[Halifax] The Winslow (2570 Windsor) | 20 m | 7 fl | Completed

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Only took 16 years from the original 7-floor Spirit Place proposal that Council and staff of the day (Mason, Craig, Karsten, Sloane, Adams, McCluskey, Johns et al) and HRM planning staff all opposed, along with future Council member Austin as well in his posts here, resulting in the whole effort being torpedoed and the church being forced to sell the property, which led to the old church building's demolition. So nearly 2 decades later we get a similar 7-storey box apartment on the site with none of the community aspects for the former congregation that the church elders supported at the start. What a debacle.

Completely agree.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

And cost escalation all the while ... with out all the middling, there would long since have been a building that many would have been able to afford at more reasonable prices.

I think that's something that a lot of folks decrying the current costs of housing miss - we are now building all the housing that we should have been building in the 2000s / 2010s, but we're building it in the 2020s price environment. That's one of many reasons that the rents have risen so harshly in Halifax compared to other similarly sizes Canadian cities.

Broadly speaking, I've noticed that pretty much any new development proposal on social media (outside this forum, eg IG FB reddit etc) is met with generally negative comments and complaints about price. "The building is unaffordable" yet somehow most new buildings are full or nearly so, often times with a wait list. It seems most people (including a lot of decision makers, apparently) don't understand that today's luxury (lol) housing is tomorrow's affordable housing.

By blocking progress for almost 2 decades they contributed significantly to the current insane prices which are approaching the top end of the national range, for a place with low income and very high taxes.

[Keith P.]

The noise about virtually any new building proposal you see on social sites is always the same. “Greedy slumlords, too expensive, nobody can afford it…” blah blah blah. What those all seem to ignore is that despite the inflated costs, most of those developments fill up pretty quickly. They don’t seem to realize that (sadly) the days of a $600 to $800/month rental apartment are mostly gone.

While I agree that $2500/mo would be out of reach for many/most, that’s what the market demands for new, nice units these days.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The noise about virtually any new building proposal you see on social sites is always the same. “Greedy slumlords, too expensive, nobody can afford it…” blah blah blah. What those all seem to ignore is that despite the inflated costs, most of those developments fill up pretty quickly. They don’t seem to realize that (sadly) the days of a $600 to $800/month rental apartment are mostly gone.

Today's high-end new rental becomes tomorrow's affordable rental. Part of the reason for the lack of affordable supply today (in Halifax and all around Canada) was the obstructionism from around 1995-2025.

I don't agree with the nihilism. This is about the purest policy choice blunder you could ever have. There is no fundamental lack of space or resources in Canada. Historians and political scientists should marvel at how a country that's mostly unpopulated forest could manage to have a housing crisis.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Today's high-end new rental becomes tomorrow's affordable rental. Part of the reason for the lack of affordable supply today (in Halifax and all around Canada) was the obstructionism from around 1995-2025.

I don't agree with the nihilism. This is about the purest policy choice blunder you could ever have. There is no fundamental lack of space or resources in Canada. Historians and political scientists should marvel at how a country that's mostly unpopulated forest could manage to have a housing crisis.

Agreed. Especially with your last sentence. It actually would be humourous were it not for the dire circumstances that it describes.

Obviously I don't think it's fair or right to sluff off those complaining about high rents. The truth is most often somewhere in the middle of the extremes, and I think on average the percentage of a person's wages that must be spent on a place to live is higher than is reasonable. Objectively. I'm sure there are stats for that.

That said, for much of social media, garbage in = garbage out. I don't think it's wise to let most of that stuff inhabit one's conscious thoughts (though it also takes its toll on the subconscious) - it's just not good for one's state of mind or sense of reality. YMMV.

[someone123]

I think the complainers are right about the problem, but are often mostly wrong about the reasons. It is like the plague and bloodletting or flagellation.

"Greedy developers" is almost always wrong in its application for example. Some are greedy but the problem isn't the greed, it's the lack of supply and competition. There are slumlords who take advantage of systemic problems like slow enforcement of laws; that is a legitimate complaint. There are also a lot of bad tenants out there, and some complaints about slumlords are from crazy people.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the complainers are right about the problem, but are often mostly wrong about the reasons. It is like the plague and bloodletting or flagellation.

"Greedy developers" is almost always wrong in its application for example. Some are greedy but the problem isn't the greed, it's the lack of supply and competition. There are slumlords who take advantage of systemic problems like slow enforcement of laws; that is a legitimate complaint. There are also a lot of bad tenants out there, and some complaints about slumlords are from crazy people.

Fair take. Remember however that there are some “greedy developers” who cheap out on cladding etc to increase profit margins though. I’m partially saying this in jest but not completely.

People will live in ugly buildings because they need a place to live. Without incentives or regulations from the City, though, the rest of us are forced to see it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

A further thought on the subject does make me wonder what the limitations are on us accepting the supply/demand argument over the greedy developer/landlord argument.

It used to be accepted that a reasonable amount of your income to cover a place to live was 30%. That allowed sufficient funds to cover food, transportation, and other essentials, assuming that you are living modestly “within your means”. Of course that’s out the window now, with the average renter spending whatever it costs to live somewhere and cutting corners on all the other stuff.

Meanwhile, at least from what I read in the SSP forum, supply/demand rules, and if one complains about the people who are making obscene amounts of money from the housing crisis (the “greedy” ones), then they are unreasonable as the owners are just following the golden rules of capitalism. I still believe that a democratic, capitalist society seems to be the best one out there, but when we are squeezing a large chunk of our society, mostly our young and the ‘have nots’, should we not start asking ourselves whether there should be some ethical standard to adhere to? The developers are going to cry increased costs, supply chain, and worker availability, etc. and surely some of that will be a factor. However, $2500? $3500? What is the limitation of what should be asked for a small to medium sized apartment?

Paradoxically, I read people on this forum saying that they are professionals making $70K+ per year yet they are having trouble finding an affordable apartment, and a SFH is out of the question. Yet we still are defending (mostly) owners of buildings for charging “market rates” with little to no limitations.

Likewise, SFH and condos. Should we not be considering some method of limiting selling price based upon size/condition/location? Or is that just too messy to tackle? Something has got to give as we are not in a good place at the moment. Maybe supply/demand will eventually allow lower prices for apartments (since that’s all that is being built at the moment). SFH/duplex/triplex/townhomes not so much.

Just food for thought. I’m not looking to get involved in some back and forth debate with anybody. I think sometimes things just need to be said out in the open, for better or worse, to make us think a little more.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the complainers are right about the problem, but are often mostly wrong about the reasons. It is like the plague and bloodletting or flagellation.

"Greedy developers" is almost always wrong in its application for example. Some are greedy but the problem isn't the greed, it's the lack of supply and competition. There are slumlords who take advantage of systemic problems like slow enforcement of laws; that is a legitimate complaint. There are also a lot of bad tenants out there, and some complaints about slumlords are from crazy people.

It's crazy to me how much time and energy is spent on "greedy developers", as if human nature isn't constant or developers today are somehow any more greedy than those 20-30-50 years ago LOL. Totally ridiculous line of thinking. I would wager you could replace all current developers with those complaining about said developers, and see the very same outcomes.

The issue is the conditions (driven almost entirely by government policy) which ALLOW said developers to charge the prices they can. THAT is where the fault (and possible solutions) lie.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by someone123

Today's high-end new rental becomes tomorrow's affordable rental. Part of the reason for the lack of affordable supply today (in Halifax and all around Canada) was the obstructionism from around 1995-2025.

I don't agree with the nihilism. This is about the purest policy choice blunder you could ever have. There is no fundamental lack of space or resources in Canada. Historians and political scientists should marvel at how a country that's mostly unpopulated forest could manage to have a housing crisis.

Yes it is truly remarkable how a country with vast space, resources, and up until relatively recently skilled trades etc could so badly fail to balance housing supply vs demand.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A further thought on the subject does make me wonder what the limitations are on us accepting the supply/demand argument over the greedy developer/landlord argument.

It used to be accepted that a reasonable amount of your income to cover a place to live was 30%. That allowed sufficient funds to cover food, transportation, and other essentials, assuming that you are living modestly “within your means”. Of course that’s out the window now, with the average renter spending whatever it costs to live somewhere and cutting corners on all the other stuff.

Meanwhile, at least from what I read in the SSP forum, supply/demand rules, and if one complains about the people who are making obscene amounts of money from the housing crisis (the “greedy” ones), then they are unreasonable as the owners are just following the golden rules of capitalism. I still believe that a democratic, capitalist society seems to be the best one out there, but when we are squeezing a large chunk of our society, mostly our young and the ‘have nots’, should we not start asking ourselves whether there should be some ethical standard to adhere to? The developers are going to cry increased costs, supply chain, and worker availability, etc. and surely some of that will be a factor. However, $2500? $3500? What is the limitation of what should be asked for a small to medium sized apartment?

Paradoxically, I read people on this forum saying that they are professionals making $70K+ per year yet they are having trouble finding an affordable apartment, and a SFH is out of the question. Yet we still are defending (mostly) owners of buildings for charging “market rates” with little to no limitations.

Likewise, SFH and condos. Should we not be considering some method of limiting selling price based upon size/condition/location? Or is that just too messy to tackle? Something has got to give as we are not in a good place at the moment. Maybe supply/demand will eventually allow lower prices for apartments (since that’s all that is being built at the moment). SFH/duplex/triplex/townhomes not so much.

Just food for thought. I’m not looking to get involved in some back and forth debate with anybody. I think sometimes things just need to be said out in the open, for better or worse, to make us think a little more.

In general, market participants will charge what they can get for their goods or services. This extends across the board - most people for example do not go to work and offer to perform identical duties as a colleague but for less pay bc they are "not greedy." In aggregate, people will try to optimize their income. Sure, there are some who don't care as much and will accept lower remuneration and others who are more cutthroat and will move jobs for slightly higher income for example but overall group behaviour is predictable.

Landlords are providing a service for a profit. They are (or should be) constrained by market forces including competition from other landlords. The balance (or lack thereof) can be measured, for example by vacancy rates.

If I try to book a hotel for this weekend (sailGP) today, I will fully expect to pay >$1000/night for an average to crappy room, if any are available at all (I haven't checked). This reflects supply and demand.

Now it's entirely valid that housing is a basic need and therefore different, and needs protections. Realistically, these protections (whatever form they take) must come from government. Ironically it is all levels of government working to pump demand and limit supply that has distorted the market and led to the present crisis. Increased direct intervention as you propose may only worsen things. Price controls in general don't work and usually make things worse for all involved. Instead we need government to back off some of the distortions they imposed, and fortunately we are seeing some steps in this direction (decrease immigration volume, relaxed development restrictions). Beyond providing some amount of subsidized housing for those at the bottom truly in need, government should create create conditions where they cannot charge excessive prices because competition prevents it.

A healthy market is one where abundant supply gives consumers choices and forces sellers to compete.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by kzt79

Now it's entirely valid that housing is a basic need and therefore different, and needs protections. Realistically, these protections (whatever form they take) must come from government. Ironically it is all levels of government working to pump demand and limit supply that has distorted the market and led to the present crisis. Increased direct intervention as you propose may only worsen things. Price controls in general don't work and usually make things worse for all involved. Instead we need government to back off some of the distortions they imposed, and fortunately we are seeing some steps in this direction (decrease immigration volume, relaxed development restrictions).

This.

One could also extend the same line of thinking to other essentials, such as electricity, food, etc.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by kzt79

... Landlords are providing a service for a profit. They are (or should be) constrained by market forces including competition from other landlords. The balance (or lack thereof) can be measured, for example by vacancy rates...

Now it's entirely valid that housing is a basic need and therefore different, and needs protections. Realistically, these protections (whatever form they take) must come from government...

A healthy market is one where abundant supply gives consumers choices and forces sellers to compete.

I agree that developers should be making a profit. And, in an ideal world, they're providing a wide range of products that are appropriate to different market segments. I'm not convinced that the market self-regulates quickly enough to respond to recent pressures, but I would expect that over time, there'd be a balance for MOST housing types.

I think that falls apart when we think of "affordable" housing. It's not well defined, and when government makes developers responsible for this, the price of affordable housing typically based on some defined percentage of market rate. There are some exceptions to this, like the non-profit Creighton Gerrish Development Association that tied cost to a proportion of a person's income for new housing they built - there was also a requirement to be "from" the area. I don't think its reasonable to expect non-profits to deal with all affordable housing needs (and I suspect the skills and desire to self-organize something like the Creighton/Gerrish group are limited). So... it should be the responsibility of government to intervene in some way where market-rate housing is not going to address needs of low-income people.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The problem is, status quo has gotten us into this, and will guarantee that it will be years before we are out of it (if we are ever), and doesn’t guarantee that we won’t go back into it again in a few years, a decade, whenever. Meanwhile we will have at least a whole generation of our young people who may never get to enjoy more affordable (however you define it) housing that previous (and maybe future) generations have (and may).

The whole reason I posted my gibberish is to say that we have to do better than this.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The problem is, status quo has gotten us into this, and will guarantee that it will be years before we are out of it (if we are ever), and doesn’t guarantee that we won’t go back into it again in a few years, a decade, whenever. Meanwhile we will have at least a whole generation of our young people who may never get to enjoy more affordable (however you define it) housing that previous (and maybe future) generations have (and may).

The whole reason I posted my gibberish is to say that we have to do better than this.

Fully agree. It's crazy to think of the absolutely massive difference in my quality of life vs had I been born not too many years later.

It's not clear to me that there's any near term solution short of some kind of massive wartime-level effort to construct new housing, which probably isn't happening.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by kzt79

Fully agree. It's crazy to think of the absolutely massive difference in my quality of life vs had I been born not too many years later.

It's not clear to me that there's any near term solution short of some kind of massive wartime-level effort to construct new housing, which probably isn't happening.

Yeah, and yet there’s talk in another thread that some of the Dartmouth residential towers might not get built as planned, in the event of a rental slowdown, because god help us if our vacancy rate were to rise and the average cost of rentals might have to sink back to sane levels.

It’s the disconnect between the business world who control a commodity that people virtually can’t live without, and the actual, palpable need of our people that I can’t get my head around. It feels like maybe there’s a hesitation to invest in a project unless there’s a guaranteed maximum profit margin, even though the money being pulled in today would be unimaginable 10 years ago, even taking inflation into account.

Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated by it all, but I am. It’s not like there are no pathways to correcting the problem, just no participants in positions of power (both private and public) that are willing to tackle it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, and yet there’s talk in another thread that some of the Dartmouth residential towers might not get built as planned, in the event of a rental slowdown, because god help us if our vacancy rate were to rise and the average cost of rentals might have to sink back to sane levels.

It has been like this in Vancouver for years. A few developers control a lot of key sites, like old shopping malls, and they announce huge housing plans but then phase the construction over a long time, carefully maximizing the sale prices. If there's any whiff of a downturn they get cold feet. There isn't actually any shortage of developable highrise land and there's still core land that's been "banked" since the 80s which could have had people living there for decades.

It seems like an unhealthy environment where there's a cartel of builders, a lot of presale speculation and very high taxes/fees as well as construction costs. To break this I think we'd need a lot of work done around all these factors. Development fees largely cut, problems with materials and labour costs improved, and governments pushing for construction even in a downturn through mechanisms like CMHC taking over or backstopping projects. Some of this has happened but I'm not sure that enough has.

It has worked out great for generating $$$$ for some people though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It has been like this in Vancouver for years. A few developers control a lot of key sites, like old shopping malls, and they announce huge housing plans but then phase the construction over a long time, carefully maximizing the sale prices. If there's any whiff of a downturn they get cold feet. There isn't actually any shortage of developable highrise land and there's still core land that's been "banked" since the 80s which could have had people living there for decades.

It seems like an unhealthy environment where there's a cartel of builders, a lot of presale speculation and very high taxes/fees as well as construction costs. To break this I think we'd need a lot of work done around all these factors. Development fees largely cut, problems with materials and labour costs improved, and governments pushing for construction even in a downturn through mechanisms like CMHC taking over or backstopping projects. Some of this has happened but I'm not sure that enough has.

It has worked out great for generating $$$$ for some people though.

Cartel is an apt term as it really feels that the masses are getting played for the benefit of a few. It’s disconcerting that it’s been happening in Vancouver for so long without much change, as IMHO that probably means that it’s even less likely to change around here. Things have been far worse in your area for a lot longer than they have here, and I don’t get the feeling that Halifax politicians are as competent or as willing to act as Vancouver’s might be (just my feeling).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Cartel is an apt term as it really feels that the masses are getting played for the benefit of a few. It’s disconcerting that it’s been happening in Vancouver for so long without much change, as IMHO that probably means that it’s even less likely to change around here. Things have been far worse in your area for a lot longer than they have here, and I don’t get the feeling that Halifax politicians are as competent or as willing to act as Vancouver’s might be (just my feeling).

Vancouver/BC politics are really not much better than NS if at all. It is kind of shocking. Some specific things are different, like the rural areas here really don't have all that much political power.

[Keith P.]

I think you need to adjust your perspective. From what I understand, a unit in an average 7-storey box apartment costs about $200K to build. Add “luxury” finishes and more space and you get up to $300K. Obviously larger units are more costly. I’ve seen the same sort of numbers for high-rises. When the time comes to set rents which include common services, amenities, property taxes and the like, add those to amortization of the construction costs and a profit margin for the developer taking the risk and you end up with your monthly rent. New construction units are never going to be cheap. In a tight market like we’ve had recently those rents are naturally going to be higher due to demand. Not all developers are the “greedy” types the message board mobs like to jump on.