Richmond in 2041: What kind of city do you want it to be?

over 5 years ago
CLOSED: This map consultation has concluded

In the OCP survey last fall, we asked you what you thought about a proposed OCP vision of what Richmond could be in 2041. You came up with a lot of ideas and so we made some changes - see A Proposed 2041 OCP Vision.  Tell us what you think. Does it reflect a city that you want to live in? Could it be Richmond in 2041? Anything missing? How do we get there?

We also included our ecological footprint. Please check out what Richmond residents said in the OCP survey by clicking on the OCP survey link.

 

 

  • Admin Commented Cathy S over 9 years ago
    The vision does reflect a City that I would like to live in. I would like to see more affordable housing choices available for everyone (e.g., seniors, students, families, etc.) in Richmond, it is sorely lacking right now. It would be nice if it wasn't 'closet sized' or placed directly under a flight path. I am distressed that I was born in this City, have an excellent job, yet can barely afford to live here and definitely will never be able to afford to purchase a home.
    Hide reply (1)
    • kosmicforces over 9 years ago
      You are not supposed to be able to afford a home. Your politicians are working hard with strata companies to ensure that the options of so called affordable accommodation, available to you will be only limited to either an apartment or a townhouse. By allowing mass rezoning in a congested area they can dramatically increase the number of so called property owners paying property taxes. Not to mention that politicians dread a house market meltdown in what is already a bubble realestate market. If the bubble was to burst it would freeze investment and cause job losses in the construction industry and other industries directly or indirectly related to realestate. More importantly it would inevitably shrink taxes and alienated voters either for the loss of their property value or jobs or both. Do you think its accidental that Gordon offered a tax rebated for property purchases up to 550K or that the predominant type of new constructions in Richmond are Townhouses on rezoned areas? BC is bent on creating an army of landless owners while land is slowly accumulated in the hands of selected individuals. In reality students stay in substandard basements, retirees are forced evicted by tax increases and young people dreaming of starting a family are facing a minimum 35 year debt bonanza. In the land of the "Sunshine Policy" prices have to go up, taxes increase, salaries stay stagnant. As for the people they need to hear/be brainwashed that they live in the "best place on earth" and pay their taxes. HST, case in point only 20% voted to send it to a referendum, where were the other 80%. Welcome to BC.
  • Rooting for a liveable city over 9 years ago
    I have often challenged Richmond planners and councilors to live up to their vision of making our city the most liveable in Canada. I'm excited to see that they are making the right steps in engaging the residents in the discussion. I am so envious of the vision and courage of the City of Vancouver in making their city a truly liveable place... and being recognized worldwide for their success.We need to retrofit our city and undo mess that was created during the 80's and 90's, turning this city into one where neighbourhood communities have been replaced by destination communities. That is, no one has friend in their neighbourhood, we all drive and congregate somewhere to meet friends.I want a city where my community of friends (or my village) live, shop and play within 0.5 km of my home.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Olga over 9 years ago
      I want to thank the author for the rising this very important subject - "play within 0.5 km of my home". With the very high density in the City Centre area we all end up driving somewhere to have a good walk, we do not have a place for the community gardening, there is no place to walk with the dog - we lack the green space in the close proximity to many high-medium density areas accessible by walking. We end up driving somewhere - and there is a shortage of parking in many places already. We have two Metro Vancouver parks past the airport that are very small and in a very dire condition but people have to go there given no choice, as the other significant parks are in North Vancouver - more then an hour drive from home.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Yew over 9 years ago
        Yes, the City Centre has been shortchanged and there is no sign of that changing. We need more open-land park space with trails, green space where children and dogs can run, and community gardens. We know there are long waiting lists for community garden plots, but the lists would probably be many times as long if people hadn't heard that it often takes two or three years for someone on the list to get a plot. With the City Centre having to absorb most of the huge anticipated increase in population, green space within walking distance in the City Centre should be the priority.
      • Olga over 9 years ago
        I want to correct myself - one of two parks located past the airport is actually City of Richmond park - McDonald beach (its use is limited for the general population as it is an off leash area for the dogs and it already stinks in the beach area as dogs frequently wet its sand - I do not mind it being off leash area as dogs need their space to run freely as well but don't we need that too?), so we only have one Metro Vancouver park in Richmond - Iona beach. There is seems to be at least some adjacent territory to it that could be added to increase its size but the main negative side - being by the water treatment plant - will stay with the water quality and often air quality there is very poor). Richmond is very limited in its access to all type of parks within close walking or short driving distance and we, people living in the City Center, have to voice our protest to all level of politicians - local and provincial as well, we deserve to be treated equally as people leaving in Terra Nova area or North Vancouver area.
    • kosmicforces over 9 years ago
      The sense of community is not achieved by city planners but rather the people that leave in the community. You don't need the city to meet your neighbors and you don't need your city to organize events. You also don't need your city to tell you everything you can or cannot do. What this city needs is a re-awakening of its people to the realization that they alone hold the power to their future. Rather then suggesting what we need, we need to tell our city planners this is what we want. Personally I hope we never become Vancouver.Vancouver is a livable city? If we do follow in Vancouvers steps which unfortunately we are I would have to sell my home and move to Ladner or downsize to an apartment or a townhouse with no yard and a view to the back alley. Recognized internationally? By who? I am Canadian by birth. I have lived in 5 different countries and had the fortune to travel in many more. I can honestly say there are many cities on this planet that far outperform anything Vancouver has to offer. Besides which communities have not been decimated in Vancouver? Greek, Italian, German, Jewish, Chinese? Even in Richmond what happened to the thriving Japanese community? I guess it didn't survive the trip to US concentration camps during WWII. The city of Vancouver strove hard to break up communities. Part of Canada's proud forceful assimilation policy that went on for years. It's only lately that we have began as a nation to appreciate the importance of cultural diversity since Tim Horton's and hockey don't add up to create a culture of any significance.
      Hide reply (1)
      • daruma over 9 years ago
        US concentration camps? Look up your history and tone down the rhetoric if you want to win any fans - as it is you are alienating rather than converting anyone who reads your posts. Belittling the beliefs of others and complaining about the so-called host of problems we and those in Vancouver face is offensive to those people in the world (the vast majority) who would die to allow their children to grow up in a city with as much (at the risk of sounding like an American politician) freedom and opportunity as we have in the Lower Mainland. Living in an apartment or a townhome is not the hell you seem to see it as, in fact, it is the only sustainable way to keep a community together. So sell your house, I'm sure you'll make a pretty penny, and 3 families will be happy to use the land you vacate.
  • RichmondRoots over 9 years ago
    Up until recently, Richmond has been the only city I imagined myself living in. I love to bicycle and appreciate the care and attention the City puts into beautifying the streets and parks. I'm distressed though that huge development projects like River Green (Green??) are proceeding that will add upwards of 7000 people in a tiny space. How beautiful it would have been to add to the legacy of the Olympic Oval with a park where families and friends could meet and enjoy the river.I accept and understand that the City needs revenue and that Richmond has a vast amount of farm land to the east and does invest in park land, but how sad that money seems to win in most cases of land zoning and development.I would love to say that I will retire in Richmond, but sadly unless I see a change in the direction of the City, my next move will be out of Richmond. That being said, this forum is a small, but favourable change and I'm keen to see more.
  • Olga over 9 years ago
    I am very appalled by the continued efforts to densify City Centre area and Richmond overall. Our City Hall has just spent some of our tax money and hired consultants Urban Futures to force the increasing density on us again, presenting it as an inevitable event - as the matter of fact - if there are people that are buying dwellings, lets build over everything we have - our green space, air, life style (longevity, health, happiness...).Last time the choice provided to the citizens of Richmond was between the very high population target and extremely high population target. There is plenty of vested interest in that study from different sides - especially from the big development companies that pay for the election most of the city hall members especially the ones that claim to be "independent", so as long as there are wealthy customers that are ready to pay for the apartments - our City Hall is planning to allow the developers to build concrete jungles despite what we think about it.I am sure that there are other desirable towns around the world that would see their nice neighborhoods filled by the concrete high rises in a matter of years if the people that live there would let it happen. But in Richmond, where most of the population are the newly immigrated people, it takes years for them to assimilate, learn English, start participating in the community life - in the meantime, the place they arrived to is going to change forever. Please, do not wait, write to City council with the opposition to this newly planned extremely high density development spur. If you life in the areas that are seemingly not going to be affected - thin twice, with no place to walk the dog or play with the kid in a par we are going to come to your local park - unless we are going to pay an attention to the plans that are forced on us, resist to the unsustainable growth and think twice what kind of people we elect on the City council.
  • amac88 over 9 years ago
    The OCP is certainly a step in the right direction. In my opinion, council has done an excellent job to insure that developers set aside a percentage of units for either low-income residents and/or seniors, as well as requiring green space to mention a few requirements. There seems to be a consensus that council is approving any and all large scale developments. I would argue that new developments are put through a rather stringent process compaired to many of our neighbouring communities. One need only look at the minutes from the development permit panel to see that all proposals are held to very high standards. There also seems to be a belief that high density development is in some way not 'green'. While it is true that a city full of high rises will be less 'green', or create more pollution than a city of single family homes, one must realize that per capita, higher density living is more sustainable and less polluting. And for those who think that agriculture is somehow green, think again. While commercial scale agriculture is necessary, the process is far from being 'green'. Ideally, density should be increased city-wide, not just in the city centre. However, like all groing cities, services would need to be improved to accomodate an increased population. More can and should be done to ensure that developers include green technology, such as what is being done at River Green and has been done with the Lotus development and BMW. Water collection and recycling, geo-thermal, and green rooves, to mention a few, are a few ways in which developers can contribute to a sustainable community.
  • Bazil over 9 years ago
    With the population targeted to expand by 50% by 2041. what are the infrastructure plans to support the massive growth? Roads, power, water, clean air, space......
  • carol Day over 9 years ago
    The 2041 OCP vision does not mention the economical status of the people of Richmond in 2041. I worry that our society will be unaffordable for too mnay people. Affordable housing is a NEED not a WANT. I have visited a affordable townhouse complex in Langley called " Southwind Estates Housing Society" , we need to create options like this here in Richmond.This Society caps the selling price of membership to keep the units affordable. Residents have their own housing unit but actually purchase a membership rather than a specific unit. They can move as unit become available to new units if they wish. The Society has flourished and is a community with in a community . Richmond needs to develope this kind of afforable housing with ownership rather than low rent being the mandate.I feel we have neglected an entire segment of our society and this is just the sort of plan that could help so many and make our society more accessable to more people from a lower income levels.
  • Bazil over 9 years ago
    Prior to executing the 2041 plan. I would like to suggest that we do something about all the overhead power and telephone cables (eye pollution) we have a beautiful City but it is starting to look like Manila or Bangkok. some of these overhead cables look to me to be quite low and could be hit by a large truck and cause power outages.
  • Wolfe over 9 years ago
    Actions by Richmond City Council and staff should be in harmony with this vision. Currently they are leading us in the opposite direction. All this talk of a "sustainable" community makes me feel more ill then I already do. Richmond will not be a sustainable community if we continue to: overpopulate the island, expand the YVR footprint, rubber-stamp development permits, accept phony Environmental Assessments, dig up farmland for pipelines and highways, expand the port and container storage industry, allow dumping and parking on farmland, spray aerial dispersants over our homes, restrict access to park spaces for a growing population, cut down our existing urban forest to create rubberized-turf-fields, sit back and delay upgrades on water/sewage treatment centres, supporting incineration of our waste, driving around a city fleet on fossil fuels, holding back on strict requirements of renewable energy in all buildings, allowing our remaining riverfront properties to be densely developed, allowing the loss of ALR though the city's own development dreams...The next civic election (Nov 2011) will not come soon enough.
  • rmdplan2014 over 9 years ago
    Richmond's neighbourhoods are becoming less "identifiable" as communities and more along cultural lines. I'm amazed at the amount of rezoning of residential areas,subdividing into townhouse developments or thin "cookie-cutter" houses. The developers know that new immigrants can afford millions and don't mind living close together without green space or privacy. All this "densification" will only result in more traffic gridlock along Garden City & River Road not to mention the bridges. Many shopping malls already lack sufficient parking space. As for bicycles, most Richmond citizens will stick to their Mercedes and BMW's. Richmond council talks about preserving green space and creating affordable housing but I haven't seen any effort to do so. Unless political will reigns in these developers, I'm afraid Richmond will become a mini-Hong Kong by 2041.
    Hide reply (1)
    • daruma over 9 years ago
      If you take transit, you might have noticed that "immigrants" make up a large proportion of the riders. Of the Canadian-born people I know, a large majority NEVER take public transportation, although they may not drive luxury cars. And if by green space you mean lawn, I would suggest that we're better off without them, considering that they have been described as the most environmentally damaging and wasteful form of landscaping around.
  • Resident over 9 years ago
    Squeezing thousands more people into our city will not make Richmond more livable. It is already overpopulated and will only get worse when large developments such as River Green are completed. High-end housing is not the answer to providing better neighbourhoods. Families, singles,and seniors of all walks of life should all be encouraged to live here. Let's not turn Richmond into a homogenous community where only those with money need apply. Diversity is the best route to a sustainable lifestyle.
  • ryonomiko over 9 years ago
    The proposed 2041 OCP Vision is lovely but hradly seems realistic. One of the main reasons being Richmond is chest deep in red signs, so intent on densifying and accounting for little else. Council is more than happy to destroy mature trees and lovely yards as long as they get paid by developers with the only kind of greenery that seems to matter to them, money. Richmond is becoming nothing but concrete with every older house torn down and a ENTIRE LOT filling house (or multiple units CRAMMED into the one lot) put in it's place which have next to NO TREES (evergreen shrubs do NOT count and notice how many are dead within less than a year) planted or even room for grass. Biodiversity is being ruined among other things.Thanks to the gung-ho densification, there are thousands MORE cars in Richmond than ever. You can build UP all you want but you can't create more ROADS in Richmond to accommodate all the additional people.Get people out of their cars? Not going to happen. The bus is NOT practical to get from point A to point B WITHIN Richmond within a decent amount of time. It takes me 25 minutes to get from Steveston to East Richmond by car. By bus, well over an hour. And adding more deisel buses doesn't help at all. There definitely are so many more buses running which only adds to the pollution because they are not running at capacity. BC created the hydrogen fuel cell. About time it was used!Each year I get more and more disgusted to mention Richmond is my birthplace.
  • Sparky over 9 years ago
    The City supports the highest density possible having gridlock on the bridges. Soon Richmond will be awash in high rise development from dike to dike with little or no access to the riverfront. The City should go to Nice and see how they have retained beach access to the sea as no development is permitted on the water side of nearby roads. This is not the City that I want to live in, in 2041.