Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Suzanne Anton: “Vision gets it completely wrong with Broadway social housing decision”

July 26th, 2010 · 13 Comments

I invited Suzanne Anton to write this commentary piece for my blog about the recent council decision on the social housing project at Broadway and Fraser. As previous news reports have noted, Vision councillors voted to approve this project but on the condition that the 11-storey tower be reduced to eight storeys.

Since the non-profit building this, Broadway Youth Resources Centre, say they have no money for a redesign, it appears that the one optional part of the project, the 24 rental units that were supposed to be part of it along with 103 social-housing units, may be what’s sacrificed.

This is Councillor Anton’s assessment.

The city-owned property at Fraser and Broadway is one of the most spectacular in the City’s entire portfolio.  There’s a breathtaking view to the north, and the 99 B-line stops right in front of the building every couple of minutes.  Excellent public transportation, a major intersection, and a large piece of land: just the right combination for a signature building.


The property has been designated for social housing for some time.  The proposal, which came to public hearing at Council, was for an 11-storey building with eight floors (103 units) of social housing; three floors (24 units) of modest market housing; retail on Broadway and a new space for the Broadway Youth Resource Centre.

Neighbours were concerned with the height and the number of social housing units.

When it came to the vote, Council got it completely wrong.  The Vision councillors cut off the three rental floors, then added the qualifier:  ‘If you can  re-make the building to add rental, go ahead, but only within the eight-storey envelope.’

This was a false hope, and Council knew it.  Why?  Because  BC Housing has no more money to redesign the building and the housing provider, Vancouver Native Housing Society, won’t be able to do it on their own.

Here’s the really unfortunate part.  Rentals on the market housing units would have helped pay for the rest of the building.  Fifty or 60 people of modest means would have been able to live in a dream residence with a million dollar view.  And they wouldn’t need cars to get around with Vancouver’s best transportation service at their front door.

Yes, the building would be higher than others in the neighbourhood, but the street would be rezoned around it.  A signature site would – and should –  have a signature building.

Best of all, the rental units would be publicly owned.  Council, through STIR (Short Term Incentives for Rentals) is giving City resources to  high end privately-owned rental units, but they have turned down an opportunity to create more modest, publicly-owned units.  Their priorities are completely backwards.

Given that Council seems to be contemplating a 21-storey building on a quiet block in the West End, blocks away from public transit, doesn’t it make sense to approve an 11-storey building on one of the city’s biggest streets?

Council is sensitive to accusations that they don’t care what the public thinks.  But was this really the right issue on which to ‘prove’ that they are indeed listening?

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Tessa

    I have to agree 100 per cent with Suzanne Anton. I will likely be moving into that neighbourhood, and would still love to see that building built there, but frankly the rental housing should be a requirement. The city needs rental units, which is of course why STIR was created, and this is a perfect site to place them.

  • Bill Lee

    “Council Housing” under another name.

    Why not deem Dunbar such a zone and fill in the too-quiet part of Dunbar from 16th to 30th a rental tower zone.

    I worked out earlier that the Empire Field rebuilt would fit inside Memorial West Park with room to spare.

    With all those aging private houses with one or two people in them, it would re-vitalize the west side. And they would have a 3 million dollar view on two transit lines.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    I am sure a non-profit with this kind of a problem would find no difficulty securing the funds for re-design.

    “Excellent public transportation, a major intersection, and a large piece of land: just the right combination for a signature building… Yes, the building would be higher than others in the neighbourhood, but the street would be rezoned around it.  A signature site would – and should –  have a signature building.”

    Good urbanism or a signature building? Why must it always be a choice between the two? Why can’t we have both?

    “When it came to the vote, Council got it completely wrong.”

    I really don’t see how it can be any other way. We live in a land where being elected to civic service conveys mystical powers in urbanism and design. Only to find out later that it just aint so.

    I think what some of us are saying is that the only way out of the debacle is to have professionals and the community plan and design the neighbourhoods together in advance of redevelopment.

    If this is really as “signature site”—and not just another corner on Broadway—then the urban code would identify that and specify an appropriate building type.

    Make no mistake, an urban code for this area would come up with some very specific recommendations for how to revitalize the street and make it a neighbourhood heart, not a raceway.

  • Bill McCreery

    There will be some left over fees from the reduction in the scope of work [wd’s + tendering + contract admin for an 8 storey building are proportionally less then 11]. Depending on the project budgeting formulas there may be some redesign $s there but, probably not to go back to square one.

    However, whatever is built will be there for 60+ years, redesign to get it closer to right is a small cost in the big picture.

  • Andy Jukes

    I’m going to sound like a troll after all the previous, more thoughtful responses, but I’d just like to say I agree with councillor Anton on this issue.

    Sadly, it sounds like it’s too late to change anything.

  • cashisking

    Could someone please let me know where there is a neighbourhood that won’t be subject to more “density” and illegal suites. People should realise that density is just another word for making developers rich. I would actually like to have a relationship with my neighbours/neighbourhood without worrying about the transient internet porn surfer living across the back alley or peering down fro his 4th floor window at my 13 year old daughter.
    Why anyone would buy a 2mm house with a mortgage helper in the basement defies logic! I don’t know anyone in any other larger city who has or wants this.

  • some guy

    I have to admit, Anton nailed it. First time for everything, I guess.

  • arkwild

    The problem with Councillor Anton’s assessment is that the only criteria she has for a ‘livable’ unit is a breathtaking view – as if having a view makes for a full life…..Council has allowed for the full density of 3.66 FSR on the site – the ball is in BC Housing’s court to find the money for the redesign to incorporate the 24 units of market housing.

    BC Housing should and CAN find the money – we know they have the money for the 24 units of market housing so rather than pouting and taking there toys out of the sandbox it would be good for the design team and the stakeholders to get back to the drawing board and make a dense urban multi-use project work at this site….

    As a city we need to figure this out – the point tower podium is not the only type of building in the world. Here is a chance for the architect and BC Housing to really shine….but will they rise to the challenge?

    Will City Council + the community hold them BC Housing to account [they promised us market rental housing at this site] ?

    Do we, the community, have any real power at the table ?

    These are the real questions coming out of the ruling. Councillor Anton is missing the point of this ruling in my mind….if she really wanted to be critical it should be of BC Housing crying crocodile tears about how they have no money to do the job properly….

  • Star Tripper

    It’s time to end the insane no height in buildings policy in Vancouver.

    You want to see the mountains? Buy a poster.

    Vancouver needs to decide if it is a sleepy town or a real city – right now, just a tourist trap town.

    We ned industry, manufacturing and commercial rents.

    Screw the mountains, how can you even get there with North Van blockong skytrain etc access?

    Enough already, build build build while leaving a small corridor in the downtown peninsula for the touristas to see the mountains but everywhere else – build ’em high as you can.

    BE A CITY!

  • Sean Bickerton

    A very well-reasoned analysis by Councillor Anton. Few people in City Hall understand these issues better.

    The site is Fraser and Broadway, the intersection of two major arterials right next to transit. Those that want to preserve the existing character of neighbourhoods have my support in not wanting spot-rezonings of 25 story towers plunked down in the middle of residential single family homes. But on the basis that not every tower is inappropriate – in some places, like the intersection of two major arterials next to major transit, a short 10-11 story ‘tower’ is the most appropriate buildform. particularly when it would build community and provide badly-needed assisted rental housing in a sustainable way without millions of dollars in government STIR giveways.

    I fully agree also with Mr. Villages who reminds us that without real advance community planning, everything new that’s proposed seems exceptional and people just end up opposing everything.

  • arkwild

    Fraser might be an arterial at King Edward but it is a dead end street one block north or Broadway – it terminates at a park in a predominantly 2-3 storey residential neighbourhood….

    Broadway is an arterial.

    The 6 to 8 storey building typology advocated for in ecoDensity needs to be defined and zoned and understood by the city – it is a good dense [you can get up to 5.5 FSR or more if you try] urban typology that makes a lot of sense in residential neighbourhoods – which this is….

    The FSR the project is trying to achieve is 3.66…that could theoretically be achieved by a ugly 3-4 storey building that was an extrusion of the footprint….Acheiving 3.66 FSR in a 6-8 storey building provides opportunity for a great urban building with variety, courtyards and opportunities for lane development – a building that responds to the community context rather than the abstract ‘view’

    We live in a CITY not a view corridor.

  • Canuckistanian

    Terrible decision. This isn’t a ‘tower’ this is a medium height building on one of the busiest traffic corridors in the city. If not here than where?

  • Localtype

    As someone who lives within a few blocks of the proposed building my take is that the neighbourhood in general strongly supports the concept of the building and social housing (a few organized nimbys notwithstanding).
    I agree with a previous poster that the site is not really the “busy corridor” some think it is – Broadway of course is pretty busy, but Fraser deadends at the end of this block so is local traffic only, and not much of it.

    I don’t understand why a compromise solution hasn’t been suggested for the rental housing. The reduced 8 floors have the same “footprint” as the missing upper 3 floors. Instead of foregoing completely the rental unit, why not just make say the top 2 floors rental housing instead of the top 3 – you lose one floor of rental housing and 2 of social housing from the original concept, but still have a strong mix of both. There wouldn’t be much redesign involved really – the plans for each floor stay the same – you just change the mix a bit.