Urban
opportunity
education
information
community
action
arium
expression
understanding
participation
discourse
ritual
arium
responsibility
utility
opinion
voice
retreat
arium
exposure
process
insight
engagement
energy
arium
improvement
intelligence
platform
critique
evaluation
arium
example
health
design
landscape
ideas
arium

UBC School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture

City Debate #15: RETHINK THE DTES PLAN

The Downtown Eastside Plan (2014) was created to protect low-income residents and other community members by restricting new development and uses not specifically targeting the poor. Many believe the DTES is Vancouver's last authentic and compassionate neighbourhood in the city; others see a neighbourhood in decline. Is it time to rethink the DTES Plan to allow for a greater mix of self-supporting uses, residents and businesses? Or, does the DTES Plan effectively protect a vulnerable population and preserve/work towards a cohesive neighbourhood?

Links to the Plan:

City Debate #14: ELECT REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES (VIDEO)

Metro Vancouver, a federation of 21 municipalities, one Electoral Area and one Treaty First Nation, relies on consensus decision-making by nominated councillors to direct its planning and activities. The urgent issues of our times—climate change, Land Rights, housing, transportation/transit—require decisive regional action. Would an empowered regional government, directly elected by the region, be more effective and accountable?  

City Debate #13: COMMERCIALIZE THE SEAWALL (VIDEO)

First established as a loop around Stanley Park in 1980, the extended Seawall now stretches 28 kilometers. Despite its heavy usage, it is served by few commercial activities. Is the Seawall a beloved public realm success story or boring strip of pavement for single-use recreation? Should the Seawall continue to resist any further “revitalization”, or should more commercial activities be encouraged to foster a greater variety of activities?

 

City Debate #12: REMOVE COLONIAL MARKERS (VIDEO)

Around the world, people are calling for the renaming of places and the removal of monuments honouring racist colonial figures. Does erasing the historical markers inadvertently diminish the opportunities for current and future generations to remember and meaningfully confront our history? Or does removing the offensive markers enable a more productive dialogue? In that case, who decides which markers to remove, what happens to them, and what, if anything, replaces them?