I first
posed these questions a decade ago when Vancouver council was considering a new
plan for the Downtown Eastside that prohibited any new ownership
housing in the Oppenheimer District (DEOD). This is the area bounded
by Gastown on the west, Chinatown and Strathcona on the
south, the waterfront on the north and an industrial district on the east.
Not only
were condominiums prohibited, but new residential developments required 60 per
cent social housing units and 40 per cent rental units. By comparison, along
the north shore of False Creek and Coal Harbour, the city’s policy allowed a
broader mix of tenures with 20 per cent social housing and 80 per cent market
ownership and rental housing.
The DEOD plan
also required that new storefront retail serve only residents, rather than the
city at large. This was in response to neighbourhood resident concerns about
higher end restaurants like PiDGiN that catered to people not living
in the neighbourhood.
At the time
I wrote “if approved, these zoning changes would result in
the DTES remaining the worst crime-ridden and impoverished ghetto in
any Canadian city”. Yes, strong words; but I argued that a zoning bylaw
prohibiting home ownership was a contradiction of everything planners knew
about creating healthy neighbourhoods.
The city’s
rationale for prohibiting condominiums was to keep land values low so social
housing would be more financially viable. However, I feared the zoning proposal
was wrong from other financial perspectives. There were limited senior
government funds for social housing and Rich Coleman, then provincial minister
responsible for housing had announced funding for new social housing projects
would be limited to those in greatest need, namely the homeless and those
suffering from mental illness and addictions.
I also
questioned how many rental housing buildings would be built under the new
zoning, especially when they had to include 60 percent social housing.
Rather than
ban condominiums, I advocated for more developments like
the Woodwards complex that combined ownership, rental, and social
housing with new stores and offices, and Simon Fraser University’s School for
Contemporary Arts.
Sadly,
community activists opposed developments like Woodwards. They claimed they
would lead to gentrification and attract new residents who would make
neighbourhood residents feel uncomfortable. I disagreed. Rather than lead to
gentrification, which means the ‘gentry’ will force out existing
low-income residents, I argued mixed tenure developments would lead to a
much-needed regeneration of the neighbourhood.
Sadly,
council agreed with those arguing for a prohibition on ownership housing and
retail uses catering to a broader public. Today we can see the results.
Recently,
the Urbanarium Society, a non-profit organization promoting dialogue
on planning and urban issues, organized a debate on whether the
2014 DTES Plan should be rethought. Local journalist
Frances Bula agreed to serve as the moderator, but as she told the
audience, the organizers had difficulty finding people willing to participate,
for either side.
Given my
concerns about the Downtown Eastside dating back to 1974 when I was
a CMHC architect and planner overseeing the design of neighbourhood
social housing, I agreed to participate on the ‘pro’ side. I was joined by
former city councillor and provincial Attorney General Suzanne Anton.
Former city
planner Nathan Edelson, who had participated in the preparation of the
2014 DTES plan, and Tanya Fader, Director of Housing for PHS
Community Services Society were on the ‘con’ side. During the debate, they
argued it was a 30-year plan and had only been in place for 10 years. Moreover,
both were convinced that allowing ownership housing would force out low-income
residents.
To ensure
broader participation, the Urbanarium organizers invited
neighbourhood residents and merchants to participate in the event. At the end
of the evening, the audience was asked to vote on who won the debate. The
majority sided with those arguing against a rethink of the plan.
In my
closing remarks, I agreed that the DEOD should remain a predominantly
low-income neighbourhood and residents should have a say in its future.
However, without higher income homeowners in the community, too many of the
storefronts will remain vacant for another decade. In addition to bringing
buying power, homeowners would bring an infusion of civic pride into the
neighbourhood.
I also
agreed the SROs should eventually be phased out and replaced with
self-contained homes with private kitchens and bathrooms. But in the meantime,
the city should enforce its Standards of Maintenance bylaw so that existing
buildings, many of which are so disgusting residents prefer to sleep on the
streets, are renovated and made livable.
In
preparing for the debate, I visited the Oppenheimer neighbourhood and took
photos to compare the planners’ 2014 vision, as illustrated in the
plan, with today’s reality. I would encourage all Vancouver residents to take a
walk along Hastings and Main Streets, and other nearby streets, and consider
whether continuing to ban a broader social and income mix is a sensible
planning approach.
I also
invite Vancouver residents to join me in urging the new council to direct city
planners to rethink their 2014 plan and propose revisions that will transform
the Oppenheimer District into a more diverse and healthy community.
Michael
Geller, FCIP, RPP, MLAI is planner, real estate consultant,
and retired architect. He is also an adjunct professor
in SFU’s Centre for Sustainable Development and School of Resource
and Environmental Management (REM). He writes a blog at www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com and
is active on twitter @michaelgeller.
_Page_1.jpg)
_Page_2.jpg)
_Page_3.jpg)
