New Media

There goes the neighborhood? I don’t think so. But since it’s my neighborhood I’m talking about, I’m going to waffle a bit.

Vancouver writer Frances Bula points out a big problem with consultations on social housing projects in Vancouver, in this case referring to a new proposal for my neighborhood of Mount Pleasant:

As is always the case with “public consultation” these days, the open houses are always designed to split people up, rather than have a big open meeting, so that the angry ranters don’t get a chance to dominate.

That’s good, but I was struck by what I noticed in the conversations I had, which was a tendency among the explainers (city planners, architects, housing groups) to take on a tone of “but you just don’t realize the facts and I’m now going to explain them to you.” Very annoying, as it felt like I wasn’t really being listened to…

In the small groups I eavesdropped on, it sounded as though others were having the same experience and not being persuaded by it. One explainer said the neighbourhood didn’t have to worry about problems with the project because there had been a housing project built on Fraser and everyone had been worried about that, but it was completely unnoticeable now that it was up. But, said the woman listening, that project was much smaller, only 30 or so units, and this was is 100. And the people accepted there were people who’d gone through rehab; this one is for people who still have a lot of problems that aren’t going away any time soon.

Talking past one another is only part of the problem. But another factor is that stakeholders in these public forums may be encouraged in the impression that if they can just talk things out, a compromise solution will be found. But in some aspects of the social housing debate, there may be no middle ground.

Does the argument hold that all citizens, regardless of how addicted or delusional they may be, or whether they are a danger to themselves or others, are entitled to shelter? And that the shelter they are entitled to must be in a location and have amenities that offer a better quality of life than your typical bug-infested Downtown Eastside hotel? Well, then, some people, somewhere, in a community that has managed to create a positive experience for its residents, will necessarily have their own livability diluted.

It’s no stereotype that living next door to newly-moved-in drug addicts and the mentally ill is no picnic — it’s just the way it is. The level of inconvenience and public safety is likely to go down. But how much of a downgrade in livability is the community willing to tolerate so that their more unfortunate fellow citizens can have a chance at a better life?

Well, that really goes to the heart of what cities have always been about. Living in an urban setting has always been about trade-offs in access to amenities, economic opportunities, views, safety and just how comfortable you can be with your neighbors.

As a thought exercise, I suppose I’m comfortable with the idea of a single social housing facility going up in my neighborhood. But right now, I’m fuzzy on precisely how these new residents might affect the neighborhood overall. Won’t the potentially negative impact of the new neighbors be diluted in a densely-populated area of 54000 residents?

I’m also a bit more able to be more welcoming, since I know the project isn’t going up right next door to me. I judge the likely impact on my own standard of living to be relatively small. This seems to be borne out by one recent study showing that social housing facilities in Vancouver thus far seem to have little to no impact on the host community. I’m certain I’d be more emotionally involved if I lived on the same block as the new residents. I can afford to be more open-minded. But the NIMBYists do have legitimate concerns. What we have here is a failure to communicate — though it doesn’t have to be.

A mob of demonstrators blocked the Olympic torch relay last week and protests are expected to continue from now until the Olympics are done. Which brings us to the main question: What is the point of these protests?

Plenty of demonstrators seem incensed at the money spent on the Olympics instead of, say, health care, education or housing. But that money has already been spent. And it’s not like the protesters are going to be able to actually prevent the Olympics from taking place. So what do you think the demonstrators want? Isn’t the traditional media falling down on the job here in terms of probing the protesters with basic questions…

Continue reading this article in the Vancouver Sun’s Community of Interest.

Vancouver’s real estate market appears to be unaffected by the laws of recessionary gravity. I’m already in the process of selling my own condo this week, so I’ve been paying a lot of attention lately to the land rush fever that seems to have gripped this city.

The buzz from the Twittersphere tells the story:
YouthJuiceBC: The real estate market is rising. My listing just went into multiple 5 days on the market and way above list price!!!!
AderaHome: May 2009 Vancouver Real Estate Stats: GOOD times ahead
westcoasthomes: Real Estate market in Vancouver is becoming Hot again. Homes are selling fast and in some communties the M word–Multiple Offers!!!!

Undoubtedly, over-exuberant realtors catching their breath after months of hard slogging are adding to the frenzy with some strategic propaganda. But there are some other big reasons why people in Vancouver are buying houses, or closet-sized condos, once again:

5 Reasons for the Vancouver Real Estate Land Rush of 2009
1. The Olympics are coming. Nuff said.
2. Historically Low Cost of Borrowing Money for a Mortgage. They aren’t going to get any lower. Actually, they just went back up. Savvy buyers may have been able to pressure brokers to lock in the best rates for a little while longer, but those agreements won’t last long.
3. It’s Just That Time of Year. As it was explained to me, May and June just happen to be stronger months for real estate sales year after year. Nice weather is getting the people outdoors, where they can notice those open house signs.
4. A Variation on the Duddy Kravitz syndrome. If a man without land is nothing, then a man with land in Kitsilano is really something else.
5. Sustainability and Livability. Vancouver’s unique geography, eco-minded culture and a fortuitous foundation of good urban planning has made this city into one of the most livable metropolises in the world. Really. We’re not exaggerating, rest of Canada. It’s just that nice over here.

In case you were wondering about the condo I’ve put on the market, you can see the details and the pretty pictures in my real estate listing.

UPDATE 20 June 2009: My condo was shown on CTV news today. On the CTV site, click on St. John Alexander on Real Estate. See Leroy Patterson wandering around my living room. Thanks, news team!

As a guy who can’t watch any sport for more than 5 minutes without yawning, I have sympathy on a gut level with those who knock the 2010 Winter Olympics as a surreal waste of resources.

But I also recognize that the vast majority of Canadians do like sports in general and that there are significant benefits for hosting a sporting event like the Olympics specifically. Nebulous benefits like “putting the city on the map” can actually translate into tourism dollars supporting local workers. Getting the attention of the world puts pressure on higher levels of government to pour money into our area to build infrastructure that otherwise would have no chance of existing. Creating jobs and building venues for sports activities that many people seem to enjoy are not bad things.

There’s a sense amongst anti-Olympics protesters that in a zero-sum game of government spending, any dollar spent on the Olympic oval, for instance, is a dollar that doesn’t go towards, say, feeding the homeless. But that ignores the fact that a lot of this money from higher levels of government wouldn’t have gone to anything if the Olympics wasn’t in town.

Secondly, you could apply the spending argument to anything; why spend dollars on roads and bridges when you’ve got people sleeping in the alleys in the downtown eastside — or Kitsilano? Striking a budget balance where all priorities get what they need is an art, not a science.

Are our priorities wrong on this? Given that we’re not contemplating an Olympics that even comes close to the titanic spending for the Beijing games ($42 billion, in a country where a good proportion of the population still lives in grinding poverty), I don’t know that our spending on the Olympics is a problem. But I’d love to hear from readers.

Several douche-bag members of Critical Mass stopped my wife and I from making a turn on the street today on our way home from work. We weren’t attempting to drive through their bike rally, mind you. We were just driving near them (They were actually blocking traffic in all four directions). That was enough to prompt several of their moronic contingent to put hands on our vehicle and grin at us like coked-out chimps.

When I got out of the car to get them to stand aside, they only leaned in closer to stop us from proceeding. Then one pushed me.

I have no intention of charging him with assault. But I do charge him with the offense of being a bullying loser who wouldn’t have the guts to try the same thing if he didn’t have a contingent of his friends to back him up.

Critical Mass is not traffic. It’s a collection of selfish jerks. And in case you think I’m just an isolated crank, here are a few other opinions I’ve gathered quite easily from Critical Mass’ own Facebook page:

Kasia

I’m all for bikes, I think bikes are sweet, I have a bunch myself. I’m all for going green, that’s awesome too. But blocking off Stanley Park and the bridge is the dumbest, stupidest thing ever. It just makes motorists hate cyclists more, not to mention half the city is trapped in traffic. People can’t get home to pick up their children from school, make dinner for their families, or just get to whever they were going without having to sit in traffic for 2 hours. And what’s worse, you don’t represent the real roadies: the ones who wear helmets, abide by the law, and yet still get treated like crap because all you people have lost all respect for cyclists in Vancouver. So do everyone a favour, and display your movement in such a way that yields positive results and does not make the whole city angry.

And this one from a guy who I like because he has the same name as me (different spelling, though)…

Jonathan

If Critical Mass does not stop doing the Lions Gate Bridge I will never attend again.
Shutting down the bridge for over an hour is the most stupid obnoxious and cruel thing it could ever do.
Making hard working people suffer in traffic for that amount of time so that douche with a bullhorn can yell about no blood for oil is an insult to the human race. I hate cars and carbon emissions and the fact that we as a species are about to go extinct, but there is no reason to make people suffer in the mean time.
Consider the effects of your actions! Since that is exactly what the mass is supposed to be all about.

And for full disclosure, I ride a bike too. And when I do so, I obey the traffic laws, just like all the car traffic around me.

I’m traffic. You’re not, Critical Mass.