The wave of change that has hit Chinatown in the last while is making a significant number of people uncomfortable. A proposed nine-storey development by the Beedie Group at the corner opposite Sun Yat-Sen Gardens kicked it into high gear, but there was rising unease even before that, with three major condo developments, a number of smaller infill ones, and a wave of restaurants, longboard shops, and other hipster ventures washing into Chinatown.
I’ve been covering the story of What To Do About Chinatown for 20 years now and it is not an easy one. Some people would simply like it to go back to the way it was in the ’70s, all Ho Ho-type restaurants and bamboo and trinket stores (even though those places were closing because, clearly, they weren’t making enough money).
Others would like to see the old plan revived of moving 10,000 new people into the area. (Yes, really was a plan talked about like that in the ’90s.)
The latest is a petition for a moratorium from the Carnegie Centre Action Project, which I wrote about here. Some commenters might think this is just the same old anti-poverty group decrying any change that doesn’t preserve the area for the lowest-income residents.
But I am hearing the same complaints from any number of other people, which is about both the level of community benefits Chinatown is getting (or not) from the development and the look of the new buildings, which don’t seem to match Chinatown’s historic architecture. (And John Mackie at the Vancouver Sun documented many of those in a story last fall, when the Beedie proposal first arrived. Sorry if it’s behind paywall for you — nothing I can do about that.)
The city has secured 22 social-housing units from the Westbank development (only 11 of them at the welfare rate of $375 a month) and another $1.3 million that will go into helping Chinese family societies make the 600 units they own rentable. But, as with so many city efforts these days, people are either judging them as weak or they haven’t taken effect yet, so all that’s visible is the development stuff.
The city has set up a meeting. bringing together the city’s Urban Design Panel and the Chinatown historic committee, to deal with the architecture issues. What will be more telling is how the negotiations go between city planners and the Beedie group over the new building.
19 responses so far ↓
1 Internet made me obsolete // Jan 19, 2015 at 11:32 am
CCAP is the same old povertarians singing the same old tune: nothing but 100% social housing, thus establishing the welfare ghetto in perpetuity.
If you want to know what CCAP would like to see for the DTES drop by the Carnegie Centre sometime and observe the povertarian vision in action on the corner and in the lanes around the building. An open-air asylum with an endless list of unmet needs.
Beedie group shouldn’t have too much trouble with the City. Developers seem to get pretty much the rezonings they paid for.
2 Brilliant // Jan 19, 2015 at 1:36 pm
We all know there is no such thing as “too much development” in the Vision lexicon. What is clear is that the over development is pushing the homeless south along Main Street into Mt. Pleasant which is sure too piss off the oh – so community active homeowners there. But hey, they probably voted Vision so they get what they deserve.
3 MB // Jan 19, 2015 at 4:16 pm
Obsolete: Your solution is ….?
4 MB // Jan 19, 2015 at 4:24 pm
Brillo, I’ve finally figured out what to do with the now-closed Point Grey Road. Let’s move the Carnegie Centre over there, just to stir things up between the 1% and the bottom 1% of the remaining 99%.
And that is not a comment about commies on bikes.
5 Internet made me obsolete // Jan 19, 2015 at 5:29 pm
The only thing that has never been tried. Instead of spending a million$/day to support a whole poverty industry full of middle-class “helper” incomes just give the money to the poor.
Maybe some or all of them will piss it away. So what? Nobody tells you how to spend your money. Once they have money they will no longer be poor. Uneducated, addicted, mentally ill and unbelievably stupid, yes, but not poor. Lots of people with money have those same problems, but they don’t lack cash.
I look forward to the list of reaons why that would never work.
6 Tiktaalik // Jan 19, 2015 at 7:28 pm
The development model should fit the Flats on E Georgia building, not the Yaletown clones being built nearby on Main street. The E Georgia building is tall and thin like other Chinatown buildings, and fits in very well. It’d work well in other heritage downtown areas of Vancouver as well.
7 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 19, 2015 at 9:10 pm
Vancouver is always too quick in throwing away and bulldozing its rich history. What we have now in the DTES is interesting and we should work on realizing its value. Millions of tourists have never seen anything like the DTES and they want to. Maybe in exchange for more height for the proposed condo tower, the city can get a development bonus payment in the form of a tourist attraction. I propose a pedestrian tower going up in the middle of Hastings Street at Carrall Street (it widens out there), then an elevated covered walkway along to Main, with another lookout tower. Tourists could go up and walk along in safety. Our answer to New York’s High Line. Great for taking snaps of the street market and deals going on. InSite too. Interpretive panels will describe the history of the buildings. Perhaps a soup kitchen cafe and some souvenir shops up there too. Maybe a medical marijuana booth. Look at is as cultural and educational.
8 logan5 // Jan 20, 2015 at 12:28 am
Eh. I don’t know. Seems like the same people I’ve been seeing for years in Mt. Pleasant.
I really hate to see those 2 buildings at Union and Main get demolished. Character buildings, especially at street level are virtually impossible for developers to build. The guy in the Sun story is right. The glass awning that run entire blocks are a huge detriment to any neighbourhood. Union Street is awful because of this, and large sections of Keefer and Georgia suffer from this blight. This has been going on for decades now, so I don’t expect things will change.
So far though, most of the development has displaced fairly non descript 80’s buildings, and there are a few more that can go imo. I think there needs to be a certain amount of immediate residents to kick start Chinatown, then people will wander over from OV and other nearby neighbourhoods.
Hopefully all these new residents will have positive affect on E. Hastings as well. There is the potential for E. Hastings to be one of the great streets in this country, along with E. Pender, so the pace of redevelopment in Chinatown is something I feel pretty comfortable with.
9 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:17 am
The cheaper option may be to transparently audit the non-profits annually to avoid the waste, inefficiency and the growth of a sense of entitlement. Some of them do an admirable and dedicated service managing housing with attendant services, an onerous and stressful task at the best of times.
Your solution would merely support addiction with public money with no services.
10 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:20 am
Perhaps you have a future in designing zoos.
11 Chris Keam // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:23 am
Apparently a version of your suggestion has been tried before (see link) and of course it would have to be universal or you would simply end up with another bureaucracy replacing the existing system.
The Failure of a Past Basic Income Guarantee, the Speenhamland System
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/the-failure-of-a-past-basic-income-guarantee-the-speenhamland-system.html
12 Tiktaalik // Jan 20, 2015 at 9:20 am
I wonder if any of the mom n’ pop green grocers in the area will adjust their operations at all to try to attract the new residents.
13 Internet made me obsolete // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:00 am
No, it would support poor people by solving their central problem: poverty. If they want services or housing or drugs they can buy them like everyone else.
The traditional solution is to support addiction with public money with expensive (and ineffective) services. This keeps recipients (“clients”) as dependents and does nothing to give them a route out of the ghetto. A permanent (mostly aboriginal) underclass managed by white middle-class “service providers”.
This casts the status quo in stone and has so much built-up systemic inertia that tinkering around the edges is pointless. Nothing less than a complete rejection of the present failed policies will make any difference. Those policies treat the poor as badly-trained pets incapable of making their own decisions and dependent on the State.
In many ways it’s the socialist dream: no personal possessions, everything owned and provided by the government, some commisar telling you where to live and what to eat and when to attend a demo. It’s a lot of fun for the managerial class, but it’s demeaning for all involved.
14 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:17 am
Cut out the white middle-class service providers and there’d be whole lot of money saved.
15 A Taxpayer // Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Interesting reference. Who would have thought that the more you give someone something for nothing, the less they are inclined to seek work to attain the same thing. Something to keep in mind the next time it is suggested that the welfare rates are too low.
16 Chris Keam // Jan 20, 2015 at 5:24 pm
A more facile reading of the link (and a complex topic) is hard to imagine.
17 Gerald Dobronov // Jan 22, 2015 at 9:38 pm
It’s not really Chinatown without the Chinese.
18 Ian Robertson // Jan 25, 2015 at 6:26 pm
This is a more useful reference, and in Canada as well:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562
19 Ian Robertson // Jan 25, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Please research “Mincome” from Manitoba …