Iqaluit committee rejects rezoning bid
for 116 new public housing units
Nunavut Housing Corp. proposed pair of 5-storey buildings on empty Hospital Hill lot
The City of Iqaluit won’t move forward with rezoning this empty lot on Niaqunngusiariaq Road, where Nunavut Housing Corp was hoping to build two 58-unit apartment buildings. (Photo by Arty Sarkisian)
This story was updated on Thursday, April 23, at 1:20 p.m. ET.
A rezoning proposal that would have enabled Nunavut Housing Corp. to build 116 units on a central vacant lot was rejected by Iqaluit’s planning and development committee Tuesday night.
City councillors debated the impact of adding 116 units in that neighbourhood, the number of parking spaces it would require and the city’s overall plans for growth for approximately 40 minutes before voting.
The result was a 4-2 decision against approving the first reading of a bylaw that would have increased the density of the lot on Niaqunngusiariaq Road.
Councillors’ rejection also shot down the opportunity to hold a public hearing before the bylaw would have been read a second time.
“If we really want to be the council that turns down 116 public housing units — on a public housing wait-list of years for people — just, I would be shocked,” said Deputy Mayor Kim Smith, who chairs the committee.
City council documents show Nunavut Housing Corp.’s concept for two buildings with a combined 116 new public housing units for Iqaluit on empty lots near Hospital Hill. (Screenshot courtesy of City of Iqaluit)
Nunavut Housing Corp.’s proposal called for two 58-unit, five-storey apartment buildings in an area at the bottom of Hospital Hill.
Three housing complexes were demolished there in 2023.
The area is currently zoned for medium-density housing, meaning it can hold a maximum of about 43 units, said city planner Mathew Dodds.
Council would need to rezone the land to high density in order to allow Nunavut Housing Corp. to build more units than that.
Coun. Harry Flaherty asked whether the proposal included enough parking spaces for 116 dwelling units.
With one parking spot for every three units, Dodds said, that’s the same ratio of spaces to units that councillors approved for other apartment buildings in the city’s core area.
This development, Dodds said, is within a five-minute walking distance of “core amenities,” such as Qikiqtani General Hospital and Astro Hill.
Flaherty said the city lacks a master plan to guide how it wants to develop housing and where particular types of housing should be built.
“We are here for the long term. Long term is to make sure that we’re not trying to get a quick fix,” Flaherty said.
“Just because we have shortages of housing doesn’t mean we just install whatever we can put.”
Smith — who as committee chair does not vote — suggested councillors could approve the bylaw on first reading. After that, she said, community members could have their say at a public hearing before council considers the rezoning on second reading.
“I think it’s a great opportunity for us to hear from the public on what they want their city to look like, what their needs are,” she said.
With councillors’ vote to reject the proposal, though, that opportunity won’t come.
Only councillors Romeyn Stevenson and Amber Aglukark voted in favour.
Flaherty was joined by Mayor Solomon Awa and councillors Simon Nattaq and Methusalah Kunuk in opposing the motion.
Correction: This story has been updated to correct information related to the height of the proposed buildings.
What is wrong with these old guys? Are we serious about getting houses built or not for crying out loud. The disconnect is astonishing.
No surprise that Harry Flaherty gets in the way of housing development. Did it with QC / NCC, now working his magic with the city
I can see people having homes matters less to some on council than having 1 to 1 parking spaces.
Rejecting more than 100 units. For parking spaces? Some of these councilors need to reevaluate their priorities.
Also I bet if this exact bid came through from QC. Harry would have jumped at it. Even with 0 parking spaces.
Im not a Harry Flahrety fan but he speaks wise words. Let’s learn from other municipalities and have a sustainable plan for long term developement to ensure continued support and strategic construction. Things like traffic patterns, green spaces, and safe walking areas should all be considered. Building willy nilly is a terrible plan and the sheer lack of parking spaces is grossly problematic based on the per capital vehicle usage s(now machines, boats, and cars ).
like these plans????
https://iqaluit.ca/city-hall/departments/planning-and-development/general-plan-and-zoning-law
When you read amazing things happen!
Yeah but this proposed development does not align with those plans. That’s what council was doing, voting to change the plans. If you’re constantly voting to change your plans, are they really plans at all?
Read the NU act. there has to be provisions for residents to request amendments, that’s not changing the plan that’s following the act that demands that provision be there
Yes of course there are provisions to make amendments. Nobody is arguing that they wouldn’t be following the law. The argument is that they are changing the plan, which is what an amendment is (you can Google the definition of amendment if you would like). You can’t say “that’s not changing the plan” when that’s exactly what it is. It is legally changing the plan, yes, but it is changing the plan nonetheless. I can break it down for you:
Iqaluit – drafts a plan
Iqaluit – votes to approve the plan
NHC – we’d like to change the plan
Iqaluit – we don’t want to change the plan
Fo’ Real Nunatsiaq Commenter above your first comment – I agree with not changing the plan, they should follow their own plan.
You – they have a plan! Go read!
Me – yes they have a plan, they just voted not to change the plan
You – they’re allowed to change the plan!
3/4 of Iqaluit doesn’t drive. The parking issue is a NON issue. Little place big city problems. When half the buildings, new and old are sitting empty there isn’t a housing crisis. There hasn’t been for quite a few years. It’s a made up issue. This is more proof.
Good old Harry. He sure knows lots about housing and Master Plans. Or should I say how not to deliver housing or execute a Master Plan.
Someone should have asked him how his Company NCCD or NCC3000 (or whatever they call themselves this week) Master Plan on the Sole Source Contract his company was awarded by NHC for NU 3000 is going. You know the one. The one that is years behind scheduled delivery of 316 units, and over budget in excess of $30 million. They should have asked him if he is really interested in building homes for Nunavummiut or just making money from the undertaking. Given he has no “cash in the hat on this particular project”, he clearly answered that question for everyone bright enough to see through the mirage. Wake up every one! It’s not about Housing Nunavummiut. It’s about who benefits from it financially.
Basically, no one. Least of all that guy. Should be talking about Master Plans!
Harry probably also wants all the parking spots paved for public housing just like he paved his driveway!
Remarkable that 116 public housing units can be rejected during a housing crisis, partly on the basis that there’s “no clear plan”….. when the General Plan is publicly posted on the City website and routinely applied to every other developer!
What’s even more remarkable that this concern of “no master plan” is being raised by a Flaherty who is also a developer! Of all people, should know exactly where to find it and how to use it!
I have to agree with the vote not to go ahead with this many units and not enough parking spaces. This proposal would have meant an extremely overloaded parking lot. There are so many vehicles in the community, it wouldn’t make sense to approve such a large housing building with little parking spaces.
Iqaluit receives hundreds of vehicles every single year, not to mention the boats, ski doo’s, ATVs, and everything else people would want to park in that lot.
The College unit’s are a perfect example of parking lots becoming slightly overloaded. It wasn’t common for so many students to own vehicles or have friends/family parking in their lots. You now see boats and everything else in the parking lots.
NHC should know better than to propose such a large housing unit. Not enough parking spaces is a safety hazard.
There’s lots of vehicles but a disproportionate number of those vehicles are owned by the same people/companies/orgs etc. there might actually be 1 car for every person in Iqaluit, but the majority of the population don’t own cars and might own a quad or sled though
good for it to not go ahead. And if we worry about parking for public housing, then they should not be in public housing? It should be affordable housing, too many public housing =generational handout. And unfortunately the degradation of building, garbage, etc is usually tied to the tenants. Maybe sweat equity might spur some respect and responsibility
58-storey apartments????? was trying to build a sky-scrapper?
Can you read? 2 5-storey buildings with 58 units each.
They updated the post. It previously said “two 58 storey apartments”
Did Harry Flaherty really say that the council should be promoting affluence, and single family homes so the occupant/renter can have a car, an ATV, and a boat all parked in his/her driveway? Has he completely lost touch with the community?
They should build small houses and NOT more apartments for the rich landlords. Those apartments DON’T build wealth. Homes can. Anything to keep the man down Iqaluit
The design did not even respect the document for tender, this is on NHC to have approve something that did not reflect the specification of the tender
How is it possible for Harry Flaherty to make decisions on developing housing units. He sits on board of directors of NCCD. President of Qikitaaluk Corporation who is a partner of NCCD.
Someone hurt mighty Flaherty’s ego when a Sole Source contract wasn’t given to him. I don’t know how many times this councillor during planning meetings says there’s no master plan. Above comments even know there’s a master plan.
Shame on the puppets of flaherty’s ego going to Mayor Awa, nattaq and kunuk for denying this!
Public Housing eh, just build the units and advertise lack of parking space and see how many have need for parking space, a great opportunity for homeless person wo have no vehicle to have a place to call home and not the much needed space at the Shelters
last i check most of the homeless have no ride SIMPLE
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Time to move on from the ol’one.
Develop a bunch of large lots. Give people lots to develop on their own. We’ve been under the city’s thumb for too long. There’s no shortage of land.
The hill looks better vacant
Please ensure the power grid (Feeder 3) is stable before adding more housing units connected to it. Please.
The hospital and this lot is actually on Feeder 2.
As a land-use planner myself, I think this NHC proposal could easily be modified to make it palatable to everyone, all while still delivering good yield and filling an important need.
Firstly, I note that what NHC proposed was public housing, which by definition is housing for lower-income people. Such people are unlikely to have one or more vehicles for each household. (We are not talking about wealthy people who have the ability to own single detached houses with various vehicles and boats.) However, let’s set the parking topic aside for a moment.
Granted, 116 new public housing units would require upzoning from medium-density to high density.
And, having five-storey buildings is markedly higher than the other buildings in the area.
However, a more “medium-density-like” setting could be maintained by building two buildings that combine a mix of apartment sizes (1, 2, and 3 bedroom), and the total can still be more than the 43 units than the current medium-density zoning allows.
For example, how about two four-storey buildings, each with, say, 38 units? That would make for 76 units, all within the four-storey format that has become a modern standard throughout Iqaluit.
Another option that comes to mind is one long building of, say, three stories. Also, the building could emphasize large apartments (simply because families need public housing too). This would have the side benefit of improving the ratio of dwelling-unit count to parking spaces.
Also, if the building is to be built on steel pilings to bedrock anyway, then it could easily be elevated (or partially elevated) to provide for parking underneath.
Such a design would also have the side-benefit of providing space (covered, protected space that can be secured) for vehicles of all types. And this, in turn, would enable more efficient use of the lot footprint too, all in a format that incorporates three storeys of dwellings.
Also, it is surprising that Harry Flaherty failed to recuse himself from voting. Flaherty has an obvious vested interest in promoting housing scarcity in order to drive up prices. He has a profit motive.
City councillors are expected to vote in the public interest, and they are expected to think of the long term (which includes housing for future residents, not merely the current ones).
Iqaluit has a well-known housing shortage, and people at the low end of the income scale are most affected. These people deserve the dignity of proper, well-maintained public housing. And, NHC, as a public-sector entity, is best-positioned to deliver this.
This type of design is an excellent suggestion, and will as such be ignored entirely by developers.
There are so many new buildings full of 1br units in the city under construction right now, how on earth does the city expect families of more than two people to have adequate housing options?
For once I am happy of city council of nit going with the build
Perhaps these locals that reject it want better for the city
For far to long we had planners for the city come and go and make decisions that affect us locals for the long term
Like see where they are building the new men’s shelter that should be else where
Where they should if doing some thinking and give where it burnt down 1088 lot to the men’s shelter since it’s close to it current location
I can go on but the list is to long
This is very true, city planners who come and goes and make decisions that affect long term residents. Cue the NIMBY warriors. I see nothing wrong with having a piece of land with a house on it to live a peaceful life.
I have to agree with the City Council decision. The lack of planning with public housing has disrupted whole neighborhoods in Iqaluit. If NHC is planning on building that many units, what makes you think they are going to take care of them? Look at the building near ventures, and building at Joamie court – the list goes on! What I see happening here is more garbage and more drama for the Iqalummiut to see on the main road of the city.
Location is so important. Access to hospital, groceries, and school buss pick up for children. Most people get off their feet and improve their situation with many services that are in walking distance. Homeless people need access to weekly meetings and future jobs as well. I hope this city continues to house the many inuit that need to have homes with their families. Please make sure you consider that many men women and youth are on this wait list to be housed. I just wanted to say thank you to housing companies for helping me out in my life. ♡♡♡♡ hopefully we can all have a place to call home in Iqaluit Nunavut Canada
Nunavut complains incessantly that there isn’t enough housing and not enough public housing but when there is finally an application to build 116 new public housing units it gets rejected by the majority of city council because of lack of parking. Majority of public housing tenants do not have vehicles. There is still going to be 39 parking spots.
Rejecting this proposal is shameful. Exactly where and how is Iqaluit going to get the land for 116 units with 116 6o 232 parking spots for public housing? As every year goes by the costs for construction go up, time is lost due to planning cycle and that is 116 families who need housing who don’t get it sooner. Councillors who voted against this plan should be ashamed of themselves. They don’t need housing because they are well housed themselves and they are not thinking in the interest of those 116 families or the community.
Does anyone remember when a little girl died in that area from sliding and the sewage truck ran her over
Now think twice before over building this area
Or any other area
Think of the children that need play area