Vancouver Downtown Eastside Discussion

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

as we've become better at running governments......

Surely you jest, especially when one considers that tax freedom day doesn't occur until June 6.

[sintetsu]

I hang out at main and hastings, and surrounding blocks (depending on where the flock is) to analyze the people. Its fairly depressing, but its something that cant be changed magically with any amount of public intervention. This is because a city is essentially a scale representation of a human brain. There is always dirty patches, parts that are weaker/broken over time. Just as the content of the internet follows the same ratios of the content in (most of) our minds. Smut, desire, misfortune, and a lil random data. The DTES "problems" will always exist, either in the same location, or elsewhere. I do pity the street people there, though some of them have lost most of the mental characteristics that make them a human being.

[Hed Kandi]

Potential for the Downtown Eastide

I came across this London revitalization article and thought that it would serve as somewhat of a model example for the DTES.


London - East End Restoration

Before



After




Before



After




http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/uk/ha...006404.article[/

[delboy]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Potential for the Downtown Eastide

I came across this London revitalization article and thought that it would serve as somewhat of a model example for the DTES.


London - East End Restoration

Before



After




Before



After




http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/uk/ha...006404.article[/

But the revitalization of these buildings is less to do with gentrification of troubled areas and more to do with window dressing of the 2012 games. The DTES is reall gentification in my mind and there's been many equally impressive transformations there of late

[leftside]

A little easier to do in East London where people want to see improvements. As opposed to 5000 drug addicts complaining that they won't be comfortable doing drugs on the streets if the area they live in is being improved.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by leftside

A little easier to do in East London where people want to see improvements. As opposed to 5000 drug addicts complaining that they won't be comfortable doing drugs on the streets if the area they live in is being improved.

yes quite. I think what is happening in the dtes is impressive where it's more about social transformation than physical transformation. Woodwards is as much a social experiment as it is a development project and should be held in high regard. While very much a work in progress, I'm proud of Vancouver's approach to the dtes.

I'm confident that we will continue to see significant changes over the next decade, but there is much work to be done.

[agrant]

Originally Posted by leftside

A little easier to do in East London where people want to see improvements. As opposed to 5000 drug addicts complaining that they won't be comfortable doing drugs on the streets if the area they live in is being improved.

I didn't think it was about being uncomfortable on the street, more that people would be evicted during the reno.

[SpongeG]

some of the buildings across from woodwards have been transformed like that - even some of the buildings in chinatrown have been remade - the cathay import store looks really good now compared to how it used to look a couple years ago

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

some of the buildings across from woodwards have been transformed like that - even some of the buildings in chinatrown have been remade - the cathay import store looks really good now compared to how it used to look a couple years ago

All the buildings that have been restored in Gastown/DTES/Chinatown over the last few years would make a good subject for a photo series.

[vanman]

Carrall street for starters.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

All the buildings that have been restored in Gastown/DTES/Chinatown over the last few years would make a good subject for a photo series.

I have a question:

Does Vancouver have the legal capacity to tell owners they need to clean up their building or face a fine? There are some really disgusting buildings and they should have recourse to do that if it gets bad enough. I know this happens in some cities.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I have a question:

Does Vancouver have the legal capacity to tell owners they need to clean up their building or face a fine? There are some really disgusting buildings and they should have recourse to do that if it gets bad enough.

No, they shouldn't, any more than they should have the legal capacity to hand out fines to people with disgusting beards or yellow teeth. The purpose of government in a free society is to protect our liberty and property rights, not violate them.

A building that poses a genuine threat to peope's safety is one thing. But if you don't like the look of someone's building, just deal with it.

[SpongeG]

coquitlam has a bylaw that can force people to clean up their property - there are a few other cities in the area that must have the same kind of bylaw

[navazan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

No, they shouldn't, any more than they should have the legal capacity to hand out fines to people with disgusting beards or yellow teeth. The purpose of government in a free society is to protect our liberty and property rights, not violate them.

A building that poses a genuine threat to peope's safety is one thing. But if you don't like the look of someone's building, just deal with it.

well put, the govt interferes more than enough already. The govt should just impose stricter laws against the drug dealers that feed off of the degenerates in the dtes, rather than fine ppl for having ugly buildings. and yes, just stay away if you dont like the look/smell of a neighborhood.

[vanman2010]

Dealing with the problems of the DTES has very little to do with how the buildings look - as someone suggested it's just window dressing. Gentrifying the area merely pushes the problem to a different area. Severe drug addiction has nothing to do with the surroundings. It precludes all other thoughts and feelings. If there was a simple solution then it would've been used already.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I have a question:

Does Vancouver have the legal capacity to tell owners they need to clean up their building or face a fine? There are some really disgusting buildings and they should have recourse to do that if it gets bad enough. I know this happens in some cities.

Yes, and I believe it happens all the time.
When a property gets too derelict the City can instigate change by condemning it through its fire codes or health regulations.
Some owners run down their property on purpose so they can resell the land for higher and better use or rebuild themselves, other times "mystery fires" happen to speed up the process.

[djh]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I have a question:

Does Vancouver have the legal capacity to tell owners they need to clean up their building or face a fine? There are some really disgusting buildings and they should have recourse to do that if it gets bad enough. I know this happens in some cities.

Originally Posted by TwoFace

Yes, and I believe it happens all the time.
When a property gets too derelict the City can instigate change by condemning it through its fire codes or health regulations.
Some owners run down their property on purpose so they can resell the land for higher and better use or rebuild themselves, other times "mystery fires" happen to speed up the process.

I think you two are talking about two different things.
The city has the power to force a property owner to make an unsafe building safe or face fines.
The city does NOT have the power to force an property owner make an ugly building pretty, or a dirty building clean.

The one caveat is that the city does have graffiti bylaws and can force a property owner to remove graffiti. I believe the thinking there is along the lines of the "Broken Windows" theory

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by djh

I think you two are talking about two different things.

I guess if he was just talking about "ugly" than yes, people need to cover their eyes and move on.

But if I was King, I would make ugly illegal, and even some women would have to wear makeup or risk getting fined.

[navazan]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

I guess if he was just talking about "ugly" than yes, people need to cover their eyes and move on.

But if I was King, I would make ugly illegal, and even some women would have to wear makeup or risk getting fined.

i hereby nominate you as canadas new king.

[logan5]

OCP's aren't a super popular topic for discussion, but I found this interesting. A reply from City Plumber (whoever that is), with regards to the social housing requirements for the DTES Oppenheimer area.

A developer can still build 1 FSR of for-sale condos in the new project. (For those just joining the urban-planning world, 1 FSR means you can build a building to the equivalent of the square footage of the lot. So if a lot is 33 x 100, the building can be 3300 square feet, in whatever form you want. One floor of 3,300, two floors of 1,650, three floors of 1,100, etc.) The remainder has to be rental. Sixty per cent of that rental has to be “social housing,” which means, in essence, that it’s below-market in some way. The city’s formula is that a third of that should be deep subsidy (so essentially rented out at welfare rates), a third at shallow subsidy (so rent at 30 per cent of the person’s income, for those who are low-income but not on welfare), and a third at prevailing market rates in the area for all apartments (so you can’t charge the normal rent that you’d get for a new unit.) That’s a super-shallow subsidy, but does encourage people of a different income group to mix in.

Hypothetically speaking (if this information is correct), a new development at 2 FSR (20 000 sq ft lot) of say, 40 000 sq ft, would have 20 000 sq ft of market rate condos, 8000 sq ft of market rate rentals and the remaining 12 000 sq ft subsidized. Of those subsidized units, 4 000 sq ft would be welfare rate.

If we assign each unit 1000 sq ft, we get 36 units occupied by working folk, and 4 units occupied by welfare recipients. Micheal Geller and a few others made it sound as if the city was demanding 60% welfare rate. This scheme with 10% welfare rate doesn't look so bad.