Frances Bula header image 2

Mount Pleasant public meetings on transitional housing at Biltmore Jan. 8 and 11 — who will be there?

January 8th, 2014 · 14 Comments

I went to a meeting organized by the Residents Association of Mount Pleasant just before Christmas to talk about issues related to the transitional housing complex that’s about to be opened at the old Biltmore hotel, Kingsway and 12th in Mount Pleasant.

Unlike a city-roganized meeting a couple of weeks earlier, concerning the transitional housing that will be going into the old Ramada on East Hastings, this one didn’t turn into a near riot — perhaps because it wasn’t organized by the city but also perhaps because a group of people who support this kind of housing in the neighbourhood made an effort to turn out.

Which makes me wonder how the city meetings (tonight and Jan. 11) will go — will that same group turn up? And what position will the people who are active in RAMP take on this?

One thing I noticed in the meeting is that the RAMP people who were there — Lewis Villegas, Randy Chatterjee and Ray Tomlin — clearly wanted to organize something that would alert people to the lack of consultation the city has done so far. But all of these guys are socially progressive or liberal or whatever you want to call it. So when a few people at the meeting started worrying aloud that their property values would go down or their security would be compromised or how poor people have it easy because they get everything for free — well, that didn’t go over so well.

A significant contingent of people at the meeting (Am Johal being one of them) talked about the need for this kind of housing and the fact that Mount Pleasant has traditionally been a community that’s welcomed people of all kinds. As one woman said “I’m a resident, a homeowner, and I’m thrilled the city is building more stable social housing.” And the organizers also got uncomfortable with the anti-poor people line. One British man complained about how this was just the creation of a “poverty industry” and asserted “maybe I’ll just sell my house and become homeless so I can get a free room.” Randy Chatterjee responded that transitional housing, like what’s going to be at the Biltmore is “one step above jail” and not the kind of thing that Mr. British Guy would likely enjoy all that much.

It was telling, though, that the RAMP meeting attracted so many (I’d say about 50 people during the course of the evening) and that it was the community that ended up organizing a public gathering before the city could get its act together. Since the Biltmore is due to open in the next couple of months, having a meeting so close to the opening is bound to make many people feel like they aren’t really getting a say in anything at all.

RAMP brought in Chris Taulu, who has been running the community policing centre in Collingwood forever, to talk about potential issues related to transitional housing opening up. A bit weird that she ended up being the one who had to explain city processes and be, in essence, the city rep on all this.

In Chris’s typical un-PC, tell it straight way, she did talk to people about the realities. Will the housing bring problems? Maybe, and police officers she works with were recommending changes to be made to ensure that, i.e. drug dealers can’t get into the building through the nearby parking lot. She also observed that local residents still leave their windows open on lower floors — a mistake. And she warned that there’d be an increase in visible homelessness in the area, as the word on the street spreads about new housing opening in Mount Pleasant. People would be wanting to show they are from the area to get first dibs on any new units opening up.

But she also pointed out that there are private buildings in her neighbourhood that can be just as much of a problem as what people imagine a government-run building is like.

So now we’ll see what the city has to say and who turns out for meetings this week.

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • tedeastside

    property values…do vancouverites live for anything else ?

  • Randy Chatterjee

    Successful social and supportive housing is never created by top-down fiat: build it and they will come. This lazy, irresponsible, and failure-prone approach to Vancouver’s crisis of housing affordability and homelessness is a recipe for both social travesty and financial loss.

    All housing–especially that for people who’ve had a very tough upbringing, trouble adjusting to difficult circumstances, or are the victims of unspeakable crimes–must provide a positive, welcoming, and embracing milieu in order for community to develop and the capacity for human interactions, respect, and caring to emerge and strengthen. This goes for everyone living everywhere, but those on the edge need much more care taken to ensure a positive and supportive environment.

    Without lengthy preparation, training, resource provision, and deep care taken by all within an existing community, large new housing developments will not integrate and the people within these sites–and those around them–will suffer fear, dislocation, disaffection, alienation, and potentially even physical harm.

    This is not what any community wants, nor what the housing-challenged desperately need. So why does the city, its social planning staff and housing providers continue to try to work alone and in secret, as if the recipient community is more obstacle than necessary partner?

    The failures of social housing in Vancouver are legendary and legion. The neighbourhoods can and will demand and ensure better treatment of their most vulnerable neighbours, especially the homeless. The neighbourhoods it appears must organize on their own to create the welcoming and supportive environment that the city and its partners are unable to provide.

    With no information provided whatsoever, no consultation, no considered or best-practice plan in place, inadequate resources, and a distrustful relationship between the government and our communities, how is it possible that we can expect success, let alone avoid failure?

    Is the most expensive city on earth devolving into a Third World caricature on purpose?

  • Cameron Gray

    In response to #2, the “failures of social housing” may be legendary but they are hardly legion!

    A question for Frances, were City staff invited?

  • Agustin

    [A bit off topic, but this applies to the process of community consultation in general. Feel free to tell me to stop hijacking the thread 🙂 ]

    Yesterday I was introduced to the concept of community councils. It seems they are common in Britain and partly implemented in some US cities, but I had never heard of them.

    The model goes something like this: the city is divided into communities, which share a common “character” (this is one of those things that’s hard to define but easy to identify), and have a population of a few dozen thousand people. Residents associations, business groups, etc., are all included in the community council. These community councils are elected by the residents (and perhaps local business owners, I’m not sure) of each community. Their role is to make recommendations to city council on planning decisions.

    The intent is that, rather than the City holding consultations, etc., on every planning decision before them (no matter how minor), the local community works with the developers to come up with solutions that work for them (while at the same time fitting in with the broader City policies). For major decisions, the community councils would make recommendations to the City individually, but minor decisions can be grouped into quasi-omnibus bills that go to City council every so often. The City then knows that the community is on board.

    The community councils can have narrow or broad jurisdiction. So, they could be responsible only for buildings/houses, or they could also include the “public realm” or portions thereof.

    Does anyone have experience with this model? Thoughts? Opinions?

  • brilliant

    “One step up from a jail” – who wouldn’t be excited to have that in their neighbourhood?! Nice to see residents of the most livable city being told to forget quaint practices like leaving their windows open. LOL.

  • Dean Brown

    Expensive housing, agitated upperwardly striving property owners, a select few desperate homeless people housed, and the term “third world caricature” thrown about? Really?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    [W]ere City staff invited?
    Cameron Gray 3

    Yes. And they backed out at the last minute!

    There are few issues facing all of our neighbourhoods thornier or more difficult to deal with than social housing.

    Here is what I don’t like about the Biltmore (and other tower social housing projects going up in our city) — towers don’t work for social housing.

    That is the report back from the US where this has been going on at a much larger scale—legion or not—for a much longer time than here. What works there is housing that looks like every other house in the neighbourhood (but stay real, we don’t mean ‘tower neighbourhoods’). Housing where the ratio of full-time, live-in support staff is 1 : 7 or 8, not 1 : 50 or 100 like it will be at the Biltmore.

    Housing the hard to house and the at-risk population in towers just doesn’t work. Typically, the towers work when they follow the downtown formula: Hi-end luxury housing. Social housing in towers just does not provide the kind of checks and balances against folks coming in and trashing their unit, vandalizing common areas, etc. There is a world of difference between becoming one among 100, or being one among six or seven.

    But, here is the reality we have to deal with: the Biltmore is the housing we have, even if it is not the housing we want. So, how can Mount Pleasant residents pool together to make it work?

    There are two groups that will be most severely impacted by this project: Florence Nightingale Elementary School, just a hundred feet away or so; and high-end luxury condos clustered around the 12th Avenue and Kingsway ‘motor town’ intersection.

    We really did not hear good answers for either group. And there aren’t any to give them. This project feels like the Provincial government throwing the dice, and the local government looking the other way to avoid seeing it come up ‘snake eyes’.

    In the final analysis the neighbourhood will have to deal with this. And groups like RAMP welcome all the support and feedback neighbourhood people have to offer. Getting this right is typically a long, drawn out fight, with the right answers coming from the grass roots not in the Fish Bowl or the committee rooms.

  • Cameron Gray

    To # 6, the “failures of social housing” referred to in #2 were “in Vancouver”, not Chicago or St. Louis. Whatever failures of social housing there may have been in Vancouver, they are not legion!

    As regards social housing in towers, there are a number of successful examples, on the same form and scale as the supportive housing ‘towers’ now under construction, e.g. Quayside on the north shore of False Creek, Seymour Place in Yaletown, C-Side in Coal Harbour. These have all been operating successfully for some time and are just some of the examples.

    While design matters, what makes social housing successful is how it is operated (tenanting, staffing, support services, programming). There are many Vancouver examples of well operated supportive housing, and the focus of the discussions re: the Biltmore should be on who will live there, linkages to services, meals, programming, staffing, in other words how the building will be operated. If properly managed, there is no reason why the Biltmore cannot to be a successful supportive housing project.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Mount Pleasant is not Downtown. It is not Coal Harbour or False Creek. Mount Pleasant has a history and a tradition apart from these places you mention. The affordable housing project I point to in Coal Harbour is the 4-storey walk-up that looks completely unlike all the other stuff gone up around it (just across the street from the Shi-shi community centre).

    We did not build Pruitt-Igoe (St. Louis) but we did build Mclean Park Towers in Vancouver—a failure of legionary proportions. Shall we tour it together? The scuttlebutt on that project is that it has been a revolving door of infestation; drug dealing; and you name it. I can vouch for the fact that the architects didn’t have a clue about the relationship of urban design and social functioning. I’ve also visited its CMHC cousin in Montreal, near Rue St. Dennis and Ste. Catherines. That one is not much better. Now 50 years old, Mclean Park Towers has had time to build a history of problems. However, most distressing to the passerby is how the tower fails to reflect the values of the community all around where countless more affordable units dot the landscape, yet manage to fit in.

    Form matters. In fact, all manner of concrete and verifiable facts (some verified elsewhere like in Montreal, Chicago and St. Louis, etc.) point to the conclusion that we are not getting the equation right on social housing in Vancouver.

    North America—Canada and the US—are a homogeneous culture. I am more than alarmed by this notion that somehow the Blue Mountains, or something else, make us a ‘place set apart’ that does not need to heed goings on elsewhere. Is that your point?

    You know, Cameron, I think we’ve spoken a time or two. Shaken hands even. Number 6 and Number 2?

    The reality check, please.

  • False Creep

    I think it comes down to management of the facility. As an owner on Prince Edward, I was leery of the HEAT shelter that opened one year near Mount St Joseph (building now gone). But the site was well managed and there was no adverse impact on the neighbourhood. My bourgeois concerns were things like litter and loitering. But like the nearby Salvation Army facility, the HEAT shelter was a good neighbour. I hope the Biltmore is like this. I support the site, but it doesn’t mean that I will tolerate disorder.

  • Waltyss

    Mr. Villegas @ #8. The change from the beginning of your post to the end gave me whiplash. Mt. Pleasant is so different from downtown that it must treated differently and this is because it has a history? Downtown, where our city started doesn’ have a history? Really?
    And of course while Mt. Pleasant is uniquely different from Downtown, all of North America is culturally homogenious. WoW!
    If you have a point other than highrises bad, Mt. Pleasant as it exists good, regrettably I have missed it.

  • MB

    @ Lewis 7:

    … towers don’t work for social housing. That is the report back from the US where this has been going on at a much larger scale—legion or not—for a much longer time than here. What works there is housing that looks like every other house in the neighbourhood (but stay real, we don’t mean ‘tower neighbourhoods’).

    Codswollop.

    That unreferenced comment stems from the worst attitude of paint-by-numbers, formulaic and over-prescribed urban design I’ve seen since the traffic engineers proposed simplistic theories for clearing “slums” for freeways. That is placing theory and urban form bias over reality.

    Social housing can indeed be very well integrated into a community where you have mixed use zoning, a plethora of incomes and a healthy socio-economic life on the street. The building form itself can take on a wide variety of shapes any of which would have very little effect on the success of social housing without all these other factors.

    Towers won’t reach out and eat your babies.

    You may knock the slab-form architecture, the noise of the arterials in that location, the unrealized maturity of that part of Mount Pleasant and a number of other things, but to lay our social condition at the feet of “towers” is frankly riduculous.

    Please re-read your Jane Jacobs. She was very careful not to prescribe solutions, but always challenged commonly-held beliefs. She also praised density when done right, including the towers of Concord Pacific, and she developed some notable ideas and penetrating observations about cities and economy.

    While you are at it, you may also wish to read Ken Greenberg’s ‘Walking Home’ (2011), a practitioner who has a half-century of urban design experience and who never painted any one element as all-encompassingly bad for cities, with the exception of Autotopia. He also was a personal friend of Jacobs and worked with her on several projects, and went out of his way to iterate how humble she was, and how she never imposed theories on anyone, and he was greatly disturbed to see her name was co-opted by almost every anti-development NIMBY group opposing even projects of great quality merely because they were uncomfortable with change.

    Vishaan Chakrabarti also has a new book out called ‘A Country of Cities’ where he promotes wide-spread, mixed use and transit-oriented high density development and backs up much (but not all) of what he says with good references and numbers. The economic performance of cities has always been accutely underrated when the extraction of resources is at the forefront of attention.

    Both Greenberg and Chakrabarti have loads of experience as architects, but Greenberg expounds on the importance of realizing that urban design is truely a multi-disciplinary field, and that a good urban design group will consult with communities without preconceived notions of what the design should look like.

    I will agree with you that the treatment and program ratio-to-residents on this project may be inadequate, but that is not caused by the fact it takes place in a tower, as though buildings have magical powers. Increase the ratio enough to achieve medical stability, and provide several options for a decent, warm and clean home and sustenance to the homeless, and you’ve got something that I as a neighbour (who likely lives closer than you to this site) can agree with.

  • MB

    Lewis 9

    Form matters. In fact, all manner of concrete and verifiable facts (some verified elsewhere like in Montreal, Chicago and St. Louis, etc.) point to the conclusion that we are not getting the equation right on social housing in Vancouver.

    Form matters less than the zoning, and that is the substantial social and economic health generated by mixed-use zoning within individual developments, and within neighbourhoods.

    Diversity and heterogenaity (incomes, land uses, public & private realms, services, reflecting historic precedences while supporting new ideas, building form, sidewalk humanity …) makes for great urban design and the most healthy of communities.

    Not much more than a century ago Mount Pleasant existed for a 15,000-year era in the form of aboriginal traditional territory and old growth forest. History didn’t start with Edwardian houses and 19th Century brick buildings, Lewis. Forest-farms-standardized lots-houses-low rises-mid rises-towers-commercial-residential-office-streetcars-roads …… a steady transition has been occurring. And the development pressures continue and will not cease. It is a process, an evolution.

    Glass bubbling Mount Pleasant in its current form for the next two centuries will do nothing but cause stagnation and massive increases in our already unaffordable land values, and cannot fully address what will maintain a vibrant community as the generations whip by.

    If you advocate solely for lowrise and ad infinitum replications of the sawtooth roof patterns, as treasured as these building forms are, then I say there is just as much value in demolishing several blocks of said buildings to return the land back to native forest. I do not advocate either necessarily, but where do you cut off history? The fact remains that everyone has an impact on the land, but many critics choose to ignore their own.

    Values. Priorities. In the face of increasing demand on a set land base. We have a conundrum, and simplistic Seven Steps manuals and other prescriptive “solutions” is so inadequate, especially when the author’s biases attempt dominate the conversation and drown out others who live there but whose ideas may differ.

    Consensus-building should be the mantra for everyone who is concerned for our future.

  • Alan Layton

    I live half a block from a large social housing structure nearing completion at Fraser and Broadway. I understand that there will be no market housing to help stabilize the building and I have little confidence that the promised supervision of the residents will be adequate and I’m sure they will probably be reduced whenever the city needs to save money.

    When I first moved to this part of the city, 10 yeas ago, there were significant problems with prostitution, drugs and the usual theft and violence that goes along with it. Since that time the residents (mainly working-class) have banded together to clean up the area and the improvement is quite noticeable. I feel like it’s all been in vain, but I have no options at this time to move so I guess I’ll be a guinea pig in a grand experiment.