Little Mountain Redevelopment | U/C

[Genauso]

Redevelopment in limbo since 224 public housing units demolished in 2009

Yvette Brend · CBC News
It was called 'nothing short of criminal' when backhoes razed Vancouver's oldest public housing project — Little Mountain — in 2009.

Seven years later a plan is finally on the table to rebuild on the site.

On Tuesday night a public hearing on the rezoning application will reopen discussion on development of the prime real estate located at 155 East 37th Avenue.

The City of Vancouver has chosen Holborn Properties Ltd. to redevelop the site, which sits between Queen Elizabeth park and Main Street overlooking city hall.
Little Mountain site in Vancouver B.C.

The six-hectare Little Mountain site had sat empty since the controversial demolition of of the existing buildings in 2009. (Holborn/City of Vancouver)

The public hearing on the rezoning application is expected to draw a crowd given ongoing demand for affordable housing in Vancouver's red-hot housing market.

The new proposal to replace the 224 public housing units splintered by wrecking crews years ago includes:

• Three 12-storey mostly residential buildings
• 1,400 market value homes.
• 234 social housing units.
• 69-space childcare.
• 48 units of affordable housing adjacent to Main Street.
• A new community plaza and public park.
• A new city street and an extension of 35th Avenue

When Little Mountain social housing was demolished in 2009 activist Kia Salomons with Community Advocates for Little Mountain slammed the province for razing affordable homes.

"It's nothing short of criminal to be destroying solid, well-built homes with the knowledge that nothing will be built here for many years to come," Salomons told CBC at the time.

The project built in 1954 was home to 700 people and 37 buildings on the 15-acre or six-hectare site.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Genauso

[URL="http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/little-mountain-social-housing-public-meeting-redevelopment-1.3685239"] The City of Vancouver has chosen Holborn Properties Ltd. to redevelop the site, which sits between Queen Elizabeth park and Main Street overlooking city hall.

Crappy reporting.

The Province (Colman) sold the site to Holborn without City input. That's why it has taken so long to get moving. There was a total mismatch of what Holborn wanted to build and what the City (ie Neighbours) would tolerate.

[Vin]

I wonder what Holborn wanted to build there before. Anyone has renderings or preliminary plans?

[PaperTiger]

I don't recall if they released anything in terms of drawings at the time but I remember seeing a piece that mentioned 3.2 (or was it 3.6?) FAR gross. They were really aggressive about it and had hired Jim Green as a consultant to help them push it through. In the end he quit because he couldn't work with them.
The city thought the should be at 2.0-2.2 FAR which would match Arbutus walk.

In the end its 2.8 FAR, seven years later. If the market hadn't been on such a ridiculous tear they probably would have lost a tonne of money. As it is I think they will be more than fine.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I don't recall if they released anything in terms of drawings at the time but I remember seeing a piece that mentioned 3.2 (or was it 3.6?) FAR gross. They were really aggressive about it and had hired Jim Green as a consultant to help them push it through. In the end he quit because he couldn't work with them.
The city thought the should be at 2.0-2.2 FAR which would match Arbutus walk.

In the end its 2.8 FAR, seven years later. If the market hadn't been on such a ridiculous tear they probably would have lost a tonne of money. As it is I think they will be more than fine.

What exactly was the excuse for demolishing the existing buildings before they had a set in stone approved replacement?

7 years is a long time for a huge property and paltry that they are only adding 10 additional affordable housing units to what existed. Does nobody pay attention to the vacancy crunch or does everyone involved live in ignorance? The market units will not be affordable if they are rented out.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

What exactly was the excuse for demolishing the existing buildings before they had a set in stone approved replacement?

7 years is a long time for a huge property and paltry that they are only adding 10 additional affordable housing units to what existed. Does nobody pay attention to the vacancy crunch or does everyone involved live in ignorance? The market units will not be affordable if they are rented out.

I can't recall what the excuse was... What ever it was it wasn't adequate.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

What exactly was the excuse for demolishing the existing buildings before they had a set in stone approved replacement?

7 years is a long time for a huge property and paltry that they are only adding 10 additional affordable housing units to what existed. Does nobody pay attention to the vacancy crunch or does everyone involved live in ignorance? The market units will not be affordable if they are rented out.

Well it's 58 more if you include the 48 new units next to Main street.

I don't know how you define affordable but if you rent them out to someone and they pay the rent then I would say that is affordable...

Believe it or not most multi-millionaires are not looking to rent units in a 12 storey little mountain development, I'm sure the bulk of the rented out units will be lived in by locals.

[jlousa]

The reason the units were knocked down was to avoid them being occupied. This way they can proceed with construction as quickly as they'd like and no need to worry about evictions/squatting/protests etc. It's pretty common practice for better or worse.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well it's 58 more if you include the 48 new units next to Main street.

I don't know how you define affordable but if you rent them out to someone and they pay the rent then I would say that is affordable...

Believe it or not most multi-millionaires are not looking to rent units in a 12 storey little mountain development, I'm sure the bulk of the rented out units will be lived in by locals.

Um yeah, that was Cllr Kerry Jang's definition a few years ago and it got him laughed out of the park.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I don't recall if they released anything in terms of drawings at the time but I remember seeing a piece that mentioned 3.2 (or was it 3.6?) FAR gross. They were really aggressive about it and had hired Jim Green as a consultant to help them push it through. In the end he quit because he couldn't work with them.
The city thought the should be at 2.0-2.2 FAR which would match Arbutus walk.

In the end its 2.8 FAR, seven years later. If the market hadn't been on such a ridiculous tear they probably would have lost a tonne of money. As it is I think they will be more than fine.

Holborn is doing ok, and I think that`s how they could last that long without building anything here on the site, and without reselling it. The CEO`s dad and mom head TA Global, a cash-rich company based in Kuala Lumpur.

Arm-wrestling City of Vancouver isn`t a fun process to go through, and I`m surprised the City relented to allow the initial 2.0 FAR to go up to 2.8 (which is still very low compared to other neighbouring cities, IMO). I`m not surprised Holborn will choose not to build anything outside downtown Vancouver in suburbia Vancouver after going through this episode.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Um yeah, that was Cllr Kerry Jang's definition a few years ago and it got him laughed out of the park.

Out of the park? Which park?

Market is market. If people can't pay it market declines. Millionares and billionares aren't renting so the rental market is more or less indicative of the local market's ability to pay.

How exactly would you propose the city subsidize rentals under market for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of units?

Puhsing for more purpose built rental and more condos that eventually get rented out, while imposing a vacancy tax, is the only realistic thing the city can do to combat rising rental costs. That and remove the ability for landlords to sign one year negotiable leases.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Out of the park? Which park?

Market is market. If people can't pay it market declines. Millionares and billionares aren't renting so the rental market is more or less indicative of the local market's ability to pay.

How exactly would you propose the city subsidize rentals under market for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of units?

Puhsing for more purpose built rental and more condos that eventually get rented out, while imposing a vacancy tax, is the only realistic thing the city can do to combat rising rental costs. That and remove the ability for landlords to sign one year negotiable leases.

Sorry, park was a turn of phrase, not literal.

If people become increasingly desperate to find a place to live, then yes, they will find a way to "afford" paying 80% of their salary for a rental. Or they'll squeeze three roomies into a one bedroom. However it is certainly not ideal for them or the city.

Of course the city cannot subsidize thousands of rentals. What they can do is push harder for more measures to reign in out of control land costs. Gregor is supposed to be buddy buddy with Trudeau, so why isn't he lobbying more aggressively at that level? I'd suggest it is because despite the empty-house-tax theatre, he doesn't really want to jeopardize developer profits.

[trofirhen]

Paying 80 per cent of one's wages on rent is ... criminal. If not criminal, it's an infringement on the basic human right to habitation, IMO. Others may disagree, of course

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Paying 80 per cent of one's wages on rent is ... criminal. If not criminal, it's an infringement on the basic human right to habitation, IMO. Others may disagree, of course

You don't have a right to rent at the rate you want. If the price is too high, make more money or seek cheaper housing.

What you're saying is as absurd as me saying "The monthly payments on my Ferrari are too high, it's an infringement on the basic human right to free movement"

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Jebby

You don't have a right to rent at the rate you want. If the price is too high, make more money or seek cheaper housing.

What you're saying is as absurd as me saying "The monthly payments on my Ferrari are too high, it's an infringement on the basic human right to free movement"

Poor analogy. Unlike a vehicle, shelter is non-negotiable in this City. There is no alternative to rent, and high rent is now becoming inescapable. If you're solution is making anyone who is deemed "low-income" move to the Prairies or some derelict town in the interior, then just come out and state that.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Poor analogy. Unlike a vehicle, shelter is non-negotiable in this City. There is no alternative to rent, and high rent is now becoming inescapable. If you're solution is making anyone who is deemed "low-income" move to the Prairies or some derelict town in the interior, then just come out and state that.

No, i"m not saying that. I'm saying if you can't afford to rent in the CoV, that doesn't give you some sort of right to demand lower rents. If you can't afford it, move out to Surrey or Coquitlam where the rents are more in line with your income.

I'll take myself as an example. Here in Mexico City I spend about 40% of my net salary on rent. I pay an absurd amount to live in a small apartment with my family that's 450m away from work and less than 1km away from my daughter's school. For about half the money, I could get an apartment that's twice as big, has a pool and gym and other amenities, but it would be an hour drive from work.

If you want to live in the CoV, then you'll have to pay the price. If you don't want to pay that much, or can't afford it, your options are too look elsewhere in the suburbs. Simple as that. There is no right to demand rental prices in a certain area to be at the price that fits your income.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Jebby

No, i"m not saying that. I'm saying if you can't afford to rent in the CoV, that doesn't give you some sort of right to demand lower rents. If you can't afford it, move out to Surrey or Coquitlam where the rents are more in line with your income.

....

If you want to live in the CoV, then you'll have to pay the price. If you don't want to pay that much, or can't afford it, your options are too look elsewhere in the suburbs. Simple as that. There is no right to demand rental prices in a certain area to be at the price that fits your income.

Coquitlam? Ha good one. Surrey is barely affordable anymore. When I came back to BC in 2009, I was able to use 40% of my income to rent decent apartments in Vancouver and Burnaby. Now, you're lucky if you can get a basement suite in the outer fringes of Surrey for that price.

Getting rid of rental units in lieu for condos and free-market rentals will put the final nail in the coffin in the region for many. Rent in Surrey and the Valley will only increase further over the next decade as people flee the overpriced city.

[axestone]

Stop making such a logical, rational argument Jebby; they don't seem to go over too well here.

[whatnext]

Little Mountain characterized as an affordable housing Fail. It's pretty shocking there's only 50 more new units included in a development of this scale:

...The new Little Mountain approved by Vancouver council will create more than 1,500 new homes, but only about 50 of them will be additional social housing or so-called “affordable” housing.

The 224 replacement units that are part of the project are simply that — replacements. They add nothing to the stock of affordable housing...
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/09/12...using-Lessons/

[officedweller]

From UrbanYVR:

Holborn set to begin redevelopment of Little Mountain site

http://urbanyvr.com/holborn-little-m...social-housing


Rendering of an upcoming social housing building at East 38th and Main Street, part of Holborn Group’s Little Mountain redevelopment. Credit: Stantec/Holborn Group
http://urbanyvr.com/holborn-little-m...social-housing


http://urbanyvr.com/holborn-little-m...social-housing