[Halifax] Navy Lane Condos (2183 Gottingen) | 24 m | 8 fl | U/C

[curnhalio]

Community council approves affordable housing development for Gottingen Street

By: Ruth Davenport MetroNews June 17, 2014

Members of the Halifax-West community council gave unanimous approval Tuesday to a pair of mixed-use buildings planned for Gottingen Street, saying the project’s focus on affordable housing had to trump real concerns about height and density.

http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/1069523...ousing-development-for-gottingen-street/


Just nitpicky on my part, but the developments don't "rise" to eight and 11 storeys on Maitland St. And again, more comments about height. I'm now formally convinced that this is just a Pavlov's dog sort of thing in heightophobes. New development gets announced that is 5+ stories *bell rings* IT'S TOO TALL!!!

I'm excited to see the southern end of Gottingen St becoming more vibrant. There will be even more businesses and shops open in a few years in advance of these being built, and when they're complete Gottingen St from the library down to Cogswell will be remarkably different than it is today.

[Keith P.]

Not if they're just repackaging public housing in these things under the guise of "affordable". Nothing will change except the boxes the same people live in.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not if they're just repackaging public housing in these things under the guise of "affordable". Nothing will change except the boxes the same people live in.

The province has big plans for more public housing on Gottingen.

[JET]

Interesting that 'public' housing has such a negative connotation; are we not the public?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Interesting that 'public' housing has such a negative connotation; are we not the public?

"Public" as in "publicly owned", existing to house those that the public deems unable to house themselves adequately.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

"Public" as in "publicly owned", existing to house those that the public deems unable to house themselves adequately.

and isn't it sad that things come to that, interesting that the folks that were in Africville were fairly contented there, but those who knew best decided to tear it all down and build public housing, ain't progress wonderful

[Keith P.]

Africville was a disgrace and needed to be removed. I don't intend to get into that debate here, but I saw it and even as a child I knew it was appalling. A prime example of those unable to house themselves adequately. Many, perhaps most, couldn't wait to get out of there and move to Mulgrave Park. As usual, there were a few malcontents who didn't want to go. It is their story that led to the revisionist history we were suckered into.

[JET]

Many communities in Nova Scotia had and have places where people live in appalling conditions; I knew places near my family home where people had dirt floors, and no running water. That it happened and is happening is appalling. I've read the book Africville by Don Clairmont from Dal, and took his course. It is not revisionist history, it just history, facts are facts, what happened to the community was appalling.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Many communities in Nova Scotia had and have places where people live in appalling conditions; I knew places near my family home where people had dirt floors, and no running water. That it happened and is happening is appalling. I've read the book Africville by Don Clairmont from Dal, and took his course. It is not revisionist history, it just history, facts are facts, what happened to the community was appalling.

My point exactly. Clairmont's history is not reality. It is his slant on what happened. Facts are secondary.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

My point exactly. Clairmont's history is not reality. It is his slant on what happened. Facts are secondary.

Keith, just checking, but have you read the book? I'm just trying to figure out how quotes can be interpreted as 'slants'; there are replicated documents from Halifax City about what transpired. How can that be seen as secondary and not factual?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Keith, just checking, but have you read the book? I'm just trying to figure out how quotes can be interpreted as 'slants'; there are replicated documents from Halifax City about what transpired. How can that be seen as secondary and not factual?

If we are talking about the same book - "The Spirit of Africville" by Clairmont, Saunders and the Africville Genealogical Society, a.k.a. Irv Carvery - it is a hugely romanticized, largely fictional tale of what the place was supposed to be like. One of the few useful facts is that Pa Carvery was the last holdout to accept the city offer and that his house was removed a few days later. That left young Irv Carvery bitter and he never gave it up. But even considering it was published 25 years ago the book foretold what his real objective was. From the book:

There is still some organization by Africvilleans and the last line has not been written as far as the land usage is concerned. The negative stereotype of Africville has been laid to rest and the initial City and media claims of a progressive relocation have been debunked.

That, written in 1989, laid out Irv's intentions.

Also, this is hardly the kind of "factual" statement one expects to find in a history book:

Africville lives as an indictment against racism, as a critique of imposed, technocratic approaches to social change, and as a celebration of community and the human spirit. Forty-one years ago, the local newspaper proclaimed, "Soon, Africville will be but a name. And in the not too distant future that too, mercifully, will be forgotten." It hasn't been. It shouldn't be. It won't be.

Hardly an objective text of history. But Irv's threats eventually came true. The book was published with taxpayer dollars, the unused park was built with taxpayer dollars, the unused church was built with taxpayer dollars, and the appeasement payments were made with taxpayer dollars. That is the real shame.

[Waye Mason]

NS Housing Trust has approval for what is called mixed market housing, which is 50% market rate and 50% below market rate. The subsidy on the below market comes from the market rate units (NSHT is not for profit so plows that back into the operation) and from the $25,000 per unit subsidy on construction paid by the province. The final bit of subsidy is that NS Housing Agency is providing the mortgage at the provincial borrowing rate or slightly above, which saves NSHT as the developer a ton of interest.

This mixed market model has been used for years all of the United States and in big cities in Canada. It is not social housing, where the state runs the housing and charges a percentage of income, it is work force housing, designed so that someone with a job that pays 12-16 bucks an hour has somewhere to live in the core. You don't want to have a city where everyone who works in a coffee shop or whatever takes a bus in from Cole Harbour. Mixed income developments are important.

I believe this has all been explained before, I wish some folks on here would stop calling this public housing, it really is just trolling for response to keep mis-stating the facts like that.

[Dmajackson]

^Thank you Councillor Mason for clarifying the facts. I also agree with the comments you made at the public hearing regarding the need for the province to re-examine the $25'000. Saying that amount works across the province is like saying the poverty wage is the same in Halifax and Calgary.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

NS Housing Trust has approval for what is called mixed market housing, which is 50% market rate and 50% below market rate. The subsidy on the below market comes from the market rate units (NSHT is not for profit so plows that back into the operation) and from the $25,000 per unit subsidy on construction paid by the province. The final bit of subsidy is that NS Housing Agency is providing the mortgage at the provincial borrowing rate or slightly above, which saves NSHT as the developer a ton of interest.

This mixed market model has been used for years all of the United States and in big cities in Canada. It is not social housing, where the state runs the housing and charges a percentage of income, it is work force housing, designed so that someone with a job that pays 12-16 bucks an hour has somewhere to live in the core. You don't want to have a city where everyone who works in a coffee shop or whatever takes a bus in from Cole Harbour. Mixed income developments are important.

I believe this has all been explained before, I wish some folks on here would stop calling this public housing, it really is just trolling for response to keep mis-stating the facts like that.

Ah, it sounds like Dawn Marie Sloane housing. A fine model...

[W.Sobchak]

50% is way too much. A more moderated program of something in the area of 12 to 15% would be more balanced, to allow more ambiguity of the units. A policy where all new development has to put 12-15% of it's units into the housing pool, and not their worst or all one floor, low income families are still families. Penthouses not withstanding.

50% has the chance of dropping the desirability of the other 50%. Is has the potential to be one stop off of a project. Maybe I sound alarmist, but anytime it comes to public housing its best to always go at it as you would filling cracks in the concrete, you can't lump the cracks into one big crack you have to fill, the patch would be the noticeable difference, and would be the weak part of the slab. Where as when you spread your patch over all the small cracks they are hardly noticeable at all and the slab/wall/road/city, is just as strong as it was.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

50% is way too much. A more moderated program of something in the area of 12 to 15% would be more balanced, to allow more ambiguity of the units. A policy where all new development has to put 12-15% of it's units into the housing pool, and not their worst or all one floor, low income families are still families. Penthouses not withstanding.

50% has the chance of dropping the desirability of the other 50%. Is has the potential to be one stop off of a project. Maybe I sound alarmist, but anytime it comes to public housing its best to always go at it as you would filling cracks in the concrete, you can't lump the cracks into one big crack you have to fill, the patch would be the noticeable difference, and would be the weak part of the slab. Where as when you spread your patch over all the small cracks they are hardly noticeable at all and the slab/city, is just as strong as it was.

Well, it's done now. NS Housing funding was conditional on 50% and HRM approved the development. The 50% is controlled by NS Housing not HRM, HRM has no role in controlling how much is or is not subsidized.

So we will find out in short order if 50% is to much or not.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Well, it's done now. NS Housing funding was conditional on 50% and HRM approved the development. The 50% is controlled by NS Housing not HRM, HRM has no role in controlling how much is or is not subsidized.

So we will find out in short order if 50% is to much or not.

With all due respect Councillor, this answer is troubling. You approved 250 units as an experiment? A project like this would not have been approved in the South End. This was only passed because you need to support something after so many 5 and 6 storey rejections on Coburg, Windsor, etc.

Not only is it 50% non-market, it is 85% one-bedroom or less. This aspect also wouldn't fly anywhere else on the peninsula. You've now set a dangerous precedent for the area, even though everyone agrees that a detailed planning strategy is needed for this area because of the potential for rapid change.

Now you've approved a risky project, set a dangerous precedent, and discounted the Centre Plan process. Further, HRM no authority to ensure the units are subsidized. Why would this community have any trust for staff or Council when they hold future public consultation for the Centre Plan as requested only a few months ago by Watts.

This may work out. But it may also be a major screwup. Any Council would not have supported such a project anywhere but Gottingen.

[someone123]

It seems kind of unlikely that a project like this is going to seriously harm a street that already has housing projects and a bunch of empty lots. Wasn't one of these sites originally an abandoned building filled with junk?

Years of planning went into this development. The developers themselves are experienced and probably don't want it to be a disaster, and somebody somewhere will always manage to complain about the plan and claim that it is doomed to failure regardless of what it is. Halifax at this point mostly needs people to get stuff done. The developments will not be perfect but their impact will be net positive and the newer iterations will continue to improve as they have improved dramatically over the past 15 years. People complained about previous developments like Theatre Lofts or the building at the corner of Falkland Street, and those are not perfect, but the street is much better off with them than it would have been without them.

I agree that this probably wouldn't fly in the South End, but the reasons for that are not necessarily good. The homeowner lobbyists in the South End essentially want a suburban cul de sac atmosphere within walking distance of downtown. I understand why some people want this but deep South is pretty bland and boring as a result of this mentality and I think the region as a whole has suffered a bit to preserve this status quo. The South End would have far more overall utility as a medium to high density inner city neighbourhood with one or more bridges to the mainland.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

It seems kind of unlikely that a project like this is going to seriously harm a street that already has housing projects and a bunch of empty lots. Wasn't one of these sites originally an abandoned building filled with junk?

Years of planning went into this development. The developers themselves are experienced and probably don't want it to be a disaster, and somebody somewhere will always manage to complain about the plan and claim that it is doomed to failure regardless of what it is. Halifax at this point mostly needs people to get stuff done. The developments will not be perfect but their impact will be net positive and the newer iterations will continue to improve as they have improved dramatically over the past 15 years. People complained about previous developments like Theatre Lofts or the building at the corner of Falkland Street, and those are not perfect, but the street is much better off with them than it would have been without them.

I agree that this probably wouldn't fly in the South End, but the reasons for that are not necessarily good. The homeowner lobbyists in the South End essentially want a suburban cul de sac atmosphere within walking distance of downtown. I understand why some people want this but deep South is pretty bland and boring as a result of this mentality and I think the region as a whole has suffered a bit to preserve this status quo. The South End would have far more overall utility as a medium to high density inner city neighbourhood with one or more bridges to the mainland.

Hadn't seen you posting on HRM SSP threads lately, someone123. Good to have you back!

[W.Sobchak]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Well, it's done now. NS Housing funding was conditional on 50% and HRM approved the development. The 50% is controlled by NS Housing not HRM, HRM has no role in controlling how much is or is not subsidized.

So we will find out in short order if 50% is to much or not.

This answer does not satisfy me, nor make me confident it is the right direction. I feel that this is a "pass the buck" sort of answer, that makes the city look clean if this blows up in peoples faces.

However if it is provincial funding that is putting this up, well we can't really knock too hard. Its hard enough to get adiquate provincial funding.

This project still leaves me with the feeling that the low income are still being lumped into one building, as many as they can without much consideration to other projects in other parts of the world where they concentrated low income.