SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=223)
-   -   [Halifax] Roberts & Maynard | 24 m | 8 fl | Proposed (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=214613)

Dmajackson Dec 5, 2014 4:10 PM

[Halifax] Roberts & Maynard | 24 m | 8 fl | Proposed
 
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 Dec 5, 2014 5:44 PM

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 Dec 5, 2014 5:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson (Post 6832382)
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.

fenwick16 Dec 6, 2014 2:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson (Post 6832382)
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 Dec 6, 2014 3:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16 (Post 6833249)
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 Dec 6, 2014 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 6833292)
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.

Agricola Dec 6, 2014 4:22 PM

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

Hali87 Dec 6, 2014 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark (Post 6833553)
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.

hokus83 Dec 6, 2014 6:04 PM

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. Dec 6, 2014 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokus83 (Post 6833699)
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.

Colin May Dec 6, 2014 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark (Post 6833553)
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 Dec 6, 2014 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 6833868)
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 Dec 6, 2014 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 6833868)
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.

Keith P. Dec 6, 2014 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokus83 (Post 6833902)
I think you'll find everyone on here is in agreement with you on this.

You would be wrong.

There is no rationale for "affordable" housing units on SGR, Young Avenue, or any number of other high-end areas. Those occupants would stick out like sore thumbs and significantly devalue the saleability of the other units in the development. Perhaps we should do "poor doors" as has been done in NYC and other areas where property values are through the roof to keep the affordable units and their occupants well-separated from those paying market price.

someone123 Dec 6, 2014 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 6833952)
There is no rationale for "affordable" housing units on SGR, Young Avenue, or any number of other high-end areas. Those occupants would stick out like sore thumbs and significantly devalue the saleability of the other units in the development. Perhaps we should do "poor doors" as has been done in NYC and other areas where property values are through the roof to keep the affordable units and their occupants well-separated from those paying market price.

One solution to this might be to give developers the option of either providing below-market units or paying the market value of those units into a fund that can be used for other affordable housing projects, like the Housing Trust of NS buildings planned for Gottingen Street. Incidentally, those have taken years to get off the ground because of a lack of funding and approval issues. The biggest threat to affordable housing in most expensive Canadian cities is NIMBYism. Housing here in Vancouver costs a fortune because 80% of the city is off the table when it comes to intensification through redevelopment. There's a lot of contention for that remaining 20%, so most people can't afford it. The suburban and exurban areas meanwhile are often not so great for low income people because they basically require private vehicles. Even in Halifax the situation is pretty bad; rather than building more apartments on the peninsula the poor people get to live in areas like Spryfield and Sackville and rely on terrible bus service. The only good thing is that the far-flung areas in Halifax are a 40 minute bus ride rather than a 1.5 hour bus ride.

I do think the idea of mixing people of different incomes does make some sense, but you also get more bang for your buck building affordable housing in areas with lower property values. Even the units developers are forced to build are not "free" -- affordable housing units cost developers more in the higher-end neighbourhoods and that income can be redirected into affordable housing.

Colin May Dec 7, 2014 6:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87 (Post 6833905)
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.

The Mary Anne project :

September 2012 : Recommend that the Development Officer accept, as the post-bonus height public benefit for the development, the provision of residential units at a subsidized cost to contribute to housing affordability.

July 2013 : Recommend that the Development Officer accept, as the post-bonus height public benefit for the development, the provision of public parking facilities. :
" The proposal from the developer to provide an additional 71 spaces over the two sites far exceeds the LUB’s minimum public benefit requirement which would account for a total of between 5 and 7 spaces. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Regional Council adopt, by resolution, the bonus zoning agreement as provided in “Attachment A” of this report for the mixed-used development bounded by Queen, Clyde and Birmingham Streets in Halifax. "
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0730ca1016.pdf
Businesses on SGR wanted the parking spaces.

From the July 30 2013 Council minutes :
" Cllr Mason ....He advised that the developer will maintain the commitment under the terms of sale, that there will be a percentage of housing that will be below market cost. He clarified that since there is no provincial program that would provide subsidy support to low income housing on the site, there was a need to find an alternative to allow the bonus zoning.
In response to a question from Councillor McCluskey, Mr. Audas advised that there would be approximately 10 units of affordable housing in the development. "
The documents do not appear to contain a promise to provide such units.
Perhaps Cllr. Mason can provide a more complete answer. The letter from Fares contains no mention of any 'public benefit' other than parking.

spaustin Dec 7, 2014 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87 (Post 6833637)
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.

hokus83 Dec 7, 2014 10:44 PM

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

Waye Mason Dec 7, 2014 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 6832574)
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 Dec 8, 2014 2:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waye Mason (Post 6834823)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.