09-27-2022, 04:28 PM
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.
Login or Create an Account
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.
Login or Create an Account
Thread Rating:
1668 King Street East | 22+23 fl | Proposed
|
So, I'm rather confused here. I just got an email: Region to Open New King Street Emergency Shelter as part of Interim Housing Solutions Strategy (Engage link here: https://www.engagewr.ca/king-street-shelter)
The new shelter is supposedly at the same address as this project, and opens in 2 days, replacing the one next to CHCI (and amusingly is still next to a school). Quote:In response to the urgent needs in the community, a new emergency shelter site will be opening for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness at 1668 King Street East, Kitchener. The FAQ suggest this will be a 2 phase project (the second phase being open 24/7), and that the second phase could last for up to 2 years. Is there a mistake in addresses here, or whats going on?
09-27-2022, 06:12 PM
What's the issue? The apartment towers are not going to start construction immediately. Why not use the space in the meantime?
09-27-2022, 07:04 PM
(09-27-2022, 06:12 PM)panamaniac Wrote: What's the issue? The apartment towers are not going to start construction immediately. Why not use the space in the meantime? For 2+ years? I thought it would move quicker than that, but I guess I don't really know the process. Unless phase 2 of this shelter involves moving to a new location.
I don't think this project will start for a while. 2 years would be optimistic for anything. Vive has about a dozen mid-rise and high-rise tower projects waiting to start. They're in it for the long term so I don't think they have any plans on rushing things.
Edit: Updated the original post as 2 additional floors were granted: https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/city-counci...-1.6086942
09-28-2022, 05:20 PM
It would be nice if the project included a main floor component for an emergency shelter ...
09-28-2022, 06:02 PM
Hopefully you're being sarcastic lol.
09-28-2022, 06:04 PM
Just slightly tongue in cheek.
10-02-2022, 11:20 PM
I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for. Maybe boost it to 1:2 if a project is eliminating existing affordable housing (I think Toronto has something that forces the replacement of demolished units on site). It would satisfy some of the cynicism about the development industry.
10-03-2022, 01:26 AM
(10-02-2022, 11:20 PM)nms Wrote: I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for. I think that would ensure nothing was ever built above zoning, no way are those additional floors that profitable. Given our zoning is generally pretty low that seems inadvisable in a housing shortage.
10-03-2022, 08:24 AM
(10-03-2022, 01:26 AM)taylortbb Wrote:(10-02-2022, 11:20 PM)nms Wrote: I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for. The idea seems to be assuming that developers are pulling a fast one if they exceed current zoning and that they need to pay for doing so, when in many cases current zoning is absurdly restrictive and we should be encouraging developers to exceed it. Of course as stated that’s silly: you don’t make it hard to do something and then encourage people to do it; if it’s desirable, just make it easy.
10-03-2022, 09:18 AM
(10-03-2022, 01:26 AM)taylortbb Wrote:(10-02-2022, 11:20 PM)nms Wrote: I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for. Whether 1:1 is a realistic ratio or not, I do like the concept. But, in order to do this, "affordable" needs to be clearly defined. Is it 20% below market? Is it income-geared? Something else? And how can we ensure those units remain affordable?
10-03-2022, 03:00 PM
(10-03-2022, 08:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(10-03-2022, 01:26 AM)taylortbb Wrote: I think that would ensure nothing was ever built above zoning, no way are those additional floors that profitable. Given our zoning is generally pretty low that seems inadvisable in a housing shortage. Exactly, such an approach just discourages much needed market rate development. I don't understand why we were so quick to push this public burden on to private developers. If we need income geared housing, it seems to me it would be much more effective to demand our government just build the damn housing.
10-03-2022, 07:32 PM
(10-03-2022, 03:00 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(10-03-2022, 08:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: The idea seems to be assuming that developers are pulling a fast one if they exceed current zoning and that they need to pay for doing so, when in many cases current zoning is absurdly restrictive and we should be encouraging developers to exceed it. Of course as stated that’s silly: you don’t make it hard to do something and then encourage people to do it; if it’s desirable, just make it easy. I think if people were presented with the bill for building just 1 modern day unit, they would never ever agree to it in 2022.
local cambridge weirdo
10-03-2022, 07:37 PM
All these proposals to address a housing shortage by imposing additional taxes on new housing seem totally backwards to me.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)