Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Sad to see those palm trees and cherry trees go. Would be nice if the redevelopment reincorporated them instead of just planting more eastern maples (as I am sure they will)...

Yeah those palms have matured quite nicely. I remember when they were planted they were quite small. Would be worth alot now at that size (well into the $1000's).

Either will be sold and transplanted elsewhere or re-incorporated.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

This works, look at Kits, developed in the past 50+years with a ton of "social housing" for families, vibrant neighborhood and kids don't end up growing in a ghetto. Another example = social housing units in Yaletown and Coal Harbour.

Moderation is good. An oversupply of social housing, such as downtown Granville south, is turning certain areas rather seedy.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

*Middle-class
And obviously the Downtown Eastside has its own problems, and you're right that some of those people may not ever escape the welfare system, for whatever reason. But displacing them and their landscape certainly doesn't help.

And what about those living in gentrified walk-up neighbourhoods in Metrotown? Just about all of those people have jobs, and yet their buildings are being torn down to build towers they can't afford to live in. Is that "very good?" How it falls within the realm of pros vs cons is another question, but for those affected by it, gentrification is certainly not very good.

Of course the general cleanup of neighbourhoods is good, but not when that cleanup results in people being forced out.

If you get a bunch of hardcore poor congregating in one neighbourhood, they are all in their comfort zone and refuse to get out of the rut. Force them out to different parts of society and perhaps they will be forced to make life better for themselves. Canada is a country of plenty: everyone has an ability to do something good for himself/herself with opportunities abound. Everything else is just a poor excuse. If their buildings get torn down, move somewhere further where they can afford. If you are renting, you don't OWN the structure you live in. Others who toil with their sweat, tears and blood own it, and they have every right to decide what they want to do with it. You don't.

Downtown Vancouver's growth is seriously curtailed when we have to deal with nonsense like this.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

If you get a bunch of hardcore poor congregating in one neighbourhood, they are all in their comfort zone and refuse to get out of the rut. Force them out to different parts of society and perhaps they will be forced to make life better for themselves. Canada is a country of plenty: everyone has an ability to do something good for himself/herself with opportunities abound. Everything else is just a poor excuse. If their buildings get torn down, move somewhere further where they can afford. If you are renting, you don't OWN the structure you live in. Others who toil with their sweat, tears and blood own it, and they have every right to decide what they want to do with it. You don't.

I have no issue with a certain level of displacement. At some point, change occurs, and some people will be harmed by it. This is true of pretty much all change. However, I think if we razed the DTES and rebuilt the buildings or put a freeway or something on it (as per traditional "urban renewal" practices) it would have no upside. These people are already drug addicted, mentally ill and extremely poor. They're not gonna get their shit together by getting kicked out. At the very least what they have in the DTES is a certain amount of social capital: connections, support groups, etc. Dispersing them rids them even of that, while doing nothing to change their underlying issues.

And again, that's the DTES. What about Metrotown? These people play entirely by the rules: they have jobs, they're not on drugs, they pay their rent. They're our service workers, our janitors, etc. They're lucky enough to live somewhere with cheap rent. I agree that they don't own the space. But if they're gonna be displaced, especially when it's encouraged by the government through OCPs and the Regional Growth Strategy, they better have somewhere else to go. And there aren't very many neighbourhoods out there that have the rents that those walkups in Metrotown have. When owners get pushed out through redevelopment, they get paid for their property and can buy another one. When renters are pushed out, they may not have anywhere to go.

As I've said a few times now, I'm not even arguing against gentrification. I have no problem with the rapid redevelopment of Metrotown, though I do wish it had a much, much stronger social housing component. My only issue was your statement that "gentrification is seen by most people as very good." That's what I disagree with. It might have its positives for people like you and me, but damn if it isn't a shit deal for a lot of good people.

[Metro-One]

I have never bought the social capital, we have a community here, argument. Not trying to be insensitive but that community has had many decades to mature and the problems only seem to be getting worse, almost as if this community has a toxic positive feedback loop encouraging more drug use and fewer chances to escape the circle.

Fully support help programs and safe injection sites, but they can't be concentrated in one single spot, it should be obvious now that such an approach doesn't work. Also there needs to be a little bit more tough love with having them learn how to take care of themselves and other monitoring in social support housing projects.

If you are a raging alcoholic the last place you should be is in a community full of other actively drinking raging alcoholics with housing that has little to no supervision and a liquor store in every corner. But that is exactly what the DTES community is, and changes need to be made.

I do agree that all social / low income housing taken away should be replaced elsewhere in the city.

[Prometheus]

It should be obvious to any rational human being that people's lives are not made better by living in the worst drug ghetto in the country. The DTES is where people's lives hit rock bottom, not improve--an obvious fact corroborated by a ten-year academic study by Simon Fraser University:

Many are worse off after moving to Vancouver's Downtown Eastside

Lori Culbert, Vancouver Sun 01.07.2016


As Vancouver city hall continues to struggle with its promise to end homelessness, a new study provides evidence for the first time that the majority of people in the Downtown Eastside didn’t start off in that distressed neighbourhood — but came from other cities and provinces...

The Simon Fraser University paper tracks the movement of a group of chronically homeless, drug-addicted and mentally ill people during a 10-year period...

By tracking medical, justice and social service records, the study also proves the participants’ lives became more desperate over that decade...

The researchers conclude the participants migrated to the Downtown Eastside to access the services there — shelters, free food, drug treatment and non-judgmental medical services — but also struggled in a place riddled with illegal drugs, seedy housing, crime, poor health and poverty.

“Despite the high concentration of services and supports in the Downtown Eastside, members of the current sample experienced significant personal decline rather than recovery,” says the study, the first to examine geographic migration and long-term changes in service use among chronically homeless, mentally ill adults...

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/most+...+migrated+from+other/11635080/story.html

[jlousa]

Gentrification??? in the DTES? *l* that ended when Vision approved the new area plan. Rezonings dropped from 26 down to 12, and none of those are market condos.

[logan5]

Development is slowly progressing towards the DTES. Once Chinatown is mostly built out, developers will start looking at the DTES. It's not like developers were rushing in there before the new plan.

The city allows for some pretty high densities for market condos east of Heatly, but there's not a lot of building going on around there either.

[jlousa]

They will not move into the DTES under the current plan, the area will be left to langish and the only development will be government funded housing or micro rental units. Chinatown will continue to absorb development even with the backlash occuring as the zoning is favourable.

[logan5]

Obviously shelter rate units are not profitable, but the other tiers of social housing would pull in a lot more rental income. For example a HILS rate unit, which would be a micro-suite (around 285sq ft), could rent for $910. A tiny no frills suite with no parking at 910/month. On a per sq ft basis, that's on par with expensive rents in Vancouver.

I wonder how far off the numbers actually are in order for these buildings to meet whatever expectations developers have.

[Marshal]

Shit! I hate wading into these kinds of completely misinformed discussions. Some of you have plenty to say, and base it on simplistically obvious thoughts that only make sense as pet peeves. You don't understand what you are talking about . . . easy and simple interpretations only make a mess of what is a very complex social, economic, medical (addiction), cultural and political situation.

I am not going to engage the content, but I will say: listen to GlassCity, and ignore the uninformed and opinionated.

Oh, and one more thing: don't ruin this thread with this bullshit.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Shit! I hate wading into these kinds of completely misinformed discussions. Some of you have plenty to say, and base it on simplistically obvious thoughts that only make sense as pet peeves. You don't understand what you are talking about . . . easy and simple interpretations only make a mess of what is a very complex social, economic, medical (addiction), cultural and political situation.

I am not going to engage the content, but I will say: listen to GlassCity, and ignore the uninformed and opinionated.

Oh, and one more thing: don't ruin this thread with this bullshit.

So, does "understanding this complex situation" help make DTES better during the past few decades? As far as I know, the situation is much worse today, and it is definitely impeding downtown's growth.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I have no issue with a certain level of displacement. At some point, change occurs, and some people will be harmed by it. This is true of pretty much all change. However, I think if we razed the DTES and rebuilt the buildings or put a freeway or something on it (as per traditional "urban renewal" practices) it would have no upside. These people are already drug addicted, mentally ill and extremely poor. They're not gonna get their shit together by getting kicked out. At the very least what they have in the DTES is a certain amount of social capital: connections, support groups, etc. Dispersing them rids them even of that, while doing nothing to change their underlying issues.

And again, that's the DTES. What about Metrotown? These people play entirely by the rules: they have jobs, they're not on drugs, they pay their rent. They're our service workers, our janitors, etc. They're lucky enough to live somewhere with cheap rent. I agree that they don't own the space. But if they're gonna be displaced, especially when it's encouraged by the government through OCPs and the Regional Growth Strategy, they better have somewhere else to go. And there aren't very many neighbourhoods out there that have the rents that those walkups in Metrotown have. When owners get pushed out through redevelopment, they get paid for their property and can buy another one. When renters are pushed out, they may not have anywhere to go.

As I've said a few times now, I'm not even arguing against gentrification. I have no problem with the rapid redevelopment of Metrotown, though I do wish it had a much, much stronger social housing component. My only issue was your statement that "gentrification is seen by most people as very good." That's what I disagree with. It might have its positives for people like you and me, but damn if it isn't a shit deal for a lot of good people.

If something benefits 80% of the population and inconveniences the 20%, then majority still rules, and it's still a good thing. There are many more hardworking people, especially the younger generation who would benefit tremendously to be able to live near downtown if East Hastings/DTES is gentrified. Think about that. Downtown is the major economic engine that drives the growth of not just this city but of the entire province. It would not make sense to dedicate such a huge area to house people who choose not to contribute to the workforce. Many of the newer developments are pushing for affordable rental buildings, so what's there to protest about?

Regarding Metrotown, almost all the walkups are dirty and unsafe buildings by today's standards. New, higher density housing needs to replace them. However, I have to concede that the City should push the developers to provide more affordable rental buildings to replace the ones demolished. With that said, I would still say replacing them is still benefiting a lot more people than affecting those to be displaced. Across town, there are quite a few more affordable rental housing coming up. They may not be at the Beresford location, but they can still find somewhere else to live in.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

So, does "understanding this complex situation" help make it better during the past few decades? As far as I know, the situation is much worse today, and it is definitely impeding downtown's growth.

People at the very bottom of society living in the only place that allows it is a problem because it "impedes downtown's growth?" Really?

The Downtown Eastside is without question a massive problem, and hell, I'd be somewhat sympathetic to a cause that wanted to allow for improved opportunities for them elsewhere, with support services and plentiful social housing. But you can't just raze the neighbourhood without a plan for what to do with those who are already there. Simply going ahead with large-scale gentrification won't solve anything.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

People at the very bottom of society living in the only place that allows it is a problem because it "impedes downtown's growth?" Really?

The Downtown Eastside is without question a massive problem, and hell, I'd be somewhat sympathetic to a cause that wanted to allow for improved opportunities for them elsewhere, with support services and plentiful social housing. But you can't just raze the neighbourhood without a plan for what to do with those who are already there. Simply going ahead with large-scale gentrification won't solve anything.

There are downtowns in way bigger cities that don't quite have a place like our DTES. I don't see their less fortunate being worse off, do you? Does Toronto need a DTES? Does Montreal need a DTES? Are their social welfare services inferior because they don't have a DTES? Gentrification of the area only disperses the people living there. Overall it would be good for the city. Life goes on, and those former residents will be housed in better surroundings.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Vin

There are downtowns in way bigger cities that don't quite have a place like our DTES. I don't see their less fortunate being worse off, do you? Does Toronto need a DTES? Does Montreal need a DTES? Are their social welfare services inferior because they don't have a DTES? Gentrification of the area only disperses the people living there. Overall it would be good for the city. Life goes on, and those former residents will be housed in better surroundings.

You must be right Vin. Sweep them into the corners, spread them out so they don't get noticed so much, get them isolated, take their social realm away, make it hard to access their services, no wait, just reduce those services . . .

Toronto? no DTES of its own: have you been to the Jane-Finch corridor? the area east of the beaches . . . the South near side of Chicago? . . . south Philly, south Boston, east LA downtown? I could go on. Do you know any facts that say the DTES is worse than a decade ago? Your statements are meaningless because they bely a full rounded lack of understanding. Rhetorically empty stuff Vin.

Sad thing is, what you think is good is happening and is going to continue until completion. GlassCity understands - its not about gentrification, population replacement, urban planning - its about people with specific needs they cannot meet themselves. The majority must care for the minority because no-one else will. Compassion dictates that these unfortunate and likely permanently fucked people deserve society as a whole look upon them and consider the quality of their lives.

Vin, you state some worthy points, but you phrase it all such that you come across as heartless, to which I don't care, except that such soft human notions are needed at times to get us all to do the tough things, the right things. There are ways to discuss all the sides of this subject without being a dick on any of them.

[Prometheus]

Under the status quo, the Downtown Eastside is a blackhole of misery, crime, illness, addiction and death. People are dying in droves in an endless cycle of violence, disease and drugs. In just a few square blocks, about 30 people per month are dying from drug overdoses alone. The Downtown Eastside is where your life hits absolute rock bottom or prematurely ends altogether; it's not where it improves. As should be obvious to anyone and has now been shown by a 10-year empirical study by Simon Fraser University, people experience "significant personal decline rather than recovery" after moving to the DTES. A person's life (and life expectancy) would be better just about anywhere other than the DTES.

Anyone who defends the status quo and opposes the gradual break-up of that fatally-toxic, meat-grinder neighbourhood, thus condemning current and future generations of Vancouver's most troubled to an endless nightmare of misery, hopelessness and wasted lives, cannot claim compassion as his or her motivation.

[SFUVancouver]

Parts of the DTES are far better than they were in the past. My father used to work in Gastown and in the mid- to late-1990s the corner of Abbot and Hasting was sketchy, to say the least. There was a pawn shop on the corner and a permanent coterie of badass drug dealers and lookouts. Now there's a Prado on the corner. Nothing else in Vancouver's transformation in the last couple decades bowls me over as much as the change to the corner of Abbot and Hastings.

But, essentially nothing has improved east of there. In fact, there are places to the east that are far worse now than they were before. In elementary school in the early 1990s I distinctly remember going on a field trip to this children's arts center to do the coolest arts and crafts you can imagine in this giant warehouse, like making forts with refrigerator boxes, lumber(!), concrete column cylinder forms, and paint. We spent the whole morning there making this amazing group creation and then had a picnic lunch in Oppenheimer Park(!!) before going back for the afternoon and dressing up in costumes to play together in our creation. That was on Powell a block away from Oppenheimer Park. We took regular transit buses there and I have zero memory of anything feeling weird or scary, to which kids are pretty well atuned. Now that building is a homeless shelter: https://goo.gl/maps/yJ1VoatjT6n

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

There are downtowns in way bigger cities that don't quite have a place like our DTES. I don't see their less fortunate being worse off, do you? Does Toronto need a DTES? Does Montreal need a DTES? Are their social welfare services inferior because they don't have a DTES? Gentrification of the area only disperses the people living there. Overall it would be good for the city. Life goes on, and those former residents will be housed in better surroundings.

Toronto and Montreal don't have equivalents to the DTES because they don't have nearly the same homeless population that we do, because it's damn cold out there. The west coast will always be a magnet for the homeless - the US faces a similar phenomenon in San Diego, LA, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco.

No one's denying that the DTES isn't a woeful place that doesn't exactly breed much hope. What I've been trying to say is that by redeveloping it, you won't get rid of those people. Right now, it's the only place they can live. It might not be much of a life, but it's something. Dispersing them throughout the city will do nothing to fix our homeless problem, if that's our goal. The people will still have addictions, still have mental illnesses, etc. That doesn't change whether they're sleeping on the streets of the DTES, or Commercial Drive, or anywhere else. Their place is not what causes these problems - that's straight up 1950s thinking. We need more treatment and housing options, not throwing them on the sidewalks of a different neighbourhood. How exactly would that help anything? It's not like they'll develop connections with nearby neighbours. All the same issues will apply, except now they have a weakened support network and even less opportunities for shelter.

[Skook]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Under the status quo, the Downtown Eastside is a blackhole of misery, crime, illness, addiction and death. People are dying in droves in an endless cycle of violence, disease and drugs. In just a few square blocks, about 30 people per month are dying from drug overdoses alone. The Downtown Eastside is where your life hits absolute rock bottom or prematurely ends altogether; it's not where it improves. As should be obvious to anyone and has now been shown by a 10-year empirical study by Simon Fraser University, people experience "significant personal decline rather than recovery" after moving to the DTES. A person's life (and life expectancy) would be better just about anywhere other than the DTES.

Anyone who defends the status quo and opposes the gradual break-up of that fatally-toxic, meat-grinder neighbourhood, thus condemning current and future generations of Vancouver's most troubled to an endless nightmare of misery, hopelessness and wasted lives, cannot claim compassion as his or her motivation.

This cannot be emphasized enough. A good many well intentioned people in this city accept the “at least they have somewhere” argument without seeming to grasp what they are condemning people to. Breaking with addiction almost by definition means getting out of the problem environment. There is virtually no chance of this happening when your entire neighbourhood is the problem environment. The DTES cannot be saved by adding treatment and housing because the very existence of the DTES is a major part of the problem. It needs to go.

Of course, we need treatment and housing and all of those things, but they should be located literally anywhere but in the DTES.

If I were king of the world, able to stifle all opposition and call property owners and developers to action at my will, I would replace every social housing unit in the DTES, and then some, with units located elsewhere and then shut the DTES down. If a resident is not willing to be housed elsewhere, too farking bad, no one else gets to demand that they live in a certain neighbourhood and pay nothing for it. If a social agency won’t move to where their clients are now located to provide their services, then fund a different social agency. And this would be all public knowledge so that the tremendous latent property value in the area (close to waterfront, downtown, great views, etc.) could be released to help pay for it.

What we have been doing for the past couple of decades – and which people who should know better continue to advocate, remarkably – is the epitome of that cliched definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Enough already. People are dying. Time to grow up, Vancouver, and shut this heartless shitshow down.

[logan5]

The social housing in the DTES iszn't going anywhere, and the City bought a bunch of the SRO hotels there as well, so most low income residents will not be displaced. In fact, there are hundreds of shelter rate units being built (some have been built) in the DTES due to the inclusive zoning rules, with many more to come.