Six False Creek affordable housing lots still empty after three decades
Six lots in False Creek reserved 30 years ago for low-cost residential units remain empty
Lori Culbert
The Vancouver Sun
Thirty years ago, the city of Vancouver unveiled an innovative plan to transform the former Expo 86 lands along False Creek into an urban village with thousands of new homes — and 20 per cent were to be affordable units for families and seniors.
John Shayler and other housing advocates begged city hall at the time to find money for those low-cost homes before the developer who bought the massive site began constructing market-priced condominiums.
“We may be left with empty promises and empty land, with people desperate for affordable housing,” Shayler, with the Tenants Rights Coalition, said during a public hearing for the megaproject on Nov. 2, 1989.
Today, among the gleaming towers and modern townhouses that line the north shore of trendy False Creek, six lots still remain empty — land that is supposed to hold a total of 600 units for lower-income residents.
Those lots were part of a deal the city signed with developer Concord Pacific after it bought the Expo Lands: To reach the 20 per cent affordable housing goal, Concord agreed to sell to Vancouver about a dozen parcels of land at far-below-market value once the city had money from senior governments to build low-cost units on the sites.
For at least six of those lots, that financing from provincial and federal governments never materialized and, as a result, fewer than 10 per cent of homes in False Creek North are deemed affordable right now.
“We never did get the housing we were promised,” Shayler says today, standing in front of one of the lots that he predicted three decades ago would remain empty.
“We were really keen (in 1989) on getting something written, almost in blood, because we knew that with the price of land, unless the municipal government, the provincial government and the federal government were all in to support the cost of the non-market housing, … the market would not supply what we were looking for. And you can look at it today: The market is failing as far as low-income housing.”
Indeed, Metro Vancouver’s sky-high real estate prices have created an affordability crisis for many households today.
There is renewed optimism, though, that these lots won’t sit empty forever, given recent promises by the NDP in Victoria and the Liberals in Ottawa to invest in affordable homes — such as co-ops — for below-average-income families.
“There’s kind of a shift in the landscape and a new opportunity for partnership that has emerged very recently,” Abigail Bond, Vancouver’s director of affordable housing, said in a recent interview. “So we will definitely be pursuing all possibilities to bring these sites forward.”
Rather than being frustrated that these lots remain empty, Bond is grateful a deal was struck long ago to make them available to the city — a deal that, with the right government funding, could help the city “get closer to meeting the needs of Vancouver citizens in relation to affordable housing.”
The city’s new blueprint to develop the neighbouring community of Northeast False Creek, including the land under the Georgia Street viaducts, states a desire — but no solid details — to “expedite” the construction of affordable housing on those six lots.
But can Vancouverites singed by the red-hot real estate market count on these affordable-housing promises in either of the False Creek communities, when for three decades nothing has happened on these six pieces of prime real estate that collectively cover more than three standard football fields.
Maybe, experts say, but it all comes down to money. Land values are soaring. Construction costs are high. And the ground, contaminated by industries originally on the land, still needs to be cleaned up.
“There is a lot of money at stake here,” said Cameron Gray, the city’s former housing director.
There was certainly much more confidence back on April 27, 1988, when the province announced it had sold to Concord the 82.5 hectares of Expo Lands, which were to eventually hold 7,600 new homes, including 20 per cent at low-cost.
The plan went well at first, since the federal and provincial governments of the day had been making hefty annual investments in affordable housing. But in 1993, the federal Liberals abruptly halted the expensive program, leaving the B.C. NDP to build what it could afford with only provincial dollars until the party lost power in 2001.
By then, five affordable developments were completed, including the Roundhouse Co-op and Quayside Family Housing, said Gray, who was not directly involved in the False Creek North deal.
“Since the (B.C.) Liberals came in, in 2001, there have been no programs to speak of,” said Gray. “These sites have been sitting here — the last one that was developed was in 1998.”
Today, there are only 542 affordable units in False Creek North, according to the city, far fewer than the 20 per cent target of approximately 1,500. In fact, rental and non-market housing units together make up only nine per cent of the housing stock in False Creek North, much lower than the overall city average of 32 per cent.
More than six sites were initially left empty, Gray said, and some trade-offs were made because the cost of the land was rising and there was no money to get the buildings constructed. For example, Concord gave the city 58 West Hastings for social housing — which has turned into a controversial Downtown Eastside project — in exchange for building market-value residential towers at the north end of Cambie Bridge.
The provincial Liberals, over their 16 years in power, did invest heavily in social housing for the homeless, including money for new buildings on 13 sites the city of Vancouver provided, said Gray, who oversaw much of that deal. But when it came to affordability for lower-income families and seniors, the Liberals mostly relied on rent subsidies rather than building new co-ops.
“The question now is: We have an NDP government, so will there be (an affordable housing) funding program, and will that trigger the redevelopment of the sites?” Gray said.
Several of the experts who spoke to The Sun for this story predicted Concord might be unwilling to sell these sites to the city now, given how valuable they would be in today’s over-inflated real estate market. Appraiser Burgess, Cawley and Sullivan tried to help The Sun determine the value of these lots — which range from 16,400 square feet to 41,700 square feet — but it is difficult to find the answer because they are zoned only for affordable housing, and therefore appraised at far below market value.
The Sun asked Concord if the city still has the option to buy these lots from the developer, if the same low-cost price formula hammered out 30 years ago would still apply, and how much the city would have to pay.
A brief response from Matt Meehan, Concord’s senior vice-president of planning, said: “These sites are great opportunities to provide non-market and affordable housing. … We look forward to working with the city and the province to build and deliver to the city these much needed housing units.”
The city’s Bond remains confident an agreement to buy the lots could be reached and, although she didn’t reveal a specific price tag, argued it would still be cost efficient.
“It still presents a really good deal for the city,” she said. “If we are able to find a way to bring those lands forward it still gets us a really unique opportunity for affordable housing in this location that we otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to do.”
The provincial NDP’s throne speech last month promised “the largest investment in affordable housing in B.C.’s history,” and its budget included $6.2 billion over 10 years to create 33,700 affordable housing units.
But when asked whether these six sites could be part of this affordable housing agenda, the government’s B.C. Housing agency refused to answer, referring questions to Vancouver city hall and the Finance Ministry that oversees the property-buying agreement between Concord and the city.
In a brief statement, the Finance Ministry made no commitment to building housing on the sites but noted, if a development deal is ever reached, the province has an agreement to clean up the soil on these sites, as False Creek had previously been a heavy industrial area.
Last year, the federal Liberals announced a 10-year, $40-billion housing program that included 100,000 new affordable housing units, but there have been no details so far about how much of that money will be spent in B.C. and where.
Following the release of last month’s federal budget, B.C. Finance Minister Carole James was among the critics who complained it did not include a specific long-term strategy to address the affordable housing crisis in cities like Vancouver.
Veteran architect and planner Michael Geller said it is “outrageous” that these sites haven’t been developed, but he believes talks could now be rekindled — even if the levels of government come up with a different plan for who might live in these future buildings, such as a mix of social, low-income, rental and affordable ownership. Some type of solution is required, he argued, if people are going to believe the affordable housing promises made for future developments in the city.
“When Northeast False Creek came up, I did say: Look, it’s great to promise all this affordable housing, but let’s not forget we still have these six sites undeveloped in the north shore of False Creek,’” said Geller, who was involved in the Coal Harbour development at the time.
One option for these six lots is for the city to sell off the rights for huge profits and to use the money to build affordable housing in less affluent areas; Nathan Edelson, though, believes that would not only create ghettos but would go against the 30-year hope for a mixed-income community for False Creek.
“The planning department held on to the principle that a mixed-income community would enjoy living on the waterfront,” said Edelson, a Vancouver city planner from 1983 to 2008 and formerly a University of B.C. adjunct professor of regional planning.
Even if these lots have to remain empty a few more years, that is a trade-off Edelson would accept in exchange for an eventual development deal that would, for example, offer housing to workers such as nurses, firefighters and teachers so they could afford to live near where they work.
He believes the city did an impressive job in the 1980s negotiating with Concord’s billionaire owner Li Ka-shing to ensure there would be walkways along the water and other community amenities, in addition to land for low-cost homes. It was just not realistic to argue that the city should also have secured upfront money for affordable housing at the start of the deal, added Edelson, who more recently was a member of the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability.
Shayler, who was with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association before joining the Tenants Rights Coalition, said advocates in the 1980s feared these False Creek units would be desperately needed because affordable housing — such as SROs and low-cost rentals — were increasingly being lost as high-end developments expanded in other parts of the city.
“We were calling it then a housing crisis, and that is a long time ago now,” Shayler said.
“When we look at the north side of False Creek, yes there are some good things that happened there, but I think (people who need affordable housing) got the short end of the stick. And I’m afraid we will again.”
© 2018 Postmedia Network Inc.