This is a complicated story to understand all the details of, but essentially the city’s planning department is recommending that, instead of requiring Concord Pacific to reserve land for affordable housing in its new Northeast False Creek phase, that the city accept two other properties Concord owns on Hastings Street instead.
One of those properties, 58 West Hastings, was the object of protests and demonstrations before and during the Olympics as Concord proposed to build market condos there.
We now have various people opining that, if the city builds just social housing there, it will just entrench income segregation in the city. NPAers Suzanne Anton, on council, and Michael Geller, not, are saying that the city should instead have asked Concord to give the city one or more of the six sites already reserved on other portions of Concord’s False Creek developments and that the city should instead have lobbied to get provincial money for supportive social housing there.
Downtown Eastside activists, of course, would like to see Hastings sites become strictly social housing.
And the city, in public and elsewhere, is saying that it may consider other options besides just provincially subsidized social housing, at least for the 58 West Hastings site, to create some housing that’s aimed at a bigger range of low-income households than just the most seriously challenged that the province is focusing all of its efforts on these days.
65 responses so far ↓
1 Westender1 // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:13 pm
The 150 foot buildings are proposed for both sides of Main Street, between Keefer and Union, not just the east side.
See Figure 3 in the report on the Heritage Area Height Review.
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110120/documents/penv4.pdf
2 ThinkOutsideABox // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:20 pm
The planning dept in last night’s presentation once again trotted out the statement that these additional heights will not be affecting the West End defined by their zoning definition.
That is a ridiculous technicality to hang such a statement on since by zoning definition the west side of Burrard is considered downtown, but other city maps define the West End as, you got it, bounded the west side of Burrard.
In answer to the first question regarding the effect on others’ views, the DoP said public views are more important than private views. It’s a socially trite, and frankly moronic statement to make when the context is the creation of more/new private views.
The heights & views policy report to council failed to mention the Bridgehead Guidelines which inform building design at the ends of Burrard, Granville and Cambie bridges. Planning staff indicated it was an oversight and they needed to start somewhere, but more likely as the DoP has indicated before, his regard for guidelines (zoning or otherwise), height and density numbers are optional at his discretion.
In a last minute amendment released yesterday afternoon, the planning department made a change to the Appendix B map where instead of higher building areas, the planning dept are quick to point out it is only 7 specific sites. The southwest corner of Burrard and Davie where sits the Esso gas station was originally part of this higher building zone, but in the amended of map they got rid of the higher building zone areas and let us know that ooops, that Esso site is actually in a view corridor.
Specifically Raymond Louie and/or Geoff Meggs this Thursday will pitch this as a way to create more jobs by the additional office space, thus also allowing for people to live and work in the same green sustainable community. They will further pitch that they are actually protecting even more views by adding 3 corridors and then all vision councillors will vote for the policy.
Were it not for public pressure, no doubt this flawed policy would have been passed by this disappointing council back on December 16th.
We deserve better, from a city government and the planning department.
3 Joe Just Joe // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I completely agree that 80 additional people sounds like nothing and not worth the hassle. That being said, those 80 additional people could have a very large effect. The additional height could let the owners of those 5 sites (yes there are only 5 sites at that height) build an additional 3 floors. Without those additional 3 floors the project might or might not be economically feasible, by providing the additional height you ensure the project goes ahead. So in reality you have an additional ~600 new people. Without those additional 80 bodies you might not get those other 520people as there might not be a project.
So those 80 people could in effect play a large role, and could snowball the potential for other projects to go ahead afterwards if the remaining owners see marked improvements in the area which now make questionable developments viable.
4 Westender1 // Jan 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Good point JJJ – fortunately the land prices of these properties will stay the same after the change in zoning potential, so the increased floor area will go entirely toward attaining development feasibility and not toward financing increased land costs…
5 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Sean,
Yes, we agree on many aspects of development in Chinatown. No, I am not arguing against 15 stories, and certainly not against i,proving urban blight, but I am interested to see what that means in real density and design, so interested in Michael’s and Bill’s comments.
I am also interested to see that all this proposed development is so close to the new casino—more about that, in a minute.
Why 15 stories? Why 14, as has been long rumoured —and supported by Raymond Louie—for the area from Granville Island west to Burrard? Why hasn’t this been discussed? Why the secrecy?
As for your statement:
‘Re: taxing people who want to live and invest here and help create a human bridge to one of the largest economies and cultures on the planet? As stated, they pay property taxes, and the builders of the homes they buy contribute extensive CACs and land lift that pay for all of the amenities we all enjoy’.
First, who doesn’t want immigrants, especially those who are willing to work or have a business here, whereby they derive personal income from and so contribute and pay out to our income tax base? No arguments from me!
These are the people who, along with all other Canadians, will help support our pension plans and who pay into public services that we all consume and which benefit us all.
I put to you that that landed or full immigration (ie Canadian citizenship) investment is fairer than investment that comes with no other obligation, other than to pay property taxes.
Let me ask you a question, one that is based on economics and not soley on feel good bromides.
Given that we have unprecendented vertical, multi-residential growth in this city, I would imagine that the income derived from property taxes on those condos would be impressive.
And yet…
What do we find? Anxiety over the state of our community centres, cutbacks in parks (petting zoos, Bloedel Conservatory, etc, etc.), loss of funding to our cultural enterprises and a $20 million deficit in the city budget. Yet, we have had MASSIVE lift in the number of condos developed in this city over the last 10 or 15 years.
So, I am pretty sure that property taxes cannot cover it all. This deficit leads me to believe that the city is not achieving a proportionate share of income tax backed monies from the province for bigger infrastructure projects—because they are not getting new income tax sources from those who are merely “real estate tourists”.
Further, I posit that though we may be a city “property tax rich” we are darned poor when it comes to people who are contributing other levels of taxation that we derive from senior levels of government. The HST, by the way, appears to be no help here either, since unlike the old PST, none of the sales from retail and restaurants, for instance, goes into general revenue!
So, send us more immigrants–god knows that I am the descendent of same. But like my antecedents, send me those who are willing to put their money into the Canadian ecomony through starting up business, hiring people and paying taxes. Otherwise, we become just a retirement community or resort for the favoured few that can afford to retire here.
It is rubbish to think that we will scare away real estate investment if we ask those who are NOT immigrants to pony up. This may be accomplished with a surcharge–a speculators tax on developers, especially if condos are not used to provide housing to Canadians—including immigrants— or even for non immigrant individuals, a capital gains tax, once they sell.
Let’s think outside the box, shall we?
Or, as per the newest story from Frances, we can rest in the knowledge that the new casino will solve all our revenue problems. Not.
6 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm
PS.
We can be a “nation of shop-keepers” going forward. We have certainly been “hewers of wood” in the past, selling off our raw resources because it was the easy thing to do, rather than thinking about the value-added companies we could have been developing, years ago. That we are finally catching up is only because we have been scared sober by what the rest of the world has been able to do accomplish.
I call it “While Vancouver Slept”.
Go look at the forestry industry, or the mining industry in this province, if you want to see what short-sighted, give-it-all away attitudes have wrought.
If we think that we are going to give our kids a great future selling Gucci, slinging drinks or being a croupier, I weep for this town.
Let’s not sell ourselves quite so cheaply, as we have in the past, shall we? Someone needs to hold local developers feet to this fire, too.
7 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 18, 2011 at 5:49 pm
PPS Sean,
One more thing about counting on the payment of property taxes—from local, immigrant or non-immigrant investors.
Check this out:
http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/brochures/PropertyTaxDeferment.pdf
Virtually anyone can defer if they are a citizen or over the age of 55. Hmm. Might this not create a revenue problem, going forwrd?
Why isn’t there a means/income test for this? Originally brought in to protect those whose incomes were not keeping up to the rise in property prices, one can see that counting on property taxes is a mugs game.
Which means, even less into the civic kitty on a yearly basis. I think that you can agree that this is not a great idea, especially for those who have no other vested interest in Vancouver.
8 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 18, 2011 at 11:18 pm
I think it’s worth noting what Planning sketched out for population density increases in the Heritage Area, to show why it IS NOT at all necessary to rush into this, or for Council to pass the HAHR on Thursday.
Under the existing height by-laws that have been in place for decades, Planning estimated that the Historic Area currently has space to accommodate at least 5,500 new dwelling units on non-heritage sites.
Unlike in our overbuilt downtown, that’s one heck of a lot of underutilized urban space available for low to mid-rise development in the Historic Area!
Until at least some or all of those 5500 units are developed and built out (which presumably would more than revitalize the area and provide a significant population base of market ownership), then why on earth do we need to rush ahead and start approving towers and added heights?
If you are going to go with the “density=revitalization” argument, then wouldn’t 5500 units do more than enough to change the balance in Chinatown and the Hastings and Main corridors? Why can’t we keep building within the existing form and height bylaws with new buildings like V6A and Ginger? If those developers could do it and calculate profit, without running roughshod over the area’s “form and character”, then why can’t others?
It’s also worth pointing out that the Planners themselves admitted on Monday night that there is no research whatsoever to support this high density=revitalization argument. None. What is happening in Chinatown is a plan to use the amenity bonuses of tower rezonings to revitalize. The towers themselves and the residents in them are not calculated as the driver of revitalization, but the additional money generated from the rezoning is. A fine point indeed.
Let’s not ignore the fact that the Historic Area already has one of the highest population densities in the City due to the fact that the buildings are built right out to lot line. Every inch of space is utilized to the max. There are no ghostly courtyards or unused landscape patches commonly associated with tower properties. The public spaces and urban rooms that exist are just that, public space. This typography is part of what makes the Historic Area’s urban design so unique and aesthetically appealing and full of LIGHT.
But more to the point, if the area is built out, even under existing height restrictions, then it will likely SURPASS the population density of the West End without adding a single tower!
Again, there is no rush here. Planning admitted the reports and technical data are “voluminous” and difficult to wade through. They also admitted they have just started a social impact study on the DTES, and “other work” required of council related to HAHR policy.
So why put the cart before the horse here and change the by-laws BEFORE these impact studies and integrated planning are complete?
The planners themselves did not seem too confident that the HAHR was good policy and had difficulty defending it with any hard evidence, and repeatedly shrugged and said “it’s up to Council” if they want to go this route. Pass the buck to the Vision housing caucus, headed by Ray Louie?
We are dealing with a unique area that is arguably one of the most important Historic sites in Western Canada. The prudent course is for Council to table approval of the HAHR until ALL studies are done and INTEGRATED planning work can show that this really is a necessary and positive way to go. If they wish to proceed with the rezoning applications for the two towers approved already, they can do it without HAHR in place, under the regular rezoning by-laws.
I think this is a huge decision for the future of Vancouver, and Council’s decision on this matter (either prudent and respectful, or bull-headed and irresponsible) will most certainly impact who I support next November. So far, the NPAers like Bill and Michael (sorry Sean, but you just don’t seem to get it) are the only ones who recognize the importance of these decisions on the future of our city and are asking responsible and pointed questions. I certainly don’t agree with them on every issue, but in this instance, I am with them 100% in requesting that Council hold off on approving these policy changes until an Integrated Plan and Social Impact study is in place.
In my humble opinion, any other course would be downright foolish.
9 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 19, 2011 at 12:04 am
Apologies for droning on, but one added point. If the Woodwards towers caused, in the DoP’s words, “rampant speculation” and decreased affordability of land and development in the DTES, which was seen as a major issue, then can we not surmise that the lone 26 storey Rize tower development in the heritage heart of Mt. Pleasant will have the exact same effect as Woodwards towers did on the surrounding area?
As this is a STIR tower (designed to increase supply of affordable rental housing stock) then the Rize tower would seem to make no sense at all. For a handful of extra market rentals, in the long run, the Rize will actually make the Mt. Pleasant a much LESS affordable place to live and set up a business in. The key raison d’etre for the Rize building has already been proven to be not at all sound, and when one adds in the heritage and neighbourhood vision goals that are being trounced, it looks like a disasterous course of action.
10 Gentle Bossanova // Jan 19, 2011 at 12:20 am
Don’t change the tempo, I’m not about to change sambas.
I insist on the right to think Mr. Geller a fine, outstanding Canadian, and still vehemently decry any suggestion to storehouse people in anything less than good housing. We can’t afford to do otherwise.
Can we go into sites in our city and see people staying in deplorable conditions in missions that are nevertheless flat out doing the best they can with what they have on hand? Yes. But that is simply the same point I am trying to make put another way around: We are not getting the job done. When it comes to homelessness, mental illness & addiction we need new ideas, rather than the same old.
Them have had their time in the limelight, and the next wave will pick up from what Them’s left behind. But its time to move on. This business we have today is not sustainable.
I will also reiterate my sense of two ships passing in the night at City Hall. Planning is articulating ‘Towermania’. Meanwhile, the sitting Mayor and Council better be circling their wagons for what looks to become a bloodbath come November.
One or the other is bound to fall…
Here’s the rub. Who can reconcile the idea of being the “Greenest City in the World” with these petty discussions about throwing more bones to the development industry so that they may put up 700-plus feet more product?
The only thing that’s green about towers is green as in the colour of money. Put to the test in a local election, I wonder who will out.
Bickerton & McCreery, what part of that is so hard to understand?
Economic values are not the only values in society … But what may go missing in this ledge and shoal of the British Empire is that calculations about capital accumulation consume us.
11 Bobbie Bees // Jan 19, 2011 at 3:47 am
Well, step away from the computer for a day and look at what happens.
Okay, first off Sean, no one is saying to bring in a Chinese head tax. It’s funny how when one starts talking out curbing offshore investments all of a sudden ‘The Chinese’ are the only people in the world that are making off-shore investments. I would consider wealthy Australians and British and Germans just as responsible for driving the speculation in our real estate market as the Chinese or Taiwanese.
The only way to get our real estate market back under control is to place restrictions on ownership. Allowing unchecked foreign ownership to play havoc with the housing market is what drove condo-mania in the first place. The vast majority of foreign purchasers didn’t buy here because they wanted to live here. They bought here because their financial adviser told them to buy here because the market was taking off and if they bought low they could sell high. So, we end up with housing prices pushed well out of the reach of the average Vancouverite. Sure, you could finance, but financing a house is NOT a responsible choice. Buying on credit is a very poor way to run your finances.
The vast majority of Vancouverites should be renting, not owning.
But in this housing market that is being fulled by foreign investment the condo developers see easy profits in building towering condos.
And of course, it’s not just the housing market directly that feels the impact. Median wage earners now get displaced out of the city which destroys the ‘character’ of the local neighbourhoods. For that matter Sean, do you know what an even bigger threat to Chinatown is than the two viaducts? I’ll let you stew on it for awhile.
Also, displacing the local residents rises the impact on the transportation infrastructure. People now need to drive or take transit further. People spend much longer times commuting and less time with families or doing healthy activities.
Of course, this type of thinking is heresy to the Condo building mafia that has their grip on City Hall. But it’s the truth.
Oh and Sean, the number one threat to historic Chinatown?
That would be Richmond.
The younger Chinese don’t shop in Chinatown.
That’s been one of the frequent laments of the Chinatown BIA.
Richmond has more to offer, and not in a good way.
Yaohon, Aberdeen, Parker Place, President Plaza and T&T all within walking distance of Aberdeen Station.
And please, don’t even try to suggest that International Village is going to compete with the aforementioned shopping malls. It’s not even close.
LOTS of parking. I should say LOTS and LOTS of parking. I think most of the parking is free.
Some pretty swank malls .
With the Canada Line, Richmond is now very accessible to those Vancouver residents who don’t drive a car.
And of course that’s just the large shopping malls. In Richmond you can get just about anything you need without the hassle of trying to find parking.
12 Bill McCreery // Jan 19, 2011 at 11:28 am
Mr. Gently 60, please “understand” what I have said here, I am not supporting adding height in Chinatown nor Downtown for the reasons I have carefully articulated. The obvious inaccuracy of your comment makes me question the sincerity and integrity of your intentions.
Gased 58, your observation that:
“Under the existing height by-laws that have been in place for decades, Planning estimated that the Historic Area currently has space to accommodate at least 5,500 new dwelling units on non-heritage sites.”
raises a very important consideration in this discussion. That is, why is it necessary to continually increase heights and densities, not just Downtown and Chinatown, but right across the City? This simplistic, blanket mentality is unwise.
And, in the HAHR we get +80 people. Some sanity please.
It may be necessary to increase heights Downtown, but the arguments have not been put forward to date which demonstrate the need to do so. The same is so for Chinatown. This Council and the Planning Department are not doing the proper, professional fundamental planning groundwork necessary to justify the proposals they are putting forward. This is a dangerous game and the big losers will be the City of Vancouver and its citizens.
13 Sean Bickerton // Jan 19, 2011 at 11:42 am
Thank you Bobbie, you’ve made my argument for me, which I greatly appreciate. The younger generation of Chinese Canadians have migrated to Richmond, where everything is new, modern, clean, and urban. Why, there are even towers there!
Your point explains exactly why Chinatown needs our help in being able to revitalize the area so they can bring that generation back. A few ten story apartment buildings won’t hurt anything, won’t change the character of the existing buildings and will fit right in – Ginger, which someone cited as a great building, is 9 stories.
And as I mentioned, the 12 – 15 mid-rise buildings will not be in the actual historic area, but just on that southeast corner on Main up against BC Hydro utilities and the viaducts.
As JJJ mentioned at one point, those one or two extra story make all the difference to the viability of new buildings, and the land lift and Community amenities that come with those new buildings will make the new cultural attractions the Merchants Association is planning, possible.
I will say it again. Chinatown should be a jewel of the city, with all of the historic streetfronts and glass sidewalks and signs and other heritage artifacts preserved and perfectly restored. But it needs residents living there, and life and cultural attractions and beautified streetscapes and landscaping to make it so.
Unless those posting against any change to the dire situation that community faces today wish to kick in the millions of dollars necessary to try and accomplish that revitalization, they should encourage the local small businessmen trying to make things better in their own community.
14 wendy pedersen // May 6, 2013 at 3:39 am
Francis, the link in your post above is not working. Can you find it and repost? Also, do you have the date of that council meeting where this was discussed? Some of us have been looking for that reference because it was virtually the only time that the city staff under Vision, admitted to needing to replace 5000 SRO rooms in the area.
15 wendy pedersen // May 6, 2013 at 3:42 am
@sean who says: “And as I mentioned, the 12 – 15 mid-rise buildings will not be in the actual historic area, but just on that southeast corner on Main up against BC Hydro utilities and the viaducts.”
Not true. Towers can go higher than 12-15 stories with rezonings in all areas of Chinatown except Pender Street.
True if you consider only Pender Street to be the “historic area.” I don’t.