A new high rise residential building is being planned
for 1171 Jervis Street
in Vancouver’s West End,
the neighbourhood where I live. That address is two blocks from mine. It will have an unusual feature—unusual, not
unique—namely that the one side of the building will be reserved for social
housing, that is, for subsidized housing for the poor, while the other side
will consist of condos at market prices.
The two classes will be separated by having different doors, with the
one for social housing facing the busy Davie
street, while the condo side will have its main door on the more quiet Jervis Street. The
two sides will be further hermetically sealed from each other. The subsidized side is
owned “by the city or its designate;” the other, by a condo strata
council. “The two are completely
separate legal entities,” explained Brian Jackson, Vancouver’s Director of Planning.
The physical segregation goes even farther. According
to an article in the Vancouver Sun by
Jeff Lee, there will also be “separate elevators, mechanical systems and
amenities” (May 6, 2015).
Why such arrangements? The city is desperate for
social housing; it has far too many residents who cannot afford market rentals,
many of whom end up on the street, often finding a bed provided by various
charities. The city cannot afford to build enough social housing to keep up
with that growing population segment and thus is providing private developers
with incentives to include a social segment in what would otherwise be
exclusively market housing. What’s wrong with that?
Randy Helton of City Hall Watch, a West
End activist, objects to separate entrances based on “economic
capacity.” The one side will be regarded
as the poor cousin of the other, a notion that appears unacceptable to
Helton and others. My guess is that the
arrangement is too blatant a display of social disparity for them.
If I were in the market for a private condo, would I
buy one that is mixed with social housing? Social housing, it should be
understood, often includes a high percentage of folk involved in the drug
addiction culture, the extreme version of which is represented by Vancouver’s
East Side Down Town (ESDT), the poorest postal code area in the entire country.
Would I pay a million or more bucks for such a condo to live among such
neighbours? Absolutely not! Having lived
for years in Africa, my tolerance for “lower”
conditions is much greater than that of most Canadians, but even I would draw
the line here.
I might experiment with renting in such an
environment, for I have observed that the down-and-outers tend to be much more
friendly and sociable. I have patronized coffee shops and restaurants in ESDT
and generally find my fellow consumers very pleasant and easy to approach for
conversation, something that I enjoy tremendously. But, assuming I have
it, I would definitely not invest a
million bucks in such an environment.
There is need for realism, says Michael Geller, a Vancouver builder. The
city cannot afford to build enough and the private sector needs incentive to
get involved in such projects. This
arrangement is one that is working in other cities and is already operative in Vancouver’s famed Woodward Building
in the ESDT. If you support the notion of social housing, then you have to
accept that social disparity openly, like it or not. Helten and his ilk may sound supportive, but in reality they retard the needed supply.
It was only yesterday I spoke to an elderly lady
living in BC-owned subsidized housing, who complains about the high proportion
of addicted neighbours. She would like to move out, but cannot afford any other
place. Like it or not, that’s what
happens in subsidized housing, more than in other configurations, something
that has to be acknowledged and dealt with realistically if you want more
subsidized housing.
Actually, assuming I had the money, I’m quite sure I
would never buy in such a complex, for can even the best builder prevent the
migration of cockroaches and bedbugs from the one side to the other? Or are
they so distant from each other that this movement would amount to an immigration?
These creatures are not known to respect walls, doors or any other obstacles. To
them these entities are about as porous as the Canada
border services or the Vancouver
port.
I am a writer of the Gospel of Christ. It is difficult
to pursue that mission in a drug and bug infested chaos, if not impossible,
another reason I would not buy into such a complex. I don’t need to live in
luxury and, in fact, don’t. However, I
do need some level of order to be productive. Drugs, bugs and addicted
neighbours would divert my attention too much.
The Heltens of this world need to get real, support these kinds of
structures and move over from obstruction to encouragement to achieve their own
goals—more subsidized housing.
No comments:
Post a Comment