HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 5:54 PM
ArchAficionado ArchAficionado is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Your post seemed promising in that it brings about a situation that I’ve been wondering about. It seems like the government has just finished the process of purging old school sites to be turned into housing because of a population boom, but it seems that nobody connected the dots to realize that record populations are going to need more schools in their neighbourhoods. Especially given the recent (mislabelled) “lack of fertility” media reports saying that Canadians are not having as many children because of choices, costs, etc, but adding the subtext at the end that immigrant families statistically tend to have more children than families who originate from Canada. Well it would seem that our extremely large increase in population logically (and anecdotally) must be due mostly to immigration… so maybe we will need more schools? But… they have systematically removed those prime school sites from public ownership, so they will never be schools again. I think it’s a topic worth discussing.

Then you lost me by turning your post into a comment laced with boomophobia…
I must confess, I sometime stoop to the low of thinly veiled boomerphobia when my real intention is to unmask our various levels of governments' woeful inadequacy in preparing for demographic change / collapse. I look at the many issues rattling through our economy right now and that seems to be the common denominator.

In the longer run we would expect many of the younger immigrants who have recently arrived will have kids who need schooling ... but depending how well they assimilate we may be surprised. Very few of my peers now almost 30 are having kids or even thinking about kids on the near horizon, and few realize that means they'll likely miss the window to have kids at all. It's a real problem in my book.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 6:39 PM
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home sweet home
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dartguard View Post
I am a graduate of the last High School class of Graham Creighton High.
The Schools population in 1979 was almost exactly 50/50 White and Black as the Schools proximity to Both North and East Preston just made things easier.
All of us White kids were the original Colby Village/Forest Hills generation and were bussed to Creighton. Still friends with a lot of those Knuckleheads.
It's interesting to look at the demographic changes over the decades which dictated the built environment in Halifax/Dartmouth post-WW2. Those suburban developments out in Woodlawn, Colby, Forest Hills would probably have had almost every home occupied by young families with kids, and continued to grow out/infill well into the 1980s. However, now that all those families have grown old there are lots of empty-nesters still there or some might have been turned into rentals, etc. changing the landscape so to speak. The next generation(s) just moved on to Fall River, Hammonds Plains, BLT, and the cycle continues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAficionado View Post
What's surprising to me is that in this decade despite our fast growing population there seems to be little demand to build new schools / develop school infrstructure beyond replacement of the aging buildings for those same schools that the boomer generation came in.

Baby boom was no joke! All those huge schools bursting at the seems is wild to me. Must have been more teenagers at that time despite having 1/4 the total population. Now all those teenagers are old and complaining about their property taxes increasing to the market rate
Which sparked my original post about preserving the lot as Institutional Zoning in case another P-9 school is needed centrally!

In one of the years it lists Shannan Park School (P-6) having 2,300 kids in a single elementary building which is unfathomable. I'm assuming those were all military brats from Shannon Park/Wallace Heights at the peak of Cold War military families living in the city at that time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 6:44 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAficionado View Post
I must confess, I sometime stoop to the low of thinly veiled boomerphobia when my real intention is to unmask our various levels of governments' woeful inadequacy in preparing for demographic change / collapse. I look at the many issues rattling through our economy right now and that seems to be the common denominator.
It's tricky because there are definitely "Boomer politics" in Canada (driving the federal Liberals) that have tended to warp entitlements and spending toward that demographic and away from others. It isn't necessarily the fault of any specific person, but then again I'm not sure it could exist without some sort of aggregate selfishness, lack of vision, and lack of empathy. Example policies are things like OAS paid out to wealthy households with six-figure pensions, or property tax deferral and assessment caps that aren't means tested.

Most of the older people I know have a much higher standard of living than the younger people and it's really not clear the younger folks will ever get to the same place. The life decisions were comparable, often with the younger people working more and getting more education but ending up with worse prospects.

Usually if you bring this up with older people you get defensiveness and comments about hardships from many decades ago which aren't really relevant to deterioration that happened just in the past few years, or policy dilemmas of today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 7:03 PM
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home sweet home
Posts: 836
I was chatting with my neighbour out here in Saskatoon, white male 74 years old, fun guy to chat and hangout with. However, there are times where our experiences and perspectives are completely alien to each other and I'll call him out on it (playfully). He was lamenting gas price hikes, CoL, the usual and went off about how back in 1985 he "only" made $42,000 a year and bought his house for $90,000 but at a whopping 14% interest rate (can you believe that?!)

I had to crunch the numbers for him and explain that he was making essentially a doctor's wage today and that 14% interest on a $90,000 house is astronomically cheaper than 5% interest on a $900,000 house where his wages back then are about 3x higher than a young person earns today adjusted for inflation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 7:14 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigonish View Post
I was chatting with my neighbour out here in Saskatoon, white male 74 years old, fun guy to chat and hangout with. However, there are times where our experiences and perspectives are completely alien to each other and I'll call him out on it (playfully). He was lamenting gas price hikes, CoL, the usual and went off about how back in 1985 he "only" made $42,000 a year and bought his house for $90,000 but at a whopping 14% interest rate (can you believe that?!)

I had to crunch the numbers for him and explain that he was making essentially a doctor's wage today and that 14% interest on a $90,000 house is astronomically cheaper than 5% interest on a $900,000 house where his wages back then are about 3x higher than a young person earns today adjusted for inflation.
Interest rates under Pierre Trudeau resulted in mortgage rates hitting 22% and many Canadian families lost their homes. Each week I would go into the library at the provincial Department of Development and read a section of the Dun and Bradstreet report showing residential mortgage foreclosures and commercial mortgage foreclosures.
"In 1985, residential mortgage rates were high, averaging around 10% to 13%, significantly higher than modern rates, with 5-year fixed rates often around 11.75%. While home prices were substantially lower, high-interest costs meant payments frequently consumed a large portion of income, with 25% down payments common in Canada "
And this : https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/infographic-toronto-mortgage-affordability-1985-vs-today/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 7:24 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigonish View Post
I had to crunch the numbers for him and explain that he was making essentially a doctor's wage today and that 14% interest on a $90,000 house is astronomically cheaper than 5% interest on a $900,000 house where his wages back then are about 3x higher than a young person earns today adjusted for inflation.
There should also be, well, economic progress and growth over a 40 year period with that reflected in living standards. If you compared 1985 to 1945 or 1945 to 1905, it wasn't close. It's pretty obvious that whatever's happening, it's not translating into improving living standards for average Canadians, particularly in the post 2015 period.

We actually did have improvements in some areas like consumer goods, but it was eaten up by other areas like housing costs. Basically, most of the productivity gains from globalization and dual incomes, etc. went to property owners, particularly in the largest cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 8:30 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAficionado View Post
I must confess, I sometime stoop to the low of thinly veiled boomerphobia when my real intention is to unmask our various levels of governments' woeful inadequacy in preparing for demographic change / collapse. I look at the many issues rattling through our economy right now and that seems to be the common denominator.

In the longer run we would expect many of the younger immigrants who have recently arrived will have kids who need schooling ... but depending how well they assimilate we may be surprised. Very few of my peers now almost 30 are having kids or even thinking about kids on the near horizon, and few realize that means they'll likely miss the window to have kids at all. It's a real problem in my book.
I must admit, I was looking for an opportunity to use this word that I recently invented (or didn’t invent in case someone else somewhere on the internet had already created it … I didn’t check).

I don’t think that anger and resentment towards older generations is anything new, in fact young boomers were famous for it. I do find it amusing how the internet loves to generalize the boomer poster child who is wealthy and stealing the future from all other generations and is thus the lightning rod for all problems that exist in society today, and thus the term I came up with (or stole if it already exists).

Honestly, I would just like to have conversations that aren’t loaded with angst towards any generalized target group, and am disappointed whenever the boomer card gets played. Call it a pet peeve, that wouldn’t be far off. Just like the “cycling zealot”, the suburbanite, any negative indication about any group takes away from the conversation, though I understand that we are all human and thus can’t avoid or may not even be aware that we are projecting our biases. Lord knows I’m not perfect. Anyhow…

You are probably correct about immigrant families adopting the “lack of fertility” of Canadian culture once they assimilate and are subjected to the same pressures and conditions of their Canadian cohorts. My thoughts were based upon data that I had heard in the news reports but I do not have context or nuances for that data. It was at the level of being anecdotal for me.

So you are suggesting that maybe additional schools are not necessary?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 8:35 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Land will be needed for public buildings and schools on the peninsula but the province and city don't need to build according to a typical suburban space-inefficient plan. An elementary school or public library for example can be integrated into a mixed-use development with a tower above.
I’m not aware of any of this configuration being planned for Halifax. Is this in the works?

I’m assuming that “space inefficiency” means that there would be no playground outside the school for the kids to go for recess and lunch hour? As a kid I would have found that to be very depressing, not getting to play outside during the day. Is this an issue for this style of school?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 8:41 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,734
I think it would mean things like reducing setbacks, surface parking, and building up instead of out . Use the rooftop space, do 3-4 floors of class space instead of 1-2, maybe other uses above/below. When land values are higher, these design choices end up saving money. It doesn't mean the kids need to have worse facilities.

Not like the design you see here: https://www.thecoast.ca/news-opinion/sto...-suspended-school-board-member-31964023/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 8:46 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Honestly, I would just like to have conversations that aren’t loaded with angst towards any generalized target group, and am disappointed whenever the boomer card gets played. Call it a pet peeve, that wouldn’t be far off. Just like the “cycling zealot”, the suburbanite, any negative indication about any group takes away from the conversation, though I understand that we are all human and thus can’t avoid or may not even be aware that we are projecting our biases. Lord knows I’m not perfect. Anyhow…
I don't think it is good to be hateful toward any group, and generalizations rarely apply to everybody in an age range. I'd guess most young people care about some older people in their lives. However, you do sometimes have to look at group dynamics in politics, with voting patterns by age being a huge one. I don't think you can understand politics or discuss them effectively without looking at the demographics. Preserving housing prices and keeping health care and old age benefits going are huge drivers in Canadian politics right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 8:52 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think it would mean things like reducing setbacks, surface parking, and building up instead of out . Use the rooftop space, do 3-4 floors of class space instead of 1-2, maybe other uses above/below. When land values are higher, these design choices end up saving money. It doesn't mean the kids need to have worse facilities.

Not like the design you see here: https://www.thecoast.ca/news-opinion/sto...-suspended-school-board-member-31964023/
It sounds interesting if it could be executed well. I’m not confident that this would necessarily happen here, though, and I expect that there would be the usual outcry from parents’ groups.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2026, 9:09 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't think it is good to be hateful toward any group, and generalizations rarely apply to everybody in an age range. I'd guess most young people care about some older people in their lives. However, you do sometimes have to look at group dynamics in politics, with voting patterns by age being a huge one. I don't think you can understand politics or discuss them effectively without looking at the demographics. Preserving housing prices and keeping health care and old age benefits going are huge drivers in Canadian politics right now, and it ain't because of 28 year olds.
I’m sure you know that very few of these ageist-type posts are made without nasty undertones or some degree of sarcasm, though. It’s fine, if that’s the level of communication that we seek, I am capable of rolling with it.

I do find the ‘vote defense’ to be a little tiresome, though. I seem to recall checking voting age demographics a few years ago and found something to the effect that the above 60 or 65ers are now outnumbered by the 18 - 59s or 64s, but the percentage of each demographic who actually vote were hugely smaller for the younger groups, the actual ones who could change all these things that we like to complain about - it’s right there for the taking yet few seem to be aware. With the proliferation of social media in society now, why hasn’t the word gotten out there? Boomer blaming sure has, so I remain perplexed. Each voting period, as the older generations pass on, the ratios will favour the young even more.

Anyhow… didn’t mean to beat this already-dead horse any further. Poor thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 12:04 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
There should also be, well, economic progress and growth over a 40 year period with that reflected in living standards. If you compared 1985 to 1945 or 1945 to 1905, it wasn't close. It's pretty obvious that whatever's happening, it's not translating into improving living standards for average Canadians, particularly in the post 2015 period.

We actually did have improvements in some areas like consumer goods, but it was eaten up by other areas like housing costs. Basically, most of the productivity gains from globalization and dual incomes, etc. went to property owners, particularly in the largest cities.
I’m not so sure about the comment that whatever’s happening hasn’t translated into improvement in living standards. I don’t know how that gets measured and suspect that it is some complicated metric involving a mashup of data points. But I think back to when I was a little kid growing up in the ‘60s and living standards certainly weren’t high. We were far from rich and money was tight with just one income that wasn’t huge (Dad was in the military some of that time). We had second-hand furniture and lived in a small drafty old house that was freezing on cold mornings. I could go on and on but you get the drift. And my father, who was soft-hearted to a fault, often took some of our stuff to give to families he encountered who were even worse off than we were, so we weren’t some family at the bottom of the ladder. He told some tales of people he encountered in his work that were just heartbreaking. The social safety net back then, such as it was, had lots of holes.

At the risk of going down memory lane too far, I look at things these days and there is no comparison. I live in a house with 4-season climate control, have a great car, big-screen TVs connected to the internet that can show me pretty much anything ever produced on demand, etc etc. I see new arrivals here every day driving nice cars and renting or buying new accommodations. The education and skill levels of many people today allow them to enjoy lots of things were never dreamed about. I remember my childhood goal was to go to a Leafs or Habs game one weekend with my parents, and they often talked about doing that, but we never did. It was always just out of reach. Now people drop 5 figures on vacations to Disney or wherever without batting an eye. Adventuresome couples travel the world. It is a totally different world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 12:25 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
At the risk of going down memory lane too far, I look at things these days and there is no comparison. I live in a house with 4-season climate control, have a great car, big-screen TVs connected to the internet that can show me pretty much anything ever produced on demand, etc etc. I see new arrivals here every day driving nice cars and renting or buying new accommodations. The education and skill levels of many people today allow them to enjoy lots of things were never dreamed about. I remember my childhood goal was to go to a Leafs or Habs game one weekend with my parents, and they often talked about doing that, but we never did. It was always just out of reach. Now people drop 5 figures on vacations to Disney or wherever without batting an eye. Adventuresome couples travel the world. It is a totally different world.
Someone put it well: luxuries have become necessities and necessities have become luxuries.

There's no doubt that consumer goods and things like travel have never been more affordable. My 50" flat screen TV was half the price, in nominal dollars, than the 21" CRT we bought on Boxing Day when I was 12. Flights today cost essentially the same, in nominal dollars, as they did 15 years ago (i.e. they're much cheaper, inflation adjusted). And even things like cars, which have gotten god-awful expensive in terms of out-the-door price, are more accessible due to the financial smoke and mirrors of 84 month loans.

At the same time, food and housing now eat up most of the budget of anyone who didn't buy 10 years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 2:09 PM
ArchAficionado ArchAficionado is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It's tricky because there are definitely "Boomer politics" in Canada (driving the federal Liberals) that have tended to warp entitlements and spending toward that demographic and away from others. It isn't necessarily the fault of any specific person, but then again I'm not sure it could exist without some sort of aggregate selfishness, lack of vision, and lack of empathy. Example policies are things like OAS paid out to wealthy households with six-figure pensions, or property tax deferral and assessment caps that aren't means tested.

Most of the older people I know have a much higher standard of living than the younger people and it's really not clear the younger folks will ever get to the same place. The life decisions were comparable, often with the younger people working more and getting more education but ending up with worse prospects.

Usually if you bring this up with older people you get defensiveness and comments about hardships from many decades ago which aren't really relevant to deterioration that happened just in the past few years, or policy dilemmas of today.
This is why a lot of my age cohort devolves into jeers about "entitled boomers". We've been scoffed at enough times about something that is a genuine rottenness in our society that there is almost a generational resentment at this point that isn't entirely un-founded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 2:15 PM
ArchAficionado ArchAficionado is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
Someone put it well: luxuries have become necessities and necessities have become luxuries.

There's no doubt that consumer goods and things like travel have never been more affordable. My 50" flat screen TV was half the price, in nominal dollars, than the 21" CRT we bought on Boxing Day when I was 12. Flights today cost essentially the same, in nominal dollars, as they did 15 years ago (i.e. they're much cheaper, inflation adjusted). And even things like cars, which have gotten god-awful expensive in terms of out-the-door price, are more accessible due to the financial smoke and mirrors of 84 month loans.

At the same time, food and housing now eat up most of the budget of anyone who didn't buy 10 years ago.
It ends up resulting in a bit of a K-shaped economy, where those who have the necessities already well provided for (IE older people who own their homes) are enjoying a great standard of living with their disposable income, while those who are caught in the loop of skyrocketing rental, purchase, etc. costs have little to no disposable income, even with a healthy salary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 2:22 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I’m not so sure about the comment that whatever’s happening hasn’t translated into improvement in living standards. I don’t know how that gets measured and suspect that it is some complicated metric involving a mashup of data points. But I think back to when I was a little kid growing up in the ‘60s and living standards certainly weren’t high. We were far from rich and money was tight with just one income that wasn’t huge (Dad was in the military some of that time). We had second-hand furniture and lived in a small drafty old house that was freezing on cold mornings. I could go on and on but you get the drift. And my father, who was soft-hearted to a fault, often took some of our stuff to give to families he encountered who were even worse off than we were, so we weren’t some family at the bottom of the ladder. He told some tales of people he encountered in his work that were just heartbreaking. The social safety net back then, such as it was, had lots of holes.

At the risk of going down memory lane too far, I look at things these days and there is no comparison. I live in a house with 4-season climate control, have a great car, big-screen TVs connected to the internet that can show me pretty much anything ever produced on demand, etc etc. I see new arrivals here every day driving nice cars and renting or buying new accommodations. The education and skill levels of many people today allow them to enjoy lots of things were never dreamed about. I remember my childhood goal was to go to a Leafs or Habs game one weekend with my parents, and they often talked about doing that, but we never did. It was always just out of reach. Now people drop 5 figures on vacations to Disney or wherever without batting an eye. Adventuresome couples travel the world. It is a totally different world.
That’s a reasonable and accurate take on it. My childhood was a little later, but all these things did exist. My family lived quite modestly as well, but there were still those worse off than us. As the 1970s progressed into the 1980s, I began to notice more larger homes being built and owned mostly by the ‘standard’ professionals like doctors, lawyers, architects, well known successful business owners, etc., but still most people I knew lived very modestly by today’s standards. For us, a big summer vacation was to pile the family into the car and drive to Maine or PEI. Nobody I knew took winter vacations in the sunny south. March break for us kids was a week off to play with our friends, not a trip on a jet.

Another thing on the luxury scale that you never used to see around here were exotic cars. As a young car enthusiast (as many of us were back then), I would look for Ferraris and Lamborghinis like those I would drool over in magazines, but there were none to be found. If you were lucky you might see a Porsche 911 or perhaps a big Mercedes sedan. A Cadillac was about the most common luxury car that one might see but even then not common. Today I can see all sorts of exotic cars on any given week in non-winter months. Luxury brands are the norm, probably close to 50/50 with the more pedestrian brands. Nobody would consider a car without A/C and power windows these days, not to mention phone pairing and the vast array of electronic gadgetry that is now commonplace.

All that considered, we did have it pretty good, though. We lived in an old, drafty house (I had a thermometer in my room that would read 10C on cold winter mornings - lots of blankets were necessary), managed a family of five with only one bathroom. Didn’t even think we needed more than one landline or TV, etc., but at least we were allowed to grow up as children, without all the negativity of the internet and social media. “Influencers” were people who actually accomplished great things that we kids aspired to emulate. I’ll just say it once… no autotune…. There were bullies at school, but that was often solved with a short bout of fisticuffs, or you just ignored them until they went away - the thought of some disgruntled kid coming to school with a semi-automatic never even crossed our minds. There were things that were bad or rough, but nothing that we couldn’t get through.

I feel bad for today’s young people in that they have so much crap and nonsense to deal with, that I don’t know how they ever manage to discover who they are. This aspect of the world seems to go almost unnoticed, as it’s just the way that it is… but it was created, and in many ways created to monetize peoples’ lives at their own peril. The housing and food affordability issues are icing on the cake, but the lack of quality of life goes far beyond that. As I said, we grew up in economic strife - truth be known my parents fought about money each and every day - but at least we knew a world that we were free to explore, not without risks, but with all the rewards of real friendship as we had our adventure outdoors. There weren’t “smart” phones for people to bury their face in while feeling obligated to communicate with others (sometimes people we don’t even know, as in this case) 24/7, and nobody was able to steal all we worked for at the click of a mouse.

So yeah, we had it so much better in so many ways, but I don’t look at that as a reason to hate us. Maybe use our experience to carve out a better future for your kids and grandkids, because where we are and where we could easily be headed is far from paradise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 2:37 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAficionado View Post
It ends up resulting in a bit of a K-shaped economy, where those who have the necessities already well provided for (IE older people who own their homes) are enjoying a great standard of living with their disposable income, while those who are caught in the loop of skyrocketing rental, purchase, etc. costs have little to no disposable income, even with a healthy salary.
I think there’s a line between reality and mythology that gets crossed regularly, though. We can all think of someone we know who is very well off and living a life of ‘privilege’ and luxury, but I don’t think that this is the majority. Living on a fixed income in these days of skyrocketing costs is no fun for anyone living on modest or below income. Not to mention all of the health issues and other losses that come with age.

Your generation certainly has a lot to be angry and frustrated about, but the golden years are not so golden, and sometimes the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Another thing that I would caution about is that time passes quickly. At this point in your life you might want to advocate for removing social supports for the elderly, but if you’re lucky, you will reach a point where you will actually need them, despite how much you think you have prepared for the future. It’s something to think about.

Also the quality of life thing I mentioned in my previous post. And… be careful on how much of your consciousness is consumed by anger and resentment. It can eat you up, and you might see a day where you look back and see it as time wasted.

Now… let’s get back to some good old ass-kicking “boomophobia”. It’s good for the soul…
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 2:43 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,808
One thing to remember about housing and what it costs is that expensive housing is a relatively recent phenomenon of just the last 5 or 6 years. In the 1980s and '90s I lived in several of the large apartment blocks around SGR. When I moved there in the early '80s I was paying something like $600/mo, and when I moved away in the late '90s it was around $900/mo, so not unreasonable inflation. There's a long way to make that into today's $2500 or $3000/mo., especially for the same 1970s buildings.

I bought my house in the late '90s for $115K if memory serves. The identical house nearby was recently purchased for $500K+. I would expect to get even more if I sold it today. Why? Covid seemed to spark a change in that equation as people fled here from big cities, combined with runaway immigration spiking demand for housing of any sort (thanks, JT). That led to rentals with 8 mattresses on the floor, something never seen here previously, and something that govts would have previously come down hard on but which they no longer seem to care about. We have only ourselves and our leaders to blame. Govts making a fortune raking in taxes from all those people working and buying stuff blinds them to the costs, both financial and social.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2026, 6:24 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
One thing to remember about housing and what it costs is that expensive housing is a relatively recent phenomenon of just the last 5 or 6 years. In the 1980s and '90s I lived in several of the large apartment blocks around SGR. When I moved there in the early '80s I was paying something like $600/mo, and when I moved away in the late '90s it was around $900/mo, so not unreasonable inflation. There's a long way to make that into today's $2500 or $3000/mo., especially for the same 1970s buildings.

I bought my house in the late '90s for $115K if memory serves. The identical house nearby was recently purchased for $500K+. I would expect to get even more if I sold it today. Why? Covid seemed to spark a change in that equation as people fled here from big cities, combined with runaway immigration spiking demand for housing of any sort (thanks, JT). That led to rentals with 8 mattresses on the floor, something never seen here previously, and something that govts would have previously come down hard on but which they no longer seem to care about. We have only ourselves and our leaders to blame. Govts making a fortune raking in taxes from all those people working and buying stuff blinds them to the costs, both financial and social.
It is truly crazy, but don’t you think that the increase in supply should help bring that back a little? They have been building like mad here and it seems that the rate of population increase might be dropping off a little? Of course there will be a lag before we’re caught up, as it takes time to add housing, but this doesn’t seem like a’” ‘forever’ problem, even though it’s really bad now, and even worse for anyone who bought in at the higher pricing.

My only worry is that developers will now have become addicted to the current level of pricing and will choose not to build once the supply/demand ratio balances out a bit. They may perceive the lower profit margins as being restrictive or they might choose only high end construction. Then costs for building have gone up and will probably continue to rise as long as that disease that causes insanity among leaders continues to the south of us. So no guarantees that it will be substantially better but clearly the laws of supply/demand will have to have some effect on the housing market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.