This is a complicated story to understand all the details of, but essentially the city’s planning department is recommending that, instead of requiring Concord Pacific to reserve land for affordable housing in its new Northeast False Creek phase, that the city accept two other properties Concord owns on Hastings Street instead.
One of those properties, 58 West Hastings, was the object of protests and demonstrations before and during the Olympics as Concord proposed to build market condos there.
We now have various people opining that, if the city builds just social housing there, it will just entrench income segregation in the city. NPAers Suzanne Anton, on council, and Michael Geller, not, are saying that the city should instead have asked Concord to give the city one or more of the six sites already reserved on other portions of Concord’s False Creek developments and that the city should instead have lobbied to get provincial money for supportive social housing there.
Downtown Eastside activists, of course, would like to see Hastings sites become strictly social housing.
And the city, in public and elsewhere, is saying that it may consider other options besides just provincially subsidized social housing, at least for the 58 West Hastings site, to create some housing that’s aimed at a bigger range of low-income households than just the most seriously challenged that the province is focusing all of its efforts on these days.
63 responses so far ↓
1 spartikus // Jan 17, 2011 at 8:25 am
Is this the same Michael Geller who advocated converting social housing to “affordable ownership units” in Southeast False Creek?
2 matt // Jan 17, 2011 at 8:29 am
it’s a shame if this happens. this part of the DTES is really changing for the better. It provides a nice connection between ‘Crosstown’, Chinatown and Gastown.
3 Max // Jan 17, 2011 at 8:36 am
I would prefer to see social housing units spread throughout the city and not centered in the DTES.
For families with children, getting them away from the social ills that exist in the DTES may help change their lives. It gives them the opportunity to know something different.
The two sites Concord is offering are in the core of the DTES – one being right next to inSite.
Seniors and young families should not have to be subjected to walking through streets littered with drug dealers, needles and junkies.
4 boohoo // Jan 17, 2011 at 9:08 am
And the long promised park, now shrunk, likely to shrink again, remains unbuilt…
5 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 17, 2011 at 9:20 am
I agree with you Max. Any time I hear DTES “activists” say they want all social housing in their area, I hear the word “ghettoization” in my mind. I realize they are probably fearful of out of control hi-rise development (as all we all) as they are so close to the business core, but I think that a solid plan for rent controlled, provincially/federally supported low-rise low income housing throughout the city is a good idea.
6 michael geller // Jan 17, 2011 at 9:20 am
Sparticus, yes it is the same Michael Geller…and to fully understand my concerns and some proposed options, you can go to my blog by hitting on my name above. But in a nutshell….
My primary concern is to avoid a further concentration of social housing in the DTES.
A second concern does relate to the Olympic Village and the city’s longstanding policy of socially diverse ‘megaprojects’.
Since the city refused to sell the social housing at OV, (despite the potential to recover $110 million in costs, and avoid $64 million in ongoing subsidies) since it was more important to have a socially diverse community, why is it considering departing from that policy here…especially since it doesn’t have to.
Why, because there are already a number of undeveloped social housing sites in the Concord development that the city has not acquired since it doesn’t have the money. Concord is not obligated to give the city social housing sites, but it is obligated to sell them at a significant discount from their market value.
So I say, instead of taking a site in the DTES, right next to the Portland Hotel Society’s large social housing project, why not take one or more of the Concord sites? According to the staff report, this option doesn’t appear to have even been considered.
Let me repeat. Since Cameron Gray and Jill Davidson and Rob Whitlock are no longer around the Housing Department to advise Council on the type of creative deals they used to promote, this particular option does not seem to have been even considered.
As for the funding of the development of new units, I agree that in the absence of senior government money a more creative solution is required.
Here’s one approach. Once the city has taken title to $13 million worth of land along the north shore of False Creek, it can invite non-profits and private developers to submit proposals to create a mix of social housing, and other affordable housing.
I am confident that a number of organizations will respond. While we will not get as many social housing units as we would with senior government funding, we will get more than we are getting now.
(Just see for yourself. Many of the social housing sites are currently wrapped in chain link fences and covered in weeds.)
Just as importantly, the city will not have to battle it out with DTES activists who do not want to see condominium development on the Concord site.
This will then pave the way for a more imaginative condominium ownership development on the West Hastings property. One solution? To do something similar to the Westbank/Vancity/Henriquez project at 60 West Cordova. If Concord doesn’t want to do this, there are other developers who will be interested in buying the site.
Another solution could be a mix of condominiums and affordable housing for local and international artists. This is something that was explored last year with the City and the arts community and SFU…an approach that would complement the nearby SFU School for Contemporary Arts and reinforce the potential for the DTES to become a centre for arts and culture, as well as a place for the current low income population.
The result…two more diverse communities…one on the North Shore of False Creek. And one in the DTES. Now what’s wrong with that?
7 Elena C // Jan 17, 2011 at 10:59 am
Max: Exactly!
Or – my other idea is close to Michael’s above – perhaps the City can take the $13 million and invest in incentives for smaller local developers in a variety of locations that would integrate social housing more effectively.
8 Morven // Jan 17, 2011 at 11:45 am
We all want planning policies that are effective, transparent and in the public interest. And when exemptions from policies are mooted, the advisers to city council (in this case the planning department) identify the public interest reason why the exemption should be granted and the costs and benefits identified.
As I read this blog, I am struck with the impression that everything that comes across Council’s door is now an exemption from previous policies and without any fanfare, our elected representatives have thrown previous policies out of the door.
And without having the political good sense to tell us poor taxpayers that the new policy is no policy at all.
Can this really be happening under our eyes?
-30-
9 Bill McCreery // Jan 17, 2011 at 11:52 am
Spartikus, perhaps one might drop the other shoe.
Why is Vision abandoning their rigid attitude at the Olympic Village, where they are insisting on keeping unbelievably expensive social housing on very expensive land with no rational basis to suddenly taking two over priced properties with a history which limits the development options? This is not a wise financial proposal.
Michael, Max and boohoo have raised valid points. Perhaps it’s time for the City to recognize the reality that today there is very little federal or provincial affordable housing money. More creative solutions need to be employed. For instance, instead of buying the $11m East Hastings site, why not take the cash in lieu from Concord and put that money towards the acquisition and construction of one of the fallow FC sites. It’s possible this approach can be coupled with Michael’s mixed housing model as well.
10 Sean Bickerton // Jan 17, 2011 at 11:58 am
After a year of mediation and meetings organized by the city to bring the community together with developers in NEFC in order to forge a comprehensive solution and move past constant recriminations, we are left with two completely different results:
In one case, Aquilini/CMP worked proactively with the community to fashion a unique community amenity designed to keep the Canucks training in Vancouver and give our community access to state-of-the-art recreation facilities and meeting space. The community has endorsed their proposal enthusiastically.
Concord, on the other hand, took another approach which can only be described as “never mind your petty little concerns, watch what we come up with, you’re gonna love it!”
Well, we’ve seen it and love isn’t the word that comes to mind. Which brings us back to those original recriminations, still unaddressed:
1) Concord has still not fulfilled its obligations to provide amenities for the original development of the EXPO lands. Still owed to the residents of our city are a daycare, school, seawall completion around NEFC and the Creekside Park extension.
2) Since then they have added an additional 7500 residents to this community in new developments, yet provided no new amenities that should have been part of that proposal.
3) Now it is trying to get out of providing the standard 20% of social housing that under the NPA was part of every development and should be part of the new NEFC development they are proposing.
4) Further, thanks to some clever sleight of hand enabled by the Province, Concord has swapped land and development rights with PAVCO so that they don’t have to provide any new amenities for new development on 5a and 5b …
5) And now instead of delivering Creekside Park as contractually obliged a quarter century ago, they are proposing to put more grass around their presentation center and lease that ‘greened’ parking lot to the city for $3,000,000!
6) Incredibly, for tax purposes, Concord’s 12 acres of prime waterfront land is only valued at $400,000 (less than the cost of the average condo) and their yearly property tax payment to the city is only $4000 …
This is extremely odd, to put it kindly, as I’ve seen a professional appraisal of the property valuing it at $72,000.000, which would make quite a difference to how much they owed the city in taxes each year …
The Mayor expressed no interest in this ‘anomaly’, leaving it to others to pursue (and thankfully for the city’s coffers, others actually care enough to do just that …)
7) One final note. Those that suggested selling the social housing at Millennium Water to purchase more elsewhere – exactly what this council is proposing for Concord’s NEFC development – were pilloried.
Where’s the outcry now that our Mayor is proposing to do exactly the same thing in NEFC for Concord?
11 Mira // Jan 17, 2011 at 12:12 pm
In the past, I wasn’t that enamored with what he was proposing but…I’m with Michael Geller on this one!
99% .
I left 1 % out for the eventual deviations.
12 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 17, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“Another solution could be a mix of condominiums and affordable housing for local and international artists. This is something that was explored last year with the City and the arts community and SFU…an approach that would complement the nearby SFU School for Contemporary Arts and reinforce the potential for the DTES to become a centre for arts and culture, as well as a place for the current low income population.”
I would definitely support this at 58 Hastings, as long as it doesn’t become “work-space” units priced at 1/2 million plus, like many end up being. This would represent a more balanced approach somewhere between the two extremes of “ghettoization” and “hard gentrification”, and, as Michael notes, would essentially be part of an infrastructure development for SFU and help to support the high proportion of artists and a presumed influx of students in the area. Public gallery space could be at ground level, possibly with space for satellite exhibitions from other civic institutions like MOV and VAG. This would benefit the area in many ways.
In terms of financing, how about the University using some of Goldcorp’s controversial 10 million dollar grant to SFU School of Contemporary Arts to help fund this for student, artist and low-income housing (artist, student and low-income are, after all, not mutually exclusive, in most cases)? Is that a possible consideration, here?
And 2 doors down, the tower development at BC Electric building the DoP is pushing for (which I don’t like, and wonder if Heritage by-laws are being trounced here?) should provide some community amenity considerations – at least that’s Planning’s rationale behind towers in the HAHR. Why not tie those amenity allocations directly to 58 Hastings, on the same block, to help with financing a creative arts-based housing development?
13 Bill McCreery // Jan 17, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Morven, once again you have cut to the chase. And sadly, it is in fact happening. A few of us are trying to raise these concerns on an issue by issue basis, but you are correct, the bigger picture is:
“…that everything that comes across Council’s door is now an exemption from previous policies and without any fanfare, our elected representatives have thrown previous policies out of the door”.
I have said before that this Vision Council is (not very) systematically destroying our neighbourhoods and communities, our downtown, our transportation systems. And in the end, the City as a whole will be the loser.
Vancouver has been recognized world wide as a greening, progressive urban centre. But, the blind ideologically driven and uninformed decision and policies of this Council are doing unrepairable damage to that carefully crafted governance structure and to the physical fabric of Vancouver. Unfortunately, although many perceptive people in many communities throughout the City are seeing these negative initiatives for what they are, the real damage will not be evident until the physical manifestations are fully realized over the next several years, especially in the neighbourhoods.
It is for these reasons that all of us who care about this City, and are aware of the disastrous implications of this Vision Council’s reckless behaviour, have a personal responsibility to reach out to other citizens and to make them aware of what is really happening to their city.
14 spartikus // Jan 17, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Why is Vision abandoning their rigid attitude at the Olympic Village
Dunno. Probably because NEFC doesn’t have the same international visibility so they can get away with it.
Where’s the outcry now that our Mayor is proposing to do exactly the same thing in NEFC for Concord?
I’m very sure it’s coming. But I’m struck by the phrase “is proposing to do exactly the same thing” – in other words they’re doing what Michael Geller proposed for SEFC.
I don’t have any sort of background in this complicated subject and thus don’t have anything substantive to contribute.
I will leave you all to it.
15 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 17, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“the blind ideologically driven and uninformed decision and policies of this Council are doing unrepairable damage to that carefully crafted governance structure and to the physical fabric of Vancouver”
Bill, let’s take a step back here and remember where these policies were germinated. The HAHR and the massive intensification developments currently proposed in outlying neighbourhoods are essentially the first round of EcoDensity developments finally rearing their ugly heads to the public. This isn’t the result of Vision “extremism” so much as past NPA policy. The HAHR and the 26 storey Rize in Mt. Pleasant, for example, have been in the works for over 3 years.
This “free for all” spurred by EcoDensity was vociferously warned about by neighbourhood groups during those initial EcoDensity consultations, and so Mr. Sullivan effectively removed them from the debate. Three or four years later, guess what? Everything those neighbourhood groups feared is coming true. That certainly doesn’t exempt Vision from being on the final approval end of these policies (ie. the Jan 20th council meeting), or adding fuel to the fire with policies like STIR, but the reality is that this policy ball has been rolling since at least 2006.
More importantly, however: it is the unelected City directors who write the recommendations and by-law changes, and who implement Council policy on the ground (and behind closed doors) that are really driving this policy. They are the ones that run the public consultations and need to show transparency in the process. Does one hastily arranged two-hour information session 3 days before Council meets really cut it for big decisions like these?
And why is there such a rush?
I think the resulting View Corridors and HAHR policies are far too open-ended and give the DoP enormous discretionary powers to continue considering and approving “future exceptions” in addition to the precedent-setting exceptions being proposed currently. It’s almost as if the new policies are designed to make local residents and Council – whether they be NPA or Vision or Cope – irrelevant in decisions that shape the future of our city’s neighbourhoods.
16 Morven // Jan 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Gassy Jack’s Ghost # 15
If what you say is correct, then there is more than a whiff of improper delegation of decision making by our elected representatives to the senior officials.
To do it knowingly is bad enough but for those powers to be used by default is not the mark of an accountable administration.
So what is it ? Powers taken by officials or power given to officials? And by whom?
-30-
17 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 17, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I do wonder if Concord’s “offer” has anything to do with segregating those that would buy in the development from those that can only rent up to an “affordable” amount? And that no aspect of social housing would be tolerated by the investors of their buildings?
There, I’ve said it.
18 Joe Just Joe // Jan 17, 2011 at 4:40 pm
It’s unfortunate that the idea to ask for Concord for the $13M in cash came for S. Anton and not from one of the Vision councillors as it’s more likely to have been accepted if it was.
The city is setting itself up for a bad deal on this one. That land is only worth that price if it’s earmarked for market housing.
I’m saddened to see the city staff recommend this deal. Hopefully if it is approved we do end up with something built at 58 W Hastings that is a larger version of 60 W Cordova and not just additional SRO units.
19 Michael Geller // Jan 17, 2011 at 5:09 pm
JJJ, you are absolutely right, on all counts. However, even if it was Kerry Jang who suggested that Concord pay cash, rather than Suzanne Anton, it is not reasonable to expect this to happen. Concord will not pay cash…especially since it has enough land on the north shore of False Creek to offer to the city instead.
Now, as for the likelihood of a mixed market/non-market development on the Hastings Street site if the city accepts the property, I won’t be holding my breath…especially since the city is accepting it in lieu of social housing at False Creek.
Nor would I want to see the city do this, since at best, the ‘market housing’ will likely be market rental housing, and that means that I as a taxpayer will have toagain subsidize market renters on a site where units could be sold.
It’s bad enough that we are having to subsidize 126 market rental units at Olympic Village…(yes I know they are being managed as a Coop…but essentially these are market rentals.)
Finally, let’s not ignore the fact that everyone now seems prepared to forego the 20% requirement in this particular phase of False Creek north…the only issue is what to accept in return.
I do hope that now that there are other possibilities on the table (that staff seemed to ignore), Council will do the right thing and discuss and seriously consider these other options before referring the matter to Public Hearing.
It would not be fair to Concord, who has been acting in good faith, if the entire project was rejected following opposition at Public Hearing….and I’m sure there will be a lot of legitimate opposition if the comments on the Vcr Sun, G&M and other blogs are any indication of the public attitudes towards this matter.
20 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 17, 2011 at 5:26 pm
@Morven
I think the NPA and especially Sullivan knew exactly what they were doing with EcoDensity, and which department was getting the added power. With Vision, I’m not so sure they (or at least, all of them) recognize there may be a fox in the henhouse.
Again, there should be no rush; these towers aren’t going up tomorrow. The most prudent course here would be to delay this vote long enough to give some independent stakeholders reasonable time for analysis of the final reports, which only came out late December. These are big decisions and set major precedents that deviate from decades of planning policy, and they shouldn’t be rushed through.
As Michael notes above in the case of 58 Hastings, but which applies here too: “there are other possibilities… (that staff seemed to ignore).” Part of the problem with all these proposals is that there are no creative alternatives presented by staff. The future of our city is being very narrowly defined.
21 Tiktaalik // Jan 17, 2011 at 6:06 pm
It’s really irksome that we have to deal with this since the obvious best case scenario is to build affordable housing at both locations.
If we’re going to fix the affordable housing issue that continuously rises we’re going to have to start voting in federal and provincial politicians that support an affordable housing strategy. The BC Liberal method of funding the occasional building here or there doesn’t quite cut it.
22 Morven // Jan 17, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Gassy Jack’s Ghost # 20
Thank you for that insight.
I think the hundreds of volunteers who toil away in Vision committees across the city because they believe in doing something for their communities may well have a sense of angst when they admit to that sinking feeling that Vision has perfected the club to ignore them (even if Sam S carved the weapon).
It goes a long way to explain the sense of alienation felt by my fellow volunteers at the city response to planning issues. We all fondly thought that Vision was part of a chain of community response.
Sadly, we, seemingly, were mistaken.
Is there a democratic deficit at city hall?
-30-
23 Mary // Jan 17, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Aside from teh very good reasons Morven articulates very well about why this is not a good policyt shift, JJJ has hit on the other reason this is very suspicious – how is land in NEFC equal in value to land inthe DTES??? who is benefitting here? let’s see the transparent financial analysis that makes this deal advisable.
24 Richard // Jan 17, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Anyway, lets not let the Federal and Provincial Governments off the hook. They need to come up with funding for social housing in all communities so sites like this don’t just sit around for years.
25 evilfred // Jan 17, 2011 at 10:56 pm
“I would prefer to see social housing units spread throughout the city and not centered in the DTES.”
While this is a great sentiment, building social housing in other areas than the DTES and the marginial areas where it is being built now (the bottom of the Main St hill for example) will result in major NIMBY town halls from “concerned residents”.
This line from the article is hilarious: “Councillor Suzanne Anton, who is the lone representative of the city’s centre-right Non-Partisan Association, has another solution.” You could cut and paste this into any city article lately!
26 Gentle Bossanova // Jan 17, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Is that the Michael Geller that wanted to house low income people in trailers, box cars or freight containers? I can’t remember exactly which.
Frances Bula, “… essentially the city’s planning department is recommending that, instead of requiring Concord Pacific to reserve land for affordable housing in its new Northeast False Creek phase…”
[cut and paste your own 'solution' here]
The city’s planning department, whatever their recommendations, are laps ahead of elected politicians bracing for a “Custer’s Last Stand” come next November.
Who in their right mind can truly say that this planning is sustainable, greenest city in the universe, or whatever?
Bickerton is bickering that Concord Pacific has not done enough for his neighbourhood, and is now twisting tax law to their advantage… Get a grip! Private sector companies, like the American firm that built Canada’s CPR, are all about profit not sustainability (Concord Pacific is the real estate arm of the CPR).
Then there’s a “Ghost” splitting hairs between which Council did what. Someone stand up and give me (and Ghost) an honest account of why towermania is ruling our future. Dollars-2-Donuts the answer is: Ca$h.
Mirror Mirror on the Wall, Who’s the Greenest Cit of All?
27 Glissando Remmy // Jan 18, 2011 at 12:21 am
The Thought of The Night
“Having a social element in a multi-millionaires community it’s like having The Queen of England ask little Suzy from Medicine Hat, Alberta to attend her nephew’s weeding. It is good PR. Makes them Royals feel good! Karma. People will visit. Though, it’s still going to remain a ‘lookie no touchie’ affair.”
Plus, all those rich guys, don’t they hate it when they cannot gate their community? Hey, I’m not against it!
But do anyone remember the destruction of the Little Mountain Co-op, with the full support of the Vision Council and The Mayor? It was only last year. That was a good example of a Bullshit proposal. A juicy one!
Apparently,it was agreed, by the development community and the City, that the little piece of land adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth Park was too valuable to leave it to the poor War World II veterans and families for whom it was built.
Anyhoo…
I liked Michael post. It has…a different view from the Olly Village ‘Alphabet People do not mix’ post of few weeks/ months ago. It smells better. Not a ‘stone’ soup anymore, I’ll say this one is a Barley – Nava beans soup with lots of spices. Yummy!
Having said that, I’d like to give my Two Pence on a ‘slippery’ matter… the words ‘social’, ‘affordable’, ‘low rental’ followed by ‘housing’ have the same effect on you the voting citizen… as ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, ‘low flush’, ‘passive solar design’, ‘net zero energy’, ‘geo-thermal’ words followed by ‘buildings’ has on the prospective condo buyer … as ‘organic’, ‘natural’, ‘free run/ range’, ‘not from concentrate’, ‘ethical’, ‘free trade’ has on you the health conscious consumer…as ‘global warming’, ‘ozone layer depletion’, ‘carbon offset’ followed by …Al Gore, has on you the neurotic, stressed out City squirrel.
All these ‘words’ are there to keep you in the game, in ‘check’ if you may, in the grand scheme of semantics, they are after all clever euphemisms, used to make you feel better before they administer your scheduled colonoscopy.
What, you didn’t know you’re due for one?
But you are my friend, but you are!
Now that you know, you have a head start. Use it wisely.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
28 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 18, 2011 at 12:37 am
Well, Gentle Bosanova, the DoP sure couldn’t present an honest account of towermania tonight at the public meeting. The only excuse, er, rationale behind HAHR he could come up when questioned was that he wanted to stop the rampant speculation in the area that the Woodwards towers started.
So the rationale goes like this:
We must raise the building heights and approve more towers in order to stop the speculation for more towers.
My god, what vomitous, vacuous crap will they think up next!?
And this was the ONLY reason he could give!
29 Bobbie Bees // Jan 18, 2011 at 2:35 am
I think first off we need to ban offshore ownership. If you want to own a building, condo or even a piece of land you need to be a Canadian citizen and reside in Canada for no less than 10 months out of the year.
This is it self will probably do more to correct the false inflation of our local housing and real estate market than anything else.
Next, we need to bring in a flat income tax with NO WRITE OFFs for the ubber rich. Everyone pays 35% to 45%. No loop holes, no write offs, no offshore investment schemes.
Finally, instead of propping up failing industries and bailing out rich mega-corps with exuberant tax breaks we need to instead look after housing our own citizens.
Home ownership is not for everyone. Unless you want to see our economy brought to it’s knees by the same type of greed and stupidity that brought the American economy to it’s knees the only people who should be buying houses are those with the money to pay for them. No credit, no loans. If you want a house it should be a cash on the barrel head transaction.
Of course that might piss off those who profit from the ‘mortgage your life away’ housing market, but hey what the hell.
30 Michael Geller // Jan 18, 2011 at 7:48 am
BB…I can’t let you derail this conversation…it’s important.
As for GB’s question “Is that the Michael Geller that wanted to house low income people in trailers, box cars or freight containers? I can’t remember exactly which.”
Let me refresh your memory. The proposal was to set up modular housing on ‘free’ vacant sites for a number of years to provide very affordable, decent and safe housing for the homeless and others with low incomes. Once the sites were required for redevelopment, the units could be relocated to other ‘free’ vacant sites. Just like school portables are moved around to meet a need.
I suggested such housing could be set up in both the DTES and other locations around the region. The idea would work because small, factory produced relocatable housing could be created for $35,000 to $40,000 a unit, and relocated a couple of times before discarded, or refurbished and set up permanently.
I re-iterate this since many consider it to be a creative and cost effective approach….and that’s what we now need…more creative, cost effective approaches to deliver non-market housing, without a reliance on public subsidies, for those who can’t afford market housing.
Now, as a follow up to Gassy Jack’s Ghost, I would like to second his concerns following the City’s public information meeting which included a discussion on proposed height increases in the Heritage Districts, including the DTES.
I must say I am not convinced of the merits of allowing higher buildings…even up to 150 feet, in Chinatown. The explanation from the DofP that this is in response to Chinatown reps who want to see more economic development in the area is folly. Absolute folly.
I do hope Council will not support these height increases..even up to 150 feet. They have the potential to detract from the attractiveness of the area, just like a further concentration of very low income people.
31 Max // Jan 18, 2011 at 8:50 am
@ Richard 24
The Provincial government has committed a lot of money to ‘social housing’ , not just in Vancouver but all of BC.
I believe there are roughly 500 – 600 units coming on-line this year with another 1500 – 2000 stilll in the process of being built.
32 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 9:40 am
Bobbie Bees,
I would like to further discuss what all this “investor money” from outside the country is doing to the local market. IMO this is one of the primary reasons that we are undergoing towermania. There are real estate companies in this town that tell me that offshore investors want to buy, not one, not two but 5 buildings at a time. Quite simply, they want more product. They also want a safe haven for their money, and right now, Canada, and Vancouver provide this haven. I am also told, anecdotally, by real estate sales people that the bulk majority of single condo and single family residences right now are made to offshore purchasers. So much for the “local market” and all the mewling we hear from council about what they are doing to make it all accessible and affordable for the middle class locals.
If you are going to tax anyone, I think that taxing non-Canadian speculators is a good start. Perhaps a premium for non-landed immigrants. That money could be used to produce more social housing or even, affordable coop housing for middle income families (Sorry, Glissy!
Here’s something else that bothers me. It appears that most of the sales right now are going to offshore buyers. If they are single nationality, or even dual citizens, I presume that they pay income tax in only one jurisdiction? Further, I would speculate that they pay those taxes in the country with the most favourable tax laws—which I’m betting is not Canada.
If so, that means that their contribution to our system, beyond enriching the developers, is through property tax and buying whatever products and services they want or need here.
Yet, if they are landed immigrants, they are accessing the health and educational systems. It seems to me, that if they are not required to pay income taxes or interest on investments as capital gains (again, I assume that much of their wealth resides offshore) that this poses a risk to the future quality of our infrastructure.
Is anyone up on what financial responsibilities real estate investors or landed immigrants have to Canada? I know that to gain Canadian citizenship, the government requires some investment. Does that mean in real estate or in putting money into busnesses here? And, is there a requirement once landed, that people pay income tax here, even if they are dual citizens?
33 david hadaway // Jan 18, 2011 at 9:45 am
GB is making a cheap shot regarding ‘container’ housing.
I recently had reason to visit First United Church on East Hastings and went into the area where they have the bunks for the homeless. Meaning no disrespect for the church, who do the best they can in trying circumstances, it was like a set from a PoW movie. It struck me that these people are denied something that the rest of us take for granted and yet which is crucial to mental and spiritual well being.
Privacy.
Mr Geller deserves respect for proposing this temporary solution even though it exposes him to this kind of attack.
34 Max // Jan 18, 2011 at 10:17 am
re: container houses
This past week, a building was being erected on
West 4th Avenue, which was made up of 12 individual ‘container type’ units.
These units were built in Surrey and transported to the site where they were stacked like legos to become a housing/office unit.
The architect involved stated that the cost to build them off site was significantly less than the cost of building at the site, as well, it took less time, which also saved money.
Why can’t this model be used elsewhere rather than spending stupid amounts of money refurbishing old hotels /SROs.
What was the cost of the Pennsylvania Hotel – $330K per unit, and those units were 250 sqaure feet each. I think there were 47 in total.
That money could be better spent to house more people.
35 Bill McCreery // Jan 18, 2011 at 10:53 am
Go off to a couple of City of Van meetings and look what transpires…
David, I second your motion. Michael should be congratulated for this and other creative solutions he has put forward.
Gassy, I agree, the current problems we have are not just with Vision policies. IMO, the Ecodensity policy, while having good intentions and features, has flaws and needs to be revisited.
There has also been references to the DoP having to much power, backroom, unelected decision-making, etc. Just to give a couple of examples:
1) The DoP at the Tall Buildings meeting last night, when asked how high 700′ was said it might be 690′, it might be 710′, it might be 700 something else feet, but it wouldn’t be 800′. It would be whatever he decided was appropriate. WOW! However, this should be no surprise as the DoP has been ignoring community plans and zoning by-law requirements for some time now. This is not good enough.
2) Planning staff at the Design Panel Wednesday revealed that although the Marpole Plan is 20+ years old and needs updating, that staff do have their own plan for the entire commercial strip from 72nd to 65th. It includes some yet to be revealed mix of retail and residential at 3.0 FSR or even more for the 12 block stretch. This was not news well received by the 250+ people attending the Shannon Mews spot rezoning public meeting a couple of hours later at the Ryerson United in central Kerrisdale ( hardly in the Shannon Mews neighbourhood).
What has happened to due process? To public consultation? To doing the basic background traffic and transit analysis, population growth projections, retail catchment calculations and so on? There is something seriously wrong here. Just for starters at the detail level, how much more traffic will the Granville and 70th intersection handle?
36 Joseph Jones // Jan 18, 2011 at 11:05 am
Fourth Horseman at #32 cuts through epiphenomenal effluvia to get to the base economics. Towers in Vancouver have become concrete-and-steel human-sized safety deposit boxes for a tsunami of global capital. Containers that are their own content. Even one of them uninhabited is too many. Bring on non-resident owner surtaxes.
37 Morven // Jan 18, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Bill McCreery # 35
I think you crystallised the sense of community loss and betrayal that flows from current planning developments in which the residents(seemingly) are the last to know and their views are evidently ignored or downplayed.
Not all of us are resistant to change but that does not mean that anything goes.
I know that planning is an honourable profession with enormous pressures directly and indirectly from special interests. And that is why you have local or structural plans to manage that change not pitch residents into a garbage bag of proposals.
That said, the finger of scepticism points at the elected representatives who are seemingly incapable of putting in checks and balances and reviewing policies (such as EcoDensity) after an interval to see if there are/were unforeseen impacts. That is now self evident as EcoDensity, despite the outrage of some of us taxpayers at the time, seems to have become a developers charter out of sight of citizens and elected representatives alike.
Am I just being sceptical or are my views shared?
-30-
38 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Thanks JoJo,
Though I had to look up the word ‘epiphenomenal’ (one of the things I enjoy about this site: how to increase your word power!).
I think this is a conversation that must happen.
Combined with new federal borrowing restrictions we are yet another step away from the sham of “affordability” in this city. The developer of the proposed new Pattison tower on Burrard Street assiduously avoided being pinned down by Bill Good today on what the costs of even the lowest cost condo suite might be. The rental market wasn’t even discussed.
And more than that, is the concern about what people really contribute to a “sustainable’ economy if they are only here to purchase real estate, and how we pay for social services if we don’t have enough income tax money coming in.
Yes, I know that I can buy a condo or home in the desert in the US. But I know that I am going to be hit with capital gains taxes when I sell, or have to declare income if I rent to a local there.
If I choose to keep the unit empty and “Snowbird” as a vacationer I am only allowed to stay for around 6 months a year there.
There are similar rules on real estate around the globe, yet here, it appears we ask for —-nothing.
Why are we so darned short-sighted in this town? Our plans never seem to exceed a 2 year horizon.
While I read in today’s papers about plans for Chinese interests to also invest in business here, they tend to sound like the same old, same old service sector (read: low paying) jobs like hotels and retail. And the HST from those enterprises won’t go to general revenue, but back to business. Sorry, I know that if I get a cheque from governement, my first conern isn’t to automatically lower prices or employ more people. Please, someone show me the data that that actually happens. At least with the old PST, you knew that tax paid on services and products went to support health and education.
Isn’t it all short term greed?
What a disservice to all citizens.
39 Sean Bickerton // Jan 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I find it ironic in the extreme that people like Gentle Bossanova chime in to try to embarrass one of the most honest commenters on these issues in this city – Michael Geller. You may not always agree with his position – we disagree on these heights for instance – but he is one of the few with his degree of knowledge and experience willing to speak his honest mind.
Few people in this city have done as much to create successful mixed-income neighbourhoods, parkland and social housing as has Michael Geller.
And I feel the entire discussion is on a different level when we’re able to interact directly with experts with his knowledge of how this industry works, and what has proven successful in this city and around the world.
On the matter at hand, no one can seriously be suggesting a head tax in the 21st century, given our shameful history of mistreating the Chinese community that helped build this city.
That shameful treatment didn’t end with the head tax unfortunately. It continues to this day, and judging from some of the posts here comes from the same motivation.
The freeways were a dagger aimed right at the heart of Chinatown, and the viaducts today still cut that community off from the rest of the city, isolating what once was a thriving community.
In addition, given the proximity to our downtown core, merchants in Chinatown pay some of the highest property taxes in the city, given our ‘best-use’ appraisal system which forces a small, one story storefront with few customers to pay the taxes of a ten- or fifteen-story commercial building.
Further, neon signs were ordered taken down by the city in another paroxysm of ‘we know best’ planning, ruining the vitality of a once-thriving nightlife.
And finally the area was used as a dumping ground for those with addictions and mental-health problems and the area flooded with SROs, thus concentrating the most addicted, mentally-disturbed population in our city in the area immediately adjacent to Chinatown’s vibrant community.
That is the legacy faced by those now turning things around. Their plan calls for the tallest towers – 150′ mid-rise towers – in a small area east of Main right adjacent to the existing condo buildings of The Left Bank, Ginger and Citygate neighbourhoods. Those mid-rise heights won’t be permitted in the historically important areas of chinatown west of Main which are limited to 90′, with the exception of being able to go to public hearings in certain cases to get approval for a 120′ low-rise building.
In return, the merchants are developing a comprehensive plan to restore the historic area’s vibrancy, creating new cultural assetts that will draw visitors and build on the success of the Sun Yat-Sen gardens as an enduring draw.
Chinatown needs help. Those that don’t live, work or play there cry out it must remain exactly the same forever! But that will eliminate any chance of revitalizing what should be a jewel of our city – the showcase for our heritage and a compass point to our future as a gateway city to Asia.
40 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Sean,
Who is calling for a head tax? Are you kidding? A rather long bow to draw, I’m afraid. It’s also a cheap shot—ther aren’t other juridictions in the world don’t ask for trade-offs from wealthy real estate investors. Maybe Monaco, which is perhaps where we are heading.
A tax haven—is that what you want for Vancouvites??? Who is going to pay for: transit, health care, education? The middle class, who already shoulder much of the responsibility?
This covers all global investors, though since you yourself state that building towers is part of our game plan as a gateway to Asia, undercuts your own assumption.
Not every discussion need be framed as an attack on immigration. How about the fairness of the taxation system? Or the responsibility to achieve maximum benefits for everyone who lives here?
41 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Sorry, second line should read: there aren’t other jurisdictions in the world who don’t ask for
tradeoffs from wealthy real estate investors?
Let me give you an example. We charge hefty premiums to people who aren’t landed immigrants, on such things as attending a post secondary institution, and the use of our health care system, when they need or wish to use it.
Why is investment real estate any different? Why is it not included in the mix? Why do we think we shouldn’t charge premium for it, for those who are not landed?
I find it wholly ironic that the Bank of Canada can hold the interest rate so as not to stimulate inflation, but we cannot ask investors for some kind of an insurance policy to cover all the associated costs of supporting new infrastructure, in lieu of the surge of money that unfailingly pushes up our real estate to new and dizzying heights.
This is the new gold rush.
42 Morven // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:12 pm
It is no dark secret that just about every global commercial real estate group is focussed on Vancouver as an investment opportunity. Which means pension funds, hedge funds watch what happens in Vancouver.
Yes, there will be benefits to the city. But there will be costs.
What to do? Well we can treat these groups the same as local investors and make sure they endorse the idea of a social licence to operate (something quite familiar to resource companies).
Or, we can provide these investors with a regulatory haven where they are exempt from local rules.
Where are we going?.
I have no idea but my guess, and it is just a guess, is that the provincial government likes the idea of a commercial real estate regulatory haven.
-30
43 Sean Bickerton // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I’m not so sure about the long bow, 4H … people are seriously suggesting we impose some kind of punitive tax because people from China want to live here … ???
We’re also discussing the right of property owners in Chinatown to build on their own land while people from other parts of the city try to stop them …
Neither of these issues can be divorced from the context of our historic mis-treatment of this community.
As to what we ask from people who own property here, they pay property taxes – the major source of funds to pay our city’s billion dollar budget.
Secondly, the condos people buy contribute millions of dollars in CAC’s and land lift that are the only source of funds for the infrastructure our city needs – our parks, playgrounds, daycare centres, libraries etc. All of these are paid for by the people who build the city’s housing.
In respect to the debate, rather than the tonality or context, the West End has many towers 20 – 30 stories tall that were built 30 years ago when things were much less dense in this city. Yet many people think the west end is one of the most livable neighbourhoods in Vancouver.
Why on the edge of Chinatown would 15 stories be unacceptable then? Particularly when the buildings would be a block away from buildings twice that size in Citygate?
44 Bill McCreery // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Well articulated Sean. Other than you contention that higher buildings will solve the areas problems, you have identified several other potential solutions which might bring on real, meaningful revitalization.
But, we disagree on the added heights. They will make some short term profit for the developers, but the occupants will in all likelyhood not be of Chinese origin, and the sum total of the projected 88 additional residents this increase brings into the neighbourhood isn’t going to save the local businesses is it?
In addition, it must be understood, a heritage area is just that, a heritage area and must remain a heritage area if it to continue to be a heritage area. These higher buildings will be out of scale and character with the existing heritage we say we want to protect, but by building higher we will be destroying that very character. So then, why does anyone want to come to a neighbourhood which is just the same as all the other neighbourhoods only with some propped up facades and not a particularly Chinese resident population? They won’t. And that is the end of “…the showcase for our heritage and a compass point to our future as a gateway city to Asia”.
Let’s hope the City and the local merchants come to this same realization and focus instead on some of the other more viable solutions to solving this important problem.
If you look carefully at the before and after view cone photos, you will see the slivers of mountains left after the PROPOSED Chinatown height increases are inconsequential. The proportion of the tiny bits of the peaks of the North Shore mountains which is left is completely overwhelmed by the scale, mass and height of the proposed new higher Chinatown buildings. Look at the original photo. That proportion feels good. The planners then got it right. This PROPOSAL has not.
So, we will be left with a Chinatown which will not be revitalized, which will continue to fail and Vancouverites and our visitors will have lost a cherished part of what makes Vancouver the unique place it is.
Similarly, the arguments being employed to justify the Downtown tower increases are even less relevant. I asked the DoP planning last night at the Public Meeting: ‘Why do we need to increase these building heights’? He could not answer that question. This is another whole discussion.
45 Westender1 // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm
The City’s presentation at the Empire Landmark Hotel last night indicated that the change in height limits on Main Street (from 120′ max. to 150′ max) would result in an increased population of 80 (eighty) people. A member of the audience actually questioned it twice because the number didn’t seem to make sense. Can we not come up with a better way to accommodate those potential 80 residents than shading Main Street and Chinatown with taller buildings? This type of “metric” leads one back to the question of “what’s the rush”?
46 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Morven,
Exactly.
Don’t exempt the city council here, past and current, in the mix of those who choose to whistle and look the other way.
Which makes all this talk about “how high” so ridiculous.
Why so high? As always, the object of the exercise is to maximize profit, something I am not against.
But here’s the trade-off, for building these: If you want “higher’, developers and offshore investors, pay up, in some way.
And , for all you people who say that towers are more “sustainable” than low rise (oh, let’s not go there!), let’s figure out how to build smarter as well as higher. That would be true sustainability.
But, which councillor or political party, who receive substantial contributions from developers, can afford to float these ideas?
Gotta leave that to the people, I guess.
47 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Sean,
Global investors, whether from China (who you are focusing on) or Europe are all the same colour to me. And that colour is “green” as is the colour of money.
Are you worried that asking something back from foreign investors—see Morven’s reply as per resource extraction—would dimish the prosects here, either for further development or for your own political prospects?
Please answer my question. Why shouldn’t people who are not Canadian citizens (and not long-time landed, immigrant or native born Chinatown business people. Wow, talk about mixing your metaphors–or rather trying to support those tall towers!) and who do invest in a passive investment like real estate, which by its very development and nature in this current hot market, will have a cascading effect on additional supportive infrastrucure here. Why should they NOT be obliged to contribute something more, or fulfill their promises via CACS, local parks, etc?? Again, other jurisdictions ask for far more than we do—or yes, it’s a ‘competive advantage’ not to press too much on this, right?
You are dreaming in technicolour if you think that property tax covers all the infrastructure upticks in a region growing exponentially. Many things, like transit, are also supported by senior levels of government (by 2/3 in fact), and THAT money comes mostly from income tax.
48 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Sean,
I’m rather surprised about your statement about CAC’s and your claim that developers supply the funding through these for daycare, parks, etc.
Aren’t you the guy screaming about the that long-promised 9and not yet delivered0 park space from Concorde Pacific?
How long, and how many more “discussions’ between Concord and the City must go on before they deliver on that promise?
49 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 2:15 pm
As for buiding height in Chinatown itself: as always, there should be a balance between what residents/businesses desire and heritage and wholesale razing of an area.
No quarrel there.
As per the West End developing height 30 years ago, versus what they may want today— If I said the same thing about Greenwich Village, I bet you’d scream yorself hoarse.
We don’t need to support height for the sake of height. We need to ask “why height?” in order to build a city that is not predicated merely on the whims and investment money from developers.
50 Sean Bickerton // Jan 18, 2011 at 2:51 pm
OK 4H, we’re in total agreement on the need to preserve heritage and heritage neighbourhoods. We’re also in agreement that height shouldn’t just be stuck anywhere.
Where we disagree is on the specifics of this proposal. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the diagram showing the two different heritage areas. The 15 story buildings – a mid-rise apartment block – will only exist east of Main near Union and will each be subject to public hearings and input.
The area affected is just north of the ugliest thing in this city – i.e. those horrific neighbourhood-destroying viaducts – and just two blocks from The Left Bank and Citygate’s 30 story buildings.
Please go walk around that area -Why would we not allow one, two or three 15 story buildings in that blighted corner of the city which will provide homes for people who need them and provide the CACs and land lift necessary to fund the cultural draws that will help revitalize the area?
As for my good friend Bill McCreery’s concern about mountain views, we are surrounded on two sides by some of the tallest mountains in North America. It’s difficult to find anywhere in this city in which it’s impossible to see the mountains, but if that place exists, my sincere advice would be to walk just two blocks further along and you’ll find them still there when you emerge.
It’s one thing to complain about a 60-story tower going into the midst of a neighbourhood of single-family homes. It’s another completely to state that there should not even be one 15 story tower east of Main up against those horrific viaducts when anything at all would be an improvement.
As to my complaint against Concord, they have done many good things for the city – the seawall around Yaletown I walk on most days is at the top of that list. My criticism is that they haven’t delivered everything promised in a timely way and it’s important we keep our homebuilders honest – that is what government’s for.
Re: taxing people who want to live and invest here and help create a human bridge to one of the largest economies and cultures on the planet? As stated, they pay property taxes, and the builders of the homes they buy contribute extensive CACs and land lift that pay for all of the amenities we all enjoy. And their spending helps create jobs, increase services and enrich the vitality of our city, not the other way around.
The reason Holland became a once-great international power was because at the time of the reformation, they opened their doors to immigration, flooding their country with new ideas, investment, wealth and culture, making them one of the most open and educated societies of their time.
We should seize this moment in history which offers our own small city the same opportunity, not resort to small-minded xenophobia and close ourselves off to the great benefits that influx can bring.
51 Westender1 // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:13 pm
The 150 foot buildings are proposed for both sides of Main Street, between Keefer and Union, not just the east side.
See Figure 3 in the report on the Heritage Area Height Review.
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110120/documents/penv4.pdf
52 ThinkOutsideABox // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:20 pm
The planning dept in last night’s presentation once again trotted out the statement that these additional heights will not be affecting the West End defined by their zoning definition.
That is a ridiculous technicality to hang such a statement on since by zoning definition the west side of Burrard is considered downtown, but other city maps define the West End as, you got it, bounded the west side of Burrard.
In answer to the first question regarding the effect on others’ views, the DoP said public views are more important than private views. It’s a socially trite, and frankly moronic statement to make when the context is the creation of more/new private views.
The heights & views policy report to council failed to mention the Bridgehead Guidelines which inform building design at the ends of Burrard, Granville and Cambie bridges. Planning staff indicated it was an oversight and they needed to start somewhere, but more likely as the DoP has indicated before, his regard for guidelines (zoning or otherwise), height and density numbers are optional at his discretion.
In a last minute amendment released yesterday afternoon, the planning department made a change to the Appendix B map where instead of higher building areas, the planning dept are quick to point out it is only 7 specific sites. The southwest corner of Burrard and Davie where sits the Esso gas station was originally part of this higher building zone, but in the amended of map they got rid of the higher building zone areas and let us know that ooops, that Esso site is actually in a view corridor.
Specifically Raymond Louie and/or Geoff Meggs this Thursday will pitch this as a way to create more jobs by the additional office space, thus also allowing for people to live and work in the same green sustainable community. They will further pitch that they are actually protecting even more views by adding 3 corridors and then all vision councillors will vote for the policy.
Were it not for public pressure, no doubt this flawed policy would have been passed by this disappointing council back on December 16th.
We deserve better, from a city government and the planning department.
53 Joe Just Joe // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I completely agree that 80 additional people sounds like nothing and not worth the hassle. That being said, those 80 additional people could have a very large effect. The additional height could let the owners of those 5 sites (yes there are only 5 sites at that height) build an additional 3 floors. Without those additional 3 floors the project might or might not be economically feasible, by providing the additional height you ensure the project goes ahead. So in reality you have an additional ~600 new people. Without those additional 80 bodies you might not get those other 520people as there might not be a project.
So those 80 people could in effect play a large role, and could snowball the potential for other projects to go ahead afterwards if the remaining owners see marked improvements in the area which now make questionable developments viable.
54 Westender1 // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Good point JJJ – fortunately the land prices of these properties will stay the same after the change in zoning potential, so the increased floor area will go entirely toward attaining development feasibility and not toward financing increased land costs…
55 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Sean,
Yes, we agree on many aspects of development in Chinatown. No, I am not arguing against 15 stories, and certainly not against i,proving urban blight, but I am interested to see what that means in real density and design, so interested in Michael’s and Bill’s comments.
I am also interested to see that all this proposed development is so close to the new casino—more about that, in a minute.
Why 15 stories? Why 14, as has been long rumoured —and supported by Raymond Louie—for the area from Granville Island west to Burrard? Why hasn’t this been discussed? Why the secrecy?
As for your statement:
‘Re: taxing people who want to live and invest here and help create a human bridge to one of the largest economies and cultures on the planet? As stated, they pay property taxes, and the builders of the homes they buy contribute extensive CACs and land lift that pay for all of the amenities we all enjoy’.
First, who doesn’t want immigrants, especially those who are willing to work or have a business here, whereby they derive personal income from and so contribute and pay out to our income tax base? No arguments from me!
These are the people who, along with all other Canadians, will help support our pension plans and who pay into public services that we all consume and which benefit us all.
I put to you that that landed or full immigration (ie Canadian citizenship) investment is fairer than investment that comes with no other obligation, other than to pay property taxes.
Let me ask you a question, one that is based on economics and not soley on feel good bromides.
Given that we have unprecendented vertical, multi-residential growth in this city, I would imagine that the income derived from property taxes on those condos would be impressive.
And yet…
What do we find? Anxiety over the state of our community centres, cutbacks in parks (petting zoos, Bloedel Conservatory, etc, etc.), loss of funding to our cultural enterprises and a $20 million deficit in the city budget. Yet, we have had MASSIVE lift in the number of condos developed in this city over the last 10 or 15 years.
So, I am pretty sure that property taxes cannot cover it all. This deficit leads me to believe that the city is not achieving a proportionate share of income tax backed monies from the province for bigger infrastructure projects—because they are not getting new income tax sources from those who are merely “real estate tourists”.
Further, I posit that though we may be a city “property tax rich” we are darned poor when it comes to people who are contributing other levels of taxation that we derive from senior levels of government. The HST, by the way, appears to be no help here either, since unlike the old PST, none of the sales from retail and restaurants, for instance, goes into general revenue!
So, send us more immigrants–god knows that I am the descendent of same. But like my antecedents, send me those who are willing to put their money into the Canadian ecomony through starting up business, hiring people and paying taxes. Otherwise, we become just a retirement community or resort for the favoured few that can afford to retire here.
It is rubbish to think that we will scare away real estate investment if we ask those who are NOT immigrants to pony up. This may be accomplished with a surcharge–a speculators tax on developers, especially if condos are not used to provide housing to Canadians—including immigrants— or even for non immigrant individuals, a capital gains tax, once they sell.
Let’s think outside the box, shall we?
Or, as per the newest story from Frances, we can rest in the knowledge that the new casino will solve all our revenue problems. Not.
56 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm
PS.
We can be a “nation of shop-keepers” going forward. We have certainly been “hewers of wood” in the past, selling off our raw resources because it was the easy thing to do, rather than thinking about the value-added companies we could have been developing, years ago. That we are finally catching up is only because we have been scared sober by what the rest of the world has been able to do accomplish.
I call it “While Vancouver Slept”.
Go look at the forestry industry, or the mining industry in this province, if you want to see what short-sighted, give-it-all away attitudes have wrought.
If we think that we are going to give our kids a great future selling Gucci, slinging drinks or being a croupier, I weep for this town.
Let’s not sell ourselves quite so cheaply, as we have in the past, shall we? Someone needs to hold local developers feet to this fire, too.
57 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 5:49 pm
PPS Sean,
One more thing about counting on the payment of property taxes—from local, immigrant or non-immigrant investors.
Check this out:
http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/brochures/PropertyTaxDeferment.pdf
Virtually anyone can defer if they are a citizen or over the age of 55. Hmm. Might this not create a revenue problem, going forwrd?
Why isn’t there a means/income test for this? Originally brought in to protect those whose incomes were not keeping up to the rise in property prices, one can see that counting on property taxes is a mugs game.
Which means, even less into the civic kitty on a yearly basis. I think that you can agree that this is not a great idea, especially for those who have no other vested interest in Vancouver.
58 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 18, 2011 at 11:18 pm
I think it’s worth noting what Planning sketched out for population density increases in the Heritage Area, to show why it IS NOT at all necessary to rush into this, or for Council to pass the HAHR on Thursday.
Under the existing height by-laws that have been in place for decades, Planning estimated that the Historic Area currently has space to accommodate at least 5,500 new dwelling units on non-heritage sites.
Unlike in our overbuilt downtown, that’s one heck of a lot of underutilized urban space available for low to mid-rise development in the Historic Area!
Until at least some or all of those 5500 units are developed and built out (which presumably would more than revitalize the area and provide a significant population base of market ownership), then why on earth do we need to rush ahead and start approving towers and added heights?
If you are going to go with the “density=revitalization” argument, then wouldn’t 5500 units do more than enough to change the balance in Chinatown and the Hastings and Main corridors? Why can’t we keep building within the existing form and height bylaws with new buildings like V6A and Ginger? If those developers could do it and calculate profit, without running roughshod over the area’s “form and character”, then why can’t others?
It’s also worth pointing out that the Planners themselves admitted on Monday night that there is no research whatsoever to support this high density=revitalization argument. None. What is happening in Chinatown is a plan to use the amenity bonuses of tower rezonings to revitalize. The towers themselves and the residents in them are not calculated as the driver of revitalization, but the additional money generated from the rezoning is. A fine point indeed.
Let’s not ignore the fact that the Historic Area already has one of the highest population densities in the City due to the fact that the buildings are built right out to lot line. Every inch of space is utilized to the max. There are no ghostly courtyards or unused landscape patches commonly associated with tower properties. The public spaces and urban rooms that exist are just that, public space. This typography is part of what makes the Historic Area’s urban design so unique and aesthetically appealing and full of LIGHT.
But more to the point, if the area is built out, even under existing height restrictions, then it will likely SURPASS the population density of the West End without adding a single tower!
Again, there is no rush here. Planning admitted the reports and technical data are “voluminous” and difficult to wade through. They also admitted they have just started a social impact study on the DTES, and “other work” required of council related to HAHR policy.
So why put the cart before the horse here and change the by-laws BEFORE these impact studies and integrated planning are complete?
The planners themselves did not seem too confident that the HAHR was good policy and had difficulty defending it with any hard evidence, and repeatedly shrugged and said “it’s up to Council” if they want to go this route. Pass the buck to the Vision housing caucus, headed by Ray Louie?
We are dealing with a unique area that is arguably one of the most important Historic sites in Western Canada. The prudent course is for Council to table approval of the HAHR until ALL studies are done and INTEGRATED planning work can show that this really is a necessary and positive way to go. If they wish to proceed with the rezoning applications for the two towers approved already, they can do it without HAHR in place, under the regular rezoning by-laws.
I think this is a huge decision for the future of Vancouver, and Council’s decision on this matter (either prudent and respectful, or bull-headed and irresponsible) will most certainly impact who I support next November. So far, the NPAers like Bill and Michael (sorry Sean, but you just don’t seem to get it) are the only ones who recognize the importance of these decisions on the future of our city and are asking responsible and pointed questions. I certainly don’t agree with them on every issue, but in this instance, I am with them 100% in requesting that Council hold off on approving these policy changes until an Integrated Plan and Social Impact study is in place.
In my humble opinion, any other course would be downright foolish.
59 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 19, 2011 at 12:04 am
Apologies for droning on, but one added point. If the Woodwards towers caused, in the DoP’s words, “rampant speculation” and decreased affordability of land and development in the DTES, which was seen as a major issue, then can we not surmise that the lone 26 storey Rize tower development in the heritage heart of Mt. Pleasant will have the exact same effect as Woodwards towers did on the surrounding area?
As this is a STIR tower (designed to increase supply of affordable rental housing stock) then the Rize tower would seem to make no sense at all. For a handful of extra market rentals, in the long run, the Rize will actually make the Mt. Pleasant a much LESS affordable place to live and set up a business in. The key raison d’etre for the Rize building has already been proven to be not at all sound, and when one adds in the heritage and neighbourhood vision goals that are being trounced, it looks like a disasterous course of action.
60 Gentle Bossanova // Jan 19, 2011 at 12:20 am
Don’t change the tempo, I’m not about to change sambas.
I insist on the right to think Mr. Geller a fine, outstanding Canadian, and still vehemently decry any suggestion to storehouse people in anything less than good housing. We can’t afford to do otherwise.
Can we go into sites in our city and see people staying in deplorable conditions in missions that are nevertheless flat out doing the best they can with what they have on hand? Yes. But that is simply the same point I am trying to make put another way around: We are not getting the job done. When it comes to homelessness, mental illness & addiction we need new ideas, rather than the same old.
Them have had their time in the limelight, and the next wave will pick up from what Them’s left behind. But its time to move on. This business we have today is not sustainable.
I will also reiterate my sense of two ships passing in the night at City Hall. Planning is articulating ‘Towermania’. Meanwhile, the sitting Mayor and Council better be circling their wagons for what looks to become a bloodbath come November.
One or the other is bound to fall…
Here’s the rub. Who can reconcile the idea of being the “Greenest City in the World” with these petty discussions about throwing more bones to the development industry so that they may put up 700-plus feet more product?
The only thing that’s green about towers is green as in the colour of money. Put to the test in a local election, I wonder who will out.
Bickerton & McCreery, what part of that is so hard to understand?
Economic values are not the only values in society … But what may go missing in this ledge and shoal of the British Empire is that calculations about capital accumulation consume us.
61 Bobbie Bees // Jan 19, 2011 at 3:47 am
Well, step away from the computer for a day and look at what happens.
Okay, first off Sean, no one is saying to bring in a Chinese head tax. It’s funny how when one starts talking out curbing offshore investments all of a sudden ‘The Chinese’ are the only people in the world that are making off-shore investments. I would consider wealthy Australians and British and Germans just as responsible for driving the speculation in our real estate market as the Chinese or Taiwanese.
The only way to get our real estate market back under control is to place restrictions on ownership. Allowing unchecked foreign ownership to play havoc with the housing market is what drove condo-mania in the first place. The vast majority of foreign purchasers didn’t buy here because they wanted to live here. They bought here because their financial adviser told them to buy here because the market was taking off and if they bought low they could sell high. So, we end up with housing prices pushed well out of the reach of the average Vancouverite. Sure, you could finance, but financing a house is NOT a responsible choice. Buying on credit is a very poor way to run your finances.
The vast majority of Vancouverites should be renting, not owning.
But in this housing market that is being fulled by foreign investment the condo developers see easy profits in building towering condos.
And of course, it’s not just the housing market directly that feels the impact. Median wage earners now get displaced out of the city which destroys the ‘character’ of the local neighbourhoods. For that matter Sean, do you know what an even bigger threat to Chinatown is than the two viaducts? I’ll let you stew on it for awhile.
Also, displacing the local residents rises the impact on the transportation infrastructure. People now need to drive or take transit further. People spend much longer times commuting and less time with families or doing healthy activities.
Of course, this type of thinking is heresy to the Condo building mafia that has their grip on City Hall. But it’s the truth.
Oh and Sean, the number one threat to historic Chinatown?
That would be Richmond.
The younger Chinese don’t shop in Chinatown.
That’s been one of the frequent laments of the Chinatown BIA.
Richmond has more to offer, and not in a good way.
Yaohon, Aberdeen, Parker Place, President Plaza and T&T all within walking distance of Aberdeen Station.
And please, don’t even try to suggest that International Village is going to compete with the aforementioned shopping malls. It’s not even close.
LOTS of parking. I should say LOTS and LOTS of parking. I think most of the parking is free.
Some pretty swank malls .
With the Canada Line, Richmond is now very accessible to those Vancouver residents who don’t drive a car.
And of course that’s just the large shopping malls. In Richmond you can get just about anything you need without the hassle of trying to find parking.
62 Bill McCreery // Jan 19, 2011 at 11:28 am
Mr. Gently 60, please “understand” what I have said here, I am not supporting adding height in Chinatown nor Downtown for the reasons I have carefully articulated. The obvious inaccuracy of your comment makes me question the sincerity and integrity of your intentions.
Gased 58, your observation that:
“Under the existing height by-laws that have been in place for decades, Planning estimated that the Historic Area currently has space to accommodate at least 5,500 new dwelling units on non-heritage sites.”
raises a very important consideration in this discussion. That is, why is it necessary to continually increase heights and densities, not just Downtown and Chinatown, but right across the City? This simplistic, blanket mentality is unwise.
And, in the HAHR we get +80 people. Some sanity please.
It may be necessary to increase heights Downtown, but the arguments have not been put forward to date which demonstrate the need to do so. The same is so for Chinatown. This Council and the Planning Department are not doing the proper, professional fundamental planning groundwork necessary to justify the proposals they are putting forward. This is a dangerous game and the big losers will be the City of Vancouver and its citizens.
63 Sean Bickerton // Jan 19, 2011 at 11:42 am
Thank you Bobbie, you’ve made my argument for me, which I greatly appreciate. The younger generation of Chinese Canadians have migrated to Richmond, where everything is new, modern, clean, and urban. Why, there are even towers there!
Your point explains exactly why Chinatown needs our help in being able to revitalize the area so they can bring that generation back. A few ten story apartment buildings won’t hurt anything, won’t change the character of the existing buildings and will fit right in – Ginger, which someone cited as a great building, is 9 stories.
And as I mentioned, the 12 – 15 mid-rise buildings will not be in the actual historic area, but just on that southeast corner on Main up against BC Hydro utilities and the viaducts.
As JJJ mentioned at one point, those one or two extra story make all the difference to the viability of new buildings, and the land lift and Community amenities that come with those new buildings will make the new cultural attractions the Merchants Association is planning, possible.
I will say it again. Chinatown should be a jewel of the city, with all of the historic streetfronts and glass sidewalks and signs and other heritage artifacts preserved and perfectly restored. But it needs residents living there, and life and cultural attractions and beautified streetscapes and landscaping to make it so.
Unless those posting against any change to the dire situation that community faces today wish to kick in the millions of dollars necessary to try and accomplish that revitalization, they should encourage the local small businessmen trying to make things better in their own community.
Leave a Comment