Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

macleans.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 362 posts

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#21

Post by trimethylpurine »

lisper wrote: post #3

I think this is terrific. It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty. The idea that "When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building" is just ridiculous. Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"? You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the sa…

I think I missed the meaning of the quote.

Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context?

If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped?

But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could see that...

How does any of that relate to indigenous people using granted land to build them?

Does Canada have some law about that?

I guess I don't see why this quote has any bearing for or against the development. It feels entirely out of place in the article. Just seems like an unrelated fact.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#22

Post by chrisco255 »

badcppdev wrote: post #17
stavros wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a woman, actually. Your point is valid, I just don't like how "white man" has become a slur.

I think the quote is from a white man called Gordon Price. Full quote to assist you. "In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building." "White man" can be used in that form when the white man appears to be telli…

Sure if you want to be racist. The shoe on the other foot, replace White man with Black man, Red man, etc and its clear that its racist.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#23

Post by timmytokyo »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #21
lisper wrote: post #3

I think this is terrific. It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty. The idea that "When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building" is just ridiculous. Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"? You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the sa…

I think I missed the meaning of the quote. Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context? If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could…

In a city completely inundated with skyscrapers, it's odd -- and maybe a bit telling -- that some people become concerned for the first time in their lives only once an indigenous nation decides to build a skyscraper.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#24

Post by trimethylpurine »

badcppdev wrote: post #18
EnigmaFlare wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Find out what you're complaining about before getting race-baited into hating someone. The context of his statement might have made it perfectly reasonable. This article is obviously trying to paint everyone and their dog as a racist so don't trust it to be open about the context.

I think you need to provide some links with context because the article makes a compelling case that people are trying to block an indigenous group from exercising their agency.

Do we know that it's not a small few wealthy deal makers selling the land out from under people that wanted to preserve it? I'm not Canadian, so I have no clue. But that would be my immediate suspicion based on experience in real estate and movies I saw on TV.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#25

Post by ivan_gammel »

chrisco255 wrote: post #22
badcppdev wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the quote is from a white man called Gordon Price. Full quote to assist you. "In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building." "White man" can be used in that form when the white man appears to be telli…

Sure if you want to be racist. The shoe on the other foot, replace White man with Black man, Red man, etc and its clear that its racist.

“White man” is not racist, it is a self-describing short term for Eurocentric supremacy and a quote from Kipling. As such it is not replaceable by Black/Red etc. Everyone can use it in such context as a metaphor, not as a racial reference.

Edit: previously my message included some poor choice of words, which I will keep here for history and an example of accidental bias: “White men are absolutely allowed to use it as a slur towards other white men.”

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#26

Post by ivan_gammel »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #21
lisper wrote: post #3

I think this is terrific. It's high time the indigenous people reclaimed their sovereignty. The idea that "When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building" is just ridiculous. Who the fuck are you, white man, to say what is and is not consistent with an "Indigenous way of building"? You aren't living the same lifestyle and building the sa…

I think I missed the meaning of the quote. Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context? If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could…

>Can't we leave one thing undeveloped?

Sure. Undevelop your own land and that will solve the problem.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#27

Post by trimethylpurine »

badcppdev wrote: post #17
stavros wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a woman, actually. Your point is valid, I just don't like how "white man" has become a slur.

I think the quote is from a white man called Gordon Price. Full quote to assist you. "In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building." "White man" can be used in that form when the white man appears to be telli…

I disagree. It's an ad hominem point. Comments should focus on ideas. Race based commentary like this is a discredit to one's own argument and character.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#28

Post by trimethylpurine »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #26
trimethylpurine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I missed the meaning of the quote. Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context? If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could…

>Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? Sure. Undevelop your own land and that will solve the problem.

I don't own the last Hawaiian island, but I'm thankful someone who does hasn't developed it.

If they did and then "undeveloped" it, that wouldn't much help. Right? The last island will have been destroyed for future generations to study and enjoy.

Not being Canadian, I have no clue what the context is. This might be the last of a unique piece of nature, or it could be the first acre of an endless desert. That context changes the meaning quite a bit, doesn't it?

I'm not Italian, but I'd be upset if Italians bulldozed Pompeii.

It's a world heritage site! Some things belong to everyone and are worth preserving.

I'll gladly "undevelop" and take compensation to move if a temple was discovered under my house.

So your comment has no meaning. I sure will "undevelop" my land, and since the law would force me, we can see that society as a whole had voted that I should, in certain cases.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#29

Post by badcppdev »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #24
badcppdev wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to provide some links with context because the article makes a compelling case that people are trying to block an indigenous group from exercising their agency.

Do we know that it's not a small few wealthy deal makers selling the land out from under people that wanted to preserve it? I'm not Canadian, so I have no clue. But that would be my immediate suspicion based on experience in real estate and movies I saw on TV.

I agree that's absolutely a possibility. Also not a Canadian. But I will point out that superficially there doesn't seem to be opposition to development on the land. The opposition appears to be based on what is being built rather than where.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#30

Post by trimethylpurine »

timmytokyo wrote: post #23
trimethylpurine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I missed the meaning of the quote. Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context? If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could…

In a city completely inundated with skyscrapers, it's odd -- and maybe a bit telling -- that some people become concerned for the first time in their lives only once an indigenous nation decides to build a skyscraper.

I'm not sure you understand my question. I don't see from the quote that there is any concern. Where are you drawing that from?
Post reply on HN