Downtown Vancouver Updates

[stevai]

It should probably be pointed out that Qmunity is more of an Outreach/Resource centre for the GLTB community, and not what people in this thread are imagining it to be - a typical community centre like the Roundhouse or Coal Harbour CC that just happens to cater to the GLTB population because it's in the West End.

The current Qmunity centre at Davie & Bute offers outreach/counselling services, a sexual health clinic, support and social groups for adults and youth, and a small library. It is a specialized facility that serves a vital role in the community and has outgrown its space.

That said, Qmunity has previously been rumoured to re-locate as part of a future development on the corner of Davie & Burrard where the temporary community gardens are now. I still think that would be a better, more accessible, and prominent location for it in the village.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

I think a lot of life is accepting differences, even celebrating them, but also recognizing the need to seek and develop common connections among people. I've noted many times in life that groups can separate themselves to the point that their face begins to seem more like a wall. That's true of everything from religions to book clubs .

Personally, I think the idea of a new gay, lesbian, and transsexual resource center / community center is great. But even I wonder a bit at the idea of a "big Q centre." I know Queer is a self-identified description . . . and it's certainly easier than the alphabet soup of "GLBT..." that is in current favour, but the term can also be a psychological barrier. I somehow just can't imagine a confused youth or well-meaning parent feeling comfortable going to the Qmunity Centre for information or a consultation unless they've already taken most of the journey already. And though I suspect heterosexual individuals and couples will be welcome, the big sign on the window will probably send a mixed signal every time they approach it.

Please don't take this the wrong way . . . I'm really not wanting to be controversial or launch a huge debate. But I read the past several comments with interest so thought I would add my thoughts. I am really glad they are putting in the new centre. I look forward to checking it out. With the world the way it still is for the queer community around the world (reading some of the horrors out of Africa just this morning), I'm actually proud of it . . . proud of Vancouver and Canada for being a nation that can celebrate diversity in such an open manner. But I do recognize that, as presented, it could seem a barrier in some ways instead of opening new avenues to the broader community.

I might be wrong, but I read dleung's comment as being a statement that it will be a wonderful day when we can just open a human support centre without feeling the need to define what kind of human to which it will be offering support. The debate, if there is one, is whether that is necessary and, if so, when should it happen.

Good day to all.

That's exactly what I mean. It isn't so much whether these clinical/counselling/social services are needed, but rather why aren't they available in "regular" support centres for ALL youth and adults. My frustration with the effects of segregation is that people are less interesting (and more prone to going off the deep end) when so much of their identity is based on some struggle. Probably shouldn't have compared it to breast cancer, but I keep hearing that damned commercial for Susan G Komen's 3-day pinkfest, and all those angry women who are out to "conquer" it...

I realize in hindsight my comments would almost have certainly set off a shitstorm if the wrong people happen to reply first, so I'm glad it turned out to be a good discussion, except for the one or two ppl who tried to pull the homophobia card!

Anyway the building is still too ugly for me to take the proposal seriously. I'm in the "denial" stage.

[SpongeG]

gay people want to go to a gay place - going to the neighbourhood centre for help isn't usually an option - they are just not comfortable there

[nova9]

and as someone whose mother and sister had breast cancer, they really couldn't find any sufficient support outside of specialized cancer facilities funded by breast cancer specific charities.

but in terms of other communities of care, i feel it is flawed to cater to the norm. the norm does not need the focus. the norm does not need a specialized place to feel like they are a part of a community, they are immersed in it. LGBT centres, etnic centres, religious centres are designed for people to feel like a community when they feel separated from the world around them. is that not an aspect of the pluralistic world we want?

[vancityrox]

Originally Posted by nova9

and as someone whose mother and sister had breast cancer, they really couldn't find any sufficient support outside of specialized cancer facilities funded by breast cancer specific charities.

but in terms of other communities of care, i feel it is flawed to cater to the norm. the norm does not need the focus. the norm does not need a specialized place to feel like they are a part of a community, they are immersed in it. LGBT centres, etnic centres, religious centres are designed for people to feel like a community when they feel separated from the world around them. is that not an aspect of the pluralistic world we want?

The norm? what do you mean by norm? your statement doesnt make sense and it is offensive in many ways!

[Locked In]

Interesting conversation, but can it go in another thread or something?
------
Some comments from Frances Bula about how Council views the West End backlash to new housing:

Vision rental program generates backlash, raises questions about future solutions
April 13th, 2010

It was the best kind of theatre, being at council last week when West Enders showed up to voice their concerns about the Vision council’s program to create permanent rentals, the Short Term Incentives for Rental or STIR.

Councillors tried to keep the bemusement out of their voices, but weren’t all that successful as they questioned one person after another along essentially the same lines, which was: If you’re opposed to having new rental towers built, what the heck do you think is the solution to what seem to be cyclical rental crises in the city?

Geoff Meggs was the most persistent, asking whether people think there is no rental crisis any more. (Apparently, there are some who think there is no longer a problem with rentals in the West End, in spite of the screaming for the last several years about same.)

Even Suzanne Anton, who has been critical of the STIR program from day one, pointed out quietly to one speaker — a woman who seemed to think that the solution would be to have the city subsidize rents for all the existing residents but not allow any new developments — in a low-key way that “people like it there and over time that will drive rents up.”

I’ve tried to capture some of the current debate on the STIR program in my Globe story today, but it’s a big topic with many side issues that is too big for this box.

And this council is going to have to find answers, not just for Vancouver, but for all the municipalities out there wondering what to do about what’s been a national problem for 30 years — the lack of purpose-built rental housing.

While some of the opposition was clearly unrealistic (yes! let’s ask Vancouver taxpayers to donate money so that everyone currently living in this extremely attractive area in the middle of one of the world’s most desirable cities, an area that’s walking distance to downtown, can all afford to live there at 1990 rent levels), the backlash to the city’s STIR program does raise an interesting dilemma for other cities contemplating a similar program. That dilemma: Given that the city has control over very few tools to help encourage development of rental buildings, what can they use that people are willing to accept?

They can reduce or even eliminate parking. They can reduce fees. But that’s not enough to make the investment attractive for developers, compared to condos, and all the wishing in the world won’t make it so. The main thing cities can offer is density, i.e. more space to build on a lot than what is normally allowed.

But then neighbours get unhappy about that and, as we’re hearing in the West End, they want both less density and more affordability — two parts of the equation that are at odds with each other. The current towers being proposed in the West End could be required to have defined rents that are affordable to the average renter with $38,000 in income — but the city would have to give developers more density to achieve that.

The solution that I’m hearing Brent Granby from the West End Residents Association propose — if I’ve understood correctly — is to mandate inclusionary zoning, i.e. simply tell developers that they have to build in some affordable market rentals into every project. Don’t give them any density, just make it a condition of rezoning.

But … and this is a complex issue, so I’m sure my educated friends on this blog will be jumping in to add nuance to it … it’s hard to imagine Vancouver being able to do that unless most of the other municipalities did the same. I await the pro-forma numbers to roll in.

...

Source: Frances Bula

Edit: I made the mistake of reading the comments, which include some gems like this: "Approving the 1401 Comox project would create a building unlike any other in the West End – a bulky building... and one bound to degrade liveability"

[ckkelley]

L-I it boggles the mind.

[AlexYVR]

No matter the subject, the thing that enrages me and boggles the mind are what I call the 'lower our taxes/give us more social services' people.

They blame the government/developer for high taxes/prices. They blame the government/developer for cuts to the arts.

They blame the government for pork barrel spending. They blame the government for not allocating money to their special project.

They get pissed about not having any place to rent and then they get pissed about new rental buildings.

I'm specifically talking about the people here, not the issue, as the lack of a community plan is a valid worry - but it's frustrating to see some of the reactions. Cake or eat it, people!

[Graham_Yvr]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

No matter the subject, the thing that enrages me and boggles the mind are what I call the 'lower our taxes/give us more social services' people.

They blame the government/developer for high taxes/prices. They blame the government/developer for cuts to the arts.

They blame the government for pork barrel spending. They blame the government for not allocating money to their special project.

They get pissed about not having any place to rent and then they get pissed about new rental buildings.

I'm specifically talking about the people here, not the issue, as the lack of a community plan is a valid worry - but it's frustrating to see some of the reactions. Cake or eat it, people!

Well said, Alex. Couldn't agree with you more.

[nova9]

Originally Posted by vancityrox

The norm? what do you mean by norm? your statement doesnt make sense and it is offensive in many ways!

if you found something offensive in my statement then i do not believe i will have response to you that you'd accept so i'm not going to bother. in any case, i will try to explain what I meant.

I used 'norm' to refer to people that are just like everyone else. Which is the majority of the people in our city. regular people. regular people have regular community centres. then there are people in society with perspectives that are not as common and they would like to see some centre that caters to their perspective. nothing wrong with that. in a pluralistic society, why can we not have a place that they can go to?

[SpongeG]

speaking of rentals - i have never seen so many for rent signs on buildings as of lately - marpole area and the west is full of rentals available (only areas i have noticed) do you think its related to the olympics being over?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

speaking of rentals - i have never seen so many for rent signs on buildings as of lately - marpole area and the west is full of rentals available (only areas i have noticed) do you think its related to the olympics being over?

Probably that, coupled with a lot of renters jumping into buy when interest rates are still low. Hopefully they're not setting themselves up for a big shock when they have to renew their rates in 3-5 years.

[nova9]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Probably that, coupled with a lot of renters jumping into buy when interest rates are still low. Hopefully they're not setting themselves up for a big shock when they have to renew their rates in 3-5 years.

My friend who works at Amacon say that they are seeing lots of sales, even in units they thought would sell moderately or slowly. and she stated a lot of people are telling her that they are jumping out of renting to becoming owners in fear of the HST, whether these fears are valid or not I don't know enough state, but she was just passing on some anecdotes about the types of customers she's been seeing in the past few weekends.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Probably that, coupled with a lot of renters jumping into buy when interest rates are still low. Hopefully they're not setting themselves up for a big shock when they have to renew their rates in 3-5 years.

With the cost of renting in this city, if you can get in now at low interest rates, your monthly payments can still be less than renting a comparable place. Many closed mortgages have locked payments, meaning if rates go up your payments stay the same, you just put more towards interest and less towards principle. If in 4 or 5 years you end up putting everything in on Interest and nothing towards the principle you are pretty much in the same boat you would be if you did nothing but rent for 5 years. The big difference is that you might now have a place worth 15% more (or over 100% in some cases) than when you got it and can sell to offset your losses if you can't refinance. W.C.S., if house prices drop dramatically, you walk away and go back to renting.

[Yume-sama]

It's certainly a sellers market right now. I'm debating selling my place, but moving over the Summer would be so troublesome~

My realtor friend says he is doing multiple showings per day at a lot of properties.

[vancityrox]

Originally Posted by nova9

if you found something offensive in my statement then i do not believe i will have response to you that you'd accept so i'm not going to bother. in any case, i will try to explain what I meant.

I used 'norm' to refer to people that are just like everyone else. Which is the majority of the people in our city. regular people. regular people have regular community centres. then there are people in society with perspectives that are not as common and they would like to see some centre that caters to their perspective. nothing wrong with that. in a pluralistic society, why can we not have a place that they can go to?

It is offensive because gay people are regular people too.No matter how you put it bro... Thats all!

[red-paladin]

No one has a right to live downtown. I can't afford to live there, and I don't think it should be a right for anyone. Housing is a market economy for the most part. If someone can't afford to live there, it's too bad for them. People that live in the west end don't have a right to rent freezes when my rent in coquitlam goes up. It makes me so mad that people think they have a right to live there. If someone makes $38,000, which is less than I do, they can live in coquitlam with me. If they don't want new buildings, which is ridiculous in the part of the city zoned for the highest residential density, then the ever increasing demand and static supply will lead to higher prices, end of story. Hell, if people in coquitlam demanded no new towers are built, our prices would go up even faster! No I have a social conscience and a somewhat left wing bent in that I favour rental subsidies for people who have no money or not enough money. But these people have money!!!! Just not enough money to live in the most expensive part of the city. They deserve no subsidy, they can live in a perfectly nice house in coquiltlam. I don't deserve a rent subsidy so I can move closer to work, so why does anyone?

[nova9]

Originally Posted by vancityrox

It is offensive because gay people are regular people too.No matter how you put it bro... Thats all!

Did I say otherwise? And FYI, I'm gay.

I'm fortunate to not ever have to use the services found on Davie St. but many gay teens have flocked there for help and guidance. Obviously there was a need to service a segment of the population. That's how public services are geared and whether or not that is wise is another debate. But you target areas that need the funding by level of need.

Anyway, DM if you want to discuss.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

With the cost of renting in this city, if you can get in now at low interest rates, your monthly payments can still be less than renting a comparable place. Many closed mortgages have locked payments, meaning if rates go up your payments stay the same, you just put more towards interest and less towards principle. If in 4 or 5 years you end up putting everything in on Interest and nothing towards the principle you are pretty much in the same boat you would be if you did nothing but rent for 5 years. The big difference is that you might now have a place worth 15% more (or over 100% in some cases) than when you got it and can sell to offset your losses if you can't refinance. W.C.S., if house prices drop dramatically, you walk away and go back to renting.

Please point me to any place in the Lower Mainland where purchasing right now is cash-flow positive. In other words, where rent would cover mortgage expenses plus property taxes plus insurance and (if applicable) condo/strata fees. I can't find any.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

With the cost of renting in this city, if you can get in now at low interest rates, your monthly payments can still be less than renting a comparable place. Many closed mortgages have locked payments, meaning if rates go up your payments stay the same, you just put more towards interest and less towards principle. If in 4 or 5 years you end up putting everything in on Interest and nothing towards the principle you are pretty much in the same boat you would be if you did nothing but rent for 5 years. The big difference is that you might now have a place worth 15% more (or over 100% in some cases) than when you got it and can sell to offset your losses if you can't refinance. W.C.S., if house prices drop dramatically, you walk away and go back to renting.

Yes, but its not as easy to walk away from a mortgage in Canada as it is in the USA (and that's a good thing). Also, if you stretch to make the payments now on a 5 year locked in at 4%, if that mortgage renews at 9% in 5 years and your income hasn't gone up appreciably and neither has the value of your place, you're in a bit of a pickle. I can't see these kind of prices as sustainable (barring massive inflows of foreign money). Time will tell, I suppose.