Development Rumours

[Jonovision]

It is the perfect place for something like that. We defnitely need a lot more public housing in this city.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, if they want affordable housing, why not build a nice 12 story tower on that site... it would probably be able to house more people and meet the present and future needs of affordable housing... oh, I forgot, these affordable housing types are also against high density development.

It will likely be a really low-density, low-quality development... typical lack of vision.

[someone123]

I agree that there should be some element of public spending on housing for some people who can't fully support themselves, but there are a lot of questions to ask about a possible development like this.

The first big question, to me, is why more large public housing developments should be concentrated in a part of the city that has already been largely destroyed by them. Uniacke Square is also public housing.

I also have to wonder why you'd put a public housing development on a commercial street.

The next question is whether or not there should even be actual public housing developments, especially large ones. There are many different ways to administer public housing or other subsidies, and many different kinds of people who require different types of services (mentally ill or working poor who can't properly look after children etc.).

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by someone123

...

I also have to wonder why you'd put a public housing development on a commercial street.

...

Because just go and try to put "public" housing on someone's residential street. I can hear the screams of bloody blue murder from here.

On a related note, there was a woman , a Chebucto Road resident, whining on the radio this afternoon. Apparently her driveway is not large enough to turn her car around, so she drives in frontways, then later turns her car around on the street so she can drive out frontways in the morning. She was complaining how unfair it is that she has to go out after midnight in the cold to turn her car around now. Somehow she blames this on the reversing lane which doesn't switch over until midnight.

I can't understand why she needs the middle lane to change so she can move her car. Why in gods name does she now need two lanes to turn her car around? Yes it is quieter after midnight i'm sure, but I bet it is quiet enough to turn the car earlier in the evening too. It certainly didn't sound like it was a problem before this..WHEN THERE WAS ONLY ONE LANE ALL THE TIME!

boo frigin' hoo!

[sdm]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Because just go and try to put "public" housing on someone's residential street. I can hear the screams of bloody blue murder from here.

On a related note, there was a woman , a Chebucto Road resident, whining on the radio this afternoon. Apparently her driveway is not large enough to turn her car around, so she drives in frontways, then later turns her car around on the street so she can drive out frontways in the morning. She was complaining how unfair it is that she has to go out after midnight in the cold to turn her car around now. Somehow she blames this on the reversing lane which doesn't switch over until midnight.

I can't understand why she needs the middle lane to change so she can move her car. Why in gods name does she now need two lanes to turn her car around? Yes it is quieter after midnight i'm sure, but I bet it is quiet enough to turn the car earlier in the evening too. It certainly didn't sound like it was a problem before this..WHEN THERE WAS ONLY ONE LANE ALL THE TIME!

boo frigin' hoo!

She should be thankful she even has a driveway and a place to park.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that there should be some element of public spending on housing for some people who can't fully support themselves, but there are a lot of questions to ask about a possible development like this.

The first big question, to me, is why more large public housing developments should be concentrated in a part of the city that has already been largely destroyed by them. Uniacke Square is also public housing.

I also have to wonder why you'd put a public housing development on a commercial street.

The next question is whether or not there should even be actual public housing developments, especially large ones. There are many different ways to administer public housing or other subsidies, and many different kinds of people who require different types of services (mentally ill or working poor who can't properly look after children etc.).

As always, extremely well put.

I tend to agree with you in that why does the housing need to be in this area.
Be creative, retrofit shannon park to provide the housing. Mind you i rather see something else there, but there are a number of low rise structures needing repair (albeit what state they are really in is unknown).

[Barrington south]

I also agree with someone123...we should be trying to imrove the north end, not maintain the status quo

[JET]

"these affordable housing types are also against high density development."

affordable housing types are not against high density development. They are against creating ghettos. Gottingen would benefit from a mix of development. High density for low income folks is a very bad idea. Even low density development which is exclusively low income is a bad idea. High density on Gottingen such as trillium would be amazing, but would probably never happen.
The mix of small and medium sized higher end and small low income developments in that area will benefit everyone. Most people who buy higher end in that area do so because of the mix. Many of us would never choose to live in South End 'ghettos'. JET

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

She's a NDPer... those colors are appropriate.

Shouldn't she be wearing orange and green?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

Shouldn't she be wearing orange and green?

She's one of the pinkos who make up the red menace that is the NDP.

[phrenic]

Were you beat up by an NDP member when you were a child or something? You seem to have an awful hate on for anything and anybody that is left of the political center.

"They're nothing but socialists and communists who will steal your money! Run for the hills! ahhhhhhhhh!"

[Barrington south]

Originally Posted by JET

Most people who buy higher end in that area do so because of the mix. Many of us would never choose to live in South End 'ghettos'. JET

what are you talking about...higher end?...maybe some mid range development's but I don't see many rich people clamouring to live in the North End where gun shot's can be heard at night on a regular basis

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by phrenic

"They're nothing but socialists and communists who will steal your money! Run for the hills! ahhhhhhhhh!"

That's pretty much right.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's pretty much right.

Isn't NDP the No development please party?

[reddog794]

ya, how else is she to get the senior vote? Ha!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by phrenic

Were you beat up by an NDP member when you were a child or something? You seem to have an awful hate on for anything and anybody that is left of the political center.

"They're nothing but socialists and communists who will steal your money! Run for the hills! ahhhhhhhhh!"

First things first, I knew somebody would respond like this. Its just typical to think that people that believe in development and that criticize the NDP are categorized like this. I think alot of the follow up responses were half jokes.

The majority of NDPers view on development isn't "socialist" or even "socialist-democratic". I've read the communist manifesto and it doesn't say anything about quality urban development. I have lived in and visited countries that have real socialist-democratic governments and they have plenty of nice new towers beside beautiful perserved heritage. They understand basic concepts of economic growth. Economic growth isn't a right wing concept, only its allocation.

Hell, most people I know that own heritage properties are in fact NDPers. Therefore they are furthering their own agenda by being anti-development in their policy decisions. Many of them are professionals have incomes far above the average person in Halifax. They live in a different world than working poor or the homeless. Being anti-development also allows these people to maintain their value as professionals in the community (no threat of potential entrants because there is no office growth, no competing law firms or whatever they do)

Guess what? I believe in some socialist and some capitalist economic and social concepts. However, the left in Canada has been completely hijacked, particularly by special interest groups to further an agenda which in some cases could be viewed as radical (not in a good way).

The fact is, I agree with alot of the basic viewpoints from the left in theory. The people are the margins of society are important and should be taken into consideration appropriately.

Ok JET... I'm not talking about tenement-style, urban renewal, towers here... (See Chicago 1960's-1990's) I'm talking about a 12 story building on land that doesn't offer it a very big footprint to begin with. I don't know how I feel about subsidized housing, but if we are going to do it, at least make it efficient. High density doesn't mean scary, most of Halifax is very low density.

Someone123, I agree about the locational issue, but the suggestion we are confronted with is from the NDP MP.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

However, the left in Canada has been completely hijacked, particularly by special interest groups to further an agenda which in some cases could be viewed as radical (not in a good way).

Yeah, that's the big problem with the NDP. Since it is the farthest left of the major (but not government-forming) parties it is also stuck with a lot of nutcases. The Conservatives (and former Reform party) suffer/ed from the same thing with rural fundamentalist MPs who were way out of step with the rest of the country.

By the way, the empty site on Gottingen used to be a Sobeys I believe and is quite large (one half is grassed over and the other half is parking lot, but I guess they go together?).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

By the way, the empty site on Gottingen used to be a Sobeys I believe and is quite large (one half is grassed over and the other half is parking lot, but I guess they go together?).

Yes, that's correct. I actually remember being in that Sobeys as a child. Yes, I'm old.

Two interesting items in allnovascotia.com today. The first was news that the Catholic archdiocese has selected and is in negotiations with an unnamed developer to develop the St. Mary's ancilliary properties on Grafton (the old rectory and school buildings currently used for offices and minor retail) and the parking lot on the corner of SGR. The second was a discussion of the Empire condo development of the old St. Joseph's church site on the corner of Novalea and Russell, which is a couple of years away and is in the very early stages. Don Clow of Empire would not talk specifics on that but it sounds like they are going for soemthing at least 10 floors high, possibly more.

[phrenic]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

First things first, I knew somebody would respond like this. Its just typical to think that people that believe in development and that criticize the NDP are categorized like this. I think alot of the follow up responses were half jokes.

My response as only a reaction to the seemingly endless parade of pot shots at the NDP on this board - often blanket categorizations of members as anti-development, socialist, communist, etc. Immature cheap shots, if you will.

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

The majority of NDPers view on development isn't "socialist" or even "socialist-democratic". I've read the communist manifesto and it doesn't say anything about quality urban development. I have lived in and visited countries that have real socialist-democratic governments and they have plenty of nice new towers beside beautiful perserved heritage. They understand basic concepts of economic growth. Economic growth isn't a right wing concept, only its allocation.

Agreed, although the tenants of modern social-democratic political parties are generally very far removed from those of the original communist manifesto, so the relevance of it is fleeting. I've actually lived in Sweden - the home of the welfare state - and agree that there is a consistent rate of new development alongside preserved heritage. And funny, despite the demonization of the NDP, and even Barack Obama (that crazy socialist!) by right-wing political parties, these social-democratic states often have much higher standards of living than we have. People are generally happier, too.

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Hell, most people I know that own heritage properties are in fact NDPers. Therefore they are furthering their own agenda by being anti-development in their policy decisions. Many of them are professionals have incomes far above the average person in Halifax. They live in a different world than working poor or the homeless. Being anti-development also allows these people to maintain their value as professionals in the community (no threat of potential entrants because there is no office growth, no competing law firms or whatever they do).

Agreed. But while most members of the heritage crowd may in fact be NDPers, most NDPers are not members of the heritage crowd. Howard Epstein not withstanding, I think people will find most NDP MLAs to be generally in favor of development if they assume power after the next election, as is currently predicted. It is a municipal issue of course, but as we've seen with RodMac and Epstein, opinions have a way of making themselves known.

Anyway, I realize this is not a political forum and I didn't intend to start a political discussion. So this will be my last post about politics.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Good point, I was getting off topic. We all are certainly passionate about development issues, no matter what our perspective.

I would like to see a retail component on the Gottingen St. side, regardless of what the development turns out to be. The commercial rent money could even offset the rent for affordable housing in the development.