[Halifax] 5555 Almon (2811 Isleville) | 32 M | 11 FL | U/C

[Dmajackson]

No details page is up on Halifax Planning's website yet but there is a sign on site.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[Duff]

Details on this are now available on the Halifax Planning website. http://www.halifax.ca/planning/appli...862Details.php

[JET]

5555 ALMON STREET is a nasty looking building, god only knows what is under the grey vinyl. I can usually see potential in most old buildings, but there's nothing left here. Good to see that there is a plan to replace.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by JET

5555 ALMON STREET is a nasty looking building, god only knows what is under the grey vinyl. I can usually see potential in most old buildings, but there's nothing left here. Good to see that there is a plan to replace.

The 3 properties scream 'Slum landlord'; a new building is an improvement but somehow I doubt existing tenants will have the means to remain in the area.
HRM needs to require affordable housing units in all developments; if the Yanks can do it surely we can,

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The 3 properties scream 'Slum landlord'; a new building is an improvement but somehow I doubt existing tenants will have the means to remain in the area.
HRM needs to require affordable housing units in all developments; if the Yanks can do it surely we can,

As long as there are "poor doors" or other segregation from those paying market rents. Otherwise the entire development is devalued.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

As long as there are "poor doors" or other segregation from those paying market rents. Otherwise the entire development is devalued.

Poor people do not devalue; people with poor attidudes devalue. Keith, I take it that you've never been poor, or had to rely on the kindness of strangers?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Poor people do not devalue; people with poor attidudes devalue. Keith, I take it that you've never been poor, or had to rely on the kindness of strangers?

Irrelevant. But if I had, I would not expect to live next door to someone paying $2000/month in a brand new high-quality development.

I am not opposed to affordable housing, whatever that is supposed to be. But requiring all new developments to incorporate same into their proposal without reference to the intended market and location is very shortsighted and will have a negative effect upon development.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am not opposed to affordable housing, whatever that is supposed to be. But requiring all new developments to incorporate same into their proposal without reference to the intended market and location is very shortsighted and will have a negative effect upon development.

It hasn't had a negative effect on development in Vancouver, where such policies are common. Requiring a small percentage of privately developed units to be affordable takes the onus off the public purse to develop such housing, mitigates the creation of ghettos, and creates more social mobility for the poor. It's excellent social policy and doesn't really hit developers too hard. Which is why it's become such a popular means of providing affordable housing.


Edit: It's excellent to see all the positive change in this neighbourhood, but boy, this development looks like a bunch of brightly coloured Jenga cubes. Not in a good way.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Irrelevant. But if I had, I would not expect to live next door to someone paying $2000/month in a brand new high-quality development.

I am not opposed to affordable housing, whatever that is supposed to be. But requiring all new developments to incorporate same into their proposal without reference to the intended market and location is very shortsighted and will have a negative effect upon development.

"Irrelevant." Perhaps, but is often informative. The fact that you would not want to live in a new $2,000/month place, next door to someone of limited means, does not mean that there are not people who would. I have a rooming house on one side of me and a co-op house on the other side. I have good neighbours. A mix can result in a great neighborhood. There are rich and poor ghettos.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It hasn't had a negative effect on development in Vancouver, where such policies are common.

The housing market in Vancouver is an aberration and cannot be transferred to Halifax. Conditions are totally different.

Requiring a small percentage of privately developed units to be affordable takes the onus off the public purse to develop such housing, mitigates the creation of ghettos, and creates more social mobility for the poor. It's excellent social policy and doesn't really hit developers too hard. Which is why it's become such a popular means of providing affordable housing.

Developers hate it and you know it. Nobody constructing units in a upscale area selling for $500K and up wants to be forced to include some $500/month units. And the potential paying clients - outside of some NDP members by and large - do not want welfare cases down the hall. Utopia is nice in theory, but it is unattainable.

[ILoveHalifax]

Great discussion.
How about we redevelop 22 and 26 Sussex Dr to affordable housing
and the same on both sides of Rideau Hall - let's see how it really works

[JET]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Great discussion.
How about we redevelop 22 and 26 Sussex Dr to affordable housing
and the same on both sides of Rideau Hall - let's see how it really works

I expect that Jack Layton would have supported that.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The housing market in Vancouver is an aberration and cannot be transferred to Halifax. Conditions are totally different.



Developers hate it and you know it. Nobody constructing units in a upscale area selling for $500K and up wants to be forced to include some $500/month units. And the potential paying clients - outside of some NDP members by and large - do not want welfare cases down the hall. Utopia is nice in theory, but it is unattainable.

Fortunately, we don't have development regulations and social policy implemented based on entirely on what developers like (and I'm sure not all of them hate it).

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by JET

Poor people do not devalue; people with poor attidudes devalue. Keith, I take it that you've never been poor, or had to rely on the kindness of strangers?

I always thought Keith was some paraplegic with no legs.

[JET]

Originally Posted by hokus83

I always thought Keith was some paraplegic with no legs.

Well, that might be, but as he would no doubt say, it would be irrelevant;
and as I might say, that might be informative. Here's to hoping that he is hearty and healthy.

[jslath]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

As long as there are "poor doors" or other segregation from those paying market rents. Otherwise the entire development is devalued.

"poor doors" ... if you don't already, you should listen to the freakonomics podcast. Especially the one called Fitness Apartheid, you, or anyone else, may find it interesting. They talk about "poor doors" and segregation in building projects.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

As long as there are "poor doors" or other segregation from those paying market rents. Otherwise the entire development is devalued.

Murderers,rapists,wife beaters, thieves live in regular housing and in mansions and in high end condos.
The Hell's Angels were 4 doors away and I didn't know until a joint HRP + RCMP raid cleared them out.
I have several group homes within 100 yards.
Houses on my street sell in a day.
Attitudes devalue neighbourhoods not the zoning.
CBC TV just ran a story on rooming houses, something that Mayor Savage could care less about and has never spoken about since becoming mayor.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Developers hate it and you know it. Nobody constructing units in a upscale area selling for $500K and up wants to be forced to include some $500/month units.

None of the developers in Halifax are really doing this though - where are the areas where units start at $500k?

And the potential paying clients - outside of some NDP members by and large - do not want welfare cases down the hall. Utopia is nice in theory, but it is unattainable

I'd rather not live in the kind of city where people like this are encouraged to build their own enclaves near key employment areas. There are plenty of "rich people" who don't shudder at the thought of living in the same building as a "poor person" and frankly I'd rather the city attract people like this than the type who do shudder.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Hali87

None of the developers in Halifax are really doing this though - where are the areas where units start at $500k?



I'd rather not live in the kind of city where people like this are encouraged to build their own enclaves near key employment areas. There are plenty of "rich people" who don't shudder at the thought of living in the same building as a "poor person" and frankly I'd rather the city attract people like this than the type who do shudder.

Nicely said.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Murderers,rapists,wife beaters, thieves live in regular housing and in mansions and in high end condos.
The Hell's Angels were 4 doors away and I didn't know until a joint HRP + RCMP raid cleared them out.
I have several group homes within 100 yards.
Houses on my street sell in a day.
Attitudes devalue neighbourhoods not the zoning.
CBC TV just ran a story on rooming houses, something that Mayor Savage could care less about and has never spoken about since becoming mayor.

Colin, I didn't know that the Angels were 4 doors from you, that means that they were just around the corner from me.