Wolves in sheep's clothing - Episode 2

CC #139 - in which we analyze some aspects of Vancouver's "Social Housing Initiative" and come away unsettled.

The city’s Social Housing Initiative logo — the details are here.

Who can possibly disagree with social housing? How evil could I be to challenge it?

Thanks to Vancouver Council’s limits on presentations to them (3 minutes or about 500 words), I really need to cut to the chase so I will refer to the city’s explanatory “boards”¹:

Social housing is NOT co-operative housing, or supportive housing or (thank goodness but I beg to differ) SROs.

So how is social housing distinguished from the others? In the city’s own words²:

We have many examples of non-profits and government partnering with private sector developers, so add that to the first bullet point mix.

Wait a minute! So only 30% of social housing is for folks with moderate incomes, which the city defines as³:

So 70% of the folks living in so-called social housing can have incomes above these limits. Noticing these income limits must be net incomes, since rent is paid by after tax money, this means social housing is NOT for: starting teachers ($60,000 gross); starting nurses ($60-69,000 gross depending on overtime/shifts); starting firefighters in Vancouver ($72,000 gross). So folks in those important jobs do not qualify for even a one-bed social housing unit—they must be part of the 70% for whom there are no rent guidelines. Those 70% are at least required to remain as rentals—phew!

Of course, those rentals could be at projects like L2, whose minimal homes we have written about previously. L2 rentals for those NOT qualifying for the 30%, so the teacher, nurse and fireman, have these L2 options:

• Studio $2,650 - $2,750 per month, $31,800 - $33,000 per year;

• One-bed $2,999 - $3,275 pre month, $35,988 - $39,300 per year;

• Two-bed $4,050 - $4,200 per month, $48,600 - $50,400 per year.

So that teacher, nurse or firefighter, who do not qualify for the subsidized 30%, must devote 50% or more of their gross income to rent, this in a society that says 30% of gross income is the maximum one can afford to devote to rent or mortgage⁴.

I keep coming back to the teacher, nurse and firefighter because the city’s somehow lost them in their mix:

No teachers, nurses or firefighters in this chart from the city’s Board #7—perhaps too embarrassing?

So far we’ve identified that teachers, nurses and firefighters need not apply. Moving on to approvals, we have this fascinating diagram from the city’s Board #13:

Let’s assume the city’s timeline is accurate. The removal of all that is democratic (inside the dotted lines) ostensibly saves 19 months of approval timing. But the remainder is still 3-1/2 to almost 5 years.

So here’s the magic solution:

• Throw out democracy and save 1-1/2 years

• Move in in as little as 3-1/2 Years!

And just to make sure there are plenty of development opportunities, let’s invite proposals from these few blocks of the city (up to 6 storeys in the orange areas, 15-18 in the purple)⁵. The diagram below is the city’s, based on the Vancouver Plan, adopted by Council but not yet our Official Community Plan:

Still missing Shaughnessy but not much else!

So pretty much the entire city when you take out the various mega projects and the Broadway Plan.

And what will these building look like? Remember, this includes pretty much all areas two blocks either side of Commercial, Kingsway, Victoria, Fraser, Main, West Boulevard, Dunbar, Broadway and 4th—and that’s just the 15-18 storey area⁶:

Board #19’s image—personally I like the “family sized units spread thoughout the building, here annotated on the 15th floor.

To be clear, I am not opposed to social or rental housing—I designed lots of it during my career. But I am personally opposed to the imposition of any form of housing in the midst of most of the city’s 22 existing neighbourhoods with no opportunity for citizen input. That’s what’s at stake here.

Don’t blink or you will miss the opportunities for public input:

In summary:

• Social housing is actually only 30% social housing.

• The other 70% is nowhere near affordable rental.

• All public input to mid- and high-rise proposals covering most of the city not already spoken for by mega projects will be gone if this initiative is approved.

‘Nuff said!

---

The post above is 703 words, takes me 4 minutes to read—one minute more than what citizens are now allowed for presentations to Vancouver City Council.

---

If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

Brian Palmquist writes on the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” A glutton for punishment, he recently started writing a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places we love to live.

1. Board #5 in the city’s ptresentation.

2. Board #6 in the city’s presentation.

3. Board #7 in the city’s presentation.

4. agreed to on Board #7 of the city’s presentation. So we’re in alignment here.

5. Board #16 in the city’s presentation.

6. Full disclosure—I live less than two blocks off one of these streets, so could redevelop to 15-18 storeys. Retirement here I come!