UBC hearing talks concerns over land use
On Tuesday evening, over a hundred people packed into the Ponderosa Building to fight for their often conflicting visions of UBC’s future.
The hearing, which was mandated by the provincial government, focused on proposed changes to the Land Use Plan.
This was the final opportunity for the public to have a say about the amendments.
Although some speakers were fully in favour of the proposed changes, the vast majority had grievances regarding a number of issues—although these criticisms were often at odds with one another.
Speaking on behalf of the AMS, VP Academic and University Affairs Ben Cappellacci endorsed the overall vision presented by the amendments, though he reaffirmed the AMS’s commitment to zoning Gage South, an area that includes the bus loop and MacInnes field, as “academic.”
This was echoed by every single student that went up to speak.
The amendments call for Gage South to be designated as an “area under review,” meaning that no changes can be made to it until another public hearing is held. It is currently zoned for family housing.
However, the amendments also stipulate that if Gage South is not used for family housing, space must be found for it elsewhere on campus.
This “density transfer” was also criticized by students.
“We don’t understand why Campus and Community Planning (CCP) keeps saying that we need to transfer [the density] out,” said Katherine Tyson, who chairs the AMS’s University and External Relations Committee (UERC). She said that CCP was speaking of these density transfers as if they were absolutely necessary, as opposed to a choice the university was making.
Jeremy McElroy, AMS VP External, said that the university needs to consider if the money the university would receive from the 414 people originally slated for the Gage South neighbourhood was a worthwhile investment.
“[That’s] $20 million to forfeit the student heart of campus,” he said.
Many speakers also expressed dismay over how the consultations were undertaken, as well as the lack of external oversight in the process.
Cappellacci said that “there are concerns about an apparent circular feedback loop between Campus and Community Planning and the Board of Governors which has the potential to limit direct public input to the decision-making body which has limited democratic accountability.”
“I didn’t hand in my response form because it frankly seemed like a waste of time,” said Susan Chapman, the President of the Dunbar Residents’ Association (DRA).
Chapman, along with other members of the DRA and the West Point Grey Community Liaison Group, were concerned that an increased population at UBC would create more traffic running through their neighbourhoods and also strain local facilities such as schools.
Mike Feeley, the former chair of the University Neighbourhoods Association, argued that although UBC should consider the opinions of outsiders, it should ultimately do what is best for the people who live on campus.
“Please resist the call to amend the Land Use Plan for people who don’t live in this community to have an undue say,” he told the committee.
Some faculty members also wanted UBC to have fewer people than the amendments called for.
The amendments increase the projected population for 2020 from 18,000 to 22,500, of which 10,000 are students. By 2040, the university aims to have 16,000 students and 22,000 residents.
“Campus is already pretty crowded,” said Barbara Dancygier, a professor in the department of English.
Most students, however, including Tyson and McElroy, spoke strongly for increased density on campus, specifically for student housing.
A variety of other concerns were raised, including a lack of green space on campus, views of buildings from Wreck Beach that would spoil the natural scenery, insufficient space for new athletic facilities and the need for better consultation with residents about construction projects.
Neal Yonson, editor of the blog UBC Insiders, said that the amount of criticism of the amendments shows that change is necessary.
“It seems as though many people from many different groups on campus and the city have a number of very legitimate concerns about the amendments,” he said.
“After this display tonight, if there are not changes to the amendments, I will be absolutely appalled.”
(Credit: Geoff Lister Photo/The Ubyssey)
