Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
But there will be many more units in the new development (maybe 5-10x what is there now).
|
Which is why it would not seem unreasonable to dedicate a small portion to affordable housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
When more people come to the city they bid up the price of existing housing, even the affordable stuff. Without construction, the old affordable stuff will not remain affordable for long. With new construction, people move up into nicer units and those farther down the ladder can afford something better. The shiny new buildings tend to make the last round of construction look a bit less exciting and prices are depressed slightly going down the line.
|
You're talking about market-driven "affordable housing", i.e. when something becomes undesirable, and thus cheap, it will be more "affordable". Unfortunately, the trend for the peninsula is to be more desirable, and therefore less affordable - or more likely unattainable - for those of low income to live on the peninsula.
Is there not a program with specific requirements that designate particular units as Affordable Housing? Did I not read on this forum about some buildings trading off bonus density for affordable housing units?
Housing Nova Scotia has a program that subsidizes developers for creating such units, and I assumed that the city was using the same program and requirements, but I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Imagine a tiny town with 2 people. Person A is a rich buyer and B is a poor tenant. If the town has one shack, A lives in it and B is homeless. If the town has a mansion and a shack, A lives in the mansion and B lives in the shack. If another rich person C decides to live in the town, B becomes homeless again unless another mansion or shack is built. Despite being a shack-dweller, B can benefit from a supply of mansions.
|
Yes, classic supply and demand. This concept is easily understood, but real estate is never quite that simple. Location location location and all that, etc etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Are you talking about it needing a development agreement? There's really nothing special about that. This is a classic Halifax NIMBY playbook item which IMO clouds the debate rather than adding clarity (it reminds me of "three felonies a day": every development "breaks the rules"!). Thankfully this whole line of discussion will disappear when the Centre Plan is put into place.
|
I was talking about the statement in
the article...
Quote:
The proposal doesn’t fit the current rules for the area, but staff told council it generally aligns with the coming Centre Plan — the long-awaited set of planning bylaws designed to guide growth in the urban centre of Halifax Regional Municipality for the next decade or more.
|
Since staff was involved, I assumed it came from them, not the "NIMBYs"... and it "generally" aligns with the Centre Plan? Generally? ...what does that mean?
Of course there's the chance that the article was poorly written...