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

201–210 of 362 posts

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

#201

Post by ttul »

munificent wrote: post #123
reso wrote: post #105

I say this all as a YIMBY who is very happy to see 20k new units added to vancouver: something feels off about the plans for the Jericho lands but I can't describe it. I feel like when you have these mega developments where 10 condos go up all at once in the space of a few blocks, they end up as "bedroom neighborhoods", where people sleep but don't do anything else. There are a lot of these happening in Canada right…

It's not exactly what you're getting at, but you might enjoy Christopher Alexander's essay "A City is not a Tree". It also talks about why highly planned cities can end up not working and feeling "right" in the way that older more incrementally-grown ones can.

Take Tokyo for example. It’s ugly and massive and sprawling but, connected with amazing transit, there is not only plenty of housing for everyone at all income levels, but the place is also just totally rad.

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

#202

Post by zaptheimpaler »

reso wrote: post #105

I say this all as a YIMBY who is very happy to see 20k new units added to vancouver: something feels off about the plans for the Jericho lands but I can't describe it. I feel like when you have these mega developments where 10 condos go up all at once in the space of a few blocks, they end up as "bedroom neighborhoods", where people sleep but don't do anything else. There are a lot of these happening in Canada right…

I think you're basically describing a typical suburb and I agree those suck. However I live pretty close to the Jericho lands and there's plenty going on here. Both 4th & broadway are nearby with lots of shopping/dining etc. and there are big parks/beaches nearby. I think the neighbourhood will get even better with more residents.

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

#203

Post by wahnfrieden »

wolfhumble wrote: post #200
wahnfrieden wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the Louisiana Purchase for instance. Or the founding of Israel by Britain.

> Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.

Irrelevant

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

#204

Post by masterj »

spxneo wrote: post #102
camg55 wrote: post #90

Think this is great for Vancouver which needs more housing. The zoning is broken, and far too conservative. Glad to see the Squamish addressing a need that will likely benefit all, and hopefully this encourages the city of Vancouver to do the same on their own accord.

Building more homes in Vancouver will not result in lower prices because this is not a supply problem it is the financial assetization of home equity that drives higher and higher prices. Blue collar workers turned multi-millionaires rely on the continued rise of home prices to purchase cheap credit which they use to speculate on more homes. When they couldn't find anymore locals they turned to the international mark…

Of all the bad racist NIMBY rants, this is definitely one of them

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

#205

Post by philistine »

nikitaga wrote: post #153
stonogo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others. Kind of the point here is that it was happening the other way for a couple hundred years, so just abrogating current inequality still leaves one party as a disadvantage. The hard part is deciding when these catch-up priveleges have run their course. Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status…

> Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status are still below the national average, it's clear we're not there just yet. Instead of rushing for race-based policies, how about implementing policies that would help all disadvantaged people equally without looking at their race. You can't compensate for past racism with modern racism. It will never end. Canada will learn that the hard way, it seems.

I see you took Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s plan from way back in the 70s out of the moth balls and are now trying to pass it as new.

It cannot work. Our government signed binding treaties with independent nations in the past. Those treaties are still valid, and we cannot declare them null and void because it’s unfair that they give more fishing rights to 3% of people.

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

#206

Post by philistine »

BigParm wrote: post #182
stonogo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others. Kind of the point here is that it was happening the other way for a couple hundred years, so just abrogating current inequality still leaves one party as a disadvantage. The hard part is deciding when these catch-up priveleges have run their course. Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status…

When the catch up is in the form of hiring quotas for a mining project on native lands, that’s just a consensual business deal and it’s positive. But sometimes the situation is taken advantage of and the appeasement goes too far. Like instead of cutting firewood for the wood stove, you just throw all your furniture and cabinetry and doors in there. Then you just ask for new ones from a big company who just wants to q…

To do that you need to break international law by declaring the treaties signed in the past null and void. You also need to break international law by refusing to negotiate with nations who never signed treaties, and want deals at least as good as nations who signed treaties.

There’s a very good reason why what you’re proposing is not what’s happening: it’s because you’re dealing with nation to nation negotiations, and the other nations want nothing of fairness and equality. They want their full rights, and denying them that is turning back the clock decades.

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

#207

Post by philistine »

lukan wrote: post #179
extr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that they do not fall under jusrisdiction is a farce and legal contrivance. In reality they have no international standing and do not and would not constitute an independent state under any normal criteria. What's happening here is the government is treating them with kid gloves because there is the perception what happened in the past is unfair (true!) and there is a desire to make amends for it. That's all…

"If tomorrow they decided to start developing nuclear weapons I don't think "they didn't consent to be governed" would fly." Any nation developing nuclear weapons will get serious problems from the nations who already have them. Native, or not. And it used to not be necessary, to have "international standing" to have your own state. You just minded your own buisness and tried to get along with the local neighbors. As…

Looking at realpolitik, I can see one path: Quebec independence. If it’s achieved within our lifetime, a sovereign Quebec might offer full independence to First Nations to get them to sign a dotted line to stop trying to be inside Canada.

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

#208

Post by nikitaga »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #194
gotoeleven wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

I don't really see how this is that challenging. It's just another jurisdiction with its own governance structure, just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change.

> I don't really see how this is that challenging.

"Not challenging"? Ok, suppose you split the province of BC into 100+ of these independent indigenous-run jurisdictions, or maybe a bit less if any First Nations decide to amalgamate in the process.

What will actually make these jurisdictions independent / sovereign? What mechanism will they use to keep the power in the hands of indigenous people? Are the millions of non-indigenous people living in BC supposed to pack up and leave for their ancestors' countries, that they might have never been to? Or are they supposed to exist as second class citizens, deprived of democratic and property rights? What fraction of indigenous blood will be enough to get first class citizenship?

And don't cop out with "the indigenous people will decide these things". Obviously they will, if it comes to that. Show at least one feasible "not challenging" solution that they could possibly decide on, that would see such jurisdictions qualify as sovereign.

> just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change.

Those Canadian jurisdictions are all governed by people who are elected by all Canadians living there, and all of those Canadians are also eligible to run for office, regardless of race. None of these types of jurisdictions could possibly give First Nations any meaningful sovereignty if their structure was applied to them, because these types of jurisdictions have no mechanism to ensure that indigenous people – or any other subset of people – will be in control, or will stay in control.

Jurisdictions with indigenous sovereignty would inevitably require aggressive race-based laws, and either a more distinctly two-class society, or a purge of non-indigenous people from Canada. You could say that this kind of thing is indeed "challenging", to say the least.

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

#209

Post by TSiege »

InitialLastName wrote: post #186
TSiege wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would…

> that would cover the entirety of canada This is very much not what we do in the United States. Rather, we forcibly uprooted, exterminated, and/or migrated indigenous people until they only occupied the most marginal land available, and then told them "here's your bit".

This is not what I'm arguing at all. We have been making (and largely breaking) treaties with indigenous peoples since before either country existed. But to say they didn't matter and that we still don't recognize them at all is completely ahistorical and out of touch with reality. Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada have worked hard to restore sovereignty. Your claim is completely ignoring that and recent precedents we've taken to right those wrongs. While it's not perfect (nor enough imo), it doesn't account to nothing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...

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

#210

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

TSiege wrote: post #181
extr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that they do not fall under jusrisdiction is a farce and legal contrivance. In reality they have no international standing and do not and would not constitute an independent state under any normal criteria. What's happening here is the government is treating them with kid gloves because there is the perception what happened in the past is unfair (true!) and there is a desire to make amends for it. That's all…

It doesn't matter if they don't have international standing, what matters is that Canada has recognized them as sovereign entities. You can't be sovereign but then be boxed into the laws of another country

Canada is already a federal state with sub national entities that don’t have all the rights of the federal government. Pretty much any state that has a federal system already deals with this.,
Post reply on HN