Sharon Stinson is 61 years old and may be homeless by the end of summer.
The site's private developer, James Evans, has entered a Heritage Revitalization Agreement with the City of Vancouver that will see the heritage home on the corner of Salsbury and Charles streets preserved but two other buildings, including the one Stinson lives in, demolished and turned into “cluster style” condo homes with an underground parking lot. In exchange for revitalizing the heritage house, the city will allow Evans to turn 15 rental units into 22 for-sale condos.
While residents have argued technical aspects of the proposition, including increased density, and have repeatedly looked for ways to keep rental units as part of the final plan, they face eviction without the income to buy.
“Where do we all go? Where do we get shuffled to? We are losing the small community of the [Commercial] Drive area. Period,” says Stinson.
For more than two years, Stinson says she and other residents tried to work with the property's previous owner trying to find a way to find a way to purchase their apartments or work out some kind of affordable housing agreement.
“[The search] was constant for over two years. Frustration? Oh yes,” wrote Stinson in an e-mail.
Stinson helped form a co-op housing committee with responsibilities that covered everything from accounting and tenancy to gardening and recycling. They applied to the Co-operative Housing Federation of BC, which granted them status but did not subsidize their rent nor buy the apartment, she adds.
Developer Evans asserts he is willing to keep the seven suites in the heritage home as rental units. He said he talked to BC Housing and Vancouver Coastal Health as well as Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which offers seed money of up to $16,000 as part of their RRAP program. He came to the same conclusion as Stinson.
“The bottom line is that there is no money out there to make [rentals] happen,” says Evans.
Part of the problem is that housing programs constantly change because they are tied to federal money and do not adequately target the private sector, says Sam Rainboth, senior manager of public affairs at BC Housing.
“Housing programs come and go all the time and there’s nothing we can do for a group of tenants renting in the private sector,” he says.
The only program at BC Housing that may have been able to help out requires the applicant to be a parent of at least one child and have a maximum annual income of $35,000 a year.
This will leave middle-income residents, like Stinson, in search of new homes. Which will be a growing reality for many, considering the average rental unit in Vancouver leases just under $900 per month, according to Statistics Canada.
“[This development] isn’t driving change. It’s just the consequence of change that is taking place. Is there a social displacement? Yeah, but unfortunately the market can’t do anything about that.”
This statement is representative of the rhetorical disease of our time--this habitual passing of any sort of ethical obligations onto some mythical creature that lives in the hills called "The Market". This is the central myth that enables otherwise decent human beings to delude themselves into such a state of denial that they can commit great atrocities and still get to sleep at night.
We are all driving change with every choice we make, however small. This one development may be a microcosm of some greater trend, but I implore this developer to open his eyes and see that his decisions are not merely the consequences of the market, but are of his own making and, more importantly, have consequences of their own.
Rising housing density will feature in an attractive city, with a rising population and limitations on urban sprawl... Older homes likely don't serve people's needs or desires these days (due to layout, insulation, energy efficiency, different family dynamics), but their preservation/ conservation is important - it tracks a city's history, tells a story about how we lived in previous times. However community conservation is a different story and one that is often missed when we speak about real estate development. Development and heritage revitalisation that only pays attention to the number of units and the financial cost and rewards fails to recognise what makes a neighbourhood attractive (and one of the reasons why density might be rising there). If community values are not kept in mind, neighbourhoods run the risk of trading community cohesion, shared values, relationships and connections for money - this can happen by current property owners selling their homes for the "profit" and moving elsewhere or local councils accepting tradeoffs and property taxes. These are immediate term gains with long term consequences.
I believe "community-oriented neighbourhood" means knowing who your neighbours are, connecting with them, sharing values, sharing resources - if you're in a bind, you know you can count on your neighbours (which is far more important and valuable than any money in the world.) Many communities have lost this sense in the pursuit of personal gain and wealth, but really - what's the point of having a big house, big car, and big TV if you are a stranger in your own neighbourhood?
Here, I believe, are some of the solutions - take rising property values out of the equation. Property and real estate are no longer (some could argue not ever) a commodity - you cannot sell it and replace it with something identical. You can't take it with you. So market supply and demand forces on real estate do not work the same way as they might for other portable, replaceable, tradeable goods like a car or computer for example. If your property value rises and you want to cash-out - you must move to another neighbourhood with different features. If you want to stay in the same neighbourhood, all your profit goes back into the new house. This requires a major behavioural shift...
Co-op structures and principles are a good start and I am keen to see co-op housing brought in the mainstream and not seen just as an affordable option - but that living co-operatively with your neighbourhoods is a regular thing (I am working on developing these concepts further). So where does the capital come from to acquire properties? Community equity (community share issues) or working with a like-minded partner who has patient capital. But the key piece of the puzzle is not the money nor the legal structure - it is around values, behaviours, and a change in perception of how land economics works.
Good description of the HRA concept.
I'm troubled in the updated piece by the notion that preserving the heritage house and adding homes to the site will not be in character with the fabric of the community. In addition to single family homes, Grandview-Woodlands has old and new apartment buildings, and lots of strata homes that have emerged since the 1980s that offer ownership at a lower price point than the newer duplexes and older single family homes.
For example, is the HRA at Napier & Salsbury not in the character of the community?
Is taking a bulldozer to the heritage home and only putting up high-end brand new duplexes (the likely alternative) more in character than preserving this grand, iconic mansion? I'd argue keeping the heritage is what this community is about, respecting it while moving with the times.
Although the price of preserving heritage is increasing the number of homes and families living on the site, that's the reality of saving heritage in Vancouver today. I'd rather we did it, than did not.
Wendy, great points. I agree, the HRA concept is a difficult one. I have discovered that the biggest concerns of the community is that adding "cluster style" condominium homes to the site is not in character with the fabric of the community, which gets back to the increased density issue -- that as well as getting rid of rentals. But, as you and the developer as well, have pointed out, the area is indeed mixed. There are a lot of varying style of homes and apartments there. The HRA at Napier & Salsbury is an interesting example. Many residents I talked to thought it was a decent way to go about preserving heritage home on that site. But, that it also represented a change in the area that cannot be stopped with the cluster style condos. I think you made some really good points, and I think many respect your opinion that the price of preserving heritage and increasing the number of units on the site is a price well worth it. I also believe James Evans is doing a very good job of trying to match the fabric of the community. Respect to Mr. Evans as well.
There are some great comments from late last year on the Vancouver Media Co-op's site here. If you're interested in this issue, they're totally worth a read.
Stay tuned for the next article, which will come out next week. It will outline in details, the status of the development, what will go in and out, and how the HRA, or Heritage Revitalization Agreement, plays into it all.
I'm so relieved we're likely to see the mansion preserved and kept at the corner of Charles & Salsbury. It's such an icon in old photos, just like the restored one at Napier & Salsbury.
By contrast, I'm still sad that we just lost "Eye Balls" on Kitchener at Victoria across from Victoria Park. This home of unique architecture and similar stature was torn down a couple months ago. It's too bad the owner didn't want to be creative and find a way to preserve it, instead of taking the easy path of tearing it down and building a couple duplexes (which I've found out doesn't require a public process).
Adding more homes to our neighbourhood means more people to help build community. I don't have a problem with that. And I like that these homes will be smaller, and strata, which means families who cannot afford single detached homes in the area, or in almost any part of Vancouver city, will have an option to own.
I'm not sure what "community-oriented neighbourhood" means, but I don't see how this rezoning can only mean cheap housing or desecration. What's at risk of being desecrated? Surely a community is defined by more than a couple of character buildings and a few units of affordable housing. The fact that the development application includes plans for underground parking, it's safe to assume that the rowhouses going in here won't be affordable to working families, which might be the demographic that makes a community "community-oriented".
Where is the developer planning to move the existing building to? Will the rowhouse complex be more aesthetically sensitive to the neighbourhood than the apartment building directly across Charles Street?
Yes, it will be a shame for the neighbourhood to lose another character building, especially one so distinctive, and increased density & pricier developments will change the dynamics of the neighbourhood, but desecration? Please.
Emmet,
Great comments. Yes, you're right. "Desecrate" may be a bit of a stretch. I've met with the developer, residents and talked with community groups -- it is quite a complicated proposal that will preserve the home, moving it to the edge of the lot, while putting in duplex-style condos that match the fabric of the residential area (to an extent). But, one of the most interested issue I've found so far involves lack of affordable housing options for the residents despite efforts by both residents as well as the developer. This raises bigger questions about the City of Vancouver and broader social programs. Will be reporting the file soon, so please stay-tuned.
Great file. Covered a lot of my questions, presents an accurate picture of the typically bleak reality facing middle-income families in this city.
I'm afraid, as the editor who wrote that little "Call to Action" blurb, that the word desecrate was one I overheard while shopping at Santa Barbara and eavesdropping on a mid-40s couple who were talking about the development. That was their word, and my regurgitation of it, not Jamie's opinion or perspective. I just wanted to incorporate the views of people who see development, of any kind, as a bad thing. Heaven knows there are more than a handful of those types on the Drive.
Well, I'll cop to my response being a little knee-jerk-y. Or at least just jerk-y. It's frustrating that the loudest people in too many public conversations are those who want to assign blame but won't take part in working toward a solution.
Still getting a sense of how OpenFile works. Really appreciate the level of engagement from both yourself and Mr. Williams.
I really appreciate that, Emmet. If you open a file with a story you'd like us to cover, that would be splendid. We can only find so many on our own every day, and part of the strength of the site is having ideas suggested by people who are actually living in communities, dealing with these situations on a daily basis, and in many cases are being ignored by larger media organizations.