Frances Bula header image 2

Non-profit aims to build housing without gov’t money + give United We Can a new home

March 30th, 2011 · 10 Comments

Housing groups used to get the money for building social housing by applying to the government for a giant grant, waiting for it to arrive, and then going to work. That’s less and less likely these days, so some of those housing non-profits have gotten much more creative over time. Some use the assets they built up over the last 40 years to leverage redevelopments; others are putting together interesting new projects using creative ways of combining public and private support.

The new project planned for 39 East Hastings — the site of the current United We Can recycling depot — is the first I’ve seen of its kind, though. A building with social housing, built without any government support except for a BC Housing guarantee on the mortgage. Plus a new space for United We Can, plus some units for sale to people who work in local agencies, plus a few market condos thrown in at the back where the views are. This is different. (More in my story here.)

This project will be going through a rezoning sometime this spring, and many are hoping this shows the way for a new kind of housing development for the Downtown Eastside that’s not social housing, not gentrification, but a new kind of project that works for this area that doesn’t take enormous government dollars or simply pave the way for market condos that don’t fit into the neighbourhood.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Michael Geller

    I am surprised that there have not been any comments regarding this initiative up until now…since this is a very significant project for a number of reasons. Assuming it obtains the necessary approvals and financing, it could demonstrate a number of things:

    1) that creative non-profits can wean themselves off their longstanding addiction to government subsidies;

    2) that affordable ownership is something to celebrate, not scorn, in the DTES;

    3) that partnerships between the public, private and non-profit sectors, based on trust, can ultimately achieve results that are not possible by any one sector acting on its own.

    I applaud everyone who has been associated with this initiative since it, along with the Vancity/Westbank project on Cordova Street are potential beacons for the future of the DTES…a mix of uses, a mix of housing types, including ownership, and a corresponding mix of social and economic groups.

    My one disappointment is that I heard Janice Abbott suggest on CBC this morning that it could be 15 to 18 months before construction gets underway. That’s a long time. There is a need to see more revitalization in the DTES sooner, rather than later. Hopefully, with cooperation from the community, the city and the development team and lender, the project can be accelerated.

    One more thought. It’s spring, and many of us associate spring with ‘spring cleaning’. As one wanders around the DTES there are many things that need cleaning up….piles of garbage trapped behind metal railings; awnings that need a good washing; storefronts that could benefit from painting or murals.

    Three years ago I discussed with Ann Livingstone of VANDU and others in the community, the possiblity of a major community led spring cleaning program in the DTES. I was confident that some paint companies would donate paint, others would lend power washers, and many people in Vancouver would be happy to help if asked.

    Unfortunately, this did not happen for a number of reasons. However, now that a reflourishing of the DTES may be on the horizon, I do hope that CCAP and other community based organizations will give this some thought, and enlist support from the city and StreetoHome and other generous businesses and organizations, and continue what could become a transformation of the area. Hopefully this could create some employment for people at the same time. Just a thought.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I pick up about 3-5 knocked over mailboxes/newpaperboxes every week. It’s strange watching people walk around them instead of taking a few seconds and correct the problem. Think the spring cleaning would be a good idea, if someone has the time to set it up, I’d volunteer a few hours to pinch in.

  • Peter

    Does anyone know where the temporary site of the bottle depot will be while the new project is constructed? I’m thinking one of Concord’s lots on East Hastings that will probably get turned over to the city…

  • Creek’er

    Sounds like a win-win-win. A model development.

    I also like the idea of a spring clean and think many (including myself) would be happy to roll up their sleeves for such an endeavour.

  • David Hadaway

    I hope this idea works out, but it’s hard not to be sceptical about the feasibility of selling any apartments over a still functioning United We Can. I know good comes out of it, though it shows much of what’s wrong with our society that it is in any way ‘good’ to turn people into scavengers, but the place as it exists blights an entire block in the DTES. Can it really be made into a good neighbour or would it be better to see the operation transferred into the nearby commercial zone?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Looks like we have a success story and a zoning “problem”.

    Zoning was introduced in the post-war years to deal with difficult adjacencies. The “anarchy” in the title of Frances’s piece in part refers to a non-conforming use. Hastings is a “Great Street” in our city suffering a protracted cycle of decline. Non-conforming uses like a recycling centre—about as green as green can be—are not necessarily a good fit in a high density zone. The noise, and the use of the sidewalk are two problems being reported:

    “Police say the space has rivalled the notorious Main and Hastings corner for the crowds it attracts… passing commuters astounded at the scene, bemused tourists who find themselves wading through it and disgruntled local business owners.”

    Let’s not lose sight of the victory here:

    “The problem isn’t United We Can, a Downtown Eastside success story in operation since 1995, which is used by nearly 2,000 binners who collectively earn $2-million a year for what they scavenge. (The area has also become the base of operations for income-producing local gardens and street-cleaning crews hired by the city and film companies.)”

    Yet, along with the Carnagie and Pidgeon Park, we have a dearth of public space capable of supporting social functioning as well as providing amenity for up-start, hyper-innovative businesses.

    We’ve been casting an eye in the direction of the police station… announced to be moving out. The blocks on Main Street immediately north of Hastings (and the Carnagie) present the same urban scale as at the corner of 1st Avenue further south, for example. Yet, here at the head of Main Street the vehicular volumes are very slight, and all that blacktop and its adjoining uses cry out for a better purpose.

    Perhaps Janice Abbott’s success can be complimented by a plan focused on providing a public realm agile enough to serve the multiple facets of urban life in the historic neighbourhoods.

  • david hadaway

    “The problem isn’t United We Can..”

    Yes, really, it is. 2,000 binners, $2,000,000 a year, that is $1,000 p/a average for God knows how many hours of unpleasant, degrading and sometimes dangerous work. The reality is that this system is neither economically rational nor socially constructive in the long term. Let’s not start turning this ‘success story’ ( for some ) into a shibboleth. It’s not much more than institutionalizing the garbage dump scavenging we see in the third world with a feel good coating.

    If this system is still operating in another fifteen years we should be ashamed.

  • Bill McCreery

    This project does appear to be a laudable and creative effort by these non-profits. Lewis’ concern about the use fit may be valid. And, surely the local, adjacent businesses should have a say. Just as when well meaning politicians and bureaucrats at the OV try to do to much, perhaps the combination of library, social housing, market housing and a recycling depot are to much for one site. Another location for United We Can should be considered.

    One negative outcome which comes from to many uses in the same ‘complex’ is that the cost of construction goes up. Note: the social housing is $400/sf. The private sector can do that for $250/sf. Is there someone in their project management team who really does have an understanding of cost and benefits? Any prudent developer, private or non-profit, needs to make pragmatic decisions. Part of that is not to try to do to much all at once. This project could be a great success and a model for others, but 1 big mistake can also bring it down.

    I would be happy to participate in Michael’s DTES cleanup.

  • Michael Geller

    Bill, it’s not MY clean-up. The clean-up will only work if it is initiated by the community, perhaps in conjunction with various organizations.

    I would love to see CCAP take the lead. If they are not interested, perhaps some other community organizations might band together to do so. I think it could be a very worthwhile undertaking.

  • Norman

    It is impossible now to run nonprofit housing on a breakeven basis. BC Housing has reduced their funding to the point where they won’t pay for maintenance just to keep the building in a reasonable condition. I wish these people good luck in finding alternate funding and making it work.