[Halifax] MR Apartments (5665 Roberts) | 24 m | 8 fl | Completed

[Dmajackson]

This proposal has been mentioned previously but it is now official. W.M. Fares Group has submitted an application for 2480 Maynard Street. The plan as detailed in the link below is to construct a 7-storey plus penthouse mixed-use building along Roberts and Maynard Streets. There will be 70 unts ranging from bachelor to live/work to 2 bdr+den penthouses. 3'000sq ft of commercial space along Roberts and two levels of parking accessed off of Maynard. The automotive repair shop at the corner will not be included in this project.

Case 19353 Initiation Report

*************************

IMO this project will blend in well with the neighbourhood while removing one of many blights on that block. 8 storey is the tallest in the immediate area however it will have minimal negative impacts and its location in the middle of a growing area on a moderately busy street calls for high density like this proposal.

[Drybrain]

Looks nice. Among the better ones planned for the area.

It'll be a strange clash, though, when this is finished and that Autopro is still occupying the corner, nestled right into the new building. At least Fares is planning on the eventual redevelopment of that site with a townhouse.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

This proposal has been mentioned previously but it is now official. W.M. Fares Group has submitted an application for 2480 Maynard Street. The plan as detailed in the link below is to construct a 7-storey plus penthouse mixed-use building along Roberts and Maynard Streets. There will be 70 unts ranging from bachelor to live/work to 2 bdr+den penthouses. 3'000sq ft of commercial space along Roberts and two levels of parking accessed off of Maynard. The automotive repair shop at the corner will not be included in this project.

Case 19353 Initiation Report

*************************

IMO this project will blend in well with the neighbourhood while removing one of many blights on that block. 8 storey is the tallest in the immediate area however it will have minimal negative impacts and its location in the middle of a growing area on a moderately busy street calls for high density like this proposal.

I know this area very well.
The whole block would have been well served if HRM had purchased the cabinet shop, the crappy auto and sign properties and the corner piece which was in poor condition until a new auto repair outlet took the place of the previous run down operation. A lot of the dross from Roberts to Charles could have been cleared out, cleaned up and then put out for proposals with a requirement for a development/s with a component of affordable housing for low income citizens.
Savage and his colleagues need to get serious about providing housing for people who presently rent private near-slums.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Colin May

I know this area very well.
Savage and his colleagues need to get serious about providing housing for people who presently rent private near-slums.

You should know that what your suggesting is out of date since 1996. Municipalities in Nova Scotia have no role in building affordable housing beyond planning. This was changed when the Municipal Reform Act was adopted around the same time as amalgamation.

Housing NS is responsible for purchasing land and building/subsidizing affordable housing. Halifax does planning, so you see things like Bloomfield Master Plan that required a large affordable housing component.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

You should know that what your suggesting is out of date since 1996. Municipalities in Nova Scotia have no role in building affordable housing beyond planning. This was changed when the Municipal Reform Act was adopted around the same time as amalgamation.

Housing NS is responsible for purchasing land and building/subsidizing affordable housing. Halifax does planning, so you see things like Bloomfield Master Plan that required a large affordable housing component.

By 'providing' I was referring to using the planning process.

We don't know how profitable the development industry has been. We don't know if they pay federal income tax, which is quite legal, but until HRM gets serious about negotiating we will never know just how profitable they are and how much we can extract in the way of benefits. A bit late now - the market is terrible, maybe more developers will have to use a subsidiary to buy up and mortgage their unsold units.
When I worked for the province I read several years of an annual report before sitting down with an oil company, rig company, supply vessel company representative. The Yanks were fine, the Canadians were much more arrogant.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

This proposal has been mentioned previously but it is now official. W.M. Fares Group has submitted an application for 2480 Maynard Street. The plan as detailed in the link below is to construct a 7-storey plus penthouse mixed-use building along Roberts and Maynard Streets. There will be 70 unts ranging from bachelor to live/work to 2 bdr+den penthouses. 3'000sq ft of commercial space along Roberts and two levels of parking accessed off of Maynard. The automotive repair shop at the corner will not be included in this project.

Case 19353 Initiation Report

*************************

IMO this project will blend in well with the neighbourhood while removing one of many blights on that block. 8 storey is the tallest in the immediate area however it will have minimal negative impacts and its location in the middle of a growing area on a moderately busy street calls for high density like this proposal.

I am glad to see private developers continuing to redevelop derelict areas of the North End. I imagine that long time residents are benefiting from a more pleasant streetscape.

Luckily the concept of providing publicly subsidized housing in the North End is generally an idea from the distant past.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I am glad to see private developers continuing to redevelop derelict areas of the North End. I imagine that long time residents are benefiting from a more pleasant streetscape.

Luckily the concept of providing publicly subsidized housing in the North End is generally an idea from the distant past.

I'll settle for privately subsidised housing in the North End or anywhere else in metro. I believe those filthy socialists in the country adjacent to Canada have significant experience in the provision of such housing and have chosen to require the provision of such housing in private developments.
But then again, the Yanks have always been greater innovators than Canadians.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

I'll settle for privately subsidised housing in the North End or anywhere else in metro. I believe those filthy socialists in the country adjacent to Canada have significant experience in the provision of such housing and have chosen to require the provision of such housing in private developments.
But then again, the Yanks have always been greater innovators than Canadians.

And yet you chose to live in Canada vs the US. We must have something going for us...

Are there not buildings in Halifax with provisions for low-cost housing? Did I dream this? Seems to me there's a large part of a thread on this site about that very topic.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And yet you chose to live in Canada vs the US. We must have something going for us...

Are there not buildings in Halifax with provisions for low-cost housing? Did I dream this? Seems to me there's a large part of a thread on this site about that very topic.

My understanding is that to qualify for density bonusing (ie. maximum height, etc) any residential building in the HRMbD area has to offer some form of affordable housing (I think the "grandfathered" developments on Barrington are exempt). I'm not sure how "affordable" is defined in this context, but I think it means that rent has to be X% below the average rent for apartments within a certain radius of the development.

I'm not sure if this applies outside of the HRMbD area yet, but I think the intent is that eventually it will.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Hali87

My understanding is that to qualify for density bonusing (ie. maximum height, etc) any residential building in the HRMbD area has to offer some form of affordable housing (I think the "grandfathered" developments on Barrington are exempt). I'm not sure how "affordable" is defined in this context, but I think it means that rent has to be X% below the average rent for apartments within a certain radius of the development.

I'm not sure if this applies outside of the HRMbD area yet, but I think the intent is that eventually it will.

Partially correct. Density bonusing, when it comes, in the Centre Plan area must be accompanied by affordable housing. The city has no choice there as the amendments to the charter passed by the NDP said affordable housing must be part of the mix. In the Downtown Secondary Plan (what we often call HRMbyDesign), density bonusing can be for any number of things. Affordable housing is just one of them. So far, the uptake from developers has been good on a lot of the other categories, but not on the affordable housing side. Not sure if they just don't want to include affordable units in their developments or its the problem of defining affordable on the city side or if it's a combination of both. So far, it seems ineffective and my hunch is developers aren't interested in doing it.

I think density bonusing for affordable housing is a good idea, but it seems unlikely that it will make a substantial contribution to affordability in Halifax. I'm not convinced that compelling developers to include affordable units would be the best approach either. We're not Vancouver. The scale of development is obviously a lot smaller here and the profits earned are less as well. Really, I think the city and province need to get back into actually creating affordable housing. Take the development of the old Sobeys site on Gottingen. That's been in the works for years now and, my understanding, is project financing has been one of the hurdles. What if there had been a city fund to help? What if it had planning priority? If the city had a revolving fund to loan money to non-profits who want to build housing and prioritized affordable projects in the planning queue, that would likely do a lot more than density bonusing or trying to force developers into building units. Just my two cents anyway.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And yet you chose to live in Canada vs the US. We must have something going for us...

Are there not buildings in Halifax with provisions for low-cost housing? Did I dream this? Seems to me there's a large part of a thread on this site about that very topic.

My career opportunity arose in Canada.
My comment was a reference to certain cities in the US which require any development to provide a percentage of units for lower income persons. The developer doesn't pick the units and doesn't pick the tenant/s - a seperate agency makes such decisions. In a condo the owners of units would't know which units were occupied by low income persons.
It was suggested to me, by a representative of a developer, that such a provision in HRM would be acceptable if it applied to all developments.
HRM has chosen to ignore such a provision and prefers to barter for the ill defined ' public benefit'.
At City Hall 'Be Bold' is regarded as a slogan, not a call to action.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Colin May

My career opportunity arose in Canada.
My comment was a reference to certain cities in the US which require any development to provide a percentage of units for lower income persons. The developer doesn't pick the units and doesn't pick the tenant/s - a seperate agency makes such decisions. In a condo the owners of units would't know which units were occupied by low income persons.
It was suggested to me, by a representative of a developer, that such a provision in HRM would be acceptable if it applied to all developments.
HRM has chosen to ignore such a provision and prefers to barter for the ill defined ' public benefit'.
At City Hall 'Be Bold' is regarded as a slogan, not a call to action.

I think you'll find everyone on here is in agreement with you on this.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Colin May

My career opportunity arose in Canada.
My comment was a reference to certain cities in the US which require any development to provide a percentage of units for lower income persons. The developer doesn't pick the units and doesn't pick the tenant/s - a seperate agency makes such decisions. In a condo the owners of units would't know which units were occupied by low income persons.
It was suggested to me, by a representative of a developer, that such a provision in HRM would be acceptable if it applied to all developments.
HRM has chosen to ignore such a provision and prefers to barter for the ill defined ' public benefit'.
At City Hall 'Be Bold' is regarded as a slogan, not a call to action.

I could be wrong, but I thought that in at least parts of Halifax, this is the approach. It's not necessarily required by law, but strongly encouraged, and many new developments (ie. the Mary Ann) do include such provisions. There are also developments such as the Bloomfield redevelopment and the two HTNS projects on Gottingen where affordable housing makes up a large percentage of the total.

Also worth noting that housing is technically a provincial responsibility. The province has recently launched a number of programs to support low-income households and the landlords of buildings requiring extensive repairs so that they do not have to (/cannot) raise rents to pay for the repairs.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

My career opportunity arose in Canada.
My comment was a reference to certain cities in the US which require any development to provide a percentage of units for lower income persons. The developer doesn't pick the units and doesn't pick the tenant/s - a seperate agency makes such decisions. In a condo the owners of units would't know which units were occupied by low income persons.
It was suggested to me, by a representative of a developer, that such a provision in HRM would be acceptable if it applied to all developments.
HRM has chosen to ignore such a provision and prefers to barter for the ill defined ' public benefit'.
At City Hall 'Be Bold' is regarded as a slogan, not a call to action.

That's interesting, Colin. Which cities are these? Are they comparable to Halifax in size and population?

[Agricola]

Maynard is going to look a lot different in 5 years! Exciting times in the North End.

[hokus83]

So last Proposal for the year, I was wondering what it would be though I thought this one was already ago. I wonder if this the last one for this section for quite some time, it would be been nice if a similar development was put forward for the cyclesmith/NLC building, I find its odd they chose to build a one story box for that project

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by hokus83

So last Proposal for the year, I was wondering what it would be though I thought this one was already ago. I wonder if this the last one for this section for quite some time, it would be been nice if a similar development was put forward for the cyclesmith/NLC building, I find its odd they chose to build a one story box for that project

They didn't build a box; they renovated an existing 1960s box.

[hokus83]

Isn't the Jono St. Pats-Alexandra development 10 or 15% aforable houseing as part of their deal

[someone123]

Well, I have a feeling somebody who can't keep it together without bawling at a municipal planning meeting has some deeper issues. There are definitely some characters who show up to these things. I'd like to think the anti-single mother sentiment is a fringe thing.

The "I'll know it when I see it" attitude around density is problematic because people don't tend to clearly articulate what they want or what they think would be workable. There is no reasonable way for developers to make these people happy. This is my biggest complaint about Watts. Maybe I've just missed it, but she doesn't seem to have a vision for the urban core that works for anybody but current homeowners.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well, I have a feeling somebody who can't keep it together without bawling at a municipal planning meeting has some deeper issues. There are definitely some characters who show up to these things. I'd like to think the anti-single mother sentiment is a fringe thing.

The "I'll know it when I see it" attitude around density is problematic because people don't tend to clearly articulate what they want or what they think would be workable. There is no reasonable way for developers to make these people happy. This is my biggest complaint about Watts. Maybe I've just missed it, but she doesn't seem to have a vision for the urban core that works for anybody but current homeowners.

You haven't missed her vision, because she really doesn't have one. She has a re-election strategy, not a vision. She just opposes every proposed development at every stage, at all times. I think she's decided that it's a winning re-election formula and just sticks with it.

And, unfortunately, she does keep winning.

And when a councillor is so cluelessly single-minded, then they become polarizing. Such an approach polarizes more fair-minded councillors, making them angry and more "pro-development" than they would otherwise be. And the happy compromise in the middle is lost.

Watts creates the same problems that the NS Anti Development Trust causes -- they oppose every single development, and so developers do not consult with them, or try to work out a compromise. They know that any such efforts will be useless. And so, developers are polarized against the Trust and also heritage issues more generally, and so a proper compromise is lost. It's more productive to sue and humiliate the Trust, because you cannot work with them. They will sue you and oppose you no matter what steps you take to preserve heritage.