Uniacke Square - Options

[Canopus]

I got a little PO'd the other day reading about some joker from Winnipeg or something rambling on about the "value" of the Uniacke Square area and how evil gentrification was about to swallow up the neighborhood and destroy all these apparently wonderful things about it. I don't have a link but there were references to people talking about how wonderful Gottingen St was back in the 1950's and 60's and how the city needs to somehow save this area from encroaching development.

Now, I can completely see the need for affordable housing in the core but the Square is crap and everyone knows it. Pizza delivery places won't even go there, people are getting shot right beside police stations, drug dealing and violence are commonplace and so on. Additionally, all of these people pining away for a revitalization of Gottingen are wishing for a Halifax that may have existed 50+ years ago but is not coming back so hey, how about we move forward instead of looking back. The same can be said of the generic and ever present Africville reference. A big mistake yes and handled very poorly but also ancient history unrelated to present day issues and obsessing about it doesn't help anyone.

Anyway, I'm wondering what people thing the best options for the Square are. I'm not talking about adding some hanging planters or "decorative garbage cans" either. I'm talking about making real change that would help the residents as well as the district and entire city. All in all, I don't see much of anything whatsoever worth preserving in the neighborhood like some misguided social experiment in a mason jar. I actually find it insulting to the residents that outsiders would presume to “know best” and treat them like children this way.

I tend to favor the idea of allowing residents to buy/sell their properties along with the city/province lending them some real estate expertise. The area is potentially a great source of money for them and who exactly are we to say that they should not be able to build equity and improve their lives? Hey, maybe there are a number of people there who would love to sell their houses and move to a better area but are trapped by the present system. I think a plan like this would allow the people with the desire to build a better future, allow development of the area and vastly improve the entire North End. Otherwise, the present situation seems to achieve nothing but more of the same crap for everyone concerned.

Thoughts on the elephant in the room?

For those who don't know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniacke_Square

[planarchy]

It is definitely hard to see the value in maintaining the community in its current state, but the there is a strong sense of community in this area and other similar enclaves off Brunswick St. In reference to Africville, it is far from ancient history. This is, especially in Halifax time, a fairly recent event [as many people still refer to the bridge that replaced it as the ‘new’ bridge] – but this is really another issue altogether.

I agree 100% that residents should have the option to purchase their property. I was quite surprised to read in The Coast a few weeks ago that some are against this idea. The are countless examples around the globe that show the #1 most effective thing that can be done to improve the quality of life for city residents is to provide them the opportunity to own land/home/property. If they choose to sell it – fine – their choice, and quite unethical to not sell to them for fear they may choose to make some money off its sale. This is especially true for long time residents who may have sunk many thousands into their rented property.

The shortage of affordable housing goes far beyond one housing development. There needs to be better provisions to include low-income housing in all new developments. Only then will you get a mix that actually works. In the Netherlands, where social housing accounts for more than 35% of the total housing stock and a staggering 75% of rented stock, tenants are given an option to buy…So those who started out in subsidized housing, can purchase it when they have the money, creating often quite mixed-income neighbourhoods. Of course, the problem is then supply, and in cities like Amsterdam the wait for housing can be more than 5 years. As well, in the newer, expensive reclamation developments such as Ijburg, developers are finding it difficult to include non-market housing because of huge construction costs – but we have a lot more land – especially vacant and underused land – in the city to use for development..

The layout and structure of Uniacke Square itself is not that bad. If you take these row houses and put them somewhere else and they would be a desirable place to live. In parts of the UK, units similar to these in a decent part of the city would sell for a small fortune. Maybe, for the sake of the future of the street, and as a way to reintegrate U.S. into the city, the units directly adjacent to Gottingen should be converted into live/work units or commercial space - or perhaps demolished and replaced with something that makes for more intensive use of the land. An interesting topic for discussion.

[Takeo]

Mixed-income is key. The Square was built at a time when that's how all public housing was built. Big. Monolithic. Segregated. The result in every case is a strong, tight-knit community... but one with a lot of youth crime. The Square isn't that bad. It has a very strong sense of community. And there are issues of course. But I wouldn't hesitate to walk thru there at any time of the day or night. If you want to see bad... look at the american projects. Places like Chicago has some of the biggest projects in the world. Robert Taylor Homes was huge... twenty six 18-story high rises with 30,000 residents... and HUNDREDS of gang-related murders every year. Literally HUNDREDS. They have since demolished the entire thing and are replacing it with 30% market housing, 30% affordable housing and 30% assisted housing. Surely this will lead to a healthier community. There is the question of what happens to the thousands of people who can't find replacement housing... but what are the options? The "warehousing" option of the 60's (aka utopian stepping stone) does not work.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by planarchy

In reference to Africville, it is far from ancient history. This is, especially in Halifax time, a fairly recent event [as many people still refer to the bridge that replaced it as the ‘new’ bridge] – but this is really another issue altogether.

The Halifax way of looking at time is annoying but regardless I did once hear that most people in the square are not even connected to Africville. It''s really just more of a political issue with no one wanting to be accused of being racist even if they are not operating under that guise.

I was quite surprised to read in The Coast a few weeks ago that some are against this idea.

I used to like the Coast but in the last few years I've found that they readily adopt just about any "left" position while often disregarding objective reasoning. I know they are just an entertainment paper but they do often get political and are making themselves irrelevant this way. Too bad really.

This is especially true for long time residents who may have sunk many thousands into their rented property.

Agreed. If the problem is poverty then why not tap into the energy and desire of the residents while allowing them to stop wasting years.

In the Netherlands, where social housing accounts for more than 35% of the total housing stock and a staggering 75% of rented stock, tenants are given an option to buy…So those who started out in subsidized housing, can purchase it when they have the money, creating often quite mixed-income neighbourhoods.

This bothers me as well in terms of policy. There may not be any need to reinvent the wheel here, just one to actually get on board with something.

The layout and structure of Uniacke Square itself is not that bad. If you take these row houses and put them somewhere else and they would be a desirable place to live.

Agreed as well. It may not be the end design in 50 years but the current layout isn't terrible and so, an urban design based approach will not work.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by Takeo

The Square isn't that bad. It has a very strong sense of community.

That may be but I think it is a mistake to associate "community" with structure necessarily. Communities are made up of people not buildings and they change with time, generations and the state of the city/nation. Rarely do they remain homogeneous over say 50 years and that should not be expected or attempted.

They have since demolished the entire thing and are replacing it with 30% market housing, 30% affordable housing and 30% assisted housing. Surely this will lead to a healthier community.

Maybe. Again though, while it sounds like a good plan, I balk a bit at assuming social improvement necessarily follows built improvements. I know it's not a popular position but I fail to see much evidence for it. Cities should be looking to urban form to provide good bones for a community but to other tools - i.e. financial, etc to provide related community improvement opportunities for people.

All in all, the US square issue is one fraught with what I believe are BS racist overtones no matter what anyone suggests as well as a tendency by planners to take a left leaning, form based approach to most anything instead of trying to tap into what may already exist. I don't consider myself a right winger at all but see no reason to ignore viable market tools in favor of wishful thinking

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Canopus

That may be but I think it is a mistake to associate "community" with structure necessarily. Communities are made up of people not buildings and they change with time, generations and the state of the city/nation. Rarely do they remain homogeneous over say 50 years and that should not be expected or attempted.

I was referring to the people... of course. There is a much stronger sense of community there than in any place I ever lived in the South End... where "community" is, actually, mostly completely non-existent. My point is that they have a good starting point to improve things... a community of people who care about their community and about each other. But they're fighting an uphill battle due to the concentration of poverty and all that that brings with it. Which is why I think mixed-income makes sense.

Originally Posted by Canopus

Maybe. Again though, while it sounds like a good plan, I balk a bit at assuming social improvement necessarily follows built improvements.

I fully agree, but the 30/30/30 mix of own/affordable/public is not a built improvement is it? It's not a "design" ideology. It's a socioeconomic change.

Using the Robert Taylor example again, these were the stats at one point:

- 27,000 residents in a development planned for 11,000
- 95% unemployed
- 40% single female parent households earning less than $5,000 / year
- 99.9 percent African-American

That's a recipe that doesn't have a lot of good outcomes. To your point though, it wasn't because of the architecture. Altho' the architecture didn't help. It had to do with social changes, racism and neglect. It was a "perfect storm" of issues that can't be boiled down simply... but a few things which contributed were changes in the 60's that allowed blacks to move into white neighborhoods. So those who could afford to all left. Also, Ronald Regan completely gutted HUD funding... so the CHA had no money to maintain the buildings. Then the crack economy took over in the 80's and cops would not even venture into the area. So the whole development became an island, cut off from the rest of the city... with it's own underground economy and policing (i.e. gang policing). There were teenagers living in Robert Taylor that had never seen a white person in their lives?! Total "segregation".

Anyway, I'm rambling somewhat off topic... but the point is that I think any solution is multi-faceted. It's about built form but also about services, people, facilities, programs, etc. The funny thing about Robert Taylor is that is was designed and built based on Le Corbusier's utopian vision of "islands in the sky".Didn't exactly turn into a utopia It's the same vision that gave us developments like Scotia Square.

Originally Posted by Canopus

All in all, the US square issue is one fraught with what I believe are BS racist overtones no matter what anyone suggests as well as a tendency by planners to take a left leaning, form based approach to most anything instead of trying to tap into what may already exist.

Yup. There are a lot of people who argued that Robert Taylor should stay too. It didn't have to turn out like it did. It had a lot going against it... 26 high rises jammed between a 16 lane highway and a railroad track. But it didn't have to go that badly. The area was ignored by the housing authority and the cops and pretty much everyone.

Here are some pics. It ain't no Uniake Square! Sorry again that this is a little off topic.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by Takeo

I fully agree, but the 30/30/30 mix of own/affordable/public is not a built improvement is it? It's not a "design" ideology. It's a socioeconomic change.

I like the concept but how do you think it is best achieved?