I have been talking with urbanist and statistician extraordinaire Andy Yan about the fact that there are two ends of the housing market that are severely pinched-the very young trying to get into the housing market, and the very old, who may want to downsize from the family home or rental they raised the kids in, only to find nothing available that can provide the accessibility, safety and security they require.
In an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun Andy Yan reflects on the opposition to the development of 105 Keefer Street “which proposed “one floor of seniors’ social housing for three floors of luxury penthouses” and which was “an act of tokenism and not a comprehensive strategy to house low-income seniors”. There was a legendary amount of correspondence to city hall on the subject, and over 150 citizens came to speak against the rezoning with 46 speaking for the rezoning. The rezoning was not approved by Council.
Andy Yan notes that “the Keefer Street proposal became a microcosm of Vancouver’s deficiencies in deep inclusion and engagement. The city is in dire need of a comprehensive housing strategy for a diverse population of seniors. A report in March from the City’s general manager of community services called for a “reset” to “improve housing affordability over the next 10 years. But the plan focuses on those under the age of 64. The oversight seems to ignore a growing population segment whose golden years are haunted by shadows of housing insecurity and social isolation”…
“The City yearns for leadership that transcends social, economic, cultural and political lines and possesses a civic imagination that goes beyond the status quo. The art of the deal needs to be countermanded by the art of building and cherishing existing communities. If this Council cannot offer this leadership, several hundred Vancouverites who opposed 105 Keefer showed that they could.” Paraphrasing Andy, “Development cannot be the one driving force-looking after our most vulnerable should also have inclusion”.
Mr. Yan’s opposition to 105 Keefer on the grounds that it does not single-handedly “solve the housing problem” is the same as opposing any one nation’s attempt to curb climate change because it can not also do so single-handedly, and therefore should not be attempted at all. In other words, dumb.
It’s fair to push the developer to include more units for seniors. It reduces the incentive for the developer to build anything at all, but there’s undoubtedly a compromise in there somewhere. That’s part of the negotiation. But to oppose the whole shebang outright because it is not part of a non-existent “comprehensive citywide affordable housing strategy” is either disingenuous or achingly stupid. There is no third possibility.
I don’t have a strong opinion, either way, on 105 Keefer. But, I read Yan’s opposition not to be about solving the housing problem, but rather, I thought he was opposed to the gentrification impact of this project. Maybe he can clarify his comments?
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
A sad day for Vancouver investors, private capital, seniors and young folks looking for more affordable units.
deleted as per editorial policy
Senior and young folks hardly ever go to downtown Vancouver, too expensive…
In future any project will have to get past the Planning Manager, the Urban Design Committee, the Neighbourhood Committee, the Environmental Committee, the Sustainability Committee, the Cultural Committee, the Climate Change Committee, the Resilient Cities Committee, the View Cones Committee, the Social Housing Committee, the Community Amenities Committee, the Day-Care Components Committee, the Arts Contributions Committee, the Local Building Materials Committee and the City Council.
They will not come cheap.
Indeed, and every committee has to make at least a few amendments to justify their existence and so projects get delayed and delayed .. and as such it is no wonder Vancouver ranks dead least in the MetroVan
deleted as per editorial policy
Oops: NIMBY at its finest: now 9 stories not 12 but no more social housing. Is this a win for the community ?
http://urbanyvr.com/105-keefer-shorter-proposal