Over the past two weeks I have done three media interviews on whether it is appropriate to have separate entrances for market and non-market housing units being built on one site. While to my mind it is not only appropriate and logical, but also necessary to have separate entrances since the two completed buildings will ultimately be owned by two different entities, some housing activists want to draw parallels between what is happening in Vancouver, and what was happening in New York.
There, the term 'poor doors' was invented to describe a situation where some developers were reluctantly required to build developments combining market condominiums and non-market housing for blacks and other disadvantaged groups. The condominiums had their entrance off the street, while the social housing had its entrance off the back lane.
Vancouver has a longstanding history of successfully mixing market and non-market units dating back to 1970s when the south shore False Creek development got underway. Since then market and non-market housing has been juxtaposed in Coal Harbour, elsewhere around False Creek, and most famously in the Woodwards development.
In some developments, affordable housing units are sprinkled through a market development. However, the owner/manager of the social housing units must pay the strata fees as condo residents, which may exceed the rents being charged.
Elsewhere, the residents so have separate doors. However, not only is this preferred by the condo owners, in most instances it is preferred by the operators and residents in the non-market units. You can watch the story here, or read it below:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3884276/poor-doors-and-poor-playgrounds-vancouver-development-criticized-for-divisions-between-condos-social-housing/
WATCH: A proposed condo
development for Vancouver’s West End is creating controversy with
divisions between the social housing component and everyone else. Grace
Ke has the story.
A proposed condo building in Vancouver’s West End has drawn
criticism for the division it appears to be creating between the social
housing component of the building and other residents.
The
proposed 30-storey building on the corner of Burnaby and Thurlow Streets
would have 82 market residential units and 39 social housing units. It
would also have an entrance for condo owners and an entrance for social
housing, which have been referred to as “poor doors.”
In addition to separate entrances, it will also have separate playgrounds.
Another West End project faced similar criticism back in 2015. The
19-storey highrise planned to have condo owners access the building
from Jervis St. while social housing residents would use a Davie St.
entrance.
WATCH: Condo developer under fire for so-called ‘poor doors’
“We’re creating in the infrastructure a separation between the upper
class and lower class, so to speak,” community activist Randy Helten
said at the time. “It parallels other stuff that’s going on in society,
like with health care and the education system and so on.” The city says from a legal and management perspective the separation at the Thurlow Street development makes sense.
Vancouver architect and developer Michael Geller agrees.
“What we have here is a situation where a developer is agreeing to
build some affordable housing units in return for approval to build the
condominium units,” Geller said.
“So at the end of day, one
portion of the building will be condominiums, owned, managed and, in
some instances, the strata fees may even be higher than the rents in the
other side of the building that likely will be managed by a non-profit
or perhaps even B.C. Housing.”
Geller notes such developments are
not new to Vancouver. The Woodwards building has one market and two
social housing components each with its own entrances and amenities.
“What
we’re creating are really two separate buildings with separate
ownership and separate management,” he said. “At the end of the day,
it’s no different than any two buildings that are side by side.”
– With files from Grace Ke
© 2017 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment