[Halifax] MR Apartments (5665 Roberts) | 24 m | 8 fl | Completed
This proposal has been mentioned previously but it is now official. W.M. Fares Group has submitted an application for 2480 Maynard Street. The plan as detailed in the link below is to construct a 7-storey plus penthouse mixed-use building along Roberts and Maynard Streets. There will be 70 unts ranging from bachelor to live/work to 2 bdr+den penthouses. 3'000sq ft of commercial space along Roberts and two levels of parking accessed off of Maynard. The automotive repair shop at the corner will not be included in this project.
Case 19353 Initiation Report ************************* IMO this project will blend in well with the neighbourhood while removing one of many blights on that block. 8 storey is the tallest in the immediate area however it will have minimal negative impacts and its location in the middle of a growing area on a moderately busy street calls for high density like this proposal. |
Looks nice. Among the better ones planned for the area.
It'll be a strange clash, though, when this is finished and that Autopro is still occupying the corner, nestled right into the new building. At least Fares is planning on the eventual redevelopment of that site with a townhouse. |
Quote:
The whole block would have been well served if HRM had purchased the cabinet shop, the crappy auto and sign properties and the corner piece which was in poor condition until a new auto repair outlet took the place of the previous run down operation. A lot of the dross from Roberts to Charles could have been cleared out, cleaned up and then put out for proposals with a requirement for a development/s with a component of affordable housing for low income citizens. Savage and his colleagues need to get serious about providing housing for people who presently rent private near-slums. |
Quote:
I am glad to see private developers continuing to redevelop derelict areas of the North End. I imagine that long time residents are benefiting from a more pleasant streetscape. Luckily the concept of providing publicly subsidized housing in the North End is generally an idea from the distant past. |
Quote:
But then again, the Yanks have always been greater innovators than Canadians. |
Quote:
Are there not buildings in Halifax with provisions for low-cost housing? Did I dream this? Seems to me there's a large part of a thread on this site about that very topic. |
Maynard is going to look a lot different in 5 years! Exciting times in the North End.
|
Quote:
I'm not sure if this applies outside of the HRMbD area yet, but I think the intent is that eventually it will. |
So last Proposal for the year, I was wondering what it would be though I thought this one was already ago. I wonder if this the last one for this section for quite some time, it would be been nice if a similar development was put forward for the cyclesmith/NLC building, I find its odd they chose to build a one story box for that project
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
My comment was a reference to certain cities in the US which require any development to provide a percentage of units for lower income persons. The developer doesn't pick the units and doesn't pick the tenant/s - a seperate agency makes such decisions. In a condo the owners of units would't know which units were occupied by low income persons. It was suggested to me, by a representative of a developer, that such a provision in HRM would be acceptable if it applied to all developments. HRM has chosen to ignore such a provision and prefers to barter for the ill defined ' public benefit'. At City Hall 'Be Bold' is regarded as a slogan, not a call to action. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also worth noting that housing is technically a provincial responsibility. The province has recently launched a number of programs to support low-income households and the landlords of buildings requiring extensive repairs so that they do not have to (/cannot) raise rents to pay for the repairs. |
Quote:
There is no rationale for "affordable" housing units on SGR, Young Avenue, or any number of other high-end areas. Those occupants would stick out like sore thumbs and significantly devalue the saleability of the other units in the development. Perhaps we should do "poor doors" as has been done in NYC and other areas where property values are through the roof to keep the affordable units and their occupants well-separated from those paying market price. |
Quote:
I do think the idea of mixing people of different incomes does make some sense, but you also get more bang for your buck building affordable housing in areas with lower property values. Even the units developers are forced to build are not "free" -- affordable housing units cost developers more in the higher-end neighbourhoods and that income can be redirected into affordable housing. |
Quote:
September 2012 : Recommend that the Development Officer accept, as the post-bonus height public benefit for the development, the provision of residential units at a subsidized cost to contribute to housing affordability. July 2013 : Recommend that the Development Officer accept, as the post-bonus height public benefit for the development, the provision of public parking facilities. : " The proposal from the developer to provide an additional 71 spaces over the two sites far exceeds the LUB’s minimum public benefit requirement which would account for a total of between 5 and 7 spaces. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Regional Council adopt, by resolution, the bonus zoning agreement as provided in “Attachment A” of this report for the mixed-used development bounded by Queen, Clyde and Birmingham Streets in Halifax. " http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0730ca1016.pdf Businesses on SGR wanted the parking spaces. From the July 30 2013 Council minutes : " Cllr Mason ....He advised that the developer will maintain the commitment under the terms of sale, that there will be a percentage of housing that will be below market cost. He clarified that since there is no provincial program that would provide subsidy support to low income housing on the site, there was a need to find an alternative to allow the bonus zoning. In response to a question from Councillor McCluskey, Mr. Audas advised that there would be approximately 10 units of affordable housing in the development. " The documents do not appear to contain a promise to provide such units. Perhaps Cllr. Mason can provide a more complete answer. The letter from Fares contains no mention of any 'public benefit' other than parking. |
Quote:
I think density bonusing for affordable housing is a good idea, but it seems unlikely that it will make a substantial contribution to affordability in Halifax. I'm not convinced that compelling developers to include affordable units would be the best approach either. We're not Vancouver. The scale of development is obviously a lot smaller here and the profits earned are less as well. Really, I think the city and province need to get back into actually creating affordable housing. Take the development of the old Sobeys site on Gottingen. That's been in the works for years now and, my understanding, is project financing has been one of the hurdles. What if there had been a city fund to help? What if it had planning priority? If the city had a revolving fund to loan money to non-profits who want to build housing and prioritized affordable projects in the planning queue, that would likely do a lot more than density bonusing or trying to force developers into building units. Just my two cents anyway. |
Isn't the Jono St. Pats-Alexandra development 10 or 15% aforable houseing as part of their deal
|
Quote:
Housing NS is responsible for purchasing land and building/subsidizing affordable housing. Halifax does planning, so you see things like Bloomfield Master Plan that required a large affordable housing component. |
Quote:
We don't know how profitable the development industry has been. We don't know if they pay federal income tax, which is quite legal, but until HRM gets serious about negotiating we will never know just how profitable they are and how much we can extract in the way of benefits. A bit late now - the market is terrible, maybe more developers will have to use a subsidiary to buy up and mortgage their unsold units. When I worked for the province I read several years of an annual report before sitting down with an oil company, rig company, supply vessel company representative. The Yanks were fine, the Canadians were much more arrogant. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.