601 Beach Crescent | 166m | 56 Fl | Proposed

[Prometheus]

Under the agreement, “at least 30% of the social housing units will be rented at BC Housing’s housing income limits — rental rates of no more than 30% of household income. It will target households with incomes of between $15,000 and $68,000 annually.”

Therefore, if households with incomes of $15,000 are largely targeted, as is the city’s right under the agreement, then 30% or more of the social housing units could possibly be rented at hardcore welfare, SRO levels and targeted at that demographic, i.e., the chronically homeless, drug addicted, mentally ill, etc. Under the agreement, therefore, a substantial portion of this project could theoretically become a slum.

Source: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/601-...ouver-rezoning

[GenWhy?]

I agree. I think some working class folks would be a very good fit here, rather than maybe facing a long commute. Even if the units are floors 6 and under - which floor 6 is the top of the ramp. Not exactly prime.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Under the agreement, “at least 30% of the social housing units will be rented at BC Housing’s housing income limits — rental rates of no more than 30% of household income. It will target households with incomes of between $15,000 and $68,000 annually.”

Therefore, if households with incomes of $15,000 are largely targeted, as is the city’s right under the agreement, then 30% or more of the social housing units could possibly be rented at hardcore welfare, SRO levels and targeted at that demographic, i.e., the chronically homeless, drug addicted, mentally ill, etc. Under the agreement, therefore, a substantial portion of this project could theoretically become a slum.

Source: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/601-...ouver-rezoning

That's a very judgmental and negative view of tenants in social housing. The same mix of tenancies exists in Woodwards, the Olympic Village, on Davie Street in the West End, and in Strathcona Village for example. Those could also theoretically become a slum - but they haven't.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's a very judgmental and negative view of tenants in social housing. The same mix of tenancies exists in Woodwards, the Olympic Village, on Davie Street in the West End, and in Strathcona Village for example. Those could also theoretically become a slum - but they haven't.

And what are the actual mix of incomes in those social housing locations, as opposed to the theoretically allowable spectrum? Do you actually know? There is a material difference between an income of $15,000 and an income of $68,000, and a material difference between a housing project that consists of people collecting welfare levels of income and mostly living a life of passivity and dependence, and one that consists of people who, through work and productivity, are earning incomes of $68,000.

As I pointed out, the outcome depends on which end of the allowable income spectrum the city actually chooses to target. If the city heavily tilts toward the lowest end of $15,000, as is their right under the agreement, then it takes a true believer and intransigent city apologist (or just true naïveté) to cling to the belief that there won’t be any problems in the building and surrounding area.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

And what are the actual mix of incomes in those social housing locations, as opposed to the theoretically allowable spectrum? Do you actually know? There is a material difference between an income of $15,000 and an income of $68,000, and a material difference between a housing project that consists of people collecting welfare levels of income and mostly living a life of passivity and dependence, and one that consists of people who, through work and productivity, are earning incomes of $68,000.

As I pointed out, the outcome depends on which end of the allowable income spectrum the city actually chooses to target. If the city heavily tilts toward the lowest end of $15,000, then it takes a true believer and intransigent city apologist (or just true naïveté) to cling to the belief that there won’t be any problems, likely relating to drugs, crime and mental illness.

People on a disability pension or OAS and GIC will have relatively low incomes, and will be well within the $15,000 to $68,000 range. You seem to equate low income with entirely negative characteristics of drugs, crime and mental illness. The social housing operators of buildings like this identify appropriate tenants who aren't likely to have obvious problems in living in subsidized housing. There are many well-run non-market buildings around the city that have all their tenants an welfare, for a variety of reasons, and where they aren't on drugs, or criminals. I'm excepting mental illness because it comes with enough stigma in the first place, so lumping it in with crime and drug use doesn't seem fair. There are many residents in social housing who have various forms of mental limitation or illness who are neither criminals or taking illegal drugs. Some have low paid jobs, or can only work part time, so they'll have low incomes. If we're to solve homelessness, and house those who have successfully come through treatment for drug use, we need all the low income housing we can get. Generally the City owned projects like this tries to have a third of units available at deep subsidy, a third at modest subsidy, and a third slightly below market.

[GenWhy?]

I think it's typical for most new projects to do a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 of each BC Housing rate category. The ones we've worked on in the DTES area it's a requirement. I think HILs was the higher less controlled bracket - seeing how minimum wage would be I think under $30k.

Really depends on the non-profit running it.

[GenWhy?]

Ah, thanks Changing, I see we were typing at the same time. Thanks for more detail for I'm usually too lazy to get into the details.

[svlt]

There are a lot of very normal, well socialized folks who have tax return incomes significantly below that 68,000 limit. Some may even have assets somewhere outside of Canada but that is another discussion. A bit hasty to paint such a broad brush on people with tax incomes. Just like there are people with 100k+ incomes that are living on each paycheque.

What we need is not to discriminate against people with lower incomes, the vast majority of whom integrate fine with society and will fit just fine in this condo, but increase heavier handed enforcement against those who partake in criminal activity, period. The problem is not socially housing poor people, it's enabling a small segment of the poor population to commit acts of crime unabated and even supported in this city because we are all somehow beholden to the bleeding hearts clubs of Jean Swanson & co (though ironically, one of the councillors who helped to move this project ahead).

[WarrenC12]

For context somebody working full time minimum wage earns around $30k a year.

Somebody with a "respectable" income of $25/hr is at $50k.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

For context somebody working full time minimum wage earns around $30k a year.

Somebody with a "respectable" income of $25/hr is at $50k.

Both of which are still unable to buy a place in Vancouver.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scryer

Both of which are still unable to buy a place in Vancouver.

Which is why we need affordable rental housing.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Which is why we need affordable rental housing.

Not everybody is sold on renting for the rest of their lives though. The housing crisis runs deeper than just an immediate surge for rental housing. But I am getting off topic....

Un-popular opinion: I would like to see more high quality renders but I actually don't mind its design at all.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by scryer

Both of which are still unable to buy a place in Vancouver.

Or any other major city in the developed world? What's your point?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by rofina

We shouldn't.

Most of us cant afford to live in the core. Not sure why homeless need to be occupying some of the most expensive land in North America.

Particularly when you consider just how much more housing these sums could provide anywhere else.

And if they don't want that housing elsewhere?

Tough shit. No support for staying in the Downtown core.

For everyone else its "drive till you qualify" for the underprivileged its waterfront only.

Its ridiculous.

That being said, to get this back on track, unlike many, I have high hopes and I do want to see this go ahead. If well executed, it should be quite elegant.

And yet we expect them to work in the downtown core.

Why doesn't someone working fulltime as a waiter or bank teller have as much opportunity to live downtown as some millionaire student from Malaysia?

[Feathered Friend]

It's worth mentioning that the mayor noted he lives next to this vacant lot, was "staring at this gravel pit" as he was voting, and that he and his wife walk their dog past the site nearly every day.

Clearly, he's willing to walk the talk so to speak, and isn't concerned this will impact his view, or destroy his neighbourhood, so why is everyone else up in arms?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

It's worth mentioning that the mayor noted he lives next to this vacant lot, was "staring at this gravel pit" as he was voting, and that he and his wife walk their dog past the site nearly every day.

Clearly, he's willing to walk the talk so to speak, and isn't concerned this will impact his view, or destroy his neighbourhood, so why is everyone else up in arms?

Um, yeah. I wonder if the mayor has any concept of how noisy it is to live right next to a high-rise construction site (been there, done that). I'll be curious to see how long he stays there.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

everyone talking about the social housing, etc. is really just a red hearing. the question everyone should be wondering about is this.

why is housing so expensive that our real economy (jobs, workers, etc.) cant afford to live anywhere near their job? considering housing prices should correlate to the economy of the city, why does it not? our economy isn't based on much, other than perpetual construction and the service industry. there is more at play, and that is the real question. no one seems to be able to answer that, other than when someone finally did, but then everyone forgot. offshore money & money laundering. now that's the real issue.

maybe its time that if you're not a BC permanent resident for 6months+1, you have to pay 100% tax on any place you buy; maybe that will help.

[Mininari]

So, did this get approved at a total height of 171.6m, or 163m?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Mininari

So, did this get approved at a total height of 171.6m, or 163m?

The referral report says it's 55 storeys and 163m. If there are any mods passing by, maybe the title could be corrected.

[a very long weekend]

Lift zoning regulations even just to four story multi-family across the 70%+ of the city that's single family home only zoning, and you'll do more for housing costs than 100 years of plinking together units or money from this or that development to build at 400k/unit in some concrete highrise. Exponentially expand the buildable land, and property values will tank as mom-and-pop builders go crazy replacing Vancouver Specials with 20 unit four story low rise buildings. The solution is so obvious that it takes a political agenda or investment in the current artificial land shortage not to see it.