International Planning Studies, Vol. 7, No.

4, 265–282, 2002

Urban Design as Public Policy: Evaluating the Design

Dimension of Vancouver’s Planning System

JOHN PUNTER
University of Cardiff, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3WA, Wales, UK

ABSTRACT This paper examines Vancouver’s system of urban design as public policy utilizing
12 principles derived from critiques of design review in the USA. These principles include
community vision; the relationship of design, planning and zoning; substantive design principles;
and due process in review. Vancouver’s city-wide plan, neighbourhood visions and sub-area
development plans provide the vision, while its cooperative planning, development levies and
discretionary zoning system and guidelines support the pursuit of quality urban design. Its
practices are based on generic and contextual design principles, while its processes are transparent,
participative, backed by peer review, predictable and effective.

Introduction
Jonathan Barnett’s book Urban Design as a Public Policy (1974) established the
notion of urban design as public policy and suggested what might constitute a
comprehensive programme for urban design. Since then there have been a
number of studies of design review practices across the USA (Shirvani, 1981,
1992; Habe, 1989; Scheer & Preiser, 1994) but few studies of individual cities’
design regimes. Notable exceptions include Richard Lai’s (1988) study of prac-
tices in New York City and San Francisco and Carl Abbott’s work on Portland,
Oregon (Abbott, 2001). Recent studies of west coast cities and their guidelines
(Punter, 1999), and more detailed studies of the impact of guidelines and review
processes on built form in Los Angeles and San Francisco (Loukaitiou-Sideris &
Banerjee, 1998), have raised questions about the extent to which policies and
practices meet their design objectives. Exemplar practices in San Francisco in the
1970s, in Portland in the 1980s and Seattle in the 1990s are now matched by the
practices and achievements north of the border in the city of Vancouver. This
paper examines urban design as public policy in the city utilizing an evaluation
framework derived from the above-mentioned reviews and critiques of policy
and review practices. It draws on a major study of 30 years of Vancouver’s
planning documents and interviews with more than 40 of the main protagonists
(Punter, 2003).

Vancouver’s Reputation for Planning and Design

In the last decade, the city of Vancouver has established a reputation as one of
the best-planned cities in North America and it has become a place of pilgrimage

1356-347 5 Print/1469-926 5 Online/02/040265-1 8 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/135634702200002771 0
266 J. Punter

Figure 1. The central area of Vancouver. The map from the 1991 Central Area Plan
illustrates the city’s peninsula setting and the explicit policy to establish diverse
residential neighborhoods in close proximity to the commercial core.

for American planners and developers (Blore & Sutherland, 1999). It has won
Žve international, 10 national and 16 provincial awards for its planning practices
since 1984 (CoVPD, personal communication) and it has consistently come close
to the top of the rankings in quality-of-life studies of major cities (in 2000 it was
placed top equal with Zurich, Switzerland; Mercer, 2000). The city’s spectacular
natural setting, its attractive residential vernacular and well-treed streets; its
relatively smooth transition from railhead/resource-exporting port to provincial
corporate centre, and now to high amenity PaciŽc Rim metropolis (Hutton,
1994); and its sustained post-war prosperity and steady population growth have
provided a platform for the development of an environmentally conscious
planning regime since 1970. This regime has stopped freeway intrusions, pro-
moted neighbourhood conservation, replaced redundant industrial and port
lands with new high-density residential neighbourhoods, reclaimed the water-
front for public use, and reinforced the diversity, vitality and attractiveness of its
downtown and inner city. Arguably, Vancouver has achieved an ‘urban renais-
sance’ more comprehensively than any other central city in North America
(Beasley, 2000; Punter, 2003).
A young city, largely built out between 1900 and 1940, it has accommodated
an additional 120 000 people between 1971 and 1996, and projections suggest
another 100 000 by 2021. Particularly striking is the fact that 40% of this growth
has been on the margins of Downtown in a series of waterfront mega-projects
and redeveloped neighbourhoods. There has been a signiŽcant shift from a
predominantly single-family home-owning city (55% in 1955) to a predomi-
nantly apartment-renting city (55% in 1998). Despite the creation of new
high-rise communities all around Downtown (see Figure 1), Vancouver remains
a largely low-rise city with 71% of its area zoned single family, and with very
strong neighbourhood pressures to keep it that way.
 Urban Design as Public Policy 267

Figure 2. Vancouver’s zoning categories. These were developed to promote

particular typologies of buildings from back lane inŽll units in single-family areas
to the high-rise tower and townhouse form in the waterfront megaprojects. Each
sub-category has its own design guidelines.

Space does not permit the documentation and illustration of the individual
design achievements in each of these localities, but the typologies of urban form
and their respective oor space ratios are summarized in Figure 2 in a diagram
adapted from the 1991 Central Area Plan (CoVPD, 1991a). The Žgure illustrates
the way that the city has structured its zoning to create particular building
forms, though there are signiŽcant oorspace and land use mix variations within
each sub-category. Building form and liveability concerns are enshrined in the
associated design guidelines and embrace public realm considerations to do
with lively, overlooked, comfortable and attractive streets, spaces and parks, and
a range of private amenity considerations to protect against noise, ensure
privacy and aspect, and deliver good-quality play and amenity space.

The Conditions for a Design-sensitive Planning Practice

Vancouver’s achievements in urban environmental quality are the result of its
sophisticated planning and urban design policies and guidelines, processes and
procedures. But how has the city been able to develop such a complex and
multifaceted system? First, the environmental quality of the site and setting of
the city, and the quality of its suburban vernacular, makes design a key issue for
a large constituency and particularly for neighbourhood groups. Second, these
concerns have been enshrined at the heart of municipal politics since 1972
(Hardwick, 1994), and the liveable city and participative planning are as much
the mantras of the post-1986 conservative regime as they were for the urban
reformers post-1972. Third, sustained growth and demand for property, particu-
larly from afuent immigrants, has created a competitive market for
development permits and provided the margins to allow developers to invest
268 J. Punter

more in design quality, to the point where high design standards are now the
market norm.
Fourth, the Vancouver Charter allowed the city to develop its own individual
administrative systems largely free from provincial controls, and this freedom has
been compounded by a very high delegation of planning powers to the Director(s)
of Planning, so that councillors never interfere in matters of permit processing.
Fifth, Vancouver’s geography, its isolation from the rest of Canada, and its
enduring attractions—which discourage people from leaving—have encouraged
the formation of a close-knit and very interactive design/development com-
munity that planners and politicians have further fostered with a range of
inclusive processes and consultancy commissions. Finally, there has been great
stability in planning personnel and structures for the last 30 years, and a range of
politicians of broadly liberal persuasion have worked with them to develop
innovative and technically sophisticated approaches to a range of planning issues.
Architectural practices have contributed to this innovation through consultancy
and through service on the Urban Design Panel (UDP) to raise the level of design
debate. These interlocking factors have created the conditions for a design-sensi-
tive system to which all parties consent. But one is reminded of Richard Lai’s
dictum that demanding design control regimes will work only ‘if the market
incentive for development is overwhelming’ (Lai, 1988, p. 349).

A Framework for Evaluation

To provide a framework with which to assess Vancouver’s system of urban design
as public policy, and the plans policies zoning, design guidelines and permitting
processes that constitute it, the various critiques of design review were examined
and synthesized. Particularly useful were Richard Lai’s recommendations for
good practice that emerged from his detailed studies of San Francisco and New
York City (Lai, 1988). These were supplemented with Brenda Scheer’s surveys of
practice across the USA, Blaesser’s (1994) legal observations, and Scheer &
Preiser’s review of the critical weaknesses of design review practices informed by
American and international experience (Scheer & Preiser, 1994).
Figure 3 sets out 12 principles that can be used to evaluate Vancouver’s
practices. They have been recast here into four groups of concerns and require
little elaboration. Under Community Vision good practice would be seeking to
establish a comprehensive and coordinated approach to the many facets of
design quality and environmental beauty. This might be expressed in some kind
of design plan that had both public and development industry support and
which was reviewed regularly. As regards the design dimension of planning and
zoning, good practice would be looking to see evidence of a multifaceted
approach to design quality going beyond mere design review to create incen-
tives for good design (or heritage/environmental conservation) using Žscal
devices, public funds and land acquisitions to raise design and environmental
quality. Zoning would be carefully integrated with planning objectives to
improve design quality and encourage the necessary changes of form and use,
and care would be taken (or ameliorative measures) to offset the tendency for
urban design initiatives to gentrify areas or to exclude the less afuent. Overall,
it is the exclusionary tendency of design review and postmodern design practice
that deserves the most attention and which has most exercised radical critics
such as Harvey (1989), Sorkin (1992) and Davis (1990) (see also Lai, 1988).
 Urban Design as Public Policy

Figure 3. Principles for progressive design review: Vancouver’s performance. The successes of, and continuing challenges facing
269

Vancouver’s practices are summarised against the best practice principles.

270 J. Punter

In terms of design principles and policies, good practice would not be

preoccupied just with the external appearance of development and the control of
elevations but would take a deeper view of environmental quality, embracing
concepts like amenity, safety and sustainability. Design policies and guidelines
would be based on widely accepted generic design principles but would be
tailored to the locality through context analysis, and would clearly establish
what was required as against what was advised. Such policies and guidelines
would not be over-prescriptive and allow design imagination, innovation and
pluralism to ourish. Finally, good practice would be based upon due process
with clear rules for intervention, proper administrative procedures to manage
discretion, clear records of decisions and appeal mechanisms. The permitting
system would be efŽcient and positive and there would be appropriate design
skills and expertise to support the process. These 12 principles, based upon
widely researched critiques of American practice, provide a framework for the
examination and evaluation of Vancouver’s system of city-wide plan, neighbour-
hood visions, ofŽcial development plans, zoning designations, design guidelines
and permitting process. Alongside these principles the particular successes of
Vancouver’s practices will be identiŽed, as well as the future challenges that the
system faces and that exemplify some of the less successful aspects of the
system.
We begin with the two key principles related to the overall need to establish
community and corporate commitment to design quality, expressed perhaps through
a community design plan, or a series of urban design plans, which would build
consensus within the city bureaucracy and across to the development com-
munity and neighbourhood groups.

Comprehensive, Coordinated Community Commitment to Design

Looking Žrst at the requirement for community commitment to design quality,
and evidence of a comprehensive coordinated effort to promote good design,
one then has to set alongside the design review element of permit processing all
the other initiatives that the city has undertaken to promote environmental
quality. Foremost among these has been the city’s corporate working on the
public realm. This was fully integrated into planning practices in the ‘coopera-
tive planning model’ that was developed in the late 1980s for the two major
mega-projects of False Creek North and Coal Harbour. This brought together
longstanding concerns for urban parks, particularly waterfront parks and
beaches (Parks Board), with the desire for public access to the sea wall, and for
city streets that were liveable with quality landscape, furniture, paving and
trafŽc management (Engineering), and an active programme for public art
(Cultural Affairs).
To this strong evidence of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to new
neighbourhoods should be added other speciŽc planning and engineering
policies and programmes such as heritage protection, view protection and
skylines, greenways, street tree planting, green streets, and longstanding trans-
port planning policies to reduce car commuting, promote transit and encourage
more walking and cycling. For evidence of community commitment and assent
to all these goals one need look no further than the CityPlan consultations
(CoVPD, 1993b) or the Žndings of the Mayor’s Urban Landscape Task Force
(CoVPD Urban Landscape Task Force, 1992). It is important to emphasize that
 Urban Design as Public Policy 271

the planners’ commitment to environmental quality extends beyond the purely

aesthetic to be concerned with liveability in its deepest sense in terms of housing
form, internal space, privacy, noise, amenity space and micro-climate, and the
speciŽc social concerns of community facilities and day care (Social Planning
Department), and affordable housing (Housing Department). These were, of
course, an integral part of the cooperative planning process (Beasley, 1997).

An Urban Design Plan with Community Support

There are several examples of urban design plans, each of which has been based
on thoroughgoing public participation to establish community support for plans,
policies, development form and design guidelines. Clearly, CityPlan developed
a city-wide planning strategy that had clear urban design implications both in
terms of its strategy for ‘a city of neighbourhood centres’, and in its catalogue of
‘next steps’ for design and planning initiatives. It perfectly Žts the notion of a
city-wide design strategy, and remarkably it achieved the support of 80% of the
public (CoVPD, 1995a). Beyond the CityPlan strategy, the ensuing neighbour-
hood visions provide the mechanisms for establishing detailed approaches to
rezoning, design guidelines, and environmental management at the local level,
and for formulating the future pattern of urban development in the locality
(CoVPD, 1996c). Not only are the visioning mechanisms exemplary participative
processes, but the establishment of majority opinion is done in a rigorous and
fair way and checked through random telephone surveys of residents. So
community visioning is fundamental to Vancouver’s approach to developing
neighbourhood design policy.
The other exemplars of urban design plans in the Vancouver system are to be
found in the city’s OfŽcial Development Plans (ODPs), particularly those that
were products of the cooperative planning model. The masterplans prepared for
these communities, and their supporting guidelines, are exemplars of their type
in their precision in setting out future patterns of development and their
three-dimensional forms, and the guidance they provide for the detailed design
that comes much later. Their smooth and precise implementation over 10–15
years is a testament to the mutual understanding and consensus that has been
established through the process, and the conŽdence all parties have in it. They
are exemplars in process, design, implementation and in quality of outcomes.
The other ODPs have variable design content but the 1982 First Shaughnessy
ODP provides a strong basis for the conservation of neighbourhood character,
and both the 1974 Downtown Plan and the Downtown/Eastside/Oppenheimer
Plans had design guidelines to accompany the plan.
The Žrst two principles of community commitment are thus met fully by the
Vancouver system. The second group of principles embrace the wider context of
design regulation and how it Žts into broader planning practices. They look for the
harnessing of a broad range of Žscal and policy initiatives to support good
design, for mitigation of the exclusionary effects of urban design initiatives, and
for the full integration of zoning into planning policy.

Harnessing a Broad Range of Instruments to Promote Better Design

Beyond its system of plans, incentive zoning and design guidelines, Vancouver
has adopted some key Žscal measures to ensure that a wide range of amenities
272 J. Punter

are added in to each development. The issue of land policy and development
taxation in Vancouver has been couched as a question of Community Amenity
Contributions (CACs) exacted on privately initiated site-speciŽc residential
zonings since 1989 (CoVPD, 2001a), Development Cost Levies (DCLs) exacted
since 1990 on development permits in seven areas where major redevelopment
is underway (CoVPD, 1995b) and Major Project Public Amenity Requirements
(MPPARs) (CoVPD, 1999c) established in the mega-projects at the same time.
While CACs cover amenities like parks, community centres and social housing,
DCLs cover parks, day care, replacement housing and basic infrastructure.
MPPARs cover all these plus schools, libraries, amenity centres, public art and
a variety of speciality items determined area by area.
The signiŽcance of these requirements is that they provide the public facilities
and amenities to complement each development, so that while the Development
Planners are concentrating upon getting each project as responsive to the zoning
and design guidelines, and as architecturally reŽned, as they can, including the
design of the adjacent side walk and public realm, there is a parallel process
ensuring that community facilities, replacement and social housing, parks and
public art can all be funded to enhance neighbourhood quality in the broadest
sense. Of course, the MPPARs in the mega-projects delivered these facilities and
amenities simultaneously with the completion of each neighbourhood, and what
has distinguished this provision is its sheer quality and generosity (e.g. parks).
Outside of the mega-projects, funds have to accumulate before investment is
made, so in Downtown South, while replacement housing is keeping pace with
losses of single room occupancy dwellings (SROs), only now is the Žrst piece of
parkland to be built. A similar difŽculty will be faced by each neighbourhood as
it seeks to implement its CityPlan vision. The quality of amenities and facilities
provided in the mega-projects is exemplary, but the city still has some way to
go (and some catching up to do with other Greater Vancouver Regional District
(GVRD) municipalities (BC Government, 1997)) to ensure that adequate levies
and amenity contributions are forthcoming from the development industry
across the city at large.

Mitigating the Exclusionary Effects of Urban Design

There has been plenty of evidence in Vancouver of the exclusionary effects of
urban design policy, whether it be the discretionary zoning to protect single-
family neighbourhoods on the one hand, or the affordability of the new
high-density residential areas on the edge of Downtown on the other. But the
issue was never disregarded and in most cases it was speciŽcally addressed. For
example, planners argued against elaborate zoning and design guidelines to
protect single-family areas, believing it would prevent these areas from accom-
modating a fair share of city-wide growth. The city has had affordable housing
policies since the 1970s, and it has used its land ownership powers to provide
leasehold land at below market prices, and sometimes free, to enable non-proŽt
and cooperative groups to deliver social housing. In 1989 it committed itself to
providing affordable housing equally among all neighbourhoods, and in 1991 to
one-to-one replacement of SROs in Downtown South and subsequently, in
Downtown Eastside. The latter objectives have been fulŽlled, but not the former.
The key provision was made in the mega-projects, where the city ensured that
20% of the residential units allowed would be for ‘core need’ households, while
25% of all residential units had to be suitable for families. Some city ofŽcials
 Urban Design as Public Policy 273

have questioned whether it was ever sufŽcient for the major developers merely
to set aside sites for such housing, and have suggested that they should have
been required to donate the land to the city as the main social housing land
providers, or to provide construction or operating subsidies. Against the back-
ground of withdrawal of federal housing subsidies, the securing of the 20%
affordable in False Creek North is a major achievement but, as the recent
planning process in Southeast False Creek has suggested, a 30% affordable target
would now be more socially sustainable (CoVPD, 1998b).
A quite different dimension of social inclusion is exempliŽed by the invest-
ments made in facilities such as community centres, libraries and day care. This
is encapsulated in the concept of the creation of ‘a third place’ in the mega-
projects, somewhere between home and work where people can freely associate
with their neighbours and the wider community, and enjoy non-commercial
services (Beasley, 1997). A similar fundamental objective has been to create a
fully accessible, high-quality public realm for use by everyone, including those
who are mobility impaired. This has focused on quality street furnishing,
landscaping and tree planting; the provision of cycleways and walkways and
public art on the sea wall; and generous parks with a wide range of active and
passive recreational facilities. Urban design has not been used to privatize,
fortify space or manipulate social behaviour as it has in so many American cities
(see Loukaitiou-Sideris & Banerjee, 1998). It has been used to extend and
improve the public realm at every opportunity.

Addressing the Limitations of Zoning

The third of the key principles that identify the necessary accompaniments to
design regulation is addressing the limitations of zoning and its general lack of
relationship to planning for the future. The Žrst point to be made is that zoning
is an integral part of the Vancouver planning system, and is the key mechanism
for achieving intensiŽcation and creating a predictable urban form (CoVPD,
1994b). From the mid-1970s to the early 1990s zoning changes were used to
encourage and manage signiŽcant intensiŽcation in the inner suburbs mostly to
low-rise apartments (RM-2, RM-3, RM-4) or to two-family dwellings (RT-1
through to RT-9; see Figure 2). In the 1990s, as single-family neighbourhoods in
the more afuent suburbs came under pressure, RS-1A to RS-6 rezonings and
design guidelines were used to ‘maintain single family character’, but also to
ensure that all new housing and landscaping was ‘similar in character’, ‘neigh-
bourly’ or ‘compatible’. It was here that the exclusionary tendencies of zoning
became obvious, and where the sheer complexity of zoning schedules and
guidelines began to overwhelm permitting staff and Development Planners. But
applicants always had the opportunity to use the regulatory route and avoid the
complex guidelines, unless they wanted to maximize their development allow-
ance.
Zoning by-laws are a critical part of the ODP process in major redevelopment
areas, as the means of translating general planning principles and design
approaches into regulations controlling land use, oorspace, massing set-backs
and building height, and providing a clear set of mandatory requirements. But
in the ODP process, as elsewhere, the Vancouver approach has been to parallel
the zoning by-law, the regulatory element, with design guidelines, the discre-
tionary element. Rather than make the zoning by-law extremely complex, as has
274 J. Punter

been done, for example, in San Francisco, design guidelines carry a wealth of
design advice about all matters to do with building forms and the public realm.
The genius of Vancouver’s system lies in providing the incentive of additional
oorspace in return for compliance to the guidelines, so the applicant beneŽts
Žnancially from following them. So an essentially negative control system is
given a strong, positive element incentivizing good design. For the Development
Planner, Development Permit Board (DPB) and its Advisory Panel, and the UDP,
the decisive question is—has the development earned its full allocation of
oorspace through the quality of its design?
So, in terms of harnessing a range of actions and instruments to promote
design quality, mitigating social exclusion and integrating zoning, Vancouver
has made major advancements. Turning to the policy aspects of design review, the
principles embrace a commitment to a deep version of urban design, policy and
guidelines rooted in accepted design principles and contextual analysis, and
guidelines capable of accommodating innovation and pluralism.

A Commitment to Urban Design not Elevation Control

Looking at the substantive design issues, the city has been able to deŽne a set
of community goals embodied in the ‘liveable city’ concept that have required
little change over the last three decades. It has translated these into a set of
‘deep’ urban design considerations that have progressively embraced accessibil-
ity, vitality, safety, amenity, community and sustainability considerations. So
while the system has been preoccupied with the protection of mountain and sea
views, with protecting Craftsman-style single-family suburbia, and with ensur-
ing a high quality of architecture and streetscape, these ‘aesthetic’ aspirations
have been accompanied by equally deep concerns with issues of ‘liveability’. In
housing, the latter embrace issues of visual privacy and noise protection,
adequate yard size or children’s play facilities, private and communal amenity
space, external micro-climate and crime prevention through design. Each has
been incorporated into guidelines (CoVPD, 1992, 1996a), and many have found
their way into conditions imposed upon development permits. Concerns with
neighbourhood amenities and facilities, already mentioned in the context of
development levies and public facility beneŽts, are an expression of the same
breadth of concern for community life, social mix, health and recreation. So too
is the corporate programme for ensuring a high-quality public realm. Under-
ground car parking has been one of the most important requirements in
medium- to high-density neighbourhoods so that the car does not visually
intrude on the property or occupy amenity space. All these indicate that
Vancouver’s notions of urban design go far beyond a concern with the external
appearance of development.
Thus far, sustainability concerns in Vancouver have tended to be subsumed in
neo-traditional/new urbanist planning goals—dense, compact, street-oriented
mixed-use neighbourhoods within easy walking distance of Downtown or
neighbourhood services and employment centres. But more recently, issues like
the extent of impermeable site coverage (and associated run-off problems) and
the extent of tree planting have become part of residential zoning concerns. But
the real injection of strong sustainability concerns into detailed design will come
with the development of the Southeast False Creek project, which will be a
prototype for subsequent new neighbourhoods. More importantly, it will
 Urban Design as Public Policy 275

inuence the whole regulatory framework of building and planning regulations

over the next decade. So while Vancouver’s concept of urban design is “the
design of the city in all its components” (CoVPD, 1999b), it has strong com-
munity, liveability, accessibility and sustainability objectives and dimensions to
set alongside its concerns for visual delight.

Guidelines Based on Generic Design Principles and Contextual Analysis

Most of the design principles avowed thus far have strong and explicit roots
both in urban design theory and in contextual analysis. The design guidelines
closely followed developments in postmodern urban design theory that pro-
ceeded apace in the 1960s and 1970s. Kevin Lynch (1960, 1976), Gordon Cullen
(1961), Jane Jacobs (1961) and Christopher Alexander (1977) have all been
acknowledged explicitly, and their ideas of mixed use/mixed tenure, permeable
layouts, imageable neighbourhoods, active frontages/quiet backs, defensible
space and the like adopted. These are clearly evident in the mega-project
planning principles and the advocacy of the perimeter block, and in the whole
complex of ideas that can be embraced in neo-traditional design or new
urbanism.
One of these generic design principles, set up in opposition to modernist
design, is respect for context. Contextual analysis and design has been an
integral part of the Vancouver approach, clearly expressed in the development
and reŽnement of the Character Area design guidelines in Downtown (which
sought to build on the distinctiveness of particular streets and small neighbour-
hoods), and view protection policies to ensure continued enjoyment of the city’s
setting. The mega-project planning principles were strongly contextual, and their
detailed design guidelines set out to respond to adjacent morphologies and
building forms, or to respond to the waterfront with different palettes of
materials and colours. The apotheosis of contextualism was the RS-5 guidelines,
which invented a speciŽc methodology whereby elevational treatment and
landscaping would be derived from study of adjacent properties (CoVPD, 1998).
It probably went too far down the road of responding to the architectural detail
of the locality, but the guidelines applied only to those seeking to maximize their
zoning entitlement to build a large house on the lot.

Avoiding Over-prescription and Encouraging Innovation and Pluralism

There is always a danger that a sophisticated design control system will become
obsessed with contextualism, over-prescriptive in its zoning and guidelines, and
lose its ability to encourage innovation and spontaneity. There have been a
number of instances where this has happened. The RS-5 single-family zoning is
the example that most architects would cite because, while they welcome the
increase in commissions that has been created by the new zoning and guidelines,
they Žnd the contextual rules quite limiting in terms of potential solutions
(CoVPD, 1999a). Many planners contest this, arguing that the wide choice of
contextual features gives considerable design scope, although they would prefer
a less prescriptive system (such as that provided by RS-6 or RS-7). Another
dimension of the debate must not be forgotten. RS-5 zoning was the solution
devised to protect ‘traditional’ west side neighbourhoods from the invasion of
‘monster houses’ which allegedly expressed ‘Chinese’ aesthetic preferences (Ley,
1995; Mitchell, 1997). There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Chinese dis-
276 J. Punter

avowed such aesthetic preferences (Pettit, 1992), but in the close regulation of the
elevations of single-family housing there is inevitably a clash of taste cultures
that seriously distracts planning from more important issues concerning liveabil-
ity, housing exibility and future housing needs.
The issue of over-prescriptive design guidelines also arose in the mega-
projects. But what was interesting in the ‘cooperative planning model’ was that
private-sector architects employed by the developer were often writing the
detailed design guidelines for themselves, albeit with inputs from city planners.
There were some instances where the guidelines did not work and had to be
abandoned (Marinaside Neighbourhood) and where they signiŽcantly con-
strained architects and developers rethinking the concepts and re-examining
individual sites (Beach Neighbourhood). As the False Creek North mega-project
progressed, the guidelines became less detailed and prescriptive as both sides
recognized the need for exibility and as trust was built up. There are those who
argue that the mega-projects lack organic spontaneity and vitality, and blame
this on over-prescription and Vancouverite desires to control everything (Ley,
1996; Berelowitz, 1997; Blore & Sutherland, 1999). But this seems a rather
premature verdict and one that makes no allowance for the area to develop a
lived-in quality and to establish its own patterns of public life. There is plenty
of design diversity, design innovation, public art and landscape creativity
evident in the differentiated neighbourhoods, not least because they are the
work of some of Vancouver’s best architectural practices and landscape archi-
tects and because all the public art has been put out to competition.
Most importantly, the Urban Design Panel, which advises on major permits,
has acted as a design champion, quick to support innovative or original design
approaches. It has been a valuable force against standardized solutions and
tendencies to over-prescription. Overall, Vancouver’s practices exhibit a concern
with a deep concept of urban design, strong commitment to generic design
principles and contextual analysis, and a desire to encourage architectural
innovation and contemporary approaches to design detail.
Finally, in this evaluation of urban design processes there are criteria that
relate to due process and the creation of a fair, transparent and efŽcient permitting
system where the public authority has adequate skills and expertise, and com-
mon consent, to exercise its design controls.

Clear a priori Rules for Urban Design Intervention

In Vancouver there are clear a priori rules for design intervention which are set
out in the form of OfŽcial Development Plans (in the principal redevelopment
areas), zoning by-laws and, in many zoning districts and ODPs, in supporting
design guidelines. Conformity to the standard zoning requirements will guaran-
tee a permit but the pursuit of conditional uses and relaxation or oorspace
incentives (which are widely used to encourage neighbourly design) will trigger
a much more exacting evaluation of the proposals. The zoning establishes the
acceptable uses, building heights, density, form, siting, massing, privacy, park-
ing, and relationships to the street. The guidelines then set out the contextual
factors to be considered, and these vary from very general Character Area
guidelines for Downtown (CoVPD, 1993a), to quite detailed and speciŽc guide-
lines embracing desired streetscape character, views, micro-climate, safety, open
space, landscaping and ‘architectural components’ in areas like Downtown
 Urban Design as Public Policy 277

South (CoVPD, 1997). All these guidelines have been taken through thoroughgo-
ing public consultation procedures, and discussed with the development and
design industries, as part of their formulation and adoption processes.
Beyond policies and guidelines there are clear requirements for application
presentation. All major applications are required to include a design rationale,
and to demonstrate contextual relationships (within one block), relationship to
windows and balconies on adjacent properties (privacy), and include view and
shadow impacts, streetscape analysis, a landscape plan, full site plan elevations
and sections, and a model. These requirements ensure that a signiŽcant amount
of urban design thinking goes into each permit application, and they also make
it easier to evaluate proposals more accurately. These ideas have been extended
into single-family neighbourhoods where the guidelines may dictate speciŽc
contextual analysis (as with the RS-5 guidelines). So the rules for design
intervention are clearly established, and published, many of them with ‘work-
books’ to help the applicant apply the necessary design procedures (CoVPD,
1996b). However, there have been signiŽcant complaints about the complexity of
some of these regulations and guidelines.

Proper Administrative Procedures and Written Opinions

The administrative procedures of the permitting process have been subject to
repeated and very detailed scrutiny over the last 30 years, and the design and
development industry has helped to shape a process that ensures that the
exercise of discretion is transparent, consistent and fully justiŽed. The provision
of written opinions that are made publicly available, and can be challenged
through appropriate appeal mechanisms, are important components of such a
system. There are three such procedures for major applications that are relevant
in the Vancouver case. The Žrst is the report prepared by the Development
Permit Staff Committee, which tests the application against all by-laws and
guidelines, records all consultations (including all the comments from the
general public, who are fully consulted), and lists all the conditions to which the
applicant must comply. The second is the judgement of the UDP, a summary of
its deliberations being included in the above-mentioned report. Much effort has
gone into deŽning a public process where the applicant can explain his/her
design, where all members of the UDP are heard, where the UDP Chair
accurately summarizes the UDP’s views, and where a complete set of minutes
is published on the city’s web site. These proceedings are widely regarded as
providing invaluable skilled design advice.
The same principles apply to the third procedure/report from the Develop-
ment Permit Board (DPB). It allows the applicant to respond and hears from the
general public. It seeks opinions from each member of the DPB Advisory Board,
which represents the public and the development and design industries. It
ensures that the planners and the DPB exercise their discretion appropriately, as
well as articulating their own perspectives on proposals. The DPB then conducts
its own ‘rigorous appraisal’ of the application by reviewing all the proposed
conditions. Again, the deliberations are in public and the minutes are published
on the city’s web site.
Between January 1997 and July 2001 the minutes of both Panel and Board
record no serious substantive or procedural issues for applicants, save for very
rare comments about disagreements between the UDP and the Development
278 J. Punter

Planner over design guidelines, and very occasional complaints about ‘late hits’
in design negotiations and the inexible application of guidelines. This is
reafŽrmed by the absence of refusals of applications that have gone to the DPB.
This has rendered the appeal system almost obsolete as regards major applica-
tions, in contrast to the mid-1980s when it was very active in overturning city
decisions. So everything suggests that the administrative procedures on major
applications are working well.

A Fair, EfŽcient, Constructive and Effective Permitting Process

There has been much recent debate about the efŽciency of the permitting process
and ways in which it can be made quicker, more predictable and more construc-
tive. There are few difŽculties with minor applications (save for RS-5 cases) but
those applications seeking to take advantage of increased oor areas or height,
in return for more neighbourly or better design, are subjected to the full
application process, and this is likely to take between two and three months at
present once a complete application is lodged. There are longstanding concerns
about the speed of the permitting process, which is currently a minimum of four
months for proposals going to the DPB. Current reforms aim to take decisions
on minor applications in 10 weeks and major applications in 12 weeks (Kostuk,
1997), but these targets are not yet being met.
The other side of the efŽciency issue is the question of whether the planning
resources devoted to applications is worthwhile and sustainable. This has
recently become an issue with single-family zoning, and particularly with RS-5
zoning which is making demands on staff that they cannot sustain, and deliver-
ing outcomes (the protection of single-family character) that are at odds with
broader planning strategies. This was to be addressed in a single-family zoning
‘Rethink Programme’ (CoVPD, 1998), but this has been put on hold because of
a lack of resources.
The fairness and constructive nature of the system have been constant preoc-
cupations of the development industry and design professions who have sought,
and obtained, a series of changes to DPB and UDP procedures to provide checks
and balances on the exercise of discretion. The introduction of the pre-
application/design conference now allows the applicant to have all the zoning
requirements and guidelines interpreted and spelt out. A preliminary appli-
cation process can be used to establish the key parameters, and to seek the
advice of the UDP. The new permitting process aims to resolve all these issues
at a conceptual design stage and introduces Project Facilitators to positively
manage the process. ‘Late hits’, when applicants are confronted with having to
make signiŽcant changes to their schemes late in the permitting process, have
been almost eliminated in major applications, but the Development Board
Review (DBR) is still concerned to eliminate them from minor applications
(Kostuk, 1997).
The effectiveness of the system requires a judgement about the value added
to development by the detailed zoning and design guidelines, and the elaborate
scrutiny of the permitting process. Most commentators suggest that the system
delivers a consistent medium–high quality of development. This assessment is
shared by American planners’ assessments of the quality of the mega-projects
(Blore & Sutherland, 1999), community assessments of RS-5/RS-6 zoning
(CoVPD, 1999a), the Planning Departments’ celebration of its urban design
 Urban Design as Public Policy 279

achievements (CoVPD, 1999b), architectural awards and leading architects’

assessment of the overall level of design vetted by the UDP (Punter, 2003). The
major exceptions to the generally high standards achieved have been major
ofŽce buildings Downtown and the leaky-condominium phenomenon, but the
latter is primarily a failure of building regulations and inspections insofar as it
is a failure of regulation at all (Commission of Inquiry, 1998).

The Provision of Appropriate Design Skills and Expertise to Support the

Process
A major factor in Vancouver’s design achievement has been that it has ensured
that a high level of design skills has been input into the design negotiation and
review process. The key to this has been the work of the Development Planners,
who manage major applications, conduct the interpretations of zoning and
design guidelines, and undertake the key design negotiations. The group now
numbers seven, having been progressively increased from the two appointed in
1980. Each is able to take responsibility for the design issues arising from a
particular zoning as well as a share of the major applications that go to the DPB.
All development planners are architect-trained and have private-sector experi-
ence, so they understand the design problems from the development side. Their
skills, contextual knowledge, system expertise and professional judgement play
a major role in achieving quality development. They are closely supervised by
the Co-Director of Planning who will take them to task for any lapses in
professionalism even at the DPB stage. The Development Planners’ constructive,
facilitating role has been enshrined at the heart of the new permitting process,
which is in the process of being implemented by the DBR, but Project Facilitators
will take over the management of the permit process thereby leaving the
Development Planners to concentrate upon urban design matters.
The second source of design expertise is the UDP. There were early reforms
to create a Panel more likely to deal with substantive urban design issues and
less likely to get bogged down in detail. The Panel’s membership has been
broadened, its procedures made more transparent and its inputs have been
focused to the point where it now operates perhaps principally as a peer review
system for major permit applications. Most designers now seek the unanimous
support of the Panel as an endorsement of their own professional competence.
Furthermore, the Panel is able to assist in the development of a design rather
than being able to comment only upon completed schemes, thus making its
work more constructive and inuential. It is also able to contribute to guideline
and policy information.
So here are two sources of design expertise that support the design review
process and which complement each other. They combine rigorous scrutiny of
all aspects of design against zoning and design guidelines with a peer review
system that is more conceptual, but highly experienced and multi-professional.
It is the best of both worlds. So, in terms of due process, Vancouver can claim
to have a very carefully deŽned, transparently operated, skilled, constructive
and effective process of design review, even if it remains rather slow.

Future Challenges
The future challenges to the Vancouver system are identiŽed in Figure 2. Most
280 J. Punter

of them are the subject of current policy objectives but that is not the same thing
as suggesting that they are about to be resolved. They all have important design
implications, even if at root they are basic planning issues. Affordable housing
supply remains a major issue in a city that is one of the two most expensive
locations in Canada, but it will be difŽcult for the city to tackle this problem
without sustained support from the new provincial government and the return
of the federal government to social housing subsidy. Developers might be asked
to contribute more, but the Financing Growth Review (CoVPD, 2001a) is concen-
trating on trying to raise development levies from $25 to $60 per square metre
to meet existing standards of park, day care and replacement housing provision,
and this is likely to be difŽcult enough. The target of 30% affordable housing,
suggested as a sustainable development standard in the Southeast False Creek
planning exercise, will be very difŽcult to achieve.
Closely related to affordable housing is the ability of the city to realize its
CityPlan neighbourhood centres strategy, and its attendant provision of signiŽcant
quantities of ground-oriented, small unit housing. Suburban Vancouverites are
recognizing that as they age they will need a substantial supply of such housing,
but in the Žrst two visions they have not been able to muster majorities in favour
of rezonings to deliver such intensiŽcation. Here the rethink of single-family
zoning would have a contribution to make in facilitating the creation of more
affordable housing. But this is no longer a political priority because of its obvious
sensitivity to the afuent voters who return the current municipal government.
Rethinking single-family zoning and other complex regulations was an integral
part of the Development and Building Review that was launched in 1995 (Kostuk,
1997). However, the reform of permitting itself proved to be a major challenge. It
has taken six years to implement a more streamed permitting process, a ‘facili-
tated’ major application process and a more customer-oriented Enquiry Centre. So
the other reforms, which also include early community inputs into the process and
third-party appeals, are on hold. More innovative heritage planning in Gastown
(CoVPD, 2001b) and cross-governmental initiatives to tackle social deprivation,
drugs and crime in Downtown Eastside (CoVPD, 2000) promise a more positive
approach to the planning of the city’s most deprived, but also most historic,
district. Then there is the delivery of the sustainable neighbourhood on Southeast
False Creek that sets new challenges to all aspects of energy, ecology, water, waste
and transport in neighbourhood and housing design. This will impact upon all
forms of planning and building regulation as various design solutions are tested,
but the funding of the project is problematic.
Finally, the issue of rapid transit should be mentioned because, alongside
affordable housing, this is regarded as one of Vancouver’s major failings. While
transit is now a regional matter, and one in which the province plays a major
role, decisions on rapid transit lines in the city have major implications for
intensiŽcation and for future urban design strategies. Vancouver has a single
rapid transit line that has recently extended and looped back through the eastern
suburbs. There are debates about a cross-town link through Uptown along
Broadway, and a new link to Downtown from the airport and the city of
Richmond through the afuent single-family west side suburbs. The latter, in
particular, raises key questions as to the extent to which the west side suburbs
will continue to resist even modest levels of intensiŽcation and their fair share
of city-wide growth. These are some of the planning/design challenges for the
next decade.
 Urban Design as Public Policy 281

Conclusion
In summary, Vancouver’s design review system, deeply embedded in its plan,
policy, zoning and permitting system, fully measures up to the challenging
principles established by those who have most critically scrutinized practice in
major American cities. It is a system that has evolved from a political and
professional reforming zeal to establish a more participative and corporate
planning process that can deliver contextually sensitive, neighbourly develop-
ment. It is driven by a vision of a dense, mixed use and tenure, liveable city set
in glorious natural surroundings that new buildings must enhance wherever
and whenever possible. It is a system that is very much battle-hardened because
of the sustained pressures from the development and design industries, and
from the council and the City Manager’s ofŽce, for speed, efŽciency, transpar-
ency and professionalism. But it is also a system in evolution, with major
reforms to permit processing and development levies underway, and new
challenges appearing through neighbourhood vision and social regeneration
programmes in the city’s most deprived neighbourhood. Certainly, Vancouver
demonstrates how it is possible to develop an urban design agenda that is
ambitious and corporate, has demonstrable community assent, is fully integrated
with planning and zoning, is founded on broad, substantive design principles,
and has fair, skilled and efŽcient processes for adding value, in the broadest
sense, to the quality of development.

Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the Canadian High Com-
mission, which funded the travel and subsistence for this research under its
Faculty Research Program.

References
Abbott, C. (2001) Greater Portland: Urban Life and Landscape in the PaciŽc Northwest (Philadelphia:
University of Philadelphia Press).
Alexander, C. (1977) A Pattern Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Barnett, J. (1974) Urban Design as a Public Policy (New York: Architectural Record Books).
British Columbia (BC) Government (1997) Development Cost Charge: Best Practice Guide (Victoria: BC
Government).
Beasley, L. (1997) Vancouver, British Columbia: new urban neighbourhoods in old urban ways,
paper presented to the Making Cities Livable Conference, Sante Fe, April.
Beasley, L. (2000) ‘Living Žrst’ in Downtown Vancouver, Zoning News, 1–4 April.
Berelowitz, L. (1999) From Factor 15 to feu d’artiŽce: The Nature of Public Space in Vancouver.
a/r/c, Architecture Research Criticism, 1(5), pp. 32–37.
Blaesser, B.W. (1994) The abuse of discretionary power, in: B.C. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds) Design
Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, pp. 42–55 (New York: Chapman & Hall).
Blore, S. & Sutherland, J. (1999) Building Smileyville, Vancouver Magazine, 32(9), pp. 48–58, 105.
Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Architecture in British Columbia (1998)
The Renewal of Trust in Residential Construction (Victoria: Lieutenant Governor of BC).
CoV City Manager (2000) Downtown Eastside Community Revitalisation Program—Interim Report.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1992) High Density Housing for Families with
Children Guidelines.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1993a) DD (except Downtown South) C-5, HA-1 and
HA-2 Character Area Descriptions.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1993b) CityPlan: Ideas Illustrated.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1994a) Central Area Plan, Goals and Land Use Policy.
282 J. Punter

CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1994b) Discretionary Zoning Backgrounder.

CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1995a) CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1995b) Development Cost Levies—Information
Bulletin # 1.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1996a) Designing Safer Environments—Information
Bulletin #4.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1996b) RS-5 Design Workbook.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1996c) CityPlan Community Visions: Terms of
Reference.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1997) Downtown South Guidelines (excluding
Granville Street).
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1998a) Single Family Areas: Why RS Rethink.
CoVPD (1998b) Urban Sustainable Development: Southeast False Creek (prepared by the Sheltair Group)
(Vancouver: CoVPD).
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1999a) Administrative Report August 19, 1999.
Monitoring RS-5/5S and RS-6 in Areas Rezoned as Part of the RS-Interim Zoning Program.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1999b) Vancouver’s Urban Design: A Decade of
Achievement.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (1999c) Major Project Public Amenity Requirements.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (2001a) Financing Growth Review.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] (2001b) Gastown Heritage Management Plan.
CoVPD [City of Vancouver Planning Department] Urban Landscape Task Force (1992) Greenways–
Public Ways.
Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape (London: Architectural Press).
Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz, Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (New York: Verso).
Habe, R. (1989) Public design control in America communities, Town Planning Review, 60(3),
pp. 195–219.
Hardwick, W.G. (1994) Responding to the 1960s: designing adaptable communities in Vancouver,
Environment and Behaviour, 26(3), pp. 338–362.
Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell).
Hutton, T.A. (1994) City proŽle: Vancouver, Cities, 11(4), pp. 219–239.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage).
Kostuk, P. (1997) Designing a new development and building review process in Vancouver B.C.,
paper presented to National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards etc., City of
Vancouver, Community Services Group.
Lai, R.T.-Y. (1994) Law in Urban Design and Planning: The Invisible Web (New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold).
Ley, D. (1995) Between Europe and Asia: the case of the missing sequoias, Ecumene, 2(2), pp. 185–210.
Ley, D. (1996) The Middle Class and the Making of the Central City (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Loukaitiou-Sideris, A. & Banerjee, T. (1998) Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Urban Form
(Berkeley: University of California Press).
Lynch, K. (1960) Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Lynch, K. (1976) Managing the Sense of a Region (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Mercer Consulting (2000) The World’s Most Livable Cities, www.mercer.com
Mitchell, K. (1997) Fast capital, race, modernity, and the monster house, in: R. George (Ed.) Burning
Down the House: Recycling Domesticity, pp. 187–212 (New York: HarperCollins).
Pettit, B. (1992) Zoning, the market, and the single family landscape: neighbourhood change in
Vancouver, PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
Punter, J.V. (1999) Design Guidelines in American Cities: A Review of Design Policies and Guidance in Five
West Coast Cities (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press).
Punter, J.V. (2003) The Vancouver Achievement: Planning and Urban Design (Vancouver: UBC Press).
Scheer, B.C. & Preiser, W. (Eds) (1994) Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control (New York:
Chapman & Hall).
Shirvani, H. (1981) Urban Design Review: A Guide for Planners (Chicago: Planners Press).
Shirvani, H. (1992) Beyond Public Architecture: Strategies for Design Evaluation (New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold).
Sorkin, M. (Ed.) (1992) Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space
(New York: Hill & Wang).