Posted by: Jessica | March 19, 2014

We’re moving over to the new VPSN website!

Image from Cheuk-man Kong

Image from Cheuk-man Kong

…and lift-off! After lots of meetings, oodles of design discussions and lots and lots of coding, writing and all-around tinkering, our brand-new VPSN website is ready to go. Please bookmark the new site: www.vancouverpublicspace.ca 

Like a good gathering place, this website is meant to be a space for convergence, dialogue and the sharing of thoughts. We hope you’ll take a stroll, contribute your ideas on Vancouver’s public realm – perhaps sign up for an event or participate in one of our projects. We aim to have something of interest for every public space enthusiast.

This new website replaces our former blog (active since 2010) and an even older website that we had designed back when we started our work in 2006. Over the next few months, we will complete a migration of all material from these earlier sites, including reports, discussion papers and other items. So think of this new site as your one-stop-shop for all things VPSN!

We are indebted to web designer Erika Rathje and programming developer Nicolas Demers for their countless hours of work on this site. These two have been the driving force behind all design and technical considerations – and couldn’t have been more awesome to work with. Thank you Erika and Nicolas!!

The website has also been a labour of love for key members of our communications team, including Jillian Glover, Alissa Sadler, Graham Pollock, Michaela Montaner and our newly minted Comms Coordinator, Jessica Hum.

Please have a look around and let us know what you think. As with any big project like this, there are still tweaks to be made here and there. We invite you to help us ‘iron things out’ and welcome any feedback that you might have.

On behalf of the VPSN team,

Andrew Pask (Director) & Adam Vasilevich (Chair)

Vancouver Parks

Sometime  on the morning of March 11, perhaps as you were heading outside to sit on a bench with your morning coffee, Vancouver City Council was discussing a motion entitled “Protecting Vancouver’s Public Greenspace.” As we noted last week, if passed, this motion would direct City staff to develop a policy of no net loss of public green space. (There are other provisions in the motion around increasing greenspace setting biodiversity targets as well). 

What ‘no net loss’ idea means, in general, is that whenever there is a loss of greenspace in a park or school board site, it would have to be replaced. Of course, as we note below, it’s the specific details where things start to get tricky — and we have identified a few items that we feel are worth thinking about if this motion gets the go-ahead.

To that end, we sent off a letter to offer our support – just as we did almost seven years ago when it was first proposed by former Park Board Commissioner Spencer Herbert. Here’s an excerpt:

…The idea of developing a ‘no net loss’ policy has considerable merit. The VPSN first wrote to the City in support of a similar motion in November 2007. We commend the City for revisiting this issue.

We note that the idea of a no net loss policy has some technical and implementation-related questions that will need to be looked at closely. We would like to use this opportunity to share some considerations in advance of any policy or strategy development.

  • Clarifying ‘no net loss’ – Greenspace can be reduced in two ways: (1) through a reduction in the number of hectares of designated greenspace (e.g. through the expansion of a park building or installation of a parking lot – assuming that these are not part of the original ‘net total’); and (2) through the potential reduction in available park space per capita, as the population of the city grows. The VPSN supports measures to mitigate both of these forms of reduction.
  • Greenspace vs open space – Some additional clarity should be considered around the loss of greenspace versus open-space, as these terms are overlapping, but not synonymous. If a park is redesigned and has an increased amount of hard-surfacing introduced – i.e. a plaza – does that count as loss of greenspace? Similarly, if a public gathering area/plaza without any real landscaping is reduced, could that trigger the provisions of this motion?
  • Quality and quantity – While this motion focuses on the idea of quantitative reductions in greenspace, we would suggest that improvements in quality may be as important, if not more important than quantitative improvements. Stated another way, merely ensuring that ‘lost’ greenspace is replaced doesn’t necessarily guarantee a public or environmental benefit is derived.We understand also that, in at least two of the community plan consultations (Marpole and Grandview-Woodland), strong preferences were expressed for qualitative improvements to existing parks.Given that a no-net loss policy will require some funding mechanism for parkland acquisition, this raises the question – would at least a portion of that money be better spent improving under-performing spaces before acquiring new space elsewhere. We offer this as food for thought.
  • Locational considerations – In general, the VPSN supports a ‘no net loss’ approach that ties any ‘replacement greenspace’ to the neighbourhood/local area in which ‘the loss’ takes place. However, we note that the motion raises a question of equity: what if there is a net loss in greenspace in a neighbourhood that is particularly park rich? Is it appropriate to shift the public benefit to an area of the city that is park deficient? Again, something to think about in the course of developing a strategy around this. Either way, we recommend that the City be clear on this issue.
  • Funding ‘no net loss’ replacement greenspace – The City’s parkland acquisition budget is not particularly large. Furthermore, the Parks Board already has a number of laudable park acquisition priorities: focused on ensuring waterfront access, increasing parkland in park-deficient neighbourhoods and supporting the acquisition of park space to meet the Greenest City 5-minute ‘Access to Nature’ goal. We would not want to see this already-limited budget further stretched to support the no-net loss goal. To that end, we favour the apportioning of additional funds from the annual City budget to support this motion.

Again, these comments are intended – pending approval of this motion – to strengthen any future work around a no-net of greenspace policy.  We would like to further note our support for the other provisions of the motion that deal with the potential to expand greenspace and, also, to set biodiversity targets in the city.

Vancouver City Hall - Picture 028 - pp

Next week sees an array of important public space initiatives being discussed at City Hall. Here are some of the key items from a four-day run of meetings between Monday and Thursday (a stretch that includes two public hearings, a regular Council session, and a meeting of the City Finance and Services Committee).

On Monday, March 10, the first public hearing will consider three projects, including the proposed Oakridge Centre rezoning and development. There’s a lot to be discussed on this latter item – higher buildings, new park and plaza space, and key transportation considerations – and it promises to be a lively debate. (Some of the public correspondence is already on-line, and in case you missed it, we outlined some of the public space-specific considerations in a blog post on February 19.)

The following day, Tuesday, March 11, the regular sitting of Council sees a full suite of items.

Curious about how much Mayor and Council took home as pay this year? The 2013 Council Remuneration and Expenses report details salaries, travel and other expenses.

Following that, there’s a number of Motions being proposed in the meeting, including:

  • Protecting Vancouver’s Public Green Space – which, if passed, would direct City staff to develop a policy of no net loss of public green space. Interestingly, this idea was proposed by former Park Commissioner Spencer Herbert (now an MLA) back in 2007. It didn’t pass back then, so it will be interesting to see how the discussion goes this time around. (The VPSN wrote in support of the motion back in ’07 and plan to offer our support this time as well). We’ll share more on this item in a few days time.
  • Traffic Safety and Increased Traffic Volume – 4th Avenue West of Macdonald – The Pt. Grey Road active transportation corridor has created some changes in local traffic patterns. While the City is monitoring these impacts, there are reports in some corners that southbound left-turns onto 4th Avenue are becoming more challenging. This motion looks at the possibility of installing traffic signals to respond to these concerns. (Of interest to sustainable transportation enthusiasts: it’s proposed that funding for these signals be “found within found within the up to $6.0 million budget previously approved by Council for Phase 1 of the completion of the Seaside Greenway and creation of the York Bikeway.”)
  • Proposed Service Cuts on TransLink Bus Route 49 UBC/Metrotown Station – as part a program of “service optimization,” TransLink is considering changes to the 49 UBC/Metrotown Station bus. This would eliminate key transit service to Champlain Heights, “a community which includes a high proportion of seniors, young families and people with disabilities who rely on transit service to work, go to school and complete essential daily tasks.” The proposed Council motion would direct staff to advise TransLink that the City “opposes any reduction of service” on this route.

Lastly (at least for our update), Wednesday, March 12 features a key City Finance and Service and Services Committee meeting – one which will see Council deliberate over the Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan, an ambitious neighbourhood-scale policy document that will set out land-use directions, social and cultural policy, and public realm considerations for the next few decades. The VPSN is currently reviewing this document and will be presenting our take on it very shortly.

Interested in letting Council know your thoughts on any of these items? Follow this link to find out how you can have your say (either in person, or via letter/email).

Downtown Eastside Neighourhoods from the City of Vancouver

Downtown Eastside Neighourhoods from the City of Vancouver

On March 12 2014 the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Plan is going before council.  The plan sets broad policy goals for this complex and fascinating community that spans from the heritage communities of Gastown, Victory Square, Chinatown and Japantown, to the industrial spaces of Clark Dr and shady streets of Strathcona and Kiwassa, for the next 30 years.

Now is the time to read the draft plan and share your thoughts!

Here’s how you can get involved:

At this informal session we propose to discuss the impacts of the plan on public spaces in the DTES. Following this session we will draft a brief position statement and provide speaking points to any that may be interested in standing up on March 12 on behalf of public spaces in the DTES.

Please come prepared to discuss the public space aspects of the plan. Note this is not an ‘official’ city consultation event.  If you cannot make this event we welcome your comments for inclusion in our work by email.

Further reading:

Posted by: Karen Quinn Fung | February 28, 2014

Recap: Andrew Coyne weighs in on mobility pricing to reduce congestion

Andrew Coyne on February 25, 2014 at SFU Woodwards.
Photo by sillygwailo.

National Post columnist Andrew Coyne spoke to a crowd at SFU Woodwards on Tuesday, February 25th, on the topic of road pricing to reduce congestion. His talk was the second in a series entitled Rethinking Transportation presented by TransLink and a number of others (as listed on the series’ website) trying to spur conversations on ideas, analysis and approaches to understanding transportation issues in Metro Vancouver.

Road pricing – a hot topic in Metro Vancouver

In seeking to achieve these goals, Coyne did not disappoint. He is hardly the first nor likely to be last to describe road pricing as the solution for transportation ills in Vancouver. In late 2013, the SFU Centre for Dialogue convened a number of regional dialogues as well as a community summit on the topic. The reports from the Moving in Metro events (which I was able to attend) were released earlier last week. Writing in the Georgia Straight last week, Daniel Wood made a case for road pricing, illustrating the benefits it has brought to the places that have adopted it, while also highlighting the numerous challenges (many political) that would need to be overcome in making it a reality in to Vancouver.

Grappling with congestion

For some of his talk, for those of us privileged to have been following this conversation as it has unfolded thus far, Coyne seemed to be treading familiar ground. Like most others talking about transit tend to do, the talk started with an illustration of the problem of congestion: the massive amounts of time wasted because of congestion; the tried and failed attempts to shifting people’s behaviours away from single-occupancy vehicles; the almost impossible persuasive task of helping people to understand themselves not only as victims of congestion but, as drivers, simultaneous contributors to it. He also made the point that the current set-up, rather than rationing the limited supply of a good through the mechanism of a price, was instead rationing it out through the time people were willing to spend either waiting in congestion or waiting in public transit, to seemingly no one’s ultimate satisfaction or benefit.

“Yes, driving is subsidized too…”

On the price of driving, Coyne was similarly probably speaking to the converted. It has been argued, proven consistently and is generally widely accepted that the price of driving as it stands right now does not currently reflect the costs imposed on society by automobile activity — and that car-centric policies qualify as an effective subsidy on automobile-centric lifestyles (Coyne described sprawl as the cousin of congestion). He sees mobility pricing as an instrument to not only remove that subsidy but also to use price to more effectively communicate the actual cost of driving, and in so doing, give people the information and incentive to make better choices, such as using non-car alternatives; or, in the converse, to have a mechanism to pay for uncongested, more reliable roads in an informed fashion.

“…and transit also shouldn’t be.”

Where Coyne veered from previous commentators in this respect was that he applied the same above thinking on prices and subsidies to transit, arguing that a public monopoly on transit was in effect subsidizing it in a way that was skewing or masking the market signals that would spur innovation. Concerns about equity of access to mobility through public transit, Coyne stated, should be addressed through supplements to income rather than reductions in price. He voiced a desire for transit operators “to be up late at night thinking about how to grow ridership” (implying that such a thing wasn’t happening a present because transit is subsidized and, presumably, leading to complacent public servants). For this reason, he is not in favour of directing road pricing revenues to building better transit systems, preferring schemes that would return these revenues back to the public through rebates or setting up a public trust that would pay dividends to citizens.

Can mobility pricing give us the region we want, from the one we have now?

The weakest part by far of Coyne’s proposal is that it has apparently little to say about the streets, cities and towns that already exist in their car-dominated state. He stated that, were such a scheme put a in place, he expected the housing market would create more density to reduce the requirement of car dependency. Another weakness, pointed out in a question by Eric Doherty, is that it was clearly aimed at solving congestion and had almost no bearing on the imperative of climate change. Coyne acknowledged this openly, stating that mobility pricing is an instrument for the specific problem of congestion, but that other problems can and should be addressed by other complementary instruments such as a carbon tax. Shauna Sylvester from the SFU Centre for Dialogue also raised the question of whether farebox revenues would be adequate to raise the capital funds required for rapid transit projects, to which Coyne responded that they ought to be able to argue the merits of consistent revenue to do the borrowing to get the projects going, much as other public projects in sectors like healthcare do.

On mobility pricing and the referendum

One valuable point Coyne expressed was that mobility pricing has never been rejected in a referendum of users after they have actually experienced it fully implemented. This is key for those of us in Metro Vancouver watching the almost daily back-and-forths between the TransLink Mayor’s Council and the BC Provincial Government. In a very short span of time, mobility pricing has moved off, then back onto, the table of things the Province is open to having be on the ballot for the regional referendum on funding public transit. The risk of rejecting a solution based on just reading about it, is one that Coyne is helpful to warn us about.

In the end, I left this talk with two main takeaways:

  • Firstly, that road pricing as a solution has a lot going for it, but it still requires that a significant portion of the public to understand and agree with mobility as something that’s historically been free that can be improved if it is paid for.
  • Secondly, that the specifics of Vancouver’s situation — ranging from some areas of clear, high levels of demand for transit service, and other areas highly dependent on automobiles for mobility marked by infrequent, unreliable or unpleasant transit service — will require a lot of nuancing. It may be similar to what other cities have faced, but it will certainly require dedication to being thoughtful to how congestion weighs against a whole host of other policy goals, such as livable neighbourhoods, compact development or affordability.

In Coyne’s talk, I heard the application of economic ideals, but precious few tractable suggestions to work through the concerns about mobility pricing that Metro Vancouver residents have expressed for it to be considered successful.

Additional Resources

  • Website for Moving in Metro: a discussion on mobility pricing from the SFU Centre for Dialogue, including videos to presentations made during the Community Summit event on November 29, 2013.
  • The Rethinking Transportation Speaker Series – look forward to a talk with Charles Montgomery, author of The Happy City, on March 26. Attendence is free; online registration forthcoming. (Andrew Coyne’s talk will also be made available online on this website at a later date.)
  • Blog post from Stephen Rees on his impressions of the talk
  • A Storify with initial reactions on Twitter from the #movingthefuture hashtag for the event.
Posted by: Jessica | February 27, 2014

A Measure of Civic Participation

Halloween by VPSN

This past week some fifty or so guests converged in the basement of the University Women’s Club of Vancouver to hear from, and converse with, Andy Yan, Adjunct Professor with the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning. Andy is also a Researcher and Urban Planner for Bing Thom Architects where he co-leads BTAworks, BTA’s independent research and development arm.

The presentation was part of a series of Tuesday Dialogues with the UBC SCARP faculty, with the Q+A moderated by the school’s Director, Penny Gurstein. The remaining Dialogues on our City’s Future  run to March 18. Here is a description of the talk from the SCARP poster:

10 data points you should know about your City, from demographics to civic participation, to real estate ownership. What might it take to create our own “Good City of Vancouver”?

To my left and right, some were taking copious notes on the data points, others were saving their salient questions for the post-presentation dialogue. Of course we’d all want to be a part of creating the Good City! But really, I’m a bit of a map geek and I was there to see the latest research work plotted on some shiny new maps. Many of the data points could further the VPSN Routemap objectives; for this short blog post, I will focus on one finding in particular, which related directly to the Routemap Goal #6: spaces for expression and engagement.

Civic spaces and civic processes that invite deliberation and public expression, and support the notion of urban democracy.

Every year on October 31, Andy and his team collect crowdsourcing data from Trick or Treaters. Over the past few years, the aggregate data has allowed Andy to map what he describes as an ultimate measure of civic participation – in the darkness of night, you open your door to masked strangers and give them something…. in another scenario this would be the beginning of a home invasion. Instead, on one special night of the year, this common practice could be a measure of participation in our communities, the ‘glue’ that holds our neighbourhoods together. When plotted geographically, the map showed a crescent moon ring through the City; the neighbourhoods sound like familiar areas where I would feel at just fine walking down the street alone, and at night: Commercial Drive, South Main, Kitsilano.

Source: Vancouver Sun

Source: Vancouver Sun

To further emphasize the civic participation, Andy pulled up another map showing us the voting trends from our latest municipal elections. Same crescent moon, same neighbourhoods again. Now if only we could continue meeting our neighbours, without the candy incentive, on other nights throughout the year. Great food for thought, especially for those with a sweet tooth.

Posted by: Karen Quinn Fung | February 21, 2014

Presenting at the 2014 BC Library Association Conference

Library Square at Central Branch of the Vancouver Public Library. Photo by VPSN.

The BC Library Association has kindly invited the Vancouver Public Space Network to speak about our public space advocacy and engagement work at their annual conference happening in Vancouver from Monday, March 31st to Wednesday, April 2.

The BCLA conference, organized around the theme “Hello World!” (a shoutout to computer programmers), promises to be an exciting interdisciplinary event — with session streams on Access, Evidence, Community, Place (that’s us), and Work. They have secured thoughtful keynote speakers known for their cutting-edge work in storytelling, design and activism, as well as sessions with speakers from other local organizations like Bing Thom Architects, the BC Civil Liberties Association, and Mozilla Labs.

Here is the description of the VPSN’s session, which will be taking place on Tuesday, April 1:

Since 2006, the Vancouver Public Space Network has been a volunteer-driven non-profit organization doing advocacy and outreach on issues of public space and the public realm in and around Vancouver. Our interventions and projects have sought to bring the public’s attention and awareness to the wide range of values and uses of public space — from its role in community-building, sustainability and livability, to the unique part it plays in political and social expression. In this session, Jonathan Bleackley, Karen Quinn Fung, and Jaspal Marwah will highlight this diversity with a walkthrough of the VPSN’s activities. From making spaces to share meals, throwing dance parties on public transit, staging a public square design competition and orchestrating mobile phone-powered photo scavenger hunts, to mobilizing volunteers to collaborate on large-scale art installations or collect data on what features make for good public spaces, we hope this session will inspire libraries with simple ways to observe, understand and better connect the people in your communities into an engaging, lively and cherished place.

Check out the BCLA Connect 2014 Conference website for more information about the event – early bird registration closes February 25. You can also follow along with the event’s updates through its Twitter account at @BCLibraryconf.

Entrance to the Oakridge–41st Avenue Canada Line Station.

On February 18, 2014, City Council reviewed a report on the proposed Oakridge Centre rezoning, and recommended that the the proposed redevelopment proceed to public hearing.  This sets the stage for a more formal opportunity for members of the public to weigh-in on the project in front of Mayor and Council — something that will likely take place in March of this year.

Expect this hearing to be loud, as both supporters and opponents line up to have their say.

The Vancouver Public Space Network has been following this proposed redevelopment for some time now. We know that it stands to be contentious. New towers with a significant increase in height and density, developed amidst what is a largely single-family neighbourhood, will generate opposition among many nearby residents. On the other hand, the area in question is both a transit hub and major commercial destination, another factor that needs to be fairly factored into the discussion. 

Then there is the specific set of considerations that emerge around public space. Higher buildings can have an impact on the experience of the public realm – though it important to note that this impact has both positive and negative dimensions. Views and shadowing and potential transportation impacts are one side of the equation. On the other: the proposed redevelopment attempts to offset the increased height and density (and additional population) with a number of significant public benefits – including parks and plazas, a redesigned ‘high street’ and other community amenities. 

The application draws attention to several significant public realm and transportation features, such as a proposed bike-share program, an increased emphasis on car-sharing, and multi transit options to the mall. Perhaps more significantly, from a public space perspective, the application proposes a 3.6-hectare rooftop park that would offer the benefits of a half-mile walking loop, large green space for non-programmed active recreation, and a water/art garden for the public to enjoy. If thoughtfully designed and executed, this could be a significant boon to the neighbourhood.

Oakridge redevelopment - concept rendering - 2013

A developer rendering of the proposed Oakridge Centre redevelopment. Part of the consultation materials produced in 2013.

There’s been a lot of discussion around the rooftop park. Notwithstanding our support for plaza and park space, we feel that there are still some questions that need to be answered about how public this rooftop space will actually be. The grade-separated nature of the park may pose extra challenges to ensuring usage is optimized, and that the space is easily recognizable as a public facility. The adjacency to the mall will potentially blur the lines between public and private space – something that has been noted by the City’s Urban Design Panel, among others. This challenge could be further amplified depending on the way in which private mall security occupy the space.

On top of that, there’s the challenge of just getting to the park. It’s an elevated space – which has the potential to create an accesibility issue. We feel that the rooftop open space must be freely open to the public, without barriers or conditions, yet the majority of access points to the park space will be through the mall itself.  The report references public access to the rooftop via 45th avenue, but will one public access route be sufficient?

The ground-level public spaces, including a transit plaza, are similarly encouraging – but again, the proof will be in the pudding. There is a mini-legacy of underperforming transit plazas in the city (and region). This could be a model for how to do one right, or not. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

The VPSN is encouraged by the inclusion of car-sharing options and a proposed cycling infrastructure and have consistently supported better, more active and sustainable modes of transportation (see, for example, our Route Map for Public Space Policy (2012-2014).) We do note that the proposed redevelopment references a private bike share program for residents and space for future Public Bike Share stations, the latter of which, currently seems to be in a bit limbo. In regards to the car-sharing program, we would discourage the development of a private car-sharing program but would encourage building upon and supporting the existing car-sharing options that are available in Vancouver so that non-residents have the potential for visitors to arrive by car share and therefore reduce the need for accommodating individual car parking.

As part of the current application for the Oakridge Centre redevelopment, the VPSN is looking forward to continuing the conversation through the public hearing process. We welcome your thoughts on this project.

Posted by: VPSN | February 17, 2014

Motion: keeping tabs on Council voting records

P1011979

There’s an interesting motion on notice that will be discussed at tomorrow’s City Council meeting. Aimed at “Improving Transparency and Public Access to Council Voting Records,” it’s being put forward by Councillor Adriane Carr.

If passed, the motion would direct City staff to provide a better recording of the various votes that take place in Regular Council meetings, Standing Committee meetings and Public Hearings – in particular “specifying which members voted in favour, voted in opposition, or were recused, on leave, or absent/out of chamber.” Carr’s motion further asks that this information be made available, not only in the minutes of each of the meetings, but also through the City’s Open Data portal.

This would mark a small improvement for the minutes of the various Council meetings. Currently, the City’s Procedure Bylaw only require the City Clerk to record the names of Council members who vote in opposition to a motion. Given that there are only 11 people sitting around the table (1 Mayor and 10 Councillors), the math isn’t particularly onerous. Absences are also recorded elsewhere in each set of meeting notes. But that being said, the additional clarity around the ‘yeas and nays’ can’t hurt things. And for that reason, we can definitely support the first part of the motion.

Perhaps the bigger question that arises from this proposal surrounds the potential format of summary records that may be made available on the Open Data Portal. We note a small concern around the idea that aggregate data – what we assume will be tables of vote numbers – could be available for download without the sort of broader context you get in the full meeting notes.

We like the ability to crunch numbers, so we get the appeal of data sets like this. We are also big supporters of anything that makes the democratic process more transparent.

At the same time, we feel that it’s important to flag a potential downside to this – that simplified tables of voting data could, inadvertently, provide fodder for overly simple analyses of voting decisions. Voting records alone, only tell part of the story in any Council debate.

Should the motion pass, we hope, at the very least, that there will be enough contextual information in the data tables (including links back to the individual sets of minutes and meeting notes, the wording of the various items being voted on), to enable the data to be used in the richest fashion possible.

None of the concerns we raise are intended to detract from an otherwise useful motion. We do, however, feel they’re important to raise. They’re offered in the spirit of constructive feedback.

POSTSCRIPT. Another data-related consideration: if you’ve ever read Council minutes, or attended a Council meeting, you’ll know that lots motions contain amendments, slight modifications, larger amendments to amendments, and so on. Each of these gets voted on… which can create a challenging voting ‘narrative’ to follow – even with the complete minutes in front of you! An Open Data initiative that potentially modifies the voting record for the Open Data portal will needs to account for this. Will all votes be disseminated, or only the final ‘core’ vote on a given issue?

Posted by: VPSN | February 14, 2014

Valentine’s hearts under the Cambie Bridge

Valentine's Intervention - P1100012

Nothing like Valentine’s Day to undertake a heart-shaped intervention – and show a little love for pedestrians and cyclists at the same time!

People walking and biking across the Cambie Bridge this morning were greeted with a series of red and pink hearts – paint-stamped into the underside of bridge.

Valentine's Intervention - P1100023

The stealthy street art was undertaken in the early morning, when it was still dark outside.

Valentine's Intervention - P1100005

And the hearts were painted in non-toxic, washable colours – making for a simple (and likely very temporary) transformation.

A splash of colour to brighten the grey concrete. Especially on an overcast morning.

Valentine's Intervention - P1100030

Happy Valentine’s Day to lovers of public space everywhere!

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,138 other followers