Iqaluit council gives 116-unit public housing proposal second life
After rejection at committee, councillors to read revised bylaw at future meeting
Iqaluit city council will hear a revised rezoning proposal for this empty lot on Niaqunngusiariaq Road, where Nunavut Housing Corp hopes to build two 58-unit apartment buildings. (File photo by Arty Sarkisian)
A proposed rezoning measure that would enable Nunavut Housing Corp. to build 116 public housing units in Iqaluit will get a second chance after it was rejected by the city’s planning and development committee last week.
Councillors saw a revised proposal Tuesday during their council meeting.
Nunavut Housing Corp. wants to build two five-storey, 58-unit buildings near the bottom of Hospital Hill, where three now-demolished row homes once were. To do so, the land must be rezoned from medium density to high density.
The housing corporation made changes to the proposed development in response to committee feedback, city planning director Mathew Dodds told council Tuesday.
“They have a very aggressive timeline. They want to start construction this year, hence the item coming back to council so quickly.”
The revised bylaw proposal creates additional parking space for all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles.
Coun. Kyle Sheppard, who was not at last week’s planning committee meeting, spoke in favour of the project.
“This is incredibly high-quality housing that’s being proposed for our residents,” he said. “High density is not for everybody, but I think this is a large number of units that are desperately needed by a large segment of the population.”
Council discussed adding a first reading of the new proposed bylaw to Tuesday’s agenda, but councillors Harry Flaherty, Methusalah Kunuk and Simon Nattaq, who opposed the proposal last week, were absent.
“It’s a bit awkward that the people who were most against this aren’t in the room today,” said Coun. Romeyn Stevenson.
Dodds told councillors that moving the vote to a next meeting would not impact the project timeline. Nunavut Housing Corp. aims to get materials into the community this coming sealift and start building in the fall.
Councillors approved a motion recommending that council give first reading to the new rezoning plan at their May 12 meeting. After that, city staff will organize a public hearing.
Dodds also noted that if the bylaw gets approval on second reading, third reading would not happen until council has conditionally approved a development permit for the project.
These are behemoth projects: 2 buildings, five stories, 58 units each. That’s well over 73 units above the medium density threshold.
Yes, we are in a housing crisis. But how often are Inuit concerns/voices built into the City’s General Plan and Zoning By-laws? Or the design of NHC complexes? Couldn’t the design have been made to build 2 buildings with 29 units each and build another complex elsewhere? Or are the buildings so cheaply procured to confine as smallest units as possible to eventually turn to a slum village?
How is it that Iqalummiut are losing so much control over their own priorities. Anywhere from cabins to water use at Sylvia Grinnell, to the lack of designated dog parks so that Inuit can continue utilizing berry picking patches, to not being able to preserve spaces popular for Toonik Tyme or even snowmobile trails and cultural access to shores on the beach. An Inuk has to pay for access to dog team space? It just feels so knee-jerk reactionary if Inuit are understandably reserved with behemoth projects that may not necessarily reflect Iqalummiut’s concerns or needs, or may not even benefit them.
It doesn’t help when Inuit councillors become the scapegoat, and qallunaat are the heros.
Your victimhood mentality is blinding you. Inuit need housing. This is a whole lot of safe homes for people who need them. Now get out of the way and let the builders build what we constantly claim we need.
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, jerry…..Iqaluit councillors, you are not the father
Are these councillors absent regularly?
Why are they on important committees when they aren’t present?
Why are they opposing much needed housing?
Atii. Avanni.
The City recently posted Council attendance for Jan-Mar. Out of 12 possible attendances, they attended:
Awa: 12
Smith: 10
Flaherty: 4
Aglukark: 11
Kunuk: 10
Nattaq: 10
Sheppard: 10
Stevenson: 8
I wonder what was being discussed the four times councillor Harry deigned to grace chambers with his presence?
First, it is great to see the wonderfully competent Iqaluit Council at work. Hey, let’s review some questionable decisions that were made which blocked a critically required housing project. Yeah, and let’s do that when two of those council members who were part of that decision making are absent. And one of them can be interpreted as potentially being in a conflict of interest when it comes to voting on any projects or developments projects in Iqaluit. Sounds like great planning!
Second and most importantly. There is a greater question here which is mentioned in article. If NHC is in such a rush to get this passed because it, “wants to get material on the summer sealift”. This alludes to NHC already having a contractor chosen and under contract for this project. Was there a tender process put out to market for these units? Maybe I missed it. Was a contract signed for the build? Is it part of some other set up NHC has with any of the recent housing announcements? You kind of need fully competed “approved for tender” drawings to go to tender. If there was a tender.
Now NHC has comeback with revised drawings (mainly civil). It is May 1st now. According to the article they need a new set of readings, then another public consult. Meaning a vote on final approval of the plans and project will likely take another month or so (being overly optimistic). Anyone who knows anything about building in Nunavut knows that projects of this scale would require ordering materials as early as the beginning of this year to get the type and quantity of material produced and procured and, on the boats that run from late June to October. You can definitely do the civil work without needing much on the boats (or the materials you need are easily available, i.e. cement, pilings, etc..), but structural, envelope, mechanical, electrical, etc…that is highly questionable.
Something does not jive in this whole thing. Or is this going to be another one of NHC’s famous “Sole Source Contracts”, that Nunavummiut have yet to be told about. Perhaps Nunatsiaq can go back to NHC and ask a few more questions to enlighten Nunavummiut’s on how NHC is executing this large-scale project given their incredibly stellar record executing builds over the last 4 years (sarcasm).
I wonder if good old Harry will make it back in time to participate in any of the votes. Huummmm?
The site that is being discussed used to be old BCC. It was the last place before Salluminiq had his house near Apex. BCC occupants could call out with open windows as we walked by this was 1980-84.
Iqaluit has experienced so much growth since it became the capital in 1999. Everyone knew each other in the 80’s.
Housing is needed so much. We all know that health and safety and well being is impacted by housing. GN housing is not available to a large number of Inuit who could work for the GN.
I support the construction of housing as it will have a positive impact to the lives of Inuit who need it and may lead to more Inuit employment.
Developments of this size should include a small play area. It would seem that they should have proposed this a while ago, manipulation or incompetence?
Why do you need such building
Build many small multi-units instead
They always have fires look how many will be displaced if such a event
They want to make a new hydro water plant
How about start making new subdivisions going out that way
Build the city out
Iqaluit is packed in enough like sardines
This type of medium-to-high-density development is urgently needed because it fills a distinct need. NHC’s goal is to build public housing, which by definition is housing for people who are of lower income. Such people are unlikely to be car owners. This, in turn, means that sprawling outwards (which fosters car dependency) is not very practical for public housing, especially in Iqaluit where the overall costs of living are so high anyway.
The building can also be tweaked in response to public input. For example, if the building is built on pilings (as it almost certainly will be, simply given the geology), then the option of having secure vehicular parking space underneath also presents itself. This will enable those with cars to still be accommodated.
Also, note that sprawling outwards brings huge costs of servicing. Imagine how much more it would cost to service 116 separate single-detached houses (or townhouses/rowhouses) than a multistorey 116-unit complex (or two 58-unit apartment buildings). The more outwards you sprawl, the more land you need to prepare, the more roads you have to build and maintain, and the more waterlines and sewerlines you need to build and maintain (or the more tanker trucks to run, which also accelerates road wear). School buses, first response (including ambulance, fire, policing) and other services are also more expensive in sprawl settings.
As for your argument that public housing “always has fires”, I think this is flawed reasoning. A well-designed building with good fire alarms and sprinklers, plus with good management as well, will go a long ways towards preventing fires. Also, because fires so often begin in the kitchen, a key design choice is to have induction-type kitchen ranges with automatic shutoffs.
Also, this site is also within easy access of the Iqaluit Fire Department.
And, as a planner myself, I observe that density does not create a “slum village”. Again, good management is key. Another recommendation is to have a mixture of unit sizes (i.e. 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms, as I touched on in my response to a previous article in Nunatsiaq on this development proposal). Having a mixture of housing sizes will foster a mixture of occupancies, including families with children. (Many low-income families have kids.)
Also, on the topic of playgrounds and so on: with Hospital Hill and other open areas literally right behind, this public-housing complex is well-located for easy access to outdoor recreational opportunities. Another advantage is the easy access to the hospital clinics and emergency areas. So, a child with a respiratory infection or a broken arm can quickly be seen. (For people with mental-health issues, services are also easily accessed.)
By the way, NHC’s new building on Palaugaa Drive is nearing completion. This nice new building (which I have been observing with excitement) will have 46 units of various sizes (1 to 3 bedrooms), and it includes a number of quality features (including several designed to reduce soundproofing between units, including between floors). It also has an elevator, for ease of access. And, its location was designed with easy walkability in mind. We need more such buildings, and the proposed 116-unit complex at the base of Hospital Hill answers this need very well.
There is no argument that 116 units are needed (and another 1000+) in Iqaluit.
I do not know if this is the right spot for them or not, or if the land use/variance should be given to enable these units at this spot. I would suggest that a traffic study be completed before the decision is made. Adding 100+ vehicles to a main arterial road will have an impact. It would be nice to have it as part of the consideration.
As a planner myself, I have reviewed a lot of traffic studies. I note that the key aspect of any traffic study (in particular the conclusions drawn) is the assumptions that are made. These assumptions in turn are tied heavily to the location and the type of development, as well as other factors.
Because NHC is proposing a public-housing complex here, and because public housing is by definition for lower-income people, the number of daily cars that will be generated from this complex is very unlikely to be 100 or more. In fact, I would expect to see a lot more people walking or otherwise using low-impact transportation methods.
This also raises another question: will there be year-round-maintained walking paths? Such paths are present in many progressive cities, and Iqaluit could really use these as well. Forcing pedestrians to walk alongside roads clogged with huge vehicles (each almost invariably carrying just one person) is a sign of myopic urban planning.
In any case, Iqaluit really needs to plan for the future, and this means having more compact, walkable communities that meet the needs of the vast numbers of people who need affordable housing. (The field of land-use planning entails planning for people who will be here in the future. This means anticipating the needs of people who cannot speak simply because they are not here yet!)
Looking at the bigger picture of Iqaluit as a whole, and given the ever-growing flood of vehicles here in this city, I already get the feeling that the city is being designed to prioritize car travel, just like Ontario Premier Doug Ford is catering to car drivers by building more highways (at huge cost) instead of encouraging more compact urban forms that are ideal for walkability and public transit and micromobility. Adding more roads tends to have the side effect of encouraging more people to drive, thereby exacerbating the flood of single-occupant vehicles.
I agree that Iqaluit is absolutely in need of more public housing. My concern has always been with the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s ability to properly maintain the units they already have. If you look at many of the current units, there are ongoing maintenance issues, and a number of units sit vacant because repairs cannot be completed quickly enough after significant damage or neglect by tenants.
Adding another large housing complex on one of Iqaluit’s main roads raises important questions about long-term management, maintenance capacity, and community impact. Before rushing into building more units, I would like to see a clear plan from NHC outlining how they intend to properly maintain existing housing stock while also taking on additional units in Iqaluit.
Housing is badly needed, but building more units without a sustainable maintenance and tenant-support plan risks repeating the same problems we are already seeing across the territory.
What doesn’t make sense is that the original zoning apparently didn’t even allow this type of project, yet it still ended up being approved afterward.
If the project changed from what was originally tendered, or if special zoning changes were needed to make it work, shouldn’t it have gone back to tender so everyone had a fair chance to bid under the same conditions?
Otherwise it gives the impression that the rules were adjusted after the fact to accommodate one proposal instead of ensuring the best and most transparent process for taxpayers.