This story came my way in the most random way. I was at the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association dinner last fall and talking to the man across the table who, it turned out to be the CEO of the Community Living Society.
So what, I asked Ross Chilton, is the big story in your world? He said: the problem of finding housing for people with developmental disabilities.
As I started on this story, I was surprised to discover that those with developmental disabilities don’t get any kind of priority status for subsidized units — in fact, they get fewer “points” because they’re not at risk of homelessness (since their parents are usually heavily involved in helping them out). And they don’t get any kind of extra subsidy for housing — just the standard $375 a month that is the allowance for anyone on disability or welfare.
My story is here, with some really compelling stories from parents about what they have gone through to try to ensure that their adult children get set on the path to independent living.
I’ve been curious about how Surrey will evolve ever since former mayor Dianne Watts set out to transform the city’s image and its reality.
Besides the music festivals and the beautification and the stunning new pools and other facilities built in the city, Watts also promised to create a downtown for Surrey out of almost literally nothing.
It’s been 10 years since she started talking about that. I took a closer look at what kind of development there has been — and what hasn’t arrived yet.
There are towers here and there, none of them yet forming a critical mass that feels urban. And there seems to have been a pause in development.
Some of that delay is because certain property owners are waiting to see exactly what the alignment of the new light-rail transit line will be.
But one Surrey watcher wrote to me afterwards with these observations.
Besides, as the story noted, a certain drop-off in energy and boosterism characteristic of the Watts noted, this writer said:
The other problem with slow growth in the City Centre is the lack of focus and the fact that this Council seems more concerned about courting political favour in neighbourhoods and with developers who want to build elsewhere. Also, the City Centre Plan covers too large an area. Even the Anthem property, across King George Boulevard, seems like it is in an area too distant from where development should be concentrated.
Finally, a lot of developers are waiting to learn what will happen with transit in Surrey City Centre. Everyone seems confident that LRT is coming, but station locations have shifted a few times and I believe the reason was that they were trying to accommodate larger station platforms to show that they can have longer trains and compete with SkyTrain, likely in response to some in Victoria who are pushing to replace the LRT plan with SkyTrain. This uncertainty, I believe, may have delayed some development.
I love community pools, as I think many of you know. I mourn the loss of the Mount Pleasant pool near me and I’m an ardent fan of New Brighton. The NPA campaign promise that got me the most excited was the one to build three new outdoor pools.
As a result of all that, when I travel, I’m a sucker for any hotel, agriturismo, resort, or Airbnb listing with a pool involved.
But what I love the most is not those private pools (though I do have a particular fondness for the one on the rooftop of the hotel I stayed at in Montevideo). It’s the local city pools wherever I go.
Here’s my Globe travel story on same.
I didn’t get to mention a few other anomalies I’ve discovered as I’ve swum my way through various cities
- We in Vancouver don’t realize how lucky we are in how many pools we have and how much they are open. In Minneapolis, I could not find a community pool in the middle of summer. The Y was closed, the city pool was open only to members. I guess that’s a function of the fact that they have multiple lakes in the city that are open for swimming, which is where I ended up going, but still. Not a single pool in a building for visitors? In Seattle, many of the pools are closed on Sundays — can you imagine anyone going for that here? And in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the lovely local pool in a gorgeous old building was only available to members who paid a hefty sum per year — more than was worthwhile even for a week of swims there.
- Pools show you the hidden side and the changes going on in a city. In Portland, the pool on the far east side of the city took me through areas where there was very little sign of the Portlandia hipsters who have become the caricatured symbol of the place At the pool in the Mississippi district, an area that has been undergoing a transformation from predominantly black area to hispter haven, it was obvious in the aquafit class, where there was a mix of both demographics in the pool.
March 17th, 2017 · 1 Comment
This was a strange one that no one could understand the timing of.
BC Hydro, in the last week of January, suddenly announced it wanted to build new electrical substations under a couple of downtown Vancouver parks — but it needed an agreement from parks, school board, and the city by March 31.
CEO Jessica McDonald said that it was because Hydro would have its unused capital money taken away by the provincial government at the end of the year if it wasn’t spent. It just didn’t make any sense.
The only explanation I’ve heard that does make any sense was that they wanted the deal in time for the election — something that could be shown off during the campaign as an innovative way the province was working to save money and build schools. (Hydro had offered to build two new schools downtown as part of the offer.)
Anyway, after some rushed public hearings and a quick online survey, it was raring to go. But the city, which had been pretty enthusiastic about the idea, calling it innovative and potentially rewarding for citizens, said it just couldn’t meet that deadline and wanted more time.
Council members voted in camera on that. There was also some initial skirmishing over the price. Hydro claimed Vancouver wanted the same value as buying the surface land, so then there would be no savings and no money available for building schools and refurbishing pars.
City manager Sadhu Johnston said there had been nothing beyond an opening offer and response, which, as anyone dealing with land knows, was not necessarily where they would end up.
So Hydro announced last week it was ceasing negotiations and rescinding the offer.
But I’m wondering if it might not come back next year.
This was a surprise move by the city’s new director of planning.
Gil Kelley, who was supposed to be just giving an update on feedback to the city’s proposals for ways to protect “character houses,” also announced last week that it was removing one city tool from the package — the proposal to drastically limit the size a new house could be if the owner had torn down a pre-1940s house on the lot.
My Globe story on same is here. My colleague Kerry Gold did another one that has more details on people who think that was a bad move. The issue also came up at the Urbanarium debate last week, where there was a really interesting back and forth about the merits and challenges of saving character homes.
Michael Kluckner, arguing for the pro side, made what I thought was a really valid proposal — that, if the city wants more density, it should stop just stringing it along arterials or allowing gentle density throughout the whole area. Instead, it should create more Kerrisdale-like villages that allow people to form more of a sense of community, which won’t happen among apartment dwellers lined up on busy streets.
He had a post on Gordon Price’s blog re this.
Javier Campos from Heritage Vancouver, on the other hand, raised some eyebrows with his statements that the emphasis on preserving homes only pre-1940 was a sign of Vancouver “anglo-colonial bias” when it comes to housing.
The video of the debate is here.
Vancouver planners are looking at a raft of ideas to increase housing in the city.
One that didn’t get as much attention as the mayor’s statement that the city was going to look at more ways to do gentle density in single-family zones was his reference, in the same speech, to new strategies for densifying apartment zones.
My Globe story on this here.
For those who’ve forgotten, there has been a moratorium since 2004 on demolishing or re-developing most of the city’s stock of those old three- and four-storey apartments that were built in the 1960s and ’70s.
It’s seen as a hugely valuable resource and, after a small wave of demolitions in the early 2000s, the NPA council of the time freaked and imposed the moratorium.
The only way a developer can take something down now is by building an equivalent number of rental suites in a new development and offering to rent them to existing tenants at discount on whatever the new rents are. I suspect hardly anyone is taking up that offer, but the city has never done a study to see what the outcome has been.
In the meantime, apartment brokers have been lobbying heavily to get the city to lift the moratorium, saying it is stifling the creation of new rental in the city.
Okay, that background aside, now they’re looking at possibly allowing owners to add one or two floors to existing older apartment buildings. A half dozen owners have done this in the West End, where additional density is already allowed. A change would mean tweaking the zoning in the many other apartment zones in the city to allow it.
At least a couple of apartment owners I talked to, though, thought the idea was unworkable. Adding that much weight to an old 1960s foundation and doing the electrical, elevator and stairwell upgrades would far outstrip the advantages of getting rents from two more floors of apartments, they said.
So … more to come on this issue.
When I was first heard about Adriane Carr’s motion to have staff looking at why the city is still shutting down illegal suites, I thought she was surely wrong.
After all, when COPE and Larry Campbell swept to power in 2002, one of their first major actions was to declare that all secondary suites were allowed. (It didn’t mean that all of them had official permits, which require them to meet certain building-code conditions, but they were at least not illegal, no mater what.)
But it turns out there are a whole bunch of, not secondary suites, but tertiary and quadernary (is that a word?) suites in the city that no one envisioned dealing with back in 2003.
I didn’t have the information in time for my Globe story that detailed one particular case and some others talking about the issue, but there are apparently 7,000 of these kinds of suites in the city, according to the always helpful Jens von Bergmann.
Carr’s motion to have staff look at ways to legalize these passed, so we’ll see what happens next.
There have been times in the last year when I’ve wondered whether Mayor Gregor Robertson is just phoning it in. He seemed absent, even when he was here, and disengaged.
But that person was not in evidence last week. The mayor, in one of the strongest speeches I’ve heard from him in a long time, talked about setting a new direction in housing and even being willing to take on the single-family-zone NIMBYs in order to create new housing. That was Tuesday. (My story here.)
Friday, he was a speaker at a transportation conference organized by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, where he spoke without notes, energetically making the case for various kinds of new transit and new funding. When, as moderator, I asked the question from the audience about extending the rapid-transit line to UBC, his short, simple answer was: “We should just go for it.”
I had been wondering whether he really planned to run again for mayor in 2018. I had my doubts. After last week, I’m tilting more to think he will make another run.
What is the province’s message to cities these days? Hard to tell, as we seem to be getting multiple messages.
There’s a lot of chatter in the background about how the province wants cities to boost their density around transit and help speed up supply by reducing the time to get permit.
But on the record, different ministers are saying different things.
I had an interview last weekend with Housing Minister Rich Coleman and TransLink Minister Peter Fassbender. They delivered a soft message, saying they’re not going to force municipalities to do anything, but will have “conversations” to encourage more density around transit and more “conversations” to talk about extracting money from developers because of the increase in their land values around transit, as a way of paying for said transit.
Then Rob Shaw at the Vancouver Sun had Finance Minister Mike de Jong with a somewhat harder line in this week’s paper, talking about carrots and sticks to force cities into zoning in more density around transit and, specifically, speeding up their permit times.
Sure sounds like developers have the ear of cabinet ministers whenever I hear that last line. Indeed, it’s true that some cities can be glacially slow about approving even routine developments — not even those that are generating resident backlash.
But the way the province keeps bringing up the “100,000 projects waiting for permits” in the region is an over-reach — some of those are only inquiries, for one. Others are perhaps rightly being held up because the project is crap.
I’ll be waiting to see how this one plays out and whether anything really happens, or whether this is all just noise to make it look like someone is doing something.