Frances Bula header image 2

Downtown Eastside plan puts 80 per cent of $1-billion total investment into housing

March 6th, 2014 · 117 Comments

There is a lot of meat to pick over in the city’s Downtown Eastside plan, even though lots and lots of details are still missing.

Last week, we got the quick overview: $1-billion to go into the area overall over the next 30 years, diversity of housing, protection of community businesses and services aimed at low-income people, gradual increase of more market ownership and rental housing etc etc.

In my second go-round, one aspect I looked at was the amount of money going into housing: $800 million overall, and, from the $300-million in fees charged for new developments, $250 million to housing.

Vision’s critics on the left keep making the point that Vision has done nothing to create affordable housing, because they don’t like the incentives given to developers for rental projects that are then rented out at market rates. But those on the right (and even some insiders at city hall) are uncomfortable with the kind of money that Vision has thrown into housing — far more than any previous council, when you look what proportion of developer fees have gone into the housing fund and the money spent on buying hotels (Ramadas on Kingsway and Hastings), providing upgrading money for properties leased by BC Housing (the Biltmore), and land given over to non-profits to develop affordable housing projects ($22-million for the four sites currently being developed under the auspices of the B.C. Co-op Housing Federation).

The NPA and city manager Judy Rogers always resisted having the city get too financially involved in providing housing, saying the solution was to keep putting pressure on the provincial and federal governments. Vision has departed from that, which is a good thing or bad thing, depending on your point of view.

Vancouver’s plan for revitalizing the Downtown Eastside depends on collecting $300-million in fees from developers over 30 years, with most of it going toward social housing, in exchange for rezoning land to accommodate bigger buildings with more units.

It’s the city’s most dramatic departure to date of its long-time policy of using developer fees for a wide array of public amenities, from parks and daycares to bike lanes and greenways.

Instead, the Downtown Eastside plan pegs the vast majority of the fees collected in the area to social housing, with only $50-million left over to cover community facilities for the additional residents.

The fees from the Downtown Eastside plan represent 50 per cent more than the city is getting from the massive Oakridge development at 41st and Cambie, with its 2,900 apartments and huge mall. The Oakridge developer fees will be used for some subsidized housing, but also a huge park, a large new community centre, a daycare and a library.

“We recognize this is a different apportionment,” said Brian Jackson, the city’s general manager of planning. But, he said, the area needs it.

“It’s so different because all you have to do is look at the average income and the need to do things on an urgent basis to improve the quality of housing there.”

Non-Partisan Association Councillor George Affleck said Vision’s constant use of developer fees to create more housing on top of other new housing, instead of using it for the needed community services for the new residents, is a concern.

“I have major issues with taking traditional [developer fees] meant to deal with housing and using them for more housing.”

The plan says about $1-billion will come into the area altogether. Besides the developer fees, the city expects to contribute $200-million. Another $500-million is projected to come from provincial and federal governments.

In total, $800-million of that is expected to go toward subsidized housing.

Mayor Gregor Robertson and his ruling Vision Vancouver party have been aggressive about using those developer fees for social housing in single buildings. It’s the first time such a large proportion has gone to housing in an entire area.

Low-income people living in the neighbourhood say they believe the best investment is in social housing and that the plan, while not everything they hoped for, will help protect parts of the area from rampant development.

As it stands, most new market development is concentrated along Hastings corridor, Chinatown, Gastown and Kiwassa.

The proposed plan will limit development in a 12-block area around Oppenheimer Park and East Hastings to rentals only with 60 per cent at subsidized rates and 40 per cent at market rates.

That’s been a controversial move, with some in the development community saying it will perpetuate a ghetto and stall any possibility of creating a more mixed neighbourhood there.

But residents who’ve worked closely on the plan say that, while it will likely stall development, that’s a good thing.

“It’s a stopgap,” said Roland Clarke, a hotel-room resident who is on the executive of the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Council. “The city is doing what it can to prevent a lot of displacement. We know they are being bombarded by a lot of powerful interests with a lot of money … who want to be able to build in that district.”

Mr. Clarke said it looks to people in the neighbourhood as though that’s the city’s way of simply putting a moratorium on development in that district.

The city’s plan for the Downtown Eastside, one of many made by city councils over the decades, has generated a lot of commentary and confusion as the city attempts to tackle housing, poverty, the economy, green spaces and health in the neighbourhood. Housing Minister Rich Coleman said the province isn’t going to invest a lot of money into subsidized housing that concentrates poor people in the neighbourhood.

But city planners and politicians say the plan isn’t dependent on immediate cash infusions for subsidized housing. Instead, they say, the city plans to work with the private sector, non-profits and all levels of government to bring in money through whatever programs those groups and organizations are willing to contribute.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Richard

    @teririch

    4th and Macdonald or any busy street is not an ideal place for children (or anyone) else to live. Traffic pollution is harmful to health especially for children. Then there is the danger from the speeding traffic.

    Anyway, a lot more social and affordable housing is needed. One site would not be anywhere near enough even if it was a very tall building.

    The only real solution is to redevelop some of the single family housing. Much of it is being torn down anyway to build monster houses anyway. Why not replace it with apartments that people can afford.

  • jenables

    ….umm.. because those new apartments are not what people can afford?

  • Frank Ducote

    @102 – if a west side house sells for an average of $1.3 mill and a new condo on Cambie Blvd goes for, say, 500k, how can you argue that the latter is not more affordable than the former?

    In the very long run, change in low density neighbourhoods will have to happen in this land poor city. Incrementally is better but a start has to be made somewhere. Either that, or the cycle of privileged wealthy enclaves and the exodus and/or suburbanization of the younger and less well-to-do members of our society will continue.

  • Kenji

    People who know these things:

    What do you think can be done to encourage home ownership at say $350K? (That would be $50k down and financing the rest for a thou a month, which seems like plenty of scratch.)

    Any chance that CMHC gets involved in the co-op scene again or has that ship sailed and then sunk?

    Back to the DTES, this comment thread is good reading.

    I sure don’t disagree with Teri’s comment that kids should not be exposed to scenes of squalor – when I am King of The Multiverse, I shall put a stop to it – but I would counter that to postulate a utopian, unaffordable alterative is in no alternative at all.

  • Richard Wittstock

    Kenji #104

    There are a number of affordable condos available in the DTES, especially under your $350,000 benchmark. We built the 21 Doors project at Carrall/Hastings a couple years back with 1 bedrooms priced from $209,900-$270,000 and 2 bedrooms at $329,900-$349,900. Buyers were nearly 100% owner-occupiers (however many of these buyers have now moved on and are renting their units out). Buyers (and tenants) are largely average-income, local service industry (retail, food and creative services) millennial types.

    Because this building was a renovation with a strata plan already in place dating back to the early 1980’s, we were not required to go through a rezoning process such as that described in the LAP plan which would have killed the project and caused the building to remain derelict and vacant for another 10-20 years.

    Because the market was allowed to function as it should in this case, without the heavy hand (and massive added cost) of government intervention, we were able to keep costs down and deliver affordable home ownership for young buyers who would not otherwise have been able to get into the market.

  • rph

    101 + 102 + 103.

    I fully understand why preserving sf detached zoning is good when the older homes are available for cheaper rent or purchase. Plus they often have affordable suites (legal or not).

    But what is happening in my neighbourhood, is that they are steadily being torn down, and replaced by lot line to lot line mansions.

    Gardens gone. Trees gone. And in some cases, the occupants seem to be gone.

    Over the past couple of years I have changed my mind on how I feel about sf detached zoning. (And I live in sf detached). Rather than a continuous line of multi million dollar homes, maybe row homes and townhouses are a better idea?

  • Joe Just Joe

    And here is the report commissioned by the city that shows just how viable (or in this case unviable) redevelopment is going to be. No surprise to most of us that have been following this saga.

    http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20140312/documents/cfsc5memo.PDF

  • IanS

    @JJJ #107:

    As I read the report, for the residential areas, it appears that private development will only be viable if “The City (or other levels of government or a non-profit) purchase the non-market units at a price that
    makes the development viable.”

    Seems like private residential development would not be viable, except with some kind of subsidy.

  • Richard Wittstock

    rph #106

    The city NEEDS more townhouses and zero lot line rowhouses. It is the only way for the City to retain middle-class professional families within its boundaries.

    This is completely off topic re: the DTES, but here goes my rant of the day:

    We need to look to transform the single-family and duplex zoning districts into row housing districts (not necessarily 1.25 FSR-1.5 FSR townhousing over underground parking, but more family-friendly, lower-density, 0.75-1.1 FSR rowhouses on 16’x122′ lots with private backyards and detached garages at the rear. 1800-2000 sq.ft….like east coast brownstones or European row houses.

    This will be our “affordable”, family-friendly alternatve to the single-family house. Without this product type filling in the gap in the middle, we will continue to see polarization with single family homes accessible to only the upper 5% (2%?) of incomes, and everyone else in condos and fleeing to the suburbs the minute they have kids.

    Politically difficult to implement in this NIMBY city, but urgently needed.

  • Voony

    On the Richard Wittstock@109 ‘rant’.

    I fully agree with that.

  • rph

    I agree Richard, there is no way that the (more) affordable smaller older homes are going to remain as such. The tidal wave of tear down and rebuild seems to be unstoppable.

    Ten years ago I would have marched in protest against changing sf zoning. But those rowhouses/townhomes are looking good compared to multi million dollar mansions.

  • Tiktaalik

    To be clear though, 21 Doors wasn’t derelict and vacant. Low income working class people were evicted for that renovation.

    http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/03/12/Evicted/

    I’m not bringing this up simply to paint developers as villains, but it’s important to notice that people were evicted to make way for higher class occupants and this fact underlines why this local area plan has been created in its current form. We need to consider the full implications of introducing middle and upper income persons into the area, and if displacement of current residents occurs, how we are going to prevent people from becoming homeless.

    I’ve noticed that one of the narratives that the development community is floating in the articles about the local area plan that have appeared this week is that the DTES is basically all boarded up and derelict, and that there are no existing businesses. The transformation of E Hastings across from Woodwards is cited as an example of the power of adding higher earning residents into the neighbourhood and the suggestion is that without upper income residents, the rest the DTES will never change.

    Unfortunately this narrative ignores the reality that there are middle class oriented businesses in the DTES that have grown I think without any real connection to the developments in Gastown. I’d cite Super Champion, The Rickshaw, Gam Gallery and Dunlevy Snackbar. Importantly as well, DTES houses non-retail artist spaces. Prior to being steamrolled by the changes brought on by Woodwards, that block of E Hastings housed music practice and recording spaces at the Red Gate and artist studios at Dynamo. Given that there’s a lack of artist space in the city we can’t forget this.

    If we were to include Chinatown along with this list we could dramatically increase the amount of new businesses in the area. There’s two antique stores, a clothing/motorcycle shop, a gallery, a rotating popup space and a German street food restaurant at Columbia and Pender, one block south E Hastings. Of course there’s increasing residential condo development in Chinatown, but new business development started appearing in Chinatown prior to these developments, and so I am not entirely on board that condos have been the main driver causing change (though they’re helping fuel it now). In my opinion there’s just as strong of an argument that young entrepeneurs are always looking for cheap rental opportunities, and Chinatown has at the moment the best blend of price and street quality.

  • Jay

    @Richard W. – “We need to look to transform the single-family and duplex zoning districts into row housing districts (not necessarily 1.25 FSR-1.5 FSR townhousing over underground parking, but more family-friendly, lower-density, 0.75-1.1 FSR rowhouses on 16′x122′ lots with private backyards and detached garages at the rear. 1800-2000 sq.ft….like east coast brownstones or European row houses.”

    I think it was you that gave an estimate for a rowhouse in East Vancouver costing, still, out of reach for a large majority of families. I know you said you don’t like the stacked townhouse format, but this seems like it would be the most cost efficient format as you can fit 9 units on 2 lots (33×2 wide) vs 4 rowhouses. The stacked townhouse would be wood frame, no elevators, and in the case of the Norquay plan, no underground parking which can cost between 20 and 40 thousand dollars per stall. The Norquay plan calls for only .65 parking stalls per unit at a density of FSR 1.2.

    At Kingsway and Earles (Norquay) there are units for sale in a concrete mid-rise structure for $505/sq. ft. This leads me to believe that a stacked townhouse could theoretically be had for significantly cheaper. Subtract the cost of the underground parking stall, then subtract the extra cost of concrete tower construction, crane, and elevator. Taking all these things into consideration, an 1100 sq. ft living space could go for $440 000. In any event, the stacked townhouse will be much more affordable than a row-house.

  • Richard Wittstock

    @ Tiktaalik

    I can’t comment on what a previous owner of the building did or didn’t do as described by the Tyee article, as I really don’t have any knowledge of the property prior to 2010. I do know that Robert Wilson lost the property to his lender in foreclosure. When we were hired in 2010 to take over and renovate the property (by the lender who now owned it), it was derelict and vacant as I indicated.

  • Richard Wittstock

    @ Jay 113

    An 1100 sq.ft. stacked townhouse will be more affordable than an 1800-2000 sq.ft. row house, no question. Your math is a bit oversimplified (the concrete mid rise has the significant advantage of higher density which lowers the land cost per sq.ft., offsetting many of the cost differentials you note) but big picture yes simply by virtue of the fact that it is significantly smaller, the stacked townhouse will be cheaper than the row house. Maybe not $440,000, but probably around $500,000.

    I am proposing the row house as a viable alternative to a single-family home. It will still be quite expensive for most; likely 60% of the cost of a new detached house.

    I am not saying that it is better or worse than a townhouse; it is at a different point on the continuum. I believe that many people are not ready to raise their families in 1100 sq.ft., and desire larger accommodation (if possibly not in the same location).

    A well-designed row house can provide nearly all of the amenity of a new detached house, at a significant discount to the cost. It is a void in the current spectrum of housing options which can keep, for example, double-income professional couples with children within the City as opposed to moving to the suburbs.

    Another thing we need to remember…because we can only build new housing, not old housing, the price will be high by virtue of the fact that the housing is brand new. Over time, however, new housing becomes used housing and, in relative terms, cheaper. So we need to build today the housing stock that in 20-30 years will be able to move down the spectrum of affordability because it is no longer shiny and new.

  • tf

    Tiktaalik #112 –
    Thanks for the link to the Tyee article.
    I noticed the date – March 12, 2008 – exactly 8 years ago tomorrow!
    It was the run-up to the Olympics in 2010 and “renovictions” were the norm.
    Notice that Wendy and Jean have been front and centre as tireless advocates for the hard-to-house since long before any of us were aware of the crisis.
    Here’s hoping we can achieve some crusts of success in the struggle for low-income housing in the Downtown Eastside.

  • tf

    Whoops, added a few too many fingers!

    March 12, 2008 – exactly 6 years ago tomorrow!