Vancouver council approves agreement for below-market housing at city-owned sites

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Vancouver city council has approved an agreement that is expected to generate 355 units of housing, including 273 at below-market rates, across four city-owned sites.

      Vision Vancouver councillor Geoff Meggs called today’s unanimous vote a “historic decision”.

      “The city has gone into partnership with the co-op section of the Land Trust to create over 300 units of affordable housing–some in the social housing range–on city land, which the city will continue to own, and in a business model that will allow the city to perhaps even expand its resources for further investment down the road in social and affordable housing,” Meggs told the Straight by phone.

      The properties will be leased for a “nominal prepaid rent” to the non-profit Community Housing Land Trust Foundation, which will then sub-lease the four sites to a group of not-for profit operators.

      The foundation, which was established by the Co-operative Housing Federation of B.C., was chosen through a request for expressions of interest launched by the city in August 2012. The proposal to leverage city land with non-profit and private partners for the creation of affordable housing was a recommendation arising from Mayor Gregor Robertson’s task force on housing affordability.

      “This was in a competition with a number of applicants, and this was by far the best one, so it holds out the hope that we may be able to develop a model here that uses city land to generate housing that is affordable to people in the lower income brackets,” said Meggs.

      A staff report on the agreement notes the average rent planned for a one-bedroom unit is $769, which is 20 percent below the Housing Income Limits (HILs) measure established by B.C. Housing. The average rent planned for a two bedroom is $945, compared to $1,038 for a three bedroom. 

      The sites are located at 1700 Kingsway, 2780 and 2800 S.E. Marine Drive, and 2910 East Kent Avenue. The units will include 273 non-market units and 82 market units, with a total of 355 net new units targeted. Forty eight of the units will be operated by Katherine Sanford Housing Society to serve people with mental illness.

      Construction is expected to begin on the units by March of next year, and Meggs said the goal is for the projects to be completed by November 2015.

      “These are 350 units that would not have come under any other circumstances, and it’s just the beginning of reaping the work of the housing affordability task force,” he said.

      The Coalition of Progressive Electors said they're concerned that there is no "firm guarantee" that the units will be affordable. 

      "As with the Olympic Village, the City is donating its land, but there are no hard requirements to ensure that the homes will be affordable," former COPE councillor Tim Louis said in a news release.

      "There are loose, floating ‘targets’ for below-market rents, but just look at the Olympic Village to see what happens when there are no guarantees built-in from the start."

      Comments

      4 Comments

      Maria Wallstam

      May 16, 2013 at 1:56am

      According to the Council Report, the actual affordability of the project is vague and the report makes it explicit that the affordability hinges completely on the market conditions. Simply - there are no guarantees whatsoever to ensure affordability. The rental mix of tenants in the buildings is also unclear and the number of units provided to people on welfare is not specified or even mentioned.

      The report makes no hard commitments and leaves plenty of space for setting aside promised affordability. Some quotes include:

      "During operation – lower than anticipated market rental revenues (key source of subsidy for non-market rental units) coupled with higher than anticipated operating costs will have a negative impact on overall affordability."

      AND

      "The City’s sensitivity analysis, factoring in the known risks to the Land Trust’s model, indicates that the Land Trust’s portfolio will be financially sustainable in the first year of operation, and the affordability target for non-market units can still be achieved within the first ten years with actual timing dependent on future market economics."

      In other words, we might have to wait ten year for the projects to deliver on affordability but in the end it all hinges on future market economics. With people making 37,000 annually qualifying as being in core need, it is already too clear how these projects will have to cater to a core need that actually means higher income tenants to cover business costs in case there is an economic downturn or operating costs exceeds expectations.

      Yet the city is already celebrating the addition of 300 units to the so called affordable housing stock.

      RUK

      May 16, 2013 at 10:05am

      Well, 20% under market is not something to sneeze at, utopian fantasists.

      0 0Rating: 0

      jT

      May 17, 2013 at 2:00pm

      subsidizing is one thing but if job creation and people's income consistently fall short of cost of living in vancouver the scheme will ultimately fail. Pricing 20% below market will not be helpful if market continue to rise and 90% of income continue to lag behind. The Rich keeps getting richer the average becomes poorer and have no where to go.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Joseph Jones

      May 17, 2013 at 5:06pm

      1700 Kingsway is a stone's throw from the Rental 100 project going in at Kingsway and King Edward. The City of Vancouver seems to be on track to cram its first "neighbourhood centre" at Kingsway & Knight with the only benefit/amenity it may ever see: MARKET affordable housing, with no guarantees on what the rents will ever be. (Leverage, that concept so loved by bailed-out banksters.) In stark words, let's hand over huge concessions to developers and landlords with no real strings attached.

      Meanwhile, this one particular neighborhood is getting stuffed with new residents, while zilch is added to keep the public realm in step. Instant downgrade.

      Hey, wanna live in a proj in a neighborhood that is deliberately being shoved downhill? This is what "revitalization" looks like. One more instance of the transformation ripoff spreading across all of East Vancouver.

      Isn't it peculiar how those 1600 surrounding properties got mass rezoned back in 2004, became less affordable, and then the REST of the "planning" just disappeared? The shopping area component faded away, never completed. On the new City of Vancouver web site Kingsway & Knight doesn't even count as a "neighbourhood planning project"! Politicians and developers are too busy racing ahead to wrap up Norquay and Mount Pleasant, and to finish taking out Downtown Eastside, Grandview Woodland, West End, and Marpole.

      Plan, plan, plan. Grab, grab, grab. So ugly.

      0 0Rating: 0