For your reflection, start by typing your name. Use 'Heading' in the style menu for your name.
For your reflection on another class member's reflection, start by typing your name and using the 'Sub-heading 1' style from the pulldown menu.

Reflections on the conversation with Gord Lovegrove

Leandra Vanbaelinghem

Dr. Gord Lovegrove's presentation was valuable in understanding his vision for a more sustainable and resilient Kelowna as well as his insights on making a change. What surprised me the most in this presentation was learning that, currently, there are no first nation representatives that can vote on regional councils. This was very shocking to hear because a large part of the conversation at the beginning of the talk was that one of the critical success factors in sustainable actions is involving the knowledge keepers of indigenous communities. Dr. Lovegrove even stated that we should not speak for them, referring to indigenous people, but with them, and yet First nations are not being given the right to have a voice in regional council voting. This is a pressing and fundamental step to achieve before we can even aim toward a more sustainable and resilient society and way of life, in my opinion. Hearing Dr. Lovegrove explain how his generation is now driven to make a change based on fear, giving the example of the heat dome last summer, was saddening but unsurprising. Unlike the core sustainability-centric mindset of Indigenous people, it has taken the rest of us a multitude of catastrophes, damages, and scarcities to even accept broadly that a climate crisis exists. This resource-extractive and unsustainable approach to life is led by anthropocentric and individualistic views. Hence, a disruption on an individual level, driving the sudden sustainability advocacy, is helpful for us, as Dr. Lovegrove mentioned, but still it comes from a disturbing social issue, which makes me question how far we can truly get in terms of sustainability and resiliency, past human prosperity.

Something that stood out to me was the pictures Dr. Lovegrove showed in his talk as a representation of what a green, sustainable and resilient city looks like. The images had multiple small human-tailored green spaces everywhere, fit for human recreational use but would not, for example, support wildlife on its own. The photos had streets covered in concrete and channelled water streams. I think the images contrasted greatly with what we saw in Mr. Schreiers' presentation, for example, concrete replacement opportunities. In this class, we also have been talking a lot about the importance of giving back riparian habitats to rivers and the flood risks accompanying channelled streams. Maybe Dr. Lovegrove's images were supposed to represent or convey something different, but to me these images showed an eye-pleasing city with green spaces rather than a sustainability-designed city function. Lastly, I highly enjoyed Dr. Lovegrove's push toward sustainable and safe transportation in Kelowna. Particularly when he stated that the focus should be a community that is designed right, for sustainability and resiliency, with the right policies in place that are supported by the community.

Sofia Bahmutsky

Thank you for your insight Leandra. I happen to agree with most of your sentiments. I am also disheartened that there are no first nation representatives on council, and that for decades it has been "in the works" and no actualized. I honestly think that without the voices of the Syilx people, there is no point to advocate for any sustainable city development or planning in Kelowna. The contrast in the urban design images shown by Dr. Lovegrove indeed were completely different to the images of city design shown by other guest lecturers. Interesting to see a very opposite interpretations of the same problems.

Thomas Letcher-Nicholls

As in the case of Mr. Machado, for Dr. Gord Lovegrove’s presentation it was so great to hear from someone who is so passionate about making a difference for the city and community of Kelowna. In particular I really admire Dr. Lovegrove’s passion for alternative transport to cars and his work on public transit.

Leandra’s reflection on this talk was really moving and helpful to me; like Leandra, I was troubled by Dr. Lovegrove’s argument that things will change now that those in power (typically older people) have felt the effects of climate change – through fires and the heat domes – and now are fearful enough to make things happen. I do not feel like this is a very progressive approach to change, and like Leandra, I am really disheartened by the realisation that there are no First Nations representations on regional councils.

Dr. Lovegrove also proposed many innovations to make Kelowna “smarter” and more sustainable. Most of these were taken from the Netherlands, which to an extent I understand – and I know it is not a great refutation to say “Canada is not the Netherlands” because that does not at all mean that we cannot learn (or at least try to learn) from other countries. But like Leandra, I feel like the key step towards sustainability is listening to First Nations groups who have been here from time immemorial. I felt discomfort towards all the engineering solutions because, historically, importing Europe to the rest of the world has not gone super well… I think that my fundamental point is that this land is not ours to modify at our will. I wonder what would happen if we truly centred and amplified Indigenous voices, and allowed them to be the true stewards of the land?

I also worry about the applicability of these changes. As Leandra’s reflection points out (and this reminded me of Madeline Donald’s presentation), the images we saw (of modified canals) were aesthetically pleasing, but on closer inspection do not seem to be truly sustainable. We have learned that Europe’s heavily modified, straightened rivers are actually not how rivers work. And especially here in BC, salmon (for just one example) need the slower, warmer water that is found in the meandering turns of rivers – and this is largely not how the rivers have been modified in Europe, where the landscape and climate are very different to Canada, and specifically the Okanagan. On a related note, I would be super interested to know what Europe could learn from Canada in terms of land management, and in particular from Indigenous groups! Without doubt there are certainly some amazing sustainable engineering projects in Europe – but in Canada (and Australia and all over the world), First Nations were the first “engineers” of the land, and I cannot help but feel that the answers are already here.

Sofia Bahmutsky

Dr. Gord Lovegrove, an associate professor of engineering at UBCO and also a City of Kelowna councillor spoke to the class about his research and work on the council. Dr. Lovegrove was very enthusiastic and also optimistic which was a nice energy to have in the room. He mentioned that he sees the older generation being the ones who have control over politics and decision making in Kelowna, and now they are becoming “scared” of climate change impacts so he expects to see more climate action taking place. He mentioned to “keep yelling” for us as a younger generation. I have some mixed feelings about his comments. Firstly, I think no matter the age of politicians, the bottom line for action will always be in the interests of money. If all the councillors were 20-30 years younger, I would still expect to have to “keep yelling” at someone my age. As Dr. Lovegrove mentioned creating a high speed rail in the Okanagan would cost less than expanding the highway, so why is it not being done? I think it has to do with money and feeling of “loss of luxury” and less capitalistic feeling Kelowna would have if communal public transit would be prevalent. The funders and big names in the city would stand against it to keep the “culture” of Kelowna the same as it is now. The sprawl Kelowna is currently experiencing where entire mountains and hillsides are being built up with developments is definitely not sustainable, and the severely lacking transit system makes it nearly mandatory to have a personal car (at least 1 per household, likely more than that). The only thing I can think of is that homeowners in new and expensive neighbourhoods want the property values to keep increasing and maintain their luxury status throughout BC.

The numerous comparisons to the Netherlands was definitely interesting, and I liked seeing the pictures of urban planning and traffic design. Like others have mentioned in their reflections, I do not think that engineering roads and waterways in such an intensive manner is sustainable. It may improve flow of traffic for people, but it does not consider any other biotic or abiotic beings. The image of the stacked apartments and green space showed how little space people need to live, and how much can be “given back” but the tiny strip of manicured trees and grass is not natural either. It does not really contribute as much as would receding the land and leaving it alone to let native species recover the soil. In terms of mental health benefits Dr. Lovegrove described that people should live in close quarters and improve their social life, I think that it does not work for everybody. There are many individuals who need solitude and peaceful places, remote areas or quiet neighbourhoods. I definitely cannot thrive in a downtown apartment, no matter how much I like walking around and being close to amenities, the lack of sleep and constant noise and light pollution degrades my mental health in other ways.

Annie Furman

Hi Sofia, thanks for this response — I very much agree with you on having mixed feelings about many of Dr. Lovegrove’s comments, and I echo your unease about the unsustainability of so heavily engineering waterways in my reflection as well. I really appreciate the mental health aspects of densification that you mention here too. Having moved to Kelowna from a town with a population of about 500 people, I definitely can’t thrive in a downtown apartment as well as I could in a more solitary setting where the night is actually dark and I can see the stars.

Gabrielle Heschuk

Dr. Gord Lovegrove provided an ethusiastic 'call to action' presentation. The reason I say 'call to action' is because there was a sense of Dr. Gord Lovegrove trying to convince all of use students to understand his work and the importance of local government while also encouraging us to "keep yelling". His guest presentation felt slightly different than previous ones as Dr. Gord Lovegrove was slightly more politically based. This was interesting and provided a new perspective of someone who had first hand experience in local government. It did however make me slightly question and reflect on how much the local government really cares about sustainability initiatives within the city. Dr. Gord Lovegrove seemed to be very enthusiastic about these potential initiatives but also explained that the lack of representation in local government.

While I appreciated Dr Gord Lovegrove's enthusiasm with using European city management and innovation as a means of inspiration for Canadian cities, there are some things geographically that need to be considered. Reading Tom's reflection brought up a really good point about how modifying streams, channels and rivers to how they are modified in some places in Europe is not conducive to a healthy habitat for many native species in Canada. Tom mentioned Salmon's need to be in a river that meanders and this is not what many of the images of European rivers that Dr. Gord Lovegrove showed us. While his enthusiasm was appreciated, perhaps some more research needs to be done of his behalf regarding development in Kelowna in regards to native species.

I also appreciated his transparency about the lack of indigenous knowledge and representation in local government in Kelowna. He mentioned the difficulty regarding their involvement due to different laws and regulations. This is something that I reflected on heavily after class. As we have discussed quite extensively in class from the various guest lectures, incorporating indigenous knowledge into sustainability issues and efforts within the Okanagan create a more successful outcome. This needs to change and there must be a shift in indigenous representation and knowledge incorporated within local government. This is something that perhaps Dr. Gord Lovegrove can advocate more for, he is currently in a position of power and if he is wanting to see the change he says he does, this is perhaps an important one he can advocate for.

When thinking about the application to Brandt's creek I do worry that the local government with the lack of diversity and representation perhaps will not look at Brandt's creek as an important project but Dr. Gord Lovegrove does provide a refreshing opinion of caring for sustainability efforts and initiatives. Education of the importance of the creek and other smaller environmental features within Kelowna to the public and local government may be something that we need to consider when doing out projects.

Ilyas Kanybek

I think I should agree with Gabriella that Dr Gord was perhaps one of the most enthusiastic presenters we had. I believe that is perhaps his political background but I think it is worth noting that people who care must be enthusiastic about the subjects of their care. I think it is incremental to human nature to be very energetic and emotional about what is important and what we care. I think in that sense we should pay a great deal od prospect to Dr Gord who is managing to combine teachign and political activity.

Shaiyan Siddique

Professor Gordon Lovegrove’s presentation felt quite unique, with it being the first presentation by a politician in this class. Professor Lovegrove’s enthusiasm and energy is always a great addition to any discussion. I recall the same energy from our meeting during the sustainability social event in October last year.

Professor Lovegrove’s introductory statement about the older generation, who are currently in power, finally realizing that it is time to act for environmental sustainability reminded me of the reflection that I wrote after professor Hans Schreier’s presentation. I remember writing about how the developed countries of the world are now becoming active to mitigate and adapt to climate change as they begin to face extreme weather events influenced by climate change. When professor Lovegrove mentioned that the older generation are now worried about heatwaves and heat domes as they are particularly vulnerable to it, I could see a similarity between the two scenarios.

Growing up in a densely populated concrete jungle such as Dhaka, professor Lovegrove’s example of how the lack of adequate connection to nature deteriorates the mental health of the population really resonated with my personal experience. In my opinion, after social media, this is the second biggest reason why the mass population, particularly young people, are suffering from such high levels of stress and mental health issues. Along with the environmental benefits, improving the sustainability of the downtown segment of Brandt’s creek has a great potential for it to become a place for people to unwind and de-stress, similar to the Glenmore segment of the creek.

Growing up in an unorganized and unplanned city also taught me the importance of having a functional public transit system. From my university training, I know about the huge difference it makes in environmental impacts when using public transportation as opposed to private cars. I was happy to know that professor Lovegrove sets an example by using public transport or other non-car based transport. Furthermore, similar to professor Lovegrove, from travelling across different cities of the world and particularly London, UK, I have become a huge fan of the concept of light rail based mass rapid transit. I do not know whether the investment for a light rail system would be justified considering the current population of the Okanagan region. However, considering the growth rate that this area is experiencing, I sincerely hope that the planners and policymakers would be looking into its feasibility.

Annie Furman

I appreciate Dr. Gord Lovegrove taking the time to come to our class, but I am deeply troubled by several aspects of his talk.

To start with, his examples of resiliency “success,” one of which was Hurricane Katrina. Contrary to what Dr. Lovegrove may believe, people our age (generally mid-20s) are not too young to remember Katrina. For many Americans this age, Katrina was one of our first encounters with climate disasters. Personally, I was in Florida visiting family part of the summer of 2005, and I remember it quite clearly. But I digress — my main point here is that Katrina is emphatically not an example of successful resiliency in almost any capacity. The multiple, compounding failures of infrastructure both during and after the storm made landfall in New Orleans have been widely documented, and the Lower Ninth Ward still bears the marks of Katrina’s impacts nearly two decades later due to racist federal and state level government policies that exploited Katrina’s destruction to further disenfranchise Black residents. In almost any US sustainability course, Katrina would be held up as the poster child of failed resiliency. I’m not sure how Katrina is typically viewed in a Canadian context, but to think that it is glossed as a success story with no mention of the deep institutional failings it so emphatically brought to light is disturbing, to say the least, especially when one thinks about one of the purposes of this class being “knowledge mobilization.”

Secondly, to echo much of what Tom said, forcibly importing European solutions historically does not end well and ultimately serves to perpetuate colonial narratives. I appreciate the Dutch infrastructure Dr. Lovegrove showed us, and I find it incredibly powerful what places like Delft have been able to accomplish. I also agree that we need new, imaginative solutions to the climate crisis. But I would challenge Dr. Lovegrove to imagine specific Canadian solutions that center Indigenous voices and are designed specifically with Canadian ecosystems in mind (i.e., salmon need waterways that are meandering, not channelized into canals; Canada has large mammals like moose and grizzly bears whose needs should be factored into transportation infrastructure planning; parts of Canada have harsh climates that are not bike-friendly year-round, etc.).

Hoda Pourpirali

Dr. Gord Lovegrove’s presentation about his visions of Kelowna’s future and making it a better place to live was interesting. He has noticed the current and future needs and he has been studying different approaches in similar cities around the world, hoping for a better solution for Kelowna.

What really made me think is that for decades, Kelowna had a railway connecting many towns of Okanagan, and it was very unfortunate not to be able to renovate and keep that very line of transportation in the transport system. In one hand, Kelowna is growing fast and there are many opportunities to make the needed infrastructure to meet with our goals. On the other hand, we have not been able to make our goals clear enough to everyone, to make it everybody’s goals. This would lead to a time-consuming cycle of decision making that in the end might fruit very late.

Another aspect of Dr. Lovegrove’s presentation was to compare Delft with Kelowna. One important difference between these cities is the density of population, being Delft almost 6.8 times denser Kelowna (according to Wikipedia). What it means is that generally there is less distance between someone’s house to their supermarkets or work. Moreover, the routes are flatter in Delft, which would make using a bicycle or walking more pleasant and appealing. But still, this doesn’t mean that we cannot continue to make Kelowna greener with healthier residents.

In the end, I would like to emphasis on the role of culture in making difference. We can make things happen with money and time, but with culture and education, we can make it everlasting.

Shaiyan Siddique

Hi Hoda, when I first moved to Kelowna I had also wondered the reason why it is no longer connected to the rail network. Growing up in Asia, I definitely feel more comfortable travelling by trains compared to the roads. However, I understand that it is also important to consult with the indigenous communities regarding their opinion and the feasibility of light and heavy rail in the region, since the characteristics of specialized ecosystems such as the Okanagan may be more sensitive compared to most places in Asia and Europe.