is some of the best land in the provence that we are overrunning...it ticks me off... The usable land base in bc is something like 4% of all lands... probably the worst offenders of good land are in order.... Richmond, Pitt Meadows, and Abbotsford. Chilliwack would probably be in fourth...

rt_0891
May 24th, 2005, 10:17 PM
Wow. there's actually a thread on this topic.

Anyways...

Moratorium sought on farmland
Developers see new regional panels as a soft touch, critics allege

Frank Luba, Kent Spencer and John Bermingham

The Province

May 24, 2005

Abbotsford fields are "perfect" for growing delicious raspberries, with mild winters, moderate sunshine and beds of sand over a gravel base.

"It's the best raspberry-growing land in the world," says berry expert Mark Sweeney of Abbotsford.

Some of the precious lands are the focus of the Agricultural Land Commission, which is deciding whether 365 hectares should be removed from the land reserve to make room for industry in south Abbotsford.

"I'm not saying it will be the end of the world if some land is turned over to industry, but raspberries are a very significant contribution to the local economy," says Sweeney.

Eighty per cent of Canada's red raspberry crop, weighing 12 million kilograms, is grown on just 2,230 hectares in Abbotsford-Sumas.

Following public hearings, the commission's long-awaited ruling is expected any day.

Abbotsford Coun. Bruce Beck said the city applied to have the space taken out of the Agricultural Land Reserve because jobs are vital to its 131,000 residents. Abbotsford has only 92 hectares of non-aviation oriented industrial land available.

"We're going to need tens of thousands more jobs in the next 20 years," said Beck.

"Less than one per cent of the total land mass would be taken out. This land is for employment."

The debate in Abbotsford is one of several taking place around B.C.

Critics charge that B.C. is selling the farm when it comes to protecting the ALR.

Dave Sands, a retired manager with the Ministry of Agriculture, claims in a new report that some of the "best farmland in Canada" could be removed.

There are currently applications from Chilliwack, Mission, Maple Ridge, Langley and Barnston Island.

Barnston, a large farming community on the Fraser River, could become an industrial park.

In Delta, up to 356 hectares of treaty settlement land awarded to the Tsawwassen band, could also be headed out of the ALR.

Sands said the quickened pace of applications has come about because B.C. has replaced the centralized commission with six regional panels, each consisting of three local members.

"The people making the decisions are too close to local government," said Sands. "They've bowed to some of the expansions."

Sands said applicants are lining up from all over B.C. because they think the panels are a soft touch.

He wants a moratorium on decisions until a full review of the panel system is undertaken.

Commission director Kirk Miller estimates the number of applications is up about 25 per cent.

"My feeling is it's not a result of the panels, it's a result of area reviews," said Miller.

There are about 4.7 million hectares in the ALR, about 40,000 more than when it was created in the 1970s -- although Miller concedes not all the new land put in has been productive.

In the key south coast panel, which includes the fertile soils of the Fraser Valley and Greater Vancouver, vice-chairman Peter Dhillon denies he's an easy touch.

Dhillon, who runs a large cranberry farm in Richmond, said "the panel system is effective."

"We're very responsible in our decision-making. We are advocates of protecting farmland."

Dhillon said it's "absolute nonsense" that the panel is pro-development.

Surrey Coun. Bob Bose, who comes from a turn-of-the-century farming family, worries about the future.

"There wouldn't be any agricultural land remaining if it had been left up to local governments," he said.

"Taking land out always involves the same old argument: The land is not financially viable. The effect is like a house of dominoes: Knock one over and the rest are going to go."

- - -

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Give us your comments by fax at 604-605-2223, or by e-mail at provletters@png.canwest.com.

Spell out your first and last names and give your hometown.
© The Vancouver Province 2005

ssiguy2
May 25th, 2005, 02:57 AM
I think it would be horrible to start parcelling off the ALR...it is a real gem.
It also helps contain some of the sprawl and despite what Vancouverites think of their city, the GVRD is a sprawling mess. Poor urban planning, last major city in Canada to get rapid transit and no transit ROW maintained or even encouraged.
Surrey and Delta are pratically connected with lousey transit. There is not even a commuter rail line to downtown to say nothing of express buses to downtown using the HWY#1 HOV lanes.
Vancouver has dug itself into a hole and its going to get worse. Why? Because of the VERY high price of land and homes. Its forcing more people further into the valley so they can even afford a small house or townhouse.

sukh
May 29th, 2005, 12:04 PM
Arent you tired of always being wrong about Vancouver? hell or even any other city you talk about. LOL!

touraccuracy
May 29th, 2005, 07:08 PM
There is not even a commuter rail line to downtown

West Coast Express



But other than that you are fairly accurate.

Westcoast604
May 29th, 2005, 08:08 PM
Vancouver has dug itself into a hole and its going to get worse. Why? Because of the VERY high price of land and homes. Its forcing more people further into the valley so they can even afford a small house or townhouse.

I don't think Vancouver just woke up one day and decided, hey, I think homes should cost 1 million dollars, and condos should start at $350,000. The prices are high because the demand is high. Its the most desirable place in the country, naturally prices are going to be high.

People are not only moving further into the Valley because of cheaper costs, but a good reason is because of this "gem ALR". All the open land near the city in Delta and Richmond is protected! Other than densification (which is taking place at an explosive rate) there is nowhere else for people to move but east.

The ALR is good but it should not be applied to land right in the city. If the region is to stay compact, they need to remove ALR designations in places like Big Bend, Barnston Island which has poor soil anyways, Richmond (flood plain but theyve already developed half the island), and the area of Coquitlam right off the Port Mann along Louhgeed. This would fill the urban area and leave the valley for farming.

rt_0891
June 20th, 2005, 06:41 AM
Agriculture Overview:

http://vancouver.ca/Greaterdot/video/TSR-05-AgricultureOverview.wmv

Southland:

http://vancouver.ca/Greaterdot/video/05-SouthlndHistory.wmv

Barnston Island:

http://vancouver.ca/Greaterdot/video/TSR-05-BarnstonIsland.wmv


weblogUpdates.ping SkyscraperCity - Powered by vBulletin http://www.skyscrapercity.com/