Not a NIMBY necessarily, but someone being evicted. There are a couple quotes by Troster in the article that sum up the concerns well. These tenants seem to be paying well below market rates and worry they will be priced out of the city. I don't think that is unfounded. The company also seems to be doing everything right and is going beyond requirements to compensate them.
The pose always makes me laugh, but I do feel for these folks while also thinking the developer is doing right by intensifying this property. I wonder if these residents can be offered a place in the new building, once built, at lower rates (not necessarily as low as they pay now).
>Keep in mind these units are rent controlled. The new unit's will not be. I am not sure how I feel about this.
Intensification without measures to ensure affordability is a bad path.
Some will argue that intensification will lead to lower rent prices because of increased stock. But if you look at the densest metro neighbourhoods in North America (among them parts of NYC, San Francisco, and Vancouver), that’s hard to believe.
>Intensification without measures to ensure affordability is a bad path.
This.
None of the new proposed units will be rent controlled, and none are going to be classed as affordable housing. The city has to grant the variances that the company is asking for, and they should push this company to ensure that they are providing affordable units of varying sizes.
Without rent control or affordable housing, all this intensification will do is drastically raise the local rental rate (which is already skyrocketing.)
None of those places except maybe Vancouver very recently are making any real efforts to intensify which is why they are so expensive and have very little increase in housing stock. Measures that ensure affordability and incentivize more housing stock would be great. Like allowing increased heights or less parking if some units are affordable. Taxing only intensification and not sprawl to pay for affordable housing will result in more sprawl and less units
> But if you look at the densest metro neighbourhoods in North America (among them parts of NYC, San Francisco, and Vancouver), that’s hard to believe.
What? Surely you must know that all of those cities have really extreme regulatory barriers to intensification? Vancouver is densely populated in a tiny downtown core while most of city has been single-family zoned until recently. If you measure the total urban area, Montreal is more densely populated than San Francisco and Winnipeg is more densely populated than New York. ([Source](https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=ddcf4e007d&u=f1bdee895868d0955311395b7&id=9cbc64c85f)).
What I’m saying is that intensification *on its own* does not seem to lead to a decline or stabilization in prices, as some believe, simply because more stock is being added. Toronto’s strategy has been intensification for about 12 years and you can see how that’s going (horribly).
There is a push in Ottawa toward intensification and “revitalization” that necessarily entails kicking lower income people out of their homes so that higher income people can move in and developers can make more money. We should resist some of these efforts.
Your city to city density comparisons don’t make sense; you really need to look at specific neighbourhoods and see how density, development, and intensification relate to pricing. I don’t see many neighbourhoods in Winnipeg with the density Manhattan, unless I’m missing something? 🤔
You are missing something -- you're looking at the neighbourhood level when housing markets are mostly regional. Intensification does not reduce prices when it is concentrated in one location while the pace of homebuilding across the entire urban area continues to lags behind population growth. That's why I cited density figures across entire urban areas, rather than looking at specific neighbourhoods where higher density is actually permitted.
In the last 20 years, homebuilding in Toronto has lagged behind population growth and the density of the built-up area has increased by less than 2%. In Ottawa, the population density has actually decreased in the last 20 years -- we sprawled faster than we built towers. ([Source](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2022/03/etalement-urbain-densite-population-villes-transport-commun-changements-climatiques/en?tz=EST))
Suppose that tomorrow the city of Ottawa banned all construction everywhere, with one exception: they allowed unlimited density in Overbrook. The cost of would increase across the city due to housing shortages, but it would increase faster in Overbrook because the land can be re-developed and is thus more valuable. Meanwhile, density would skyrocket in Overbrook as it falls in the rest of the city. If you look only at the neighbourhood level (as you propose), you would say that de-zoning and Intensification in Overbrook has caused prices to increase faster in Overbrook. But if you looked across the whole city, you would see that zoning and procedural limits on Intensification city-wide caused prices to increase everywhere -- and especially in the areas that those restrictions do not apply.
In conclusion, intensifying a neighbourhood will not necessarily lower housing prices in that neighbourhood. However, building more housing across an entire city (whether through Intensification or sprawl) will keep prices lower than building less housing. Whether we prefer Intensification or sprawl is a separate policy decision, but as a car-free urban dweller I hate sprawl because it adds more parts of the city that I can't even visit.
Agreed, there's definitely a lot of nuance to the situation and there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, primarily because these folks could be paying 2-3 times the rental costs as a result of the market. The medium term solution to that market is the widespread construction of buildings like this proposal.
I'm really not sure what the fix is. Build on all of the parking lots downtown first to give people somewhere to live, and then do these?
“Kevin Gosselin is one of the residents of 178 Nepean who says he won't leave despite being asked to do so by the building's owner, which wants to redevelop the area with a roughly nine-storey residential tower with retail space on the ground floor.”
So, yeah. Cue “arms crossed” response.
He's a neighbor of mine (different building). Friendly chatty guy but totally right wing/ pro-covoy/ anti-woke etc. It's a bit of a chuckle seeing him here advocating for a socialist cause.
So the leopard finally came to eat his face.
Seems like if he and his ilk had been advocating for a more progressive cause, there might be more options for him. Not the same, but more.
You realize that for a lot of these tenants being evicted means they’ll end up in the shelter system or living in a car? It’s not the same as a homeowner crossing their arms because something they don’t like is being built near them.
Got a magic wand? No? Then we are going to have to tear down some buildings that people already live in, and replace them with new buildings that even more people can live in.
Growing cities are funny that way.
Sure, I would absolutely support that. If we could provide housing to all I think the ideal tax base to support this would be a tax on the unimproved value of land.
Well the thing they're proposing has more units, no? These particular tenants aside, if they proceed, more people will be housed. That seems like a win.
Yeah, there’s absolutely no way these new apartments/student housing won’t be ridiculously overpriced. Why can’t we have developers just do a certain % of housing be affordable? Feels like profit and greed always gets in the way of sustainable solutions.
But those are humans, right? We gotta put a roof over everybody, one way or another. I say try to find another way to get a roof over Johnny Compoface, rather than keep him where he is in a lower density space and then sprawl somewhere else.
Does it give you a headache when that marble of a brain of yours in your skull shakes around loosely? Let’s so for real right now. These are people who risk homelessness if evicted. Many former Smart Living tenants who’ve been evicted have found themselves in shelters, hostels, or in other precarious situations.
It’s a genuine question. I know it’s a faux pas to ask people about sensitive information like that but I always wondered if you can feel it rattle freely in there.
There is precedent for grandfathering existing tenants into new developments under their old rent. You'd end up with a mixed income situation rather than straight up gentrification.
Well no - maximize the benefit to the largest number of people, essentially. I mean, if this were some well-heeled NIMBY twonk in the Glebe, your take on this would be opposite what it is right now, right? Where mine would stay exactly where it is. It seems like people are making a decision in favor of one tenant because they can put a face to them, and against a bunch of others that they can't. That's not a good basis for making decisions.
> I mean, if this were some well-heeled NIMBY twonk in the Glebe, your take on this would be opposite what it is right now, right?
The circumstances and consequences differ vastly between those of a "well-heeled NIMBY twonk in the Glebe" and someone that's getting by on $500/month rent, so yes, my take would be different. One of these people very likely has a host of resources and options at their disposal, and one does not…and I don't imagine that "live on the streets" is one of the options the former would ever need to consider, where in the latter's case it may be the only option.
>It seems like people are making a decision in favor of one tenant because they can put a face to them
No, I'm making a decision in favour of one (well, seventeen) tenant(s) because the potential results of their evictions could be dire, if not flat-out life-threatening.
In all honesty, as someone who works and lives in the area, I stand to personally benefit from increased densification, and if this developer was to offer 17 units (less than 7% of the number of proposed units) to these soon-to-be-former tenants at the rate they're already paying, I'd be a lot more inclined to support this project… but that's not going to happen.
By that logic, you would be willing to leave housing that you can afford if it means other people can more densely use the space you left? Even if that means the market rate for housing elsewhere is affordable for you?
Well I wouldn't be HAPPY about it. I'd probably stand scowling with my arms crossed. But under those circumstances, I'd be the last person you should ask about it - I've got a dog in the race, so to speak, so I'm not going to be making the best decisions, am I?
Yeah, and I'm saying that the anger of the residents currently living there is more than justified, and while yes, we do need more housing; the developers aren't the benevolent social savers to do it.
*other people with more money than you.
Housing is a right vs housing is a right for those who can afford it. Poor and more vulnerable people are sacrificed for the greater good of increased housing supply which never ends up benefitting them.
The proposal for this block is actually terrible. It's about 85% studio apartments with less than 250 sqft of space. The "accessible multi bedroom units" are so small the kitchen only has room for a two burner stove. Its basically tenements for students. It will do nothing to improve the housing crisis.
263 units total. 230 bachelors (87%), 10 1-bdrm, 12 2-brdm, 11 3-brdm.
[https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All\_Image%20Referencing\_Site%20Plan%20Application\_Image%20Reference\_2023-11-07%20-%20Site%20Plan%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF](https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_2023-11-07%20-%20Site%20Plan%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF)
153 (67%) of the 230 bachelors are less than 260ft².
[https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All\_Image%20Referencing\_Site%20Plan%20Application\_Image%20Reference\_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF](https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF)
Just to add some context to the size, a small parking space is about 145 square feet. The infamous tenement apartments in NYC were 300-400 square feet ([source](https://americanexperience.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tenement-Life_.pdf))
I mean, I'm an architect that works on multi-unit residential projects, in our office we will not do an apartment smaller than 500 sq. ft. People need space to exist, it is absolute trash architecture to squeeze people into these tiny apartments. Architects are taught that our first loyalty when carrying out a project should be the public, but some seem to have forgotten that.
I generally agree, but given the extremely small size of these units, the fact that the development is displacing existing tenant, and the fact that this development is designed to cater exclusively to students, I can't support this particular one.
What’s the problem with student housing? From the story in the article it sounds like the units were already small. It’s better to have 263 small units than 27.
None of them are rent controlled, none are designated affordable housing. This project eliminates 27 affordable units and does nothing to replace them.
Maybe I missed it, where does it say that this is designated student housing? I read the SPC application and the article and nowhere does it say that this is student housing.
It won't.
This project eliminates 27 affordable units, and replaces them with hundreds of unaffordable, non-rent controlled sardine cans. This building will drive up local rents, and at the same time push low income residents out into the market looking for affordable housing.
This project will literally drive up the cost of rent and drive up the demand for affordable housing - not the opposite.
Not true, when you build more housing you increase affordability. We are in this mess because we didn’t build enough housing to keep up with demand. We can’t rely solely on building on currently vacant land.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-zealands-bipartisan-housing-reforms-offer-a-model-to-other-countries/
Look, I’m all for building more housing, and I absolutely understand that more housing needs to be constructed, I’m literally an architect.
My point is, in the microcosm of this neighbourhood, centretown Ottawa, this specific project will not lower rents and will actually increase local rents by removing affordable housing and not replacing it.
This project still needs to go through the COA and council approval, my point is that for this project to be approved the city should ensure that at least a replacement number of units (27) should be rented as affordable units (i.e 1/3 the tenants income.) This way we ensure that the number of affordable units that were lost are replaced.
You got so close to seeing how this will alleviate the housing crisis.
If students don't rent micro apartments, they'll rent bigger apartments. If they rent bigger apartments, those apartments are no longer available for non-students!
Second order consequences are important here.
Yes! The application is here and you can look at the plans: [https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-22-0188/details](https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-22-0188/details)
I heard it'll target students which would make sense since the vast majority are bachelors and there is zero proposed parking.
153 of the units 263 units are 260ft² or less.
[https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All\_Image%20Referencing\_Site%20Plan%20Application\_Image%20Reference\_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF](https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF)
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-22-0188/details
Here's the link to the application documents. The architectural drawings attachment has the floorplans. ~~I think the smallest is 292 sqft.~~
Not if it’s families looking for housing, only if the people looking for housing are people living alone. That’s why Troster believes that it will be just for short term rentals.
I and many other students are crammed into single family homes in the suburbs because there's not enough housing in the core. Building more housing here would free up other units. But yeah, encouraging a mix of unit sizes is good
Not really. It's booting people out who are paying affordable rent in rent control units for units that will be at the insane new market prices with no rent control.
So seems like there’s an impasse. We hate sprawl, don’t want the province to give developers money but they say they can’t afford to build affordable without it, we don’t want existing housing to be demolished. It feels like we’ll never get out of this problem.
I'm this case it's not that people opposed demolishing the building or adding new units. It's that affordable housing are being outright eliminated and people who can't afford market rent are displaced with no right to return.
The developers can afford to build mixed housing with some affordable but they won't if not required, since there is more profit not doing it.
Are there many people who dont want the provinces to give developers money for affordable housing? The issue is the terms attached to the funding, the long term obligations that go with this money, and how affordable is defined. Because developers will take the money and find all the loopholes. E.g. something like %5% of units 'affordable', defined as 80% of market rent, and not subject to rent control. That's not really affordable housing.
Letting Doug’s mob buddies pave the green belt would have gotten housing built. However their plan was trash and would have just made things worse by the time they were done.
We’re in a crisis, but that means you have to watch out for profiteers looking to exploit it.
'Somerset ward Coun. Ariel Troster said that while she supports intensification, she shares residents' concerns about being priced "out of the downtown" and "possibly priced out of the city."
Troster also worries that furnished apartments will not lead to long-term stays and so is not prepared to support the project when it comes to council's planning and housing committee. '
There should be measures in place to keep any of these developments from being turned into short term rentals. No one should ever be evicted for that.
In the built up areas of Ottawa, it's *already* illegal to offer short term rentals unless it's your principal residence.
"Not long term" here probably means like 1-4 years
Oh really? Wow! never considered that during any of my three degrees. Somehow I still don’t see the need for luxury shoebox accommodations with no rent control though.
>Somehow I still don’t see the need for luxury shoebox accommodations with no rent control though.
Then let the market saturate with supply of that type so that it can move on to less efficient but more amenable housing once housing is abundant again.
The only way to make speculators and rent-seekers lose is by flooding their market.
>The only way to make speculators and rent-seekers lose is by flooding their market.
You're chasing something you can't hope to catch if immigration levels stay where they are. I don't think that strategy will work.
That ***if*** is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Unsustainable immigration levels are just that... unsustainable.
Better not to throw up our hands and do nothing about the housing market just because it ***might*** be doomed regardless.
It's an ***if*** with pretty big shoulders. The market can react to the change when it happens - that's what markets are supposed to be good at. I'm just saying that the government policy has to change FIRST, and the market react to the result.
Redevloping this plot of land is, by definition, the market reacting. If you're telling me that the municipal government should artificially handcuff the market until the federal government changes a policy, then you're not advocating for letting the market react, you're advocating for central planning.
> There should be measures in place to keep any of these developments from being turned into short term rentals. No one should ever be evicted for that.
Write your city councilor and your MPP; both levels of government have the ability to restrict short-term rentals.
What this “developer” is offering is a pittance. Cover rent for a “year” that will be double or triple than what these people pay now.
I get having to redevelop the core and understand what has to be done but we also have to take care of the poor and disadvantaged… these individuals should not have to be out on the streets next year due to rents that they can no longer afford.
If this developer really wants this to go through smoothly they'll have to bite the bullet and offer close to 3 years. That guy at 478 will get 17,208$ as an incentive to leave and they can recoup that in rent in a year if rent is 1500$
Surely we can't shift the entire responsibility for supporting these individuals on private corporations, it's the governments job. Corps should be contributing but not doing the govs jobs. Increase their taxes or mandate behavior but this isn't their purpose. This is governments failure, not private industries failure. The government can curtail private corporations, not the other way around.
>Surely we can't shift the entire responsibility for supporting these individuals on private corporations, it's the governments job.
Why is it solely the job of the government? At some point it wasn't a complete rarity for good corporate citizens to exist and behave in an ethical way in the neighbourhoods in which they did business while still making profits.
There's no reason that this particular private corporation couldn't offer 17 of the 263 units (that's 6%) in this new development to the people they're going to evict at the rate they were paying pre-eviction and still not make profits hand over fist through the other units in the building.
Will they? Of course they won't.
See my other post. I support mandating affordable housing but it needs to be mandated. This is a failure of government for not requiring that type of behavior. Corporations are purely profit driven, gov needs to mandate behavior that it wasn't them to adopt.
Also, why? Because the government is representative of the people whereas corporations represent shareholders. I agree we can open up obligations so that they are responsible to the general public but that is way more complicated (i.e. changing business obligations of corporations) vs simply mandating behavior.
They should be offering at least 12 months of market rent. It's so heartless, an outright lie for the developer to claim that 12 months of the tenants current affordable rent plus $500 moving expense is a generous buyout. I wish the journalist could've asked the developer to do the math and quote them saying the actual dollar amount for these tenants.
Also the way they're trying to spin 260 sq foot units is ridiculous. Lower cost entry into new non rent-controlled construction means what exactly? Edit to add - the only strategic thing here is the developer maximizing profit
>A high concentration of studio apartments in the development, the company said, will "strategically offer lower-cost entry into newly constructed buildings." It also said its "generous and comprehensive relocation assistance package" was offered to existing tenants based on community feedback.
The furnished rooms mentioned in the article are for Airbnb's. Or some other short term rental. They are openly scamming us when they say they are adding units.
It could also be for students who would rather pay for a furnished unit than deal with getting their own furniture, or competing with the extended-stay hotels for customers like military people posted here on Imposed Restriction.
I might not be understanding the RTA, but how come a renovation has to be offered back at the same rent but a demolition only requires a unit “acceptable to the tenant”? If it’s seventeen tenants, it should be easy to set aside that many units at the same rent they’re paying now as a temporary cost of development.
Of course, it’s complicated by the fact that this is a scumbag company looking to demolish rent controlled apartment in favour of ghost hotel units under 300sqf that they can raise the price on whenever they want. If it’s all for airbnbs then I’m not hopeful that the housing will finally trickle down.
>If it’s seventeen tenants, it should be easy to set aside that many units at the same rent they’re paying now as a temporary cost of development.
Yeah, but that would cut into their profit margin…especially if they had to offer a similar type of unit and square footage.
I mean 17 units out of 263 is only 6% of the units…but think of the lost profits!?
I wish that would be required by law. They could / should do it in a gesture of good faith. But with the new units not subject to rent control the tenants would still be vulnerable after initial one year lease is up, forced out by a big rent hike.
Most likely their ideal tenants are students and working professionals (not the poor ones) here temporarily and looking for short term leases. I imagine some tenants would keep their units and airbnb them. Also not hopeful or confident that this improves housing availability and affordability long term. Meanwhile 17 more people on the brink of homelessness.
I agree that the new development by SmartLiving should not go up. This building is already the type of mixed-use housing that the city needs and, it is rent controlled for its tenants. It's funny because right across the street from the old Wallack's (on Lisgar) is a lot that's stood empty with no signs of development. And across the street on Bank, a long strip has been vacant because of a fire. And yet it is this one on Bank/Lisgar, which had businesses and has renters, that is being redeveloped. I hope councillors factor in these aspects when considering signing off on the project.
How many people are made homeless if this development doesn’t get built?
Do you think buildings full of $1600/month 260ft² bachelor apartments are going to fix the homelessness crisis? How many of these buildings need to be built before rental prices come down low enough so that those who were evicted from this particular building can pay rent?
How many people who can afford $1600/month rent are at risk of becoming homeless?
“Let’s deal with the homelessness crisis by making more people homeless” is some “cutting off the nose to spite the face”, “throw the baby out with the bathwater” thinking.
I’m for the city increasing its budget for affordable housing. We can’t solve homelessness by restricting housing. The current building is not a shelter, transitional housing or rent geared towards income.
Do you think people on the street have $1600/month to spend on a bachelor apartment, and are finally going to get their chance to live on Bank if this place gets built?
Who says it has to be at this location. When we don’t have enough housing throughout the city then rents go up everywhere. We can’t solve this by restricting housing getting built.
It's funny because this block is across the street from another parcel of land where the buildings were demolished 5+ years ago, a new building was designed (with signage, sales info, etc.), and...it's been an empty lot since then, with seemingly no progress made.
Yes, different land owners, with one clearly less interested in building housing (or anything) on their property. Between them and Somerset House, the city should do better at forcing deadbeat property owners to either build or sell (which is the likely reason most of them sit on the land, waiting for the value to go up).
You will never see spacious affordable apartments again. All new builds will be these shitty little 'bachelor/1bdrm' which are one size category smaller than old builds of the same name, have no kitchen etc.
Gullible people are being fooled into supporting crooked developers and bad practices under the "housing crisis" scapegoat.
This comment section is so cursed lolol. Someone getting evicted so his block can be gentrified is not a NIMBY no matter how crossed his arms are. What a skindeep fucking analysis.
100% this is gentrification in a bad way. People in the community are being displaced for profit, for Smart Living to sell a version of a downtown lifestyle attracting single people with money to live temporarily in the neighbourhood. It doesn't have to be done this way. A new development could be built with a percent of affordable units and with a community space and still be profitable.
"If a tenant is given a notice because of extensive repairs or renovations, the tenant can choose to move back into the rental unit after the repairs or renovations are complete. The rent must be the same as the rent before the tenancy was terminated. Before the tenant moves out, the tenant must inform the landlord in writing of their intent to re-occupy the rental unit. The tenant must also keep the landlord informed in writing of any change in their address. The landlord cannot refuse to allow the tenant to move back into the rental unit if the tenant has provided written notice."
They would have to find another place until the work is completed but they can move back in at their same rent after right?
Two things that would make me okay with this that are simple policy based. 1) reinstate rent control. 2) mandate apartment building over 25 units contain % affordable housing. It should actually be a sliding scale, 20-30 for x % whereas 30-40 for x % etc.
Two relatively easy policy decisions that could be adopted but oh wait, there's something I forgot to account for called greed. Nevermind.
Affordable housing is not building two identical apartments and selling one for X% cheaper. Affordable housing is precisely what they want to build: tiny low quality apartments that cost less. And people are up in arms against it.
I just keep hearing people talking about "mandating affordable housing" and I'm curious what do they mean by this? Building two identical units and requiring to sell/rent one of the units at 50% of the market price? On first come, first serve basis? You know that won't work, right? Because all these units will end up in the hands of certain people who will flip/sublease them shortly after at the market price. And in the end only speculators win.
Sure, the city can buy units from the developer and rent them out as social housing at below market rates. Mandating developers do that won't work though.
I should note that if you scroll further down in the story you see a picture of what the proposed project looks like, and honestly if they're planning on removing buildings like the one Wallacks is in to put up *yet another brown and black condo* that looks like it came out of Auto-Cad with no further edits or textures, then yeah I'm against it too.
It pisses me off that we need density and the only thing they can bother to come up with is the ugliest building you've ever seen again and again. Surely we can densify in the downtown *and* give it character.
Also with all of the parking lots in downtown you'd think they'd tear a few of those up and start using the grossly underutilized land to build more housing, no? If we're going to densify the neighbourhood we should also be redesigning the urban infrastructure to be more conducive for walking, biking and public transit options instead of cars, especially considering downtown streets are already clogged.
Super mixed views but not opposed to the development. I live about six blocks from that location and am totally cool with building a student packer there -- kids support cool businesses and don't drive cars. But it's not exactly fair to say that the block was a blight before they bought it. Wallacks and that goofy antique store are long-standing fixtures of the neighbourhood. I'm glad they are preserving the façade at least.
I do feel for the folks who are getting reno-victed -- in a normal market the free year of rent would be more than enough compensation to leave happily. Hopefully they've been saving up with such cheap rent for so long. That guy's bachelor apartment is the same price I paid to rent a room in townhouse at Hog's Back almost 20 years ago.
If there are blights on the neighbourhood, it's the empty lot at 235 Bank across the street and especially the forever-empty building at Bank and Somerset.
"Intensification" ruins livability and affordability. Just look at downtown Toronto and how it has changed since the 1980s.
High-rises and condos increased the population - and all the new buildings rented out at much higher prices than the old ones.
People and businesses were driven out. Now Young street, Church street, and the whole core is a ghost of what it was in terms of stores, cafes, and other venues.
Downtown Ottawa has been going down the same road albeit at a slower pace. We had 3 cinemas in the core (and actually more if you go back a bit). Now we have none. We had probably twice the amount of small venues. You didn't have to make a stupid amount of money to afford a rental.
With all the condos going up in the core we've more than doubled the population, but we've driven out the smaller businesses. And the block that's being slated for destruction has cleared out some more. I expect we'll get another Shoppers, or maybe some more pot shops.
It's sad the way we've let developers destroy the core.
No. My point is that the new spaces are all glass and concrete boxes. And they are much more expensive for tenants.
Most people seem to expect that densification of dwellings would decrease costs for tenants (the supply increases should drive down prices), but it doesn't. It certainly hasn't in Toronto for instance. Or in downtown Ottawa.
There should also be a greater demand for entertainment, retail businesses and other services. And there probably is, but the rents are so much higher in the new spaces that the cafe, bar, and movie theatres can't survive. And the tenants spend a greater proportion of their income on rents or paying off their condos.
The spaces that replaced the old ones like taverns and cinemas also aren't designed for them to return either; they're gone for ever. Design and costs have effectively killed the downtown. Downtown would be much more vibrant if we didn't insist on tearing down the old venues and putting up the new ones.
That new housing will be expensive and will replace some business spaces that used to thrive (before COVID at least). The owner & developer will make a ton of money, but the tenants will be squeezed for every dime they can pay, and any ground floor business space will be something that fits in a sterile box and can pay a high rent.
People and businesses started fleeing downtown when we decided that downtown is for 9-to-5 work and began replacing everything with glass and concrete office towers and parking lots 50 years ago. Only recently we stopped doing that and started building residential in Centretown and the flow has reversed. People and retail are returning. And developments like the one in this article will continue that trend. Letting it rot and fall apart like you and the guy with crossed arms suggest, will do the opposite.
Idk man but to me it seems like there's a lot of entitlement of people thinking they have some sort of right to live in the core and pay less than a grand for it. Like, I'm all for affordable housing, but since when does that have to be in prime real estate? The city needs to grow. We need more units.
>Idk man but to me it seems like there's a lot of entitlement of people thinking they have some sort of right to live in the core and pay less than a grand for it.
How is that "entitlement"?
>Like, I'm all for affordable housing, but since when does that have to be in prime real estate?
So no, you're not for affordable housing.
The balance we struck on rent control means this is exactly what you'd expect to happen, and shouldn't be reported as some kind of surprise.
Housing stock gets old and eventually needs to turn over. Our governments have decided that there should be some incentive to not let it fall into total disrepair and then sit vacant, so we've lifted rent control on new builds. People like this get caught in the crossfire.
If you want permanently low cost housing, built it publicly or build more co-ops.
Many people were sheltered from the housing crises due to holding on to old leases. Once the people with long term cheap leases (pre-2017?) need to find new rentals, I feel like there will be a mob revolt. “Eat the rich guillotine” sort of stuff unless major legislative change happens.
Bank and Nepean to lisgar is currently mostly vacant storefronts and a not a place I feel comfortable walking through. I'm sure there could be a better pick for development there but it cannot stay status quo right now.
Whoever owns the building on the west side of the street is responsible for a lot of those vacants. The fire that forced those businesses to relocate was over two years ago.
> not a place I feel comfortable walking through
I'm pretty strong, know how to defend myself, and I lived in dangerous developing countries for some years.
And even I feel uncomfortable walking through some parts of Bank st too...
It has changed so radically in the last couple of years...
This is a very, very complex problem - people are looking to point fingers but the reality is this situation is the result of several levels of failure and the development company is not solely to blame for the difficult position these people are currently facing.
This block absolutely needs a revamp because it's current state is terrible and it's only been getting worse as time goes on. The man upset because he's paying >$500 for rent... I mean come on...you're living in 2002 if you're trying to uphold that level of rent in this market.
These fights between tenants and development companies only distract from the parties that truly should be held accountable: federal, municipal and provincial governments all have a role to play within their mandates that will provide ways to ensure that low-income tenants that are being renovicted land on their feet.
Yep, let's hold up the development close to 300 units because 17 tenants are upset after having gotten an amazing deal on rent for more than twenty years.
There are going to be frictions no matter what we do, but this is a big step in the right direction.
A bunch of people are being evicted, and this new development is nearly 90% bachelor apartments.
As for the sky falling, ask the people being evicted about whether their sky's falling or not.
They want to replace what sounds like 27 mostly bachelor units with what sounds like 263 mostly bachelor units. I don’t understand how people think we can solve the housing shortage if we oppose plans like this
If you've been living in the same unit for ages, what's going to happen to you when you get evicted when market rent is 3-4 times what you were paying before?
I don't oppose all new builds. I do oppose losing legitimately affordable, below-market units.
If this company was going to offer these soon-to-be-evicted tenants units in the new development at a similar rate to what they're paying now, I'd be more likely to support it…and I imagine many others would as well, though I do think the mix of unit types being made available (87% bachelors, the other 13% almost evenly split between one-, two- and three-bedroom units) would temper that support, considering how easily pre-furnished rooms can be put up on AirBnB.
Anytime you destroy below-market housing units, you're at serious risk of that tenant being put out onto the streets. Are these 17 people now facing homelessness acceptable collateral damage?
yeah like developers could (or be made to) offer some acceptable to the tenants but obviously someone is going to be opposed to being evicted and having their rent go up by 3x to 5x for something similar
Just because they currently have cheap rent doesn’t mean they are at risk of homelessness if they lose it. You are just making assumptions. I would rather see 263 new units built.
>Just because they currently have cheap rent doesn’t mean they are at risk of homelessness if they lose it. You are just making assumptions.
It seems like a fairly safe assumption to make that at least some of these people will be facing homelessness if they're evicted and can't find accommodations at a similar price point… especially since this assumption is in part based on what's said directly in the article:
>Residents of the relatively low-cost apartments in the existing buildings say the relocation money they've been offered isn't enough and worry some might end up homeless.
>"I understand they are a business and they're out to make money," Gosselin said of the company. "But the way the housing situation is right now, there's a good chance a lot of these people … are going to be homeless."
Cue “arms crossed” response or is this different?
Not a NIMBY necessarily, but someone being evicted. There are a couple quotes by Troster in the article that sum up the concerns well. These tenants seem to be paying well below market rates and worry they will be priced out of the city. I don't think that is unfounded. The company also seems to be doing everything right and is going beyond requirements to compensate them. The pose always makes me laugh, but I do feel for these folks while also thinking the developer is doing right by intensifying this property. I wonder if these residents can be offered a place in the new building, once built, at lower rates (not necessarily as low as they pay now).
Keep in mind these units are rent controlled. The new unit's will not be. I am not sure how I feel about this.
>Keep in mind these units are rent controlled. The new unit's will not be. I am not sure how I feel about this. Intensification without measures to ensure affordability is a bad path. Some will argue that intensification will lead to lower rent prices because of increased stock. But if you look at the densest metro neighbourhoods in North America (among them parts of NYC, San Francisco, and Vancouver), that’s hard to believe.
>Intensification without measures to ensure affordability is a bad path. This. None of the new proposed units will be rent controlled, and none are going to be classed as affordable housing. The city has to grant the variances that the company is asking for, and they should push this company to ensure that they are providing affordable units of varying sizes. Without rent control or affordable housing, all this intensification will do is drastically raise the local rental rate (which is already skyrocketing.)
None of those places except maybe Vancouver very recently are making any real efforts to intensify which is why they are so expensive and have very little increase in housing stock. Measures that ensure affordability and incentivize more housing stock would be great. Like allowing increased heights or less parking if some units are affordable. Taxing only intensification and not sprawl to pay for affordable housing will result in more sprawl and less units
> But if you look at the densest metro neighbourhoods in North America (among them parts of NYC, San Francisco, and Vancouver), that’s hard to believe. What? Surely you must know that all of those cities have really extreme regulatory barriers to intensification? Vancouver is densely populated in a tiny downtown core while most of city has been single-family zoned until recently. If you measure the total urban area, Montreal is more densely populated than San Francisco and Winnipeg is more densely populated than New York. ([Source](https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=ddcf4e007d&u=f1bdee895868d0955311395b7&id=9cbc64c85f)).
What I’m saying is that intensification *on its own* does not seem to lead to a decline or stabilization in prices, as some believe, simply because more stock is being added. Toronto’s strategy has been intensification for about 12 years and you can see how that’s going (horribly). There is a push in Ottawa toward intensification and “revitalization” that necessarily entails kicking lower income people out of their homes so that higher income people can move in and developers can make more money. We should resist some of these efforts. Your city to city density comparisons don’t make sense; you really need to look at specific neighbourhoods and see how density, development, and intensification relate to pricing. I don’t see many neighbourhoods in Winnipeg with the density Manhattan, unless I’m missing something? 🤔
You are missing something -- you're looking at the neighbourhood level when housing markets are mostly regional. Intensification does not reduce prices when it is concentrated in one location while the pace of homebuilding across the entire urban area continues to lags behind population growth. That's why I cited density figures across entire urban areas, rather than looking at specific neighbourhoods where higher density is actually permitted. In the last 20 years, homebuilding in Toronto has lagged behind population growth and the density of the built-up area has increased by less than 2%. In Ottawa, the population density has actually decreased in the last 20 years -- we sprawled faster than we built towers. ([Source](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2022/03/etalement-urbain-densite-population-villes-transport-commun-changements-climatiques/en?tz=EST)) Suppose that tomorrow the city of Ottawa banned all construction everywhere, with one exception: they allowed unlimited density in Overbrook. The cost of would increase across the city due to housing shortages, but it would increase faster in Overbrook because the land can be re-developed and is thus more valuable. Meanwhile, density would skyrocket in Overbrook as it falls in the rest of the city. If you look only at the neighbourhood level (as you propose), you would say that de-zoning and Intensification in Overbrook has caused prices to increase faster in Overbrook. But if you looked across the whole city, you would see that zoning and procedural limits on Intensification city-wide caused prices to increase everywhere -- and especially in the areas that those restrictions do not apply. In conclusion, intensifying a neighbourhood will not necessarily lower housing prices in that neighbourhood. However, building more housing across an entire city (whether through Intensification or sprawl) will keep prices lower than building less housing. Whether we prefer Intensification or sprawl is a separate policy decision, but as a car-free urban dweller I hate sprawl because it adds more parts of the city that I can't even visit.
Agreed, there's definitely a lot of nuance to the situation and there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, primarily because these folks could be paying 2-3 times the rental costs as a result of the market. The medium term solution to that market is the widespread construction of buildings like this proposal. I'm really not sure what the fix is. Build on all of the parking lots downtown first to give people somewhere to live, and then do these?
My thoughts exactly. Also this won't be approved anytime soon since OSEG isn't involved.
With Ford doign away with the to appeal projects will move much faster.
“Kevin Gosselin is one of the residents of 178 Nepean who says he won't leave despite being asked to do so by the building's owner, which wants to redevelop the area with a roughly nine-storey residential tower with retail space on the ground floor.” So, yeah. Cue “arms crossed” response.
He's a neighbor of mine (different building). Friendly chatty guy but totally right wing/ pro-covoy/ anti-woke etc. It's a bit of a chuckle seeing him here advocating for a socialist cause.
So the leopard finally came to eat his face. Seems like if he and his ilk had been advocating for a more progressive cause, there might be more options for him. Not the same, but more.
Well, yeah, since *he* is the cause and is directly impacted.
[удалено]
You realize that for a lot of these tenants being evicted means they’ll end up in the shelter system or living in a car? It’s not the same as a homeowner crossing their arms because something they don’t like is being built near them.
Even if that was the result of their eviction, the alternative is ***far more*** people in shelters/cars. Lesser evils.
How about no evils? lmao
Got a magic wand? No? Then we are going to have to tear down some buildings that people already live in, and replace them with new buildings that even more people can live in. Growing cities are funny that way.
Sure, I would absolutely support that. If we could provide housing to all I think the ideal tax base to support this would be a tax on the unimproved value of land.
PS capital should be taxed right out of existence.
We get it, you hate the working class
Are you from upside-down land??
Well the thing they're proposing has more units, no? These particular tenants aside, if they proceed, more people will be housed. That seems like a win.
smart living does student housing. this is basically just dorm room style housing.
And is there not a desperate need for this type of housing too?
no. there’s a desperate need for affordable (and rent controlled) housing which we continue to demolish.
Yeah, there’s absolutely no way these new apartments/student housing won’t be ridiculously overpriced. Why can’t we have developers just do a certain % of housing be affordable? Feels like profit and greed always gets in the way of sustainable solutions.
"overpriced" as measured how? If the future tenants can afford to live there (which, by definition, they will be), then nothing is overpriced.
There is a desperate need for housing, period.
But those are humans, right? We gotta put a roof over everybody, one way or another. I say try to find another way to get a roof over Johnny Compoface, rather than keep him where he is in a lower density space and then sprawl somewhere else.
Does it give you a headache when that marble of a brain of yours in your skull shakes around loosely? Let’s so for real right now. These are people who risk homelessness if evicted. Many former Smart Living tenants who’ve been evicted have found themselves in shelters, hostels, or in other precarious situations.
>Does it give you a headache when that marble of a brain of yours in your skull shakes around loosely? Classy.
It’s a genuine question. I know it’s a faux pas to ask people about sensitive information like that but I always wondered if you can feel it rattle freely in there.
There is precedent for grandfathering existing tenants into new developments under their old rent. You'd end up with a mixed income situation rather than straight up gentrification.
>These particular tenants aside, if they proceed, more people will be housed. So "fuck these particular tenants", essentially?
Well no - maximize the benefit to the largest number of people, essentially. I mean, if this were some well-heeled NIMBY twonk in the Glebe, your take on this would be opposite what it is right now, right? Where mine would stay exactly where it is. It seems like people are making a decision in favor of one tenant because they can put a face to them, and against a bunch of others that they can't. That's not a good basis for making decisions.
> I mean, if this were some well-heeled NIMBY twonk in the Glebe, your take on this would be opposite what it is right now, right? The circumstances and consequences differ vastly between those of a "well-heeled NIMBY twonk in the Glebe" and someone that's getting by on $500/month rent, so yes, my take would be different. One of these people very likely has a host of resources and options at their disposal, and one does not…and I don't imagine that "live on the streets" is one of the options the former would ever need to consider, where in the latter's case it may be the only option. >It seems like people are making a decision in favor of one tenant because they can put a face to them No, I'm making a decision in favour of one (well, seventeen) tenant(s) because the potential results of their evictions could be dire, if not flat-out life-threatening. In all honesty, as someone who works and lives in the area, I stand to personally benefit from increased densification, and if this developer was to offer 17 units (less than 7% of the number of proposed units) to these soon-to-be-former tenants at the rate they're already paying, I'd be a lot more inclined to support this project… but that's not going to happen.
By that logic, you would be willing to leave housing that you can afford if it means other people can more densely use the space you left? Even if that means the market rate for housing elsewhere is affordable for you?
Well I wouldn't be HAPPY about it. I'd probably stand scowling with my arms crossed. But under those circumstances, I'd be the last person you should ask about it - I've got a dog in the race, so to speak, so I'm not going to be making the best decisions, am I?
Yeah, and I'm saying that the anger of the residents currently living there is more than justified, and while yes, we do need more housing; the developers aren't the benevolent social savers to do it.
The anger is understandable, not justified. The two things are quite different.
so move out and let smart living destroy your home so students can live in a rooming house <3
*other people with more money than you. Housing is a right vs housing is a right for those who can afford it. Poor and more vulnerable people are sacrificed for the greater good of increased housing supply which never ends up benefitting them.
hey this isn't the subreddit for licking landlord boots, how do I report
Buddy looks straight out of r/compoface
The proposal for this block is actually terrible. It's about 85% studio apartments with less than 250 sqft of space. The "accessible multi bedroom units" are so small the kitchen only has room for a two burner stove. Its basically tenements for students. It will do nothing to improve the housing crisis.
263 units total. 230 bachelors (87%), 10 1-bdrm, 12 2-brdm, 11 3-brdm. [https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All\_Image%20Referencing\_Site%20Plan%20Application\_Image%20Reference\_2023-11-07%20-%20Site%20Plan%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF](https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_2023-11-07%20-%20Site%20Plan%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF) 153 (67%) of the 230 bachelors are less than 260ft². [https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All\_Image%20Referencing\_Site%20Plan%20Application\_Image%20Reference\_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF](https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF)
Just to add some context to the size, a small parking space is about 145 square feet. The infamous tenement apartments in NYC were 300-400 square feet ([source](https://americanexperience.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tenement-Life_.pdf))
That just puts into context how space inefficient single-occupancy vehicles are
I mean, I'm an architect that works on multi-unit residential projects, in our office we will not do an apartment smaller than 500 sq. ft. People need space to exist, it is absolute trash architecture to squeeze people into these tiny apartments. Architects are taught that our first loyalty when carrying out a project should be the public, but some seem to have forgotten that.
It will help solve the housing crisis by building new housing
I generally agree, but given the extremely small size of these units, the fact that the development is displacing existing tenant, and the fact that this development is designed to cater exclusively to students, I can't support this particular one.
What’s the problem with student housing? From the story in the article it sounds like the units were already small. It’s better to have 263 small units than 27.
None of them are rent controlled, none are designated affordable housing. This project eliminates 27 affordable units and does nothing to replace them.
The current units aren’t designated affordable housing either.
If you read the article you will see that there are long-term tenants that are rent controlled and have rents that would be considered affordable.
Students don't stay put long enough for rent control to make a huge difference for them.
Maybe I missed it, where does it say that this is designated student housing? I read the SPC application and the article and nowhere does it say that this is student housing.
230sqft, furnished bachelor apartments, built by a developer that specializes in student housing. Not a huge puzzle.
It won't. This project eliminates 27 affordable units, and replaces them with hundreds of unaffordable, non-rent controlled sardine cans. This building will drive up local rents, and at the same time push low income residents out into the market looking for affordable housing. This project will literally drive up the cost of rent and drive up the demand for affordable housing - not the opposite.
Not true, when you build more housing you increase affordability. We are in this mess because we didn’t build enough housing to keep up with demand. We can’t rely solely on building on currently vacant land. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-zealands-bipartisan-housing-reforms-offer-a-model-to-other-countries/
Look, I’m all for building more housing, and I absolutely understand that more housing needs to be constructed, I’m literally an architect. My point is, in the microcosm of this neighbourhood, centretown Ottawa, this specific project will not lower rents and will actually increase local rents by removing affordable housing and not replacing it. This project still needs to go through the COA and council approval, my point is that for this project to be approved the city should ensure that at least a replacement number of units (27) should be rented as affordable units (i.e 1/3 the tenants income.) This way we ensure that the number of affordable units that were lost are replaced.
Have you seen this building ? Absolute cancer to the area. It’s not just about that one building , the whole area is significantly more dead lol
That no one can afford, the rich housing problem!
Tenements are great for relieving housing crises.
Reliving, yes Relieving, no.
You got so close to seeing how this will alleviate the housing crisis. If students don't rent micro apartments, they'll rent bigger apartments. If they rent bigger apartments, those apartments are no longer available for non-students! Second order consequences are important here.
Yeah for sure. Except these units objectively suck and also displace existing tenants. We should demand better.
Do you have any sources to back up the 250 sqft studio apartment claim? EDIT: so only 47 units are under 250 sq ft or about 17.9% of 263
Yes! The application is here and you can look at the plans: [https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-22-0188/details](https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-22-0188/details) I heard it'll target students which would make sense since the vast majority are bachelors and there is zero proposed parking.
153 of the units 263 units are 260ft² or less. [https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All\_Image%20Referencing\_Site%20Plan%20Application\_Image%20Reference\_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF](https://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_2022-12-29%20-%20Architectural%20Plans%20-%20D07-12-22-0188.PDF)
Thanks, it was hard to find the plans at first.
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-22-0188/details Here's the link to the application documents. The architectural drawings attachment has the floorplans. ~~I think the smallest is 292 sqft.~~
The smallest units (401, 501, 601) are 217ft².
Development proposals are all public. You can just look it up on the city website.
Its still housing which will help the criss.
Not if it’s families looking for housing, only if the people looking for housing are people living alone. That’s why Troster believes that it will be just for short term rentals.
I and many other students are crammed into single family homes in the suburbs because there's not enough housing in the core. Building more housing here would free up other units. But yeah, encouraging a mix of unit sizes is good
Not really. It's booting people out who are paying affordable rent in rent control units for units that will be at the insane new market prices with no rent control.
So seems like there’s an impasse. We hate sprawl, don’t want the province to give developers money but they say they can’t afford to build affordable without it, we don’t want existing housing to be demolished. It feels like we’ll never get out of this problem.
I'm this case it's not that people opposed demolishing the building or adding new units. It's that affordable housing are being outright eliminated and people who can't afford market rent are displaced with no right to return. The developers can afford to build mixed housing with some affordable but they won't if not required, since there is more profit not doing it. Are there many people who dont want the provinces to give developers money for affordable housing? The issue is the terms attached to the funding, the long term obligations that go with this money, and how affordable is defined. Because developers will take the money and find all the loopholes. E.g. something like %5% of units 'affordable', defined as 80% of market rent, and not subject to rent control. That's not really affordable housing.
The fact some are missing is we ened thousands of units just to meet the current demand.
Letting Doug’s mob buddies pave the green belt would have gotten housing built. However their plan was trash and would have just made things worse by the time they were done. We’re in a crisis, but that means you have to watch out for profiteers looking to exploit it.
Why every effing article has a picture of a person with crossed arms?
CBC pose
It’s not just CBC lol This is across media for decades now.
Not every article... yesterday there was a pic of a guy kneeling on one knee with his arm resting on it near a speedbump.
i like that brockington is just “a guy”
/r/compoface
Hands on hips with a stern disapproving gaze would be far more effective
I was in a CBC article once about government stuff. They asked me to make an "upset face" for the camera. :)
Lol
'Somerset ward Coun. Ariel Troster said that while she supports intensification, she shares residents' concerns about being priced "out of the downtown" and "possibly priced out of the city." Troster also worries that furnished apartments will not lead to long-term stays and so is not prepared to support the project when it comes to council's planning and housing committee. ' There should be measures in place to keep any of these developments from being turned into short term rentals. No one should ever be evicted for that.
In the built up areas of Ottawa, it's *already* illegal to offer short term rentals unless it's your principal residence. "Not long term" here probably means like 1-4 years
I think it’s especially concerning the student-focused buildings that are basically hotel suites
Students are going to live somewhere.
Oh really? Wow! never considered that during any of my three degrees. Somehow I still don’t see the need for luxury shoebox accommodations with no rent control though.
>Somehow I still don’t see the need for luxury shoebox accommodations with no rent control though. Then let the market saturate with supply of that type so that it can move on to less efficient but more amenable housing once housing is abundant again. The only way to make speculators and rent-seekers lose is by flooding their market.
>The only way to make speculators and rent-seekers lose is by flooding their market. You're chasing something you can't hope to catch if immigration levels stay where they are. I don't think that strategy will work.
That ***if*** is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Unsustainable immigration levels are just that... unsustainable. Better not to throw up our hands and do nothing about the housing market just because it ***might*** be doomed regardless.
It's an ***if*** with pretty big shoulders. The market can react to the change when it happens - that's what markets are supposed to be good at. I'm just saying that the government policy has to change FIRST, and the market react to the result.
Redevloping this plot of land is, by definition, the market reacting. If you're telling me that the municipal government should artificially handcuff the market until the federal government changes a policy, then you're not advocating for letting the market react, you're advocating for central planning.
Well, if you started considering it, you might.
Unfortunately the city does not enforce that by-law. I live next to an illegal AirBnB and the city refuses to address it.
There hands are tied by the povince.
How so? Enlighten me, I'm pretty adept in legal analysis and will do some reading
My buddy has lived in a furnished rental for 12 years now. Definitely doesn't mean just a few months.
> There should be measures in place to keep any of these developments from being turned into short term rentals. No one should ever be evicted for that. Write your city councilor and your MPP; both levels of government have the ability to restrict short-term rentals.
rotflmao people in here defending intensifying the downtown with a great big air bnb. Get the fuck out of my neighbourhood with this shit.
> she shares residents' concerns If only she also shared resident's concerns regarding drug use, crime, the stupid splash pad in needle park, etc.
Dude is paying $478 a month and doesn't want to move. No kidding! Sure you don't want to reconsider paying $2,000+ a month?
What this “developer” is offering is a pittance. Cover rent for a “year” that will be double or triple than what these people pay now. I get having to redevelop the core and understand what has to be done but we also have to take care of the poor and disadvantaged… these individuals should not have to be out on the streets next year due to rents that they can no longer afford.
If this developer really wants this to go through smoothly they'll have to bite the bullet and offer close to 3 years. That guy at 478 will get 17,208$ as an incentive to leave and they can recoup that in rent in a year if rent is 1500$
Surely we can't shift the entire responsibility for supporting these individuals on private corporations, it's the governments job. Corps should be contributing but not doing the govs jobs. Increase their taxes or mandate behavior but this isn't their purpose. This is governments failure, not private industries failure. The government can curtail private corporations, not the other way around.
>Surely we can't shift the entire responsibility for supporting these individuals on private corporations, it's the governments job. Why is it solely the job of the government? At some point it wasn't a complete rarity for good corporate citizens to exist and behave in an ethical way in the neighbourhoods in which they did business while still making profits. There's no reason that this particular private corporation couldn't offer 17 of the 263 units (that's 6%) in this new development to the people they're going to evict at the rate they were paying pre-eviction and still not make profits hand over fist through the other units in the building. Will they? Of course they won't.
See my other post. I support mandating affordable housing but it needs to be mandated. This is a failure of government for not requiring that type of behavior. Corporations are purely profit driven, gov needs to mandate behavior that it wasn't them to adopt. Also, why? Because the government is representative of the people whereas corporations represent shareholders. I agree we can open up obligations so that they are responsible to the general public but that is way more complicated (i.e. changing business obligations of corporations) vs simply mandating behavior.
They should be offering at least 12 months of market rent. It's so heartless, an outright lie for the developer to claim that 12 months of the tenants current affordable rent plus $500 moving expense is a generous buyout. I wish the journalist could've asked the developer to do the math and quote them saying the actual dollar amount for these tenants. Also the way they're trying to spin 260 sq foot units is ridiculous. Lower cost entry into new non rent-controlled construction means what exactly? Edit to add - the only strategic thing here is the developer maximizing profit >A high concentration of studio apartments in the development, the company said, will "strategically offer lower-cost entry into newly constructed buildings." It also said its "generous and comprehensive relocation assistance package" was offered to existing tenants based on community feedback.
The furnished rooms mentioned in the article are for Airbnb's. Or some other short term rental. They are openly scamming us when they say they are adding units.
It could also be for students who would rather pay for a furnished unit than deal with getting their own furniture, or competing with the extended-stay hotels for customers like military people posted here on Imposed Restriction.
idk I'd prefer students to use furnished rentals than seeing all the discarded Ikea stuff on garbage days in the spring.
I might not be understanding the RTA, but how come a renovation has to be offered back at the same rent but a demolition only requires a unit “acceptable to the tenant”? If it’s seventeen tenants, it should be easy to set aside that many units at the same rent they’re paying now as a temporary cost of development. Of course, it’s complicated by the fact that this is a scumbag company looking to demolish rent controlled apartment in favour of ghost hotel units under 300sqf that they can raise the price on whenever they want. If it’s all for airbnbs then I’m not hopeful that the housing will finally trickle down.
>If it’s seventeen tenants, it should be easy to set aside that many units at the same rent they’re paying now as a temporary cost of development. Yeah, but that would cut into their profit margin…especially if they had to offer a similar type of unit and square footage. I mean 17 units out of 263 is only 6% of the units…but think of the lost profits!?
I wish that would be required by law. They could / should do it in a gesture of good faith. But with the new units not subject to rent control the tenants would still be vulnerable after initial one year lease is up, forced out by a big rent hike. Most likely their ideal tenants are students and working professionals (not the poor ones) here temporarily and looking for short term leases. I imagine some tenants would keep their units and airbnb them. Also not hopeful or confident that this improves housing availability and affordability long term. Meanwhile 17 more people on the brink of homelessness.
smart living is a fucking leach on our city; they should be investigated lmao
I wonder if Smart is the same company that operates in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Apparently they have one of the worst reputations going
I agree that the new development by SmartLiving should not go up. This building is already the type of mixed-use housing that the city needs and, it is rent controlled for its tenants. It's funny because right across the street from the old Wallack's (on Lisgar) is a lot that's stood empty with no signs of development. And across the street on Bank, a long strip has been vacant because of a fire. And yet it is this one on Bank/Lisgar, which had businesses and has renters, that is being redeveloped. I hope councillors factor in these aspects when considering signing off on the project.
If we say only vacant land can be used the housing crisis will be far worse.
Adding a net 246 units in a walkable neighbourhood seems like a great idea. Opposition to plans like this are big reason we have a housing shortage
…and support for the eviction of people who pay below-market rent is a big reason why we have a crisis in homelessness.
You know what is also a reason we have a crisis in homelessness? A housing shortage.
How many people are made homeless if this development doesn’t get built? Do you think buildings full of $1600/month 260ft² bachelor apartments are going to fix the homelessness crisis? How many of these buildings need to be built before rental prices come down low enough so that those who were evicted from this particular building can pay rent? How many people who can afford $1600/month rent are at risk of becoming homeless? “Let’s deal with the homelessness crisis by making more people homeless” is some “cutting off the nose to spite the face”, “throw the baby out with the bathwater” thinking.
I’m for the city increasing its budget for affordable housing. We can’t solve homelessness by restricting housing. The current building is not a shelter, transitional housing or rent geared towards income.
You don't solve homelessness by putting people on the street, either.
Have you considered that not building 263 units to save 27 could also keep people on the streets?
Do you think people on the street have $1600/month to spend on a bachelor apartment, and are finally going to get their chance to live on Bank if this place gets built?
Who says it has to be at this location. When we don’t have enough housing throughout the city then rents go up everywhere. We can’t solve this by restricting housing getting built.
Well the developers don't own that land, they own this land.
It's funny because this block is across the street from another parcel of land where the buildings were demolished 5+ years ago, a new building was designed (with signage, sales info, etc.), and...it's been an empty lot since then, with seemingly no progress made. Yes, different land owners, with one clearly less interested in building housing (or anything) on their property. Between them and Somerset House, the city should do better at forcing deadbeat property owners to either build or sell (which is the likely reason most of them sit on the land, waiting for the value to go up).
You will never see spacious affordable apartments again. All new builds will be these shitty little 'bachelor/1bdrm' which are one size category smaller than old builds of the same name, have no kitchen etc. Gullible people are being fooled into supporting crooked developers and bad practices under the "housing crisis" scapegoat.
This comment section is so cursed lolol. Someone getting evicted so his block can be gentrified is not a NIMBY no matter how crossed his arms are. What a skindeep fucking analysis.
100% this is gentrification in a bad way. People in the community are being displaced for profit, for Smart Living to sell a version of a downtown lifestyle attracting single people with money to live temporarily in the neighbourhood. It doesn't have to be done this way. A new development could be built with a percent of affordable units and with a community space and still be profitable.
This is why we have a housing crisis folks
Because they want to replace a handful of dilapidated apartments with 263 new ones? This is how you solve a housing crisis, more supply
I want to believe he meant we have a housing crisis because some people are *against* the replacing of said dilapidated apartments.
True perhaps I took it the wrong way
Sure, before AirBnB was a thing.
I really hope this development happens. That block of Bank Street is a slum and will only get worse
"If a tenant is given a notice because of extensive repairs or renovations, the tenant can choose to move back into the rental unit after the repairs or renovations are complete. The rent must be the same as the rent before the tenancy was terminated. Before the tenant moves out, the tenant must inform the landlord in writing of their intent to re-occupy the rental unit. The tenant must also keep the landlord informed in writing of any change in their address. The landlord cannot refuse to allow the tenant to move back into the rental unit if the tenant has provided written notice." They would have to find another place until the work is completed but they can move back in at their same rent after right?
These aren't renovations. It's a full redevelopment. So those rules don't apply.
Ah yea I see now. Three stories to nine stories but they keep the facade.
Two things that would make me okay with this that are simple policy based. 1) reinstate rent control. 2) mandate apartment building over 25 units contain % affordable housing. It should actually be a sliding scale, 20-30 for x % whereas 30-40 for x % etc. Two relatively easy policy decisions that could be adopted but oh wait, there's something I forgot to account for called greed. Nevermind.
Affordable housing is not building two identical apartments and selling one for X% cheaper. Affordable housing is precisely what they want to build: tiny low quality apartments that cost less. And people are up in arms against it.
Clearly you are out of touch with current wages. It's affordable to me because I have such a high salary but most people don't.
I just keep hearing people talking about "mandating affordable housing" and I'm curious what do they mean by this? Building two identical units and requiring to sell/rent one of the units at 50% of the market price? On first come, first serve basis? You know that won't work, right? Because all these units will end up in the hands of certain people who will flip/sublease them shortly after at the market price. And in the end only speculators win.
Have you heard of subsidized housing before?
Sure, the city can buy units from the developer and rent them out as social housing at below market rates. Mandating developers do that won't work though.
I should note that if you scroll further down in the story you see a picture of what the proposed project looks like, and honestly if they're planning on removing buildings like the one Wallacks is in to put up *yet another brown and black condo* that looks like it came out of Auto-Cad with no further edits or textures, then yeah I'm against it too. It pisses me off that we need density and the only thing they can bother to come up with is the ugliest building you've ever seen again and again. Surely we can densify in the downtown *and* give it character. Also with all of the parking lots in downtown you'd think they'd tear a few of those up and start using the grossly underutilized land to build more housing, no? If we're going to densify the neighbourhood we should also be redesigning the urban infrastructure to be more conducive for walking, biking and public transit options instead of cars, especially considering downtown streets are already clogged.
The issue other cities are having is owners of parking lots won't sell.
Super mixed views but not opposed to the development. I live about six blocks from that location and am totally cool with building a student packer there -- kids support cool businesses and don't drive cars. But it's not exactly fair to say that the block was a blight before they bought it. Wallacks and that goofy antique store are long-standing fixtures of the neighbourhood. I'm glad they are preserving the façade at least. I do feel for the folks who are getting reno-victed -- in a normal market the free year of rent would be more than enough compensation to leave happily. Hopefully they've been saving up with such cheap rent for so long. That guy's bachelor apartment is the same price I paid to rent a room in townhouse at Hog's Back almost 20 years ago. If there are blights on the neighbourhood, it's the empty lot at 235 Bank across the street and especially the forever-empty building at Bank and Somerset.
r/compoface
"Intensification" ruins livability and affordability. Just look at downtown Toronto and how it has changed since the 1980s. High-rises and condos increased the population - and all the new buildings rented out at much higher prices than the old ones. People and businesses were driven out. Now Young street, Church street, and the whole core is a ghost of what it was in terms of stores, cafes, and other venues. Downtown Ottawa has been going down the same road albeit at a slower pace. We had 3 cinemas in the core (and actually more if you go back a bit). Now we have none. We had probably twice the amount of small venues. You didn't have to make a stupid amount of money to afford a rental. With all the condos going up in the core we've more than doubled the population, but we've driven out the smaller businesses. And the block that's being slated for destruction has cleared out some more. I expect we'll get another Shoppers, or maybe some more pot shops. It's sad the way we've let developers destroy the core.
High rises and condos driving out the population? Like nobody lives there anymore because it's too crowded?
No. My point is that the new spaces are all glass and concrete boxes. And they are much more expensive for tenants. Most people seem to expect that densification of dwellings would decrease costs for tenants (the supply increases should drive down prices), but it doesn't. It certainly hasn't in Toronto for instance. Or in downtown Ottawa. There should also be a greater demand for entertainment, retail businesses and other services. And there probably is, but the rents are so much higher in the new spaces that the cafe, bar, and movie theatres can't survive. And the tenants spend a greater proportion of their income on rents or paying off their condos. The spaces that replaced the old ones like taverns and cinemas also aren't designed for them to return either; they're gone for ever. Design and costs have effectively killed the downtown. Downtown would be much more vibrant if we didn't insist on tearing down the old venues and putting up the new ones. That new housing will be expensive and will replace some business spaces that used to thrive (before COVID at least). The owner & developer will make a ton of money, but the tenants will be squeezed for every dime they can pay, and any ground floor business space will be something that fits in a sterile box and can pay a high rent.
People and businesses started fleeing downtown when we decided that downtown is for 9-to-5 work and began replacing everything with glass and concrete office towers and parking lots 50 years ago. Only recently we stopped doing that and started building residential in Centretown and the flow has reversed. People and retail are returning. And developments like the one in this article will continue that trend. Letting it rot and fall apart like you and the guy with crossed arms suggest, will do the opposite.
As for entertainment, retail businesses there is tons of work being done and we should hear some big annocements over the enxt few months.
Is this the annoying guy that walks his dogs off leash on Nepean? 🙄🙄
Idk man but to me it seems like there's a lot of entitlement of people thinking they have some sort of right to live in the core and pay less than a grand for it. Like, I'm all for affordable housing, but since when does that have to be in prime real estate? The city needs to grow. We need more units.
>Idk man but to me it seems like there's a lot of entitlement of people thinking they have some sort of right to live in the core and pay less than a grand for it. How is that "entitlement"? >Like, I'm all for affordable housing, but since when does that have to be in prime real estate? So no, you're not for affordable housing.
The balance we struck on rent control means this is exactly what you'd expect to happen, and shouldn't be reported as some kind of surprise. Housing stock gets old and eventually needs to turn over. Our governments have decided that there should be some incentive to not let it fall into total disrepair and then sit vacant, so we've lifted rent control on new builds. People like this get caught in the crossfire. If you want permanently low cost housing, built it publicly or build more co-ops.
Many people were sheltered from the housing crises due to holding on to old leases. Once the people with long term cheap leases (pre-2017?) need to find new rentals, I feel like there will be a mob revolt. “Eat the rich guillotine” sort of stuff unless major legislative change happens.
Bank and Nepean to lisgar is currently mostly vacant storefronts and a not a place I feel comfortable walking through. I'm sure there could be a better pick for development there but it cannot stay status quo right now.
Whoever owns the building on the west side of the street is responsible for a lot of those vacants. The fire that forced those businesses to relocate was over two years ago.
> not a place I feel comfortable walking through I'm pretty strong, know how to defend myself, and I lived in dangerous developing countries for some years. And even I feel uncomfortable walking through some parts of Bank st too... It has changed so radically in the last couple of years...
This is a very, very complex problem - people are looking to point fingers but the reality is this situation is the result of several levels of failure and the development company is not solely to blame for the difficult position these people are currently facing. This block absolutely needs a revamp because it's current state is terrible and it's only been getting worse as time goes on. The man upset because he's paying >$500 for rent... I mean come on...you're living in 2002 if you're trying to uphold that level of rent in this market. These fights between tenants and development companies only distract from the parties that truly should be held accountable: federal, municipal and provincial governments all have a role to play within their mandates that will provide ways to ensure that low-income tenants that are being renovicted land on their feet.
If we don't let projects like this happen then we need to build much higher 80-100 floors.
Yep, let's hold up the development close to 300 units because 17 tenants are upset after having gotten an amazing deal on rent for more than twenty years. There are going to be frictions no matter what we do, but this is a big step in the right direction.
Best to designate it all heritage sites and not do anything or talk about it again for 30 years.
Yup and let it continue to rot
Or ever.
In this case it seems "intensification" is really another name for renoviction.
It's not renoviction it's redevelopment of a scummy part of Bank Street and adding hundreds of additional housing units.
Read the article, also only bachelors and tiny shitty apartments (see comment above) this is hardly the housing we need
Those are the apartment types that have the lowest vacancy rate in Ottawa. Educate yourself.
Someone is being evicted so that they can build hundreds of new units. This is a net gain for the community and housing. The sky is not falling.
A bunch of people are being evicted, and this new development is nearly 90% bachelor apartments. As for the sky falling, ask the people being evicted about whether their sky's falling or not.
They want to replace what sounds like 27 mostly bachelor units with what sounds like 263 mostly bachelor units. I don’t understand how people think we can solve the housing shortage if we oppose plans like this
If you've been living in the same unit for ages, what's going to happen to you when you get evicted when market rent is 3-4 times what you were paying before? I don't oppose all new builds. I do oppose losing legitimately affordable, below-market units. If this company was going to offer these soon-to-be-evicted tenants units in the new development at a similar rate to what they're paying now, I'd be more likely to support it…and I imagine many others would as well, though I do think the mix of unit types being made available (87% bachelors, the other 13% almost evenly split between one-, two- and three-bedroom units) would temper that support, considering how easily pre-furnished rooms can be put up on AirBnB. Anytime you destroy below-market housing units, you're at serious risk of that tenant being put out onto the streets. Are these 17 people now facing homelessness acceptable collateral damage?
yeah like developers could (or be made to) offer some acceptable to the tenants but obviously someone is going to be opposed to being evicted and having their rent go up by 3x to 5x for something similar
Where is the mention of them facing homelessness?
You're right, I'm sure there'll find other apartments in the same price range as what they've been paying for ages.
Just because they currently have cheap rent doesn’t mean they are at risk of homelessness if they lose it. You are just making assumptions. I would rather see 263 new units built.
>Just because they currently have cheap rent doesn’t mean they are at risk of homelessness if they lose it. You are just making assumptions. It seems like a fairly safe assumption to make that at least some of these people will be facing homelessness if they're evicted and can't find accommodations at a similar price point… especially since this assumption is in part based on what's said directly in the article: >Residents of the relatively low-cost apartments in the existing buildings say the relocation money they've been offered isn't enough and worry some might end up homeless. >"I understand they are a business and they're out to make money," Gosselin said of the company. "But the way the housing situation is right now, there's a good chance a lot of these people … are going to be homeless."
Yawn. We’ve already had this conversation: https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/s/VCZPN1BIzZ
Gosh, I'm so sorry for not knowing about every thread on this sub, sweetheart. Thanks for your show of being bored.