Density Is Not The Boogieman

Individual Submission
Bowen Island Official Community Plan Update Committee

February 28, 2010

Dear Members of the Committee:

My name is James Glave and I’m a father of two. Ours is a young commuter family, and my wife and I actively participate in many aspects of island life. I love this place, and I am proud to call it home.

My personal passion is climate change solutions, and the transportation, energy, and land-use strategies that have been shown to reduce per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions here in our region and around the world. We can talk about any number of issues, but in my mind, carbon is the ultimate deal-breaker. We simply don’t have an option other than finding ways to slash the stuff from our lives and community. If we don’t “act locally” on this “global” issue, it will eventually come home to our doorstop and find us where we live anyway.

The science suggests that climate change will, in the near-term, overwhelm our first responders and social services, exhaust our municipal budget, and place hardship on our population via skyrocketing food prices. In the long term (which is what community planning is all about, right?)  it will ultimately result in waves of climate refugees flooding into Canada, and ultimately our community. This is not chicken-little stuff, it is exhaustively documented in reports by The Global Humanitarian Forum, the World Health Organization, Oxfam, and many other public agencies and non-government organizations.

Climate change is not an “environmental” issue, it is a civilization challenge. I believe we have a profound moral obligation to address it, wherever we live. I personally believe that we do not get an excuse or “opt out” pass to address climate just because we choose to live in a beautiful place that is “seen to be rural,” where fawns dance at the roadside and salmon thrash in the lagoon. We are not entitled to an exemption because we are surrounded by great natural beauty. This is not just “China’s problem.” We should see our emissions as an opportunity to lead, not barely squeak through our statutory obligations and hope nobody is noticing. That’s how we are not dealing with it now.

The solutions are out there. In our case, the leading sources of carbon are all transportation related, and the best answer to lessening all this running all over the place boils down to snuggling up a little closer to one another. Sorry, I know many of us still don’t want to hear it, but it’s density, and a more complete community — and all the wonderful side benefits that thankfully come with it.

On nearby Saltspring Island, sustainable development consulting firm HB Lanarc recently modeled two settlement-pattern options for that community’s OCP Update. The firm found that a “hamlets” approach — scattering the inevitable population growth widely, with very low density — reduced per capita CO2e by 7 percent. But by clustering growth into two distinct villages, the island would realize a 22 percent reduction. Other peer-reviewed data shows that low-density development is 2 to 2.5 times more carbon-intensive than high density development. A back-of-the-envelope calculation of our carbon-neutrality prepared by Alan Whitehead in 2008 suggests we are not even close, and getting farther and farther from that goal.

A common misconception exists in this community that increased clustering or housing density will result in more trees being cut. This is a fallacy based on a fear of perceived urbanization that will never really be a threat to this island. Clustering housing units in one corner of a large tract of land means fewer roads, fewer driveways, and fewer parking areas than would occur — and by extension less logging — than if one were to spread those units out over “rural” five or 10 acre lots. It means less public cost burden for the infrastructure that goes with it, namely electricity lines, waste and storm-water handling, snow removal, road maintenance, and so on. Especially when done in brownfield areas like the burned out lots and endless expanses of asphalt in our village, clustering means FEWER trees cut, not more.

More compact and clustered neighborhoods enable car-sharing, make transit more viable, and allow for district-energy production. Studies show that mixed-use developments create stronger communities and improve quality of life. But more to the point, they support walking and cycling instead of driving. If you want to talk about the cultural and community-building benefits of clustered housing, I invite you to visit Bowen Island’s Deep Bay neighborhood on any given Halloween. It’s pretty much fruitless to try and trick-or-treat anywhere else.

Yet density remains the boogieman for much of Bowen Island. A fear suffuses this community that density = more “developers paving paradise”  = “urban alienation” = the end of singing frogs and farm-fresh eggs from the good folks next door. This is an argument rooted in fear, often advanced by those who would prefer we retain a kind of cottage country identity. The evidence on the ground does not support this. Many in this community see positive and necessary changes to our living habits, our ways, our thinking, as a threat. I see threats if we don’t start to talk about them.

I’m not advocating for growth, but for the best and most responsible way to deal with the growth that is already occurring, without losing our island identity. We are poised on the doorstop of one of the world’s great cities, and that city is getting closer all the time. Pressure for growth will not relent, and raising the drawbridge via large-lot zoning — hiding and hoping nobody will notice us — is not an effective response. It simply increases the output of the gases that cause dangerous climate change. It decreases affordability and erodes community. It deepens vehicle dependency and increases risk of childhood obesity. We are witnessing the collapse of this worldview — this way of life — to the south of us, in the United States, every day. We have fewer ticky-tacky tract homes here in Howe Sound, but when you squint your eyes, the commuter-driven suburban land-use pattern is much the same. Why is it so hard for us to imagine another way? Why must we see proven solutions as threats? Why can’t we be a leader, and show the world what a small, resource-challenged community can do?

I advocate for increases in density in a revitalized village because it is the most responsible and sensible way to manage growth, reduce emissions, strengthen community, improve public health, and yes, protect the ecosystems and tree cover that will continue to remain critical for carbon sequestration in the coming years.

I would enthusiastically support a municipally led, professionally moderated comprehensive Snug Cove planning process — inside the umbrella of the OCP update. A series of workshops, online and offline, might outline our situation, our vulnerabilities, our obligations, and yes, our opportunities. It would outline the various professionally produced Snug Cove village plans already on the books, challenge us to think big and long-term, and ask ALL the citizens of this island: What kind of a future do you want? Because mine not only includes a healthy and active population representing many ages, incomes, lifestyles, and gifts–but also plenty of trees, singing frogs, and fresh eggs from the good folks next door, far into the future.

–James Glave

*

Do you live on Bowen Island? Share your own perspective with the OCP Update Committee right here.