10 responses so far ↓

• 1 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 7, 2010 at 7:08 pm

  As per my last post on your previous thread, this is precisely the kind of info gathering from the citizenry that is the coming face of the “New Democracy”.

  People are no longer content to accept the Official Civic Line, and are also growing suspicious of the ability of media outlets to dig deep enough into the issues and get beyond the spin.

  Citizen engagement, writ very, very large. Reminding city councils everywhere:

  “You Work For Us”.

• 2 mezzanine // Sep 7, 2010 at 11:58 pm

  ^or it can mean that we can wind up in a california-style prop-13 quagmire.

  Gordon Price had a great article on STIR and trying to maintain balance:

  “The City might return to the West End with a commitment to keep the existing design guidelines in place, along with tangible benefits for the current residents. The community in turn will have to be honest with itself about affordability, and come to an agreement on growth – an actual target – with a realistic way of paying for it. Everyone has to recognize that change, guaranteed by time, will come in some form.”

  https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/face-off-at-perception-gap/

• 3 Paul C // Sep 8, 2010 at 12:49 am

  Sadly enough people are afraid of change. They will say that they would like to see more affordable housing. But don’t ever think of putting it in their back yard. :rolling eyes:

• 4 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 8, 2010 at 1:54 am

  Mezz,

  Voting on inititives was not what I meant.

  But I am applauding the very thorough work of the WEN folk. Engaged citizens can force city halls to listen—and importantly, to call them out on lack of information—or where they have stepped outside the boundaries of the existing guidelines (as per your Gord Price example). If you are going to change things up, give the people an opportunity to talk about it—don’t try to drive change through in the middle of the night.

  I believe that many citizens in the West End are not NIMBY’s at all and accept that SMART growth will come. But they want the comfort of having a plan in place that reflects the neighborhood, is logical (which is definitley not STIR in its present form), understandable and delivers some benefits to the whole of the neighborhood.

  I am a little puzzled by Gord’s mention of the realities of “affordability”. Is he saying that market rates are the only expectation the current residents should have about a new development project? If so, what happens to middle income and seniors in that neighborhood in the coming years, who are displaced as older buildings make way for new towers? It sounds like building a new building anywhere in this town—subsidized in part by the floorspace council is willing to give to developers—is only about market housing rates. Which, at the current rate for a new one bedroom downtown runs you $1500-$1600 per month.

  Many renters in the West End are not paying that kind of rent—and could certainly not afford to live in a new WE rental building. What are we to do—ship people out to Surrey?

  So, the question is–what is City Hall prepared to give up/trade to the CURRENT citizens in the West End (pensioners, middle income folks) in order to build rental housing that is clearly not meant for them!?

  Again, we are building new rental buildings (and one bedrooms at that) only for the well-heeled? And this benefits current WE residents, how?

• 5 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 8, 2010 at 5:11 am

  Regarding the “affordable housing” misconception in comment 3, that is one of the myths surrounding this particular STIR market rental project that seems to be making another comeback.

  The site was too costly per square foot buildable. In order to make this project viable, rents will have to be around $2.70 sq. foot.

  That’s $1,350/month rent for a 500 sq. foot 1-bed apartment which is what this building will primarily consist of.

  Average rents in the city are between $1.50 – $2.

  Can anyone indicate how that grants a building “affordable” designation when it will command the highest rents in the neighbourhood? Afterall, the City Manager who would have to sign the bylaw that declares the building “affordable” for STIR purposes.

  Another myth that has been floated out there, is the one of supply and demand. More vacancy will reduce rents. We saw vacancy go up last year, we certainly saw more housing stock built up and put up for rent in the downtown peninsula in the last decade i.e. Yaletown. Rents however hadn’t come down.

  That myth also assumes a vacuum where Vancouver has a zero sum immobile population and supply will be created in the lower end of the market somehow. And that doesn’t even begin to square with the reality that maintenance fees for older buildings would need to be paid for. How does that happen if they are supposedly dropping rents?

  While ideological purity looks good on paper and blogs and sounds great on the radio, eventually reality and common sense sets in which must be faced.

• 6 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 8, 2010 at 9:59 am

  Very informative, thanks TOAB.

• 7 Carole // Sep 8, 2010 at 2:36 pm

  Let’s get real folks. Development is permitted in the West |End. The West End has been changing and evolving over the years and within the current Guidelines. NO REZONING REQUIRED. NO FUSS.

  Let’s take a look at density. Despite the SPIN some people have adopted here are the facts:
  The West End has 57 units per acre. The Downtown (which includes Yale Town etc.) has 27 units per acre. Fairview has 21 units per acre. Kensington-Cedar Cottage has 8.6 units per acre. Shaughnesessy has 2.75 units per acre. The City as a whole has 8.9 units per acre.

  Apparently, “sustainability” is achieved at 30 units per acre. THE ONLY COMMUNITY WHICH MEETS THIS THRESHOLD IS THE WEST END. We do not need towers. We need the kinds units, in buildings that fit the neighbourhood, which are affordable and keep families and seniors in place

• 8 Westender1 // Sep 9, 2010 at 9:25 am

  But Carole, according to Mr. Gillespie in the Westender article and to Mr. Henriquez on CBC and CKNW the West End hasn’t seen any development in decades. The hundreds of units built within the boundary of the West End in the past 20 years (many of them designed by Mr. Henriquez himself) are apparently invisible. Merely a figment of one’s imagination…except for those living in them. Perhaps these units are in the same “parallel universe” as the 100,000 square feet of floorspace that the developer is attempting to achieve through the rezoning at the Comox site – the floorspace that keeps being ignored (in contrast to a misleading discussion about building height) as the trigger for the rezoning in the first place.

• 9 Joseph Jones // Sep 9, 2010 at 10:29 am

  Anyone who wants to see census-based data on dwelling units per hectare (with rate of change 1996-2006) for all of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods, check out this table.

• 10 Bill McCreery // Sep 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm

  @ TOTB,5. Very good summary.

  Building “affordable housing” is not only a “myth”, it’s impossible when the average rent in the WE [is it the same for the City as a whole?] is $1.50 to $2.00 / sf. Even with the massive subsidies @ more than $150,000 / 390 sf unit @ Maxine’s the rents still will be $2.70 / sf [developer has announced 390 sf SRO’s will rent for $1,050].

  The City has no business to be subsidizing housing of this type @ all. They [we] can’t afford it because of our restricted tax base. The Feds with a much richer tax pool & with their successful ARP & MURB rental housing projects in the 70’s ending in 81, ran up the National Debt, which we’re now having to pay off to the extent that +/-1/3 of your tax dollar goes to debt service. Currently condo rental owners are subsidizing renters, in my case to the tune of $250 / month.

  “The site was too costly per square foot buildable.” Yes, & that was because the developer was prepared to gamble that the City would spot rezone. This is an example of the crap shoot real estate market I have spoken of.

  For their $1,050 to $1,350/month rent, what does one get? A 390 sf bachelor [really an SRO, hotel rooms are 12′ wide, these are 10′-4″], no balcony, a 2nd & 3rd floor view of Davie Street, a counter off the back of the bathroom as a Kitchen. A 500 sq. foot 1-bed apartment with +/-25 sf [5%] of wasted circulation space due to the sardine can floor plate planning = net 475 sf. Bachelor suites should be minimum 450 sf, comfortably 475 to 500 sf. So this unit is really a Bachelor with a wall in it & rooms you can’t furnish or live in. Will they rent for that much when there are very nice, larger condo rental units available for less money? Not in my 42 years of experience. & the developers are coming to the same conclusion. That’s why the smart ones are backing off [Gillespie @ Comox & PCI @ Marine Gateway].

  The City Manager determination that a given building is “affordable” for STIR purposes is a dubious means of measurement indeed. The evaluation process, as with most of her other similar efforts, are missing a few important ingredients. In this case, while a person making $35,000 can afford a $1,050 / month unit, would they want to live there for what hey get & what else is out there? I don’t think so.

  The “supply and demand myth” when the new supply is 50% higher than existing does just the opposite. It increases lower rents of existing stock.