Should Vancouver's newest neighbourhood
The Olympic Village handover was an event that marked 100 days until the opening ceremonies, and from all who were in attendance, I hear that the mood in the crowd was jubilant to say the least. John Furlong’s latest displays of choking up on cue were of course a part of the mix.
But I definitely do not envy the decision that City Council is going to have to make with regards to the social housing component of the development.
Of the approximately 1,100 residential units that will make up Vancouver’s newest neighbourhood following the Olympics, 252 are “proposed” to be social housing.
If cost overruns have now made the cost of each affordable housing unit $600,000, the question turns to whether it is feasible to maintain the social housing component in light of the fact that the city is now the financier of the project.
First and foremost, I am of the belief that a taxpayer backed project, particularly as the jewel of what was branded as the first “socially responsible” Games, must have social housing.
But poor decision making by the previous council combined with a fragile economy has put the City in the position that it is in. Namely, the city is looking to, at the very minimum, break even on the development so as not to incur any losses on the backs of Vancouver taxpayers.
Mitigating these two priorties is a dilemma that is easily criticized from the outside, but extremely taxing on those that have to make final decision on Council.
As an example, Alvin Singh’s piece that claims that “social commitments have been allowed to fall by the wayside in favour of a direction that was easier, seemingly cheaper, or just more profitable” is completely out of line with the realities of the situation. This isn’t about cutting corners, or increasing profit – this is about being responsible with a significant amount of public money.
This is why Raymond Louie’s proposal to trade density in the surrounding area for affordable housing is brilliant.
Suzanne Anton’s opinion is unsurprisingly completely unconcerned with the issue of affordability:
“The city is giving a lot of density to build rental housing. But is that really a public benefit?”
I don’t even know what to say to that. Anton is of course trying to capitalize on those residents complaining about density bonus investments going into affordable housing as opposed to amenities like daycares, parks and cultural centres.
Note to Anton: just because one doesn’t directly gain from a density bonus does not preclude it from being classified as a public benefit.
I think that at this point, Council would be well placed to cost out additional revenue that can be generated from turning those proposed social units into market housing and make a commitment to investments into affordable housing. Such investments, combined with density bonuses going to a variety of land developers in the Southeast False Creek area, would most likely lead to more social housing units than are currently planned for the Olympic Village development.
Council is going to take a hit on this regardless of how they proceed, but a solution that adds affordabiity in the area without putting taxpayers at risk will be a way to mitigate the inevitable criticisms from all sides of the debate.
Without wanting to get into a debate as to who was responsible for the high cost of the social housing, I would like to put forward for discussion another proposition, namely that the choice is not necessarily between SOCIAL HOUSING and MARKET HOUSING. Rather, I would propose that the city consider a model similar to the Vancity VERDANT project at SFU that allowed SFU faculty and staff to purchase homes at approximately 20% below market on condition that future resales also be 20% below market. Other conditions precluded units from being leased out; they had to be owner occupied. A creative financing arrangement allowed for some of the sustainable features to be paid off over time, rather than up-front, from savings in monthly energy bills.
In this case, I would propose that the units be offered either through a lottery, or on a first come first served basis as ‘WORKFORCE HOUSING’ to police officers, firefighters, other emergency workers, as well as teachers and other Vancouver employees who would like to live close to where they work.
While this approach will not result in affordable housing for those in greatest need, it will allow the city to recover its costs while ensuring some social and income mixing. It will also avoid what might be seen as unfair competition between the sale of these units by the city, and the sale of market units by Millennium.
I hope that others will agree that this could be a good compromise which helps address a number of competing objectives, and the city can start planning some truly affordable social housing on one of the adjacent sites.