Vancouver is in a housing crisis and more than 2,000 people across the city of Vancouver are experiencing homelessness.
Creating warm, safe homes with supports for people who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness in our communities continues to be a top priority for BC Housing and the City of Vancouver.
In an effort to reduce homelessness, a new building has been proposed for a site at the northeast corner of Arbutus and West 8th Avenue.
Located immediately north of the future Arbutus SkyTrain Station, the vacant lots under consideration are at 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue and 2091 West 8th Avenue.
The proposed building would be 12 storeys and provide approximately 140 studio homes with supports for single adults, seniors and people with disabilities who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness in the local community.
Starting March 1st, the community will be able to review and provide comments on the development proposal online here. Neighbours to the proposed homes are invited to learn more through virtual small group dialogue sessions on March 9th, 10th, and 11th.
Last modified: February 13, 2021
Great idea. Some financial diversity in Kits would not be a bad thing.
We need to plan for affordable housing around the Arbutus Station. If we don’t, the market forces of millionaires will take over.
Why was this site chooses considering it is across the street from an elementary and preschool and across from park. Will people with addiction and mental health issues live there and what is the city doing to ensure safely of the children within steps from the site. I am for more low income and support housing within any community regardless of the wealth within that community however if there are high risk residents it should be placed in different part of that area and not encircled by young children.
Too big for the area. all buildings in area are less than 7 floors.
Far too tall for that area where most buildings are 3 stories. And really? Across from a playground and an elementary school!
There is some evidence that links the introduction of supportive housing to increased crime rates:
http://www.mhponline.org/files/AffordableHousingImpact-CommunitiesandHouseholds.pdf
“The most recent research on this topic has typically found that scale is the most important
factor in determining the effect of affordable housing on neighborhood crime. Several
studies have found that when affordable units occur in small quantities (typically less
than 50 units), there is typically no impact on neighborhood crime. However, large
projects or a large concentration of affordable units within a neighborhood may have the
effect of increasing crime.
“Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others”. Yes, homelessness is an important problem in Vancouver that needs solutions. Yes, those in need of supportive housing deserve compassion and a chance to heal and recover. However, there must be other solutions that do not involve locating a high density supportive housing project immediately across from a primary school and daycare. Risk is the likelihood of an event multiplied by the consequences. Not all who require supportive housing will contribute to drugs or crime, but only a small number who do and the possibility and consequences of one child being harmed is an obvious risk. The proponents, developers and city decision makers who approve such a plan should be informed of the definition of criminal negligence. “Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others”.
As a resident of Kitsilano, I oppose to the height of the proposed tower. It doesn’t fit into the character of the neighbourhood where nothing is over 3-1/2 storeys tall. This rezoning application also goes against the RM-4 designation with the current Broadway Policies where a building height is to be not taller than 40ft. Housing people in need is necessary indeed but I believe there needs to be a priority given to families and single persons, units of different sizes, is what is needed here. This area is family oriented with a children’s playground and elementary and daycare on two sides directly across the street of the property. There are at least 7 other schools and daycare centres in the immediate vicinity so why are families and single parents being excluded from this housing project, when supportive housing for families and single parents is really hard to come by in this city? The proposed tower of a 12-storey tall 140 single unit building does not sound like it lends itself to a place of healing for the residents battling mental and addiction issues, with only two staff onsite 24/7, a dedicated space inside for tenants’ safe injection, but with no mental illness and addiction treatment services onsite. There’s evidence of successful supportive housing fitting into communities with a much smaller number of units such as 60 units or less, but quite the contrary with anything of this nature and size. I would like to see BC Housing make revisions to their proposed rezoning application with an alternate proposal, one with a shorter building that is more in character with the neighbourhood guidelines, that does not stigmatize the tenants, and that would have support from the community.
This proposal is not appropriate in so many ways for this location.
1. The area is not zoned for a building of that height and of such a high density (140) units.
2. The proposal indicates it is designed for seniors, disabled, and those facing homelessness or at risk, in the “local” community. The definition of “local” is very broad as people are told they can apply at Orange Hall 297 East Hastings.
3. There is an elementary school across the street, a preschool, a children’s park immediately to the north end of the property and a day care Center very close by.
3. The proposal indicates it is for “supportive” housing and would exclude numerous folks in the Kits area who are struggling as they wait years to get into low income, subsidized housing.
4. The stories about successful integration of other supportive buildings mention much smaller density (30, 40,54) this one would be nearly triple the size?
5. There is no mention of 24 hour security personnel, or other additional 24 hour staff to meet the complex needs of so many people.
David Eby, MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey, Attorney General, and also Minister for BC housing, stated on CKNW that this project has been approved by the city. How is this project already approved by the Mayor and Vancouver City Councillors and when was that approval given? Why are single parents excluded from this project? A project of this scale is a concern for all residents of BC as there are so many questions and so few answered on Let’s Talk Housing BC, https://letstalkhousingbc.ca/vancouver-west-8. The lack of transparency on this project is very concerning.
Let’s be clear here: BC Housing is planning:
– that no criminal records checks would be required;
– there is no plan for wrap-around services; and
– the projects that don’t have wrap-around services are the ones that have problems.
https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/nanaimo-rcmp-reports-increase-in-calls-around-supportive-housing-sites/
BC Housing is excluding single parents, families, handicap (only 5%), housing the (a BC Housing quote) hardest to house population without wraparound services.
NONE ARE PLANNED HERE.
In Nanaimo, B.C. Housing opened temporary supportive housing units at 250 Terminal Ave. and 2020 Labieux Rd. in late November 2018 as part of an effort to house people living at the now-closed tent city nicknamed Discontent City in downtown Nanaimo.
Between Nov. 20, 2018 and Jan. 24, 2019 there were 2,866 calls for service in the immediate areas near the supportive housing complexes on Terminal Avenue and Labieux Road, according to data provided by the Nanaimo RCMP at a city committee.
This is what happens without wraparound services.
“Wrap-around services” are key to the success of supportive housing projects, including medical services. There are none being proposed in connection with the Arbutus project. At the neighbourhood dialogue sessions NO plan was presented to provide these services. Mr. Flanagan (the Executive Director and Strategic Advisor on Homelessness at BC Housing during the neighbourhood dialogue session) was highly evasive on the issue of services at the March 9th neighbourhood dialogue, finally acknowledging that perhaps a safe injection site would be included at the project. I am advised that at the subsequent neighbourhood dialogue sessions, he stated that there WOULD be a safe injection site. Surely BC Housing knows what services will be at the building, having been secretly working on this project for many months if not years before disclosing it to the public. Information provided by BC Housing reps should NOT be changing from one neighbourhood dialogue session to the next. I understand that at one of the sessions, Flanagan actually disavowed the information about the project on his agency’s own website!
I think this is a totally inappropriate site for this proposal…across the street from a large elementary school, daycare centre and a children orientated park. I can’t think of a worse scenario. Sell this site and choose somewhere more appropriate.