The DTES Community Plan: Who Should Live Here?
When: Thursday, 21 Nov 2013 12:30 PM
Where: SFU Vancouver, Harbour Centre 515 West Hastings, Room 1600
The Downtown Eastside is Canada’s poorest neighbourhood. Activists fear that poor people are being driven out by gentrification. After years of discussion, a new Community Plan for its central area is close to going to City Council for adoption. It recommends that new housing be 60% social and 40% rental units.
Renowned former Vancouver Planning Director Ray Spaxman says he’s open to hearing that case. Architect and developer Michael Geller thinks that a healthy community should also include those who own their units. Our last conversation for 2013 wants to hear both sides, and your questions and opinions. You’re welcome to bring your lunch.
No one will be allowed to own there?
The correct answer to any such question should always be anybody and everybody. Excluding market housing is wrong and hopefully the city rejects such a plan. The planning process was flawed since the city allowed certain segments to overrun the meetings and a some members were threatened and refused to return to attend meetings. The fact the city allowed the process to even get to this point is a major black eye to all Vancouverites.
the only answer to affordable housing is more supply, i.e. higher density. Everything else is just a handout / tax to ask Peter to pay Paul !
The implication of this is that prices will rise if we do not increase supply, but allow the status quo.
Rent control in BC helps existing renters, as rents are capped by about 3%/year. However, it doesn’t help to build more rental units i.e. new rental accommodation seekers will pay far more than in an unregulated environment.
What Vancouver is doing today is protecting rental units, so if a 12-plex is torn down and a 80 plex built with 8 stories, 12 must be non-market housing. This helps 12 people, paid for by the other 68 who pay more than market for their condo.
There is no easy answer in a high-demand city with limited land supply.
There is never an easy answer.
Continuing your example: the owner of the 14-plex next door will see the new 80-plex and think “hey I could do that too” and either apply for rezoning himself or put his property up for sale expecting top dollar from a big developer. The owner across the street thinks the same thing and there is a chain reaction of rezoning applications that makes every tenant in a small/old building afraid that their home is about to be demolished.
Things are even worse in commercial areas because rents are free to rise as quickly as the market will bear. An owner who realizes his property is worth much more as a development site than a rental building will raise the rent to account for this higher value, likely driving the existing tenant out. Whether the building is replaced with a new one or not, the new tenant will be one able to pay the higher rent and the small business that left can never afford to return to the neighbourhood. Joe’s Deli gets replaced by Starbucks and Telus.
Of course not allowing any new development in a high demand area will also create scarcity and drive up rents, but this tends to happen more slowly and predictably. Given enough time people will react to change and accept it.
Rezoning happens with the stroke of a pen. Such sudden changes lead to much greater anxiety and resistance from those who will be impacted. Area plans can generate even greater opposition because whole neighbourhoods are rezoned at once.
So the answer is no development ?
Only MORE development will provide more housing, both affordable and market.
Yes there have to be rules, such as vancouver has, i.e. replace 12 rental units in an old building with 12 (of 80) in a newly constructed building.
People cannot expect to live in a low rent yet high demand area, close to shopping and the beach. Essentially they are asking for a free ride, at someone else’s dime. This is OK for a few truly disadvantaged/disabled but surely not good governance for a majority of citizens !