The Vancouver of 20 years from now will be unrecognizable to the residents of today.
Pointing out that such change is a good thing is not a criticism of the current city. Instead, it is a recognition that vibrant cities constantly strive for improvement and development, seeking every opportunity to become more livable. Change is inevitable; ideally it is positive.
That is the thinking behind the Evergreen and Grand Commercial Corridors Strategy being considered by the Vancouver City Council. A 46-page outline of the plan was supported last week by the city council; a second reading and a public hearing are scheduled for Feb. 28.
The proposal would cover Evergreen Boulevard from Grove Street to V Street, and Grand Boulevard north from Evergreen to Mill Plain Boulevard. The centerpiece of the project would be a transit hub at the intersection of Grand and Mill Plain, and mixed-use corridors would promote residential density and business growth.
Among the opportunities listed in the proposal: “Accommodate small-scale retail, eating and drinking establishments, and other active uses such as restaurants and breweries, food carts, community event space, a local grocer or satellite farmers market, and complementary uses that provide basic needs and services to neighborhood residents.”
In that regard, the plan echoes the ambitious Heights District Plan, about 1.3 miles to the east along Mill Plain Boulevard. City officials are looking to rehabilitate two long-overlooked sections of Vancouver, creating a blueprint for amenities that will better serve residents and help the areas become more accessible.
As demonstrated by The Waterfront Vancouver development near downtown, thoughtful planning can transform portions of a city to attract businesses, visitors and residents. Both the Evergreen-Grand corridor and the Heights District can benefit from such planning.
Along the way, officials must pay heed to concerns of local residents. Notably, the outline for the proposal also lists “proactively address gentrification and displacement” as an opportunity for the project.
This reflects a change in thinking about urban revitalization. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, cities across the country engaged in renewal projects that amounted to little more than tearing down “blighted” areas. The result often was gentrification that priced longtime residents out of the area. Communities, frequently consisting mostly of people of color, were displaced and the culture of neighborhoods was altered.
Revitalizing a neighborhood does not necessarily lead to displacement; there are policies that can help avoid the most disruptive traits of gentrification. If an area becomes more desirable but keeps the same number of housing units, displacement will occur; increasing density is crucial for helping people stay in place. So is the inclusion of middle-income and affordable housing in new development.
Investment in a neighborhood also should focus on existing businesses and locally owned startups. Incentives can boost such investment, and tax policies can support local businesses. As a Washington Post column about gentrification says: “Local residents welcome the resurrection and revival of neglected and disinvested areas. Community leaders desire capital investments, leading to better services, jobs, thriving businesses and other components of a healthy, vibrant neighborhood.”
Handled properly, investment in the Evergreen-Grand corridor can do that for the Vancouver of the future.
