Login / RegisterSid Chow Tan: On Vancouver 125, remember that Saltwater City was born in Downtown Eastside
By Sid Chow Tan
On April 6, 2011, good people will be celebrating the 125th anniversary of Vancouver's founding.
About a century ago—September 7, 1907, to be exact—a race riot in Chinatown was a flashpoint and a defining moment.
Today, a new flashpoint is developing that invokes the area's geographic, social, and spiritual centering of the Chinese in Canada.
The controversy also revolves around the historic buildings of Saltwater City as people's homes and community history. Then as now, Chinatown suffered from partisan politics and economic entitlement. At the grassroots, it manifests itself in land use and zoning.
The 125th anniversay of Vancouver is an auspicious moment to acknowledge that Metro Vancouver is the unceded traditional territory of the Coast Salish First Nations. Their struggle against oppression began centuries ago with the arrival of European immigrants and settlers.
The new arrivals, armed with superior firepower, bandied ideas and words such as "heathens without souls" and "white man's burden" to "civilize" the indigenouus people.
Great help to justify a claim to the real estate. Later came the Chinese, treated as slaves and navvies under the same ideas and words.
However, they understood the pecuniary nature and advantages of the existing regime of land ownership.
Today, the Chinatown flashpoint comes courtesy of city planning and the historic areas height review of the Downtown Eastside.
After much opposition to hurried implementation, it was repackaged as a local area planning process for seven of the eight Downtown Eastside districts.
Completion is scheduled conveniently for after the November civic election, leaving the final decision to the next mayor and city council.
Chinatown is the district excluded from the local area planning process. However, a decision for or against greater heights is expected prior to the upcoming election.
Instead of inclusion in an integrated process, there will be a public hearing lasting several evenings over the next month or so. Some hundred-plus people have signed up to speak. Many call the historic area heights review the "Downtown Eastside condos plan".
Nine of the 11 decision makers (mayor plus eight councillors) represent civic parties that accept donations from developers. The fix is in, as indicated by the speed of the Chinatown heights public hearing.
Increased heights equals increased land values, which equals increased rents.
A decision from the mayor and council on this is likely before the civic election. Unlike other Vancouver neighbourhoods, Chinatown will be seeing condo towers without a local area planning process or a completed social impact assessment study.
The city planning fallback is a "revitalization" plan that Chinatown landowners, businessmen, and social and cultural organizations have worked on for 10 years. Some merchants and low-income Chinatown residents recently said they have not heard of or seen the plan.
So-called Chinatown leaders and pillar oganizations claim unanimous support for greater density, thus higher condo towers. They claim with their gentrification plan, it is unnecessay to include Chinatown in the Downtown Eastside integrated local area planning process. They also ignore that no social impact assessment is complete.
Such an impatient and mercenary heart wounds the soul of Chinatown.
The 'hood is threatened by forces that mistakenly refuse to see poverty and drug abuse as issues of health and housing. Poor-bashing, "welfare bums" and "get a job" are standard responses to media reports of low-income and often marginalized citizens of the inner city participating in the political process.
Their organizing and taking to the streets in peaceful assemby has redefined Vancouver's former skid row as the Downtown Eastside.
The area residents serve up a potluck of neighbourhoods and communities—organizers, activists, artists, vibrant culture, environmentalism, social conscience galore, and enthusiasm to match. Here also, initiatives are developed to combat poverty, provide treatment for a myriad of addictions, and reduce harm to individuals and the community.
The Downtown Eastside, and it includes Chinatown, is the heart and soul of the city.
Many residents are mindful of the 'hood's founding communities: indigenous people, Europeans, and Chinese from mainly Canton province. There is still some racial divide but like a century ago, it remains the city's low-rent distict.
Also similar is the caring and sharing because of necessity. Now it's among a racially diverse but still low-income and working-poor population.
The Chinese a century ago, without citizen rights, chose the area to lay the foundation for their community and contribution to nation-building. It is sacred common ground.
The heart and soul of Saltwater City begins with the Lo Wah Kiu*, Chinese adventurers and pioneers who drove a railway through mountains and picked gold from its guts. Then non-Chinese partisan politics and economic greed begat legal oppression.
Targets of 62 years of racist laws (including a head tax and their relatives' exclusion from the country), the founders of Chinatown looked to the future. Given alien status, they and their descendants sacrificed, gained strength, and fought the legislation.
In 1947, their perseverance brought the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship. Chinatown is its people.
Now, they are the working poor and disabled, families, seniors on pensions, and landed immigrants making a life in social, affordable, and low-cost market housing.
Undocumented refugees and workers live in the only housing available to those in their situation—single-room-occupancy hotels. The rates are near affordable for those on social assistance.
Street-level shops offer low-priced, nutritious, and fresh food. Some of the people in the neighbourhood are organizing a Chinatown Residents Committee to exercise self-detemination, participation, and voice.
Developers, Chinese Canadian and otherwise, cite higher condo towers as the answer for the ills of Chinatown and the adjacent area. With financial clout and political influence, their haste for a "fix" for Chinatown is disrespectful and dishonest.
It is as obvious as the exclusion of current residents from an integrated local area planning process prior to the civic election. As obvious as no social impact assessment.
All who live and work in the area want a vibrant, safe, sane, and healthy community. That this is misunderstood suggests that the city-hall fix—a historic area heights review, Chinatown's exclusion from a local area planning process, and no social impact assessment—needs real fixing.
Power politics, and chasing the quick buck now root in and sully Saltwater City. Thankfully, the roots of Chinatown grow deep and have become resilient.
The struggle of today's residents honours the legacy of founders, who heroically battled and overcame generations of legislated racism. The history of Chinatown residents is to struggle and prevail.
If this continues, the heart of Chinatown will again be strong and its soul full.
* Hum Siu Fow or Saltwater City is the Lo Wah Kiu (old overseas Chinese), or Chinese pioneer families' name, for Vancouver.
Nearly a 40-year resident of Metro Vancouver, Sid Chow Tan lived off and on in a Chinatown single-room occupancy after Expo 86 for nearly 10 years. He help organize the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Council (DNC) and by a general membership vote, was accepted as a natural community member and currently serves as a director. He is national chairman of the Chinese Canadian National Council and a founding cochairperson of Head Tax Families Society of Canada. The opinions expressed here are his own.
The groups that support the Historic Area Height Review for Chinatown are the same groups that fought for equality for Chinese, built social housing for seniors and "overcame generations of legislated racism".
Mr. Tan's argument does not hold water. Chinatown's organization supporting HAHR are already arguing for inclusion, retention of heritage and protection of low income residents. Remember that Chinatown and the DTES has been a primarily low income neighbourhood for 125 years. But it was also a low income WORKING neighbourhood.
Mr. Tan is promoting an EXCLUSIVE social housing neighbourhood which includes Chinatown. Google CCAP and scroll through the DNC website. The underlying objective is to extend the enclave of free housing neighbourhood funded by taxpayers.
As much as I dislike responding to comments by anonymous posters, some questions are raised that must be responded to. Why are you not posting under your name.
I was aware of the ten year planning process, attended some meetings and felt it was likely to result a gentrification plan. I was not aware of any significant efforts at the time by the so-called "revitalization" people to engage and consult with low-income Chinatown residents. There is not unanimity among Chinatown residents as the self-interested revitalization = gentrification proponents claim. Just because something takes ten years doesn't mean it's good. These are the issues, not my participation.
You write: "The groups that support the Historic Area Height Review for Chinatown are the same groups that fought for equality for Chinese, built social housing for seniors and "overcame generations of legislated racism"."
These are the same so-called leaders and pillar groups who opposed the DTES health and safety initiatives in 2001, They also accepted a "no apology no compensation" agreement-in-principle on redress in 2005 which head tax and exclusion families fought and gain some success.
Yes, Chinatown groups have done good work. However, they are off the mark here mainly because of the appeal of lucre and poor leadership and vision. And yes, you can agree to disagree.
You write: "Chinatown's organization supporting HAHR are already arguing for inclusion, retention of heritage and protection of low income residents."
Easy to argue this but would like to see the guarantees in writing. Talk is cheap. Brent Toderian, director of city planning said on CBC there are no guarantees in place. See CBC Early Edition podcast for March 17, 2011 about 8min. in.
You write: "Mr. Tan is promoting an EXCLUSIVE social housing neighbourhood which includes Chinatown."
I am promoting public participation and the right of Chinatown residents to self-determination and voice. It's clear many Chinatown residents know little of the towers plan. It is an impossibility for Chinatown to be, as you say, an "...EXCLUSIVE social housing neighbourhood."
The Carnegie Community Centre is included as part of official Chinatown and the Carnegie Community Action Project (CCAP) is based there.
Finally, please answer how one feels "...better empowered by looking in from the outside."
As a social activist for most of his life, Mr Tan has worked on some very good causes, but I think it is he that is off the mark here.
In reading his reply to mine, Mr. Tan was more than “aware of the ten year planning process”. He attended meetings but decided not to be engaged because he felt it was likely to result in a gentrification plan?
Mr. Tan has created and led enough organizations yet felt that this was not an important enough issue any time during the ten years process to fight for resident participation and against gentrification?
If Mr. Tan cared to engage himself in the process instead of now "looking in from the outside", he will understand the numerous housing studies, during the last 10 years and beyond, for the DTES and Chinatown ALL recognize and support the preservation of the low income housing in the area and it is imbedded in City policy.
At least some of his colleagues in the DNC and CCAP have been more transparent in their rally cries.
In every community there is never 100% support, I am sure even in the group he represents. That is of course unless Mr. Tan suggests that he supports the civil disobedience threatened by his supporters at the last Council hearing.
I would suggest that if Mr Tan and his colleagues truly believe in open public debate, they should not muddy the water with misinformation such as having residents sign a petition showing a 35+ storey building on the Chinese Cultural Centre and telling Chinatown’s seniors, the communities most vulnerable, that they will be displaced from their government owned homes.
The Chinese as a community worked hard to provide safe housing for their seniors, and continues to do so, to respect the hard working citizens that contributed so much to this society. Mr. Tan with his previous work, more than anyoneelse, should know better than to use Chinese seniors as pawns in his political game.
Lastly, is Mr Tan suggesting that DNC and CCAP would better lead Chinatown.
Connections to Chinatown?
http://www.creativetechnology.org/video/w2tv-chinese-head
http://www.creativetechnology.org/video/ricepaper-15th-anniversary
http://www.creativetechnology.org/video/doug-jung-40th-reunion-anaf
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheActivistNetwork#p/u/3/BS0u0zIbBlc
@ConcernedChinatown
I would agree that DNC and CCAP could better lead the low income residents of Chinatown.
The so-called leaders and pillar organisations of Chinatown opposed the DTES health/safety initiatives in 2001 and an inclusive redress in 2005. The past ten years they provided a very welcoming environment for those who who differ don't you think?
Henceforth, I will exercise my right not to respond to anonymous posters. You say all these things about me and put words in my mouth yet won't identify yourself. Take your best shots, they don't mean anything now.
If Mr. Tan feels that shots are being taken at him, maybe he can help answer why CCAP as an "official part of Chinatown" or its executives similiarly decided not to engage itself any time during the ten year Chinatown planning process.
Leadership requires accountability and credibility.
Meant to say DNC and CCAP provides better leadership for low income residents than the Chinatown gentrification boosters.
HAHR advocates say: The Chinatown plan is the result of a 10 year process that involved 26 meetings. The drafters of this plan are worn out and can't wait any longer.
Low-income Chinatown advocates say: The Historic Area Heights Review is a small part of that plan, and a very complicated part. If landing heritage density in Chinatown South as the Community Amenity Contribution to Pender St. (the tourist district) as the *only* money likely to come to the clan and family assns from the HAHR was discussed in these meetings, then no one I've spoken with remembers. The low-income residents in the hotels (Chinese or non-Chinese) don't remember and the business owners don't remember. When I explained this to Cyrus Li from the Chinatown Merchants Assn at an interview-debate on CHMB Radio 2 weeks ago he said, "I don't believe you."
People whose lives stand to be affected by the HAHR were not adequately consulted, informed, involved in the discussion about the HAHR section of the Chinatown plan. Maybe they were consulted about other parts of the Chinatown plan, but I have not met anyone who lives in Chinatown who knew about the HAHR before DNC's campaign.
(cont'd)
HAHR advocates say: Low-income housing will not be damaged by the heights increases.
Low income Chinatown advocates say: They are referring to council's 1 for 1 replacement policy (or, SRA bylaw) which requires that hotel rooms be replaced unit for unit by social housing if they are demolished or converted. First, as the American Hotel proves, council WILL approve conversions to micro-lofts without replacement. And second, and even more importantly, the SRA bylaw does not protect against rent increases. The Pender Place Hotel in Chinatown, for example, used to rent at welfare / pension rates. It now rents at $700 a month per room. The city considers it in the same category of 'affordable housing' as before.
What do HAHR advocates propose to do to save the market affordable family housing (mostly low-income Chinese families and seniors) in the East Hotel, the Arno Hotel, and the Fan Tower on Gore? I think tenants of those three properties are in real danger of displacement by rent increase.
Finally, HAHR advocates inevitably say: DNC put 35 story towers on their petition to scare people! They are telling seniors that they will be evicted from their social housing!
Low-income Chinatown advocates say: We have printed and distributed more than 2,000 brochures that explain (in English and Chinese) that the proposal is for an overall height increase of 9 stories in Chinatown south, with the possiblity of going to 12 stories, and to 15 stories along the Main St corridor. At our many petition drives we used maps illustrating this exactly, and distributed colour coded maps showing the same. We took pains to explain that the plan is NOT to build towers on Pender St, which is to be relatively protected, but to build these towers in Chinatown south, where the cheap grocery stores are.
Also, we never ever ever told people in social housing that they could lose their housing. We told them that they could lose the affordable shops and services currently available in their own languages. These assets are as important to many Chinese seniors as their housing.
My last point:
DNC and CCAP are not proposing that the Chinatown business and cultural leadership follow us. This is what we do believe: The local area planning process that council put forward for the rest of the DTES presents a historic opportunity for us to work together for a plan that protects the _living_ heritage and affordability of Chinatown south for current residents and community members as well as the aesthetic heritage of Pender street for the business, clan, and family associations whose connection to the area is as important and critical as for residents.
It the HAHR advocates open up their plan to input from the residents thus far excluded all they stand to lose is time. If they don't, residents and low-income Chinatown community members stand to lose far far more.
For more info see: https://sites.google.com/site/fightfor10sites/
One question to Mr. Sid.... are you saying Chinatown can have a 60 Story building if the social impact for the low income is good? i.e. including some affordable rental units?
Because nothing is free and someone must pay for the cost.
East Georgia St. (between Main and Gore) WAS not so busy. Businesses are FORCED to relocated. Why?
Why do Chinatown Merchants hire Private Security to guard their properties?
Good thing that Bob Rennie moved to Pender St. or else, Pender St. will become a historic street just like Hasting St.
What can Mr. Sid and Mr. Ivan do to save the businesses?
At one time land, air and water was free.
My contention is Chinatown should be included in an integrated local area planning process and a social impact assessment be done. Also that current residents of Chinatown are on the right track organising a Chinatown Residents Committee.
As to how high, community amenities and the like, those are not my decisions. But come that day more social, supportive and affordable housing would be good.
See https://sites.google.com/site/fightfor10sites/
At 41st and Dunbar two high towers are underway. An application for a tower at 57th and Granville is being cosidered. Chinatown is not the only area under attack by Mayor and Council who seem to be desperate to reward developer/supporters asap to ensure lots of $$$ in their coffers for the next election. BTW take a bus ride around town. Look, see all the leaky buildings constructed in such a shoddy manner by unethical builders. There must be a desperate shortage of building inspectors at ciy hall. By accident or design?
"All who live and work in the area want a vibrant, safe, sane, and healthy community. That this is misunderstood suggests that the city-hall fix—a historic area heights review, Chinatown's exclusion from a local area planning process, and no social impact assessment—needs real fixing."
@IvanDrury
Very nicely put: "The local area planning process that council put forward for the rest of the DTES presents a historic opportunity for us to work together for a plan that protects the _living_ heritage and affordability of Chinatown south for current residents and community members as well as the aesthetic heritage of Pender street for the business, clan, and family associations whose connection to the area is as important and critical as for residents."
@ConcernedChinatown
Dialogue? Public debate? You are anonynmous. Is this your style of public debate and dialogue in Chinatown. You cast aspersions on my character: "...use Chinese seniors as pawns in his political game..." them claim high ground claiming the public deserves to know. It was somewhat like this at the "revitalization" meetings I attended.
@Vancouverites
Ain't it grand to know the condo boosters club types represented here won't identify themselves! Reminds me of a video Terry Jacks did titled The Faceless Ones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8R9Sis3tUM
Chinatown has never looked as desperate as it does now. I believe Chinatown leaders are working for the best for their community.
As a neighbourhood divided the DNC and CCAP already has their control over Hastings Street, and maybe Japantown? Is this an example for the future of Chinatown?
@ Ivan Drury
His last point sounds very similiar to an extract from the Chinatown Vision of 2001.
However, where was Mr. Drury the last 10 years. Google "Ivan Drury"-don't think you will find any references to Chinatown.
For the record, there were not 26 meetings over 10 years.
In 2009 alone there we 21 Council Advisory Board Meetings, Community Group Meetings and Public Workshops and Open House regarding HAHR. CCAP hosted one of the Community Group Meetings and there were 5 public workshops and open house included in those numbers.
This is all public information.
I am not saying that there were never any meetings about the Chinatown plan, or about the 30 story tower near the Chinese Cultural Centre. The problem is that low-income residents and Chinese seniors have not been consulted about *this* plan to land heritage density in Chinatown south and raise heights overall, without need to apply for permit, to 9 stories, and to permit heights up to 12 and 15 stories. These are gifts to developers' profit margins, not the local community. And the problem is that these towers will have a terrible effect on the lives of the very people who have not been consulted.
Why is "ConcernedChinatown" questioning me and my history rather than the issues? It's quite something for someone writing anonymously to call others' characters and histories into question.
Rather than turn to personal disparagement, how about answering these two criticisms of the HAHR:
1) The SRA bylaw is incapable of protecting low-income market housing stock affected by property values and tax increases, therefore the heights increases threaten the low-income housing stock.
2) Chinese seniors and other low-income people depend on affordable shops in Chinatown that include Chinese language signage, and Chinese languages speaking staff and clientele. The HAHR envisions redeveloping Chinatown as a higher-end retail district that excludes these shops and shoppers.
3) The clan and family associations believe they will get enough money to renovate their buildings on Pender St (and elsewhere) aesthetically and to increase and improve housing units above and inside them. This is based on a false belief that they will get money from landing their density in Chinatown south AND from CACs from the condo projects in Chinatown south. However, the CACs will be mostly taken up by the landing of heritage density, so the associations and societies will get, at the most, enough money only for surface renos. Therefore, the living heritage (of low-income and Chinese senior serving shops and street culture) in Chinatown south is being sold off for the aesthetic of heritage building preservation for tourists.
I understand why HAHR advocates don't want to talk about this, it's pretty gross.
Also, we have been doing enough outreach to small shopkeepers in Chinatown to get a sense of their troubles. Their shrinking clientele is due largely to the gentrification of Strathcona, and this is compounded by speculation by building owners who are raising rents because they prefer to wait for the arrival of high end shops than to sign leases with low-income serving shops. HAHR advocates believe that passing the HAHR will provide "stability" and "certainty" to the market and *end* speculation. That is really bizarre. Why would property owners who have been waiting for the gentrification of the area give up on the gentrification of the area once the city enacts gentrifying policy? The sense of "certainty" would be that they are right to continue their speculation.
For shop owners we think the government should build housing for low-income seniors who will shop locally and support local business far more than car driving condo owners who love to exercise their consumer choice-power.
And we think the city should offer the same tax incentives to local low-income serving businesses that they have gifted to millionaire corporations; like the 10 year tax holidays they have granted to London Drugs and Nesters Market in Woodward's.
The city has the power to plan the neighbourhood in ways that will strengthen, stabilize, and help the low-income community. Instead they are planning (trying to plan) it for developers and the rich.
Pages