Downtown Vancouver Updates

[ckkelley]

Originally Posted by privatejet

James Schouw got a developmentpermit last July for 1102 Hornby (Hornby & Helmcken) 21 unit building 70 feet tall.

Last I heard he did stil have an option on the lot behind the Grace

This one's right in my 'hood. Hopefully this will actually come to fruition.

[Delirium]

came across this on flickr. it's a model of the expanded aquarium (the model is in one of their boardrooms in the admin office).






photos by Anomieus

[johnjimbc]

Wow! It looks nice. Thanks.

What is the status on the project? I haven't heard anything about it recently.

[osirisboy]

the hotel Pennsylvania is all finished and opened yesterday. there was an article in the paper

http://www.vancouversun.com/Lighting+Downtown+Eastside/1152055/story.html

so about $13,178,000.00 was spent on this to produce 44 bachelor units for the homeless. Am i the only one that thinks thats a friggin joke?? Almost $300,000 per unit. what a waste.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Wow! It looks nice. Thanks.

What is the status on the project? I haven't heard anything about it recently.

It is indeed nice.....not sure about the reliability of the source, but he told me that the aquarium so far has only been able to raise 10% of the $100-million required. And it has been 3 years now.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

so about $13,178,000.00 was spent on this to produce 44 bachelor units for the homeless. Am i the only one that thinks thats a friggin joke?? Almost $300,000 per unit. what a waste.

I do believe you are the only one who thinks this is a friggin joke. Judging by your recent posts you'd probably prefer to see them out of your neighbourhood and rounded up and sent to boot camps out in the Fraser Valley or something.

[jlousa]

No he isn't the only one that would like that. I to would prefer the bootcamp solution but the fraser valley is still too close, lets send them even farther away.

Come on how can anyone think $300K per unit is a good deal, you could buy 2 sfhes in the sticks for that much, and house 10 people instead of 1. But heaven forbid we break their sense of community, which is odd in itself as most of them are not from here. (end of rant)

[djh]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

the hotel Pennsylvania is all finished and opened yesterday. there was an article in the paper

http://www.vancouversun.com/Lighting+Downtown+Eastside/1152055/story.html

so about $13,178,000.00 was spent on this to produce 44 bachelor units for the homeless. Am i the only one that thinks thats a friggin joke?? Almost $300,000 per unit. what a waste.

I think $300,000 for a newly-refurbished downtown 1 bedroom apartment is incredible value. Not quite sure why you think it's a joke though. If you suggest that the government should spend even less money per suite for people, then we end up with what is currently the problem - a lot of nasty, poor-quality rat nests in which people are forced to live.

[jlousa]

You can buy 600sqft brand new concrete construction in Vancouver for $300K today. These units are alot smaller and I'm sure are lacking stainless steel applainaces and insuite laudry and all the other stuff you'd find in a basic new building.

[Metro-One]

Awesome post jlousa. The question djh is not if they deserve a clean place to live/sleep, which they do, the question is why should we spend so much money to do it downtown when that same money could be used to house 5 to 10 times the people outside of the city. They don't do this because the homeless advocates say it will break their sense of "community" which is a joke because most of them are not from the "community." The only reason they say they want to stay together downtown is because they don't want to reform, they want to have easy access to their drugs and alcohol and continue to shelter themselves in a slum from society. Everyone knows the best way to get clean and reform is to leave those behind who encourage such activities. (if all the people you associate with do drugs chances are you will to!)

[DKaz]

These buildings were likely built properly to code like most BC Housing projects. I've done mechanical design for two BC Housing projects and often they use copper piping and gas fired hot water heating instead of plastic piping and electric base board heating like most developers throw into condos. I should also add the ventilation requirements, because most of these low income people stay in their homes all day and smoke like a chimney, the corridors have to be super pressurized, doors be airtight, and units be put under negative pressure with its own fresh air supply. And I bet anything they probably went for LEED which further drives up the cost. $300k sounds about right.

Besides, the government will still own these buildings 25 years from now. It's an investment to restore these buildings. The homeless will still be downtown even if we try to force them out. The question is do we want them out in the street or at least in somewhere they can call home.

[jlousa]

Here's something you might not have known, that same hotel was restored ~15yrs ago, I know because I was involved in that project. It lasted only a few years before it was is such condition that it wasn't liveable again. Now here we go again. I'm glad you see it as an investment, but I can assure you that unless something dramatically changes from last time, this hotel will not be liveable anywhere near 25yrs from now.

[AlexYVR]

I am not advocating the expense of SROs in urban cores, but the planner in me feels the need to point out the fact that in addition to 'community', all the services for the homeless - rehab centres, shelters, insite, etc - have grouped themselves in the DTES. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, and unless you are willing to relocate all these services to the valley along with the cheaper housing, you're going to have the exact same issue that Van had when Riverview closed and helped create such a mess in the first place. It's like that Southpark episode. 'Chaaaange. . .?'

[osirisboy]

I was going to rebut djh's comments but i think jlousa and metro-one have done a good job with clearly articulating my point.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

I am not advocating the expense of SROs in urban cores, but the planner in me feels the need to point out the fact that in addition to 'community', all the services for the homeless - rehab centres, shelters, insite, etc - have grouped themselves in the DTES. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, and unless you are willing to relocate all these services to the valley along with the cheaper housing, you're going to have the exact same issue that Van had when Riverview closed and helped create such a mess in the first place. It's like that Southpark episode. 'Chaaaange. . .?'

i dont understand this argument. can these people not commute to these services like how most everyone else has to commute to something ie work?

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

i dont understand this argument. can these people not commute to these services like how most everyone else has to commute to something ie work?

Sorry, but what are they supposed to commute on? The free bus? Especially with the barriers they face, removing them from the support of the service network would be a killer blow. I'm not addicted to heroin and I can barely make it to work some mornings - and I get paid for that.

It really is a Catch-22. Group the services together and establish a network and a community to help these people - and you establish a convenient cesspool for drugs, diseases, and poverty at the same time.

[Metro-One]

Here's something you might not have known, that same hotel was restored ~15yrs ago, I know because I was involved in that project. It lasted only a few years before it was is such condition that it wasn't liveable again. Now here we go again. I'm glad you see it as an investment, but I can assure you that unless something dramatically changes from last time, this hotel will not be liveable anywhere near 25yrs from now.

Exactly, these rooms should come with a price, and the price is rehab. All homeless should be given a warm place to sleep, but while at that place they have to partake in rehab programs. Not just for drugs, but also to teach them proper hygene and room up keep. No more free rides. Yes i also agree that the mentally ill should have hospitals. I would be very happy to see my tax dollars going to mental health facilities. If one is not mentally ill (addiction not counted as a mental illness) or does not want to take on the responsibility of cleaning their own room and going to rehab, then they should be forced into enclosed rehab facilities. Where they would also be put into community services.

Sid note - While it is easy to blame the government for closing the hospitals, we should also blame the ultra liberals who demanded the hospitals be shut down because they felt it was cruel and against human rights to keep these mentally ill individuals in the hospitals. So they were all let go. Now i am no expert on human rights but what i see happening on the downtown east side (where most of these individuals ended up) is not humane. Now they are dirty, addicted to drugs and dying. I think the hospitals (managed properly) are a much safer and humane alternative than allowing them to kill themselves and rot on the streets.

[osirisboy]

we could subsidize bus passes for them, hell of a lot cheaper than building them homes downtown.
Frankly I think it would be better for most of them if they werent living there. with the amount of drugs and problems in the area why do we want to house drug addicts or vulnerable people in a place were there is literally drug dealers and pimps on their doorstep?

this goes back to the discussion of the DTES becoming (remaining) a ghetto, thats not going to help anyone

[jlousa]

It doesn't need to be catch-22, they need services, provide them with those services, but do it where you can control the environment and ensure it's drug-free.

You can't ensure a drug-free zone in the DTES, so stop putting people who are fighting addicton there, they won't be helped there. If this means bootcamps in the middle of nowhere then that's what it means. Once they have some control of their lives they are can be free to live where ever they chose.

Most people with drug addictions still manage to live a somewhat normal life, we are talking about those that have lost control only. There is a need for places like Riverview. I think it's time we admit it was a mistake closing it.

[officedweller]

I also think that the taxpayer could get better value for the money in providing social housing - not only in respect of purchasing land in less costly locations (although DTES wasn't, until recently a high property value area targetted by developers) - but also in choosing to restore heritage buildings rather than building new. Even private developers have trouble funding the costs of redevloping heritage buildings to meet building codes - they can't make a go of it without the incentive program that the City cancelled last year (and will probably be reimsated under the new council?).
So even if you locate in the DTES to keep the people in their community, it makes you think that there's a cheaper way to build some basic housing in the DTES.