URBAN MATTERS: Queen St. Reconstruction; lessons learned from Gore St.

At the Council meeting on July 10^th, 2023, a Councillor stated “We should learn lessons from the Gore Street reconstruction”.

In 2016 it was proposed by Planning, approved by Council that millions of dollars be spent on the reconstruction, street-scaping and beautification of Gore Street to spur the redevelopment of the commercial, retail and residential buildings on Gore Street and surrounding blocks. 

The reconstruction was done, the money was spent and the objective of building investment failed.

It was stated, that we needed “better landlords” as the possible reason for the failure of the Gore Street building revitalization.  Was that the real reason the Gore Street revitalization failed?  Was there clearly, a more obvious reason why this was never, ever going to work?

These are the reasons why the Gore Street building revitalization failed:

1. Right-sizing: Our city’s population was shrinking for decades and a “right-sizing” policy was never understood or accepted by Planning or any Council. 
   
   
2. Over-supply of retail and commercial buildings:  Moving the big-box stores, smaller retail, commercial and offices to the north end of the city created an over-supply of commercial and retail space downtown; especially on Gore Street.
    
3. De-mapping areas of the downtown:  Midland, Saginaw and Bay City Michigan using their Federal and State Temporary Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds de-mapped a large percentage of their downtown areas because they understood it was no longer needed.  Michigan cities have a thirteen-year head start because their Federal and State Governments understood that cities needed the (TARP) funds to remove the oversupply of dead asset commercial, industrial retail buildings and blighted houses/neighbourhoods.  Our city can apply for the Housing Affordability Fund (HAF) thru CMHC for similar help, but it is not clear if that has been done.
   
   
4. Ending a culture of blight:  The buildings on Gore Street are dead assets, their design and construction are obsolete and they end up in a cycle of failed renovations.

The failure of Gore Street retail and commercial building revitalization was caused by the failure to update our city’s Official Plan; enacting modern urban policies of land banking, place-making, de-mapping and the necessary financial tools to make these program work. 

WILL THE PLAZA AND DOWNTOWN STREET IMPROVEMENTS REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN?

No, the thirty-five (35) million dollars that this city will spend on the Plaza and the street improvements will NOT in itself revitalize the downtown.  The downtown will undoubtedly look better, but it is not the right policy.

We need to focus on policies that get people living back downtown.  For a complete neighbourhood to succeed people density is required.  People density can be achieved downtown by having incentive policies for the creation of low-rise apartments and the rehabilitation of housing in the city centre, and centre/west housing. 

NEW LOW-RISE DOWNTOWN APARTMENTS:

Our city needs to adopt the two urban planning strategies of land banking and place-making.  Land banking is the process where the city will acquire tracks of land to create mixed-use, low-rise apartments downtown. 

Traditionally, the City only acquired land as it went into tax default, and then quickly disposed of it without any thought of land banking. 

Other communities have understood that a modern approach to land banking is required for the purposes of not just creation afford/attainable apartments; but ensuring it is placed exactly where it belongs. 

LAND BANKING:

Let us examine Sudbury’s new land banking policy in their Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan (2018).  Section 2.3 Land banking. “A key component of this community improvement plan will be the land banking of municipal property for use in conjunction with this Plan.  At its sole discretion, Council may acquire, sell, lease, prepare and dispose of property at below fair market value to achieve the goals of the Official Plan and the affordable housing strategy.”

Sudbury Council and Administration have the power to acquire property that it deems necessary for the creation of affordable housing.  We need a similar policy, here in the Sault.  If you want mixed-use apartments created downtown you need to acquire the property first.   We need this policy to acquire end of life-cycle dead building assets downtown.   These buildings are at the end of their life-cycle; but the property is very valuable because of its location and the fact that it is fully infrastructure serviced. 

Another example of land banking is the work that Sault Ste. Mare, MI did to acquire all the adjacent properties for the creation of Osborn Commons.  Using money from their Federal and State Governments (TARP) the City of Sault Ste. Marie, MI land banked all the property for the creation of Osborn Commons; a 65-unit affordable low-rise apartment building, downtown. 

PLACEMAKING STRATEGIES:

Place-making will require leadership to bring three or more parties to the table for the creation of affordable housing.   These three parties include the City of Sault Ste. Marie, with the land banked property.   The Federal government’s appropriate funding and financing packages (CMHC with the Rapid Housing Program, the Housing Assistance Fund (HAF) or the many other funds available).  Lastly, a Social Services Group that takes responsibility of managing and owning the housing complex. 

It is important to understand the paradigm shift in affordable housing.  It is the City of Sault Ste. Marie that will be applying for funding in conjunction with Social Service Groups.  The private sector builder or developer is NOT wanted as the owner or operator of affordable housing. 

Affordable housing will be created by SOCIAL SERVICES GROUPS; thru SOCIAL FINANCIALIZATION.  That is the future of affordable housing in Canada.

COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PLANS:

North Bay’s Community Housing Improvement Plan (CHIP) has proven very successful in revitalizing housing in their downtown and centre core.  A 2020 report indicated an investment by North Bay of $792,000 incentives thru the (CHIP) program garnered $24,000,000 in private sector investments; creating 128 new housing units.  I have no 2021 or 2022 figures, but they have increased the program funding. 

Currently, we are still waiting for a similar (CHIP) program for our City.  However late our program is, I think we have finally come to the understanding that in order to revitalize housing in city centre and centre/west we have to stop the culture of blight; make it an attractive place to invest and live.

URBAN MATTERS:  Mark Menean

Thank you:

City of Sudbury, Affordable Housing Community Improvement Program (2018).

City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Osborn Commons.