whose vancouver? 50 years of planning, but whose history are we telling?

 whose vancouver? 50 years of planning, but whose history are we telling?

I read Brian Palmquist's latest City Conversations article, 50 Years Forward, Not Back, about Vancouver's planning history.

Brian has spent more than 50 years in Vancouver and has an impressive professional history as an architect. He remembers a time when planners listened to communities, when residents could speak directly to senior planning staff, and when public consultation helped shape the city.

I don't disagree that public consultation matters. In fact, I think it matters enormously.

But I have a different question.

Whose history are we celebrating?

And who benefited from Vancouver's transformation?

Before False Creek became a desirable waterfront neighbourhood, before the marinas, condominiums, seawall and expensive real estate, what was here?

It wasn't an empty industrial wasteland.

For thousands of years, the lands and waters were part of the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

There were forests, wetlands, streams and tidal flats. Salmon, trout, sturgeon and other fish were abundant. Bears, elk, deer and other wildlife inhabited the surrounding landscape.

These were living ecosystems, food sources, travel routes and culturally important places.

Indigenous peoples hunted, fished, travelled and cared for these territories long before Vancouver became a city.

Then came colonization, settlement, logging, railways, industrialization and pollution.

The landscape was transformed.

And when the industrial uses began disappearing, the city had another opportunity to transform it.

But let's not pretend the story began with progressive urban planning in the 1970s.

Who got displaced along the way?

Vancouver's urban renewal history is particularly uncomfortable.

In the 1950s and 1960s, neighbourhoods such as Strathcona were labelled blighted. City planners proposed demolishing large portions of established communities.

Chinese residents, working-class families, older people and other residents were living in homes that were often in poor condition.

But why?

Racism, housing discrimination, poverty, overcrowding and inadequate access to home improvement financing all played a role.

Some neighbourhoods were allowed to deteriorate while redevelopment was anticipated.

The resulting conditions were then used to justify clearance.

There were real public-health problems, including tuberculosis. But we should be asking why people were living in unhealthy conditions, not simply describing their homes as blight.

Japanese Canadians had already endured forced displacement, incarceration and terrible living conditions during the Second World War. Tuberculosis was a serious problem in those communities.

These histories belong in our understanding of Vancouver's housing and planning decisions.

Now let's talk about False Creek South.

It is frequently celebrated as a model of progressive urban planning.

The original vision included co-operative housing, non-market rental housing and market condominiums. There was an intention to create a mixed-income community.

That was a worthwhile idea.

But today, False Creek South is also a desirable waterfront neighbourhood, and much of the land is still publicly owned.

The City owns 80% of the land.

There are market condominiums, co-ops, non-market rental homes and other housing arrangements.

We need to distinguish between them. Co-operative housing can provide genuinely affordable homes, and non-market housing serves an important purpose. But market-rate leasehold condominiums are not affordable housing simply because the land belongs to the City.

The question is whether the original public purpose is being maintained.

Most of the original 60-year leases expire between 2036 and 2046.

That raises some very important questions about public land, property rights, compensation, inheritance and the future of affordable housing.

Who benefits from the land that belongs to the public?

And what happens when those leases end?

Then came Expo 86.

Vancouver was marketed to the world.

The waterfront was transformed, industrial lands were redeveloped, and the city entered a new era of international attention and real estate investment.

The False Creek North plan originally called for 20% non-market housing.

But the promised housing did not all materialize.

The 1990 plan identified 20 sites. Six were developed with government funding, producing 544 homes. Eight sites were converted to market housing, and six remained undeveloped after funding was cancelled.

The requirements subsequently changed.

There is a history here of changing agreements, changing priorities and public benefits that were promised but not fully delivered.

And we haven't even examined all the promises surrounding the 2010 Olympics and the Olympic Village.

So when we look back at 50 years of Vancouver planning, we need to look at more than architecture.

We need to look at land ownership.

We need to look at displacement.

We need to look at racism, class, public investment and the enormous increase in property values.

We need to ask who was invited into the planning room and who was left outside.

And we need to remember the people who lived here before there was a planning department.

I agree with Brian that housing affordability, homelessness, urban livability and infrastructure should be priorities for the next 50 years.

But I would add something.

Environmental restoration, Indigenous history, land rights and accountability for previous promises must be part of that conversation.

A beautiful waterfront doesn't tell us whether we have built a fair city.

A seawall doesn't tell us whether we have protected the ecosystem.

A co-op doesn't mean every person can afford to live in the neighbourhood.

And a public consultation doesn't mean the public had any real power over the final decision.

Vancouver needs to stop congratulating itself long enough to examine its own history.

Fifty years forward, certainly.

But not without telling the truth about the past.

1. To city planners: When you design a neighbourhood, whose needs come first — the people who already live there, the people who need affordable housing, developers, or the future market?

2. To False Creek residents: Do you know the history of the land beneath your home, and do you believe today's waterfront should remain accessible and affordable to future generations?

3. To the City of Vancouver: When public land is leased for private residential development, how do you ensure that the public receives lasting benefits rather than simply watching land values increase?

5. To the dogwalkers and waterfront users: When you enjoy the seawall, parks and waterfront, do you ever consider the wildlife, original ecosystems and Indigenous histories that existed here before the paths, marinas and developments?

6. To temporary foreign workers: Does Vancouver offer you a genuine opportunity to build a life here, or does the city benefit from your labour while leaving you struggling with housing insecurity and limited rights?

7. To newcomers and immigrants: When you arrive in Vancouver hoping for a better future, are you finding the affordability, opportunity and sense of belonging that brought you here?

8. To tourists: Are you seeing the real Vancouver, including its housing crisis, displacement and environmental history, or mainly the beautiful waterfront that has been packaged for visitors?

9. To developers and politicians: How many times can affordable housing commitments, neighbourhood plans and public promises be changed before we stop calling it progress and start calling it a failure of accountability?

10. To everyone who calls Vancouver home: What kind of city are we leaving behind — one where people, wildlife and communities can thrive, or one where the privilege of living here increasingly depends on how much money you have?