 |
| The Living City - Condos for the future |
by Tarah Hodgkinson
Oakridge Centre is an area rezoned for a
new development in Vancouver, Canada, the largest in the city’s history. It promises
advances in urban design and affordability, with numerous public amenities.
It will be a transit-oriented development
with futuristic apartments complete with advanced home technology and custom
furniture. It will contain shared spaces in each tower that assure a combination of “private life and common life to be a true community.”
The Centre has been receiving kudos for
advancements in design, its focus on transit, mobility and accessibility.
Oakridge Centre boasts it will have a mix of market and affordable
housing, with 25% of its new housing developments allotted for social and
non-market housing.
For a city that has been suffering a
housing crisis for several years, this should be a huge improvement.
IS IT REALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
Sounds great, doesn’t it? In a country
where a quarter of all households spend more than 30% of their gross income on
shelter and in a city where the average one-bedroom apartment requires a
$84,000 yearly income, or about $2,100 a month - the current Vancouver median household
income is $65,000 - obviously, there is a desperate need for affordable
housing.
 |
| A planning development notice - Ever wonder what's behind them? |
But what about affordability at Oakridge? How is it defined? The documents on Oakridge Centre do not offer a metric for “affordability.” They rarely offer any measure of cost or percentage of household income. However, to qualify for BC’s Housing Income Limits rates, household income can not exceed $41,500 for a bachelor suite, $48,000 for a one-bedroom, or $58,000 for a two bedroom.
As such, the competition for these units
would be extraordinarily high and do little to address the current housing crisis in the city. For those who earn beyond the Housing Limit
qualifiers, the market rates are untenable. Condo pricing starts at $800,000
and peaks at $5.5 million.
WHAT DOES “AFFORDABLE” ACTUALLY COST?
Assuming a 10% down-payment, the average
person would need an income of $105,000 per year for the cheapest condo, over
$30,000 more that the median household income in Vancouver in 2015. Considering figures like these, a review of the available material suggests that social housing is not integrated into the development at all.
Social integration is a large contributor to social capital and it helps the poor move out of poverty, but this example seems to pay little more than lip-service to affordable housing and diverse community-building. It caters to luxury clients while offering self-congratulations for exceeding
city targets of 20%.
 |
| Condo housing and affordability |
We have been writing about the housing and homelessness on this blog for several years. Cities and residents cannot continue to accept development that prides itself on offering a percentage of “affordable housing” while the other 75% is considered luxury and completely unaffordable to the average citizen. Affordability is more than just cheap rentals and social housing. It is a human right.
When the median household income is almost
less than half of what is necessary to afford the cheapest unit in a new
development, no amount of transit-oriented development, public amenities, or
brilliant design will prevent financial desperation or homelessness. If
Vancouver, and cities like it, want to build futuristic cities, they need to
build cities for everyone.
The problem of lip-service and unseen (but foreseeable) implications coming together in self-congratulatory marketing is not limited to Vancouver.
ReplyDeleteAcross the Salish Sea in Victoria, the practice of getting procedural balls rolling under guise of "we're offering affordable rentals" shifts to "sorry, must sell" with a crumb to affordable housing in 355sqft units with no parking, these offset by higher priced units that will raise real estate comparables such claimed "affordable housing" effectively raising the cost of housing for all.
Really--we deserve better. A holistic approach defines outcomes such as multiple income levels, multi-generational living, missing middle housing that balances of closed and open environments, etc. Many talented payers get it--but the governance models are both reason and excuse for not making change. Inconsistencies create frustration and non-compliance, tearing at our respect for rules--not unrelated to a broaden sense of disenchantment.
Good luck in your work ... raising understanding of fixes that fail, however well intended, and encouraging community engagement in the process that shape our world is important--thanks.
Thank you John. I couldn't agree with more. Thank you for sharing your thoughtful commentary.
ReplyDelete