Learnings from Housing Central 2017

I’ve followed the issue of Temporary Modular Housing (TMH) in Vancouver fairly closely, so was glad for the opportunity to learn more about it as part of the annual Housing Central conference in Richmond a couple weeks ago, in a session called “New Options in Temporary Housing.” It covered both Vancouver’s pilot TMH project at 220 Terminal Ave. and the Vacant Homes program run by Richmond’s Chimo Community Services.

For starters, I learned that the main reason “temporary” modular housing is referred to that way is because it’s built to be moved – and not because, as some have suggested, it’s flimsy or of poor quality. Deconstruction and moving takes a toll on these structures, which is the main reason their lifespan is about 40 years, rather than any lesser quality of materials or construction. They are built to the same BC Building Code standards as other types of housing.

However, putting together these units in a factory in a standardized way does increase the speed at which they can be built (two per day) and decrease their cost. They can be built for about $75,000 per unit, not including land – at least this was the case in Vancouver’s pilot project – costs may vary with other suppliers.

Anyone who’s followed Vancouver’s recent debate over TMH in Marpole will know that one of the main objections protesters have raised is proximity to schools. Presenters addressed this “Why here?” question directly with a slide listing the various interrelated and overlapping factors the city wants to weigh and satisfy when looking for suitable TMH sites:

  • Ownership of land
  • Lease and legal considerations
  • Current land use and zoning
  • Financial considerations
  • Timeline for alternative use and development – this one being a major factor in the TMH siting on the privately owned Marpole property
  • Site access and servicing
  • BC Hydro considerations
  • Any environmental issues with the land (anything from soil contamination to mature trees)
  • Access to transit
  • Access to health services

Interior of a TMH display unit the City of Vancouver set up at Robson Square in September 2017.

Given that protesters are continuing their to efforts to stop the TMH construction in Marpole, the city’s intention to get a injunction allowing it to continue building, the need for enough sites to house 600 homeless people, and a welcome rally that Marpole high school students have planned for this Tuesday, TMH is likely to be in the news for the next few weeks at least. The city’s TMH web page is a good place to check for updates.

 The Vacant Homes Project in Richmond

The other example of temporary housing covered in this session was Chimo Community Services’ Vacant Homes project, which has housed about 50 people since it began in 2013, using 15 houses that would likely otherwise have remained vacant.

The program got started as a partnership between Chimo and a local property developer, which had houses sitting empty while waiting for building or development permits from the City of Richmond. The program was good for the owner of the properties because it brought in rental income and kept the houses more secure.

Presenters said that one of the unexpected challenges of the project has been negative reactions from some neighbours when they find out who’s living in the houses. However, overall, the project has been a success. For those who would like to replicate the program in their own communities, advice from presenters included the following:

  • Meet with the city
  • Create policies and guidelines
  • Speak with developers and obtain access to your first house
  • Match client and landlord
  • Communicate regularly with landlord/developer
  • Look for permanent housing for client
  • Develop clear and concise marketing materials

If you’re interested in learning more, I recommend reading this 2014 news story about the project: Richmond nonprofit makes most of empty homes

Next year’s Housing Central conference begins Nov. 18, 2018 and will be in Vancouver. As with previous years, it will likely include dozens of educational sessions spread over at least three days – definitely something to plan for if you’re interested in affordable housing. Follow @BCNPHA on Twitter for the latest on conference and BC nonprofit housing news.

Advertisements

Housing tenure statistics for the City of Vancouver, 1951 to 2011

We’ve seen much interesting information emerge from the 2016 Census so far, but the data I’ve been most eager for is still to be released – this Wednesday. Those statistics are on housing tenure – and more specifically, how many renters and homeowners exist in a given jurisdiction. I’m keen to see this data for the city overall, as well as for its individual neighbourhoods, which vary considerably in their percentages of renting households.

For sake of historical perspective, here is a table showing what the City of Vancouver’s tenure percentages have been, back to 1951. The source is a report prepared for the city in 2010 (by McClanaghan & Associates) as background for the city’s current housing and homelessness strategy (see pg. 24, Table 7). As is shown, the percentage of renting households in the City of Vancouver peaked in 1991 at 59 percent and has been slowly declining since then. Between the 1961 and 1966 censuses and again from 1966 to 1971, the percentage of tenant households took major leaps, increasing from 39 to 53 over that ten-year period. Tenant households have made up the majority of the city ever since then.

The decline in the percentage of tenant households since 1991 has happened despite various of what I view to be important and useful city policies aimed at retaining and increasing the amount of rental housing, such as the Rate of Change policy enacted in 2007 and more recently, incentive programs such as Rental 100. It’s notable that a similar decline has taken place at the regional level, with the percentage of renting households declining from 44 percent in 1986 to 35 percent in 2011.[1]

Percentage of owner and renter households in the City of Vancouver, 1951-2011[2] [3]

Year Owning HH Rental HH
1951 63.0% 37.0%
1961 60.8% 39.2%
1966 52.2% 47.8%
1971 46.9% 53.1%
1976 46.5% 53.5%
1981 44.9% 55.1%
1986 42.3% 57.7%
1991 40.8% 59.2%
1996 41.9% 58.1%
2001 43.8% 56.2%
2006 48.1% 51.9%
2011 48.6% 51.4%
2016 ? ?

Possible reasons for the changes in the percentage of renting households

I believe the most significant factors in this decline are the nearly complete lack of new, long-term, secure rental housing that was built in the city between the (approximately) late 1980s and early 2010s, as well as the conversions of apartment buildings to condominiums that took place from the 1970s and into the 1990s (and which are generally no longer allowed).

However, especially if interest rates are low and the economy is doing well, the decrease in the percentage of renting households could also result from existing tenants becoming homeowners. Depending on your values and views on home ownership, you might see a tenure shift stemming from those factors to be positive – for the tenants and for society overall.

While no doubt many Vancouver tenants have happily become homeowners since 1991, given what we know about current incomes of tenants and the current cost of housing in relation to local incomes, I believe the decline in the percentage of renter households is a serious problem – enough so that while these conditions continue, I’d like to see governments (at each level) try to halt this trend.

Why does this matter?

Our current combination of circumstances – i.e. high housing costs in relation to local incomes, very low rental vacancy rates and the declining percentage of renter households – strongly suggests that people who can’t afford to buy homes are finding it more and more difficult to stay in or move to the City of Vancouver, and therefore that people with lower incomes (who tend to be renters) are gradually losing access to the public goods (e.g. libraries, parks and cultural and recreational events) that a city such as Vancouver has to offer. Vancouver and cities like it provide economic and cultural opportunities – for jobs, for starting businesses and building skills, and for finding like-minded others – not available in smaller communities. Vancouver tenants forced out of the city due to lack of rental housing, or rental housing that’s affordable to them, also lose whatever community connections they’ve built up over the time they’ve lived here. If we care about equity, I believe it should be a policy goal to ensure that renters continue to have ample access to these high-quality opportunities and public goods. Simply residing in a vibrant, diverse and culturally rich urban environment should not be a luxury, but declining access to rental housing puts us on this trajectory.

Another consideration is that renters are vital to the functioning of the city’s economy. If we don’t halt this trend and make more room for renters, we’ll continue to see stories about the difficulties local businesses are having with finding and keeping workers – in some cases even having to cut back on hours of service or curtail expansion plans. Wages are obviously a big part of this equation too, but one way or the other, people who can’t afford to buy a home need to be able to rent one within reasonable commuting distance of their work, or they won’t be able to participate in the economy (and many other equally important activities).

Side note: 1921 was the first time housing tenure data was collected in the Canadian national census. So, any housing tenure data you run across from before then must be from other (perhaps less reliable) sources.


[1] Metro Vancouver, “2006 Census Bulletin: Dwellings by Type and Tenure,” December 2007, http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/2006census_dwell_Dec2007.pdf. Page 2, Table 4. See also note 2 re: 2011 National Household Survey data.

[2] This table draws from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) because the 2011 Census did not include a question on tenure status. Statistics Canada has cautioned that due to differences in data collection methods between the census and the voluntary NHS, the two types of data may not be directly comparable. So a cautionary note there.

[3] Dale McClanaghan, “City of Vancouver Rental Housing Strategy Research and Policy Development Synthesis Report,” August 2010, http://vancouver.ca/docs/policy/housing-rental-housing-strategy-synthesis.pdf. p.24, Table 7. Also, Statistics Canada, “NHS Profile, Vancouver, CY, British Columbia, 2011.”

Youth in care deserve better as they become adults

As the May 9th provincial election approaches, one of the policy issues I hope will get some attention is the question of extending financial support to young people in the foster-care system, after they turn 19. As it stands, the financial and other types of support available to children in government care (including regular social worker support and monthly maintenance payments to foster parents) end, quite abruptly in most cases, at age 19 –  a transition that is known as “aging out.”

Nineteen is a pretty young age to have to navigate today’s complex world completely on your own, but even more so for young people in care, since being there means they’ve already experienced major loss, neglect, trauma or abuse – and the foster system can be traumatizing in itself. Also, social mobility, and even survival, in today’s credential-oriented world depends on having marketable skills, which usually requires some type of formal post-secondary education, whether vocational or academic. That’s expensive and may not be easily accessible to youth in care, who have much lower high-school graduate rates than other students. The need for post-secondary education in order to access the job market, along with the Lower Mainland’s astronomically high housing costs, are why we’re now seeing about 60% of young people in BC between the ages of 20 and 24 living at home with their families.

But what if you don’t have that option? With no financial support and weak (or non-existent) family ties, youth coming out the foster care system are obviously at a major disadvantage. No surprise, then, that they disproportionately end up homeless or dependent on income assistance, at least temporarily.

I recently (well, November) attended a workshop on this topic at Housing Central, the annual conference of the BC Nonprofit Housing Association (BCNPHA). The conference is aimed at the nonprofit housing providers that comprise the BCNPHA’s membership, but it also offers a wide range of workshops on various aspects of affordable housing and homelessness more generally. One of these was put on by Aunt Leah’s Place, an nonprofit group that provides support to youth in care as and after they age out of the system. A staffer from Aunt Leah’s led participants through an eye-opening exercise in which we were asked to remember all the types of help we received from our families between the ages of 19 and 24 and estimate the cost of that support if we had had to pay for it ourselves. Free or cheap housing is an obvious type of support that many people receive from their families after 19, but the list is much longer. The basics include groceries, utilities, transportation, medical and dental insurance, phone bills and clothing. Better-off families may spend much more to support their children as they transition into adulthood, including by subsidizing or completely paying for tuition, cars, travel and down-payments on homes. I was glad the facilitator did not ask us to share the dollar figures we came up with in public, because I thought this calculation process could trigger a lot of emotions – of everything from overwhelming gratitude to deep hurt as people reflected on the ways they were or weren’t supported by their families as they became adults. While we weren’t expected to share our figures publicly, those who wanted to were invited to anonymously write the dollar amount they came up with on a piece of paper, which the facilitator collected and wrote on a whiteboard. The figures from our group of about 25 participants (of widely varying ages) ranged from the negatives – those who actually helped support their families financially between the ages of 19 and 24 – to sums over $60,000. Quite the disparity.

Of course, financial help is just one type of support that intact, functional families provide their children with, and perhaps not even the most important. Youth in care also lack social support from their families of origin – and so may be lacking in life skills and just places to turn when things go wrong. Life is often not smooth when you’re a young person just figuring out how the world works. Recovering from the trials and tribulations of adult life (whether that’s locking yourself out of your apartment, losing a job, getting in a car accident, suffering a breakup, or worse) is harder the first time around and also harder if you have no one to reassure you that these things happen to everyone or to offer advice on how to get through the tough patches. Even when things are going well, functioning families provide a framework of support, as well as expectations, that help young adults not only find their way in the world, but also make the most of their potential. Former youth-in-care do not benefit from this type of built-in intangible but crucial social support.

This is why extending financial and other supports to youth in care beyond their nineteenth birthday makes so much sense, on both compassionate and fiscal grounds. Various advocacy groups and social agencies, including the Vancouver Foundation, have taken up this call. To its credit, the provincial government did recently make some changes in that direction. In late 2016, it expanded an existing program (Agreements with Young Adults) that provides financial support to about 650 youth in care, if they meet certain criteria. The expansion was expected to help another 500 youth. However, considering that we have somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 children in care in B.C. and about 700 of them age out of the system every year, that program and its expansion by no means meets the extent of the need. More policy changes are needed – thus I’ll be watching for news on this issue as the election approaches.

If you’re interested in this issue or others related to social and affordable housing, you might want to check out the BCNPHA’s conference in 2017. At the 2016 edition, I also attended interesting workshops on creating opportunities for new nonprofit housing in Metro Vancouver, land trusts, and the controversial practice of including separate doorways (sometimes referred to as “poor doors”) in mixed market and social housing developments. There was also a great keynote presentation by Buffy Sainte-Marie.

Recent news items and resources on “aging out”

Highlights from housing (and other academic) journals

I recently set up table-of-contents alerts on a bunch of housing, urban studies, and tourism journals and am finding it a great way to keep abreast, however superficially, of current academic literature in these areas. I’m mainly doing this in order to be alerted to new articles on short-term rentals (see my other blog for more info on that), but this tactic has the side benefit (or curse?) of bringing a lot of other interesting stuff to my attention. How to deal with that? I sometimes feel I’m a bit compulsive about sharing information I think might be relevant to people I know. I know info overload and the flittish (word?), distracted frame of mind it tends to create is a real problem for me and many others, so perhaps I’ll use this blog as an outlet for my sharing impulse instead of spamming inboxes…

Please note: When I post a title and/or abstract here it doesn’t mean I’ve read the whole article or endorse the views expressed. It means I think it looks interesting, I might want to read it, and/or that it seems somehow timely or relevant to current urban or other social policy debates. Some of these articles may have been published in journals as long as a few years ago and just more recently made available online: Hope some find this useful…

One more thing: Regarding access to the full text of these articles…I have access to a smorgasbord of stuff right now (thanks SFU library!) by dint of the fact that I’m paying tuition to SFU. If you don’t have that same access, try searching for the full text through your own public library, such as the VPL. There’s a good chance that will work for you. If not, you might want to check out the external access programs offered by your local post-secondary institution – I think most have some version of that by now. Info on SFU’s program is here. There’s also Google Scholar…or google the article author/s – sometimes they post their own published articles or similar versions.

This first article is definitely relevant to current Vancouver debates on community planning and public engagement, and specifically to the question of whether we should have a citywide plan instead of (or in addition to?) a series of neighbourhood plans. Some point to the mid-1990s CityPlan process as a model to be revived, but I’ve heard other knowledgeable people suggest that process has been somewhat overhyped or romanticized…

Governing cities through participation—a Foucauldian analysis of CityPlan Vancouver

by Marit Rosolin in Urban Geography
Abstract: In 1995 Vancouver City Council approved new policy guidelines for future urban development that departed from the traditional model of suburban growth, instead prioritizing urban intensification. Theoretically guided by the Foucauldian governmentality approach, I argue in this paper that this shift towards intensification can be understood through an analysis of Vancouver’s extensive participatory planning process known as CityPlan. Created as an answer to conflicts around the intensification of historically evolved urban neighbourhoods, CityPlan Vancouver exemplifies a specific form of urban governance that has been understudied in geography and participation research: a governance consisting of conducting the conduct of citizens through participatory processes. The paper examines this “governing through participation” by carrying out a microanalysis of the problematizations, rationalities, and technologies of CityPlan. Such an analysis differs significantly from an evaluation of participatory planning processes against normative ideals, and thus enriches critical research on participation in urban governance.

Onto the next…gentrification, ever a hot topic in these parts (and rightly so):

“They want to live in the Tremé, but they want it for their ways of living”: gentrification and neighborhood practice in Tremé, New Orleans

by Trushna Parekh in Urban Geography
Abstract: In this study, I deploy an ethnographic approach to analyze the detrimental effects of gentrification on longstanding residents in New Orleans’ Tremé neighborhood. I focus on conflicts between long-established residents and gentrifiers over the use of neighborhood space on a day-to-day basis as a means for examining the consequent changes in neighborhood life. As their neighborhood gentrifies, long-term residents of Tremé must contend with greater policing, the erosion of place-based knowledge, practices, and cultural traditions, the loss of social networks, and the closure of vital neighborhood institutions. These changes in neighborhood life provide a starting point from which to begin to understand the broader effects (beyond displacement) that longstanding residents experience as a result of gentrification.

This one looks very interesting – think I will have to read it.

The rules of residential segregation: US housing taxonomies and their precedents

By Sonia Hirt in Planning Perspectives
This paper reviews how urban regulations in history have been used to relegate populations to different parts of the city and its environs. Its main purpose is to place the twentieth-century US zoning experience in historic and international contexts. To this end, based mostly on secondary sources, the paper first surveys a selection of major civilizations in history and the regulations they invented in order to keep populations apart. Then, based on primary sources, it discusses the emergence of three methods of residential segregation through zoning which took root in the early twentieth-century USA. The three methods are: segregating people by race, segregating them by different land-area standards, and segregating them based on both land-area standards and a taxonomy of single- versus multi-family housing.

Not recent published, but recently found…Another for the reading list….soon.

Are There Limits to Gentrification? The Contexts of Impeded Gentrification in Vancouver

by David Ley in Urban Studies
This paper examines conditions that impede inner-city gentrification. Several factors emerge from review of a scattered literature, including the role of public policy, neighbourhood political mobilisation and various combinations of population and land use characteristics that are normally unattractive to gentrifiers. In a first phase of analysis, some of these expectations are tested with census tract attributes against the map of gentrification in the City of Vancouver from 1971 to 2001. More detailed qualitative field work in the Downtown Eastside and Grandview-Woodland, two inner-city neighbourhoods with unexpectedly low indicators of gentrification, provides a fuller interpretation and reveals the intersection of local poverty cultures, industrial land use, neighbourhood political mobilisation and public policy, especially the policy of social housing provision, in blocking or stalling gentrification.

And related…

Urban rapid rail transit and gentrification in Canadian urban centres: A survival analysis approach

by Annelise Grube-Cavers and Zachary Patterson in Urban Studies
Despite the existing knowledge that urban rapid rail transit has many effects on surrounding areas, and despite some attempts to understand the links between transit and gentrification, there remain methodological gaps in the research. This study addresses the relationship between the implementation of urban rapid rail transit and gentrification, which is conceived of as an event. As such, an event analysis approach using ‘survival analysis’ is adopted as the statistical analytical tool. It tests whether proximity to rail transit is related to the onset of gentrification in census tracts in Canada’s largest cities. It is found that proximity to rail transit, and to other gentrifying census tracts, have a statistically significant effect on gentrification in two of the three cities analysed. By providing a methodological framework for the empirical analysis of the impact of urban rail transit on gentrification, this paper is a reference for both researchers and transportation planners.

She’s got Mike Davis eyes

Apologies if that title brings back bad memories of ’80s synth-pop (as it does for me).

Last week in my “Great Urban Thinkers” class, we discussed the well-known urban author and critic Mike Davis. In the “Fortress L.A.” chapter of his book City of Quartz, Davis writes

The neo-military syntax of contemporary architecture insinuates violence and conjures imaginary dangers. In many instances the semiotics of so-called “defensible space” are just about as subtle as a swaggering white cop. Today’s upscale, pseudo-public spaces….are full of invisible signs warning off the underclass “Other.” Although architectural critics are usually oblivious to how the built environment contributes to segregation, pariah groups – whether poor Latino families, young Black men, or elderly homeless white females – read the meaning immediately.

Although Davis was writing about the L.A. of the late ’80s, there are certainly examples of upscale pseudo-public spaces in contemporary Vancouver (e.g. Pacific Centre) as well as abundant signs and signals meant to thwart the presence of poor people in our downtown core areas (not to mention selectively enforced bylaws).

Knowing that, I decided to pursue a Davis-related short assignment: to walk around the Downtown Eastside (DTES) with Davis’s words in mind and notice both the overt and the subtle signs of inclusion and exclusion, as well as any barriers, obstacles and warnings related to security and policing.

I had no specific plan when I got off the bus on Hastings, just west of Carrall; I just wanted to wander and see where my eyes and interest took me. It took all of two minutes for a theme to develop. This is hardly an original observation, but wow – so many metal gates. Everywhere. At first I thought I might count them, but it quickly became apparent that it would be easier to count the ungated doorways. These are just a few of the gates I noticed within a few blocks of each other.

 

Actually paying attention to all these metal gates made me think about the messages they send to neighbourhood residents. Yes, some are more aesthetically pleasing, arguably less intimidating than others, but ultimately, don’t they all convey the same messages?

Keep out.

This is not for you.

Go away.

We don’t want you here.

How would it feel to spend all one’s days in this kind of environment? I think it would put me in a bad mood – or at the very least contribute to a chronic underlying crankiness and tension. These are feelings I can easily imagine turning to hostility and aggression. Supposedly the gates are sending the same messages to all who pass them, regardless of income, social status or relationship to property, but that’s not really how it works. If the keys to one or more of those gates jangle in your pockets as you walk around, if you’ve been behind those gates or know you could go there if you really wanted to (without breaking the law), the gates you can’t pass through are going to bother you a lot less.

The ubiquity of the gates also made me wonder about the minority of ungated properties. I’d be interested to know why those ones don’t have gates. Is it that they can’t afford to install them, or is it a deliberate decision not to contribute to the siege atmosphere that the gates produce? Perhaps some of the gated businesses inherited their gates when they moved into their spaces and they’d just as soon not have them, though removing them is not a priority. Or perhaps an inventory would show that the ungated properties are the ones that house businesses at low risk for break-in, or that don’t have much to steal. I didn’t keep a tally, but I noticed that the Potluck Café (run by the Portland Hotel Society) and Bean Around the World Café were not gated (unless they have internal gates not visible from the outside). Are the gates concentrated in particular sections of the neighbourhood? I think these are interesting questions and I wonder if anyone has researched them. Seems like a good topic.

All this is not meant to criticize or single out individual businesses for gating their premises. I don’t live or work in the DTES (though in the past I’ve volunteered at two neighbourhood nonprofits). Nor am I familiar with its latest crime stats. I’m sure if I had a business anywhere and I’d been broken into even once, I would at least think about taking steps to prevent it from happening again. No one wants to feel afraid and no one wants to lose money. I should also make clear that I don’t think having a gated property in the DTES and being a socially responsible business owner are mutually exclusive. There may be many examples of gated businesses with owners who hire locally, proactively work with local service agencies and who know and welcome low-income residents to their premises. Kudos to all of them. The points I’m trying to make are about the pervasive presence of metal gates, how that presence and materiality must shape both the psychology and everyday experience of low-income residents, and also how different that is from my experience of my own neighbourhood.

And of course, actual metal gates are not the only ways that messages of belonging, exclusion and defensiveness are communicated. As I walked around, I also thought about fonts. I’m no type designer or historian, but I do have a thing for fonts (particularly of the arts and crafts style). It comes with the word nerd territory. How do the fonts that signs are written in tell people whether they belong somewhere or not? I don’t know exactly, except that we’re all immersed and in the process of interpreting our visual and written culture each day, all day – even those of us who are illiterate or struggle with literacy (perhaps they even more so, since they can’t extract information from the textual content of signs.) Again, I didn’t keep a tally, but I can tell you that as I walked around, I saw very few fonts like this or this:

IMG_3017

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_3018

 

 

 

 

And a lot more like this.

IMG_3029

 

 

 

I’d argue that if even if things were switched around so that the sign using the hip, postmodern font said “all-day breakfast,” low-income people would still be receiving a “stay away” message.

Seeing all the upscale restaurants and stores selling expensive clothing, furniture, jewellry and shoes, I also thought about times I’ve visited ritzy shopping districts in major cities such as New York. Sure, it can be fun to check these areas out and indulge a few fantasies, even though I can’t afford to purchase the items for sale. But would I want to live in an area like that, surrounded by things I can’t afford and by people so much wealthier than I? No way. Actually, I always keep my forays to such areas short because walking around feeling envious is no fun – it puts me in a bad mood. It’s true that some of that bad mood comes from exposure to what I consider to be obscene overconsumption and inequality, but I crave beautiful objects at least as much as the next person. And if I’m prone to fall into an envy-induced funk when I visit places like that for just a couple hours, what must it be like to have to deal with that all the time in your own neighbourhood? Especially when you can’t afford to live anywhere else. Especially when you have had little to no say in the rapid changes taking place around you. Obviously, these are points that DTES residents have been making themselves, loudly and for a long time. They are part of why the recent DTES community planning process (and its results) have been contentious.

Overall, walking through the DTES while trying to see through “Mike Davis eyes” yielded plenty of signals of exclusion and defensiveness – ones I’m certain are instantly decoded by those whom they’re meant for. But they are sign-makers too.

 

street painting

On the pavement of the alley between Hastings and Cordova at Cambie.

 

Sharon Zukin, revised

Now and then I will be posting work, like this, that I’ve done as part of my master’s of urban studies program. I wrote this Wikipedia entry on urban theorist Sharon Zukin as a short assignment in my “Great Urban Thinkers” course. The main reason I was interested in Zukin is that she was presented in class as somewhat of a counterpoint to Jane Jacobs, whom I’ve long admired. I wasn’t really aware of the various criticisms of Jacobs before taking this on, so it was a fruitful assignment and I now have a more nuanced view.

The entry did exist before I started mucking with it, but it was very short – 300 or 400 words max, only one footnote. I plan to tweak it a bit more still, when I have time.

Wikipedia: Sharon Zukin

Update: I emailed Sharon Zukin to let her know I’d revised and expanded her entry, and she very kindly wrote me back promptly to say thank you.

New publication! My short-term rentals story in The Tyee

I am pleased to announce my first actual byline in, oh…longer than I want to say. My story on how short-term rentals, as facilitated Airbnb and similar web tools, affect the supply of long-term rental housing in Vancouver appeared in The Tyee on June 27. Read all about it here: Are Online Vacation Renters Displacing Vancouverites?

I’m also pleased to see follow-up coverage by CBC Radio and TV. BC Almanac did a segment July 5, which covered much of the same ground as my story, though focused more on the lack of lodging taxes paid in these transactions.

Then on July 6, CBC TV did a 2-minute news segment. It’s great to see this, though I note that they interviewed a Yaletown resident who rents out the second bedroom in his condo. From a safety and security point of view, that sort of short-term rental is not really the issue, since the host will often be present when the guest is there and that does a lot to mitigate concerns and risks.

More to my point, I would argue that renting out a spare room (or an entire apartment or home while the usual resident is away) has a fairly minimal effect on the supply of rental housing that’s available to actual Vancouver residents. It’s true that that second bedroom could be housing a local resident instead of a tourist and we certainly need all the affordable housing we can get in Vancouver. But I think policy-makers should be much more concerned about the many entire apartments, condos and secondary suites and houses that are being rented to tourists (at higher rates and without the oversight of the Residential Tenancy Act) instead of adding to the city’s woefully inadequate and aging rental housing stock.

I also don’t know, but would like to, where CBC TV got the figure of 3,000 rooms available for short-term rental to tourists.

Elsewhere, Vancouver councillor Geoff Meggs elaborated on the comments of his I included in my story on his own blog. And a Gabriola blogger chipped in here.