2711 Ward Street

with 2 comments


Comment on Development Application DP-2017-01152
under RM-7 Zoning




15 January 2018

Form of Development

1.  The use of different materials on the outside of the building to differentiate the units within is interesting.

2.  The proposed two-bedrooms are appropriate for units of this size. Trying to squeeze three bedrooms into units of less than 1100 sq. ft. usually results in some bedrooms that are far too small.

3.  This is the first application in the RM-7 zone to propose a flat roof on a project located mid-block on a residential street. Norquay contains very few flat-roofed single family houses. Duplexes in Norquay are required to have sloped roofs. The 16-unit RM-7 project under construction at 2719 Ward Street also features sloped roofs.

Because this proposal for Norquay’s first large roof deck is adjacent to a 16-unit stacked townhouse project, we are not objecting to the roof style in this case. But in general, flat-roofed RM-7 projects should continue to be located either on arterial streets or very close (across the street or adjacent) to the 4-storey apartment RM-9 zone. This has been the practice since the RM-7 zoning regulations were approved in 2013. The result is that new projects in the RM-7 zone fit in better with existing neighbourhood context and character than they would if flat roofs were to be approved indiscriminately.


We approve of the use of ornamental plantings and ground covers rather than small areas of grass, which are difficult to maintain. We make the following minor suggestions:

1.  The side yard on the west side of the building is marked as an inaccessible area of gravel. At least limited access will be necessary if that side of the structure work requires work in the future.

2.  English ivy is proposed between a part of the 4-ft. wide east walkway and the fence. Our experience of English ivy is that it will need to be trained to the metal string lattice in front of the fence. Once established, English ivy is a rampant grower that will need frequent pruning to keep it manageable in such a narrow space. As an invasive species, it is generally undesirable. Many new homeowners in Norquay are not gardeners. We suggest eliminating the English ivy along the east fence. There should, however, be plantings to screen the garbage/recycling area from the back patio.

Overall the design of this project shows imagination and care.

Jeanette and Joseph Jones


Written by eyeonnorquay

15 January 2018 at 11:11 am

Posted in RM-7 Comment

White Elephant

leave a comment »

What Is a Kensington Gardens Condo Really Worth?

Eye on Norquay has been monitoring 2220 Kingsway ever since news trickled out in September 2011 that Westbank paid $34,088,000 for the 2.3 acre site.

Westbank chose to ride roughshod over the Norquay Plan by plopping a podium over the entire site. Their approach disrespected the clear intent for a public plaza at the heart of the site. City of Vancouver staff lined up with Westbank wishes, since their political masters had been prepurchased with massive donations.


    White Elephant?   Retro Soviet Block?

Note: The Urban Design Panel chose to ignore a planner question about how adequate the proposed tower separation would be. Eye on Norquay witnessed in person the meeting where this neglect occurred.

As the project approaches completion, a few other points deserve scrutiny.

Focus on Flip Marketing Brings Unusual Legal Threat

On 23 October 2017 thinkpol.ca posted a documented story about Westbank preselling to flippers almost one quarter of the condos at 2220 Kingsway / Kensington Gardens.

Amy Chen. Westbank pre-sold nearly 1 in 4 Kensington Garden condos — heavily marketed
overseas — to flippers


The report relied on “industry insider” provision of 55 Multiple Listing Service entries and a further “38 listings of units that are currently on sale on assignments.” A chart provides a “complete list of pre-sale purchasers [93] gleaned from MLS data.”

A few weeks later, on 15 November 2017, thinkpol.ca reported that a lawyer acting for the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (REBGV) had threatened their news outlet with legal action because of the reporting on Westbank’s Kensington Gardens project at 2220 Kingsway.

Vancouver real estate board threatens ThinkPol with lawsuit to protect foreign buyer privacy

In June 2017 realtor Steve Saretsky had already called attention to the flood of assignments rising at 2220 Kingsway. Saretsky’s account reproduced a 3 February 2015 Westbank Facebook advertisement for a “Hong Kong Exhibition” that stated:

        As one of Vancouver’s premier landmark residential developments, buyers at Kensington Gardens
        benefit from an 8% rental return. Making Kensington Gardens the best real estate investment
        in North America.

As far as Westbank is concerned, the value in this “premier landmark” condo cluster seems to be some vague opportunity for 8% return as a rental unit. In other words, their marketing fail on Kensington Gardens seems to have condemned the whole project to open as a higher-end tenement, with renters predominating among first inhabitants. Owner-occupiers seem likely to prefer a different address.

As of late December 2017, the lawyer’s intimidation bluster seems to have failed, serving only to direct even more attention to the nasty situation at Kensington Gardens.

Look at This Documented Marketing Timeline

February 2014  —  Eye on Norquay describes a strange marketing strategy for Kensington Gardens condos.

In Between  —  The most desirable West Tower never shows up in marketing to Vancouver locals.

October 2014  —  Ten months later, a reading between the lines shows the project still only half-sold.

October 2014  —  The East Tower shows up as final tower release event.

February 2015  —  A “Hong Kong Exhibition” tries to unload units offshore as rental properties.

May 2015  —  Still unsold units get postcard marketing to locals as “Vancouver View Estates.”

Ongoing  —  High level of attempts to sell assigned units.

What Is Going On Here?

Further to the introductory point — that Westbank and REBGV seem extraordinarily unhappy about the recent thinkpol.ca exposé of their marketing strategy — consider these additional points:

One  —  Only a relatively ignorant buyer would fail to understand what a poor match the faux-fancy fortress of Kensington Gardens is for the area that surrounds it. Norquay is nowheresville in the heart of East Vancouver, sliced through the middle by the six-lane truck route of Kingsway. The cornerstone for this new development was laid when city planners back in 2010 forced their mass rezoning onto a large swath of an amenity-deficient East Vancouver neighborhood filled with lower-income, immigrant, working-class people — an area selected because they regarded it as a de facto “brownfield.”

Two  —  In the fall of 2017 Westbank went on a branding spree, waving a hot pink banner about “Fight for Beauty.” Guess what? Nowhere does Kensington Gardens feature among the projects that the developer boosts as a signature development. Kensington Gardens compares with a knockoff Rolex watch.

Three  —  Throughout 2017, advertised pre-completion prices for 2220 Kingsway condos jumped all over the speculative map, ranging from $747 per sq ft for unit 527 to $1400 per sq ft for unit NE PH 1. See table at the end, and especially notice the startling upward trajectory of unit 529 — from $385,000 in April, to $425,000 in June, to $468,000 in August. And never forget: in September 2011 land cost was reported as $107 per buildable sq ft.

Four  —  How many speculators or purchasers understand that just to the north of Kensington Gardens, right smack dab between their site and the north shore mountains, will soon be arising a six-storey building along a 231-foot Kingsway frontage, to provide 101 rental units? This new no-ownership building at 2153-2199 Kingsway was approved by Council at Public Hearing on 16 May 2017. Some upper floors of Kensington Gardens may still manage to peek over this adjacent battleship … but never the other two towers of Kensington Gardens itself. All of the new residents (if there are any) will get to enjoy years of the same truck traffic, dirt, and noise that their own building has already inflicted on existing residents of the neighborhood.

Five  —  The Westbank tradition in East Vancouver continues with “The Joyce,” whose marketing has attracted similar unfavorable reporting:

Jen St. Denis. $725,000 for one-bedroom condo at Joyce Station raises red flags (22 June 2017)

At this Joyce SkyTrain station project, unwary and naive purchasers are signing up for headaches that include

  Location on a two-lane truck route heavily used to avoid the Boundary Road hill
  Regular loud SkyTrain system noise that gets worse with aging
  New zoning that specifies two view-blocking high-rise towers across Joyce to the west

87 Distinct Address Listings for 2220 Kingsway
as Observed in Vancouver Local Real Estate Sources in 2017

         The listing below aggregates data from four previous separate listings from Eye on Norquay
           which are tagged as Price Data.
         An asterisk (*) marks an entry where Sq Ft data has been revised on the sole basis of inconsistency.
         In a few instances, for the same Unit number, where Ask Price and Sq Ft diverge widely, entries
           have been separated.
         Units with Month specified as “Other” have been noted as on the market without further data capture.

Unit           Ask Price      Sq Ft       Month 

102             $899,000       1023       April
102             $899,000       1023       June
102             $899,000       1023       August
102             $899,000       1023       November

103             $988,000       1018       November

310             $683,000        777 *     April
310             $738,000        777       June
310             $738,000        777       August
310             $738,000        777       November

315                                       Other

317             $425,000        512       April

320                                       Other

322             $430,000        534       April

501                                       Other

503                                       Other

508             $384,900        504       June

511             $768,000        894       August
511             $768,000        894       November

517             $510,000        512       August

518             $430,860        529       April
518             $430,860        529       June
518             $495,000        529       August
518             $495,000        529       November

519             $360,000        441       April
519             $360,000        441       June

520                                       Other

527             $435,000        582       April
527             $435,000        582       June

528             $488,888        503       November

529             $385,000        447       April
529             $425,000        447       June
529             $468,000        447       August

530                                       Other

531                                       Other

602             $699,000        890       April

603             $380,000        463       April
603             $395,000        463       June

605             $399,000        506       April
605             $480,000        506       August

606             $399,000        506       April
606             $399,000        506       June

608                                       Other

609             $790,000        894       June
609             $790,000        894       August
609             $790,000        894       November

610                                       Other

617                                       Other

701             $693,900        849       April

708                                       Other

803                                       Other

808             $660,000        790       June

810             $628,800        717       June

903                                       Other

905                                       Other

906             $525,000        506       June

906             $954,000       1072       August
906             $954,000       1072       November

908                                       Other

1002            $748,000        738 *     June
1002            $748,000        738 *     November

1102            $748,000        738       August
1102            $768,000        738 *     November

1106            $535,000        506       August
1106            $535,000        506 *     November

1010                                      Other

1012            $798,000        812       April
1012            $798,000        812       June
1012            $768,000        812       August
1012            $768,000        812       November

1102                                      Other

1105                                      Other

1106                                      Other

1108                                      Other

1110                                      Other

1201                                      Other

1203            $438,000        484       April
1203            $438,000        484       June

1206          $1,068,888       1060       April
1206          $1,068,888       1060       June
1206          $1,068,888       1060       August
1206          $1,068,888       1060       November

1209            $748,000        879       June
1209            $748,000        879       August

1211            $788,000        717       November

1502                                      Other

1503                                      Other

1507            $468,800        516       April

1508                                      Other

1510            $699,000        777       June

1605          $1,088,800        980       August
1605          $1,088,800        980       November

1606          $1,068,888       1060       April
1606          $1,088,888       1060       June
1606          $1,088,888       1060       August

1610            $719,900        879       April

1701                                      Other

1702                                      Other

1703            $968,888       1020       April

1703            $515,000        496       November

1706          $1,118,000       1060       June
1706          $1,118,900       1060       August
[1706]?       $1,089,000       1060       November

1708            $788,000        720       August
1708            $788,000        720       November

1805 PH 5       $949,999        784       August
1805 PH 5       $949,999        784       November

NE 315          $738,900        790       November

NE 626          $419,800        441       November

NE 702                                    Other

NE 811          $726,000        812       November

NE 1103         $478,000        496       August
NE 1103         $478,000        496       November

NE 1502         $830,000        896       November

NE 1611         $708,000        717       November

NE PH 1       $1,150,000        821       June
NE PH 1       $1,150,000        821       August
NE PH 1       $1,098,000        821       August
NE PH 1       $1,098,000        821       November

NE PH 6         $884,900        807       November

P 307           $489,800        476       November

S 1008          $948,000        992       November

S 1103          $433,000        484       April

S 1202          $698,000        738       April
S 1202          $698,000        738       June

S 1501          $786,000        849       April
S 1501          $745,000        849       June
S 1501          $745,800        849       August

W 305                                     Other

W 605           $469,800        510       November

W 1505          $999,000        980       November

W 1510          $739,900        777       April
W 1510          $725,000        777       June
W 1510          $699,000        777       August
W 1510          $699,000        777       November

W PH 1          $828,000        755 *     August
W PH 1          $828,000        755       November


Written by eyeonnorquay

1 January 2018 at 10:23 am

Formal Comment on TMH

with one comment

The following formal comment from Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones was submitted to housing@vancouver.ca by email at 9:02 am on 18 December 2017.

Comment on Temporary Housing Proposal for 4410 Kaslo Street —
Community Information Sessions on 13 and 14 December 2017

18 December 2017

We support the concept of building temporary modular housing (TMH) as one way to help house the homeless population of Vancouver. We have particular concerns related to this proposed TMH site.

Location of the site

The site at 4410 Kaslo Street is well situated in relation to transit and to Slocan Park. However, it is not within easy walking distance of most other amenities. The closest area with shops and services is on Kingsway, seven blocks to the south. But much of the streetscape there currently consists of empty buildings awaiting redevelopment under the Norquay Plan. The nearest grocery store is Banana Grove at Slocan and East 22nd Avenue, eight blocks away. The Renfrew Community Centre and the Renfrew Library are equally distant. The shopping area and services around the Joyce SkyTrain Station lie 15 blocks away.

Eight blocks can be a pleasant walk in good weather for healthy people. However, in cold or rainy weather it is a long way to go to supply even minor needs. The difficulty increases for tenants with mobility challenges, or for mothers with infants. Shops and services need to be accessible if tenants are to learn to live independently.

To help mitigate the effects of the distance to shops and services:

       •  Every tenant should be issued a monthly one-zone transit pass
       •  A van and driver should be available to residents on a frequent and regular basis
       •  Both individual units and communal kitchen space should be designed with more than
           standard storage, especially refrigerator space

       •  If tenants lack the skills to plan meals in advance and to shop for groceries
           in an organized way, teaching these skills should be a priority for the service provider

At a more general level,

Easy accessibility of shops and services should be added to the TMH site selection criteria.

Tenant mix

We support designating 4410 Kaslo as a coed residence. The selected operator (Atira) has keen interest and extensive experience in providing housing for women. Therefore,

A majority of the tenants should be women, to take full advantage of the operator’s interest and experience.

Transitioning residents to permanent housing

As the lives of tenants become more stable, many would need to transition to more independent, permanent housing. Favorable outcomes are most likely to be achieved if these tenants have an option to move from TMH into non-market housing while remaining in the same neighbourhood.

The nearby 2400 Motel site at Slocan Street and Kingsway has been identified in the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan as the heart of the Norquay Village area. Future development of this site is already specified to deliver 500 housing units, with 100 of those non-market. Much needed indoor and outdoor community space as well as additional shops (including a grocery store) and services would also be provided. Seven years into the Norquay Plan, Kingsway is experiencing major redevelopment. Yet the 2400 Motel site has shown no sign of delivering on the major amenity promise to Norquay residents, even though the City of Vancouver (CoV) already owns the land.

The City of Vancouver needs to begin developing the 2400 Motel site according to specifications outlined in the 2010 Norquay Plan and the Norquay Public Benefits Strategy.

Distribution of TMH sites

Like every other Vancouver neighbourhood, Norquay / Renfrew-Collingwood needs to do its share to house Vancouver’s homeless population. We look forward to additional TMH proposals that will distribute this housing more equitably across the entire city.

Neighbourhoods that do not help the homeless by hosting a TMH site should pay a surtax designated toward provision of new non-market housing.


The December 13 and 14 meetings were advertised as “Community Information Sessions.” But very little concrete information was available.

The community’s most pressing question — Who is going to be living in this particular TMH facility? — remains largely unanswered. The closest approximation to an answer that we were able to ascertain could be summarized as: “Tenants will be male and female homeless people already living in the neighbourhood. We don’t know who they are, how many of them there are, or where they are. But everything will work out fine — just trust us.” This response does not reassure current community residents. Instead, it leaves us feeling frustrated at best (if we believe that CoV and its partners honestly don’t have the information) or cynical and angry at worst (if we believe that CoV and its partners have the information but won’t share it with us).

Community consultation at this early stage does make it more possible for community residents to have real input on some issues. But until we have a better idea of who the tenants of the building will be, it is difficult to make meaningful comment on other topics.

The CoV desire to get TMH built as quickly as possible is understandable. However, a complex network of city, provincial and non-profit agencies is involved in making this happen. Proceeding too quickly creates stress, confusion and communication problems. Not all staff at the information session was on the same page.

Information is not always presented in a timely and forthright manner. Several community residents attending the sessions were looking for a distribution map of identified TMH sites and a list of criteria for choosing these sites. CoV has this information and it should have been provided on boards at the session. Community residents unable to attend either of the information sessions need to have timely web access to the posted boards if we are to submit comment by the December 22 deadline. As of this morning (Monday, December 18) the boards from the information sessions have not yet been made available on CoV’s TMH web site.

The next community information session needs to be scheduled as soon as CoV and its partners have a more accurate picture of who will be living in this building. This should not be a matter of simply presenting a proposed development project. Community residents would like to be informed of the approximate tenant mix in terms of service level, current area of residence, male vs. female, and single vs. family (if applicable).

The City of Vancouver has not built a relationship of trust with this particular area of Renfrew-Collingwood. The area around the 29th Avenue SkyTrain Station was abruptly cut off from Norquay in 2009 after 3½ years of the planning process for the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre. Specific promises made in connection with the future development of Ravine Way (a linear park/pedestrian connection between Slocan Park and Norquay Park) have been retracted. Much better attention needs to be paid to process if CoV intends to introduce a SkyTrain Station Area Planning initiative here in early 2018.

Jeanette and Joseph Jones

Written by eyeonnorquay

18 December 2017 at 9:42 am

Report on TMH Sessions

with 2 comments

Temporary Modular Housing Community Information Sessions
Held on 13 and 14 December 2017 for 4410 Kaslo Street Site

Our own specific formal comment to the City of Vancouver on the siting of Temporary Modular Housing at 4410 Kaslo Street is provided as a yet-to-come separate posting to Eye on Norquay. The purpose of the account that follows is to document with comment the two evenings of interaction between Norquay and area residents and the various officials.

Overall Impression

On 13 and 14 December 2017 Eye on Norquay observed and participated in the full three hours of both of the two “Community Information Sessions” about the new Temporary Modular Housing (TMH) proposed for 4410 Kaslo Street across from the 29th Avenue SkyTrain Station.

What became most apparent was that five bureaucratic entities are converging to try to deliver on multiple present and upcoming TMH projects, and themselves are in the early stages of ironing out their relationships. The consequence is that these sessions for the community offered very little solid and specific information.


     Panel 5 — Addressing the Immediate Needs of Homeless People

Perhaps the most extensive news reporting on the event came from CTV News Vancouver on 14 December 2017. That coverage highlighted the policing of the meeting. On the first evening Eye on Norquay noticed three security guards who tightly controlled entrance and exit, and two VPD, one in uniform and one undercover.

Some of this atmosphere carried over from officialdom’s serious miscalculation in its earlier approach to bringing TMH to Marpole. The short version of that failure is that five agencies paid no attention to the history of the particular recently mass-rezoned local area minefield that they were dashing into. They were too busy focusing on themselves and their joint rapid move on Marpole, apparently unaware that Marpole was already a remarkably self-organized local community.

Haste and Disregard

The most obvious word to describe the “process” for the Kaslo site would be haste. On 1 December 2017 the City of Vancouver unveiled the 4410 Kaslo Street site TMH proposal via a news release. At about the same time a notification sheet was distributed to houses adjacent to the site. This timing of no more than seven working days prior to the first session fell considerably short of the usual minimum of ten days. Add to that the setting of meeting dates for less than two weeks before Christmas.

An email sent to housing@vancouver.ca on the evening of 14 December 2017 asked for a posting of the presented materials to the TMH web site. Twenty-four hours later there had been no response — neither an email reply, nor a fulfillment of the request.

On this basis and in this circumstance, local area residents are expected to provide their “input” between 13 and 22 December 2017. This kind of treatment can only confirm the cynicism of many residents who expect that the City of Vancouver intends to race ahead and will show little respect for anything they may have to say.

The Materials

In written form, the sessions provided two written documents —

Temporary Modular Housing Factsheet  (2 p.)   [tailored to the 4410 Kaslo Street site]

Draft Operations Management Plan, 4410 Kaslo Street, Vancouver, Rapid Response to Homelessness, Temporary Modular Housing  /  Atira Women’s Resource Society  (6 p.)

— and 17 display panels.

Since Atira learned of its selection as operator only a few days prior to the information sessions, it seems plausible that its six-page “draft plan” consists of nothing more than a rapidly tweaked version of their initial boilerplate “expression of interest” to the City of Vancouver about becoming a TMH operator. The specifics of the agreement between the two parties have yet to be negotiated. This means that the “information” that could be presented to local area residents amounted to generic aspirations only. This would explain the unwillingness and/or inability of officials to provide any useful answer to the number one question: Who would be living in the 50 TMH units proposed for 4410 Kaslo Street?

Beyond this, the panels disappointingly failed to provide information that did exist, could have been presented, and was being asked for by residents. Three prime examples:


     Map of Sites Already Announced


     Criteria for Site Selection


     Details from Temporary Modular Housing Contract Approval  (4 Oct 2017)

Eye on Norquay observed the person named in the above external documentation (tweet of 14 December 2017) aggressively deflecting and stonewalling on this particular frequently asked question. The City Council administrative report of 4 October 2017 constitutes relevant information that was actively withheld from the “Community Information Sessions.” Such an approach does not inspire trust.

The Timeline and Who “Decides”

Apart from panel 5 above, the panel image that follows is the only material that Eye on Norquay finds useful enough to reproduce here. The “next step” for the local community appears to consist of a single opportunity to react to an already-applied-for development permit.


     Panel 15 — Development Permit Process for Input

It is difficult to make sense of what this panel title could mean. Residents were told that General Manager of Planning Gil Kelley will make “a decision” following the second meeting. Few believe that this decision could be anything other than a yes.

Eye on Norquay has suggested to staff that the honest approach would be to say that Council has made the decision already, and that staff must act as the agent of Council. To displace that “decision” away from Council only fosters undeserved scorn for staff. No City Councillor made even a brief appearance at the contentious scene. For Councillors to avoid the difficult situations created by their decisions has become standard practice.

The disconnect between what TMH project leaders say and what can plainly be seen to be happening should embarrass all who speak to the issues. The official narrative maintains that what residents say matters, is taken very seriously, and might possibly even result in a decision to not locate TMH at 4410 Kaslo Street. The reality encompasses

        The politics of a growing homeless population that must be seen to be dealt with
        Few City of Vancouver sites that can satisfy the present criteria for TMH locations
        An initial $66 million that must be spent on TMH as quickly as possible
        Multiple agencies that by definition will prioritize behind-the-scenes “negotiating”
          of their own competing bureaucratic interests

Who Was in the Room?

The persons and departments/agencies at the sessions included:

Abi Bond
Director of Affordable Housing, Community Services

Allison Dunnett
Senior Planner, Housing Policy and Projects

Ethel Whitty
Director, Homelessness Services

Luke Harrison
Director/Chief Executive Officer, Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency (VAHA)

David Williams
Project Director, Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency (VAHA)

Brenda Prosken
Regional Director, BC Housing

Janice Abbott
Chief Executive Officer, Atira Women’s Resource Society

Jennifer Gray-Grant
Executive Director, Collingwood Neighbourhood House

Unspecified Person(s)
Vancouver Coastal Health

The Unspeakable Good News

The serious shortcomings outlined above add to the City of Vancouver’s ignominious reputation for mistreating its residents. At least a token acknowledgment of the recent planning context established for Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre would have been appropriate.

At the level of mere logic, the City would not serve its own interests well by flubbing any aspect of delivering TMH at this location. Mishaps would only further poison the well that the City must drink from extensively in 2018, with the start of the “station area planning” that is designated as a top priority of the Housing Vancouver Strategy approved in late November 2017.

Eye on Norquay senses that the implementation of TMH at 4410 Kaslo Street will significantly and specifically deal with fears that we heard expressed at the community information sessions. Perhaps the foremost fear is for the safety of children.

Our assessment is based on six to ten hours of two experienced persons listening carefully to what high-level staff (see listing above) had to say — and then putting all of that together and reading between the lines. There seems to be a reassuring background that the staff can barely hint at.

In a very unusual move, we judge it best in this particular case to avoid elaborating on the positives that we perceive. For the sake of the neighborhood, let’s all hope that our optimistic intuitions match up with the TMH realization.

Written by eyeonnorquay

16 December 2017 at 8:51 pm

Picking on the Poor

leave a comment »

… to Serve Vancouver’s “Development” Industry

“Every neighbourhood needs to do their part in taking some of this housing [for the homeless] and helping care for and engage that population”  — Gil Kelley, General Manager of Planning, Urban Design & Sustainability, City of Vancouver (27 Nov 2017)

Of Diversions and Displacement

Smoke from localized brush fires over the siting of “temporary modular housing” (TMH) should not divert an onlooker’s gaze from Vancouver’s main social conflagration. For well over a decade, the City of Vancouver, in the service of the development industry, has conducted overt war on the poor. In 2006 Project Civil City marked an early low point for this new century.

Who are the frontline casualties in this conflict? The latest count of 2,138 persons recognized as homeless. What is the current main diversionary tactic? A bureaucracy that sets off skirmishes in Vancouver’s second-tier poor neighborhoods and then accuses those areas of being filled with selfish NIMBYs.

The starting point for all of this is 2,138 homeless people

         Who find themselves perpetually moved along on the sidewalk
         Who often have their few belongings taken away and thrown out by city functionaries
         Whose right to set up a tent and to congregate for safety is subjected to constant challenge

Homeless people fall at the extreme end of a larger spectrum of deliberate displacement. At the more fortunate end are people who can leave Vancouver because they see no reasonable future for themselves in a city being sold out to globalized wealth. All are persons victimized by an ethos of greed that traces back to the corporate agendas underlying Expo 86 and the 2010 Olympics. [1]

The inevitable counterpart of this greed is the fear suffered by people who get exploited and/or shoved out of their familiar surroundings. In a trickle-out phenomenon, the homeless provoke anxieties and defensiveness in every neighborhood that lies beyond the greater Downtown Eastside area. Why is this happening now? Proximity to Vancouver’s urban core has turned the Downtown Eastside, a longstanding haven for the city’s poorest, into a prime target for gentrification — and for the resulting severest degree of displacement, no home at all.

Scatter and Social Mix

It is telling that the City of Vancouver is making its first moves to “scatter” TMH into the poorest areas of the rest of the city. The notion of TMH “scattered across the city” emerges in Cheryl Chan’s July 2017 reporting on an interview with Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, General Manager of Community Services. [2] A report that went to City Council on that same day to expedite the spread of TMH offers up this contradictory perspective: “The proposed authority does not extend to single-family (RS) zones” (page 2). [3] Thus is a strong degree of class privilege protection built into a measure that might otherwise promote a possibilty for genuine citywide equity.

The concept of “scatter” is a first cousin to the concept of “social mix.” A revealing instance of the phrase “social mix” occurs in the context of a September 2013 review of four simultaneous “community plans” — for Downtown Eastside, West End, Marpole, and Grandview-Woodland (pdf 18 / A3). [4] Only in the planning for Downtown Eastside does “social mix” emerge as a concern. The City of Vancouver seems to raise the issue of “social mix” mainly in the context of gentrifying areas that house the poor. “Social mix” thus acquires a special restricted Vancouver meaning: to displace poorer people in order to provide opportunity for richer people.

In this same vein, the City of Vancouver also professed a policy of “social mix” for “publicly-owned lands in Southeast False Creek, and defined that aspiration as a ⅓ affordable housing, ⅓ modest market and ⅓ market housing mix” (page 15). [5]

David Hulchanski’s recent income mapping of Vancouver [6] shows Marpole as the lowest-income area on the west side of Vancouver (slide 24):



A City of Vancouver document from May 2006 provides 2001 census data tailored to the 479 acres that then comprised the Norquay Village study area (this encompassed the 4410 Kaslo site newly proposed for TMH on 1 December 2017). Notable figures include a Chinese population of 48.1% and a “population in low income households” at 32.0% of 10,905. At that point Norquay organically had already achieved the low-income end of the ⅓ ⅓ ⅓ “mix” touted as desirable. It seems certain that Norquay’s subsequent planning and development has destroyed that existing balance. In a period of about four years about 11% of Norquay’s mass-rezoned 1,912 properties have been redeveloped. This change usually amounts to eliminating the oldest and most affordable housing stock and replacing it with the newest and least affordable.



Not coincidentally, both of these two local areas — Marpole and Norquay — were subjected to planning for mass rezonings during the past decade. Real estate interests have viewed both neighborhoods as de facto “brownfields” ripe for harvesting profits in, since easy build-out opportunities on former industrial lands are ceasing to exist.

Problems, Problems

A good candidate for Vancouver’s top problem is 2,138 people who have no home. That specific number has to be a lowball figure. As veteran housing activist Jean Swanson has put it:



So far, TMH has amounted to an intermittent and stopgap approach to attempting to provide even a temporary solution to this major problem. The TMH initiative fumbled big-time at its very inception. On 13 December 2016, City of Vancouver yanked the four specific proposed sites off the table at the last minute via a “yellow memo.” [8] Council went on to approve the new policy, but as policy suddenly left with no ground to stand on.

A time very close to Christmas can be a good time to minimize the scrutiny that increases embarrassment. The coincidence here is striking. It will be one year to the very day that City of Vancouver staff will be bringing their “Community Information Session” on TMH at 4410 Kaslo to Norquay and to other area residents.



No wonder the City of Vancouver web site for TMH fails to link to the backstory information that would permit easy discovery of previous fails. A month later, on 31 January 2017 the City of Vancouver fired Mukhtar Latif, “chief housing officer and CEO of the Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency.” Upper echelon bureaucrat Latif had spent well over three years in delivering nothing but a snafu. [9]

During another year of bumbling onward, what more has the City of Vancouver produced? One demonstration project of 40 units located at 220 Terminal Avenue, and one massive blowback situation in Marpole.


Any genuine solution must start by incorporating solid input from persons directly affected by homelessness, and from persons who have the trust of homeless people and are intimately connected with their circumstances on an ongoing basis. This by definition excludes City of Vancouver staff.

Distrust starts at the top. Recent Vancouver homeless history provides a singular instance of a meeting where Mayor Gregor Robertson personally signed a pledge that the City of Vancouver would provide “100% welfare/pension rate community-controlled social housing at 58 West Hastings.” [10]



At about the same time, the preceding decade of history for that especially contentious and historic site was written up. [11] What has happened in the year since? Gregor Robertson has once again added to his personal dishonor by reneging on this public pledge. [12]

Any genuine solution must amount to something more than portable SROs shoved randomly and opportunistically into sometimes hostile environments, with City of Vancouver officials like Mayor Gregor Robertson occasionally showing up to finger-wag at local residents about how they should play nice.

Homelessness is a major problem that has to be owned up to honestly by every resident of Vancouver. Appropriate funding must be allocated to the situation. The City of Vancouver can always find money for what it really wants to do. Big money fast, like the untold hundreds of millions to bail out the Malek developers of Olympic Village. [13] Big money fast, like $55 million to buy the Arbutus strip of land from Canadian Pacific. [14] The City of Vancouver has to stop crying poor whenever it comes to spending money to house the poor.

Through recently completed planning, Norquay is already slated to provide 100 units of non-market housing at the 2400 Motel site on Kingsway. This is land that the City of Vancouver already owns. Eye on Norquay has specifically brought this matter to the attention of senior planning officials, both in person and through formal correspondence on 19 June 2017. All Norquay residents deserve an explanation as to why the sudden makeshift measures of TMH should take priority over the results of an extensive formal planning process that concluded seven years ago.

Who would want 50 temporary portable SRO units when they could have 100 permanent purpose-built dwelling units? This is a matter of logic. The emotionalism of finger-pointing and name-calling that the City of Vancouver directs at singled-out poorer neighborhoods needs to stop now. Misdirection is a shameful substitute for considered and transparent planning.

[1]  Two revealing quotations:

“If the Olympic bid wasn’t happening we would have to invent something.”  — Jack Poole, Vancouver real estate developer and VANOC chair
Frank O’Brien. Western perspective: Taxpayers reluctant skeleton in 2010 bid. Western Investor (June 2002) A6

“Nobody wants to admit it, but Vancouver has become a resort city where rich foreigners live a few months per year … It’s a $6-billion ad buy [with the Olympics]. There’s never been anything like it. It will change Vancouver, forever.”  — Bob Rennie, Vancouver condominium marketer
Miro Cernetig. The views from on high are nice, but not many can afford them. Vancouver Sun (25 Jan 2010) A1

[2]  Cheryl Chan. Vancouver wants more modular housing built to help homeless. Vancouver Sun (26 July 2017)
Vancouver wants more modular housing built to help homeless

[3]  Council Report: Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575 – Amendment to the General Regulations to Delegate Discretionary Relaxation Powers to Expedite the Delivery of Low Cost Housing for Persons Receiving Assistance (26 July 2017)

[4]  Council Report: Community Plans: Next Steps (25 Sept 2013)

[5]  Sustainable Community Assessment for Southeast False Creek (28 Jan 2005)

[6]  J. David Hulchanski. What is Happening to My Neighbourhood? The Socio-Spatial Restructuring of Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal 1970 to 2015 (Dec 2017)

[7]  Council Agenda: Item 2. Temporary Modular Housing Definition And Regulations: Proposed Amendments To Existing City-Owned Cd-1 Sites, And Design Guidelines (13 Dec 2016)
Includes: Policy Report, Staff Presentation, Summary and Recommendation, and Memorandum

[8]  Matt Kieltyka. Vancouver’s chief housing officer Mukhtar Latif fired. Vancouver Metro (31 Jan 2017)

[9]  Stefania Seccia. West Hastings ‘tent city’ could be around for years. Megaphone Magazine/Tyee (4 Aug 2016)

[10]  Kai Rajala / Nathan Crompton. Battle of 58 West Hastings: The History of a Fight for Housing, 2007–Present. Mainlander (27 July 2016)

[11]  City screws DTES again: 58 W Hastings Protest & news conference (24 Oct 2017)

[12]  Bob Mackin. City stands firm on Olympic Village loss. Vancouver Courier (21 Oct 2011) 19

[13]  Frances Bula. Vancouver acquires Arbutus rail corridor from CP for $55-million. Globe and Mail (7 Mar 2016)

Written by eyeonnorquay

12 December 2017 at 4:31 pm

Vancouver TMH Sites

Comparative Site Information for
Temporary Modular Housing for Homeless

Eye on Norquay will continue to update this listing of sites.
Information resource established 19 Dec 2017.  Last updated: 12 April 2018

Beginning with 5 April 2018 open house for 155 East 37th Avenue, City of Vancouver has started
providing some of the comparative information presented here — but without mapping.
See Panel 9 Temporary Modular Housing Projects in Progress.
See also  Information Resources on Temporary Modular Housing for Homeless in Vancouver

      Site Map for TMH Keyed to Descriptions Below


Zoning from VanMap

CIS = Community Information Session(s)

  Sequence No:  1
         Site:  220 Terminal Avenue
 News release:  28 Sept 2016  [ Notification: 7 October 2016]
 News release:  16 February 2017
     Operator:  [publicly unnamed]  …  City of Vancouver. Nonmarket Housing Dept.
                Wendy Stueck obtains info on 18 Jan 2018
       Zoning:  FC-2
Displaced Use:  Solefoods Ltd
Configuration:  40 units in one building
Standard Unit:  250 sq ft
     CIS Date:  [Demonstration project]
      DP Date:
      Opened :  16 February 2017

  Sequence No:  2
         Site:  650 West 57th Avenue (Marpole) / 7430-7460 Heather Street
 News release:  26 October 2017
     Operator:  Community Builders Group
       Zoning:  RT-2
Displaced Use:  Not Known
Configuration:  78 units in two 39-unit buildings
Standard Unit:  250 sq ft
     CIS Date:  2 & 6 November 2017
      DP Date:  27 November 2017
      Opened :  February/March 2018

  Sequence No:  3 [with 4]
         Site:  1115-1131-1141 Franklin Street
 News release:  8 November 2017
     Operator:  PHS Community Services Society
       Zoning:  M-2 [Industrial to General Urban on 6 Dec 2017]
Displaced Use:  Sugar Mountain Tent City
Configuration:  39 units in one building
Standard Unit:  250 sq ft
     CIS Date:  7 December 2017
      DP Date:  1 February 2018

  Sequence No:  4 [with 3]
         Site:  501 Powell Street
 News release:  8 November 2017
     Operator:  Atira Women's Resource Society
       Zoning:  DEOD
Displaced Use:  Community farm & street market
Configuration:  39 units in one building
Standard Unit:  250 sq ft
     CIS Date:  7 December 2017
      DP Date:  5 March 2018

  Sequence No:  5
         Site:  4480 Kaslo Street (Norquay)  [formerly designated as 4410 Kaslo]
 News release:  1 December 2017
     Operator:  Atira Women's Resource Society
       Zoning:  CD-1
Displaced Use:  Community garden
Configuration:  52 units in one building
Standard Unit:  320 sq ft
     CIS Date:  13 & 14 December 2017
      DP Date:  13 March 2018
       Opened:  [anticipate early July 2018]

  Sequence No:  6
         Site:  595-599 West 2nd Avenue  [VanMap shows only 525/599]
 News release:  5 January 2018
     Operator:  PHS Community Services Society
       Zoning:  FCCDD
Displaced Use:  Parking lot
Configuration:  52 units in one building
Standard Unit:  320 sq ft
     CIS Date:  30 January 2018
      DP Date:  9 April 2018

  Sequence No:  7
         Site:  155 East 37th Avenue
 News release:  14 March 2018
     Operator:  Coast Mental Health
       Zoning:  unzoned
Displaced Use:  Holborn's undeveloped empty land that used to provide social housing
Configuration:  [about 50 units]
     CIS Date: 
      DP Date:  


Written by eyeonnorquay

9 December 2017 at 11:57 am

TMH Information Resources

Information Resources on
Temporary Modular Housing for
Homeless in Vancouver

Eye on Norquay will continue to add to the selection of citations listed below.
Ordering is reverse chronological, with newest at top.
Resource established 9 December 2017.  Last updated: 19 March 2018

See also  Vancouver TMH Sites

City of Vancouver Web Site for Temporary Modular Housing  (ongoing)

Note: Drop-down menus provide information for specific sites. Specific site information provided there is not reproduced below. From 14 December 2017 to 3/4 January 2018 City of Vancouver failed to provide information for the Kaslo / 29th Avenue SkyTrain site, in spite of repeated requests made by more than one person through multiple channels, starting with Eye on Norquay email sent at 10:34 pm on 14 December 2017.

Other City of Vancouver Materials

Kaslo / 29th Avenue SkyTrain Site

Vancouver Mayor’s Office. Temporary modular housing approved for Kaslo Street (13 Mar 2018)

Draft Operations Management Plan, 4410 Kaslo Street, Vancouver — Rapid Response to Homelessness, Temporary Modular Housing  /  Atira Women’s Resource Society  (13-14 Dec 2017)
[scanned pdf of six-page document provided at Community Information Sessions]

City of Vancouver News: 4410 Kaslo Street planned as next site for temporary modular housing  (1 Dec 2017)

Norquay School News — Advertisement  (December 2017)

Marpole Site

Caring Citizens of Vancouver Society v. Vancouver (City), 2018 BCSC 72  (17 Jan 2018)

Five Community Advisory Committee documents of 12 January 2018 with deadline to apply of 19 January 2018
Invitation Letter  /  Terms of Reference (English)  /  Terms of Reference (Chinese)  / 
Application Form (English)  /  Application form (Chinese)

Temporary Modular Housing

Council Agenda: Item 7. TEXT AMENDMENTS: Amendments to Official Development Plans to Add Temporary Modular Housing as a Permitted Use  (6 Dec 2017)
Council Agenda: Item 8. TEXT AMENDMENT: Amendments to the Regional Context Statement Official Development Plan By-law To Facilitate the Development of Temporary Modular Housing  (6 Dec 2017)

Council Report: Amendments to Official Development Plans to Add Temporary Modular Housing as a Permitted Use  (14 Nov 2017)

Council Report: Temporary Modular Housing Contract Approval  (4 Oct 2017)

Council Agenda: Item 2. Temporary Modular Housing Definition And Regulations: Proposed Amendments To Existing City-Owned Cd-1 Sites, And Design Guidelines  (13 Dec 2016)
Includes: Policy Report, Staff Presentation, Summary and Recommendation, and Memorandum

Council Presentation: Modular Housing Initiative – Update to Council  (17 May 2016)

Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency

Council Report: Proposed Amendment to Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency Ltd. (VAHA) Governance Structure  (28 Nov 2017)

Council Presentation: Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency – Update to Council  (31 May 2016)

Council Presentation: Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency Progress Report  (10 June 2015)

Council Agenda: Item 2. Creation of Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency  (8 July 2014)
Includes: Administrative Report, Staff Presentation

In Camera Administrative Report: Creation of Housing Authority  (10 June 2014)


News Release: 39 units of temporary modular housing approved for Powell Street. Vancouver Mayor’s Office  (6 Mar 2018)

Council Agenda: Item 1. Housing Vancouver Strategy (2018 – 2027) and 3-Year Action Plan (2018 – 2020)  (28 Nov 2017)
Includes: Policy Report, Staff Presentation

Council Agenda: Item 2. TEXT AMENDMENT: Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575 – Amendment to the General Regulations to Delegate Discretionary Relaxation Powers to Expedite the Delivery of Low Cost Housing for Persons Receiving Assistance  (19 Sept 2017)
Includes: Summary and Recommendation, Policy Report, Draft By-law, Memorandum, Staff Presentation

Council Report: Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575 – Amendment to the General Regulations to Delegate Discretionary Relaxation Powers to Expedite the Delivery of Low Cost Housing for Persons Receiving Assistance  (26 July 2017)

Council Presentation: Presentation – Housing Vancouver Update – Part II – Addressing Vancouver’s Lower Income and Homeless Residents  (26 July 2017)

Council Presentation: Housing Vancouver Update Presentation to City Council  (25 July 2017)

Memorandum: Staffing Update – Housing Policy Group to move to Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability  (30 Mar 2017)

Council Agenda: Item 1. Vancouver Housing and Homelessness Strategy Reset – Housing Vancouver Emerging Directions  (28 Mar 2017)
Includes: Administrative Report, Staff Presentation

Council Agenda: Item 1. 2015 Housing and Homelessness Strategy Report Card: Part Two  (31 May 2016)
Includes: Administrative Report, Staff Presentation

Council Agenda: Item 2. 2015 Housing and Homelessness Strategy Report Card – Part 1  (17 May 2016)
Includes: Administrative Report, Staff Presentation

News:  Kaslo / 29th Avenue SkyTrain Site

Penny Daflos / Kendra Mangione. Security present at meeting on homeless housing.
CTV News Vancouver (14 Dec 2017)

Saša Lakić. Collingwood residents want more info on modular housing. Vancouver Courier (14 Dec 2017)

Nadia Stewart. Kaslo modular housing fight (video). Global News (8 Dec 2017)

Charlie Smith. City and B.C. Housing to host open houses before creating modular housing on Powell, Franklin, and Kaslo streets. Georgia Straight (3 Dec 2017)

Mike Howell. City identifies another site for homeless housing in Vancouver. Vancouver Courier (1 Dec 2017)

News:  Marpole Site

Adrienne Tanner. Vancouver learns some hard lessons after housing fight. Globe and Mail (18 Mar 2018)

Melanie Green. Marpole ‘a food desert’ warn members of Vancouver neighbourhood. Vancouver Metro (7 Mar 2018)

Briar Stewart. Handful of homeless Vancouverites turn down housing because of neighbourhood protests. CBC News (6 Mar 2018)

Nick Eagland. City secrecy on tenant mix at Marpole modular housing alarms community group. Vancouver Sun (2 Mar 2018)

Stanley Q. Woodvine. Homeless in Vancouver: Glenn and Shaun get kicked out of Marpole modular housing before they even move in. Georgia Straight (24 Feb 2018)

Nick Eagland. Vancouver unveils Marpole temporary modular housing. Vancouver Sun (10 Feb 2018)

Mike Howell. Church looks to welcome homeless to Marpole housing site. Vancouver Courier (22 Jan 2018)

Jen St. Denis. Lawsuit to halt homeless housing in Marpole dismissed. Vancouver Metro (18 Jan 2018)

Mike Howell. Marpole homeless housing taking shape. Vancouver Courier (15 Jan 2018)

Melody Ma. The missing story of the Marpole Temporary Modular Housing protest. (28 Dec 2017)

Xiao Xu. Vancouver residents push back against modular-housing development for homeless. Globe and Mail (26 Dec 2017)

Jessica Kerr. Marpole residents ask for judicial review of modular housing. Vancouver Courier (8 Dec 2017)

Ashifa Kassam. Vancouver protesters ordered to stop blocking homeless housing project. Guardian (6 Dec 2017)

Ana Rose Walkey. B.C. Supreme Court orders end to Vancouver modular-housing protest. Globe and Mail (5 Dec 2017)

Mike Howell. Marpole housing complex for homeless to open in February. Vancouver Courier (28 Nov 2017)

Dan Fumano / Patrick Johnston. Marpole modular housing permit receives conditional approval. Vancouver Sun (27 Nov 2017)

Travis Lupick. Modular housing for low-income residents approved for Marpole despite neighbourhood opposition. Georgia Straight (27 Nov 2017)

Jen St. Denis. Marpole students speak up in support of housing for homeless. Vancouver Metro (15 Nov 2017)

Jen St. Denis. A call for compassion in Marpole, where housing for homeless is planned. Vancouver Metro (8 Nov 2017)

Mike Hager. Disputed Vancouver project to house homeless will proceed, mayor says. Globe and Mail (6 Nov 2017)

Jen St. Denis. Marpole site chosen for Vancouver’s second modular housing. Vancouver Metro (26 Oct 2017)

News:  General and Other

Simon Little. 9 years after Little Mountain social housing demolished, modular housing to rise on nearly empty site. Global News (14 Mar 2018)

Daisy Xiong. Feature: Brighouse residents rally against proposed homeless housing. Richmond News (9 Mar 2018)

Graeme Wood: Richmond realtors petition against homeless housing, says advocate. Richmond News (2 Mar 2018)

Graeme Wood. Eyewitness: Richmond librarian assaulted with ‘flying Bruce Lee kick’ at homeless housing meeting. Richmond News (28 Feb 2018)

Emelie Peacock. Vancouver housing society expanding to Fraser Valley. Agassiz-Harrison Observer (1 Feb 2018)

Anna Dimoff. Metro Vancouver residents demand transparency over modular housing tenants they fear could pose a risk. CBC News BC (5 Feb 2018)

Wendy Stueck. Key Vancouver social housing project averaged only two police calls per month. Globe and Mail (16 Jan 2018)

Mike Howell. Six months later, no housing for homeless. Vancouver Courier (9 Jan 2018)

Wanyee Li. Vancouver proposes modular housing near Olympic Village area. Vancouver Metro (7 Jan 2018)

Saša Lakić. Modular housing projects provide ‘a place to call home.’ Vancouver Courier (8 Dec 2017)

Charlie Smith. City and B.C. Housing to host open houses before creating modular housing on Powell, Franklin, and Kaslo streets. Georgia Straight (3 Dec 2017)

Dan Fumano. With more modular housing coming, city looks to learn from Marpole backlash. Vancouver Sun (14 Nov 2017)

Jean Swanson. Tax the rich with a Mansion Tax. Georgia Straight (6 Oct 2017)

Stephanie Ip. Vancouver city council awards contract to build 600 modular homes. Vancouver Sun (5 Oct 2017)

Jen St. Denis. Vancouver to announce homeless modular housing sites soon. Vancouver Metro (4 Oct 2017)

Jesse Ferreras / Nadia Stewart. 40 modular housing units. 600 more coming. Still not enough for Vancouver’s homeless: critics. Global News (20 Sept 2017)

Cheryl Chan. Vancouver wants more modular housing built to help homeless. Vancouver Sun (26 July 2017)

Carlito Pablo. City of Vancouver aims for more temporary modular housing to take in poor people. Georgia Straight (26 July 2017)

Katie Hyslop. ‘Modular’ one-person homes fill a need in Vancouver. Tyee (17 Feb 2017)

Jen St. Denis. Vancouver’s modular housing not as inexpensive as it seems, argues real estate broker. Vancouver Metro (9 Jan 2017)

Jean Swanson. Unpacking government claims about homelessness. Georgia Straight (20 June 2016)

News:  Poor Doors

Jen St. Denis. City planners to review separate entrances for social housing units. Vancouver Metro (4 Dec 2017)

Jon Azpiri. ‘Poor doors’ and ‘poor playgrounds’: Vancouver development criticized for divisions between condos, social housing. Global News (27 Nov 2017)

Jen St. Denis. West End condo would not only have “poor door,” but poor playground. Vancouver Metro (23 Nov 2017)

Naibh O’Connor. Vancouver housing activist slams ‘poor doors.’ Vancouver Courier (6 May 2015)

Andrea Woo. Vancouver developer accused of using ‘poor door’ for low-income residents. Globe and Mail (5 May 2015)

Written by eyeonnorquay

9 December 2017 at 11:55 am