Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
As a wise commenter on that story noted, the entire Cogswell project was sold to Council by Mason and his like-minded friends on the basis that selling off the lands for development would generate the funds required to build the downtown nirvana of bike lanes, roundabouts and parks because the property was so valuable. Building subsidized housing and a bigger Turning Point shelter there would not only devalue the properties significantly but also require tax dollars tossed into the pot to make happen, thereby destroying any business case for this.
|
It is presented a bit confusingly but I think the Turning Point site would be farther north along Barrington, not on the Cogswell lands.
Affordable housing can still be money-generating if density is permitted (and is not necessarily the same thing as a shelter). If you put 300 units on a $15M parcel the per unit land cost is a reasonable $50,000. If you demand that the parcel have a NIMBY-pleasing 30-unit lowrise, the land cost is $500,000 per unit which works out to million-plus eventual unit prices. Or alternatively the land must be sold for much less to achieve the same cost structure.
Also note that if HRM put in better transit infrastructure around there (like an underground bus loop) they'd be able to partly recoup the increased land values (or even just sell more land as less surface space would be used). That's on top of construction being cheaper when the whole area is torn up.
Prev
Linear Mode
