Category: Development

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 Development

Issue of the day: The UNA – Interveiw with Mike Feeley

The UNA aren’t the fat-cats we students like to imagine. The University Town Neighbourhoods are the five outlying areas of UBC’s campus that have been leased out to private developers for the purpose of building high-end residential neighbourhoods, and thereby growing UBC’s financial endowment. The university has envisioned these neighbourhoods as part of making UBC a “complete community” in which people live and work sustainably. They’ve set (and met) ambitious goals to have 50% (I think) of the neighbourhoods inhabited by people that teach and work at UBC. Students on the other hand, see the neighbourhoods and their inhabitants as a manifestation of the privatization and selling-out of our land to build a suburb completely separate from the University’s academic mission. There’s truth in both perspectives.

The University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA) is the pseudo-municipal council for people living in the University Town neighbourhoods. It is often the target of student ire, being stereotypically branded by students as one of the reasons UBC is “selling out,” screwing over students, and generally going to the dogs. Now I know it’s a shocker, but stay with me: the residents of the University Town neighbourhoods don’t necessarily represent competing interests to those of students; in fact, they experience many of the same problems we as students have with the governance structure of UBC.

I sat down with UNA board member and UBC engineering prof Mike Feeley a month ago to try and dig down and find the kernel of truth behind the hyped-up animosity between students and U-town residents. And what I found was that it shouldn’t even be there. One of the first things Mike said to me was that U town residents themselves are not the people that decided to develop that land. “Once the development happens, the relationship changes to one between people,” he said. The UNA, though it approximates some functions of a municipal government (like garbage and noise regulation, running its own community centres and gardens, allocating the tax and levy for U Town residents) is in fact an opt-in society constituted under the Society Act of BC, and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the UBC Board of Governors, much like the AMS.

Therefore, there is a formal problem of “taxation without representation” – the UBC BoG collects the property tax and services levy from the U Town residents, and then hands it to the UNA to spend. But, not all residents are members of the UNA due to voluntary membership, and the UNA itself is not formally represented on the BoG. It has always played a role as an “advisory board” to the BoG. There’s a debate within the UNA as to whether formal representation, or the current role is in fact more effective in advocating for residents interests. So it’s not completely cut and dry.

Some of the biggest issues the UNA looks at are

  • Running the Old Barn Community Centre (and the new community centre being built in South Campus)
  • Having control over “public” areas like gardens so that they are taken care of and planted with things that are appropriate for children and the community – not necessarily the way developers plan them.
  • Access to recreation facilities like the pool, rinks, and gyms, at cut-rate prices. (the UNA makes a contribution to the ancillary that runs them, UBC athletics, to the tune of 1/4 million a year)
  • Promoting community and volunteerism in the community.

There are some interesting dynamics at play in the UNA, I found out. On the UNA board, there are three appointed members – two from the university (AVP Planning, and AVP finance/business), and one from the AMS (the VP Academic). These members are controversial, since true municipal councils don’t have appointed members. “Why students are there is a bit hard to understand,” said Mike, “but they’ve brought a bit of energy to the board, and been tremendously helpful to our shared interests with students. The relationship with the AMS is tremendously important.” The elected seats on the UNA board, (which will increase in number as the neighbourhoods grow) are dominated by members of the U Town community that are work at UBC – and by talking to Mike, these people are hardly emblems of capitalist treachery.

Hawthorne Place, the neighbourhood that was built over the old parking lot across from Totem Park, has proven to be quite a surprise in many ways. The university expected the type of people that would purchase there to be wealthy empty nesters. In fact, 70% of the residents in Hawthorne are faculty and Staff and UBC and from 700 families that live there, there are 650 children. Three main community dichotomies exist in the community: university connected/not; new immigrants/not; and families with kids/no kids, older. In Hawthorne, anyway, it seems that the younger university-connected set is the most involved, and thus has most of the political influence in the UNA. The character of Hampton place is quite different though, and it remains to be seen what sort of community emerges in the South Campus neighbourhoods.

It has to be noted, that though UBC has been successful in ensuring that many faculty and staff are able to live in the U Town developments, the same cannot be extended to students. Mike Feeley: “If you’re a faculty member, you can barely afford to live here. If you’re a student, you can’t. If you’re a labourer, work for plant-ops, a secretary – you’re living in Surrey. I happen to think that’s wrong, and it’s a problem we need to address.” There are three buildings in Hawthorne that were actually co-developments reserved for faculty and staff only, and built without some of the fancier fixtures to allow for more affordable price points. Mike lives in one of these. He added that this problem is not one that just exists at UBC; it’s the same problem Vancouver as a whole faces as land values increase and the city become less and less affordable.

To me this is something UBC needs to address pro-actively. These communities are now being constructed from scratch, and there’s no reason not to do it right. By ensuring that affordable housing exists in the Neighbourhoods alongside the more expensive developments, UBC will go a long way to ensuring that U town is truly a complete, sustainable community. If students can participate in the community by living in it, you’ll see all the animosity and us/them dissipating. As for the UNA, it’s not clear if they’re interested in lobbying for political advancements like affordable housing, forwarding the Governance Review, above their work on recreation, sustainability and community events – that’ll be up to the leadership in the community. Here’s hoping they will.

What the candidates say:

President
Erin Rennie: “Forge a fair relationship with the RCMP, the UNA, and the UBC Admin.Demand more legitimate governance at UBC.”
Matt Naylor: “This past year we have been struggling with the continued alignment of student [sic] by the RCMP and others, such as the University Neighbourhoods Association. They need to learn that to be on a university campus means that, on occasion, students are going to be around.”
Mike Duncan: Couldn’t find anything.
Rodrigo Ferrari Nunes: Couldn’t find anything.

Academic
Alex Lougheed: “The UNA has a new board chair this year. This means its a good time to make new relationships with them. However I question their position in the current governance model of UBC, and many of their attitudes towards students. I hope to change our relationship with them, and their perceptions of us so we have more common understandings, and can work together. If we were to lobby together, there is no way the administration could ever say no.”
Nathan
Crompton: Couldn’t find anything.
Rob McLean: “The goal of 25% of students being able to be housed on campus is far too modest given our diversity. As a student who has lived in low-cost housing on campus for the last three years, I can attest to the need for more Fraser Halls and less Chaucers. In my opinion, if it isn’t for students of people related to the university (faculty or support staff), it does not belong near campus (especially on Wesbrook)!”

Categories
AMS AUS Development

AMS meeting Nov. 7th – Nancy and Arts

Lowdown on yesterday’s meeting: it was exhausting, and sort of charged up for some weird reason. I think order was poorer than usual somehow. Maybe it’s the pressure of the end of the year building up.

Anyway. The meeting began with Nancy Knight, the Administration’s AVP campus & Community Planning. Nancy always puts on a good show, and her presentations to AMS council always bring about some interesting discussion. She was presenting about the re-consultation results and new recommendations she’s put together for U-Blvd. Or rather, the subset of the University Boulevard Neighborhood known as “University Square”. As outlined a couple posts ago, the consultation and revised plans have been going on in collaboration with students over the past several months. Nancy summarized the results from both the July and September consultations, and then went on to describe a preliminary revised plan for the square area. You can see the “before and after” diagrams for the building plan below. Outlined in yellow is the university-boulevard neighborhood, as specified in the Official Community Plan. Outlined in red is the University square subset of that plan.

Above, is the diagram for the plan before last May’s Board meeting. note the buildings on both sides of the proposed plaza, and the lack of a knoll, and the boxed-in entrance to the SUB.

Here is what Nancy showed us yesterday. The blue building footprints on the west side (ie. over top of Hennings, Hebb and Ladha) aren’t new buildings – they’re just there to indicate that the border of the square precinct is being pushed back and integrated with the academic buildings. Note the re-appearance of the knoll. The U-shaped building is the only one that would have residential of the upper levels. It’s left tip is meant to be some sort of alumni/welcome centre/ community hall/SUB expansion concept. The ladder-like thing is a prospective covered walkway from the opening of the underground loop to the SUB. The Square in the trees is supposed to be some sort of student lounge or social space.

for more riveting details, check behind the jump

Nancy talked about four elements in the revised open space plan:

  • Knoll (re-created green space)
  • Plazas (with green elements)
  • Walkways (with green elements)
  • Patios and seating areas

Also five elements in the revised building program (130000-160000 sq ft, depending on SUB renew plans)

  • Offices/Classrooms/meeting rooms
  • Student lounge/social spaces
  • Food outlets/ student businesses
  • Student housing
  • Community hall (ie. alum, welcome centre, etc)

She emphasized the importance of having a “mixed use” space in the square: that is, one with both daytime uses (shops, offices) and 24-hour ones (residential, study spaces). Clearly, in some ways this vision of a complete cocktail of uses doesn’t always jive with what people want. For example, in the cases of offices, most commercial, and residential, the results from the surveys were very negative. I asked Nancy yesterday what she does as a planner in instances like these when feedback tells you something that you disagree with. She replied that you try to deal wit the underlying qualitative worries. For instance, with the housing, a lot of the qualitative concern surrounded the ideas of unnaffordability, market housing, non-student residents, and so on. So even though residential is still included in the new plan, it’s half as much, she’s guaranteed that it will be only for students, and it will be in the price range of the residences, run by a non-profit. I found this fairly convincing. I still haven’t heard a great case for office and classroom space to be included though.

That said, this thing is a vast improvement to me. The aren’t buildings boxing the square, and the knoll is the central green feature. It feels more open, and the shift in emphasis from commercial uses to community and student-focused uses are quite good. Also, this isn’t final. A lot depends on what the AMS depends to do regarding SUB renewal. Expanding SUB into the square could mean AMS administered social space, and more AMS businesses in the square area. I think that’s pretty cool.

In other council business, the Arts caucus had a bit of a show of strength yesterday. They came decked out in faculty colours, wielding purple pom-poms, sporting a minty-fresh representative (AJ Johal), and ready with THREE motions (in varying degrees of silliness and obsolescence) from the floor (much to Jeff’s frustration {and much to my rage, when a notably trivial issue was referred to code and policies}). A feisty AUS Pres Stephanie Ryan put it this way: “we’ve decided to be more effective. We do this by wearing purple, and reading documents before council”. And indeed, read documents they had. SAC minutes, which are usually ignored, and rubber-stamped, were dissected by Arts councilor Sam Heppell before they were finally approved. Recent questions about SAC (specifically the rules governing how they constitute and de-constitute clubs) have potentiated their forthcoming presentation to council.

Other stuff on the agenda was approval of policies coming out of Blake Frederick’s housing document. These were deferred to the next meeting, since they had only been sent out half an hour before council. The document itself had been sent out way before, and the policies didn’t differ in content from the document, but, the arts caucus, in a self-righteous tizzy, (and ironically having just proffered three motions from the floor) said it was not enough time. As a result, the document can’t be used to lobby administrators until the new year. I guess there always has to be a balance between good “process,” and common sense. Having read the document, and discussed it with Blake, I’m think it was as ready as it’s going to be.

Time is a pretty sensitive issue all around. Not enough time, people wasting each other’s time, and so on. I happened to be sitting next to one of the new Education reps (I think her name was Dana). It was her first council meeting. When asked how she liked it, she said something like “Very interesting…but I think some people should be more careful with how they use other’s time”. Amen to that.

Categories
BoG Development

Unpublished U-square consultation results!

Well, results from the September U-Square consultation have been compiled, but not yet published. I thought they were pretty interesting, so here they are, in handy graphical format. Click the graph images to enlarge them. Thanks to Margaret Orlowsky for sending me the results.

If you filled out the forms, you’ll recall that the 1-5 ranking represents a range from 1 (“would not meet vision”) to 5 (“would meet vision”).


This graph (above) has the results from the first part of the survey form, which asked about individual prospective elements for the U-Square space. I didn’t include all of them, but the main ones are there. As you can see, housing and store retail are the most unpopular, with most people ranking then at 1. Food retail fares better with a more even distribution. Surprisingly, neither the Boardroom (intended for conferences, BoG and Senate meetings) or Alumni Centre were especially popular – I like both these elements quite well. The grassy knoll and open space elements are the most popular. “Grassy Knoll substitute” (some sort of structured green space) was fairly was popular. The only buildings with an upwards trend in the whole questionnaire are a SUB expansion and student social space, and more moderately, the vague “community hall” (which nobody seems to be able to define). All the others, including the university’s development office, and continuing studies do poorly.


This graph shows the results for the four combinations of elements that were suggested on the feedback forms. Combo 1 (with housing and retail as well as service stores) is essentially what the plan for U-square was before May, when the student petition and AMS policy opposing the plan convinced the BoG to redesign. So it’s not surprising that it’s the least well-received. Combo 4 was put on the form due to the efforts of the student representatives on the U-square planning committee, and contains less built space than the others.

To me, these results show that a combination with minimal building, mostly open space, a knoll, and some public social space would be the most welcome option. I think an alumni/welcome centre and boardroom in the centre of campus, would be great too, but most of the respondents seem to disagree. Looking at the results from the individual elements, it looks like none of the combos integrate the most popular items. The important thing to remember is that we can’t really have it all. If we want a SUB expansion, that’s less open space and less green space. It’s important to keep in mind that only about 300 people answered the forms – not a great sample. It’s possible that the results are skewed towards the organized “save the knoll” faction.

About the committee process: This feedback form and the responsiblity for dealing with the results resides with the U-Boulevard planning committee, which includes 3 student reps: Brendon Goodmurphy from the AMS, Matt Filipiak from the GSS, and Margaret Orlowsky, at-large. This committee was touted by the President as the harbinger of a new era of working together with students on development issues. It seems that according to Matt and Margaret, the process hasn’t been exactly what they expected – the students on the committee are giving input and coming up with ideas, but the actual decisions are made by Nancy Knight, and Joe Stott, the two university representatives. Like all committee structures, the people who do the actual work (ie. the writing) have the real power: in this case, these are people that work in Nancy and Joe’s offices. Now we’re hearing that Nancy and Joe are unhappy with the results I’ve just outlined. Since they’re the ones that give instructions to the architects, and there’s no binding vote on the options, we may have reason to worry, despite the presence of student representation. To quote Margaret “they keep asking what meaningful consultation is – it’s asking what people they want you to do, and then doing it”. It seems like the university still has problems with this concept – especially when the people doing the consultation are the same people that were responsible for (and are still personally attached to) the old and failed plans.

Categories
BoG Campus Life Development

Trek Park update, and related topics.

Trek Park, the space “liberated” from the old bus loop as a protest for the U-boulevard re-development project, is looking a little worse for wear. The park, consisting of some grassy areas, a large checkerboard, and some benches and furniture, was set up to create a student-friendly, free public space, and raise awareness and opposition to the underground bus-loop that the UBC Board of Governors is planning to give final approval to this year.

The ‘park’ was set up by a group of students loosely affiliated with The Knoll newspaper and AMS resource groups on the first day of school this September. It has since become somewhat of a fixture in the campus centre: but lately, a bit of a decrepit one. Moldy furniture sponges up the rain, bits of wood and metal collect in rickety piles, and the once-emerald grass is drowning in a little lagoon. “Trek park is in shambles,” admits park originator Nathan Crompton, “but we still love it!” he adds. “People keep trashing the park…more than once a week” he explains. It seems like some students are sick of the protest park, and willing to show it. When Trek Park volunteers tried to throw out some of the weather-damaged furniture, taking it to the dumpster on the north side of the SUB, it was placed back by the next day. The dome, some artwork, and other areas of the park have been vandalized too. Park signs have been removed and one showed up near the fraternity houses. Someone put a foot through the “free speech” park notice board a few weeks ago.

“I think they’ve made their point” said one student from my genetics class, as we were walking by. “A few weeks was fine, but I think everyone has seen it by now,” said another, “and who had the idea to put grass on an impermeable surface?” Some students view the park as vaguely “too hippy,” or for the slightly more political, a rag-tag protest effort that won’t make a difference. Others simply think it’s a scar on the landscape.

Stephanie Ratjen, another trek park volunteer, said that while students may have seen the message already, the university administration still hasn’t taken the action they’re demanding. The things that the park is there to protest are still unresolved, she said, adding that the consultation now going on about the above-ground portion of the U-boulevard has been “a failure,” despite student representation on the consultation planning committee. The process she refers to is the result of a turnabout in the U-boulevard planning process that occurred in May. At that time, a student petition opposing the plans for the area, and pressure from the AMS and GSS, persuaded the BoG to scrap the above-ground plans, and create a new consultation process. This process is being conducted now (remember the free burgers and booths in the SUB this month?) to find out what land-use options were best for the area. It’s being led by a committee that includes student representatives from the AMS and GSS. The BoG remains steadfastly committed (or so they say) to the underground bus loop, though it has yet to gain final approval. “They just want it to go away, ” says student BoG rep Darren Peets, “they’ll approve it to get rid of it.”

Whether or not it’s worth fighting the bus loop, and whether or not this renewed consultation is failing or not or not, is up for debate. Perhaps the park protest is a case of the vocal few making a fuss while the rest of us just want get on with life. Maybe some of their rhetoric makes park volunteers look like clowns, not serious players. Maybe they are alienating people that should be worked with. But the thing I like about this protest is it’s pro-activeness, it’s creativity, and the ideas coming out of it. No it’s not a picture of urban design, but at least the park is trying to lead by example. At lest the people doing it are bringing up the real problem issues behind campus development and planning: the democratic deficit in UBC’s governing structure, the skewed balance of power in committee processes, and an administrative culture that is only lately waking up to the real stake the student community wants in its physical surroundings.

To me, the protest also brings up a conversation that’s really important: strategies for activism. Where’s the effective balance between defying the status quo and working within its structure to have an inside voice?

This Thursday from noon to 8, Trek Park is hosting Knoll Aid, a jam session and general jamboree. Lots of music is lined up, should be fun.

Categories
AMS Development

Want to be consulted? It's your fuckin' week.

There’s a veritable cornucopia of consultations going on right now. So get your voices and obnoxious views into those final reports, dudes. For serious.

Sub Renew – AMS is starting the consultation process for the prospective expansion and renovation of the SUB. Everything from buying out Pacific Spirit Place (the university-owned and operated cafeteria) to constructing a brand new building in the University Square precinct, to a mere sprucing up of our current digs is on the table. AMS VP Admin Sarah Naiman is heading up the process. The SUB renew committee has been meeting since last spring. They’ve hired a “space planning” firm for some big bucks to plan the space programming. That means they’ll find out what we want and lay out floor plans. Architecture will come later. (If this confuses you, join the club).

Anyhow. Right now there’s a focus group consultation phase. Next there will be a round table consultation phase. After that you’ll get to vote on which options you like most. (note: will there be a “none of the above” option available?). After that you’ll vote in a referendum to approve a fee to fund the preferred SUB renew plan.

Here’s the next focus group sessions, organized by constituency:

    • General – Oct. 18 – SUB Council Chambers (room 206)- 5-6
    • REC and Varsity – Oct.19 – SUB Council Chambers (room 206) – 5-6
    • Resource Groups – Oct. 18 – Resource Group Area of the SUB – 12:30-1:30
    • Greeks – Oct. 25 – SUB Council Chambers (room 206) – 5-6
    • Residences TBA
    • Audiology and Speech Sciences, Dentistry, Nursing, Medicine, Occupational
      and Environmental Hygiene, Pharmacy, Rehab Sciences – Oct. 15th – SUB Room 42U (lower level) – 12-1
    • SCARP and Architecture – Oct. 15th – Lasserre rm. 202 – 5:30 – 6:30
    • Commerce – Oct. 16th – SUB 42U (lower level) – 11-12
    • Science – Oct 16th – Ladha Science Student Center, top floor – 12:30-1:30
    • Journalism, Law, LAIS – Oct. 16 – Council Chambers 1-2
    • Education, Forestry, LAFS, Human kinetics, Social Work – Oct. 22nd – SUB
      Council Chambers (room 206) – 3-4
    • Arts and Music – Oct. 23 – SUB 205 (2nd floor) – 12-1
    • Applied Sciences – Oct 24th – SUB Council Chambers (room 206)- 3-4
    • Graduate Students – Oct. 23rd – Penthouse, Graduate Students Center – 5-6

Transit consultation – The AMS is running another consultation about transit issues. That’s because, soon the U-pass is up for renewal, and they want to come up with the best deal and know what to lobby for with Translink. Check out the Facebook group “Transit: what’s your BEEF” to post feedback.

AMS VP-X Matt Naylor and the External commission are hosting a panel discussion this Friday at the Norm, which should great, with cool panelists. It’s from 12:00-1:30 in the Norm theatre in the SUB. Check it out.

panelists:

NDP Transit Critic Maureen Karagianis
NDP MLA Gregor Robertson (my riding’s MLA, and personal crush)
AMS President Jeff Friedrich
UBC TREK Administrator Carole Jolly
NPA Councillor Peter Ladner

U-Boulevard/University Square consultation – The University’s Campus and Community Planning office has been conducting some consultations regarding the future of the long-beleaguered U-boulevard neighborhood plan, recently re-christened “university square”. You may have noticed a big booth next to the SUB conversation pit last week for four days. Hopefully, you filled out a form and took a look at the options on the table. In case you’ve been under a rock, the previous above-ground plans were turfed due to student dissatisfaction at last May’s BoG meeting, and new land-use options are on the table. The underground tunnel and bus loop are in all likelihood going forward, though the latter still requires the BoG’s final approval. According to Student BoG rep Darren Peets, apparently the results of the current consultation for above-ground land-use are not exactly to the liking of some of the university brass. This probably means the responses have preferred less buildings, less density, and more green. Keep your eye out for the final report on that – it should be ready by November’s BoG meeting.

Categories
AMS Development

AMS council kills Musqueam support motion

At last Wednesday’s AMS council meeting (the last one of the summer), the embattled external motion regarding the Musqueam native band finally came to its demise. This policy, which has been tabled repeatedly in past meetings, has gone through a few iterations and adjustments. AMS president Jeff Friedrich took on the task of rewriting it. In the end though, it wasn’t good enough. The motion failed the two-thirds vote.

The idea of creating an AMS policy expressing support for the Musqueam nation, on whose traditional territory UBC is situated, has been around for a while. The Musqueam have been in the treaty process with government regarding their claims for years. Last February, Mariana Payet, then the executive coordinator of student services of the AMS, brought forward a motion that acknowledged the Musqueam’s title over UBC, reading

Whereas the UBC Point Grey Campus is located on unceded Musqueam Territory; and

Whereas the AMS is housed in the Student Union Building located on the UBC Point GreyCampus; and

Whereas the Musqueam people have lived on this land since time immemorial;

Be it resolved that the Alma Mater Society officially recognize the Musqueam
people’s title over this land

This motion was tabled (neither passed nor failed): people weren’t comfortable with the legal ambiguities of students supporting the ceding UBC land to a private body. Some people simply didn’t see the point of creating a policy that had no action associated with it. Others disagreed with the intent of supporting Musqueam claims. The AMS president, Jeff Friedrich, asked that the motion be tabled so that consultation with campus aboriginal groups could be conducted, and so that wording could be adjusted to make it less controversial. [As a side note, he also said it was a “difficulty” that the motion came from the floor (as opposed to coming from the executive); I’ve heard Jeff make comments along those lines again, and am confused about them. What is “difficult”, or (another favorite word) “tricky” about motions from the floor? On the contrary, the executive drives the agenda of council far too much, to the exclusion of motions from committees, caucuses, or god forbid, individual councilors.] But anyway, that’s what happened. Jeff consulted with the Aboriginal students’ association and another campus first nation group from the UBC First Nations House of Learning (the longhouse). He asked David Wells, the AMS policy analyst to help redraft the motion. Here’s what they came up with:

Whereas the UBC Point Grey Campus is located in the Musqueam people’s
traditional territory that was never ceded to the Crown; and

Whereas historical information provided by University information sources
indicates that this land was traditionally used by the Musqueam for
educational and defensive purposes; and

Whereas the Musqueam are currently engaged with the province in a
treaty negotiation process regarding the territory in question; and

Whereas recent court rulings suggest that the Musqueam have a strong
prima facie case for Aboriginal Title; and

Whereas it is acknowledged that any settlement resulting from the
current treaty negotiation process will likely not result in the loss of use
of this territory to the University of British Columbia for the purposes of
providing post-secondary education,

Therefore, be it resolved that the Alma Mater Society officially
recognize the Musqueam people’s legitimate claim to this territory; and

Be it further resolved that the AMS support a negotiated resolution
that will enable the territory in question to continue being a source of
learning and knowledge, both formal and informal, modern and traditional, UBC
and Musqueam,” and

Be it further resolved that the AMS support a negotiated settlement
regarding the disposition of the University Golf Course, which has been
acknowledged as being located on traditional Musqueam territory.

So basically, the AMS should recognize a claim that obviously (and legally) exists, and support a negotiation process that’s already well underway. In other news, the sun rose this morning. Not exactly radical – in fact, barely meaningful. The motion is so watered down, that it’s basically just a list of the government processes now underway with “we support” stuck before them. Opposition in council came from two directions. There were those people that were still uneasy about supporting the Musqueam claims. On the other hand, there were those that would not support a motion that, to paraphrase science councilor Tahara Bhate, merely supplied nice-sounding sound bites, but really only payed lip service to aboriginal issues – essentially the same thing government has done for hundreds of years with disasterous results.

There was fairly strong support for this motion though. In fact, more than half of council voted for it, but less than the two-thirds required. Darren Peets (B0G) spoke favorably of the motion as a goodwill gesture, arts councilor Nathan Crompton said that this motion didn’t prevent a true radical stance to be taken in the future, and Jeff Friedrich said that all the groups he consulted said the motion would be meaningful and welcome.

This particular failed effort highlights the difficulty of passing political external policies in the AMS. In this case, it went something like this: some people think some issue is important – they represent a particular side in a motion. Others think it’s irrelevant; others simply take a different political position. The motion is tabled since it clearly would have failed. It is revised to a less strident position to garner more council support; all meaning is lost. The motion fails anyway.

For background on Musqueam and its recent dealings with UBC, check out previous posts:
News item from the Globe and Mail
context and analysis by Tim

Categories
Development

U-Blvd re-consultation kickoff

The wonders of free food.

Yesterday, if you were ambling by the south side for the SUB, you may have noticed a crush of people scribbling on questionnaires, brandishing barbecue vouchers, and collecting delicious AMS catering fare. Yesterday marked the first event in the renewed push for re-imagining the much loathed University Boulevard development project – also known as the U-Blvd neighborhood plan and University square.

About three hundred people filled out the lengthy survey in three hours yesterday afternoon. Just to compare, only 170 students filled out the hugely advertised “Campus Plan” survey online several months ago, which was available for a week. Yesterday’s survey, (which can be found here, and can still be submitted till Friday) comprised of open-ended questions. A detailed vision statement generated by the Board’s consultation working group was supplied. The questions mostly regarded how people use the space now, and what they envisioned for it in the future.

This consultation, and another round that will happen in September, are broadly expected to lead to a fundamental re-design of the development plan. How fundamental, nobody is quite sure. The basic question is whether the university’s architecture firm will be asked to modify existing drawings (which the university has already payed several million dollars to create over the years), or go back to the drawing board. This process is the result of a student petition and AMS policy that opposed the existing development plan. Both were brought to the Board of Governors’ attention in May.

If you missed the free burgers, don’t fret, you still have a chance to pitch in. Workshops taking place this week are:

  • July 5 – SUB Concourse
  • 11 am – 4 pm: Open House Drop In
  • July 6 – SUB Room 42T (Where the arcade used to be, next to the Delly)
    • 11 am – 12 pm: Mini-workshop on the Vision
    • 1 – 2 pm: Mini-workshop on Mapping the Square
    • 3 – 4 pm: Mini-workshop on connecting to the SUB
Categories
Development Government

University Golf Course to be handed over to Musqueam

Isn’t it ironic that the University is now the the valiant protector of parkland in the face of development and the Musqueam are the rabid private interest group?

From today’s Globe and Mail:

Gary Mason
June 14, 2007
VANCOUVER — One of the most prime pieces of real estate in the country, home to one of the oldest public golf courses in the city, is expected to be handed over to the Musqueam Indian band as part of a controversial land-claims agreement.

If the deal for the 120-acre University Golf Club goes ahead, constituents in Premier Gordon Campbell’s upscale west-side riding, which encompasses the land, will be forced to take some kind of action, one former University of British Columbia official predicted yesterday.

“I can tell you right now it will have a dramatic impact on any provincial election,” said Bob Hindmarch, a retired director of athletics at the university.

“Gordon’s constituents are going to be furious. I simply can’t believe the provincial government would do this but that’s what we’re hearing is going to happen.”

Mr. Hindmarch isn’t the only person who has heard a deal is in the works. Word has begun buzzing throughout the development community too, and sources suggest the current worth of the land is $5-million an acre.

As well, some of the university’s top patrons have been tipped off and have quietly begun to mobilize forces to fight the move when it is officially announced next month.

The Musqueam have laid claim to vast tracts of the city, including land on which the University of British Columbia and University Golf Club sit. The land is some of the most valuable property in the country.

It has long been accepted that any land-claims agreement with the Musqueam would be extremely costly simply because of the value of the land to which they have laid claim.

The university bought the golf club from the province in 2003 for $11-million over the objections of the Musqueam, who wanted the property included in any land-claims negotiations. The land has a covenant on it that stipulates the property be used for a golf club, which is why it sold for only $11-million when it would be worth hundreds of millions if it was ever redeveloped for residential or commercial use.

In March, 2005, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned an earlier Supreme Court of B.C. decision that upheld the sale. The appeal court ruled that the provincial government breached its duty to consult and accommodate the band before transferring title to the property.

Two of the three appeal court judges agreed that the order-in-council authorizing the sale should be suspended for two years while the parties tried to reach an agreement.

Details of the anticipated deal between the Musqueam and the provincial and federal governments for the golf club are virtually non-existent.

However, one university source said the government would repay the university the money it paid for the course in 2003 plus interest. The land would then be transferred to the Musqueam, who would be required to operate it as a golf course for a set period of time.

“But I guarantee you the Musqueam could and will get out of whatever covenant is placed on the course,” said one source. “And if they redevelop that land it will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them. It’s one of the finest pieces of real estate anywhere in the country, let alone the city.”

It’s true. But to the federal and provincial governments, the golf club represents a fairly quick and easy solution to the land-claims dilemma it faces with the Musqueam. As mentioned, the band’s claim covers vast tracts of the city, including some of the most expensive residential property in the country. The government has no intention of turning either the university or any private residences over to the band, so the golf course offers an attractive alternative.

But handing the golf course to the band will likely have to come with a fair whack of cash as well.

Calls to Musqueam band leaders were not returned yesterday. The provincial government refused to comment on the story.

The Musqueam claim has been the great elephant in the room on the land-claims front. Reaching agreements with bands in remote areas of the province is one thing, coming to terms with one laying claim to large chunks of one of the most expensive cities in the world is quite another.

“The university would have kept that golf course a golf course forever,” Mr. Hindmarch said. “The idea that the province would take it away from the university and give it to the Musqueam without securing its future as a golf course in perpetuity is unthinkable.

“But that’s what we’re hearing. And like I said, if this thing goes ahead there are going to be tons of irate people. I guarantee you. I’ve talked to a bunch of people about this already and they’re very upset. This has greater implications.”

Categories
BoG Development

Campus Plan Report


You’ve all seen the signs carpeting our pavements and draping our buildings at UBC, asking you “what’s the plan?”. This fancy publicity campaign is promoting the process of coming up with a ten-year strategic plan for the academic campus of UBC. The Plan addresses the holistic, and specific vision for all of the university’s institutional buildings and spaces ; these include residences, research facilities, classrooms, administration buildings, gardens, etc. Basically, the consultation and publicity campaign regard the academic core of the campus – as distinct from the various outlying areas owned by UBC where private development has taken place: these are not considered academic buildings. Important to note, is that the University Boulevard area is not included in the academic Campus Plan process, though it is located in the centre of the campus; it is designated as a “neighborhood,” like the outlying private developments. This means that, first, it’s farther along in the development process (time-wise) than the main Campus Plan, and that second, its development process has not been tied to that of the rest of campus, and has been fraught with conflict. Refer to earlier posts on this topic.

Anyhow, this month the report summarizing Phase Three (titled “talking about the future”) of the ten-year Campus Plan process came out. This phase comprised of various consultations, as well as a speaker series. The report, which can be found here (click), details the feedback from focus groups, presentations (including to AMS council), and an extensive on-line survey form which was open to students faculty, staff, and community members. The structure of this planning process involves the University’s Campus and Community Planning office, who conduct the consultations and public relations, and three committees that actually carry out the analysis and planning work. These are the Steering Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Project Team. They all report to the Board of Governors and each committee comprises of people from the University Neighborhood Association, students, staff, faculty, alumni, etc.

It strikes me as strange that the UNA has a stake in the main Campus Plan development process while students faculty and staff have historically had very little to do with the vision and design behind the various neighborhood developments (starting with Hampton Place, the first, which, under former President Strangway had basically no consultation). The relationship should arguably be the opposite. While the university seems to have taken a slightly more consultative approach to its profit-driven neighborhood developments in recent years with the creation of the University Town committee, it is odd that the UNA should be interested in the University’s academic buildings. Extreme deference for the Neighborhoods‘ interests in the campus’s academic core seems to be thematic, in fact: at the recent BoG meeting at least three governors repeated commitments to the neighborhoods regarding the stalled underground transit station, though such a station would hardly serve their locations at all, having nearer transit stops on the way. Could all this concern and all these committee posts be because Premier Gordon Campbell himself (a former developer and buddy of David Strangway) has taken up residence in Hawthorne Place, across from Totem Field?

In any event, the feedback was fairly predictable. Services near work and living spaces, green spaces, focus on sustainability, cycling and pedestrian focus, social spaces, density in the academic core, flexible collaborative research/work environments like the UBC Farm, and a sense of ‘place’ (whatever that means).

The UBC Farm came up repeatedly in the reported feedback, and seemed to be the single most addressed topic. It figured in the contexts of sustainability, integrative research, community outreach, and green spaces. Well done to the farm supporters for getting such a strong message across through this official consultation. It’s on paper now!!

Some of the questions in the online survey, I found very easy to either support or be concerned with. A few though were vague, hard to understand, and nearly meaningless. For example, key policy direction 3, reads thus:

New buildings should maximize the flexibility in the design of the learning
spaces to enable students and faculty to incorporate innovative teaching and
learning methods.

Now, I truly have no idea how buildings, however “flexible,” can contribute in any way to having “innovative teaching methods”. It is my impression that with appropriate AV equipment, which UBC already possesses, it is up to each instructor to teach. Key policy direction 2 is also strange. It postulates that

Building locations should enhance the opportunity for interdisciplinary research and study and collaboration between allied disciplines, and provide opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in faculty research projects.

Again, how a building’s location will create collaborative relationships and internship opportunities is a mystery to me. The campus as it is, is not vast or labyrinthine. I have never walked into an office or a lab and decided to volunteer there because it was handy to my English class. Nor have I heard of someone declining a summer NSERC because it was located more than 100 meters from their favorite lunch spot. I fear that collaborations and undergrad research opportunities still depend on people creating them. Anyhow, other than said incoherencies, the survey was fairly satisfactory. Some of the “key policy direction” statements were a little hard to disagree with because of the positive-spin phrasing, but there was plenty of space to provide written comments, and these seem to be faithfully reported (excepting my specific complaints, which I included at the time and make no appearance) in the document.

Sadly, for all the publicity, and visibility, only 277 people total and 170 students mustered the personal resources necessary to go and answer the survey. An additional number of people (amount not noted) participated in the focus groups and presentation sessions. Considering the enormous publicity effort, and the fact that farm-affiliated students alo
ne probably comprised at least a third of student respondents, I’m disappointed with the response to the online survey. 170 students is just enough to cover AMS involvees, farm people, interested parties from the school of architecture and urban planning, and a few other scattered keeners. If banners, fancy websites, and broadcast emails aren’t enough to get the general student population interested enough in their physical academic surroundings to answer a half-hour survey, I do not know what is.

Categories
BoG Development

BoG goes ahead with tunnel, utilities.

In an embattled, but clear decision, the UBC board of governors passed final approval of the University Boulevard project’s first phase on Tuesday. Though the faculty, staff, and student representatives were opposed, President Toope remained staunchly in favor of the the phase, which ensures the future of an underground bus terminal on the site of East mall and U-Blvd. The terminal itself is was not approved – only the tunnel along U-blvd that will lead to it and the movement of utilities. Discussion about the issue lasted 45 minutes. It is rare that the board pushes a decision through while it has significant opposition – but for this project, the pressure is on.

Interestingly, since the above ground potion of the plan is being brought back to consultation and re-designed, the terminal itself may have to be re-engineered too, to carry the weight. Al Poettcker, the president of UBC properties trust, doesn’t seem to like this idea, since he continuously claims that only the “programming” of the buildings, not their location, can be changed. Perhaps he does not understand the level to which it is generally expected the plan will change following consultation: buildings could conceivably change their size, location, or be eliminated entirely.

The underground loop however, is coming. It won’t be approved until the above-ground plans are further solidified, in the fall.

Have a listen to Margaret Orlowski (of the anti- U-Blvd student petition) and Nancy Knight of the campus community and planning office face off with the CBC’s Rick Cluff on the Early Edition Wednesday:

Listen here

Spam prevention powered by Akismet