Developments on Gottingen Street

[halifaxboyns]

From the Coast Magazine - Reality Bites section
http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...ttingen-street

Big changes on Gottingen Street
MET store will finally get razed as affordable housing organization to build two eight- to 10-storey buildings
Posted by Tim Bousquet on Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Big changes are in store for Gottingen Street. A new non-profit group dedicated to providing affordable housing is forging ahead with a proposal for two eight- to 10-storey apartment buildings. One is on the site of the former Diamonds bar at the foot of Cunard Street, across Prince William Street from the YMCA; the second is on the site of the much-neglected MET store, Mitchell’s Enviro Treasures, a half-block south of Diamonds, between Alteregos Cafe and the Good Food Emporium.
The Housing Trust of Nova Scotia is a new organization founded by Ross Cantwell, a real estate consultant with Colliers International who has extensive experience in affordable housing agencies. The Housing Trust’s board reads like a Who’s Who of the local development industry: It includes Cantwell, developer Louis Lawen and executives associated with many of the largest property firms in Nova Scotia.

“We’ve got designers, we’ve got guys who build things, we’ve got lawyers, mortgage brokers, the whole bit,” says Cantwell, explaining that he brought together the expertise to build new housing quickly.

To purchase the land, Cantwell’s group took advantage of funding made available through a federal-provincial agreement to create more affordable housing in Nova Scotia, but construction costs will come via a normal mortgage. For that reason, the project will be a mix of below-market and market-priced apartments.

Cantwell says each building will consist of about 100 units, about half of which will be designated “affordable,” which means that residents will spend no more than 30 percent of their income on rent, heat and utilities---about $200/month less than the market-priced apartments, depending on circumstance. The Gottingen Street ground level of each building will be retail and commercial space. The exact configuration of the buildings will await architectural renderings. “Right now, we’re interviewing three architects, and we hope to have one selected by next week,” says Cantwell. The goal is to start construction by the end of the year.

One potential stumbling block is that the buildings exceed the 50-foot height limits for Gottingen Street and 40-foot height limits on Maitland Street, the street one block down the hill, running along the rear of the new buildings. Cantwell says that with the 18-foot grade change and the lower height limit on Maitland, any building spanning the block would be “ridiculous looking.” The Housing Trust has asked the city for a variance, and he expects approval.

The councillor for the area, Dawn Sloane, is very supportive of granting that variance. “If it was for condos, I’d have a different feeling,” says Sloane. “But for affordable housing, to help people stay in the neighbourhood, I’m very excited.”

The sale of the Diamonds building was completed March 31 with no problems, says Cantwell.

The dilapidated MET building has been cited for repeated bylaw infractions and had over $300,000 in liens placed on it. Nearby residents have complained that the building houses rats and is generally a blight on the neighbourhood. In recent years several people have attempted to buy the building, but the deals have fallen through as MET owner Wayne Mitchell backed out of the potential sales. Cantwell too says Mitchell was putting up obstacles to an agreed-upon March 31 closing date, but just this morning (Tuesday) HRM reports it has received payment in full on the liens, meaning that the property is now formally in Housing Trust’s hands.

*****************
Sounds pretty exciting. I would definately support taller buildings in this area to help beef it up!

[Dmajackson]

Here is one of the sites

[hoser111]

Dawn Sloane, is very supportive of granting that variance. “If it was for condos, I’d have a different feeling,” says Sloane.

Now that really peeves me.... her personal whims should have nothing to do with approving or disapproving development.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by hoser111

Dawn Sloane, is very supportive of granting that variance. “If it was for condos, I’d have a different feeling,” says Sloane.

Now that really peeves me.... her personal whims should have nothing to do with approving or disapproving development.

That rubbed me the wrong way also. Should people who pay full price for apartments and condos be snubbed? I am supportive of the idea of promoting low income housing, but councillors should be supportive of the middle class and wealthy who are paying top dollars for accommodations.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Exceptionally exciting news for Gottingen. Between these two projects and the soon to start townhomes on the old Sobeys site the street will quickly change for the better. Very happy to see a good mix of affordable units and market. Very exciting.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

That rubbed me the wrong way also. Should people who pay full price for apartments and condos be snubbed? I am supportive of the idea of promoting low income housing, but councillors should be supportive of the middle class and wealthy who are paying top dollars for accommodations.

It should be noted that this isn't quite low-income housing, as low-income people will unlikely be able to afford them. Similar to the Gottingen Terrace project, this is more an affordable housing project, aimed more at people with minimum $35,000/year (far above low-income thresholds).

That being said, I don't think Sloane is out of line with this comment, she is a resident of the neighbourhood and is generally representing a specific segment of the population that resides in these neighbourhoods. I just see this as her saying that it is nice to finally see a better balance in urban development - and in a manner that does not rely on federal or provincial subsidies to provide affordable housing. Looking forward to the renderings.

[someone123]

She may be representing a segment of the population but she is the councillor for the whole downtown area.

She's also wrong on a lot of issues and confused when it comes to economics. Restricting the housing supply is not going to help with low income housing. Condos are not evil, they're just a way to structure development where there is a mix of private and collective ownership. There are condos built by private developers for sale on Gottingen that cost only $129,000, which is affordable if you make only $35,000 per year.

To be honest I find it a little disgusting that Sloane considers herself a valid judge of who should or should not get housing in her district.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

She may be representing a segment of the population but she is the councillor for the whole downtown area.

She's also wrong on a lot of issues and confused when it comes to economics. Restricting the housing supply is not going to help with low income housing. Condos are not evil, they're just a way to structure development where there is a mix of private and collective ownership. There are condos built by private developers for sale on Gottingen that cost only $129,000, which is affordable if you make only $35,000 per year.

To be honest I find it a little disgusting that Sloane considers herself a valid judge of who should or should not get housing in her district.

it should be a prerequisite that councilors of downtown areas have a strong understanding of the fundmentals of economics..................

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

That rubbed me the wrong way also. Should people who pay full price for apartments and condos be snubbed? I am supportive of the idea of promoting low income housing, but councillors should be supportive of the middle class and wealthy who are paying top dollars for accommodations.

I don't think of it that way - I take a different interpretation of it. I seem to recall someone saying in a different thread that what makes this area unique is the mix of different cultures, but typically this area stays quite low rent (say compared to the apartment buildings along Brunswick).

I think she's taking the approach that with more affordable housing in downtown, it will give more people an opportunity to move into the area, but not have to shell out huge sums of $. That was one of the negatives to such initiatives in Vancouver - when all that density went up, the cost shot up too.

That being said - an apartment building is an apartment building and so if it were to be sold and condo'ed out later - I don't think there is much to stop it.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I don't think of it that way - I take a different interpretation of it. I seem to recall someone saying in a different thread that what makes this area unique is the mix of different cultures, but typically this area stays quite low rent (say compared to the apartment buildings along Brunswick).

I think she's taking the approach that with more affordable housing in downtown, it will give more people an opportunity to move into the area, but not have to shell out huge sums of $. That was one of the negatives to such initiatives in Vancouver - when all that density went up, the cost shot up too.

That being said - an apartment building is an apartment building and so if it were to be sold and condo'ed out later - I don't think there is much to stop it.

The quote indicates a knowledge that allowing taller buildings will result in lower rent and condo prices. If prices are affordable then lower income families can also afford condos. This is an issue that I have with HRM by Design; a great deal of thought was put into lower building height to avoid shadow effects but little thought was put into the fact that taller buildings are more economical and put less strain on city infrastructure through densification.

When proposals are being approved by 17 to 3 and 15 to 5, then that should be a sign to the councillors who are opposed that they are not in the majority. If certain councillors are continuously in the minority then who is it that they represent? This is the source of annoyance on the forum, some councillors are always going against the will of the majority.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The quote indicates a knowledge that allowing taller buildings will result in lower rent and condo prices. If prices are affordable then lower income families can also afford condos. This is an issue that I have with HRM by Design; a great deal of thought was put into lower building height to avoid shadow effects but little thought was put into the fact that taller buildings are more economical and put less strain on city infrastructure through densification.

When proposals are being approved by 17 to 3 and 15 to 5, then that should be a sign to the councillors who are opposed that they are not in the majority. If certain councillors are continuously in the minority then who is it that they represent? This is the source of annoyance on the forum, some councillors are always going against the will of the majority.

I've always had the belief that while some people vote in favour of projects because they see the long range implications or just have a personal belief that it's a good thing.

For those that vote against - I think sometimes politicians are torn between the will of the public and their beliefs. I know a few of the Alderman in Calgary and I know that can be battle for them and I'm sure it is anywhere. Ultimately they have to make the decision they believe is best, whether its for the will of all, or their own decision. We may not agree (and it seems we often don't on here haha), but they vote the way they feel is best. That's my humble opinion of course.

[alps]

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=44...13.01,,0,-3.21

Is this the MET building?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I don't think of it that way - I take a different interpretation of it. I seem to recall someone saying in a different thread that what makes this area unique is the mix of different cultures, but typically this area stays quite low rent (say compared to the apartment buildings along Brunswick).

Why does this have to be fixed? Cities change over time and it seems very inefficient to have an area like Gottingen which is half-empty and clearly undesirable (most people have left). It's starting to do well now because there are new people moving in. Some have bought cheap properties and some have bought expensive ones. Most have mid-range properties because Halifax in general is a very middle class city - there just aren't hordes of millionaires out there to buy fancy condos everywhere, and even if there were they wouldn't buy them on Gottingen.

Really what you're talking about is the inverse of what people complain about in the South End. There, you have people who argue that apartment buildings should not have small units or that houses should not be subdivided because then students or nurses might move into them (seriously, people have complained about nurses moving in next to the hospital - people who will probably need somebody to change their bedpan in 10 years). It's unfair there just as it's unfair on Gottingen to pretend that the neighbourhood is only for a certain kind of person.

I think she's taking the approach that with more affordable housing in downtown, it will give more people an opportunity to move into the area, but not have to shell out huge sums of $. That was one of the negatives to such initiatives in Vancouver - when all that density went up, the cost shot up too.

High housing costs in Vancouver are not caused by density, they are caused by a lack of housing supply relative to demand. If Vancouver had more condos then condo prices would fall - this is how markets work. As for not shelling out huge sums of money, sounds great, sign me up! I think that's what everybody would like. Why do some get it while others do not?

@alps - yep, that's the building.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

That rubbed me the wrong way also. Should people who pay full price for apartments and condos be snubbed? I am supportive of the idea of promoting low income housing, but councillors should be supportive of the middle class and wealthy who are paying top dollars for accommodations.

What ticks me off more is the Tim dude writing the article. He without fail criticizes every single development that requires any height. Now this one comes along, asks for the same changes to height regulations, and he doens't say a thing. Complete two-faced double standard.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

What ticks me off more is the Tim dude writing the article. He without fail criticizes every single development that requires any height. Now this one comes along, asks for the same changes to height regulations, and he doens't say a thing. Complete two-faced double standard.

Have you ever thought of running for municipal council beyeas. I am not being sarcastic, the Halifax area needs more pro-business leaders in council. You have experience organizing large conferences and are pro-development, and you seem to have business experience (based on what I have read on this forum).

Maybe there are others on this forum who can get involved in politics and have a positive influence on growth in the Halifax area.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Have you ever thought of running for municipal council beyeas. I am not being sarcastic, the Halifax area needs more pro-business leaders in council. You have experience organizing large conferences and are pro-development, and you seem to have business experience (based on what I have read on this forum).

Maybe there are others on this forum who can get involved in politics and have a positive influence on growth in the Halifax area.

LOL no. I generally look at the political process as necessary evil! :-)

Plus I don't have business experience (I just absorb some of it from my wife!). I am a medical researcher... and academics generally don't make good politicians (see Iggy as exhibit A!).

[halifaxboyns]

I just think that supporting a height change for a project should be done in a fair way - that's my opinion. So regardless if this were a condo project or affordable housing, if it's providing redevelopment for an area that could use it - then the benefits should be examined versus the cost.

I can't speak really to Councillor Sloane's comments other than to really give my interpretation of it.

My take on the whole thing would be to give them slightly more height, with a bonusing structure if a certain number of affordable housing units were incorporated. That way - it could be taller but only under certain circumstances.

Either way, if this project goes ahead - I think it will be a great start to helping this area improve. My only hope is that they retain the community garden - I always believe these things are important.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I just think that supporting a height change for a project should be done in a fair way - that's my opinion. So regardless if this were a condo project or affordable housing, if it's providing redevelopment for an area that could use it - then the benefits should be examined versus the cost.

I can't speak really to Councillor Sloane's comments other than to really give my interpretation of it.

My take on the whole thing would be to give them slightly more height, with a bonusing structure if a certain number of affordable housing units were incorporated. That way - it could be taller but only under certain circumstances.

Either way, if this project goes ahead - I think it will be a great start to helping this area improve. My only hope is that they retain the community garden - I always believe these things are important.

My hope is that the modest income card isn't exploited to justify modest buildings. This was certainly the case on the corner of Buddy Day and Creighton. No matter how you try to stretch that design it falls short of modern and sustainable. (Cheap design-cheap materials). This could be the catalyst that Gottingen needs but if the buildings are very bland then it is a missed opportunity. The 9 storey building on Gottingen across from the Marquee comes to mind as fitting the missed opportunity bland design category.

Across from Marquee
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&t=k&l...,0.006368&z=18

Buddy Day & Creighton
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&t=k&l...,0.006357&z=18

[JET]

let's see if this works:
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&t=k&l...,0.006357&z=18

This public housing building at 2438 Gottingen is very nice, they took there time and added some nice details.
I've always liked Victoria Hall on the left. JET

[JET]

Originally Posted by JET

let's see if this works:
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&t=k&l...,0.006357&z=18

This public housing building at 2438 Gottingen is very nice, they took there time and added some nice details.
I've always liked Victoria Hall on the left. JET

tried the google street, but no luck. I don't have the latin for the learnin'