In the early 1970s when I started working for CMHC, most of the affordable housing across Canada was developed by the federal government within Public Housing Projects. And they were projects. The first such project in Vancouver was Little Mountain and there were many others...McLean Park, Skeena Terrace, along with seniors housing projects. However, in 1973, the government changed the National Housing Act and introduced Sections 15.1 and 34.18 which provided direct funding to non-profits and coops so that they could build new projects. Thousands of units were built.
However, 20 years later, the federal government cancelled these programs and the supply of new affordable housing was significantly reduced. This ultimately led to a variety of initiatives, including something known as Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) which essentially encouraged private developers to include affordable housing within their projects in return for density bonuses which allowed them to build larger developments.
Today we have many examples of this across the country. Within the city of Vancouver we have examples of condominium projects that include a 20% social housing component. In some cases, the affordable units are owned by the developer who retains a non-profit to manage them. In others, the affordable units are donated to the city in return for even higher densities.
There are also many examples of rental projects that include a below market housing (BMH) component. One of the most talked about is the Broadway Plan which offers significantly higher densities and a waiving of certain development fees in return for inclusion of affordable units.
I used to be a fan of IZ since it was a creative way to produce affordable units within established neighbourhoods in the absence of government subsidies. But over time I have changed my mind, especially since the IZ obligations have prevented many new projects from proceeding.
It is within this context that the Vancouver Sun's Douglas Todd article was written.
A dubious trend toward including “below-market” apartment units in a new
wave of rental highrises is contributing to a less attractive, less neighbourly
Metro Vancouver, say housing specialists.
UBC professor Tom
Davidoff said
a recent policy push by the B.C. government and many cities, which hands
developers huge density bonuses in exchange for their vow to set aside a small
portion of their highrises for so-called affordable rental units, is “stupid.”
The business prof, who has been advising the B.C. government, is not
alone in spelling out the unintended negative consequences of a policy which
has led city councils to waive their customary demand that highrise developers
offer appealing architecture, open spaces and public amenities.
The problem, according to housing specialists, is the B.C. government
and many cities are encouraging developers to build higher, denser and plainer
buildings if they promise up to one-fifth of floor space will be devoted to
“below-market” rentals.
The guideline for “below-market” generally ends up meaning that the
people on moderate incomes who are fortunate to be selected tenants get a
20-per-cent discount compared to average rents in the region. In the city of
Vancouver, a moderate income is generally considered between $30,000
and $80,000 per year.
Davidoff thinks the policy is a bad way to combat stratospheric rents,
which are higher in Metro Vancouver than almost anywhere else in Canada.
“I think affordability requirements in new buildings are, while
well-intentioned, stupid,” Davidoff said.
“It’s hard to express what a terrible idea it is to acquire brand new
units in desirable locations and hold lotteries so a fraction of those in need
get giant prizes while everyone else gets nothing.”
Hundreds of new rental towers are being built or proposed across Metro
Vancouver, with many developers promising to make up to 20 per cent of units
“affordable” in exchange for upzoning, said Christina DeMarco, former head of
planning for the Metro Vancouver regional district.
Many of the region’s proposed rental towers, which now outnumber
proposed condo highrises by a wide margin, are in Vancouver’s Broadway corridor
and in clusters in Burnaby and Surrey, she said.
However, DeMarco and Vancouver planning consultant Michael Geller say
municipalities that upzone properties for higher, bulkier towers in exchange
for “affordable” units are forgoing their customary opportunity to require
developers to provide quality architectural designs, as well as funds to build
day cares and community centres.
“There’s no doubt we are seeing an increasing number of larger and
unadorned buildings compared to years ago,” said Geller.
The retired architect said Vancouver and other municipalities are
assuming that “housing affordability is generally more important than building
appearance.” It has led, he said, to widespread “acceptance of lower
design standards.”
In east Vancouver, housing activist Paisley Woodward worries the city
seems ready to approve three
“mega-towers” — of 37, 38 and 44 storeys — for a Safeway site on East Broadway,
near the Commercial SkyTrain Station.
“The city is not demanding community benefits of any substance because
the developers have insisted that rental housing is the benefit,” Woodward
said. The developer, Westbank Crombie, is offering only 10 per cent of floor
space for below-market units.
Similarly, DeMarco said the blocky,
two-tower rental project Vancouver council approved this week for a former Safeway site in
her neighbourhood of Point Grey will come with little green space, few
amenities and a dull streetscape.
That, DeMarco said, is largely because the main “public amenity” that
the international developer, BentallGreenOak, is offering in return for such
favourable spot-zoning is a portion of below-market units.
That leaves “no benefits of the zoning uplift for the public realm, such
as community facilities,” she said. The city’s policy is leading, she said,
to ”ugliness” and a lack of livability
and neighbourliness.
DeMarco cautioned that below-market rental units are also managed by
each building’s private owners. That means, she said, it will be difficult for
municipalities to enforce whether the people allowed to rent the discounted
units are truly in moderate-income brackets.
Geller is also worried that some of the scores of developers who are
vowing to provide below-market units, which lowers their profit margins, will
eventually decide to pull out of their projects entirely. A potential glut of
new rental highrises, plus slowing population growth, he said, will put
downward pressure on how much landlords can charge tenants.
Facing reduced revenue, DeMarco said some owners of completed rental
buildings may go to city hall and make an argument they need to get out of
their earlier commitment to below-market units.
Indeed, DeMarco believes many rental developers are being short-sighted by building unattractive rental buildings. She has talked to established highrise landlords in Point Grey who say in the future there is going to be more competition for renters.
No comments:
Post a Comment