{"id":38090,"date":"2025-05-01T10:00:16","date_gmt":"2025-05-01T17:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/?p=38090"},"modified":"2025-08-14T10:36:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T17:36:34","slug":"the-coriolis-effect-part-ii-beyond-the-spreadsheet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/2025\/05\/01\/the-coriolis-effect-part-ii-beyond-the-spreadsheet\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coriolis Effect, Part II: Beyond the Spreadsheet"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

The Coriolis Effect, Part I<\/i><\/a> went through a long gestation period as I humbly asked various people within the discipline for constructive feedback. I was grateful to receive generous, well-argued critiques from well-seasoned planners and others with decades of experience.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although many praised the clarity of the writing and overall message, some took issue with what they saw as a misfire in my target: the humble pro forma<\/a>. It\u2019s just arithmetic,<\/i> they reminded me\u2014a basic spreadsheet developers use to test feasibility, no more villainous than the tools used to grow tomatoes.<\/span><\/p>\n

They\u2019re right\u2026 at least partly right.<\/span><\/p>\n

At its core, the pro forma is a financial model<\/a>. And although Part I<\/i><\/a>  argued that its impersonal “objectivity” masks deep bias and oversimplifies the world, it is not inherently evil\u2014or even particularly clever. It calculates whether a project \u201cpencils out.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

As several constructive critics pointed out, planners have long used pro formas to test market responses, gauge development potential, and help set public value capture rates. In that sense, it\u2019s no different than a balance sheet or a farm yield forecast. So let me be clear: the pro forma isn\u2019t necessarily the problem, despite its flaws.<\/p>\n

The problem is that in too many planning offices and municipalities today, the pro forma has stopped being a reference point and has become the compass.<\/span><\/p>\n

What was once an input is now the decider<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

We aren\u2019t just asking, \u201cCan this be done?\u201d but \u201cShould this be done?\u201d\u2014and we\u2019re answering that question with a spreadsheet. That shift, subtle as it may seem, has enormous consequences. It\u2019s something award-winning journalist Frances Bula captures well in her recent article<\/a> on the Broadway Plan<\/em> in BC Business<\/em> and her interview on the Vancouver Real Estate Podcast<\/i><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The planner\u2019s role was never meant to mimic the developer\u2019s. The planner works in public service, not<\/strong> private risk management. <\/em><\/span>Their job isn\u2019t to optimize returns but to ask whether the city being built serves those who live in it\u2014and those who don\u2019t yet but might, if we plan wisely. The best planners see the pro forma not as a guide but as a test. And sometimes, that test tells us: this doesn\u2019t work\u2014not if we want trees, daylight, dignity.<\/p>\n

One planner I spoke with shared a story: years ago, a developer wanted to cut down a mature tree to make way for an underground parking garage. The planner insisted that the wall of the garage be bent to preserve the tree. The developer showed the pro forma and how saving the tree negatively affected the bottom line. The planner didn\u2019t back down\u2014the tree would stay, or the building wouldn\u2019t be approved. The garage was built with a bend, and the tree still stands.<\/p>\n

That story isn\u2019t anti\u2013pro forma. It\u2019s anti\u2013deference. It\u2019s a reminder that planners are meant to push, not simply to permit.<\/span><\/p>\n

What\u2019s changed isn\u2019t the tool but the ideology. <\/span><\/p>\n

A generation ago, a planner might say, \u201cIf the numbers don\u2019t work, sell your land.\u201d Today, a planner might say, \u201cHow can we make the numbers work?\u201d And if they don\u2019t, someone at City Hall might label them anti-housing, or worse yet, anti-affordable housing. The courage to say no\u2014to reroute the machinery of growth when it veers off course\u2014has been systematically eroded. A culture of fear has filled the void.<\/span><\/p>\n

This brings me back to the original point of The Coriolis Effect, Part I<\/i><\/a>. The critique wasn\u2019t only partially about the spreadsheet. More importantly, it was about how certain consulting firms\u2014and the cultural conditions that empower them\u2014wield these tools to subtly, but consistently, steer urban planning toward the interests of capital.<\/span><\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t a conspiracy; it\u2019s a gravitational pull. But like the Coriolis force itself, it changes trajectories without ever appearing to exert force at all.<\/span><\/p>\n

To be clear, this isn\u2019t a blanket condemnation of consultants. Many do valuable, principled work, often for government clients seeking to calculate land lift, determine value capture, or model development scenarios. In fact, firms like Coriolis have provided vital technical support to cities, including work that helps governments get public benefit from private gain. <\/span><\/p>\n

The issue, then, lies not just in the tool or the consultant, but in the political and institutional culture<\/em> that commissions and interprets the work.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the case of the Broadway Plan, for example, Coriolis<\/a> was asked to show how much density would be needed to rebuild neighbourhoods into high-rise corridors. That\u2019s what they delivered. But planners could have asked a different question: How do we protect existing affordable rental housing while increasing density near transit?<\/i> The resulting model would have looked very different.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is where planner agency matters. <\/span><\/p>\n

Consultants build to spec. If the spec is defined narrowly by market logic\u2014or by a council too afraid to challenge it\u2014the outcome isn\u2019t evil, but inevitable. What\u2019s missing isn\u2019t better math. It\u2019s a better mandate.<\/span><\/p>\n

And yet, the danger isn\u2019t just in the brief\u2014it\u2019s in the blind trust. As several experienced planners reminded me, pro formas\u2014like transportation studies and retail impact models\u2014can be easily tweaked to serve a goal. Variables can be nudged. Risk profiles adjusted. Appraisals redone until the project \u201cworks.\u201d In many cases, these tweaks are perfectly justifiable. But sometimes, they\u2019re not. And when planners lack the fluency or confidence to challenge these assumptions, they become vulnerable, not to consultants, but to capture.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is the deeper issue. The tools we use aren\u2019t just technical\u2014they\u2019re ideological. They reflect what we measure, what we ignore, and whom we\u2019re ultimately planning for. Pro formas aren\u2019t villains. But when planners outsource public judgment to private math, they become complicit in reshaping the city around profitability instead of possibility<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The pro forma may be arithmetic. But what we do with it\u2026well, that\u2019s politics.<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/span><\/p>\n

The Coriolis Effect Series:<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n