General Updates and News

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Hali87

So.. if there are no units set aside for low income, and no developer would do that on their own because it doesn't make economic sense, where do low-income people live? The public housing projects haven't exactly been a resounding success..

Why?

[planarchy]

Public Consultation on the North-South Peninsula Bicycle Corridor
Thursday, March 29, 7:00 - 9:00pm

Bloomfield Centre, 2786 Agricola St.

This session will include an overview of the options for a north-south bicycle corridor on the peninsula. Participants will be invited to provide their perspectives and priorities. This information will be used to inform the final recommendation to Regional Council.

http://halifax.ca/cycling/index.html

[planarchy]

Also - not sure if this has been mentioned, but the old pool hall on Gottingen is finally seeing a big reno. Main floor to be second Hub location I think. Not sure about upper two floors.

Also - retail space next to Pharasave has been under renovation for the past few weeks and 3 or 4 story small building with ground floor retail under construction here - http://g.co/maps/ed9ca

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Empire

Why?

Well, most of them are more or less cut off from anything that ISN'T public housing - Uniacke Square probably to the least extent, and Greystone definitely the most. This creates communities where the vast majority of residents live below the poverty line. Unemployment is significantly higher than other areas, as are crime rates. Consider that children are growing up in these communities - do you think they would be more likely to fall into the cycle of poverty/crime/unemployment if they were constantly surrounded by it, or if they were dispersed throughout the city and lived in places where there were actually things to do, places to go? Greystone actually has its own elementary/junior high school where almost all of the kids live in public housing. Less than 1 km away is Elizabeth Sutherland, another elementary/junior high that serves the non-public-housing kids.

I guess it's hard to qualify public housing in Halifax specifically as a "failure" but the general trend across North America is to move away from this type of public housing model. See Regent Park in Toronto for example.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Hali87

So.. if there are no units set aside for low income, and no developer would do that on their own because it doesn't make economic sense, where do low-income people live? The public housing projects haven't exactly been a resounding success..

Dont know where they'll live and honestly I dont care. Maybe get a job , off social assistance and a better apartment?

Ive lived in lots of apartments when i was younger that had their share of welfare recipients. Some landlords love it, because the check is always there. An honest assessment of those buildings, that I lived in mind you, would certainly have them as lower class. There is a certain type of individual that calls these places home, and their friends too. These buildings are kept in a certain manner, because the landlord nor the tenants care. One of the best days of my life was when i finally was able to move out and up, away from those places.

If I was a landlord now, having lived the experience, I would not want low incomes in my building. Its just not worth it.

Ill agree that my post smacks of elitism, but i've been there, done that.

[DigitalNinja]

I remember when I was younger, I lived with my parents my family and I had to rent an apartment for 3 months while our house was being built.
Most landlords in Halifax are SLUM landlords. I'm sorry to say it. But how the hell someone can justify renting out an apartment from the 1970's in 2011 or 2012 and charge $1000 for a two bedroom with the original flooring. (Or some very old reno flooring) Does not make sense to me. Sliding closet doors that are no more than cardboard.
These types of places should not be allowed. A simple renovation could fix much of this but all they want is their money.

Anyway I support density, I support condo's I support rentals. I support apartments that could be lower cost. But I do not support the majority of the owners of these apartments. (Transglobe, and others) that do not do jack shit for the people renting from them.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Well, most of them are more or less cut off from anything that ISN'T public housing - Uniacke Square probably to the least extent, and Greystone definitely the most. This creates communities where the vast majority of residents live below the poverty line. Unemployment is significantly higher than other areas, as are crime rates. Consider that children are growing up in these communities - do you think they would be more likely to fall into the cycle of poverty/crime/unemployment if they were constantly surrounded by it, or if they were dispersed throughout the city and lived in places where there were actually things to do, places to go? Greystone actually has its own elementary/junior high school where almost all of the kids live in public housing. Less than 1 km away is Elizabeth Sutherland, another elementary/junior high that serves the non-public-housing kids.

I guess it's hard to qualify public housing in Halifax specifically as a "failure" but the general trend across North America is to move away from this type of public housing model. See Regent Park in Toronto for example.

What I am saying is instead of the politically correct assimilation of disadvantaged individuals or groups into small new developments as a way to improve their conditions why not take better developments to them? Perhaps you would call this reverse "gentrification" just as forcing developments to include certain groups could be considered reverse "gentrification".

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Empire

What I am saying is instead of the politically correct assimilation of disadvantaged individuals or groups into small new developments as a way to improve their conditions why not take better developments to them? Perhaps you would call this reverse "gentrification" just as forcing developments to include certain groups could be considered reverse "gentrification".

I think this is another approach to create basically the same conditions. Whether the surrounding community creates more space for lower-income residents seeking upward mobility, or the public housing projects themselves are redeveloped to include more than just low-rent housing, things would improve dramatically. It's not about a politically correct "anyone should be able to live in any new development regardless of income" so much as a recognition that people who live in public housing, who are surrounded by nothing other than more public housing, don't have many opportunities, and that these conditions tend to foster crime and complacency in ways that mixed-use, mixed-income neighbourhoods don't.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I think this is another approach to create basically the same conditions. Whether the surrounding community creates more space for lower-income residents seeking upward mobility, or the public housing projects themselves are redeveloped to include more than just low-rent housing, things would improve dramatically. It's not about a politically correct "anyone should be able to live in any new development regardless of income" so much as a recognition that people who live in public housing, who are surrounded by nothing other than more public housing, don't have many opportunities, and that these conditions tend to foster crime and complacency in ways that mixed-use, mixed-income neighbourhoods don't.

I agree. Like I said, I think Gottingen's main problem is that it has a high concentration of public housing and not much else. It's hard to run a business in a situation like that. As a result, residents have fewer services and jobs available and fewer opportunities for entrepreneurship. Add in some social problems and it becomes a very difficult situation to deal with.

Unfortunately the sort of dialogue we are seeing with St. Pat's-Alexandra and the supposed gentrification dilemma isn't closely related to the reality of the neighbourhood. It's not a "developers vs. residents" situation or an "HRM vs. Uniacke Square" situation, but some people really wanted to cast it in an adversarial light and turn it into a political issue. That is the kind of stuff that creates a horrible climate for business and really holds neighbourhoods like this back. None of the locals have any money and if outside money is chased away they are stuck with what they've got. They might be able to lobby for more funding for nonprofits or public housing but that will never create a real economy to lift people out of poverty.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree. Like I said, I think Gottingen's main problem is that it has a high concentration of public housing and not much else. It's hard to run a business in a situation like that. As a result, residents have fewer services and jobs available and fewer opportunities for entrepreneurship. Add in some social problems and it becomes a very difficult situation to deal with.

Uniacke Square is the only public housing project that has an immediate effect on the North End. Mulgrave Park is really quite removed from the Gottingen strip. I would like to see more affordable housing incorporated in new developments in the North End and perhaps some retail space reserved for affordable applications. The biggest problem is that the allowable density is too low to be able to have a profitable development with an affordable component. Without the density the building design and quality will take the hit and contribute to the cycle of shoddy buildings.

There have to be more gov. incentives to allow an affordable component and a quality development simultaneously.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

I would like to see more affordable housing incorporated in new developments in the North End and perhaps some retail space reserved for affordable applications. The biggest problem is that the allowable density is too low to be able to have a profitable development with an affordable component.

I remember when the Brickyard development was first proposed. Originally it was going to be a multi-phase midrise loft setup, probably similar to a scaled-up Q Lofts. That was eventually cut down to townhouses. The whole thing was applauded by the usual suspects despite being a bit of a missed opportunity. It turned out okay, but would have been way better with more of a mix of housing and perhaps a commercial component. Allowing a 6 or 8 storey building next to those parking lots on Maitland Street would have had approximately zero impact on anybody, but they were deemed undesirable on an abstract level and that was enough.

The idea of business incubator space is interesting. I'm not sure if such a thing already exists, but it would be interesting to offer cheap space near Uniacke Square and create incentives for hiring locals and for getting people from around the city to volunteer.

[someone123]

By the way, there was an interesting story tonight in ANS about a craft brewery that will be opening up in an "undisclosed North End Halifax" location. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out.

Maybe there will be another on Gottingen to go along with Propeller.

[hoser111]

Originally Posted by someone123

By the way, there was an interesting story tonight in ANS about a craft brewery that will be opening up in an "undisclosed North End Halifax" location. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out.

Maybe there will be another on Gottingen to go along with Propeller.

There's a bit of info on it here: (I presume it's the same...)

http://www.thecoast.ca/Restaurantand...ry-for-halifax

[kph06]

Since the server upgrade the old Halifax threads have reappeared.

The Official Halifax Project Thread
Official Halifax Project Thread 2

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by kph06

Since the server upgrade the old Halifax threads have reappeared.

The Official Halifax Project Thread
Official Halifax Project Thread 2

It is interesting to see some of the old posts going back to 2003.

[Keith P.]

Interesting indeed. It is amazing how much has been accomplished in 9 years and equally discouraging how much was proposed but not done.

The entire Twisted Sisters discussion was quite interesting - the original proposal and the enthusiasm that created; the fight to get it through council; Howard Epstein and the HT trying to derail it and the efforts of many to oppose them; an then the approval to go ahead that resulted in nothing happening. So much energy for so little result...

Interestingly, if you read all the posts about the proposal, there was commentary from 2006 or 2007 that stated a HRM planner wished the towers were taller and narrower, like Skye, because they felt the Twisted Sisters were too wide - the taller, thinner towers were preferable for a variety of reasons. There was also discussion about how much of a market there would be for relatively expensive condos downtown, which Skye apparently tries to address. Fascinating.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Interestingly, if you read all the posts about the proposal, there was commentary from 2006 or 2007 that stated a HRM planner wished the towers were taller and narrower, like Skye, because they felt the Twisted Sisters were too wide - the taller, thinner towers were preferable for a variety of reasons. There was also discussion about how much of a market there would be for relatively expensive condos downtown, which Skye apparently tries to address. Fascinating.

It is interesting how few people have acknowledged the developer's straightforward explanation that Skye is better suited to the market than a stale proposal from 2004/2005. To my knowledge no journalists have responded to it. Instead we have a kind of "dialogue of the deaf" consisting of various people inventing reasons why Skye should not be permitted. As usual, the "debate" is more about evangelizing than about evaluating the proposal's merits.

[Jonovision]

Discovered a new tiny crane out near shearwater right before you get to autoport. It's on military land, it looks like its building some sort of infrastructure, but at this point it is still hard to tell.

Also, if anyone has been to Fishermans Cove lately there is a really nice new building there that is a great example of community infill.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Discovered a new tiny crane out near shearwater right before you get to autoport. It's on military land, it looks like its building some sort of infrastructure, but at this point it is still hard to tell.

If its a yellow one on the water side of the road that is for the expansion of the Eastern Passage waste water treatment plant.

[musicman]

Noticed that yellow crane there today as well..