It’s bizarre watching the same interests that worked to gut the one-third/one-third/one-third mix of SEFC now complain that the result is economically polarized and therefore unsustainable.

As I see it, part of the problem in this discussion about what will work at OV is that not everyone has the same understanding of the terms “social housing” and “core need”. The social housing on site is just non-market housing, but the presence of the Portland in the bid process for the non-market units has confused the issue and folks now think SEFC will involve the hard-to-house.

I do wish the Portland would step back from bidding. They’re service providers for people who have barriers to accessing and retaining housing. The low-income folks at SEFC just need lower rent. It’s a poor fit.

Meanwhile, I am most curious to find out just what happened with that co-op. Do hope you’re following up on it, Frances.

In my opinion the more compelling reason for why folks aren’t moving into the neighbourhood is that the designers forgot to put in space for unique retail that would draw people in.

With any neighbourhood in Vancouver there’s a good reason to go there, even if it’s just for something as simple as getting breakfast. With the Olympic Village there isn’t. It’s a closed off box with cookie cutter chain stores that you can find elsewhere.

There should be restaurants with patios spilling out onto the seawall, but there isn’t. Greedy developers wanted to fill as much space as possible with ultra high end condos.

Development that creates a massive social and cultural gap between the very poor and the rich is positively referred to “revitalization” of the DTES from the same quarters that rule it unworkable in SEFC. As a general rule, the very poor don’t much like having rich people in their neighbourhoods, either, but their opinion lacks the capital for it to matter much.

Going a bit off the topic of the comment thread, I wanted to say that your final paragraph sums up why Yaletown works reasonably well.

“Something that I personally have noticed is that many condo buildings in Vancouver have a wide mix of incomes, even though they don’t have any social housing in them. The people on top in the penthouses may have paid a couple million or more, but the income level goes down with each floor. The lower couple of floors are often filled with first-time buyers. That’s without even talking about the renters, who add another level of diversity.

All without a dime spent on social engineering.”

The Olympic Village seemed designed to mimic Yaletown in many ways. But by going mid-rise and LEED platinum did they end up with too many “high end” units and not enough aimed at the “first time buyer” or small-time investor (who would rent them out)?

There are already a bunch of low-income people living and working in that neighbourhood. People setting up tempory shelters under the trees in the park at Eighth and Columbia, in loading bays at night, and other relatively dry, unobtrusive spots. There are the day labourers at Third and Ontario, a recovery centre (I think) near Three Vets. Daytox is just on the other side of Main St on the bike route.

It was interesting at the Stewart Brand lecture at the SFU/Woodwards building on Monday night how he was showing pictures of shantytowns right up against luxury housing developments. It seems that’s the new normal.

It’s also interesting and perhaps a bit off-topic, but isn’t one of the attractions of school uniforms the fact that you can’t tell rich from poor when everyone wears the same blazer? And that leveling mechanism is a good thing?

Frances, I would like to again put my foot in my mouth by further explaining why I said what I said in our initial interview.

As I said to you, if the city was not faced with what Gary Mason has described as a $150 to $200 million loss on the project, and had the social housing and market rental units not increased from $65 to $110 million, and require $62 million in subsidies, I would not have suggested that the social housing units be sold.

Furthermore, had there not been a possibility that the city would select the Portland Hotel Society to manage the city owned social and rental units, after being rejected by the Province, I probably would not have spoken out onthis matter.

However, these are the realities we are facing.

Again, I must clarify, I have a high regard for the Portland Hotel Society and the work it has done in providing accommodation and services for the ‘hard-to-house’ in the DTES. However, I feel quite strongly that this is the wrong organization to be managing these particular social and rental housing units. I am pleased that other commentators on this blog, and the Globe and Mail site agree with this view.

My primary concern is that faced with a need to resurrect the marketing program and minimize losses to the city, the city should be careful not to deter potential sales by innappropriate social engineering. I stand by my comments that while social mixing is commonplace and accepted in Vancouver, and something I was happy to promote with the Performing Arts Lodge at Bayshore, and at UniverCity, announcing that the social housing could be managed by the PHS and include hard-to-house residents will have a negative effect on the marketing program. I stand by this belief.

And having worked with George Wong, and knowing Cameron McNeill, I am confident that they would not disagree with this specific concern either. Yes, mixing different incomes and social groups does not affect value, but placing the hard-to-house across the courtyard from those purchasing $1 million plus units will be problematic.

(As an aside, the architectural design of this community is very different than most other Vancouver projects in that considerable effort has been made to physically integrate the market and non-market units.)

A final comment regarding a remark I made on CBC on this matter. I am told that it sounded like I was opposed to people with mental illness living in the community. This is not what I intended to say at all. Of course people with mental illness should be living there. However, I am concerned about dual diagnosis hard-to-house residents being moved in the community, in this initial phase. If this sounds disgusting and elitist, I am sorry, but based on my four decades experience in the design and development of social housing and planned communities, I remain convinced that this is not appropriate for both fiscal and social reasons.

rich & poor..as if there’s nothing in between…THAT is the frustration with OV. no seems to give a damn about the professional middle class.

diversity can easily be accomplished via market forces, and if the gov’t would take their finger out of the process, this can be achieved at OV

@ Bill Smolick 14 . . .

“One of the reasons Main Street is such a vibrant neighbourhood right now is it’s home to a rich diversity of people from both a cultural and an economic perspective. It creates an interesting community.”

http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemble/6.main.street/main.street.html

Well said Bill . . .

“If you think of the population as divided into five groups on a social and economic basis –As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Es….,” quoth M. Geller.

Now don’t be coy! Just go ahead and use the official Brave New World terms: Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons.

Yes, let’s all repeat together (50 repetitions, three times nightly through the nice speaker under our pillows), “Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m awfully glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I’m so glad I’m a Beta.”

(And no, no apologies for being bookish here. M. Huxley’s book is a Classic of Western Literature, and if M. Geller didn’t see this comparison himself, he shoulda!)

@ Dan. Yeah, was surprised Michael would ‘go there’. The perceived association is hard to ignore.

In future, all city councils should stick to what they know – zoning and land use – and leave market development to those with their own money on the line.

But given where we are, has anyone explored the idea of using the social housing component to house low-income elderly? Aside from the fact the elderly make highly desirable neighbours, there might also be support for this goal to be found at higher levels of government that might make it an affordable option.

Sean, the low income elderly are included in the net zero building. But at a very high cost.

I agree, that seniors are ‘benign’ when it comes to their impacts on a community, especially when compared with core needy families with children and the ‘hard to house’.

Dave, I agree entirely that good housing and meals and eventually a job can benefit those on the streets. All I am saying is this is not the place for them, and it now appears that PHS and others agree too. To repeat, however, there are now two issues: who really is going to move in, and who do the potential condominium buyers think is going to move in.

Dig yourself in a lttle deeper Michael = those damn poor families with children have such a worse impact on communities [didn’t you mean condo values?] than rich people with kids. We all know rich kids don’t yell, play hockey in the street, cry, use recreational drugs, experiment with alcohol, act promiscuously or in any other way annoy adults.

I live adjacent to the OV site, on the South side of False Creek, directly West. The only housing between my apartment and the OV site is social housing – townhomes for low income housing nestled between Spyglass Pl and Newport Quay.

It is not so much the social housing element that makes the OV an unattractive purchase. It is the poor value. One needs look across the street at Wall’s development – with its newly repriced “120+ units under $350K!”, to see what a marketable $/sqft in that neighbourhood looks like. Those developments will be across the street from any subsidized housing – and I suspect that will do little to deter interest.

It’s the price, stupid.

I realize it is a tough pill for the city to swallow given the exorbitant cost of building this development – but as a tax payer I’d prefer a moderate loss now rather than a near total loss later.

Diderot too. You are right. But sadly, in our society, many believe that ANY children living in an apartment development can negatively affect values…whether ownership or rental. While it is not legal to restrict children, except in ‘seniors housing’, it often happens. In some high end developments, developers will even disguise the required children’s play equipment to minimize any negative impacts on value. I know, I’ve done it.

Vicki Jo. Thank you for these references. As ‘Inclusionary Zoning’ becomes more popular, I think it is important to better understand when it works, and when it doesn’t work. Also, the Vancouver Foundation’s Vital Signs report makes excellent reading.

Jutus, I agree that the current pricing, notoriety and uncertainty are the primary reasons why the OV condominiums are not selling. But hopefully, these will be addressed in the not to distant future as the social/rental housing and the city/developer issues are resolved.

The potential negative impacts of juxtaposing the very rich with the very poor is a secondary issue, but I raised it because I don’t want to see any further erosion of values. Obviously, I didn’t express myself very well, although I was pleased to see that Daphne Bramham did understand what I was trying to say, as evidenced by her story in today’s Vancouver Sun http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Talk+around+Olympic+village+condo+sales+exposes+unwillingness+help+city/3636037/story.html

You can find a further explanation of what I was trying to say on my blog at http://www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com

Ron, you are correct in pointing out that anyone moving into the first phases of large comprehensive communities is a pioneer, and having to put up with vacant lots and empty storefronts. However, there are steps that the landowner/developer can do to mitigate this.

For example, at UniverCity we heavily subsidized a small corner market until there were enough residents to support a full grocery store. At one point, I even paid for the fruit and vegetables to be placed in wooden baskets outside the store, just to liven up the place. We subsidized other merchants and street performers, and even organized a Sustainability Fair to bring people into the community and avoid the ‘ghost town’ feeling. I have suggested that it would be desirable to have some ‘temporary’ merchants set up in the Olympic Village community until the majors (London Drugs and Urban Fair) move in. They could use mobile or temporary structures or storefront shops to offer these amenities.

In response to your question re London Drugs and Urban Fare, while I haven’t seen the leases, I doubt that they will walk away. However, I think it would be desirable for the developer to offer some comfort in this regard, and will suggest this to them when we next meet.

Co-ops are not perfect.

One of the saddest things I witnessed in two separate co-ops was the majority voting against providing only one unit for a person with AIDS. This was a heartfelt request made to all co-ops in the Metro in the mid-90s by an AIDS society, and it was based on a dire need. Some of the people who I thought were the most socially progressive were adamantly opposed, and their comments during the debates were pitifully uneducated or downright bigoted.

One unit per co-op was not a lot to ask for.

There are more people taking advantage of the co-op housing system than is admitted. Nepotism, favouritism, singles overhoused in two or three bedroom units (often lifers who have the best views), undeclared income while on maximum income subsidy, large board expenditures of co-op money without membership approval, lifestyle subsidies (healthy artistes with PhDs and no desire to find regular work) that garners the resentment of working stiffs paying full rent ……………..

I’ve seen it all over 18 years, and was very happy to leave it behind when we finally scraped together a downpayment for a private home.

Having said all that, I remain a staunch defender of the basic co-op model because self-management empowers residents / members to have a personal investment in their homes.

That doesn’t mean that the model should not change in future. There needs to be a solid means test for income that disqualifies you from subsidy if undeclared income is discovered; there should be a strict policy of one bedroom per person with a 6-month deadline to move (or first available vacancy) when your family status changes; professional management firms need to be involved more; planning of co-ops should undergo a periodic review of demographic trends (at one time families with children were given priority, but now society is ageing and perhaps a need for more single bedroom units will be required).

Further, it costs taxpayers money to build and subsidize co-ops. Therefore, it makes sense in the context of today’s huge public debt at all levels to exercise some fiscal responsibility when providing co-op and other forms of social housing, which would include building them where land costs are moderate, and to build them to last.

If Millennium is to continue to maintain its social housing components, then I believe co-op housing — with the above revisions — would perhaps be the best model. But when the costs exceed $400-$500 a square foot, the social value resulting from such large expenditures becomes very questionable. You could build many more units for the same price elsewhere, hence a higher social value.

Which leads me to suggest that the “mixed income” model for cop-ops applied rather glibly to one development doesn’t neecssarily work that well. You can build a couple of hundred units of subsidized housing within 750 m of Millennium for half the cost, and the SEFC community as a whole (Millennium is only a part ot it) will benefit from the income mix.

Praticality needn’t erode principles, unless the principles are too rigid for today’s world.

MB – thanks for your comments on co-op life. Reminds me of a story I was told about Norway. Once a year a list is posted on a bulletin board prominently displayed in each village square. It lists every villager’s total income for the previous year.