Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mixed-use developments and affordable housing
#16
(04-13-2018, 08:16 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(04-13-2018, 03:19 AM)jeffster Wrote: The real issue of affordable housing is that who would ever build such a thing? I don't think there is money to be made in that sector. Not to mention that affordable housing isn't always treated nicely by their tenants.

If it really means that much to them, then it would have be the region/city building it.  Or a greatly reduced tax (mill) rate on such units.

When a municipality requires a developer to incorporate affordable housing into projects (not a bad idea, imo), isn't the municipality expected to "make the developer whole" through some sort of subsidy?  I don't think the developer is expected not to be fully compensated for the construction of affordable housing.

A municipality can require a portion to be "affordable" (however that is defined) using zoning bylaws. Or by providing bonusing etc in exchange for some portion of affordable housing.
Reply


#17
To what extent does increasing the supply of housing overall (especially at the high end) increase the supply of affordable housing? Does making new condos provide any easing of housing costs elsewhere?

Even if the answer to any of that is yes I'd love to see more explicitly affordable housing projects, so the question is not leading to anything, I'm just pretty ignorant on the matter. I found an opinion piece published on the Fraser Institute that suggests it does (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/...ase-supply) but I am skeptical of the Fraser Institute (our politics are not in alignment, typically) and there isn't really anything resembling sources in that particular article.
Reply
#18
(04-13-2018, 03:09 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: To what extent does increasing the supply of housing overall (especially at the high end) increase the supply of affordable housing? Does making new condos provide any easing of housing costs elsewhere?

Even if the answer to any of that is yes I'd love to see more explicitly affordable housing projects, so the question is not leading to anything, I'm just pretty ignorant on the matter. I found an opinion piece published on the Fraser Institute that suggests it does (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/...ase-supply) but I am skeptical of the Fraser Institute (our politics are not in alignment, typically) and there isn't really anything resembling sources in that particular article.

The FI is not the most reliable sources, I find it's article's rather biased.

That being said, I think more housing is always important.  If a city is growing like Kitchener (and Waterloo) is (are), then people are moving here.  Not building housing means those wealthy people who are moving here will simply displace the poorer current residents.  Building housing helps reduce that problem.

The biggest argument for including affordable housing in new developments for me, is that I think it is better (for both the wealthy, and the poorer residents) to be exposed to a diverse group of people.  It is not good for anyone to live in an enclave of one's "own kind".
Reply
#19
If you follow council, they definitely can make affordable housing part of their requirements for bonusing. But if you follow council, you will see that the greater importance is on shadow impacts, potential wind impacts, heritage styling, excessive parking and auto-oriented design. It's like the saying "a council's vision isn't in it's mission statement, it's in its budget," and councils have repeatedly shown that words about affordable housing are hollow, but focus on style and lowering density are very real.
Reply
#20
(04-17-2018, 09:56 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: If you follow council, they definitely can make affordable housing part of their requirements for bonusing. But if you follow council, you will see that the greater importance is on shadow impacts, potential wind impacts, heritage styling, excessive parking and auto-oriented design. It's like the saying "a council's vision isn't in it's mission statement, it's in its budget," and councils have repeatedly shown that words about affordable housing are hollow, but focus on style and lowering density are very real.

Thoughts of the next election tend to always be in the councillors' minds, hence the concerns about shadow impacts, reduced density etc.
Reply
#21
That's what I mean, that's all they ever push for. Quick, name the last time a development was approved after adding affordable housing to itself to gain density bonusing. I can't think of one this millenium.
Reply
#22
A new project proposed for Cambridge with affordable housing units.
Seems like a lot of negative feedback from nearby neighbours.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/872...l-project/
Reply


#23
(07-05-2018, 06:57 PM)rangersfan Wrote: A new project proposed for Cambridge with affordable housing units.
Seems like a lot of negative feedback from nearby neighbours.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/872...l-project/

Negative and not much else, if the report is accurate ...
Reply
#24
(07-05-2018, 07:19 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(07-05-2018, 06:57 PM)rangersfan Wrote: A new project proposed for Cambridge with affordable housing units.
Seems like a lot of negative feedback from nearby neighbours.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/872...l-project/

Negative and not much else, if the report is accurate ...

It seems that it was a large delegation from the neighbourhood, with multiple (more than one) members.
Reply
#25
Is this a case of NIMBY vs. hey I live here and pay taxes and as such I want to have a voice in what gets done with this development?  What's wrong with speaking up?  Why is it categorized as negative unless it fits a certain ideal?  Would you not want to have a voice in your neighborhood (as we often do here)?
Reply
#26
Sure, everyone can speak up. But let's look at the comments from the two people who objected to the development, and what they are implying with their comments:
  • "Commercial is the best use and gives the highest tax base"
    Translation: She feels commercial is better, and a strip mall is preferable to affordable housing

  • Wilbur suggested the change would lead to greater crime, drug use and trash in the neighbourhood.
    Translation: People in affordable housing are criminals or drug addicts

  • "Affordable housing has a negative impact on surrounding property values"
    Translation: People in affordable housing reduce property values

  • Wilbur went on to suggest the new apartment buildings should have no balconies on its south side. She noted south-facing windows along one wing of the Satellite Motel have been blocked off, giving neighbouring residents privacy. 
    Translation: People in affordable housing should not be able to see into anyone's back yard. And they don't need balconies.

  • She asked that if the apartment project proceeds it not have reduced parking, and that a concrete privacy fence be installed to curtail noise and light pollution.
    Translation: Traffic noise is OK for people in affordable housing but not for people in single-family homes

  • Wilbur said people would have problems accessing the property coming southbound on Hespeler Road.
    Translation: People in affordable housing are unable to turn left. Motel residents have no such challenges.

  • He called for the regrading of the site to reduce the effects of potential toxic storm water run-off. 
    Translation: Affordable housing causes toxic storm water; no such problems with a motel.
Reply
#27
(07-05-2018, 08:27 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It seems that it was a large delegation from the neighbourhood, with multiple (more than one) members.

They should follow Kitchener council's lead and discredit their opinions. Clearly they are one group that has mobilized it's membership relative to the vast majority.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#28
(07-05-2018, 09:34 PM)embe Wrote: Is this a case of NIMBY vs. hey I live here and pay taxes and as such I want to have a voice in what gets done with this development?  What's wrong with speaking up?  Why is it categorized as negative unless it fits a certain ideal?  Would you not want to have a voice in your neighborhood (as we often do here)?

I tend to see it mostly as venting, especially when it's coming from individuals rather than organized neighbourhood groups backed by some sort of expertise.  The powers must allow people to "have there say", but not all are equally effective in influencing the decision-making process.
Reply


#29
(07-05-2018, 10:48 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(07-05-2018, 09:34 PM)embe Wrote: Is this a case of NIMBY vs. hey I live here and pay taxes and as such I want to have a voice in what gets done with this development?  What's wrong with speaking up?  Why is it categorized as negative unless it fits a certain ideal?  Would you not want to have a voice in your neighborhood (as we often do here)?

I tend to see it mostly as venting, especially when it's coming from individuals rather than organized neighbourhood groups backed by some sort of expertise.  The powers must allow people to "have there say", but not all are equally effective in influencing the decision-making process.

And as one of the Kitchener city council candidates told me today, the council really should do what's right, not necessarily what's most popular. We have a representative democracy, and we elect the representatives to make good decisions for us, not to just read opinion polls.
Reply
#30
(07-05-2018, 10:01 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Sure, everyone can speak up. But let's look at the comments from the two people who objected to the development, and what they are implying with their comments:
  • "Commercial is the best use and gives the highest tax base"
    Translation: She feels commercial is better, and a strip mall is preferable to affordable housing

  • Wilbur suggested the change would lead to greater crime, drug use and trash in the neighbourhood.
    Translation: People in affordable housing are criminals or drug addicts

  • "Affordable housing has a negative impact on surrounding property values"
    Translation: People in affordable housing reduce property values

  • Wilbur went on to suggest the new apartment buildings should have no balconies on its south side. She noted south-facing windows along one wing of the Satellite Motel have been blocked off, giving neighbouring residents privacy. 
    Translation: People in affordable housing should not be able to see into anyone's back yard. And they don't need balconies.

  • She asked that if the apartment project proceeds it not have reduced parking, and that a concrete privacy fence be installed to curtail noise and light pollution.
    Translation: Traffic noise is OK for people in affordable housing but not for people in single-family homes

  • Wilbur said people would have problems accessing the property coming southbound on Hespeler Road.
    Translation: People in affordable housing are unable to turn left. Motel residents have no such challenges.

  • He called for the regrading of the site to reduce the effects of potential toxic storm water run-off. 
    Translation: Affordable housing causes toxic storm water; no such problems with a motel.


Don't get me wrong. Your translation(s) come across as biased in a certain way and I'm curious why.  What would you like to see with this development?
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links