In a city completely inundated with skyscrapers, it's odd -- and maybe a bit telling -- that some people become concerned for the first time in their lives only once an indigenous nation decides to build a skyscraper.
There’s been tons of opposition to building up in Vancouver, especially outside of downtown. Opposition isn’t unique to indigenous builders.
What is unique is that nimbys have a new arsenal of tactics to use as to why this isn’t a good idea eg “concrete skyscrapers aren’t the indigenous way so you shouldn’t build your project.”
In a thread full of people with weird preconceptions talking past each-other, this is the most perfectly wrong statement anyone has made.
The people you're talking about would strangle this entire country to death (and have) before allowing a single 3-story building to be built outside of the small areas that were already been zoned for it 80 years ago.
The Canadian Indigenous identity issues tied up in this project are the only force that have ever been powerful enough to bludgeon them into submission, just this one time.
You're making my point. I was responding to this comment:
>Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context?
If people are going to oppose this project, don't do it on the basis of some vaguely bigoted notion that "these skyscrapers don't match the indigenous lifestyle". As if that's the reason the project's opponents are opposing it. It's clearly a smokescreen being deployed because they actually dislike the project for NIMBY reasons (e.g., "it'll block my view", "it'll reduce the value of my nearby properties").
(Whether the commenter I'm responding to actually believes this is immaterial. The article quoted a local government official who basically said the same thing.)
Skyscrapers not being indigenous has no bearing on whether they should be built or not.
I think we all agree on that. Here's what's really bothering me.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the quote is implication of opposition to this development? Aside from the author of the article not so subtly injecting that implication, with no context, there's literally nothing to indicate that.
I get concerned when anyone builds a skyscraper. It's typically purported to increase density and thereby create affordable housing. What actually happens is that I still can't afford anything in the skyscrapers, even in non major metros, and I'm in the top 1% of earners. I guess affordable only applies to the top half of a percent?
Destroying land to build them, I don't care who's land, is typically in opposition to environmental efforts. So before you say it's not my business, stop and consider that this is everyone's business. And using minorities as a scapegoat through what might be an underhanded deal might be pretty disgusting.
Notice that asking questions is downvoted. Horrifying. Must be someone very rich that wants another skyscraper apartment that the rest of us can't afford, no matter how many lives they ruin.
