Skip to content

Spacing

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered

Architecture

Downtown in Transition: An Interview with Sean Bailey

By

Read more articles by

Granville Street at Robson Street. Phot by Matt Taylor, courtesy of DT Van

As downtowns adapt to shifting work patterns and rising public expectations, planners and designers are being challenged to think beyond traditional models. The future of these spaces is uncertain, but that uncertainty creates room for new ideas. Adding to the latter, in the wake of the pandemic, cities are rethinking what downtowns should do—and who they should serve.

To explore these tensions and possibilities, Spacing Vancouver Editor-in-Chief Erick Villagomez sat down with Sean Bailey of Downtown Van Business Improvement Association (DT Van) to discuss the evolving role of downtowns, the rise of hybrid work, and how cities can better support thriving, equitable urban cores. From cultural activation and economic data to reflections on planning models like the 15-minute city, the conversation touches on the big ideas shaping Vancouver’s future—and downtowns more broadly. While Sean speaks from his position at DT Van, the views expressed are his own. 

EV: Thank you so much for joining me, Sean. I’ve been looking forward to this chat for a while now. But, as I usually do to kick off an interview, do you mind sharing some information about yourself and your background, for those who might not know you?

SB: Thanks for having me. Excited for the discussion. For a little over three years now, I’ve been working for the Downtown Vancouver BIA (Downtown Van). Primarily, I research the conditions of downtown and communicate findings to the community. My work helps inform decision-making and priorities for our organization.

I’m originally from the US and moved to Vancouver to attend UBC, where I received my Master’s in Community and Regional Planning. Before moving to Vancouver, I had studied a mix of urban planning and philosophy at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I did some work in community development, researching housing conditions of urban core neighbourhoods, as well as local business support programs.

Through all of that, I had developed a knack for community research and evidence-based approaches. Throughout those years, I had also worked in theatre production. Working in an artistic field, particularly one that is so collaborative, helped me further gain a sense of what helps and what hinders community flourishing. And all of this, functionally, led me to Vancouver, pursuing further education in planning.

But what motivates me along the way doesn’t come from a professional lens, but rather a more transcendent connection between the life of cities and the life of humans. I’ve always been drawn toward how the urban environment and connection to community influence one’s sense of being. This has certainly been the case for me at least. Fundamentally, I want to help people love their city. When you love your city, it opens up opportunities to create meaning.

EV: Wow…you’re truly a person of diverse talents and skills…including theatre production, as well! Amazing. (laugh) You humbly underplayed an important detail, though: that one of the key roles you play at Downtown Van is putting together the annual State of Downtown report! (laugh).  Do you mind describing that a little?

SB: Yes, every year our BIA puts together the State of Downtown report as our flagship publication. The 2025 edition was just launched last week. It’s a really comprehensive look at where downtown is at, and we try to make it a valuable resource for all different kinds of audiences. It covers everything from development to downtown foot traffic.

Every year I try to find a story that hasn’t been told before. For instance, this year we will be including some brand new data that examines the real, on-the-ground impact of major events, which has become especially prominent for Vancouver as we lead up to the World Cup.

I’ve been really lucky to work on this kind of research during a time when downtowns in North America have seen a remarkable change as a result of the pandemic. And our data and research allow us to be one of the leaders in telling the story of downtowns and their post-pandemic evolution.

EV: I’ve followed the State of Downtown for years, and I have to say that you’ve done a great job of telling interesting stories from data you gather. I’m really looking forward to the next one given the connection to the impact of some of the local major events. Hopefully, we’ll catch a glimpse of the impact of Taylor Swift’s recent visit to see if all the rumours about the economic impacts are true. (smile)

Now, you’ve brought up COVID, and I want to talk about this. But first, correct me if I’m wrong…from what I understand, the State of Downtown report and the data you gather is unique to the DTVan BIA. Is this true? I would think this type of information would be valuable for all the Business Improvement Associations to have and share.

SB: You’re right! We purchase data from various providers so that we can look specifically at our BIA district. BIAs are funded through a tax levy from commercial properties in their district. We’re lucky to have a large budget that allows us access data like this.

I do think that it would be super valuable for all BIAs to have the same access to data that we have, but smaller BIAs haven’t been able to afford data to the extent downtown can. I hope eventually something can be arranged that will help other Vancouver BIAs to get the same data. This will help not only the BIAs, but it will also help Downtown Van be able to benchmark itself to other communities. Moreover, this insight into hyper-local economies can help inform citywide decisions.

EV: Do you know whether surrounding cities collect similar data? And if so, is it shared across municipalities? This would allow for regional decisions about hyper-local economies that I would think are quite interesting and important.

SB: Not to any comprehensive extent that I’m aware of. Some BIAs in Canada have gotten some similar visitor data that we have, and others have gotten spending data. Gastown bought some spending data to try to measure the success of the Water Street pedestrian pilot.

The City of Vancouver has put together some good reports for BIAs on storefront vacancy. But our goal has always been to get as holistic a view as possible about our community. And frankly, the State of Downtown and our economic dashboard is just a glance at the kind of insight we are able to collect to inform our decision-making.

For instance, we know that 13%-18% of people that go to a Canucks game end up on Granville Street at some point that night. More importantly, our data shows that these visitors are a different demographic that doesn’t typically visit Granville Street or come downtown. This helps us understand the impact that Canucks games have.

To your question about sharing across municipalities, the answer is no. But you’re right: If every community had the same kind of data you find on our dashboard, all sorts of new conversations would occur.

EV: So interesting. It’s amazing how detailed that information is. I love data and uncovering hidden patterns, as you know, so I could honestly spend the next two hours burrowing into some of the cool and quirky stuff you’ve discovered…(laugh)…but let’s focus a little.

A big question on people’s minds is the effect of the pandemic on the downtown core.  I’m sure this is a loaded topic, but can you enlighten us a bit about how it has transformed—or not—since the lockdown?

SB: It certainly is a loaded topic, but one I enjoy entertaining. Where do I even begin? This has been a super interesting time to be examining downtowns. At the beginning of the pandemic, downtown Vancouver foot traffic dropped by as much as 71%, and across North America, there were claims that the pandemic and people working from home would be the death of downtowns.

However, this was just a typically premature urban doom loop narrative that downtowns have been the centerpiece of before. Those who peddled this narrative often dismissed the importance of how differing local contexts contributed to how the pandemic impacted certain downtowns. That’s to say, not all downtowns are the same.

They also often ignored how resilient communities have been in response to times of crisis. In fact, this resiliency is the basis for why cities exist in the first place — they are a byproduct of the human trait of cooperation and shared intentionality as a means of survival.

Don’t get me wrong, the pandemic placed downtowns into a unique existential crisis. The social distancing measures and the subsequent work-from-home culture shift changed the way people used their cities effectively overnight. So much of downtown Vancouver depended on the Monday through Friday commute. Consider, for instance, that there are dozens of cafes and restaurants and, thus, hundreds of jobs in the central business district that rely mostly on the office lunch crowd. Maintaining enough revenue to keep the lights on was no walk in the park for food and beverage businesses even before the pandemic, and became nearly impossible during it.

Over the pandemic, everyone was anxious about how downtown Vancouver would recover. With so many office spaces sitting empty, there was concern that the central business district would no longer be sustainable. Consider how important these properties are to the City’s revenue.

There was concern that all the storefront business closures would lead to dead streetscapes. Additionally, there was concern that downtown’s cultural institutions wouldn’t be able to succeed when Vancouver’s residents were more hesitant to come downtown. Safety concerns also grew, as workers, visitors, and nearby residents continually expressed their frustration with not being able to feel secure when they came downtown. All of these factors had an interwoven effect on each other.

EV: Everything is entangled, for sure.

SB: Now, as I look at where downtown Vancouver is five years later, very little has fundamentally changed about the role that it plays in this region. It remains the economic centre of British Columbia and a cultural centre for Vancouver. Nonetheless, here are some important things I want to highlight about what I have observed through the lens of downtowns.

First, visits to downtown Vancouver remain slightly below pre-pandemic volumes for the most part. One of the findings in our latest report is that downtown actually saw a decline in annual visits for the first time since the pandemic in 2024. Our post-pandemic recovery period has ended.

However, this benchmark is no longer all that valuable to me as it’s almost arbitrary at this point. 2019 wasn’t exactly a boom time for downtown anyway. I care less about how many people come downtown and more about why they come downtown and what their experience is like.

A successful downtown in the post-pandemic world is where visits happen as a result of people’s desire to interact and collaborate. This perspective has a lot of implications for office spaces and the kind of work that can happen there. 

Additionally, downtown needs to invest heavily in its role as an entertainment and cultural centre. That’s why the ongoing Granville Plan must reflect the kind of entertainment and cultural experiences Vancouverites are looking for.

Second, we should learn from the work-from-home phenomenon and not simply downplay it as a passing operational/HR phase. If we are honest, most people come downtown Monday through Friday because they have to, not because they want to. And if we are more honest, a large portion of office jobs and their environments just straight up suck.

EV:…very true. (laugh)

SB: So, when given the opportunity to work from home, it should be no surprise that this was refreshing for a lot of people. This highlights the nature of labour in contemporary society. I’ve wasted time thinking of how Karl Marx might have reacted to the phenomenon of remote work. As in, some workers have become so isolated from the product of their labour that they don’t even need to show up to produce it. If your work can be done from virtually anywhere, you might as well be nowhere. Don’t worry, that’s the last I’ll mention Marx. (smile)

EV: (laugh)

SB: Practically, I’m supportive of the “hybrid” work culture that has emerged. People remained working at home for so long partly because the idea of working at the same dull office five days a week was so unattractive. Equally, being stuck in your home five days a week got equally dull. A balance of both can, I believe, help improve people’s perception of their visits to downtown and prevent them from retreating further into the isolated realm of “non-place”.

Third, the past five years have really highlighted a handful of major strengths of downtown Vancouver for me. I’ll name a couple for now. First, downtown is the most densely populated downtown in Canada. This slightly offset the major impact that people not going to the office had on the area. With so many residents in and around downtown, it allows us to look at improvements to downtown in the same way we would look at any healthy community.

Also, downtown is aided by strong connections to the rest of the city and region through transit. Seeing as there are still a lot of ways in which these connections can improve, transit will be a driver for downtown’s continued success. That’s why ensuring a sustainable financial model for TransLink is vital.

The last big thing I’ve noticed is that the concern over safety downtown is legitimate, even if it is sometimes exaggerated due to either lazy, sensationalized journalism or a lack of perspective. The perception of danger downtown is, without a doubt, rooted in people’s encounters with individuals experiencing mental health and substance addiction. Real progress in addressing the humanitarian crisis of drug addiction has to happen, otherwise, any future success that downtown or this city might experience will be undermined by our society’s inability to care for people who need help.

EV: Wow…there’s a lot to unpack. Where to begin? Let’s start with the shift to a hybrid work culture. This seems to be a fundamental shift in how we culturally imagine “downtowns”—that is, as places dedicated primarily to “work.” Do you mind elaborating on this a bit more?

SB: Many believed that downtowns in their traditional sense would no longer be sustainable once people started to work from home during the pandemic, and I agree that this period created an opportunity to examine the role of downtowns and central business districts and the office in general.  Some cities have considered office-to-residential conversions while others, like Vancouver, are taking the opportunity to improve the cultural and entertainment role of downtown. There are also a couple of examples here of office buildings being converted to hotels, helping the city address its accommodation shortage.

One thing we have learned is that it isn’t the offices themselves that are the problem, but rather, the work going on in the offices. If every office space in downtown Vancouver were occupied by a medical lab, then the offices would have been full a lot sooner. Some research has shown that downtowns with a higher concentration of tech and professional services companies have tended to be slower to recover to pre-pandemic foot traffic levels, as this type of work can more likely be done at home. Downtowns with a more diverse industry mix tended to recover quickly.

In 2025, the hybrid work model is still prominent, yet some offices have transitioned back to five days of in-office work. Even if hybrid work is here to stay, I don’t believe it necessarily has to be detrimental to downtown. For a lot of people, commuting for an hour every day to a stuffy office isn’t an appealing lifestyle, but at the same time, working every day from your own home has similar downsides. Data shows that Canadians have become lonelier and more disconnected in the past five years or so. 

A successful downtown should reward people’s desire to interact and collaborate, while not becoming a symbol of one’s isolation and lack of agency. Downtown Vancouver needs to continue to find ways to offer unique and diverse experiences that make each visit meaningful and not just part of the grind.

EV: I find this idea of downtowns offering “experiential packages” that complement work very interesting. Have you seen the growth of unique, diverse experiences happening as a result of the hybrid culture shift? If so, can you share some examples that you find meaningful? If not, what types of experiences do you think would fit the bill?

SB: We are seeing that more and more commercial property owners are looking to invest in the communal spaces of their properties. These could be amenities inside their buildings, but we’ve also seen more investment in the outdoor spaces of these properties. Some, for example, have organized pop-up markets and or themed events around a holiday. Within the central business district, true public space is limited, so having the privately owned open spaces be more inviting is important for the lived experience of people coming downtown. It’s good to see that these are being viewed as worthy investments for property owners and managers.

Downtown Van has been playing its part as well. We’ve organized and sponsored several events that aim to keep people lingering and engaged while downtown. Our Summer Movie Nights and Granville Block Party have been extremely successful over the past few years or so. When people experience these well-produced, free events, it goes a long way in changing the narrative of what downtown can be for people.

These kinds of events and interventions can be extremely expensive to pull off. What Downtown Van and other organizers have found is that the City could do a lot to help make great public events more viable. Licensing and permitting is a major barrier to a lot of groups trying to bring creative and impactful ideas downtown. This has been a key area of advocacy for Downtown Van. For instance, temporary structures such as a tent or a lone shipping container are often subject to building codes, creating time-consuming and costly steps for organizers.

EV: You’re on point. Permitting and regulatory processes are a huge barrier locally. Yet, many other cities around the world seem to be able to activate the public realm very easily for all types of events. One doesn’t even have to look outside Canada to find examples. Every time I go to Montreal, for example, there seems to be a series of public spaces events happening, no matter what season. Has DT Van done some research on the policies of other cities—or lack thereof—that make this possible? And if so, which ones do you think are low-hanging fruit in terms of policy changes here?

SB: I suppose I feel comfortable speaking for my placemaking colleagues by saying there is no such thing as low-hanging fruit when it comes to these kinds of things. There is a reason other cities just feel different in this regard. In the past few years, city staff have engaged a lot with our BIA on removing barriers for public realm interventions. I imagine that there are a number of ways that staff would like to streamline and improve processes overnight, but they are at the mercy of deep-seated bureaucracy and have to balance priorities.

One way we could see improvement is by establishing some “templates” for public realm activities that allow certain steps to be bypassed and help make the process and outcomes more predictable for the organizers and the community. For instance, if you want to organize an event with a stage outside of the Vancouver Art Gallery, there could be a pre-existing, pre-approved stage setup for that. This fits broadly under the need for more direct place management services for areas where Vancouver wants more public realm activity.

One success story is how the city moved things along during the pandemic so restaurants could have curbside patios during the summer. This program has continued and evolved over the years through business engagement.

There was a lot to learn from the Water Street Pedestrian Zone pilot from last summer as well. City staff had to act quickly to pull it off, helping to identify bottlenecks along the way. It has been scaled back to just weekends this summer, though, making it more difficult to build off lessons learned. So, despite a lot of hard work being put into a measurably successful first go at it, it seems it might have been the victim of Vancouver’s lingering propensity for mediocrity. Yet, I’m hopeful there will be fewer and fewer victims of this because there are a lot of champions for this kind of work here.

EV: I think many would agree with your statement about the City’s lingering propensity for mediocrity (laugh). And it’s a shame that, despite its successes, the Water Street Pilot has been scaled back. I knew several people who worked hard within the City to pull it off. Sad.

I’d like to step back a bit and look at downtown Vancouver at the regional level. You mentioned its importance as an entertainment and cultural centre. I assume that you’re referring to it at the regional scale, correct? And if so, how do the other metrics compare regionally? For example, other local cities have their own “downtowns” that attract workers, etc. In aggregate, I would assume that although downtown Vancouver is the largest single work node, in aggregate, the surrounding cities trump Vancouver. There are a lot of jobs outside the city boundaries, after all.

SB: I can give a bit of context to this. The downtown peninsula contains roughly 40% of the city’s jobs while taking up only 5% of the land. Regionally, it makes up about 15% of all jobs. The Vancouver Plan identified the need to distribute more job space elsewhere in the city and we are starting to see that come to fruition in the Broadway Plan where Central Broadway is set to see considerable growth in office space, though right now it is the second largest job centre but makes up only 16% of the city’s jobs.

However, there is 1.7 million SF of office space in the pipeline within the Broadway Plan area. And I should also mention Surrey will be adding considerable job space as well.

I certainly think distributing the job space in other areas is appropriate given how and where the region has grown. Yet, downtown will still have the highest job density by far and has by no means maxed out in terms of future growth.

As for downtown’s entertainment role, the ongoing Granville Plan represents an important commitment to expanding the area’s role as the nightlife and entertainment centre of the region.

EV: I’m glad that you brought up Broadway Plan and put some numbers to it since so many people have been calling it “Downtown 2.0” without actually defining what that means…and by the sounds of it, it will be a far cry from a true “downtown 2.0” in terms of job density.

Now, I may be overthinking things, but there seems to be a bit of a contradiction regarding the vast amount of office space proposed for the Broadway Plan and what you mentioned earlier about the increase of hybrid work format and that most work environments suck (laugh).

Is there truly an appetite for that amount of standard office space currently? What anticipated audience is this being created for? Do you think we should be considering other models of “work” spaces and different approaches to planning them in the city? Other cities like New York seem to be seeing the conversion of typical office spaces to other uses, for example. I’d love to know the logic behind the decision about the office space metrics for the Broadway Plan, if you have any insights.

SB: I would say that in the long term, the demand for additional office space will be there. Prior to the pandemic, downtown office vacancy was at an all-time low. In 2019, it got as low as 1.9% in the downtown BIA district, leaving little room to accommodate any job growth.

To address the tight market, downtown went through a major office development cycle between 2019 and 2024. In fact, the rise in office vacancy during the pandemic was more a result of downtown delivering new office space rather than tenants leaving. And the new office space has been attractive to new tenants.

So, despite the impact of the pandemic, we haven’t really seen a permanent mass exodus of office tenants that other cities might have seen.

Downtown Calgary has been a city that has pushed for converting office buildings to residential. But they are in a very different place than Vancouver. For one, they are looking to densify their downtown – something that downtown Vancouver has had for years. 

Also, downtown Calgary’s office vacancy is over 20% while downtown Vancouver has hovered around 10% in its post-pandemic peak.

It makes sense for Calgary to pursue conversions. In the case of Vancouver, converting office buildings would not be an efficient strategy to address the housing crisis, nor would it really be addressing an oversupply of office space.

As for office potential as a result of the Broadway Plan, again, I think the demand will be there over time. It might just take more time for that office space to be both delivered and filled than it might have if the pandemic hadn’t happened.

We continue to have a rapidly growing region and city. People will need places to work despite any persistence of hybrid work. Based on conversations I’ve had, new office space in Central Broadway will be attractive, particularly for tenants in the tech and innovation realm. Also, any company that benefits from easy access to UBC would be drawn to this area.

EV: It’s interesting that you mention the tech and innovation industries as being prime companies drawn to the “New Broadway Corridor” given their volatility. Vancouver has first-hand experience with this, having already seen the relatively recent failure of its False Creek Flats “Tech Hub.”

This brings to mind how difficult planning for work is in the contemporary world. I think one would be forgiven for having little faith in those people who are guessing what work industries will need over the next 5-10 years, let alone 30 years or more—the ‘planned’ build-out of the Broadway Plan. Think about how much “work” and commerce have changed over the past decade. In the face of online shopping, for example, many of the big retail stores are now steering in-person customers to their websites and are carrying limited stock in-house. Unimaginable even 10 years ago.

Office spaces have gone through their own radical revolution over the same time, with Canada’s own Tonya Surman revolutionizing the work environment in the first decade of the millennium.   

Needless to say, healthy skepticism may be warranted. The historical truism that rapid development is not necessarily a good thing also comes to mind, since it is less adaptable over time. Anyhow, I’m rambling. Have you received any information on how office and commercial spaces are changing? This would seem to be important information to plan for the future.

SB: I think there is still a lot of opportunity for the False Creek Flats and Mount Pleasant as employment areas. At the moment, the False Creek Flats might not necessarily resemble a fully fledged “hub” that we have in our minds when we think about innovation districts, but the False Creek Flats Plan was only approved in 2017. A major anchor of the area is the new St. Paul’s Hospital, which will be completed in 2027. There is a growing demand from the biotech and life sciences industries for space that will benefit from the proximity to the hospital and its connected Clinical Support and Research Centre. These are companies whose work relies heavily on in-person work at specialized facilities.

The institutions at the Great Northern Way Campus are another anchor of the area whose impact will continue to be more realized over time. The opportunities associated with the proximity to Emily Carr and the Centre for Digital Media influenced EA’s decision to expand its footprint and move into the former MEC headquarters.

EV: The new Skytrain stop there is also an addition to the area that, I’m sure, will have important implications for the area.

For sure. I’m also curious how the industrial and employment area in Mount Pleasant between Main and Cambie continues to evolve. The Broadway Plan retains and intensifies the area’s traditional ground-floor light and medium industrial role that we associate with it while intensifying the creative economy and innovation uses. When I look at the policy outlined in the plan for this zone, I see an area that will be quite diverse in its industry mix, which, as I mentioned earlier, should help it be resilient.

You’re definitely right, some healthy skepticism is warranted. The flip side of healthy skepticism is cautious optimism, and that is how I would describe the mindset of commercial development in Vancouver at the moment. In the long term, I think Vancouver will reach more of an equilibrium with its employment land.

As for the future of the workplaces themselves, companies have been seeking space in newer, higher-quality buildings. It is increasingly difficult to attract and retain talented employees, so companies are trying to gain any advantage they can to remain attractive employers. Office operators are also responding to this by emphasizing and expanding shared amenity space. I got a tour of The Stack building after it was completed, and a perfect example of this. People who know me know that I am no cyclist, but The Stack’s bike storage facility alone might motivate even me to start biking to work if my office were there. I might even end up spending as much time on a bike as you, Erick. [smile]

EV…[laugh]…I look forward to seeing you pull up beside me on your bike!

SB_To the extent to which offices are different going forward, I think it varies from industry to industry. That’s why it’s important for cities and downtowns to have a good mix of typologies to attract diverse industries.

Office space will emphasize the kind of face-to-face, collaborative work that can’t be achieved when working from home. In the same vein, co-working space will continue to be an attractive option for some. There is a theory that because remote work has become commonplace, small start-ups will delay investing in their own office space and stay in co-working spaces longer because they can still grow while maintaining flexibility. Shared space is a common feature of successful innovation hubs, too. The impact doesn’t come just from the space itself but from the shared machinery and fabrication labs that might be unattainable for early ventures and start-ups.

Again, I believe there is an equilibrium to be found. The needle completely shifted in one direction toward working entirely remotely during that pandemic, and it took a while for people to get used to that. Now, we are beginning to see a balance that will itself take time to adjust to.

EV_Now, you’ve touched on other “employment areas” and “hubs” in the area and I would love to have your take on something that has been on my mind for years: that is, whether the very idea of a single, significant “downtown” is still valid within the context of megacities and regions composed of many diverse, interacting and co-dependent “cities.”

So, many have argued convincingly that the very idea of a “downtown” is outdated and simply serves to create unnecessary hierarchies in urban form. Cities now have multiple “downtowns,” after all. What are your thoughts?

SB_I’ve been thinking a lot about that, too. In megacities, that singular downtown is certainly less relevant. In Toronto, the closest thing that Canada has to a megacity, we have seen this play out. While downtown Toronto remains the most significant employment “hub” for the region, places such as Mississauga and Vaughan are critical places of employment not just for Toronto, but for Canada as a whole.

It’s interesting to look at the various industry mix distributed throughout megacities. In New York, Midtown and Lower Manhattan have that concentration of global headquarters and finance, Brooklyn has a concentration of tech and creative industries, and The Bronx maintains a concentration of health sciences. 

Tokyo is certainly a region that might have a “downtown,” but there are several other major centers of employment. The most prominent, however, would be the Marunouchi Business District.

I recently had the pleasure of learning a bit about this area from a visiting professor here in Vancouver. What is important to note about this district is that during Japan’s economic downturn in the 90’s, Marunouchi was hit hard because it was entirely dependent on its role as an economic center. In response, the district evolved to be more diverse in its uses by investing in public space and retail.

In megacities or regions, it becomes necessary not to isolate employment in one district or downtown. However, the idea of clustering employment space in particular areas is still valuable. In a sense, that singular downtown is not sustainable but the downtown model is still relevant. That’s when we can get a sense of “multiple downtowns.”

In the case of Vancouver, it’s a far cry away from a megacity. However, as it continues to grow rapidly as a region, we will see a lot more office space in areas outside of downtown. This doesn’t mean that downtown Vancouver will become less relevant, but investment is needed in order to accommodate the growth it continues to experience.

Denver is a comparable city to Vancouver that has committed to improving its downtown to stay relevant as the region grows. This investment has led to great benefit for the city as a whole. Public space investments, industry attraction, and improving the lived experience of downtown residents all play a part in this. That is why I have a lot of confidence in downtown Vancouver during these challenging times. It has what most downtowns wish they had twenty years ago: a dense population of residents in walkable and liveable, albeit expensive, communities while maintaining a critical central business district.

EV_I appreciate the comparisons. This points to some of the seemingly irreconcilable tensions in planning today. The growth of initiatives such as “Complete Communities” and the “15-minute City” points to a decentralized model of urbanization where everything is nearby. The idea of “multiple downtowns,” as you say. And this is supported by countless historical examples across diverse cultures over centuries.

In contrast, the North American “downtown” model on which Vancouver is based is relatively recent—growing from car-culture and the ‘planned’ division of “working” and “living.” The detrimental impacts of this are evident. So, it’s interesting to reflect on these two models currently vying for dominance.

The history of “urban planning” is filled with many more failures than successes. To many, this points to the need to critically question the drive to continue the hierarchical “downtown” model. What are your thoughts on the push towards decentralized forms of urbanization?

SB: One of Vancouver’s next great opportunities is to continue towards more complete neighbourhoods throughout the city and to disrupt some of the strict hierarchies of the built form. Some neighborhoods here already offer the benefits of a complete community for its residents.

When I consider the 15-minute city, where my daily needs are all within a 15-minute walk/roll/bike from my home, there is a challenge when it comes to the work portion of live, work, play. I can sum up that challenge with this: Workers, by and large, have virtually no influence on where their employer chooses to locate. They will work where they can get a job.

So, at the risk of being overly hypothetical, let’s imagine that housing, services, recreation, employment, etc. were evenly distributed throughout Vancouver in a series of 15-minute communities. If I move into one of those neighborhoods, I’ll be thrilled to have my grocery store, dentist, community centre, neighbourhood park, and my triplet daughters’ school (since I’m being hypothetical) all within a 15-minute walk. But once it comes time to find a job, I probably won’t be so lucky.

I can choose to go to the closest community centre or pharmacy. I can’t necessarily choose where my employer is located. When you’re as unemployable as me, you can’t be picky, and in a tight housing market, I can’t exactly pick up and move a family once I get a new job in one of the other 15-minute neighborhoods.

Those in the industrial workforce would find it particularly difficult to live where they work, as well.

In this sense, some clustering of employment is beneficial. There is a predictability that comes with this that helps in planning for the future when we know that a significant portion of the population will use this area for work. The key is to keep ensuring that access to these employment clusters is increasingly accessible through transit. Through this, major office space hubs like downtown and Central Broadway can work well amongst a network of 15-minute villages.

Vancouver’s ongoing Villages Planning Program envisions several complete communities throughout much of the city. Job space will increase in these areas largely in the form of retail, restaurants, and services that fit in with the growing residential community.

However, when a major firm wants to expand into Vancouver and needs 85,000 SF of office space, I think they would find an employment centre, like downtown, more attractive for them than being located in one of a series of 15-minute neighbourhoods. Even with the persistence of hybrid work, we still see that industries like to be clustered together.

In a city like Vancouver, I think that a major downtown can work well in supporting the growth of 15-minute communities. After all, downtown itself is a big 15-minute community. Over time, more employment will spread throughout the region, but when I think of hierarchy, the persistence of single-family zoning in the region has done more harm than employment centres have to the equitable growth and sustainability of the city.

EV: You’re comments are certainly well taken: workers have little to no influence on where their employers are located, and the harms of single-family zoning have been clearly established. But there is also an interesting tension in what you’re describing. I’ll contextualize it with a city I know quite well and that I know you’ve visited recently—Barcelona.

One would be hard pressed to state that the city has a “downtown” in the strict North American sense. Its “Historic Centre” is just that, while its “Extension”—the Eixample—is completely mixed use across the board. In fact, both areas are. So, although people commute to and from work from different parts of the city, everything is quite “equitably” distributed. It was consciously designed as such. 

North American downtowns, on the other hand, are based on a strong hierarchy of use and privilege. This was disrupted momentarily by suburban flight, as we know, but the original condition is now clearly back in full force. Within Vancouver proper, pristine single-family zoning is virtually non-existent, and many have pointed out direct parallels between the destructive single-family areas and the towering “downtowns” sprouting up in cities where average households cannot afford to live because of this hierarchical model.

Others have also pointed out that this condition is being amplified by decisions supporting this model—including the location of transit lines and such—which locate themselves close to “downtowns” instead of thinking about a more equitable distribution of transportation and services.

SB_If I were to design a city from scratch, it would resemble something more like Barcelona than it would Vancouver due to the mixed-use and lower-rise high density you describe. The Eixample was designed in the 19th century with the equity you mentioned in mind, and Vancouver has a grid system that this model could fit into well. Yes, I would have hoped the Broadway Plan could have achieved something like that, but these things are often a matter of political will. That was one takeaway I have had from my visits to Barcelona. From the Eixample to the Superblocks, they speak about their city as if it were itself a social movement.

Barcelona’s design has helped it achieve a level of equity and inclusiveness in how people use it, but it still finds itself in a cost-of-living crisis as housing costs have skyrocketed in recent decades. You could argue that its thoughtful design partly contributed to the rising cost of living because it has helped it become such a desirable place to live and visit. The way that Barcelona has approached tackling affordability goes well beyond the physical design of the city, as you know. Rent control, public housing requirements, and short-term rental restrictions are being used to try to curb the trend.

Barcelona’s design does make it easier for the city to implement the 30% rule, where new developments over a certain size require 30% of the space to be dedicated to public housing. The design of The Eixample makes that kind of policy more predictable in theory. While I have a preference for the way that Barcelona is designed, and my wish would be that Vancouver could incorporate some of that sensibility in its neighbourhoods, there is still an opportunity independent of physical design for Vancouver to become more equitable.

Again, political will matters. It’s not as if there are no good ideas out there. Barcelona’s municipal government develops affordable housing itself, while the City of Vancouver is actually exploring the development of market rental housing. But asking rents continue to increase in Barcelona as they do in Vancouver. Time will tell if Barcelona has truly gotten it right.

As for downtown Vancouver and the context of Barcelona, I have spoken mostly in our discussion about downtown’s virtue as an employment hub. I happen to think it’s unlikely that downtown plays a significant role in making Vancouver more affordable in the way that other neighbourhoods can. I wish it could.

EV: Many of us wish the same. (smile)

And you’re right, Barcelona has no downtown as we would think of one in North America. They don’t have a city centre consisting of towering office buildings. Despite the mixed use and equitable distribution of Barcelona, it still has significant clusters of large office spaces (100,000 sq ft+). El Poblenou, on the eastern side of the city, has become Barcelona’s innovation hub with significant office development where tech firms have clustered. While it does have taller office buildings, its design still resembles the traditional Eixample blocks.

Avinguda Diagonal, as a corridor through The Eixample, serves as a major office employment corridor, mostly catering to more typical office uses compared to Poblenou as an innovation district. Also, between Placa Espanya and Gran Via business centre on the western edge of the city, there is a cluster of office towers catering to corporate tenants and hotels catering to major events and conferences.

All of this is to say that despite the vastly different design of Barcelona compared to Vancouver, both have major clusters of office space. And having spent time in all three of those areas throughout different hours of the day, they do certainly stand out as places of work compared to other areas of the city.

Barcelona could have ended up with major office space, like its housing and services, equally distributed across the whole city, but that isn’t so much the case. Part of that has to do with socio-economic conditions and a manifestation of wealth and privilege, sure. Yet, I’ve come to see how cities benefit from the proximity of businesses and workers to each other. We want to collaborate as humans, and in contemporary society, these clusters of workplaces are part of how we have done that. It fosters community outside of one’s own home. I am a better person and a better citizen because I, for much of my life, have left my own neighbourhood every day.

As I’ve mentioned, other parts of the city and region will see more employment space as population growth continues, but the vast amount of commercial development that would have to happen for downtown to no longer be the true economic centre of the region is next to impossible to justify. Good plans and good planners work well with what they have. In Vancouver, we have a downtown that is well connected to the region with the opportunity to both supplement and be supplemented by growing, healthy neighbourhoods throughout – Broadway Plan or no Broadway Plan.

Transit has to be the key, though. Vancouver has found itself in a bit of a chicken or the egg scenario with its transit-oriented development. The SkyTrain is expensive and difficult to expand, but even in its current state, its potential hasn’t been maximized. It’s comical to walk out of Langara-49th Station and see a single family home right next to it still. Vancouver seems to be a city that is ten to twenty years behind itself. We could have distributed density more equitably. The community and political will wasn’t there for too long. Now, we are in crisis mode.

I’m an optimist by nature, and that can be difficult in Vancouver. I still believe the bones are there to grow equitably. Downtown, for all its faults, can play a role.

EV_You bring up some great points worth thinking about, and I appreciate the optimism. This is a perfect segue into the Granville Street Planning work currently underway. Do you mind describing where it is at currently and how you see it within the context of your thoughts on the role downtown Vancouver can play regionally?

SB_Granville, and by that I mean the Granville Entertainment District, has really struggled in recent years, even before the pandemic. The street is a priority for our BIA, and we invest a lot in that street in terms of the role we serve through cleanliness and safety, placemaking, or business support.

However, the consensus both in the downtown business community and the broader public is that Granville needs change.

You know, the only time I can really get anyone to say anything good about Granville is when the Olympics get brought up. People’s eyes light up when they tell me how great Granville was during the Olympics. They wonder, “Why can’t it be like that all the time?”

My hope for Granville is that it can recapture a spirit of place that Vancouverites can identify with.

The Granville Plan, which should be going to Council in June, looks to address some of the challenges the area has through land use, public realm, and transportation visions, but this is just the start of the kind of work that needs to happen. If Granville is going to really be the entertainment and nightlife hub of Vancouver, then it needs care and attention beyond an area plan. That’s how successful entertainment districts are treated.

Throughout the planning process, our BIA has been working closely with the planning staff to make sure the Granville businesses have their voices heard. This is especially important for a plan like this because the businesses really understand the street better than anyone else. They’ve seen it at its best and its worst.

When I talk to folks about Granville, I really understand the typical apathy or pessimism about the street. It really does have a reputation issue right now for a number of reasons. But after engaging with businesses on the street, I know that they care. They are on Granville because they want to be there and at the center of Vancouver’s nightlife and entertainment. Looking ahead, strategic partnerships need to be established to get Granville where it needs to be.

EV_Granville is such an important street historically and otherwise, so I appreciate you acknowledging that it needs to be treated with care and attention.

Now, you mention strategic partnerships. Can you expand on that? You also mention that the current visions for land-use and public realm visions are just the start of what needs to be done. I’d love to hear more about what is planned and the direction you think it needs to move.

SB_When you look at entertainment districts around the world, really successful and sustainable ones have coordinated district management strategies. The Granville Plan envisions more flexible public space and outdoor activities and performances. For this to function, there needs to be more centralized stewardship of the space.

With that in mind, one of the next steps is for the city to undergo research on what successful district management could look like for Granville. The overall goal is to make it more streamlined to program the outdoor spaces. As I mentioned earlier, the placemaking team at Downtown Van has already done a lot of great work to develop the partnerships that need to happen in order to make this work, but the Granville Plan is a great signal that the City is looking to invest in this work as well. Our BIA budget, as large as it is, can only go so far.

The Granville Plan is proposing some major land use shifts to the area.

EV_It’s been a while since the Granville Entertainment District saw land use changes….

SB_ That’s right. The role of housing on the street has been a particular focus. At the outset of the plan, it was assumed that the plan would prescribe no housing in the core entertainment blocks of Granville — Robson to Davie. This was because the plan started with the perspective that housing did not support the entertainment functions of the street. This view was shared by most of our Granville business stakeholders.

The 800 Granville project that was proposed years ago was going to be a catalyst for the evolution of the entertainment district. It was going to bring significant office space to the 800 block of Granville while improving the functionality of both the Orpheum Theatre and the Commodore Ballroom. A major office development would have brought a lot of daytime foot traffic to an area that has historically been quiet during the day, making it even more difficult for area businesses to survive.

However, due to the slow development approval process and the shift in demand for office space, the developer ultimately decided not to pursue the original proposal. This left Granville without the catalyst it was supposed to have in the middle of the planning process.

As a response, the planning staff began to reexamine the original assumptions about housing. Now, housing is included in parts of the Entertainment District. At the north and south edges, increased density in housing, along with commercial and hotel, is being proposed. While the three interior blocks of the district, between Smithe and Davie, will be the entertainment core where new developments will only permit commercial, hotel, and of course, entertainment functions.

I think this is a good balance for the street. The increased housing brings a lot more people to the street, but the core entertainment area will be able to intensify its entertainment and cultural components.

Maybe the most significant proposed change is the long-term pedestrianization of the street. The plan proposes a phased approach to eventually pedestrianizing the street for the entire year and diverting buses off of Granville. Pedestrian improvements will absolutely be an important part of Granville. However, I’m not fully convinced that permanently rerouting buses off of Granville Street is necessary to achieve a great pedestrian experience, or even to achieve a public square experience that the plan also envisions around Robson and Granville. Divert cars? Sure. Yet, if you took buses off the street right now, you’d be taking people off the street.

EV: Not to mention the many incredible, vibrant streets around the world that integrate public transit.

SB: Exactly. Don’t get me wrong, fully pedestrianized streets are successful in some places around the world. It could work on Granville as well, but it’s going to be important to really measure success over the next ten years and to learn about what works and what doesn’t. If it’s going to be a completely pedestrian street, significant attention has to be made to make it a place, not just a corridor. This takes us full circle to the importance of a strong district management strategy.

EV: And this also points to the importance of well-considered urban design within this planning process—as you mention, making it “place” not just a corridor. Are there some meaningful precedents or examples that inspire you as a vision for Granville?

SB: There are obviously some great examples around the world that Granville Street can draw from, but there are several different models of entertainment districts, so it’s important to understand the greater context of each. The things that make some districts successful might not work for Granville Street.

Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Broadway in Nashville, and Sixth Street in Austin might be what someone thinks about when they think about great nightlife and entertainment districts, and Granville Street could certainly incorporate some of their successful features. However, their urban contexts don’t necessarily reflect Granville Street. Neither of those options has the level of adjacent office and residential density that Granville Street does, and that creates challenges if you wanted to replicate those streets.

One thing that all three of those streets have that I think could contribute a lot to Granville Street is that their businesses are very open to the street. If you walk down Nashville’s Broadway and walk past a bar, it’s very easy to know exactly what’s going on in there—you can make sure it’s not just another house band playing Don’t Stop Believing. (laugh)

EV: …(laugh)…

The streetscape of Granville is missing that inviting façade as you walk down the street. Patio season helps though. Austin, Nashville, and New Orleans don’t have Vancouver’s rainy winters to contend with.

I should say, though, if you look into the local perception of those three examples, their reputation starts to resemble part of Granville’s in that they are starting to not offer what locals are looking for and having developed a nightlife monoculture.

An example that I know the planning staff have looked at is Toronto’s King Street. Like Granville, King Street is a core piece of downtown Toronto and is very much a living street, serving a number of purposes. It has brought in mixed-use developments to augment the performance, dining, and nightlife uses, not compete with them. The mix that King Street has is something that Granville could be headed towards.

The Granville Plan is a big step forward for the street, but as I’ve mentioned, it’s really just the start. The plan lays out a hopeful vision as a true centre for Vancouver, somewhere that has something for everyone and supports a thriving arts and entertainment scene. That kind of thing is tough to manufacture, though.

As you know, the market reigns supreme in Vancouver. A new development at 900 Granville has just been completed. It’s been great to see the construction come to an end on that street, and that alone will help people’s perception of the street. However, the first two businesses to open on the ground floor will be Taco Bell and KFC, and I believe the other incoming tenants are chains for the most part. On a busy street like Granville, those businesses have their place, but they need to be part of a healthy mix. Once KFC opens, there will be four fried chicken chains on three blocks of Granville.

Can Granville really manufacture a thriving arts and culture scene? Will it be something unique to Vancouver? The Granville Plan sets the vision, the work starts now.

EV_I can think of no better way than to end on that powerful statement. I really appreciate the time you’ve spent with me and the thoughtful answers to some tough questions. Are there any last thoughts you’d like to share?

SB_Thanks, Erick. It’s been a pleasure to be able to discuss downtown and its opportunities and challenges with you. We’ve covered such a wide range of topics here, so I’ll keep it short.

Through my work at the downtown BIA, I’ve been lucky to be able to provide unique insight into the downtown community. My hope is that more communities are eventually able to have access to the kind of information that I’m able to work with every day. I’ve seen how data and research influence decision-making and people’s understanding of cities. Downtown Van is well-resourced to be able to afford this kind of work, but it would become exponentially more valuable if every BIA had equal insight. It wouldn’t take much for the City of Vancouver to get to that point.

***

Sean Bailey is the Research & Policy Advisor at Downtown Van. 

**

Erick Villagomez is the Editor-in-Chief at Spacing Vancouver and teaches at UBC’s School of Community and Regional Planning.

*

Other Spacing Vancouver and Spacing interviews:

 

Recommended

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *