July 19, 2006 to Victoria News (published) (this is the one that afterwards had me thinking i should have signed it BoPeep):
Dear Editor,

Brennan Clarke's "Bay building redevelopment..." article could have appeared as an editorial. The opening sentence belies his slant: the high-rises are given an active animus ("towering high-rises" instead of "high-rise towers") which "threaten." Their very appearance on the drawing board "exposes" (as though secret doings are underway) some "haphazard" (therefore dangerous to us) process. The towering towers consequently appear to menace the passive, genteel Bay Building, which is ennobled by being called "historic" (as if we didn't all already know this). Inert matter (the historic Bay, the property, etc.) is menaced by the arrival of towering forces that drag evil and destruction in their wake. All this in the first sentence -- well done, Brennan!

I don't know anyone who wants bad ugly buildings downtown or anywhere. But why are paranoid dismissals of innovative architectural developments in Victoria routinely more pronounced than genuine critical analyses of how this city is shaping up? And why does the press always puff these concerns up by suggesting that we are once again on the verge of disaster at the hands of evil forces? It's like a Grimm's fairy-tale where the honest, but little, guy is made more important because s/he faces a disproportionately menacing Dark Force, as though Victoria needs to believe it's Little Red Riding Hood, menaced by the Wolf. That makes her important. After all, if L'il Red hadn't had that Wolf experience, who would care about her, except her Grandma?

Most of the people I know are rational. They think a triple bottom line makes sense economically, too: namely, the developer, the community, and government should all benefit. It seems irrational to imply that developers who behave rationally in Vancouver can't behave that way in Victoria, even if we don't have the kind of watertight downtown plan in place right now that we might want to have soon. So, as a first step in testing the rationality of the developer, why not ask him to bring the same level of transparency and procedural steps to the Victoria table as he would to Vancouver's? If at this point he says "no," then by all means let the press raise a stink and take him to task. But it seems irrational to believe (and amplify) the worst before the fact. Unfortunately, it's also a popular Victoria sport (often played most boisterously by the media) to be cynical, which really means having "enlightened false consciousness" - as per Peter Sloterdijk. Cynicism in turn is paralysing people, alienating them from active participating in their communities and in politics. That's not helpful.

As for slippery slope arguments ("50 storeys next," eg.), often cynically amplified by the press: these really only exacerbate other people's irrational fears, and even if we disagree about building height or style, can't we agree that we don't need more irrationality in this world?

Sincerely,
Yule Heibel