Comments on: Solving homelessness, beyond spin 2: David C’s response

By: fbula

fbula — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:03:40 +0000

I have lots to say about David’s post, but just re the 2,000 number. The current zoning on the site would allow for 1,000, as per the Visioning plan that was arrived at with the community. There has been talk that Coleman suggested in the past that he’d like to see up to 2,000 units there.

However, it’s up to the city and the developer now to work that out. If the developer wants more than the current 1,000 allowed, that will have to be negotiated and certainly the city would ask for benefits in return. Simon Lim’s price he paid surely reflected the fact that there is no guarantee he will get more than 1,000. Possibly his offer was a sliding one, based on what he could get in rezoning.

The city could, if I’m not mistaken, negotiate in that rezoning for other options, things like affordable market rental or whatever.

By: RossK

RossK — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:23:35 +0000

Otis K–

Two thousand (or more) would, indeed, appear to be the total number, according to an old Tyee story from Monte Paulsen.

And all 224 social housing units would be rebuilt….

Which sounds impressive, eh?

But here’s the thing….that would mean that the social housing component would go from 100% down to 11%.

Which sounds a little less impressive.

Eh?

_____
Oh, and if you go to the official BC Housing Little Mountain ‘website’ you will find all kinds of blah, blah, blah, but very little and/or nothing about the actual ‘numbers’. Funny, that, eh.

By: re:place Magazine

re:place Magazine — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:56:49 +0000

[...] bus plan [Surrey Leader] Signs of Change [Price Tags] Liberals’ Okanagan Overhaul [The Tyee] Solving homelessness, beyond spin 2: David C’s response [State of Vancouver] CANADA Mayors to stress transit, housing at national meeting [The Globe and [...]

By: td

td — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:39:12 +0000

I agree that it is critical to start talking about more variety than non-market housing and high-priced condos, which seems to be the mix we have been getting a lot. Everything in between those two is hugely important for a sustainable and livable city.

Municipal rental housing that is long-term and affordable would be important. Doing away with the ridiculous rules against strata-titling would do wonders. Allowing multiple units in our so-called single family zones would be good, softening our idiotic parking requirements in the process. We could produce a lot of affordability by investing in rental housing and changing City by-laws that make creating affordable housing impossible.

By: Otis Krayola

Otis Krayola — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:55:45 +0000

I need some clarification here. Is David correct when he cites the Libs intent to put up to two THOUSAND condos on the Little Mountain site? This isn’t a misprint? That number is staggering.

I want to thank you, Frances, for opening up the debate and allowing David as much space as you have to rebut. And thanks also to David for setting the record straight.