[Halifax] The Mills (5484 Spring Garden) | 21 m | 7 fl | U/C

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

If the Centre Plan allowed for larger density bonuses in exchange for affordable housing there would probably be more affordable housing built.

Perhaps so. However, putting "affordable housing" on this block of SGR seems to be a rather unrealistic expectation.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Perhaps so. However, putting "affordable housing" on this block of SGR seems to be a rather unrealistic expectation.

I tend to agree. Not so much due to affordable housing being appropriate or inappropriate in this or that location but because the ideal place for it doesn't necessarily match where developers want to put their market-rate units. Furthermore if we accept that affordable housing is allowable we accept that the density is allowable; maybe the city would get more bang for its buck by allowing full market-rate housing in the expensive areas. Hopefully people can agree that if there is a housing crisis it's better to build 2 units in a normal neighbourhood than 1 unit in the most expensive part of the city.

One solution would be to allow developers to pay in to a fund. Not sure if this is an option.

(Perhaps an even better option is just to have taxes and pay for affordable housing out of revenues.)

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

.
One solution would be to allow developers to pay in to a fund. Not sure if this is an option.

I thought the city was already offering this option?

[Hadrian Laing]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

https://www.westwoodgroup.ca/properties/the-mills

Thanks Pblaauw! Unfortunately I don't see any plans downloadable there. Maybe I missed them but it appears just to be advertisement. What I'm looking for is the standard "pending development approval" documents or a announcement page by the city (with contact for city planner etc... For more information they also have their "mills website". I've linked below:
https://www.themillshfx.com/

Originally Posted by someone123

What are you looking for? If you follow that link there is a PDF with floor plans, models, renderings, etc. I think this is basically the standard package.

My impression is that there is a density bonus provision under HRM by Design/Centre Plan and to get the bonus developers have to provide a certain value of public good. It can be art, affordable housing, undergrounding, or maybe some other things. Not sure what the current rules are. I believe it is up to the developer to decide whether or not to propose a public benefit or what to propose.

If the Centre Plan allowed for larger density bonuses in exchange for affordable housing there would probably be more affordable housing built.

I'm looking for the Halifax.ca landing page for the development proposal. Usually this is done after phase 3 site approval and includes all the documents such as wind study, planner in charge of the project etc... If you check the "active development proposals" map in Halfiax you'd think nothing is getting built there. The PDF document your referring to does include that info, but it is the only public info available - and it's only available because it was part of the agenda for the Design Review Committee.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Perhaps so. However, putting "affordable housing" on this block of SGR seems to be a rather unrealistic expectation.

I know what you mean, I believe the package B will require a % of units in each new development to be text-book "affordable" but can't recall off the top of my head. Also as a reference "Affordable Housing" for this development would be units for $2,168 for dual income and/or units for $975 for single income, which I feel is pretty reasonable especially if its only a handful of the total units. Mr. Chedrawe certainly isn't living on shoestrings.

[DigitalNinja]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

Thanks Pblaauw! Unfortunately I don't see any plans downloadable there. Maybe I missed them but it appears just to be advertisement. What I'm looking for is the standard "pending development approval" documents or a announcement page by the city (with contact for city planner etc... For more information they also have their "mills website". I've linked below:
https://www.themillshfx.com/


I'm looking for the Halifax.ca landing page for the development proposal. Usually this is done after phase 3 site approval and includes all the documents such as wind study, planner in charge of the project etc... If you check the "active development proposals" map in Halfiax you'd think nothing is getting built there. The PDF document your referring to does include that info, but it is the only public info available - and it's only available because it was part of the agenda for the Design Review Committee.



I know what you mean, I believe the package B will require a % of units in each new development to be text-book "affordable" but can't recall off the top of my head. Also as a reference "Affordable Housing" for this development would be units for $2,168 for dual income and/or units for $975 for single income, which I feel is pretty reasonable especially if its only a handful of the total units. Mr. Chedrawe certainly isn't living on shoestrings.

It was my understanding the Centre plan got rid of all this. As long as someone is building within the guidelines set out by the plan they don't need to release plans, there is no public consultation etc. They submit the designs the DRC decides if there are any blatant things that need to be changed and it gets approved basically.

This was the main advantage in the Centreplan. The previous process that you describe ended up with developments in approval hell for years, sometimes 7+ years or more. This was part of the reason why we are facing an apartment crunch now where people who can afford have a hard time finding a place.

The Centreplan is much better this way. BUT IMO it also restricts development too much and should have allowed for more height/density in areas. Our peninsula/downtown is pretty small by KM2, specially when taking into all the park space. While it's excellent as it's very nice it also makes developing difficult specially with the amount of single family homes we have that are essentially downtown.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

I'm looking for the Halifax.ca landing page for the development proposal. Usually this is done after phase 3 site approval and includes all the documents such as wind study, planner in charge of the project etc... If you check the "active development proposals" map in Halfiax you'd think nothing is getting built there. The PDF document your referring to does include that info, but it is the only public info available - and it's only available because it was part of the agenda for the Design Review Committee.

I see. The HRM website leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to planning and development. As you pointed out some projects seem not to get full planning pages, so materials are scattered throughout the other pages. Some stuff is not online at all like 7177 Quinpool. It didn't go through the same process, sure, but it's still a development.

It's also hard to see what's new in the planning section; they are arranged by case number but a development can be active for many years and change considerably (e.g. King's Wharf). I realize my development enthusiast/hobbyist use case may not be common but I think for a person asking "what development is happening or will happen around me?" and heading to the website it would be pretty hard to get a useful view without picking through huge volumes of materials.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

I know what you mean, I believe the package B will require a % of units in each new development to be text-book "affordable" but can't recall off the top of my head. Also as a reference "Affordable Housing" for this development would be units for $2,168 for dual income and/or units for $975 for single income, which I feel is pretty reasonable especially if its only a handful of the total units. Mr. Chedrawe certainly isn't living on shoestrings.

Well, Danny is not running a social housing enterprise and it is crazy to expect someone to be able to rent a unit for under $1000/mo on SGR. Maybe they could rent a parking spot in the garage and pitch a tent.

The idea was never to have social housing in every development. The idea was to extort money from developers to go into a HRM account that could then be doled out to affordable housing projects. Unfortunately as we see in the article below the amounts being offered are so tiny as to be useless and the rather glacial process seems rather, shall we say, non-strategic.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...fund-1.6171825

[IanWatson]

Centre Plan basically does away with density bonusing. There are no “pre-bonus” and “post-bonus” heights like there were in the Downtown Halifax Plan. Instead, there’s a affordable housing tax (they still call it “bonusing” because that’s the wording the Halifax Charter uses) on all buildings that are larger than 2,000 square metres. The money goes into a fund that the city will use to support affordable housing initiatives.

Affordable housing was also an eligible density bonus category under the Downtown Halifax Plan, but it never got used because there was no mechanism to enforce it. Nor can HRM require affordable units to be built as part of a development (so called “inclusionary zoning”); it doesn’t have the legislative authority under the Halifax Charter.

But to bring it back to the Mills site: this proposal is within the Downtown Halifax Plan area, not Centre Plan (yet). So the developer proposes the category(ies) that they want to use for density bonusing and then the DRC can agree or recommend something different, but ultimately Council votes on the density bonus agreement (because it’s a contract and only Council can sign contracts). Council does not vote on the overall project.

[someone123]

Source

[Hadrian Laing]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, Danny is not running a social housing enterprise and it is crazy to expect someone to be able to rent a unit for under $1000/mo on SGR. Maybe they could rent a parking spot in the garage and pitch a tent.

It is not crazy at all to expect even 5-10% of units in a new development downtown to be rented for 30% of median income for a decade - I imagine the NOI is adequate that even moderate public assistance would help supply the increasing need for affordable units on peninsular Halifax. Also, I kindly request a bit more sensitivity towards those living rough or being reno-victed, like some of my friends and family have been. Halifax needs solutions and we both acknowledge the failure of the city's current attempt to fund affordable units.

Originally Posted by IanWatson

But to bring it back to the Mills site: this proposal is within the Downtown Halifax Plan area, not Centre Plan (yet). So the developer proposes the category(ies) that they want to use for density bonusing and then the DRC can agree or recommend something different, but ultimately Council votes on the density bonus agreement (because it’s a contract and only Council can sign contracts). Council does not vote on the overall project.

Thanks for the clarification! I don't think the DRC liked the allocation of public benefit as undergrounding utilities. I think they'd prefer it go to affordable units; however, I don't believe that variance was up for discussion.
Here is a link to the DRC discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8RH...alMunicipality

Originally Posted by someone123

]

Great image! I don't know if this has been posted, but here is a live stream of construction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjmf...=MillsBrothers

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

It is not crazy at all to expect even 5-10% of units in a new development downtown to be rented for 30% of median income for a decade - I imagine the NOI is adequate that even moderate public assistance would help supply the increasing need for affordable units on peninsular Halifax. Also, I kindly request a bit more sensitivity towards those living rough or being reno-victed, like some of my friends and family have been. Halifax needs solutions and we both acknowledge the failure of the city's current attempt to fund affordable units.

I second the motion.

I think most of us are related to, or know of, somebody who is being affected by the housing crisis.

Some are homeless, perhaps grappling with alcoholism or another addiction, but in many cases could hold down a job for minimum wage - but minimum wage will mostly not be enough to find an apartment in Halifax.

Others are just trying to make ends meet, and can afford their current situation, but renoviction and rising prices are putting them out of the market, or making them move further away from their place of employment to become a 'victim' of Halifax's substandard transit service.

It's easy for folks who aren't struggling to say "let them eat cake", but seriously, it's a huge stress for those that are dealing with the reality of it. The world seems to be lacking in empathy and compassion these days... it's become an epidemic unto itself.

[Keith P.]

It is delusional to think that a new development on SGR (or Young Ave, or the harborfront, or similar high-rent districts) would include housing for the homeless. I mean, really. Give your head a shake.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Classic KP to take a request for mutual respect and turn it into a ridiculous statement about something that nobody said. Open your mind, man, there's a whole world out there that you're not seeing.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Classic KP to take a request for mutual respect and turn it into a ridiculous statement about something that nobody said. Open your mind, man, there's a whole world out there that you're not seeing.

I was responding to this:

It is not crazy at all to expect even 5-10% of units in a new development downtown to be rented for 30% of median income for a decade

That followed an earlier post where the same author chided Danny Chedrawe for not living on a shoestring so surely he could afford to rent out units cheaply in his new development.

Affordable housing, whatever that is, needs to be erected and run by those in the social housing business, not developers of high-end properties.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That followed an earlier post where the same author chided Danny Chedrawe for not living on a shoestring so surely he could afford to rent out units cheaply in his new development.

Affordable housing, whatever that is, needs to be erected and run by those in the social housing business, not developers of high-end properties.

30% of median income is actually far detached from the incomes of many families and individuals. Not a big request by any standard. As opposed to what the Liberals would like you to think, RGI means 30% of each individual household’s income.

There is truth to that second statement, although those who were apparently responsible for that file have allowed their inventory and development rights to slip into the hands of people like Chedrawe.

**Addition, much of that 30% of median income housing is subsidized by the Feds.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I was responding to this:



That followed an earlier post where the same author chided Danny Chedrawe for not living on a shoestring so surely he could afford to rent out units cheaply in his new development.

Affordable housing, whatever that is, needs to be erected and run by those in the social housing business, not developers of high-end properties.

30% of median income is not the same as creating housing for the homeless. It's creating housing for those of median income levels in an area that's otherwise reserved for the very well-off.

Meanwhile, 'we' are promoting urban living where people walk or ride their bicycles to work, but we want the 'commoners' to live out in the suburbs where apartments are cheaper and affordable for the 'working class'...

[coastalkid]

This one is now above street level:

[someone123]

Some higher resolution renderings are up on the Westwood site:


Source

[Keith P.]

Looks like the same faux-sandstone cladding they used across the street.

I wonder how long before it be be until the denizens who hang out at the palatial designer library complain that "It's Too TALL!!!"

[mleblanc]

I don't mind the design, this site just has a lot more potential. This would've been a prime site for an iconic tower, but due to arbitrary height laws we're left with what's essentially a podium.