Constructive Thoughts
Groundwork has been laid by a consultative task force report; perhaps now we should hear from more people with a stake in the outcome
Peter Simpson may have recently retired, but he continues to take part in the spirited dialogue on housing affordability in our region.
Retired for two weeks, I offer this observation. The seemingly popular retirement pastime of camping out at the coffee shop for six hours every day is not nearly as enjoyable as one might think.
I mean, I have better things to do than waste precious hours besmirching politicians and blaming young people — particularly those with tattoos and body piercings — for all that is wrong with Canada.
Yes, better things, like trailing around behind my wife from morning until night, seven days a week.
Last week, the lovely Carolyn asked me to accompany her to the mall. She needed me to hold her purse while she was in the change room trying on dresses. That, sadly, was the highlight of my day.
By now you have a pretty good idea why I am back writing this column.
So, here we go. I was one of 18 members of the Vancouver Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability. We began our work in January and in September released the final 40- page report.
The meetings were surprisingly agreeable and productive, given that participants represented a broad range of interests, including architects, academics, planners, non- profit housing providers, homelessness advocates, first nations, elected officials, and finance and real- estate practitioners.
I was pleased that Mayor Gregor Robertson and senior staff, including the city manager, attended most meetings. Robertson didn’t simply announce the task force, then walk away from the work. He mucked it out with the rest of us. Also impressive were the young city planners who provided an exceptional level of professional support to the task force by working tirelessly under pressure.
Task force members didn’t always agree, but we set aside our personal and professional agendas to work toward a common goal: find innovative ways to improve housing affordability in Vancouver.
When Mayor Robertson first asked me to participate, I was reluctant and skeptical. For more than 25 years, I have a been a vocal advocate for housing affordability and choice, but I have seen too many voluminous housing reports languish on shelves — a pitiful waste of time and resources.
I told the mayor I didn’t want to serve on the task force unless the city was committed to finding appropriate and acceptable ways to produce more affordable rental and ownership housing options for Vancouverites, particularly our young people starting out and seniors looking to downsize.
I don’t agree with all the report’s recommendations, including the “thin streets” proposal, which was suggested during the public- engagement process in the summer, but most of the recommendations are targeted, pragmatic and provide a clear blueprint for shortand long- term policy direction.
Included in the proposed housing mix are low- rise buildings, not towers. Housing forms will include lowrise condos, townhomes, row houses, duplexes — all to be offered as rental or sold below market value. Vancouver needs 1,500 new rental units every year just to meet demand.
According to City of Vancouver projections, population growth over the next 29 years will average 3,200 a year in the city proper, and 31,400 a year in the Metro Vancouver region.
As I have been saying and writing for many years, development does not create population growth, development is merely a response to population growth. And it creates thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity, including taxes for all levels of government.
Despite fears expressed by a few shrill naysayers, rest assured that development will not be foisted on existing communities without meaningful and respectful consultation. That’s the plan, anyway.
There was much angst and bluster when development of the Steveston waterfront was being considered for development. Other examples are North Vancouver, Fort Langley and Yaletown. Look at those communities now. They are vibrant, communityfocused, mixed- use neighbourhoods.
Before I retired from the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association last month, hanging on my office wall was a pastoral poster I looked at every workday for 25 years. It showed a young boy and girl running across a field. Above the photo was this question: “Where will your children live?”
Three weeks ago, a guest column, authored by students Tiffany Kalanj, Lori MacDonald and Christian Avendano, was published in the Issues & Ideas section of this newspaper. The students expressed frustration with the lack of affordable housing, applauded Vancouver’s attempt to rectify that situation, and admonished those who oppose the creation of more affordable housing options.
They wrote: “Thousands of students in their late teens, 20s and 30s are not asking for much. We’ve long since given up the dream of a home with a backyard in Vancouver — a dream that our parents’ generation holds onto at all costs. We just want access to a home that meets basic standards of safety and maintenance, is reasonably accessible to transit, and isn’t going to require 50 per cent of our monthly income ( or savings) to pay for it. These are rental apartments, laneway houses, co- ops and secondary suites. Thankfully, Vancouver is making the creation of this housing a priority ... It is sad to see so many people of an older generation, a generation that has had the incredible good fortune of housing prices increasing astronomically since they purchased 10, 20, 30 or more years ago, voice opposition to new ideas that just might create a small opportunity for today’s youth.”
At the other end of the housing spectrum is a story I read in the Vancouver Courier recently. Jane Bourne is a feisty 81- year- old lady who, for nearly 50 years, has opposed developments higher than four storeys in her Dunbar neighbourhood, the last being a proposed six- storey seniors residence.
Bourne obviously wants her beloved neighbourhood to remain the same. I am hesitant to label her a NIMBY because she has held true to her beliefs for so many years, and legitimate community concerns must be addressed. That said, if Bourne’s mobility or other health issues surface, where will she live? If she is not able to remain in her home due to difficult circumstances, hopefully there is an alternative housing option available in her community. I would welcome an opportunity to learn more about her neighbourhood concerns.
Overall, the more constructive dialogue on housing affordability and choice, the better. On the more contentious development proposals, perhaps a charette would help responsible community stakeholders, developers and local government set priorities collaboratively rather than ignite reactionary skirmishes. Inviting Tiffany, Lori, Christian and Jane to participate would be a good start.