General Updates and News

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Click the link to the CBC article; it's in there. The idea isn't to require lots to be built with four units, but simply allow it. It won't prevent an individual or a developer from building single houses. It just won't prohibit them from building up to fourplexes if they prefer.

There is a bit of sleight of hand happening here where NIMBYs make it sound like they're on the side of property rights. But being allowed to build on your property is a right too, and arguably closer to the original intent of property ownership than claims about being free from shadows on your property, or noise, or traffic around your property.

Municipalities implement a ban on most medium or high density construction on most urban land in Canada, going down to even 2 or 3 units on a large building lot in many cases, and sometimes restricting density below the existing historical norm in some areas. The debate is about relaxing the ban.

I think Colin's probably out of touch here in that the Liberals are polling terribly and feel they have to scramble to implement policies like this. Far too late, and it's crazy that they didn't plan for the increased immigration flows they created, but better late than never I guess.

[Keith P.]

Of course, Mason has now stated that elimination of the ridiculously low height restriction from HRM's planning opus will be a problem for Council (that is on Bousquet's Blog, and he has become stingy in offering access to non-paywalled articles, so you cannot read that here). Quelle surprise. The arrogance and hubris of Council knows few bounds.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Great way to lose votes. Our lot is 2,550 sq ft with a house built before the Halifax explosion. Next door is a SFH with 2,010 sg ft.
The home behind me is on a 1,980 ft lot
If either house burns down does he require a 4 unit new build ?
Where does the Minister state what you claim ?
Does a lot in Sheet Harbour have to have 4 units and does he specify the square footage per unit ?
Can I turn our house into a rooming house with 4 units after a fire burns the existing home to the ground ?

LOL a desperate scramble for votes is exactly why they're doing this.

[hoser111]

Halifax about halfway through Cogswell redevelopment project

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2266892867815

Phase 2 of Cogswell project to create more detours, delays in downtown Halifax

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/news/ph...rs-delays-in-downtown-halifax-100895505/

[terrynorthend]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that a FAR of 2.25 for the old Post Office in DT Dartmouth? How are they going to build a 30 floor building there?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that a FAR of 2.25 for the old Post Office in DT Dartmouth? How are they going to build a 30 floor building there?

There's a policy that allows adaptive reuse of heritage buildings by development agreement. It allows wide latitude to deviate from the standard rules, as long as you're maintaining/enhancing the heritage elements. The one thing you can't deviate from is maximum height, but in DT Dartmouth the max height is 90 metres.

[teddifax]

So not understanding FAR, how high can a building with a FAR of 8.0 be built? I hope it means the tallest building in HRM!!!

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by teddifax

So not understanding FAR, how high can a building with a FAR of 8.0 be built? I hope it means the tallest building in HRM!!!

Depends on the lot size and whether or not there is a separate height limit applied to the lot.

FAR doesn’t directly dictate height. It controls how much gross floor area you’re allowed to build. If you have a 10,000 SF lot and an FAR of 2 you’re allowed to build 2 x 10,000 = 20,000 SF. Assuming no other restrictions (setbacks etc) you could cover the lot to 2 storeys, or half the lot to 4 storeys, or a quarter of the lot to 8 storeys, etc.

All that being said, the tallest as-of-right height permitted in the Regional Centre is 90 meters. At this location you’d certainly be competing for highest elevation of the top floor, since the 90 metres is also on top of almost the highest point on the Peninsula.

[Jreeb]

Originally Posted by teddifax

So not understanding FAR, how high can a building with a FAR of 8.0 be built? I hope it means the tallest building in HRM!!!

Viewpoint says the Shoppers lot is 52,639 sf so theoretically the total building area could be 421,112 sf (52,639 * 8). For comparison, the Tower A at Best St. Dartmouth Towers is 33 storeys and I believe anywhere from 250,000 sf to 300,000 sf. I can't remember the number but the Shoppers site would allow for more density than this.

Who knows if the city would ever allow this...but it does have a chance to become the tallest in the city, I believe. As mentioned the maximum height limit is 90m so the build would most likely be restricted to that.

I think you could get a more accurate number by estimating an average site coverage for the lot and then an average floor sf... maybe someone wants to take a stab at it.

[terrynorthend]

In the pdf map of FAR precincts linked above, the giant former Piercey's lot behind SDM has no FAR listing.
What gives with that site? It seems like it could hold substantial development given the character of the neighborhood growing around it.

[HfxGuy]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

In the pdf map of FAR precincts linked above, the giant former Piercey's lot behind SDM has no FAR listing.
What gives with that site? It seems like it could hold substantial development given the character of the neighborhood growing around it.

I believe that’s designated as one of the special planning areas or whatever they’re called. Along with the Bayers rd centre, Micmac mall etc. 100% agree it can accommodate significant density. Hopefully we see some movement on that area soon.

[alps]

Originally Posted by HfxGuy

I believe that’s designated as one of the special planning areas or whatever they’re called. Along with the Bayers rd centre, Micmac mall etc. 100% agree it can accommodate significant density. Hopefully we see some movement on that area soon.

Not a Special Planning Area, which is a provincial thing, but a municipally designated Future Growth Node. Some Future Growth Nodes have also been designated Special Planning Areas by the province (e.g. Penhorn, Southdale/Mount Hope).

[alps]

By Rebecca Lau
Global News
Posted September 27, 2023 1:18 pm

The Nova Scotia and federal governments plans to build 222 new public housing units — the first time the province has added to its stock in nearly three decades.

During an announcement Tuesday, the province said the housing units will be made available to families, individuals and low-income seniors in rural and urban communities.

The units will be built on provincially-owned land close to existing public housing developments in Bridgewater, Kentville, Truro, as well as multiple locations in Cape Breton and Halifax Regional Municipality.

The province is pitching in $58.8 million to the project, while the federal government is contributing $24.4 million.

Public housing is residential space owned and operated by the government, with rent based on a household’s income rather than market rates.

The units will be operated by the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency, a Crown corporation created in 2022 following a damning auditor general report that found the stock was poorly managed by the province’s five former housing authorities.

Nova Scotia has around 11,200 public housing units and the average age of the structures is 42 years. The last significant public housing project was completed in 1995.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9988823/nova-scotia-public-housing-announcement/

Better late than never. we need a lot more than this however.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by alps

Better late than never. we need a lot more than this however.

This is great news. Hopefully they don't stop at 200 units, we desperately need this.

[Jstaleness]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...r-housing-money-but-not-height-1.6979299

CBC.ca article.

Once again Waye is given the interview and disagrees height will make a difference.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...r-housing-money-but-not-height-1.6979299

CBC.ca article.

Once again Waye is given the interview and disagrees height will make a difference.

He didn't want height or apartments or on the empty lots on the east side of Young Avenue where very rich people live on that section of the street. Now there are single family homes on what could have been high end apartments or medium priced apartments.
And he killed the student high rise housing proposal from a Montreal developer who specialised in the building of student accommodation.
NIMBYism at its finest.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...r-housing-money-but-not-height-1.6979299

CBC.ca article.

Once again Waye is given the interview and disagrees height will make a difference.

At four units per lot, it won't really make much difference. The quibbling over what amounts to one metre of building height is a bit silly, but fundamentally council endorsed the substance of the federal request.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

At four units per lot, it won't really make much difference.

One of the dilemmas here in Vancouver is that if you take a $2M lot and build 4 units on it the price per unit is still unaffordable to most people. But that's much less true of a comparable $700k property in the inner suburbs of Halifax.

I hope it doesn't lead to the further decimation of unregistered historic buildings. It could work out really well if a bunch of bungalows get replaced.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

One of the dilemmas here in Vancouver is that if you take a $2M lot and build 4 units on it the price per unit is still unaffordable to most people. But that's much less true of a comparable $700k property in the inner suburbs of Halifax.

I hope it doesn't lead to the further decimation of unregistered historic buildings. It could work out really well if a bunch of bungalows get replaced.

A lot of the historic areas already have zoning for two or three units, and it hasn't led to widespread demolition, so I'm optimistic it won't happen. Mason's amendment actually addressed this; the full text was to enable:

1. Four units per lot in all residential zones across the municipality

2. Changes to the regional centre secondary planning strategy and land-use bylaw that would enable more missing middle housing, with a focus on smaller, faster building form and construction, and wood frame construction, while ensuring water supply and wastewater capacity are considered, and existing and proposed heritage aras are exempted.

But that's a mouthful and the "changes" are not specified. Do they include the four units? Kind of unclear. The most straightforward thing to do would have been to upzone everything, except request to temporarily carve out the Centre Plan's proposed heritage districts (which cover relatively little land area but wrap quite conveniently around much of the most significant and visible intact historic areas in the city) while the city studies them for implementation.

Mason's amendment specifically mentions exempting the heritage areas, but isn't clear on whether they would be exempted from the four units. I think it makes sense to do that until they get passed (or not) which I understand could take years given understaffing in the heritage department.

Anyway, that was one of the main concerns around this, so hopefully it's being considered carefully. Even so, I'm not too worried about it--only a little worried. If builders are going to start looking at properties for redevelopment, it definitely makes sense to start targeting small, lower-value, unremarkable properties for replacement rather than the historic ones, which will tend to be more expensive to acquire and demolish. Of course, nothing is guaranteed.

[someone123]

I worry about neighbourhoods like around May and Agricola where there's distinct character but none of the buildings themselves are particularly historic or valuable. A more upscale version is somewhere like Jubilee-Robie-Henry. Sacrificing these small historic areas would make very little difference to the housing supply. I suspect the heritage areas with character are a lot more extensive than the districts currently in place.

A lot of it comes down to the style of development. The character of a lot of these areas can be enhanced with additions. A lot of the North End would just look better with 3 or 4 storey rows instead of 2 storey boxes. The South End is full of originally higher-end houses with apartment additions in back that have little impact on the streetscape, although the houses often aren't in the greatest shape. There isn't really much direct trade-off between character and density, but it has to be managed in a particular way.