Social Housing in Vancouver - The 14 Sites

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by casper

I don't understand why the school board just does not go a developer and say. We need the bottom three stores for a school. You can build a 20 story condo tower on top of the school if you build the shell of the school and sign it over to us for a $1.

Aside from the question of who actually owns the land, there is also the issue of the city's desire to construct a child care facility and 5 storeys of social housing on that site, as reported above.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by casper

I don't understand why the school board just does not go a developer and say. We need the bottom three stores for a school. You can build a 20 story condo tower on top of the school if you build the shell of the school and sign it over to us for a $1.

Too many groups involved. Getting anything through one layer of government is a giant hassle.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Aside from the question of who actually owns the land, there is also the issue of the city's desire to construct a child care facility and 5 storeys of social housing on that site, as reported above.

If you can build a hotel and condo development in the same building I don't see the problem. Go to a developer and given them the land if they build out the shell of the school, daycare, and 5 stories owned by a housing society. They can then build for profit above all of that.

Not much different that what occurred with the Woodwards building.

[osirisboy]

Because that makes too much sense and that's not how bureaucracy works. They need to keeps things complicated to justify their jobs

[Genauso]

Is it time to re-visit this thread?

Vancouver's chief housing officer fired
&
Christy Clark is testing an ad that touts its investment in rental housing

The Quality Inn hotel next to the Granville St bridge is still a shelter/housing project. There are many vacant lots in the Concord owned Expo lands which are supposed to be some sort of affordable housing.
(see
Vancouver's Quality Inn homeless plan worries neighbours, Vancouver Park Board holds meeting citing safety concerns around homeless in warming centres)

I am not clear what the stages of strategy the City of Vancouver has tried, but I would guess the outgoing 'Chief Housing Officer' might be tied in with the preferential treatment of rental housing projects (eg: the one which caused the Aquilinis built rental on the Rogers arena property). No news outlets had an answer for why the Chief Housing Officer was fired mid-contract, but one of the smart forum members must understand what's going on.

So what's next? Anything but perpetual vacant lots would be good.
I doubt the Little Mountain project will have broken ground pre-provincial election after years of being a vacant lot.
Community gardens must be profitable if they're replacing busy gas stations, but I suspect its common taxpayers paying for it against their will.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Community gardens must be profitable if they're replacing busy gas stations, but I suspect its common taxpayers paying for it against their will.

I believe the community gardens provide a property tax break while the developer is going through the application process to build, or waiting for neighbouring lots to form a land assembly. If its a gas station, I think it has to sit for a certain amount of time for the soil remediation.

The community gardens seem like a good idea in theory, however, if the land is taxed at a reduced rate to prevent cash hemorrhaging, does the developer just sit on the land and wait for property prices to rise before building?

[officedweller]

Interesting story:

Bitter Lawsuit Reveals Delays / Downsizing of Yaletown Affordable Housing Plan Inevitable
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...n-affordable-housing-plan-was-inevitable

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Interesting story:

Bitter Lawsuit Reveals Delays / Downsizing of Yaletown Affordable Housing Plan Inevitable
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...n-affordable-housing-plan-was-inevitable

Ironic, bittter, and yet somehow predictable. It reinforces the old adage "Them as has, gets." I'm no communist, but I do think that a decent place to live is a basic human right.
At least in Canada, where we often flaunt our "universal and generous" social programs in front of our American neighbours.

[misher]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Ironic, bittter, and yet somehow predictable. It reinforces the old adage "Them as has, gets." I'm no communist, but I do think that a decent place to live is a basic human right.
At least in Canada, where we often flaunt our "universal and generous" social programs in front of our American neighbours.

I think a shelter should be basic, not a human right but we can all agree to put a few dollars towards it.

A condo like we’re doing for modular housing? That should be earned like the rest of us do.

However, I’m ok with subsidized housing where 20% of your income goes towards it. BC housing has this which is awesome.

I can agree on reasonably priced housing being a right if you work full time? Being rewarded for work should be a right. Being rewarded while doing nothing productive? That's just entitlement and should not be a right. I've talked to non-profit housing workers who told me stories about how their tenants are very self-entitled acting like the government should support them, I hate that attitude. Charity is for those who try hard and have real problems, not those who laze through life. Charity is a privlidge not a right!

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'd support a provincial or federal HDB. State-built, subsidized housing works much better than rent control.

Originally Posted by misher

I think a shelter should be basic, not a human right but we can all agree to put a few dollars towards it.

A condo like we’re doing for modular housing? That should be earned like the rest of us do.

If the existing modulars count as condos, just what kind of shelter would we be talking about here?

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd support a provincial or federal HDB. State-built, subsidized housing works much better than rent control.



If the existing modulars count as condos, just what kind of shelter would we be talking about here?

There's a few ways we could have done better either through smaller housing units or bunks. I think we should have measured what funding we had and decided on a solution that we could afford to house everyone instead of choosing the more expensive option and only housing a few. I'll review a few options below.




A Vancouver modular housing unit is comparable to a studio apartment (and slightly bigger than my university one).



An example of what they are building in Britain, its much smaller than the modular housing we're building allowing for 2x the housing in the space we're putting one.


An example of a 4 bed unit used in China. I think this would be great for families and allows for 4x the housing in the space we're putting one modular housing apartment (we'd need to add a bathroom).



A 40 sqft apartment in Hong Kong providing housing for up to 4 people (two couples). Shared washroom in hallway.



A LA shelter (that was shut down for lack of funding).



A shelter in Hong Kong



My point is we should build the shelter we can afford to house everyone. If that ends up being our current modular housing then so be it. But I suspect we can't afford to build units that large to house every single person. A reminder to everyone that its normal in many places for a working class family to inhabit apartments as small as 40sqft. I'd much rather have a few spare units and make the shelter uncomfortable than have not enough units and force people to stay outside.

Basically should we seek to provide luxury to a few or basic necessities to many? We could have solved our homeless problem and created housing for everyone by now instead of stubbornly insisting that we build condos comparable to what the working class have.


I hate leaving problems open, lets just nip our homeless problem in the bud, solve it by creating enough housing to house everyone even if its small and uncomfortable, and move on to other problems. Personally I'd have loved my own 40sqft condo in my early 20's so I don't think its intolerable (and I'll slap anyone who scoffs at smaller free housing) for the free housing we provide to be that size (possibly larger if we can afford it and your own washroom would be nice).


We can even create an incentive system where people who volunteer for work groups get better housing. Tons of work that needs to be done that you don't need an education for such as cleaning up garbage on the side of the street. I guess I'm a dreamer.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The British ones, by all means. But as a first world country, we should be aiming slightly higher than "spare classroom/laundromat/basement with bunks."

Also keep in mind that some of our homeless are evicted families. They don't all look like Demolition Man extras.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The British ones, by all means. But as a first world country, we should be aiming slightly higher than "spare classroom/laundromat/basement with bunks."

Yes and no. I think we should see how much cash we have, build to accommodate everyone with it, then we can work on improvements as funding allows. If current funding can afford to house everyone using the British style then I'm all for it. If not, then lets just house everyone first and worry about our reputation later.

Google says we have 3600 homeless, we've built 421 modular homes (half of the amount expected) with 2000 promised. We likely could have built the 2000 if we built 40sqft places and each 40sqft place could house two people.

We we got to be realistic with the numbers and aim at what we can achieve. Aim low and succeed rather than aim high and fail.

PS: the units I am discussing are for singles/couples. We can design units to better accommodate families and we can build buildings oriented towards certain groups: families, women, drug users, etc.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Google says we have 3600 homeless, we've built 421 modular homes (half of the amount expected) with 2000 promised. We likely could have built the 2000 if we built 40sqft places and each 40sqft place could house two people.

We we got to be realistic with the numbers and aim at what we can achieve. Aim low and succeed rather than aim high and fail.

Google also tells me that we'd have had more units if not for NIMBYs screaming "criminals!" and "think of the children!" It's not just packing people in, there's other factors too.

Personally I'd push for more, larger buildings, a mixture of sizes, and (just to make residents happy) a stricter screening process.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Google also tells me that we'd have had more units if not for NIMBYs screaming "criminals!" and "think of the children!" It's not just packing people in, there's other factors too.

Personally I'd push for more, larger buildings, a mixture of sizes, and a stricter screening process.

I'm actually with misher on this. Build smaller, simpler places. Shared washrooms and kitchens. Allow people to stay warm, have showers, food, and get a good sleep. That's what they need to get their lives back in order.

As for screening, that's where you'll get poverty-pushback. There's already complaints about people who are "hard to house" ie: want to take their dogs with them, etc, etc. And SROs get trashed quickly, unfortunately.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Google also tells me that we'd have had more units if not for NIMBYs screaming "criminals!" and "think of the children!" It's not just packing people in, there's other factors too.

Personally I'd push for more, larger buildings, a mixture of sizes, and a stricter screening process.

I definitely agree with larger buildings. I think certain buildings should be designated for certain groups (women, families, etc) so different unit sizes depending on the building. I don't believe it makes sense to mix families with singles.

I agree with screening too. Some people deserve help more than others and you want to ensure its a safe environment for everyone inside. Its very common in non-profits for tenants to rip out all the walls in the unit or have needles everywhere on & in the property.

However, I think NIMBY's have a point. Why are we building some of these buildings beside schools without telling people who the residents inside will be and why it will be safe. Also why are we not designating these buildings for specific uses. Women's or family housing is a lot more attractive if its built beside a school as opposed to recovering drug addicts. We sold modular housing wrong and it bit us in the ass.

Many people are pushing to put one modular housing building in every neighborhood. Instead I think we should be putting one building on every spare area of government land. Why isn't there one beside Vancouver city hall?

I'm actually with misher on this. Build smaller, simpler places. Shared washrooms and kitchens. Allow people to stay warm, have showers, food, and get a good sleep. That's what they need to get their lives back in order.

As for screening, that's where you'll get poverty-pushback. There's already complaints about people who are "hard to house" ie: want to take their dogs with them, etc, etc. And SROs get trashed quickly, unfortunately.

Thats one advantage of the 40sqft unit. If we construct them well in a modular form we may be able to put them together like lego blocks and if one gets trashed we just crane it out and put a new one in (I'm a dreamer). At 40sqft with economies of scale and mass production we can probably build them cheap enough that we can just store them in a warehouse and switch them out whenever we need to. Imagine if a housing unit for 1-2 people cost $10,000 instead of the $100-$200k we currently pay. We can even have a recycle/refurbishment facility where its fixed up and put back in inventory.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm actually with misher on this. Build smaller, simpler places. Shared washrooms and kitchens. Allow people to stay warm, have showers, food, and get a good sleep. That's what they need to get their lives back in order.

As for screening, that's where you'll get poverty-pushback. There's already complaints about people who are "hard to house" ie: want to take their dogs with them, etc, etc. And SROs get trashed quickly, unfortunately.

Emphasis on warm. Some of misher's examples don't seem to be particularly weatherproof or sanitary; last thing we need is a bunch of stereotypical government-run germ factories.

By screening I mean making sure they're not disruptive types. I believe that a previous post somewhere mentions a minimum quota of mentally ill or reoffenders - that, for one, has gotta go.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

However, I think NIMBY's have a point. Why are we building some of these buildings beside schools without telling people who the residents inside will be and why it will be safe. Also why are we not designating these buildings for specific uses. Women's or family housing is a lot more attractive if its built beside a school as opposed to recovering drug addicts. We sold modular housing wrong and it bit us in the ass.

On the flip side, a whole lot of these residents are just prejudiced - they flat-out ignore the 90% of homeless that act like decent human beings, in favour of the lizard people. I believe that said school had students protesting in favour of the housing.

Originally Posted by misher

Many people are pushing to put one modular housing building in every neighborhood. Instead I think we should be putting one building on every spare area of government land. Why isn't there one beside Vancouver city hall?

Because the one site available is becoming an extension of City Hall. The bureaucracy has to expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because the one site available is becoming an extension of City Hall. The bureaucracy has to expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy, after all.

How about from now on we design government buildings with a social housing component?

After all aren't most strata condos required to have rental units? Why not put our housing where our mouths are.

I don't think the government will have problems upping the density on its land to accommodate. Unless, Christ forbid, government bureaucracy are NIMBYs and don't want modular housing nearby?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

How about from now on we design government buildings with a social housing component?

After all aren't most strata condos required to have rental units? Why not put our housing where our mouths are.

I don't think the government will have problems upping the density on its land to accommodate. Unless, Christ forbid, government bureaucracy are NIMBYs and don't want modular housing nearby?

The homeless would have better representation in politics, and City Hall would have a new labour pool! Genius!