Olympics Sunday in Vancouver

After a very wet Saturday at Cypress Mountain, Sally and I donned some red Olympic gear and set out for a day in the city. At times, it was exhilarating to see the large crowds, many also dressed in Olympic clothing . Particularly impressive were the pedestrian zones along Robson Street and Granville Mall (which I suspect will one day be permanent fixtures in the city) and the area around the Convention Centre. However, it was very sad to see the the make-shift chain-link fencing around the cauldron holding the Olympic Flame, and one can only hope that VANOC (with some encouragement from the Mayor) will realize that this is completely wrong. If it is there to protect the flame from 'terrorists' and protesters, I say don't give in to them...Furthermore, as others have pointed out, with literally thousands of police officers and security personnel in the city, surely they can protect the cauldron. If necessary, they can be equipped with taser guns as far as I am concerned. For those of you who have not yet ventured into the city, or who sadly will not make it to Vancouver, here are a few more photos. There are two 'Live Sites' in the city, where the public can watch events on large screens, enjoy a variety of entertainment, and visit surrounding pavilions and drinking spots. One includes Canada House, another major disappointment in the city. (I will create another post to show you around the facility) But suffice it to say, something went terribly wrong in Ottawa, and I would like the bright and usually candid Minister James Moore to explain what really happened. Of course he won't, but having worked for the Federal Government for almost ten years, I can surmise some of the scenarios. Without wanting to appear partisan, I think Quadra MP Joyce Murray is quite right in continuing to seek some answers. I am looking forward to another two weeks of Olympic life. While it is difficult not to be disturbed by some of the things that have gone wrong...the tragic death of the Georgian luger, the failing ice-making machine at the Olympic Oval (unfortunately, Zamboni is not an Olympics sponsor) and other happenings...especially the vandals seeking a world stage...(I heard the father of one of those arrested for carrying a dangerous weapon supporting his son's behaviour this morning on the radio...so what if he was carrying a bicycle chain...he's protesting our increasing carbon footprint.) but it is wonderful to see the city dressed up, and the many tourists and local residents in red and white who have decided to take part. It is also fascinating to see some of the changes around the city that I will cover in another post. Personally, all of this is much more important than the medal count!

Mike Smyth's Column in today's Province

Cypress venue 'woefully inadequate'

Michael Smyth, The Province

Published: Monday, February 15, 2010

Three-hour lineups. Desperate shortages of food and drink. Nowhere to escape the lashing wind and rain.

For North Vancouver's Sally Roth, her "Olympic experience" on Cypress Mountain left much to be desired.

"Woefully inadequate," is how the personnel-agency owner described her weekend visit to the troubled Olympic venue. "I just kept wondering: 'What are all these international visitors thinking of us?'"

View Larger Image

It wasn't a picture-perfect event for Cypress spectators, who faced three-hour lineups in the rain with little food or shelter.

Roth's Olympic nightmare began Saturday, when she and her husband, Don, took one of the required bus trips to the venue for a scheduled skiing event.

She was prepared for the cold-and-wet conditions -- but not for the hours-long wait for the competition to start with little food, water or shelter to sustain them.

"There was one warming tent -- the only place where you could escape the elements -- and it was jammed. So I decided to get a hot drink and something to eat. I stood in line for three hours, only to find out they had run out of most food items.

"At one point, an official told us all to disperse and get to our seats. Some people refused to leave the lineup because they were so hungry and thirsty. I saw one woman with two little children. They were so miserable, they left."

It was a similar experience for Michael Geller, a Vancouver architect and professor at Simon Fraser University.

"They simply don't have the facilities to accommodate the crowds," he said. "Not enough shelter, nowhere for people to sit down. Even a coffee cart or hotdog stand would have helped."

Both Geller and Roth said they don't like to complain -- that's just not the Canadian way -- but it really was that bad.

"The warming tent was so full, I tried to take shelter under the stands, but that was no better," Geller said. "So I went back to the tent, but one of the heating fans had broken. So I decided to get a coffee, but that would have meant hours in line.

"I finally left and watched it on TV."

VANO C spokeswoman Renee Smith-Valade blamed the problems on a temporary power failure at the site that hampered the preparation of hot food and beverages.

She said officials were scrambling Sunday to improve conditions at the site, with more food and additional shelter tents being contemplated.

"We're looking at changes to make it more efficient," she said of the Cypress venue, already controversial for the shortage of snow that had organizers worried.

It appears they solved the snow problems -- but forgot about taking care of the people coming out to watch the show.

"Cypress is like your 'special child' " Smith-Valade said with a sigh. "Your special child that's bright and talented and good-looking -- and causes you all kinds of worries. But they're still your special child. That's what Cypress is."

But Roth and Geller aren't buying the power-failure excuse, or the suggestion that Cypress poses "special" challenges that are difficult to overcome.

"Even without the power failure, there still would have been terrible lineups and no shelter," Roth said. "I think they simply didn't plan it out properly."

Geller has advice for people heading to the venue in the days ahead: "Dress warmly. Wear boots. Bring a cushion for the seats because the benches are cold, hard and wet.

"And bring some food and a hot Thermos full of coffee and maybe some amaretto."

When I reminded him that spectators aren't allowed to bring their own food and drinks into the venue -- not even water -- he suggested that people break the rules.

"The officials were so confused up there, they weren't even checking people. And even if they did, I don't think they'd have the heart to stop anyone."

Or, better yet, VANOC could try to make this venue more comfortable for people who spent hundreds of dollars on their Olympic experience.

It's time for them to fix this venue. Right now.

msmyth@theprovince.com

© The Province 2010

Olympics Day One: I hate to complain, but...

Sally and I started the Olympics with a trip up to Cypress Mountain to watch the ladies' moguls. Our tickets arrived with bus reservations from Lonsdale Quay...at 12:25 for a 4:30 start! Not knowing what might happen if we tried to get a later bus, we decided to forgo the opening reception of Canada House in order to catch the bus on time.

En route to the SeaBus, I noticed these old Canadian Pacific railway cars. Are they being used for accommodation? (I thought the wooden walkway connection was a clue.) One of the posts on Frances Bula's blog suggested we should use railway cars to house the homeless. While I didn't like the idea at the time, these sleepers might not be too bad!As we waited in line we learned that no one was paying any attention to the time stamped on the bus tickets...you took which ever bus came along. Had we known that, we would have taken a bit longer to enjoy our lunch at Lonsdale Quay. (Had we known what the food facilities were going to be like on Cypress Mountain, we would have taken more provisions, and urged everyone in the line-up to do the same.As the bus slowly made its way up to Cypress, we were delighted to finally see some snow on the ground. However, we weren't quite so delighted to see the heavy rain. It was hard to know what to wear, since it was so warm and clear when we left the house. Most of the people on the bus were reasonably prepared for the rain and somewhat colder weather, although far too many people were wearing thin pants and running shoes. They regretted it later.

I had absolutely no idea what to expect when we arrived. I had never been to a skiing event before and although I knew we had grandstand seats, I wasn't sure how things would be set up. When we arrived, at 1:15 or so, I wasn't sure why we were all lining up in the rain outside...more than three hours in advance of the event start! However, we did enjoy posing for the Italian TV crew from SKY.

Once inside, it became apparent that it was going to be a very long afternoon and evening. There was virtually nowhere to sit down, no beer garden (which I understand is a common feature at similar European events) and huge line-ups to get a coffee or hot chocolate...or anything hot. We lined up for a while, but then the power went off to the food services...Someone suggested we seek comfort in the heat tent. We went into a large tent that was literally jambed with bodies with nowhere to sit and no tables....So we left and decided to take shelter underneath the seating area, but this was not really that pleasant. At that point, with still more than an hour to go, Sally decided that maybe it would be better to watch Jennifer Heil try to win gold in the warm comfort of the Arbutus Club. So off she went.With nowhere else to go, I decided to take my seat on the cold wet metal bench of the grandstand, but soon realized despite a couple of layers and a Gore-Tex jacket, I needed more clothing. So I set off and soon stood in the long line-up for the Olympic store to buy a sweatshirt. After an enjoyable chat with a couple from Montreal, also needing more clothing, I eventually made it inside and found what I wanted
The opening qualifying event was fun to watch, although I sure wish someone had suggested that I bring a cushion for the uncovered and ice cold seat. The qualifying round ended relatively quickly with Jennifer in second place and two other Canadians in contention, and then the dilemma was whether to wait another two hours for the finals or head off to the club myself. I decided to warm up in the Warm Tent, but one of the heating fans had broken, so I decided to get something warm to drink. But by now the line-ups were so great the choice was made easy...I was heading back.

After a long walk back to the buses, it was an easy trip back to Vancouver. I did enjoy watching the finals on TV at the club, and couldn't get over how much easier it was to see what was happening. While I missed the cheering of the crowd, I was happy to be back.

So I hate to complain, but I do have some suggestions for VANOC and everyone heading up to Cypress. First of all, VANOC should rethink how much in advance one must arrive....or add some places for people to sit or gather and enjoy the wait....My advice, check what time the last buses leave...don't arrive too early.

I realize it may be too late for VANOC to add food outlets, but surely it's possible to set up some separate hot chocolate or coffee stations...and let everyone know that food is allowed, and encourage them to bring it, along with a thermos of hot soup or a beverage. Most people I spoke to were under the impression they weren't allowed to bring in food. This isn't true.

For those who have grandstand seats, tell them it's cold and not covered, and to bring a cushion or something warm to sit on. And while it seems obvious, remind people to wear warmer clothing and waterproof boots...I saw far too many people holding their running shoes, with plastic bags over their feet. (I'm told many had to leave early, even before the qualifying round, because they were so poorly prepared for the venue.)

I am not heading back to Cypress, but a lot of people who have travelled a long way, and paid $150 a ticket and maybe more, will be coming. I hope we can get the word out that with more advance knowledge of what to expect, this can be a better experience. As one of the paid workers said to me as I was leaving....we really screwed up today, but it was our first day. Hopefully it will get better.

As Vancouverites, Sally and I were embarrassed for our visitors. I hope things do get better.

2010 Vancouver House: Opening Reception

On Thursday night, I was Suzanne Anton's escort at the opening of Vancouver's 'pavilion' at the Olympics...Vancouver House, which forms part of the Yaletown LiveCity site. There I witnessed the arrival of the Olympic Torch, and the opening celebration. It was a most impressive evening, with a lot of surprises .

En route to the opening I passed 'The Erickson'. If ever there was a building in Vancouver that warranted more height, this is it. I would be most interested to know why this particular building was not approved with greater height....so many others have been!I also noticed the new childcare facility designed by Walter Frankl. If I ever had any doubts as to why new childcare facilities in Vancouver cost so much, this building offers some answers. The children may never live in such a beautiful building again....But back to the matter at hand. The opening of Vancouver House was a very appropriate and surprisingly low key event. While I expected to see many Vancouver 'media types' and civic boosters, the majority of the people I met were there to promote the economic development opportunities in Vancouver and Metro. There were no native dancers, no musicians; instead a few well chosen words by deputy City Manager Sadhu Aufochs Johnston, and some well designed displays which featured a variety of people who have contributed to the life of the city.My good friend Milton Wong was there in sepia tones, along with other entrepreneurs who support 'green capital' initiatives, the dominant theme of the pavilion. I was also interested to see who else was featured in the black and white photos and slightly over stylized video clips...

There was Larry Beasley...no big surprise, but also on display were Avtar Bains, a very successful realtor with Colliers, Ian Gillespie of Westbank who developed Woodwards, the Shangri-la, The new Fairmont Hotel and many other major projects around the city, and Robert Fung whose company has been involved with the renovation of buildings in Gastown and the nearby DTES. I mean, how many cities celebrate their developers and realtors? The fact is, these are the people who have had a significant impact of the look and shape of our downtown. (Well, maybe not my friend Avtar...he's just made money from the buildings designed and built by others!)A very tired John Furlong, who I have known since his days as GM of the Arbutus Club, was there (in person), and as always very gracious and willing to be photographed with whoever asked...After an hour or two of mingling with a few glasses of wine and assorted canapes, we all went outside to watch the arrival of the Olympic torch. I must confess I was not as surprised as Bill Good and others at the great public interest in the carrying of the torch, since I had happened to witness it in Newport California in the run-up to the Los Angeles Summer Olympics. It was an impression that has always stayed with me.

In the spirit of Vancouver, the torch was not brought into the Live Site not by a prominent businessman or politician, but rather by the DTES' United We Can founder Ken Lyotier.The large screen TV's are probably going to be a good place to watch Olympic Events...it was certainly easy to see a very pumped Gordon Campbell and Gregor Robertson, sporting a hockey sweater...
(Somehow I have never thought of the Mayor as a backstopper before!).

After Ken brought the torch up to the stage and the cauldron was lit, the backdrop was removed offering a very nice view of City Hall, framed by the stage. We then got to see a display by the Salt Water Pumping System, something the city has installed in the event of an earthquake, at the expense of all the False Creek and Coal Harbour developers. (As one of the contributors, I was delighted to see that it works.) The spray from the pumps served as a screen upon which images were projected, including of course, the Olympic Rings. Some fireworks concluded that portion of the evening, and the younger members of the group headed off to other parties around the city.Before heading off, Suzanne and I went back to Vancouver House where we met up with Ken Lytolier. As I listened to him describe his experience, I couldn't help but think this was not something he expected to be doing when he first heard that Vancouver had been selected to host the Olympics. (I wondered if he voted...and if so, whether for or against?)All in all, a great evening, and another Olympic Torch event I will not soon forget.

What is going on in Port Moody? ZERO GROWTH!

Port Moody Official Community Plan (OCP) Meetings Resume

Meeting Type: Committee of the Whole
When: Saturday, February 6, 2010
Where: Inlet Theatre, 100 Newport Drive, Port Moody
Time: 9am to Noon

On Saturday, February 6, Port Moody City Council is holding a Committee of the Whole meeting to continue their review of the draft Official Community Plan (OCP). The public is welcome to attend and observe the discussion.

More information on the OCP update process, as well as the January 2010 revised version of the OCP, is available at www.cityofportmoody.com/ocp

For further information, please contact Mary De Paoli, Planner, at mary.depaoli@cityofportmoody.com or 604-469-4702.

As the Planning and Development consultant to Imperial Oil on the future of its 650 acre IOCO Refinery Property, I decided to give up my usual Saturday morning winter round of golf to listen to the discussion on future planning directions in Port Moody. While I did not expect the IOCO Property to be a subject for discussion, boy was I wrong.

For those of you who have not been to Port Moody for a while, it has changed. There is an impressive City Hall across the street from Bosa's impressive Newport Village. Onni has transformed the skyline with some very big buildings, (some are too big for my liking) but they have added a new vitality to the area. There is an attractive new waterfront park development and redevelopment along St. John Street. The former IPSCO Steel property has been transformed into Klahani, a very attractive planned community by Polygon.

For the past couple of years, the Planning Department had been working on a revised OCP and it was quite an impressive document, with lots of pictures and good ideas...almost a modern day encyclopedia of current planning theory about good planning, sustainable development, infill housing, etc. etc.

So what happened, and why this post?

The problem is what hasn't happened. While the North East Sector has been promised a SkyTrain extension for years, it has not materialized. Instead, the line was built to Richmond and the Airport, and now attention is being focused on the future Broadway Line. Like Rodney Dangerfield, Mayor Trasolini felt that he was not getting any respect, especially from the people making the decisions.

So recently he and his Council decided there should be zero or minimal residential growth in Port Moody until the Provincial Government committed to the Evergreen Line and the Murray-Clarke Connector. To ensure this happened, he instructed the Planning Department to further revise the Official Community Plan to essentially remove those provisions that would allow additional residential growth, even sustainable new development. In January, a revised OCP was issued, but from my reading, it did not seem to stop further growth until the Evergreen Line and the much desired Murray-Clarke Connector was approved.

A presentation on the revised document was scheduled for Saturday morning. I arrived a few minutes late, only to discover that the attendance was sparse, to put it mildly, and Council was about to discuss only those Chapters of the OCP that did not in any way insinuate more residential growth. And so a nice discussion ensued regarding the Environment, and Parks and Community Infrastructure...

(Although I must share that one Council member was worried that the proposal to eliminate unnecessary idling might mean people would have to turn off their car engines at stoplights!)

I assumed we would then move onto the 'growth chapters' but no...the Mayor was about to end the meeting when the topic of 'Special Study Areas' came up. These are larger sites, both publicly and privately owned, that are identified in the OCP as requiring longer term comprehensive planning before any zoning can be approved allowing new mixed use developments. The former IOCO Refinery has been designated as a Special Study Area for years.

Well, before any of the 20 or so remaining members of the audience could appreciate what was happening, a motion was put forward that all the Special Study Areas should be removed from the OCP! Yes, removed; right there and then.

There was no suggestion that perhaps the OCP should be modified to say that planning could continue in Special Study Areas but no zoning approvals should be granted until new transportation infrastructure was committed....No. They were simply removed.

In the case of the IOCO lands, Council did not remove the extensive section in the Heritage Chapter which addresses the heritage restoration of the Historic Townsite. This is something many Port Moody residents look forward to. No, that remained. Unfortunately, no one was given the opportunity to point out that the desired Heritage Restoration will never happen until there are planning approvals for other portions of the other lands, some of which have been successfully remediated in recent years.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Mayor appeared to realize that perhaps he had essentially thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and shut down not only all residential growth but also potential new non-residential development as well. So he made a statement to the effect that Council was still encouraging non-residential development and its related economic development to take place. Unfortunately, the Mayor and Council have obviously not been paying attention to the discussions taking place in Vancouver and elsewhere in the region that clearly demonstrate that residential development is often necessary to 'subsidize' commercial development. Without one, you won't get the other.

As the meeting ended, like performers at a concert, the Mayor, Councillors and staff went off through their own door, thus removing any opportunity for the few remaining dumbfounded members of the audience to buttonhole them. So we gathered in the sunny lobby, wondering what really had just happened. Someone commented how sad it was that no members of the media were there to record the event.

I drove home thinking that Port Moody Council might have just made a terrible mistake. While I completely understand its frustration over the lack of decisions on SkyTrain and the Murray-Clarke Connector, I think it was wrong to close the door on planning for future growth and planning for the 'Special Study Areas' without any discussion of the consequences. Similarly, Council should have allowed some representation from the land owners, many of whom pay very significant property taxes to the city, before taking such a position.

While I am sure the Mayor and Council would like these affected owners and other large and small land owners to lobby the Province and Translink on their behalf, time will tell if this happens. Time will also tell if Port Moody property taxes have to increase to offset the loss in revenues from new development applications and approvals, and zero to minimal growth.

I will end with a comment from one local resident standing in the lobby who was hoping the OCP revisions would encourage the subdivision of larger single family lots to accommodate 2 or 3 smaller, more affordable infill homes. He left the building discouraged that while he can build a 7,000 foot home on the property, Council had just closed the door on precisely the kind of development that he thought Port Moody really needs.

Ironically, earlier in the meeting, the Councillors were lamenting the construction of larger single family homes that seemed out of character with their neighbourhoods. A special discussion on this will take place in two meetings from now.

Hopefully someone will point out the folly of Council's decisions this past Saturday morning in this regard.

The Olympics and Social Housing in Vancouver

For those interested in how we got to where we are today with respect to housing initiatives in the DTES, may I suggest you check out a June 2007 Report to Council from the Housing Department <http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20070628/documents/pe7.pdf>

This document includes the report of the Inner City Inclusive Housing Table which makes very interesting reading in light of the current situation related to the homeless. I think it is significant that in a survey of 600 people, the largest number suggested that addressing homelessness would be the most important lasting legacy of the 2010 games.

While I appreciate that many people truly believe protests and shaming the government are the way to get results, I would suggest that it was the quiet behind the scene negotiations involving Geoff Plant, Ken Dobell, Judy Rogers, Don Fairbairn, the Premier and Coleman that resulted in what took place over the subsequent two and half years.

And yes, the coming Olympics was the significant catalyst for these actions.

So while we may differ on our assessments of the value of protests, I would still welcome thoughts on some of the other initiatives I and others are proposing…especially relocating people from the SRO’s into existing apartments, with support services, similar to the Toronto StreetoHome program, freeing up SRO units for the homeless…(I understand a similar approach is being taken with respect to the allocation of the 200 social housing units in Woodwards)…

Also more efforts to help some people get into the workforce; more reunification initiatives to connect some people with friends and family back where they came from…

And the need for a new coordinating entity to bring together the various governments, including the federal government, key community organizations, housing and service providers…

We need to re-think how we are housing lower income people. While many people heap accolades on Woodwards and its 200 units of social housing, I would note that we spent years trying to get away from such large social housing projects.

Instead, I would prefer to see us follow a number of different approaches…

We should limit the size of new purpose built social housing projects to no more than 50 to 60 units, and then make them available to only those in greatest need. I suspect that many of you don’t know this, BUT MANY PEOPLE MOVING INTO EXPENSIVE NEW SOCIAL HOUSING ARE NOT NECESSARILY LOW INCOME PEOPLE….. BY DESIGN!

That’s right, the goal as noted in the above referenced report is to mix people from different socio-economic backgrounds, with some CORE NEED, some paying LOWER END OF MARKET RENT, and some paying market rent.

This is the approach being proposed for many of the larger, new projects including OLYMPIC VILLAGE SOCIAL HOUSING. That’s right, the proposed 250 units of social housing were not intended just for the ‘core need’ poor…a significant percentage were intended for market renters.

LET ME REPEAT THIS….THE 250 UNITS OF SOCIAL HOUSING AT THE OLYMPIC VILLAGE WERE NEVER INTENDED JUST FOR THE HOMELESS AND ‘CORE NEED’ POOR (namely those in the lowest income quintile). A significant percentage were to be offered at market rent.

While some people have argued all 250 should be for the homeless and very low income households, housing experts around the world know that is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I was around CMHC and BC Housing when the initial decisions were made to create mixed income non-market housing projects. This approach worked at the time, because the units were not so expensive and there was ample federal money to fund the projects.

But now that Federal money is essentially non-existent, and provincial and municipal money is scarce, and projects are so expensive, we all need to question whether the expensive units in the proposed new tower at Broadway and Fraser, the Olympic Village and other current projects should be offered to market renters, (in addition to the lower income households) just to ensure a broader socio-economic mix in these larger projects.

Recently, my daughter wanted to buy her first car. She started looking at used cars, but then her mother said perhaps she should get something more reliable, and before we knew it we were looking at new cars…eventually she settled on a relatively new, but used car. What’s my point?

Why are we often putting the lowest income people in the most expensive new housing? This brings me to the StreetoHome Program. In Toronto over 2200 people were housed in a relatively short period of time by making use of existing rental housing, rather than always building new projects. While some argue this approach can’t work here since our vacancy rate is so low, I disagree. Every month there are an increasing number of rental units coming on the market and they could be leased and provided to people moving out of SRO’s, WITH THE NECESSARY SUPPORT SERVICES. Similarly, there are units for sale that could be purchased for significantly less than what it is costing us to build new. We should be buying some of these units, and not just in DTES….why not in Burnaby or Port Moody, and Langley and Coquitlam.

Thirdly, there are many basement suites and rooms in peoples homes that are not being used. With careful placement and monitoring, I believe it is possible to house some people in this accommodation. Now, I can appreciate that one immediately starts to think about the terrible things that could go wrong….but many things could go right too. It’s worth trying, as yet another alternative.

Monte Paulson, an investigative journalist with a particular interest in housing believes we just need to spend a billion dollars a year on new projects to house all the homeless; however, for a number of reasons, our society does not support this approach. Furthermore, from my experience, such expenditures would not necessarily be value for money. I believe that if we could be satisfied that we were getting value for money spent, there would be a greater public appetite for such expenditures. And I also believe that the Feds could be brought back into the picture (just as they have agreed to fund the demonstration program for the mentally ill across Canada.)

How to solve the DTES Housing Problems?

With the arrival of the world media, much attention is being given to our city and the problems of the DTES. Frances Bula recently posted some excellent comments addressing some of the myths related to the current situation. The following are some observations I posted today on her website.

It is impossible to succinctly summarize the reasons we have not successfully addressed the housing problems in the DTES over the past decades. However, here are a few ideas for consideration.

1. The city has not enforced its maintenance and occupancy by-laws, thus allowing the deterioration of much of the housing stock. The reasons are two-fold…there was a fear that some landlords would simply close up, further reducing the stock; and the one time the city did go in and repair, it was accused of ‘gold-plating’ the repairs and sued. The result, the province decided to go in and buy up some properties, often at a high price. This is not the long term answer.

2. The shelter component of welfare is too low. It remained at $325 a month for more than 10 years, before increasing to $375. But this is not enough to pay for a well maintained unit, even an SRO unit. Some local housing activists did not demand higher shelter allowance rates since “it would be putting money in the landlords’ pockets”. To my mind, this is precisely why they should be increased, and then the M&O by-laws can be more effectively used if properties are not maintained.

3. The replacement housing is too expensive. Housing officials and politicians don’t like to talk about it, but the replacement units (the Pennsylvania Hotel) is a good example are too expensive and not value for money. The Pennsylvania Hotel cost in the order of $300,000 for a 325 sq.ft. self contained suite…you do the math.

Similarly the new ‘12 projects’ are costing far too much on a per suite basis. There should be an enquiry into why these units are costing so much. The answer? build more cost effective projects and also buy or rent existing stock away from the DTES.

4. Another thing people don’t like to talk about….the homeless keep coming here. The more people we house, the more that come. Yes many on the streets have been around for quite a while, but I have met quite a few who have arrived in the past two years….why? because the climate is better, and there’s a chance they’ll get free housing, along with easier access to cheaper drugs.

5. So what’s the answer? We need to do some lateral thinking…not just increase the number of shelter beds and units…we also need to address the roots of the problem…some of the homeless could work, if they were offered more opportunities and guidance. Let’s help them get jobs. If they need a shave and haircut, let’s have free barbershops open up. If they need clean clothes, just tell us where to bring them.

Let’s increase the drug rehab facilities. Yes, it is important to have a home, but we are in desperate need of more drug rehab for those who want to return to more normal lives.

We also need to open up more facilities for the mentally ill. I often joke that I blame Jack Nicholson for many of our problems. Why Jack Nicholson? Because he made such a mockery of mental institutions, governments closed them down without adequate replacement facilities.

We also need to help some people re-unite with families and friends…I know many don’t have families, or want to escape them. But not all.

6. We need to better coordinate our efforts. I agree with Ric Matthews…we need a coordinating body to manage our efforts. I call it the DTES Community Trust. What we are doing now is not working. Too much money is being spent with inadequate coordination.

7. And finally, we need to stop fighting. The more some housing activists try to embarrass the governments, the more some government officials and politicians will say, let’s go where our efforts will be appreciated. I don’t think the rent tent campaign, or Wendy’s public protests will help. How can I prove this?..I can’t, other than to share my perspective as a former federal official who built a lot of housing in the DTES.

I would conclude by noting all the noisy, clever and creative protests haven’t really helped over the past 7 years when there was a real potential to address the problem in advance of the Olympics.

Now that the Olympics will soon be over, I think it is time to rethink how best to proceed.

A design charrette?

One way to start might be a community design charrette. While I know that there are different opinions on the value of charrettes, I think there would be merit in a weekend 'design charrette' for the DTES that brought together community representatives, architects, planners and civic minded people and city hall officials and politicians.

We would start with large plans of the area, with an indication of which buildings are 'heritage', and which are not heritage but likely to remain for the next 10 years or more; vacant sites, commercial areas, community amenities...we would identify all the social housing projects, SRO's etc...with an the numbers...as well as the market housing projects....rental, ownership,etc;

The goal would be to undertake a first cut as to where additional housing might be located, and at what heights....where additional park and amenity space would be located, as well as commercial and employment areas. This might help us understand options in terms of mix of market and non-market housing, etc.

This is not necessarily going to result in a refined plan, but what it might do is give us all a better idea of what the area might look like in 10to 20 years, given the recently approved height limits, market demand, etc.

We could test out a variety of approaches...lower forms of development; taller buildings, as recently approved...a more mid-rise model which is what I prefer.

I believe a lot of people who care about the DTES and nearby areas would participate in such an event...we'd need some funding, but not much...hey, many of us would happily contribute to the cost of food, drink, venue rental and materials.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?