[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | U/C

[OldDartmouthMark]

Found this (early 1970s) pic in the archives of the building that currently resides on the lot. For some reason I do not recall the large GULF sign on it...



Halifax Public Archives

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Found this (early 1970s) pic in the archives of the building that currently resides on the lot. For some reason I do not recall the large GULF sign on it...

I can recall the original sign on the building was for Gulf predecessor B/A. It would be fun to try to track down a photo of that. I expect that sign wasn't around long since the building opened in 1969, not long before B/A became Gulf Canada.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It must have been a really small window of time as the changeover happened at the first of 1969. I haven't seen a photo of that building with B/A branding but you can be sure I will post it if I find one.

http://www.britishamericanoil.ca/history16.html

[Dmajackson]

Apparently this was approved tonight by Regional Council for the 25 floor version. Concessions were made for wider sidewalk with on both Robie and Quinpool, affordable housing, and underground utilities. If the underground is not feasible the affordable housing will be doubled to 20 units for ten years at 40% of market value.

[TheGreenBastard]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Apparently this was approved tonight by Regional Council for the 25 floor version. Concessions were made for wider sidewalk with on both Robie and Quinpool, affordable housing, and underground utilities. If the underground is not feasible the affordable housing will be doubled to 20 units for ten years at 40% of market value.

What is considered affordable housing? Will I be able to rent a unit for under $1500/month? This is a great location, and I would consider moving my family. New baby on the way, 200+ KM away. I want to have a nice place for my baby to visit...when i get to see him anyway...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Glad this is settled now. I think it will be a good addition for its location.

[Querce]

I believe affordable in this case means 60% of market price

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Querce

I believe affordable in this case means 60% of market price

It's strange to force developers to offer cheaper units in brand new (often luxury) buildings. They're still going to be a lot more expensive than true affordable housing which most of the time is older units, often in less prime neighbourhoods. The real meat of the affordable housing market in Halifax is stuff like the 1950's walkups in Fairview.

Since the artificial supply of these units is much smaller than the demand there are shortages and governments are faced with the problem of picking winners and losers.

It's much worse in cities like New York where a lucky person might get a unit with a market value of $60,000 a year while another unlucky person waits for years and gets nothing. That is definitely not the best use of that $60,000!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Glad this is settled now. I think it will be a good addition for its location.

I assume this can still be appealed to the NSURB, and that it will be since there are opposition groups like the Friends of the Halifax Common. Such appeals are rarely successful but they can drag things out for years. The developers know this though and I assume they account for the delay in their development pipeline (e.g. propose a building 3 years before they might finish some other one that's already approved).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's strange to force developers to offer cheaper units in brand new (often luxury) buildings. They're still going to be a lot more expensive than true affordable housing which most of the time is older units, often in less prime neighbourhoods. The real meat of the affordable housing market in Halifax is stuff like the 1950's walkups in Fairview.

Since the artificial supply of these units is much smaller than the demand there are shortages and governments are faced with the problem of picking winners and losers.

It's much worse in cities like New York where a lucky person might get a unit with a market value of $60,000 a year while another unlucky person waits for years and gets nothing. That is definitely not the best use of that $60,000!

Isn't this all about trading off 'affordable' units for extra height?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...tree-1.4713664

The controversial development was initially proposed as 20-storey building, only to be rejected in favour of an even taller structure. The developer suggested if council allowed a 25-storey building instead, it would include 10 to 20 affordable housing units.

Affordable housing means the units would be 40 per cent less expensive for a 15-year period.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Isn't this all about trading off 'affordable' units for extra height?

Yes but instead of having the developer pay with units they could pay with dollars that could then be used more efficiently.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes but instead of having the developer pay with units they could pay with dollars that could then be used more efficiently.

I suspect that the developer will pay the extra $1.8 mil to HRM (I believe that is the number) to not have welfare cases in his luxe condo building. Imagine if he allowed it and then tried to sell the condo units nearby. It would be a real drag on sales. It seems rather bizarre that someone in such circumstances could win the lottery by getting one of these subsidized units by hook or by crook.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I suspect that the developer will pay the extra $1.8 mil to HRM (I believe that is the number) to not have welfare cases in his luxe condo building. Imagine if he allowed it and then tried to sell the condo units nearby. It would be a real drag on sales. It seems rather bizarre that someone in such circumstances could win the lottery by getting one of these subsidized units by hook or by crook.

This is horrifically elitist and completely ignorant of the realities of affordable housing, but anything to keep the gross poors out of my sight

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Franco401

This is horrifically elitist and completely ignorant of the realities of affordable housing, but anything to keep the gross poors out of my sight

I would suggest to you it is quite reflective of reality and completely consistent with how the market works.

Affordable housing is a noble goal, but mixing it in with luxury developments is foolish and unlikely to be successful long-term.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I would suggest to you it is quite reflective of reality and completely consistent with how the market works.

Affordable housing is a noble goal, but mixing it in with luxury developments is foolish and unlikely to be successful long-term.

I'm not sure the same marketing (targeting people who felt they were "edgy urbanites") would work in Halifax, but the redevelopment of the Woodward's building, in Vancouver, appeared to be successful for the market-rate units (500-ish) while including significant numbers of non-market units (200-ish) and being located on the Lower East Side. Certainly, the market is different in Vancouver, but I don't think we can treat what you've described as a universal truth.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I'm not sure the same marketing (targeting people who felt they were "edgy urbanites") would work in Halifax, but the redevelopment of the Woodward's building, in Vancouver, appeared to be successful for the market-rate units (500-ish) while including significant numbers of non-market units (200-ish) and being located on the Lower East Side. Certainly, the market is different in Vancouver, but I don't think we can treat what you've described as a universal truth.

It seems to be fairly common:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_door

Such policies raise interesting questions: do the subsidized units get the same quality of finishes and fixtures? Do occupants have access to the building amenities enjoyed by those paying multiples more per month? How are such tenants chosen?

I would much rather support a policy of requiring cash payments to a govt that will then use the proceeds to construct appropriate housing where it is needed.

[OldDartmouthMark]

So is it better to give the government money (to spend poorly and inefficiently and get involved with managing some big project that will likely be caught up in political turmoil and potential government change) or just have the developer supply units that will actually be completed within a reasonable budget and timeline?

I don't have the answers, but it seems like just giving the government money and hoping that it is used wisely is no guarantee that anything is going to be done quickly or efficiently (or cheaply).

Question 2: What do they mean by "the units would be 40 per cent less expensive for a 15-year period"?

Does that mean that the person getting the unit pays 60% of the normal pricing for a unit, or that the government pays the 60% to the landlord and the person gets to use the unit for free?

Just curious as it's not explained very well in the article.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So is it better to give the government money (to spend poorly and inefficiently and get involved with managing some big project that will likely be caught up in political turmoil and potential government change) or just have the developer supply units that will actually be completed within a reasonable budget and timeline?

Why do you assume that affordable housing projects will be large or executed badly? Small projects are regularly built all over the city.

https://housing.novascotia.ca/progra...using-projects

Here's a press release about a project in Fairview:

https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20070324001

They spent around $750,000 to subsidize the construction of 23 units that these days rent for around $700-800 a month. $750,000 is one nice condo downtown. That is why I suggest that it might be more effective to fund more of these projects with money from developers rather than setting aside units in luxury buildings.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Why do you assume that affordable housing projects will be large or executed badly?

I dunno.... Bloomfield?!

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...emains-unclear

I realize that the Bloomfield situation is perhaps more complicated than just straight up building affordable housing, but unlike you I don't have confidence that government is always the most efficient and cost-effective entity for completion of such projects. In this case there were many opportunities to make this happen but all levels of government kept dropping the ball and making bad decisions.

The other aspect of the project that you linked to does not achieve is mixing in affordable housing around other areas of the city. The Halifax press release case is in Fairview, on Main Avenue, which when I lived in the neighborhood wasn't the nicest place for several reasons.

Why not attempt to scatter affordable housing among many areas of the city, including more upscale places like this new development. Living in an urban area that is undergoing many improvements can be a very positive experience for people who have previously lived with diminished hope, and can help them feel more like part of the community rather than being segregated in sketchy suburban (cheaper) locations.

Regardless, I'm not questioning your expertise - you are surely more knowledgeable than I about urban planning issues - but the above are aspects upon which I form my opinions and thus have driven the remarks that I posted.

[someone123]

The problem with putting some affordable housing in more expensive areas is the opportunity cost. The price per unit is higher so the amount of housing provided is lower. The choice isn't between taking a family and putting them in a nice neighbourhood instead of a crappier one. It's between putting 2 families in the low end neighbourhood or putting one in a luxury highrise while the other gets left on the waiting list for another few years. There are always opportunity costs.

I suspect this particular development is inherently more expensive than typical affordable housing projects in the city. It's concrete construction, and then on top of that it's on prime land and there have been height reductions which increase land costs per unit. Affordable housing and height control don't mix well as urban planning goals.

Bloomfield is a disaster. HRM has serious problems with how it handles land development. There are private buildings popping up everywhere but nearly every land parcel the city touches sits empty for a decade. I see this as largely a separate issue from affordable housing though.