[LeftCoaster]

Hey all,
I am currently writing my honours seminar on socio-economic mixed housing; I am arguing that by promoting and supporting socially mixed housing provincial and federal governments can avoid creating large ghettoized swaths of land, while at the same time building more units for their dollar.

I already have a ton of academic sources, and some local sources, but I was wondering if any of you vigilant fourmers out there have some examples of it happening in vancouver, as my prof (even though he is from Ontario) is obsessed with Vancouver, understandably!

I am primarily looking for information and sources relating to the south false creek granville island community, and the upcomming woodwards and olympic village projects, although any other examples you guys are aware of is welcome. Specifically I was looking for city hall documents, and other offical sources like that. Im not leeching off you guys or anything, ive already spent most of my term researching this, I just know alot of you are passionate about development too, adn might have some useful insight or come across some sources in your spare time.

And while were at it we can maybe even get a discussion about it... I think this is a fascinating subject, and a very viable solution to many social ills regarding sub standard housing, and concentration of poverty; what are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

[raggedy13]

What about that possible development around Main and 37th that was mentioned back in the Vancouver Construction thread where there are plans to potentially develop 2000 residential units? Isn't that going to likely be a mixed income housing development?

I don't actually have any info on it myself but perhaps there is useful info on it posted in the other thread, or on the City or developer's website. Anybody know? I'll check the construction thread.

EDIT: check out page 63/64. It is first brought up on page 63 and an article from the Vancouver Sun about it is posted on page 64 (of the Vancouver Construction thread).

[LeftCoaster]

Perfect, thanks raggedy, I totally forgot about that discussion... ive been so stressed lately i can barely even keep my own life togther.

[SFUVancouver]

I lived in Alder Bay housing co-op in False Creek South for about 14 years growing up and it was/is a fantastic example of what the promise of mixed housing can be. The co-op has 99 townhouses in 25 quadplexes adjoined to form 9 blocks. Each home enters off a common wooden stairwell that faces wide pedestrian-only streets. Each one, two, three, or four bedroom townhouse looks the same from the street and there is absolutely no way to know which are on subsidy and which are market from outward appearance. The co-op was completed in 79 (I think) and about three quarters of the current households have lived there since, including quite a number of second generation members. Over the years the number of subsidized units has fallen as member's incomes have risen and Federal subsidies, via CMHC, are set to end in the near future and the co-op has planned accordingly.

The economic benefits of co-op housing were never clearer to me than when in the early part of this decade a single instance of the precursor of condo-rot was discovered. The co-op board with the full support of members decided to go forward with a complete building envelop replacement and used the opportunity to replace windows, doors, and insulation to substantially raise the energy efficiency of the buildings. The co-op was able to borrow the full amount for the repairs and upgrades, which were in the millions, without raising housing fees by more than a percent or two. The co-op took on the borrowing instead of individual homeowners or an anaemic little strata, and leveraged decades of immaculate credit history to get the best deal possible. The co-op also has an ongoing replacement reserve that periodically replaces carpets, major appliances, repaints, and does all the grounds work, maintenance, etc. without it coming out of the pocket of members. All this and the co-op is beautifully maintained by a dedicated group of semi-retired master gardeners that aren't constrained by their own yard.

I don't know if any of this helps you, as it is purely anecdotal, but it might be worth your time to get in touch with some of the co-ops and ask to do interviews or read old newsletters. I should also add that there is a huge difference between co-ops built by the old Federal National Home Program and those cobbled together by the lacklustre Homes BC program, which has since been gutted if not scrapped. I've also lived in two Homes BC co-ops and for the most part people there don't get co-operative living. They see it as cheap rent or a convenient stepping stone to something better. The old Federal National Home Program co-ops weren't explicitly intended as social housing but as an alternative form of homeownership. Neighbours of mine in Alder Bay are every inch the proud homeowners, yet their home is the entire co-op and their personal townhouse as well. If one hasn't lived in one I don’t' know if they will ever fully understand that distinction and the significance for its members. When it works, it works very well. When it doesn't, it is often steps away from being a tenement.

[m0nkyman]

When employers don't know your social standing by your address, that changes a lot of things. For the better. The more mixed things are, the more interesting society is.

[vanhattan]

Hi Leftcoaster,

The City of Vancouver website has some good information on social or non market housing. They own several sites in the downtown, false creek areas in very nice neighborhoods.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/whatis.htm

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/nmi_wac/nmi.exe

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/index.htm

Speaking of the sites owned in the pricer parts of town, I was thinking that it may be a better option for the city to sell some of the very expensive sites and buy land in less expensive areas in order to make a profit and to enable it to build a greater amount of social housing units. Thoughts?:koko:

[LeftCoaster]

Thanks alot for all your help everyone, I cant beleive I managed to spend weeks researching for this paper, and within one hour you guys have a plethora of sources I hadn't found.

And vanhattan, I would think it would be advantageous to sell some of the very expensive sites, but if all of the sites were moved to less expensive areas I think we would once again run the risk of ghettoization. Most of my argument discusses how the wealthy(market) residents can subsidize not only the construction costs/maitenance but as well the services located around the neighbourhood. But then again there are obviously advantages to building a higher volume of units.

[jlousa]

I let you know what I know on Woodwards.

546 market units in the Abbott Tower and W-43 Tower. 125 non-market units on the lower floors of the Abbott Tower, none in W-43. Those non-market (family) units feature quality materials but not the stainless steel applainces, hardwood, or granite counters. There is also an additional 75 SRO units that will be on top of the SFU school, these will have their seperate entry as they found people living in SROs acutally prefer to be seperated from the public as they have a distrust of people. Those units will have built in storage and a kitchenette as they are the most useful items.
The SRO's won't have access to the amenties in the W-43 tower but will have their own roof top garden. The non-market units in the Abbott tower will have full use of the W-43 amenties. Hope that helps alittle.

[lotuseater]

The UDI in vancouver recently held a meeting on the topic of market, and non-market development partnerships... There are many small housing providers (non-market housing developers) in BC. They are represented by the BC non-profit housing assosiation (BCNPHA)
http://www.bcnpha.bc.ca/

the leading gov't organization in such partnerships is BC Housing...
http://www.bchousing.org/

[lotuseater]

oh ya... and this is how the city gets its sites in the "mega project" developments

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/BYLAWS/odp/EFL.pdf

it writes it into the official development plan and makes it a condition of changing the rules (rezoning) around what the developer's development allowances on the site are...

[vanhattan]

Thanks alot for all your help everyone, I cant beleive I managed to spend weeks researching for this paper, and within one hour you guys have a plethora of sources I hadn't found.

And vanhattan, I would think it would be advantageous to sell some of the very expensive sites, but if all of the sites were moved to less expensive areas I think we would once again run the risk of ghettoization. Most of my argument discusses how the wealthy(market) residents can subsidize not only the construction costs/maitenance but as well the services located around the neighbourhood. But then again there are obviously advantages to building a higher volume of units.

I did not say or mean to imply that all of the social housing sites should be in one area, either the best or the worst areas. I am just pointing out what I thought was obvious; Namely that there are limited resources to building this type of housing. I believe that if it were me on the waiting list, I would be happy to be living in a home and not just looking at a hole in the ground that happened to be located in an upscale downtown neighborhood such as the four or five empty sites in a two block area in the Beach Crescent neighborhood of False Creek North, because that is what the situation is at the moment. The people who bought into the Concord Pacific developments at False Creek already did subsidize social housing by providing land for these programs. This land is an asset that can be sold at a huge price to by larger pieces of land in less expensive but just as livable areas of our city. My question to you Left Coaster is do we want to ghettoize social housing in the most expensive areas of town??? Is this necessary or desireable? Maybe so, but I think we need to focus on the purpose of social housing and our goals for it. Is the main purpose to provide housing for a few or the most housing and other social services that our dollars can buy or is it to provide an upscale lifestyle or neighborhood for a few fortunate social housing beneficiearies versus maximizing social housing assistance for the greatest amount of needy persons and families? I do not have the answers, but if you are writing a paper, I would think that you would want to explore some of these ideas, instead of rejecting them out of hand.

[SpongeG]

how about all those renovated houses near nelson park - they are low income city owned

can you imagine how valuable that land would be to developers - anjd if they could build tall buildings on the land - that land is probably the highest point in the downtown