HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 4:18 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,025
[Halifax] 5555 Almon Street | ? m | 7 fl | Proposed

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)
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 20, 2015, 5:10 PM
Duff's Avatar
Duff Duff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: West End Halifax
Posts: 317
Details on this are now available on the Halifax Planning website. http://www.halifax.ca/planning/appli...862Details.php



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 20, 2015, 5:50 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,502
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 1:08 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
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,
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 11:52 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 12:46 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 1:25 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 1:31 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 1:36 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 2:42 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 3:18 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Orlando
Posts: 917
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 3:39 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 3:42 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 5:02 PM
hokus83 hokus83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 6:25 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by hokus83 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 9:21 PM
jslath's Avatar
jslath jslath is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
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.
__________________
"The physician can bury his mistakes, but the architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 9:35 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 9:55 PM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
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?

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Hali87; May 21, 2015 at 10:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 10:27 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 10:30 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
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.
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 7:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.