The building designs shown in the article look great! I love the emphasis on greenery and outdoor space. I looked up the site on the map to see where it was going to go, and there's honestly not a...
The building designs shown in the article look great! I love the emphasis on greenery and outdoor space. I looked up the site on the map to see where it was going to go, and there's honestly not a lot of land there... it looks like they intend to develop every inch of it. I'm not sure how feasible that really is. Looks like they want to build right up against existing structures on neighboring land.
Practically, this is a giant middle finger to the City of Vancouver. Now I'm not going to add to the non-Indigenous chorus saying what they should or shouldn't do. But I can't help but wonder if the city could retaliate by blocking their access to the power grid, sewers, roadways, etc. A development like this one requires cooperative coexistence. If the Squamish First Nation is operating in bad faith, I doubt the city is under any obligation to facilitate their plans.
I personally think the city would be quietly pleased if they are not publicly in support. This development will help ease the housing crisis in Vancouver even if it angers the neighborhood. I...
I personally think the city would be quietly pleased if they are not publicly in support. This development will help ease the housing crisis in Vancouver even if it angers the neighborhood.
I think this a much better way for indigenous people to integrate into the economy than the stereotypical casino. This is at least a way for indigenous communities to invest in their future and have a positive impact on the region. Operating casinos on their land is their right, but these other projects that are a benefit to society should be applauded.
As someone who keeps a close tab within the local politic scene, Squamish nation and the City of Vancouver are working together in this endeavour. The City doesn't really have jurisdiction to...
As someone who keeps a close tab within the local politic scene, Squamish nation and the City of Vancouver are working together in this endeavour.
The City doesn't really have jurisdiction to block utilities because they are managed by Metro Vancouver as a whole, in addition to the respective public monopoly owners for power and gas, BC Hydro and Fortis.
Mainly it's just local NIMBY's in what are mostly nearby single-family homes who are against towers and density. Because it's a mostly wealthy Well connected demographic of people, they...
Mainly it's just local NIMBY's in what are mostly nearby single-family homes who are against towers and density. Because it's a mostly wealthy Well connected demographic of people, they historically have been successful in blocking projects on city land. The province of BC though has recently passed housing mandates and up zoning requirements that will push a lot of projects through.
Here's hoping that there isn't retaliation. I don't know if Treaty 7 makes development any more clear cut here in Southern Alberta, but the Tsuu T'Ina nation is in the midst of a massive...
Here's hoping that there isn't retaliation. I don't know if Treaty 7 makes development any more clear cut here in Southern Alberta, but the Tsuu T'Ina nation is in the midst of a massive development on their nation which sits right beside the southwest edge of Calgary.
Because it's their land, the city is compelled to work with them, the federation and the province on infrastructure that compliments the area. I'd imagine that while a bit different than agreements between two municipalities, that there are processes and policy that dictate the steps that development must follow in fringe/buffer zones.
Given the GVA's interwoven nature, I'd be surprised if similar avenues in BC weren't already guiding this development.
I looked up the project website and they say they are working out an agreement with the city for utilities and infrastructure. They will be passing tax revenue to the city, building a transit hub...
I looked up the project website and they say they are working out an agreement with the city for utilities and infrastructure. They will be passing tax revenue to the city, building a transit hub on the property, and even collecting heat from the sewer line to heat the buildings.
Yeah, I'm absolutely into it. The tower gives me Wakanda vibes and despite what I'm sure is a cooperative development environment, I think that the cultural landscape is primed for a big F-U First...
Yeah, I'm absolutely into it. The tower gives me Wakanda vibes and despite what I'm sure is a cooperative development environment, I think that the cultural landscape is primed for a big F-U First Nations led development right in the centre of a colonized city.
Activist action that gets something concrete accomplished and doesn't involve the federal government could be an exciting and galvanizing force for FN people across the country.
Speaking from an architectural perspective, the design is definitely western. It could blend in beside the Hudson Yards in NYC. Standard curtain wall system. Monolithic masses. Curved balconies...
In Sen̓áḵw’s case, it’s Indigenous by design, whatever it might look like to others.
Speaking from an architectural perspective, the design is definitely western. It could blend in beside the Hudson Yards in NYC. Standard curtain wall system. Monolithic masses. Curved balconies with planters recall the Bosco Verticale by Stefano Boeri and the Aqua Tower by Jeanne Gang. The public spaces are excessively (pre-)programmed, allowing little or no organic landscape infill processes.
I think it was a missed opportunity to design something spectacular and revolutionary, but whatever, more housing is nice.
I think that Alejandro Aravena's Quinta Monroy project has an interesting concept where the units are half-unbuilt to allow residents to finish them according to their needs, whether as gardens,...
I think that Alejandro Aravena's Quinta Monroy project has an interesting concept where the units are half-unbuilt to allow residents to finish them according to their needs, whether as gardens, balconies, an additional bedroom, and so on. I think that concept allows people to organically participate in the formation of their environment, versus this project where Revrey Architecture (the project architect) plans the shape of people's environments from the outset.
Even though BIG is a Danish firm, the design they did for a Bhutanese master planned city did a better job of incorporating local design and architectural motifs like the bucket arch? (I put ? because it's structurally similar to the dougong), a vernacular structural feature, versus this project which is a fundamentally western luxury housing development with some indigenous art slapped on here and there.
Habitat 67 is a pretty revolutionary design where it interlocked units so that walkways and garden terraces would flow around and between units. It has inspired and informed similar terraced buildings like BIG's Sluishuis. The residents have to interact with their community directly, versus residents of typical apartment/condo towers who enter the ground floor lobby and then take the elevator directly to their apartment floor, bypassing everyone in between.
I think that fundamentally this is just a run-of-the-mill western luxury housing development with some indigenous decor that just happens to be built on reserve land to generate income for the tribe. Good for them, but I think the author is way overselling this as some sort of indigenous architectural or urban revolution.
Edit: I also think that the author doesn't fully see that from a critical perspective the project architecture is actually just a continuation of western modernism. Not that it really matters, but whatever it is, it's definitely not indigenous defiance thereof.
Oh, I should address your edit: The author, per her website, is "a member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Treaty 6, and I live and work on the ancestral, unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm,...
Oh, I should address your edit:
I also think that the author doesn't fully see that from a critical perspective the project architecture is actually just a continuation of western modernism. Not that it really matters, but whatever it is, it's definitely not indigenous defiance thereof.
The author, per her website, is "a member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Treaty 6, and I live and work on the ancestral, unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw and səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ peoples."
She is Indigenous/First Nations of Canada, lives in Squamish territory, and works - as a reporter, writer, and other things - covering, among other things, the Squamish Nation.
I think she has a much, much better view on the "critical perspective" of the project architecture, than you or I do.
I am going to disclose at the start I am a white Canadian. I have family in the lower mainland, but I do not live in the lower mainland. I think while the aesthetic choices do seem heavily...
I am going to disclose at the start I am a white Canadian. I have family in the lower mainland, but I do not live in the lower mainland.
I think while the aesthetic choices do seem heavily western, the article does mention some indigenous design choices beyond just art. The first is the idea of more communal spaces, rather than private yards. This is in contrast to the neighbourhood around it that while being just outside of the downtown core, are houses with private yards. The second point is the consideration for the whole community. The article mentions that while local residents are not too pleased (highly affluent home owners are probably not too happy about the indigenous making a high density and more affordable housing in their community), the Squamish tribe is considering the whole community, which includes those who can not get housing in Vancouver, and the community of the future. So while it may not be aesthetically as indigenous as it could be, there has been other Indigenous values that have guided the process.
I think, part of this urban revolution is that the Squamish have this highly valuable land, and they are developing as they see fit. Indigenous people have primarily been on what is considered mediocre land at best. In my experience either traveling through reserves or neighbourhoods that have high concentration of Indigenous people, sadly they are quite poor areas. So seeing this development, which holds a lot of economic value is revolutionary, and Canadians are not used to seeing this.
I'll be more blunt in my statement/questioning - we (non-Indigenous people, from the outside looking into this project) don't get to claim something "is" or "is not" Indigenous. I fear that you've...
I'll be more blunt in my statement/questioning - we (non-Indigenous people, from the outside looking into this project) don't get to claim something "is" or "is not" Indigenous.
I fear that you've fallen into the same bogus thinking that Gordon Price and Colleen Hardwick did in the article:
When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building.
and
How do you reconcile Indigenous ways of being with 18-storey high-rises?
Something being built with modern techniques, sensibilities, and materials does not mean it is "western" - or white, if you'd rather use that vernacular. Unless you, yourself, are a member of the Squamish nation, I don't think you get to tell them what is and isn't "their style."
The author isn't selling this article as "revolution" or "defiance". They state it clearly in the article:
To Indigenous people themselves, though, these developments mark a decisive moment in the evolution of our sovereignty in this country. The fact is, Canadians aren’t used to seeing Indigenous people occupy places that are socially, economically or geographically valuable, like Sen̓áḵw. After decades of marginalization, our absence seems natural, our presence somehow unnatural. Something like Sen̓áḵw is remarkable not just in terms of its scale and economic value (expected to generate billions in revenue for the Squamish Nation). It’s remarkable because it’s a restoration of our authority and presence in the heart of a Canadian city.
There is no statement of revolution or of defiance against western modernism/the city/whatever. It's a statement that "they are still here" and that they matter, that they can make their own choices.
Additionally (emphasis mine):
What chafes critics, even those who might consider themselves progressive, is that they expect reconciliation to instead look like a kind of reversal, rewinding the tape of history to some museum-diorama past. Coalitions of neighbours near Iy̓álmexw and Sen̓áḵw have offered their own counter-proposals for developing the sites, featuring smaller, shorter buildings and other changes. At the January hearing for Iy̓álmexw, one resident called on the First Nations to build entirely with selectively logged B.C. timber, in accord with what she claimed were their cultural values. These types of requests reveal that many Canadians believe the purpose of reconciliation is not to uphold Indigenous rights and sovereignty, but to quietly scrub centuries of colonial residue from the landscape, ultimately in service of their own aesthetic preferences and personal interests.
Asserting one's national and cultural identity does not require that they build to a certain aesthetic.
As for the rest of your post ... I can appreciate what you've accumulated there, and I will posit that they are all beautiful, and I'm certain that the locals all highly value each project! But Chilean neighborhoods, manufactured cities in Bhutan, and an EXPO Habitat built by an Israeli-Canadian are not examples of what Squamish design "should be".
My academic background is in architecture with a focus on architectural history, and my interests are in Islamic and East Asian architecture, so I'm not approaching this from a lay perspective....
Something being built with modern techniques, sensibilities, and materials does not mean it is "western" - or white, if you'd rather use that vernacular. Unless you, yourself, are a member of the Squamish nation, I don't think you get to tell them what is and isn't "their style."
My academic background is in architecture with a focus on architectural history, and my interests are in Islamic and East Asian architecture, so I'm not approaching this from a lay perspective. Architecture is, has been, and always will be a reflection of power and society of its time, and it can be critically analyzed.
There is no statement of revolution or of defiance against western modernism/the city/whatever. It's a statement that "they are still here" and that they matter, that they can make their own choices.
I think that it fails to make that statement; I think that the architectural statement this project makes in the larger arc of architecture and urbanism is: we have acquiesced to and are subsumed in the aesthetics and logic of the western modernist tradition and capitalism.
As for the rest of your post ... I can appreciate what you've accumulated there, and I will posit that they are all beautiful, and I'm certain that the locals all highly value each project! But Chilean neighborhoods, manufactured cities in Bhutan, and an EXPO Habitat built by an Israeli-Canadian are not examples of what Squamish design "should be".
They're not examples of what Squamish design should be, they're examples of how architecture could address resident and cultural needs and desires in ways that mainstream architecture doesn't. They aim to allow individuals to program their own spaces, to continue vernacular traditions, or to program for different ways to interact with space and community.
I read through Revery Architecture's brief for the Sen̓áḵw development, and it's just an ordinary mixed-use luxury development with ground level retail and above-ground-level apartments.
Anyway, I just wanted to present an alternative critical viewpoint because I think that the author is actually incorrect in presenting the design as indigenous.
I appreciate your academic credentials. You may not be approaching this from a lay perspective, but your response above continues to skirt around the point - both what I'm describing and what the...
I appreciate your academic credentials. You may not be approaching this from a lay perspective, but your response above continues to skirt around the point - both what I'm describing and what the author of the article itself states plainly throughout.
You don't get to tell The Squamish Nation what is and isn't "their design". This statement:
I think that the architectural statement this project makes in the larger arc of architecture and urbanism is: we have acquiesced to and are subsumed in the aesthetics and logic of the western modernist tradition and capitalism.
... is indication enough of that point. I'll leave the argument there.
It’s really not that much of a dick move. They aren’t building a skyscraper in the middle of the suburbs. It’s directly across a bridge from the rest of the skyscrapers. It really doesn’t look out...
It’s really not that much of a dick move. They aren’t building a skyscraper in the middle of the suburbs. It’s directly across a bridge from the rest of the skyscrapers. It really doesn’t look out of place with the area.
The building designs shown in the article look great! I love the emphasis on greenery and outdoor space. I looked up the site on the map to see where it was going to go, and there's honestly not a lot of land there... it looks like they intend to develop every inch of it. I'm not sure how feasible that really is. Looks like they want to build right up against existing structures on neighboring land.
Practically, this is a giant middle finger to the City of Vancouver. Now I'm not going to add to the non-Indigenous chorus saying what they should or shouldn't do. But I can't help but wonder if the city could retaliate by blocking their access to the power grid, sewers, roadways, etc. A development like this one requires cooperative coexistence. If the Squamish First Nation is operating in bad faith, I doubt the city is under any obligation to facilitate their plans.
I personally think the city would be quietly pleased if they are not publicly in support. This development will help ease the housing crisis in Vancouver even if it angers the neighborhood.
I think this a much better way for indigenous people to integrate into the economy than the stereotypical casino. This is at least a way for indigenous communities to invest in their future and have a positive impact on the region. Operating casinos on their land is their right, but these other projects that are a benefit to society should be applauded.
As someone who keeps a close tab within the local politic scene, Squamish nation and the City of Vancouver are working together in this endeavour.
The City doesn't really have jurisdiction to block utilities because they are managed by Metro Vancouver as a whole, in addition to the respective public monopoly owners for power and gas, BC Hydro and Fortis.
Thanks for the info, I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions about that.
I think we’d have to understand local politics a lot better to know who supports or opposes this development.
Mainly it's just local NIMBY's in what are mostly nearby single-family homes who are against towers and density. Because it's a mostly wealthy Well connected demographic of people, they historically have been successful in blocking projects on city land. The province of BC though has recently passed housing mandates and up zoning requirements that will push a lot of projects through.
Here's hoping that there isn't retaliation. I don't know if Treaty 7 makes development any more clear cut here in Southern Alberta, but the Tsuu T'Ina nation is in the midst of a massive development on their nation which sits right beside the southwest edge of Calgary.
Because it's their land, the city is compelled to work with them, the federation and the province on infrastructure that compliments the area. I'd imagine that while a bit different than agreements between two municipalities, that there are processes and policy that dictate the steps that development must follow in fringe/buffer zones.
Given the GVA's interwoven nature, I'd be surprised if similar avenues in BC weren't already guiding this development.
I looked up the project website and they say they are working out an agreement with the city for utilities and infrastructure. They will be passing tax revenue to the city, building a transit hub on the property, and even collecting heat from the sewer line to heat the buildings.
The project seems pretty cool. https://senakw.com/
Yeah, I'm absolutely into it. The tower gives me Wakanda vibes and despite what I'm sure is a cooperative development environment, I think that the cultural landscape is primed for a big F-U First Nations led development right in the centre of a colonized city.
Activist action that gets something concrete accomplished and doesn't involve the federal government could be an exciting and galvanizing force for FN people across the country.
How is this an activist action?
Metro Vancouver or GVRD, not the GVA!
I can't even blend in as a local if I can't get the acronym right 😭
You are making a lot of assumptions.
Speaking from an architectural perspective, the design is definitely western. It could blend in beside the Hudson Yards in NYC. Standard curtain wall system. Monolithic masses. Curved balconies with planters recall the Bosco Verticale by Stefano Boeri and the Aqua Tower by Jeanne Gang. The public spaces are excessively (pre-)programmed, allowing little or no organic landscape infill processes.
I think it was a missed opportunity to design something spectacular and revolutionary, but whatever, more housing is nice.
What, in your opinion, would be a more Indigenous or revolutionary/spectacular design?
I think that Alejandro Aravena's Quinta Monroy project has an interesting concept where the units are half-unbuilt to allow residents to finish them according to their needs, whether as gardens, balconies, an additional bedroom, and so on. I think that concept allows people to organically participate in the formation of their environment, versus this project where Revrey Architecture (the project architect) plans the shape of people's environments from the outset.
Even though BIG is a Danish firm, the design they did for a Bhutanese master planned city did a better job of incorporating local design and architectural motifs like the bucket arch? (I put ? because it's structurally similar to the dougong), a vernacular structural feature, versus this project which is a fundamentally western luxury housing development with some indigenous art slapped on here and there.
Habitat 67 is a pretty revolutionary design where it interlocked units so that walkways and garden terraces would flow around and between units. It has inspired and informed similar terraced buildings like BIG's Sluishuis. The residents have to interact with their community directly, versus residents of typical apartment/condo towers who enter the ground floor lobby and then take the elevator directly to their apartment floor, bypassing everyone in between.
I think that fundamentally this is just a run-of-the-mill western luxury housing development with some indigenous decor that just happens to be built on reserve land to generate income for the tribe. Good for them, but I think the author is way overselling this as some sort of indigenous architectural or urban revolution.
Edit: I also think that the author doesn't fully see that from a critical perspective the project architecture is actually just a continuation of western modernism. Not that it really matters, but whatever it is, it's definitely not indigenous defiance thereof.
Oh, I should address your edit:
The author, per her website, is "a member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Treaty 6, and I live and work on the ancestral, unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw and səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ peoples."
xʷməθkʷəy̓əm = Musqueam
Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw = SQUAMISH
səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ = Tsleil-Waututh
She is Indigenous/First Nations of Canada, lives in Squamish territory, and works - as a reporter, writer, and other things - covering, among other things, the Squamish Nation.
I think she has a much, much better view on the "critical perspective" of the project architecture, than you or I do.
I am going to disclose at the start I am a white Canadian. I have family in the lower mainland, but I do not live in the lower mainland.
I think while the aesthetic choices do seem heavily western, the article does mention some indigenous design choices beyond just art. The first is the idea of more communal spaces, rather than private yards. This is in contrast to the neighbourhood around it that while being just outside of the downtown core, are houses with private yards. The second point is the consideration for the whole community. The article mentions that while local residents are not too pleased (highly affluent home owners are probably not too happy about the indigenous making a high density and more affordable housing in their community), the Squamish tribe is considering the whole community, which includes those who can not get housing in Vancouver, and the community of the future. So while it may not be aesthetically as indigenous as it could be, there has been other Indigenous values that have guided the process.
I think, part of this urban revolution is that the Squamish have this highly valuable land, and they are developing as they see fit. Indigenous people have primarily been on what is considered mediocre land at best. In my experience either traveling through reserves or neighbourhoods that have high concentration of Indigenous people, sadly they are quite poor areas. So seeing this development, which holds a lot of economic value is revolutionary, and Canadians are not used to seeing this.
I'll be more blunt in my statement/questioning - we (non-Indigenous people, from the outside looking into this project) don't get to claim something "is" or "is not" Indigenous.
I fear that you've fallen into the same bogus thinking that Gordon Price and Colleen Hardwick did in the article:
and
Something being built with modern techniques, sensibilities, and materials does not mean it is "western" - or white, if you'd rather use that vernacular. Unless you, yourself, are a member of the Squamish nation, I don't think you get to tell them what is and isn't "their style."
The author isn't selling this article as "revolution" or "defiance". They state it clearly in the article:
There is no statement of revolution or of defiance against western modernism/the city/whatever. It's a statement that "they are still here" and that they matter, that they can make their own choices.
Additionally (emphasis mine):
Asserting one's national and cultural identity does not require that they build to a certain aesthetic.
As for the rest of your post ... I can appreciate what you've accumulated there, and I will posit that they are all beautiful, and I'm certain that the locals all highly value each project! But Chilean neighborhoods, manufactured cities in Bhutan, and an EXPO Habitat built by an Israeli-Canadian are not examples of what Squamish design "should be".
My academic background is in architecture with a focus on architectural history, and my interests are in Islamic and East Asian architecture, so I'm not approaching this from a lay perspective. Architecture is, has been, and always will be a reflection of power and society of its time, and it can be critically analyzed.
I think that it fails to make that statement; I think that the architectural statement this project makes in the larger arc of architecture and urbanism is: we have acquiesced to and are subsumed in the aesthetics and logic of the western modernist tradition and capitalism.
They're not examples of what Squamish design should be, they're examples of how architecture could address resident and cultural needs and desires in ways that mainstream architecture doesn't. They aim to allow individuals to program their own spaces, to continue vernacular traditions, or to program for different ways to interact with space and community.
I read through Revery Architecture's brief for the Sen̓áḵw development, and it's just an ordinary mixed-use luxury development with ground level retail and above-ground-level apartments.
Anyway, I just wanted to present an alternative critical viewpoint because I think that the author is actually incorrect in presenting the design as indigenous.
I appreciate your academic credentials. You may not be approaching this from a lay perspective, but your response above continues to skirt around the point - both what I'm describing and what the author of the article itself states plainly throughout.
You don't get to tell The Squamish Nation what is and isn't "their design". This statement:
... is indication enough of that point. I'll leave the argument there.
It’s really not that much of a dick move. They aren’t building a skyscraper in the middle of the suburbs. It’s directly across a bridge from the rest of the skyscrapers. It really doesn’t look out of place with the area.
Why is it a dick move?