Quote:
Originally Posted by hamilton23
It depends on your views.
For decades, Hamilton residents complained about the lack of high-end residential projects in Downtown Hamilton. Those people lived on the Mountain, Stoney Creek, Ancaster, Dundas, etc and only came down if they worked Downtown or if they had to for any other reason. Otherwise, those people avoided Downtown completely.
Then you have the people who live in the rest of the GTA who immediately cringe when you tell them you're from Hamilton.
It's a stigma that has existed for decades and it still exists presently.
This is an example of a development that contributes to changing that stigma for the better. It also symbolizes the growth of our city.
Does there have to be more affordable and city housing? 110%. I see both sides of the argument, but I also love seeing neighborhoods that used to be in shambles slowly get resurrected and start to look appealing again or even for the first time.
It's a double-edged sword. I do think the City is thinking about affordable housing and they're making efforts to get more built. I also think they realize that we have only scratched the surface in terms of breaking the negative stigma some have of Hamilton still and are encouraging more developments like this to be constructed as well.
|
I agree, it depends on how you view things (and, honestly, your opinion on markets in general).
Let's take the "Housing for people, not for profit". My view is that these aren't mutually exclusive. Ultimately, developers only make a profit if the units are bought (or rented). Developers aren't holding units hostage to drive up prices, it's in their economic interest that they sell as many units as possible, rather than keep them as an empty liability. Of course, there are people with purist views that all housing should be built by the government because then there would be no profit motive, but I don't subscribe to that outlook.
On the "your profit, our trauma" poster, this development isn't really inflicting trauma unless you're an anti-market-development hardliner. Half of the site was a decrepit house and half of it was an empty lot. Who exactly is suffering here? Of course, if this development was replacing an older apartment complex, for example, there would be more of a case to be made that the development is causing problems for those renters. Ultimately, though, increasing the housing supply is the most basic, necessary policy to protect and enhance affordability.
And on "end the war on the poor", I mean, it depends on how you view things politically, and your opinion on whether development helps or hurts the poor. I certainly believe we can do things to improve life for poorer Hamiltonians, but the evidence shows that new housing and increased supply helps everyone! Stopping development, implementing inclusionary zoning, extracting "community benefits", etc. will not help end the war on the poor, in my personal view.
A healthy housing supply is key to building an economic system that gives everyone, even the most disadvantaged, a chance to get ahead. Part of that solution is ensuring the poorest and worst-off have access to things like affordable housing, and that demand should be met, in my personal opinion, by supply neutral inclusionary zoning which mixes income levels but does not increase the cost of market housing, which is terrible policy for long-term affordability.
Prev
Hybrid Mode