Social Housing in Vancouver - The 14 Sites

[fredinno]

BTW, off topic, but why was Misher banned?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

If they had zoned up the West End, they'd have plenty of room to trade monetary CAC for social housing. Same thing with the Cambie Corridor.

Shame that the property next to it, 1186 Granville St, wasn't part of this deal. Would actually allow for some redevelopment.

The West End Plan did upzone. some projects provide social housing as part of the project (like Mirabel and The Jervis). Others like the proposed towers on W Georgia pay a CAC and that money is allocated to community benefits that can include social housing.

1186 Granville wouldn't add much redevelopment potential, as there's a lightwell on the hotel building on the southern side. There's potential to redevelop on the northern side, where the low-rise section of the building sits. The hotel parking lot at 1150 Granville is also apparently included in the sale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

BTW, off topic, but why was Misher banned?

Created yet another thread about how "opposing PRC speculation = racism," and used the N-word. Wasn't the first time he did something like that either.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Created another thread about how "opposing PRC speculation = racism," and used the N-word. Wasn't the first time he did something like that either.

JFC good riddance.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Well, assuming Atira Women's Society (the non-profit that will run both of these buildings) only houses women at risk of homelessness... you've essentially just said you don't support 173 new units of social housing for women facing or at risk of homelessness and gender-based violence.

A lot of assumptions on your part. Nowhere did it say that the 15 mil hotel was meant for women facing violence. Also, what about the 55mil Howard Johnson hotel? As far as we know, people living there right now are from Oppenheimer Park camp: there are addicts, criminals and mentally unstable people. You should read up this (posted by whatnext earlier):

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/naked-man-car-intersection

What kind of downtown neighbourhoods are this city creating?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The West End Plan did upzone. some projects provide social housing as part of the project (like Mirabel and The Jervis). Others like the proposed towers on W Georgia pay a CAC and that money is allocated to community benefits that can include social housing.

1186 Granville wouldn't add much redevelopment potential, as there's a lightwell on the hotel building on the southern side. There's potential to redevelop on the northern side, where the low-rise section of the building sits. The hotel parking lot at 1150 Granville is also apparently included in the sale.

Yes, it did upzone... Like a couple blocks' worth.

1186 could have a light tube built on the south end of the property. Or just get permission to just close off those windows entirely.
I guess the Granville St sale isn't too bad then. How tall are they allowed to go here?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

A lot of assumptions on your part. Nowhere did it say that the 15 mil hotel was meant for women facing violence. Also, what about the 55mil Howard Johnson hotel? As far as we know, people living there right now are from Oppenheimer Park camp: there are addicts, criminals and mentally unstable people. You should read up this (posted by whatnext earlier):

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/naked-man-car-intersection

What kind of downtown neighbourhoods are this city creating?

I personally don't think it's a far fetched assumption that a women's housing non-profit with a mandate to provide supports and housing for women... will house women. If folks are already in the Howard-Johnson (I won't deny the possible make-up of the tenants), then they will likely maintain those residents as it is a COVID interim response. The purchases are for the interim COVID response and the long term. The CBC article stated specifically women will be moving into the Haro Street hotel, which I live right by, and I'm not sure if it would be any other case due to the non-profit they selected to run it.

BC Housing's long term plan for the H-J hotel, as it's also run by Atria, will most likely house at-risk women. Saying these total 173 units are a waste of money in a statement with no explanation before reading about those elements is odd.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Pennsylvania restoration was more expensive per unit to complete than buying an apartment building because it was a heritage building that was in a poor state. Part of the restoration re-constructed the long lost witches hat roof, for example. You can argue that public agencies shouldn't buy up heritage hotels and restore them, but there have been many more acquired and completed over the years since then, as it has remained a BC Housing priority to carry out a high quality restoration, rather than a cheaper quick fix.

These days apartment buildings cost more like $500,000 a unit or more in Vancouver, [like this for example] but buying those buildings doesn't help solve homelessness as they're usually fully tenanted. A cursory look suggests there are very few buildings currently available in the market

Quoting prices today is meaningless. How about you compare what condo prices are today versus 10-20 years ago? The point? One can't be made.

The whole point is spending extra to fix up a heritage building, building at higher than regular new construction costs when one could buy for measurably less than replacement costs is unconscionable, especially when monies are being used to help those most in need. Talk about the poverty industry taking its pound of flesh.

Unforgivable, and any defense of the situation smacks of bureaucratic tone-deafness in the face of reality.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

Quoting prices today is meaningless. How about you compare what condo prices are today versus 10-20 years ago? The point? One can't be made.

The whole point is spending extra to fix up a heritage building, building at higher than regular new construction costs when one could buy for measurably less than replacement costs is unconscionable, especially when monies are being used to help those most in need. Talk about the poverty industry taking its pound of flesh.

Unforgivable, and any defense of the situation smacks of bureaucratic smugness in the face of reality.

You were the one that raised the comparison with a 2008 renovation and compared it to the price of apartments then. I'm just pointing out that these rooms are cheaper than the cost of apartment units bought today. So my numbers are relevant to the transaction today. I have no idea what point you were trying to make in relation to the purchase of these hotels.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yes, it did upzone... Like a couple blocks' worth.

39 towers and over 7,000 units proposed so far. Way more than a couple of blocks.

Originally Posted by fredinno

1186 could have a light tube built on the south end of the property. Or just get permission to just close off those windows entirely.
I guess the Granville St sale isn't too bad then. How tall are they allowed to go here?

That's an expensive idea for a tiny site if it's for non-market housing. Irrelevent, as it's owned by someone else. Windowless bedrooms aren't a great idea either - this isn't a Burnaby highrise.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I hate to be the NIMBY, and I fully support social housing... but that news about the Howard Johnson Hotel worries me.

First, Vancouver needs mid market hotel rooms, not just luxury or crack houses.

Second, this really could be the seed for second Main and Hastings.

I know the homeless need somewhere to sleep but the cold hard truth is with them they will bring all the issues that plague the downtown Eastside. Unless enforcement is actually done, but we all know the current feeling towards law enforcement now...

I support the other project though (the woman’s facility).

I think it depends on how they do this. If it becomes proper supportive housing, that could work. If it becomes another SRO, yikes!

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

39 towers and over 7,000 units proposed so far. Way more than a couple of blocks.

That's an expensive idea for a tiny site if it's for non-market housing. Irrelevent, as it's owned by someone else. Windowless bedrooms aren't a great idea either - this isn't a Burnaby highrise.

Yes, a couple of blocks.

7000 units isn't a lot when the West End's population is over 631,485 people.

It may be a windowless hallway, not a bedroom.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

7000 units isn't a lot when the West End's population is over 631,485 people.

It may be a windowless hallway, not a bedroom.

That map shows the rezoning policy areas. Many of the new towers are being built to the new zoning that doesn't require rezoning, like on Davie Street and Robson Street.

That's not the population of the West End.

That's not how the rooms in old hotels are arranged.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That map shows the rezoning policy areas. Many of the new towers are being built to the new zoning that doesn't require rezoning, like on Davie Street and Robson Street.

That's not the population of the West End.

That's not how the rooms in old hotels are arranged.

Yep, and I've been pretty vocal about how it makes no sense they're only allowing towers on the arterials and specific areas of the West End, the areas of which the map shows (mostly, there's not one that shows everything).

I meant Vancouver's population. Either way, point is, this sort of thing wouldn't have been necessary if they were more forward-looking in their rezoning, because clearly the current rate of inner city social housing CACs isn't enough on its own (Broadway can't go that high due to viewcones), and yet there's plenty of potential to collect more CACs.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yep, and I've been pretty vocal about how it makes no sense they're only allowing towers on the arterials and specific areas of the West End, the areas of which the map shows (mostly, there's not one that shows everything).

I meant Vancouver's population. Either way, point is, this sort of thing wouldn't have been necessary if they were more forward-looking in their rezoning, because clearly the current rate of inner city social housing CACs isn't enough on its own (Broadway can't go that high due to viewcones), and yet there's plenty of potential to collect more CACs.

Conditionally, not through a rezoning in most areas internally in the 'hood, you can build up to 190 feet or 58 metres, if I'm reading RM zoning correctly.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Conditionally, not through a rezoning in most areas internally in the 'hood, you can build up to 190 feet or 58 metres, if I'm reading RM zoning correctly.

that doesn't seem like much... Richmond builds almost every building to the 45m max. and that is a suburb.

[GenWhy?]

On the note of the Haro Street project, the one thing I hope they maintain is the landscaping - which is a huge component of that building from a public perspective, and aids to the resto underneath.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Richmond is Richmond. If they didn't build as many units for the PRC speculators as possible, they'd implode.

[SeymourDrake]

This will be possibly labelled a Rant but if you read back just about every post is filled with frustraion.

Where is a good place to dump all of the homeless, mentally ill, drug addicts, so that some of you will stop complaining that your neighborhoods are ruined? Where?

Is a neighborhood any better when the drug addicts are in million $ + Condos?

As most of you know there are various levels of our society that are drug addicts. From Street users to Dial a Doper users to High End users.

A drug addict is a drug addict.... not all homeless people are addicts. If medicated and properly cared for they are quite balanced. Are they not allowed to have an opinion just because they have a disability?

Some of you need to stop living in the past and live in this decade... as ugly as it's been.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

Where is a good place to dump all of the homeless, mentally ill, drug addicts, so that some of you will stop complaining that your neighborhoods are ruined? Where?

Kamloops?