Running a social enterprise presents many challenges and contradictions. Last week I requested that council look out for The Bus Stop Theatre’s future by requiring changes to (or not approving) the proposed designs for the Housing Trust’s eight-storey apartment building. Throughout the process of public information sessions and review, I have continuously been overooked, patronized and misrepresented. When I took my concerns to council last Tuesday, I believed in the strength of my argument and did not criticize the Housing Trust or aggressively lobby for my case. When council denied my request and approved the plans without change, I wondered aloud (and on Facebook): “Why do I love this city that does not value what I am doing for it?”
For four years I have been running Gottingen Street’s Bus Stop Theatre as a volunteer. The theatre is unfunded and doesn’t make enough money to pay staff or decrease the deficit it carries. The lot behind the Bus Stop on Maitland is our emergency fund, but it is only worth something if it can be developed. The Housing Trust’s proposed designs assume that our backlot will never be developed and limit its development potential.
Here is a summary of my letter to council:
I respectfully request that you do not approve the Housing Trust development’s application as it is presented in Case 18547 AKA The MET site. This is an important decision that will affect my future, the Bus Stop Theatre and Gottingen Street. If they build what they have proposed, the lands I hold on Maitland behind the theatre will lose their development potential and the likelihood of the Bus Stop continuing to be viable decreases significantly.
It is inexcusable to assume that the backlot, which is currently empty—except for my garden, greenhouse and pond—is a free and public good. It is private property, of value to my enterprise and has potential to further contribute to the neighbourhood’s development. I recognize Metro Housing Trust’s mission to provide affordable housing; however I do not believe that due consideration has been given to the impact on the Bus Stop Theatre property as well as on the development of the neighbourhood.
If the proposed eight-storey tower is built 10 feet from the property line, the urban form produced would be two towering concrete blank walls 10 feet apart. More likely, the inability to provide south-facing windows will lead to the lands remaining vacant, rather than being developed in a way that provides revenue for my enterprise and our city.
If the development is approved, I request that the proposed tower setback along my property line be increased by 7.5 feet. Currently provided above the two-storey concrete wall being built on my property line the six-storey tower is only 10 feet. Seventeen-and-a-half feet is a reasonable request as it is the same distance provided for units facing existing buildings. This setback is required to retain the development potential of the theatre’s back lot.
I am also concerned that snow load studies have not been provided to the impacted owners. There is a significant retaining wall between the two properties and no plan is presented which explains how this will be addressed. In the city staff report, the shadow studies prove how its height and current setback would mean a significant loss of sunlight on my adjoining property. Increasing the distance between the proposed tower and my property line would mitigate that impact.
The neighbourhood needs more people—I just moved into a one-bedroom for $450 a month just up the street. The Housing Trust has millions in government funding on the basis that it will provide needed affordable housing. The Trust has suggested that somewhere around $700 would be its affordable rate. This project will interfere with the existing market and the area will lose the interest of small independent investors.
The theatre will lose revenue due to construction sounds disrupting the theatre environment. Debris from construction will mean I can’t plant seeds in that soil. The Bus Stop Theatre would love to have hundreds more people living on Gottingen Street, but if we are going to live to see that day, we need you to help us protect our future.
Clare Waqué moved to Nova Scotia from Toronto, like so many others, to attend university. Clare manages The Bus Stop Theatre—which is Halifax’s only black-box rental venue—has an active art practice and is a collaborator on several community development projects, including Street Stories, Earth Church, North End Pirate Radio and Fry Fuel.
This article appears in Jun 26 – Jul 2, 2014.
Brilliant parody. The Onion couldn’t have done better.
I don’t really understand how this destroys the development potential of the backlot. A small infill building with street-facing windows along Maitland Street can easily be accommodated in that space. It won’t have windows facing the side, but then, it’s in the middle of a densely built urban block—most buildings in such a location don’t have side-facing windows. I don’t really understand this line of reasoning.
As far being unable to plant seeds, well geez—it’s an inner-city neighbourhood, not a farm. This project will bring hundreds of people to the area and build upon what is currently a derelict, gravel-strewn empty lot. In the long run, I’m not sure how this can be anything but good for the neighbourhood, or the theatre.
LOVELY, really interested in a conversation about how we build homes here.
SO…..
First thing to understand about assuming one could build units facing Maitland is that the strip is roughly 30 by 90 feet, so you could get two really long really skinny units.
… Where else to we see such a cavernous design….. condos along Agricola currently priced in the 300,000 dollar range, a price they’ve dropped cause it turns out no one want to sell their suburban home to live in a one window rectangle.
If you are only getting two units on a floor you have to price them high.
Myself and the owner secured legal easement that allow us to develop units that front North South. This would mean that the units could be smaller, thus cheaper and more affordable to the local population. the cost burden of the square footage could be shared between 4-5 units as opposed to two.
In the struggle between urban renewal and gentrification it is clear that what the neighbourhood needs and needs now is affordable home ownership opportunities. Condos aren’t a bad thing, they are meant to be affordable homes. If I could afford 700 dollars a month in rent (which i can’t), i could get a condo for around 160,000.00.
What’s my point? Charging people 700 dollars a month to live in a box with small windows, built using public funding, and believing that is a charitable act does not add up.
We need to encourage the development of affordable homes not Apartments priced at almost twice what someone on social assistance can afford.
Below is text cut from the letter of objection addressing this issue of this basic and prevalent misunderstanding about the development potential of the BST Backlot.
“My property is sandwiched between the two Housing Trust proposals, Case 18547 ( the MET ) and 18548 (Diamonds). I am asking Council speak up for us now because because we are not being heard.
The staff report does not reflect our voice when it reports that : “there are no concerns with the impact of the proposed high density residential use.” Concerns have been raised and are maintained in this submission. Specifically, it is reported that : “Overall, these setbacks mitigate the effects of height and maintain the development potential on the adjacent properties.” This is incorrect and maybe the result of a misunderstanding of the development potential of my adjoining property.
During the public consultation session held at the North End Library I expressed concerns about the impact the development would have on the backlot and easements with the existing condo units North of the Bus Stop Property. However, the minutes do not properly reflect an understanding that the vacant lands behind the Theatre on Maitland Street also benefit from an easement, which prohibits construction on the north neighbouring strip owned by the condo. This would permit the development of units fronting to the north – south on my lot. This would allow us to build more, smaller, and thus affordable, but quality units that would help people capable of paying 700 dollars a month be able to get mortgage and own their own home. “
I don’t know where this 700 dollar figure comes from—the subsidized units will be geared to income (to not exceed 30% of a tenant’s income).
Also, the units that were reduced in price down the street were not $300,000 but $399,000. The $300,000 are selling fine.
Lastly, not everyone looking for subsidized housing wants or is ready for a home—rental accommodations provide a much-needed housing form.
This project follows a very standard, progressive model common in Canada. It’s really bizarre that the manager of a non-profit theatre is opposing subsidized housing that is specifically planned to mitigate the negative effects of gentrification, and include existing residents in the revitalization of the neighbourhood.
Sorry about your seeds though.
There are several important issues contained in this article, and I’m really glad to see that the Coast printed it. I’m especially concerned by the difficulty of working with the public process. Whether or not one agrees with the value in saving the Bus Stop Theatre (which I regard as highly valuable to the neighbourhood and city), citizens need pathways to work with their government to address concerns. It seems like a thoughtful dialogue needed to take place, and that it didn’t happen. Our city can do better, and this is a good reminder of that.
Dear Pigeon thanks for the chance to debate the issue:
You SAY:
I don’t know where this 700 dollar figure comes from—the subsidized units will be geared to income (to not exceed 30% of a tenant’s income).
I SAY: The figure of 700 comes from the Metro Housing Trust’s Public Information Session. The File is downloadable off the Trust’s website http://www.housingtrust.ca/news-press/ pg 46 of the powerpoint “ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT Affordable Units $780 per Month Market Rate $1,050
TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT, Affordable Units $980 per Month Market Rate $1,300 to $1,400
Show me where you are obliged, bound by funding or have committed in writing to definition of the affordable units being 30% of tenant’s income, and what your requirements for tenant candidacy. I will totally drop this point…. and feel much better about the projects over all impact.
YOU SAY: Also, the units that were reduced in price down the street were not $300,000 but $399,000. The $300,000 are selling fine.
I SAY: that is great that 300,000 units are selling well. The neighbourhood needs that, but there is no way that the majority of the people currently renting in the area can afford that…. so they will be pushed out: gentrification.
YOU SAY: Lastly, not everyone looking for subsidized housing wants or is ready for a home—rental accommodations provide a much-needed housing form.
I Say: Actually Halifax does have enough rental housing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TGrf8y8v9vwl4UkJOEcPW37BVkrUgBl2hVZMyVBhUk0/edit?usp=sharing
You Say: This project follows a very standard, progressive model common in Canada. It’s really bizarre that the manager of a non-profit theatre is opposing subsidized housing that is specifically planned to mitigate the negative effects of gentrification, and include existing residents in the revitalization of the neighbourhood.
I Say: I’d like to clarify that i think that the project is 80% great. But due consideration has not been given to your neighbours or the impact on the neighbourhood. I am the adjoining property, so i am grievously concerned.
My request of an increase of 7.5 feet is a reasonable consideration to ask as it is what you provide to units facing existing building.
You Say: Sorry about your seeds though.
I Say: Would you like some strawberries?
I am actually not opposed to large and ambitious projects, especially those with equally high ambitions. What I think is dismissive is presuming that generic units (fundamentally with little distinguishing them from a hotel room) provide any sense of ownership. Those who can not afford these units easily would be contributing a substantial portion of their labor (15 hours a week) just to have a place to live so that they can continue to work their jobs. This isn’t something that is inconvenient it is something that is tedious. Personally, I found it easier and more liberating to leave then to keep my job (on Gottigen). And I am one of the purported young professionals with debt that these units are looking to assist. Is it no wonder that the population of Halifax is not growing and that youth are leaving? We don’t need more units, we need more homes.
At any rate, even those of us that can afford the units, will find very little connection to a sense of neighborhood. Forget the fact that the new residents don’t have a yard and can not plant seeds or lay roots, where is their sense of community? In an lobby? Perhaps it could be if people had the time and inclination to loiter there. Is the lobby designed for this? I doubt it. Very few are.
Let’s consider development strategies and their respective sense of community. How many people for instance who go to Humanity Cafe under the Trillium on South Park know each other? By comparison, how many people that go to Alterego’s know each other? If you don’t know the answer to this then you need to do some research. Looking at these two examples, there is a stark difference between both their sense of community and the type of units where the patrons of each coffee shop live. It doesn’t mean that one coffee shop is better, more ethical or more successful than the other, but it does mean that one is more relevant.
The units in the Housing Trust aren’t being created to empower people, merely to house them. The street programming and services that are being proposed are business ventures, not social institutions. Sure these residents will need amenities like coffee so that they can get through their work day and pay their rent. And sure they will even need theater, but the price of coffee and the price of theater will increase and the person who can’t afford 700 a month will have to brew their own coffee, watch movies on their laptop and perhaps even move to a cheaper neighborhood. I don’t go to a coffee shop or a Theatre or even to a cobbler because I need them, I go to them because I value and know them.
And worse yet, the small projects along Gottigen, like but not limited to the development at the back of the Bus Stop Theatre, that are generally aspiring to engage a sense of community in addition to creating housing are going to have to contend with a generic and passive housing strategy that casts quite a big shadow. These smaller projects which build within their means, build less than the maximium, leave spaces for communal gathering, have modest rooftop patios if not gardens, access to the sun and fresh air, encourage wholesome loitering; these projects are in danger of being obsolete if the local demographic are forced to migrate elsewhere.
The housing trust is not looking at the existing market, they are creating an alternative market. And it is not to say that the new market will be ‘bad’, but it will gentrify and neglect a sense of community; the same sense of community that presently offers support and allows people to depend on each other. Affordability is not a question of price, it is a question of belonging. You could charge $1000 a month if you also provided an integrated sense of livelihood and relevance.
Now I said that I don’t have anything against big buildings. I am a design consultant that works with developers on Gottigen. I help these developers make money and create a sense of community. Furthermore as a builder, I am inherently constructive. I don’t mind large, but I do have a problem with generic solutions that do not map and celebrate the assets of the community. This is not constructive. Imagine the shear difference if you empowered the existing community to engage the building process. Let the community have some ownership over the project and it will not only be more affordable but more importantly it will be accessible.
Most importantly, if you need help, ask.
Which is to say in response to,
‘Rental accommodations provide a much-needed housing form.’
We, ‘the poor’ already have enough rental properties in Halifax. And furthermore, rental properties cheaper than $700 and nicer than generic apartments. What we don’t have are homes. And that is one reason why we are leaving.
…It is also a ‘Derelict, Gravel Strewn Site’ because it is owned by a developer…
My name is Ross Cantwell and I am the volunteer president of the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia. We are a nonprofit society that is concerned about the rising cost of housing in Halifax, and in particular the Gottingen Street area. Our project for the former MET property will include a 50/50% blend of market and affordable rate RENTAL housing – our intent is not to build condominiums.
Statistics Canada 2006 census data indicates that more than half of all households in HRM that rent are paying 30% or more of their income to their landlord. The Housing Trust’s concern is that young residents who have grown up on the Halifax Peninsula, or new residents to the area, are being priced out of the neighbourhood. This includes people who work as cashiers, serving coffee, administrative assistants, office cleaners, etc. Many people in these types of jobs make too much money to qualify for income supplements, while at the same time, don’t make enough money to be able to afford a good quality apartment. While all the new condominiums in the neighbourhood are a welcome and existing addition, unless you have a $20,000 down payment and the ability to quality for a mortgage, these units are likely well beyond your financial means.
The Housing Trust has been working on its plans for this property for more than 3 years. During this time we had meetings with: the business stakeholders from the former Gottingen Street Merchants Association (in 2011 we removed several floors of the building in response to concerns); a general public meeting with the community (2012), and a Public Information Meeting as part of the HRM planning approvals process (2013). In 2013 we formed a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) to obtain specific input to the design of our projects and to ensure that we were meeting the expectations of local residents. As a result of these meetings with the CLC the design of our buildings have changed dramatically (e.g., the first two floors of apartments on Maitland Street were converted into townhome style units for families, we have added rooftop decks and a community room, changes in the size of windows to make blinds and window coverings less expensive, changes to the colour scheme for the buildings, etc.). During this process we have also had a number of meetings and conversations with Ms. Waque and in response to her concerns reduced the height of our building up against her property to two floors.
One unique aspect of the redevelopment of the MET property is that 25 of our 58 affordable units will be set-aside for active and retired artists through collaboration with the Performing Arts Lodge (PAL), another nonprofit society. During preliminary conversations with PAL, there was some discussion about creating theatre rehearsal space within the new development. However based on concerns expressed by Ms. Waque, we eliminated that space with that idea that rehearsals or performances would likely occur at her facility. The Housing Trust and PAL want to make sure that whatever we do adds to the vitality of the Bus Stop Theatre, and bringing 25 new artists to a building three doors down is sure to do this.
Before last weeks approval, our property was zoned C-2. This zoning allows both residential and commercial land uses, and according to the local height precincts and land use bylaws, we had the right to build a 4 to 5 storey wall directly up against Ms. Waque’s property line. In our desire to be a good neighbour, we quickly dismissed this option and instead, chose to work with HRM staff and the community to negotiate a development agreement for the property. Based on our discussions with HRM planning staff and stakeholders in the neighbourhood we adjusted our plans to include a 2 storey firewall against her south boundary, which steps back 10 feet before continuing up. We have made similar accommodations for the Alter Ego’s / Backpackers Hostel, and have also changed the entrance ramp into the building from Gottingen Street so that this new entry will line up with the adjacent laneway that runs from Gottingen to Maitland Street (which we are hoping to rename Raymond Taavel Lane).
Mr. Waque’s concern is to ensure that she has a viable development option for her back lot; this is a reasonable request. In response to her concern we prepared a concept plan for her property that shows the ability to build a three storey building, which would allow her to build nine 600 square foot one bedroom apartment units. We have shared this design idea with Ms. Waque, yet she continues to say that we have compromised the development capability of her property; this is not true.
In summary, we have made a number of changes to our designs over the past three years in order to address the concerns of the community and adjacent property owners. At this point we can’t make further changes to the building envelope without compromising the financial viability of our project. As always, we remain open to continuing a dialogue with Ms. Waque. For more information on the Housing Trust, please go to
http://www.housingtrust.ca
Sincerely
Ross Cantwell, President
yah yer right pigeon, city people shouldn’t grow food.
$700 a month rent does seem like almost twice too much to really be “affordable.” And there really does need to be provision for green space and growing things for residents and community. The core question should be much more than just how many folks can live in a space, but what quality of life one gets. Isn’t destroying the Bus Stop theatre to bring more people to live by what used to be a significant cultural asset directly like “We had to destroy the village to save the village”? I’d say the same thing about destroying green space as destroying cultural assets. We absolutely cannot afford to destroy any essential part of what makes a community. That is why I’m dedicated to bringing in the process of creating Transition Towns (http://www.transitionbay.ca). Transition Towns look at every aspect of building resilient, vibrant, healthy, uplifted community the way the local community envision, including local based economics that actually work. We can do better.
Look at this way guys: if building affordable housing for human beings is putting such a cramp on your community gardens (wilty kale!), there are still plenty of dumpsters to dive in.
The Bus Stop Theatre, Backpackers Cafe and others have been the pioneers in enriching the north end neighbourhoods. If the next step is to develop socially constructed ‘affordable’ block apartments with no regard for the shape, form and diversity of the neighbourhood, the or ambiance of the streetscapes, then we are taking the first mindless steps into a community that is empty of the values that I have come to love about this city. We need the Bus Stop Theatre more than we need more visually incongruous block apartments.
It seems that some of the people commenting here think that the Bus Stop Theatre will be forced out by the new building. This isn’t true. No one is asking you to choose between the Bus Stop and the new construction. They will co-exist. Even the author of this article says the new project is “80% great.”
So relax.
I don’t have much to add that hasn’t been said already. Just want to comment here to show my support for the Bus Stop Theatre.
Its amazes me how adding the words “affordable housing”, suddenly makes bad design ok. Especially, at a time when Halifax is so focused on developing plans that establish what good design in this city should look like. We absolutely need to start developing affordable housing in Halifax. In fact, I think that mixed income development should become the norm. However, these two projects are, in my opinion, a great example of how it should NOT be done.
Instead of starting from a place of best practices and good design, this project has always been driven by the number of affordable units that had to be built on each site in order to get the money from the province and the Feds to buy and clean up the land. 58 units on the MET site, and 65 units on the Diamond site, resulting in a 50/50 split of affordable and market rate units.
This is an extremely high ratio. Housing Nova Scotia, the government agency set up to provide affordable housing in Nova Scotia is proposing a 40/60 split of affordable to market rate units at the Bloomfield site. And these units will all be owned, not rented. The Centre plan, which would apply directly to the two site in question, is proposing that 10% of all new development must be affordable. Imagine that, every building built on the peninsula and downtown dartmouth within the arc of the circumferential highway would be required to have 10% of its units affordable. That is GREAT design policy.
The second major design flaw with this project is the fact that close to 84% of the units will be one bedroom, or smaller. Outside of perhaps one other small exemption, this in unheard of in HRM. Any new major residential development in HRM must provide that a minimum of 35% to 50% of the units be 2 bedrooms or larger. In some cases a percentage of three bedrooms is even specified. At the meeting that this project was approved, council also approved a development on Bilby and Isleville streets. The approval of this project was subject to the condition that a minimum of 44% of the residential units be 2 bedrooms or larger. This is a generally accepted best practice. It is good design. It makes sense. It encourages a mixed neighbourhood.
The third major design flaw with this project is that the height steps in the wrong direction. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in height if it is done well. Both of these sites are through block sites. They front on both Gottingen and Maitland street. Gottingen is a central corridor, that would encourage height, Maitland is a secondary street that should have less height. Both of these buildings do the exact opposite. The MET site goes from 6 stories on Gottingen to 8 stories on Maitland while the diamond site goes from 9 to 11. This is due to the grade difference between these two streets, but that is not a justification for ignoring good design principles.
The north end of Halifax is changing rapidly. There is a huge amount of development pressure in the area. Change is good, and development is good if it is done right. On April 29th, 2014 regional council approved a report from the Community Planning and Economic Development Standing Committee, that highlights the importance of developing a plan for areas subject to high development pressures. Councillors Watts and Mason moved and seconded an amendment to that report that asked staff to look at including north end Halifax in that plan. Given the scale and number of units in this proposal it should absolutely be included in that plan and be forced to adhere to principles of good design, instead of being driven by the requirement of 123 “affordable” units.
1) How is this in any way taking away development potential? Every building along Gottingen and/or Maitland (Glubes Lofts notwithstanding) faces the street. Heck, the current Bus Stop Theater faces the street and has no windows to the north or south. It is not some inalienable right to be able to build units perpendicular on your lot, and it’s super ridiculous to hinder a neighbouring landowner to accommodate that. I would love to have a lot like yours to develop.
2) Construction noise is going to happen no matter what goes there, and leaving it an empty lot isn’t really an option.
3) Growing things is great. However, it certainly shouldn’t take priority on one of the most important corridors in Halifax.
As to other posters… the idea that somehow Alterego’s has “community” while the cafe in the bottom of the Trillium doesn’t seems like some sort of weird reverse hipster elitism. “We have more community than you”. Heck, the people living in this building will be a great source of customers and extra community for Alterego’s. If community is what we’re about, let’s welcome them.
I would like to put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons and comment on Pigeon’s assumption that the there is no issue here and that the Bus Stop can happily co-exist with this development.
The proposed buildings are simply out of scale for the neighborhood. The existing zoning which is great zoning – allows for 40 feet on Maitland Street. Sure the two story Bus Stop Theatre could co-exist with the 8 and 11 story proposed buildings – but is this what we want our city to be? One of the buildings is 110 feet high on Maitland Street, almost 200% higher than is allowed.
The proposed density of 250 units is approximately 2 times what would be allowed anywhere else on the peninsula. Do we need this density? NO.
– The RP+5 plan passed just this week proposes 25% of new houses, apartments and condos be built in the city core which includes the peninsula and, over in Dartmouth, a similar sized area.
– An average of all dwellings built in HRM in a typical year is perhaps 2,400. Thus the goal at 25% is 600 hundred units a year. Just this project would be almost one half years take up.
The problem of course is that all the other developers will look at the 11 stories and say – he got it so why can’t I get it too.
In the center plan there are 11 areas in the core identified for intensification. Just the Gottingen Street area has 23 proposed acres for intensification of housing density.
If the precedence set by these developments is applied to the policy of the center plan then Gottingen alone could have 5,500 units, the other 10 areas will hold 55,000 more. This instantly is a one hundred year supply at what the RP+ 5 plan has recommended we need for the entire core area.
But then in addition there is the newly rezoned Downtown area, the proposed high density Cogswell Interchange area as well as every other as of right development site in the urban core.
To put this in exact perspective, the peninsula has around 4,940 acres, with 500 persons per acre we could fit about 2 Million people and still have 20% of the land left for roads and parks.
Somehow I cannot make the leap from the 600 persons per year in the plan and density that would allow for millions.
I believe we can build a better more human scale city where there is sunlight for all, where you have a chance to know your neighbors.
I do not know why, just before the centre plan comes forward for public consideration this fall, we would approve a building that contemplates density 1,000’s of time higher than we would ever need to accommodate the anticipated population growth.
I don’t mean to pigeon-hole Pigeon but I would like to have this bird explain the necessity to pigeon coop unsuspecting citizens of modest means in such concentrated flocks all packed side by each.
Perhaps we could simply adopt the density bonusing provisions of approximately 10% of units in all new buildings be affordable units as suggested in the first round of public hearings for the centre plan and already adopted in the HRM by design Downtown plan.
Together we can build better affordable housing in a great city with healthy, vibrant, diverse communities.
Andrew J. Murphy, CA
Halifax
I can’t tell if Clare is trolling people or just a lunatic. I’m in favor of bulldozing the Bus Stop theatre down if it gets rid of these sort of people from town
Sad that there are people who take advantage of online anonymity to be rude in a very real and valuable discussion. Looking at you, pigeon.
It seems to me that Claire Waqu is asking for a reasonable request, that the new building not diminish her own property’s potential by being too big and too close. This is reasonable and not lunacy.
I fully support having more residential development, especially lower cost residences, but I am not convinced that this building as it is being proposed is the way to do it. It is just too large for the area, it is out of scale. Will this impact the cost? I’m sure it would, but efficiency must be balanced with community.
I appreciate the Housing Trust talking about this in this forum, but they have not adequately made their case in my mind.
Merely because the Housing Trust has sketched plans about how they would develop her land doesn’t logically mean that either that she has no concern or that she would have to develop in the manner they suggest. If she has other plans, ones that differ from theirs, those are valid.
All right guys. You’ve come out in force. I still think it’s absurd that a bunch of privileged theatre folks and standard North End poverty tourists are working to prevent much-needed subsidized housing in order to retain their little clubhouse/backyard (or even more cynically, for their OWN development potential) but anyway…
And some of the commenters here are idealistic and well-intentioned, and it doesn’t feel good to criticize that. But the lofty, dreamy rhetoric about housing “empowering” people and whatnot is over-the-top—we need affordable housing, now, and this project will provide it. It’s not perfect, but it’s not at all an example of warehousing the poor—it’s a mix of market and affordable, in a neighbourhood full of social services, with a strong built-in community. It respects the current built form of the block with setbacks and whatnot. It is a decent and needed project, and the Bus Stop’s concerns, while not irrelevant, have been at least partially addressed, and are NO reason to halt the project.
While I value the contribution a space like The Bus Stop Theatre has to the arts community in Halifax, for some people having a roof over their head that they can feasibly afford is more important that drinking overpriced coffee and growing arugula.
When you have experienced a true housing crisis personally and are unable to find affordable accommodation that isn’t in a suburban wasteland you start to prioritize differently. Although, as the author commented, in her opinion Halifax may have rental properties available, there is a shortage of AFFORDABLE rental properties that are in a central location. The classism apparent in this article and the subsequent comments is unfortunate. A mortgage and a permanent home are a possibility for some, for people with crippling debt or other financial issues, they are not. Although for some, owing property and knowing the people in your neighborhood cafe are required for a fulfilling existence, for some simply having a place of their own to lay their head is much more relevant. Perhaps it would be wise to consider that not everyone has the same priorities and to check your privilege.
There seem to be two lines of arguement emerging here, a thoughtful critique of poor planning and design by those who oppose the MET proposal and personal attacks by those who support it. Curious.
“Why do I love this city that does not value what I am doing for it?” sounds so self-absorbed. This is probably one of the sentences in the authors opinion piece that may be causing a lack of sympathy for her arguments. The Housing Trust it seems has made design accomidations for its future neighbors, and now they need to move on. Providing affordable housing in the center of the city for 58 people who don’t qualify for income support and also can’t afford to buy a small one-bedroom apartment for themselves, YES, just might have to take precedence over a private backyard garden, attached to income property and the Bus Stop Theatre that someone’s parents bought them. What exactly is going on in this garden that is to be so greatly appreciated by the city? I might have missed the connection between The Bus Stop Theatre rental venue and how it’s sun-loving strawberries, etc have potential to pay staff or decrease its deficit. If this where a community garden run by halifax-born youth who produce salad dressing and make a profit that support an education fund, then one could see many reasons to object to whatever designs that may still hind the growth of an enterprise like that. It is hard to believe that, “This project will interfere with the existing market and the area will lose the interest of small independent investors.” The noise from construction will not last forever, but perhaps what will is more revenue to her unfunded theatre from habitants of this housing project (of which 25 of them will be active or retired artists who may “value” what she is doing for the city).
I just looked up the definition of Trolling. I am not. I have concerns, they are legitimate, and the majority of the posts in support of my argumentation do have a name associated. If you believe it is necessary to post further comments please do so as Ross Cantwell did, in name, otherwise you are by definition TROLLING; using the internet to frustrate the cause of a public opponent cause you can hide behind anonymity. Also, Everybody knows that you can refresh the page and like it again so you should stop doing that, it can be tracked.
Trolling is an Internet slang term used to describe any Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else, though not to be confused with cyberbullying a form of online harassment targeting a specific individual or group in a deliberate and hostile manner, or pranking, which similarly involves playing jokes on strangers for one’s amusement, but typically implies more coordination and intent.
Etymology
The etymological root of the word “troll” is generally attributed to hunting and fishing jargons. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary[8], the noun “troll” originated from an Old Norse word for a type of monstrous creature and the verb to troll comes from the Old French hunting term “troller.” According to Merriam-Webster[9], the English verb to troll refers to the act of slowly dragging a lure while fishing as bait.
In Other Languages
In Japanese, tsuri (つり) means “fishing” and refers to intentionally misleading posts created with the purpose of eliciting negative response from other users. Arashi (あらし) means “laying waste” and can also be used to refer to simple spamming. In Korean, nak-si (낚시) means “fishing”, and is used to refer to Internet trolling attempts, as well as purposefully misleading post titles. A person who recognizes the troll after having responded (or, in case of a post title nak-si, having read the actual post) would often refer to himself as a caught fish.
I am disturbed at the amount of derogatory comments directed towards Ms. Waque. Please argue your point and stay on topic. Your argument will be stronger for it.
The bus stop theatre provides a unique service and is a success story in the community. the building and organization will be negatively effected by the construction. Like any other business, the city has a responsibility to not adversely effect their operation during construction.
I think at the least negotiation needs to continue so the Bus Stop can continue to do provide an important cultural contribution to the community.
I am disturbed at the amount of derogatory comments directed towards Ms. Waque. Please argue your point and stay on topic. Your argument will be stronger for it.
The bus stop theatre provides a unique service and is a success story in the community. the building and organization will be negatively effected by the construction. Like any other business, the city has a responsibility to not adversely effect their operation during construction.
I think at the least negotiation needs to continue so the Bus Stop can continue to do provide an important cultural contribution to the community.
I was dismayed that The Coast would print a blatant self interest article from a commercial property owner who is trying to sway opinion against a neighboring commercial property owner that happens to be the non-profit Housing Trust.
Miss Waque’s father, Stephen F. Waque, a Toronto lawyer and business man, is the owner of the Bus Stop Theatre building. The fact that their neighbor is in the final stages of developing their property is nothing but sour grapes. The messianic meanderings of miss Waque over how her artistic vision of the North End will help the people is classic CFA dribble. They are a for-profit holding company. If they do not have a development strategy for their property, and it is not commercially viable in its present configuration, then they should sell the property to someone who has a vision and will actually help the North End.
Foamy: I agree that Waque’s argument is self-interested, and totally insufficient to merit stalling the Housing Trust’s project, but calling it “classic CFA dribble” is awful. I was very vocal on here about totally disagreeing wth Waque, but her province of origin is 100% NOT the issue. In fact, I’m glad that people are coming here and doing important creative work and building new institutions, like the Bus Stop.
Throwing around the CFA term (which I find tends to be lobbed against Ontarians more than anyone else, out of some stupid parochial dislike for “Upper Canada”) just makes us seem like a bunch of narrow-minded, inhospitable pricks. Leave birthplace out of it. There are plenty of self-serving locals, and plenty of people from “away” who have done a hell of a lot to make this the great city it is.
Pigeon: I am sorry that you find the term CFA so offensive. I would not use the term if not warranted. It is reserved for those that don’t even realize how condescending their tone is. “Why do I love this city that does not value what I am doing for it?”
Miss Waque did not build the Bus Stop Theatre. It was a turnkey operation bought 4 years ago by the Waques from Howard Beye. It was already a black box theatre.
As for being a “volunteer”, the building has an income both from the Bus Stop Theatre (which was turned into a Co op in 2012) and rental units in the upper floors. Miss Waque receives income from the Bus Stop Theatre indirectly as a part owner and manager of the property. There are many volunteers that contribute to the events and daily operations of the Bus Stop and other arts organizations. They are to be lauded. If you profit at all from an enterprise, calling yourself a volunteer is a dubious moniker.
I am interested in this dialogue for a number of reasons. I have worked in community development for many years and have come to understand why Nova Scotia has one of the lowest rates of growth and highest rates of out-migration of any province in Canada. We tend to value “Nova Scotia born” as if it were a economic value, a remedy for our powerlessness. At the same time we feel victims of progress and of government failure. Those who use CFA as a measure of community weakness are responsible for perpetuating a conservative ethic that has stifled progress, entrepreneurship or success in this part of the country for decades. Year after year, young and educated people leave Nova Scotia for wealth producing parts of the country.
Ms Waque has (so far) resisted the trend of leaving the province for greener pastures, instead bringing investment capital to the province. Similarly, she has committed herself to the success of an unfunded cultural enterprise that supports the performing arts community. Of course she is trying to protect the value of her business. She is doing it through the right channels and she has received some support for well-respected professionals who understand how this new development will affect her property However, she has been personally attacked by others in ways that surprise me.
Perhaps she is a come from away, and has been backed by an business consortium that seeks a return on investment. That is how business works. There is a negative attitude towards privately financed enterprises that is evident here. Running a business can be a risky business, especially one that has a cultural mandate. Profit is a reasonable incentive to balance this risk. We should remember that many “non-profit” enterprises employ consultants, engineers and other professionals that are themselves profit driven. I should know.. I’m one of them.
Nova Scotia would have a stronger economy, one that can retain young educated people and attract investors from elsewhere if we support, indeed celebrate hard-working young entrepreneurs rather that maligning or attacking them.
Redrabbit. Business is business and a shill a shill. Miss Waque is not the poor volunteer martyring herself for the arts that she portrays in the article. The Housing Trust have gone through the proper channels with their proposal. The $700/month quoted in the article has generated negativity toward the Housing Trust. As the cost of the units will be based on income, this is a misrepresentation aimed to sew doubt in the reader toward the Housing Trust’s mandate for affordable housing.
The geography of your birth is not the the issue but the willingness to malign and misrepresent for personal gain is. Thinking that we are so easily fooled is what makes a CFA.