Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
contradictory visions of the city. Repeating the dualism of the City's 1986
report, one side endorsed the collapsing of barriers to growth, while the
other maintained a more complex quality of life through social and environ-
mental objectives limiting wide-open economic liberalism.
The issues were not felt in the City alone but also in the suburbs, for sharp
conflicts opposing development had occurred in the large municipalities of
Richmond, Delta and Surrey. Anti-growth movements contested the 1990
elections and made breakthroughs in Delta and Richmond, where a right-
wing tradition in provincial and federal politics was jettisoned and a strong
majority of eight out of nine New Democrats, affiliated with slow growth,
were elected to office. In Vancouver, where the pro-growth party had returned
to power in 1986, a difficult fight with the left was expected. Jim Green, the
left's candidate for Mayor was widely known and respected as a community
organizer in the Downtown Eastside, the City's poorest and most deeply
troubled neighbourhood. An opponent of gentrification and displacement,
he was the perfect representative for anti-development voters. His clever
election slogan, 'The Neighbourhood Green', evoked two issues that had
carried reform groups to electoral success in the 1970s: protection of the
environment and a small is beautiful defence of neighbourhoods. Green's
attempts to bolster local defences against development threats ran counter
to his competitor, the pro-growth incumbent, Gordon Campbell. A busi-
nessman, articulate, well educated and cosmopolitan, Campbell epitomized
the free market internationalisation of the world city.
The election campaign was framed around development and housing
affordability, and momentum appeared to be running in Green's favour.
Then shortly before the election, a series of articles on development
appeared in the daily newspaper, the Vancouver Sun . Edited by two Professors
of Planning at the University of British Columbia, the full-page articles gave
the impression of carrying forward the growth debate initiated by Erickson.
With the eye-catching title, ' Future Growth, Future Shock ' the series was pre-
sented as dispassionately pursuing a broad public interest. But a consistent
editorial line became evident for seemingly well-informed spokespersons
were clearly speaking from the same page, making the case for open bor-
ders, population growth and globalization while advocating rational plan-
ning approaches to manage inevitable growth and development. Resistance
was refuted as self-interested NIMBY-ism and an immature failure to ride
the tide of history. While not acknowledged nor apparent at the time, the
series was a premeditated attempt to establish ideological supremacy and
sway the election. In a later interview, Alan Artibise the Planning professor
who directed the series, admitted that the two academics had been commis-
sioned on a contract basis by the development industry (Mitchell 1996,
2004). The series, Artibise told Mitchell, was a 'calculated attempt to change
an ideology' (Mitchell 2004: 134).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search