Portland, Vancouver: perfect urban planning, perfect cities?
I couldn’t help but comment about this article published on www.newgeography.com about Portland’s and Vancouver’s urban planning model, in which its author wonders if these models could be applied to Australian cities. These comments might upset some of you, but I choose to speak honestly.
There seems to be somewhat of a discrepancy between the way certain cities portray themselves to the outside world and the reality. Vancouver is often praised for its highway-free boundaries and high-density downtown core. I found these areas (downtown, Yaletown and the West End) to be mostly spiritless and, dare I say it, soulless. Some vast areas of Yaletown and the West End are strictly residential (we’re talking about huge condominium towers here) and deeply lack these small stores that usually give life to neighbourhoods. In the West End, I walked by some condo buildings whose first floor was non existent – the structure relied on cement pillars, suppressing all hopes of creating a community feeling. What would Jane Jacobs think about this?
Downtown, I noticed a certain disrespect for the history of the neighbourhood. The façades of the old buildings that have not been razed are not carefully maintained, unlike neighbouring tourist-friendly Gastown. It took me several times walking on Granville street to realize that the cement façades of most clubs and theatres were in fact layers hiding gorgeous art deco structures. One of my friends, who had lived in Vancouver for several years, had never noticed them. The neon signs that had become a symbol of the city have been banned.
When I visited Portland, having read so much about their dynamic urban planning department and enterprising city government, I expected something else than the small city I found. Don’t get me wrong, I love Portland. It’s a very vibrant city where many innovative initiatives are taking place. But Portland, with its cute houses and low-density, is a Pacific Northwest city, and by definition not walkable. Can any amount of well-intentionned urban planning change this?
In comparison, certain cities that have rather moribund urban planning departments nonetheless have an urban fabric that works pretty well, relying on other frameworks such as history to maintain vibrant neighbourhoods (Montreal and Seattle, I’m talking about you.) I’m not staying that urban planning is useless. Montreal has been suffering dearly from poor planning (for those of you who know the city, names like Griffintown and Turcot may mean something to you. The old city would have been razed if it wasn’t for Phyllis Lambert!) What I’m getting at is that trying to export some urban planning models that have been created according to local determinants isn’t right. Each city, even if it can get inspired from what has been done elsewhere, must develop its own planning strategy. What’s more, things that work on paper don’t necessarily feel right in real life. Vancouver is the most livable city in the world according to the Economist and its urban planning model is widely praised. That’s a great PR campaign they don’t even have to pay for. The thing is, when you get there it’s another story. And here I am, ranting about Vancouver once again…
[...] Portland, Vancouver: perfect urban planning, perfect cities … [...]