Years ago I worked with a guy who spent much of his working life in the Woodwards building.

According to him it was poorly built from the start-constant issues meant the place rarely functioned properly.

I wonder how many new home owners are going to discover the truth of that the hard way?

Well, at least they're finally doing something with the property. It's a postive step.

How can a building be a salvation for anything anyways?

"Heritage has to do with people, not things."

I'd have to disagree, it's both. But sometimes it is just about the buildings. Nothing can replace the Georgia Medical Dental Building, the Aristrocratic and others who's names are long forgotten. Without heritage buildings Vancouver would be a landscape of 70's specials covered in crappy stucco and fake stone ... ick.

"Woodwards is not the salvation of the downtown east side"

Agrees.

The best thing that could have been done with the Woodward's building is tear down the eyesore. There is nothing hertitage about it at all, just a poorly built 'big box' store of its day.

All this htpe and hoopla about Woodwards is just Vancouver civic politics at work....st the regional taxpayer's expense!

No the best part is that greedy developers get to, once again, line their filthy pockets clearing the way for yet more esl overlords, nimby, elitist yuppies, sleazy real estate speculators and skull smashing rent-a-cops.

What's your solution, jesterjogger?

My question is this: Does the Woodward's development have any condo homes suitable for a middle class family? Is it like 98% of the other Vancouver developments that treat working class and middle class families with contempt?

Will this development be another reason for the Vancouver planning types to be self-congratulatory, even though the City of Vancouver has been an abject failure when it comes to planning for families? Will these planning types, along with their eco-bike friends, continue to spew their condescending nonsense about the evil drivers from the Valley, even though Vancouver - because of its anti-family policies - bears a lot of the responsibility for this traffic?

Hmm... I guess that was more than one question. And more than one sacred cow questioned.

Solution?!?!
I just wanted to vent my simmering rage!!!
Actually, now that you ask, why don't we consult with sam sullivan. I hear he has some pretty progressive idea's about urban planning.
By the way did city council approve that false creek yacht club for billionaires?

As much as I applaud the citizen participation on this project, it is not a new process. Citizens advisory committees are a common part of neighbourhood & community planning processes in BC.

I love it Grumpy -- for once we agree =^)

Jesterjogger wrote:

And I suppose you have a non-market way of lining your pockets?

I don't see the problem with developers who make money and respond to community needs and values. We need to increase the housing supply in periods of great demand or else prices will rise even higher.

This comment has been removed because of its insulting and defamitory nature.

Tyee Site Manager

Obviously mabell has not had any personal experience, or close relationships with people suffering from mental illness or alcohol/drug addiction.

The people on the downtown eastside are not there by choice, and they cannot escape their hardships without a great deal of help.

Maybe, according to mabell, Canadian society should ignore the plight of aboriginal peoples as well.

Though I would agree that the Woodwards development is not a panacea for the problems of the eastside, it certainly is a step in the right direction.

[ Part of this comment has been removed because of its insulting and defamitory nature. - Tyee Site Manager]

I am very sympathetic to the plight of the aboriginal peoples and believe they deserve our help. I am not sure how to effectively deliver this help.

Holy crap Mabell. I thought this was about Woodwards. Do you really think that Skid Row is going to be funnelled into this building? No way. This is going to be a premier site. The waiting lists for co-ops and the like are huge. These are not the derelicts of Pain and Wastings, who need to wash their housing allowance for cash through complicit hotel owners, not take up residence in condoland.

As for the "contempt" that the city shows, typified by "eco-bike" planners, what the hell is that all about?

I THINK you are saying that there ain't much in the way of affordable places for families and I would agree. I've been watching the market for years, and there are very few 3-bedroom apartments and no 4-bedroom places. That means house and house means Pitt Meadows or somewhere else -- but that's because of buyers, not the city.

Or is that wrong? Could the city cap house prices? I don't know, is that done in other jurisdictions? Would it be legal?

I hope that when the Olympics come, the authorities round up these waste-bags as the Greeks did with the stray dogs. However, I hope this time - they disappear permanently - never to return.

I hope they end up in your neighbourhood.

Capping housing prices would decrease the incentive for builders to make them. It might help in the short-term, but it would create big problems over time.

There are ways to sell homes below market value.

For example, let's pretend a home is sold with a $100,000 subsidy. To prevent subsidized ownership housing from being "flipped" by speculators, a second mortgage can be added to represent the difference between a unit's purchase price and its market value. Because it represents value and not cash, the unit's owner does not make payments on it. The second mortgage exists until the owner either sells the property or rents it. At that point, the second mortgage becomes due. This practice is used by Toronto-area projects operated by the Options for Homes Non-Profit Corporation.

My source re: subsidized home ownership for low to moderate income households:

http://www.canequity.com/mortgage-news/archive/2002/pdf/housing_legacy_in_the_making.pdf

Re: Mabellbc's rant

Those with addictions and mental illnesses who have wound up in the DTES often end up there because of lack of community treatment and services in their home communities and neighbourhoods. The best way to solve this is not to continue to over-concentrate services in the DTES, but to ensure that other communities do their fair share to take care of their people close to home.

Congratulations Mabellbc!!!
You seem to hate poor people(i.e. scum/ scum-bags/ waste-bags etc.) even more than I revile rich people! (not all rich people-just psuedo aristocracy like gordo, reynolds, emerson and that socialite slag who had the public trees in front of her mansion cut down - the self proclaimed "creme-de-la-creme" if you will.)
People whose wealth and status are the result of treachery and exploitation of others.
Hey speaking of treachery and exploitation I guess harper will be planting a big kiss on bush's a$$ right about now!!

p.s.- hey are you that west-side chick who told the nurse to let the home-less guy burn to death? just wondering.

Tyee site manager - I am not sure why people can post and call the tax-paying businessmen sleaze and filthy, and one cannot refer to the drug addicts as "low-lifes".

I was trying to make a point.

Other options to put a check on the real-estate market (ie. to prevent speculation) are to require purchasers to live in the house or condo for a year before selling it. I heard of a friend's experience recently where he and his partner lined up to look at new building of condos just off the Drive, & he didn't get in in time to even have a chance at buying one. Some people apparently bought several condos - & 5 days later, he saw one of them up for sale at $100,000 over what it was initially sold for.

With that kind of speculation happening unchecked, it's no wonder that nurses, cops & teachers (among others) can't afford to buy in the city any longer, never mind folks who don't have decent unionized jobs.

Did people actually read this? Or did they just read the headline and assume it to be some corporate scheme.

No, this isn't the salvation of the East End. It's a developement, and a good one at that. One that actually takes into considering the needs of a community rather than just gentrifying it outright. There is no easy solution for the city - the city did not kick these people off welfare nor did it cut funding to social programs - but the city can't just let the East End remain an untouched ghetto.

Don't criticize it just because it's funded by business.

Tyee Site Manager - mabellbc HURT my feelings!!

Actually I was also trying to make point.
If these so-called "businessmen" didn't rig the game to favor themselves and their stooges so much (see current republican administration in US or provincial libs or mugabe in zimbabwe ad ifinitim) our planet wouldn't be in such trouble and their wouldn't be 1200 people bedding down in local churches every night.

People who have addiction problems often have experienced some cataclysmic event that drove them into this way of life.

One solution towards levelling off these soaring prices would be if incentive were given to developers to build more mixed 'rental' units. Way too much emphasis is placed on 'owning' one of these over-valued, over-priced, concrete cubicles. If more mixed rental units were available-and i mean modern, well constructed, one, two, and three bedroom apartments, i think far more people/families would be able to live in the areas they want to live without having the burden of an enormous mortgage. This could quite conceivably be one aspect to reducing the prices for owning.

Not everyone wants to own! I've owned before, and although the build-up of equity is a definite means of home security i admit, i do love the liberation i now have in renting. People need to relax and get off this hurry-up-and-buy a condo immediately otherwise there will never be anywhere to live mentality. as if it's buy now or you'll never be able to afford to own. Geez, we're only here for seventy or eighty years at most people, what's the point of working yourself to death during your most productive years just so you can 'own' the responsiblity of paying exorbitant condo fees every month?

Did you attend any of the open houses regarding the competition for which company would redevelop the building? All three of the finalists put together great presentations on how their business vision would support community values. Davidson Yuen Simpson, for example, has much experience designing low-income, special needs and coop housing (I'm still surprised they didn't win the bid).

I understand that you don't like republicans and Mugabe, but c'mon -- it is bigotry to assume that all business people operate in the same manner.

Moreover, republicans and Mugabe couldn't be further apart: republicans are pro- property rights, and Mugabe is busy stealing from white farmers to distribute land to his militias and cronies.

I know that my argument was flawed but I couldn't pass up a free shot at the aforementionned groups and individuals.
On a very general and vague level I was pointing out how goverment and business corruption often seem to go hand in hand, usually at the expense of the average schmoe and the environment.

Fair enough. Since you are big enough to be so frank, I suppose I should be gracious and recognize that we all need to vent our frustrations sometimes. =^)

the building is on shifting grounds,same as the supposed richmond olympic speed skating circle and proven over the life of this building .built of poor quality materials because the contractors skimped(check procurement invoices).
rebuild of woodwards,is nothing more than political ploy to placate the easty side radicals and the cheapest way to shut up the poor...

the cheapest way to shut up the radicals on the east side...

Like I want to live in a condo bathed in the red glow of that shining "W". But, then it is supposed to be a red light district. Jim Green and DERA have done an excellent job making Woodwards a symbol of martyrdom, poverty pimping and what is wrong with Vancouver. Instead of dealing with the real problems of the downtown eastside politicians and activists hope that a property development will solve the neighbourhood's problems.

Redeveloping a former department store into residences is a waste of money. Woodwards wasn't designed for this purpose and renovating it is impractical. Money would have been better spent knocking it down and building the needed housing. The building isn't architecturally interesting and the store only represented a quaint commercial past whose family owners were too slow and stupid to adapt to the evolving retail environment.

Perpetuating a downtown slum with low to no drug enforcement, enabling drug use and property crime with drug use sites will not be alleviated by a new redeveloped Woodwards. Despite all the liberalism shown to drug users the situation has become worse. At some point in the future it'll be economically tempting for City Hall to rezone the downtown eastside, force out the slum and allow gentrification. Downtown Eastside can't continue as it is perpetuating misery for the sake of left wing politicians who need cannon fodder for social justice.

Despite all the liberalism shown to drug users the situation has become worse.

What Liberalism? A safe injection site? Cops who look the other way until ordered to carry out one of their PR crack downs? What a joke.

If by Liberalism, you speak to harm reduction, then imo he we haven't come close to implementing a proper model in this city. Treatment centers, safe injection sites and outreach programs need to be implemented city wide, if not province wide, to see any real benefit. Add to that an education program for kids that looks at drugs and drug use openly and honestly -- sans all the BS scare tactics that rarely, if ever, work.

What we DO KNOW makes matters worse is a US-style War on Drugs, that criminalizes the user, and ignores the mental and physical health issues that keeps them in a cycle of poverty, crime, self abuse and despair. This failed approach led us to this hell to begin with. These problems were here before we started flirting w/ harm reduction. Let's not abandon a model we haven't begun to try.

I just wanted to comment on Steve's post on the options-for-homes second mortgage solution. It's quite an innovative idea, but I think it needs some work. I live in an options-for-homes building in Toronto. Despite the second mortgage (it was only 10%) most of the units have flipped and sold at market value in the last 3 years, at big profit. In a hot real estate market, the small penalty didn't make much of a difference in deterring speculation. Right now, there's not much to distinguish it from any other condo project. However, the project did valuable work by colonizing marginal land downtown and making it a nice urban community.

That's the problem verso. Everyone cringes when you suggests you need more safe injection sites all over Vancouver and B.C. When they've seen the drugs bazaar that is Downtown Eastside they can't understand how enabling users around the province will make things better. It'll just create Downtown Eastsides all over.

I agree that addiction is a disease, but it isn't a disease like cancer. One chooses to do drugs. As long as there is an element of choice in this you must admit it is illegal. And law enforcement does have a role. The problem with the pillars on Hastings is that it's being operated in a lopsided way without enough emphasis on law enforcement.

Your arguement for the cycle of poverty diminishes the accomplishments of the poor and immigrants who have come to Canada and made fruitful and productive and legal lives for themselves without resorting to drugs. You ignore human choice and taking responsibility for your choices. Even if we gave some of these poor on Hastings a house, car and job many of them would still choose to hit the crack pipe.

For a decrepit department store only famous for $1.49 day Woodwards has taken on an iconic life far beyond rationality.

Tell me more about you're opinions of addiction, BobbyP.. Are you as uncaring about those who are addicted to tobacco? Never coached or encouraged a family member, friend or co worker in their battle for quitting? Almost all tobacco addicts knew what was said about it for the last few decades and still they started. Do you say f**k'em?

Now, about the safe injection sites ,yes they are to prevent OD's but I can tell you they do more than that. In the past year I've seen less of the needle users come through my workplace for nasty ,aggressive infections. These infections are vastly encouraged by using dirty needles and alley way puddle water. When and if the users of the S.I. sites begin to show signs of infections (I mean these people have piss poor diets, sleep, and hygeine making them walking time bombs) they are caught earlier when they can be treated for far less than if they get to to the nasty, ugly stage. Let me tell you about a late thirties longterm needle using couple who I saw come through work. They shared everything a bed, a nasty habit banging coke and smack, they shared needles, and consquently a infection so severe that they spent over two in my facility getting pumped full of IV meds that cost about $70 a dose/4-6 times daily as compared to a cost of about $1 a dose/4-6 times daily for the oral version . How do I know this cost difference ? Because pharmacy puts stickers on the products package asking the medical/nursing staff to reveiw whether
the patient could change over. Then there was a young woman who came in with an infection that was in her hand, arm, belly, and leg that when I first saw it I thought somehow she'd gotten battery acid spilt down her. I still can't forget her and this was quite a few years ago. So while I can understand your disgust(?) with the substances that cause the breakdown of these peoples lives I don't understand you not wanting to minimize the damage until somehow society can eliminate it.

Ughh... that suppose to be over two WEEKS in my facility....

BobbyPeru
Promoting personal responsibility plays an important part in the Four Pillars strategy. Nevertheless, it is, primarily, a harm reduction program. The first published report of the program certainly indicated it was having some success in doing that...fewer addicts were dying of overdoses. The report is available if you really care to take the time to inform yourself rather than throwing brickbats from the sidelines.

As to the other pillars of the program, there has been a reluctance from the start on behalf of some of the agencies who need to be committed to the strategy, as anyone who has followed the ups and downs of the neighbourhood will know. Further, it is hard not to think that the current city administration is far less committed to the goals and methods of 4-pillars than the group it replaced. You might want to look behind the situation on the street at the state of current funding and long-term financing.

Further, it’s not out of the question to imagine that the new Federal government will be far less concerned with harm reduction than crime and punishment - so you may well get your wish.

Has it been a fair trial? Hardly. No one who expected that 60 years or longer of neglect and indifference was going to be wiped out in a half-dozen years knows much about social problems and their remediation.

It'll just create Downtown Eastsides all over.

I'd suggest that every small town and city in this province already has its own version of the Downtown Eastside. To believe otherwise is dangerous and fool hardy.

Again, the Downtown Eastside's problems were there before the term "harm reduction" ever entered into the political discourse of this province. I think we both agree that the old approach (strictly law enforcement) has failed. There are many reasons why the Downtown Eastside has become what it has. Drug and alcohol abuse is hardly the sole reason.

I agree that addiction is a disease, but it isn't a disease like cancer. One chooses to do drugs.

I see your point, but a disease is a disease. Should we be any less compassionate to the smoker who has contracted cancer after smoking for 30-40 years?

Why have smoking rates decreased so much in the last 40 years? Education. You talk about choice and responsibility, education is how we help enable that. The "just say no" approach to drugs is not an education. It's a scare tactic and scare tactics have been proven not to work.

Ultimately, some us make bad choices, for whatever reason. The junkie already knows he/she made a bad decision. So what then? How does that help them? Harm reduction isn't going to force anyone quit, it's there for when the user is ready to quit. It serves to educate and persuade. Harm reduction helps keep the user healthy and alive, hopefully long enough to want to quit.

I could go one about the benefits of the harm reduction but most already know the arguments for it. My point was we have'nt even tried the model. It's been a haphazard stab, at best.

Why am I so passionate about this topic? Because a harm-reduction-like approach worked for me. If help had not been available when I was ready for it (a choice I made of my own volition), I still might be using today.

You ignore human choice and taking responsibility for your choices.

Not all (see above). I think we need to be sure the help is there when a user chooses to seek help. Throwing a junkie in jail may dry them out, but it won't address the root causes for why that particular user uses.

Your argument for the cycle of poverty diminishes the accomplishments of the poor and immigrants who have come to Canada and made fruitful and productive and legal lives for themselves without resorting to drugs.

Where did I argue that? Perhaps I wasn't clear. I never claimed that poverty leads to drug abuse (though it certainly can't help), It was that the physical and mental consequences of drug abuse keeps people in poverty -- not the other way a round. I don't think you can disagree that drug abuse isn't going to help the poor improve their plight.

Even if we gave some of these poor on Hastings a house, car and job many of them would still choose to hit the crack pipe.

Again, I never claimed anything like, so I won't respond to it.

I am afraid that over 50 years old brick and mortar structure with more than 10 years of neglect is not only subject to earthquake damage, but self-destruction. Political bickering made it more suitable for a wrecking ball than low income housing. Let's check it out before anybody moves in.

Well, I have checked out the large, multi-colored advertising poster that just arrived in the mail. Look at all the photos of the surrounding sites! Is this Manhatten? Look at all the colorful nooks and crannies. Look at the happy faces. Oh, an "intellectual property." Oh, "Be bold or move to suburbia." Oh, "The smart money gets in early."
We all know that used-car salesmen's main asset is deception..it appears that Rennie Marketing Systems has mastered this skill as well.

I went to a movie the other night and before the main feature started there was the typical adds you would see on TV but do not work in theaters because they are so forced upon a captive audience. One of the adds was for the Woodwards building with the tag line

" Oh, "Be bold or move to suburbia."

Is this to say that people in Suburbia are not "bold" and that suburbia is a place that is all wrong? It seems like a very arrogant and insulting statement for a concept like the Woodwards redevelopment. It was supposed to incorporate affordable housing which to me is only available in Suburbia but even there disappearing fast.
"Be bold or move to suburbia"? Who are these people coming up with such insulting adds like this. Shouldn't it read "be bold and lets get it right" since this city is cluttered with poor design void of any suggestion of soul. If you are downtown with no view of mountains and beaches Vancouver has to be one of the worst looking cities in the world. Void of any character. Most of it's older buildings have been torn down or made over (raped) to look like bland shells of their former design. I will say it again Vancouver has no soul. Statements like "be bold or move to suburbia" are the cause of the lack of soul in downtown development. Suburbia actually has some soul left, very little but more than down town Vancouver. I only envision the woodward building to eventually contain a "Seven Eleven" located somewhere on it's street level. Which for me is the symbol of the soullessness of downtown Vancouver, a lifeless street level of endless aluminum and plate glass store fronts punctuated by giant air vent grids and primary colored bubble awnings with smokers congregating beneath them. We have been sold this vision of Vancouver being beautiful because of the skyline against a backdrop of mountains as viewed from the beach. But when you are downtown it is no more than a drab ugly city that no visitor (weekend Granville Street partier) has any real respect for. The Woodwards building could change a small part of that soulless view of Vancouver that I have. But something tells me that the development formula that is in full swing in Vancouver is not going to change anytime soon.
So "be bold or move to suburbia" sounds more like an insult similar to "get out of our city!" directed at anyone in the lower east side where Woodwards building is located. Is this slogan supposed to suggest a place for lower east side people to go before the 2010 olympics.

I for got to mention a good point regarding developments like the Woodwards building. We are sold on Models and renderings which the average person will never ever see when built since it suggests you are viewing it from a plane or helicopter or you were viewing it with no buildings or neighborhood in the way obstructing it. In reality our human and personal view of any building is on the street level walking down a sidewalk. We would see mostly one story storefronts and entrances. But when all these buildings are sold and promoted to us we get the overall view of dynamic shapes and positions of towers and structures. Street level is rarely discussed or shown as interesting storefront designs that encourage the growth of neighborhoods, this street level is the most important part of the human experience. Where you shop have coffee, buy produce and exist in your neighborhood. Like I mentioned in my last post, there is a lack of soul in our city and that soul has it's base in the street level neighborhood. Street musicians people skateboarding or getting a coffee while heading to work. The list goes on. The way Vancouver is constructed on a street level now does not encourage any of the things that make up a neighborhood. There are many coffee shops and stores but they lack a Vancouver style, something original or what makes for a good neighbor hood like the one that actualy existed in the woodwards area in the late 70's. If the Woodwards building can not generate the vitality that used to exist when Woodwards was a focal point of a neighborhood in the late 70's before it closed down and lead to the deterioration of the surrounding area then it will be a failure. More has to be concentrated on a street level than who will live in the impressive towers above everything. If there is nothing in that neighborhood that services the towers then it will be a failure like the rest of downtown Vancouver. It will need what the spirit of the original Woodwards food floor used to give the area. Let's say a bakery and good produce stores along with clothing and stores that have a vital meaning to the neighborhood. Something that lacks in other new developments in Vancouver. Sure there are markets and stores but it is a constant repetition of generic outlets that add no rich culture to new areas. We used to have a richer culture in Vancouver now we have a blandness that is mind numbing that only a conformist manipulated by a simplistic view of a city promoted by renderings an models can operate well in. I want a city with a rich culture and a soul. Not a representation of an architectural model blown up to giant proportions where people are told they will be "cool, hip and happy".