Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[city-dweller]

Imagine after the low-income suites being gutted for $$ and cheaper subsitutes. Not saying people would, but it would really....

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by awvan

I don't have a problem with social housing even in areas such as False Creek and Coal Harbour. But, I think it is utterly ridiculous for the city to be subsidizing luxury condos as non-market housing. The fact that it is semi-waterfront AND LEED Gold makes it even worse.

I'm sorry, but since when is environmental sustainability a luxury? This is the kind of thinking that is hamstringing efforts to reduce LEED costs and create integrated sustainable design for ALL buildings. Granite countertops in social housing? Ridiculous, I agree. LEED? A necessity as far as I'm concerned.

As far as mixed use/integrated high- and low-income housing, I'll let my avatar speak for my feelings on the subject.

[officedweller]

I agree that it's a matter of degree.

Notice how most social housing buildings have smaller windows?
Probably cheaper and more energy efficient than glass curtain walls that provide great views.

Where do you draw the line?

Garburator or no garburator? Luxury demands it - but its bad for the environment.
Likewise, having a massive luxury fridge and a wine cooler (and maybe bar fridge?) all in the same suite seems to run counter to the LEED aspect of a project. Air conditioning?

[LeftCoaster]

The government has to set a standard, I can guarantee you every new project you see come out of BC Housing in the near future will be targeting LEED Gold at a minimum.

[sacrifice333]

There's no need for social housing, no matter the location, to have all of the high-end, un-functional, aesthetic requirements that luxury purchases may demand.

Granite - unnecessary, expensive, not exactly sustainable, and high-ish maintenance... not to mention non-repairable

Stainless Steel Appliances - unnecessary, typically more expensive than white appliances, and no better for the environment

Windows - larger windows will cost more in terms of heating, cooling, the actual cost of the windows, etc. but I do get understand keeping them the same as other market units in a same building for aesthetic purposes.

Hardwood Flooring - unnecessary, likely not highly sustainable, and less durable than many laminates that may or may not be sustainable

etc., etc., etc.

[SpongeG]

are these going in the social housing?

is that confirmed?

usually the social housing isn't finished so nicely

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

I'm sorry, but since when is environmental sustainability a luxury? This is the kind of thinking that is hamstringing efforts to reduce LEED costs and create integrated sustainable design for ALL buildings.

Environmental sustainability is a luxury because it costs more. I realize this kind of thinking hurts efforts to reduce LEED costs, but we're kind of in the situation where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we don't make everyone build LEED Gold, it will remain expensive. But, when we build LEED Gold now, it is very expensive. As a result, for social housing this is a luxury because in the end it increases the cost to the city/taxpayer.

[Login650]

I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that the materials they referenced (the etched glass and stainless steel) are for the exterior of the building, not the units themselves. The idea being that social housing not stick out like a sore thumb and thus stigmatize the people living in it.

Unless someone can find an article that actually states there are granite countertops in these units.... ?

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That said, there are bound to be some anomalies - i.e. I doubt many of the people who live in the social housing co-ops on the Concord Lands shop regularly at Urban Fare - I don't even shop there. That means added costs for transportation.

Actually, having lived in the Coal Harbour co-op and having friends at one in Yaletown, I can tell you that a significant number of people in those places can and do buy at high end stores. Just go look at the parking garage, my 10 year old Honda Civic (10 years back) was among the worst cars there...and there were a number of really high end cars in there as well (Lexus, Infiniti, etc).

Why? Because you pay based on what you earn, and the rent ceiling was pretty low (~$1200 for a 2 bedroom in a newer building and great location).

Not that there weren't people that were very low income, but they made up less than 20% of residents from what I saw.
So the best way to ensure cheap rent is to get fired and apply to a co-op ASAP...they can't kick you out even if they want to...and you have rent control as well

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by awvan

Environmental sustainability is a luxury because it costs more. I realize this kind of thinking hurts efforts to reduce LEED costs, but we're kind of in the situation where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we don't make everyone build LEED Gold, it will remain expensive. But, when we build LEED Gold now, it is very expensive. As a result, for social housing this is a luxury because in the end it increases the cost to the city/taxpayer.

. . .the immediate cost. Looking at the lifecycle costing on a LEED Gold building shows the incredible savings accrued over the life of the building - a building which, inevitably, the very same taxpayer ends up paying for maintenence on when things start falling apart. It's much easier to see an immediate cost savings and say 'why LEED?' than to look over the long term and realize that in actuality, the Gold building is cheaper.

Sort of like buying a hybrid car. . .except that with the LEED building, the savings are actually as advertised

[s211]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Actually, having lived in the Coal Harbour co-op and having friends at one in Yaletown, I can tell you that a significant number of people in those places can and do buy at high end stores. Just go look at the parking garage, my 10 year old Honda Civic (10 years back) was among the worst cars there...and there were a number of really high end cars in there as well (Lexus, Infiniti, etc).

Why? Because you pay based on what you earn, and the rent ceiling was pretty low (~$1200 for a 2 bedroom in a newer building and great location).

Not that there weren't people that were very low income, but they made up less than 20% of residents from what I saw.
So the best way to ensure cheap rent is to get fired and apply to a co-op ASAP...they can't kick you out even if they want to...and you have rent control as well

Co-ops are at an evolutionary dead-end.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Login650

I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that the materials they referenced (the etched glass and stainless steel) are for the exterior of the building, not the units themselves. The idea being that social housing not stick out like a sore thumb and thus stigmatize the people living in it.

Unless someone can find an article that actually states there are granite countertops in these units.... ?

thats how i was reading it too

[NewfBC]

$110-million for 250 units of social housing? That's $440-thousand per unit.. COST! Add markups, and these would have a retail price of $500k plus.. wow.

Ron.

[CBeats]

Originally Posted by tintinium

There are some beaches in West Vancouver which are officially public (below the high-tide line is public), but due to local pressure have no parking anywhere near them... which turns them into "as good as private" beaches. Go there and you'll have people ask you what you're doing there.

I've been to most of those beaches loads of times from the bus or a kayak or whatever and no one asks questions...
the parking thing is just a NIMBY issue but the lack of it doesn't mean they are inaccessible or basically private beaches

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by CBeats

I've been to most of those beaches loads of times from the bus or a kayak or whatever and no one asks questions...
the parking thing is just a NIMBY issue but the lack of it doesn't mean they are inaccessible or basically private beaches

This is true, but they're not exactly very accessible. It's one thing going by yourself or with someone else, it's another thing going with kids in tow for a day at the beach. While I agree that they're not private beaches... there are many places where signage has been conveniently covered by vegetation.

The dearth of parking makes accessibility very difficult too. Mind you, some beaches are better than others for accessibility.

[wrenegade]

Most of those hard to get to beaches are all rock anyway. Not exactly a big loss. All of the decent beaches (Stearman, Caulfeild, Sandy Cove) are relatively easy to get to and all of the good ones (Dunderave, Ambleside, Whytecliff) are easy to get with and have ample parking.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by awvan

Most of those hard to get to beaches are all rock anyway. Not exactly a big loss. All of the decent beaches (Stearman, Caulfeild, Sandy Cove) are relatively easy to get to and all of the good ones (Dunderave, Ambleside, Whytecliff) are easy to get with and have ample parking.

That's true. Although, I've always preferred rocky shores to sandy ones... as long as they're boulder sized rocks.

Anyone know if you can park at the end of Erwin drive?

[wrenegade]

At the end? I'm not sure, you can further west at the small park, and you can park at the end of Ferndale. This discussion should probably be moved to the suburban section though.

[raggedy13]

A newish (Jan 25) aerial of the Olympic Village:



globalairphotos.com

[giallo]

That's one solid-looking community.