General Updates and News

[Empire]

It might be worthwhile in the future asking again. One of the other things that is underway around heritage is a review of the scoring system. The scoring system is a bit wonky. It unduly favours Victorian stuff and older and doesn't fairly value newer buildings in the evaluation. Category for architect/building is also problematic where it, again, favours a specific type of structure. The old scoring system remains in place for now.

Heritage designation aside, there should be a very strict scoring system to have a demolition permit issued. Entire blocks are being demolished and that has to change. The historic fabric of this city is being eroded and time after time the majority of observers ask why.

[spaustin]

Heritage designation aside, there should be a very strict scoring system to have a demolition permit issued. Entire blocks are being demolished and that has to change. The historic fabric of this city is being eroded and time after time the majority of observers ask why.

All the demolition that has occurred has been unregistered structures. It's been a long, long time since anyone tore down a registered building by waiting out the three year clock (a homeowner is about to do it in Dartmouth, but it's quite rare). The problem is not everything that should be a registered heritage building actually is. At Council's request, HRM staff reviewed all the potential heritage buildings that were identified in HRM by Design and a large portion of them had been demolished since they were identified in 2008. One was actually torn down in a pretty direct response to Councils interest! Council asked to undertake a process to consider all the remaining potential buildings and that process brought the first batch to Council in early 2020 (Queen/Birmingham and Pizza Corner area). Council proved gutless about registering over owner objections though, forgetting that that's how many of our existing heritage buildings came to be in the 1970s/1980s. There are still several more batches of potential buildings for Council to consider stemming from that HRM by Design motion, many of which are really worth saving, but I think staff have been reluctant to bring them forward given how things turned out with the first attempt. The election though has replaced several councillors who would have been definite nos to registering against a property owner's wishes so it's really hard to say where this will go from here.

On demolition permits, there is no scoring system. If a building isn't registered we have no ability to refuse. If a building is registered, HRM can reject it, but the owner can then wait the three years set out in the Heritage Property Act and then proceed anyway. It's a big flaw in the Act, but it thankfully hasn't really been exploited. 64 Wentworth Street in Downtown Dartmouth will be the first registered building to be demolished in a long time when the owner finishes running out the clock later this year.

[Empire]

All the demolition that has occurred has been unregistered structures. It's been a long, long time since anyone tore down a registered building by waiting out the three year clock (a homeowner is about to do it in Dartmouth, but it's quite rare). The problem is not everything that should be a registered heritage building actually is. At Council's request, HRM staff reviewed all the potential heritage buildings that were identified in HRM by Design and a large portion of them had been demolished since they were identified in 2008. One was actually torn down in a pretty direct response to Councils interest! Council asked to undertake a process to consider all the remaining potential buildings and that process brought the first batch to Council in early 2020 (Queen/Birmingham and Pizza Corner area). Council proved gutless about registering over owner objections though, forgetting that that's how many of our existing heritage buildings came to be in the 1970s/1980s. There are still several more batches of potential buildings for Council to consider stemming from that HRM by Design motion, many of which are really worth saving, but I think staff have been reluctant to bring them forward given how things turned out with the first attempt. The election though has replaced several councillors who would have been definite nos to registering against a property owner's wishes so it's really hard to say where this will go from here.

On demolition permits, there is no scoring system. If a building isn't registered we have no ability to refuse. If a building is registered, HRM can reject it, but the owner can then wait the three years set out in the Heritage Property Act and then proceed anyway. It's a big flaw in the Act, but it thankfully hasn't really been exploited. 64 Wentworth Street in Downtown Dartmouth will be the first registered building to be demolished in a long time when the owner finishes running out the clock later this year.

"On demolition permits, there is no scoring system. If a building isn't registered we have no ability to refuse."

This is the flaw in a struggling system. A structure that has survived in this town for 100+ years deserves to be protected from demolition unless there is a compelling case to destroy it. The general outcome is to replace buildings of historical and architectural merit with very bland structures, or worse, parking lots. Time is running out to protect this important and unique aspect of the character of Halifax.

[Keith P.]

If HRM is hell-bent on registering and protecting "heritage" buildings over the property owner's objections, then they should buy it and restore it themselves rather than trample all over the owner's property rights. It's not like they do not have the cash. 64 Wentworth is a prime example. It is simply an old house that has been altered and changed so much over the years that it does not in any way appear noteworthy to the passerby.

[Drybrain]

If HRM is hell-bent on registering and protecting "heritage" buildings over the property owner's objections, then they should buy it and restore it themselves rather than trample all over the owner's property rights.

There’s absolutely a property-rights argument here, and there are silly examples of situations where property owners have been prevented from using their properties in reasonable ways due to heritage laws.

But I truly believe that if you own a century-old building in a visible location in the core of a city whose civic identity, social fabric and economic wellbeing is partly based on that history, there is a collective social interest that trumps absolute property rights. There’s a public good to be considered as well. In a situation like Queen/Birmingham, we have one person—or a small number, anyway—making a decision that will have a significant, permanent, negative impact on our city’s built form, which I’d bet most Haligonians would find lamentable.

A city government, as an expression of the broader popular sentiment, saying “you can do lots with this building, but that falls short of destroying it,” doesn’t scan to me like a violation of property rights, at all. It’s merely an acknowledgement that property rights are not absolute, and never have been.

The fact that so many on council, including the mayor, think heritage registration is a terrible incursion into property rights really highlights the way those rights for many have become sacrosanct, with public good playing a distant second fiddle.

[spaustin]

If HRM is hell-bent on registering and protecting "heritage" buildings over the property owner's objections, then they should buy it and restore it themselves rather than trample all over the owner's property rights. It's not like they do not have the cash. 64 Wentworth is a prime example. It is simply an old house that has been altered and changed so much over the years that it does not in any way appear noteworthy to the passerby.

You have no idea what you're talking about on 64 Wentworth. The house is probably in the top 10 in terms of age in Dartmouth. There are only three others that I can think of that are older. HRM wide, staff indicate top 10% for age easily. It dates back to the early 1800s (exact date unknown, conservative guess approximately 1840). It's a classic Cape Cod. Staff have been into it with the owner's permission and it's in good condition and could be restored with an owner that cared to. The only big modification that really takes away from how it should look from a heritage perspective is the symmetrical dormers that should be poking out of the roof on front were joined into one at some point along the way. That could be easily restored again if there was a will and with a giant backyard, the owner could also significantly intensify the lot while still keeping this building.

[Keith P.]

You have no idea what you're talking about on 64 Wentworth. The house is probably in the top 10 in terms of age in Dartmouth. There are only three others that I can think of that are older. HRM wide, staff indicate top 10% for age easily. It dates back to the early 1800s (exact date unknown, conservative guess approximately 1840). It's a classic Cape Cod. Staff have been into it with the owner's permission and it's in good condition and could be restored with an owner that cared to. The only big modification that really takes away from how it should look from a heritage perspective is the symmetrical dormers that should be poking out of the roof on front were joined into one at some point along the way. That could be easily restored again if there was a will and with a giant backyard, the owner could also significantly intensify the lot while still keeping this building.

I'm pretty sure that large addition off the back isn't original either. And then you put a pile of money into restoring it and you are left with original spaces that have very low ceilings, cost a fortune to bring up to code, and that still have major functional deficiencies that impacts the economic return.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's the classic struggle of 'economic return' vs preservation of history.

As it stands, economics wins out 99.9999999999999% of the time. Fair enough, as the business community (or the private owner) has no real responsibility to respect or preserve history, and every legal advantage to preserve their financial investment. Again, justified, as not everybody (business or private) has a barrel of money to throw into restoring or even preserving a particular building to a reasonable historic standard. They want to use their property as intended, if they've spent the money on it. Put this further, if the economics add up to be able to profit from buying a particular building, tear it down, and build a new building, then that's business.

Economics wins pretty much every time, unless there is a will to balance the scales so that it's more in favour of preserving/restoring buildings that 'deserve' it (see: "scoring system") and allowing less significant examples fall to the will of economics.

The question is how to make that happen...
- You have to have a council that understands and appreciates the historical/cultural value of our older structures, as it has been stated that Halifax lauds itself to be an historic city - which it is... this doesn't need explanation.
- You have to have rules/regulations/incentives/etc that actually dissuades the improper treatment of historic structures, and ideally creates a good business case for preservation/restoration, or at least respect for the structures if incorporating them into a new structure (see Waverley Inn - so it's possible to do this).
- You have to have a business community that can get its head out of its own ass (pardon my English) long enough to see the daylight and to understand that development methods have changed in the past 50 years. There are better, more nuanced ways of development that don't fall under the classic formula of 'tear down old, build new'.

IMHO, the second point is the most important. There needs to be leadership by a government that actually understands the significance of historic structures in Halifax, and one that has enough confidence in itself to be able to go out there and make things happen, not one that continually knuckles under to the business community if somebody cries 'foul'. From Sam's intimations, it appears that we may have elements of both in our current iteration, but unfortunately it seems like the 'knuckle under' crew has the upper hand.

:2cents:

[someone123]

I think part of the problem is that heritage preservation and character preservation are really 2 different things and the heritage registration scoring does a mediocre job of capturing the character-defining public elements of the city that people care about. To illustrate the example think of the old pioneer log cabins preserved as the "oldest house" in some cities, or modest houses of famous people that are preserved. Then contrast that with the Maritime Life building torn down on Spring Garden Road.

I think Halifax should invest more in preserving and building its unique local character, and the potential payoff is huge.

To me the property rights angle is overplayed and I don't hear it much except in a Halifax context. I don't see developers who bought heritage properties 5-10 years ago that are now worth 2x what they were as victims, and I think there is a lot of room to make development work well while also preserving character (transferrable density bonuses, heritage grants, etc.).

Another thing I noticed is HRM uses fixed dates for property scoring. I'm not sure if these get updated. A 1922 structure is now 100 years old. For some reason, "old = Victorian or older" seems to have stuck around for many decades.

[Keith P.]

If I buy an old run-down house that is unregistered as a heritage property because it is just an old run-down house then I should be able to do what I want to it. But the Councillor is suggesting that busybody outsiders can impose that designation on my property without my consent and make it economically impossible to do anything to it while also significantly devaluing my asset.

If you can tell me how that is in any way fair or just I would be interested to see it.

[Drybrain]

If I buy an old run-down house that is unregistered as a heritage property because it is just an old run-down house then I should be able to do what I want to it. But the Councillor is suggesting that busybody outsiders can impose that designation on my property without my consent and make it economically impossible to do anything to it while also significantly devaluing my asset.



Only if private-property rights are presumed to override all else, including broader public interest. Which they don't. As for devaluing assets: it's not the city's job to protect property owners' speculative wealth.

If the city in some way knowingly devastates existing property value, that's bad.

If the city imposes a heritage or zoning designation that merely limits future revenue potential a property owner was anticipating (say, due to hypothetical future development) that's a tough break for the property owner, but it's certainly not an injustice.

[Dmajackson]

6421-25 North Street were demolished today. These were two houses right where North merges onto Chebucto.

[Keith P.]

Only if private-property rights are presumed to override all else, including broader public interest. Which they don't. As for devaluing assets: it's not the city's job to protect property owners' speculative wealth.

If the city in some way knowingly devastates existing property value, that's bad.

If the city imposes a heritage or zoning designation that merely limits future revenue potential a property owner was anticipating (say, due to hypothetical future development) that's a tough break for the property owner, but it's certainly not an injustice.

Easy for you to say.

All this does is force the property owner to find another way to liquidate the asset for something approaching its actual value. So you end up with a mysterious fire overnight, leaving the water on inside a locked-up property long enough that it is irreparably damaged, or some such thing.

[Dartguard]

Only if private-property rights are presumed to override all else, including broader public interest. Which they don't. As for devaluing assets: it's not the city's job to protect property owners' speculative wealth.

If the city in some way knowingly devastates existing property value, that's bad.

If the city imposes a heritage or zoning designation that merely limits future revenue potential a property owner was anticipating (say, due to hypothetical future development) that's a tough break for the property owner, but it's certainly not an injustice.

I wonder there dry if you own any property? As a homeowner I have to say that private property rights most definitely override all else especially in the second coldest Country on Earth.

[Drybrain]

I wonder there dry if you own any property? As a homeowner I have to say that private property rights most definitely override all else especially in the second coldest Country on Earth.

I own my home. I'm not sure what the weather has to do with this though.

[Saul Goode]

I wonder there dry if you own any property? As a homeowner I have to say that private property rights most definitely override all else

Well...that's a pretty bold statement, which, if you want to be technical about it, actually is not true. There is no constitutional right to property in Canada. Setting aside aboriginal claims for the moment for the purposes of this discussion, in our system of law all land in Canada originally belonged to the Crown, and even today, in the final analysis, the Crown can take it back at any time. The various federal and provincial expropriation statutes provide some protection, so that the government currently can't take it without a valid public purpose and fair compensation. But because those laws are statutory - i.e., created by Parliament and the legislatures - and have no constitutional protection, they can be amended or repealed at any time at the whim of government.

Of course, that's unlikely, and would come with a political price, but as I said, I'm speaking technically. As title searchers I used to know were fond of saying, ultimately Liz owns everything.

[Keith P.]

Well...that's a pretty bold statement, which, if you want to be technical about it, actually is not true. There is no constitutional right to property in Canada. Setting aside aboriginal claims for the moment for the purposes of this discussion, in our system of law all land in Canada originally belonged to the Crown, and even today, in the final analysis, the Crown can take it back at any time. The various federal and provincial expropriation statutes provide some protection, so that the government currently can't take it without a valid public purpose and fair compensation. But because those laws are statutory - i.e., created by Parliament and the legislatures - and have no constitutional protection, they can be amended or repealed at any time at the whim of government.

Of course, that's unlikely, and would come with a political price, but as I said, I'm speaking technically. As title searchers I used to know were fond of saying, ultimately Liz owns everything.

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Fidel did to property owners in Cuba after La Revolution, or Comrade Lenin in the '20s, or Chairman Mao in 1949.* Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

*Edited to change totalitarian despot references to more appropriate leftist examples

[Drybrain]

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Adolf did to Jewish property owners in Germany in the 1930s. Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

That escalated fast!

[Dartguard]

Well...that's a pretty bold statement, which, if you want to be technical about it, actually is not true. There is no constitutional right to property in Canada. Setting aside aboriginal claims for the moment for the purposes of this discussion, in our system of law all land in Canada originally belonged to the Crown, and even today, in the final analysis, the Crown can take it back at any time. The various federal and provincial expropriation statutes provide some protection, so that the government currently can't take it without a valid public purpose and fair compensation. But because those laws are statutory - i.e., created by Parliament and the legislatures - and have no constitutional protection, they can be amended or repealed at any time at the whim of government.

Of course, that's unlikely, and would come with a political price, but as I said, I'm speaking technically. As title searchers I used to know were fond of saying, ultimately Liz owns everything.

Well Liz will be our 'in the right of " until Nature takes its course and who knows perhaps Canadians might decide to skip Chuck. I am far more concerned with the social license being established by many public pronouncements of unseeded land of this or that Indigenous group. Say it often enough it becomes a legal trial when the positive example of Membertou obliterates any unseeded virtue signal.

[Saul Goode]

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Adolf did to Jewish property owners in Germany in the 1930s. Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

...which is precisely why I was careful to say that I was only speaking in technical terms and that amending or repealing expropriation statutes was highly unlikely. Perhaps you missed those highly salient points. (Note to self: next time, use boldface, italics and underlining.)

[Keith P.]

...which is precisely why I was careful to say that I was only speaking in technical terms and that amending or repealing expropriation statutes was highly unlikely. Perhaps you missed those highly salient points. (Note to self: next time, use boldface, italics and underlining.)

I understood exactly what you were saying and how you were saying it. None of that discounts the fact that you were suggesting individuals do not have rights to property when faced with the heavy hand of govt.

[Saul Goode]

I understood exactly what you were saying and how you were saying it. None of that discounts the fact that you were suggesting individuals do not have rights to property when faced with the heavy hand of govt.

I wasn't suggesting it at all - I was stating it as a simple fact of law.

[Empire]

When an individual or developer purchases a building in the historic center of Halifax they should be well aware that there will be significant pushback to any attempt to demolish the building. The pushback appears to be greater from the general public than from council or planning. Now that development has finally reached brownfield sites in the Robie St. area, council should exercise more authority to protect our unique architecture in and around downtown. The opportunity for significant increased tax revenue through new development is not limited to the downtown now.

IMO height limits have done a lot of damage to the historic fabric of the city. Areas that can accommodate tall buildings without demolition of historic architecture should become a focus of council. Cogswell and the Robie / Kempt Rd. strip are prime areas where additional height should be permitted. Limiting height in areas that are well equipped to manage additional height is placing increased pressure on historic structures.

The concept of owner’s absolute rights was evident in the loss of grand architecture on Young Ave. where vacant lots now sit inside poorly installed security fencing (1). In link (2) below, we can see that the building on the right was not subject to any architectural guidelines even though it is in a historic streetscape. Property owners must abide by a myriad of regulations when modifying a property through the building permit system. Fences are to be limited to a certain height, garden sheds require a minimum setback from the property line and street set backs for housing additions (must align with neighbouring properties) etc. The building permit system should have protective covenants for historic features. If a perspective home owner intends to remove the historic character of building in the downtown area and there are regulations in place to prevent that, then they are free to purchase in a neighbourhood without such restrictions.

After all of the destruction and demolition that has occurred in Halifax, it is very disappointing that unique and quality architecture such as 1535 Birmingham can be destroyed with such ease (3).

(1) Young Ave. lost architecture:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6319853,-63.5745799,3a,75y,76.42h,72.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sifDjM6nJAf6NcCVJ5lsiWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

(2) Historic features lacking:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6521816,-63.5842751,3a,75y,303.76h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHss3hU_0t_As0RMOtAW67w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(3) Birmingham – Halifax architecture under threat:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6437383,-63.5772687,3a,75y,100.86h,103.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdndtInWn5YDS-K7jH5_zzw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[JET]

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Adolf did to Jewish property owners in Germany in the 1930s. Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

No Keith it is what is done in England, the guys that defeated Hitler. In England old property is protected, and ownership does not trump that.

[beyeas]

No Keith it is what is done in England, the guys that defeated Hitler. In England old property is protected, and ownership does not trump that.

Invoking Nazi treatment of Jews to try and silence someone's opinion. A new low even for him.

You are absolutely right. England in fact has quite strong laws when it comes to limitations on historic built property, which do not trump ownership. I remember when a colleague of mine who owns an old home near Cambridge was doing a renovation, and by law was required to use a specific historically accurate form of plastering using horse hair mixed with the plaster. The fact that she owned the property did not change the fact that by law she was obligated to maintain the heritage of it.

[Keith P.]

Invoking Nazi treatment of Jews to try and silence someone's opinion. A new low even for him.

I should report your post for deliberate characterization of what I wrote as something completely different than what was written. No surprise though considering the source.

The overreaching power of English Council govts to act as gods over those trying to develop small businesses or renovate their homes is intoxicating stuff for those who love the heavy hand of govt intrusion. Fortunately it never really caught on over here in the colonies.

[Empire]

I should report your post for deliberate characterization of what I wrote as something completely different than what was written. No surprise though considering the source.

The overreaching power of English Council govts to act as gods over those trying to develop small businesses or renovate their homes is intoxicating stuff for those who love the heavy hand of govt intrusion. Fortunately it never really caught on over here in the colonies.

Too bad it hasn't caught on "over here" have you looked around this town and really analyzed the new architectural style of Halifax?

[OldDartmouthMark]

I keep expecting to see the word "freedom" used in this tripe about property rights. :rolleyes:

There are standards imposed in every part of our lives that most of us willingly agree to - it's part of living in a civilized society. More on topic: having special requirements imposed to treat heritage properties properly are in principle no different than the many other requirements that are imposed on buildings in various city environments. Yet some of you only complain if it involves saving or restoring a heritage building.

Meanwhile, the people who create the loudest resistance against heritage preservation are on the side that wins 99% of the time anyhow. Curious, that.

[Keith P.]

There are standards imposed in every part of our lives that most of us willingly agree to - it's part of living in a civilized society.

The example being discussed was the most egregious in recent times but sadly far from unique. The abuse of unchecked power by govts everywhere inevitably leads to the trampling of citizens who do not comply. Examples abound. Govt is capable of great good, but also great evil if it heads down the wrong path. It all depends on how one defines "the greater good".

[JET]

I should report your post for deliberate characterization of what I wrote as something completely different than what was written. No surprise though considering the source.

The overreaching power of English Council govts to act as gods over those trying to develop small businesses or renovate their homes is intoxicating stuff for those who love the heavy hand of govt intrusion. Fortunately it never really caught on over here in the colonies.

Anyone who uses the term ‘Uncle Adolf’ really can’t accuse others of using inappropriate statements, it does seem to be a tactic used by conservatives who make ridiculous statements yet appear offended when held accountable.

[Keith P.]

Anyone who uses the term ‘Uncle Adolf’ really can’t accuse others of using inappropriate statements, it does seem to be a tactic used by conservatives who make ridiculous statements yet appear offended when held accountable.

Fine then. I will edit my original comment.

[JET]

Fine then. I will edit my original comment.

Maybe just delete it, and the rest of us can do the same with any related posts; might result in improved discourse.

[JET]

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Fidel did to property owners in Cuba after La Revolution, or Comrade Lenin in the '20s, or Chairman Mao in 1949.* Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

*Edited to change totalitarian despot references to more appropriate leftist examples

Fidel did take property from Americans and have it owned by Cubans, I suggest we do that in Chester

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51892917371_b5048100c5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4ALpV)20220219_115958_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4ALpV) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51892917306_cb55fac97a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4ALoN)20220219_115934_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4ALoN) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr


I couldn't seem to find an EastWest thread for this project on West Street so I'll park these pics here. The stone-work cladding which from a distance appears to be sandstone is actually solid concrete block. Nice looking building. Nice windows. Solid.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51892056712_2419bfbd7d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4wmyY)20220219_114757_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4wmyY) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51893351909_628fcc2403_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4CZzX)20220219_114841_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4CZzX) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

Brewery Park is looking great.

[OldDartmouthMark]

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Fidel did to property owners in Cuba after La Revolution, or Comrade Lenin in the '20s, or Chairman Mao in 1949.* Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

*Edited to change totalitarian despot references to more appropriate leftist examples

I still have to question the idea that acts of communist revolution are equivalent to a law that's been on the books in Canada since 'forever' and is rarely (if ever) used? Not to mention that compensation to land owners is required (not that this would completely negate the negative effects of having your land expropriated). However, I do understand that your statement is meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek so enough about that.

All that said, I still don't think it applies to heritage buildings. There's a difference between having your property taken away from you and being required to maintain certain heritage elements of your building.

[Good Baklava]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51892056712_2419bfbd7d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4wmyY)20220219_114757_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4wmyY) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51893351909_628fcc2403_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4CZzX)20220219_114841_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4CZzX) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

Brewery Park is looking great.

Looks cute and all but I can’t help but point out how cheap the finishings are. It could be a Halifax exhibit in one of those Chinese theme parks that emulates other parts of the world.

[Jonovision]

I think they look quite nice. But hard to tell the quality from the pics.
Is that stucco though on the two end pieces? I remember that being a material that was no longer allowed?!

[Keith P.]

Looks cute and all but I can’t help but point out how cheap the finishings are. It could be a Halifax exhibit in one of those Chinese theme parks that emulates other parts of the world.

No good deed goes unpunished by some in this forum.

[Keith P.]

I still have to question the idea that acts of communist revolution are equivalent to a law that's been on the books in Canada since 'forever' and is rarely (if ever) used? Not to mention that compensation to land owners is required (not that this would completely negate the negative effects of having your land expropriated). However, I do understand that your statement is meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek so enough about that.

All that said, I still don't think it applies to heritage buildings. There's a difference between having your property taken away from you and being required to maintain certain heritage elements of your building.

We were talking about a slightly different situation though. That being Coun Sam I Am Austin and some of his supporters here looking to designate privately-owned and barely qualifying old properties as "heritage" over the objections of their owners and without much groundswell of support from neighbors, who do not want the same to happen to their properties.

That does not mean they are taking away the property, but that they are imposing significant costs and restrictions upon the property owner should they ever wish to renovate. So no, Mr. Property Owner, you cannot use drywall, you must use horsehair plaster. And no, you cannot use clapboard siding, you must use cedar shingles and must paint them only certain approved colors. And forget about building that addition.

[MonctonRad]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51893351909_628fcc2403_b.jpg

I like the building with the turquoise or dark green siding, but the other three buildings look like cheap facsimile faux historical buildings, that, yes, might be found in a Disney World theme park somewhere.

If you are going for a historical look, then please do a better job with your cladding choices - thanks. :)

[spaustin]

So no, Mr. Property Owner, you cannot use drywall, you must use horsehair plaster. And no, you cannot use clapboard siding, you must use cedar shingles and must paint them only certain approved colors. And forget about building that addition.

Nice strawman. Heritage designations don't apply to the inside of a building so use whatever drywall or plaster your heart desires. There are no approved colours. Registered heritage buildings each have their own character statement that defines what the essential elements are that are to be preserved and what is listed will obviously vary by building. So what exterior materials are allowed will vary, but it's not going to be as narrow as "cedar." And no, you can add onto a heritage building. It requires an extra step of applying to HRM for a modification and there is a risk of a no if the proposed addition is poorly designed, but generally people get to yes. In fact, in most instances now, a registered heritage building grants more rights than would otherwise be the case. We've had several developers applying to register so that they can exceed what the planning rules would otherwise allow through a development agreement.

[Good Baklava]

No good deed goes unpunished by some in this forum.

Good deed? It’s just business…

[Drybrain]

We were talking about a slightly different situation though. That being Coun Sam I Am Austin and some of his supporters here looking to designate privately-owned and barely qualifying old properties as "heritage" over the objections of their owners and without much groundswell of support from neighbors, who do not want the same to happen to their properties.

That does not mean they are taking away the property, but that they are imposing significant costs and restrictions upon the property owner should they ever wish to renovate. So no, Mr. Property Owner, you cannot use drywall, you must use horsehair plaster. And no, you cannot use clapboard siding, you must use cedar shingles and must paint them only certain approved colors. And forget about building that addition.

As Sam said, very much a strawman argument here. I live in the Hydrostone, and in many cities, in many countries, exterior renovations in a historic district like this would have to conform to original massing and materials and reinforce that heritage.

But this neighbourhood is a hodge-podge of siding materials, awkward portruding additions and character-diminishing "renovations."

I'm not necessarily saying that we should have super-restrictive rules around how historic buildings can look. Sometimes those restrictions go too far, assuredly. But Halifax absolutely does not have overly restrictive rules.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

The covid huts at the Bicycle Thief restaraunt are quite nice. Two of the three were occupied when I walked by mid afternoon today.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51895662256_d765ab846e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4QQnw)20220221_143710_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4QQnw) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51895747468_728c840135_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n4RgGG)20220221_143725_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/2n4RgGG) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

[OldDartmouthMark]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51893351909_628fcc2403_b.jpg

I like the building with the turquoise or dark green siding, but the other three buildings look like cheap facsimile faux historical buildings, that, yes, might be found in a Disney World theme park somewhere.

If you are going for a historical look, then please do a better job with your cladding choices - thanks. :)

That kind of sums up my thoughts on them. I wasn't actually going to comment until I read your differentiation of the green vs other sections of the building.

IMHO, which is very much a layman's opinion, the green section on its own, at first glance, could pass for a 100+ year old building that had received some updates (i.e. new windows, etc). The other sections are missing details that make me want to say "nice try", but not quite there... with the outer sections looking kind of bland and featureless, with only the rounded top windows to indicate that it's an attempt at replicating an older building. Maybe an added cornice or some other features to give depth to the facades?

All that said, I do like the general look of the entire ground floor section.

To keep it all in context, I have only seen these pics and have not viewed it in person... so I might think differently seeing it on the ground.

Overall, though, not bad... certainly a step up from some of the bland architecture that has been built in Halifax recently. I applaud them for trying to make the new development fit in well with its surroundings.

[someone123]

I cleaned up a few posts in here that were not really development related. Please try to be friendly to other posters and not inflammatory.

[someone123]

Overall, though, not bad... certainly a step up from some of the bland architecture that has been built in Halifax recently. I applaud them for trying to make the new development fit in well with its surroundings.

I think the storefronts are a nice addition. Agreed that the two facades on the ends in particular look a bit simple/fake and don't seem to borrow much from styles in the area. You could say the same with the mansard roof portion but it looks better to me. The two "end" facades would look better with cornices. This is true of a lot of Halifax buildings including heritage buildings where the cornice deteriorated and then got replaced with some sheet metal.

One tiny thing that bothers me is how the roofline of the facade with the "brewery park" sign is obviously fake, with the dark metal visible above.

If we take a step back and consider the neighbourhood this is a good change. There are some renovations happening, some medium-sized apartment-style buildings, and then this adds to the commercial spaces. Agricola seems to be improving a lot.

[MastClimberPro]

1) I own (and live in) a heritage property on North Street and would like to weigh in on this property rights business. I love the drafty old junk heap I live in. It has many well preserved features and many that date back only 10 years. I have made many improvement inside that are thoroughly modern but have made many more in the spirit of preserving its old timey charm. But who am I to judge? Sometimes I veer from the old way because its cheaper or I'm lazy and just want to get something done. Sometimes I labour to preserve something even if I'm not entirely sure what's accurate to 1891. That's the inside.

On the street face, I absolutely take the time to consult with folks who know before renovating, restoring or repairing anything. I feel like I owe it to the city. When it comes time to sell the place I'd be happy to take a bit of a hit on resale to invoke a covenant that would prevent the future demolition of the place (if such a thing were legal). But that's me. Because heritage renovations are pricey, they have gone slowly for me. I can't afford to do many things "by the book" so they get pushed off and pushed off. As a result the place looks like crap in some ways, and I'm sure it keeps some resale value off my neighbour's places, so its not with out negative impacts on others in my immediate community.

2) When it come to "should the city be able to dictate the preservation of an historic home/building" the answer for me is yes. Obviously the city has to function as a city and as such, individual property "rights" will occasionally need to take a back seat. When they changed the approach to the Halifax side of MacDonald bridge houses were acquired by the city and torn down to accommodate it. Was that wise? Who knows/ Cities are complicated and run by humans so mistakes are inevitable. Properties are also owned by humans, so just because its an individual doesn't means they're gonna get it right either.

However, if we are making the argument that the exterior of a building (or the entirety of the building itself) is somehow part of the public trust because it influences how we collectively feel about a place, that should come with significant public responsibility to pay for the preservation of such. It would introduce thorny questions (like "How that would impact how much the property owner gets paid on resale") but these would probably be soluble, if imperfectly.

3) What's lost in this discussion I feel is the problem with R2 zoning generally. If significant rules begin to be imposed upon older structures the pressures that would put on the market would need to be resolved in someway other than sprawl. The west end and south end areas have ably employed NIMBYism to avoid big changes to their neighbourhoods at the expense of (let's call it) Old Town Halifax.

The large and largely unprotected (heritage wise) areas away from Old Town should be more of a weapons-free environment. Even if no new rules about heritage protection were instituted, public push back and costs of development would have some cooling effect on the pressure to diminish the heritage inventory of the city.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

One Man's Opinion

[Keith P.]

I cleaned up a few posts in here that were not really development related. Please try to be friendly to other posters and not inflammatory.

You removed my response to Austin, which I did not believe was inflammatory, but did not remove his original slam at me. I expect better TBH.

[OldDartmouthMark]

1) I own (and live in) a heritage property on North Street and would like to weigh in on this property rights business. I love the drafty old junk heap I live in. It has many well preserved features and many that date back only 10 years. I have made many improvement inside that are thoroughly modern but have made many more in the spirit of preserving its old timey charm. But who am I to judge? Sometimes I veer from the old way because its cheaper or I'm lazy and just want to get something done. Sometimes I labour to preserve something even if I'm not entirely sure what's accurate to 1891. That's the inside.

On the street face, I absolutely take the time to consult with folks who know before renovating, restoring or repairing anything. I feel like I owe it to the city. When it comes time to sell the place I'd be happy to take a bit of a hit on resale to invoke a covenant that would prevent the future demolition of the place (if such a thing were legal). But that's me. Because heritage renovations are pricey, they have gone slowly for me. I can't afford to do many things "by the book" so they get pushed off and pushed off. As a result the place looks like crap in some ways, and I'm sure it keeps some resale value off my neighbour's places, so its not with out negative impacts on others in my immediate community.

2) When it come to "should the city be able to dictate the preservation of an historic home/building" the answer for me is yes. Obviously the city has to function as a city and as such, individual property "rights" will occasionally need to take a back seat. When they changed the approach to the Halifax side of MacDonald bridge houses were acquired by the city and torn down to accommodate it. Was that wise? Who knows/ Cities are complicated and run by humans so mistakes are inevitable. Properties are also owned by humans, so just because its an individual doesn't means they're gonna get it right either.

However, if we are making the argument that the exterior of a building (or the entirety of the building itself) is somehow part of the public trust because it influences how we collectively feel about a place, that should come with significant public responsibility to pay for the preservation of such. It would introduce thorny questions (like "How that would impact how much the property owner gets paid on resale") but these would probably be soluble, if imperfectly.

3) What's lost in this discussion I feel is the problem with R2 zoning generally. If significant rules begin to be imposed upon older structures the pressures that would put on the market would need to be resolved in someway other than sprawl. The west end and south end areas have ably employed NIMBYism to avoid big changes to their neighbourhoods at the expense of (let's call it) Old Town Halifax.

The large and largely unprotected (heritage wise) areas away from Old Town should be more of a weapons-free environment. Even if no new rules about heritage protection were instituted, public push back and costs of development would have some cooling effect on the pressure to diminish the heritage inventory of the city.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

One Man's Opinion

Great post. I appreciate your take on the experience of actually owning and working to improve one of these older places that make up the built heritage of our city. Also, I think your approach in terms of its value to the city is very fair-minded - it's respectful to historical value but also realistic in terms of responsibilities and expectations.

In one of my previous posts I alluded to the idea (I may not have stated it clearly) that there should be some sort of financial 'equalizer' when it becomes a city requirement to maintain the exterior appearance to some sort of historical standard. In fact, I believe there are grants available in some areas (Barrington Street comes to mind) to help offset the costs to the owners to repair/restore the appearance of their buildings from streetside. Your part (2) touches on this as well. It wouldn't have to be grants per se, but perhaps a tax break to take a bit of the sting off the costs, which would remove an overall negligible amount from the overall tax base, while returning benefit to the city in an amount not measurable in financial terms, but certainly an improvement to the overall quality and character of neighborhoods.

Anyhow, enough of my rambling. Thanks for your post!

[JonHiseler]

Demolition fencing is now up around the site of St Josephs - A Mackay school on Russell/Kaye St. Playground structure was already removed. This is in preparation of a 2 year project for the site. It was originally going to be a renovation(?) (reference (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mcneil-government-announces-9-new-schools-1.4641537)), but now appears to be a demolish and rebuild (ref (https://www.hrce.ca/sites/default/files/hrsb/dpw_letter_homeowners_work_schedule-oct2021.pdf))

Teardown has begun

https://i.imgur.com/Qel0wJi.jpeg

via reddit user meetc (https://old.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/t0l8n7/end_of_an_era/)

[MeEtc]

Yeah, that's my photo!

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I do hope that this ugliness is very temporary. Home owners nearby should get a property tax reduction and free psychological counselling so that they may avoid PTSD.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51944481159_15f8df9178_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n9a3wK)IMG-20220317-WA0006 (https://flic.kr/p/2n9a3wK) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51944245113_bff133a069_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n98QmZ)IMG-20220317-WA0007 (https://flic.kr/p/2n98QmZ) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

[IanWatson]

so that they may avoid PTSD.

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

[mleblanc]

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

Yeah, found that comment a bit tasteless to be honest. It's unfortunate all around, but the owners of houses across the street are not the ones truly suffering in this situation.

[someone123]

One irony here is that housing was proposed for the empty lot right next to this and the city fought it (IIRC it was one of those "let's use the hotel zoning technicality to fight more housing" scenarios; if a hotel is reasonable then an apartment building of similar size is reasonable). The capacity of appropriate housing construction on these empty sites would be far higher than the trailers. Perhaps the trailer inhabitants would not have moved into those particular buildings but expanding the supply would rebalance the market at a more favourable, affordable, and plentiful equilibrium.

[Keith P.]

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

Those who have taken over Meagher Park have far bigger problems than PTSD. They should be in institutions.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

I have no doubt that you are correct and that the list of both mental and physical health issues these people suffer is extensive and deserves great sympathy and intervention. Soooo....lets make things worse by not addressing the neighbours? I feel for the neighbours of Meagher Park and suspect some of them will suffer long lasting negative affect.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Yeah, found that comment a bit tasteless to be honest. It's unfortunate all around, but the owners of houses across the street are not the ones truly suffering in this situation.

People seem easily offended these days. I don't think it bodes well for future constructive and problem solving conversations.

[OldDartmouthMark]

.

[coastalkid]

Not sure if there is a thread for this one on West Street (behind Harris East):

https://i.imgur.com/C0gNYWjh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/wkq62nth.jpg

[mleblanc]

People seem easily offended these days. I don't think it bodes well for future constructive and problem solving conversations.

I agree, why are people so offended about homeless people existing?

[Dartguard]

I agree, why are people so offended about homeless people existing?

The human condition, the space and time, and of the ebb and tides of those
circumstances present us all with the question, of there go I? Having said that, all of us I think sometimes drive or walk by folks in more dire circumstances and ask ourselves. I thought we solved this!!

[coastalkid]

Don't know if there is a thread for this one either but here is an update on 34Eleven on the corner of Joe Howe and Bayers:

https://i.imgur.com/VJBd8F2h.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/VsmA8h7h.jpg

[Colin May]

Will MetroTransit be affected by the increase in fuel costs ?

[Keith P.]

Will MetroTransit be affected by the increase in fuel costs ?

Well, they are currently mostly a hole in the earth's crust into which HRM pours tax dollars, so the increase in fuel costs simply means the hole has gotten larger.

[teddifax]

I have always been disappointed in the way Halifax Transit is run.... for a city approaching 500,000 and supposedly on the fast track to one million, there is so much that needs to be done to build it forward and to correct what currently is done. Anyone using the buses knows transfers are ineffective as the schedules aren't synced it seems. Furthermore, it seems every time they make updates/changes, it isn't for the better. We need changes, now! I am not an urban planner or whatever the person is called that will do this work, but I feel it has to come from someone outside with power to make changes. No one with Transit has been able to do anything so far. Give someone else a chance.

[Colin May]

I have always been disappointed in the way Halifax Transit is run.... for a city approaching 500,000 and supposedly on the fast track to one million, there is so much that needs to be done to build it forward and to correct what currently is done. Anyone using the buses knows transfers are ineffective as the schedules aren't synced it seems. Furthermore, it seems every time they make updates/changes, it isn't for the better. We need changes, now! I am not an urban planner or whatever the person is called that will do this work, but I feel it has to come from someone outside with power to make changes. No one with Transit has been able to do anything so far. Give someone else a chance.
The electric 'fast ferry' remains in the capital budget. No supporting analysis has been provided to council but in the world of shiny ponies this is at the top, and it it is predicated on the feds and the province throwing away money on a project which has no value.

[atbw]

I have always been disappointed in the way Halifax Transit is run.... for a city approaching 500,000 and supposedly on the fast track to one million, there is so much that needs to be done to build it forward and to correct what currently is done. Anyone using the buses knows transfers are ineffective as the schedules aren't synced it seems. Furthermore, it seems every time they make updates/changes, it isn't for the better. We need changes, now! I am not an urban planner or whatever the person is called that will do this work, but I feel it has to come from someone outside with power to make changes. No one with Transit has been able to do anything so far. Give someone else a chance.

Yeah, I don't know what the issue is. I am generally OK with service on the peninsula, but there seems to be a lot more issues with routes outside of downtown. We don't even have a modern payment system! In a city of half a million, you can only buy bus tickets at a drug store. No transit terminal sells them.

As for the ferry, I think it is forward-thinking, but we really, really need BRT funded. Its the closest to a modern transit system we'll get for a while.

[Keith P.]

Yeah, I don't know what the issue is. I am generally OK with service on the peninsula, but there seems to be a lot more issues with routes outside of downtown. We don't even have a modern payment system! In a city of half a million, you can only buy bus tickets at a drug store. No transit terminal sells them.

As for the ferry, I think it is forward-thinking, but we really, really need BRT funded. Its the closest to a modern transit system we'll get for a while.

The issue has two prongs. The first is Transit management which is, and has always been, inept. You mention the payment system, and the bus ticket idiocy, which they supposedly have been "working on" for years or perhaps decades with no real change. But it goes far beyond just that. They have never been able to get scheduling or routing correct. They have never been able to sync not just connecting bus routes but also the ferry/bus connections. They have done little to improve the ridership experience once you actually get on a bus. The list is endless.

The other prong is that Transit is in many ways run by the HTU, which is a militant union that has effectively tied the hands of Transit to react to even trivial things that in most environments would be easily handled. People have talked about a bus to certain beaches in the summer on days when the weather allows. That is impossible because the union requires several weeks advance notice to allow their members to pick their assignments, and so Transit cannot react quickly to things like this. If a driver is a jerk or has a bad day and does things that cause a bad user experience like driving recklessly or angrily, there are seldom any consequences because even if Transit tries to discipline the driver, the union typically is able to derail any punitive or corrective action.

The only way to "fix" Transit is to blow it up and put in place different types of organizations to provide the service, preferably as some kind of public/private consortium to eliminate the influence of both the HTU and the inept management currently in place.

[Half-Axed]

"Nova Scotia has designated nine areas in Halifax Regional Municipality as "special planning areas" for developments to help address the housing shortage."

"Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister John Lohr announced the designated areas, which will see up to 22,600 new residential units when complete, on Friday afternoon.

"The special planning areas are:

"Former Penhorn Mall lands, 950 units
Southdale/Mount Hope, 1,200 units
Bedford West 10, 1,300 units
Bedford West 1 and 12, 2,500 units
Port Wallace, up to 4,900 units
Indigo Shores, 150 building lots
Morris Lake expansion, 3,100 units
Dartmouth Crossing, 2,500 units
Sandy Lake, 6,000 units."

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/news/nova-scotia-government-takes-over-development-approvals-in-nine-hrm-areas-100710744/

[teddifax]

All these 9 new areas will help create a lot more traffic getting to and from these developments. As well as there will be more infrastructure required as these areas are, for the most part, not currently built on. This also doesn't help the people living in the downtown areas of Halifax and Dartmouth with housing. Any builds in these areas benefit form existing infrastructure as well. They want to promote walkability, you can't walk downtown from any of these 9 new areas.... AND if they don't take the horrible bus service, they will be driving to work..... Where is the thought put into this???? They had better do a better job at planning transit to and from these areas.....

[Colin May]

All these 9 new areas will help create a lot more traffic getting to and from these developments. As well as there will be more infrastructure required as these areas are, for the most part, not currently built on. This also doesn't help the people living in the downtown areas of Halifax and Dartmouth with housing. Any builds in these areas benefit form existing infrastructure as well. They want to promote walkability, you can't walk downtown from any of these 9 new areas.... AND if they don't take the horrible bus service, they will be driving to work..... Where is the thought put into this???? They had better do a better job at planning transit to and from these areas.....
More people = more traffic....that has been the case since humans walked the earth. Families cannot afford to live on the peninsula and do not want to live in tall buildings and that is what just 16% of HRM residents live on the peninsula and a large swath of them are students. Infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks,sewer,water,power are paid for by the developers.

[Dartguard]

All these 9 new areas will help create a lot more traffic getting to and from these developments. As well as there will be more infrastructure required as these areas are, for the most part, not currently built on. This also doesn't help the people living in the downtown areas of Halifax and Dartmouth with housing. Any builds in these areas benefit form existing infrastructure as well. They want to promote walkability, you can't walk downtown from any of these 9 new areas.... AND if they don't take the horrible bus service, they will be driving to work..... Where is the thought put into this???? They had better do a better job at planning transit to and from these areas.....

The Province stepping in is solving the most important problem for urban Nova Scotia. Affordable housing. Bike lanes, walkable neighborhoods, hipster shops and pocket parks are illusions that have been left behind by the desire of folks to fill N.S. We do not have anything defined as Ontario Traffic or congestion and we would need about a Million more folks to even approach Ontario frustrations.

I welcome the Provinces intervention as hopefully things get done. Quickly.

[Keith P.]

The Province stepping in is solving the most important problem for urban Nova Scotia. Affordable housing. Bike lanes, walkable neighborhoods, hipster shops and pocket parks are illusions that have been left behind by the desire of folks to fill N.S. We do not have anything defined as Ontario Traffic or congestion and we would need about a Million more folks to even approach Ontario frustrations.

I welcome the Provinces intervention as hopefully things get done. Quickly.

This is not about "affordable" housing. This is simply clearing the bottlenecks created by HRM for approval of private developments and fast-tracking the ability of private contractors to build. Some may choose to build less expensive units but nothing that would rent for $700/mo.

But I agree with the rest of your comment and HRM's illusions.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Fingers crossed that the province will move to provide proper transit infrastructure solutions as quickly as they have moved on the housing issue.

[Summerville]

Fingers crossed that the province will move to provide proper transit infrastructure solutions as quickly as they have moved on the housing issue.


Most of the 9 developments were close to approval but were dragging because of the muddling of city council and staff. This situation may highlight the reasons why we now need a transportation authority that is also not subject to the same knee jerk planning that comes when council is left to make the final decisions.

[Dartguard]

This is not about "affordable" housing. This is simply clearing the bottlenecks created by HRM for approval of private developments and fast-tracking the ability of private contractors to build. Some may choose to build less expensive units but nothing that would rent for $700/mo.

But I agree with the rest of your comment and HRM's illusions.

Keith it will be sold in the legislature as an attempt to build affordable housing as I expect there will be direct investments in some of these pockets by the Province to accelerate utility installation and empire crushing of little fiefdoms.

[Half-Axed]

Most of the 9 developments were close to approval but were dragging because of the muddling of city council and staff. This situation may highlight the reasons why we now need a transportation authority that is also not subject to the same knee jerk planning that comes when council is left to make the final decisions.

This was my takeaway as well. The province isn't doing anything new or special - they're just cutting council's process off, and they get a few headlines about "addressing the housing crisis" for doing very little.

Although these developments will contribute to sprawl and transportation issues I highly doubt they will do much of anything about affordability.

On that note, this sort of thing is happening out in Middle Sackville near one of the designated areas:

https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/tnasfc/true/

[OldDartmouthMark]

From the standpoint of supply and demand, shouldn't an increase in supply result in lower prices across the board?

[Half-Axed]

From the standpoint of supply and demand, shouldn't an increase in supply result in lower prices across the board?

Assuming the demand doesn’t keep increasing faster than the supply, that could be the case…but given Halifax’s rate of growth and the state of the real estate market Canada (and world) wide, I think that’s questionable.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Just surprised at some of the responses here.

Even if they are just speeding up the process of getting things approved and built, 22,000 residences will typically house 2 - 5 people in each, which can only be good for a place with sub-1% vacancy rates. So how is moving along the creation of housing for 20,000 to 100,000 people not going to have a positive effect on the housing situation here?

Meanwhile, all the other projects in progress are still being built, some with fairly good density. I'm amazed at the number of excavations and cranes in the city when I drive around.

Yet: "sprawl", "not low-cost housing", blah blah blah... :haha:

[someone123]

I think the housing problems in Canada go far deeper than municipal planning questions and this measure can't single-handedly solve them but it's already a step beyond what I've seen here in BC, where housing affordability is much worse. And even though there are complaints about the mobile housing units (not sure if they're being used yet) the response was quicker than what we've seen here. It's interesting to me how the politics and approach vary from region to region.

I'd be interested to see how the nuts and bolts of this play out. In Halifax, like in many cities, the planning steps, waiting for permits, fees, and so on likely add significantly to the cost. So even if it doesn't get more housing built (because trades are working as much as possible or whatever) it could still drop prices somewhat.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The electric 'fast ferry' remains in the capital budget. No supporting analysis has been provided to council but in the world of shiny ponies this is at the top, and it it is predicated on the feds and the province throwing away money on a project which has no value.

Not sure why there is such opposition to the ferry project. The road network as it stands is pretty much at capacity during rush hour, CN has shut down the commuter rail idea, but we have an unused "infrastructure" in the form of a harbour.

So the ferry and terminals will be expensive, sure. But there are no maintenance costs associated with the harbour, as there are with roads and rail systems. So you're just maintaining the buildings and the vehicles. It's like having a dedicated transit bridge between Bedford, Shannon Park, and DT Halifax (plus maybe Larry Uteck?), but you don't have to build and maintain the bridge because the vehicle just uses the waterway. :)

Is it the electric aspect that is perceived as the problem? Well, FWIW, virtually the entire road-going vehicle fleet, public and private, will be switching over to electric over the next 30 years, so may as well invest in the technology that everything will be moving to anyhow.

I'm always surprised when the idea of a ferry is met with such negativity, especially from people who live in a place that has the oldest continually operated salt water ferry service in North America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax%E2%80%93Dartmouth_Ferry_Service). We have the harbour, so we may as well use it - the idea should be nothing new to us. ;)

[Keith P.]

The idea of ferries appeals to some but the reality is they are like a bridge with no roads connecting either end in our scenario. People need to get to the departure point and then get from the arrival point to wherever they need to go. This is where Halifax Transit consistently has failed. I am not optimistic that will change with new bright shiny ferries.

The other issue with ferries is that they carry relatively few passengers and tend to be slow. They are also very expensive on a per-passenger basis outside of peak hours. The electric propulsion system seems to be more HRM virtue signalling as even the best charging technology will still require significant time to fill their batteries with juice. Presumably that will happen overnight but you will then need significant battery capacity on-board to keep them moving all day. Not saying that is insurmountable but it gets expensive. We would probably be better served by a hydrogen-based power source. I understand Heritage Gas is already moving in that direction.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

A few things...

It makes little sense to me for the city to take on an additional form of transportation/technology when eventually the city will have to adopt rail. If one's argument is that the city will not grow sufficiently in the future to require rail, then ok, fast ferries will help. But I see rail as the endgame and can't reconcile the cost of fast ferries as an interim measure.

Our current ferry system does make sense. It allows for the avoidance of the bridges, lessens congestion on the bridges, and it is a short trip from one centre to another. Bedford on the other hand has a 100 series highway just up the hill with no impediments direct to downtown. It's too close to the final destination to pry folks from the privacy of their warm cozy cars on a winter's day to endure a 20 minute choppy ride to city centre where they will then have to walk or bus to their final destination. And, a ferry terminal downtown will be the only stop. There's no getting off at the shipyard, etc. halfway. A train would have at least several stops between bedford and city centre.

CN cannot say no forever. Overwrought claims of CN punishing us in some manner are ... I'd probably say no to city councillors too but little doubt that provincial and federal politicians could figure it out.

[Half-Axed]

Just surprised at some of the responses here.

Even if they are just speeding up the process of getting things approved and built, 22,000 residences will typically house 2 - 5 people in each, which can only be good for a place with sub-1% vacancy rates. So how is moving along the creation of housing for 20,000 to 100,000 people not going to have a positive effect on the housing situation here?

Meanwhile, all the other projects in progress are still being built, some with fairly good density. I'm amazed at the number of excavations and cranes in the city when I drive around.

Yet: "sprawl", "not low-cost housing", blah blah blah... :haha:

I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't help to house more people in general - obviously it will - but I suspect that Halifax...and the country...and indeed the world may be past the point where simply increasing supply will lower prices in any significant way.

Hopefully it will slow the insane inflation, at least, but I think significant regulation and "decommodification" will be needed to move the market back to one that is about housing people rather than one that is about building minor fiefdoms and sheltering corporate money.

Unless these developments specifically include plenty of low-cost housing, lower-income people are likely still left out in the cold. (But maybe they do include it?)

[MonctonRad]

It makes little sense to me for the city to take on an additional form of transportation/technology when eventually the city will have to adopt rail. If one's argument is that the city will not grow sufficiently in the future to require rail, then ok, fast ferries will help. But I see rail as the endgame and can't reconcile the cost of fast ferries as an interim measure.

Our current ferry system does make sense. It allows for the avoidance of the bridges, lessens congestion on the bridges, and it is a short trip from one centre to another. Bedford on the other hand has a 100 series highway just up the hill with no impediments direct to downtown. It's too close to the final destination to pry folks from the privacy of their warm cozy cars on a winter's day to endure a 20 minute choppy ride to city centre where they will then have to walk or bus to their final destination. And, a ferry terminal downtown will be the only stop. There's no getting off at the shipyard, etc. halfway. A train would have at least several stops between bedford and city centre.

CN cannot say no forever. Overwrought claims of CN punishing us in some manner are ... I'd probably say no to city councillors too but little doubt that provincial and federal politicians could figure it out.

I agree. Ferries do have a place in the overall transportation network, especially for short excursions to and from Dartmouth. The existing system works reasonably well.

A fast ferry to Bedford is more problematic. I think unless you have four (or more) ferries on the run, that the route will suffer from tremendous capacity issues, and, would also be at serious risk of failure if one (or more) of the ferries went out of service for maintenance or mechanical issues.

I agree with you that the ferry system is inflexible in the sense it does not allow for intermediate stops along the way. At least commuter rail would allow for stops in places like Mill Cove, MSVU, HSC, Dalhousie and maybe St. Mary's along the way. These intermediate stops would help boost utility of the service and potentially usage.

Commuter rail could also range further afield in order to generate ridership, including to Windsor Junction, Waverley, Enfield or even further. There would be a lot more flexibility to tune the service to demand. Frequency of service would probably be more modifiable too.

People will still have to get to the Bedford ferry terminal in order to use the fast ferry service. Do you propose a park 'n ride, or a bus terminal at the Bedford ferry terminal?

Acceptance of fast ferries may be problematic. A ferry ride can be very pleasant, but also can be uncomfortable if the weather is stormy. Bad weather could also affect service reliability (more so than rail). Fast ferries are not a panacea and are not the complete answer to Halifax's woes.

Ferries have a place, but the backbone of a regional transit service should be commuter rail, supplemented by busses, LRT on the peninsula, and, yes, a ferry service to Dartmouth. A fast ferry service to Bedford is at best a distraction, and will delay the development of a real solution - commuter rail. :yes:

[someone123]

The thing with the ferries is that the capital outlay is so minor that it barely registers in the long run. If the city and province really want rail they will have to spend a billion dollars or more and it won't matter if there's a ferry to Bedford or not. These aren't mutually exclusive options.

I think Halifax is making the mistake of most modern Canadian cities and waiting far too long to build higher order transit infrastructure that will be needed. It should be planning for subway infrastructure downtown today for example. Maybe that's not the most cost-effective or best option but I don't think the analysis has even been done and if the province gave it the green light tomorrow it wouldn't be operational before 2030.

[Keith P.]

A few things...

It makes little sense to me for the city to take on an additional form of transportation/technology when eventually the city will have to adopt rail. If one's argument is that the city will not grow sufficiently in the future to require rail, then ok, fast ferries will help. But I see rail as the endgame and can't reconcile the cost of fast ferries as an interim measure.

Our current ferry system does make sense. It allows for the avoidance of the bridges, lessens congestion on the bridges, and it is a short trip from one centre to another. Bedford on the other hand has a 100 series highway just up the hill with no impediments direct to downtown. It's too close to the final destination to pry folks from the privacy of their warm cozy cars on a winter's day to endure a 20 minute choppy ride to city centre where they will then have to walk or bus to their final destination. And, a ferry terminal downtown will be the only stop. There's no getting off at the shipyard, etc. halfway. A train would have at least several stops between bedford and city centre.

CN cannot say no forever. Overwrought claims of CN punishing us in some manner are ... I'd probably say no to city councillors too but little doubt that provincial and federal politicians could figure it out.

The other thing fouling up any serious consideration of rail aside from the CN issues is the insistence by the ATU that they operate any Transit rail infrastructure. That will not rest well with CN and its employees.

[Good Baklava]

Just surprised at some of the responses here.

Even if they are just speeding up the process of getting things approved and built, 22,000 residences will typically house 2 - 5 people in each, which can only be good for a place with sub-1% vacancy rates. So how is moving along the creation of housing for 20,000 to 100,000 people not going to have a positive effect on the housing situation here?

Meanwhile, all the other projects in progress are still being built, some with fairly good density. I'm amazed at the number of excavations and cranes in the city when I drive around.

Yet: "sprawl", "not low-cost housing", blah blah blah... :haha:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/housing-is-both-a-human-right-and-a-profitable-asset-and-thats-the-problem-172846

Housing is both a human right and a profitable asset, and that's the problem

Brian Doucet, University of Waterloo

It seems like everyone is talking about housing these days. For many, it is in a state of crisis. But for others, it is a market doing exactly what it should be doing: making money. The crux of the housing problem is that it is both a basic human right and a commodity from which to extract wealth.

Most housing debates largely ignore this contradiction. Those who oppose new developments and those who believe we need more housing both focus on numbers, design, zoning and density. These perspectives miss key questions about housing for whom, against whom, who profits and who is excluded.

[Half-Axed]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/housing-is-both-a-human-right-and-a-profitable-asset-and-thats-the-problem-172846

I was going to post this one. Similar messages:

https://toughnickel.com/real-estate/Housing-as-a-Commodity

[Hali87]

I agree with you that the ferry system is inflexible in the sense it does not allow for intermediate stops along the way. At least commuter rail would allow for stops in places like Mill Cove, MSVU, HSC, Dalhousie and maybe St. Mary's along the way. These intermediate stops would help boost utility of the service and potentially usage.

In theory there's nothing preventing something like a Mill Cove - Birch Cove - Shannon Park - Downtown route if that's what Transit decided to go with, they would just need to factor that into the terminal and boat designs, scheduling, etc. I could see things going in that direction once there are enough terminals and enough uses around the terminals to make it worthwhile - some combination of "lines" and express routes.

[Keith P.]

In theory there's nothing preventing something like a Mill Cove - Birch Cove - Shannon Park - Downtown route if that's what Transit decided to go with, they would just need to factor that into the terminal and boat designs, scheduling, etc. I could see things going in that direction once there are enough terminals and enough uses around the terminals to make it worthwhile - some combination of "lines" and express routes.

That would be one long, slow commute.

[Empire]

That would be one long, slow commute.

Staten Island Ferry has a capacity of 5,000, runs 24/7 - 365 days a year & is free.

Staten Island Ferry
https://www.siferry.com/

[Colin May]

Again, there has been analysis of an electric ferry and the impact upon commuters. It is a shiny pony to be financed with federal money and a small amount from HRM. The impact upon commuters to the peninsula is negligible.

[someone123]

Increasingly there is development on the peninsula and there will be growing trip demand within that area. I'm not sure the city has an answer that is a fit for the scale of development and planning density increase over the longer term. Active transportation can be a part of it but not 100% modal share for the new trips.

Again I don't understand the objection that ferries are not going to by themselves solve the transportation problems of the metro area. This kind of thinking always seemed emblematic of how little regional transportation planning happens in Halifax. There will have to be many projects that suit different areas and different kinds of trips. The framework should be cost-benefit and alternatives, not "does this project solve transportation".

[Half-Axed]

It turns out one of the 9 nodes will indeed include a whole development for affordable housing:

https://www.nsbuzz.ca/life/nova-scotia-investing-22-million-to-create-hundreds-of-affordable-housing-units-in-dartmouth/

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/news/ns-government-pitches-in-22-million-for-affordable-housing-units-in-dartmouth-100711517/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Increasingly there is development on the peninsula and there will be growing trip demand within that area. I'm not sure the city has an answer that is a fit for the scale of development and planning density increase over the longer term. Active transportation can be a part of it but not 100% modal share for the new trips.

Again I don't understand the objection that ferries are not going to by themselves solve the transportation problems of the metro area. This kind of thinking always seemed emblematic of how little regional transportation planning happens in Halifax. There will have to be many projects that suit different areas and different kinds of trips. The framework should be cost-benefit and alternatives, not "does this project solve transportation".

Agreed.

A number of people still seem to think that Halifax is on the verge of bankruptcy and thus shouldn't increase transit options despite the fact that we are witnessing unprecedented growth. I would suggest that it's that very idea that has landed us in the poor transit situation that we are in now, and the reason I think that we should add ferry service and still pursue some form of rail transit (heavy rail on CN's tracks, LRT, underground, overhead... whatever). Enough of the 'culture of defeat' - time for us to look forward and grow the city properly, rather than simply thinking of reasons that we shouldn't do anything.

Like any form of transit, there are downsides to ferry service - some that could be helped service changes (l.e. BRT from Sackville to Mill Cove, etc.), but overall I don't see any of these concerns to be enough to toss out the idea entirely.

As far as funding from the federal government goes... isn't that a good thing for Halifax? :shrug: I mean, won't those funds just go to another municipality in another province if Halifax doesn't use them? Not sure why we wouldn't want to use federal funds to tap into our unused capacity for moving people around (one that I will add that other cities aren't fortunate enough to have). So... despite some well-thought-out and interesting responses, I'm still not buying the negativity towards ferries. Sorry. :)