General Updates and News

[TheNovaScotian]

Land use has nothing to do with housing low income people and people with drug and mental health problems. The major problem is governments that continually pander to white,middle class people who are dependent on public sector employment. Governments who think the poor and ill will just fade away. My street is about to see Ocean Contractors install a bikeway. The contract was let on August 18 after the HRM council met - the contract was not on the August 17 agenda and nobody wants to talk about who authorised the expenditure. Because it is a Fed/Province/HRM deal the local MP is usually the one who makes the announcement. Somehow I doubt the Liberal MP for Dartmouth is going to hold a press conference to announce the spending of $2.3 million a few days after people were demonstrating for public funding for low income housing.

I did not know, zero land was used in the creation of housing options for people with mental health issues or that certain zoning prohibits the placement of facilities.
You learn something new everyday. :shrug:

Another hot take on it, would be that limited supply due to restrictive land-use policies, during boom-times has created a untenable situation for most renters in which inflation has outstripped wage growth in HRM. So much, as to create a homeless population so large that is spilling into the parks and common areas of the city.
All the while being downplayed by homeowners who are too worried about protecting the spike in the value of their homes (retirement funds) then tackle the supply issues facing the city. :tup:

[Keith P.]

I did not know, zero land was used in the creation of housing options for people with mental health issues or that certain zoning prohibits the placement of facilities.
You learn something new everyday. :shrug:

Another hot take on it, would be that limited supply due to restrictive land-use policies, during boom-times has created a untenable situation for most renters in which inflation has outstripped wage growth in HRM. So much, as to create a homeless population so large that is spilling into the parks and common areas of the city.
All the while being downplayed by homeowners who are too worried about protecting the spike in the value of their homes (retirement funds) then tackle the supply issues facing the city. :tup:

Supply issues are just one component of a complex problem. Those people shooting/smoking dangerous drugs like meth and crack in their tent communities are unlikely to be buying a new home regardless of how "affordable" it may be. They need to be institutionalized and treated.

Then there are others who indeed got caught up in the increase in housing costs and lost their apartments. But what drove that increase? Huge federal injections of cash into the money supply that overstimulated the economy. Relaxed controls on immigration that increased demand for housing, and which depending on the circumstances, the costs of which are footed for several years by the Feds. Lots of conversions to AirBnBs which are largely uncontrolled by any govt. Increases in rents for newer properties convinced longtime landlords to invest in their older properties to make them more competitive with resultant rent increases. Offshore money being pumped into Canadian real estate which again is largely uncontrolled by the Feds. That list is just scratching the surface.

[Colin May]

I did not know, zero land was used in the creation of housing options for people with mental health issues or that certain zoning prohibits the placement of facilities.
You learn something new everyday. :shrug:

Another hot take on it, would be that limited supply due to restrictive land-use policies, during boom-times has created a untenable situation for most renters in which inflation has outstripped wage growth in HRM. So much, as to create a homeless population so large that is spilling into the parks and common areas of the city.
All the while being downplayed by homeowners who are too worried about protecting the spike in the value of their homes (retirement funds) then tackle the supply issues facing the city. :tup:
If a government was keen to to build/own/encourage housing for low income people it would do so. The McNeil government had ZERO interest in housing.
Our home is certainly worth a lot more than it was 2 years ago. Cheap money, location and COVID have driven prices. My PC sign in the recent election was outnumbered by 9 to 1 for the Dippers. Feel free to expand on your theory of 'restrictive land use policies' - our lot is 2,549 sq ft. Our block has 25 units on the length of 260 feet.

[TheNovaScotian]

If a government was keen to to build/own/encourage housing for low income people it would do so. The McNeil government had ZERO interest in housing.
Our home is certainly worth a lot more than it was 2 years ago. Cheap money, location and COVID have driven prices. My PC sign in the recent election was outnumbered by 9 to 1 for the Dippers. Feel free to expand on your theory of 'restrictive land use policies' - our lot is 2,549 sq ft. Our block has 25 units on the length of 260 feet.

I didn't expect such a partisan answer especially since I'm not a Dipper myself, though I'm sure the PC's are going to clean this problem up in no time, with tax credits for everyone. They're going to be soo different then the previous center-right Liberal government.

If it is the area that I'm thinking, the street grid and land-use patterns there predate most MPS's. Not really sure it's the best example of current land use patterns. Those older patterns were more dense then most single detached neighborhoods today though one medium sized building on a fraction of the land would achieve the same level of density.:cheers:
I'm sure the lack of supply had nothing to do with that increase in value. Markets never go up when supply is limited by restrictive land use policies, especially in one of the fastest growing cities in the country.:uhh:

[TheNovaScotian]

Supply issues are just one component of a complex problem. Those people shooting/smoking dangerous drugs like meth and crack in their tent communities are unlikely to be buying a new home regardless of how "affordable" it may be. They need to be institutionalized and treated.

Then there are others who indeed got caught up in the increase in housing costs and lost their apartments. But what drove that increase? Huge federal injections of cash into the money supply that overstimulated the economy. Relaxed controls on immigration that increased demand for housing, and which depending on the circumstances, the costs of which are footed for several years by the Feds. Lots of conversions to AirBnBs which are largely uncontrolled by any govt. Increases in rents for newer properties convinced longtime landlords to invest in their older properties to make them more competitive with resultant rent increases. Offshore money being pumped into Canadian real estate which again is largely uncontrolled by the Feds. That list is just scratching the surface.

If we slow immigration, we loose ground in the battle to become a market economy instead of one focused on tertiary industries. This is the key to Canada's long term economic growth otherwise in the near future we will be bumped down the list until we've become irrelevant to have at global discussions. Since we know the amount we're receiving, we should ensure at least that much housing supply hits the market annually to offset the impact of their arrival.

Low interest rates and quantitative easing were around before this Federal government came in to power. Foreign ownership is shown to be contributing factor, the effect of the tax on them has shown its not a key driver of home prices as Vancouver's market is red-hot with a tax in place.

I think the politically inconvenient fact is, that cities and towns around Canada need a massive influx of housing but no one knows where to put it.
We can do what many countries are doing and build whole new cities like Jedda, Abuja, Cairo or Singapore out in the woods somewhere. I'm more for vertical growth but at this point I'd take what we can get.

I agree on the AirBnB's, those need to be regulated. I've refused to use them on vacation to my wallets dismay, standing for something usually has a cost. The issue with these older buildings being "fixed up" and charge market rates is that they aren't worth it. They can get that much because of lack of a better option, if we had other new options those older ones would fall back to the middle of the pack quickly.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Since we're already off on a tangent, I'll toss in my 2 cents worth (or five cents in non-digital currency):

First off, I agree that more housing should be built to change the supply/demand ratio such that more housing is available to all, and at affordable price points. I do wonder, though, if any supply increase that is less than a glut will actually move prices downward, since the market has virtually accepted the current price points, so the business case for decreasing rent would take a massive increase in supply to motivate landlords to move pricing downward to compete for renters. IMHO.

Secondly, every time I see the argument that the only way to maintain our economy is by increasing the population, I ask myself the question... to what end? For perspective, in my lifetime I've watched the world's population more than double, and yet we're still saying that we need to increase our population to keep our economy going. At what point do we say enough is enough? The inconvenient fact is that climate change is occurring, whether we want to notice it or not, and increasing populations only exacerbate the problem by creating more people to harm the environment.

Please understand, this isn't a comment about immigration, it's about the concept of growth economy and whether we should be really looking inward and thinking about what is the best for our country (and the world) for the future. Of course I don't live in a bubble and I realize that we don't have any ability to change this course, but I can't help but wonder why the smartest people in the world can't quite seem to figure it out...

[Good Baklava]

If we slow immigration, we loose ground in the battle to become a market economy instead of one focused on tertiary industries. This is the key to Canada's long term economic growth otherwise in the near future we will be bumped down the list until we've become irrelevant to have at global discussions. Since we know the amount we're receiving, we should ensure at least that much housing supply hits the market annually to offset the impact of their arrival.

IMHO Nationalism is never a good excuse for anything, whether it’s welfare or the economy. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I thought we’ve lived in a “market economy” for quite some time. My impression is that immigration is simply a matter of avoiding a Japanese-styled demographic collapse and having our retirements paid for.

I think the politically inconvenient fact is, that cities and towns around Canada need a massive influx of housing but no one knows where to put it.
We can do what many countries are doing and build whole new cities like Jedda, Abuja, Cairo or Singapore out in the woods somewhere. I'm more for vertical growth but at this point I'd take what we can get.

Being a RA for a federally-funded project keeping tabs on migration to mid-sized cities, I feel qualified to say this solution is in fact part of the problem for Halifax. For many in the GTA places like Halifax are the “whole new” cities. This is not a pandemic-induced phenomenon, there has been a constant outmigration from Toronto to mid-sized cities for decades. While the pandemic did cause a surge in outmigration, many of those who moved in fact planned to do so for many years.

Your comments on urban form do hold some relevance to differences in taste: in Hamilton, those moving from Downtown Toronto preferred urbanized parts mimicking their former homes while those coming from GTA suburbs would prefer Hamilton’s suburbs. I am very much opposed to settling on a specific urban form (tall & slim vs mid-rises replicating European streets, yadayada…) because it kills the urge to dream. Very much in favour of density, but let’s be creative about how we get there.

Singapore could actually be a great model, not owing to its status as a relatively new city but strictly because of local policy i.e. social ownership. New supply is an obvious requirement, but the benefits are moot without considering the question of “for whom”. Singapore is apparently a great place to do business too! A respectable port city by all standards.

Jeddah is a horrible example in my opinion, it’s the Saudi’s desperate attempt at weaning itself off oil. It’s a mere caricature of Dubai, which in itself is a vanity project representing all the problems with housing and society in general.

I agree on the AirBnB's, those need to be regulated. I've refused to use them on vacation to my wallets dismay, standing for something usually has a cost. The issue with these older buildings being "fixed up" and charge market rates is that they aren't worth it. They can get that much because of lack of a better option, if we had other new options those older ones would fall back to the middle of the pack quickly.

Agreed 100%, it raises the rent gap for no good reason. It’s funny to see hotels converted into homeless shelters while apartments get turned into hotels.

[mleblanc]

It’s funny to see hotels converted into homeless shelters while apartments get turned into hotels.

I didn't know it was possible, but you just summed up my entire confusion on the topic into a single sentence :haha: Well said!

[Kittle]

Supply issues are just one component of a complex problem. Those people shooting/smoking dangerous drugs like meth and crack in their tent communities are unlikely to be buying a new home regardless of how "affordable" it may be. They need to be institutionalized and treated.

Then there are others who indeed got caught up in the increase in housing costs and lost their apartments. But what drove that increase? Huge federal injections of cash into the money supply that overstimulated the economy. Relaxed controls on immigration that increased demand for housing, and which depending on the circumstances, the costs of which are footed for several years by the Feds. Lots of conversions to AirBnBs which are largely uncontrolled by any govt. Increases in rents for newer properties convinced longtime landlords to invest in their older properties to make them more competitive with resultant rent increases. Offshore money being pumped into Canadian real estate which again is largely uncontrolled by the Feds. That list is just scratching the surface.

I'd say you hit the nail on the head. While there are certainly a few outliers, the majority of those in tent cities aren't there because of a lack of affordable housing. Seattle is a great example of this. Their housing prices have skyrocketed and become unaffordable to many (well beyond what we see here), and they've experienced a boom in population. They chose a laissez-faire approach to homelessness and tent cities, and it has gotten to the point that people struggling with addiction will come from out of state to live in what they dub "Freeattle". An FBI agent complied a list of the 100 worst frequent offenders (by number of arrests). Out of those 100 people...100% showed signs of addiction, and 100% were homeless.

[Good Baklava]

the majority of those in tent cities aren't there because of a lack of affordable housing.

…really?

[Dmajackson]

The Zion (2050 Gottingen)

https://64.media.tumblr.com/67b3555faf0b43bab24bd728a43cd9ef/4097de0651d78847-3b/s540x810/776ddfc958bca13ec8960642d8c59d2434001525.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

North End Animal Hospital

https://64.media.tumblr.com/6d738f01c9b2c970188e142c52e3dae3/0f081ce8603bef66-58/s540x810/730edba1eebfea543dd5e1cdb31cae2945ea97ee.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

And there is a new mural at Agricola Street & Willow Street

https://64.media.tumblr.com/38d055164c2cd31c9e353d02e4c8dd14/23715394735ddd97-bd/s540x810/12d57d27da92041096bbe381a8b7ad986a308b53.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

[someone123]

An FBI agent complied a list of the 100 worst frequent offenders (by number of arrests). Out of those 100 people...100% showed signs of addiction, and 100% were homeless.

Yet if the US had sane drug and mental health policies and a sane criminal justice system many of those people could live normal lives with jobs and stable housing, maybe while using drugs or maybe not.

I agree it's complicated and it is possible to cause more people to live in tent cities by incentivizing that behaviour. I believe this is an area where there are many different things going wrong (housing policy, drug policy, policing, misguided activism, poor communication). The ideal path in Halifax includes neither building huts in downtown parks nor pepper spraying 10 year olds.

One point that stands out to me is I think the root problems are often far removed from the effects of people not having housing, and often they don't "feel" bad or related. For example HRM delaying building permits for a few months because they say they are swamped. You slow down some couple building a house by 2 years and they stay in their apartment 2 years longer, then somebody else doesn't get to move in there...

[Colin May]

I'm sure the lack of supply had nothing to do with that increase in value. Markets never go up when supply is limited by restrictive land use policies, especially in one of the fastest growing cities in the country.:uhh:
Location was responsible for almost all of the price increase before 2018. We rented in Woodlawn until we decided we needed our own home. Woodlawn was too expensive so we ended up in a home built in 1917. Over time the area became more desirable because of LOCATION, although some home buyers were reluctant to send their kids to the school and the precious kids were put on a bus to French Immersion or sent out of boundary. The location certainly provides a premium to sellers and the about to be built bikeway will lead to an increase to the area. Very few families want to live in a high rise and the reasons are obvious. Dartmouth had very few restrictions in land use because almost every developer got what he wanted. Except for Lindelll Smith all the councillors within the Centre plan live in a detached home.

[Keith P.]

I find it hard to believe the bikeway will add to the value of homes on that poor unfortunate street.

[Saul Goode]

I find it hard to believe the bikeway will add to the value of homes on that poor unfortunate street.

Seconded. Mind you, I think it probably won't devalue them either.

[Colin May]

Seconded. Mind you, I think it probably won't devalue them either.
It is a bikeway, not a bike lane. Thanks to COVID traffic has significantly declined, traffic also declined during and after the repaving of the MacDonald bridge. Younger people with kids think its is too busy, yet there are very few accidents. 'Speeding' is one of those urban myths but you'll always hear councillors banging on about 'speed' and 'dangerous road'. At one time there were 12 kids on our side of the block - now down to 3. On the next block a home listed for $340,000 sold in 12 days for $515,000 - doubt we would get that price; 3 years ago an appraiser estimated a max of $300,000 for a home that cost us $45,000 over 38 years ago - which represents a compound annual return of a little over 5%..... and does not include maintenance and repair costs; all of which wipes out the notion that older home sellers are making out like bandits.

[Keith P.]

It is a bikeway, not a bike lane. Thanks to COVID traffic has significantly declined, traffic also declined during and after the repaving of the MacDonald bridge. Younger people with kids think its is too busy, yet there are very few accidents. 'Speeding' is one of those urban myths but you'll always hear councillors banging on about 'speed' and 'dangerous road'. At one time there were 12 kids on our side of the block - now down to 3.

Speeding, stunting and heavy traffic are the constant bogeymen trotted out by those in the planning professions to demonize motorists and justify downgrading streets in favor of bike lanes or, as was the case in last year's HRM lunacy, "safe streets for all", so they could be used for walking, skateboarding, rollerblading and god knows what else while cars and trucks continued to try to use them for their intended purpose. I am glad that it seems to have been largely missed this year. However, the bikeways that Austin has pushed still eliminates parking on one side of the street so good luck having visitors or getting deliveries or tradesmen accommodated.


On the next block a home listed for $340,000 sold in 12 days for $515,000 - doubt we would get that price; 3 years ago an appraiser estimated a max of $300,000 for a home that cost us $45,000 over 38 years ago - which represents a compound annual return of a little over 5%..... and does not include maintenance and repair costs; all of which wipes out the notion that older home sellers are making out like bandits.

Well, if you impute the rent you did not pay over those 30 years of occupancy you did not make out too badly.

[OldDartmouthMark]

.

[Colin May]

Well, if you impute the rent you did not pay over those 30 years of occupancy you did not make out too badly.
The mortgage,utilities,insurance, property taxes, maintenance are not included in the calculation.
On the upside, we now live for $9,000 a year but need new windows and other upgrades. The next owner can do all that. Cheap money is driving prices and we have a generation of house hunters who have heart flutters when they see a house for sale on 'the flower'streets. You won't see 13.75% mortgages again.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Speeding, stunting and heavy traffic are the constant bogeymen trotted out by those in the planning professions to demonize motorists and justify downgrading streets in favor of bike lanes or, as was the case in last year's HRM lunacy, "safe streets for all", so they could be used for walking, skateboarding, rollerblading and god knows what else while cars and trucks continued to try to use them for their intended purpose.

I'm tired of the rhetoric as well. Society in general is getting weird. While I'm generally in favour of better access for cyclists and 100% in favour of making the roads safer for them, when reasoning that borders on the ridiculous is used to justify the latest greatest project (like the Macdonald bridge flyover, for example), I get turned off. When I hear things that amount to "let's make life more difficult for the masses so they will be forced into following our agenda", I get turned off even more.

Frankly, as a society we seem to be pushed more into being followers of BS from people who like to use fear from over-inflated risks as reasoning to force us into a mindset that sometimes defies logic or reason. In general, it is starting to feel like we are less 'free' to follow our own thoughts than we've ever been in the past, and the concept of risk has been amplified to a point that it's actually starting to cause a decrease in quality of life for many.

It will be interesting to see if this trend continues once Covid fatigue wears off.

[Keith P.]

I'm tired of the rhetoric as well. Society in general is getting weird. While I'm generally in favour of better access for cyclists and 100% in favour of making the roads safer for them, when reasoning that borders on the ridiculous is used to justify the latest greatest project (like the Macdonald bridge flyover, for example), I get turned off. When I hear things that amount to "let's make life more difficult for the masses so they will be forced into following our agenda", I get turned off even more.

Frankly, as a society we seem to be pushed more into being followers of BS from people who like to use fear from over-inflated risks as reasoning to force us into a mindset that sometimes defies logic or reason. In general, it is starting to feel like we are less 'free' to follow our own thoughts than we've ever been in the past, and the concept of risk has been amplified to a point that it's actually starting to cause a decrease in quality of life for many.

It will be interesting to see if this trend continues once Covid fatigue wears off.

I fully agree with all of your points, but you left out one other important one. There has been an abandonment of fiscal responsibility at the federal level due in part to Covid, in part to Junior Trudeau continually running for re-election in the Liberal Party way of buying votes with reckless spending, partly due to HRM being awash in cash due to explosive growth and not wanting to give taxpayers any sort of dividend from that, and instead funding every planning department crazy idea. So far the province has been somewhat resistant, but once the Fed largesse starts coming their way, look out. The result of it all will be a generation that will only ever see deficit spending, and ever-higher taxes.

We do not need govts trying to solve every perceived problem with no prioritization, nor with any regard for how massive the bureaucracy to try to do that would be. Once created, govt programs and jobs are very resistant to going away even if the problem is either solved or goes away on its own. We will be stuck paying for this expansion pretty much for the foreseeable future.

[Good Baklava]

The result of it all will be a generation that will only ever see deficit spending, and ever-higher taxes.

I would say the problems with what urbanists preach are even more severe than reckless spending or the demonization of drivers. I was even surprised to see O’Toole tout transit-oriented development as part of his housing strategy. What has the potential to make bike lanes and transit-oriented development so vile are that they represent a certain form of austerity urbanism.

The worst offender here would have to be Tristan Cleveland’s favourite organization “Strong Towns”, which I would almost categorize as a cult. Their argument is that investment in auto-centric infrastructure is wasteful because cities can never recoup the costs from ensuing development, with a follow-up argument to make better use of the infrastructure we have. The downtown is then fetishized as the most prosperous area with the most productive people.

This snapshot of the urbanist ideology is disgusting on multiple fronts. One, painting suburbanites as moochers doesn’t ring nicely with the increasing suburbanization of poverty. Two, few can afford homes near the best transit stations, especially in larger cities. Third but somewhat related to the previous two, if urbanized areas are glorified as “productive”, only the wealthiest would be deemed worthy of living there and enjoying the bike lanes and shops.

I can’t pretend not to support bike lanes or good transit - it’s pretty clear I do. Unfortunately the movement has become self-defeating. You could say I’m criticizing the way bike lanes are preached because I want more of them. The arguments of fiscal responsibility and aversion to deficit spending are a large part of what made bike lanes popular in the first place, a war they are quite frankly winning with perverse outcomes. What I’m proposing is to attack bike lanes and improved transit more surgically.

[someone123]

This snapshot of the urbanist ideology is disgusting on multiple fronts. One, painting suburbanites as moochers doesn’t ring nicely with the increasing suburbanization of poverty. Two, few can afford homes near the best transit stations, especially in larger cities. Third but somewhat related to the previous two, if urbanized areas are glorified as “productive”, only the wealthiest would be deemed worthy of living there and enjoying the bike lanes and shops.

It you want to see this approach fast-forwarded by a few years, look at Vancouver or Seattle.

Not long ago I listened to an urban planner who was interviewed about some highway work being done in Seattle. He gave the standard spiel about making places for people and not cars. They asked him what the impact on commute times would be. He said oh, maybe 5-10 extra minutes, no big deal. And then he pointed out that it all worked out because rush hour has expanded so people can just leave home at 6 am now instead of 7 am if they want a quick trip. Perfect!

What he didn't say is that the people places are for those with money who can afford the expensive condos, while the poorer people are driving in or taking transit and are already stretched, often working long hours for low pay.

Vancouverites will often say they love that the city has no highways. I don't really like urban highways but I can't help but notice that it's hard for poorer people in the city to get to some of the nicest natural amenities in the metro area. The West Side has the beaches. If you are in Surrey it takes takes about 1 hour of driving or 1.5 hours of transit to travel about 25 km into those areas. Around the beaches are a bunch of low density houses that have now been bid up in many cases into the double digit millions. Not much construction is allowed. And the area residents resisted the SkyTrain going through there for many years. There is a lot of inequality in who gets to enjoy the scenery and nature in BC.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Very insightful comments, a lot to think about.

Taken in a broader scope, one could think of extreme urbanism as a side effect of the great division of wealth and the decline of the middle-income class.

[Keith P.]

A proposal for what I will call Hester St in Dartmouth, near the Wyse Rd Sobeys. Amazingly, it seems ol' Saw 'Em Off Sam Austin likes the taller of the two alternatives he is presenting here, although that may be more due to the height phobia that sadly is baked into the Centre Plan. Details:

https://samaustin.ca/rosedale-avenue-development-public-hearing/

[bluenoser]

^It's been said recently, but I can't believe how much this area is poised to change in the coming years if all (or even some) of these projects materialize.

[bluenoser]

Dartmouth shopping mecca Mic Mac Mall sold to Halifax developer Joe Ramia

With 20.2 hectares of land, densification of the property will be a future focus for Ramia and his team. This could include the potential addition of a business office campus, residential components, restaurants and entertainment spots.

Mic Mac Mall has long been on the radar of municipal planning staff eager to find large under-utilized spots to increase population density. According to the regional municipality’s Centre Plan, the Mic Mac node close to major road and transportation corridors would be ideal for expansion.

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/business/roger-taylor-dartmouth-shopping-mecca-mic-mac-mall-sold-to-halifax-developer-joe-ramia-100629985/

[DigitalNinja]

Dartmouth shopping mecca Mic Mac Mall sold to Halifax developer Joe Ramia



https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/business/roger-taylor-dartmouth-shopping-mecca-mic-mac-mall-sold-to-halifax-developer-joe-ramia-100629985/

This would explain why the development application for the area was withdrawn previously.

[TheNovaScotian]

A proposal for what I will call Hester St in Dartmouth, near the Wyse Rd Sobeys. Amazingly, it seems ol' Saw 'Em Off Sam Austin likes the taller of the two alternatives he is presenting here, although that may be more due to the height phobia that sadly is baked into the Centre Plan. Details:

https://samaustin.ca/rosedale-avenue-development-public-hearing/


"Basically, under the Centre Plan, there is less open space and the density that is currently proposed to fit in the two towers is accommodated in mid-rise buildings instead. In the proposal coming to Council on Thursday, more of the site remains as open space and in a low-rise form, but there are two tall towers to make up the lost units. The Centre Plan options aren’t fully fleshed out, but it gives an idea of what could be possible. It’s generally a question of tall and thin with the current proposal, or short and wide with the Centre Plan."

So council is aware it's a blunt tool to beat developers with.:hell:

The Centre Plan isn't even fully implemented and it's a failed attempt.
The terms "streamlined" and "less redtape" were a dog whistle to get the average person to get on board with it. Unaware it was just as draconian, if not more so, then what was already there. :(

Staff recommended this be voted against, oblivious of the housing crisis it helped create in the city.
They seem to think the path forward is shorter and wider buildings and there is no shortage of examples
Also this shows the lack of a sense of urgency to fix it by Staff.:slob:

[IanWatson]

So council is aware it's a blunt tool to beat developers with.:hell:

Council understands that getting in place a somewhat blunt process that generally works well--but maybe not perfectly--across the whole Centre Plan area is more important than getting bogged down trying to develop the perfect tool.

[someone123]

Council understands that getting in place a somewhat blunt process that generally works well--but maybe not perfectly--across the whole Centre Plan area is more important than getting bogged down trying to develop the perfect tool.

The streamlined approval is a big benefit but the densities and height limits are outdated. Part of the problem may just be that it took so long to bring into effect. And of course it disproportionately reflects the wishes of homeowners over tenants and newcomers to the city who tend to have less of a voice in these processes.

I wonder how this will change or is already changing. There must already be less patience today when millionaire septuagenarians get tons of airtime arguing against building more housing on land they don't own, based on a vision of the city that hasn't existed in about 50 years and does not fit the needs of current and future residents.

I hope eventually the plurality of people involved in public consultations and municipal politics internalize the idea that density/height/design often make for much better developments. And it would be nice to see some ambition in these plans. I worry that almost all of the interesting buildings were built under the (higher variance) old system, whereas the Centre Plan is only good for "filler" buildings.

[Keith P.]

Council understands that getting in place a somewhat blunt process that generally works well--but maybe not perfectly--across the whole Centre Plan area is more important than getting bogged down trying to develop the perfect tool.

Except that the Centre Plan process was the very definition of "bogged down". It took forever, consumed staggering amounts of staff time and tons of money, and we ended up with an anti-height screed that attempts to micromanage developers into building things they would never agree to otherwise. It can only be considered a massive failure.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I wonder how this will change or is already changing. There must already be less patience today when millionaire septuagenarians get tons of airtime arguing against building more housing on land they don't own, based on a vision of the city that hasn't existed in about 50 years and does not fit the needs of current and future residents.

Do these hypothetical "millionaire septuagenarians" actually have that strong of a voice? Are there that many of them in Halifax?

Sorry, but it just seems like an odd simplification for a complex problem. I don't know a lot of people in their 70s, but the ones I do know are more concerned with their growing health issues and simplifying their lives (i.e. moving to a smaller home or apartment/condo) than they are with people building tall towers. Then again, AFAIK none of them are millionaires, so perhaps those people are in a better position to exert their massive influence over city council who, oddly enough, are pushing bike lanes and transit, and other urban values (like density) as the focus of their work.

IMHO (my over-simplified view), the Centre Plan is weak because it was done by government, who typically manage to frig up most things they get their hands on. If it were a more industry-driven plan it likely would have been finished several years ago at half the budget with a result that actually reflected the needs and wants of the people who live (or want to live) in the city.

:2cents:

[someone123]

Do these hypothetical "millionaire septuagenarians" actually have that strong of a voice? Are there that many of them in Halifax?

Sorry, but it just seems like an odd simplification for a complex problem.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said a bit. I didn't say they control everything or are the only group out there (hence I don't think they are "the problem"; it is more complex), I said people would have less patience for their point of view given the housing crunch. They definitely had a disproportionate voice in the past in the city. If you are a random person and you get quoted 1 time in the Herald you have a disproportionate voice. How many Peggy Cameron articles have we seen?

They are perhaps the plurality in the Friends of the ____ groups and they were a big factor in the Heritage Trust back in the day. Maybe they are not over 70; maybe many are in their 60's. The point is not their age per se but the economic angle and incentives. If you bought a South End home many decades ago (you need to now be of a certain age to have done this), you have stable housing and likely a high net worth today. This is particularly true for people who have secure public sector jobs like professorships with pensions. They are fine with the city staying how it was in the past. They do not compete with others for housing.

Most of the people in this group see themselves as middle class or "the little guy" (traditionally set against a big developer) but their resources are far beyond those of the average renter in the city.

[OldDartmouthMark]

My bad... I did misinterpret. Thanks for the explanation.

If you had just said "the friends of ___ groups" I would have clued in sooner, but it's on me to read more carefully and not rush to comment. ;)

[Colin May]

None of them live in the South end and they are not 'millionaires' in the generally understood use of the word.
" If you are a random person and you get quoted 1 time in the Herald you have a disproportionate voice. " Nonsense. What is a 'random person' ?

[someone123]

None of them live in the South end and they are not 'millionaires' in the generally understood use of the word.
" If you are a random person and you get quoted 1 time in the Herald you have a disproportionate voice. " Nonsense. What is a 'random person' ?

No members of any of the Friends of the ____ groups or Heritage Trust live/lived in the South End and have a net worth greater than or equal to $1M (i.e. engaged in semi-reasonable financial planning as a person who bought a house in the 80's that later appreciated in value to $800,000 or more)? If none of them live in the South End one wonder why they are so specifically obsessed with the South End, for example with those towers around SGR and Robie. Will the Friends spend time on the Wyse Road developments? Maybe.

Most individuals are never quoted in the Herald and probably never show up to an HRM consultation. It's not possible or practical for a tenant to show up for relevant consultations in an area they may rent in years in the future. A lot of people who are younger (perhaps raising kids, perhaps doing shift work) or have less money have less free time to engage in consultation or lobbying type activities. I do not think it is bad for homeowners and older/wealthier people to have more of a voice but I think municipal planning processes were traditionally slanted toward that demographic. I also think that a lot of wealthier people are out of touch with how tough life can be for people who aren't well off today.

[Antigonish]

I fully agree with all of your points, but you left out one other important one. There has been an abandonment of fiscal responsibility at the federal level due in part to Covid, in part to Junior Trudeau continually running for re-election in the Liberal Party way of buying votes with reckless spending, partly due to HRM being awash in cash due to explosive growth and not wanting to give taxpayers any sort of dividend from that, and instead funding every planning department crazy idea. So far the province has been somewhat resistant, but once the Fed largesse starts coming their way, look out. The result of it all will be a generation that will only ever see deficit spending, and ever-higher taxes.

We do not need govts trying to solve every perceived problem with no prioritization, nor with any regard for how massive the bureaucracy to try to do that would be. Once created, govt programs and jobs are very resistant to going away even if the problem is either solved or goes away on its own. We will be stuck paying for this expansion pretty much for the foreseeable future.

What we are currently experiencing the end-game of neoliberalism but the ones in power for the last couple decades who have put us in this position are the ones who will do anything to avoid relinquishing the power used to put us in this situation in the first place. I've all but come to grips that the post-cold war, pre-9/11 ideology of how our societies should function, like a never ending upwards growth trend is long dead. I've come to grips that this planned demolition of society is all but complete but please let the collapse happen next spring when the weather is at least warm :(

However, what bothers me the most is that there is a significant portion of the population that still do not fucking get it and won't until they go to Sobeys and suddenly a loaf of bread is $20 overnight. Too little, too late then. There simply isn't a way to climb out of the hole that's been dug for us both young and old.

I would say the problems with what urbanists preach are even more severe than reckless spending or the demonization of drivers. I was even surprised to see O’Toole tout transit-oriented development as part of his housing strategy. What has the potential to make bike lanes and transit-oriented development so vile are that they represent a certain form of austerity urbanism.

The worst offender here would have to be Tristan Cleveland’s favourite organization “Strong Towns”, which I would almost categorize as a cult. Their argument is that investment in auto-centric infrastructure is wasteful because cities can never recoup the costs from ensuing development, with a follow-up argument to make better use of the infrastructure we have. The downtown is then fetishized as the most prosperous area with the most productive people.

This snapshot of the urbanist ideology is disgusting on multiple fronts. One, painting suburbanites as moochers doesn’t ring nicely with the increasing suburbanization of poverty. Two, few can afford homes near the best transit stations, especially in larger cities. Third but somewhat related to the previous two, if urbanized areas are glorified as “productive”, only the wealthiest would be deemed worthy of living there and enjoying the bike lanes and shops.

I can’t pretend not to support bike lanes or good transit - it’s pretty clear I do. Unfortunately the movement has become self-defeating. You could say I’m criticizing the way bike lanes are preached because I want more of them. The arguments of fiscal responsibility and aversion to deficit spending are a large part of what made bike lanes popular in the first place, a war they are quite frankly winning with perverse outcomes. What I’m proposing is to attack bike lanes and improved transit more surgically.

I honestly (didn't?) mind Strong Towns but you're right in that it's pushed into cult sphere recently and I don't appreciate that. The problem with urban planning is that it's susceptible to 'leftist' subversion(?) because of how dogmatic the rhetoric has become, particularly the past 10 years. What became suggestions for improvements, many of which could be quantified in dollars & cents to get the discussion going has now been fully coopted into a my way or the highway mentality. Most people I've met within the planning sphere are far too dogmatic and suffer from poor technical and critical thinking skills. They really don't even understand marketing towards the common people. They mostly fit into (but not exclusively) two categories: Childless urbanites or children of wealthy or upper-middle class parents. The rhetoric changed from literally progressive (i.e. meaning PROGRESS) suggestions into forcing people into changing their way of life or their preferred needs into something they have no say about. No you will live in the 400sf pod and be happy. Me? No, no I'll still live in the exurbs away from the street shitters that are beneath me.

It you want to see this approach fast-forwarded by a few years, look at Vancouver or Seattle.

Not long ago I listened to an urban planner who was interviewed about some highway work being done in Seattle. He gave the standard spiel about making places for people and not cars. They asked him what the impact on commute times would be. He said oh, maybe 5-10 extra minutes, no big deal. And then he pointed out that it all worked out because rush hour has expanded so people can just leave home at 6 am now instead of 7 am if they want a quick trip. Perfect!

What he didn't say is that the people places are for those with money who can afford the expensive condos, while the poorer people are driving in or taking transit and are already stretched, often working long hours for low pay.

Vancouverites will often say they love that the city has no highways. I don't really like urban highways but I can't help but notice that it's hard for poorer people in the city to get to some of the nicest natural amenities in the metro area. The West Side has the beaches. If you are in Surrey it takes takes about 1 hour of driving or 1.5 hours of transit to travel about 25 km into those areas. Around the beaches are a bunch of low density houses that have now been bid up in many cases into the double digit millions. Not much construction is allowed. And the area residents resisted the SkyTrain going through there for many years. There is a lot of inequality in who gets to enjoy the scenery and nature in BC.

And they cannot even back up their rhetoric.

I may have mentioned this before, but two(?) years ago when I was in Saskatoon I had the 'honour' of chatting with Mitchell Silver the president of the American Planning Association. He previously was the Director of Planning for Raleigh, North Carolina showing examples of their master plan they worked on for 10 years, similar to HRM's Centre Plan, accompanied by a plethora of planner-speak platitudes to back up their decisions regarding land use and transit improvements, eliminating car dependency etc.

I asked him, when your team devised this plan for transit improvements did you factor in climate?

He said "uhh no I guess not"

I say "well a good friend of mine lives in Charlotte and he tells me 7 months of the year the weather is so hot and humid you cannot stand outside for 5 minutes without being angrily uncomfortable and sweaty. from 7am to 7pm people leave their air conditioned homes to their air conditioned cars, to their air conditioned offices, back to their air conditioned cars, to their air conditioned houses, THEN after 7pm they'll go outside and walk the dog or mow their lawn. Were factors like these considered when you spent years and millions of dollars devising a plan to encourage people to sacrifice this cycle for a 'sustainable' one?

The answer I got was a blank: "People who need to take the bus will just take the bus regardless (lmao) and when traffic congestion gets so unsustainably congested the rest will have to follow in line"

Great fucking planning, folks.

FWIW, I thought Mr. Silver seemed like a really nice guy you could have a beer with and watch a football game shooting-the-shit so-to-speak so I don't mean to sound like he's a crappy person or anything. I guess it mostly symbolizes my cynicism for contemporary planning when the literal top dog in the USA has the same mentality as some low-level urbanist type in Halifax.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Sadly, we are losing the Cunard Centre as a venue in which to hold events open to the public. First the farmer's market, and now this.

They are blaming it on Covid, but that doesn't make sense as we are on the cusp of opening up again and the thirst of the public to get back out there and attend events should have been extremely beneficial to this as a venue. Makes me wonder if anything else is going on here... :shrug:

https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/local-news/halifax-port-authority-shutters-cunard-centre-for-events-4300487

Halifax Port Authority shutters Cunard Centre for events

Events will no longer be held at the Cunard Centre due to challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic

Halifax's Cunard Centre will no longer be hosting events due to challenges that stem from the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Thursday, the Halifax Port Authority announced it was shutting down the space for events. The RCR Hospitality Group ran the 45,000 square foot space using it for events and catering.

"COVID-19 has been a game-changer, and as a result, we have made the difficult decision to focus on the parts of the business that are recovering well, which are the restaurants and catering," Robert Risley, chairman and CEO of the RCR Hospitality Group, says in a news release.


Due to the pandemic, it has been 18 months since an event was held at the Cunard Centre. That window pushed the Port Authority to consider how to best use the space.

Since the Cunard Centre sits on Halifax's waterfront in the city's Seaport District, it's prime real estate for many business owners.

[Keith P.]

It seems to me that the Cunard Centre, which is essentially a large enclosed barn, would be ideal for the market. The problem, as always, is that it is a one-day-a-week venue, so it would sit idle the rest of the week.

[IanWatson]

Sadly, we are losing the Cunard Centre as a venue in which to hold events open to the public. First the farmer's market, and now this.

They are blaming it on Covid, but that doesn't make sense as we are on the cusp of opening up again and the thirst of the public to get back out there and attend events should have been extremely beneficial to this as a venue. Makes me wonder if anything else is going on here... :shrug:

I don't think the Port particularly likes being landlord to civic amenities. Their mind is on the multi-billion-dollar business of shipping logistics, and to a lesser degree the cruise ship industry. Where they do deal with civic amenities they only see them as window dressing for the cruise ship passengers; this was very much reflected in the way they arranged and treated market vendors.

That being said, I actually like the new market location much better; it feels cozier and it's focused again on vendors and being a weekend market rather than trying to be a permanent fixture.

[IanWatson]

The problem with urban planning is that it's susceptible to 'leftist' subversion(?) because of how dogmatic the rhetoric has become, particularly the past 10 years..

The problem with urban planning is that it's really complex. Cities are our lives laid out in physical form. They are human psychology, economy, and sociology made tangible. They mean different things to everyone, and every resident comes with differing perspectives formed from their unique combination of resources and life pressures. That makes it really, really, really hard to have a nuanced discussion, particularly in the format of public meetings or civic lectures. The rhetoric tends to be dogmatic because that's pretty much the depth of conversation you can accommodate.

[someone123]

The problem with urban planning is that it's really complex. Cities are our lives laid out in physical form. They are human psychology, economy, and sociology made tangible. They mean different things to everyone, and every resident comes with differing perspectives formed from their unique combination of resources and life pressures. That makes it really, really, really hard to have a nuanced discussion, particularly in the format of public meetings or civic lectures. The rhetoric tends to be dogmatic because that's pretty much the depth of conversation you can accommodate.

I agree it is complex. I think one problem is that it is tempting for planners and architects etc. to speak with unjustified pseudo-scientific authority. This phenomenon is obvious if you look back at rhetoric from the 1960's and earlier, but it's still happening today, with a different set of values. It is not just the fault of the public, nor does it only have to do with the planners themselves who have all sorts of political pressures on them. This problem affects all social sciences and I think it might be getting worse since those fields have grown so much.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I don't think the Port particularly likes being landlord to civic amenities. Their mind is on the multi-billion-dollar business of shipping logistics, and to a lesser degree the cruise ship industry. Where they do deal with civic amenities they only see them as window dressing for the cruise ship passengers; this was very much reflected in the way they arranged and treated market vendors.

That being said, I actually like the new market location much better; it feels cozier and it's focused again on vendors and being a weekend market rather than trying to be a permanent fixture.

IMHO, if they don't want to deal with it, maybe they should just gift it to the city, who could keep it as an events venue. I may be the only one who feels this way, but IMHO the harbour waterfront is Halifax's jewel, and as much of it as possible should be made available for some level of public enjoyment.

Regarding the current market location, I think it's fine but once cruise ships start docking in Halifax again, the plan is to kick it out into the parking lot during the cruise ship season. I agree with Keith that the Cunard would also be a good locale for the market - maybe they could use it as such but still keep it available for booking events.

[atbw]

I don't think the Port particularly likes being landlord to civic amenities. Their mind is on the multi-billion-dollar business of shipping logistics, and to a lesser degree the cruise ship industry. Where they do deal with civic amenities they only see them as window dressing for the cruise ship passengers; this was very much reflected in the way they arranged and treated market vendors.

That being said, I actually like the new market location much better; it feels cozier and it's focused again on vendors and being a weekend market rather than trying to be a permanent fixture.

I visited the other week and it's not bad, but after a visit to both the Seaport market and the Brewery market last weekend, the Brewery is head and shoulders better. More prepared food, more bustle, way less out of the way.

[IanWatson]

I visited the other week and it's not bad, but after a visit to both the Seaport market and the Brewery market last weekend, the Brewery is head and shoulders better. More prepared food, more bustle, way less out of the way.

Oh yeah, the Brewery is amazing again these days, though my daughter prefers Seaport for some reason so we go to that one if I'm going with her. Actually, we should probably be quiet about Brewery being awesome again; I'm not sure everyone has figured that out yet and while it's bustling it's not yet overcrowded.

[atbw]

Oh yeah, the Brewery is amazing again these days, though my daughter prefers Seaport for some reason so we go to that one if I'm going with her. Actually, we should probably be quiet about Brewery being awesome again; I'm not sure everyone has figured that out yet and while it's bustling it's not yet overcrowded.

I hadn't been in some months and seeing how that prepared food area has completely filled in has me ready to go back. I do miss being a stone's throw from it in the Alexander.

[Antigonish]

The problem with urban planning is that it's really complex. Cities are our lives laid out in physical form. They are human psychology, economy, and sociology made tangible. They mean different things to everyone, and every resident comes with differing perspectives formed from their unique combination of resources and life pressures. That makes it really, really, really hard to have a nuanced discussion, particularly in the format of public meetings or civic lectures. The rhetoric tends to be dogmatic because that's pretty much the depth of conversation you can accommodate.

You make good points, I guess the focus of my rant is that contemporary planning has become absolute with little compromise or understanding of the human condition almost mirroring post-WW2 planning which is its antithesis; full libertarian-style build everything people want with little form over function. We understand now the importance of walkability, sustainable density vs cost and so on, but to go all-in in that direction is also flawed. Many contemporaries legitimately think that cars=hitler and they will not be convinced otherwise. It's really asinine and I'm not a fan of telling people how to live and they will like it not matter what.

If HRM had its act together they would have been planning and organizing funding for LRT 15 years ago so we wouldn't be in the mess we're currently in. The history and geography of the city and its surroundings cannot be solved by simple infill or banning all suburban detached housing because "sustainably" only. A majority of people, particularly young couples with families prefer that mode of housing and it won't go away no matter how much urbanists screech about its evils. Why not plan around TOD and village centres? Why does everything need to be completely centered around the CBD? There is no room to expand and there are too many heritage blocks that need to be preserved (oh god I'm siding with NIMBYs for once :yuck:). Why not compromise with planned growth around HRM? It seems like the only viable way.

Look at the lands along the west area of Hammonds Plains and Stillwater Lake west of the wildlife land preserve. Why not partner with developers to construct a town centre there complete with detached, semi-detached townhomes and "missing middle" style residential & commercial connected by LRT to downtown and Burnside? What about connectivity to Bedford and the Sackvilles where you can reasonably and affordably rezone medium density along Sackville Drive with park & ride access along the new interchange they're building on Margeson Drive? What about Dartmouth? I've never come across any of these long-term planning strategies incorporated in the Centre Plan or other documents. It's incredibly short-sighted because "dynamic" urbanism is only tolerable and thus only possible on the peninsula.

I agree it is complex. I think one problem is that it is tempting for planners and architects etc. to speak with unjustified pseudo-scientific authority. This phenomenon is obvious if you look back at rhetoric from the 1960's and earlier, but it's still happening today, with a different set of values. It is not just the fault of the public, nor does it only have to do with the planners themselves who have all sorts of political pressures on them. This problem affects all social sciences and I think it might be getting worse since those fields have grown so much.

What we see now is a 180 of post-WW2 planning. It's as if anything remotely related to that outdated style of suburban planning cannot be allowed to be integrated into contemporary planning by any means. That methods changed but the attitudes didn't and I'm not a fan of it.

I also notice a large number of people with sociology and even philosophy BAs digging their talons into important planning positions which admittingly irks me the wrong way. Not because those philosophies themselves don't have merit but I've noticed a pattern through my own experiences working for contractors on the geomatics and technical side that a lot of these people have an attitude predicated on an agenda based mostly on qualitative means rather than quantitative. In Saskatoon it was (and still is) really bad. Halifax doesn't seem that much better, based more on what I see rather than personally experienced, mind.

[IanWatson]

Look at the lands along the west area of Hammonds Plains and Stillwater Lake west of the wildlife land preserve. Why not partner with developers to construct a town centre there complete with detached, semi-detached townhomes and "missing middle" style residential & commercial connected by LRT to downtown and Burnside? What about connectivity to Bedford and the Sackvilles where you can reasonably and affordably rezone medium density along Sackville Drive with park & ride access along the new interchange they're building on Margeson Drive? What about Dartmouth? I've never come across any of these long-term planning strategies incorporated in the Centre Plan or other documents. It's incredibly short-sighted because "dynamic" urbanism is only tolerable and thus only possible on the peninsula.

You're correct, there is very little, if any "proactive" planning in HRM. Part of this is because I think we (the collective psyche of the area) have only in the last couple of years viewed ourselves as a big city warranting any kind of comprehensive view to the future.

However, the bigger issue is that HRM is just barely treading water when it comes to planning. This is for a bunch of reasons:


Planning was historically understaffed at HRM (as much as Keith would suggest otherwise).
Amalgamation created a huge mess of planning documents that are a pain to administer and an even bigger pain to keep up-to-date. This created a death spiral where the documents get even more and more out-of-date, which spawns "bandaid" amendments to sort of accommodate modern development, which makes the documents harder to administer, which saps resources from keeping them up-to-date.
Procedural decisions in the past have created unintended headaches today. E.g. West Bedford was done by development agreement, which made sense at the time to deal with the complex nature of building whole new communities from scratch; however, every time a lot or condo unit gets created a new instance of that development agreement is created. There are now tens of thousands of instances of development agreements, so any changes are overwhelming to administer, which takes planning resources.
Many of the existing planning documents are extremely conservative (*cough*Bedford*cough*) and basically reflect what already exists, so any new development requires amendments, which takes planning resources.


This is why Centre Plan is so, so, so, so, so, so, SO important. People on here get hung up on it not reflecting their exact vision for Halifax, but miss the fact that at the end of the day it's finally getting to the heart of everything that's been wrong with planning in HRM. Centre Plan fundamentally restructures planning from an organizational point-of-view and frees up resources. If HRM can keep the momentum and bring a similar approach to the rest of the region, they may actually have a chance of reversing the death spiral and instead be in a position to update documents proactively, thus keeping the need for administration down, thus having more resources to plan proactively.

[someone123]

Planning was historically understaffed at HRM (as much as Keith would suggest otherwise).

There are two different questions, "are there enough people to do the work our planning system requires" and "should this work be done by planners?".

I don't have strong opinions here one way or the other but often in HRM discussions (in the public consultations or on council etc., but it's common in many cities) there is sentiment that the municipality should control what developers or people do or try to do. An example of this is the idea that the city should try to make sure there isn't enough traffic in a given neighbourhood and there is plentiful street parking. Lately we hear more and more is that it's the responsibility of the municipality or developers to make sure everybody is housed.

Individuals self-organize in a hugely complicated way given their incentives and a city is such a complex system that nobody can predict what it will look like over the course of even one human or building lifespan. Even in 2015 I am not sure anybody predicted that the city would grow as fast as it's growing today a few years later.

This of course doesn't mean planning shouldn't be done, and it is needed for managing public infrastructure even if the errors are large. But it needs a healthy dose of humility that isn't always there (most frequently the fault of voters/politicians, not planners).

[someone123]

What we see now is a 180 of post-WW2 planning. It's as if anything remotely related to that outdated style of suburban planning cannot be allowed to be integrated into contemporary planning by any means. That methods changed but the attitudes didn't and I'm not a fan of it.

Around here I see a kind of unholy alliance between NIMBYs and the reaction to postwar planning that slants the debate too heavily against new road development. I would not want to go back to the 60's when cities were bulldozing huge areas for brownfield highways but sometimes new roads are needed. My basic reasoning is that modal shares will only get so extreme and so as a city grows, some additional road capacity will be needed. A city that's 80% suburban is not going to pleasantly go from 90% car travel to 45% as it doubles in size. 70-80% modal share is aggressive and this requires more capacity.

I also notice a large number of people with sociology and even philosophy BAs digging their talons into important planning positions which admittingly irks me the wrong way. Not because those philosophies themselves don't have merit but I've noticed a pattern through my own experiences working for contractors on the geomatics and technical side that a lot of these people have an attitude predicated on an agenda based mostly on qualitative means rather than quantitative. In Saskatoon it was (and still is) really bad.

The "two solitudes" of qualitative humanities style disciplines and quantitative science/math/engineering disciplines is quite old. Sometimes things went off the rails from having engineers do planning too. Notoriously traffic engineers would design whole neighbourhoods based on optimizing narrow parameters that didn't really capture what is needed to make an area desirable to be in. For an example of this look at early Cogswell Interchange redevelopment studies.

One thing I notice lately is that there are some very abstract and general bachelor's degrees. For example if you graduated high school you can go right into a degree of community design at Dalhousie. Is this really a good area of study for a 19 year old? And are people coming out with master's degrees in planning when they just did 2 similar degrees? It doesn't look like they need much math or science either. This seems like a recipe for groupthink.

[Good Baklava]

You make good points, I guess the focus of my rant is that contemporary planning has become absolute with little compromise or understanding of the human condition almost mirroring post-WW2 planning which is its antithesis

Planners clearly do not have the tools to understand the human condition, yet…

I also notice a large number of people with sociology and even philosophy BAs digging their talons into important planning positions which admittingly irks me the wrong way. Not because those philosophies themselves don't have merit but I've noticed a pattern through my own experiences working for contractors on the geomatics and technical side that a lot of these people have an attitude predicated on an agenda based mostly on qualitative means rather than quantitative. In Saskatoon it was (and still is) really bad. Halifax doesn't seem that much better, based more on what I see rather than personally experienced, mind.

Those choosing to understand the human condition are blamed for inserting themselves into planning…

Sociologists and philosophers have had their talons dug into planning topics at least since the days of Engels and later Simmel. The torch was carried through the modern era with Lefebvre and Castells arguing over the role of the city. This is nothing new.

The problem is not qualitative vs quantitative; a purely quantitative approach becomes a ruse of concept since modifying quantities in turn modifies qualities. Technocrats can and do use quantitative data to fit their predetermined conclusion. We of course need this technical ability, but let’s not pretend it exists independently of other abilities. The real problem is dogmatism, no matter what field you hail from. Planners, scientists and philosophers all need to consistently verify and re-evaluate their hypotheses.

[someone123]

We of course need this technical ability, but let’s not pretend it exists independently of other abilities.

Do planners need to take undergraduate level statistics and linear algebra courses? Calculus?

[Good Baklava]

One thing I notice lately is that there are some very abstract and general bachelor's degrees. For example if you graduated high school you can go right into a degree of community design at Dalhousie. Is this really a good area of study for a 19 year old? And are people coming out with master's degrees in planning when they just did 2 similar degrees? It doesn't look like they need much math or science either. This seems like a recipe for groupthink.

The problem with these programs is not that they’re too generalized. It’s that they claim to be generalized when in fact they are very focused; in essence the narrative doesn’t fit the program. The best example is in the name “Community Design”. What is being designed? The public spaces, how developments can look? Sure. But the social side is under-examined. Math or science alone do nothing against “groupthink”, but becoming over-disciplined will certainly not help. I’d argue much of the problem comes from over relying on math or science to back dogmas, and systemizing philosophy to achieve the same.

[Good Baklava]

Do planners need to take undergraduate level statistics and linear algebra courses? Calculus?

As for my program, yes to statistics and multiple courses with options for specialization. I opted for the environmental sciences with a focus on urban ecology and park management. No to calculus or linear algebra, but I’ll call that out as an irrelevant curveball question. Your doctor or lawyer don’t need it, nor would they benefit from it and they are far more respectable than a planner. I highly respect those who pursue calculus or linear algebra but I don’t think their “worth” should be determined by planning knowledge.

[someone123]

What is being designed? The public spaces, how developments can look? Sure. But the social side is under-examined. Math or science alone do nothing against “groupthink”, but becoming over-disciplined will certainly not help. I’d argue much of the problem comes from over relying on math or science to back dogmas, and systemizing philosophy to achieve the same.

It is not that math or science cure groupthink but if you do 2 very different fields you'll get 2 different kinds of groupthink which brings some clarity. If you enter a field when you are more mature you also tend to have more of your own opinions.

And there's something to mastery of a narrow practical/applicable technical skill plus the humility that comes from realizing that it doesn't actually work that well in real life situations. It is not good to focus only on very abstract concepts, building castles in the sky.

[someone123]

No to calculus or linear algebra, but I’ll call that out as an irrelevant curveball question. Your doctor or lawyer don’t need it, nor would they benefit from it and they are far more respectable than a planner. I highly respect those who pursue calculus or linear algebra but I don’t think their “worth” should be determined by planning knowledge.

They are useful tools and people who don't have them don't tend to appreciate their worth (e.g. understanding basic modeling used for planning purposes). Usually the math courses are viewed as gatekeeping but there is nothing really that hard about linear algebra, and calculus is taught in grade 12. If we can't teach a bunch of it to 20 year olds in university or worse still people doing a planning master's degree we don't have a very good education system.

[Good Baklava]

They are useful tools and people who don't have them don't tend to appreciate their worth (e.g. understanding basic modeling used for planning purposes).

You really don’t need more than the fragment of linear algebra included within an undergraduate statistics course to understand the modelling of economic growth or demographic change used in planning. My argument, again, is not that there’s no use for quantitative method. It’s that these methods used in planning, economic development and geomatics, and any additional ones that would be needed, are simple enough they should be open to critique from other fields such as Law, Sociology, Philosophy or the general public, and that vice-versa the already technocratic planners need to venture into these relatively unexplored areas.

Take Law as an arts-based example, so few people mention the contributions of legal opinions in shaping the planning system. These lawyers have very little planning or mathematical knowledge but have solved many of the arguments regarding NIMBYs. Let’s take the issue of compatibility: There is a precedent stating “compatible” does not mean “similar to”. Compatibility, while subjective, means having “regard for” the development’s surroundings. So hypothetically, if you built a 40-storey building next to Peggy’s house but took measures to mitigate the building’s effects on its surroundings, it would still be “compatible”. Legal opinions such as these are an influential treasure trove that quite frankly gets ignored within public debate.

If we can't teach a bunch of it to 20 year olds in university or worse still people doing a planning master's degree we don't have a very good education system.

So the ideal planning system is a Jirga of elders who also happen to be mathematicians? “Afplanistan” - There’s a certain jingle to it

[Saul Goode]

Take Law as an arts-based example, so few people mention the contributions of legal opinions in shaping the planning system. These lawyers have very little planning or mathematical knowledge

Be careful with generalizations. I know (and know of) many lawyers and even a few judges in this area with so-called "hard science" (physics, chemistry, math, engineering) undergrad and even graduate degrees. It's much more common than generally understood by the public. And the NSUARB, the first-tier tribunal tasked with considering planning matters, actively solicits applications from people with that sort of technical expertise.

[Good Baklava]

Be careful with generalizations. I know (and know of) many lawyers and even a few judges in this area with so-called "hard science" (physics, chemistry, math, engineering) undergrad and even graduate degrees. It's much more common than generally understood by the public. And the NSUARB, the first-tier tribunal tasked with considering planning matters, actively solicits applications from people with that sort of technical expertise.

The more the merrier (diversity of backgrounds that is), I admit my argument doesn’t capture the background of every lawyer but your insider knowledge reinforces my point. The law degree does not interfere with their hard-science background, it nurtures that scientific background and allows them to translate their knowledge across different fields, no?

Making planning more scientific doesn’t go beyond its problems, it intensifies them. They should learn from lawyers and oscillate between their narrow, already quasi-scientific discipline and other disciplines.

[someone123]

This is an interesting conversation but it's not really project related. I continued my comments in a new thread: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9393513

[someone123]

Looks like the Tramway Building work has started:

https://i.imgur.com/J9wakE4.jpg
Source (https://www.instagram.com/p/CTxFTx-Lt6w/)

[Antigonish]

.

[mleblanc]

Looks like the Tramway Building work has started:

https://i.imgur.com/J9wakE4.jpg
Source (https://www.instagram.com/p/CTxFTx-Lt6w/)

Nice shot! If the Tramway is still owned by Steve Caryi, owner of the NFB building down the street, then I'll be excited about its completion in 2121.

The Discovery Centre and Green Lantern turned out beautifully, though. Shame it's not taller, but still, looks great.

[someone123]

Nice shot! If the Tramway is still owned by Steve Caryi, owner of the NFB building down the street, then I'll be excited about its completion in 2121.

I wonder if they had to push back the NFB building completion to 2070 to handle both at the same time. :)

(In fairness it looks like NFB is coming along and I'm interested to see what it looks like with the final finishes.)

The Discovery Centre and Green Lantern turned out beautifully, though. Shame it's not taller, but still, looks great.

They just need to fix the vents by matching the sandstone.

This picture is such a mixed bag. There's a blob of run down stuff around here roughly following that Blowers axis, made worse by the decline and demolition of the Ralston. I like the businesses on the Green Lantern block but it's too bad those little buildings were never filled in a bit more. An expansion of the 60's style building on the corner, extended up to the viewplane limit, with a separate "Barrington Espace" for those 4 little facades, would look neat. The Pacific Building is maybe the worst remaining heritage building that is crying out for a restoration now that something is happening with the Dennis Building.

[mleblanc]

This picture is such a mixed bag. There's a blob of run down stuff around here roughly following that Blowers axis, made worse by the decline and demolition of the Ralston. I like the businesses on the Green Lantern block but it's too bad those little buildings were never filled in a bit more. An expansion of the 60's style building on the corner, extended up to the viewplane limit, with a separate "Barrington Espace" for those 4 little facades, would look neat. The Pacific Building is maybe the worst remaining heritage building that is crying out for a restoration now that something is happening with the Dennis Building.

I definitely agree with you on this, at the same time, I also find this picture showcases some of the best potential within downtown Halifax.

Pacific Building is in pitiful shape, but I think it has good bones and a developer with the money and interest could make a neat project out of that block. I hope they don't end up wrecking it, but I could see it happen. I might be biased after working at Chives for years in school.

The MEC building with surrounding misc. Barrington St. retail does seem awkward from above, although with how large the Ralston actually site is, could just be the photo. Combined this with the art gallery, Cunard block, potential Irving lands redevelopment across the harbour, I'm excited to save this picture and check back in a few years to compare.

[Saul Goode]

I...potential Irving lands redevelopment across the harbour

Irving? I assume you mean the former Imperial Oil refinery site. Irving does own lands just to the north of there, but they're in very active use as a marine terminal and not likely to be redeveloped. Imperial also still operates a very busy marine terminal just south of the Irving operation.

But the refinery lands just cry out for some kind of development. Some have suggested relocating the PSA container terminal there, though from a practical perspective it's tough to envision a workable railroad connection. Routing streams of double-stacked container trains through the existing line through downtown Dartmouth is not going to fly, but where could new lines possibly be built? Seems like a tough logistical nut to crack.

Also, one can only imagine what's in the ground there after 100+ years of petroleum refining!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Also, one can only imagine what's in the ground there after 100+ years of petroleum refining!

Well, Fort Clarence for starters... ;)

https://hmhps.ca/sites/eastern-battery-or-fort-clarence

[Saul Goode]

Well, Fort Clarence for starters... ;

Good point! I wish I'd thought of that. It's definitely a bit of lost local history.

[mleblanc]

Irving? I assume you mean the former Imperial Oil refinery site. Irving does own lands just to the north of there, but they're in very active use as a marine terminal and not likely to be redeveloped. Imperial also still operates a very busy marine terminal just south of the Irving operation.



Oops! That's what I meant, yeah

[bluenoser]

Gratuitous North End crane shot including Richmond Yards as well as the Elevation on Robie (foreground) and, and North Station (far right).

https://saltwire.imgix.net/2021/9/16/tch_tk091621housing.jpg?cs=srgb&fit=crop&h=568&w=847&dpr=2&auto=format%2Cenhance%2Ccompress

Source: Saltwire: Halifax better off than Canada's big cities, where offices remain stubbornly empty (https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/business/halifax-better-off-than-canadas-big-cities-where-offices-remain-stubbornly-empty-100635582/)

[someone123]

What stands out to me about that shot is how there wasn't that big of a gap in years between the construction of the suburban Shoppers and Rona and then a new tallest tower in the city next door. On the one hand the transformation in this area is very positive. On the other it could have been nicer with some small changes, most notably an urban style development of the Shoppers.

Also note Bloomfield on the left. Derelict HRM site with tons of private construction all around. City says they care very deeply about affordable housing. How many affordable housing units could have gone in there had redevelopment been accomplished within a 10 year timeframe? I feel there is a disconnect here.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Also note Bloomfield on the left. Derelict HRM site with tons of private construction all around. City says they care very deeply about affordable housing. How many affordable housing units could have gone in there had redevelopment been accomplished within a 10 year timeframe? I feel there is a disconnect here.

Bang on.

Not to mention that the longer the Bloomfield site development is delayed the less chance there will be to save and re-purpose the 1919 school building, if it's not already too late.

https://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinnovascotia/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/07/1-July-201468.jpg

Source (https://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinnovascotia/2014/07/a-short-walk-in-the-north-end/)

[Good Baklava]

Also note Bloomfield on the left. Derelict HRM site with tons of private construction all around. City says they care very deeply about affordable housing. How many affordable housing units could have gone in there had redevelopment been accomplished within a 10 year timeframe? I feel there is a disconnect here.

Fact check: it’s a former HRM site now owned by BANC, although Halef is promising a design soon.

Housing NS had the means to make something happen, but cleaned its hands before housing became a larger part of political discourse.

With land acquisition being such a barrier to social ownership projects, selling off any public land negates such an opportunity. Who benefits? Halef of course.

[someone123]

The sale from HRM to Banc happened in early 2021. The site has been empty for many years.

My impression is it was sold to Banc because they submitted the highest bid, $22M.

[Good Baklava]

The sale from HRM to Banc happened in early 2021. The site has been empty for many years.

My impression is it was sold to Banc because they submitted the highest bid, $22M.

Yes, apparently Halef thought the site was worth that much and he is free to add value in the form of housing, which many Haligonians may be able to afford for the right price.

Still doesn’t say much about why public land was listed in the first place.

[someone123]

Yes, apparently Halef thought the site was worth that much and he is free to add value in the form of housing, which many Haligonians may be able to afford for the right price.

This was public land for 10 years+ and during that time it generated basically no value. There were public housing proposals, sure, but for one reason or another they didn't pan out.

The current plan is apparently for 40 affordable housing units and 360 market rate, plus HRM gets $22M they can spend on affordable housing if they want. It's not clear this is worse for housing affordability than HRM holding onto that unused site for who knows how many more years.

[Good Baklava]

This was public land for 10 years+ and during that time it generated basically no value. There were public housing proposals, sure, but for one reason or another they didn't pan out.

The current plan is apparently for 40 affordable housing units and 360 market rate, plus HRM gets $22M they can spend on affordable housing if they want. It's not clear this is worse for housing affordability than HRM holding onto that unused site for who knows how many more years.

Yes everyone knows it was idle public land for ages. Everyone knows proposals for social ownership never amounted to anything. These points need no repetition.

Who benefits from HRM leaving the site idle though? - Halef. Who has promised all 22 million would go towards housing? - Silence…
Banc developing and owning the site now offers a better short term deal vs. being idle, but did cost an asset that will sting for decades ahead.
Why did proposals for social ownership never amount to anything?

Not expecting anyone to answer these, but there could be some recognition these are questions lacking adequate answers.

[Keith P.]

Yes everyone knows it was idle public land for ages. Everyone knows proposals for social ownership never amounted to anything. These points need no repetition.

Who benefits from HRM leaving the site idle though? - Halef. Who has promised all 22 million would go towards housing? - Silence…
Banc developing and owning the site now offers a better short term deal vs. being idle, but did cost an asset that will sting for decades ahead.
Why did proposals for social ownership never amount to anything?

Not expecting anyone to answer these, but there could be some recognition these are questions lacking adequate answers.

Since you seem to have missed the decade+ discourse on this property, here is a capsule summary to bring you up to speed:

- Bloomfield school property is abandoned as a school site and HRM takes possession.
- Area do-gooder groups band together and create a vision ("Imagine Bloomfield") of what the site should be according to them if only enough taxpayer money can be thrown at it. This includes cultural & arts centres, subsidized space for nonprofits, gardens/green space, and some housing.
- HRM calls for proposals for a stripped-down development that had only a few elements of the Imagine vision. Those people get their noses out of joint and separate themselves from the process.
- Responses to the HRM call for proposals result in several viable possibilities but those are all trumped by a blockbuster from Housing NS i.e. the provincial govt, as the then-NDP offers untold riches in taxpayer gold to HRM in return for the ability for them to construct a publicly-funded nirvana. HRM takes the bait. So does a reinvigorated Imagine Bloomfield group; they align themselves with the NDP proposal.
- Time passes; nothing happens. The NDP govt is turfed, and the new govt realizes the Housing NS proposal was pure pie in the sky as there is no money nor any capacity within that organization to actually construct anything like what has been proposed. Radio silence from HNS leads Imagine Bloomfield to jump ship again. After several years of political dithering, the HNS proposal is withdrawn.
- Left with a deteriorating and liability-filled property, HRM realizes they need someone to take the site off their hands and actually do something with it. HRM once again tries its luck by putting the property on the market with far few strings attached. Bids are received; the one from BANC is deemed best and accepted.
- Early in 2021 HRM cashes the $22M cheque from BANC and heaves a sigh of relief. It is now his problem. (Rumor is they allocate the money to building bike lanes, speed bumps, and curb bump-outs, but that has never been confirmed)
- The clock starts on the usual 5 to 7-year schedule for any development of this size.

Why did all this happen, you ask? This timeline lays it out clearly for you. Incompetence by HRM; incompetence/gullibility by the Imagine Bloomfield community group; incompetence by the provincial NDP govt; and incompetence by Housing NS. There is lots of blame to go around. None of it belongs to BANC. I'm sure that must be disappointing to you.

[gohaligo]

Since you seem to have missed the decade+ discourse on this property, here is a capsule summary to bring you up to speed:

- Bloomfield school property is abandoned as a school site and HRM takes possession.
- Area do-gooder groups band together and create a vision ("Imagine Bloomfield") of what the site should be according to them if only enough taxpayer money can be thrown at it. This includes cultural & arts centres, subsidized space for nonprofits, and some housing.
- HRM calls for proposals for a stripped-down development that had only a few elements of the Imagine vision. Those people get their noses out of joint and separate themselves from the process.
- Responses to the HRM call for proposals result in several viable possibilities but those are all trumped by a blockbuster from Housing NS i.e. the provincial govt, as the then-NDP offers untold riches in taxpayer gold to HRM in return for the ability for them to construct a publicly-funded nirvana. HRM takes the bait.
- Time passes; nothing happens. The NDP govt is turfed, and the new govt realizes the Housing NS proposal was pure pie in the sky as there is no money nor any capacity within that organization to actually construct anything like what has been proposed. After several years of dithering, the HNS proposal is withdrawn.
- Left with a deteriorating and liability-filled property, HRM realizes they need someone to take the site off their hands and actually do something with it. HRM once again tries its luck by putting the property on the market with far few strings attached. Bids are received; the one from BANC is deemed best and accepted.
- Early in 2021 HRM cashes the $22M cheque from BANC and heaves a sigh of relief. It is now his problem. (Rumor is they allocate the money to building bike lanes, speed bumps, and curb bump-outs, but that has never been confirmed)
- The clock starts on the usual 5 to 7-year schedule for any development of this size.

Why did all this happen, you ask? This timeline lays it out clearly for you. Incompetence by HRM; incompetence by the Imagine Bloomfield community group; incompetence by the provincial NDP govt; and incompetence by Housing NS. There is lots of blame to go around. None of it belongs to BANC. I'm sure that must be disappointing to you.

Great timeline love the added saltiness. The only thing I'd add is the 2 solid weeks the province though they could build a Junior High School on it. :runaway:
The City always goes for the cash.

[Good Baklava]

Why did all this happen, you ask? This timeline lays it out clearly for you. Incompetence by HRM; incompetence/gullibility by the Imagine Bloomfield community group; incompetence by the provincial NDP govt; and incompetence by Housing NS. There is lots of blame to go around. None of it belongs to BANC. I'm sure that must be disappointing to you.

I was familiar with the whole story, every bit of it. Thanks for spending the time to type it just for me, although my question remains unanswered. I was expecting “incompetence” to be one of the first answers flung my way, and naturally you had to be that person.

Indifference was my personal suspicion. The means, talent and vision were all there. Housing just wasn’t enough of an issue at the time. The question of “why” is directed at indifference, and why when housing finally becomes an issue the site gets sold off.

You can clearly see, I was critical of both provincial and municipal actors. Banc may not have been the source of that indifference but they are more than happy to have the site in their hands is my point.

[Dartguard]

Yes everyone knows it was idle public land for ages. Everyone knows proposals for social ownership never amounted to anything. These points need no repetition.

Who benefits from HRM leaving the site idle though? - Halef. Who has promised all 22 million would go towards housing? - Silence…
Banc developing and owning the site now offers a better short term deal vs. being idle, but did cost an asset that will sting for decades ahead.
Why did proposals for social ownership never amount to anything?

Not expecting anyone to answer these, but there could be some recognition these are questions lacking adequate answers.

A small contribution to your question about social housing proposals. A friend of mine had a very bad year about a decade ago with both job loss and a divorce in the same year. He wound up living in the social housing project long Gottingen street just before the Macdonald Bridge.

I visited him at a shared unit that he and a downtown restaurant employed cook were sharing. My buddy at least ate well with the talents and leftovers from his roommate. My friend has some organizational skills and a degree in environmental science, so to keep himself sane ,he volunteered to help manage the housing project.There was a hodge podge of like minded and well meaning folks that joined the board of the housing project to "give back". In a very short time frustration set in with the clashing personalities and the maze of government regulations, rules , funding applications and lack of talent and resources to replace even something as simple as a window.


My friend tried but with the help of his parents and a better job he has moved to the Fall River area and his Teenage kids don't hate him like his ex tried to engineer.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thanks to all for the reminder. It appears that my memory has blocked out most of this sordid mess. Hopefully BANC will do something good there, but forget about the old school I posted above, that is part of the Halifax Explosion history of the area. I'm sure it has gone past the point of being usable in any future development (not that the developer would give a crap if it were - nor, perhaps does anybody else really care).

Let's just hope that the increase in building stock that's happening in the city outpaces the population increase such that the market can at some point provide sufficient affordable housing for everybody who needs it.

I'm getting tired of attempting to discuss it here, to be honest. Hopefully empathy and compassion wins out in the long run, but my hope for that is running thin.

[Keith P.]

Fact check: it’s a former HRM site now owned by BANC, although Halef is promising a design soon.

Housing NS had the means to make something happen, but cleaned its hands before housing became a larger part of political discourse.

With land acquisition being such a barrier to social ownership projects, selling off any public land negates such an opportunity. Who benefits? Halef of course.

Who benefits from HRM leaving the site idle though? - Halef. Who has promised all 22 million would go towards housing? - Silence…
Banc developing and owning the site now offers a better short term deal vs. being idle, but did cost an asset that will sting for decades ahead.
Why did proposals for social ownership never amount to anything?

Not expecting anyone to answer these, but there could be some recognition these are questions lacking adequate answers.

I was familiar with the whole story, every bit of it.


Well, you'll have to excuse me for misunderstanding, given the amount of shade you were throwing at Mr. Halef and your question as to why previous proposals never amounted to anything.

[someone123]

Another aspect is that the municipality will get property tax payments from the new owner. Those will go up to the extent that the property value is increased by development.

The financial calculus for holding on to land with no clear plan is somewhat worse for HRM than it is for other entities.

[ColSJ]

Hello! I visited Halifax in mid-august and noticed a gaping hole between Hollis and Lower Water Street next to the Maple. I'm curious if there are plans for this lot and if so could someone point me in the direction to details?

[bluenoser]

Hello! I visited Halifax in mid-august and noticed a gaping hole between Hollis and Lower Water Street next to the Maple. I'm curious if there are plans for this lot and if so could someone point me in the direction to details?

Right this way: [Halifax] Ralston Building Redevelopment | 66 m | 22 fl | Demo (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=237114&page=4)

This may not be 100% up to date / accurate, but I think Canada Lands Company is intending to sell the lot, which comes with (requires?) the design they developed.

[mleblanc]

5670 Spring Garden Rd conversion into apartments is finishing up, looks like it is opening January 2022 and being called the Muse:

https://i.imgur.com/ykvE0sc.png

[eastcoastal]

Right this way: [Halifax] Ralston Building Redevelopment | 66 m | 22 fl | Demo (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=237114&page=4)

This may not be 100% up to date / accurate, but I think Canada Lands Company is intending to sell the lot, which comes with (requires?) the design they developed.

My understanding is that the requirements from Canada Lands that would attach to the sale are more at the level of urban design than detailed building design. Similar to what was done and then ignored for the RCMP site that was sold near Windsor Park.

[someone123]

5670 Spring Garden Rd conversion into apartments is finishing up, looks like it is opening January 2022 and being called the Muse

Always hard to know what to make of these renderings. I assume they won't be tearing out the trees in those planters? The idea of installing some lighting and greenery on the wall of the building next door is nice but I wonder if it is for sure going to happen or is some artistic license.

These small/narrow old office buildings are actually kind of a benefit for the city now. The ones with very deep floors are not as nice for residential conversions.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Always hard to know what to make of these renderings. I assume they won't be tearing out the trees in those planters? The idea of installing some lighting and greenery on the wall of the building next door is nice but I wonder if it is for sure going to happen or is some artistic license.

These small/narrow old office buildings are actually kind of a benefit for the city now. The ones with very deep floors are not as nice for residential conversions.

I found this oddly, search for Richmond Yards:

https://www.teaserv.com/uploads/portfolio/1621957937.png

Looks like a rendering for the Ralston site?

[teddifax]

I believe when they put the site out for proposals, this is one of the renderings showing what could be expected from developers.

[Dmajackson]

East West Street

https://64.media.tumblr.com/e920d4cd495be14708346a62fb6cce7b/e68d7a810003da56-30/s540x810/42e05361274158eb63fffd714a11a37d665d9339.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

34Eleven

https://64.media.tumblr.com/3bbda6b4fb2f9c39ddf948ea52f87c78/eb0a8564071248e0-7c/s540x810/16eeaba23136d3c4e152b4ccf27c9825d906c77f.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

[kph06]

A crane is up on the Wedgewood area. I remember seeing a proposal a few years ago from WM Fares for the final buildout of this multi unit area. I think it will be higher than the other buildings which are all in the four floor range.

[Dmajackson]

The Biscuit General Store is now open at The Zion (Gottingen & Falkland).

https://64.media.tumblr.com/2561703f7289b09a7f8a665997cccf5e/0b0e401e1115d603-c1/s540x810/cf6bf3064fc1bc38c8c4908f876bdc0d0772778a.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

[Keith P.]

Seems like a poor location for such a store.

[Drybrain]

The Biscuit General Store is now open at The Zion (Gottingen & Falkland).

https://64.media.tumblr.com/2561703f7289b09a7f8a665997cccf5e/0b0e401e1115d603-c1/s540x810/cf6bf3064fc1bc38c8c4908f876bdc0d0772778a.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

This building looks pretty good--when it's dark and you can only see the facade illumination.

[someone123]

This building looks pretty good--when it's dark and you can only see the facade illumination.

I'm kinda torn on these buildings. I wish they were better but I think in aggregate they do make for more interesting streetscapes than the bland blockbuster style stuff which tends to be lower variance and have fewer stylistic "misses".

I wish there were more good quality restoration and re-creation projects. Halifax has a lot of so-so streetscapes that would be great with 1 or 2 solid buildings built in an older vernacular style. It feels like more progress happened along those lines in the 90's or 2000's (to be sure, mixed in with a huge amount of schlock) even though the city is growing more now and property values are much higher. If somebody produced a kind of marriage of those "White Rose" scaled infill projects mixed in with a bit more art and craftsmanship the results would be great.

I'm looking forward to the proposals for the corner of Barrington and South and those Killam-owned houses along Hollis. Nothing is guaranteed but there is a possibility for those projects to strike a balance between historic character and medium scale density. The old parts of the South End and North End have so much potential.

[Dmajackson]

A crane is up on the Wedgewood area. I remember seeing a proposal a few years ago from WM Fares for the final buildout of this multi unit area. I think it will be higher than the other buildings which are all in the four floor range.

I can't find the specifics either but it is part of the Wedgewood Court community and will be 62 Armstrong Court. I drove up the cul-de-sac yesterday but I couldn't get a good look at the site but the hole does appear to have a small footprint (for a suburban apartment building).

[DigitalNinja]

Looks like it may be this:

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/community-councils/200121hwcc1312.pdf

7 story addition to one of the buildings?

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/community-councils/200218hwcc1012staffpres.pdf