Posts: 989
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation:
29
I think he was comparing traditional buying to live/invest to rent to only person/family vs mixed intent ie. Air BnB, students, low-income (if a particular building includes these) etc.
Interesting point and one not to look over at end of article re: creating a ghetto if entire Charles St. Terminal is redeveloped into all affordable housing. So you mix, because that's what cities are doing - what's a good ratio then, how does one find a balance?
Posts: 6,601
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
100
(03-03-2020, 08:55 AM)Momo26 Wrote: I think he was comparing traditional buying to live/invest to rent to only person/family vs mixed intent ie. Air BnB, students, low-income (if a particular building includes these) etc.
Interesting point and one not to look over at end of article re: creating a ghetto if entire Charles St. Terminal is redeveloped into all affordable housing. So you mix, because that's what cities are doing - what's a good ratio then, how does one find a balance? Has it been seriously suggested that the terminal be given over to “affordable” housing only? I would have thought it more likely that there’d be political will and budget for, at most, an affordable or public housing component.
The idea of converting the old police station to an expanded KWAG is an interesting one. The walled section of the old goal could make a interesting sculpture garden pending something more ambitious in future.
Posts: 10,552
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
336
(03-03-2020, 08:55 AM)Momo26 Wrote: I think he was comparing traditional buying to live/invest to rent to only person/family vs mixed intent ie. Air BnB, students, low-income (if a particular building includes these) etc.
Most condo buildings restrict/limit the ability to do short-term rentals today. The ones that explicitly allow it are asking for trouble, I think.
Posts: 7,771
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
211
03-03-2020, 02:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2020, 02:47 PM by danbrotherston.)
(03-03-2020, 02:26 PM)panamaniac Wrote: (03-03-2020, 08:55 AM)Momo26 Wrote: I think he was comparing traditional buying to live/invest to rent to only person/family vs mixed intent ie. Air BnB, students, low-income (if a particular building includes these) etc.
Interesting point and one not to look over at end of article re: creating a ghetto if entire Charles St. Terminal is redeveloped into all affordable housing. So you mix, because that's what cities are doing - what's a good ratio then, how does one find a balance? Has it been seriously suggested that the terminal be given over to “affordable” housing only? I would have thought it more likely that there’d be political will and budget for, at most, an affordable or public housing component.
The idea of converting the old police station to an expanded KWAG is an interesting one. The walled section of the old goal could make a interesting sculpture garden pending something more ambitious in future.
"Serious calls"...certainly there have been loud voices in the community demanding it, and many more moderate voices suggesting it.
The condo board is a question for sure, but ultimately, I would hope those who rent out their units want a building maintained in a good state of repair.
Also, very strange comment about RoboCop, that was definitely Houston's City Hall not ours...ours isn't even really "futuristic"...
Posts: 989
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation:
29
Ah so an incorrect fact about RoboCop?
Re: air BnB restriction, one has/had the ability to buy an 'short term rental license' for Station Park!
Posts: 10,552
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
336
(03-03-2020, 03:51 PM)Momo26 Wrote: Re: air BnB restriction, one has/had the ability to buy an 'short term rental license' for Station Park!
So that's two buildings going down that path. The good thing is that it takes pressure off other buildings.
We were pretty close to buying a unit at Avenue M, but when I read through the declaration, I concluded that the board would have no ability to manage the short-term rental activity, or to rescind the rental licence of an abusive or irresponsible landlord. Didn't want to risk owning a unit in a building with such a situation.
Posts: 989
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation:
29
Refresh my memory..how many licenses granted at Avenue M?
Posts: 1,101
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
99
(03-03-2020, 03:51 PM)Momo26 Wrote: Ah so an incorrect fact about RoboCop?
The article said Robocop 2. There was a Robocop remake filmed entirely in Canada (Really a Robocop 4 I think)…. perhaps that filmed at "futuristic" City Hall.
Coke
Posts: 10,552
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
336
(03-03-2020, 10:29 PM)Momo26 Wrote: Refresh my memory..how many licenses granted at Avenue M?
25 units. No restriction as to which units, or where in the building, can be rented out. $50/month fee for doing this (which fee is set in the declaration and is practically unchangeable bar a 2% annual increase).
Posts: 2,885
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
99
(03-02-2020, 05:17 PM)tomh009 Wrote: "City must prepare for thousands of new downtown residents"
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/987...residents/
Generally in agreement with the story (and the professor), although I am mystified why this building boom would cause problems for condo boards, any different than what those boards deal with today.
Not sure what all he's trying to say. I was curious of the DTK -- stating it is 40 stories. Also about Robocop 2, which we believe now is Robocop 4. Both figures may originally have been incorrect, as is usually for The Record.
I believe that any condo being built will have a solid idea of proper condo fee's for maintenance. I believe that the current ones are far from cheap, more than enough to cover any serious issues.
I do like and agree with what he said about a low-income ghetto. Hopefully the region will understand the importance of mixed building as opposed to entirely low-income. Though I would hope if the region is serious about low(er) income housing, they include Waterloo (oh, they will love that) and Cambridge and possible New Hamburg and Elmira in the mix. I'd be happy with 35/30/30/5 (Kitchener/Cambridge/Waterloo/Townships) allotment.
Posts: 1,782
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
151
How about 30/32.5/32.5/5 I say that because Kitchener has already taken on a disproportionate amount of income housing and social services....
Posts: 2,885
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
99
(03-05-2020, 08:16 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: How about 30/32.5/32.5/5 I say that because Kitchener has already taken on a disproportionate amount of income housing and social services....
That is a better formula than mine!
Posts: 837
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation:
70
(03-05-2020, 10:30 AM)jeffster Wrote: (03-05-2020, 08:16 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: How about 30/32.5/32.5/5 I say that because Kitchener has already taken on a disproportionate amount of income housing and social services....
That is a better formula than mine! Or we could amalgamate the three cities and have one cohesive planning department so one area of the region doesn't have a majority of the low income and social services. JK this is a ridiculous idea, much better to have 4 different planning departments do this separately.
Posts: 1,782
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
151
The region already has carriage of this portfolio...
Posts: 2,885
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
99
(03-05-2020, 11:55 AM)westwardloo Wrote: (03-05-2020, 10:30 AM)jeffster Wrote: That is a better formula than mine! Or we could amalgamate the three cities and have one cohesive planning department so one area of the region doesn't have a majority of the low income and social services. JK this is a ridiculous idea, much better to have 4 different planning departments do this separately.
It's a regional issue, not city, and regional planning. Unsure how it would change if we had 1 city, but my guess is that NIMBY's would still prevent movement in Waterloo and to a less extent, Cambridge.
|