General Updates and News

[Colin May]

[QUOTE=LikesBikes;10178187]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This is an HR-1 zone, so eight storeys is the max. Interesting that this location didn't get a density bump with the proposed HAF changes. (Even a kick up to HR-2 zoning could get this to 12 storeys, which I dbn't think would engender any howls of outrage.)

This is maddening given its proximity to schools, transit, AT infrastructure, and high walkability. We have the infrastructure here - why we can't build higher than eight storeys is maddening.

On our street we have seen the transition from many children to few/not many children and back to many children. People with children and who can afford their own home predominantly avoid high rise apartment/condos for obvious reasons ( obvious to people who have children or plan on having children). Park space at both ends of the street and schools for all grades, and close to transit. Developers build to the needs of the market.

[HarbingerDe]

[QUOTE=Colin May;10178421]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

On our street we have seen the transition from many children to few/not many children and back to many children. People with children and who can afford their own home predominantly avoid high rise apartment/condos for obvious reasons ( obvious to people who have children or plan on having children). Park space at both ends of the street and schools for all grades, and close to transit. Developers build to the needs of the market.

The fact that developers virtually always build to the exact height limitation of a given zoning area, suggests they are not being permitted to build to the needs of the market.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

The fact that developers virtually always build to the exact height limitation of a given zoning area, suggests they are not being permitted to build to the needs of the market.

I've said this before. It seems odd that the city has been so restrictive on height, even before the housing crisis, but especially now.

From a labour/materials standpoint, once all the site prep, etc., is done, adding more floors should be relatively painless for the developer since you're just doing more of the same, and you've already got a crane and crew on site.

The number of building lots is finite, especially on the peninsula where it makes more sense to densify the population, so in a city where growth is showing no indication of slowing down in the foreseeable future, we should be making the best use of these lots. As a side benefit, it allows there to be less of a threat to those heritage properties that are ripe for the taking as good/easy building sites dry up.

Furthermore, if developers are willing to go higher, then why not let it happen? They are taking the risk of having empty units (not likely to happen anytime soon), so why not let them decide the best business case for building capacity and add all of those extra units into the market that could at least give us a shot of supply exceeding demand, and the resultant market price adjustment?

It makes no sense to me that the city is placing arbitrary limits on densification of the peninsula. Even if they are concerned about infrastructure capacity, that's just an engineering solution away, as water supply/wastewater capacity, electrical, etc. can all be increased and costs will eventually be resolved by the increased tax base (not to mention the coming property tax rate increases). Road capacity can't be increased, but then we could have improved transit options, plus more density will mean that amenities can be supported by the population such that the downtown could be more walkable or practical to get around by cycle. LRT, or at least more buses, could be possible as well.

Anyhow... this has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Every time I see a new rendering on this site, or a new completed building, it hits the magical 7/8 floor number, and I see another lost opportunity. This from a city council that lauds itself as being progressive, environmentally aware, etc etc... It's frustrating.

[new2halifax]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Every time I see a new rendering on this site, or a new completed building, it hits the magical 7/8 floor number, and I see another lost opportunity. This from a city council that lauds itself as being progressive, environmentally aware, etc etc... It's frustrating.

100% agree with all your points.

I've been here a few years only, I can imagine the frustration of folks that either grew up here or been here the majority of their lives.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Anyhow... this has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Every time I see a new rendering on this site, or a new completed building, it hits the magical 7/8 floor number, and I see another lost opportunity. This from a city council that lauds itself as being progressive, environmentally aware, etc etc... It's frustrating.

B...But... but the Centre Plan!!! It's perfect!!! We can't possibly do any better!!! If heights were any taller, the globe would spin off its axis!!!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by new2halifax

100% agree with all your points.

I've been here a few years only, I can imagine the frustration of folks that either grew up here or been here the majority of their lives.

Okay, but in fairness, the proposed Housing Accelerator zoning changes have blown past what anyone thought the city would do re: density, and are probably among the most ambitious such changes in the country. I agree this location could use a taller building, but it's not like Halifax is alone in limiting heights to these ranges on these kinds of streets. It's still the norm nationwide; I think we need to get a little bit past the old saw that Halifax is uniquely or especially height-phobic or NIMBYish. If this was the case in the past, it's not now. The same debates are happening everywhere.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Okay, but in fairness, the proposed Housing Accelerator zoning changes have blown past what anyone thought the city would do re: density, and are probably among the most ambitious such changes in the country. I agree this location could use a taller building, but it's not like Halifax is alone in limiting heights to these ranges on these kinds of streets. It's still the norm nationwide; I think we need to get a little bit past the old saw that Halifax is uniquely or especially height-phobic or NIMBYish. If this was the case in the past, it's not now. The same debates are happening everywhere.

I could not disagree more. While we finally appear to have largely moved on from the old "Nothing over 16 floors because it is Too TALL!!", the HAF proposals/changes (because it is a certainty that our money-hungry Council will take the money and run) will see 7-storey boxes popping up adjacent to otherwise stable single-family home neighborhoods all over town assuming there is a market for the units. In turn they will degrade quality of life in those neighborhoods and change the fabric of living in such neighborhoods.

In the case of this Inglis St project, it is adjacent to a 1970s 13-storey apartment block, which tells me this site could be roughly double the proposed height with no difficulty whatsoever. For whatever reason the archtects of the Centre Plan decided that nothing could be taller than 7 floors unless it was in designated areas. One size does not fit all.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think we need to get a little bit past the old saw that Halifax is uniquely or especially height-phobic or NIMBYish. If this was the case in the past, it's not now. The same debates are happening everywhere.

Halifax has been pretty progressive with development, at least for a Canadian city, for a number of years now. It's true that in the media there was a lot of focus on a small number of NIMBY voices, but in practice lots of development did happen and the latest changes are interesting. Halifax had the fastest growing downtown population in Canada from 2016-2021, and that would not have happened the NIMBYs were effective.

I think Halifax is disappointing when it comes to heritage preservation. This is sometimes presented as being at odds with new development but it isn't, and density makes heritage preservation easier.

The big logjam I see how is that the province isn't doing much about transit and there doesn't seem to be a lot of effort going into planning how to overhaul the city's infrastructure to support the current population. This requires improvements in every area, whether it's transit, active transportation, or roads and highways. If Halifax's infrastructure were keeping up with population growth it would have major new features like new bridges, highways, and rail lines. The Burnside connector is the only example like that, and maybe the ferry eventually. I wonder if NS could somehow partner with another province like ON to take advantage in expertise in transit projects there.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Okay, but in fairness, the proposed Housing Accelerator zoning changes have blown past what anyone thought the city would do re: density, and are probably among the most ambitious such changes in the country. I agree this location could use a taller building, but it's not like Halifax is alone in limiting heights to these ranges on these kinds of streets. It's still the norm nationwide; I think we need to get a little bit past the old saw that Halifax is uniquely or especially height-phobic or NIMBYish. If this was the case in the past, it's not now. The same debates are happening everywhere.

Sure, it's not uncommon to say that we're not so bad, because other cities are bad as well. On the other hand, NS and PEI had the lowest vacancy rates in Canada in 2023, at 1.1%, so slightly worse than other areas, and thus more poignant in Halifax, IMHO, than most others. But yes, it's bad everywhere.

I still cringe when I read things like "I agree this location could use a taller building, but it's not like Halifax is alone in limiting heights to these ranges on these kinds of streets", with all due respect, because bad policy is bad policy. I harken back to my parents telling me "well, if Joey jumped off the roof, would that make it okay for you to do it as well?"... lol

Granted, they have made some changes, so let's see how it goes. The fact that many of us have looked at the artificial limitation of building height as a problem for several years is the root of the frustration. And frankly, I think we all have a right to be frustrated with the housing situation, no matter whether it's been mismanaged equally across the country or not. I don't feel better reading 'it sucks everywhere, so it's not so bad'... it still sucks.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by someone123

Halifax has been pretty progressive with development, at least for a Canadian city, for a number of years now. It's true that in the media there was a lot of focus on a small number of NIMBY voices, but in practice lots of development did happen and the latest changes are interesting. Halifax had the fastest growing downtown population in Canada from 2016-2021, and that would not have happened the NIMBYs were effective.

I think Halifax is disappointing when it comes to heritage preservation. This is sometimes presented as being at odds with new development but it isn't, and density makes heritage preservation easier.

The big logjam I see how is that the province isn't doing much about transit and there doesn't seem to be a lot of effort going into planning how to overhaul the city's infrastructure to support the current population. This requires improvements in every area, whether it's transit, active transportation, or roads and highways. If Halifax's infrastructure were keeping up with population growth it would have major new features like new bridges, highways, and rail lines. The Burnside connector is the only example like that, and maybe the ferry eventually. I wonder if NS could somehow partner with another province like ON to take advantage in expertise in transit projects there.

Your post prompted me to check out the JRTA site for a progress update. The most recent update/news item is dated January 30, 2023. More than a year ago. Very discouraging. Oh, and they're looking to hire a summer student to assist in writing polices. There's obviously no urgency in dealing with our transportation issues. A complaint to the current govt. will result in a response such as 'we were elected to fix healthcare and that's our priority'. However, they do seem to be working hard on trying to eliminate my quarterly carbon rebate.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Your post prompted me to check out the JRTA site for a progress update. The most recent update/news item is dated January 30, 2023. More than a year ago. Very discouraging. Oh, and they're looking to hire a summer student to assist in writing polices. There's obviously no urgency in dealing with our transportation issues. A complaint to the current govt. will result in a response such as 'we were elected to fix healthcare and that's our priority'. However, they do seem to be working hard on trying to eliminate my quarterly carbon rebate.

It’s been more active than that; there was public engagement late last year, and an information session in February, and there’s more outreach/community events being held across the province this spring. The final plan is supposed to be announced in fall. Definitely agree though that they could be stepping on the gas more.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It’s been more active than that; there was public engagement late last year, and an information session in February, and there’s more outreach/community events being held across the province this spring. The final plan is supposed to be announced in fall. Definitely agree though that they could be stepping on the gas more.

It would be good if they released some very preliminary visions of the kind of improvements they are contemplating. Hopefully this includes higher-order transit beyond ferries.

I find the materials and some descriptions a bit "triggering". They talk a lot about how central NS is full of far-flung communities with special needs. But a huge amount of the congestion and in particular latent transit demand is concentrated in the inner city, while it will be impossible to achieve much cost recovery in villages in Hants County. It reminds me of 2000's era HRM materials about how the municipality is essentially an arbitrary collection of small communities when it's a metropolitan area with the usual challenges of a medium-sized city. And sure, it has some villages and rural areas around it where 5% of the people live; probably less of this than most metros surrounded by farmland.

[Jstaleness]

I had been browsing the Ottawa forums as well, and that city is still very much dealing with their height restrictions. Seems they are struggling to go above their averages as well.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

It would be good if they released some very preliminary visions of the kind of improvements they are contemplating. Hopefully this includes higher-order transit beyond ferries.

I find the materials and some descriptions a bit "triggering". They talk a lot about how central NS is full of far-flung communities with special needs. But a huge amount of the congestion and in particular latent transit demand is concentrated in the inner city, while it will be impossible to achieve much cost recovery in villages in Hants County. It reminds me of 2000's era HRM materials about how the municipality is essentially an arbitrary collection of small communities when it's a metropolitan area with the usual challenges of a medium-sized city. And sure, it has some villages and rural areas around it where 5% of the people live; probably less of this than most metros surrounded by farmland.

I’ve interacted online with some people who are involved with the planning on the city side who are optimistic about what’s coming out of it, but I really don’t know how much stock to put in that. It’s all very floaty right now.

[Colin May]

Danny Chedrawe offering 105 units at $1,722 a month ( circa $1,000 a month below normal cost) with federal government paying the subsidy.
CTV Halifax April 4 at 16:05 https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video/c28913...-thursday--april-4--2024?binId=1.1145507

Location of units not disclosed, announcement made at Richmond Yards.

[Dmajackson]

^It's Building 'F' (Robie Street) at Richmond Yards. They submitted a building permit a few months back that said they would be finalizing the unit count after the number of affordable units was determined.

[kijoma]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Danny Chedrawe offering 105 units at $1,722 a month ( circa $1,000 a month below normal cost) with federal government paying the subsidy.
CTV Halifax April 4 at 16:05 https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video/c28913...-thursday--april-4--2024?binId=1.1145507

Location of units not disclosed, announcement made at Richmond Yards.

Affordable based on median household income, but how big are these units going to be I wonder. Renters are more likely to be lower income as it is, because they tend to be people that can't afford to buy a home. If these are studio and one-bedroom apartments that only house 1 or 2 people those rents are still pretty horrendous.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by someone123

It would be good if they released some very preliminary visions of the kind of improvements they are contemplating. Hopefully this includes higher-order transit beyond ferries.

There's this video from February showing where they're at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjWd0o2DfaE&t=14s.

If you're hoping for rail, prepare to be disappointed.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by kijoma

Affordable based on median household income, but how big are these units going to be I wonder. Renters are more likely to be lower income as it is, because they tend to be people that can't afford to buy a home. If these are studio and one-bedroom apartments that only house 1 or 2 people those rents are still pretty horrendous.

"Affordable housing" projects like these tend not to be aimed at families on welfare but rather the "working poor". As an example you can look back to the subsidized home-buying program that led a pre-HRM Council Dawn Marie Sloane to purchase a newly-built house for herself on Creighton St because at the time she was working for a non-profit group of activists and making peanuts. Shortly thereafter she hit the jackpot when she got elected to HRM Council but was not disqualified from the subsidy program despite her income taking a huge jump. I remember her getting up on her hind legs at a Council meeting and telling everyone how she was entitled to that subsidy despite now living high on the hog courtesy of HRM taxpayers.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

There's this video from February showing where they're at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjWd0o2DfaE&t=14s.

If you're hoping for rail, prepare to be disappointed.

Thank you for posting this link. I wasn't aware of this. It's a bit of a painful watch. The thematic bundles and scoring system is interesting but I really don't see how a single score can be realistic to a region that hosts Halifax and Hantsport and all the area in between. There's a spot in the presentation where the presenter says that a score can't take the place of good judgement. I think this comment sums up the exercise.