[Halifax] St. Joseph's Square (5450 Kaye) | 32 m | 9 fl | Completed - Page 12

eastcoastal · #**221** Posted **Jan 12, 2015, 3:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

You may be correct. What I meant by the not increasing the density is that they are not seeking an increase to the permitted density and instead the new units will be built within the existing density requirements that were approved following public consultation. From reading the report it appears some of the extra units will come from the townhouse-style units. In the reports it is stated that these have been maintained on the exterior but on the interior are now planned to be one level units designed to meet the needs of the elderly demographic.

That's what I read as well. I think I mis-understood what you meant.

Building is essentially the same form (with some tweaking), but with more units/people within.

someone123 · #**222** Posted **Jan 27, 2015, 4:03 AM**

The developer is planning to begin construction on this one in the next month or so.

musicman · #**223** Posted **May 21, 2015, 2:53 AM**

Excavators will be on site by monday... Fencing is going up tomorow. Finally this one is moving forward.

musicman · #**224** Posted **Jun 4, 2015, 3:18 AM**

excavator and temp power are on site and the fencing is up.

OldDartmouthMark · #**225** Posted **Jun 4, 2015, 1:15 PM**

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1290971-gottingen-street-project-set-to-go

someone123 · #**226** Posted **Jun 4, 2015, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Coun. Jennifer Watts (Halifax Peninsula North) said there is some concern about accommodating families, although she said the smaller units could work for seniors.

“Some of the unit changes are actually happening in some of the townhouse units, which had originally been thought of as supporting families,” she said.

“But there are still some substantial units in the development and the smaller units could accommodate seniors looking to transition from homes.”

Some councillors seem to view themselves as small scale social engineers and attempt to micro-manage the design of units in new developments in order to attract the sort of demographics they approve of rather than whoever most wants to move into a neighbourhood. Why are younger people (non-seniors) or people without kids less deserving of housing? Why do we keep talking about seniors as a homogeneous disadvantaged group when some of them are very wealthy?

I understand why public housing projects or units might have to be tailored to demographics that aren't well-served by market-rate housing (I wonder how well some councillors actually understand what these groups are; do they advocate for the most underserved groups or for the most politically advantageous groups?), but the prevailing wisdom in some circles seems to be that the demographics of all housing needs to be vetted by councillors and whoever is closest to them or loudest in public meetings. So I guess that solves the question of why we keep hearing about seniors and the great social need for them to have an oversupply of high-end condos.

OldDartmouthMark · #**227** Posted **Jun 4, 2015, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Some councillors seem to view themselves as small scale social engineers and attempt to micro-manage the design of units in new developments in order to attract the sort of demographics they approve of rather than whoever most wants to move into a neighbourhood. Why are younger people (non-seniors) or people without kids less deserving of housing? Why do we keep talking about seniors as a homogeneous disadvantaged group when some of them are very wealthy?

I understand why public housing projects or units might have to be tailored to demographics that aren't well-served by market-rate housing (I wonder how well some councillors actually understand what these groups are; do they advocate for the most underserved groups or for the most politically advantageous groups?), but the prevailing wisdom in some circles seems to be that the demographics of all housing needs to be vetted by councillors and whoever is closest to them or loudest in public meetings. So I guess that solves the question of why we keep hearing about seniors and the great social need for them to have an oversupply of high-end condos.

Well said.

counterfactual · #**228** Posted **Jun 4, 2015, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Some councillors seem to view themselves as small scale social engineers and attempt to micro-manage the design of units in new developments in order to attract the sort of demographics they approve of rather than whoever most wants to move into a neighbourhood. Why are younger people (non-seniors) or people without kids less deserving of housing? Why do we keep talking about seniors as a homogeneous disadvantaged group when some of them are very wealthy?

I understand why public housing projects or units might have to be tailored to demographics that aren't well-served by market-rate housing (I wonder how well some councillors actually understand what these groups are; do they advocate for the most underserved groups or for the most politically advantageous groups?), but the prevailing wisdom in some circles seems to be that the demographics of all housing needs to be vetted by councillors and whoever is closest to them or loudest in public meetings. So I guess that solves the question of why we keep hearing about seniors and the great social need for them to have an oversupply of high-end condos.

Completely agree. Someone123, could you move back to Halifax and run against Watts in the next election?

Jonovision · #**229** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 4:12 PM**

Drove by yesterday and there appears to be a crane base in place.

Jstaleness · #**230** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 2:24 PM**

Finally! Still sad this was chopped a few floors. This will still be tall in the neighbourhood and should help push 15+ in the future.

worldlyhaligonian · #**231** Posted **Jul 25, 2015, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Some councillors seem to view themselves as small scale social engineers and attempt to micro-manage the design of units in new developments in order to attract the sort of demographics they approve of rather than whoever most wants to move into a neighbourhood. Why are younger people (non-seniors) or people without kids less deserving of housing? Why do we keep talking about seniors as a homogeneous disadvantaged group when some of them are very wealthy?

Apparently these people without children aren't families... seems like kids suddenly make you more important.

Yet, these people would claim to be the defenders of such groups. Tsk tsk.

ILoveHalifax · #**232** Posted **Jul 25, 2015, 7:00 PM**

Try being SINGLE, your vote does not count, your elected representatives only care about FAMILIES. There has not been a tax break for singles in my whole life.

Hali87 · #**233** Posted **Jul 25, 2015, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Apparently these people without children aren't families... seems like kids suddenly make you more important.

Yet, these people would claim to be the defenders of such groups. Tsk tsk.

Not "more important", but raising kids does present some challenges that not raising them doesn't, and I think it's fair to acknowledge this.

someone123 · #**234** Posted **Jul 25, 2015, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87

Not "more important", but raising kids does present some challenges that not raising them doesn't, and I think it's fair to acknowledge this.

So does starting a business, or adopting 500 cows, or climbing Mount Everest. I think the root difference is the idea that child rearing has a special social value (even if they're buying votes, which they are, the federal Conservatives are playing on this social dynamic that exists).

I agree with the idea somewhat but think it's hugely overblown. It's important to take care of kids, but having kids is not an altruistic activity. People have kids by accident or for selfish reasons (nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade). There is no world shortage of kids. Actually, it's the opposite. If you want to reduce your environmental footprint, the biggest thing you can do is have fewer children.

From the taking-care-of-kids angle, handing out baby bonuses to everybody makes little sense. Not all kids need taking care of. The poorest ones need the most. If the federal government really wanted to help children above all else they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. Most pro-family policies are just like this. They exist because they cater to the loudest social group and play off of emotions, not because they produce a greater social benefit.