...its time has come...and gone...

"created in 1954"

This is the most telling part of the words in this piece.

Any structure that has gone through the pounding that these buildings look like they have, cannot survive intact and habitable more than 50 years.

The lack of regular maintennance shows.

I know that the low rents mean that the funds needed to keep the buildings 'up' are not available. This is the essential problem with 'low income' housing.

A better financial plan appears to be in the offering that is in development. What remains to be seen is how well it can be implemented.

For Dungeness_Crab: What is your solution?

Funny thing though............

.......... did they leak? Did they rot? Apparently not. So they were built in 1954, were they giving good service or is this just a yuppy/developer tear down rebuild we are seeing.

What percentage of housing in Vancouver is pre 1954? What is the percentage of post 1980 housing that leaks and rots?

Here we have the totally inept neocon solution (the same sort of neocon way of doing things that has created the current financial mess) tear down serviceable buildings and throw long time tenets onto the street because in BC people are no better than shit in the eyes of government.

Then everyone must wait until 'someday' some new social housing is built. What mindless bureaucrat thought up this one.

Here is a hint sunshines: When about 30% of a population feels unwelcome if not scapegoated, they revolt.

Just wait till 2010, I think the world will get an inside view how corrupt and inept BC is!

The solution is obvious

The solution is obvious, Murdock. To have set enough money aside to keep those buildings in repair. As obvious as falling off a log. Nor is the instant "lets not think anymore", cliche "there wasn't enough money" a valid response. The system works according to Anarcho's Iron Law, "When its something the people want, there isn't enough money, when its something the rulers want, the sky's the limit." (Think of the Olympics, other mega projects, wars etc.)

While I am about it, there is a second part to Anarcho's Iron Law, which goes this way. "When its something the people want, the rulers drag their feet for decades, when its something the rulers want, it gets rammed through in hours."

Little Mountain

I am a bit tired about hearing about Little Mountain and catering to those that have had and still have secure housing. The occupants of Little Mountain were offered social housing in other developments, transportation costs so their kids could return to their schools, moving costs and a promise to be relocated in the new complex. I do not understand how anyone can live in social housing for decades upon decades when the intent of social housing is only to be there until one's fortunes change. The media resources used concerning this complex should be redirected to an area that is in total crisis and that is shelters. Winter is upon us and areadly one shelter in the DTES has turned away 600. Why isn't someone writing about the need for more shelters. There are two types of homeless. One are those that are already housed but the housing is not satisfactory for some reason or another from rent is to high(over 1/3 of one income) or space is limited. What about those outside on the street facing hypothermia each day. What about those people. They get to go from shelter to shelter in the hope that a bed comes available. There is one building in the DTES Storyeum that is now one-half vacant that could still be used as a shelter. The building is City owned in the midst of the street homeless population. This building because it is centralized could accommodate not only those from the City but also from surrounding municipalities. What about them. If the so-called homeless advocates like Citywide Coalition and Stands for Housing cared about housing the street homeless rather than those that are already housed maybe then we won't be a cruel and barbaric society towards the truly homeless.

sooo...reallY?

I saw signs of dryrot and water penetration in the images given.

The basements were not finished after 50+ years!?!

I agree that the 'bones' may be in good shape, the problem is that the cost to 'improve' these properties is the same or less than to demolish and build new with larger buildings.

This same crowd that complains that the 'burbs' are expanding into the farmlands of the Fraser Valley cannot then also have it both ways and demand that 'garden style' apartments are the only things that can be built! This property is screaming to have 'density' that matches what is happening all around it!

So, the people, are screaming for low-cost housing? They are also likely screaming for reasonable housing, not a pre-set slum.

This entire project has served its purpose and its time for the re-development. Build 5 15-22 story towers here. Set up floors 5-18 in each building with smaller 2br/1ba apartments for use as 'low income'. Use the rest as regular condo sales. Treat the 'low income' units EQUALLY with the commercial ones and do not permit a single needle exchange anywhere on or about the property.

That is unless, anarcho, you are willing to have a needle exchange on your front portch?

No one really WANTS to live in 'supported housing'. They want to live with dignity and respect. Creat a mixed plan model that can accomodate and PAY FOR the needs of the 'supported' units then let everyone live on, with dignity and respect.

That is unless you really would prefer the urban sprawl model? Then just keep limiting all construction in the city to 3 stories or less...watch how fast the farmlands vanish then.

Where the need is

Perhaps, after 50 years, these buildings need to be replaced. However, if the sight is now 100% subsidized housing, it should be replaced with 100% subsidized housing. That's what we need! We don't need more places for the rich to use for investment purposes or seasonal homes.
How about involvement with Habitat for Humanity?

No one wants housing slums

Not the communities, not the people in need of housing and as far as having subsidized housing doesn't work either. I also do not believe government is the not the one to do any building as contractors seem to believe their is an endless supply of money? And a 100 million is a drop in the bucket to the actual anticipated over runs as costs rack up for the Olympics and other services for lack of them. You are going to have so many people on your streets its going to be difficult to walk around as the economic crisis unfolds. We will not be as hard hit as America as we don't have that kinda money and we also are a supplier of energy to USA helping with the GDP. And its so boring the same old same old crap as more and more find themselves on the street and government finds billions for a sporting event lasting a week or so. Does it make for a better people when they all get together to celebrate an event which was first promoted by Hitler and is a cause of major crisis for a people as the event unfolds and people are pushed to a bloody sidewalk as a few rake in the billions and I'm thinking whats the real sport the poor as security company rake in the millions.

Rental Supplements

Eliminates Slums
Eliminates Discrimination
Eliminates housing stortage
Increases long term investment
Increases GDP
Increases chance of survival
Provides for long term job stability
Increases support for those in need.
Reduces drug use and other social ills that come from living in Government run housing.
Eliminates the need of police, ambulances, drug rehabs, child abuse, and on and on how ever unpopular these selling points maybe to those selling Rock and Booze and not to forget Security Company's as they are making a killing off those unable to endure the cold realities of a dirty side walk and a foot at their head.
I also do not believe this present governemnt wants people housed or they would be housed its that simple. A great deal simplier than holding an Olympic event as MLA land developers (most held job in BC legilasture) feel that it can be done with out a flinch.

No wonder there's a problem

According to Murdock the buildings are too old. Another poster rightly suggests that most quality buildings in Vancouver are older. Mr. Burns suggests we have bigger fish to fry. What crisis within the navel-gazing federal sphere could be more dire than people risking death on the cold and increasingly violent streets? Yeah, I know, the economy. It supposedly matters more that the poor will be asked to continue to bail out the rich. Well, forget about the feds doing anything without begging permission from the US first so that's a moot point. The fools who have enabled the disgrace that is homelessness in Vancouver are further enabled by the scattered agendas of the public. It is a matter of will. If we want to reveal ourselves to be money-grubbing, inhumane louts, then we follow the advice of the Murdocks of the world, and if we wish on our neighbors a life that we might want for ourselves we gather our courage and stand up for our fellow citizens. Murdock's and Gorgon Campbell's fixation with cost is what precludes the extension of a helping hand. We have voted for change, so let's not leave it to the self-aggrandizing liars and fiends to bring it about. House people. Is that so difficult to understand? I've lived in shoddy basement suites and houses and apartments, and I'd bet my life savings that all of them were better than the street. All you bid-backers got that now?

What goes around comes around

And that will be rental revenues as Landlords pay their quarterly taxes which end up in the coffers of governments. So no real cost as its not charity just good business sense along with long term investment and stability while stimulating the market. Unlike your speculative market here in BC whose negative impact is just coming to the surface and has hurt many a homeowner and business with the high costs of housing along with high cost of doing business. As far as the people who decided the poor were their fodder well I imagine they will receive also have much in store for them as its the way of the universe. And I would not be to worried about the USA as they have their own housing problems and now we have ours.

Horrible market timing

Horrible market timing.... did BC Housing Corp. learn about real estate development from the infamous Tom Vu?...

http://www.infomercial-hell.com/tom-vu/

Lots of excuses and

Lots of excuses and blustering by the old ex cop housing boss, but the places could house folks while others are getting built. My gosh, the first home we bought in Victoria in 1973, was built in 1912 and the present owners , just like we did, keep in in excellent shape. The Little Mountain places were left to run down, by the King Gordo group of real estate con artisits. I wouldn't trus Coleman with anything.

You're right DPL

Not only that, the amount of work necessary to renovate and repair this housing would be minimal - tearing it down is irresponsible.

Don't Worry - Be Harper !!

And here's the sound of another shoe dropping ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/20/AR2008112003732.html

Construction and land costs went so high

Construction and land costs went so high, its actually been quite risky to start a large development for the past 1 - 2 years.

Great work!

I was there while the boards were going up. Shots on my Flickr photostream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbird_hollow/sets/72157608855714142/show/

So sad

I first visited Little Mountain about 5 years ago - a birthday party for my son's friend. Weird - big hole in the middle of the living room floor that no one seemed to notice, junk everywhere and the party music playing from I-tunes on a laptop computer - first time I'd ever seen music done so high-tech.

The boy and his mom parted ways as she spiralled down. Foster care, a new chance, hope. Lots of people doing lots of work with good intentions but a line of fate that seemed already cast in stone - we did too little too late.

Fast forward to fall 2008 when the kid hits his hormones, falls apart and spirals out of control.

Mom's left Little Mountain long ago and so has he. The failure of their former home just echoes the failure of the family who lived there.

So many peope tried, but no one tried hard enough to save them

He's only 16 and it's already too late

So sad

Maybe not, but....

"...No one really WANTS to live in 'supported housing'. "

It seems the boundaries on that are getting very blurry, though! If the bank that held one's mortgage did not in fact have the money, but just forked over some of Ed Deak's defined funny stuff, and this bank now needs bailing from taxpayers, were not all the people who were in fact offered better terms than that bank could obviously, in retrospect, afford, in essence living in 'supported housing', also in retrospect??

It seems to me anything to do with money other than the straight barter value of one's daily sweat and tears is now so far into the twilight zone, or some other unfamiliar realm, maybe an uncharted part of the mulitverse, that no one can say who is 'supporting' whom anymore (or sucking them dry, for that matter).

A former premier of our fair province, I-want-them-to-write-good Bill VanderZalm, reminded us that 'perception is reality'. Let us then not forget the reverse, what we know as reality is only what we perceive. No, I am not a nihilist, I just think that until you have grown your own tomato plant (not Monsanto seeds), and nursed it and harvested the fruits and sunk your teeth into one, you haven't met with reality.

To me, that is the only discussion that has any meaning: Are we looking at reality or fiction??

A way to do it.

Albert Camusoff writes

"House people. Is that so difficult to understand? I've lived in shoddy basement suites and houses and apartments, and I'd bet my life savings that all of them were better than the street. All you bid-backers got that now?"

OK Albert Camusoff, you say House people.
I say "How to PAY FOR IT?"

My suggestion is to PAY FOR IT with rent subsidy going in to building 5 22 story towers on the site. Floors 5 through 18 will have 2-3 subsidised suites on them. That makes 80 subsidised units. With 120 market units, given market rental of $1200/month that gives $1.72 Million per year in rent. With a CMHC Grants and loans supporting the construction you have up to $172 Million to do the construction. Promote the builders in the process, include a large amount of training wages into the construction and the buildings could easily be put up for less than the $172 Million, possibly leaving an initial operating budget to deal with the tennanting process for a few years and assist with the working out of the bugs.

The commercial units were all that I counted, not a penny coming from the subsidised units.

What is your solution? Keep the crappy low-rise garden apartments and let them continue to rot out with the folks in them getting more miserable by the day?

I'm not talking about 'bid-backing' I do not care what the sports party crowd is doing.

You have not put forward any other solution than keeping the rotting status quo, which in a few years more would become condemned. You have only called down and called names.

What is your solution?

No One Wants to Live in Supported Housing?

Hey, someone I know lives in a subsidized co-op and pays less than $200/month rent. Every year, she and one of her co=op neighbours split a Canucks' seasons ticket pack!

I work full-time in a unionized government position and do not qualify for subsidized rent. I haven't been able to afford to go to a Canucks game in years.

Where's the line up?

by the way...

For those who do prefer their reality with a bit of, er, augmentation, if I am not grossly mistaken, that is an Amanita muscaria on that greensward. Just remember, you have to feed it first to a reindeer, so the deer can do some of the flying for you, less dangerous, and then you can eat the fillet and go hoo, hoo, hoo, just at the right time of the year.

No, just kidding. DON'T try this at home. But look at this shamaness

http://flickr.com/photos/92651556@N00/2703926758/

and her male counterpart here:

http://emeagwali.com/photos/nigeria/onitsha/A-Shaman-Holds-a-Rattle-Onitsha-Nigeria.jpg

And learn more in these places:

http://keepmusicevil.freeforums.org/the-magic-roundabout-t374.html

http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=2492

http://emeagwali.com/photos/memories-of-british-west-africa.html

No murdock

Fix up the well-built and poorly maintained and actually quite significant architectural examples of mid-twentieth century housing, places with air and significant greens spaces around them - that's hardly the status quo.

Integrated housing, coop and other social programs could be placed there within 6 months of making a decision to rehabilitate and the workers who do the remediation could be trained into the bargain.

There are lots of solutions which don't require knock down and bulldoze as their precursor.

This housing is decrepit not because it isn't valuable but because the Campbell government 'wanted' it to be decrepit: Which is what happens when you look at every problem through the one-way lens of a real estate developer.

By the way Blackbird, I wanted to say how much I enjoyed your pictures too. They're every bit as worthwhile and generous of spirit as Lee Bacchus's excellent work.
Thank you.

Ghost World

It is truly sad how we do not learn from the past nor do we retain the knowledge of successes even from the recent past. Not so long ago a similar situation was happening in Vancouver's West End in a place now known as Mole Hill. The affordable market units, though de facto social housing, were being emptied by the city of Vancouver in preparation for demolition and the building of luxury housing for those who can afford to live anywhere.

Many lessons were learned from Mole Hill. The city's oldest intact community was living there and the community had a vision and a plan. The buildings were sound, the houses could be upgraded, restored and new infill incorporated into the site as well as leaving open space for public use. The residents could stay on site whilst construction took place. There would be subsidized units, affordable market rental units and some ownership in the private buildings on site. A lot more people could live in the renovated houses so the block would have a density of population similar to that of neighbouring blocks of highrises. It would be a good deal for the taxpayer. It would be a very green project.

It's funny that after only four years all of that has been forgotten, even though Mole Hill won eight awards for it's variety of achievements from sustainability to heritage and continues to garner worldwide acclaim. Ironically, the main partners in the project were the city of Vancouver, BC Housing and the community that lived, and still lives, in Mole Hill.