HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 5:29 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
I got the attempt at satire, I just didn't find it satirical. I heard a piece on CBC this morning about the proposed development on Gottingen, where 50% of units will be at market rate, and 50% will be geared toward lower income; so someone in one unit with higher income would pay the market price, and someone in the unit "next door" who might work at Staples with a lower income would pay a rent geared toward that income, making it affordable to them. No one in the building would know which 50% their neighbors belong to. It reminded me of co-op housing where everyone has an opportunity to access quality housing. I can't imagine a argument against this. There are a number of people with good incomes who would pay their share, knowing that it creates opportunities for those with less income (before I bought a house, I would have done this); for those who don't support such arrangements, I won't be surprised that they would live elsewhere.
PS; Keith if you lived on Emscote, I don't you should be forced to do anthing you didn't want to do.
While I'm all for affordable housing, how is this at all sustainable? (whoops, I used Keith's other common planning committee term).

That is, how can a developer expect to make any money if they are letting/selling 1/2 of their condos/apartments "below market rate". That's just not financially feasible without government subsidy, which is a recipe for the dismal experiment that is public housing elsewhere has proven to be.

It makes more sense to require a smaller percentage of affordable housing but also incentivize more development, so you get the same number of units while also via increased number of overall units/supply, to decrease all prices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 5:37 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
http://www.housingtrust.ca/htns/
look at who is on their Board; they seem to be people who can make things work. HTNS is not meant to make a profit, they provide quality housing that is meant to be affordable and sustainable, the two things are not mutually exclusive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 6:18 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
I got the attempt at satire, I just didn't find it satirical. I heard a piece on CBC this morning about the proposed development on Gottingen, where 50% of units will be at market rate, and 50% will be geared toward lower income; so someone in one unit with higher income would pay the market price, and someone in the unit "next door" who might work at Staples with a lower income would pay a rent geared toward that income, making it affordable to them. No one in the building would know which 50% their neighbors belong to. It reminded me of co-op housing where everyone has an opportunity to access quality housing. I can't imagine a argument against this. There are a number of people with good incomes who would pay their share, knowing that it creates opportunities for those with less income (before I bought a house, I would have done this); for those who don't support such arrangements, I won't be surprised that they would live elsewhere.
So if this theoretical low-wage tenant moves out of the subsidized unit, does that mean only another low-wage earner can move in? Or does the unit go back to market price?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 6:53 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmcclassic View Post
So if this theoretical low-wage tenant moves out of the subsidized unit, does that mean only another low-wage earner can move in? Or does the unit go back to market price?
Since 50% is set for each category, then as one of each category moves out, then someone from the same category would move in. Seems pretty straight forward, unless I'm missing something. What I've seen with rent geared to income is that it enables individuals to use some of the money saved for things like education, mortgages. It can help people from being stuck at low income jobs and substandard housing. A little hope can go a long way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 8:41 PM
dtown dtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 72
There was just a piece on this on CBC. The story began with "there are already concerns about shadows on the commons" .....SHADOWS?! Come onnnn
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 10:02 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtown View Post
There was just a piece on this on CBC. The story began with "there are already concerns about shadows on the commons" .....SHADOWS?! Come onnnn
You didn't know? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the right to be free from shadows (s. 6) and wind (s. 8)).

Both fundamental human rights are commonly invoked by NIMBYs in Halifax,
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 10:07 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtown View Post
There was just a piece on this on CBC. The story began with "there are already concerns about shadows on the commons" .....SHADOWS?! Come onnnn
I swear to god, the CBC must have a red phone direct line to the anti-development HQ in this town. Just another reason for it to be blown up and privatized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 10:10 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
I heard a piece on CBC this morning about the proposed development on Gottingen, where 50% of units will be at market rate, and 50% will be geared toward lower income; so someone in one unit with higher income would pay the market price, and someone in the unit "next door" who might work at Staples with a lower income would pay a rent geared toward that income, making it affordable to them. No one in the building would know which 50% their neighbors belong to.
Until the welfare mom with 3 kids blabs to her poor sap neighbor paying full market rent what a deal she gets, as she heads out to a party.

This is just more Rev. Britton sh*t that institutionalizes poverty by removing any motivation for people to improve their own lot in life.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 12:08 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
Since 50% is set for each category, then as one of each category moves out, then someone from the same category would move in. Seems pretty straight forward, unless I'm missing something. What I've seen with rent geared to income is that it enables individuals to use some of the money saved for things like education, mortgages. It can help people from being stuck at low income jobs and substandard housing. A little hope can go a long way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Until the welfare mom with 3 kids blabs to her poor sap neighbor paying full market rent what a deal she gets, as she heads out to a party.

This is just more Rev. Britton sh*t that institutionalizes poverty by removing any motivation for people to improve their own lot in life.
What you said there JET is how I figured it worked. I hate to generalize a group of people, but Keith P. is kind of right here. Like anything in society, a good idea can easily be ruined by a few bad apples (who might not even know any better).

In this case, some people would theoretically use their savings to further their education, pay off debts, or save towards something like a car or house/condo. If this was how the average person looked at it, we could eradicate excessive poverty and a lot of crime in Halifax.

The reality in most cases though is that the average person doesn't have good financial management skills (especially many in the lower-income tier). I've seen too many of my acquaintances/people I grew up with suddenly come into some money (tax return, welfare/social assistance cheques) and then immediately blow it on weed,booze,partying,material goods they don't need, etc. It's getting even worse today - I know several people under 18 with 2 kids.... Yes, it starts before high school now.

I think the whole problem of poverty is going to have to be addressed by looking at our educational institutions and parenting structures.

*end rant*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 12:13 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Here's the CBC story. To their credit, they have supportive comments from the Quinpool Business Association in there:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...reet-1.2669815

Even Councillor Watts sounds positive in there, saying "This is a really dramatic moment for Quinpool Road in terms of this end of the street and what development could be..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 1:14 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Why is the demo of St. Pats being mentioned along with this? Is this some sort of package deal - "You let us build these buildings and we'll knock down St. Pats for you"? Anyway, glad to see Watts not come out railing against it.

Slightly off topic. I just noticed last night that the north-facing side of the building that would be knocked down doesn't have any windows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 1:37 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
Why is the demo of St. Pats being mentioned along with this? Is this some sort of package deal - "You let us build these buildings and we'll knock down St. Pats for you"? Anyway, glad to see Watts not come out railing against it.

Slightly off topic. I just noticed last night that the north-facing side of the building that would be knocked down doesn't have any windows.
Quinpool/Robie is a natural spot for some very high density (yes, height too) development. Everything you need is there, for a walkable neighbourhood.

Halifax commons with Oval in winter, Quinpool cafes, restaurants and shopping, Canadian tire, Atlantic Superstore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 1:58 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
I've always envisioned the west side of Robie being sort of like Central Park West in Manhattan with walls of high rises overlooking the commons. Cunard is more or less like this today. Quinpool could easily be of similar density, you just have to do it one block at a time. I was just surprised to hear of the St. Pats site being included in this proposal, I didn't think we were at that point yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 2:11 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Here's the CBC story. To their credit, they have supportive comments from the Quinpool Business Association in there:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...reet-1.2669815

Even Councillor Watts sounds positive in there, saying "This is a really dramatic moment for Quinpool Road in terms of this end of the street and what development could be..."
I would not take that statement by Watts as a positive statement but rather she says 'dramatic'. I fully expect she is concerned about 'what development could be' and we have a great big fight to get these projects down to appropriate (3 stories) size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 3:50 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax View Post
I would not take that statement by Watts as a positive statement but rather she says 'dramatic'. I fully expect she is concerned about 'what development could be' and we have a great big fight to get these projects down to appropriate (3 stories) size.
True. It's a very cryptic quote. Can mean many things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 3:58 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
I've always envisioned the west side of Robie being sort of like Central Park West in Manhattan with walls of high rises overlooking the commons. Cunard is more or less like this today. Quinpool could easily be of similar density, you just have to do it one block at a time. I was just surprised to hear of the St. Pats site being included in this proposal, I didn't think we were at that point yet.
I don't think the St. Pat's site is a part of this proposal (which is actually 2 separate proposals for a total of 3 towers). I think it was just mentioned since it's adjacent to the sites in question and is slated to be redeveloped within a similar timeframe. It would have been interesting if the renderings had included a more holistic look at that corner - what it would look like if all three addresses (plus or minus St. Pat's) are developed. Ultimately (assuming all go through) there will be new buildings wrapping around the Quinpool/Robie corner all the way to Quinpool Centre, plus the one on the south side of the street at Vernon.

Something interesting to note in the staff report is that they are asking for substantial amendments to both proposals - there are concerns that the two Quinpool towers are too close together and that the Robie Street one is too wide - height is actually a secondary concern in this report, which is a refreshing change, but expect the final designs to look considerably different from what has been proposed at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 4:09 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I don't think the St. Pat's site is a part of this proposal (which is actually 2 separate proposals for a total of 3 towers). I think it was just mentioned since it's adjacent to the sites in question and is slated to be redeveloped within a similar timeframe. It would have been interesting if the renderings had included a more holistic look at that corner - what it would look like if all three addresses (plus or minus St. Pat's) are developed. Ultimately (assuming all go through) there will be new buildings wrapping around the Quinpool/Robie corner all the way to Quinpool Centre, plus the one on the south side of the street at Vernon.

Something interesting to note in the staff report is that they are asking for substantial amendments to both proposals - there are concerns that the two Quinpool towers are too close together and that the Robie Street one is too wide - height is actually a secondary concern in this report, which is a refreshing change, but expect the final designs to look considerably different from what has been proposed at this point.
Too wide? Why too wide? Is that an obstruction concern?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 5:27 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I swear to god, the CBC must have a red phone direct line to the anti-development HQ in this town. Just another reason for it to be blown up and privatized.
Oh God, and replace it with yet another version of FOX news... gimme a break. The CBC is the last decent station left in the country. Sorry, off topic, but tired of the folks who want to turn Canada into USA junior...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 5:32 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Too wide? Why too wide? Is that an obstruction concern?
The argument (which I agree has some validity) is that the mass of the three towers combined, and particularly the Robie St. building, will cast significant shadows on the most heavily used part of the commons during the times of day that it is most heavily used (for cricket and baseball, mostly). The staff report argues that having a taller, slimmer tower on the Robie Street site may be a better option than what is proposed, since it would allow better sunlight penetration. It's one of the first times I've seen the planning establishment in HRM acknowledge that problems with shadows have as much or more to do with a building's width than its height.

The Quinpool site might be more of a challenge. HRM staff basically wants to double the distance between the two towers (which would bring the tower separation in line with HRMbD and what is common practice in most of Canada). I'm not sure how the proposal could be re-jigged to accommodate this short of merging it all into a single tower, or getting very creative with terracing and cantilevers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 6:41 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
The argument (which I agree has some validity) is that the mass of the three towers combined, and particularly the Robie St. building, will cast significant shadows on the most heavily used part of the commons during the times of day that it is most heavily used (for cricket and baseball, mostly). The staff report argues that having a taller, slimmer tower on the Robie Street site may be a better option than what is proposed, since it would allow better sunlight penetration. It's one of the first times I've seen the planning establishment in HRM acknowledge that problems with shadows have as much or more to do with a building's width than its height.
That's totally a valid concern.

And I think we'd all like to see a taller, thinner building rather than a shorter, squatter building anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:28 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.