Whitecaps Killing The Homeless

Posted by
Filed in City
May 3, 2006

I'm a bit confused at the controversy over the Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium proposal that's being argued in the media over the last couple months. There's talk of how this stadium is going to negatively affect the downtown eastside's poor and homeless. People go on about how the city is wasting money that could be better used elsewhere. There's another theory that there is some sort of connection between this soccer stadium and the Olympics; even though it's the Winter Olympics that we're hosting in 2010.

"The noise, the traffic, the potential for drinking and violence ... we have enough of that already," said Wendy Pedersen, a co-founder of the ~~No Fun Vancouver Coalition~~ Central Waterfront Coalition. "We need a different plan for this neighbourhood."

I think that Wendy Pedersen should scare up the $15-20 million and buy the land and begin work on that Different Plan. This isn't a concrete plant, it's not more freaking condos, and it's not a retail monstrosity; I'm having a hard time trying to understand the bad...

City Money

There's no city money going into this directly at this point, though the Whitecaps organisation isn't saying that it's not possible. There is no mention of any sweetheart property tax deal; instead, the proposal lists the property tax as an expense they planto cover. This is one guy by the name of Greg Kerfoot who may have too much money for his own good. Sure, maybe he could use it to cure the poor of their poorness, or build low income housing, or perform other humanitarian services, but for good or bad, there's nothing making him do that. It's his money, and he can spend it however he chooses.

City Land

This isn't even city land; hasn't been for decades. It wasn't even public land; it was owned by Fairmont Developments, who were leasing it to the CPR for years.

Effect on the Homeless

According to the plan as it stands, nothing is being torn down, moved, or altered in order to make this plan happen. The plan is to build the whole stadium, above existing rail tracks. There's no way that this land would be used for building low income housing, as the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association (DERA) would kick up a fuss that the poor were being marginalized by being housed in buildings built above over railroad tracks.

Offense has been taken at statements that the only things displaced in building this project would be the rats and pigeons; the protestors believe that this was aimed at the homeless, who aren't being displaced. The writer from the Sun who said this was refering to rats and pigeons and not making some veiled attack on homelessness; this is being built on an area of land with no human inhabitants

Violence

There hasn't much in the way of football related hooliganism anywhere in North America, and nothing I can find from Burnaby where the team has played. I can't see the location change as being instrumental in causing rioting. Members of the protestors outline a view of what happens after a game that shows people leaving the games solely to head over to the bars and pubs in the area, getting drunk and beating up the homeless.

A Blight on the City

The rail land on the waterfront is ugly, and anything that can be done to cover that up could be welcomed in the area. This is a natural grass field, open to the elements, and the plans have some very nice looking drawings. This isn't GM Place; this is a relatively low-profile structure, and it's built in a location that will keep it from offending everyone. Most importanly, this isn't a Wal*Mart or a Costco or another big box store; this is a facility with some amount of thought put into making it non-offensive.

Whitecaps president John Rocha states that money-man Greg is a "bit of a traditionalist" with regard to corporate naming, and that as such, they're not likely to afix the name of some corporate juggernaut like Staples, Sears, 7-11, or A&W.

There are claims that this project might "cut the downtown east side off from the water"... well, thanks to the existing rail lines, we're already cut off from the water.

Traffic and Parking Congestion

It's built a block or two from Skytrain, with the theory that public transit is a good thing. There doesn't appear to be much parking being built into the stadium, but with the large parking structures on Water and in Canada Place, there should be plenty to go around.

Seriously; is there a real better plan, or is this just another example of the Not In My Backyard attitude that runs rampant in Vancouver? Any of the business owners I've spoken to along Water and Carrall are all for more humans in the neighbourhood, bringing their dollars to spend on goods and services. Maybe the gentry who appear to be leading the fight against the stadium could sell their condos to soccer fans and move to the Sunshine Coast.

Regardless, the community should be heard, and if they don't want something like this, then they need to speak up. However, if they DO support the project, they also need to speak up, lest a vocal minority pull the strings on their behalf.

White Caps New Stadium
CBC Story on the Protestors
Co-op Radio has a chat with Jean Swanson who sees no potential good.

Reader Reviews and Comments

Submit a Review or Comment

Actually there will be more condos built, as they own tons of adjacent land. Nevertheless, thanks for writing this article.

Posted by: Sean Orr at May 4, 2006 12:21 AM | Quote Comment

I'd be a bit surprised if condos didn't develop between Granville and Main in some fashion, or on land that Fairmont or Kerfoot or someone else owns...

Just that those eventual condos don't have any direct connection with a soccer stadium being built.

Posted by: Richard Murray

at May 4, 2006 12:56 AM | Quote Comment

Its highly unlikely that Kerfoot would be able to finance this without public money, or by selling condos next to it.

the principal of the matter however is, that by building such a stadium, while not on "homeless people's land", whatever that means, but its by raising property values and thus gentrifying the surrounding environs.

It is precisely the secrecy that begs us to speculate on what will be done with all that land adjacent to the proposed stadium.

please see this article by Kevin Potvin. http://www.republic-news.org/archive/134_repub/134_potvin_kerfoot.htm

Posted by: Sean Orr at May 4, 2006 1:27 AM | Quote Comment

Highly unlikely that he could finance this without public money?

This is guy is worth about $100 million. I think he can afford it.

Posted by: andrew at May 4, 2006 4:27 AM | Quote Comment

I read Kevin's piece, and he makes some good points, along with some logical leaps that I don't follow.

- The proposal is silly because there's a shortage of trades and a lot of other projects going on in town.

- There are no soccer fans, so why bother?

- There is no plan to build a stadium at all...

- We never landed on the moon... oh, wait, that's not in his piece, but it wouldn't be out of place.

It doesn't logically follow that one proposal in one place (Hastings Park) causes all proposals in all other places to be illegal or morally reprehensible. That isn't to say it's not POSSIBLE that this plan has something extra waiting in the wings... Denying that condos are being built does not mean that there is some big condo secret.

As for the sale of the land as one big parcel; Richards to Main, would it make more sense for the seller to sell it 100 feet at a time to a dozen developers or all at once to one investor? It makes business sense to sell the whole thing at once, and that's as likely a seller's condition as a buyer's request.

Posted by: Richard Murray

at May 4, 2006 7:45 AM | Quote Comment

i have a pretty bad gut reaction to the whole thing, though this article provided a lot of pts of view i hadn't considered. Here's a question: how did the building of GM place affect the surrounding area? Did it further gentrify its east van borders?

Posted by: statusq at May 4, 2006 2:26 PM | Quote Comment

Great post. This will bring people (and spending money) into the downtown eastside area - not just soccer fans, but music fans for concerts, and fans of other sports like rugby.

Many cities all over Europe have soccer stadiums deep within their centres. Even with the hooliganism that they get there at times (although American Football fans can be worse!) these stadiums act as focal points and contribute hugely to the local communities. And no soccer supporters in vancouver? I beg to differ. Soccer is the world's game, despite North America's reluctance to join in. There are definitely enough people from vancouver's multi-cultural population and yes, lots of Candians, who are interested in the best sport in the world.

This proposal brings with it jobs, potentially one of the most scenic entertainment venues in Canada, and money into the tills of downtown eastside businesses. We need more ideas like this and less whingers and killjoys in vancouver.

Posted by: TM at May 4, 2006 3:53 PM | Quote Comment

Good piece. I plan to write a post about it. In the meantime, however, I wanted to correct an inaccuracy in the comments.

TM: "Even with the hooliganism that they get there at times (although American Football fans can be worse!)."

That's fundamentally wrong. Do any sort of comparison of injuries and deaths between British soccer fans and American football fans, and you'll find that the former are much, much worse.

Posted by: Darren at May 4, 2006 5:16 PM | Quote Comment

maybe what the stadium design doesn't mention is that incase of a soccer riot in the facility, it'll simply tip forward and spill the patrons into the ocean?

I don't have any issue with them building a stadium there. It's just more NIMBY vancouver whining of which we're so good at. ( seriously, we should look at making vancouver style whining a winter olypmic sport.)

Posted by: nico at May 6, 2006 2:25 AM | Quote Comment

Thank you for this article! It's exactly how I feel about this. Why oh why are these activists against this proposal? What, pray tell, do they propose? Nothing, they have nothing to top this, just a bunch of freaking complainers.....

Posted by: bcneocon at May 8, 2006 10:30 PM | Quote Comment

yeah! those stupid junkies! are there no workhouses? are there no prisons? god, lets ship them all out to Maple Ridge or something! Our socialist government would rather give them free drugs, hell they'll even inject it for you!!!

Posted by: sean Orr at May 20, 2006 5:36 AM | Quote Comment

Opponents of this project seem to focus on two issues, displacing the homeless and gentrifying the downtown east side. Displacing the homeless is a non-issue, as there is no chance that waterfron property would be used for purely social housing, and instead a focus should probably be made on the trillium lands for such a housing.

The second issue of gentrification, and increased housing prices is a catch 22. Yes, housing in the downtown eastside has been lower, but housing is affordable there only because of the areas substance abuse problems and hazard approach to safety. But if you look at how many buildings are boarded up, and look down the alleys, its hard to argue that changing this is a negative thing.

Posted by: Dan Grice at May 20, 2006 12:43 PM | Quote Comment

Change is not a bad thing, nobody is arguing against a solution to the DES. That is specious reasoning. The issue is sustainable, community development not frivolous mega projects built over railway tracks that will sit empty for decades just like BC place. We fought for Woodwards and we;ll continue to fight. People like Kerfoot don't magnanimously donate resources to help the situation, in fact quite the opposite. they join Business Improvement associations and lobby for more police to lock up all the junkies.

Posted by: sean Orr at May 21, 2006 3:04 AM | Quote Comment

What a great article! Unfortunately, the people who REALLY need to hear what you have to say are on City Council. They'll be meeting on June 15 to decide whether the stadium will go on to the re-zoning phase.

I run a website called Friends of Soccer which provides a citizens guide on how to effectively show your support for the stadium. I urge you to write, phone, and e-mail the mayor & city council to let them know that Vancouver wants and needs this stadium now.

http://www.friendsofsoccer.org

Posted by: Bill at May 22, 2006 2:04 PM | Quote Comment

Conclusions from the staff report:

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF THE INITIAL REVIEW
The public consultation reveals that there is broad public support for the
proposed stadium, yet significant concern and opposition particularly
from local residents, community groups and businesses. This is
consistent with the findings of the technical review, which revealed
positive, neutral and negative impacts of the proposed stadium. More
specifically, there are five fundamental issues with the current proposal
that make it unworkable, including:
• Inadequate street frontage for access, emergency exiting and crowd
marshalling;
• Dangerous goods in the rail lands;
• Form, character and urban design issues;
• Impacts on residential livability and area revitalization; and
• Impacts on future development on the Central Waterfront Port Lands.
There are a number of potential solutions to these fundamental issues
which could make the proposed stadium work in the Central Waterfront.
These include:
• Major investment in road infrastructure, which will need to be provided
by the proponent and will likely be costly due to the complexity of
building roads and viaducts above the rail lands;
• Resolution of the dangerous goods issue and liability;
• Fundamental reconsideration of the stadium structure and siting to
ensure a better fit with Gastown;
• More land, which requires negotiations with the Port of Vancouver; and
• Comprehensive planning to address access, area structure, land use and
livability issues.
Report Back on the Whitecaps Stadium Initial Review 21
These solutions involve substantial cost, time or negotiations with other
land owners and cannot be achieved through a stand-alone rezoning. As
such, staff conclude that a rezoning is not supportable at this time.