paulhillsdon.com

Video game events at public libraries are drawing crowds of teens, including about 100 competing monthly at “Guitar Hero” at the Rochester Hills Public Library.

“Getting teens to come to the library is right up there with getting them to go to church: It’s not exactly the first place they want to go,” Christine Lind Hage, library director, told the Detroit Free Press for a story Sunday.

[via ABC News]

Now here’s some innovation from a dying industry - the library. It’s great to see them making progressive steps to attract back people. The fact of the matter is that library can no longer rely on simply being an information repository - the internet has taken over that responsibility.

Libraries need to be social spaces for a community. They need uses beyond the “book rental shop” and the “study space”. Libraries need to merge with other attractive community spaces, such as community halls, coffee shops, and rec centres. Just imagine how much busier a library would be if it had the only Starbucks in town attached to it.

It’s interesting how this library in the States went beyond just stocking video games - a big step in it’s own right and certainly something that should be tried out here. They transformed a space in the library into something that you would typically call a youth center. They had a video game party and competition night. Tremendous idea no?!

I think it’s collaboration and incorporation that community services need now more than ever. They need to capitalize on their own individual successes and situate in a relatively close space to create what one would typically call a civic square. If services were all close together, you would create a focal point for the community. Of course, this is hard to do with sprawled cities, but steps should be taken today to fix this problem.

First step: create community spaces that are attractive for everyone. Just like these innovative libraries are doing.

I’ve been pondering a lot recently about my position in the community and how to best realize my vision for this region, and, more specifically, for my home city of Surrey. You see, a person like me tends to have a lot of projects and ideas swirling around his head - it’s just a matter of how best to make these a reality. Rather often, it seems that the power to truly improve things lies in the hands of decision makers. To that end, I’m pondering a potential run for political office in Surrey during the November municipal elections.

I’ve written before about what I believe is a lack of boldness in this region. You know, that spice of life, that energy… that ability to make, support and rally around the *best* decisions and ideas - and I think it’s something I inherently possess. It’s a quality that could make up for my lack of experience in politics and support my candidacy as I’m advocating for the important issues.

And what are the important issues?

Well, take a look at the “four pillars”, so to speak, of a Surrey civic platform that I’ve been brainstorming.

1. Sustainable Development
2. Green Spaces
3. Transportation Alternatives
4. Vibrant Communities

I’m a logical guy, so trust me when I say that I already have many plans on how to achieve measurable improvements in these four categories - something rarely seen from political candidates vying for office. November’s a long ways away still. Does the platform sound intriguing to you? Something you would support?

Stay tuned, the rest of this week, I’ll give a full rundown on each of these “pillars”, including specific policies and plans.

Naturally, I’d really appreciate any and all comments :)

With the huge influx of people discovering my South of Fraser “Transit 2011″ plan, enough to take my site down for a bit over bandwidth overload, I’d thought I should write an quick lil update about it.

First off, thanks for all the very supportive comments. While it is easy to poke fun at TransLink’s plan, in comparison to mine, we must remember that they do truly only have limited funding and other political constraints to getting anything done these days - something I didn’t have to face while developing mine. That doesn’t mean however, that I didn’t try to keep mine realistic. Frankly, while it may be completely unscientific, I did try to get a reasonable cost analysis and keep the plan actually doable. The funding required for it isn’t *all* that much different than that which would pay for the Evergreen Line.

Just to recollect: As of now, while I haven’t gotten much way in response from TransLink officials concerning my plan, we know that the Livable Region Coalition, Stephen Rees, VALTAC, Gordon Price, the City of Surrey planning department, and a handful of transit riders love my plan and consider it far better than the official TransLink plan. Hehe, maybe that’s what you get when you give transit supporters what they want!

To that end, I received a comment on the old post suggesting that I go out and find more vocal support for the plan. Originally, while I was conceiving it, these types of ideas were in my mind (taking it to council meetings and such). However, as you may understand, I eventually lost interest in my plan as my views changed, and barely got it up on my site in a readable, concluded fashion. I do not consider my plan fully developed, nor fully backed by sources - and I don’t have the motivation, certainly not in 2008, to go back to it and update it. It was not exactly designed to be an official alternative to TransLink’s plans - in fact, mine was created before TransLink even released their draft version - it was more of a suggestion of creative, and reasonably priced solutions to our transit problems in the SoF area.

So, to both gnoble and Ken Hardie, no need to fret, I am not shopping this plan around town.

To reiterate, certain aspects of my opinions at that time have evolved - such as the use of the Interurban line for community rail. You can stay tuned however, because, in a very short time, I will be releasing a long overdue update to both my vision for transit in the SoF, and across the region.

That is, as long as the provincial government doesn’t do it first. Ken Hardie:

If you look at the real substance of the complaints by the five muni’s South of the Fraser, their issue is with timing. What we’ve proposed is in line with what we heard from the public and stakeholders, and the timing is dictated by what we can afford to do given the current revenue streams. If we get more provincial support…which may well be indicated on Monday…then of course we can do things more quickly.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, Metro Vancouver is currently renewing the Livable Region Strategic Plan (which developed the concept of town centres in a “sea of green”). This new Regional Growth Strategy is to focus on five main goals:

1. A sustainable compact metropolitan structure
2. Diverse and affordable housing choices
3. A strong diverse regional economy
4. Protect and enhance the region’s natural assets
5. A sustainable transportation system

Metro has embraced the web as a powerful communications platform by not only creating an online discussion forum, and posting the draft plan’s survey on it’s site, but has also allowed the results of said survey to be viewed in real time. Which is pretty cool stuff for a governmental organization. This “real time” view gives us a pretty good idea of what the public wants, and as of now, it’s clear they want some big change.

Metro’s problem has also been a lack of control over the region. In the survey, there was generally three to four options, ranging on a scale of Metro retaining it’s current powers, to giving it the abilities to override a municipality in certain cases.

For example, with “Strategy 10 - Advance a regional network of roads and highways that prioritizes goods movement, transit operations and high-occupancy vehicles”, there’s three options, progressively giving Metro more power:

• A) State the general Strategy to prioritize the movement of goods, transit and HOVs in the regional network of roads and highways
• B) Identify regional roads and highways network on a regional map and state general principles for prioritizing
• C) Identify a regional roads and highways network on a regional map as well as provide guidelines for prioritizing use

Surprisingly enough, each and every strategy is overwhelmingly choosing the “C” option, or the one with the most added power for Metro. It’s not clear how many people have taken the survey, but judging by the many written comments viewable on the site, it’s quite evident there’s a good sampling source. Does the public’s approval of more power mean big changes coming forth for Metro Vancouver?

Toronto Budget Chair Shelley Carroll issued the following statement today on behalf of the people of Toronto:

“This country is in the midst of unprecedented growth. The Canadian dollar is hitting record highs, unemployment is lower than it has ever been, and the federal government is enjoying a $14- billion surplus.

“Canadians need to ask themselves some very simple questions: why do cities continually need to raise taxes to meet basic service needs when Ottawa has an enormous surplus? Why did Toronto have to impose a land transfer tax and vehicle ownership tax when Ottawa has an enormous surplus? Why are bridges crumbling in Montreal when Ottawa has an enormous surplus?

“And why did the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) recently issue a report stating the infrastructure deficit in Canadian municipalities is $123 billion? Surely the FCM and all those municipalities across Canada can’t be wrong. Surely Ottawa is not second-guessing sound research and data collection from a respected body like the FCM.

“Cities and towns do not have access to revenues that grow when the economy grows - unlike Ottawa. The surplus Ottawa is enjoying is, indeed, financed by cities. And that is why Canadian municipalities are asking for the equivalent of one cent of the GST.

“The federal finance minister says cities are ‘whining.’ Is it ‘whining’ to demand that public funds be spent judiciously? Ottawa is clearly out of touch with the rest of Canada if that is the prevailing attitude.

“Mr. Flaherty has repeatedly talked about the Building Canada Fund. Yes, it’s a start, but certainly not a panacea. The program offers some help for public transit, but falls far short of what Canadian cities need to remain vibrant, liveable, and economically sound in the 21st century.

“Mr. Flaherty lectures that cities need to build reserves to fund deficits. Public transit and maintaining infrastructure requires enormous investments - in the billions of dollars. The property tax base cannot fund reserves of the magnitude needed today. Property taxes pay for services like police, fire, EMS, recreation, garbage collection, water - basic services Canadians depend on everyday.

“It’s also important to remember that Mr. Flaherty was part of the Mike Harris government that forced Ontario municipalities to start drawing from reserves to pay for the cost of downloading.

“The surplus Ottawa enjoys is the people’s money. It is not Stephen Harper’s or Jim Flaherty’s to play politics with. Canadians know that and it’s time the prime minister and finance minister recognized it, too.

“Toronto is the fifth largest city in North America. It’s vibrant and exciting, but is suffering because of inaction by Ottawa.

“In October the Toronto Government stepped up its aggressive program to reduce business taxes to ensure the Canadian economy continues to thrive. Ottawa’s Treasury will be a prime beneficiary. The time is now for Ottawa to set aside its ideological bent and do the right thing by representing all Canadians - urban and rural.

“This matter is too serious and has gone on for too long. Ottawa owes cities - the people - a great deal; it’s time it started start living up to its commitment to public service by serving the public and practicing good government.

“The legitimate needs of cities will not go away and Canada’s municipal leadership remains united in its campaign to protect communities.”

Toronto is Canada’s largest city and sixth largest government, and home to a diverse population of about 2.6 million people. It is the economic engine of Canada and one of the greenest and most creative cities in North America. In the past three years, Toronto has won more than 70 awards for quality, innovation and efficiency in delivering public services. Toronto’s government is dedicated to prosperity, opportunity and liveability for all its residents. [City of Toronto via Spacing]

The costs of downloading services to municipalities from higher ups is clearly almost at a limit. While I agree that all cities deserve more of the tax pie, which the Harper government is simply using to buy votes with tax cuts, is one cent of the GST really going to cut it?

Canada has many core imbalances, whether that is provincial funding transfers, municipal funding transfers, or heck, even a proportionally representative voting system. To me, makeshift band-aid solutions, where little policies here and there are changed, don’t *really* fix anything. I get the impression that major backburner issues like these need to be structurally rehauled before any major advancement of this country occurs (although with the Tories in government, they are more concerned with staying in power than improving this nation).

While I may have done some minimal research here and there, I’m not exactly sure how one would fix the municipal transfers problem. Just because of the way governmental powers are currently divvied (and maybe that needs to change to): the federal government gives money to provinces, which are then supposed to hand it out to cities. If the province isn’t doing so properly, then the cities don’t get their checks, and services are either not provided in the first place or reduced. Somewhere in here, the transfers have to be more direct. Of course, the best way would be to change the tax system, maybe by reducing the federal income tax, and introducing a municipal income tax, so some major funds flow directly to the lowest, and closest, form of government. It wouldn’t actually be raising taxes; just a different way of slicing up the pie, while also ensure the slice goes directly who’s actually hungry. And, as most should realize, the closer and more personal a government is, the more accountable and democratic it is.

So, I don’t know how exactly it should be solved, but good on the Federal Municipalities of Canada for pushing this issue time and time again, and especially for the main spokesperson of the 1 cent campaign, David Miller, the mayor of Toronto. I find it extremely dismaying that neither the mayor of Montreal, or even Vancouver’s own Sam Sullivan, have been tooting their horns, let alone the mayors of other major Canadian cities. Just imagine how much more powerful their voices would be in unison.

As I mentioned recently, Metro Vancouver is renewing it’s Regional Growth Strategy, and just started it’s first round of community meetings. I attended the Vancouver one at the VPL the other night, and while there was no Derek Corrigan, boasting about the detriments of the Gateway Program (*cough* at the Burnaby meeting *cough*), there did happen to be one Mr. Peter Ladner, dropping hints throughout the night about the inner politics of Metro Vancouver, TransLink, and the provincial government. But before I get into that, let me pass on a few of my notes about the night.

There was a full house at the meeting, probably at least a good 100 people, all fitting nicely inside the Alice McKay room at the Central Branch. As you would expect, almost everyone there was from Vancouver, and I noticed a very good mix of people - old, middle aged, young… blue collar, white collar, no collar… etc.

They started off with a short presentation, summarizing what was in the discussion guide: climate change changes everything, moving from livability to sustainability, housing prices, an incomplete transit system, etc. From there, people split up to head to one of 5 groups, corresponding with the proposed five new goals:

1. Accommodate growth in a sustainable and compact metropolitan structure
2. Offer diverse and affordable housing choices
3. Support and strengthen a diverse regional economy
4. Protect and enhance the region’s natural assets
5. Create a sustainable regional transportation system

Not quite surprisingly, transportation attracted the most people, with almost 50 in total. The second most popular with about 25 people was goal #1; compact growth. The third was housing choice, while the environment (#4) and the economy (#3) were about even for fourth/fifth place. Interestingly enough, I did notice that the people in each group were representative of their goal - i.e. the housing group (#2) had mostly immigrants and middle income looking people; the economy group (#3) had the most business people. Transportation however also attracted the most diverse group of the night.

I wasn’t specifically in one group, as I floated around from one to another, catching snippets of the discussions. I must admit though, that just the atmosphere in the place wasn’t particularly conducive to *actual* conversation. What I mean by that is in each group it was typically the usual suspects talking each time, while most of the others did nothing but listen. I would’ve improved the situation by maybe having smaller groups, and having the facilitators poke and prod others to speak up.

As I mentioned at the beginning, Peter Ladner was on hand all night, both as the rep for the City of Vancouver and as Vice Chair of the Metro Vancouver board. He answered a number of questions, and while he too floated around the room during the discussions, he was quite intent on listening to the transportation group for most of that time. When he answered a few questions, it was quite clear that he was frustrated at Bill 43, and one issue in particular about that new legislation: that TransLink will no longer have to align it’s plans with Metro Vancouver’s land use strategy, which, as anybody would understand, is disconcerting. Land-use and transportation are intrinsically intertwined, and the two organizations *need* to work closely together to move the region forward. He also mentioned a bit about the province butting in on regional plans (aka: the Gateway Program), and trying to find a way to get all these different organizations and governments, along with the respective communities, to find some common ground.

Afterwards, there was a group wide Q&A, that didn’t produce many results, as few really spoke. That said, the one major feel I got from the meeting, which Peter Ladner summed up towards the end to make it quite clear to everyone, that the largest decision people had to make was how much control they wanted a regional government to have. Many of the problems that are currently happening have to do with the lack of power Metro Vancouver has to mandate the LRSP, and it seemed like most people, in Vancouver at least, thought that the board needed new weight and influence on the political scene.

More pictures available on my Flickr

I recently completed reading City Making in Paradise, by Ken Cameron and Mike Harcourt. Beyond getting a good feel for municipal, regional, and provincial politics, I also learned a lot about the bumpy history of regional planning. It’s quite amazing, what we’ve been able to accomplish in the last 10-15 odd years with the Livable Region Strategic Plan, but as I’ve alluded to in the past, Metro Vancouver is at a cusp at the moment: expensive housing, lack of transit-oriented development and rapid transit routes, issues of cultural and ethnic integration, constant protection of the Green Zone… It’s at these moments where we make a turn for the worse, or embrace opportunity and continue pushing the envelope.

As Harcourt mentioned in the book, the largest move we must make with this new Regional Growth Strategy is a shift from livability to sustainability. And it seems that municipalities may be more prepared for it than ever. Perhaps it’s because of years of success from the LRSP; perhaps it’s because of climate change. But, just from the top of my head, we’ve got the EcoDensity intiative in Vancouver, and the development of city-wide Sustainability Charters for both Surrey and the Township of Langley.

As would be expected for the development of a regional plan, Metro Vancouver is doing a travelling road show across the GVRD, doing community meetings to get your feedback on the proposed options in the new Regional Growth Strategy. I highly suggest you take the time out of your schedules and express your voice on this. Based on what I read in City Making in Paradise, Metro Vancouver (the organization) has an instilled culture of doing what the people want, not something you usually get with governmental organizations. Your opinion matters and will greatly affect this region’s next 30 years. Think globally, act locally. Change starts with you.

• Burnaby/New Westminster: Nov. 14, 7 - 9pm
  • Metro Vancouver Head Office, 4330 Kingsway [map]
• Vancouver/Electoral Area A: Nov. 19, 7 - 9pm
  • Vancouver Public Library, 350 West Georgia St [map]
• Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge: Nov. 21, 7 - 9pm
  • Ridge Meadows Senior’s Activity Centre, 12150 224 St [map]
• Northeast Sector: Nov. 22, 7 - 9pm
  • Port Coquitlam Recreation Complex, 2150 Wilson Ave [map]
• North Shore: Nov. 28, 7 - 9pm
  • Harry Jerome Recreation Complex Memorial Gym, 123 E 23 St [map]
• Richmond: Dec. 5, 7 - 9pm
  • Richmond Cultural Centre, 180 7700 Minoru Gate [map]
• Surrey/Delta/White Rock: Dec. 6, 7 - 9pm
  • Newton Recreation Centre, 7120 136 B St [map]
• Langleys: Dec. 11, 7 - 9pm
  • George Preston Recreation Centre, 20699 42 Ave [map]

TransLink has been working over a number of months on a new South of Fraser Transit Area Plan. Up until now, there’s been one document released going over the results of the first community open houses, discussing a transit vision for the South of Fraser area. TransLink has formalized that vision into a plan, and despite being behind schedule, it’s now prepared to take this plan to the public for final consultation. This is your last chance to make an major impact on transit South of the Fraser. Area plans define specific improvements, and are supposed to occur every 5 years. The South of Fraser area’s last plan was done in 2000, so obviously TransLink isn’t always good at keeping on schedule.

It is imperative you attend at least one session, and *make* everyone you know voice their opinions on the plan.

• Delta
  • Nov 6 - Ladner Leisure Centre - 4600 Clarence Taylor Way : 2pm - 8pm
  • Nov 8 - London Drugs - Trenant Park Square : 10 am - 6pm
  • Nov 9 - Scottsdale Mall - 7031 120th St : 9:30 am - 9pm
  • Nov 14 - Sun God - 7815 112 St : 2pm - 8 pm
• Langley
  • Nov 3 - Willowbrook Mall : 9:30am - 6pm
  • Nov 5 - Aldergrove Kinsman Community Centre - 26770 29th Ave : 2pm - 8pm
  • Nov 19 - Langley City Hall Public Library - 20399 Douglas Cres. : 9am - 8pm
  • Nov 22 - Walnut Grove Rec Centre - 8889 Walnut Grove Dr. : 2pm - 8pm
• Surrey
  • Nov 7 - Central City SFU Mezzanine - 13450 102 Ave : 12pm - 9pm
  • Nov 10 - Guildford Mall - 2695 Guildford Town Centre : 9am - 6pm
  • Nov 13 - Newton Wave Pool - 13730 72 Ave : 2pm - 8pm
  • Nov 15 - Fleetwood Community Centre - 15996 84 Ave : 9am - 8pm
  • Nov 28 - Cloverdale Kwantlen Univ. College - 5500 180 St : 12pm - 9pm
• White Rock
  • Nov 4 - Semiahmoo Mall - 1701 152 St. : 9:30am - 6pm

By the way, TransLink’s South of the Fraser site also has a very informative FAQ section discussing rapid transit, reuse of the Interurban line, Abbotsford connections, and express buses being rerouted to the Canada Line.

It’s said many a time that Vancouver is a highway-free area, which, to put it frankly, is a large misrepresentation. Maybe the City of Vancouver itself was successful in avoiding the construction of “major” highways (mind you, it still has some very wide, auto-oriented roads *cough* Marine Drive *cough* Pacific Boulevard *cough*), but in the regional viewpoint, everyone knows that highways are a fact of life. It is rather unfortunate to have large cuts of freeway going right through cities like Burnaby, North Vancouver, or Surrey, but we’ve managed to live. People need to get around, from one edge of Metro Vancouver to the other, and, I guess, arterials just don’t cut it.

The one thing we were relatively successful at, up until recently, was keeping the highways a good distance from urban areas. A good portion of Highway 1 is surrounded by greenery, providing a reasonable noise and “ugliness” barrier from the municipalities, while also making for something of a scenic drive.

This is the key concept though. If we have to have highways, let’s keep them away from our homes and lives. The government achieved this goal excellently with both Highway 99 and 91. The current Highway 99, which splits right through the ALR, around Richmond, and connects to Vancouver’s road network, was built in 1962, replacing the former stretch through Surrey along King George Highway, 10th Ave in New West, and Kingsway. The old passage is now Highway 99A, an alternate route. Highway 91, following similar structure, was built in the late 80’s, outside of Delta, through the ALR and splitting Burns Bog.

As I said before, those two Highways are perfect examples of where “the highway” works. It’s surrounded by protected green space, far enough away from people’s immediate lives, while still providing access to a high speed roadway network for regional commutes.

Unfortunately, things don’t always turn out the right way.

First, all the construction around Highway 1. This is visible most apparently near the 200th St interchange in Langley Township. The south side has a number of industrial complexes just sprouting up, while the north side has huge big box retailers. It’s worse though, because, in fact, there’s even new storage facility warehouses right in the middle of the interchange! This is the worst kind of development, not only making for a terrible living area for people, but also encouraging urban sprawl and congestion of the Highway. Also, it’s just plain ugly. We should not be having any type of development along the Highway corridor, and heck, at least Abbotsford and West Vancouver pulled it off not too badly, where commercial enterprises are close, but they don’t necessarily dominate the scene. A Highway is for commuting, not for the core of a community.

I wrote this huge spiel because I absolutely despise what the current provincial government has funded and built, with respect to highways, and no I’m not talking about Gateway. I’ve told you I don’t have a problem with them per se, they just need to be separated from urban life. So, when I discover the original layouts of the future transportation network in Transport 2021, compared to what’s currently being constructed, my blood just boils. There’s a number of projects that they’ve screwed up, and I’m not particularly sure why.

The two that touch home the most are the expansions of Highway 10 and Highway 15 (176 St.) as part of the Border Infrastructure Program. As far as I can remember, Highway 10, which should’ve never really been called a Highway since it used to be not much more than a bumpy old road for most of it’s stretch, never had many trucks. Neither did 176 St (which, oddly enough, had more trucks than Hwy 10, but is most commonly referred to as a street rather than a Highway). The interesting thing is, according to plans in Transport 2021, the GVRD called for the development of an East-West connector from Tsawwassen, along Highway 99, through Surrey and Langley to the new Fraser River crossing (aka: the Golden Ears Bridge), that was to pass through, mainly, the ALR. It would’ve avoided going through almost any urban living area.

What happened though is they expanded both 176 St and Highway 10. I don’t know if they cheaped out, or something, but it was a really stupid idea. 176 St splits Cloverdale right in half, and isn’t exactly the most pedestrian friendly type of road to have in the middle of your community. In fact, there have been many calls for an overpass because hundreds of high school students have to cross the Highway to get to Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary everyday. It gets worse though: because of the increased air and noise pollution, they erected this big, old, ugly wall along the Highway, separating the road from the residential houses right beside it.

A similar situation is occurring along Highway 10. They’ve put up these huge walls along the route. But, it creates something of a conundrum since Surrey City Council continues to push forward developments along both sides of the Highway! I mean, it would make reasonable sense to have a wall if urban living ended just north of the Highway, but they keep accepting development that is forcing a detrimental urban design on future residents. Instead of splitting an existing community in half, they are creating one!

There’s a few other projects that have been altered throughout the years that just get to me. The new Fraser River crossing, for example, was to connect Langley to Maple Ridge. Well, the original alignment would’ve had you cross directly into the Maple Ridge town centre. The alignment they are building right now though, has you cross into the outskirts of Maple Ridge, basically right between it and Pitt Meadows. Which, isn’t very supportive of transit, for sure, seeing as the routes will have to turn to Maple Ridge, then double back eastwards. I’m sure there’s a similar argument for goods movement as well.

Or, take the Queensborough Bridge. I’m not exactly sure why it was built in the first place - instead of the Highway going directly straight up to connect with Marine Drive, it does this weird detour through Annacis Island. Again, in the Transport 2021 document, it was proposed that this more direct connection would be built just north of the interchange with the Highway 99 Richmond connector. Instead, for some odd reason, they’ve continued to expand this small stretch of road through the Island, which constantly sees backups during rush hour.

What the hell is wrong with the Provincial Liberals? Do they not read up on their history? Do they not care about the plans our own region put forth? Are they just cheap? What is going on?!

Rebecca recently wrote a short post about Surrey and it’s old moniker as the City of Parks. I’m quite supportive of the move to update Surrey’s motto (and logo), in particular because I do not believe the city is worth of labeling itself a “City of Parks”. Not only does it imply the city has many parks, which is up for debate, but it also suggests that the city is green, and trust me, Surrey is anything but green.

When I first heard that the whole point of the LRSP was for the region to be a series of town centres in a “sea of green”, I couldn’t help but laugh. Sure, there may be good number of stand alone trees, a few urban parks, and a few untouched nature reserves, but overall, I would not classify this area as a “sea of green”. It’s more like a few patchy parks in a sea of grey buildings.

A “sea of green” doesn’t matter if it isn’t within close reach to people. Maybe that’s why Downtown is the closest model to a success - because the higher density allows more people to take up less land, which is then available for recreational use. The parks there are close and are in constant use. When everything is sprawled out, people end up farther from nature.

Surrey has never been worthy of the “City of Parks” designation. It boasts about it’s 500 parks, and expansive trail system. Psht. It’s all marketing. If you ask me, just from a quick look at Google Maps, two other cities are more deserving of the title.  Burnaby has Burnaby Lake Regional Park, Deer Lake, and Burnaby Mountain, all taking up significant area in the city, not to mention the large Central Park. Vancouver has it beat though, with it’s numerous golf courses and the protected UBC lands making up a huge biotope along the south east side of the city - plus it’s also got QE Park and the crown jewel that is Stanley Park.

What makes the situation worse in Surrey is that is continues to pave over large swaths of old age forest for townhomes. I just don’t understand why council accepts the proposals! They should be acting for the betterment of the city, not to increase the tax base (which, by the way, is only there to support city services for the residents!). I don’t have a problem with the redevelopment of large exurban properties, but there is something wrong with knocking down what amounts to be an “unprotected” Green Timbers.

I understand the whole tree by-law issue, and yes, they are replacing trees at a higher than 1:1 ratio. That’s not what gets me. It’s that, for naming itself the “City of Parks”, I have to drive to get to one. How’s that for irony? Or if I want to walk 30 minutes to one, I need to cross a highway, bordered with a large wall to reduce residential noise concerns.

Surrey has a bylaw that states there should be 10.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. That means that Surrey could grow by  180,000 residents before they would even hit the wall on that bylaw. The problem with such a bylaw is that it fails to recognize the need for all people to be within a short distance from nature. The current bylaw would basically allow for a huge park in the corner of the city, while the rest is paved over with construction.

Surrey is at a vital time in it’s young life as a city. Doug McCallum didn’t do many wonders for the city, and Dianne Watts, as balanced as she is, is something of a jack of all trades, not really able to successfully pull off any one thing with flying colours. Before all the usable land is built on, can the city at least do a few things to improve the green situation? Not only will the politicians get some street cred with the environmentalists - heck, their lives might be healthier in the long run as well. My suggestions:

1. Update the park bylaw requiring a certain amount of parkland be within a reasonable walking distance from any developed land (say, 800 m or so). This will allow for green space to be accessible to all people, no matter the density, but will also tighten up the amount of land that is developable and thus encourage higher density to shoot up.
2. Update the park bylaw requiring at least 60% of parkland be in it’s natural state, while 40% can be designed for recreational use.
3. Partner with Metro Vancouver to establish regional guidelines for the preservation of green space, while also establishing a means of cost sharing the purchase of properties to secure said green space when necessary.
4. Create a city-wide plan, with supportive laws in place, to develop a network of parks (or biotopes) - in effect, a true sea of green. This is accompanied by a greenway/trail network for public recreation.