Development Rumours

[MastClimberPro]

Also, barriers up around this lot and its neighbour on Gottingen with further excavation activity.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6615453,-..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[markbeaver]

Originally Posted by MastClimberPro

Also, barriers up around this lot and its neighbour on Gottingen with further excavation activity.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6615453,-..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

The 5513 Russell Street lot and the vacant one next door have been amalgamated into one lot and there’s a development agreement for a 7-storey building - guess it’s about to start excavation.

The three lots on Sullivan were discussed earlier in this thread, probably land banking by Steve Tsimiklis, very sad to tear down decent residential properties and leave them as vacant lots for who knows how many years…

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by MastClimberPro

These three houses on Sullivan are down. Are they going to be bundled with the vacant lot on Kaye for a larger development?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6615549,-..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Yep. Same personality as in the other land assemblies.

[OldDartmouthMark]

IMHO it’s kind of shameful that this is allowed to continue, but not surprising. Too bad.

[ArchAficionado]

Many available solutions to this issue ...

(1) Disallow demolitions for redevelopment purposes when land banking until an active permit is held for the new construction

(2) Disallow "re-zoning" for tax purposes ... I.E. institute some form of land value tax or vacant lot tax in light of the fact that this is housing that's demolished

(3) Punitive fines for undeveloped land that was formerly developed if a new development is not started within a certain timeframe - I.E. ding Tsmikilis specifically for his BS on Young Ave, Robie, etc.

[Keith P.]

I wonder why some of these properties are still undeveloped after being emptied/demo'ed for several years. You would think in this market that they would be of interest to developers.

[HalifaxRetales]

Does anyone know what is going on beside Irving at 599 Prospect?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

The policies in these areas seem to have been driven by height limits for a long time but I don't think the outcome from that has been very good. It would be better for the area for Dalhousie to have a smaller footprint with taller buildings. Nothing crazy, but maybe 8-12 floors instead of 4-6. I think it's similar around that southern Barrington area. Narrow towers that could fit on the footprint of a small apartment block would be much more attractive than squat boxes. It is way better to have a 12 storey point tower for a neighbour than a squat 6 storey box.

I learned a lot from this CBC article about the new Dalhousie residence project on Henry St.:

First, I discovered that former HRM CAO Cathie O’Toole landed on her feet after her tiff with Mayor Andy and is now V-P Finance for Dal, one of the few parachute destinations that would result in a raise and maybe even some added pension benefits, who knows. Who says there isn’t an old girl’s network?

Anyway, the article reveals that construction of the residence was somehow tied to a Provincial operating grant of an additional $20.7 million that would otherwise have been lost, so build we must. Here’s an artist’s rendition:



Of course, the head of the faculty association is against it, presumably believing the money should have been shared with them. Ah well, what can you do?

The article also has this somewhat sad image of the Henry St victims on their way to oblivion:

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I learned a lot from this CBC article about the new Dalhousie residence project on Henry St.:

First, I discovered that former HRM CAO Cathie O’Toole landed on her feet after her tiff with Mayor Andy and is now V-P Finance for Dal, one of the few parachute destinations that would result in a raise and maybe even some added pension benefits, who knows. Who says there isn’t an old girl’s network?

Anyway, the article reveals that construction of the residence was somehow tied to a Provincial operating grant of an additional $20.7 million that would otherwise have been lost, so build we must. Here’s an artist’s rendition:



Of course, the head of the faculty association is against it, presumably believing the money should have been shared with them. Ah well, what can you do?

The article also has this somewhat sad image of the Henry St victims on their way to oblivion:

Shame to see more century homes meet the wrecking ball. I know this is the nature of development but it would have been nice to see this residence places somewhere a bit less destructive to the existing fine-fabric of this street (e.g. in/around the parking lots on campus).

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

First, I discovered that former HRM CAO Cathie O’Toole landed on her feet after her tiff with Mayor Andy and is now V-P Finance for Dal, one of the few parachute destinations that would result in a raise and maybe even some added pension benefits, who knows. Who says there isn’t an old girl’s network?

Anyway, the article reveals that construction of the residence was somehow tied to a Provincial operating grant of an additional $20.7 million that would otherwise have been lost, so build we must.

My impression of Cathie O'Toole was always one of solid competence. I'm not surpised she's managed to land a good gig.

And yeah, all (most?) of the universities have been given the mandate to build more housing or lose grant money. The Kings College proposal has been shown on this forum before, and I know SMU has a couple of options being considered including where the parking lot on Inglis is.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. On one hand, the universities have been neglectful in not building new housing for ages--I think Risley Hall was the last new university dorm?--and this is a good investment in the future. On the other hand, they've all had their financial legs kicked out from under them with the loss of international students. I imagine this dorm-building mandate is putting them between a rock and a hard place.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It’s hard to feel too much sympathy for them, though, given that they are only feeling the pinch of their past poor decision making. The international student (TFW) glut was an anomaly that put their lack of foresight (or intentional penny pinching) on display for all to see, and now they are doing what they should have done years ago.

As far as the old houses go, as much as I have been an advocate for preserving our heritage buildings, it’s still happening all over the city, often just creating empty lots to bank land for profit. So it’s a bit of a “meh” for me. At least something useful is being built there.

Until there’s some political will to put in meaningful heritage protection, which would have to be driven by the public, we’re just going to continue on this road. And maybe that’s fine, as I get the impression that most people are ambivalent, and many have little to no personal history here, so heritage preservation is probably only meaningful to those of us who have lived here long-term. Usually if some group or individual speaks out about it they are only ridiculed, or labeled ‘anti-development’, so perhaps the lack of outcry is understandable. Like nobody hearing the tree falling in the forest, if nobody cares, does it really matter? (hypothetical question… reply not required)

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It’s hard to feel too much sympathy for them, though, given that they are only feeling the pinch of their past poor decision making. The international student (TFW) glut was an anomaly that put their lack of foresight (or intentional penny pinching) on display for all to see, and now they are doing what they should have done years ago.

As far as the old houses go, as much as I have been an advocate for preserving our heritage buildings, it’s still happening all over the city, often just creating empty lots to bank land for profit. So it’s a bit of a “meh” for me. At least something useful is being built there.

Until there’s some political will to put in meaningful heritage protection, which would have to be driven by the public, we’re just going to continue on this road. And maybe that’s fine, as I get the impression that most people are ambivalent, and many have little to no personal history here, so heritage preservation is probably only meaningful to those of us who have lived here long-term. Usually if some group or individual speaks out about it they are only ridiculed, or labeled ‘anti-development’, so perhaps the lack of outcry is understandable. Like nobody hearing the tree falling in the forest, if nobody cares, does it really matter? (hypothetical question… reply not required)

I have found the heritage community in Halifax to be actually out of touch. Its like the old political troupe. Anyone can Bitch but what is your better idea? The Heritage bunch have never participated in a newer vision for Halifax but have gone to the barricades , streets and airways to replicate the Wolfvilles and Lunenburgs but in a Halifax context.

As I have commented here at other times its as if the Gods are making up for the missing last Century after the Explosion. Halifax should have a Population of a Winnipeg, Hamilton or Quebec City. The fact is the City has been on the rise and in boom times since the Shipbuilding announcement in 2011. The Carney Government seems to be comfortable nudging us even higher. After the relative quiet decades from the early eighties to 2011 I say bring it on.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I have found the heritage community in Halifax to be actually out of touch. Its like the old political troupe. Anyone can Bitch but what is your better idea? The Heritage bunch have never participated in a newer vision for Halifax but have gone to the barricades , streets and airways to replicate the Wolfvilles and Lunenburgs but in a Halifax context.

As I have commented here at other times its as if the Gods are making up for the missing last Century after the Explosion. Halifax should have a Population of a Winnipeg, Hamilton or Quebec City. The fact is the City has been on the rise and in boom times since the Shipbuilding announcement in 2011. The Carney Government seems to be comfortable nudging us even higher. After the relative quiet decades from the early eighties to 2011 I say bring it on.

I think you're completely right on both counts.

I believe the main issue with what we call the heritage groups is that they blend the goals of cultural and historic preservation with NIMBYism. Planning knowledge and buy-in around growth has improved hugely in Halifax but some of those South End NIMBYs are very entrenched and have promoted bad policies like certain ill-conceived height and density limits. They are partly responsible for this mediocre Dalhousie housing plan since they fought any towers anywhere around there for so long. They would have been far better off identifying the best places for density and then trying to protect the historic housing areas.

The way I look at the "gods" issue and how Halifax "should have" been bigger is that it's one of the cities that looks on a map like it should have been bigger and there are a lot of very plausible what-ifs that could have gone differently. A major one as you say simply being what if a large part of the city's population and industrial base wasn't killed/maimed/destroyed during what should have been a period of high growth. Another one is that Canada seriously underinvested in defence for a long time, and put too many eggs in the NAFTA basket (and implemented similar economic policies back almost to the beginning, always to the advantage of Central Canada).

I do think there's a large probability Halifax will now move back up a peg and that has already happened to some degree, though it's a bit underappreciated by various groups.

[ngunda]

I think the heritage groups are unfairly maligned on these forums. Development in HRM didn’t grind to a halt for decades because of their work. Maybe they played a small part but it was mainly a question of economics. There was just no financial incentive to do much building here.

I also don’t entirely disagree with South End NIMBYism. It’s the nicest part of the city and I may not live there but I enjoy visiting. It’s part of the small c commons that all of us derive some benefit from. It’s also an aspirational area - many residents hope that as their circumstances improve they might be able to afford a home there. If it’s degraded by more poorly conceived developments like the infamous one on Jubilee, that’s put at risk, and locals who want to move up may not see a future for themselves here and will move on to other cities. Obviously I’m not saying it’s the only appealing area but it has qualities that do not exist anywhere else in HRM at scale.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ngunda

I think the heritage groups are unfairly maligned on these forums. Development in HRM didn’t grind to a halt for decades because of their work. Maybe they played a small part but it was mainly a question of economics. There was just no financial incentive to do much building here.

But several developers proposed towers in the 2000s that were ultimately built after many years of fighting and delays, like what was originally the "brewery tower" (The Alexander). It's hard to imagine 3+ years of delays and NSUARB appeals not having some kind of chilling effect on these projects, and the fact that they were built shows the developers were trying and there was a market. Some projects like Salter did die and the dreary empty lots sat for years/decades. It must be very hard to tailor a project to the market with multi-year approval times on top of construction schedules, and there must be significant costs to the legal process itself.

There was a dead period but it was from about 1990-2000, and there was still some building during that time. In the 80s there was a building boom in Halifax with large-scale construction like Purdy's Wharf. By the 2000s towers were popping up again around the Spring Garden Rd area.

I don't think they had a huge impact but I do think they slowed things down on the margins. It might have actually had a pretty big positive impact if one or two major downtown developments kicked off in the 2000s. Student housing in the South End might have had a big impact for students and for the neighbourhoods that filled with rental conversions.

[ngunda]

There were also a number of developments approved that were never built. It seems like construction proceeded at an appropriate pace to meet demand.

[someone123]

If you add development cost and delay, all else being equal, it will yield an equilibrium with higher housing prices and less supply. The demand for housing isn't fixed; people buy less of it and avoid moving to expensive places, or simply can't move to areas without housing.

It's much like the recognized problem of delays in infrastructure approvals across Canada. It must be particularly hard to deal with the risk of a project being denied after years of expenses (it's not just 2% of the cost of a big development, it might cost you hundreds of thousands or millions and then you can't build at all). There used to be a lot of unpredictability in Halifax development agreements and appeals.

[ngunda]

In my opinion prices were too low until recently either to incentivize significant construction, or to drive would-be residents elsewhere. I will accept that if historically it had been easier to develop here, maybe there would have been less of a lag in industry responding to the recent housing crunch, but without the economics to support construction how much would have been built anyway?

It’s interesting that the heritage groups suddenly seem powerless now that it’s profitable to build here, after their reign of terror in which they chased every developer out of town.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/...Summary%20Statistics&RowField=TIMESERIES

[Colin May]

[QUOTE=IanWatson;10611267]My impression of Cathie O'Toole was always one of solid competence. I'm not surprised she's managed to land a good gig.
/QUOTE]
She went from head of HRM Finance department to CEO of Halifax Water when she was publicly embarrassed by Sue Uteck during a budget discussion in a packed room. As CAO she wanted more control over the Chief of Police by seeking changes to the HRM charter and I went to Law Amendments and explained why the status quo should prevail. After that she just ignored the Police Act and changed the reporting structure. Control freak. She will have less stress at Dalhousie and the tenured faculty will continue to wield significant power.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ngunda

It’s interesting that the heritage groups suddenly seem powerless now that it’s profitable to build here, after their reign of terror in which they chased every developer out of town.

I don't think this is the biggest factor. It mostly came down to planning and questions like whether developers could proceed as of right or required development agreements that could be appealed to the NSUARB. My understanding is most developments were by agreement in the 2000s but most are as of right today under the Centre Plan, etc. There were some older as of right developments that proceeded. I think the one next to the Lord Nelson was one of these for example, and maybe the one on top of Park Lane. If that old zoning hadn't already been put in place there would have been even less infill development and more parking lots. It would have resulted in a bit more suburban sprawl and a bit less growth overall.

The groups became less influential because while they had input in public planning like anyone else they lost the ability to appeal each proposal to the NSUARB. On top of this, there was more clarity in what developers could build on a given parcel of land.