Someone sent a question to my blog a few weeks ago, asking what I thought of the then-recent news stories saying that census information indicated that areas with wealthy Asians were reporting low incomes and/or housing costs exceeding their incomes and therefore must be avoiding taxes in some illegal way. (And maybe even collecting welfare to boot!)

Links to the stories here, here and here, which varied in how cautious they were about these stats, if you can access these.

It’s taken a while to do the research, with my two day jobs and all, but here I am.

Okay, there will be a lot of nerd stuff later on and many references to dissemination areas and census tracts and rate of return.

But, for those of you with lives to live, here’s the short answer.

The two researchers whose numbers and maps have been used as the basis of those stories say, in essence, “It’s wrong to jump to those quick conclusions.”

There may be evidence out there that someone will find someday to confirm the dark suspicions that wealthy mainland Chinese are immigrating here, using Canadian services but avoiding Canadian taxes. This census information isn’t that evidence.

(Neither, by the way, are stories of this or that proven case of unreported foreign income, any more than stories about wealthy white Canadians hiding their money in offshore trusts on the Isle of Man proof that all wealthy white Canadians are crooks. But that’s for another day.)

Why it’s dangerous to draw inferences too quickly

 To put it in the words of one of them, Jens von Bergmann: ”It’s tricky to make substantive claims based on maps showing geographic overlap of immigration from China and poverty and these maps need more explanation than I have been willing to put in the map descriptions.”

He said he wishes now that he had put more cautions alongside his maps when he tweeted them out. Von Bergmann’s delightful and rabbit-hole seductive site that colour-codes census information onto maps is here: censusmapper.ca

Besides von Bergmann, UBC prof Daniel Hiebert also said it’s premature come up with definitive conclusions just by looking at a couple of variables from the census information. (And three other stats specialists I talked to said the same and added more qualifiers.)

“There are cautionary tales around the whole project,” said Hiebert, who listed off several reasons why people living in expensive areas might be reporting low income.

Hiebert didn’t actually do a study on wealthy Asians declaring low incomes, by the way, as some might have inferred from the coverage.

He did a study published in August about ethnic enclaves in Canada. He found that enclaves are becoming more prevalent, but that they are generally not low-income, marginalized ghettos. Instead, he reported on many positives: immigrants are becoming homeowners at surprisingly high rates, those in enclaves are less dependent on government payments, and the enclaves work as springboards for new immigrants into Canadian society.

He did include maps that combined information from census-tract data on enclaves and high levels of poverty (more than 30 per cent of people in the area classified as low income). His study is here.

You can also look at the maps Stats Canada produced showing which census tracts across the country showed high levels of poverty.

As you’ll see if you read on to my most wonkish and detailed section at the end, there are many census tracts in wealthy areas that have a high proportion of Chinese or Asian residents and are NOT reporting unusual levels of poverty.

There are also wealthy areas reporting high levels of poverty and with a lot of new Chinese immigrants, but where there are also a lot of renters or people in subsidized housing.

We sometimes forget how many basement suites, special-needs homes, and social housing are secretly sprinkled around the city, even in the poshest areas. Even in the four census tracts that are, generally, well-off Dunbar, the proportion of renters ranges from 19 to 23 per cent.

I’ll also list all the reasons later people gave me about why these numbers need more scrutiny, ranging from “this isn’t tax-return information so we don’t actually know what taxes were paid” to the usual cautions about all of this data because it comes from, guess what, the long-form census. But in the meantime …

[Read more →]

I’ve been accused before of judging the city on the basis of looks, rather than function. This is another example.

But how the city looks sometimes does have a bearing on how it functions. How it looks is the physical representation of us, the people who live here, and what we value, who we are now and what we have been since we’ve inhabited this land where the city now exists.

And so, you might think, with that opening, I would be writing about how I can hardly wait for the viaducts to come down, for the beautiful park to appear and the new festival wharf, the artistic new seawall, the new, beautifully landscaped streets that don’t go past chain link fences and rusting hulks of something and parking lots, as Expo and Pacific boulevards do now.

I’m sure it will all be spectacular. I’ll come to appreciate it. The Olympic Village, across the way, with its bridges, parks, and little island, is now one of my favourite parts of the city. I understand the logic behind the recommendations and also the opportunities.

But I will miss the viaducts.

I’ll miss them because they’re grubby and unattractive and originally built to go over the rail tracks that ran through False Creek. I’ll miss them because they give Vancouver the feel of a working city, one that’s not all about being shiny and perfect so that the tourists will visit and more people will want to buy condos here.

[Read more →]

The floor is yours. Thoughts?

I personally would like to know who the Liberal replacement will be for Colin Metcalfe.

For those who aren’t up on the arcana of local federal politics, this former campaigner manager for mayor Sam Sullivan became the Conservative point person in B.C., running the local office and co-ordinating Conservative interactions with local governments. Anyone got any nominations?

A delicious find in the Vancouver viaducts report going to council today. (That would be Tuesday, Oct. 20, the day after the federal election and when the world started spinning in a different direction.)

Which was: Long ago, when the province sold the Expo lands to Li Ka-shing for what many called a fire-sale price, it wrote in a provision to the agreement that the province would get some of the profits if Concord ever got permission from the city to build more than 12 million square feet on the land.

At the time, it seemed unlikely.

But here we are. Concord is now within 400,000 square feet of that limit and will exceed it when it builds its Northeast False Creek towers, whatever level of density the city finally agrees to give. (Apparently the viaducts take-down could result in a million more square feet of density in the area, but it’s not all Concord’s.)

And the city wants the anticipated share of the money the province is going to get, in order to pay for housing. (First response out of the province appears to be along the lines of Drop Dead, Vancouver, but this is just the start of negotiations, I’m sure.)

My story on this is here. I will post the agreement attached to the land sale later for my armchair experts to peruse. (IanS?) And maybe someone can actually figure out what the sale price is, because I sure can’t from looking at the complicated calculations in the agreement.

Fall. The leaves fall, the days get shorter, the City of Vancouver and Housing Minister Rich Coleman get into a tug of war over how much money for winter shelters for the region’s homeless people.

This year, things are a bit different. The minister is spending almost a million dollars to fund the Vancouver-style shelters in Maple Ridge and Surrey for the first time, places that are some pretty serious homeless problems. That’s shelters that are open 24/7 from October or November to March, instead of the old-style response, which was only to open mat programs in community facilities on the worst nights.

Vancouver was pushing to get 160 to 200 spaces funded by the province. But Coleman said in my story here that the city would only get what it got last year. (That was 80 spaces in two shelters where the city found the sites and helped pay for some improvements, another 30 at Union Gospel Mission.)

Still awaiting word on where the sites are and whether the minister might be persuaded to pay for any more. (And I read, via my pal Kelly Sinoski at the Vancouver Sun, that Abbotsford would like one of these new-style winter shelters.)

I did a fun wonk and water-cooler story in today’s Globe, based on stats analyzed by Andy Yan at BTA Works, all about how our voting preferences correlate with density.

The numbers show a dramatic difference in the types of ridings that Conservatives win, compared to Liberals and New Democrats. Liberals win in some of the highest-density ridings in the country. The NDP are not too far behind, although they also do well in some low-density areas — northern, resource-based districts, for example.

But the Conservatives just can’t seem to win in anything more than a medium-density suburb.

This is something a lot of American political analysts looked at after the 2012 election there, the way voting correlates with density. A small selection of the writing on this topic here, here and here.

Those patterns raise a couple of questions. One, what does it mean for Canada when the governing party is essentially excluded from the country’s economic engines, i.e. its cities.

Second, what is really going on? Is it just that people of certain education levels, professions or political inclinations cluster in certain areas (and therefore vote a particular way)? Or is it that the conditions of urban, suburban or rural ridings actually have an impact on people’s political inclinations? As suburban ridings densify, will they be more likely to switch from Conservative to one of the other two parties?

Things to ponder.

Media got a snap invite yesterday morning to attend a “technical briefing” about the viaducts. It turned out to be not so technical, as there were still quite a few details missing (no answers to: when will exactly the park be built, are there hard targets for affordable housing, how much extra density will Concord Pacific get under the no-viaducts plan; no detailed spreadsheet on how development fees and land sales will finance the $200-million project). It was more about the grand ideas and the possibilities and much use of the word “city-building.”

But we still get a bit more information: $100 million for a new commuter route east of Main (not decided whether it’s Malkin or National); likelihood that the engineers will create a two-way street along BC Place; more sense of how the roads will be configured; confirmation that the viaducts will come down all at once, not in phases, etc.

My Globe story is here. City information is here. An open house and a Reddit AMA coming up for the public.

Oh, and here is the staff report on the viaducts, which is more informative than the PowerPoints etc. provided yesterday.

This just out from Vancouver. I guess they are not that impressed by this argument published in the New York Times recently, saying recycling is mostly inefficient. Oh well, more opportunities for me to feel virtuous, aside from peeling the labels off my cans and putting cans in one place, labels in another.

The City’s recycling program is changing and expanding. Starting October 2015, the City will implement the first of three phases of separate glass collection, beginning with city-serviced Multi-Family buildings (apartments, condos and townhomes).

Phase 1 – City-Serviced Multi-Family Buildings
Starting: October 5 – December 31, 2015

Phase 2 – Single Family Residences + City-Serviced Multi-Family Buildings (on single family curbside routes)
Starting: January 11 – March 31, 2016

Phase 3 – Non-City-Serviced Multi-Family Buildings
Starting: May 1 – July 31, 2016

City-serviced Multi-family buildings will receive a new “glass bottle + jars” recycling cart shortly. Residents are asked to recycle all glass bottles and jars into this cart as soon as it arrives. Deposit glass containers (wine, spirits, coolers, beer and juice bottles) should still be returned to a depot for refund.

Additional updates to the expanded recycling program include:

* All newspapers and mixed paper are now accepted together and can be placed in the mixed paper cart.

* Paper cups, milk cartons, TetraPaks, empty aerosol cans (non-paint) and frozen dessert boxes can now be recycled in the mixed containers cart.

Residents can learn how to dispose of items for recycling with the online Waste Wizard tool. For a full list of items accepted as part of the City’s recycling program, or to find out how to recycle items not accepted in the City’s program, visit vancouver.ca/wastewizard<http://www.vancouver.ca/wastewizard>. By properly recycling materials, you help Keep Vancouver Spectacular!

The collection of separate glass supports the City’s contract agreement with Multi-Materials BC (MMBC) and aligns with the City’s commitment to Zero Waste as part of our Greenest City Action Plan.

Additional information regarding separate glass collection for Single Family Residences and non-city-serviced Multi-Family buildings will be provided as these changes are phased in. Stay tuned!

For more information on the City’s expanded recycling program and separate glass collection, please visit vancouver.ca/recycle<http://www.vancouver.ca/recycle>.

The city architect/planner who used to oversee the big moves and small details of Vancouver’s major buildings — Ralph Segal — weighs in here on the art gallery. I myself am still trying to understand the design (it looks somewhat better seen close up than in Twitter pictures), so I have no strong thoughts. I’m throwing the conversation open here to all. Curious what you think. I’ve been surprised already so far by the people who love it (and I thought would hate it) and vice versa

About 5 years ago, as the City’s Senior Architect/Development Planner (since retired), I was a contributor to City Council’s decision to the give up the Georgia Street-fronting portion of the Larwill Park site to the Vancouver Art Gallery, arguing that an inspired, stunning Gallery building design at this location would undoubtedly be the catalyst for for a revitalized Arts, Performance, Cultural, Public Institution Precinct on this stretch of Georgia St. together with Queen Elizabeth Theatre, Public Library, CBC, an adaptive re-use of the Post Office, an enhanced Georgia St. to the east with Viaducts gone, etc.etc.

With the unveiling of the new VAG design, which some experts, politicians and other cheerleaders have raved about, I must offer (with apologies to Hans Christian Andersen) that “The Emperor Has No Clothes”. Thank goodness the presentation of the proposal pointedly cites it as “conceptual”, for if this design is implemented in its present form it will be an embarrassment to Vancouver. I understand why backers must now, with its glitzy unveiling, get behind this design. What I fail to understand is how the VAG executive and its award-winning architectural team, could have so misread how this design will be perceived. Or was the VAG executive so intimidated by Herzog de Meuron’s reputation that it failed to question the direction the design was taking as it was unfolding?

Frankly, this design is underwhelming. It needs to be a dynamic, sculptural piece unto its own, provoking debate about architecture and art. Instead, we have a static, symmetrical stacking of boxes evoking puzzlement, if not cynicism. And while the use of wood certainly can be a plus, cladding the boxes in an appliqué of wood panelling doesn’t rescue the design. The composition reminds me of a spatial relationship diagram of the various building functions, a useful architectural design tool for sorting out and organizing three dimensionally a complex building program. But for that 3-d diagram to then become the building’s architecture…aren’t we missing a few steps in the design evolution process such as asking what imagery for Vancouver art and culture as expressed in this building design we want to project around the world? Will it be a series of symmetrically stacked boxes? Perhaps the VAG’s image will be better served by having the architects pursue a design theme that truly resonates with Vancouverites, not to mention potential VAG donors. To its credit, lifting up the entire structure to create a public courtyard is a brilliant idea but to then surround it on all four sides by a one-storey, virtually continuous perimeter building effectively privatizes the space. To be truly public, it should open its arms expansively to one or both Georgia Street corners to graciously invite pedestrians into this covered, sunny space. I know, I know, all this would jog the present clearly logical functional planning/circulation arrangement of the various interior spaces and the security challenges of the street level exterior space. But does pure logic trump all else in this design? Indeed, how does logic play into this entire $350m exercise that puts a new gallery on a site that will not, for another 20 years, perhaps never, capture the prominence of the VAG’s present location at the very heart of the downtown that it now enjoys! But let’s not open that pandora’s box!

If this design is indeed “conceptual” there is a need to get back to the drawing board and rethink the image the VAG should convey for itself and for all Vancouverites who should be able to take pride in this building. The immediate impression one should experience upon encountering it should be one of drama, loving or even hating it, but not one of puzzlement or equivocation or pizza boxes. Herzog & de Mueron is entirely capable of delivering such drama as they have elsewhere and Vancouver deserves no less. Let them have another go at it.

Ralph Segal

The city’s general manager of planning, Brian Jackson, is having his last day at the city Nov. 6, so the city needs someone statutorily as the planning director. This message just went out from acting city manager Sadhu Johnston.

Today, September 29, 2015, Vancouver City Council approved the appointment of Jane Pickering as the Acting General Manager of Planning and Development Services and the Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver effective November 6, 2015. Since 2011, Jane has been the Deputy Director of Planning in Vancouver  and,  previously, the Director of Planning for the City of Maple Ridge for eleven years. She has worked in the planning field for over 25 years in a career that has spanned work at both the provincial and local levels. She holds a Master of City Planning degree and is a Full member of the Planning Institute of British Columbia.

Her career has included responsibilities in planning, transportation, economic development, environment and she has extensive experience in both policy and regulatory issues and systems. Jane has provided strong leadership in the Citywide and Regional portfolio as well as helping to lead organizational change in the Department. She brings a strong commitment of excellence and collaboration to her work.