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.

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.

I'm not sure you understand my question. I don't see from the quote that there is any concern. Where are you drawing that from?

A modern "Indigenous lifestyle" means a lot of things. There's no contradiction in Indigenous people wanting to preserve their historical traditions, crafts and practices while also adapting to the current state of the world. Most Native people in Canada live in cities now and face issues of racism and generational trauma from colonial government practices like Residential Schools and the 60s Scoop which sought to cut their connections to their culture.

Developing land like this is a way for the tribe to generate revenue and take care of their members, but it's also a way for them to have meaningful input into the development process. They don't have some responsibility to leave the land as a pristine untouched wilderness, they can choose to develop it in a way that aligns with their values.

I visited a museum in the North once where they were talking about preserving the practice of carving giant canoes, to travel south and trade with Europeans. It struck me how this practice was historical and important culturally, but it also arose out of colonial interactions in the past 500 years. Both can be true.

I'm wondering if you were talking to someone else but I can't figure out who.

My question was pretty simple.

How are you guys (commenters) drawing a connection between what the author quoted, and the assumption that the person being quoted opposes the building project?

What context are you using to correlate those?

Here's a logic diagram to help. Assume P1 is true, since that's what he's saying:

P1: indigenous lifestyle is not skyscrapers.

P2: skyscrapers can be built by indigenous people.

C: indigenous people can't build skyscrapers

The above is nonsensical. Your conclusion is in direct opposition to the premise.

Introducing this person's quote to the article was totally irrelevant unless you're aware of some context that is missing from the story.

Sure skyscrapers are an indigenous lifestyle. They build them, invest in them, live in them. Do you think indigenous people in 2024 are going to all go fish for salmon and live in teepee’s?

I remember on TV once this older indigenous guy promoting natural resource development he thought would create indigenous jobs going on about “Back in the old times, my people hunted the buffalo. Now my people hunt a new buffalo, called the loonie”

Obviously I don't think that. You didn't read my comment before replying.

I asked a question. Did you get that far? I'm wondering about context. How do you know the quoted guy is opposed to the development.

>Can't we leave one thing undeveloped?

Sure. Undevelop your own land and that will solve the problem.

I don't own the last Hawaiian island, but I'm thankful someone who does hasn't developed it.

If they did and then "undeveloped" it, that wouldn't much help. Right? The last island will have been destroyed for future generations to study and enjoy.

Not being Canadian, I have no clue what the context is. This might be the last of a unique piece of nature, or it could be the first acre of an endless desert. That context changes the meaning quite a bit, doesn't it?

I'm not Italian, but I'd be upset if Italians bulldozed Pompeii.

It's a world heritage site! Some things belong to everyone and are worth preserving.

I'll gladly "undevelop" and take compensation to move if a temple was discovered under my house.

So your comment has no meaning. I sure will "undevelop" my land, and since the law would force me, we can see that society as a whole had voted that I should, in certain cases.

It is simply not your business to tell disadvantaged people how they should exercise their rights. They have agency and can decide for themselves. If this means, some of the nature has to be sacrificed, that’s their business, not yours to decide.

If you care so much, undevelop your own land and restore the nature and the balance. Plant forests over your parking lots and golf courses, erase suburbia and embrace minimalist living. That is so simple.

My property value is dependent on what happens to the neighborhood around me. It's literally my business. That makes the rest of your comment just ridiculous.

I didn't say that. You did. Take responsibility for your own thoughts. Improve your reading comprehension. I'm not so smart as to be impossible to interpret. What does it say about you if you are gaining understanding that is missing from my comments? It says you're a zealot and a liar and more interested in conflict than understanding. Go back. Read again. Read with interest. Otherwise this conversation is truly not your business. Is it?

If the island is privately owned then hard to see how "future generations" will be able to study and enjoy it. Maybe, but probably not, eh? That's the point of it being privately owned. Now if the State of Hawaii were to assert eminent domain, acquire it at fair market value, and then turn it into public park lands as designated wilderness, well that might work for your intent, I think.

The island is owned by the natives. And it's still a tragedy to the entire world if they decide to put skyscrapers on it. It's the last bit of untouched wilderness in a unique ecosystem.

This story doesn't make a case for not telling people what to do. It makes a case for not trusting natives to protect the wilderness.

Or maybe not. I don't have context. I am asking a question.