Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal
I don't think her fears are totally misguided. The lower-income residents in that area are definitely seeing lots of shiny new projects all around them, and the perception is that none of the shiny new projects are FOR them. To a certain extent, I'm sure they feel under siege - they probably love their home and feel a connection with their community. Higher-income residents moving in in a big rush can definitely impact the way in which the existing residents view their neighbours.
I don't know how successful the Creighton Gerrish developments were previously. Aside from some questionable exterior cladding on one of the three projects I am aware of, all three seem to be doing pretty well from my walking-past-observations. The woman interviewed suggests that the townhouse component of the developments are all still owned by the initial purchasers - sounds healthy and very neighbourly to me.
However. There's an error in her understanding as expressed in the last paragraph of the article: "It's not what the project was meant to be from the beginning." It's not the same project it was in the beginning, so it's maybe not reasonable to expect a new owner and new project to hold fast to previous plans, just because the location happens to be the same.
I understand the definition of "affordable" is fraught with political overtones and difficulty with clarity around what qualifies and what doesn't, but I DO think that some provision of affordable, family oriented (i.e. not bachelor or 1 bedroom) units is the right thing to do for the neighbourhood and the people in it.
|
Well, pretty much everything in that neighborhood would qualify as "affordable housing", WTF that is supposed to be. It may not be nice housing, but it is affordable. So this is nicer housing, still reasonably priced but perhaps not what this lady thinks is "affordable housing". I think she is way off base.
Those townhouses she points to as good examples of the genre were the ones that were subsidized by CMHC or whomever, weren't they? They're the ones that Dawn Sloane qualified for, no? Hopefully the deal included provisos that the people receiving the subsidy couldn't flip the properties for a quick profit, so maybe that's why the original owners are there.
I guess some folks would prefer the rundown parking lot stay that way for another 40 years.