The Flipside of EcoDensity: Introduction

By Erick Villagomez, re:place magazine

There has been much talk of Vancouver’s EcoDensity initiative since its inception in 2006. Municipalities, academics and citizens alike have all played a part in discussing different aspects – both positive and negative - of the project. In spite of this, there seems to be few critical analyses of EcoDensity both as an argument as well as an action. It is for this reason I have put together a short series of articles taking a closer look at some of the inaccuracies, half-truths and misconceptions brought forth by the initiative.

Given that I’m discussing such a heavily charged issue, I feel a few introductory remarks are warranted. Firstly – and very importantly - I’m not an “anti-densite”. Alongside the dwindling number of people with the means to do so, I am fortunate enough to live along one of Vancouver’s main retail streets near the city’s largest transit node. I walk to do my groceries and have all of my required amenities within 1km from my compact but adequate home. Although I do own a vehicle, my wife and I work from primarily from home and my neighbourhood allows my family to work and play using one car. This means that my fuel efficient 1994 Toyota actually spends most of its days sitting curbside. To top it all off, I practice and preach the benefits of density for a living.

That notwithstanding, I’m a dedicated believer that informed decisions can only be made through the availability and understanding of all the possible information relating to a subject – the good, the bad and the ugly. In reality, however, this is made extremely difficult due to all the biases, spin-doctoring and well-targeted rhetoric directed to the public. As we all know, governments, politicians, and bureaucrats are among the worst culprits – especially when dealing with the economics of development.

With regards to EcoDensity specifically, I’m not at all against the idea. In fact, I think that, conceptually, it has many valid points. However, having read a number of articles on this high-profile initiative and all of its documentation, it seems to me that many of the issues brought forth by the City of Vancouver are relatively superficial and fail to holistically engage the topic. No matter how good the intentions, I would argue that EcoDensity – through focusing solely on its academically mainstream positive aspects - offers a deceivingly simplistic view of density and its impacts on the city and region. Most importantly, it fails to address critical issues pertaining directly to sustainability and livability. In doing so, it not only does a disservice to its citizens, but also potentially sabotages future Vancouverites.

I often project myself to the early times - not long ago - of rapid suburban expansion. With all its advocates – academics, politicians, citizens - playing their parts in convincing the masses that this pattern was the best future for our cities. Automobiles. Highways. Malls. Freestanding Homes. Growth. Progress. Words spoken without an idea of the ultimate consequences of these seemingly harmless decisions. Words that simplified complex issues to the point where only one direction seemed logical, leaving no room for questioning.

It is one of my greatest fears that we – like our relatives just two generations ago – are following the same path under a different guise. Accepting simple solutions to complex problems and blindly following the myths and ethos of current times without question. And that heavily marketed initiatives - such as EcoDensity - are the primary vehicles through which this blindness and complacency is transmitted.

With this in mind, I think that as someone immersed in the culture of building, I have the responsibility to clarify objectives, to raise them for debate, reveal hidden costs, and to speak for the absent or voiceless. If I don’t start the discussion, who will?

Also, a few words on format and sequence. The series looks at the broader arguments brought forth by the EcoDensity initiative. More specifically, density as it relates to the environment, affordability, and livability. They will follow in this order. I’ve refrained from delving to deeply into the specifics and details (such as the EcoDensity Actions, etc.) since these are to be manifestations of the bigger picture. So, my reasoning is that if the larger arguments are questionable, the details necessarily follow suit.

Lastly and most importantly, I am not trying to discourage densification as a very valuable way of increasing sustainability & livability. As I mentioned earlier, I spend much of my time teaching the benefits of densification. I am simply acknowledging the concerns and wrinkles that need to be ironed out in order for densification to be done responsibly. I do not have all the answers, but I am hoping that sparking discussion is the first step in gaining them….

Other series articles:
The Flipside of EcoDensity - Density & the Environment
The Flipside of EcoDensity - Density & Affordability
The Flipside of EcoDensity - Density & Livability
The Flipside of EcoDensity - Epilogue