An Artificial Landscape: BC’s Legislature Grounds
Camille Unrau
Summary
The BC Legislature Grounds is presently home to numerous tree, flower, and shrubs species that are all designed to catch the eye and draw in visitors. However, the majority of species found in the legislature landscape are non-native, manicured, and in many cases are annual. Since the arrival of European settlers the “grounds” have been altered and remodeled in ways that make it nearly impossible to return it to its previous state. This project explores the past, present, and future characteristics that are specific to BC’s Legislature Grounds. As the research reveals, the grounds consist largely of an artificial, fragmented, and arguably novel ecosystem. Moreover, the grounds are designed to cater first and foremost to social and political needs, often overlooking ecological components. However, I believe it is possible to work towards a future that benefits both the surrounding ecosystem, as well as the social and political needs. |
Genealogy
The Legislative Grounds in Victoria BC have undergone numerous transformations since colonization. Like much of Victoria, the Legislative Grounds are located on the traditional territories of the Lekwungen/ Songhees people who, prior to colonization, built their homes and sacred spaces along the Inner Harbour (Keddie 8). After the establishment of Fort Victoria and the forced movement of the Lekwungen people, administrative buildings were built along the James Bay inlet. The area shown in the map below (Figure 1) has had buildings present on since the first administrative offices (nicknamed the “birdcages”) were completed in 1864 (Hora & Hancock, 2008). The original buildings were eventually torn down in 1897 to make room for the new Legislature Building that still stands today (Segger, 1979). In addition to buildings, a number of other projects were completed throughout the years. This includes the Sequoia Tree that was planted in the mid 1860’s, the Centre Fountain created in 1905, the Rose Garden that was completed in 1936, the Confederation Gardens completed in
1967, and many more additions (Legislative Precinct, 1996).
1967, and many more additions (Legislative Precinct, 1996).
Despite being an area that has been significantly altered by human intervention, there is little documentation about the ecological composition or species variation that was previously present on the Legislature Grounds. One document does reveal that the 1967 Confederation Garden was constructed on a “graceful natural rock formation” (Canadian Confederation Centennial Committee of British Columbia, 1968). In a 1996 report created by Public Works the rock formations were mentioned again, revealing that the Confederation Garden was constructed on a rock outcrop that had been shaped by glacial action in the North-East end. The remainder of the unpaved Confederation Garden was landscaped with evergreens and annual plant material (Public Works, 1996).
A Geoheritage report from 2008 further details the rock deposits found in the Legislature Grounds. Both sides of the Legislative precinct (along Government Street and Menzies Street) were marked with “Wark Gneiss”, which is a Jurassic-metamorphosed rock. According to the report, areas between bedrock are filled with “Victoria Clay”, which is described as having medium plastic consistency and as being silty, weathered, and, oxidized. There is an additional desiccated surgical layer that is 3-7m thick, has less plasticity, and has a stiff consistency. In total, the clay layer is at least 10 m thick as the ground tunnel connecting the Douglas Building and the Parliament Buildings passes through the clay at that depth (Hora & Hancock, 2008). From what I have gathered, the Legislative grounds were, in the past, a mix of rock and clay and did not necessarily share the same vegetation or land composition as the rest of Fort Victoria. It seems very likely that the Legislature Grounds were once part of a continuous clay and rock outcrop and shoreline. |
According to post-colonial documents, the James Bay Harbour area located at the front of the Legislative Grounds consisted of a mudflat that had a strong and unpleasant smell. James Douglas, who’s estate was located next to the Legislative Grounds, had a bridge built across these mudflats, allowing him to avoid the journey around the head of the bay when travelling to Fort Victoria. This bridge, along with heavy pollution from surrounding buildings, led to ecological degradation throughout James Bay. Eventually, the bridge was taken down, a large portion of James Bay was filled in, and the Empress Hotel was built on top (Mindenhall, 2012).
There is little to no record of the specific vegetation, animals, or insect species that were present on the Legislative Grounds prior to its current state, but in a 1860 Victoria District Vegetation Map the areas surrounding the Legislative Grounds were classified as swamp-scrub land, suggesting that before the Legislative Grounds were cleared, swamp-scrub land may have also existed on the grounds (Foster, 1976). Since the early 1900’s new vegetation was introduced to the area for various reasons. Projects like the 1936 Rose Garden, for example, introduced new plant species to the grounds. A Copper Beach Tree, planted memory of a past provincial government librarian in 1919 was also introduced by human means (Legislative Assembly, 2015).
Socio-ecological characterization
The British Columbia Legislative grounds are heavily managed but presently serve limited purposes. Admittedly, these purposes are guided more by social and political, rather then the ecological priorities. The Legislature Grounds house a few administrative buildings, numerous fountains and statues, a rose garden, and the iconic Legislative Building. As a number of Public Works Reports and past development plans reveal, the integrity of the land and species diversity was not a factor considered while managing or changing the landscape (City of Victoria, 1981; City of Victoria, 2003; Public Works Report, 1926). Since the arrival of settlers, the Legislative Grounds have been shaped primarily by the social significance of the buildings and statues that have been placed on top.
Today the Legislature Grounds is located within the Municipality of Victoria, in the James Bay neighbourhood specifically (Image 2). However, unlike most land in this area, it is not managed by City of Victoria or by James Bay (James Bay Neighbourhood Association, 2016). The Legislature Grounds is considered to be Crown-Provincial land (City of Victoria, 1981) and falls under the control of a Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. The grounds are looked after by a provincially guided Legislative Assembly Management Committee. This committee includes the Speaker, the minister, the Government House Leader, the chair of the Government Caucus, the Opposition House Leader, the chair of the official opposition caucus, and one member appointed from each additional party by the members of that party (RSBC, 1996, Chapter 258). This body is mostly responsible for the administration and oversight of the buildings and additional projects located on the grounds. In terms of Public Works, Legislature Security confirmed that maintenance is done via contract work. Like much of downtown Victoria, the Legislature Grounds are filled with manicured gardens that should, in theory, attract many songbirds, predator birds, and sea gulls (Bovey, 1989, 9). According to a Times Colonist article in 1931, the Legislature’s Sunken Garden had over 300 varieties of perennials, alpines and roses and over the years other non-native plant and tree species like the |
|
Copper Beach Tree, an Empress Tree, English Holly, English Ivy, and White Floribunda have been added (Images 3, 4, 5). While diverse vegetation should lead to diverse animal occupation in theory, a visit to the Legislature Grounds would suggest otherwise. I can only speak to my observations in October but other visitors and the legislature librarians have confirmed that they do not see a wide variety of animal species present on the grounds throughout the seasons. I am sure the contracted maintenance crews would have a different take on animal variation, but no current public works documents were available. From my own observations, I have concluded that there is not a wide range of animal species that can call the Legislature Grounds their home. In an hour spent exploring the grounds during late October the only prominent bird species I found were gulls (Image 6) and varied thrush (both of which spotted on the legislative building as well as on native and non-native trees). Apart from birds, the only other animals I spotted were a few Eastern Grey Squirrels.
This lack of animal diversity might be because of a few reasons. While the Legislature Grounds do have a diverse garden structure, vegetation is fragmented and constantly disturbed. Furthermore, most of the vegetation is made up of non-native species that have been utilized by generalist animal species (such as the varied thrush, gulls, or Eastern grey squirrels). The decision to include the tree and plant species that are now part of the Legislature Grounds was not informed by ecological needs; it was instead informed by aesthetics or political symbolism. Similarly, the fountains and statues that have been placed on the Legislative Grounds are purely for human purposes, not serving any immediate ecological purpose (Images 7, 8). As reflected in the land management strategies, the Legislature Grounds has been maintained in ways that often focus on the social and political aspects of land management. |
|
Future trajectory
Based on my findings I conclude that the Victoria Legislature Grounds is a largely artificial and highly fragmented ecosystem. The complete top layer of the Legislature Grounds has been remodelled time and time again. Buildings, statues, and non-native plant/shrub species have been added, and the grounds are constantly being disturbed by garden projects and human foot traffic. Additionally, due to having passed the threshold for restoration, it can be argued that this site is one that is novel (Hobbs, et al., 2003, p. 17).
With these limitations in mind, the future of the Legislature Grounds seems to be in the hands of those who maintain the grounds and the preferences of those who visit and work on the grounds. According to a study that was done by Uvic students in 1993, the fragmentation and constant disturbances that occur on the Legislative Grounds and Inner Harbour make recovery efforts nearly impossible (Schaefer, 1993). If the Legislative Grounds were to be abandoned and left to its own will, it would not be able to return to its original state and for these reasons I consider this site to be novel. Overall, we can understand this site as a manicured, artificial, fragmented, arguably Novel, ecosystem. However, as mentioned earlier, in contrast to many other artificial, manicured ecosystems in Victoria, the Legislature Grounds has an extreme lack of animal biodiversity and ecosystem services (Schaefer, 1993).
Animal presence on the Legislature Grounds is limited to a few generalist species that, at first glance, do not have any deep connection to the area and do not rely solely on the legislature grounds as a habitat or food source. This absence of animal diversity and lack of strong animal-ecosystem connections may be connected to the fragmented nature of the Legislature Grounds and surrounding areas. Because the manicured vegetation is constantly separated by cement buildings and walk ways, animals that require vast areas for their habitat cannot utilize the grounds as a long term home (Brudvig et. al, 2015).
The lack of strong relationships between the animals and the Legislature Grounds may also be connected to the constant disturbances occurring in the area. In one study that explored the connection between plant species diversity and aboveground net primary production (ANPP), the authors suggest that time-scale and disturbance play a large role in the creation of strong relationships. Ecosystems that are not constantly disturbed and have remained intact for long periods of time allow stronger positive biological interactions between organisms to take place and develop (Flombaum and Sala, 2008). In contrast, the Legislature Grounds experience a never ending stream of disturbances in the form of foot traffic, gardening, and landscaping projects. Flowers, shrubs, and even grass is constantly being removed and replaced.
In addition to the lack of animal diversity, the Legislature Grounds also experience a lack of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services can be defined as ‘the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999, p. 295). As I explain in previous sections of this research project, since colonization the main focus of the Legislature Grounds has been on social and political services, with little attention being paid to ecological wellbeing or ecological services. The fountains, buildings, statues, and garden projects provide social, political, or aesthetic services, and the potential for ecological services is often overlooked. While ecological services do not necessarily mean more than the social or political services, it is important to acknowledge that all of these components complement each other and all can and should be accommodated.
Based on these conclusions, there are numerous possible trajectories for the Legislature Grounds, three of which are listed below.
Trajectory 1- Continuing on the Same Path
Trajectory 2- Creating a Fenced and Maintained Garden Landscape
Trajectory 3- Designing Green Infrastructure or Ecosystem Services Projects
Trajectory 1
The Legislature Grounds are presently an artificial landscape that is constantly being disturbed to accommodate a social and political agenda. If the area continues on the path it is currently on, it will arguably continue to lack animal diversity, ecosystem services and strong, long term connections. The trees will continue to grow if they are not cut down, and various non-native and exotic species will be introduced for aesthetic reasons, but due to the constant disturbances facilitated by short term gardening projects (exemplified in Image 6), foot traffic, new art pieces, or building additions, much of the landscape is not able to grow and thrive. While this is not an ideal trajectory, carrying on with the status quo would require no change in action or mindset, and is therefore a likely scenario.
Trajectory 2
While it is arguably impossible to restore the Legislature Grounds (Schaefer, 1993), it is possible to introduce long term projects that facilitate animal diversity and plant diversity in a less fragmented and disturbed manner. The projects that take place on the Legislature Grounds are introduced by Legislative staff with the support of the general public. If the Legislative staff or general public shift their understanding of the grounds to include an ecological aspect, they could introduce plans for native plant gardens or a large area of non-native plant garden that is fenced off and meant to persist throughout the years. UVic’s Finnerty Gardens provides an excellent example of how this can be done. Finnerty Gardens (Image 9) is filled with manicured non-native plant species, covers a reasonably sized area, and includes various plant species that return each year. It is fenced off and is thus protected from external damaged, and is looked after by maintenance staff. Moreover, it is a garden that generally attracts a diverse variety of birds and is an area that is explored and enjoyed by the general public (University of Victoria, 2016). If the legislature committee follows this trajectory it will facilitate a less fragmented and more diverse (both plant and animal wise) landscape. Additionally, it will
continue to accommodate an aesthetic appeal for visitors, and provide an attraction for birders.
While it is arguably impossible to restore the Legislature Grounds (Schaefer, 1993), it is possible to introduce long term projects that facilitate animal diversity and plant diversity in a less fragmented and disturbed manner. The projects that take place on the Legislature Grounds are introduced by Legislative staff with the support of the general public. If the Legislative staff or general public shift their understanding of the grounds to include an ecological aspect, they could introduce plans for native plant gardens or a large area of non-native plant garden that is fenced off and meant to persist throughout the years. UVic’s Finnerty Gardens provides an excellent example of how this can be done. Finnerty Gardens (Image 9) is filled with manicured non-native plant species, covers a reasonably sized area, and includes various plant species that return each year. It is fenced off and is thus protected from external damaged, and is looked after by maintenance staff. Moreover, it is a garden that generally attracts a diverse variety of birds and is an area that is explored and enjoyed by the general public (University of Victoria, 2016). If the legislature committee follows this trajectory it will facilitate a less fragmented and more diverse (both plant and animal wise) landscape. Additionally, it will
continue to accommodate an aesthetic appeal for visitors, and provide an attraction for birders.
Trajectory 3
Again, understanding that it is virtually impossible to return the Legislature Grounds to its pre-colonized state, trajectory 3 would focus on land maintenance and the introduction of new projects. With a shift in focus and values, the Legislature committee and general public could push for a landscape that provides ecosystem services or green infrastructure. A native plant and bee garden or an edible landscape are both potential future projects. A study by McLain et al. on the production of edible landscapes in Seattle suggests that the creation of an urban edible landscape can be as simple as planting fruit trees. The project can also be expanded to include edible hedges (McLain, 2011). The popularity of urban edible landscapes is growing and attracting more attention in the recent years. These landscapes provide visiting tourists and people living in the surrounding area with food, and also acts as a visitor attraction. However, as the experiences in Seattle reveal, city regulations may be a barrier to an edible landscape project (McLain, 2011). These are just three of many trajectories that might be considered for the future of the Legislature Grounds. Understanding that it is not feasible to restore the area to its past ecological state opens many doors for future projects that can benefit the area culturally, aesthetically, socially, and ecologically. However, taking this opportunity for future projects in a direction that benefits animals, the ecosystem, and humans requires a change in mindset. New projects must include an ecological lens as well as a political and social lens, which together can reshape BC’s Legislature Grounds. |
References
Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S. (1999). “Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas.” Ecological Economics 29:1. Retrieved from http:/ www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/science/article/pii/S0921800999000130
Brudvig, L.A., Damschen, E. I., Haddad, M.N., Levey, J. D., Tewksbury, J.J. (2015). “The influence of habitat fragmentation on multiple plant–animal interactions and plant reproduction.” Ecology 96:10. Retrieved 24 November 2016 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/10.1890/14-2275.1/abstract
Canadian Confederation Centennial Committee of British Columbia (1968). A Tale of Two Centenaries. Victoria BC. Retrieved from BC Legislature Library Archives.
City of Victoria. (2009). Neighborhood Boundaries. Retrieved October 25 2016 from http://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Planning~Development/Maps/neighbourhoods-map.pdf.
City Of Victoria. (2003). City Of Victoria Official Community Plan. Print.
City of Victoria. (1981). Legislative Precinct: Design concept and Development plan Planning Department. Print.
Falombaum, P., Sala, E., O. (2008). “Higher effect of plant species diversity on productivity in natural than artificial ecosystems.” PNAS 105(16): 6087-6090. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2329694/?tool=pmcentrez/
Foster, H. (1979). Vancouver Island: Land of Contrasts. Victoria BC: University of Victoria.
Hayes, D. (1999). Historical Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest. Vancouver: Cavendish Books. Print.
Hobbes, J., R., Higgs, S., E., Hall, M., C. (2013). Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order, First Edition. Retrieved online from http://coursespaces.uvic.ca/pluginfile.php/840493/mod_resource/content/3/index.pdf .
Hora, Z. D., Hancock, K., D. (2008). “Geology of the Parliament Buildings 6. Geology of the British Columbia Parliament Buildings, Victoria”. Geodiversity: A New Paradigm for valuing and conserving Geoheritage. Retrieved from BC Legislature Library Archives.
James Bay Neighbourhood Association. (2016). James Bay Parks and Green Spaces. Retrieved October 25 2016 from http://www.jbna.org/parks.htm#legislative.
Keddie, G., R. (2003). Songhees Pictorial: a History of the Songhees People as Seen by Outsiders, 1790-1912. Victoria: Royal BC Museum. Print.
Legislative Precinct (1996). Parliament Buildings. Victoria BC: Town Office.
McLain, R. (2012). “Producing Edible Landscapes in Seattles Urban Forest.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11: 2. Retrieved 24 November 2016 from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.12.002.
Mindenhall, D. (2012). Unbuilt Victoria. Toronto: Dunburn.
Parliamentary Education Office. (2015). Outdoor Self-guided Walking Tour. Retrieved from https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-peo/documents/legislative%20assembly%20outdoor%20walking%20tour%20english.pdf.
Public Works Report (1966). “Confederation Garden Court”. Legislative Precinct. Victoria BC: Parliament.
RSBC. (1996). Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. Chapter 258. Retrieved October 25 2016 from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96258_01.
Segger, M. (1979). The British Columbia Parliament Buildings. Vancouver: Mitchell Press Limited.
Shaefer, V. (1993). Biodiversity in Greater Victoria. New Westminister: Douglas College. University of Victoria (2016). Finnerty Gardens: All Season Self-guided Walk. Retrieved from https://www.uvic.ca/finnerty/assets/docs/FinnertyGardensWalkingTour.pdf.
Times Colonist. (1931). Legislatures Sunken Garden is living textbook of plants. Print.
Brudvig, L.A., Damschen, E. I., Haddad, M.N., Levey, J. D., Tewksbury, J.J. (2015). “The influence of habitat fragmentation on multiple plant–animal interactions and plant reproduction.” Ecology 96:10. Retrieved 24 November 2016 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/10.1890/14-2275.1/abstract
Canadian Confederation Centennial Committee of British Columbia (1968). A Tale of Two Centenaries. Victoria BC. Retrieved from BC Legislature Library Archives.
City of Victoria. (2009). Neighborhood Boundaries. Retrieved October 25 2016 from http://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Planning~Development/Maps/neighbourhoods-map.pdf.
City Of Victoria. (2003). City Of Victoria Official Community Plan. Print.
City of Victoria. (1981). Legislative Precinct: Design concept and Development plan Planning Department. Print.
Falombaum, P., Sala, E., O. (2008). “Higher effect of plant species diversity on productivity in natural than artificial ecosystems.” PNAS 105(16): 6087-6090. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2329694/?tool=pmcentrez/
Foster, H. (1979). Vancouver Island: Land of Contrasts. Victoria BC: University of Victoria.
Hayes, D. (1999). Historical Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest. Vancouver: Cavendish Books. Print.
Hobbes, J., R., Higgs, S., E., Hall, M., C. (2013). Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order, First Edition. Retrieved online from http://coursespaces.uvic.ca/pluginfile.php/840493/mod_resource/content/3/index.pdf .
Hora, Z. D., Hancock, K., D. (2008). “Geology of the Parliament Buildings 6. Geology of the British Columbia Parliament Buildings, Victoria”. Geodiversity: A New Paradigm for valuing and conserving Geoheritage. Retrieved from BC Legislature Library Archives.
James Bay Neighbourhood Association. (2016). James Bay Parks and Green Spaces. Retrieved October 25 2016 from http://www.jbna.org/parks.htm#legislative.
Keddie, G., R. (2003). Songhees Pictorial: a History of the Songhees People as Seen by Outsiders, 1790-1912. Victoria: Royal BC Museum. Print.
Legislative Precinct (1996). Parliament Buildings. Victoria BC: Town Office.
McLain, R. (2012). “Producing Edible Landscapes in Seattles Urban Forest.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11: 2. Retrieved 24 November 2016 from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.12.002.
Mindenhall, D. (2012). Unbuilt Victoria. Toronto: Dunburn.
Parliamentary Education Office. (2015). Outdoor Self-guided Walking Tour. Retrieved from https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-peo/documents/legislative%20assembly%20outdoor%20walking%20tour%20english.pdf.
Public Works Report (1966). “Confederation Garden Court”. Legislative Precinct. Victoria BC: Parliament.
RSBC. (1996). Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. Chapter 258. Retrieved October 25 2016 from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96258_01.
Segger, M. (1979). The British Columbia Parliament Buildings. Vancouver: Mitchell Press Limited.
Shaefer, V. (1993). Biodiversity in Greater Victoria. New Westminister: Douglas College. University of Victoria (2016). Finnerty Gardens: All Season Self-guided Walk. Retrieved from https://www.uvic.ca/finnerty/assets/docs/FinnertyGardensWalkingTour.pdf.
Times Colonist. (1931). Legislatures Sunken Garden is living textbook of plants. Print.