Face-off at Perception Gap
From my Business in Vancouver column:
Looks like another politician has fallen into Perception Gap.
Mayor Robertson seems to have believed that because the need for affordable housing is so great, the people of Vancouver actually wanted something seriously done about it.
Don’t people want more affordable housing? Well, of course. And aren’t they prepared to accept some change in their neighbourhoods to get it? They will say they are. But between the wish and the reality lies Perception Gap.
In mid-2008, an Ipsos Reid poll found homelessness and affordable housing ranked as the No. 1 issue. Vision Vancouver made it No. 1 on their platform – and got elected with a handsome majority. Then they acted.
Within four months, City Hall staff reported back on ways to immediately increase the rental housing supply. By April, 
there was STIR – Short-Term Incentives for Rental. By Christmas, Council voted 6-2 to approve a highrise at 1215 Bidwell – the site of a restaurant named Maxine’s – with 49 market rental units. The density tripled.
And boy, were some West Enders pissed.
Robertson and his colleagues were surprised by the backlash – and couldn’t quite see where it was coming from. The most incongruent word uttered by the Mayor when he infamously and unwittingly said “f—king NPA hacks” into a still-open microphone was “NPA.” He couldn’t fathom that the people protesting, picketing and petitioning were those on his end of the political spectrum.
The problem is, Vancouverites on the whole don`t want the character of their communities to change – at least not in any way that would lessen the values they cherish, whether amenity or property. And here`s the thing: as change slows, people’s perception of change – and their anxiety about it – grows. The difference between change that is acceptable compared to change that would actually make a difference is so disparate that the gap in perception becomes very wide indeed.
The West End, for instance, hasn’t changed in any significant way since the late mid-1970s. On the whole, it’s a pretty good place the way it is; there’s not much to entice a community that’s satisfied with the status quo, particularly if the benefits of change go to those who aren`t actually there yet. In the case of the STIR program, City Hall wasn`t really offering anything for the existing residents, except to deliver on the promise of affordability. Indeed, the additional density would come without extra amenities – an erosion of a policy that had been in place since the 1980s.
The West End is not the only place where people are resistent. In Mount Pleasant, the affordable rental component of an eight-storey tower proposed for Fraser and Broadway may be lost in order to reduce the height to something more acceptable. On Bowen Island, a spectacular waterfront landscape will be subdivided for large, expensive lots rather than for a more compact and more populated alternative. Over the water in West Vancouver, some city councillors raised doubts about an experiment in infill that discouraged one of the most promising candidates from proceeding. In the Downtown East Side, condos affordable to couples making the $8-an-hour minimum wage were opposed by activists in fear of gentrification. And these are examples taken from just the last few weeks.
Everyone involved will say they are in favour of more affordable housing. And then argue about why the proposal on the table isn`t the way to go about it.
When change is resisted, politicians turn to process. So do activists. Everyone will agree for a while to talk about change, partly in the hope that the pressure will be relieved somewhere else. Past Vancouver Councils have pragmatically conducted themselves accordingly – concentrating development on brownfield sites (now largely used up), while conducting lengthy processes in developed neighbourhoods that start with the assumption that the character of the existing community is inviolable.
So, how to bridge Perception Gap.
The City might return to the West End with a commitment to keep the existing design guidelines in place, along with tangible benefits for the current residents. The community in turn will have to be honest with itself about affordability, and come to an agreement on growth – an actual target – with a realistic way of paying for it. Everyone has to recognize that change, guaranteed by time, will come in some form.
Otherwise, those on either side of Perception Gap will just keep swearing at each other.
Excellent piece!
“Everyone has to recognize that change, guaranteed by time, will come in some form.”
Great article. the quote sums up a lot!
Well done summary of the problem or the quagmire.
Seems to me that no housing policy will please everyone. At some point someone needs TO LEAD. Decide on a policy and approach, ideally with consultation, and push it through with tons of communiques explaining why.
Current numbers do not work for building rental of any sort and, in fact, they almost never have. The reality is that rental is premium accommodation with extra costs for convenience of tenure and management. Long-term capital gain is normally the only payback for private developers.
The STIR program offers the opportunity of massive spot upzoning to enhance the potential of long-term gain for the developer. The perhaps unintended side-effect for the West End will be the destruction of the old three storey rental with its moderate rents and largish apartments and replacement by mini-suites with much bigger rents.
I suspect that the reaction of Westenders might have been slightly assuaged by some of the STIR projects being located within a block or two of 99-B stops between Granville and Alma. But that is a side issue.
Actually doing the neighbourhood planning taking new rental realities into account could be an appropriate next step.
There are amazing parallels here with the cycling debate.
“Everyone involved will say they are in favour of more affordable housing. And then argue about why the proposal on the table isn’t the way to go about it”
- replace “affordable housing” with “bike lanes” and most of this article applies to the opponents of the Hornby bike lane.
I think the basic problem is that people who own their own house or apartment don’t want prices to go down. That would bite into their non-taxable capital gains.
Excellent post Gord. The disconnect between what people espouse as values and what they are actually prepared to accept any where near them, continues to befuddle urban planning. Getting people to agree at the level of principle on things like affordability is the easy part, its when you actually start to talk about real change to give it effect that the problems start. I think back to the CityPlan process and the identification of village centres. Everyone loved the idea in concept, just couldn’t get to the point of actually agreeing on where they should be.
Excellent article, but at the risk of creating the same perception gap noted, opposing the demolition of Maxine’s Hideaway isn’t just about community nimbyism. Demolishing a unique heritage register building, for the sake of city targets and against the will of the community could be seen as both heartless and short-sighted. Historic buildings by definition cannot be rebuilt. Once they are gone, they are gone, and with them goes that community’s connection to the past. Maxine’s Hideaway may not be to everyone’s tastes, but where to draw the line? Are the buildings on Barclay Square worth preserving, or would that area be served better by high density community housing too?