EcoDensity Meeting Part I: Does this mean I can't walk around naked anymore?

This morning I did what I always do. My alarm rings at an ungodly hour. I attempt to ignore it until my brain overcomes my body and the rationality of not alienating my options for making money sets in... I crawl out of bed and into the shower. Thereafter I sit in front of my mirror and put my face on for the day. I do this all naked. and with the blinds fully opened. That's right..I'm one of those. I'm always in my birthday suit until I actually have to leave and be decent for the day.
Now this was never a problem until today. Today, as I was putting in my eyes (contacts), I caught sight of the massive condo that has just recently reached the height where my daily nakedness could become a problem. The crane swings above and I'm sure it the structure will keep building up in the next few months.
I live in a pretty low density area. With it's mixes, but all low level apartments and condos that don't really go further than 10 floors. An even when they do the infamous "view cones" (http://www.pacificmetropolis.com/2005/06/the_view_cones.html)are still in place to give me eyes the deception of space. But this structure gets right in my face and really..right in my window. This bothers me greatly because not only will I have to consider wearing clothes but I'll have to consider getting some sort of blinds/draping system for windows that are usually kept open all year round (I'm into sunlight..).
EcoDensity = business for blinds and curtain stores

Ok, I just gave an example of density building upwards. But really, density doesn't have to equal building higher. And, in fact, I'd highly discourage it in Vancouver. For one, I'm a fan of the view cones and I know Vancouver planners are in love with them too. And for another reason- a couple years ago I was on the bus going down Seymour (where condo construction abouds). A tourist mentioned how wonderful Vancouver's downtown was because there were a lot of tall buildings but there wasn't this shadow over the city streets like you get in so many other cities. she quoted New York as being one of them. Now would that not be a shame if the downtown were just one big shadow at street level (*ahem.. clam shell..or birds nest of some sort...).
Now granted,the sun don't shine over Vancouver all that often so shadow or no shadow it doenst' make a difference on most days. But really, when it IS sunny isn't Vancouver amazing? This week, weren't you just astounded with how beautiful Vancouver is and did you not just fall in love with it all over again?

Ok, now on to EcoDensity. I won't bore you with the origin and details so I'll give you websites that will:http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/; http://www.mayorsamsullivan.ca/ecodensity

Basically, it's a few years old, began with Sam Sullivan ushering in a green plan int he wake of the Olympic bid (riding the commotion train for as long as he could) and now EcoDensity is this kind of painful plan that is good in theory, but ha been talked and debated to death that people either want to kill it (because it was top-down and came from an NPA evil) or usher it through as quickly as possible because Vancouver seems to be doing nothing nowadays. I personally sit on the latter side. Yes it came from the evils of Sam Sullivan and it originated from the publicity train rather than the community, but in theory it makes sense- IFF done right. And so let's just get on with it (I'm talking in circles you say? -to do it right it takes more time, you say?- you're right..it does take time, but not THIS much time. We need to just take some risks and go with it. If I've learnt anything from the painful hours of meetings is that Vancovuer has some really capable people both in City Hall and outside of city hall that will keep the process accountable and on the right track. I seriously think that if we just go ahead and tackle it it'll be good. Or at least have an overall legacy of good. i.e. False Creek South.

So when it was announced that tonights EcoDensity event had 144 speakers I was more than frustrated. of COURSE there should be public consultation..but good lord.. we only got through 13 speakers in 2.5 hours. There needs to be some speeding up of this process. And in some cases these steps might be a tad redundant. Public meeting over public meeting- redrawing a charter several times and recognizing that finalizing a charter doesn't even coem CLOSE to finalizing a plan is just an incredibly long process that will take forever. Poor Peter Ladner called for less questions from council after the first speaker, but nobody listened to him and the questioning from speaker to councillor, councillor to speaker continued.
I gotta also say that Councillor Cadman rocks. He was a little off with the affordability bit but he had some good comments on land use and he kept referring back to the interaction between housing and transportation. He seemed to be the only councillor that made the connection that density in any type of property whether it is commercial or housing means nothing without proper public transport infrastructure. Kudos.

10 Things worth mentioning about tonights EcoDensity meeting:

1)Peter Oberlander started the public debate with a painfully long academic bit on etymology. Good start but considering there were 143 other speakers to hear -it hurt if this was the speech that set the pace. I liked his bit about ECOnomy and ECOlogical and how they should hopefully be able to complement one another. And if you think about it, our economy completely relies on the health of our envronment (in ecological terms, not in just plain green terms).

2) VSB- lower enrollment. Families can't afford to live in the city anymore. Moving to the burbs.
I think there was SUCH a lack of discussion about REGIONAL and METRO growth plans. All of this EcoDensity is crap if we can't apply it to the interaction between municipalities. So there should have been more discussion of the proposed town centres that are in the Metro's Strategic Plan. http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/lrsp.htm
and no, I do not think we should use density as a means to increase our enrollment. That seems almost silly. We should think about what kind of environment/community we are building, then what people are going to be drawn tothose communities, and then ammend the plan accordingly. In other words we should be building and specifically focussing on quality, livability, and family friendly neighbourhoods. NOT thinking, lets just increase density and hope that will increase the amount of children so nrollment goes up. Just beause you increase density does not mean you will increase the number of children in the area. Density is an end product that says nothing about the means and content of a process.

3) Parks board. Public space is good. But nobody ever talked about the concern that there will be a greater push towards private amenities. Condos often have their own governance structures and common ownership structures. These are much different that "public space" and public amenity. I personally fear that we will morph into a sort of privatized and commonownership model instead of the private home/public amnity model. Remember, common implies membership of some sort and thus common ownership for those who are members- meaning just another form of privatization.

4) Heather deal talked about micro amenities. good stuff. She specifically suggested things like benches and basketball courts in the side streets and lots that are underused.
I found out tday that I actually like Heather Deal because she's so damn specific. She doesn't bother with theoretical crap, she's all about the concrete examples.

5) Andrea Reimer and food security. I didnt' know she dabbled in that too! Damn, that woman covers every topic.

6) UBC AMS reps. Good talk on affordability for students and the rich-club that encircles the campus. Upass was good, but the UBC really just passed on the buck. Instead of making housing affordable and giving more managable housing options to students, they just gave UBC kids a cheaper way to commute from farther away. The City and UBC need to make it easier for students to live on or near campus. The student reps quoted that student engagement was incredibly low at UBC and if you've seen the new Macleans UBC doesnt' even show up on most of the ranks because it is at the lowest of the low. It's true.. I didn't see UBC with my own eyes.
Not only that but the vast majority of UBC students re local kids. Metro Vancouver kids that are being pushed out further and further away to make for Point Grey standards of unaffordability.

7) I hate Councillor Kim Capri. I just do. There is a rhyme and some sort of reason..but this post is getting too long and I'd rather complain about not being able to get naked privacy anymore.

8) Sullivan and Louie (aka Facebook slut number one and Facebook slut number two) were a little eager on he antibullying campaign for Wednesday as they were both sporting the pink.
By the way..wear pink tomorrow for anti-bullying. It's a neat story on how it came to be- google it. Kids can be so amazing sometimes..

9) There was another guy with a Canuck coloured tie. NO, not that crap orca one, but the old orange, black and yellow flying skate. But on further inspection the black is really a deep blue. It's okay..it's still a rockin tie.

10) Woman who pulled out the magician sketch. I couldn't get all of it because it was a packed audience...but it went to the tune of a magician hat that said "NPA" on it and various other props.. probably amounting to an anti-ecodensity message of some sort. She was a tad crazy though. wouldn't shut up. I wouldnt' be quiet if Sam Sullivan told me to either, but she was clearly overstepping a time limit and she had already made her point quite clear and was on to the ranting.

And that was DAY ONE of what could possibly be a two week meeting process.