51–60 of 362 posts
given the price of real estate in Vancouver and the fact that this is in Kitsilano (one of the hippest / priciest neighbourhoods in the city), I don't even want to know the kind of money involved
The average condo sold in Greater Vancouver was 827k CAD in Feb 24. So the 6000 units here should be worth at least 4.8B CAD
Let me see if I got this. 1. Settlers colonize indigenous lands, drive indigenous people into small parcels and reservations and try to exterminate their culture. 2. Settlers decide to start refusing to build enough housing for themselves because they don’t want to alter the “character of the neighborhood” after… uhh… very much doing that. 3. Indigenous people build housing on their remaining bits of land for settler…
[0]https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/12/berkeley-shellmound-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> White person should not define "Indigenous way" Any person, white, black, asian, whatever, can however assess whether this development is in line with the indigenous tradition or something that might distort or endanger it. Or do you think the same discussion doensn't happen within the indigenous community as well?
"indigenous tradition or something that might distort or endanger" Are certain groups not allowed to change? Why use the word distort or endanger? We aren't talking about the discussions inside the community. We are talking about people outside the community applying judgements to their decisions and actions.
Did I say that?
>Why use the word distort or endanger?
Because obviously some change can be distorting and/or endagering some things?
The fact that an individual or group is allowed to change doesn't mean each particular change is always for the better.
>We are talking about people outside the community applying judgements to their decisions and actions.
Yes, so? Do you think groups should only get judgements to their decisions and actions from within themselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's irrelevant to "does this follow indigenous tradition or violate it" point, which is the point discussed in the subthread - not tribal lands/indigenous rights.
Why would Indigenous people have to follow tradition? I believe it is racist (or sexist) to say that a group of people cannot do something because that is not something they've done in the past. For Mr Gordon Price to imply that a group should not do something because it has not been done before is him trying to deny their agency.
They don't "have to". But they can break with it in a nice way or in a bad way.
Same way a culture can change their tradition in a respectful way or to replace it with McDonalds and Starbucks for example.
This is not confined to "indigenous people". The same critique can and does apply to any group.
Let me see if I got this. 1. Settlers colonize indigenous lands, drive indigenous people into small parcels and reservations and try to exterminate their culture. 2. Settlers decide to start refusing to build enough housing for themselves because they don’t want to alter the “character of the neighborhood” after… uhh… very much doing that. 3. Indigenous people build housing on their remaining bits of land for settler…
The Bay Area indigenous land movement is finally starting to see some wins. Shellmound in Berkeley is a big win for the Ohlone tribe. [0] [0] https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/12/berkeley-shellmound-...
I’m obviously half joking here. No intent to be insensitive. Even if they don’t build anything it’s better than a parking lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average condo sold in Greater Vancouver was 827k CAD in Feb 24. So the 6000 units here should be worth at least 4.8B CAD
I wouldn’t use GVRD/Metro Vancouver as an estimate; things get quite a bit cheaper in the other cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bay Area indigenous land movement is finally starting to see some wins. Shellmound in Berkeley is a big win for the Ohlone tribe. [0] [0] https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/12/berkeley-shellmound-...
Shh. Make sure the tribe’s leadership knows to stay quiet for a while until they can pick up a few more parcels before unveiling their plans to exceed the height of the Burj Khalifa. I’m obviously half joking here. No intent to be insensitive. Even if they don’t build anything it’s better than a parking lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The real issue is that Vancouver is full of NIMBYs who want sightlines, low density, and “character” preserved. It’s basically encoded into the zoning laws for the municipality. Those groups will use whatever tactics at hand to prevent density at a scale they don’t approve of from being built.
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.
What is unique is that nimbys have a new arsenal of tactics to use as to why this isn’t a good idea eg “concrete skyscrapers aren’t the indigenous way so you shouldn’t build your project.”