Coming to a neighbourhood near you very soon. On Monday night District Council will be voting on a recommendation to invest a miniumum of $15,000 in a "community garden" for residents in a " pre-defined portion of Lillooet Park". In addition the staff recommendation would allow three one-time grants in amounts of up to $2,000 each (for a total of $6,000) for seed funding to enable and facilitate small urban agriculture projects in the District using Funds from the 2009 Financial Plan.
The $15K would apparently be used to construct 6 foot high plots to enable residents to work the garden without bending over (also something about making the garden wheelchair accessible). As part of its commitment to the community garden the District would run water to the property to ensure the garden is adequately watered.
Great idea or not?
Friday, July 10, 2009
First Community Garden: District of North Vancouver
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 opinions/comments:
I think community gardens are a great idea. However, I question spending public money on building 6 foot high gardens. Perhaps 1 or 2 of the entire plots should be made wheelchair accessible or for those that can't bend over, but one of the goals of gardening is actually getting people to bend over rather than sitting in front of a tv.
An investment of $15,000 by the city is peanuts. They should model the community gardens like that done in the City of Vancouver. The City of Vancouver establishes plot areas, such as Nelson Park , and then licenses the plots out to local citizens. It is up to the gardeners to supply the seed and elbow grease. As part of the licenses, the licensees must stick to a Community Garden Policy. ie. plant organically, plant only certain types of species, donate excess to food banks, keep rid of weed, etc. (Although having NVites to follows a simple code of conduct maybe a bit of a stretch.) Basically, all the District needs to do is set of areas in which this activity can be conducted.
As for the photo you used, this is not a City Park and Garden but is Onni's Community Park and Gardens. To help in mitigate their cost, the private company set up the gardens at no cost to the City of Vancouver. As far as I know, the Gardeners use the Onni’s plot for free. The City of Vancouver gets a Park and Garden at no cost while still receiving 100's of thousands in property taxes. These are just temporary gardens but given the slow down in new construction of strata condos this maybe a growing trend for other development locations.
The North Shore's own Edible Garden Project has been doing this kind of thing for several years already (Group Gardening in "donated" backyards.)
The Queen Mary Community Garden has 52 allotment plots in addition to an Edible Garden Project Demonstration Garden.
Okay, that is CNV, but there are many "unofficial" small community gardens popping up all over the place without DNV's official blessings.
Edible Gardens said...
"there are many "unofficial" small community gardens popping up all over the place without DNV's official blessings."
Many? All over the place? I think that's a bit of hyperbole.
I've heard that the Legion in Lynn Valley is looking to build one. But I seriously doubt there are any currently functioning, food producing, "unofficial" community gardens.
Barry, great post. Nice to read something new and positive and directly relevant to North Van.
The backyard shared gardens project connected to City Farmers, and the Edible Garden Project, shows three DNV residents that are willing to share their backyard gardens, and it only shows one person taking advantage of this in three years...
Methinks the social engineering activists have overstated the demand for these.
Davie Village Community Garden
I think you will find that as these plots become available that they will be heavily used. However, since the District of NV is mostly single family homes, it make little sense to have community garden other than in major commercial and multifamily hubs such as Lynn Valley. Given all the large back yards in the single family homes in the District, garden groups such as City Farmer should be encourage.
The City of NV is a much more appropriate locale for community or guerrilla gardening. I think that you will find several private initiated community gardens, akin to the Davie Village above, pop up in Lower Lonsdale by the Fall of 2009.
"guerrilla gardening"
Wow, that makes digging in dirt sound so much more exciting.
Perhaps we should adopt this kind of marketing for other forms of unpopular activities.
Guerrilla litter pickup? Anyone?
Keep Vancouver Spectacular
Perhaps if we are less selfish and more community minded than unpopular activities such as gardening or garbage pick up might make North Vancouver even a better place to live.
Just because you dislike an activity does not mean that others have such narrow minded thinking as well.
I am in awe over how wonderfully kind,caring, diverse and beatiful people can be. We should be encouraging positive acts rather than creating barricades. Given the great human spirit and positive energies of many out there what other unpopular activities and needs such as help the homeless, hungry, depressed, disabled, addicted, conservations, transportation, education, and recreation can be tackled by community volunteerism.
A lovely idea, but six-foot high plots seems a bit much... or did I read that wrong?
They're for big people.
The limit suggested in the guidelines is up to 2ft for normal plots and up to 2.5ft for Accessible plots.
6 foot bed is for Mike Little.
I'd be happy if people would just look after the boulevards in front of their homes. I love community gardens. The one at Mole Hill in the West End is particularly delightful. If you've not seen it, I would encourage a visit.
6 foot high - is that to keeep the deer out?
Why not make the Grand Blvd. one big garden?
Projects like this are good for the municipality, they don't cost much and it gives local politicians something public to talk about. If they're not kept busy, they'd be listening to pitches by failed artists turned architects about 433 ft building designed like a translucent blue cruise ship with it's bow stuck in the ground.
Better than to lose a few bucks than our soul.
^Yeesh. Another North Van Nimbie railing against the gorgeous tower that was slated for Site 8.
Have fun in your suburban bungalow, buddy..
Mr. Pringle, you know nothing about Architecture. Henriquez is one of our finest Architects and the tower proposed for site 8 would have been a jewel in North Vancouvers crown. A vocal minority of NIMBYs from the Lower Lonsdale neighborhood and on council unfortunately had enough sway to prevent the project from moving forward as planned. It was the right project for the location. That is exactly where the density belongs. Somehow Ivan Leonard convinced other lower lonsdale tower residents that they owned their views. Utter nonsense. Mr. Pringle, you talk of Architects with disdain that is not deserved. As an Architect, I find your comments misguided and incredibly utterly offensive. But then again, you're just a wannabe politician, right?
C
The Official Community Plan disagrees with you.
The OCP is out of date.
And over 3300 citizens and a few nimbies as some vested interests keep stating opposed it.
The more towers that are imposed onto our City, the less chance permission will be granted for next one.
The wall has pretty much been hit. Most of the megaprojects in the past few years have failed and will continue to fail.
Yes, the OCP needs tightening down to restrict some projects allowed at this time.
6-foot deep plots will require moe than a little water. I think that measurement needs a deep re-think.... Are these intended gardeners using wheelchairs on stilts?
The site 8 proposal was gross and ugly, and the reason there were only 3300 objecting in petitions was that there was not time to get more resident opinions.
The rendering does not take away the artistic skill of the architect. Nothing personal. Just way out of line for our community.
George, there are already towers in our city. The OCP defines areas for further tower development. You're too late if you want to keep towers out of the city. The trick is to restrict their locations, so as not to interfere with lower density areas. The Lonsdale corridor is one of those locations.
Just because there are towers already is not reason to build more.
In the EU virtually all area of public domain, including areas under power lines are made available for public growing plots.
They are made available through public agencies and administered to ensure all available land is grown, seeded and weeded to best local practices.
It gives apartment dwellers a chance to experience the simple pleasure of growing and eating ( or cutting flowers) that which they might / would not be able to experience otherwise.
We should import this practice to both the north shore and all parts of the lower mainland.
David Dixon
So George, you would continue the unsustainable and expensive practice of low density (read detached single-family homes)? Look where that is getting Calgary.
Calgary is not 5 sq miles. It's a fact that someday we will run out of land and new development will stop. The only question is when we stop, how far we have will degraded our standard living that results?
Those who want the short term cash at the expense of the our future is wrong.
Those who want a vibrant city with a self-sufficient business and residential core are wrong? We're not talking about a city of high rises, but placing density where it makes the most sense, George. That is, commercial and transit corridors. Leave the rest to lower densities until a change is warranted. Your fear tactics are old and tiresome.
should that have read: "quantity six plots, each of them to be one foot high" ??
Your typification of "fear tactics" is really letting people know what the developers, the city politicians and the staff are up to. If residents come together to stop a project that the "elite" group know is best for us yahoos, then that's what is best for us. Democracy rules.
It makes sense to you to fill the transit and commercial corridors with high rises until by your anon words "a change is warranted". That is when you filled the rest with as high as you can get away with. Then you come for the rest of the city. Little examples of what was tried (and the CNV is in court about) in Bewicke will be the norm of what was called residential area. Little condos units replace all family homes.
Take a look at Richmond. Condos have replaced single family houses, far more density than the duplex zoo come are pushing for here.
Have you seen the area of Bewicke in question? Right off Marine and adjacent commercial and light industrial, not to mention transit. It's where the proposed density belongs!
Yeah, I used to live right near there.
A monster project like that doesn't belong in the CNV. The creative manipulation of the law landed the City in court. It clearly and legally lost a vote but staff made up some "Yes Minister" interpretation that said a vote wasn't really legally binding since it disagreed with what they wanted.
I was also at most of the Council meetings on this and your words are like the NDP three who based their argument on the logic that if you tripled the people and parking spots but the magic of "ecodensity" would not triple the the green house gases emitted.
This falsehood continues in many projects pushed by the new NDP three. If you triple the people but achieve less per person GHG effect, it doesn't actually reduce GHG.
Monster project? It was the density of a garden apartment for crying out loud! On a street with other garden apartments! It's got nothing to do with party affiliations, it's about placing the density where it belongs. Namely, adjacent commercial and transit corridors.
Monster project defines the Bewicke scenario. Had it been "smart" density defined as liveable - not each 50ft lot with a fullsize duplex, AND a single family home, AND five parking spaces - there would not have been opposition. This was purely greed on the part of developers. A project providing family accommodation (smaller units) maybe rowhouses would have made sense. The argument was NOT against density purely, it was the type of density and the "gift" of the density to the group with NO community benefit.
Density belongs in Surrey, not the CNV.
Thank you for that enlightening statement, Anon 5:26. In case you hadn't noticed, we have density. Low, medium and high. Right here in CNV. The idea is to place the various levels of density where it makes sense and where it will do the most good.
The main problem is the cost.
Personally I don't think the City or District should be providing anything except land and perhaps a water connection or two.
The bottom line is that if DNV gives $2000 to the Rec Commission for new exercise equipment the new treadmill, weights, etc. will be used by hundreds of people per month.
A $2000 grant for a community garden plot (which is what they're suggesting a single plot takes to outfit) serves maybe one or two people.
I have no problem with the concept but given how many people use the exercise equipment vs. how many use a plot this is a tough one to support.
Sorry folks, but I >DON'T< think this should be driven primarily by City or District Councils - if it's to support grass-root efforts (no pun intended) then great but public resources are simply not great enough to meet all desires.
On Dec. 8, 2003 NVC Council approved the provision of $85,000.00 to fund the Community Garden on Second Street. Fearnley, Mussatto, Keating and Sharp voted in favour; Perrault, Clark and Heywood voted against.
Are you serious? Someone actually voted against a community garden? LOL. Someone must have been having a very bad day...
Heywood, Clark and Perrault did not vote against a community garden; they voted against spending $85,000.00 to create one. If the NVD can support a community garden with a $15,000 one-time grant, those three City councillors questioning the cost makes sense. There's no doubt that the 2nd Street Community garden is beautiful. The gardeners are doing a super job, and there is a long waiting list for plots. No doubt, the Queen Mary CG will also be a great success.
Still, it is reasonable to ask, especially when revenues are down, where community gardens rank in the long list of deserving projects?
I'm not against community gardens either but every project has a price tag and not all price tags are worth it.
Mike Little's "don't give dollars, give land and water hookups" makes sense to me since right now DNV doesn't have the dollars but definitely has the land and water.
This is something that SHOULD be 'grass roots' or 'from the ground up' rather than 'top down' from municipal government. (Apologies for the outrageous puns but you know what I mean!)
A city talks the talk about going green but is it all lip service? Where does all the funding for the LEC come from? Why are the solar panels on top of the library being covered?
I think that the mayor and councillors are tricking the public by giving the false perception that they are implementing green cost effective alternatives. Does the city have the expertise within, capable of researching, implementing, and maintaining cost effective green solutions? Until the true costs of the LEC and an honest assessment of the solar panels are released I think not.
If our City councillors and mayor were truly interested in green alternatives, they would be pushing Translink for service to the North Shore that offers a true alternative to the automobile. Make transit convenient. Make the service so good that using a car is not a viable choice. Council, Mayor, are you listening?
Not a chance. The mayor and councillors only go for things that make them look good in the public’s image.
The lack of accountability coupled with the absence of mechanisms to measure successes or failures will always result in the taxpayers money being misdirected and wasted.
If they got Transit working on the North Shore, would that not make them look good? I can't think of anything else that would make them look so good.
A reduction in taxes would make them more popular.
Regretably no matter HOW low taxes are kept (and I agree with my good friend Eric from Blueridge that tax increases in the 4-5% range cannot in any reasonable way be considered "sustainable") you can expect to see tax increases from Metro Vancouver, the GV Water District and Translink ALL at least twice the rate of inflation in nearly every single one of the next 10 years.
I'm sympathetic when it comes to water and to sewage as these costs are definitely predictable but I'm totally UN-sympathetic with Translink for the following reasons:
(a) they support the current property assessment based levy which causes North Vancouver ratepayers to pay far more than their share of the what the levy would be on a per capita basis,
(b) I frankly don't see the fiscal responsibility I expect to see from Translink - I am NOT saying I think the DNV finance department is doing a fabulous unbelievabily great job but there's no question in my mind that they at least are TRYING to keep their pencils sharp unlike Translink who however much they take they want / need more
(c) we've not seen federal or provincial governments stepping up to transit funding
(d) I am deeply suspicious when Translink wants to get involved in the urban planning process
On community gardens I say again that while I'm not opposed to the concept it needs to be primarily grass roots driven and NOT top down from the District (or City) of North Vancouver.
Post a Comment