Elizabeth Murphy: Son of STIR rising at Vancouver City Hall
By Elizabeth Murphy
Two related controversial reports are to be considered by Vancouver city council today: the Secured Market Rental Housing Policy and the 1401 Comox Street rezoning. Both should be referred back to staff for public consultation and amendments.
The Secured Market Rental Housing Policy—or the Son of STIR—is a new program which would replace the recently cancelled Short Term Incentives for Rentals Program (STIR). There has been no public consultation on this policy.
However, unlike its predecessor STIR, the new policy will not be a temporary stimulus program, but will be a permanent program that is eventually written into a number of zoning bylaws affecting neighbourhoods citywide. It includes broad discretionary power to be given the director of planning. Large increases in density could be allowed without requiring rezoning.
There were many problems with STIR, most of which will not be addressed by the new policy, Son of STIR. In an article earlier this month, I covered this issue to show how the Son of STIR will be even worse than its predecessor.
In January 2012, Brent Toderian, then-director of planning, outlined three problems with the STIR program.
• STIR did not create much rental.
• Huge height and density increases were necessary to secure very few rental units or amenity contributions.
• STIR unit rents were high.
In contrast, the city report declares STIR "results to be in-line with the objectives". That is not in fact the case.
The Son of STIR report recommends developments of 100 percent rental, rather than mixed with strata. But this does not address the STIR issues about lack of affordability, loss of amenity contributions, or the scale of rental developments. It will result in a loss of older rentals such as the RT zones on arterials, which have larger family-sized units in heritage buildings that could be replaced with units as small as 320 square. feet.
The zones impacted are broad in scope and do not avoid existing rental buildings other than some limitations in RM apartment zones and CD-1 zones. All existing rentals in RT heritage zones, commercial areas, industrial areas and Official Development Plan areas are not protected. The increased density and height for rentals would put more development pressure on heritage and character buildings, which already have some of the most affordable rental and ownership options in the city.
The other report refers the strongly opposed 1401 Comox Street West End project to public hearing, which was applied for under STIR in 2009.This project comes forward even though the West End Community Plan process is starting.
Although 1401 Comox is 100 percent rental, it is a huge tower that is vastly out of scale with the area's character. It will only provide market rentals at rates the market will bear, which tends to be high, and provides no amenity contributions.
Cameron Gray was the former managing director of social development and long time manager of the Housing Centre in charge of the City of Vancouver's housing policies and initiatives. Gray commented on 1401 Comox stating, "Building new market rental housing is certainly important but it seems to me that a building at over 7 FSR will be too big on that site and that the right balance between urban design/planning and affordability is not being struck."
However the staff report on Comox states, "staff have concluded that the application...meets the RM-5 Design Guidelines and represents an acceptable urban design response to the site and context."
That is not the case, This is an example of the scale of development the city is prepared to approve while misrepresenting the facts.
The community group West End Neighbours, with help from a resident planner, has done a detailed analysis of the Comox report and has a chronology of events since 2009 when STIR and the Comox project originated.
The proposed building is surrounded by a mix of building types. The majority of these are low-rise buildings ranging from three to four storeys. Some towers nearby are in the range of four to 10 storeys. A minority of buildings in the vicinity are higher towers above 15 storeys. None of the examples of towers in the report are of similar density.
Building rental housing is indeed important to the long term sustainability of the city. But the increase in floorspace for 1401 Comox is an unreasonable density bonus, which does not match the community context, for the proposed "community benefit" of market rental housing.
Nor has the city struck the right balance in creating a way to increase rental housing with community fit or affordability in either the STIR program or its proposed replacement program. Further the new program will put existing rentals at risk where rate-of-change policies designed to protect existing rentals do not apply.
The proposed Secured Market Rental Housing Policy, Son of STIR, works against protection of existing rentals, affordability, heritage, liveability, and the city's environmental objectives. There are so many issues that have not been thought through, neither with this newly proposed policy, nor with the project at 1401 Comox. These two policy reports should be referred back to City staff for further consultation with the public and other stakeholders.
Elizabeth Murphy is a former property development officer for the City of Vancouver's housing and properties department; senior development officer for B.C. Housing; and private sector project manager. She ran for councillor with Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver (NSV) in the 2011 Vancouver civic election.
Comments
38 Comments
City of Distraction
May 15, 2012 at 1:11pm
While City Council and mainstream media distract the public with bicycle lanes and food carts, the developer-backed Council races ahead with the real business of land development, consolidating control into few hands, and creating lucrative deals for developers.
Arthur Vandelay
May 15, 2012 at 1:29pm
Wow, that's some laundry list of whines. Notably absent are any recomendations or solutions or even the slightest hint of a path forward. Same old, same old.
... zzzzzzzzz ...
E. Dow
May 15, 2012 at 1:54pm
When visitors from other cities caution us to protect this wonderful community they choose to visit and our elders cry to us to replace them in championing the neighbourhood, how can our elected officials coldly turn thousands of passionate residents away in favour of lining the pockets of their developer friends.?
We are supposed to be working together on a community plan looking forward to what is best for all in the coming 20 - 30 years. The guidelines put in place in the late 80's had given owners, tenants, investors, developers and city staff some certainty in their daily activities until about four years ago when someone changed the rules. Neighbours across this city are working tirelessly in their communities to preserve and improve their areas while their concerns fall on deaf ears. What will it take to end the charade at 12th and Cambie?
R U Kiddingme
May 15, 2012 at 2:01pm
@Arthur
Don't be so cynical. Clearly, the solution is implicit in the criticisms:
- No tall buildings anywhere
- No new buildings that block anyone's view
- Existing buildings not allowed to be sold as condos
- More units to be created
- All rents to be kept below what market will bear
Simple as that, Arthur. Simple as that.
Mark Michaels
May 15, 2012 at 2:20pm
What the naysayers and this article fails to address is that there has been no purpose built rental in the West End in 30 years. The Feds and the Province have done nothing to put a housing strategy in place and thankfully the City of Vancouver attempted to do something. STIR may not be perfect, but it will deliver 180 market rental units and 6 senior's subsidized units for the West End. The development at 1401 Comox is critical in helping to ensure we remain and 80% rental neighbourhood. Regarding design, I'm not sure the majority of West Enders want to have something that reflects the as-is. 3-storey, 1960's walk ups that are falling down, 3 storey wood frame condos, and concrete 20 storey buildings from the 1970's. An increase in density is necessary to ensure the sustainability of our community. We need people who pay market rent, who will shop on Denman and Davie street as clearly it is not happening to the level it should which is apparent from the vacant storefronts on the those streets. The referenced group in the articel WEN, represent a very vocal and annoying minority who have no solutions to offer other than keeping the rest of the community from moving forward. Elizabeth Murphy is one of the WEN folk who have no end of NIMBYism, but little forward, progressive thinking for a metropolitan city.
Vision Fooled Me Once
May 15, 2012 at 2:36pm
Too bad they fooled so many twice. Their promises of openness and accountability are transparently false. They have been bought and paid for by the development community. You want solutions - 4 to 12 storey buildings, like the best of Mount Pleasant. Serious and honest consultation with residents, unlike the experience of the West End, Norquay, Mount Pleasant and soon to be others. Not tall buildings everywhere and anywhere. If people want to live in ugly glass box cities, there is no end of them already in existence to move to. Leave mine alone - it has enough ugliness and too much excess height already.
And to mention Kinder Morgan, how many more narrow-minded nimby's are there now? Certainly enough members of Council. Karma's a bitch, your worship.
City of Distraction
May 15, 2012 at 3:00pm
To Arthur ... Solutions? The bottom line is that regulators should not be funded by those they regulate. The development industry is the top funder of most of the politicians now seated in Council. Take out that corrupting influence on our political system and we will have very different outcomes for the City. The existing zoned capacity in the West End, for example, could probably accommodate another 10,000 people WITHOUT rezoning. But we need the hard numbers. The Planning Department is concealing this information, or at least violating Council instructions by dragging its feet. When that information comes out, the 4 communities now beginning community planning processes could at last start an intelligent discussion on the various options to add density.
Arthur Vandelay
May 15, 2012 at 4:31pm
@City of Distraction - The question is, "How do we get more dedicated rental housing units built in Vancouver in the immediate future"? All of the answers/solutions, including yours and Ms. Murphy's, seem to be to the question, "What's your beef with the way the current city administration is trying to increase rental stock in Vancouver"?
Everyone knows the math on new purpose built rental housing doesn’t work, hence nobody is building it. Haven’t for decades. Without real incentives, it will not get built. Once these incentives are offered, everyone with an axe to grind says the City is in the developers' back pockets.
W. End
May 15, 2012 at 6:14pm
Here's an idea Arthur and Mark: Council could grant the developer DOUBLE the existing density on the site on the condition that they build rental units. This 100% density bonus would result in a 12 storey building at 3.0 FSR that I suspect most of the neighbourhood could be comfortable with. Instead, we see a proposal to almost quintuple the permitted density on the site from 1.5 FSR to 7.2 FSR in order to create some of the most expensive rentals in the West End in a bulky, out of context building. There has been no justification for this increase in density other than the fact that the developer asked for it. This type of density increase has not been necessary to allow for the creation of STIR rental units in any other STIR project, including those with higher land costs. So if you're comfortable letting the development industry plan your community, feel free to lobby for them, but through their petition signatures, 13,000 residents of the West End have asked Council to halt these types of rezonings until a new community plan is in place to guide change in a reasonable and predictable manner.
Mark Michaels
May 15, 2012 at 6:17pm
@Arthur. Exactly, unless there are incentives, no rentals will be built. We will end up losing rental stock in favour of high priced condos. Now, that would be a huge change to the West End if we started to lose 80% of our current residents as they could no longer rent and needed to make room for more condos. Most of those opposing rental stock are condo owners. Let's face it, they think they bought the air space and views when they bought their condo and could care less if anyone moved in, except when they go to sell their place. I'm tired of all the people who are against density. Try Saskatchewan. Buy whatever you want and have no one around for miles. See how that works for you. We live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world and we need to continue to welcome all to live here and continue to expand the diversity of the West End. If interest rates change much quickly, Westbank won't bother building the rentals at 1401 Comox anyway and will move on to a 10 storey condo building, with minimum set backs and out of town owners. Not my idea of the West End.