Frances Bula header image 2
← →

New rental housing near Beach Towers okayed by Vision councillors, who say it gives more people a chance to live in the gorgeous West End

February 26th, 2013 · 16 Comments

I wasn’t at the debate, though did hear some of the highlights, particularly Vision councillors and Mayor Gregor Robertson making the case that 1. This was a key election issue and people who opposed growth, density, more rental housing, all lost. 2. This gives more people an opportunity to live in the West End, instead of it being frozen at the number of people there now.

This city news release came out at 4:01, about 40 minutes after the vote.

Vancouver – After an extensive public hearing process and over two years of review and public input, City Council has approved 133 new units of rental housing in Vancouver’s West End. The project will be only the second new purpose-built West End rental building in a decade, underscoring the pressing need for new rental housing in a neighbourhood with Vancouver’s lowest average rental vacancy rate (0.85%).

Council also moved to implement a special housing agreement that will lock-in the proposed rents of the building to ensure that they do not increase between the time the project is approved and the final construction.

“With 133 new rental units, this project is another important step toward meeting the urgent need for new rental housing in the West End and across Vancouver,” said Mayor Gregor Robertson. “Over half of Vancouver’s population are renters and yet Vancouver’s rental stock has been in decline for decades. The City of Vancouver is committed to the creation of significant new rental housing in Vancouver to ensure we’re building a city that is more affordable and accessible for residents of all ages, incomes, and backgrounds.”

58% of the project consists of two bedroom units that are geared toward families. Based on community feedback, the project is a mix of low and mid-rise buildings – the tallest of which is just nine storeys in height.
There are four existing buildings surrounding the project, ranging from 19 to 21 storeys in height, originally built in the late 1960s. Having undergone significant public consultation since first being proposed in November 2010, the new project earned support from both the Vancouver Heritage Commission and the Vancouver Urban Design Panel, both of whom reviewed it twice. Revisions based on reviews and public input included lowering the height of the buildings to reduce view impacts and reshaping the buildings to increase public space at ground level.

The project provides market rental housing as an alternative to home ownership, as the monthly costs for West End ownership are 50% percent higher than rents for a one bedroom unit and 75% higher than for a two bedroom unit in this project.

“The construction of rental housing is a crucial component of our work to make Vancouver a more affordable and livable city for everyone,” added the Mayor. “The 2012 Housing and Homelessness Report Card showed that the City has already exceeded its 2014 goal for new rental housing, and this project represents further progress toward ensuring that seniors, young families, and students can all afford to make Vancouver their home.”

The project also does not require any subsidy from the city, and is generating a community amenity contribution of $243,000 to be allocated following the completion of the new West End community plan.

In addition to creating substantial new rental housing, the City of Vancouver has taken a number of steps to make housing more affordable and provide support for renters. These include:

·         Launching a Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability

·         Approving the development of an arms-length Affordable Housing Authority

·         Offering six sites of city-owned land for lease to non-profits for affordable rental housing

·         The opening of Vancouver’s first Rent Bank, to support renters in crisis with short-term loans

·         The creation of the Rental 100 Program, which provides incentives for the development of new, 100% rental buildings

·         The launch of the online Rental Standards Database, which will enable renters to search out buildings that have current safety issues

·         Hosting the international ideas competition re:THINK Housing, to solicit ideas from around the world on how to create new affordable housing

Categories: Uncategorized

  • brilliant

    Wow what a surprise, didn’t see that coming, no sirree bob…..

  • Andrew Browne

    Good outcome. Nice to see a reasonable decision rise above the hyperbole.

  • brent granby

    An important element from today was that Cl. Louie moved an amendment to stipulate that the rate “of starting rents” would added to the “housing agreement that contractually controls the rental unit. The actual rate of rent was unclear , but I think it is an important step for the city to obtain guarantees on what the starting rates of rent will be. Affordability was a big part of the debate on this rezoning and there was a little dance that some of the Councilors were doing on this issue today. It’s an odd argument to say in the future units will be affordable. Residents are seeking affordability now and its also important to economic vitality of the city.

  • Bill Lee

    Yeah, and rents still too high for this anglophilia-named Devonshire Developments.

    Look at 700 Woodwards suites and what happened to the 125 lower rent places.
    Read how SFU entered into the destruction of the DTES at Geller’s world — gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca/2010/01/woodwards-and-sfu-school-for.html

    See the people rushing to the Olympic Village lower-market-whatever for critical civic employees.

    See the Next-Mayor-Tim’s proposal…
    http://www.timlouis.ca/2013/02/22/city-needs-to-look-at-beach-towers-redevelopment-with-affordability-lens/
    As one wise person said:
    ” But what’s going to happen — wait for the once-a-century high vacancy period and rebuild a bunch?”

    Time for the city to get off its buttocks and build rentals.

    I notice that the Dunbar and 16th supported housing still has an very large empty retail bottom floor 18 months after opening. Why not do something!

  • Threadkiller

    Someday the Vison councillors are going to say “no” to a major development proposal. I just hope that comes soon, ’cause I’m getting older and I’d rather it happened while my aging heart still has a chance of surviving the shock.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Look, any way we look at this we can only come up with the following points:

    (a) The West End doesn’t need this; and

    (b) This decision—cloaked in the sugar coatingdu jour—feels like a naked political play.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    I wasn’t at the debate, though did hear some of the highlights, particularly Vision councillors and Mayor Gregor Robertson making the case that 1. This was a key election issue and people who opposed growth, density, more rental housing, all lost.

    I saw that Councillor Stevenson had reinforced this point in the public hearing debate, that from the West End in the next election there will be resounding approval. There wasn’t resounding approval in the last election, I’m not sure what makes him think there will be in the next one.

    Not withstanding Stevenson’s hypocrisy seen at the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzGvq8_xy9w Vision Vancouver actually lost votes from 2008 to 2011 elections across all the voting divisions contained within the West End, ranging from -3% to -19%, despite an increase in voters. Take the mayor out of the equation and percentage decreases for Vision Vancouver councillors alone become greater.

    As well, the West End continues to have one of the lowest voter turnouts and was pointed out recently in a planning meeting held by the city that between the last two census periods (6 years) there is a highly transient population churn of about 2/3 likely due to the amount of renters.

  • Anne M

    Not surprising but disappointing. Doesn’t bode well for the West End Community Plan.

  • Norman

    As I said, this is the most developer-friendly council since the 60’s.

  • Bill McCreery

    Ditto Anne M 8.

    As I mentioned in my comment at the latest Bula CCA post, what counts here is the quality of decision making. This is yet another example of Vision Van’s ineptitude in that department. The list is getting rather long – RIZE, Comox STIRs, Hornby and Drake, etc. and now Beach Towers on the development side not to mention the CCA fiasco.

    Vision Van operates on the premise that excess is success. So, in every case they make decisions that turn something that could be a positive into a negative.

  • Michael Kluckner

    “Building Affordable Housing” is an oxymoron: you retain housing if you want a chance for rental stock to be affordable. That said, I was astonished when I moved back to Vancouver from Sydney, Aus. (where real estate prices are comparable to Vancouver’s), a few years ago to find how low the rents are here. Probably 30-40% less than what we were paying there. Which means one of two things: rents are artificially low because of the landlords’ expectation of an upzoning and a demolition, or rents are artificially low due to deferred maintenance, which is more or less the same thing. The third possibility, that real estate prices are too high for the ability of the land to generate income (given people’s typical wages), is unthinkable here in boomtown…

  • Bill McCreery

    Michael, rents are low in no small part because of rent controls. and, I suspect supply and demand comes in there somewhere. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who can shed light on that subject. For instance as certain media are suddenly discovering the rents in the burbs are quite a bit more “affordable” than those in Downtown Van. So if you’d rather have a nice Chablis than a 400sf pad Downtown and don’t mind the commute, hey.

    But, you’re right that ‘retaining housing’ does keep it more affordable. The City has a policy that discourages demolition of some existing rental stock. This is also part of why rents are low.

    The other part of the equation is the rent to income ratio. I’ve seen rents in, I think it was Queens at $2000+ for a small 1 bed, but salaries are higher their.

  • brilliant

    @Andrew Browne-why yes, and Lincoln Centre could squeeze some condos in on that useless plaza in front of the Met.

  • PendrellSt

    The real message from yet another Vision rubber stamping of a inappropriate and poorly planned development proposal is that there really is no point any more in Vancouver citizen’s taking the bus down to City Hall to present an opinion to this council. Really don’t bother. People unhappy with Vision need to focus 100% on the next civil election. Pick a candidate or party that you believe will give your voice the respect it deserves. Volunteer, donate, support, be active. Democracy may no longer exist at City Hall, but shame on us if we don’t teach a much needed democracy lesson in the next election.

  • Andrew Browne

    @ “brilliant” #13

    Like I said – glad a reasonable decision rose above the hyperbole. Lincoln Centre indeed.

  • Norman

    If only more people would vote.