Morrison-Draper Redevelopment: 3 towers & lowrise| 45.5-64.5 m |14-20 fl |Proposed - Page 4

adam-machiavelli · #61 Posted: **Jul 30, 2012, 3:58 PM**

That block of "old low-rise apartments" is reasonably-affordable rental housing. I don't know about you but I think it would be pretty immoral to replace affordable housing with luxury condos.

jaz · #62 Posted: **Aug 7, 2012, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

That block of "old low-rise apartments" is reasonably-affordable rental housing. I don't know about you but I think it would be pretty immoral to replace affordable housing with luxury condos.

Aren't the ones they are tearing down for this project affordable housing as well? It seems poor people are expendable and of course, no one wants to see 'affordable housing'.

RTWAP · #63 Posted: **Aug 12, 2012, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

That block of "old low-rise apartments" is reasonably-affordable rental housing. I don't know about you but I think it would be pretty immoral to replace affordable housing with luxury condos.

Who said anything about luxury condos?

And the owner doesn't have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to continue providing affordable housing. Getting off-topic, I don't think the city does either. I wish they'd get out of the business and instead of providing subsidized buildings they would just provide rent subsidies.

Closing the loop, those on subsidies should have their rental agreement as a sublet from the city, and the rental laws should be changed so landlords are prevented from disqualifying them based on income. If they fail to pay then the city cancels the rental agreement and claws back the subsidy from any future rental request. The city shouldn't be in the business of owning or managing rental properties.

I swear the public housing authority is more about keeping "those people" out of good neighbourhoods than about providing a decent and affordable place to live.

waterloowarrior · #64 Posted: **Aug 12, 2012, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Who said anything about luxury condos?

And the owner doesn't have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to continue providing affordable housing

In a way they do because there are restrictions in demolishing rental housing in the city's by-laws, they can't convert to condo unless they meet certain conditions in the Official Plan, and they can't raise the rent over provincial guidelines if the buildings are pre late '91.

kevinbottawa · #65 Posted: **Aug 14, 2012, 1:15 AM**

There's a website up for this one. http://QWcrossing.com

They're calling it Qualicum Woods Crossing, "Ottawa's cool new lifestyle-ready West-End Urban Village" and "The most affordable resort living in Ottawa".

It takes up four pages in the New Home and Condo Guide.

S-Man · #66 Posted: **Aug 14, 2012, 6:21 AM**

Can't wait to unleash my cool new lifestyle on the unsuspecting inhabitants of Qualicum Woods Crossing!

But seriously, those ridiculous write-ups of new developments have to go away. Even something annoyingly existential would work better for me right now.

"Qualicum Woods...is It."

There you go.

McC · #67 Posted: **Aug 14, 2012, 1:43 PM**

sorry QWXing, it's not a lifestyle community if there're no pictures of bicycles and people carrying market baskets.

adam-machiavelli · #68 Posted: **Aug 14, 2012, 2:46 PM**

Many people in public housing need more than just cheap rent. They need social supports INSIDE the building. Replacing public housing with rent subsidies has been tried in many American cities and has proven to be more costly and less effective.

kevinbottawa · #69 Posted: **Aug 14, 2012, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

But seriously, those ridiculous write-ups of new developments have to go away. Even something annoyingly existential would work better for me right now.

The real estate phrase I hate the most is "in the heart of..." Most times the project is never in the heart of that particular area or the city. Can every project in Westboro be in the heart of Westboro?

McC · #70 Posted: **Aug 14, 2012, 3:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

The real estate phrase I hate the most is "in the heart of..." Most times the project is never in the heart of that particular area or the city. Can every project in Westboro be in the heart of Westboro?

Perhaps they still ascribe to the quack theory about the "wandering womb" and think that hearts migrate around the body too?

S-Man · #71 Posted: **Aug 14, 2012, 6:34 PM**

I'm pretty sure Westboroite Ken Grey suffers from 'wandering brain', along with most of his temperance mob. They are, of course, concerned about 'wandering zoning'.

Uhuniau · #72 Posted: **Aug 15, 2012, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

The real estate phrase I hate the most is "in the heart of..." Most times the project is never in the heart of that particular area or the city. Can every project in Westboro be in the heart of Westboro?

Westboro is like the universe; there is no edge, and everything is moving away from everything else.

RTWAP · #73 Posted: **Sep 11, 2012, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Many people in public housing need more than just cheap rent. They need social supports INSIDE the building. Replacing public housing with rent subsidies has been tried in many American cities and has proven to be more costly and less effective.

Then you're not talking about affordable housing, you're talking about housing with enhanced social services. I can see that being more efficiently delivered in a dedicated building.

And the only reason I can think of why public housing would be more cost effective for general affordability cases is cost savings based on minimal maintenance and repair. Personally, I'd prefer people in affordable housing not be treated to crappy service.

RTWAP · #74 Posted: **Sep 11, 2012, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Westboro is like the universe; there is no edge, and everything is moving away from everything else.

Man, I wish this website had upvotes.

+1

waterloowarrior · #75 Posted: **Oct 5, 2012, 4:15 AM**

site plan application
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__8AHCP1

canabiz · #76 Posted: **Oct 19, 2012, 2:58 AM**

I was at the grand opening earlier today and there was enough traffic and sales (judging by the number of stickers on the map).

I used to live in the area (near Centrepointe) and think this location is really good, close to the highways, hospitals, shopping and schools.

1 bedroom starts at the low 200 and 2 bedroom starts at the high 200. Closing date is late 2014 and i was told construction would begin once they sell 50% of the units.

rocketphish · #77 Posted: **Oct 19, 2012, 4:59 PM**

We should probably update the title of this thread to reflect the latest siteplan (number of buildings and heights).

canabiz · #78 Posted: **Nov 1, 2012, 11:22 PM**

I was here today at lunch with a colleague and they have knocked 2% off the grand opening price to push sales along.

I used to live in the area and appreciated the proximity to everything but when you are looking at $270K (including parking) for a 700 square feet 1-bedroom + den apartment, it is not an easy pill to swallow. From an investor's perspective, you would need to charge at least $1,500 (assuming standard 20% down) just to break even and I am not sure if people are willing to pay that amount to live here.

I think this project has potential (it used to be called the Courtyards) but they need to look at the prices, again.

canabiz · #79 Posted: **Mar 11, 2013, 11:37 PM**

Since my last post, I have received several emails advertising new prices and promos (no property tax for first year, no land transfer tax, no Tarion enrollment fee etc)

I hope they can get the project going in a timely manner. Like I said, I love the location but the price is obviously a sticky point and I think they have started to address that.