Frances Bula header image 2

Downtown Eastside plan “is at least a start,” say residents

March 18th, 2014 · 10 Comments

It was heartbreaking, for those who were listening to the council delegations Friday and Saturday, to hear some of the stories of people from the Downtown Eastside who came to argue for more from the city’s plan for the area.

They recounted horrific things that had happened to them, as they asked for a red-light district, a native wellness centre, hundreds of units of social housing immediately, a protected bike lane on Hastings so they wouldn’t get hit by cars, and more.

On the other side were people like Michael Geller, arguing that the city was going too far by insisting on so much rental and social housing for the central 12 blocks of the Downtown Eastside, or others who said the plan was simply unrealistic. (I’ve heard people say the city’s estimates for building social housing are considerably too low.)

In the end, a plan got passed — not perfect by any means. Now what everyone’s waiting for is — will anything actually happen?

The Downtown Eastside appeared unchanged Sunday morning, with the usual combination on the streets of the poor, the drug sellers and their customers, cheerful street hawkers, Chinatown shoppers and bemused tourists.

But for people like Richard Cunningham and Jacek Lorek, long-time residents who were spending the day as volunteer managers at the local street market, it was the start of a new era.

More Related to this Story

  • For Downtown Eastside’s teetering community agency, ‘normal’ never fit
  • Vancouver’s Portland Hotel Society gives alcoholics the harm-reduction treatment
  • city planning Downtown Eastside developer fees to go toward social housing

A day earlier, Vancouver city council had passed a comprehensive and controversial plan for their neighbourhood, one intended to ensure a continued home for about 12,000 low-income people there while allowing a limited amount of new development, new residents and new businesses.

In all, planners said, the city’s blueprint is aimed at drawing $1-billion of city, private and high-level government investment in 4,400 new units of social housing over 30 years, along with new services for all residents.

The plan had generated criticism from many sides, with some saying it will perpetuate the area’s reputation as a ghetto, others saying it didn’t go far enough to provide housing and services for the area’s poor and often drug-addicted residents, and still more saying it was just too complex and undefined.

But Mr. Lorek and Mr. Cunningham hope the plan will curb condo mania in 12 key blocks of the neighbourhood, where any developer wanting to build more than one-storey’s worth of condos on a site is limited to a 60/40 combination of market rentals and subsidized housing.

They also hope the plan might bring in a new wave of social housing – some day.

“We were hoping for a little more, but the important thing was to prevent displacement and so we like that part of what they did,” said Mr. Lorek, who lives on welfare in a small hotel room and is a board member of the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Council. The council’s members worked together with other community groups and city planners in hundreds of meetings to develop the plan.

For Mr. Cunningham, another board member and resident who lived with HIV and addiction in the area for almost two decades, the plan is both a sign of hope and a concern. He’s worried that there’s no tangible money available to build social housing yet, and it’s “going to be built at a snail’s pace.”

But, he said, “It’s promising that we’ve got something to start with.”

In the end, councillors from all three parties, including Adriane Carr of the Green Party, who had tried to have the vote deferred, agreed with the Vision Vancouver majority on moving ahead.

“This is a tough plan to fulfill but I think we need to start somewhere,” said Non-Partisan Association Councillor George Affleck. “So I will support the plan in the knowledge that in a few years we are going to get a report back and we will see how things progress.”

Vision Councillor Andrea Reimer, who lived in the Downtown Eastside as a teenager, became emotional several times during the two weeks of public debate and three days of meetings about the plan.

As she moved the motion to accept it, she added pages of complex amendments in order to provide a guarantee about rental rates for social housing – 30 per cent must be rented at the rate that the province provides for people on welfare – and to put in effort to create a native health and wellness centre at the forefront.

Ms. Reimer said Sunday she believes the plan is the best effort the city has ever made for this unique area.

“I think we were able to find a way to ensure the needs of the low-income community were heard and provide a way forward to a vibrant mixed-use neighbourhood.”

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Jay

    An earlier post prompted me to have a street by street look at the Oppenheimer sub area, and what I saw was a lot of social housing, support services, and historic buildings. To me, the potential for redevelopment looks to be low. Combine that with the fact that Oppenheimer (area wise) makes up only 15% of the DTES, and that adds up to not a huge loss for developers.

    With all that development potential along Hastings (east of Heatly/west of Carral), Chinatown, and the rest of the DTES, the strong reaction from the pro development side to the Oppenheimer part of the plan is odd. Developers get a a large majority of the DTES to work with.

    The last few years the city has developed 14 new social housing projects at a cost of close to $300 million. Why is it hard to imagine that money will not be spent on social housing in Oppenheimer? Could the City or the Province not partner with a private developer to fund part of the construction of projects, or give a sweetheart deal on city land in order to meet the criteria set out in the Oppenheimer plan?

    I would hope that developers have a bit of a social conscience and can bend a little so that this city can meet its worthwhile goals for Oppenheimer.

  • Jay

    A follow up on Oppenheimer and its potential build out… The Oppenheimer sub area has a population of 6 108 people in an area of 30 hectares. When you calculate for population density you get 204 people/hectare. The West End is at 218 people/hectare. So with the Oppenheimer sub area being almost as dense as the West End, how much more development could Oppenheimer absorb, while retaining existing low income housing? Add another 1000 units, which is not a lot in the larger scheme of things, and Oppenheimer will have Manhattan like density.

    I would be interested to know how much development potential developers think there is in Oppenheimer.

  • Roger Kemble

    In the end, a plan got passed – not perfect by any means. Now what everyone’s waiting for is — will anything actually happen?” Of course not. With the public attention span of a MH370 radar blip, look at the time line, this is just another sop to cover Robertson’s insouciance at the last affordable housing go ’round!

    It’s about time us pusillanimous sleepy heads on this blog upped the ante . . . or vacate the kitchen!

  • Melissa Fong aka @InternationalMF

    Hey- #25KLunch meme promotor here-

    You know, I’m not partisan, but I am political. I want to admit that when the plan was introduce I knew it wasn’t perfect- but I thought minor adjustment would solve some of the issues.
    As I sat for three days listening to over 100 (mostly DTES residents) speak, I realized how unfair the plan.
    DTES residents have experiential knowledge of the inadequacies of the plan- they revealed how easily the plan, as written, does not benefit anyone in the DTES and will cause displacement.

    I admit that I didn’t know how REAL it was until the 3 days came to an end and even after it passed. I stewed on what had happened, the political process, and the fact that they only gave 15 minutes to gloss over a 25 page amendment that would change the lives of poor people forever.

    After that the reality sunk in and I got more and more angry as I realized the implications of the plan.

    The fact is that poor people LIVE this. This is their reality. I come from a critical academic perspective and knew it was bad- but I’ve never experienced the feeling of ZERO safety net in my life- and most proponents or apolitical people about the plan probably won’t have experienced that either. So while we can ignore this moment and go on with our daily lives… they can’t.

    All of us who don’t live with the reality of poverty will be slow to realize the implications of the plan-and we can also all conveniently forget.

    I ask you not to forget and challenge yourselves to care about the well-being of people who face poverty, insecurity and violence everyday.

    #25KLunch was just a humourous way to keep spirits up- but can be turned into a political moment for us to see that there IS money available for social housing and the reason it isn’t being built is LACK of political will. nothing more.

    http://melissafong.wordpress.com/25klunch-meme/

  • tf

    Thanks Melissa!
    You’re right – if there are million$ for an Art Gallery, million$ for a Convention Centre, million$ for a stadium roof, million$ for a new bridge, then money IS available for social housing, there just is a LACK of political will.

  • Ned

    Just an observation Melissa Fong #4
    Comment is all good. Congrats.
    The thing that puzzled me was the link “name” InternationalMF … first thing that came to mind was IMF (International Monetary Fund) which I despise. Second, I visited your twitter account. It seems that the world map used for your background picture is up side down/ though the writing (names, locations) is ok. What’s with that? 🙂

  • Melissa Fong aka @InternationalMF

    haha.. @ned-
    North and south is relative- it’s a reference to what we privilege – i.e. Importance of the global north. I’m trying to get an “upside down” Peters Projection map- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection

    If you happen to find one send it my way : )

    Check this out on the politics of maps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8zBC2dvERM

    My twitter name is a nickname I earned in grad school. Sort of reference to how I’m “everywhere”…”borderless” : )
    And yes- that’s the joke- that I’m the OTHER IMF : p
    (But like the good kind?)

  • Vanreal

    Why should just the taxpayers of Vancouver be on the hook for this expenditure.

  • RL

    After doing some reading and research about this topic, I have to agree with the above comments by Melissa. It seems interesting to me that there is always money to be put into buildings, centres, parks, and recreation in Vancouver, but somehow the DTES has trouble getting money for social housing.
    It is my opinion that this is a lack of political will and empathy for those living on the streets with no place to go. I would be curious as to what the decision makers of the funding would have to say in response to this argument.
    However, I am happy to see that there are some efforts being made in developing housing for the DTES – although the date of completion on this project may be far into the future. It is exciting to see that the folks living on the DTES getting some acknowledgement and support for the situations they are in, even though many people do not agree. This is their lives, and their reality. It may not seem like a big deal to us because we all have a safe and warm home to go to each night, but to these people this is EVERYTHING. It is heartwarming to see some efforts being made to give these people more support.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    After a very disappointing 7 years of the Vision Administration our work on the so-called DTES remains current:

    http://sunnvancouver.wordpress.com

    As we see it the place is home to about ⅓ as many people (density) as Mount Pleasant. That other ⅔—should it materialize on site—will be the game changer… for better or for worse.

    At stake is whether or not we are willing to face the failed social engineering experiment festering since the 1970s.

    BUT… Let’s be mindful of just how that population triples. Are the Condo Kings to take over? Or does our VHQ approach offer a more balance approach?

    We showed that intensification could be done in a way that was in keeping with local traditions. That is important since the so-called DTES is actually the old East End. The opposite side of the city from the West End, it is in fact the cradle of our city. Western (white) settlement took root here at the foot of Dunlevy Street at the Hastings Mill circa 1864. That is a whopping 22 years before the railway came rolling by and everything changed.

    What were the social relations between the smallish Hastings Mill townsite residents and the indigenous community? Did that worsen or become more strained with the dispersal of the Hastings townsite by the railway (the tracks were built right through the middle of it) or was there a local understanding in place that helped to mitigate relationships as Europeans and Asians started arriving en mass? What can we do today to engender the best results possible?

    Leaving such questions behind to analyze technical data, can we achieve a better balance between traffic and people in the DTES? And how about attracting businesses, jobs, opportunities to this venerable but mis-cast sector in our city?

    Do we need the festering ghetto? Or dare we just make it look, feel and function like its neighbours—Grandview-Woodlands and Mount Pleasant?

    Don’t look for answers in the newly minted city plan.