New Media

My neighborhood of Mount Pleasant has been one of Vancouver’s fastest growing areas in the city from 2006 to 2011. In general, I’ve liked what I’ve seen since I moved in here six years ago; a Canada line along Cambie; more businesses along Cambie, Broadway and Main; cool restaurants, cafes and bars; amenities like a new public library and community center. Along with business, condos have gone up, which can be good and bad.

Businesses in the neighborhood tend to be at ground-level. The condos that have gone into the neighborhood recently have been around four storeys or higher.

And now we have the Rize development; 19 storeys of 241 market-rate condos being considered by Vancouver City Hall. Here’s a quick roundup of my thinking:

• The city is unaffordable. According to normal economic theory, more condos should make the neighborhood more affordable, but…
• Realistically, given that Vancouver is now a “world-class” city with a significant number of international buyers, this development will not move market prices noticeably downward. In fact, the price per square foot will be significantly higher than what I paid when I bought in six years ago; and I still paid a premium then that I try not to think about. I’m no expert, but I’m guessing developers would need to simultaneously plunk down tens of thousands of units around Vancouver just to slow down the cost of housing in this city. Long story short: anyone who advocates for the Rize on affordability grounds (as in, affordable enough for even lower-income people to buy in) is fooling themselves. Without some kind of government subsidy, no new development in Vancouver will ever be affordable.
• The Rize seems too high to me. I’m a fan of development. The changes that have already occurred these last years have been very positive. But nineteen storeys is a game-changer. It’s a gut feeling — but I also don’t see how a developer can’t make a very healthy profit with a shorter building. Instead of really high towers, how about going with a Parisian model of lower-profile buildings of four storeys or so?
• We’re not just talking about the Rize. If that development goes ahead in its current planned form, others will follow. It’s the thin edge of the wedge. Even if I were fine with one 19-storey development, I wouldn’t be so accepting of three or four.

So, that’s where I’m at. As a guy who wants a sustainable city and thriving neighborhoods, development is good. But I’m not convinced this particular development is right for Mount Pleasant.

Vancouver-based journalist, blogger and city-watcher Frances Bula has some good questions following the release of new census data. Best question of the bunch:

I’d like to hear some explanation from the data nerds on why the city of Vancouver’s population is only 603,000 when all the provincial projections have been pegging it at around 630,000 for the last couple of years. Were the projections based on the numbers of units built and, in fact, those units are not occupied by people counted in the census?

Funny, I didn’t even know I was in the running. Looks like I’ve been recognized with an Honorable Mention by the National Magazine Awards for my articles in Granville Magazine’s EcoDensity Special. Congratulations to my fellow honorees!

If you’re curious about what I wrote that deserved this honor, here are the articles that were recognized for extraordinary awesomeness:

• Vancouver: The Greenest City in the West
• Happy city, happy planet
• Vancouver in 2050

“Homes, not Games” has been a consistent rallying cry of anti-Olympics protesters. But visitors to Vancouver may not realize that progress on this file has not been utterly lacking. The social housing we’ve built for our most vulnerable may even be a model for other cities around the world to follow.

Here’s an excerpt from my report in Granville on the viability of Woodward’s as a living example of social housing that works:

Of course, since about 2000, Vancouver’s residents and politicians have made substantial efforts to change this neighborhood. Without an umbrella organization to direct taxpayers funds effectively, many projects have seen pitiful returns on investment. But as I noted last week, the Woodward’s building is an example of a project that has provided real benefits to residents—and in the bigger picture, our city.

There’s no question that April and other residents of Woodward’s are now able to live with dignity in a supportive environment. But this improved living condition didn’t come cheap. Not everyone is pleased about the scale of the investment. As one friend who lives in Vancouver South confided in me the other day, “I understand people need housing, but why do we have to spend so much so that they can have views of Canada Place and brand new couches? I mean, do people really have a ‘right’ to live in some of the most desirable real estate in the world?”

Tough questions. But I think our city has provided some balanced answers in the Woodward’s experiment.

At least, don’t try to get here from the USA. You’ll be turned back (like this guy was) by border agents who seem to have been instructed that merely opposing the Olympics is a threat to public order.

Remind me again, who cuts our border agents’ checks: the feds or the IOC?