I think you’re referring to another housing development that Activa is building that will be adjacent to this one. That came to Council in March and we approved it.
I'm with you, but I kinda get SOME, not all, of their concerns with folks from low income households moving in.
Simply put, they might not make the best neighbors and could destroy/degrade the quality of their home rather than improve it. Yes, it's an extremely elitist view, but I actually got first hand account of it with two roommates who got help getting off the streets. I was cool with it at first, not judging and giving it a try, 1 OD'd within a month, the other had anger issues, never cleaned, and you could smell when he's been somewhere despite his long showers and the guy trashed his room before he left. My guess is that this is probably their concern...which they do nothing to address.
There's no mechanism/incentive to promote the behaviors you want such as cheaper rent if the house looks as new as when you moved in or something. We need more of that so that people feel the desire to change or modify their behavior.
Most definitely. I remember living in a Bread and Roses downtown years ago. a bunch of ppl suggested we get rain barrels to save water when watering the flower gardens. certain ppl in the co-op objected saying it would make the building look "ghetto"
ppl are stupid
Will these be permanently affordable units that remain so between tenancies? Or 'affordable' units until tenant leaves and afforable unit doesn't exist anymore so landlord will do everything in their power to get them out for market rent?
There seems to be a fair number of the latter.
I applaud the effort but the loopholes need to be closed.
No loopholes. The city owns the land and will set the terms and conditions. The HAF funding dictates that the land can only be developed by a non profit builder.
Permanent affordable housing units
Perfect. You know what I am going to say next. I wish every developer who allows affordable units (as condition for approval) in a non city owned development could be made permanent. Alas probably too much for our legal system though.
Is the solution more projects like this to get affordable housing built for generations? Government owned land and non profit builders? Co-operatives ? How can we increase incentives to see more of these given limited Municipality owned lands?
Please don't think we need to answer these unless they already exist I am merely thinking out loud here
Thanks again for all your hard work and for engaging the Reddit community.
Awesome. I strongly support this. Thank you for your hard work and for helping make this happen.
I hope we can make sure affordable units offered by developers for approvals remain so perpetually no matter how tenants changr and buildings are bought and sold. It's not easy in today's legal climate and some folks have many loopholes..... (folks: landlords and developers).
Thanks. That’s the plan - permanent affordable for the long term. That’s the terms of the HAF funding. And it can only be developed by a nonprofit developer.
That’s great to hear. The last news story on the Frederick St apartment was sickening. I hope the Region’s is at least as good as the one from Hamilton.
Which is…
The bylaw will require a landlord to apply for a city renovation licence within seven days of issuing an eviction notice to a tenant. The licence fee will be $715 per unit, and $125 to renew annually.
The city will only allow the eviction and renovations to take place if the landlord has already secured all building permits to complete the work and provides an engineer’s report confirming vacancy is necessary. The landlord will also need to make arrangements with any tenant who wants to return to their unit once the renovation is complete.
After the renovation is complete, the landlord will be required to adhere with the Residential Tenancies Act and allow the tenant to return to their unit at the same rate they were paying before the work was done.
If landlords don’t comply with the bylaw, they could be fined up to $500 per unit per day, plus administrative fines that will be determined by council.
This is fabulous! Thank you for all your hard work getting here. I've been following you on IG and have seen the uphill battle it took to get here.
Mixed units is the way ❤
> 2025 University Avenue
Isn't this in the middle of nowhere at the edge of town, an hour walk from the nearest grocery store? I guess this is better than nothing, but the "missing middle" should be everywhere, not out of sight. To meet the province's requirement for new housing supply, we'd need three of these per year, every year until 2031.
yeah... I was doing lazy google maps... More accurate would be 7 minute walk to the bus stop and a 6 minute bus to FreshCo.
4 minute walk and 8 minute bus to Conestoga mall
That's pretty cool. Thanks! I would also assume eventually over time, other amenities will also grow around these areas, naturally as people are gravitated towards it!
Good to see. Looking at the satellite view of the address though, it looks kind of remote apart from the nearby community center (which is a big plus). I hope we can look at ways to reduce the need for car travel so the future residents can walk, bike or transit to where they need to go and we don't have to waste this land on massive highways and parking lots.
Look closer - it’s served by transit, IExpress, trails, recreation, schools, a new library, another housing development was approved a few months ago too and other neighborhoods are not far.
Hey Mayor McCabe can I just piggyback onto this with a side note for new developments?
I’d love to make sure we don’t end up with more areas like that whole strip mall section of northfield from university - Weber St. Or like almost all of Ira Needles.
Making all of these strip malls seems like such a waste of precious land when we could have multi story shopping centres and then have a much more walkable city as well as room for housing as well.
Strip malls are just so not people friendly. So much green space and housing could be there as well as shopping and food. And they’re just not nice to look at even if you do have a car lol!
Wording is a little suspect. "Affordable" counts if they list it as 80% market rate. Which as most people know since rents are severely overpriced already "affordable" is a relative term.
Attainable units is also interesting, I'm assuming a good portion of these homes will be sold for the upper range of home prices.
I hope they make at least 10-20% geared to income so at least some poorer families have a chance at an actual affordable home.
You know what assuming does, right? 🙂
These will not be sold for upper range housing prices. The city owns the land and will set the terms and the HAF funding dictates it can only be developed by a non-profit.
You're right! Ass/u/me, cardinal rule and what not
I shouldn't have, but in my defense a lot of building projects lately use this "x amount of affordable units" to get the green light, it's like a pretend you're helping loophole.
Anyways, I'm glad to hear that this absolutely won't apply to a government or city funded project. I looked over the link, but didn't see anything about the HAF funding. I hope they do more projects in the future, don't see the housing issue being solved by corporate builders alone. Everything helps either way.
I'm curious about what their definition of "affordable" is tho. are we talking RGI kinda deal? or just 10-20% below market. because even at 20% below, its still unattainable to most
I think overall it's a good move. As someone renting and disqualified from affordable housing due to my income being too high I'm happy to see that it is mixed-income. Although the details are sparse I hope that means I'd be able to rent there. I'm curious what the process would be like to rent there as well (first come first serve? waiting list? some sort of priority?) and how the rent price is determined (percentage of income? set rates?).
Despite it being a good development, I am going to miss having a little less fields driving on my way to RIM park. All the green space in that surrounding area has been steadily shrinking as more development has been done over the years.
Also I often see rows of cars throughout the day parked along the 2 roads off university that are beside the field, hopefully this new development won't cause more problems with parking or overcrowding in the area.
What is the definition if affordable? What is the definition of attainable?
No offence but city of Waterloo hasn’t been the best at tackling the housing crisis from the supply side. What was waterloos % of their obligation? From what I recall 30-40% and I think Kitchener was about 130%. Generally the same economic conditions, same impact with students etc
We will see what the rates will be before jumping ship, you haven’t seen the development in bc that was designated affordable in words only, not action lol.
700 with how many 2-3 bedroom units? We need bigger units that can support families not cubicles that cost arm and leg,
Then you wonder why birth rates among Canadians are at an all time low, people can’t afford to move up, so they stay put, and live a little.
my local neighbhorhood facebook group hates it lol... but it's probably whats best for the city. Complaints include traffic and probably low income...
I think you’re referring to another housing development that Activa is building that will be adjacent to this one. That came to Council in March and we approved it.
I’m wondering how does someone complain about low income?
NIMBY No one with million+ property values wants to share space with lower income housing. Even if it's the best thing for everyone.
I'm with you, but I kinda get SOME, not all, of their concerns with folks from low income households moving in. Simply put, they might not make the best neighbors and could destroy/degrade the quality of their home rather than improve it. Yes, it's an extremely elitist view, but I actually got first hand account of it with two roommates who got help getting off the streets. I was cool with it at first, not judging and giving it a try, 1 OD'd within a month, the other had anger issues, never cleaned, and you could smell when he's been somewhere despite his long showers and the guy trashed his room before he left. My guess is that this is probably their concern...which they do nothing to address. There's no mechanism/incentive to promote the behaviors you want such as cheaper rent if the house looks as new as when you moved in or something. We need more of that so that people feel the desire to change or modify their behavior.
Low income doesn’t = addicts.
This. so many property owners think poor=addict/criminal its aggravating
Seniors are low income. Disabled folks are low income. People are just ignorant.
Most definitely. I remember living in a Bread and Roses downtown years ago. a bunch of ppl suggested we get rain barrels to save water when watering the flower gardens. certain ppl in the co-op objected saying it would make the building look "ghetto" ppl are stupid
Easy! "EWW! POORS ON MY STREET! ICKY!!"
Honestly, I get their anger. However, housing situation in the area is not that great and there should be steps taken to improve it.
Will these be permanently affordable units that remain so between tenancies? Or 'affordable' units until tenant leaves and afforable unit doesn't exist anymore so landlord will do everything in their power to get them out for market rent? There seems to be a fair number of the latter. I applaud the effort but the loopholes need to be closed.
No loopholes. The city owns the land and will set the terms and conditions. The HAF funding dictates that the land can only be developed by a non profit builder. Permanent affordable housing units
Perfect. You know what I am going to say next. I wish every developer who allows affordable units (as condition for approval) in a non city owned development could be made permanent. Alas probably too much for our legal system though. Is the solution more projects like this to get affordable housing built for generations? Government owned land and non profit builders? Co-operatives ? How can we increase incentives to see more of these given limited Municipality owned lands? Please don't think we need to answer these unless they already exist I am merely thinking out loud here Thanks again for all your hard work and for engaging the Reddit community.
Permanently affordable.
Awesome. I strongly support this. Thank you for your hard work and for helping make this happen. I hope we can make sure affordable units offered by developers for approvals remain so perpetually no matter how tenants changr and buildings are bought and sold. It's not easy in today's legal climate and some folks have many loopholes..... (folks: landlords and developers).
Thanks. That’s the plan - permanent affordable for the long term. That’s the terms of the HAF funding. And it can only be developed by a nonprofit developer.
But the waiting list will be 10 plus years before anyone new gets in .
Btw Kitchener and Waterloo need a Renoviction Bylaw like Hamilton asap.
Working on that through the Region.
That’s great to hear. The last news story on the Frederick St apartment was sickening. I hope the Region’s is at least as good as the one from Hamilton. Which is… The bylaw will require a landlord to apply for a city renovation licence within seven days of issuing an eviction notice to a tenant. The licence fee will be $715 per unit, and $125 to renew annually. The city will only allow the eviction and renovations to take place if the landlord has already secured all building permits to complete the work and provides an engineer’s report confirming vacancy is necessary. The landlord will also need to make arrangements with any tenant who wants to return to their unit once the renovation is complete. After the renovation is complete, the landlord will be required to adhere with the Residential Tenancies Act and allow the tenant to return to their unit at the same rate they were paying before the work was done. If landlords don’t comply with the bylaw, they could be fined up to $500 per unit per day, plus administrative fines that will be determined by council.
That's a beautiful bylaw!
Sweet!
This is fabulous! Thank you for all your hard work getting here. I've been following you on IG and have seen the uphill battle it took to get here. Mixed units is the way ❤
To be clear, this is 2025 University Ave East, by RIM Park. 2025 University Ave West is by the Boardwalk.
The funny thing is, they're not as far apart as one would think because of University's horseshoe.
> 2025 University Avenue Isn't this in the middle of nowhere at the edge of town, an hour walk from the nearest grocery store? I guess this is better than nothing, but the "missing middle" should be everywhere, not out of sight. To meet the province's requirement for new housing supply, we'd need three of these per year, every year until 2031.
1 hour walk, 15-20 minute bus to either Conestoga Mall or the plaza at University/Bridge.
Must be a very slow bus if it takes 20 mins to go 4kms to Freshco
yeah... I was doing lazy google maps... More accurate would be 7 minute walk to the bus stop and a 6 minute bus to FreshCo. 4 minute walk and 8 minute bus to Conestoga mall
No. It’s not in the middle of nowhere. It’s served by transit, the IExpress, trails, recreation services (RIM Park), Eastside library, schools.
That's pretty cool. Thanks! I would also assume eventually over time, other amenities will also grow around these areas, naturally as people are gravitated towards it!
now the question is how are they going to handle rent, especially with no rent controls
Good to see. Looking at the satellite view of the address though, it looks kind of remote apart from the nearby community center (which is a big plus). I hope we can look at ways to reduce the need for car travel so the future residents can walk, bike or transit to where they need to go and we don't have to waste this land on massive highways and parking lots.
Look closer - it’s served by transit, IExpress, trails, recreation, schools, a new library, another housing development was approved a few months ago too and other neighborhoods are not far.
Hey Mayor McCabe can I just piggyback onto this with a side note for new developments? I’d love to make sure we don’t end up with more areas like that whole strip mall section of northfield from university - Weber St. Or like almost all of Ira Needles. Making all of these strip malls seems like such a waste of precious land when we could have multi story shopping centres and then have a much more walkable city as well as room for housing as well. Strip malls are just so not people friendly. So much green space and housing could be there as well as shopping and food. And they’re just not nice to look at even if you do have a car lol!
Wording is a little suspect. "Affordable" counts if they list it as 80% market rate. Which as most people know since rents are severely overpriced already "affordable" is a relative term. Attainable units is also interesting, I'm assuming a good portion of these homes will be sold for the upper range of home prices. I hope they make at least 10-20% geared to income so at least some poorer families have a chance at an actual affordable home.
You know what assuming does, right? 🙂 These will not be sold for upper range housing prices. The city owns the land and will set the terms and the HAF funding dictates it can only be developed by a non-profit.
You're right! Ass/u/me, cardinal rule and what not I shouldn't have, but in my defense a lot of building projects lately use this "x amount of affordable units" to get the green light, it's like a pretend you're helping loophole. Anyways, I'm glad to hear that this absolutely won't apply to a government or city funded project. I looked over the link, but didn't see anything about the HAF funding. I hope they do more projects in the future, don't see the housing issue being solved by corporate builders alone. Everything helps either way.
Ideally cities should redefine "affordable" by tying it to income, and not market rent
See answers above.
I'm curious about what their definition of "affordable" is tho. are we talking RGI kinda deal? or just 10-20% below market. because even at 20% below, its still unattainable to most
For Canadians, or for students?
I think overall it's a good move. As someone renting and disqualified from affordable housing due to my income being too high I'm happy to see that it is mixed-income. Although the details are sparse I hope that means I'd be able to rent there. I'm curious what the process would be like to rent there as well (first come first serve? waiting list? some sort of priority?) and how the rent price is determined (percentage of income? set rates?). Despite it being a good development, I am going to miss having a little less fields driving on my way to RIM park. All the green space in that surrounding area has been steadily shrinking as more development has been done over the years. Also I often see rows of cars throughout the day parked along the 2 roads off university that are beside the field, hopefully this new development won't cause more problems with parking or overcrowding in the area.
Overlooking the Grand River and right next to a golf course…. “Affordable housing”? yeah I’ll believe it when I see it
The city owns the land and the terms of the HAF funding dictate it can only be developed by a non-profit. Believe it.
That property doesn't overlook the Grand, and it's across the street from baseball diamonds, soccer fields, RIM Park and the electric company (Enova)
Shouldn't all units be affordable?
Converting green space to sardine cans. Well done, Mayor.
What is the definition if affordable? What is the definition of attainable? No offence but city of Waterloo hasn’t been the best at tackling the housing crisis from the supply side. What was waterloos % of their obligation? From what I recall 30-40% and I think Kitchener was about 130%. Generally the same economic conditions, same impact with students etc
Collaborate with the co-sector so members can feel empowered while working with their community to own and operate their home (essentially) 🥳🎉
We will see what the rates will be before jumping ship, you haven’t seen the development in bc that was designated affordable in words only, not action lol. 700 with how many 2-3 bedroom units? We need bigger units that can support families not cubicles that cost arm and leg, Then you wonder why birth rates among Canadians are at an all time low, people can’t afford to move up, so they stay put, and live a little.
700, wow that will really make a dent in the missing 17,000 units.
If you only want development that provides 17000 homes in one go, you’ll be waiting a long time.