General Updates and News

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Navy Island in Bedford Basin. An abandoned ship broke away from its mooring in March of 2020 and went aground on the island. Apparently the ship could not be pulled back into the water so it's being dismantled where it sits and hauled away via a barge. The coast gaurd is heading the operation.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52224494503_434cc649ae_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nyUbK2)IMG-20220717-WA0001 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyUbK2) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52224509701_7487986e11_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nyUgg4)20210621_135905 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyUgg4) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52224526833_5614f50639_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nyUmmr)IMG-20210621-WA0002 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyUmmr) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52223505722_ef1077277d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nyP7P5)20210621_135902 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyP7P5) by AJ Forsythe (https://www.flickr.com/photos/194233676@N07/), on Flickr

[Hadrian Laing]

One of the principals named in the article is a member of this forum.
Keith my friend, I'd prefer to be called "new generation of loonies." ;)

My association with Development Options Halifax (which I do unpaid and in my limited spare time), is to push 3D modeling forward as part of the cities application process. I produced accurate models to visualize upcoming developments to practice and test workflows. They use them to better understand the developments and make their points known which they seem to do very loudly. Did one for PLANifax's video released yesterday, same reason.

:tup: That's what I'm talking about! :)

My goal is for models to be impartial, modeling doesn't care what your perspective is. If anyone wants to form a Friends of Urbanization group, you can hit me up, just like other groups do. I bet there are some wicked things we could pump out!

Just let me know.

[OldDartmouthMark]

My association with Development Options Halifax (which I do unpaid and in my limited spare time), is to push 3D modeling forward as part of the cities application process. I produced accurate models to visualize upcoming developments to practice and test workflows. They use them to better understand the developments and make their points known which they seem to do very loudly. Did one for PLANifax's video released yesterday, same reason.

I, for one, can see the value of what you're doing, and I applaud it. When looking at the SGR/Robie developments as separate entities, with each rendering showing the remaining neighbourhood structures as they now are, you get an impression. However, this totally changes when you show massing models for both projects together, as it will be in the real-life case. I think this really adds to the understanding of what is being done there.


My goal is for models to be impartial, modeling doesn't care what your perspective is. If anyone wants to form a Friends of Urbanization group, you can hit me up, just like other groups do. I bet there are some wicked things we could pump out!

Just let me know.

Well, it won't be me doing it, as my views are always somewhere in between the extremes of the "Friends of" groups, and the 'urbanization at the expense of all else' crowd. I like the checks and balances that groups like Development Options Halifax offer - it gets another point of view out there and helps people to actually think about what's happening in their city.

I was, however, pointing out that for all the complaints I read here about Peggy Cameron's media events, nobody has publicly presented the opposite case for 'tear them down and build to the sky' point of view. It's not going to be me, because I'm not 'all in' for complete urbanization of Halifax at the expense of heritage buildings or anything else, for that matter, but was thinking out loud that perhaps some of the folks on here with the loudest voices might consider creating their own counter-group to fight for the urban cause that they believe in so strongly. :shrug:

[someone123]

My goal is for models to be impartial, modeling doesn't care what your perspective is. If anyone wants to form a Friends of Urbanization group, you can hit me up, just like other groups do. I bet there are some wicked things we could pump out!

I don't usually agree with those groups but they're entitled to share their opinions, like everybody else. I was happy to see your models and I think they add to the debate in a positive way.

One thing you see sometimes is people leave out the wider context and either don't realize or avoid acknowledging that there may be buildings of similar height not far away that have not ruined the neighbourhood in the way people sometimes say the new buildings will.

In the past we would sometimes see "MS Paint" style renderings that were pretty misleading, showing the profile of buildings in bright red or black elevation style (no perspective) shown looming over historic buildings.

[IanWatson]

Anyway, I think this is the site of the new building that will have the funky clock hangy thing on the Gottingen/Macara corner. The green building to the left in the pics is the site office for NRTH. I'm not sure what will happen to it but I doubt it will remain.


The clock proposal is one block over, next to the gas station.

I haven't seen any proposed design for this site that I'm aware of.

[someone123]

It is hard to keep all of these developments straight. It will be interesting to see how they all turn out. I think NRTH will be one of the better ones. Curious to see what the clock one looks like; it is a quirky design and could either add some nice colour and character or come off as cheap or strange. A lot of them once built end up being scaled back from how they look in renderings, with less colour and less prominent distinctive visual elements (closer to a simple box shape with more monochromatic finishes).

I'd rate the completed ones around there (e.g. building with Almonak) as maybe a B- or C so far. They are okay from a basic massing and urban design standpoint with street orientation and some storefronts. The low height and small scale makes for a lot of garage door entrances and a lot of demolition and replacement of historic stock which the city still doesn't really seem to have a plan to coordinate outside of a few heritage districts which have already seen lots of demos and bad infill projects.

[Drybrain]

I'd rate the completed ones around there (e.g. building with Almonak) as maybe a B- or C so far. They are okay from a basic massing and urban design standpoint with street orientation and some storefronts. The low height and small scale makes for a lot of garage door entrances and a lot of demolition and replacement of historic stock which the city still doesn't really seem to have a plan to coordinate outside of a few heritage districts which have already seen lots of demos and bad infill projects.

I'd agree with that. I live a few blocks north, and overall they're a huge boon for the area. The massing and scale are generally good, but the actual architectural quality/finishes/signage are often lacking and skew to the cheap side, which is unfortunate. (The Bilby is particularly meh.) Still leagues better than the dreck being constructed in the 90s or early 00s at least.

I'm not sure there's been much of a heritage impact, though. The sites that have been torn down and replaced have been, within just a few blocks, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6597997,-63.5972705,3a,75y,42h,94.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQCBHv9Q_FGgdGNmXzTQ2pQ!2e0!5s20161001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)one, and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6591783,-63.5962488,3a,75y,259.6h,91.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sojvixAT9DNXlQrVC5BXtxA!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656), this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6591768,-63.5962829,3a,75y,350.2h,94.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEwpByZaYB4I8OA_WbANIug!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192), this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6605942,-63.5958539,3a,75y,250.62h,97.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYzd01YKWV7jLRMI6AFA5EQ!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656), this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6596003,-63.5969838,3a,75y,79.3h,89.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syLOm8NDksxWE_2cp-4lQ7A!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656).

I think for the most part the attractive/valuable historic buildings were replaced a long time ago by autobody shops and squat one- and two-storey mid-century jobs.

[someone123]

I think for the most part the attractive/valuable historic buildings were replaced a long time ago by autobody shops and squat one- and two-storey mid-century jobs.

The problem is that developers buy buildings and let them fall apart for years or even decades in preparation for land flipping and demolition. That shot with the 3 storey vinyl-clad building is a good example.

If nothing changes I think we will just find that a new generation of currently nice but somewhat run down buildings will get the same treatment and in 2030 the owners will argue that they have no heritage value. Eventually these areas will have no historic character left except for the streets and block patterns.

[Dmajackson]

The clock proposal is one block over, next to the gas station.

I haven't seen any proposed design for this site that I'm aware of.

Macara Presidio (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219938) despite the dead thread is still active. Case 24304 (https://www.halifax.ca/business/planning-development/applications/case-24304-gottingen-street-macara-street-halifax) has the current application to increase the unit count. The approved building is 66 units and 8 floors on three lots (furniture store, Marco Group site office, and a house on Macara).

[Keith P.]

The problem is that developers buy buildings and let them fall apart for years or even decades in preparation for land flipping and demolition. That shot with the 3 storey vinyl-clad building is a good example.


There is seldom a business case for restoration of any of these old working-class wooden box buildings. They are no different than an old jalopy of a car - at some point they simply wear out and become too expensive to repair, and there is no architectural or historic value associated with them.

[OldDartmouthMark]

There is seldom a business case for restoration of any of these old working-class wooden box buildings. They are no different than an old jalopy of a car - at some point they simply wear out and become too expensive to repair, and there is no architectural or historic value associated with them.

Not really a good analogy, as there are many old cars on the road that people spent a lot of time and money to restore - in many cases they would have been considered junk by some but others were able to appreciate the historic value of them enough to bring them back to life. There's no real "business case" for it, it's done out of appreciation of historic value and realization that once they are gone, they are gone forever, existing only in writings and photographs.

The main difference in your analogy is that a restored antique car will usually no longer be used as a transportation appliance - they will typically be stored away in a garage and only taken out for recreational drives or special events. Houses, however, are still still kept functional for residential or business uses, plus they are stationary, so there is value to the business community in that they can be profit-generators through rent/lease income, and the location/land that they are on also holds value that is independent of the structure that's on it. There is also value to the community in the form of historical characteristics, as well as adding visual interest and character to a neighbourhood.

So, while a person who has appreciation for an old structure can buy it and restore it for their own gratification (which is more difficult and expensive than restoring a vehicle, FWIW), there are not many people capable of doing that on their own. And, as land values increase, they have to compete against business entities who have more investment money available to them than the average individual, and can create a business case for doing the opposite of what the enthusiast owner would want to do. So, rather than spend money on upgrades that will restore the original character and attractiveness to the building, they will take the cheapest route to keep it functional and maximize the income to investment ratio. If their plan is to eventually tear it down and profit from developing the land, then the business case is focused on achieving this without regard to any intrinsic value that the structure may hold.

As someone123 indicates, once the attractiveness of the original structure has been stripped off, and the overall condition of the building is allowed to deteriorate, then it's a lot easier to tear it down, as folks will no longer see it as a historical structure, but just an 'old box with siding on it' - an eyesore that will not be a loss to the community (as drybrain has indicated).

While this really comes down to personal opinion, i.e. whether you think that retaining some historical character of a city is important or not, there's no disputing that it does change the character of neighbourhoods over time, and if the attrition is allowed to happen long-term, then you will arrive at a point where none of the historical character of the area will remain. And maybe that's alright, if nobody cares... future generations will not know what they missed, and will adapt to whatever is there. They may look at old photos and realize what was lost (as I have done many times), but there will be nothing to be done about it at that point, because it will be gone.

[Keith P.]

Well, Mark, unless you want to make most of peninsula a historic district with bureaucracy making the decisions about what you can and cannot do with your property and what it must look like, and determining what you need to spend to make it come up to their arbitrary standards of what it was like 150 years ago, what you describe isn't going to happen. The car analogy is quite applicable, because the people who restore those do it as a hobby, a labor of love, and cost is not the big issue. When you are in business, you need to make a profit. You cannot do that by spending millions on a building that is worth a fraction of that when you are done.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think you missed the point that it is an apples/oranges comparison, but I said what I wanted to say. I also realize that my views are not among the views of the majority, so let's leave it at that.

[someone123]

Well, Mark, unless you want to make most of peninsula a historic district with bureaucracy making the decisions about what you can and cannot do with your property and what it must look like, and determining what you need to spend to make it come up to their arbitrary standards of what it was like 150 years ago, what you describe isn't going to happen.

I don't think this is true. There are a few different tools, registration, historic districts, and unsightly property rules among them. The city needs to get serious about registering important properties even if the owners aren't always on board, and in some cases simply invite the owners to register even with lower scores. The heritage districts should also be expanded. And I wonder how much work could be done if the municipality simply had more bandwidth and took a more active role in encouraging good development and property stewardship along with offering a menu of incentives like tax rebates.

These policies cover a tiny proportion of the building stock and it would still be tiny even if they were expanded to cover 2x or 3x the buildings. We are not talking about most of the peninsula, and the peninsula is but one part of the city.

[Keith P.]

I don't think this is true. There are a few different tools, registration, historic districts, and unsightly property rules among them. The city needs to get serious about registering important properties even if the owners aren't always on board, and in some cases simply invite the owners to register even with lower scores. The heritage districts should also be expanded. And I wonder how much work could be done if the municipality simply had more bandwidth and took a more active role in encouraging good development and property stewardship along with offering a menu of incentives like tax rebates.

These policies cover a tiny proportion of the building stock and it would still be tiny even if they were expanded to cover 2x or 3x the buildings. We are not talking about most of the peninsula, and the peninsula is but one part of the city.

And so we once again circle around to the actual issue. These are not "historic" buildings, nor are they of great architectural merit. The buildings in question are simply old working-class stick-built wooden boxes. They weren't particularly special when new and with over a century of wear and alteration they are not good now. Decrying their replacement now with something new defies logic.

[someone123]

And so we once again circle around to the actual issue. These are not "historic" buildings, nor are they of great architectural merit. The buildings in question are simply old working-class stick-built wooden boxes. They weren't particularly special when new and with over a century of wear and alteration they are not good now. Decrying their replacement now with something new defies logic.

The history of some of these houses being demolished is circulating on Twitter. I think many would be protected in other cities, before even getting to questions of character. Much of the peninsula actually is protected heavily from development, it's just not the more historic parts, it's the residential areas farther west. If I were to complain about restrictions I'd start there, not argue that 80% of the most historic parts of town should be redeveloped instead of 70%, the ballpark where Halifax is headed right now. Sometimes it's desirable just to have some stable high quality streetscapes.

As an example of the where Halifax stands compared to other cities, Victoria has 13 heritage conservation districts, and it has comparatively few buildings older than 1880 or so (if you moved the Dennis Building to BC, those bottom floors would be one of the oldest structures). There are a lot of heritage properties around here in Vancouver that are wooden houses from around 1890-1920. Vancouver is also bad at heritage preservation, but Halifax is much more historic and architecturally distinctive. Not many people will agree with this (mostly not knowing the history of the buildings), but Halifax is a clear #3 for historic architecture in Canada and a lot of very old and rare buildings there are in a relatively precarious state. And there's very little cost to preserving what's left since they're such a tiny proportion of the building stock and in many cases they're on sites that are not zoned for much density anyway.

[someone123]

Not saying this is perfect but this is where a lot of other municipalities are.

Two 12-storey mixed-use buildings (one residential and one office building, each with commercial uses, and including 80 condo units, 36 seniors units with 50% as affordable rental; 89,500 SF of strata office space and 21,600 SF of retail space and a daycare. 6.3 FSR. Local architects, and the project includes a Heritage Revitalization Agreement to retain the Martha Johnston Residence and convert it into a medical office.

https://vancouvermarket.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2115-St.-Johns_1.jpg

[OldDartmouthMark]

And so we once again circle around to the actual issue. These are not "historic" buildings, nor are they of great architectural merit. The buildings in question are simply old working-class stick-built wooden boxes. They weren't particularly special when new and with over a century of wear and alteration they are not good now. Decrying their replacement now with something new defies logic.

Sometimes these circular arguments make me feel like I'm stuck in Groundhog Day... :haha:

Your comments about the working classes of Halifax are curious, to say the least. After all, their lives and the neighbourhoods they lived in make up the fabric of the city. To say that their dwellings aren't "historic" is ridiculous. WTF is history, if it's not about the people who lived here? :shrug:

I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, as nobody has suggested that every building should be or would be saved. Nor has this ever been the case - in fact it has been quite the opposite, actually. Demolitions to 100+ year old buildings are happening regularly in Halifax. Business cases always take priority over everything else around here, and I don't see that changing anytime soon (even though, as someone123 points out, there can be successful business cases for projects that respect heritage structures during development, but that involves thought and skills over and above the default action of getting it done as cheaply as possible).

[Empire]

I'm surprised the trick of stripping a historic building of all architecturally significant features and then allowing the building to deteriorate through neglect fools so many people. You often hear the cry that a building is beyond repair and it’s an eyesore. Why not build a plastic looking stubby apartment building with some fake brick at street level instead? No building is beyond restoration. The Charles P. Morris house is a prime example of how more effort needs to be made in save and restore historic structures in the downtown area. (don’t want to hear the…what about all the $$$/poor business case to restore it argument) The block where the Morris house was located (Morris & Hollis) contained a row of historic homes and a large wooden apartment building similar the Elmwood Hotel on South St. The Elmwood may now be saved as part of the new development. One of the buildings demolished beside the Morris House was one of few remaining examples of Italianate design in Halifax. This is what we demolish and so many people ask why, of course knowing the quick answer of “$$$ to retain”.

I would suggest the real expense to Halifax and NS is the removal of these significant structures that we should be proud of and not ashamed of.

Charles P. Morris House restored:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.655699,-63.5904533,3a,75y,193.15h,91.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0zCBk6e6hVktBHqjLsxsoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Charles P. Morris House saved from demolition:
https://unravelhalifax.ca/morris-houses-rebirth/

[KMcK]

Not many people will agree with this (mostly not knowing the history of the buildings), but Halifax is a clear #3 for historic architecture in Canada and a lot of very old and rare buildings there are in a relatively precarious state.
Would you care to elaborate on this? I'd prefer not to be one of the uniformed to whom you refer.

[someone123]

Would you care to elaborate on this? I'd prefer not to be one of the uniformed to whom you refer.

Halifax was one of the largest/wealthiest cities in what is now Canada and did not have major fires that destroyed everything so it has an unusual stock of buildings running from 1750-1860 or so. It also has a Georgian aesthetic that continued through later construction (e.g. Dalhousie buildings), giving the city a unique feel.

As an example, Province House was built during the 1810's. When there is a thread about legislatures in the Canada section the most common comment is that it is "small" but people don't realize it's about a century older than many of the others. It is sort of the "Philadelphia of Canada".

A lot of nondescript buildings around the older parts of the North End and South End are from circa 1800 or even a bit earlier, which is rare in Canada. And the landmark Georgian era buildings in Halifax like the 1803 town clock are basically unique. The naval clock down by the ferry terminal is from 1767.

The other cities with more historical buildings are Montreal and Quebec, but even there people tend to overestimate how much older architecture they have (e.g. confuse buildings from 1880 with 1680). They are in the same ballpark as Halifax for the really old stuff, although they have some buildings from pre-1749 while Halifax does not.

Nova Scotia in general has way more early architectural richness and history than any part of Canada aside from Quebec. Quebec takes this seriously, but Nova Scotia does not. In Quebec the same level of modification/demolition of older buildings wouldn't be allowed and some older buildings like the naval clock would be reconstructed while Halifax has the cheapo version. A lot of old Quebec City or Montreal is basically reconstructed or was enhanced in a later historical period long after construction. Many older parts of Halifax could be enhanced with far more character tied in with authentic historical architecture and events but it would take a kind of work that doesn't seem to happen much these days, and the potential is gradually declining as architecture is lost.

[Keith P.]

No building is beyond restoration. The Charles P. Morris house is a prime example of how more effort needs to be made in save and restore historic structures in the downtown area. (don’t want to hear the…what about all the $$$/poor business case to restore it argument)

Unfortunately for your argument we live in a world where economic sense needs to be applied. Many buildings make zero economic sense to be restored. The Morris House was one of those but govts spent our money to do that even though there was no actual use for the thing once complete. The same was true for the Gardener's Cottage in the Public Gardens. The millions of tax dollars poured into them may have given us a nice looking old building (arguable in the Morris case given where it was relocated) but is that the best use of huge amounts of public finds given the other very real problems we need to solve? Does that mean you support spending $10 million or even twice that in tax dollars to save the Khyber? Where does it stop?

[Empire]

Unfortunately for your argument we live in a world where economic sense needs to be applied. Many buildings make zero economic sense to be restored. The Morris House was one of those but govts spent our money to do that even though there was no actual use for the thing once complete. The same was true for the Gardener's Cottage in the Public Gardens. The millions of tax dollars poured into them may have given us a nice looking old building (arguable in the Morris case given where it was relocated) but is that the best use of huge amounts of public finds given the other very real problems we need to solve? Does that mean you support spending $10 million or even twice that in tax dollars to save the Khyber? Where does it stop?

Better to invest in our rich architecture which will pay dividends for many years than to allow it to disappear. I guess you are saying public funds are spent wisely in HRM on every other facet of the city fabric?

[mleblanc]

Halifax was one of the largest/wealthiest cities in what is now Canada and did not have major fires that destroyed everything so it has an unusual stock of buildings running from 1750-1860 or so. It also has a Georgian aesthetic that continued through later construction (e.g. Dalhousie buildings), giving the city a unique feel.

As an example, Province House was built during the 1810's. When there is a thread about legislatures in the Canada section the most common comment is that it is "small" but people don't realize it's about a century older than many of the others. It is sort of the "Philadelphia of Canada".

A lot of nondescript buildings around the older parts of the North End and South End are from circa 1800 or even a bit earlier, which is rare in Canada. And the landmark Georgian era buildings in Halifax like the 1803 town clock are basically unique. The naval clock down by the ferry terminal is from 1767.

The other cities with more historical buildings are Montreal and Quebec, but even there people tend to overestimate how much older architecture they have (e.g. confuse buildings from 1880 with 1680). They are in the same ballpark as Halifax for the really old stuff, although they have some buildings from pre-1749 while Halifax does not.

Nova Scotia in general has way more early architectural richness and history than any part of Canada aside from Quebec. Quebec takes this seriously, but Nova Scotia does not. In Quebec the same level of modification/demolition of older buildings wouldn't be allowed and some older buildings like the naval clock would be reconstructed while Halifax has the cheapo version. A lot of old Quebec City or Montreal is basically reconstructed or was enhanced in a later historical period long after construction. Many older parts of Halifax could be enhanced with far more character tied in with authentic historical architecture and events but it would take a kind of work that doesn't seem to happen much these days, and the potential is gradually declining as architecture is lost.

Interesting post, I appreciate it! I had no idea the clock by the ferry was so old. You can kind of see how badly they cheaped out when you look at it:
https://i.imgur.com/EEqmBMV.png

[AdAstra]

Better to invest in our rich architecture which will pay dividends for many years than to allow it to disappear. I guess you are saying public funds are spent wisely in HRM on every other facet of the city fabric?

Having been a member of this forum for several years now I can confidently say that is the furthest thing from what Keith is arguing, or ever has argued (possibly in his life lol). And I’d have to agree with him.

[KMcK]

Halifax was one of the largest/wealthiest cities in what is now Canada and did not have major fires that destroyed everything so it has an unusual stock of buildings running from 1750-1860 or so. It also has a Georgian aesthetic that continued through later construction (e.g. Dalhousie buildings), giving the city a unique feel.

Thank you. That was informative and interesting.

[Keith P.]

Halifax was one of the largest/wealthiest cities in what is now Canada and did not have major fires that destroyed everything so it has an unusual stock of buildings running from 1750-1860 or so.

No major fires, but it did have a little explosion in the early years of the 20th century that destroyed the northern half of the city, and which in turn led to a lot of cheap, unremarkable wooden boxes being built to house the suddenly homeless (along with one notable development, the Hydrostones, that unquestionably deserves being not only kept or restored).

[someone123]

Interesting post, I appreciate it! I had no idea the clock by the ferry was so old. You can kind of see how badly they cheaped out when you look at it

On the plus side this history creates a lot of potential, often in subtle ways. For example around Gottingen Street there's a quirky street network with a fine-grained pedestrian scale that's becoming more noticeable now that the area is filling in with buildings again.

I think Press Block might be transformative for Province House and the Grand Parade too since those places will have a better sense of defined space again. Then there's Queen's Marque which isn't historic but complements the sandstone buildings around there, or the Governor, or that project for South St and Barrington which moves the old building up to the corner and actually creates a more urban streetscape out of what was there before.

[someone123]

No major fires, but it did have a little explosion in the early years of the 20th century that destroyed the northern half of the city, and which in turn led to a lot of cheap, unremarkable wooden boxes being built to house the suddenly homeless (along with one notable development, the Hydrostones, that unquestionably deserves being not only kept or restored).

It wasn't half, it was mostly north of North Street with some of those buildings surviving or being rebuilt, and as you say the Hydrostone now covers a lot of that footprint and is itself historic since the rebuild was 100 years ago.

Inner North End and downtown shot:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1247x1084q90/r/924/Zs0O9p.jpg

[Empire]

It wasn't half, it was mostly north of North Street with some of those buildings surviving or being rebuilt, and as you say the Hydrostone now covers a lot of that footprint and is itself historic since the rebuild was 100 years ago.

Inner North End and downtown shot:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1247x1084q90/r/924/Zs0O9p.jpg

Fantastic shot and great density. Looks like the flatiron building in the center of the shot that would be just north of Baton Rouge. Would like to see it rebuilt.

[Keith P.]

Inner North End and downtown shot:


That's downtown, not the North End. Good pic of that though.

[KnoxfordGuy]

So dense!:slob:

[someone123]

Don't think I posted this one yet. It is a frame of a drone video showing the Cogswell and Gottingen area. Click for the full video:

https://i.imgur.com/FFckOwG.jpg
Source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyARFv0UmXA)

I thought it was interesting in that it shows how much this area is evolving but also how far is left to go. I believe the Staples is owned by Southwest Properties and is likely to be redeveloped in the coming years.

[someone123]

A different angle:

https://i.imgur.com/DAyOWKc.jpg
Source (https://twitter.com/KirstenKonradi/status/1551378229214302208/photo/1)

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'm sure most locals have heard this already, but for out-of-towners who may follow this forum, there has been some senseless vandalism in the Public Gardens that will most likely result in numerous trees dying:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-public-gardens-reopen-30-trees-vandalized-1.6534067

The individual or group responsible for the damage to about 30 trees in the Halifax Public Gardens "knew exactly what they were doing," the city's senior urban forestry supervisor said Wednesday.

Sometime between Monday evening and Tuesday morning, strips of bark were removed around the trunk of many trees, most of which are between 50 and 200 years old, police say.

It's unclear how many trees will be lost due to the damage. The bark cutting — called girdling — is a method used to kill trees without cutting them down. If the cambium layer — the part of the tree that produces new wood — is damaged enough, the tree will die.

I'm not sure what to say, but clearly the intent was to cause major harm to an area that much of the city cherishes. It doesn't look good for the mental health of our society these days...

[terrynorthend]

Don't think I posted this one yet. It is a frame of a drone video showing the Cogswell and Gottingen area. Click for the full video:

https://i.imgur.com/FFckOwG.jpg
Source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyARFv0UmXA)

I thought it was interesting in that it shows how much this area is evolving but also how far is left to go. I believe the Staples is owned by Southwest Properties and is likely to be redeveloped in the coming years.

You are correct. Staples had been looking at a move to an urban format store as part of one of the new builds downtown (ground floor commercial/upper level residential) in anticipation of Southwest's eventual redevelopment of that property.

It was all.put on hold as many things due to the pandemic and subsequent economic fallout. Not sure where it stands now.

[LikesBikes]

That would be great if that cam e to fruition. Getting rid of the surface parking there would go a long way towards making it a more inviting spot. It's amazing how suburban and pedestrian and bike-unfriendly that intersection is considering the location.

[Keith P.]

That would be great if that cam e to fruition. Getting rid of the surface parking there would go a long way towards making it a more inviting spot. It's amazing how suburban and pedestrian and bike-unfriendly that intersection is considering the location.

There is very little surface parking there, certainly not enough to discourage anyone on foot from going in. Sometimes dogmatic arguments like this just make me shake my head.

The bigger issue is how short and stubby the new building being built behind Staples are. This is a downtown core yet they are sawed-off.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Crazy views of South End here. https://youtu.be/FyARFv0UmXA?t=121

[OldDartmouthMark]

There is very little surface parking there, certainly not enough to discourage anyone on foot from going in. Sometimes dogmatic arguments like this just make me shake my head.

The bigger issue is how short and stubby the new building being built behind Staples are. This is a downtown core yet they are sawed-off.

Have to agree with this.

As far as bike-unfriendly goes, I can see that the Cogswell Interchange (which is in the process of being removed) would not be a good place to ride, but that will change soon. Looking at Gottingen, my first thought is that the bus-only lane looks very bike-unfriendly (dicing with buses and their blind spots is not fun).

Overall, though, I've found the newly-developed areas of Gottingen to be very walkable, so I'm not sure how (what little remains of) surface parking is affecting anything but population density (which, as mentioned, would be easily negated if taller buildings were allowed to be built). Halifax government has very strange ideas about height limits.

[someone123]

Apparently this is being done to the Gibson's building on Chebucto Road?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYrPmNzXgAA3z_X?format=jpg
Source (https://mobile.twitter.com/SunilSarwal/status/1552281286227726336/photo/3)

Another case of a loss of character with generic new building styles used for little clear gain. It's good that they're not tearing it down for a parking lot I guess. Imagine how it would look if they made it a 4 storey building in the style of the old one but refreshed with some apartments above. Instead it somehow looks simpler or lesser than what was there, and makes it feel like the city's history is shrinking a bit (is this an Edwardian neighbourhood? A strip mall built in 2018?).

[Colin May]

Welcome to the knew BBC economy .....booze, biscuits and coffee.

[fatscat]

Apparently this is being done to the Gibson's building on Chebucto Road?


Don't mind a coffee shop/destination (as long as they don't go with that horrific signage!) but agree, it'd been nice to offer some light density by putting a few apartments over top. Owell.

[Drybrain]

Apparently this is being done to the Gibson's building on Chebucto Road?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYrPmNzXgAA3z_X?format=jpg
Source (https://mobile.twitter.com/SunilSarwal/status/1552281286227726336/photo/3)

Another case of a loss of character with generic new building styles used for little clear gain. It's good that they're not tearing it down for a parking lot I guess. Imagine how it would look if they made it a 4 storey building in the style of the old one but refreshed with some apartments above. Instead it somehow looks simpler or lesser than what was there, and makes it feel like the city's history is shrinking a bit (is this an Edwardian neighbourhood? A strip mall built in 2018?).

I'm glad to see the space being reanimated this way. It's a great little location for something like this. But likewise, it's a strange choice to just reduce the old building this way, turn it into some pleasant but generic box. I don't really understand the mentality that leads a person to buy a structure with intact and timeless decorative elements, etc, and just strip it all away for something that will look dated in ten years.

Obviously it's not the end of the world, but it demonstrates a lack of care and a lack of appreciation for what makes the city distinct. I'm sure the person doing this would also say the valued the city's historical character, if asked, yet is doing their bit to diminish it.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Based on the rendering I'd guess it's a new build built to resemble the existing building. Of course, if this were true, it'd be even more egregious to not build up a couple/few stories of residential units.

[Drybrain]

Based on the rendering I'd guess it's a new build built to resemble the existing building. Of course, if this were true, it'd be even more egregious to not build up a couple/few stories of residential units.

The development proposal submitted to the city indicates it’s a renovation of the existing building. But the fact that it looks like a new construction that pays vague homage the old building says a lot!

[LikesBikes]

I think this looks pretty good. The existing building imo is nothing special and I could see a cafe being pretty successful in that spot.

[LikesBikes]

There is very little surface parking there, certainly not enough to discourage anyone on foot from going in. Sometimes dogmatic arguments like this just make me shake my head.


No one's going to be discouraged from going in cause of the parking but it's an inefficient use of space for a downtown corner. Filling that space with a pedestrian-oriented commercial use would help fill in that area immensely and connect the north end to downtown.

[Keith P.]

No one's going to be discouraged from going in cause of the parking but it's an inefficient use of space for a downtown corner. Filling that space with a pedestrian-oriented commercial use would help fill in that area immensely and connect the north end to downtown.

I think your dogma just bit you again. There is nothing there that is keeping it from being pedestrian-oriented right now. The small number of surface parking spots opens them up to a customer base other than just pedestrians since there is no other place for a person in a vehicle to park nearby. God forbid a planner actually asked the business owner how their sales would be affected if their little parking area was eliminated. And as for connecting the north end to downtown, this is not the problem.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Which reminds me....the north end seems to be doing very well and, gasp!! (clutch your pearls now) the Cogswell Interchange is still there! Has the public been lied to over the past number of years? How often was it said that the reason the north end was doing so poorly was because of the Cogswell Interchange?

[atbw]

Which reminds me....the north end seems to be doing very well and, gasp!! (clutch your pearls now) the Cogswell Interchange is still there! Has the public been lied to over the past number of years? How often was it said that the reason the north end was doing so poorly was because of the Cogswell Interchange?

I don't recall this ever being said. I recall it being said that downtown and north end are disconnected due to Cogswell, but I don't really remember that being extrapolated into a case of the north end being downtrodden. It's been trendy for years now. Cogswell seems to be more about adding developable land/making that area more functional.

[Keith P.]

Which reminds me....the north end seems to be doing very well and, gasp!! (clutch your pearls now) the Cogswell Interchange is still there! Has the public been lied to over the past number of years? How often was it said that the reason the north end was doing so poorly was because of the Cogswell Interchange?

Would HRM Council lie to you?

This is their theme song...

Uhpu2N4rQZM

[OldDartmouthMark]

I don't recall this ever being said. I recall it being said that downtown and north end are disconnected due to Cogswell, but I don't really remember that being extrapolated into a case of the north end being downtrodden. It's been trendy for years now. Cogswell seems to be more about adding developable land/making that area more functional.

I recall those conversations as well, and the take-away perception that I was left with is that the downtrodden state of the neighbourhoods directly north (not necessarily the north end as such) was likely at least in part due to the separation caused by Cogswell.

Cogswell is a problem that is solving itself, IMHO. The original Harbour Drive concept was stopped in its tracks by the protests against tearing down the few remaining 1700s stone warehouses and some of the other buildings that now make up Historic Properties, so we were left with part of an expensive expressway that went nowhere. It lived out its life until maintenance costs gifted the city with a no-brainer decision to take it down and redevelop the valuable wasted land taken up by the interchange. The city's hand was basically forced to do what it should have proactively been doing in the first place.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think your dogma just bit you again. There is nothing there that is keeping it from being pedestrian-oriented right now. The small number of surface parking spots opens them up to a customer base other than just pedestrians since there is no other place for a person in a vehicle to park nearby. God forbid a planner actually asked the business owner how their sales would be affected if their little parking area was eliminated. And as for connecting the north end to downtown, this is not the problem.

Yeah, I see height limitations being density's kryptonite, not little parking lots that allow people who don't live in the neighbourhood to stop in and buy something at a business when there are no other parking areas closeby (not that somebody is going to travel from the suburbs to go to the downtown Staples, but that's not the point).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Apparently this is being done to the Gibson's building on Chebucto Road?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYrPmNzXgAA3z_X?format=jpg
Source (https://mobile.twitter.com/SunilSarwal/status/1552281286227726336/photo/3)

Another case of a loss of character with generic new building styles used for little clear gain. It's good that they're not tearing it down for a parking lot I guess. Imagine how it would look if they made it a 4 storey building in the style of the old one but refreshed with some apartments above. Instead it somehow looks simpler or lesser than what was there, and makes it feel like the city's history is shrinking a bit (is this an Edwardian neighbourhood? A strip mall built in 2018?).

I'll be the first one to admit that I've driven by this 1000 times and never gave it much notice, but yes, I do agree that eliminating the more ornate, stylish elements of the original building is a lost opportunity.

I can't hold the owners at fault for not turning it into a 4-storey building that includes residential, etc., as it appears that they just want to turn a small unused existing building into a coffee shop (adding floors would make it a development, not a renovation). However, IMHO there could have been more effort to incorporate the original themes of the building into the renovation, as opposed to turning it into a featureless box. The building in its current state is looking pretty run down, so I guess it's a net positive that it won't be torn down, but it could have been better IMHO.

Here's an older pic from Google maps to compare with the rendering:
https://i.imgur.com/V1it9xr.png
Source (https://goo.gl/maps/xdjMraH1aVpZGVXL8)

https://i.imgur.com/Wz7BQDq.png

[LikesBikes]

I think your dogma just bit you again. There is nothing there that is keeping it from being pedestrian-oriented right now. The small number of surface parking spots opens them up to a customer base other than just pedestrians since there is no other place for a person in a vehicle to park nearby. God forbid a planner actually asked the business owner how their sales would be affected if their little parking area was eliminated. And as for connecting the north end to downtown, this is not the problem.

Surface parking lots make walking a less pleasant experience. Further they add to the urban heat island, make walking more dangerous with a costant flow of motor vehicle traffic and are generally ugly places people don't want to be in. If that wasn't the case cities like Phoenix and Houston would be places people fly all over the world to instead of Paris, New York or Rome.

[Keith P.]

I remember that the Gibsons antique shop property was listed for sale a few years ago and the real estate listing had pictures of the residential space above and if memory serves at the rear of the ground level. It was what you might expect, pretty plain. The business itself had a FB page that has not been updated since 2015 so it looks like it has been inactive for a while. Unfortunately the pictures and old listing seem to have disappeared from anywhere I can find them.

From what I hear the bottom has fallen out of the antique furniture/collectible business over the last few years as younger people with money wanting to furnish their McMansions do not find it appealing.

[Jreeb]

I remember that the Gibsons antique shop property was listed for sale a few years ago and the real estate listing had pictures of the residential space above and if memory serves at the rear of the ground level. It was what you might expect, pretty plain. The business itself had a FB page that has not been updated since 2015 so it looks like it has been inactive for a while. Unfortunately the pictures and old listing seem to have disappeared from anywhere I can find them.

From what I hear the bottom has fallen out of the antique furniture/collectible business over the last few years as younger people with money wanting to furnish their McMansions do not find it appealing.

https://www.viewpoint.ca/property/cutimagel/202115089/1/2.jpg?&sd=summary&cch=03118daa

https://www.viewpoint.ca/property/cutimagel/202115089/1/5.jpg?&sd=summary&cch=03118daa

https://www.viewpoint.ca/property/cutimagel/202115089/1/13.jpg?&sd=summary&cch=03118daa

Source (https://www.viewpoint.ca/map#eyJvdmVydmlldyI6eyJsaXN0aW5nIjp7ImNsYXNzX2lkIjoxLCJsaXN0aW5nX2lkIjoiMjAyMTE1MDg5In0sInByb3BlcnR5Ijp7InBpZCI6IjAwMTMzMzYzIiwiY2xhc3NfaWQiOiIxIn19LCJzdW1tYXJ5Ijp7Imxpc3RpbmciOnsiY2xhc3NfaWQiOjEsImxpc3RpbmdfaWQiOiIyMDIxMTUwODkifSwicHJvcGVydHkiOnsicGlkIjoiMDAxMzMzNjMiLCJjbGFzc19pZCI6IjEifX19)

I found the old listing and you're right, everything seems to be quite old and rundown inside. Looks like the residential space is connected to the downstairs space. I wonder if they will offer seating upstairs and on the balcony.

[Keith P.]

Good find! That looks different from what I remember though, but maybe my memory is playing tricks. The door trim is clearly newer reproduction stuff that was added later. If the residential work had been better quality it might have made for a nice space.

Even though I have a Viewpoint login I cannot see those pictures at your link.

[IanWatson]

I think one of the things that gets dismissed or overlooked in the "old/heritage building" discussion is "heritage" layouts. Sure, interior finishes may be shot or may be victim of poorly-done renovations over the life of the building, but the original floor plan is still very often there, albeit with creative modifications to put in modern washrooms and such.

These are layouts that you would never build today for a variety of reasons, but a good designer can do wonders with to create a modern, unique space. For many years I lived in a 200-year-old condo, and while the interior finishes had all been upgraded, there was nothing to be done about the ceiling heights and the giant doubled-sided fireplace that dictated the layout of spaces. It wasn't conventional and, again, not something I would build if you gave me a blank sheet of paper, but it was an incredibly beautiful and cozy space.

What I see looking at this cafe in the Gibsons space is a desire to shape the building to fit the business, rather than the business to fit the building. Wide-open cafes with scandanavian finishes are a dime a dozen, but cozy little cafes tucked into the various nooks and crannies of an old building are harder and harder to come by.

[Wannabe Economist]

Apparently this is being done to the Gibson's building on Chebucto Road?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYrPmNzXgAA3z_X?format=jpg
Source (https://mobile.twitter.com/SunilSarwal/status/1552281286227726336/photo/3).

The rendering appears to show that they are removing the second 'floor' entirely to make way for double height ceilings. This is particularly visible around the front signage. I can't imagine the business case for removing an upstairs apartment to do 20 foot ceilings in a coffee shop makes much sense. Makes the whole thing appear to me as an owner-occupied passion project.

[Drybrain]

What I see looking at this cafe in the Gibsons space is a desire to shape the building to fit the business, rather than the business to fit the building. Wide-open cafes with scandanavian finishes are a dime a dozen, but cozy little cafes tucked into the various nooks and crannies of an old building are harder and harder to come by.

Excellent way to put it. It's basically no longer the old building anymore; just a shell that's been so heavily altered to accommodate current trends that it may as well be a new build. That's one of the ways in which character, however ineffably defined it may be, gets lost. And people genuinely appreciate that, but it often takes imagination to see it as a builder.

[Corker]

The rendering appears to show that they are removing the second 'floor' entirely to make way for double height ceilings. This is particularly visible around the front signage. I can't imagine the business case for removing an upstairs apartment to do 20 foot ceilings in a coffee shop makes much sense. Makes the whole thing appear to me as an owner-occupied passion project.


There's an article on this project in the Herald today. They are removing some of the floor to give the high ceiling. They are putting the apartment in the basement, which seems odd since it looks like it sits low to the ground so not sure if there are any windows down there.

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/news/old-gibsons-shop-on-chebucto-road-may-see-new-life-100759878/

[someone123]

There's an article on this project in the Herald today. They are removing some of the floor to give the high ceiling. They are putting the apartment in the basement, which seems odd since it looks like it sits low to the ground so not sure if there are any windows down there.

The article sounds exactly like you'd expect. Business owner looks for some properties for coffee shops, buys one in Cole Harbour and does whatever to it, buys one in Halifax and does whatever, following the rules in place.

One narrative is that owners should be free to do what they want with their buildings but actually this owner just looked around for a suitable building and worked with the constraints provided. There were limited constraints around preserving the external appearance of this property or architectural coherence for the neighbourhood. There are probably all kinds of arcane rules around density and parking, but not in those areas.

I think if HRM had given a bit more planning direction and assistance here something different/better could have been worked out (restore the outside windows and detailing and keep a compatible style for extra windows; maybe get some tax rebates in exchange), or maybe this developer would simply have picked a different property as this one would have been deemed unsuitable.

[Dmajackson]

Looks like excavation work has started on Lancaster Drive apartments next to the First Baptist Church. They will be accessed from the church's driveway and at the time of rezoning they were planned to be two buildings of six floors.

Case 21552 Rezoning (https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/community-councils/190502hemdcc1012.PDF) (Approved in 2019).

[Dmajackson]

Crane base was delivered today for Compass Cooperative on Maitland Street.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/5393d415a0b57ba3be79f45c5947745e/cb594d720b4ae412-13/s540x810/11883f3b56dcc6100cb71901599a3bc8763c9014.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

[fatscat]

Is there a thread for the Oxford / Bayers development (beside Look Ho Ho)? I can't find it.

[KMcK]

Is there a thread for the Oxford / Bayers development (beside Look Ho Ho)? I can't find it.

Try searching for Young Street.

[teddifax]

Developments Halifax on FB posted a bunch of pictures today and this development Bayers/Oxford was one of them.

[fatscat]

Thanks, seems we don't have a thread for it but I found it on the FB Page including the proposal (https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/business/planning-development/applications/20658_BayersYoung%20Application%20Details_Redacted.pdf)

[fatscat]

Crane base was delivered today for Compass Cooperative on Maitland Street.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/5393d415a0b57ba3be79f45c5947745e/cb594d720b4ae412-13/s540x810/11883f3b56dcc6100cb71901599a3bc8763c9014.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

Halifax is sure occupying a lot of cranes!

[kph06]

WM Fares Architects has updated their website. (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/). This gives a preview of many upcoming projects, many are currently recently made vacant lots. I can't seem to link the photos, so here are links to the project sites.


Joe Howe and Scot (North - by Superstore) (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/scot)

Joe Howe and Scot (South) (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/joseph-scot)

3485 Joe Howe (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/3485-joseph-howe)

Windsor and Willow (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/windsor-willow)

Wentworth Tower - Rockingham South (former Sobey's land) (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/wentworth)

Rockingham South Hotel - i thought this was changed to residential (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/mu-10)

[fatscat]

WM Fares Architects has updated their website. (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/). This gives a preview of many upcoming projects, many are currently recently made vacant lots. I can't seem to link the photos, so here are links to the project sites.


Nice designs. The great revamp of Joe Howe continues to impress. Just over 550 residential units added (plus whatever these two new additions contribute, probably ~100) on a stretch that housed, on my rough count, no more than a dozen or so single dwelling homes (rest being weak retail and the car mechanic on Percy).

[mleblanc]

Nice designs. The great revamp of Joe Howe continues to impress. Just over 550 residential units added (plus whatever these two new additions contribute, probably ~100) on a stretch that housed, on my rough count, no more than a dozen or so single dwelling homes (rest being weak retail and the car mechanic on Percy).

Agreed, and I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but why not taller?! So much space, so far away from arbitrary viewplanes, so much road, transit, etc. Literally anything I can think of to foster development and attempt to break this housing mess we're in. What could people complain about building tall here?

You could fit thousands of units in these lots. What're we waiting for?

[Colin May]

Agreed, and I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but why not taller?! So much space, so far away from arbitrary viewplanes, so much road, transit, etc. Literally anything I can think of to foster development and attempt to break this housing mess we're in. What could people complain about building tall here?

You could fit thousands of units in these lots. What're we waiting for?
Taller costs more money and time is also more money. Faster completion leads to faster occupancy. And the cost of money has increased significantly, as has the cost of supplies and labour.
Southland is advertising for school bus drivers, starting at $22.80 an hour - every business is facing significant cost pressure and the faster a project is completed the faster the project achieves positive cash flow. The old rules of business never change.

[Dmajackson]

WM Fares Architects has updated their website. (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/). This gives a preview of many upcoming projects, many are currently recently made vacant lots. I can't seem to link the photos, so here are links to the project sites.


Joe Howe and Scot (North - by Superstore) (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/scot)

Joe Howe and Scot (South) (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/joseph-scot)

3485 Joe Howe (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/3485-joseph-howe)

Windsor and Willow (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/windsor-willow)

Wentworth Tower - Rockingham South (former Sobey's land) (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/wentworth)

Rockingham South Hotel - i thought this was changed to residential (https://www.wmfaresarchitects.com/mu-10)

Wow that is a lot of growth for Joseph Howe and the bottom of Fairview. There is;

3411 Joe Howe - U/C
3485 Joe Howe - Demolition
Scot South - Unknown
Scot North - Land Cleared in 2021
The Interchange - U/C
Percy Street - Construction fencing up
La Villa West - Recently Completed
The Rosedale - Recently Completed
The Boss Plaza III - U/C
Port West - Construction fencing up
Main & Titus - Proposed
3840 Joe Howe - U/C

That area is starting to rival the North End in terms of construction sites. It's just not high-rises so it's not discussed as much.

As for the other projects I'm mostly surprised at Windsor and Willow. After all of the uproar over Spirit Place I didn't expect the zoning to allow for this scale. I'm good with it but I imagine it will stick out for quite a few years until the corridor densifies.

[Keith P.]

As for the other projects I'm mostly surprised at Windsor and Willow. After all of the uproar over Spirit Place I didn't expect the zoning to allow for this scale. I'm good with it but I imagine it will stick out for quite a few years until the corridor densifies.

One wonders where the uproar went this time after the shameful performance by both the neighborhood NIMBYs and the city council at the time around Spirit Place.

[fatscat]

Crane base was delivered today for Compass Cooperative on Maitland Street.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/5393d415a0b57ba3be79f45c5947745e/cb594d720b4ae412-13/s540x810/11883f3b56dcc6100cb71901599a3bc8763c9014.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

Is there a reliable source of number of cranes per city? I found this crane index (https://s31756.pcdn.co/americas/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2022/03/Q1-2022-Crane-Index.pdf), but it only highlights trends not actual numbers.

Based on some Googling, it looks like Halifax has tied or even surpassed Boston for number of cranes, which if true, is interesting! (Although Boston seems to have had sagging numbers for some time. I cherry picked it mostly for the sister city connection)

[kph06]

Is there a reliable source of number of cranes per city? I found this crane index (https://s31756.pcdn.co/americas/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2022/03/Q1-2022-Crane-Index.pdf), but it only highlights trends not actual numbers.

Based on some Googling, it looks like Halifax has tied or even surpassed Boston for number of cranes, which if true, is interesting! (Although Boston seems to have had sagging numbers for some time. I cherry picked it mostly for the sister city connection)

I may have a spreadsheet where I've been tracking this on for a number of years. I have 36 at the moment. I don't count bases without towers, but do count the portable cranes like at HSC (3 up at the moment), plus the long term placement of the one at the Shipyard. That number may have a margin of error of 1 or 2 as its hard to track them all when there are this many as almost weekly there is a change. The photos here certainly help!

[someone123]

Agreed, and I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but why not taller?! So much space, so far away from arbitrary viewplanes, so much road, transit, etc. Literally anything I can think of to foster development and attempt to break this housing mess we're in. What could people complain about building tall here?

It will be a shame if the Cogswell height limits remain as they are, undoubtedly the most likely outcome. The city is limiting its own revenue from the project and that area could use more residential density to counterbalance the older office complexes. It would allow for more architectural interest as well. The recent wave of development has proven that there is demand to build many more towers beyond 30 floors.

I can't help but notice that other cities push the envelope with similar new developments. Obviously Halifax will not be developing a WTC, Hudson Yards, or Canary Wharf, but there wasn't even really that much sentiment at the planning stages. So many constraints were put on this project before it even started and the planning horizon seemed very modest. I'm not sure there was much talk of adding architectural landmarks, major civic amenities, or new transit infrastructure.

[Colin May]

Canary Wharf...the project that ruined Reichmann and the family fortune. How soon we forget the financial disasters that were Queens Square and Admiralty Place.
I hate to think what our economies will be like when the ground in Ukraine freezes and the Russians squeeze the natural gas valves tighter. The next 7 - 12 months will be tough and I have almost completed my cancellation list of subscriptions to online news and research outlets.

[kph06]

The Scot and Joe Howe northern site by Superstore is getting concrete barriers and has excavators onsite, excavation appears to be imminent.

[Keith P.]

I agree also. The old public library may not have any particular architectural or historical merit, but it's siting on the lot does have merit, as does also the public space in front of the building. These reasons alone merit preservation. Surely the city can come up with some sort of public use for the building, perhaps a municipal museum or exhibition space of some kind, combined with a public meeting space or municipal conference facility.

A piece in the Herald today highlights ongoing inaction by HRM and the council member for the area on this valuable site on SGR. Shameful.

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/opinion/william-breckenridge-halifax-memorial-librarys-fate-still-shrouded-in-secrecy-100764029/

In early 2020, Halifax Regional Municipality council approved and added the Halifax Memorial Library site to the municipal registry of heritage properties. Cultural Resource Management Group Ltd. was engaged and researched the Spring Garden Road/Grafton Street area site. The group presented its findings and recommendations, “Former Halifax Memorial Library Archaeological Resource Impact Assessment,” that included potential development. In July, the building was added to HRM’s list of surplus properties.

In spite of requests for updates on what’s planned to repurpose the building, HRM officials remain tight-lipped on the way forward.

In response to a recent request, a municipal staff member indicated council has approved a series of next steps during a private and confidential session several months ago, but the city was unable at this time to provide further information due to its confidential nature.

The lack of transparency and meaningful public engagement by HRM officials regarding the future of one of Halifax’s most recognized modern classical structures, and what the building and site represent, is troublesome, to say the least.

[Keith P.]

Another piece in the Herald today highlights a rare moment of common sense in regard to closing off streets and bowing down to current-day urban planning dogma. Both Mr. MacKinnon (who somehow has retained his job while marching in lockstep alongside HRM Planning) and the wannebe planner council member for the area who has been sniping at area businesses over the years are now forced to beat a retreat.

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/news/local/downtown-halifax-business-commission-calls-off-project-to-add-temporary-new-features-to-bedford-row-100764161/

[Aegon123]

Driving down Robie between Spring and Cunard is really starting to get painful. They are knocking down so many individual homes at a scary rate. Even though none of the demos have been exquisite homes, I’d rather see a home than empty lot after empty lot.

I’m very pro development; however, I don’t know of any new builds to replace these buildings. I am afraid it’s gonna look like a mouth full of missing teeth for a while, and that’s unfortunate as it’s such a prominent thoroughfare.

[Drybrain]

Driving down Robie between Spring and Cunard is really starting to get painful. They are knocking down so many individual homes at a scary rate. Even though none of the demos have been exquisite homes, I’d rather see a home than empty lot after empty lot.

I’m very pro development; however, I don’t know of any new builds to replace these buildings. I am afraid it’s gonna look like a mouth full of missing teeth for a while, and that’s unfortunate as it’s such a prominent thoroughfare.

Pretty sure all (at least most) of these demolitions are down to George Tsimiklis, whose MO as a developer is completely baffling and bizarre. Agreed, it's pretty terrible, especially as he's said he's in no rush to redevelop. But I do feel like the spate of demolitions will probably wind down; he can't keep it up forever.

[Aegon123]

I am really sorry to hear that! A quick Google search confirms my fears. I find it maddening that developers are permitted to do this, especially during a housing crisis. The houses demolished housed provided at least some relief to the crisis — more than the now empty lots will. I stand by that there should be regulation around how long you can let a property stay empty after demolishing a building. There should at least be a proposal before Council!

I am sadden that we have another cluster of empty lots. Just a good chunk of the old ones were finally getting filled we have just as many new lots. Enough with the demos unless there is an active application!

[someone123]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. Building permit issued for 3 storey, 14-unit building at 2876 Isleville with rendering here: https://www.remaxnova.com/residential/north-end-real-estate/2876-isleville-street-north-end-mls-202206698

[Keith P.]

Essentially 14 hotel rooms as presently approved, units stated as being 300-500 sq ft each. Not in the most desirable part of the street.

[Dmajackson]

AGRICOLA WEST (5684 WEST STREET) (https://www.agricolawest.ca/) - Website is online. Occupancy is slated for October.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/3b0c586a0ef5a3ce9af9b10f9526c5ca/88e83f3eeaf31742-2b/s540x810/69835c7937bd3f9a4c9552890f272111dc26b245.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

[DT Hfx]

The Agricola West website shows a 3 bedroom unit (the Fort) in 1050sq ft that amazingly has 3 very good bedrooms! The design shrinks the living, kitchen, eating area as an interesting compromise.

[eastcoastal]

The Agricola West website shows a 3 bedroom unit (the Fort) in 1050sq ft that amazingly has 3 very good bedrooms! The design shrinks the living, kitchen, eating area as an interesting compromise.

Shrinking shared space with three bedrooms seems risky to me. If there are three regular sleeping spaces (granted, one of those bedrooms has no windows), I'd expect that you'd need MORE kitchen space, not less! I guess not everyone who lives there can sit in the "living room" at the same time...

[Keith P.]

Shrinking shared space with three bedrooms seems risky to me. If there are three regular sleeping spaces (granted, one of those bedrooms has no windows), I'd expect that you'd need MORE kitchen space, not less! I guess not everyone who lives there can sit in the "living room" at the same time...

More and more often, these sort of units are shared by people who do not know each other, who are not here long-term, and who are essentially renting a bedroom/bath and a mailing address. Often they keep different schedules, speak different languages, and are simply renting to get slightly cheaper rent than a 1-bedroom or studio. I suspect few "family meals" ever get prepared in that kitchen.

[eastcoastal]

More and more often, these sort of units are shared by people who do not know each other, who are not here long-term, and who are essentially renting a bedroom/bath and a mailing address. Often they keep different schedules, speak different languages, and are simply renting to get slightly cheaper rent than a 1-bedroom or studio. I suspect few "family meals" ever get prepared in that kitchen.

These are condos... so, given the scenario you describe, I guess the market is for people who are buying these only as income property (and may rent out the "living space" as a fourth bedroom!).

[kzt79]

Canary Wharf...the project that ruined Reichmann and the family fortune. How soon we forget the financial disasters that were Queens Square and Admiralty Place.
I hate to think what our economies will be like when the ground in Ukraine freezes and the Russians squeeze the natural gas valves tighter. The next 7 - 12 months will be tough and I have almost completed my cancellation list of subscriptions to online news and research outlets.

What was the problem with Admiralty place? I don't know the history that far back.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

These are condos... so, given the scenario you describe, I guess the market is for people who are buying these only as income property (and may rent out the "living space" as a fourth bedroom!).

I can't seem to locate anything to suggest that this building/units are for sale. I do see in the promo info online the use of the word 'condominium' but I also see 'residential project'. Maybe it's not a condo?

[kzt79]

I can't seem to locate anything to suggest that this building/units are for sale. I do see in the promo info online the use of the word 'condominium' but I also see 'residential project'. Maybe it's not a condo?

Given their own site calls it a "condominium" and they list a sales team of 2 realtors I would guess it is/will be a condo. That said, we have certainly seen these things change!

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Given their own site calls it a "condominium" and they list a sales team of 2 realtors I would guess it is/will be a condo. That said, we have certainly seen these things change!

Thank you. Silly me was toggling between the Atlantic Developments Inc page and the Agricola West page. The 'Contacts' menu item provides the real estate contacts on the latter page.

[Wannabe Economist]

This building was built as apartments, and just 3 months ago the developer changed course to condos instead. Likely a product of interest rates.

[eastcoastal]

I can't seem to locate anything to suggest that this building/units are for sale. I do see in the promo info online the use of the word 'condominium' but I also see 'residential project'. Maybe it's not a condo?

I saw a sign on the site, maybe a week ago (?) saying that "sales" were to start in September, with occupancy in the "fall." Today's AllNovaScotia indicated some pricing for the units, which I can't remember now.