Frances Bula header image 2

City and developer negotiate unusual deal to replace social-housing building, add market rentals in Downtown South

March 14th, 2013 · 34 Comments

It’s all here.

FRANCES BULA

Published Wednesday, Mar. 13, 2013 09:54PM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Mar. 13, 2013 10:04PM EDT

A developer has negotiated an unusual partnership with the city to swap lots in return for building social housing downtown.

In a pitch that neither side has rushed out to advertise widely, Brenhill Development proposed trading its $2-million lot on one side of Helmcken Street in Vancouver’s Downtown South for a larger city lot across the road for $9.5-million.

In return for that, as well as a big increase in density on the city lot, Brenhill has said it will build a 13-storey social-housing complex on its original small lot to replace the aging three-storey Jubilee House that now sits on the city land.

With the density increase, Brenhill plans to build a 320-foot tower on the site of Jubilee House. That tower will include 100 market rental units, as well as space for a private preschool and kindergarten, along with the usual for-sale condominiums that are the lifeblood of development in Vancouver.

But all of that depends on the city approving a rezoning on its own land, where the aging three-storey Jubilee House now sits, to a density far higher than anything around it.

The city’s general manager of planning, and councillor Raymond Louie, say this could be a win for the city in its goal of creating affordable housing.

“We would get new and updated social housing that would not disrupt any existing residents,” said Brian Jackson. “This is one of the creative mechanisms we’re trying to use to respond to the affordability issues in the city.”

Both he and Mr. Louie said the developer understands that city council, as the regulator for land use, might decide the project cannot be approved.

“It doesn’t fetter our ability to make a decision at public hearing time,” Mr. Louie said. He added that it’s not unusual for the city to rezone land that it then sells to another developer. That’s exactly what happened at the Olympic Village.

The move was initiated by Brenhill, said the company’s development consultant, Gary Pooni.

In a news release that hasn’t been sent out yet, he said that “as a neighbour, [company owner Brent] Kerr has witnessed how Jubilee House across the street was deteriorating, and Brenhill came up with the idea of a land exchange that would provide them with more social housing in a brand-new building.”

Vancouver has done several creative deals to try to get social housing built over the past decade. That goal has been increasingly difficult since the federal government stopped committing money for social housing in 1994, and the province, under the Liberals, has focused on building it only for the neediest.

The city, under Vision Vancouver, has offered developers incentives to create long-term rental housing at regular market rates.

While Vision politicians – backed up by analysis from the city’s real-estate division – say the incentives and swaps help produce benefits for the community, it’s often hard for the average resident to figure out exactly what the deal is.

Exact numbers are never provided to show the total of the developer’s additional profit with extra density compared with the cost of the community benefits being provided.

This deal will be especially hard to figure out, as the developer is getting both $7.5-million in land value with the swap, plus more benefit from the rezoning, but providing an entire building of social housing, along with 110 rental units in the tower.

Green Party councillor Adriane Carr said she’ll be closely examining the deal, which she hadn’t heard about until contacted by The Globe and Mail.

She observed that the building is three times the density that is allowed under the guidelines in the area and 20 feet over the height limit.

On the other hand, there are significant benefits. “This could be a real win for the city. But that’s what I’ll be looking it. Does this project serve the public interest?”

 

.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Dan Cooper

    Hmmm….

    So, the google-spirits show me that Jubilee House is located at 508 Helmcken and currently has 82 social housing units primarily intended for the over-45 set. On the other hand, according to cfapp.vancouver.ca, “The proposal [for 508 Helmcken] is for a 36 storey mixed use building with 344 market residential strata units (including 5, 2-level townhouses at grade), 110 market rental units and a private pre-school and kindergarten.” No mention of replacement units for the social housing, and quite a bit taller than 13 storeys.

  • Westender1

    Here’s the link to the City’s rezoning application page:

    http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/508helmcken/

    Does anyone know if there has ever been a residential development in Vancouver in the range of 17.4 FSR? (To say nothing of the proposed 10 level underground parking garage….)

  • Dan Cooper

    Ahah! thank you Westender1 for the additional link. So, I’ve finally got it in my head that there are two different buildings in question. One a new, 36-storey condo and market rental building to be built where the current social housing is located, and the other a new social housing building across the street. Gotcha.

  • Joe Just Joe

    The Jameson has an FSR of ~24 mind you it does have some commercial space. It’s possible this might be the highest FSR on a residential only building.

    I’m a little dissappointed that Adrianne Carr didn’t know of the proposal though as it’s been out to the general public since Feb 18th and I’m sure council would’ve been privy to it even before that.

  • Bill Lee

    Goodbye Emery Barnes Park?
    [ See map ]

  • Guest

    The resaon for the land swap is because the developer’s parcel sits under a view cone, restricting the height of buildings on that site. That’s why all the building in that area (H+H, Donovan, Richards, Freesia, Robsinson Tower) are much shorter (about 15 stories) compared to other Downtown South towers.

    The Jubilee House site across the street sits just outside the view cone, so it can go taller (like the Brava towers across the park).

  • Bill Lee

    I wonder if it’s going to be like the Holborn Group [ love these anglophilic names that wow the local peasants with visions of central London. I dare you to look up “Holborn Street”, London in the scurrilous Wikipedia ] whose Little Mountain project started out with the provincial government clearing the land of low rental apartments first, before starting (still haven’t dug any foundations) their replacement.

    [ Madame Bula wrote about the ‘fair children’ of overseas speculators in Vancouver Magazine in September 2012, starting off with Joo KIm Tiah of Fortis/Holborn Group and his 698 Seymour at Georgia –the one with the cow in front– empire. Link: http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Land_of_the_Rising_Sons ]

    One would hope that the present tenants are accomodated with a new building first, given current-rent-right of return if not.

    But then that is not the Vancouver Vision….

  • brilliant

    Yet another opaque deal courtesy of Visionless Vancouver. It amazes me that their dewey-eyed acolytes still see them as some Friends of Mother Earth rather than the Developers’ Tool that they truly are.

  • Ned

    gman… “Developer’s Tool” The perfect description of Vision Vancouver.

  • gman

    Ned I think you meant brilliant,but I am in total agreement.

  • Mary

    The main points here are:
    1. Selling the lands now in public ownership (the social housing buildings now on site) forever removes the possiblity of a full-block of park. Think what a legacy such a park would be for the rest of the history of this city.
    2. If we are going to be so short sighted as to sell that legacy, how do we know we are getting the best price without a fully transparent public process that allows all developers to propose something ?

  • lari

    A rezoning submission for City owned land would not have got this far without having gone to Council. Probably in camera. Adrienne Carr is either very very conveniently forgetful or disingenuous.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Social housing in towers has a terrible record. Outside downtown we are seeing one built at Fraser & Broadway. I’ve just heard, but not confirmed, that the Biltmore Hotel (tower on 12th & Kingsway) is also being converted to social housing.

  • teririch

    @Mary #11:

    Vision had considered selling the Bloedel
    Conservatory at one point – a gift that was given to the residents of Vancouver.

    Had it not been for now parksboard commision John Coupar and his efforts to fundraise the necessary dollars, it may very well have gone to ‘development’.

    Somewhere a line needs to be drawn before we lose what little ‘heritage’ we have left.

    I travel with my job and am always in awe of old buildings the cities have opted to keep versus bulldozing for something shiney and new. Those buidlings and their history are what provides character to a city – not endless towers of glass and concreate.

  • teririch

    @Lewis N Villegas #13:

    You are right.

    Just look to Toronto and the issues they have with towers and social housing. Certain areas are what one would classify as ‘ghettos’. The crime level is scary.

  • Chris Keam

    Mark the beginning of skyscrapers at 1931 with the Empire State Building and we see that Vancouver has grown up with towers. Glass and concrete is our history. We should stop pretending we’re Blighty back in the day and be proud of what we have instead of wishing we can present a false image of what we never were.

  • Mary

    Just to be clear, mine was not an anti-tower rant. Or an anti-density rant. Just a point that we are building a city to, hopefully, last a very long time. Selling that public asset where the social housing now sits to a developer means we give up the chance to ever have that whole block become a park as was envisioned for Emory Barnes Park. That this was agreed to, without an open process, as Lari points out, makes it even more egregious.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I agree with the posters that favour a mixed use building over a dedicated tower for the social housing units. It certainly complicated things for the developer but perhaps a rework is possible where the first 8 stories in one tower are social units while the first 5 in the other tower are social units as well. The problem is neither side is happy with a situation like that. A dedicated building can still be made to work given that the area itself remains a healthy mix.

  • teririch

    @Chris Keam #16″

    “Glass and concreate is our history”?

    I guess my idea of ‘history’ dates back farther than 10 – 15 years.

  • teririch

    This just up on Twitter:

    City skews numbers to hide loss of low income housing – 430 units lost in the last year

    http://themainlander.com/2013/03/18/city-skews-numbers-to-hide-loss-of-low-income-housing-430-units-lost-in-the-last-year/ … #vanpoli

  • Everyman

    @Chris Keam 16
    No, not really:
    http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/granville-1956.jpg

  • Chris Keam

    @Teririch:

    Check out the link I’m providing below. By the 70s (a whole 40 years ago!) Vancouver’s skyline has become one where the apartment tower and office skyscraper are far from unusual.

    @Everyman:

    Yeah, really. Let’s repeat for emphasis. “Vancouver has grown up with towers.” Less than after a decade after your example (see 1964 pic linked below) it’s not hard to foresee the future.

    http://discoverseattle.net/forums/index.php?topic=6423.0

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Mark the beginning of skyscrapers at 1931 with the Empire State Building
    Chris Keam 16

    I object vehemently to the proposition that somehow “Towers Are Vancouver”. That’s bull. I’ve posted a study of human-scale high-density architecture in Canada here:

    http://wp.me/p1yj4U-bW

    The 1930s is also too late a date for the origins of the Modern skyscraper, Chris.

    The Architectural Society of Chicago offers a dazzling walking tour where one is taken along Michigan Avenue to see load-bearing masonry skyscrapers from the late 1800s.

    The real origin of the skyscraper is the Brooklyn Bridge, completed in 1883 after a long and arduous construction process. The innovation introduced at the bridge is the steel suspension cable. That made possible what Mr. Otis became famous for — the elevator. The steel girder (also an innovation used at the Brooklyn Bridge) made possible the light structural frame of the tower avoiding the thick and spaceless bases of the remarkable load-bearing Chicago early prototypes.

    But just because we can do it doesn’t mean we have to do it.

    Just look to Toronto and the issues they have with towers and social housing. Certain areas are what one would classify as ‘ghettos’. The crime level is scary.
    teririch 15

    The area in Toronto that I am familiar that meets that description is on the west side of Parliament Street. A few blocks from the Cabbagetown homes featured in the link above it is known locally as ‘Jamaicatown’.

    The first Modern residential towers in Toronto came with the construction of the Yonge Subway (I believe near Yonge & Bloor). Among the first residential towers in Vancouver is the Sylvia Hotel (1912) built to take advantage of the views.

    Commercial towers here date to the Panama Canal real estate boom:

    ▪ The Europe Hotel (1908)
    ▪ The Dominion Building (1908)
    ▪ The World Building (Sun Tower, 1911)
    ▪ The Lee Building (1912)

    However, the issue of using towers for social housing follows a different historical track. The St. Louis example is famous. The Pruitt-Igo Social Housing Project (1956) was demolished 15 years later!

    Like other hi-rise social housing developments the problem became the impossibility of sustaining ‘Defensible Space’.

    As one report put it, one drug dealer sitting in the main entry foyer could control the comings and goings in an entire building. Other problems like infestations and pests — which travel vertically along pipes — prove to be unmanageable in the stacked-condo model.

    From the perspective of mental health and social functioning reports out of Chicago suggest that a house with up to 8 residents and one part-time or live-in care giver yield the best results.

    Social housing is so much more than just a ‘numbers’ game. But neither this Council, nor Minister Coleman understand the issue.

  • Chris Keam

    “The 1930s is also too late a date for the origins of the Modern skyscraper”

    I chose a building that’s familiar to most, rather than the earliest adopters. But you make my case for me by referencing the towers built in Vancouver during the early 1900s. We went from tall trees to tall buildings very quickly and there was no small amount of local pride in the fact that both the Dominion and Sun buildings were the tallest in the ‘Empire’ in their day. Vancouver’s architectural history is inextricably linked to tall buildings.

  • Chris Keam

    Lewis:

    Your link has no references to cities west of Winnipeg and nothing from the time period of Vancouver’s first decades. You may object vehemently and provide evidence that other older cities built in the fashion at the time (in no small part due to materials limitations), but I’ve linked to photos that show how fast we started building up and that is stronger evidence that Vancouver in particular is a city of skyscrapers. I get that you don’t like them. That’s totally fine. But if we are to talk about what Vancouver was and is… it’s not Montreal, or Charlottetown and for obvious reasons the comparisons fail.

  • Frank Ducote

    The 10-storey low-threshhold women’s residence at Abbott and Pender Streets works just fine. It fits the scale of its context. The residents have a garden on top of the base on the quiet (lane) side of the building that is quite lovely. This midrise height, more or less, is what the CoV is delivering for various forms of social housing in the downtown peninsula. It seems to work for our city’s needs.

  • teririch

    @Frank Ducote #26:

    That is a nice building and a good mix of social housing and retail in the bottom.

    I understand that three more buildings in the DTES have been bought up by Anthem- including the building that houses Save on Meats which had 4 floors but now is only holding the bottom floor. The meat shop is closing and the diner is expanding. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next little while as these three put others into play.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I believe the meat shop isn’t closing just reducing in size to allow the diner to expand. Is there a source for the butcher shop closing?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Chris:

    There is an important note to sound west of Winnipeg…

    The row houses built in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were not ‘legal’ to build in BC until last spring!

    Alberta and Saskatchewan joined confederation some 20 years after British Columbia. I give an account of that history in a discussion of Mount Pleasant’s unique Confederation Streets here:

    http://wp.me/p2FnNe-4B

    Outside the downtown peninsula there is no need for skyscrapers (or hi-rise) in Vancouver. The evidence is there for all to read: human-scale build out produces stronger communities.

    That’s the same point I would raise with Frank Ducote and Pender & Abbot (near his home).

    That’s the downtown peninsula.

    Outside the downtown core we need to explore different forms of high-density housin more suited to the neighbourhood context, be it for profit, or not-for-profit housing.

    Vancouver — along with most other modern cities — has two zones: the tower zone and the not-tower-zone.

    As Northrop Frye, that great canadian thinker would have it, we must learn to distinguish where we cannot separate.

  • Chris Keam

    Lewis:

    Look, I made no argument for or against towers in my original statement and have no interest in joining the ongoing architects’ pissing match that is a running theme on this website. 🙂 I provided photographic evidence of my contention that towers have been a part of our landscape pretty much as soon as there was money and technology to build them. That’s all.

    cheers,
    CK

  • teririch

    @Joe Just Joe #28:

    Upon second reading – you may be correct…

    An interesting read all the way around….

    http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/pig-dont-fly/16807

  • Frank Ducote

    Lewis – the subject for this thread is WRT downtown and Brenhill’s proposition, thus my reference. Please don’t pick a fight where there isn’t one.

  • Kerry Corlett

    There will be a public hearing on this rezoning application, on July 16/13. If you live near, or are interested in saving Emery Barnes Park, it’s time to get involved!

  • Kerry Corlett

    For those that wish to send comments to the City Council on the proposed rezoning of 508 Helmcken, and/or find out how you can speak at the Public Hearing on July 16, details are at http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/508helmcken/index.htm