Frances Bula header image 2

The stories behind the mayor’s F bomb

July 12th, 2010 · 65 Comments

Because I clearly have no life, I took the trouble to listen to the whole hour and 40 minutes of the Thursday night meeting about the West End housing controversy that led to the mayor’s much-reported remarks today. It’s worth a listen, in order to puncture some of the little spin bubbles going on.

Here’s what I observed.

1. The mayor has defended himself by saying the remarks came at the end of a long, difficult night and everyone was tired. Not so sure about that. Yes, it was a long meeting, but not the longest on record. Certainly not as long as the 5 a.m. budget meeting that happened under Sam Sullivan a few years ago. On the actual issue of forming a mayor’s advisory committee, the last item on the agenda, there were only seven speakers. They kept to their five minutes and they were mostly fairly civilized. I’ve seen way worse at council. In fact, one very quiet spoken woman made a simple case for better communication. (Her name is uncatchable on the video.)  “I think the trust has been broken. We want to re-establish that trust. You have a vision. We’d like to contribute to that vision in a meaningful way.”

2. The West End Neighbours group has complained about the mayor’s appalling lack of respect for them. I would note that this is a group that has made repeatedly implied that the Vision councillors are being bought off by developers (an accusation that’s actually libellous, for anyone who cares, but I guess it doesn’t matter because that accusation gets tossed around so frequently). Chief spokesman Randy Helten inferred that again at the meeting, darkly mentioning the $650,000 that developers gave candidates in the last election. The group’s members also say they don’t trust anything the city does, that they think the city will just cherry-pick favourable candidates for the mayor’s advisory committee (the topic under discussion for the night), that developers are just going to rip the city off, and any number of other less than civil or evidence-based allegations. Raymond Louie, at the end of the meeting, said he would appreciate it if people in the gallery didn’t make motions indicating that they were cutting people’s throat. Talk about lack of respect.

3. Heather Deal, when she called me to also apologize about the remarks, said that some of the high feelings had arisen because of anti-renter comments that had come out during the evening. But when I listened, I only heard two people suggesting that the city’s advisory committee was going to be too pro-renter. (The mayor’s recommendation was that the committee should have 12 people who represent the demographics of the community, which he pointed out was 80 per cent renters.) Yes, those remarks were bordering on “creme de la creme” arguments, as they suggested that renters could give 30 days notice any time and move on, but condo owners had a real investment in the community. Rather insulting to renters who have lived in the West End for 20 or 30 years, and certainly open to a reality check about how committed owners are to their communities. But not as rabid as I’ve heard at other meetings. 

4. The mayor doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on who people are in the community. When he asked whether the speakers were “NPA hacks,” he clearly had no idea that Carol Walker was a former COPE candidate, that Randy Helten is a regular apolitical guy who works on sustainability issues, that Tiko Kerr (whose statement was read by a friend) is an artist is more likely to support protests over the loss of social housing than go to NPA fundraisers, or that Ned Jacobs (son of the noted urban theorist Jane Jacobs) is also about as far from the NPA as you can get without falling off the edge of the planet.

5. Everyone is acting as though the mayor’s remarks showed that the fix was in, that the Vision council is unwilling to listen to West End Neighbours. Well, actually, the council had already voted on the motion that WEN was opposing, so the accidentally recorded remarks only added an unpleasant topping to the reality that WEN’s opposition had been unsuccessful.

6. People are also carrying on as though Vision bulldozed through some horrible motion that will forever extinguish any West Ender’s ability to talk about housing issues or voice an opinion on city plans. The mayor’s advisory committee is going to be formed will be made up of 12 people.

For sure, strategically, they’re not going to appoint 12 people from WEN, any more than they would appoint the 12 opponents to anything as the sole members of an advisory committee. And I have no doubt that this move is strategically designed to provide a platform for people who have differing opinions from the WEN group. 

But I also have no doubt that there are spots reserved for a number of WEN members on the committee. And, although Mr. Helten said there was no promise of transparency or accountability, Robertson did say, in public and on the record, that he expects this group to hold public meetings, to make its own decisions about how to do public consultation, and to be as open as possible. “It’s probably not perfect but we are staying true to our intent to do something innovative to engage the community.”

There, now you’ll all have to listen to the item yourselves to find out if I missed anything (which I surely did).

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Living in the West End

    Then let’s try this taken from

    Brian Hutchinson, National Post · Monday, Jun. 7, 2010

    Want to build new housing in the DTES? Besides money and land, you’ll need street smarts, political experience and heft. For that, see Mr. Green. He knows better than anyone how things really work.

    The men who conceived and then built the new $400-million Woodward’s condominium and social housing development credit their relationship with Mr. Green. Woodward’s was all about politics, promotion and power.

    “We couldn’t have done it without Jim,” says Gregory Henriquez, the development’s Vancouver-based architect. “Woodward’s only happened because of Jim Green.”

    As we stood chatting on a sidewalk outside the new Woodward’s complex, a bulky man in black walked towards us. It was Jim Green, by chance. Mr. Henriquez smiled and shook his hand. “Hey Jim,” he said, “why not take the reporter and the photographer up to your place?” Up to a spacious, light-filled three-storey unit, he meant, in the tallest of the two Woodward’s condo towers.

    “F—off,” Mr. Green growled.

    The last thing this black-cloaked Robin Hood populist wants is to show off his digs to the press. Downtown Eastsiders — the longstanding ones, not the moneyed new residents of the Woodward’s condo towers — can be a particularly suspicious, cynical lot.

    Lest there be any misunderstanding, Mr. Green doesn’t own his Woodward’s condo, which, if put back onto the market, would fetch $1-million or more. He rents.

    A rare “sky balcony” unit in the Woodward’s complex might seem a just reward. Mr.

    Green arrived in the DTES back in 1971, when the neighbourhood was in decline but before drug-related rot had set.

  • Frances Bula

    @Living. So what are you saying, beyond that he has a nice place that would earn him scorn from the less well-housed Downtown Eastside advocates? (Not that he’s very popular among that set anyway.) Remember, it has to be something you actually know, as opposed to something you suspect.

  • Max

    According to Alex G.’s blog for today – the STIR program being railroaded through by the Mayor and Council is far from ‘renter’ friendly.

    However, it is developer friendly and Rob Rennie friendly, as he will be marketing these ‘for profit’ units.

    Worth the look people; here is the link – first blog on his site:

    http://alexgtsakumis.com

  • Frances Bula

    @Max. Unless the West End people posting here have it wrong, the Maxine’s development was always intended to have some condos that were for sale. It’s my guess that’s what Rennie’s firm would be handling, not the rental units.

  • Max

    Hi Frances:

    According to Rennie’s group – the entire project is ‘for profit’. When they were contacted, they were unaware of STIR.

    It seems the only rental units will be if an ‘owner’ decides to rent their place – and it will not be below market value.

  • Sarah Isaacs

    Hi Frances,

    You are wrong and failed to understand my argument. Please read the STIR program and understand its two streams: (1) Simple; and (2) Negotiated. The simple stream is for projects that do not request a rezoning.

    What I promoted (above) was the STIR program’s simple stream (no rezoning). Even though STIR has the ‘super-size-it’ Negotiated Stream (rezoning), amazingly some developers have applyied for development applications under STIR under the simple stream.

    Back when there were only 9 applications in the entire city, 2 of them were under the simple stream. I’m not sure how many there are now.

    Quite literally, this means developers don’t need the density bonus provided by rezoning to build rental. That’s a fact.

    Many of the developers currently applying through STIR’s negotiated stream may have applied through the simple stream if the negotiated stream did not exist, but likely couldn’t resist pursuing rezoning since it is offered on a silver platter.

    Why not give modest incentives to the business community and see how they respond? Now it will be difficult for the city to scale back once expectations have been set.

  • Frances Bula

    @Max. If you look at the city’s website, it says this project is supposed to have 98 condo units and 49 rental units. A quick check on Rennie’s site says the Alexandra project )the Bidwell one) has 85 units for sale in total, so that sounds like the condo units. I’m sure that some random person who picked up the phone at Rennie Marketing didn’t know what STIR was. That’s not her job. She’s selling the for-sale units and I’m sure the entire part of it his firm is handling is for profit. I know from 20 years of reporting and making every mistake in the book that people whom you talk to don’t always get the question. I’d bet money that when she said the entire project was for sale, she meant the substantial portion of the building that is the sale condos.

    Once again, I will say this, though in vain. People in the West End have a good case to make about insisting that new projects fit into the neighbourhood and that they should get more information from the city about the trade-offs with the developer. Why muck it up with these bits of half-baked info?

  • Frances Bula

    @Sarah. Yes, I did misunderstand. Sorry about that. But how do you know that the simple stream will work for everyone? If I were writing this story for publication, I would want to know which ones went to the simple stream and why. Were they buildings in cheaper parts of town, where just relaxing the parking, DCLs and CACs was enough to tip the project into the black in terms of revenue versus costs? What works at Kingsway and Clark financially might not work in Yaletown or the West End. Do you know any more about those projects?

    I have heard that for sure some of the projects in the West End don’t have to be AS dense as they are. They could be lower, though there would be fewer rental apartments, but it could still work financially. Whether they would be feasible under the existing zoning, well, I don’t know and I suspect that no one does really.

    Not sure what you mean by modest incentives to the business community? You mean developers? Like take the big negotiated projects off and offer only smaller chunks of incentives?

  • Westender1

    Frances, you suggested that what works at Kingsway and Clark financially might not work in Yaletown or the West End. I’m pleased to find that you’ve heard some of the projects in the West End don’t need to be as dense as proposed – that is not something that has been shared with the community.
    I don’t have data like land values for Kingsway and Clark, but a quick review of projects at 1142 Granville and 1401 Comox shows some significant differences. Is the 1142 Granville project that much less profitable? Or is 1401 Comox a bit “too” profitable? I’m not convinced that land costs are the only issue here.

    1142 Granville

    Site area: 8,993 sq. Ft.
    Price paid: $3.47 million
    Existing FSR 3.5
    Proposed FSR: 5.72
    Unit Count: 106
    Total buildable sq. ft.: 51,439
    Cost of land per sq. ft.: $386
    Cost of land per buildable sq. ft.: $67.46

    Summary:
    Developer paid $386 per square foot of lot area, or $110 per “buildable” square foot under existing zoning. Developer requested a 63% density bonus to accommodate STIR rental housing, lowering land costs to $67.46 per “buildable” square foot of floor area.

    1401 Comox

    Site area: 17,292 sq. ft.
    Price paid: $4.25 million
    Existing FSR: 1.5
    Proposed FSR: 7.43
    Unit Count: 192
    Total buildable sq. ft.: 128,494
    Cost of land per sq. Ft.: $246
    Cost of land per buildable sq. ft.: $33.07

    Summary:
    Developer paid $246 per square foot of lot area, or $164 per “buildable” square foot under existing zoning. Developer requested a 395% density bonus to accommodate STIR rental housing, lowering land costs to $33.07 per “buildable” square foot of floor area (almost exactly half the price at 1142 Granville).

  • Frances Bula

    @Westender. As I’ve said before (or maybe not, so here it is), you’ve done some great work in researching this so far. But, again, it’s hard for me to judge why some buildings were proposed at different FSRs without more information. I am trying to get that kind of information from real-estate services so I can understand these deals better. In general, if a developer gets more density in any project, it’s because they’re doing something more that costs: They’re not getting as much of a break on parking, they’re providing a community space, they’re restoring heritage, whatever. In the past, I’ve mentioned the community space being included in the Comox building, not sure how much that’s worth. You’ve said the seniors’ thing is only worth 100,000. I do note that there is almost double the number of units in the building in Comox. That does cost more. Yes, they’ll get more rent, since typically people end up paying more per square foot for smaller places than larger places, but how does that balance out with the costs of 90 some extra kitchens, bathrooms, walls, etc. I just can’t jump to a conclusion on the basis of these 16 numbers, as compelling as they seem at first glance.

    (Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that the city is just giving stuff away to developers for free because, unbeknownst to us, Vancouver is really Miami and the whole place is corrupt and all the planners and councillors are in cahoots to let the developers run wild because they’re all being given free condos. As I say, I’m waiting for evidence on that one.)

  • Michael Geller

    It’s a beautiful day outside, and I should be on the beach…but I would like to offer a few comments based on what I have been reading on this blog, and my understanding of the need and economics of rental housing and the STIR program.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I was at the April 2009 workshop called by the Mayor to discuss how best to encourage developers to build market rental housing. I was also involved, for a while, with the proposal to build rental units under STIR at Beach Towers in the West End.

    Following the workshop, I posted on my blog my assessment of why rental housing was not being built, some of the solutions being put forward by others, and what I thought should be done. http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2009/04/rental-housing-in-vancouver.html

    It’s interesting to see how my thoughts correspond to the program that was eventually created. You will note some similarities and one key contradiction.

    The problem with the STIR program, in my opinion, was that the program was rushed, and not completely thought through, and the ‘negotiated stream’ was introduced without any rules or guidelines.

    The first project through the door (Bidwell and Davie) asked for the moon, and got it, despite some very reasoned and articulate opposition from West End residents. In addition to a density bonus for the rental housing, it also received a density bonus for condos worth at least $3 million. Council approved this on the advice of staff that such a generous bonus was necessary. Otherwise the project might not be built.

    The rental units are not being sold by Rennie. However, I understand it is the developer’s intention to sell them as a package to an investor.

    The second project (1401 Comox) also asked for the moon, in the form of a 5 fold increase in the permitted FSR. As we all know, it is now going through further negotiations and revisions in an effort to address community concerns.

    While there is no doubt that the Bidwell/Davie project was extremely generous to the developer, I do not expect to see such generosity offered again. At most, a developer will get a density bonus for the rental units, but not any condo units. Other important concessions could include parking relaxations, reduced or forgiven Development Cost Charges, and an accelerated approval process.

    Many have suggested that the program should be cancelled since there is no longer a rental shortage in the West End or elsewhere in the city. While I have always argued that the CMHC vacancy rate figures are misleading, since they do not include basement suites and condos that are rented out, I believe there remains a genuine need for new rental units. And it is appropriate to encourage their construction now.

    It would be great if they could be produced at less than market rents, but this is probably unrealistic. However, it is in our collective best interests to encourage developers to build market rental units, as long as the building designs fit in with their surroundings, since the demand for new rental housing is increasing, and more importantly, the overall rental stock is aging, and falling into disrepair.

    For this reason, we should also have programs like RRAP (if you are young, you’ll need to google it) to encourage the renovation of older units as well.

    Now is a good time to encourage new rental construction because the condo market is not as robust as it was, and we need to put contractors to work. Prices are good, and interest rates are low. HST is a problem, but that’s another story.

    To those who think the program is overly generous, I would say just check how many are taking advantage of it….not so many. Why? Because the requirement that the units be guaranteed as rental for life makes them very hard to finance at current rental rates. That’s right. Many of you think rents are much too high. However, banks and CMHC are requiring developers to put up at least 35% equity, or more, to build new rental projects…even if the land is essentially ‘free’, given the thin economics of building rental housing.

    For a 100 unit rental project, that could mean 8 million dollars in cash

    So what should the city do? I think it should continue the STIR program, but it should bring in some guidelines, clarifying how much of a density bonus might be possible. At some of the meetings I attended, it was suggested that a site might be allowed to go to a maximum of 2 times the current zoning. That’s one possibility. Another approach might be to establish new thresholds, based on current zoning…eg 1.5 FSR can go to 3.0 but 5 FSR can only go to 7.5, or whatever.

    The point is it would be helpful for everyone if there were some guidelines in place.

    The city might also clarify when you get all the goodies…especially DCC forgiveness. My view is that not all projects should qualify for every benefit. Do we really want to give generous bonuses for 350 sq.ft. units renting at $2.70 a foot? I don’t think so.

    But if someone is willing to build ground oriented family rental units, or offer units at rents below market, then they should qualify for DCC exemptions. (Although if you have read this far, and checked my blog, you will note that I initially argued against this aspect of the program.)

    At any rate, I hope this is helpful…I do want to see the program continue for a while, but more importantly, we should SEPARATE the issue of the NEED FOR RENTAL HOUSING and APPROPRIATE INCENTIVES and the other issue of how to ensure that the new projects FITS ITS SURROUNDINGS FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.

    Unfortunately, these two issues have become too intertwined.

    A third issue, and not one I’m going to tackle now since the weather is too nice, is just who decides if a project meets important planning and design criteria…is it the person who lives next door to the proposed project? Is it the Director of Planning and his/her staff who have professional qualifications in the field? is it the broader neighbourhood in which the project will be built? and if so, is it the people who are looking for rental housing, or those who have it?
    And what are the obligations of the elected officials…should they make a decision based on polling? Advice from staff? the neighbours? All of the above?

    But that’s another story.

    I hope this is helpful. Now I’m off to the beach.

  • Westender1

    Hello Frances – I hope that: 1.) you have more success with attaining information from real estate services than residents have and 2.) that you will share this information if provided.
    You may also be interested to know that this week the city mailed out several thousand notices of an open house meeting for the 1401 Comox project (to allow the public to view the revised project with a decrease in FSR from 7.4 to (gasp) 7.1?)…but with a look at the project website at www. vancouver.ca we see that for some unknown reason, notice is provided that the open house is cancelled.

  • Frances Bula

    @Westender. I hope I’m more successful in getting it also. I have put in a request. I’ve also heard that when STIR was first being conceptualized, there was a series of scenarios worked out by the city showing the financials for different buildings in different settings. I’m not sure if I have that right, but I’m also trying to get that. Re the open house cancellation, I’ve heard lots of scuttlebutt in the last couple of days that the project may be revised. Maybe that’s why the cancellation?

    p.s. I always share as much as I can get. That’s why I went into journalism! No fun keeping secrets to myself.

  • The Fourth Horseman

    I think this is a very good thread.

    Clearly there are many competing interests here.

    I agree with Michael: no more ad hoc development. We must have clear definitions and ideas about what the whole of the West End and other communities are to look like.

    I was talking to a young(er) architect the other day. She says that two considerations when building are sunlight (an already precious commodity here in Vancouver) as well as open space.

    I, for one, do not fancy a Toronto-like model for the rest for the downtown peninsula.

  • Westender1

    Hello Frances – 1401 Comox is back in front of the public. This time at a 7.14 FSR, but with the community space removed from the proposal. Were you ever successful in attaining pro forma information from the Real Estate Department?