Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Hopefully the social housing doesn't go through. It's ridiculous to subsidize living in/near Downtown just because people want to be there. They should focus on denser parts of the suburbs where the cost of living is lower and more housing can be built for the same amount of money.
It really isn't fair for the rest of us, who work our asses off to live here; whereas somebody else just doesn't want to work or wants to only work for a day or two and expects to live in the same way.
There should be this type of housing for people with medical issues near VGH, but not regular people who believe it is their right to live Downtown.

thats not who gets to live in that kind of housing - its for people on fixed incomes or low incomes not welfare people

a guy my family knows lives in socail housing in kits - he was previously in new west - he is in his 40's high functioning autistic - but he can never work at a normal job or truly support himself and needs subsidized housing

[osirisboy]

That doesnt change the fact that its pretty stupid to spend that much money on that kind of housing. I dont care who that social housing is for, the government can not be spending that much money for that many units.

[jlousa]

Saving it for people that need access to VGH reminds me of a guy I went to high school with. He ended up on disability stating he can't work, due to his condition. The guy has flat feet. How something like that qualifies for a lifetime of disability is beyond me.
I could see the units being kept as "somewhat affordable" family units until such time that the market has improved, Millennium has sold off all it's units so that the city is not competing with them. Then the units sold off at then market prices probably 10yrs from now and the money all reinvested new units across the city.

[osirisboy]

Now that would be a good idea.

[SpongeG]

I don't agree that it should be socail housing at that cost either but saying social housing is for welfare bums isn't really fair - the facts are social housing is all over the city from coal harbour to kerrisdale

and even if some people can't get into social or low income housing welfare often pays half the rent in non-social housing buildings if the rent is reasonable and not fully payable by the tenants

[cornholio]

I have previously lived in social housing for a long time, my whole family did, inlcluding refugee centers outside of Canada. We were never welfare bums, and are all pretty succesfull now.

I do agree though that the units should be bought some where else for cheaper so more units can be bought.

[SpongeG]

well thats what social housing is for

its not for the types like chris whatever it is who only wants to work 2 days a week he is a welfare bum

[wrenegade]

Which developer is doing Opsal Steel again? Anyone know?

[crazyjoeda]

I can't afford a multimillion dollar waterfront condo so why am I not entitle to a unit at the Olympic village?

I understand the need and value of social housing but it is unacceptable to use prohibitively expensive waterfront property for this purpose. I could be wrong but it seems like a disproportionate amount of metro Vancouver's social housing has been build in the downtown area. Downtown is expensive, so people with a limited income who rely on social housing should be encouraged to live outside of downtown.

Money for social housing should be spent on much less extravagant properties in the suburbs.

[SpongeG]

Vancouver as a city has to provide a certain percentage of social housing within its city limits so building it in surrey or burnaby is not going to ifll that quota

same as each city in the region is responsible for providing social housing

so saying build it in the suburbs is not an option no matter where they build it it will be expensive dyue to vancouver propers prices

[invisibleairwaves]

It doesn't even have to be the suburbs. Collingwood? Fraserlands? There's far more cost-effective areas even within the city limits. Using a ludicrously expensive building on the edge of False Creek is just silly.

[twoNeurons]

Careful, people. Social housing in Fleetwood or parts of Surrey doesn't usually fit the bill. And Collingwood and Fraserlands is FULL of co-op housing. Something that I think that can work well and provide a reasonable housing cost for many.

The houses are bigger out there.

The whole purpose of social housing is that you provide housing where people can fit into a larger society. You don't put all the people of a similar wage bracket in the same area. You mix them to give people something to aspire to and put people in with other people.

Otherwise, you end up with building "The Projects".

To me, the sheer density of downtown and the fact that people are willing to pay such high prices per square foot make it easier to implement modest-sized social housing.

[Millennium2002]

i like how you differentiated "social housing" from previous "low-income housing projects". =)

[s211]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

It doesn't even have to be the suburbs. Collingwood? Fraserlands? There's far more cost-effective areas even within the city limits. Using a ludicrously expensive building on the edge of False Creek is just silly.

"just silly?"

more like CRIMINAL. As in a criminal waste of money that could be more economically spent to serve MORE people in need.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

It doesn't even have to be the suburbs. Collingwood? Fraserlands? There's far more cost-effective areas even within the city limits. Using a ludicrously expensive building on the edge of False Creek is just silly.

You don't even have to go that far - 2 or three blocks south - off the waterfront - and you're there. There's already one social housing building on Yukon behind the police station.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

I can't afford a multimillion dollar waterfront condo so why am I not entitle to a unit at the Olympic village?

I understand the need and value of social housing but it is unacceptable to use prohibitively expensive waterfront property for this purpose. I could be wrong but it seems like a disproportionate amount of metro Vancouver's social housing has been build in the downtown area. Downtown is expensive, so people with a limited income who rely on social housing should be encouraged to live outside of downtown.

Money for social housing should be spent on much less extravagant properties in the suburbs.

There is something to be said for a concerted effort at creating a genuine income mix in any area. I think, regardless of one's opinion on this specific case, that we can all agree that we want to avoid having Downtown become a resort town for the super rich. A mix of uses and a mix of users is key to any neighbourhood. The question is, how do you make that happen, and to what extent is said mix offered...?

[hollywoodnorth]

very cool panorama here >> http://www.aerialphotoimage.com/panoramas/GreaterVancouver/OlympicVillageVancouver.html

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

There is something to be said for a concerted effort at creating a genuine income mix in any area. I think, regardless of one's opinion on this specific case, that we can all agree that we want to avoid having Downtown become a resort town for the super rich. A mix of uses and a mix of users is key to any neighbourhood. The question is, how do you make that happen, and to what extent is said mix offered...?

You can accomplish this by building condos of varying sizes, and quality (no, you don't NEED fine woods, granite, and stainless steel). You can then sell them for significantly cheaper.

Think CBC Towers on Robson which *gasp* has LINOLEUM and Arborite! How do those people LIVE with themselves, right?

You do not accomplish this by building social housing that costs more than the average home in Vancouver, and probably more than most of our homes.

My building has some of the finer, new, social housing in Vancouver. It is unequal housing, yes. My house is definitely nicer than theirs, but that's really the way it should be. As I'm the one paying $600k, and by doing so subsidize their housing, and I don't feel bad about that, nor should I. It is irresponsible of the government to spend this much money on a single unit, when by their own accounts they usually can build 2 or 3 of them and help more people with the same money.

Frankly I'm astounded homeless advocates haven't spoken out on this egregious waste of funds which will NEVER be replicated. So, really, use it to help as many people as possible.

Because this money is never coming again.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

You can accomplish this by building condos of varying sizes, and quality (no, you don't NEED fine woods, granite, and stainless steel). You can then sell them for significantly cheaper.

Think CBC Towers on Robson which *gasp* has LINOLEUM and Arborite! How do those people LIVE with themselves, right?

Of course social housing only needs the basics. If and when this hasn't been done, then obvious mistakes have been made. That said, a brand new no-frills suite in Downtown is still going to need some amount of subsidization. No-frills will get you affordable units for most of the public, but single families and seniors will still need cheaper than average suites.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

You can accomplish this by building condos of varying sizes, and quality (no, you don't NEED fine woods, granite, and stainless steel). You can then sell them for significantly cheaper.

Think CBC Towers on Robson which *gasp* has LINOLEUM and Arborite! How do those people LIVE with themselves, right?

You do not accomplish this by building social housing that costs more than the average home in Vancouver, and probably more than most of our homes.

My building has some of the finer, new, social housing in Vancouver. It is unequal housing, yes. My house is definitely nicer than theirs, but that's really the way it should be. As I'm the one paying $600k, and by doing so subsidize their housing, and I don't feel bad about that, nor should I. It is irresponsible of the government to spend this much money on a single unit, when by their own accounts they usually can build 2 or 3 of them and help more people with the same money.

Frankly I'm astounded homeless advocates haven't spoken out on this egregious waste of funds which will NEVER be replicated. So, really, use it to help as many people as possible.

Because this money is never coming again.

This is all true, Yume, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) - this isn't a zero-sum game, is it? It's not like the city had a huge pile of cash sitting around that they could have allocated to 300 units in Gastown rather than 100 units in SEFC, right?

To my knowledge, at least, the city was only able to bully the developer into providing the social housing (with the city's help) because developing the Olympic Village was such a coveted position, not to mention the fact that everyone gets a lot more leverage out of the social housing when it's going to be displayed prominently on every TV screen across Canada. It helps the developer, it helps the city, and while it doesn't help as many people in need of housing as housing in the DTES does, it does avoid stratification of neighbourhoods etc as mentioned before.