Because I clearly have no life, I took the trouble to listen to the whole hour and 40 minutes of the Thursday night meeting about the West End housing controversy that led to the mayor’s much-reported remarks today. It’s worth a listen, in order to puncture some of the little spin bubbles going on.
Here’s what I observed.
1. The mayor has defended himself by saying the remarks came at the end of a long, difficult night and everyone was tired. Not so sure about that. Yes, it was a long meeting, but not the longest on record. Certainly not as long as the 5 a.m. budget meeting that happened under Sam Sullivan a few years ago. On the actual issue of forming a mayor’s advisory committee, the last item on the agenda, there were only seven speakers. They kept to their five minutes and they were mostly fairly civilized. I’ve seen way worse at council. In fact, one very quiet spoken woman made a simple case for better communication. (Her name is uncatchable on the video.) ”I think the trust has been broken. We want to re-establish that trust. You have a vision. We’d like to contribute to that vision in a meaningful way.”
2. The West End Neighbours group has complained about the mayor’s appalling lack of respect for them. I would note that this is a group that has made repeatedly implied that the Vision councillors are being bought off by developers (an accusation that’s actually libellous, for anyone who cares, but I guess it doesn’t matter because that accusation gets tossed around so frequently). Chief spokesman Randy Helten inferred that again at the meeting, darkly mentioning the $650,000 that developers gave candidates in the last election. The group’s members also say they don’t trust anything the city does, that they think the city will just cherry-pick favourable candidates for the mayor’s advisory committee (the topic under discussion for the night), that developers are just going to rip the city off, and any number of other less than civil or evidence-based allegations. Raymond Louie, at the end of the meeting, said he would appreciate it if people in the gallery didn’t make motions indicating that they were cutting people’s throat. Talk about lack of respect.
3. Heather Deal, when she called me to also apologize about the remarks, said that some of the high feelings had arisen because of anti-renter comments that had come out during the evening. But when I listened, I only heard two people suggesting that the city’s advisory committee was going to be too pro-renter. (The mayor’s recommendation was that the committee should have 12 people who represent the demographics of the community, which he pointed out was 80 per cent renters.) Yes, those remarks were bordering on “creme de la creme” arguments, as they suggested that renters could give 30 days notice any time and move on, but condo owners had a real investment in the community. Rather insulting to renters who have lived in the West End for 20 or 30 years, and certainly open to a reality check about how committed owners are to their communities. But not as rabid as I’ve heard at other meetings.
4. The mayor doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on who people are in the community. When he asked whether the speakers were “NPA hacks,” he clearly had no idea that Carol Walker was a former COPE candidate, that Randy Helten is a regular apolitical guy who works on sustainability issues, that Tiko Kerr (whose statement was read by a friend) is an artist is more likely to support protests over the loss of social housing than go to NPA fundraisers, or that Ned Jacobs (son of the noted urban theorist Jane Jacobs) is also about as far from the NPA as you can get without falling off the edge of the planet.
5. Everyone is acting as though the mayor’s remarks showed that the fix was in, that the Vision council is unwilling to listen to West End Neighbours. Well, actually, the council had already voted on the motion that WEN was opposing, so the accidentally recorded remarks only added an unpleasant topping to the reality that WEN’s opposition had been unsuccessful.
6. People are also carrying on as though Vision bulldozed through some horrible motion that will forever extinguish any West Ender’s ability to talk about housing issues or voice an opinion on city plans. The mayor’s advisory committee is going to be formed will be made up of 12 people.
For sure, strategically, they’re not going to appoint 12 people from WEN, any more than they would appoint the 12 opponents to anything as the sole members of an advisory committee. And I have no doubt that this move is strategically designed to provide a platform for people who have differing opinions from the WEN group.
But I also have no doubt that there are spots reserved for a number of WEN members on the committee. And, although Mr. Helten said there was no promise of transparency or accountability, Robertson did say, in public and on the record, that he expects this group to hold public meetings, to make its own decisions about how to do public consultation, and to be as open as possible. “It’s probably not perfect but we are staying true to our intent to do something innovative to engage the community.”
There, now you’ll all have to listen to the item yourselves to find out if I missed anything (which I surely did).
64 responses so far ↓
1 Living in the West End // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Please now spend a few more minutes and listen to Item 5. The real story that is the bomb lies in Item 5.
2 Lizzie // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:20 am
Anybody know what percentage of condos in the west end are owner-occupied, & what % are rented out?? ‘Owner’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘resident’.
3 michael geller // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:36 am
“The mayor doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on who people are in the community. When he asked whether the speakers were “NPA hacks,” he clearly had no idea that Carol Walker was a former COPE candidate, that Randy Helten is a regular apolitical guy who works on sustainability issues, that Tiko Kerr (whose statement was read by a friend) is an artist is more likely to support protests over the loss of social housing than go to NPA fundraisers, or that Ned Jacobs (son of the noted urban theorist Jane Jacobs) is also about as far from the NPA as you can get without falling off the edge of the planet.”
Well Frances, you certainly got that right. I mean, Ned Jacobs has probably spoken to Council at least a dozen times, and maybe 100 times, since the last election. And the Mayor doesn’t know who he is?
While there is a lot that will be said about this whole episode, I don’t think any of us will say it as well as Pete McMartin in his July 13 Vancouver Sun column. This should be mandatory reading for every Vancouver voter.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mayor+Gregor+Robertson+this+mike/3269429/story.html
4 Not Running for Mayor // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:55 am
I can not believe the spin this story is getting, but will salute the work of the Vision marketing team in their diversion. As others have said this is not about the F-bomb, it is about the contempt of residents of this city to express their opinion. So what if they are owners, or even if they were NPA they still have the right to be heard and council has the obligation to listen to them.
Frances I’m going to be honest and state that I’m quite disappointed in you on this. Either intentional or not, you are clearly showing favouritism on this issue. It’s sad to see a journalist of your calibre lose neutrality. This city needs you and others like you.
5 jesse // Jul 13, 2010 at 7:00 am
Residents raising a stink? Not trusting council? Dogs and cats living together? Maybe it’s time to settle down and get on with trying to solve the “housing crisis,” with a bit more humility and for the Council to realise, regardless of stripe, has a credibility problem they need to solve with these residents.
6 Norman // Jul 13, 2010 at 7:16 am
Why characterize people who oppose you as “hacks”? Because you don’t want to hear opposing opinions. This Council seems to have a problem with consultation, viewing it as an annoyance, when they will do what they want anyway. Gee, Gregor, democracy can be so annoying.
7 Tiktaalik // Jul 13, 2010 at 8:19 am
It was funny to listen to the CBC radio on this issue this morning. They focused on the Fbomb with no real mention of the situation in which it was said or why Gregor said it. WEN was mentioned in passing but the issue the meeting was discussing wasn’t explained in any way. At one point it was mentioned that the true problem is that the media focuses on the gaffe and then doesn’t discuss the underlying issues that brought it about. Bafflingly they then went on to continue to discuss the swear word and talk to a PR media analyst about how Gregor should spin it. Bizarre.
8 ThinkOutsideABox // Jul 13, 2010 at 9:43 am
Hi Frances,
First, thanks. To the points:
1. The woman who spoke to the “trust being broken” is poignant because it is heartfelt disappointment to see people you help get elected trash you. It seems to me that Vision Vancouver supporters, (who Jonathan Ross unkowingly and pejoratively called “diehards”), are clocking a great deal of time and effort on WEN issues that their Vision politicians fumble around so royally. Imagine then what it must be like to have been discounted as an operative for an opposing party? That’s a disconnect of the highest proportion, if you can ignore the insult part. If I were her, I’d be wanting to tell the mayor to take his apology and shove it up his *ss, for f*ck’s sake, but I’m sure she’d be more charitable than me.
2. re: respect, see point 1, rinse, repeat.
About campaign contributions, don’t care how people frame it; I’ve heard it directly myself from an employee of one of Vancouver’s developers that corporate campaign donations were parceled out and handed over via their employees, I guess to circumvent spending limits. If the rules haven’t changed, then that’s sufficient reason to be jaded no matter who and when the cashmoney was taken.
Saying the group doesn’t trust anything the city does sounds mellow dramatic but what else are people supposed to think when the city’s 200 page Report on Findings based on the city’s West End May 12/13 meetings is released to the public, only minutes before the solution is provided, and public speakers heard, for this “innovative” Mayor’s advisory committee.
Assuming that Andres Duany’s committee Utopia the Mayor hopes to mimic is workable, the concern would still remain of the appearance of impropriety given by how committee members are chosen, that IS a concern. Read Appendix A of the motion. http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100708/documents/penv6.pdf
Does anyone think Vancouverites are so backwater or provincial, take your pick, that this isn’t obvious? They didn’t give a f*ck what West End Vision Vancouver speakers had to say, the mayor doesn’t have to give a f*ck what the committee has to say either, so the point?
About Louie, I was in the back of the gallery and I saw it very clearly. It wasn’t a head chop off motion, although that too makes for spicy drama. It was the “T” hand form time out gesture. You know, like a ref calling a timeout. Nevertheless, I’d be shocked to see an apology from Louie for the disparaging accusation, but he should.
3. Heather Deal: I’m still mesmerized by her nervously half-committed laughter to really say much of anything else on point 3. But the apology – that she phoned it in, instead of to the people she insulted, well that’s precious, but not as much as that punch line “Democracy cubed”?
And that’s after hearing another councillor call her out with “bullshit… liar” with both Heather and the councillor facing me… moments after Heather has the banter with the mayor; and I hadn’t even had the pleasure of meeting Heather yet. Jesus I don’t know what more there is to say here except if Gregor really was cool, he would’ve just kept quiet and given the pregnant pause for something to think about, kind of moment.
4. I’ve heard one of Tiko Kerr’s paintings is hanging in the mayor’s office.
5. Tim Stevenson said something to the effect of, ‘well it looks like this is going to be voted in anyway’ during debate.
6. Brush up on comments Andres Duany’s made.
9 ThinkOutsideABox // Jul 13, 2010 at 9:52 am
Almost forgot,
Gregor on mic: “…Man”
10 Bill Smolick // Jul 13, 2010 at 9:57 am
Remember Sullivan’s tirade in the movie “Citizen Sam?” (Never saw it. Hated that guy. Heard all about it though.)
11 Urbanismo // Jul 13, 2010 at 11:50 am
My God that sure turned the lights on . . .
Wot’s the prob?
I use it all the phuccin’ time and sometimes I get pissed off with my friends and supporters . . .
PS . . . yeah I remember Sullivan’s tirade . . . now there’s one who never should have been mayor!
12 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jul 13, 2010 at 12:55 pm
The NPA must be happy they didn’t change their name, because this is priceless brand advertising. Their candidates in the next election should wear ironic, self-deprecating buttons saying, “I’m a f-cking NPA hack.” They would surely win the hearts of the majority of under-40 Vancouver voters, a demographic that normally wants little to do with them.
13 Jason King // Jul 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Frances,
To me the issue has never been the mayor dropping the f-bomb….the issue has always been that we appear to have a city council and mayor that has no real interest in what the public thinks, and are simply pushing through their own preplanned initiatives.
It’s truly unfortunate the bias you seem to show to Gregor Frances, as you’ve been fairly neutral in the past, and even called past mayors out for this type of behavior.
While I am no NPA hack (or even an NPA member), I will definitely be volunteering my time in the next election to help replace our existing council/mayor, who are out of touch with the electorate, and seem to have little respect for our tax dollars.
14 Frances Bula // Jul 13, 2010 at 2:15 pm
@Jason King. Thanks for this comment, although you already posted an almost identical one yesterday under the moniker “SeeMore.” Worried that there aren’t enough people dumping on me for my dreadfully biased reporting?
15 Stu // Jul 13, 2010 at 2:31 pm
The Mayor turns out to be – no surprise – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s a businessman and has grander of higher office at any cost, just like so many other politicians. His election campaign, had nothing to do with who he is… it did have everything to trick people into voting for him.
16 Another West Ender // Jul 13, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Anyone who is against new construction in the West End should have to identify which of the following they support as alternatives:
- Taking land out of the ALR and building roads and transit to connect these new distant suburbs.
- Building more high density in other areas (Downtown Eastside, Mount Pleasant, Cambie Corridor, etc.)
- Reducing immigration
- Ending single-family home zoning throughout Vancouver and allowing medium-density everywhere.
- Rezoning more industrial land as residential
- etc.
I may try to get on to the Mayor’s advisory committee because I want to force its other members to balance their opposition with the alternatives above that they do support – and of course I know whatever they chose will put them in conflict with other similar groups. Personally, I think Vancouver needs to build such a huge number of units that quibbling over a few buildings is a waste of time. We should be building towers in the West End while also planning a whole new “West End” in Mount Pleasant or Kits.
Most of my cohorts (<40) will be very lucky to ever own real estate and automobiles in the manner our parents' generation still take for granted (even after adjusting housing prices for Vancouver's impending real estate crash.) The only way out of this is to build a huge number of centrally-located living units. And it is only baby boomers I see collecting signatures for WEN every weekend, trying their hardest to protect their interests at the expense of younger generations.
17 Jon Petrie // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Re the suddenly discovered urgent need for development of new rental housing in Vancouver:
Perhaps journalists and other commentators should pay attention to Vancouver City’s marketing/management of the rental housing it actually owns.
The City owned rental building in the Olympic Village complex (151 W 1st) is empty; there are no signs giving contact numbers on the building; and a call to City Hall produced a statement that a marketing agent has not yet been selected by Council.
And last 28th April I emailed Councilor Andrea Reimer of Vision:
>>For the record we had a meeting March 17th and I have heard nothing back from you.
I claimed that advertising for the City’s 1 Kingsway [98 unit market rental] property was inadequate/ lousy and directed your attention to the absence of any mention of transit [5 bus lines within 100 meters] in the craigslist ads and the yahoo map function of the ad locating the property in Kingsway BC, about 400 miles north of Vancouver.
The advertising has essentially not changed since I spoke to you — the yahoo map linkage under the ad still locates the property in Kingsway BC and transit is still not mentioned.
And for the record, no advertising for the two vacant child care units, per my search, exists. <$1615/2br — in the heart of Mount Pleasant …> Residences on 7th offers a limited number of 1 bedroom , 2 bedroom suites
**and one childcare suits at secund floor whit enormus secured patio.** <<
The building was approved for occupancy mid December and at least on the top floor all units were ready for occupancy (I was in them all 12 December) but 'advertising' did not begin until mid January and the early craigslist ads did not give rents, show pictures, or mention an address.
"For Rent" signs appeared inside some building windows late March, were moved higher into more conspicuous locations over time, and recently moved to the outside of the building.
The building still has vacancies — if anyone is interested http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/apa/1835789877.html
18 Jon Petrie // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:57 pm
MY LAST GOT MESSED UP; SHOULD READ
AFTER:
To Andrea Reimer …
And for the record, no advertising for the two vacant child care units, per my search, exists. >>>>>>>>>>
I did not hear back from Andrea Reimer and so, belatedly a good citizen, I called circa 28 April the managing agent for the property, Mike Draskovic. He told me the two childcare units were vacant and being advertised on craigslist. The claim re advertising was untrue and two weeks after my phone call (and a follow up email) barely true.
The craigslist May 11th ad titled >$1615/2br — in the heart of Mount Pleasant …> Residences on 7th offers a limited number of 1 bedroom , 2 bedroom suites
**and one childcare suits at secund floor whit enormus secured patio.** <<
The building was approved for occupancy mid December and at least on the top floor all units were ready for occupancy (I was in them all 12 December) but 'advertising' did not begin until mid January and the early craigslist ads did not give rents, show pictures, or mention an address.
"For Rent" signs appeared inside some building windows late March, were moved higher into more conspicuous locations over time, and recently moved to the outside of the building.
The building still has vacancies — if anyone is interested http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/apa/1835789877.html
19 Bill McCreery // Jul 13, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Questioning the legitimacy of either side of this issue is not the point. Where there is smoke there is fire. WEN represents a large group of voters in the WE together with similar disaffected voters throughout the City who are not accepting the policies, perspective & decisions of the Vision Council, School & Park Boards. HELLO!
20 Frances Bula // Jul 13, 2010 at 10:47 pm
@Not Running. Glad to see you back after what seemed like a long absence. I agree that the problem is not the F word at all, but the attitude toward the speakers. I would just point out that they WERE all heard as they had the right to and that council completely fulfilled its obligation to listen to them. Every speaker got the chance to speak and many of them got more than their allotted five minutes because councillors asked questions and there was quite a bit of dialogue during the official meeting. Granted, some of the questions from Kerry Jang were a bit unsubtle but on the whole, it was a pretty civilized debate for the hour and 40 minutes.
The really shocking thing about the comments for most people was how it betrayed an attitude of ignorance about who the speakers were and disdain for them because of their supposed status (NPA hacks, owners).
I have to say I’m honestly puzzled by your charge of showing favouritism. True, I didn’t jump on Gregor and call him an asshole (or should I say f**ing asshole) in my first quick post, but I did take a look at both sides in this contentious meeting in later posts.
21 Sarah Isaacs // Jul 14, 2010 at 2:38 am
Hi Frances,
I read your blog accusing one West Ender – Randy Helten – of libel for juxtaposing two facts: campaign contributions to Vision Vancouver from the development community (fact), and the creation of a stimulus program for the development community (fact).
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this isn’t libel. Randy didn’t accuse anyone of cheating or taking bribes. Nor did he publish untrue claims that would damage the reputations of the Mayor or Councillors. Maybe there’s a soft definition of libel in the world of journalism, but I would suggest that accusing Randy of libel when he did not libel anyone is closer to actual libel than are Randy’s verbal statements.
Randy, to my knowledge, has never made any wild accusations of wrong-doing by Vision. He has stated two facts and allowed his audience to infer, if they were so inclined, that the development community may have something to gain from a program that enables rezoning in downtown Vancouver (Isn’t that a tautology?), and that Vision Vancouver is sufficiently sympathetic to the development community to offer a stimulus program during an economic downturn. That is one million miles away from implying that elected officials are accepting bribes.
Can’t we be honest here? This program provides a time-limited, fantastic business opportunity for development in the West End, which is the best place in Vancouver to own rental property, but, for the past 30 years, one of the most restrictive areas in which to build. Through this program there is no limit on the number of rezonings granted, no limit on the amount of density provided by a rezoning, a commitment to fast-track applications, and additional financial incentives. Wow!
Developers can take advantage of this program and its various incentives without requesting a rezoning; that’s called the ‘simple stream’. When I last spoke to the City’s coordinator, however, naturally the majority of applications seek rezoning.
22 Jason King // Jul 14, 2010 at 9:47 am
Frances,
Oddly enough, that wasn’t me….I always use my own name. Perhaps someone with a similar point of view?
And as I stated Frances, I do generally like your columns and think you do a good job….my issue is simply that I don’t feel you’re taking your normal unbiased approach to Gregor.
23 Bill Lee // Jul 14, 2010 at 10:29 am
Speaking of F***ing, does the Globe get any heat from continual spelled-out-in-full use of the word in the body text of story from Frances “clean-mouth” Bula or Garry “potty-mouth” Mason?
Are there letters to the editors or are these stories only in the effing West Coast edition, not in the Toronto -The-Good editions, therefore unnoticed by most of the Globe readers?
24 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
@Jason. Hmm, someone with a very similar point of view at the same IP address. Anyway, I would say I take the same approach I do all the time — I take a look at the circumstances and will be critical or not depending on what’s going on. Does that mean I’m always completely neutral? No, because that would mean I’d never express an opinion or a judgment about anything.
If the mayor has done something stupid, I say that. If I think he’s being unfairly accused, I say that.
In the ongoing case of the Vision council’s rental-housing-incentive program and the West End, I think I’ve been pretty clear here and on the radio that I think there are problems on both sides. The new council, thinking it had an unquestioned mandate to create rental housing (something that housing-policy experts and housing advocates have been urging for decades), rushed into a program without considering unintended consequences, i.e. developers piling into one area, no set of clear rules in place that made the public feel like they knew what the trade-offs and limits were, and so on.
The West End Neighbours group, while mounting very legitimate opposition to a program like that in their neighbourhood, has several times veered into territory where their default assumption is that council has introduced this program just to please developers who pay their bills, that everything council or the city does is deliberately deceptive, and various other pieces of misinformation.
Re Gregor’s remarks. Dumb and weird, yes. But I am not as critical of them as I am of insulting and demeaning remarks that politicians make deliberately in public. I know one former councillor who used to have some kind of breakdown occasionally in the middle of public hearings and suddenly get incredibly nasty with people who came up to speak at the microphone, grilling them about why they thought the city should do them favours. It was insulting to the bewildered speakers and embarrassing to watch. The mayor was polite and accommodating to all of the speakers during the public session.
But in private — well, all of us have said stupid things in private — about our family members, about people we work with, about members of the public — that we would regret intensely if they were suddenly broadcast. I’ve heard many politicians privately express exasperation with various community groups that have come out. They were lucky because those remarks never made it into the public arena.
And almost every reporter and editor I know would get fired if their informal newsroom conversations about the people they deal with were reported. Yes, I was shocked that the mayor didn’t know who the speakers were and would characterize them that way (and actually, I’ve talked to some Vision people who know him well who were also shocked). They also revealed a mindset about opposition that was disturbing. His private remarks, now public, have undoubtedly damaged even further relationships with that community. If that’s a biased approach, I guess I’ll have to live with that.
25 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 11:09 am
@Bill. Gee, I didn’t even notice we were spelling it out in full. How times have changed. I remember the Sun was flooded with angry phone calls once when I quoted a Downtown Eastside advocate talking about “those shitty hotels.”
26 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 12:44 pm
@Sarah. I know you’re a good-hearted person who is just trying to understand this issue and defend what you think is under threat in your community. But don’t you think it’s a little disingenuous to say there have never been any accusations of wrong-doing by Vision from West End Neighbours and its supporters, wild or not? At least one person who’s loosely affiliated with West End Neighbours has been sent a warning letter by the city’s legal department, after he left messages on people’s phones about the “corrupt” behaviour of one councillor over this issue. And, whether it’s phrased as an inference (“I’m not saying there’s anything wrong. I’m just pointing out developers gave the party $650,000 and then they put in this program that gives windfall profits to developers”) or as an outright statement about councillors being in the pockets of developers or being on the payroll or other phrases that I’ve heard, the message that is pretty clear that that people believe donations from developers are directly linked to this program. Can’t we be honest here?
I find this as unfair, by the way, as those who accused Sam Sullivan of bringing in EcoDensity as a favour to developers who contributed to the NPA.
I know none of you wants to believe this, but Sam brought in EcoDensity largely because of a theoretical belief in density as a way to achieve environmental goals, and Vision, to my knowledge from attending the public meetings where the STIR program was developed, brought in STIR because of a genuine conviction that the city needed more rental and as a way to get development going again in the city when it had come to a standstill.
This program, if it’s being run properly, does not provide any more of a “fantastic building opportunity” for developers in the West End or elsewhere than building condos does. All that the program was intended to do was make it as attractive to build rental for developers as it is to build condos. If any of them are making more than their usual 15/20-per-cent profit, I will admit that I’m wrong. But I doubt it.
One thing we could both do to put it to the test — why don’t you ask for or FOI the city’s calculations of the pro forma for each of these buildings. I’m told by previous Vancouver real-estate manager Bruce Maitland that those kinds of calculations used to be made public. They do not give away the developer’s personal information. They are calculations done by city staff with their estimates of the costs and anticipated profits of buildings where the city is allowing extra height and density. (Again, I know no one in the West End wants to believe this, but there have been dozens and dozens of these buildings, spot rezonings as you call them, over the past 30 years. They’re called CD-1s. They’re all over the city. And they were, until now, considered an innovative way for Vancouver to extract amenities from developers in exchange for community benefits.)
27 Jason King // Jul 14, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Frances….same IP…same office…but was not me…but we generally share the same point of view, so not surprising we said similar things.
As for your comments about Gregor….it’s your column, and yes, you have a point of view…I just think you should be willing to call a spade a spade. I also feel that Robertson/Vision have gotten a free ride (on a bike) up until now, and am hoping the media start being more critical of his statements, numbers and so called “facts”. I’m hoping that journalists, like yourself, take a skeptical and critical approach to our mayor and this council, just as you’ve done with past administrations, so that the “truth” is told and citizens can make informed decisions come the next election.
28 gasp // Jul 14, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Frances, I think you should be more informed about some of the statements you make.
Your assertion about Sullivan’s motives in bringing in EcoDensity was belied by his conduct throughout that entire process. He refused to listen to ANY criticism of his “idea”, as was observed by anyone who sat through or participated in the so-called “public hearing” process. Even evidence that the kind of densification proposed was neither need nor environmentally sound was completely ignored by City Council.
EcoDensity was and still is very bad policy because it is being used (as intended) to override community visions and to shove out of place developments into communities that otherwise would not be allowable under current zoning or City policies. Planners, who don’t live in an area, and sit in their ivory tower, don’t have a clue about how people interact and move within a community, or what that community needs and can accommodate – nor do they care. All they care about is making their “client”, the developer, happy. This in turn makes the councilors happy, because they can then look forward to more donations from that developer. Quid pro quo.
As well, your understanding of CD – 1 Zoning is not quite accurate. CD-1 zoning was intended for custom made zones, tailored to the specific needs of a particular site – for example, the Van Dusen Botanical Garden, the Oakridge Shopping Centre and the Shannon Mews Development.
Unfortunately, the City planners now consider CD-1 zones as those in which “we can do on this site whatever we damn well please”.
Consequently, anyone who lives in or near any CD-1 zone should be wary, since the City now wants to renege on any site-specific zoning previously agreed to by the surrounding community by targeting them for increased density, regardless of the site specific conditions upon which this zoning was granted in the first place.
29 Tessa // Jul 14, 2010 at 3:24 pm
@Michael Geller:
“Mandatory reading?” That’s one of the worst columns I’ve ever read. It’s the newspaper equivilant of school yard mocking, and can be repeated anywhere by formula: simply pretend to be someone else and then saying things they never said hoping people will hate them for things that you said. Come on.
I’m not impressed with those comments, but this entire mess is getting out of control, and we’re forgetting another big issue as we talk about the consultation process: and that fact is we need rental housing. I need rental housing. I’m looking right now, will be starting school in september and I’m working part time. Trust me when I say we need rental housing. If it’s not going to be done like this, I would like to see WEN’s people give some serious consideration as to where renters are going to live, where we can build increased density if not the west end, and how we will have any rental housing built if condos can be built for much higher profit.
30 Sarah Isaacs // Jul 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Hi Frances, okay okay I concede a little bit.
But I think my point stands. I’m not speaking on behalf of WEN, but my observations suggest that WEN doesn’t try to control people into presenting a united, coherent message, which isn’t appropriate for a grassroots community group just finding its legs. Instead it tries to provide a forum, tools and a basic level of organization to a loose association of people who oppose spot-zoning. It’s more the megaphone than the voice, if you will.
31 Paul // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Hey Tessa,
Check out this neat rental-finding tool:
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/apa/
There’s tons of stuff on there! You can buy and sell anything for free!
I’ve used it to find my last 3 apartments in Vancouver. It works like Google, so you can use search parameters.
It’s a better tool to judge rental stock than CMHC’s (purpose-built) rental vacancy stats.
Give ‘er!
P.
32 Sarah Isaacs // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:47 pm
The planning department and the city have explained that the supply-side deficiency in the rental housing market is a long-term concern; so they aren’t concerned about short-term fluctuations in supply and demand that will be visible on a site like Craigslist.
I found this very forward-looking and I’m impressed that the city models its future need for rental stock and recommends programs to address an expected deficiency, which is based on anticipated population growth, erosion of existing rental stock, and an absence of new supply. My impression is that the looming deficiency in supply is like an iceberg, long in the distance, that the city intends to avoid.
Extending this simile, our city is like an enormous ship – filled with people – and floating on an uncertain sea.
I wonder why the city chose to yank the wheel of our great ship to avoid an iceberg floating a mile away. The residents tossed around in their cabins are pretty upset. Plus yanking the wheel doesn’t allow the city to adapt its programs to accommodate the changing currents that are our collective uncertain future.
Worst of all, the ship could end up on the rocks. It will avoid the iceberg, but it’s not sailing toward a happy destination, either.
If the city pursues a rental incentive program without enabling rezoning – which they are pursuing and accomplishing via the STIR program’s simple stream – they will achieve a gradual, modest, careful, almost invisible increase in the supply of rental in this city. And they will avoid the iceberg.
33 Westender1 // Jul 14, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“All that the program was intended to do was make it as attractive to build rental for developers as it is to build condos. If any of them are making more than their usual 15/20-per-cent profit, I will admit that I’m wrong. But I doubt it. ”
There are two questions that arise from this comment:
1.) Is it the city’s (and taxpayers’) obligation to make these two type of development investments equal and even if so, should a condo pro forma system be applied to rental developments? Pension funds tend to be quite happy to have the long-term revenue from rental properties…as was the Wosk family for many years at Beach Towers. Let them build condos under their “as of right” density, and require them to build at least some rentals with their bonus density.
2.) I don’t think anyone, even the Councillors who supported STIR in June of 2009, expected developers to be granted giant increases in density to encourage rental housing like the five-fold increase in FSR at 1401 Comox Street.
Even the presentation at the “Mayor’s Roundtable” for STIR suggested a 1.0 “boost” in FSR – not 5.9 or its ilk.
How is it that the developer at the recently-approved 1142 Granville site was able to “make it pay” with a boost in FSR from 3.5 to 5.7, and a net land cost of $67 per “buildable” square foot of floor area, while the 1401 Comox developer requests a gargantuan increase in FSR to achieve a net land cost of $33 per buildable square foot?
Something doesn’t smell right, and we can only hope that Council’s recently-adopted motion regarding documentation of the value of additional density (July 8th, prior to the swearing) will shine some more light on such questions.
34 Sinisa Vujovic // Jul 14, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Dear Ms. Bula,
I understand you are honestly trying to understand the economics of STIR. Please accept the following remarks as a clarification, not a criticism.
1. You write: “All that the program was intended to do was make it as attractive to build rental for developers as it is to build condos. If any of them are making more than their usual 15/20-per-cent profit, I will admit that I’m wrong. But I doubt it.”
Please note that there is an error in your reasoning. Rate of return reflects the risk of an investment. A less risky investment has a lower rate of expected profit. That is why it is wrong for you to cite 15-20% (would you mind providing your source?) earned on condos as a reference point for investment in rentals. Rentals provide a STEADY stream of reliable revenue, which makes them a long term investment with lower risk. Condo building is a much riskier business – if condos hit the market when the market hits the bottom, the developer’s revenue hits the bottom with them. To see that this is accurate, ask yourself a question: why would a pension or an insurance fund (notoriously risk averse) buy rental revenue generating properties rather than loan money to developers to build condos? Because there is LESS RISK. So you should be using a lower rate of return as a reference point and reject the notion of topping up developer profits to condo-type levels.
2. STIR will not lower rents for three reasons: (a) demand in the West End is price responsive (in normal cicrumstances, if you lower the rent a little bit, the number of people who will want to live in this desirable location will increase by a lot; also rent comprises a huge portion of people’s incomes which increases price responsiveness, etc.), (b) due to the limited amount of land, increase in supply will be small and (c) the apartments will be new and situated at sought-after locations, yielding higher rents as a result.
If STIR doesn’t lead to lower rents, what is the point of STIR?
I look forward to your reply.
35 Living in the West End // Jul 14, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Francis @ 12:44, rather than discuss letters sent to private individuals in the city who take an active role in the development issues affecting their neighbourhoods perhaps you as a journalist should be enquiring about letters not sent. The one that immediately comes to mind is the letter that Legal in my opinion should have been sent months ago demanding Vision Vancouver disclose to whom they owe a debt of over $250,000 at the end of 2009 as requiring by provincial law. You know that disclosure is required if the loan has been outstanding more than one year and the lender has not commenced action to collect the debt .
36 Living in the West End // Jul 14, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Francis, by the way any comment on the fact that City Council discussed over many hours on Dec. 15, 2009 the rezoning application of Millenium Developments for 1215 Bidwell complete with a benefit to the developer of over $5 million without one word of disclosure of the secret debt of the developer to the city of close to $900 million. The disclosure did not occur until Jan. 9, 2010 a few short weeks later. Another story a good journalist might have uncovered. To my knowledge that is the only development other than the Olympic Village Millenium has underway in the City. Given the City gave Millenium the right to build three floors without any Community Amenity Contributions or Development Cost Levies not to mention parking forgiveness and the ability to start selling condos on level 5 with a view the potential profit to the developer could be in the $10-20 million dollar range. Feel free to comment on the fact that the city may well become the developer if Millenium is unable to repay the debt which starts accruing interest at Prime + 6% in September.
37 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 8:22 pm
@Westender1. No, the city doesn’t have to make these two types of development investments equal. Then can do nothing, as they did for years, a system under which developers build condos and no one builds rentals. I don’t see even pension funds building rentals these days. Let me know which buildings they have put up if I am wrong. (My understanding, also, is that they prefer commercial buildings.) Many, many housing advocates for the last three decades have said we’re heading for a problem if no one builds purpose-built rentals and the great wave of stock built in the 60s and 70s comes to the end of its life.
Or they could require developers to build affordable rental as a condition of construction throughout the city, no bonus provided. That’s what the West End Residents Association advocated for at the time STIR was being created and is still advocating for. That’s a tricky one. I’m not sure why councillors didn’t want to consider that. My guess is that it’s a strategy that works when the market is hot, not when it’s dead. Vancouver has always been able to extract all kinds of extras from developers because they were willing to pay a premium to be in Vancouver. Because we’re so beautiful? Not exactly. Because they could sell at crazy prices. But when the market died two years ago and developers couldn’t sell anything — well, how do YOU imagine a policy that said “You can’t build condos unless you also build 15 per cent of your units as rentals” would have gone over. Do you think a single developer would have picked up a pencil?
I’m a bit confused by your suggestion that they be allowed to build condos to the maximum density and then build rentals with bonus density. If you wanted more than about three rental apartments, wouldn’t that end up being an awful lot of density and a big building all over again?
Re the comparisons between 1142 Granville and Comox — as I’ve said before, your assertion that Comox got a fivefold increase in density is based on the assumption that the old 1 FSR zoning (which is not much more than the .75 allowed in some single-family zones) was what it would have stayed at if the land were sold for condos. Highly unlikely. Extremely likely that it would automatically have gone to 3 at least. But the difference between Comox’s 7 or so? and the others 5.something or 6, I don’t know. They have included a community-centre space and some seniors’ apartments. Again, my guess is something like that is factored into the pro forma. But you know what, we’re all going to find out because we’re all going to ask for the city’s pro formas.
38 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 8:25 pm
@Sarah. But no one was building rental under the previous system. No one. When they went through the old process, they were building condos and condos only. Unless you are making the argument that the sale condos being built are providing sufficient supply to avoid the iceberg. Some are making that argument and I, for one, don’t dismiss that. The condo-rental phenomenon is relatively new and I don’t think anyone fully understands how it is working.
39 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 8:30 pm
@Sarah. No, I didn’t think you were speaking on behalf of WEN. No one does completely, not even Randy, as it is a fledgling organization of people that is operating solely on volunteer power. That’s why I don’t get too worked up about the fact that there isn’t always consistency in the message the way I would expect from a political party or non-profit group.
40 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 pm
@Living 7:27. Yes, it was a huge secret that Millennium owes the city $900 million on the Olympic village. Very remiss of me not to have done an investigative project on this. I guess you missed the 600 stories published on this in the last couple of years (I just checked the Canadian Newstand database and that’s what came up when I searched under “Millennium” and “loan.” I’m not sure how many radio and television stories were also broadcast on the same news story.)
Okay, that’s nasty, but seriously … I have heard others in the WEN group also suggesting that the city is somehow giving Millennium favours because of the loan. I’m not quite sure what your thinking is — that they are giving them breaks in a desperate attempt to help them make money so the city can gets its $900 million back?
Re the lack of CACs and DCLs etc., I’m not familiar with the details of this project but presumably those were forgone to get the 49 rental units in the building. That makes it a deal that has the same problem as the other STIR projects, which is that many people in the community don’t see market rental housing as a community benefit on a par with daycares or parks or community centres. Or do you think there’s something more than that?
41 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 9:11 pm
@Sinisa. I probably didn’t word that precisely in investment banker terms, but obviously, yes, anyone trying to develop a rental-construction program would try to work out incentives that entice developers to build rental versus condos, given the difference, as you say, in the long-term vs short-term and the risk vs certainty. You are right on that. I don’t claim to know the financial calculations that went into how much incentive should be offered and I think you’re right that a 15/20 per cent return long-term on a rental building is far different from a 15/20 per cent return on condo sales. All I’m saying is the principle that would have been at work is that the city would have looked to provide incentives to developers so that, profit, risk, and time frame all considered, building rental would achieve equal financial attractiveness. Again, the city could do everyone a huge favour by providing that information and then all the real-estate experts out there could decide if the city calculations on this were made by chumps or not.
On your second point, the STIR program is operating on the premise that the former mayor, Sam Sullivan, and many shall I say right of centre people use when talking about how to create affordability. They say simply creating supply helps ensure affordability. I’m sure you’re familiar with that argument, which goes: Even if the new stuff that’s built is not affordable, the supply of that new stuff helps reduce the price of the old stuff (or, in the case of rentals, prevents them from becoming vehicles of renoviction in theory). A lot of people are not convinced by that trickle-down theory in Vancouver, because prices skyrocketed even while the city was undergoing a construction boom. But that was the theory, though funny to see left-wingers, usually so critical of trickle-down theories, relying on it.
42 Westender1 // Jul 14, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Hello Frances:
I won’t go into a great amount of detail, but a couple of points of clarification:
1. I did not suggest that Council do nothing. But what they’ve done is so out of whack with existing planning policy in a number of neighbourhoods that it is bound to damage opportunities to create rental housing. The “simple stream” under STIR, or the “negotiated stream” with some reasonable bonusing structure would seem to be logical ways to do that. And I believe the latter is what I heard you indicate as lacking yesterday when you spoke on CKNW?
2. The pension funds often don’t build the rental buildings, but sometimes they buy them.
3. I did not suggest that developers be required to build affordable rentals without bonuses (although wait a minute, isn’t the City defining all STIR projects as “affordable” because they are “more” affordable than ownership?!). I believe such an approach would be subject to legal challenge on the part of a land-owner.
3. What I DID suggest was inclusionary zoning, where some or all of the bonus density on a site is provided as rental housing. This is probably what should have happened in Yaletown, but didn’t. I was suggesting that developers be permitted to build condos to the “as of right density” that they purchased, and then if they want to double the density on the site (to the maximum noted in the community plan provisions for the neighbourhood in question), perhaps some portion of the “extra” density should be rental. (And some portion truly affordable rental?)
4. Vancouver has been able to extract “extras” because there is an enormous amount of money to be made in changing zoning, and the City gets a “cut” of that through it’s community amenity policy. There’s nothing wrong with that, and it’s not because we’re beautiful. The STIR projects unfortunately are being formatted to define the market rental housing as 100% of the benefit to the community because the City deems the “land lift” to be zero. (How much was the rental building going to sell to the pension fund for?)
4. The existing zoning at 1401 Comox is a 1.5 FSR that was arrived at as a result of a community consultation process. The proposed FSR is 7.4 with the STIR proposal. I’m not sure how the zoning could “automatically” go to 3.0, as you suggest without STIR – without a community plan in place, the Planning Dept. has indicated that changes in zoning are only possible in relation to heritage or the creation of rental housing.
5. The community centre space was only added to the 1401 Comox project after the first public open house – presumably the economics of this project work with or without it. And the seniors’ apartments are a bit of an insult to the community – they consist of a small subsidy on each of 6 apartments for a 5 year period. The cost to the developer amounts to less than $100,000 on a project with an end value of around $50 million.
6. On the last point, I think we can agree that a number of people will be asking for pro forma information. I am not optimistic however that we will receive sufficient information to allow the public to examine or understand the economics of these projects. I look forward to being proven incorrect on that point.
PS Some rentals have been built in the last 20 years – just not many. Among them, there are two rental towers in Coal Harbour, as well as the project at 1128 Alberni (Carmana Plaza). Unfortunately, the Peterson Group, Westbank’s development partner, has just applied to convert a large portion of that tower to hotel use, so we will presumably lose that rental stock.
43 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 10:16 pm
@Westender. Whew. How exciting. We agree on things. Or some anyway. Yes, I do agree that the current STIR initiative has created so much bad feeling that it runs the risk of actually setting attempts to create rental housing back. And you are so right that it would have been a great idea to require some rental housing with all of the Downtown South stock that was built over the past 10 years. (Of course, then that would have meant less money for the parks, daycares, theatre spaces and art galleries in the DS or even more density than that area absorbed already but at least it could have been on the table for discussion.)
But if I can just point out one historical fact. The likely reason councillors didn’t opt for a bonus-on-top-of-normal-condo-zoning is that, at the point when they developed the STIR program, development had stopped dead in the city. I don’t know if you remember it, but I was covering it. No one was coming out to pre-sales. Developers who hadn’t started construction stopped instantly. A few developers went bankrupt or had to be rescued by others. The banks weren’t lending to anyone doing condos or they were lending with much stiffer conditions. So this council was looking to do two things they thought people would like: keep the city’s construction businesses going, a not unimportant point. (Hundreds of construction workers lost work in that period. My brother went to Calgary because there was nothing here.) The second was to create rental. But if they tied rental onto a normal condo project, nothing would have happened. It was something they should have done in the boom years.
Also, again I repeat, if developers got extra density to build rentals into their condo projects, they would build very few rentals per building — because presumably too much density would make people just as mad as the STIR project has. Yes, they’d have the benefit of not having to pay for the land, since presumably the cost of the land would already be covered by the condo sales, but it does cost money to build apartments even if the land is free.
Yes, I know a few rentals have been built but extremely few. And the two rentals in Coal Harbour were both achieved through special deals with the city — deals that would probably be impossible today if city planners tried to negotiate them again, given the mood of the city. I don’t remember the details of how they negotiated it, but I know those rentals didn’t happen without city incentives or prodding or something.
And pension funds can’t buy buildings later on if no one builds them.
Re Comox, I feel like I simply don’t know enough about the details of this to keep arguing. Yay for you.
44 Living in the West End // Jul 14, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Frances, You remain silent on Vision Vancouver’s debt disclosure. Have a look at my blog comment dated June 19th at 12:40 to the heading “Vision fundraiser draws developer crowd, dogged West Enders, and others
June 18th, 2010 · 17 Comments ” where I posted the letter sent to Victoria requesting disclosure. You did not comment then or now, why?
45 Westender1 // Jul 14, 2010 at 10:40 pm
It’s a hollow victory Frances, as I expect the project will be built, and I expect the quality of life for both me and my neighbours will suffer as a result. The Vision team is seriously underestimating how much they are damaging residents’ relationships with their communities, and that is a very sad outcome for Vancouver.
46 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 10:44 pm
@Living. Because it’s been hammered at by many other people. Also, is it really that big a secret who the likely donors are? I and other reporters go to all the fundraising events Vision has and faithfully note who has been there. Sure, I have frequently advocated that Vancouver adopt the system that Seattle has, where all donations are reported monthly, except for the election-campaign period when it is weekly, and they can be seen online. But realistically, the NPA used to hold fundraising dinners every year, raising a million dollars per campaign. No one ever asked them for fundraising statements on a yearly basis. Sam Sullivan also held private fundraising events where the money went to a personal campaign fund. While I remarked on the unusual approach of having a mayor raise funds that appeared to be for himself and not the party, I also didn’t go on the rampage (nor did anyone else except Vision I think) demanding that he produce yearly statements. (Not that I go on the rampage at the best of times, which seems to disappoint the more rabid types who read my blog.)
Anyway, this is all connected to the whole theory that Vision has developed the STIR program to benefit certain developers who are their big donors. Except it doesn’t make sense. Some of the biggest donor developers they’ve had are people who haven’t pitched any STIR programs, nor are they likely to.
47 Frances Bula // Jul 14, 2010 at 10:58 pm
@Westender. I don’t think they are seriously underestimating this at all. I think this whole thing in the West End, capped by the inadvertent publicized comments, has them freaked. Why do you think they started an advisory commitee? They know something’s wrong.
48 Tessa // Jul 14, 2010 at 11:34 pm
lol @ Paul, I know what craigslist is. Craigslist doesn’t change the fundamental laws of supply and demand.
49 Living in the West End // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:20 am
Sorry Francis this STIR thingy is all about the money honey for a few select developers who snapped up some choice properties in the West End. Someone should ask the United Church why they willingly accepted $4.2 million for the site at Comox and Broughton. [Edited for legal reasons] The fish is rotten Francis wherever you look. If it is no secret as to who Vision Vancouver owes the money or who is currently paying the bills at their newly set up offfices, enlighten me and the other 1/2 million who live in Vancouver. You are the crack journalist who very conveniently made yourself avaliable to every television camera crew on Monday afternoon to dispel the media storm surrounding your chisel chinned man. Looks like the granite in the chin comes feom China not BC, from somewere within Xwayxway Park which the Mayor fondly remembers in his youth, so says Malcom Parry. Sorry not from within Stanly Park to go on top of the seawall around the park.Its tough having SO many stories to follow, it seems there is dirt under just about any rock you overturn in the Vision Vancouver organization.
50 Frances Bula // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:02 am
@Living. I said many things to the TV cameras, some of them quite critical. I have no control over what they decide to use. Re your edited comment. Please feel free to keep posting, but it’s libellous to say that particular people are deriving personal gain from these developments when you have provided no proof.
51 Living in the West End // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:23 am
Then let’s try this taken from
Brian Hutchinson, National Post · Monday, Jun. 7, 2010
Want to build new housing in the DTES? Besides money and land, you’ll need street smarts, political experience and heft. For that, see Mr. Green. He knows better than anyone how things really work.
The men who conceived and then built the new $400-million Woodward’s condominium and social housing development credit their relationship with Mr. Green. Woodward’s was all about politics, promotion and power.
“We couldn’t have done it without Jim,” says Gregory Henriquez, the development’s Vancouver-based architect. “Woodward’s only happened because of Jim Green.”
As we stood chatting on a sidewalk outside the new Woodward’s complex, a bulky man in black walked towards us. It was Jim Green, by chance. Mr. Henriquez smiled and shook his hand. “Hey Jim,” he said, “why not take the reporter and the photographer up to your place?” Up to a spacious, light-filled three-storey unit, he meant, in the tallest of the two Woodward’s condo towers.
“F—off,” Mr. Green growled.
The last thing this black-cloaked Robin Hood populist wants is to show off his digs to the press. Downtown Eastsiders — the longstanding ones, not the moneyed new residents of the Woodward’s condo towers — can be a particularly suspicious, cynical lot.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, Mr. Green doesn’t own his Woodward’s condo, which, if put back onto the market, would fetch $1-million or more. He rents.
A rare “sky balcony” unit in the Woodward’s complex might seem a just reward. Mr.
Green arrived in the DTES back in 1971, when the neighbourhood was in decline but before drug-related rot had set.
52 Frances Bula // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:33 am
@Living. So what are you saying, beyond that he has a nice place that would earn him scorn from the less well-housed Downtown Eastside advocates? (Not that he’s very popular among that set anyway.) Remember, it has to be something you actually know, as opposed to something you suspect.
53 Max // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:48 pm
According to Alex G.’s blog for today – the STIR program being railroaded through by the Mayor and Council is far from ‘renter’ friendly.
However, it is developer friendly and Rob Rennie friendly, as he will be marketing these ‘for profit’ units.
Worth the look people; here is the link – first blog on his site:
http://alexgtsakumis.com
54 Frances Bula // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:14 pm
@Max. Unless the West End people posting here have it wrong, the Maxine’s development was always intended to have some condos that were for sale. It’s my guess that’s what Rennie’s firm would be handling, not the rental units.
55 Max // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Hi Frances:
According to Rennie’s group – the entire project is ‘for profit’. When they were contacted, they were unaware of STIR.
It seems the only rental units will be if an ‘owner’ decides to rent their place – and it will not be below market value.
56 Sarah Isaacs // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Hi Frances,
You are wrong and failed to understand my argument. Please read the STIR program and understand its two streams: (1) Simple; and (2) Negotiated. The simple stream is for projects that do not request a rezoning.
What I promoted (above) was the STIR program’s simple stream (no rezoning). Even though STIR has the ‘super-size-it’ Negotiated Stream (rezoning), amazingly some developers have applyied for development applications under STIR under the simple stream.
Back when there were only 9 applications in the entire city, 2 of them were under the simple stream. I’m not sure how many there are now.
Quite literally, this means developers don’t need the density bonus provided by rezoning to build rental. That’s a fact.
Many of the developers currently applying through STIR’s negotiated stream may have applied through the simple stream if the negotiated stream did not exist, but likely couldn’t resist pursuing rezoning since it is offered on a silver platter.
Why not give modest incentives to the business community and see how they respond? Now it will be difficult for the city to scale back once expectations have been set.
57 Frances Bula // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm
@Max. If you look at the city’s website, it says this project is supposed to have 98 condo units and 49 rental units. A quick check on Rennie’s site says the Alexandra project )the Bidwell one) has 85 units for sale in total, so that sounds like the condo units. I’m sure that some random person who picked up the phone at Rennie Marketing didn’t know what STIR was. That’s not her job. She’s selling the for-sale units and I’m sure the entire part of it his firm is handling is for profit. I know from 20 years of reporting and making every mistake in the book that people whom you talk to don’t always get the question. I’d bet money that when she said the entire project was for sale, she meant the substantial portion of the building that is the sale condos.
Once again, I will say this, though in vain. People in the West End have a good case to make about insisting that new projects fit into the neighbourhood and that they should get more information from the city about the trade-offs with the developer. Why muck it up with these bits of half-baked info?
58 Frances Bula // Jul 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm
@Sarah. Yes, I did misunderstand. Sorry about that. But how do you know that the simple stream will work for everyone? If I were writing this story for publication, I would want to know which ones went to the simple stream and why. Were they buildings in cheaper parts of town, where just relaxing the parking, DCLs and CACs was enough to tip the project into the black in terms of revenue versus costs? What works at Kingsway and Clark financially might not work in Yaletown or the West End. Do you know any more about those projects?
I have heard that for sure some of the projects in the West End don’t have to be AS dense as they are. They could be lower, though there would be fewer rental apartments, but it could still work financially. Whether they would be feasible under the existing zoning, well, I don’t know and I suspect that no one does really.
Not sure what you mean by modest incentives to the business community? You mean developers? Like take the big negotiated projects off and offer only smaller chunks of incentives?
59 Westender1 // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Frances, you suggested that what works at Kingsway and Clark financially might not work in Yaletown or the West End. I’m pleased to find that you’ve heard some of the projects in the West End don’t need to be as dense as proposed – that is not something that has been shared with the community.
I don’t have data like land values for Kingsway and Clark, but a quick review of projects at 1142 Granville and 1401 Comox shows some significant differences. Is the 1142 Granville project that much less profitable? Or is 1401 Comox a bit “too” profitable? I’m not convinced that land costs are the only issue here.
1142 Granville
Site area: 8,993 sq. Ft.
Price paid: $3.47 million
Existing FSR 3.5
Proposed FSR: 5.72
Unit Count: 106
Total buildable sq. ft.: 51,439
Cost of land per sq. ft.: $386
Cost of land per buildable sq. ft.: $67.46
Summary:
Developer paid $386 per square foot of lot area, or $110 per “buildable” square foot under existing zoning. Developer requested a 63% density bonus to accommodate STIR rental housing, lowering land costs to $67.46 per “buildable” square foot of floor area.
1401 Comox
Site area: 17,292 sq. ft.
Price paid: $4.25 million
Existing FSR: 1.5
Proposed FSR: 7.43
Unit Count: 192
Total buildable sq. ft.: 128,494
Cost of land per sq. Ft.: $246
Cost of land per buildable sq. ft.: $33.07
Summary:
Developer paid $246 per square foot of lot area, or $164 per “buildable” square foot under existing zoning. Developer requested a 395% density bonus to accommodate STIR rental housing, lowering land costs to $33.07 per “buildable” square foot of floor area (almost exactly half the price at 1142 Granville).
60 Frances Bula // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm
@Westender. As I’ve said before (or maybe not, so here it is), you’ve done some great work in researching this so far. But, again, it’s hard for me to judge why some buildings were proposed at different FSRs without more information. I am trying to get that kind of information from real-estate services so I can understand these deals better. In general, if a developer gets more density in any project, it’s because they’re doing something more that costs: They’re not getting as much of a break on parking, they’re providing a community space, they’re restoring heritage, whatever. In the past, I’ve mentioned the community space being included in the Comox building, not sure how much that’s worth. You’ve said the seniors’ thing is only worth 100,000. I do note that there is almost double the number of units in the building in Comox. That does cost more. Yes, they’ll get more rent, since typically people end up paying more per square foot for smaller places than larger places, but how does that balance out with the costs of 90 some extra kitchens, bathrooms, walls, etc. I just can’t jump to a conclusion on the basis of these 16 numbers, as compelling as they seem at first glance.
(Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that the city is just giving stuff away to developers for free because, unbeknownst to us, Vancouver is really Miami and the whole place is corrupt and all the planners and councillors are in cahoots to let the developers run wild because they’re all being given free condos. As I say, I’m waiting for evidence on that one.)
61 Michael Geller // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm
It’s a beautiful day outside, and I should be on the beach…but I would like to offer a few comments based on what I have been reading on this blog, and my understanding of the need and economics of rental housing and the STIR program.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was at the April 2009 workshop called by the Mayor to discuss how best to encourage developers to build market rental housing. I was also involved, for a while, with the proposal to build rental units under STIR at Beach Towers in the West End.
Following the workshop, I posted on my blog my assessment of why rental housing was not being built, some of the solutions being put forward by others, and what I thought should be done. http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2009/04/rental-housing-in-vancouver.html
It’s interesting to see how my thoughts correspond to the program that was eventually created. You will note some similarities and one key contradiction.
The problem with the STIR program, in my opinion, was that the program was rushed, and not completely thought through, and the ‘negotiated stream’ was introduced without any rules or guidelines.
The first project through the door (Bidwell and Davie) asked for the moon, and got it, despite some very reasoned and articulate opposition from West End residents. In addition to a density bonus for the rental housing, it also received a density bonus for condos worth at least $3 million. Council approved this on the advice of staff that such a generous bonus was necessary. Otherwise the project might not be built.
The rental units are not being sold by Rennie. However, I understand it is the developer’s intention to sell them as a package to an investor.
The second project (1401 Comox) also asked for the moon, in the form of a 5 fold increase in the permitted FSR. As we all know, it is now going through further negotiations and revisions in an effort to address community concerns.
While there is no doubt that the Bidwell/Davie project was extremely generous to the developer, I do not expect to see such generosity offered again. At most, a developer will get a density bonus for the rental units, but not any condo units. Other important concessions could include parking relaxations, reduced or forgiven Development Cost Charges, and an accelerated approval process.
Many have suggested that the program should be cancelled since there is no longer a rental shortage in the West End or elsewhere in the city. While I have always argued that the CMHC vacancy rate figures are misleading, since they do not include basement suites and condos that are rented out, I believe there remains a genuine need for new rental units. And it is appropriate to encourage their construction now.
It would be great if they could be produced at less than market rents, but this is probably unrealistic. However, it is in our collective best interests to encourage developers to build market rental units, as long as the building designs fit in with their surroundings, since the demand for new rental housing is increasing, and more importantly, the overall rental stock is aging, and falling into disrepair.
For this reason, we should also have programs like RRAP (if you are young, you’ll need to google it) to encourage the renovation of older units as well.
Now is a good time to encourage new rental construction because the condo market is not as robust as it was, and we need to put contractors to work. Prices are good, and interest rates are low. HST is a problem, but that’s another story.
To those who think the program is overly generous, I would say just check how many are taking advantage of it….not so many. Why? Because the requirement that the units be guaranteed as rental for life makes them very hard to finance at current rental rates. That’s right. Many of you think rents are much too high. However, banks and CMHC are requiring developers to put up at least 35% equity, or more, to build new rental projects…even if the land is essentially ‘free’, given the thin economics of building rental housing.
For a 100 unit rental project, that could mean 8 million dollars in cash
So what should the city do? I think it should continue the STIR program, but it should bring in some guidelines, clarifying how much of a density bonus might be possible. At some of the meetings I attended, it was suggested that a site might be allowed to go to a maximum of 2 times the current zoning. That’s one possibility. Another approach might be to establish new thresholds, based on current zoning…eg 1.5 FSR can go to 3.0 but 5 FSR can only go to 7.5, or whatever.
The point is it would be helpful for everyone if there were some guidelines in place.
The city might also clarify when you get all the goodies…especially DCC forgiveness. My view is that not all projects should qualify for every benefit. Do we really want to give generous bonuses for 350 sq.ft. units renting at $2.70 a foot? I don’t think so.
But if someone is willing to build ground oriented family rental units, or offer units at rents below market, then they should qualify for DCC exemptions. (Although if you have read this far, and checked my blog, you will note that I initially argued against this aspect of the program.)
At any rate, I hope this is helpful…I do want to see the program continue for a while, but more importantly, we should SEPARATE the issue of the NEED FOR RENTAL HOUSING and APPROPRIATE INCENTIVES and the other issue of how to ensure that the new projects FITS ITS SURROUNDINGS FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.
Unfortunately, these two issues have become too intertwined.
A third issue, and not one I’m going to tackle now since the weather is too nice, is just who decides if a project meets important planning and design criteria…is it the person who lives next door to the proposed project? Is it the Director of Planning and his/her staff who have professional qualifications in the field? is it the broader neighbourhood in which the project will be built? and if so, is it the people who are looking for rental housing, or those who have it?
And what are the obligations of the elected officials…should they make a decision based on polling? Advice from staff? the neighbours? All of the above?
But that’s another story.
I hope this is helpful. Now I’m off to the beach.
62 Westender1 // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Hello Frances – I hope that: 1.) you have more success with attaining information from real estate services than residents have and 2.) that you will share this information if provided.
You may also be interested to know that this week the city mailed out several thousand notices of an open house meeting for the 1401 Comox project (to allow the public to view the revised project with a decrease in FSR from 7.4 to (gasp) 7.1?)…but with a look at the project website at www. vancouver.ca we see that for some unknown reason, notice is provided that the open house is cancelled.
63 Frances Bula // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:34 pm
@Westender. I hope I’m more successful in getting it also. I have put in a request. I’ve also heard that when STIR was first being conceptualized, there was a series of scenarios worked out by the city showing the financials for different buildings in different settings. I’m not sure if I have that right, but I’m also trying to get that. Re the open house cancellation, I’ve heard lots of scuttlebutt in the last couple of days that the project may be revised. Maybe that’s why the cancellation?
p.s. I always share as much as I can get. That’s why I went into journalism! No fun keeping secrets to myself.
64 The Fourth Horseman // Jul 16, 2010 at 4:51 pm
I think this is a very good thread.
Clearly there are many competing interests here.
I agree with Michael: no more ad hoc development. We must have clear definitions and ideas about what the whole of the West End and other communities are to look like.
I was talking to a young(er) architect the other day. She says that two considerations when building are sunlight (an already precious commodity here in Vancouver) as well as open space.
I, for one, do not fancy a Toronto-like model for the rest for the downtown peninsula.
Leave a Comment