06-19-2022, 05:08 PM
(06-18-2022, 02:02 PM)CP42 Wrote: Are the highrise condo towers out of our control?
https://archive.ph/ijkO8
While I agree with the need to add parkland (potentially to convert city owned parking lots), I don’t see how this has to do with towers. That is on the city to implement. They know the towers are coming, so make a plan.
I also don’t understand why there is so much criticism on condo developers offering affordable units under $368k being an issue that investors can buy and flip them? Please direct me to a non-tower housing development that has units below this price. Why isn’t there scrutiny for single detached developments being unaffordable? Go to a new suburb development in the SW end of Kitchener and I bet you the cheapest home you can purchase is around $1M, yet nobody is complaining there because it matches the status quo of what has been “normal” in Kitchener.
Longtime reader of the forum. My first time contributing. I think that CP42 brings up a couple of important points.
With respect to affordable housing and single detached developments, I agree that the scrutiny is not the same as for condo developers (especially in the Uptown/Downtown). The question of how any developer is addressing housing affordability should be asked by Councilors and the public. There is a difference however. Some condo developers are including affordable housing measures as part of the 'community benefits' that the project offers when asking the city of increased density or other zoning changes. When that claim is made, some scrutiny of the benefit claimed is warranted. In some cases the affordable housing benefit has been a commitment to donate an amount to an affordable housing provider. In the case of the project at Victoria and Park the development will include 50 units at $368,000.
While I applaud the contributions to affordable housing from all developers, they have varied widely in a $ per unit proposed or $ per additional unit above current zoning and I can see how it is difficult for staff and Council to score these 'community benefits'. It seems that there may also be some confusion related to the 50 units at $ 368,000 as indicated by the discussion about keeping them affordable in the long term or investors buying and flipping them for a quick profit. Also, during the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting there was discussion that these units have a market value between $450,000 and $500,000. It is unclear from the application which 50 units will be sold for $368,000, but there are 50 bachelor units (379 sqft) which could be sold at market value ($900 - $1000/sqft) and be in the range of $368,000. From the Community Benefits Letter, attachment F.
"Affordable housing units:
The Owner is committing to provide dwelling units on-site as part of the proposed development that would meet the definition of affordable home ownership as per the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and Regional Official Plan (“ROP”). The proposed development includes a total of 1,124 residential units comprised of bachelor, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The dwelling units will range in size from 376 ft² to 1,098 ft² with a considerable number of units sized that could be purchased at a price considered affordable ownership as per the PPS and ROP, based on current market rates (currently, 50 dwellings meet this definition).
As noted above, the Owner has also committed to a significant financial contribution to a local affordable housing provider to ensure the effective provision and long-term availability and management of affordable rental housing."
If the 'community benefits' represent value in exchange for density, there should be some accounting of the value received.
My thoughts...