Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

https://macleans.ca/society/sen%cc%93a%e1%b8%b5w-vancouver/

by luu • 2 years ago

286 347 2 years ago

shmageggy• 2 years ago

The cut-down title hides the whole point and contents of the article, which is a really interesting piece about indigenous sovereignty.

Original title: "Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and undeniably Indigenous"

dang• 2 years ago

Ok, we've put that up there now. Thanks!

lisper2• 2 years ago

I think this is terrific. It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty. The idea that "When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building" is just ridiculous. Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"? You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the same buildings that your ancestors were hundreds of years ago, why should they? I say: more power to the (Indigenous) people!

(P.S.: I'm a white guy.)

stavros2• 2 years ago

It was a woman, actually. Your point is valid, I just don't like how "white man" has become a slur.

badcppdev6• 2 years ago

I think the quote is from a white man called Gordon Price.

Full quote to assist you.

"In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building."

"White man" can be used in that form when the white man appears to be telling a different culture what they can or cannot do or be.

skywhopper• 2 years ago

I wouldn’t call it a slur. To the extent it’s an effective insult, it’s due to centuries of behavior by white men. If someone uses “white man” to call out certain behavior, it might be worth their target considering why they got called out. Maybe sometimes it’s unfair to the white man to be called out, but often it isn’t. For folks who find it troublesome or disturbing to not receive the benefit of the doubt about their intentions as a white man, consider how much benefit of the doubt is given in everyday contexts to pretty much any individual who is not a white man.

zmgsabst• 2 years ago

That’s people’s objection to “woke” views on ethnicity:

You’ve returned to the world of racial essentialism, the most debunked form of racism, where you argue nonsense about what kinds of buildings people should make based on their ancestry. No matter how you dress it up in the language of civil rights, the racialized views promoted by the institutional left (eg, academia, media, and government) are built upon that racism — which we see articulated in your quote.

But if you touch grass, you’d know people consistently build with the best technology available to them — and have throughout history.

mschuster91• 2 years ago

You’ve returned to the world of racial essentialism, the most debunked form of racism, where you argue nonsense about what kinds of buildings people should make based on their ancestry. No matter how you dress it up in the language of civil rights, the racialized views promoted by the institutional left (eg, academia, media, and government) are built upon that racism — which we see articulated in your quote.

If anything, the person you're replying to rejected this kind of crap, they argue (like the article) that it should be the right of the Indigenous Nations to determine on their own what they want to build on their own land.

EnigmaFlare2• 2 years ago

Find out what you're complaining about before getting race-baited into hating someone. The context of his statement might have made it perfectly reasonable. This article is obviously trying to paint everyone and their dog as a racist so don't trust it to be open about the context.

badcppdev6• 2 years ago

I think you need to provide some links with context because the article makes a compelling case that people are trying to block an indigenous group from exercising their agency.

sgt• 2 years ago

You're being downvoted because of statements like "Who the fuck are you, white man"

What if you said (in a different setting, where it would technically make sense): "Who the fuck are you, eskimo?"

I bet you wouldn't, because you've been programmed by woke media.

trimethylpurine15• 2 years ago

I think I missed the meaning of the quote.

Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context?

If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped?

But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could see that...

How does any of that relate to indigenous people using granted land to build them?

Does Canada have some law about that?

I guess I don't see why this quote has any bearing for or against the development. It feels entirely out of place in the article. Just seems like an unrelated fact.

timmytokyo2• 2 years ago

In a city completely inundated with skyscrapers, it's odd -- and maybe a bit telling -- that some people become concerned for the first time in their lives only once an indigenous nation decides to build a skyscraper.

ivan_gammel6• 2 years ago

Can't we leave one thing undeveloped?

Sure. Undevelop your own land and that will solve the problem.

nejkbnek• 2 years ago

A modern "Indigenous lifestyle" means a lot of things. There's no contradiction in Indigenous people wanting to preserve their historical traditions, crafts and practices while also adapting to the current state of the world. Most Native people in Canada live in cities now and face issues of racism and generational trauma from colonial government practices like Residential Schools and the 60s Scoop which sought to cut their connections to their culture.

Developing land like this is a way for the tribe to generate revenue and take care of their members, but it's also a way for them to have meaningful input into the development process. They don't have some responsibility to leave the land as a pristine untouched wilderness, they can choose to develop it in a way that aligns with their values.

I visited a museum in the North once where they were talking about preserving the practice of carving giant canoes, to travel south and trade with Europeans. It struck me how this practice was historical and important culturally, but it also arose out of colonial interactions in the past 500 years. Both can be true.

faeriechangling5• 2 years ago

Sure skyscrapers are an indigenous lifestyle. They build them, invest in them, live in them. Do you think indigenous people in 2024 are going to all go fish for salmon and live in teepee’s?

I remember on TV once this older indigenous guy promoting natural resource development he thought would create indigenous jobs going on about “Back in the old times, my people hunted the buffalo. Now my people hunt a new buffalo, called the loonie”

verticalscaler2• 2 years ago

Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"?

Who the fuck are you, white man, to say "It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty"? You're foisting your notions of sovereignty and time unto them, which is racist.

P.S.: I'm indigenous ;)

refurb• 2 years ago

How is sovereignty and time in any way subjective?

coldtea5• 2 years ago

Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"?

A person univolved with the colonization of Canada, not even from there or living there, that still believes that?

You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the same buildings that your ancestors were hundreds of years ago

And that's bad in a lot of ways too. Not all modernization is for the better. It can turn a vibrant community into a gentrified Starbucks shitscape, for example.

astrange7• 2 years ago

Gentrification has nothing to do with Starbucks. Gentrification is caused by blocking infill development.

FredPret• 2 years ago

You’re so virtuous

trallnag• 2 years ago

Unhinged

faeriechangling5• 2 years ago

Hating/liking this project is going to fall on age lines more than racial ones, the age demo of hacker news is likely to almost universally LOVE this project.

lisper2• 2 years ago

Not only am I a white guy, I'm an old white guy. (I'm 59.) Even worse, I'm rich too, so I am solidly in the demographic of the person I was quoting. But despite the fact that I am a rich old white guy, I don't consider rich old white guys to be my tribe. I look at the history of what rich old white guys have done (and in many cases are still doing) to racial minorities and it fills me with deep shame that I am one of them.

So I genuinely love seeing racial minorities stand up for themselves. I particularly admire what the Maoris have accomplished in New Zealand. And I especially love it when it ends up annoying the rich old white guys that the racial minority is starting to do the exact same thing that the rich old white guys have been doing for centuries. Seeing the irony and lack of self awareness lets me tell myself that no, I am not one them, despite the fact that I look like them.

BTW, the flip side of that is, "I am one of them despite the fact that I don't look like them." Which, it seems to me, is what we ought to be striving for.

lwansbrough2• 2 years ago

Land back policy could be a very interesting win-win loophole for allocating new land for the purposes of redevelopment without consulting NIMBYs. A sort of accidentally leftist eminent domain. Of course, thats a bit insensitive and would be asking indigenous groups to fall on our sword for our political gain. In exchange for billions of dollars of land. And that would be bad? Unless..?

kjkjadksj3• 2 years ago

In some cities in the west like Palm Springs the reservation already owns like half the city in a sort of checkerboard pattern. Despite the fact this is expensive palm springs you still see the same old “reservation” style development of a casino and couple story hotel rather than big huge towers of hotels and condos like in miami beach. Maybe there really is no market for something like that in palm springs, or, there are larger forced that put a thumb on what these reservations are allowed to do with the land under their domain.

VeejayRampay• 2 years ago

given the price of real estate in Vancouver and the fact that this is in Kitsilano (one of the hippest / priciest neighbourhoods in the city), I don't even want to know the kind of money involved

ovi256• 2 years ago

The average condo sold in Greater Vancouver was 827k CAD in Feb 24.

So the 6000 units here should be worth at least 4.8B CAD

mynameisvlad3• 2 years ago

I wouldn’t use GVRD/Metro Vancouver as an estimate; things get quite a bit cheaper in the other cities.

Erikun2• 2 years ago

It’s a pretty interesting development. I wonder what the legal framework for someone living there will be if they’re not a First Nation citizen?

From the article: “ But Indigenous nations are accountable, first and foremost, to their own citizens. That could mean temporarily barring access to traditional lands, as in Joffre Lakes. It could also mean maximizing the economic potential of their property, to provide housing and funds to support education, health care and community growth. ”

lwansbrough2• 2 years ago

In terms of land/home ownership, what it has meant in other parts of the metro area, is leaseholds. You can “buy” a property at a slightly reduced cost which will be reclaimed after several decades (100 years?), usually starting from the time of development.

In terms of laws, policing is handled by the local police force, ie. VPD. While there is rhetoric about sovereignty, practically speaking much of the challenging problems are still handled by the Crown’s government and not by tribes.

Erikun2• 2 years ago

Sounds like it wouldn’t be any different from home ownership or renting in any other part of Vancouver then.

vivekd• 2 years ago

I remember reading that natives are not allowed to sell tribal lands in Canada

Might not be a huge bar though , they could put it up as rental property which we desperately need in Canadian cities - and their website suggests that's exactly what they're doing

https://senakw.com/vision

ok_dad• 2 years ago

Leaseholds are very common in Hawaii due to similar ownership, although here it’s privately owned land by native orgs in most cases, because the Hawaiians specifically voted down reservation-like agreements to maintain what sovereignty they have left. It works out pretty good here, buildings are routinely demolished and bigger ones grow in the place. Most of the land like this is in town, commonly Waikiki hotels and apartments are leasehold. We’re still having a very horrible housing crisis here, though.

curmudgeon22• 2 years ago

These leaseholds are typically more difficult to get a mortgage on, restricting lenders and increasing price :/

Tiktaalik11• 2 years ago

The Squamish have said that they're going to align with the Provincial tenancy act, presumably to give certainty to renters.

Tenants moving into any of these properties will be protected by the BCRTA as they would in any other rental property in the province.

https://www.squamish.net/bcrta-adoption/

raverbashing• 2 years ago

While NIMBYs of all different types (boomers, degrowters wining about "affordability", 'ecologists' and people talking about "character of the area" about some parking lot waste everybody's time) glad to see someone is actually doing stuff

slily• 2 years ago

It will be interesting to see if this project ends up being seen as a success or a failure as things evolve, hopefully it inspires zoning reforms if it works out. I expected the article to be race-baity because of the gross comments here but no, it's pretty fair overall and apparently HN isn't above bringing up anti-white rhetoric unprompted.

api3• 2 years ago

Let me see if I got this.

1. Settlers colonize indigenous lands, drive indigenous people into small parcels and reservations and try to exterminate their culture.

2. Settlers decide to start refusing to build enough housing for themselves because they don’t want to alter the “character of the neighborhood” after… uhh… very much doing that.

3. Indigenous people build housing on their remaining bits of land for settlers, make tons of money off it.

K, yeah, I think I got it.

Maybe there’s a solution for California in here: decolonize!

Who were the indigenous people who inhabited the Bay Area? If they’re still around, push a big decolonizing movement to return some land to them. Place looks like Tokyo in 20 years.

“Okay, okay, we suck, you can have your ancestors land back. Just can you let me reserve a condo when they go on sale?”

Then watch all the Bay Area lefty 60s homeowners suddenly become white nationalists. Their ideology is probably downstream of their home equity.

onlypassingthru2• 2 years ago

The Bay Area indigenous land movement is finally starting to see some wins. Shellmound in Berkeley is a big win for the Ohlone tribe. [0]

[0]https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/12/berkeley-shellmound-...

api3• 2 years ago

Shh. Make sure the tribe’s leadership knows to stay quiet for a while until they can pick up a few more parcels before unveiling their plans to exceed the height of the Burj Khalifa.

I’m obviously half joking here. No intent to be insensitive. Even if they don’t build anything it’s better than a parking lot.

renewiltord2• 2 years ago

Different structure though. These folk are preservationists and only decided to fight for the place once the parking lot was going to be replaced. Overall, it's not a bad play, though. 36% profit underperforms the loan over the period, but it's not nothing.

skrbjc2• 2 years ago

So developer wants to build on land they legally own, indigenous complain and get the city to block development and then to use tax-payer dollars to help them buy it, and then they will turn around and develop it themselves?

Is this not just blatant extortion?

tekla• 2 years ago

The downvoters are blind to this brilliance of solving the housing crisis while decolonizing. Is this not what leftists want?

spxneo7• 2 years ago

Canadian indigenous settlements have been described by some as an "open air prison".

freitzkriesler2• 2 years ago

The fact that the PNW is as expensive as the Bay area or even SoCal is a travesty. At least the first nation people figured out how to break the planning commission nonsense and took charge in their own communities. So long as they keep out the foreign hot funny money that made the regular cities too expensive they'll do just fine.

faeriechangling5• 2 years ago

I wouldn’t be so optimistic about this not getting bankrolled by foreign investors, especially if you consider Canadians foreign investors, but they’ll do fine regardless.

dukeyukey3• 2 years ago

To be fair the PNW still has pretty good weather, gorgeous nature, good infrastructure (natural and man-made) and a varied economy. It'd be weird if it _wasn't_ expensive.

r3d0c• 2 years ago

artificially more expensive because of outdated and backwards zoning laws keeping housing expensive

ipaddr2• 2 years ago

Hong Kong changing hands created a huge wave of freign. This project captures some of it

r00fus• 2 years ago

Foreign what? bodies? cash? That cash is busy going everywhere else too.

brabel• 2 years ago

Everyone is really happy to concede some power to another group as long as that group is seen as completely harmless, and they continue to do that out of guilty, knowing that they completely replaced the other group. It really gets interesting is when the other group starts to gain power and assert its power, as being done here. At some point, tables may turn and said group may become again the top dog. It probably won't happen in our lifetime, but these things do happen over centuries - to the point people actually forget who the powerful group was before.

A simple example: the Tatars in Krimea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars). Once, they invaded and took it over from its original inhabitants (descendants of Greeks and Sarmatians, a very different people). Over a long time, however, they become minority again, specially after they were mostly removed by the Soviets and today they are a minority group (the Eurovision winner in 2016, Jamala, for Ukraine, sang about the Tatars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamala).

faeriechangling5• 2 years ago

The indigenous population is gradually increasing over time, which is a curious thing in a country whose leader who has confessed to presiding over an active genocide against them.

It would take many generations of this trend happening for the Indigenous to become big players, but also not THAT long, maybe a couple hundred years.

switchbak• 2 years ago

I don't believe Justin Trudeau ever admitted to _presiding_ over an _active_ genocide. He was referring to the deaths of those in residential schools. Those were effectively shut down in the 80's - when Mr. Trudeau was still a child.

I think it would be more accurate to say that he acknowledged that there were tremendous harms inflicted by both the government and the church both before and after confederation, and that those harms rise to the level of what he considers to be genocide. There still exist wrongs that are being done to First Nations today (by the Liberal government no less), but there's no way that Mr. Trudeau would categorize those as genocide, full stop.

Also a reminder that as of yet, none of the mass grave sites of the last few years have been excavated, and ground-penetrating radar is insufficient to make a claim of a mass grave site. There is copious evidence of barbarous acts taking place at residential schools, however the media furor over these specific reports were premature, and we simply don't have solid data for these sites.

guardiangod• 2 years ago

The native nation, Squamish Nation, used to own the entire parcel of land immediately north of the 10 acres land mentioned in this article as a reservation granted by the former-colonial government (a native village stood in Vancouver downtown but the colonial gov forced them to move across the inlet).

But thru multiple forced relocations and unceded land take over, the reservation was gradually taken over.

Slowly, from 1886 to 1902, Indigenous peoples were removed from their traditional village sites and homes and required to live on reserves. As the City grew around them, legislation was enacted that required all Indigenous peoples on reserve be removed if the population around them exceeded 1,000 settlers. In 1913, this happened at Sen̓áḵw. A barge arrived, and the residents were instructed to board the barge to receive funds from the Indian Agent. Once everyone from the village had boarded the barge, it was pulled from the beach and set adrift into English Bay. The village was then set on fire and burned to the ground. The owner of Cates Tugs, seeing the barge drifting precariously in the Bay, went to the rescue and towed the barge to Capilano Reserve, located in North Vancouver.

https://bardonthebeach.org/history-of-senakw/

It was only thru recent lawsuit and legislation that part of the reserve (an awkward T shape in the middle of wide stroads) was returned.

The 10acre of land in this article- https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kitsilano+6,+Vancouver,+BC...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/little-known...

notatoad• 2 years ago

Thanks for the context, i did not realize that this was land that had been returned to the squamish nation. The previous reporting i'd seen on this developemnt made it sound like the parcel was the original treaty land.

comeonbro2• 2 years ago

I don't know if it's fair to call a bridge a stroad

dr_kretyn• 2 years ago

Where does the bridge start and end? It's an embankment onto the bridge from a stroad. You're both right.

floren2• 2 years ago

"stroad" is just a shibboleth for people with "urbanist" in their Mastodon profiles, sometimes it slips out where it doesn't really make sense.

Yizahi2• 2 years ago

Moderately dense development - good

High rise developments enclosed in glass - bad

Plants on the skyscraper terraces - sheer stupidity and bullshit, used only for pretty marketing 3D art

If they made those high rises a 5-6 floor buildings instead, with no b/s trees on the balconies but instead planted them in the ground, that would be much more boring, cheaper and much more comfortable to live there.

dangus3• 2 years ago

There are a lot of examples of successful, affordable, pleasant skyscraper developments across the world. The entirety of the Vancouver city core is an example itself. It seems rather prescriptive to declare tower living uncomfortable when so many people enjoy it.

Just look at some rental listings in the South Loop neighborhood of Chicago. You can get a 2 bedroom apartment in a modern glass tower with amenities galore for well under $3,000 a month in the heart of America’s second largest downtown.

Imagine living completely car-free in a neighborhood like that and commuting 10 minutes to get to your downtown job. (Walk, bike, and transit score >90)

I personally think that’s way more comfortable (and physically safe) than a suburban lifestyle where you’re trapped in your car on a stroad or freeway for every daily need.

As far as vegetated skyscrapers, there are widely acclaimed examples like the Bosco Verticale. It’s not a new concept and I’m not sure what the negative is supposed to be. Plants are bad?

mistrial9• 2 years ago

successful, affordable, pleasant skyscraper developments

that depends entirely on the cultural and social expectations of humans who are supposed to live there

mjr002• 2 years ago

Moderately dense development - good High rise developments enclosed in glass - bad

Can you explain why you think this?

mthoms2• 2 years ago

What's wrong with plants on the terraces and balconies? How would their presence make it less comfortable to live there? And high rise developments "enclosed in glass"? As the article mentions, that's sort of what Vancouver is known for.

Is it the material you object to or the building height?

I genuinely don't understand your comment. Particularly as a Vancouverite (who can't afford a home).

singingboyo2• 2 years ago

Also, as a Vancouverite... 5-6 stories, cheaper to live there, AND more comfortable? Dunno about that.

I've got doubts about cheaper, and 5-6 story buildings in Vancouver always seem less comfortable than a skyscraper (for whatever reason - maybe just that the 5-6 story buildings are mostly old?)

Yizahi2• 2 years ago

Not any plants and not any balcony. I'm talking specifically about these newfangled skyscrapers playing pretend that they are vertical forests. So main differences are a) building is big and tall, b) there are dedicated "balconies" for a big plants - shrubs, small trees etc., whole nano garden in every spot, c) these spots are mandatory, not like you are putting some potted plants on your own balcony.

Disclaimer - these play pretend forests are NOT bad per se (the plant part at least). They are just hilariously inefficient way to spend money and space.

The issues I see with them:

1. This additional horizontal space costs money. The plants cost money. The maintenance of the whole thing costs even more money.

2. There needs to be access to them from the apartments (violating privacy), or they are only accessed from the outside, multiplying maintenance costs.

3. What if the plant dies? Who pays for replacement?

4. Unless these islands of plants are hermetically sealed from the apartments, who will pay and deal with water leaks from the plants to the inside of the building, who will deal with mold, insects and so on?

5. What if the wind blows the heavy plant or tree down on something or someone?

6. The space usage is very bad, it's like tens of trees per whole building. A small park beside the building can beat that number by 100 times.

Vertical forests is a case of looks nice on the 3D render, but in practice is a waste of money plus unsafe.

And skyscrapers are simply bad for individual living. Price, infrastructure, related issues. My home city has an issue with chaotic development and there are several parts of the city with 25+ floor housing. Those are cheap, but the are mercilessly mocked by the whole city and no one voluntarily wants to live there if they have a choice and money. Also those are places with the worst traffic jams and parking issues in the whole city, except for the inner center.

PS: I very much like plant in my apartment, small and big. I've lived for years with half of my own room taken by a potted coffee tree growing into the ceiling, so I'm not some plant hater or something.

dangus3• 2 years ago

The critics of this project seem to be outright racist. I don’t think that’s an overstatement.

They’re basically saying that Indigenous people aren’t allowed to participate in the modern world. You’re not allowed to be urbanist if you were “less advanced than the white people” three hundred years ago.

And they’re butthurt about the development not having the need to comply with Vancouver development rules. Yeah, well, sorry not sorry you weren’t able to steal all the land. Nothing is stopping y’all from changing the rules in Vancouver and building something similar.

faeriechangling5• 2 years ago

You might think so but nimby’s hatred of tall buildings is not at all limited to the ones the Squamish nation is building, as evidenced by the lack of buildings this tall. It’d be more racist for them to make an exception to their usual moaning about tall buildings just because it was the Squamish doing the building.

inkcapmushroom• 2 years ago

as evidenced by the lack of buildings this tall

The third picture shows the development projected onto a wider picture of the city. You can see plenty of other skyscapers, some looking similar height or nearly as tall. Just not any on the side of the river the Squamish are planning on building.

I do agree though that NIMBY's will generally whine regardless of the person doing the building. I wouldn't say "[all] the critics of the project are racist" because I don't know all the criticisms, but certainly some of the criticisms in the article had a pretty racist slant to them.

ninth_ant• 2 years ago

This is Vancouver -- NIMBYs got super upset and managed to successfully downsize a tower despite it being located off a major transit hub (Commercial & Broadway station) and was not historic anything (just a grocery store and associated parking lot).

I'm not saying there's no racism involved with the Kits project, I'm sure there is. But folks here are pretty eager to deny housing to everyone regardless of race. Kits people are also aggressively opposed to low-income housing, any any density in their neighbourhood and are typically accustomed to being successful in this.

Canada• 2 years ago

I'm not surprised that it took a literal nation to overcome the resistance to any serious development by that particular group of NIMBYs. Score a win for decentralized power.

I don't think there's any racism at all on their part though, as much as the article tries to play that up. They simply hate idea of downtown expanding into what they view as their perfect suburban neighborhood and they are well organized. They always oppose high density development regardless of who proposes it. This has nothing to do with "Canadians" generally, who don't give a shit as a broad group. This is about a small group of homeowners in a particular area of Vancouver.

This development is just what Vancouver needs, and so long as it actually happens the city will be better for it. It's also great to see first nations or whatever we're supposed to call them get a big financial win like this too: By providing what the market needs. The only way to move past what happened in the past is well earned financial success in the present.

I have two predictions:

1) This will have more positive impact on people's ability to afford living in Vancouver than anything the current group of clowns ruling Ottawa do.

2) In spite of the Kits homeowners fears, the expansion of the city through this development will make their property even more desirable and valuable.

skrbjc2• 2 years ago

How would you feel if they decided to turn it into a landfill or a nuclear powerplant or a massive chemical production facility that didn't have to comply with environmental laws.

It's great they want to build big buildings, but the reality is if you say a group of people are above the law, then they can do whatever they want, including things that would be solely in their interest and in no-one else's.

dangus3• 2 years ago

It’s kind of ironic to speak about environmental destruction and groups of people being above the law in the context of Indigenous history in the Americas.

camg55• 2 years ago

Think this is great for Vancouver which needs more housing. The zoning is broken, and far too conservative. Glad to see the Squamish addressing a need that will likely benefit all, and hopefully this encourages the city of Vancouver to do the same on their own accord.

spxneo7• 2 years ago

Building more homes in Vancouver will not result in lower prices because this is not a supply problem it is the financial assetization of home equity that drives higher and higher prices. Blue collar workers turned multi-millionaires rely on the continued rise of home prices to purchase cheap credit which they use to speculate on more homes. When they couldn't find anymore locals they turned to the international market to sell their bags. Now these 20k homes ppl are celebrating are NOT going to be sold under market prices no matter how much reddit and hn crowd wants it to be true. It will only stabilize the prices at current inflated levels.

Be careful what you wish for. The only type of housing they are building is not white picket fenced backyard with a shed that is being converted to homes but high/low rise apartments primarily for rental, a hotbed for crime.

Since David Eby overrode the strata no-rental rules, while not responsible it resulted in huge increase in cases of squatters, petty theft, drug labs and brothels. This does not include what a retired VPD officer describes as an "Amazon of drug labs and brothels" which is familiar to vancouver high rise but now its even easier for criminals. Vice reporters were even reporting on it years ago but now these cases are accelerating since Eby stepped in a populist spirit.

I'm all for alleviating housing situation but we need to stop and ask if those people who are demanding/feel entitled to it really have the necessary income to justify it. Often I see people making 60k CAD/year lamenting how they can't find a home to live in. You can't afford anything in developed urban centres except in emerging economies.

So I think rather than building more housing we need to ask who really has merit to be here and the biggest determining factor is income not how long you lived in Vancouver like certain demographic of locals are suggesting which is basically dogwhistling to say the market forces should not apply to them because of their skin colour.

Simply blaming this on local housing policy failure like reddit does when housing prices has been appreciating all over the world, not just Vancouver, is myopic. There are cities that are far more dense than vancouver and has even more ridiculous real estate prices. They love Vancouver and the blue collar Canadian workers that bought their homes after 6 month of work in the 70s, 80s are not desperate to sell as they have nowhere else to go.

Lot of people are being setup for major disappointments if they think vancouver home prices are coming back down to 2012 prices. There is simply no way to force homeowners to sell when they have no urgency or financial stress to do so. over 50% of homeowners in Vancouver do not have mortgages.

Seattle35033• 2 years ago

It is a mistake to blame the high cost of housing on market forces. It is largely the product of local housing policy. It is a choice.

soperj• 2 years ago

Since David Eby overrode the strata no-rental rules, it ended up increasing cases of squatters, petty theft, drug labs and brothels. This does not include what a retired VPD officer describes as an "Amazon of drug labs and brothels" throughout vancouver high rise. I mean Vice reporters were even reporting on it years ago.

David Eby has been premier since October 2022, strata property act happened soon after in November. Maybe, just maybe, the squatters, petty theft, drug labs and brothels aren't a result of the strata changes. Certainly not the ones that Vice reporters reported on years ago.

zoklet-enjoyer• 2 years ago

You could have saved a lot of time by just saying "fuck poor people"

smallmancontrov4• 2 years ago

feel entitled

It's funny how the people who sling this as an insult so often have a literal deed/title and are pursuing policy that pumps its value to the detriment of others.

aclatuts• 2 years ago

This is like the tech bro version of: private investors buying properties is inflating property prices.

The problem is blue collar people, which is a new one to me.

davis• 2 years ago

Building more housing (of all kinds) == cheaper housing. Sorry but it really is that simple.

Izikiel43• 2 years ago

Houses there are a luxury, you would need to be a multimillionaire to buy something there. Also, most of Vancouver is zoned for sfh, check a zoning map. Your entire comment can be summarized as: Build buildings-> more rentals -> lower price -> lower income can afford it -> poor people are criminals.

I lived there for 2 years, and a local tech salary was barely enough to afford living in downtown/near downtown renting an apartment.

masterj2• 2 years ago

Of all the bad racist NIMBY rants, this is definitely one of them

FooBarBizBazz2• 2 years ago

Yeah, this is great. The way I see it, potential sovereigns gain legitimacy by organizing things for the good of the people. Right now it looks like the exercise of Squamish sovereignty is in the interest of all people (except property leeches). In which case, by all means run the show. You're doing a better job than the other guys.

systemstops4• 2 years ago

Someone at Westbank is a genius: fund the building of a massive skyscraper project on land that was recently returned to indigenous tribes because of a lawsuit, a project that would never be normally approved because of zoning laws. Then, declare any criticism of the project as racist, thus guaranteeing it will be built. I wonder how much of the money the tribe is actually getting out of this?

fckgw3• 2 years ago

What does acceptable use of their own land look like to you? What would meet your specific approval?

systemstops4• 2 years ago

It's acceptable to me - none of my business. But it's corporate money building this project, which we should be clear about. It's just built on native land.

ipaddr2• 2 years ago

The question is could someone build a similiar structure beside or does zoning prevent this. If so parent has a valid point

karaterobot• 2 years ago

You're being downvoted, but people should look at this through the lens of it being a massive real estate deal rather than as a civil rights issue, which it is not. Of course there's shady stuff going on if you scratch the surface, didn't you see the part where real estate developers are involved? Unless we're making the laughable (and patronizing) assumption that massive urban residential real estate deals are vaccinated from corruption if first nation tribal members are involved.

danem• 2 years ago

What corruption are you referring to?

Who built the house/apartment you live in? A real estate developer, right?

brailsafe5• 2 years ago

people should look at this through the lens of it being a massive real estate deal rather than as a civil rights issue

People can look at it however they please, and each take can have nuance, but the classic "Well you're all dumb if you think someone isn't corrupt here" is not new, not interesting, and not evident, it's just plausible.

No matter what the issue is, there's some pissed off person that thinks they've got the often suspiciously nebulous take that nobodies thought about and serves no purpose but to try cast aspersions at an otherwise novel and probably positive thing. "Don't forget about this hypothetical non-specific negative possibility! Someone could be corrupt guys!"

It's ok to hold two ideas in your head at the same time. On one hand, no process with huge money involved can be vaccinated from corruption. On the other, there's a brutal amount of displacement and wealth inequality in Vancouver that's particularly intense among indigenous people. We want to see the city evolve in a way that brings people who aren't property boomers or literal billionaires into a viable future, and reasons to be optimistic are scarce.

So ya, boring and hollow takes get downvoted.

yardie• 2 years ago

I mean some of the opponents have been obtusely racist in their criticism. One example is imploring the tribes to use "traditional" indigenous building techniques. As if that is supposed to mean they should be building as if they were in the 19th century.

golergka• 2 years ago

Race-baiting manipulation against NIMBY zoning laws. Personally, none of the sides provoke any sympathy.

However, what's important is the law. If they have proved their right to the land in court, that's the only thing that should really matter. And aside from the PR manipulation, a corporation building residential buildings is obviously a positive thing, providing value for everybody involved: their shareholders, land owners and future residents. The only who suffers are their neighbours who tried to prop up their property values by strangling development.

gwervc• 2 years ago

Then, declare any criticism of the project as racist

One criticism quoted in the article is this:

"When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building."

Which is indeed literally racist. Like White can build towers using concrete but other people should stick with small wood structures or whatever. Spoiler: technology is spreading among people around the world, and Chinese, Arab, Japanese, etc. built skyscrapers despite it not being their traditional way of building.

defrost3• 2 years ago

Hilariously:

    From the Empire State Building to the George Washington Bridge, and the glory that was the World Trade Center—Mohawk people helped build them all.

    Mohawk ironworkers have built bridges and skyscrapers for more than 100 years.

https://americanindian.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/item?id=61...

reso• 2 years ago

I say this all as a YIMBY who is very happy to see 20k new units added to vancouver: something feels off about the plans for the Jericho lands but I can't describe it.

I feel like when you have these mega developments where 10 condos go up all at once in the space of a few blocks, they end up as "bedroom neighborhoods", where people sleep but don't do anything else. There are a lot of these happening in Canada right now. There's one on Victoria in Waterloo. Concord place in Toronto is another example. I don't see street life there. I only see people going to or coming from somewhere else.

The best neighborhoods are the ones where there is a broad-strokes master plan, but beneath that, some amount of decentralization in implementation. Then you get a diversity of ideas about how to live all in one place.

Maybe there are words for this I don't know.

wnc31414• 2 years ago

If it is discontinuous with the broader urban fabric this is definitely a risk.

Look up Ørestad in Copenhagen - a massive master planned area that never gained any of the hoped for vitality you would see elsewhere in the city.

A decent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OMxzXsufq8

hdlothia• 2 years ago

I think the tough part is it's hard to master plan these thing sometimes. Is it better to limit restrictions and let people put coffee shops and bars where they want?

jjjjj555552• 2 years ago

It seems like it had othe problems apart from being discontinuous from the city. There are lots of areas like this in the US which are contiguous with the city, that still end up as dead zones.

Did anyone really believe this was a good idea? I feel like the developers' need to turn a profit and the government's need to impose itself don't leave any good ideas on the table. Instead they focus on packaging up the same bad ideas just with different marketing.

When it inevitably doesn't work as promised, they just say oops, and move onto the next project.

konschubert• 2 years ago

Ørestad looks nice on street view. Give it some time, maybe?

I think you're right that decentralised planning will create a more diverse cityscape, but your example seems fine...

munificent• 2 years ago

It's not exactly what you're getting at, but you might enjoy Christopher Alexander's essay "A City is not a Tree". It also talks about why highly planned cities can end up not working and feeling "right" in the way that older more incrementally-grown ones can.

smallmancontrov4• 2 years ago

It would be more convincing to rage against planning if the backdrop wasn't a situation clearly created by the complete absence of planning. Obviously there's a middle ground. This isn't it.

ttul• 2 years ago

Take Tokyo for example. It’s ugly and massive and sprawling but, connected with amazing transit, there is not only plenty of housing for everyone at all income levels, but the place is also just totally rad.

brailsafe5• 2 years ago

I disagree about master plan neighborhoods being better. It's just way too much ownership, control, and responsibility for one developer or one period of time, usually. Imo, master planned neighborhoods are an optimistic dismissal of the idea that organic evolution of a neighborhood should be allowed to happen, and a massive bet on whatever gets built being great. Often this takes place as a huge cul-de-sac suburb with one place designated for a gas station and a few shops, or as just an isolated parcel where most of the businesses end up being franchises and people drive out to visit other places rather than shopping nearby. In the prairies, these developments build over wetlands on the outskirts where land is cheapest and it's all boilerplate garbage that the developer has decided in advance it's probably everything everyone needs. A sort of "This is where the houses go, this is where the commercial is, here's the rest of the city". Everything ends up looking pretty samey and dull.

In other cases, when it happens in a city, like in Burnaby or Oakridge, it ends up displacing in some way or another way more people than is necessary, because they have a grand vision to replace 10 blocks of housing or something.

zaptheimpaler• 2 years ago

I think you're basically describing a typical suburb and I agree those suck. However I live pretty close to the Jericho lands and there's plenty going on here. Both 4th & broadway are nearby with lots of shopping/dining etc. and there are big parks/beaches nearby. I think the neighbourhood will get even better with more residents.

brimwats2• 2 years ago

Yeah it's hardly an inactive place; I'm sure as the towers go up some of the single story houses will sell and Broadway will expand. Especially as the new skytrain stations go in

Manuel_D2• 2 years ago

This honestly sounds pretty chill to me. Having residential neighborhoods that are quieter, but still close to downtown and accessible on public transit, seems like a great situation for me. Not everyone wants to live in the hustle and bustle of downtown.

jmyeet• 2 years ago

Vancouver has sky high real estate prices, particularly in terms of local wages. There is limited land as Vancouver is locked between the ocean and mountains (and the border to the United States). But go look at any aerial view of Vancouver and you'll really see why.

Downtown is high-density. Across the water it's basically all single-family homes with astronomical prices and none of those people want higher-density development, for obvious reasons (ie it will lower prices).

This shouldn't be allowed to happen. This proposed development is on the other side of the water in what is otherwise SFH zoning. That's why some oppose it. NIMBYs strike again.

KWxIUElW8Xt0tD9• 2 years ago

There is a certain irony in these buildings not using indigenous construction techniques.

krapp• 2 years ago

No there isn't, any more than there's irony in white people not building thatch-roofed huts. Every culture evolves over time.

brink• 2 years ago

Not people's perceptions of said cultures. Africa is over 62% Christian as it stands today, and yet the Wakandans of hollywood practice ancestor worship (representing ~2% of Africa). There's irony wherever you look. We can't seem to move past the past when it comes to minorities.

bitwize2• 2 years ago

Indigenous ways aren't incompatible with modern technology. Matter of fact, when settlers came from Europe with muskets, the indigenous people whom they encountered immediately wanted them, and soon developed particular tastes (flintlocks were good; matchlocks produced too much smoke before firing which would give away your position on a hunt or ambush).

ximus• 2 years ago

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society.

However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have observed a concerning aspect of this re-integration, which is mentioned in the article: First nations aren't just propped back up and re-integrated in society, it goes further in that they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to. In this case it is exemption from zoning laws, but all over the country it's access to mining, lumber and fishing rights. They are exempted from federal quotas on fishing, cutting forests, etc ...

On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others. But on more practical grounds, this is creating a great big loophole for the traditional resource extraction companies to circumvent environment regulation by partnering with first nations on projects.

stonogo• 2 years ago

On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others.

Kind of the point here is that it was happening the other way for a couple hundred years, so just abrogating current inequality still leaves one party as a disadvantage. The hard part is deciding when these catch-up priveleges have run their course. Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status are still below the national average, it's clear we're not there just yet.

nickff• 2 years ago

Complicating this calculation is the way that the 'catch-up rights' are provided via tribal mechanisms, which incentivizes 'chiefs' and 'council members'/'elders' to prolong the inequality so that they can maintain their power & control.

e_i_pi_2• 2 years ago

This reminds me of the Malcolm X quote

If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.

smallmancontrov4• 2 years ago

So why not run programs along the lines of current economic status, which is relatively easy to objectively determine and relatively light on ethnic, racial, and national animus? It is impossible to do a good job of litigating history and it is guaranteed to make people hate each other.

Tiktaalik11• 2 years ago

There is no real special catch up going on here.

What is happening now is that First Nations have leveraged the courts to force a rule of law country like Canada to actually follow through on obeying the rule of law and following through with treaties they had signed and agreements they had made.

nikitaga9• 2 years ago

Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status are still below the national average, it's clear we're not there just yet.

Instead of rushing for race-based policies, how about implementing policies that would help all disadvantaged people equally without looking at their race.

You can't compensate for past racism with modern racism. It will never end. Canada will learn that the hard way, it seems.

BigParm• 2 years ago

When the catch up is in the form of hiring quotas for a mining project on native lands, that’s just a consensual business deal and it’s positive.

But sometimes the situation is taken advantage of and the appeasement goes too far. Like instead of cutting firewood for the wood stove, you just throw all your furniture and cabinetry and doors in there. Then you just ask for new ones from a big company who just wants to quietly put this problem away without stirring up a fuss and risking their project or bigger costs later. That actually happened lol.

It’s not a race issue or a cultural issue. Natives are competent people. We may have different ancestral traditions, but we share exactly the same culture today. Where do you think the Canadian accent comes from? That’s a native accent. Our cultures mixed together.

If a business and a land owning band want to cut a deal, by all means. If the government and the bands want to settle land compensation, then settle it once and for all. It really just never ends as it stands. Like what does free post secondary have to do with land claims? It really looks like systemic racism.

And if the government was serious about any of this they’d give them autonomy in their lands. Statehood. That hasn’t happened. Why not? I get that you can’t sign over Vancouver because it’s been developed, but a lot of these places are in the bush.

It’s really a shit show. We’re not the rich country we once were. We can’t afford to pay billions forever on repeat just to make it go away for a little while. Settle it all immediately and make all races equal.

nvy• 2 years ago

But on more practical grounds, this is creating a great big loophole for the traditional resource extraction companies to circumvent environment regulation by partnering with first nations on projects.

There's a certain demographic that can't accept that indigenous people might not be nature-worshipping druids that never pollute and are infallible stewards of the land, so through that lens of course they don't need to be subject to environmental regulations.

elevaet• 2 years ago

That may be true, but fundamentally this is about autonomy. These Nations do not necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the National or Provincial government since they never ceeded their territory.

It's a bit of a grey area for sure, but this isn't about "giving the people of the forest" stewardship of the land in order for them to protect it, it's recognizing that they didn't sign up to be governed under the nation/province.

Tiktaalik11• 2 years ago

they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others

The reason for this is because they are using their rights from signed treaties that define how resources are used on their lands.

Persons that are part of First Nations like the Squamish and the Haida are not just "some citizens" of Canada but rather part of Nations that have their own governance and jurisdiction. Nations that have signed government to government treaties with Canada that clearly define their rights and jurisdiction.

And in many cases in BC in particular, treaties were never signed, and First Nations never ceded their lands and title, so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. These First Nations continue to rack up wins in the courts that continue to side with the FNs that their title to their lands has never been extinguished.

trhway• 2 years ago

The story shows one of the facets of the value of sovereignty what countries and nations have over the history been fighting for. In this case the indigenous people invested into their sovereignty countless lives and suffering, and 2 centuries later it starts to pay off (similar to many other countries/nations in today's world who had been fighting for their freedom for decades and centuries until finally achieving it).

nightowl_games3• 2 years ago

power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada.

Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada?

Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

bawolff7• 2 years ago

so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada

Not that i think this is a good thing, but arguably since this is all pre world war 2, wouldn't the land, in absence of a treaty, be british by right of conquest? Like its a pretty recent development in international law that you actually have to get the other side to ceed land. Most of history was brutal and violent with might makes right.

amackera• 2 years ago

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?

gotoeleven• 2 years ago

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

somedude895• 2 years ago

Times have changed and these peoples don't live the romanticized lifestyles of the olden times anymore. For the most part, they're just as modern and profit-seeking as any other group of Canadians. If you allow them to not have to adhere to Canadian law, you have a group of people that enjoy all the benefits and none of the restrictions of the country they live in. If you argue for sovereign rights, they should have their own separate countries, so they have to deal with any imbalances or environmental issues they create themselves.

piuantiderp• 2 years ago

What are you going to do? It's an aristocracy, very difficult to remove short of revolution.

rory• 2 years ago

I wonder if a more workable arrangement would stipulate that indigenous people are exempt from these regulations only when the work and management of a project is also designed and implemented by Indigenous people.

That would seemingly circumvent this loophole where a large, private corporation run by white canadians effectively uses the indigenous people as a loophole, cutting them in to circumvent regulations.

Wouldn't really help e.g. overfishing issues but seems directionally better.

LegibleCrimson• 2 years ago

Would be pretty easy for a motivated corporation to set up a branch composed entirely of those indigenous people for the purpose, or to form a partnership with a company of those indigenous people.

FpUser4• 2 years ago

"On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others."

They did not ask to be a citizens of Canada. They were invaded, conquered, killed and actively suppressed. Mistreatment still continues. How's that for moral grounds?

typewithrhythm• 2 years ago

Morality really only has relevance to an individual. Was it moral to invade Canada? No, at least not under contemporary morality.

Is it moral to give a random subset of people special rights in modern Canada? Is a seperate question, that has nothing to do with historical treatment.

My take is that the current government does not adequately represent several groups in Canada, and the best solution would be to allow for separatist actions as a fundamental human right.

layer8• 2 years ago

Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada. Nobody born to poor parents was asked to be born poor. Just treat everyone equally based on their own actions and merits, and their actual individual circumstances, not based on their broad ancestry.

Manuel_D2• 2 years ago

By that logic, neither did New Yorkers. New York was largely Loyalist during the American Revolution.

lm4112• 2 years ago

2024 Canada is an absurd time and place to be alive.

Canada 2024: - Universities have "Black only" swim hours and segregated "Person of Colour" buildings - "no whites allowed". - Indigenous people get special treatment by courts (the courts were literally instructed not to hold them to the same standards as others) - The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women - Land acknowledgements... Everywhere. What a waste of time and resources that accomplishes nothing - (Of course, if we keep saying we stole their land -- they are going to want it back - and this is what we see in the courts) - And this is just scratching the surface of whats happening

My wife works for a government organization, and even their internal emails have land acknowledgements in them. She has to take 1-2 days of DEI training per month.

... I could go on for hours. After living in various countries over the last ~15 years, moving back to Canada has turned out to be one of the worst choices I've ever made. And I'm at least lucky enough to be able to afford a house here.

This country is imploding.

astrange7• 2 years ago

Canada did steal their land though, and then ruined it with NIMBYism. Now as you can see, they're fixing it.

barbazoo• 2 years ago

What a strange view to call this an "absurd time and place to be alive" and that the "country is imploding". Lots here needs sources as it's hard to verify or taken out of context.

Land acknowledgements... Everywhere

No they're not. They're heavily used within the government but in the private sector I have never experienced anyone doing a land acknowledgement.

My wife works for a government organization, and even their internal emails have land acknowledgements in them. She has to take 1-2 days of DEI training per month.

Since I also have a partner working for a government organization and they don't have to do anything even remotely close to "1-2 days of DEI training per month" so this doesn't seem to be universally true.

The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women

Are you referring to the couple of times the supreme court has used that term? At least one of which dealt with sexual assault. You make it sound like courts universally use that term - that is false.

ecoquant• 2 years ago

I have spent so much time in Canada and it is just unbelievable watching the country go more and more insane.

What I have read about the Harms act is so bat shit crazy that it is hard to believe it can be real. Then looking at polling on support of the bill it seems like that is what Canadians want.

I actually didn't know there are buildings that say "no whites allowed". How incredibly disturbing. All while electing a leader with multiple pictures in black face.

dflock• 2 years ago

They're the rag tag survivors of genocide, perpetrated by white settlers, over the past 200 yrs.

Giving them a tiny fraction of their ancestral fishing rights back, now w that we've severely degraded the ecosystems they call home, is literally the least we can do.

renewiltord2• 2 years ago

This is good. First Nations people showing us how it's done. Good for them.

Tiktaalik11• 2 years ago

The housing itself is badly needed and I'm looking forward to that, but beyond that, as an appreciator of NW Coast Indigenous art, I'm looking forward to the public realm art. This is a fantastic opportunity for the Squamish and other MST nations to showcase art from their best and from young emerging artists in their community.

bitwize2• 2 years ago

Good. Do it. Let's see what they build.

I lived in Connecticut when the Mashantucket Pequot tribe successfully sued for the right to build casinos on their land, resulting in Foxwoods, the first of many casino developments on Native land from coast to coast. It was all over the news. Today, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are tourist attractions, and the casinos create jobs in Native communities and bring in buttloads of money.

Personally, I hate casinos. I'm not too fond of high rises either. But if Native American and First Nations people are doing things with their land that bring autonomy and benefits to their community, we'd be stupid to object -- and that's before bringing up the treaty violations.

Joel_Mckay• 2 years ago

Good to see a competition for who can sell out to foreign investors first.

57% of Vancouver are renters, and 98.3% of property is mortgaged... a disaster waiting to happen.... lol =)

Tade0• 2 years ago

6000 apartments on 10 acres translates to a population density of 150k/km assuming there's just one person living in each.

With three people per apartment you could pack the city of Lyon into little more than a square kilometre.

anigbrowl2• 2 years ago

Off topic remark on the story drafting...

Sen̓áḵw

How is anyone supposed to pronounce this if they're not from Vancouver and haven't been exposed to indigenous culture there? You'd think they'd include an English approximation or a link to an audio recording. I don't think the average person has the time or energy to resolve 3 stacked diacriticals and a consonant juxtaposition.

brailsafe5• 2 years ago

How is anyone supposed to pronounce this if they're not from Vancouver and haven't been exposed to indigenous culture there?

Same way they do anywhere that isn't English first if it's relevant to them, learn.

I'm not so familiar with the language yet, but here's what seems to be a start https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/signs-along-...

anigbrowl2• 2 years ago

If only people would read to the end before reacting.

I have no plans to ever visit Vancouver or indeed Canada; I'm interested in how the word is pronounced for the purpose of reading the article. It's not worth it to me to spend half an hour figuring out the pronunciation of a single word. I'm already multilingual and familiar with a range of diacritical marks; it might take other people much longer to put it together. That's why it would make sense for the writers of an English-language article to provide some sort of pronunciation pointer.

Aloisius2• 2 years ago

I had to look it up. It sounds like snawk'w.

diebeforei485• 2 years ago

This is awesome. For what it's worth, it should also be allowed to build more housing even on non-Indigenous land.

sandspar• 2 years ago

There's no amenities in that neighborhood besides a quiet 4 lane street with some burger places on it. The beach is close by but there's just not that much room to build stuff for all these people to do. It'll be a boring place to live. Vancouver's walkable but the nearest main area is a twenty minute walk up the hill in one way, or a twenty minute walk across a noisy bridge the other way. If you know Vancouver you know that a twenty minute walk to get anywhere is significant. Unrelated, but a mildly interesting tidbit is that this development will be across the street from Lululemon's headquarters.

Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

Related Stories