HRM Planning Should Be Ashamed

[someone123]

A simple rule that would have weeded out the 4 storey hangar on Jubilee would have been to require a certain proportion of windows on the ground floor and upper levels. Such a rule isn't novel, and doesn't require HRM staff to make aesthetic judgements.

[OldDartmouthMark]

That's why I thought a requirement of elements that are found in nearby houses might work in this case. Of course there would have to be more thought put into it than this, but if it came down to elements (and perhaps proportions and lot size ratios, etc) then there's no judgement of taste, it's more like completing a check list in trying to make it fit in with surrounding buildings - that are already accepted as being attractive.

I'm sure there are ways in which that could blow up in our faces (so to speak), but IMHO there is a higher chance that it would look much better than what went in there. It might even function that the maximum profit guys might opt out of these types of developments if they had to spend more on the appearance of the buildings.

[Keith P.]

The comments about accumulated wealth were timely for me. Today I caught up with an old friend, these days more of an acquaintance since he and his much younger wife moved to the boondocks about a 2 1/2 hour drive away after he retired from his job. They had been living the typical suburban life with a lovely house, multiple vehicles and an active social life. A couple of years later they sold everything and moved to the country to restore an old farmhouse. They put what seemed like a lot of money into it but the last time I was there I remained unimpressed. Not long after that, parents on either side of the marriage died and apparently some serious money came their way.

The particulars of this were never revealed until he mentioned today in an odd, almost complaining sort of way that his investments from those windfalls just keep growing despite how much of it he spends. He spends a lot on things he is passionate about but apparently that doesn’t even make a dent in it. He has 3 adult children, 2 from a failed first marriage and one younger one with his current partner. None of them seem to have benefitted much from that good fortune to date though I don’t know that for sure. Certainly the youngest is a bit of an odd fellow who lives a very modest lifestyle. The two older ones live on the other side of the country and so are somewhat disconnected. He has several millions in investments from what I gather and isn’t in the best of health but given his wife is much younger she will be the main beneficiary. Oddly enough she spends her days buying, renovating and selling old properties, so it lines up for the kind of thing being discussed here. Sometimes good fortune falls into your lap, even if it is the result of parents passing it along.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sometimes good fortune falls into your lap, even if it is the result of parents passing it along.

We must accept to some degree that life isn't always fair, but I wonder how good it is for society that there's such a disconnect these days between working and inheriting. For some years in Vancouver the papers would report that houses in the city "earned" more than every person working there. You hear doctors and lawyers talking about how they made far more from their house than their career (and paid a far lower tax rate). For a lot of younger people around here there just isn't a big obvious material payout to working harder. The lottery ticket of the bank of mom and dad on the other hand is life-changing. It feels a bit like a return to the Victorian era or earlier where one's social station depended more on one's family.

I suspect the real estate bonanza has created a trend toward early retirements, more frivolous consumption, fake degrees for privileged kids (which on paper puts GDP up for the basketweaving courses), etc. I don't really hold these decisions against people, but again the outcome seems potentially deleterious for society in the long run. Around here we got a one-off party for certain segments of society in exchange for permanently selling off assets and accepting inflation. Or if house prices fall again here, it'll have been a huge bonanza for one generation of buyers at the cost of another.

This is getting even farther afield but Canada's politics had a feeling for frivolity for a long time too, and JT is an exemplar of that idle class of inheritors.

[ngunda]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There was also some on the Dartmouth side in the Wyse/Albro Lake area, but I think that land was mostly undeveloped as well. It’s interesting to me to see how people will sometimes latch on to offhand comments that were really not the main point of a post and turn it into something that takes on a life of its own.

Anyhow the point was that the little prefabs, although simple and modest, still had some attention to their appearance and had little details to make them look like homes. They could have just as easily made them into little boxes that were functional but eyesores. Most everybody that I have ever heard talking about them referred to them as the little wartime houses, with sometimes even the term “cute” tossed in - nothing negative at all.

I think that those who say that the Jubilee buildings were simply a product of maximizing profit are bang on, and also agree with your point that the city was complicit in facilitating this to happen. As if someone couldn’t have predicted all of it before it came to this…

Unfortunately, recent greenfield developments (such as the Clayton development in the Southdale-Mount Hope Special Planning Area) are mostly functional eyesores. Maybe they figured no one would care because it’s bordered by a highway, trailer park and small industrial park, but I expect it’s salt in the wound for those who fought to save the wetland they’re being built on, to see how ugly the new homes are. These won’t get the same attention as an ugly building in an attractive established neighbourhood because we’re used to ugly subdivisions, and there’s no hope for a new neighbourhood to ever compare with peninsular Halifax or Old Dartmouth. But it would be nice if they’d at least try to build something that doesn’t make one’s eyes bleed.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ngunda

Unfortunately, recent greenfield developments (such as the Clayton development in the Southdale-Mount Hope Special Planning Area) are mostly functional eyesores. Maybe they figured no one would care because it’s bordered by a highway, trailer park and small industrial park, but I expect it’s salt in the wound for those who fought to save the wetland they’re being built on, to see how ugly the new homes are. These won’t get the same attention as an ugly building in an attractive established neighbourhood because we’re used to ugly subdivisions, and there’s no hope for a new neighbourhood to ever compare with peninsular Halifax or Old Dartmouth. But it would be nice if they’d at least try to build something that doesn’t make one’s eyes bleed.

Ah, yes. I agree that these things have been eyesores ever since they were under construction, prominently on display as people travel past on the Circ. Rather shockingly, they are a Clayton Developments project:



Even more shamefully, I found this pic in an online listing for a rental - of a bedroom. A private bedroom can be yours for $1200 monthly. A shared bedroom (presumably one sleeps on a mattress on the floor) is yours for $600. Just unbelievable. The city/province seem to no longer have any standards or at least no longer enforce them.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ngunda

Unfortunately, recent greenfield developments (such as the Clayton development in the Southdale-Mount Hope Special Planning Area) are mostly functional eyesores. Maybe they figured no one would care because it’s bordered by a highway, trailer park and small industrial park, but I expect it’s salt in the wound for those who fought to save the wetland they’re being built on, to see how ugly the new homes are. These won’t get the same attention as an ugly building in an attractive established neighbourhood because we’re used to ugly subdivisions, and there’s no hope for a new neighbourhood to ever compare with peninsular Halifax or Old Dartmouth. But it would be nice if they’d at least try to build something that doesn’t make one’s eyes bleed.

That is most unfortunate!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Even more shamefully, I found this pic in an online listing for a rental - of a bedroom. A private bedroom can be yours for $1200 monthly. A shared bedroom (presumably one sleeps on a mattress on the floor) is yours for $600. Just unbelievable. The city/province seem to no longer have any standards or at least no longer enforce them.

Halifax is becoming the new Fort McMurray, it seems.

I'm aware of a SFH that housed a multi-generational family for almost 30 years. Super nice people, very kind and considerate. Over time the elders in the family passed and fairly recently the house went up for sale.

According to a reliable, reasonable person who lives near this place, the house was purchased by an investment company in Ontario, was quickly subdivided into apartments (apparently without permits) and now has become a rooming house, currently housing 8+ single men. Apparently there are minimum of 6 cars parked wherever they will fit, so not ideal.

Not sure how to feel about this, TBH. On one hand, it's providing housing where needed, but on the other hand it seems to indicate a direction of lowering QOL standards for everybody. Never thought I'd see it happen here, TBH.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

According to a reliable, reasonable person who lives near this place, the house was purchased by an investment company in Ontario, was quickly subdivided into apartments (apparently without permits) and now has become a rooming house, currently housing 8+ single men. Apparently there are minimum of 6 cars parked wherever they will fit, so not ideal.

Not sure how to feel about this, TBH. On one hand, it's providing housing where needed, but on the other hand it seems to indicate a direction of lowering QOL standards for everybody. Never thought I'd see it happen here, TBH.

Yeah that's definitely a mixed bag. Corporate investors make sense when it comes to apartment buildings, particularly larger ones, since the scale is out of reach to the consumer market. But I hate when corporations buy up small scale housing that could be purchased by individuals or families because it forces more and more people to be renters whether or not they want to be. But I do think rooming houses are sorely missing from the housing market. In one of the housing courses I took in planning school, they identified the decline of rooming houses as one of the pivotal moments that led to the contemporary homelessness crisis.

Prior to the 1980s, it was much more common to find rooming houses, boarding houses, halfway houses, flop-houses, and other similar accommodations where people could rent rooms or small apartments at a very low cost. This made it quite rare for people to actually be unhoused. But these places went into decline as existing ones were eliminated due to gentrification and NIMBYisnm with little to nothing replacing them. So the valuable role they played as the lowest rung on the housing ladder was lost. Now this important stepping stone is mostly gone, and the only "rooms" available are generally from renters in apartments looking for roommates or home owners renting out space for extra income. Neither of these fill the same function because of gate-keeping (people are understandably fussy about who they live with) and the lack of scale. So we definitely need a lot more.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yeah that's definitely a mixed bag. Corporate investors make sense when it comes to apartment buildings, particularly larger ones, since the scale is out of reach to the consumer market. But I hate when corporations buy up small scale housing that could be purchased by individuals or families because it forces more and more people to be renters whether or not they want to be. But I do think rooming houses are sorely missing from the housing market. In one of the housing courses I took in planning school, they identified the decline of rooming houses as one of the pivotal moments that led to the contemporary homelessness crisis.

Prior to the 1980s, it was much more common to find rooming houses, boarding houses, halfway houses, flop-houses, and other similar accommodations where people could rent rooms or small apartments at a very low cost. This made it quite rare for people to actually be unhoused. But these places went into decline as existing ones were eliminated due to gentrification and NIMBYisnm with little to nothing replacing them. So the valuable role they played as the lowest rung on the housing ladder was lost. Now this important stepping stone is mostly gone, and the only "rooms" available are generally from renters in apartments looking for roommates or home owners renting out space for extra income. Neither of these fill the same function because of gate-keeping (people are understandably fussy about who they live with) and the lack of scale. So we definitely need a lot more.

Good points there. I agree that this type of accommodation is important and needs to be part of our housing stock overall.

I do question how it’s being rolled out, in that it seems to be more of a ‘wild west’ approach and less of a planned method. It seems that in the ‘old days’ rooming houses were created from older, run down buildings, but many of those were eliminated by the misguided slum-clearance activity in the 20th century. They were known to usually be in “rougher” neighbourhoods and also tended to house people (mostly men) who tended to live a little more on the edge (like maybe not holding down a regular job, drinking a little more than they should, etc). It’s okay as there should be a place in society for everyone to live, and nobody should have to live in a tent in this day and age. However maybe family-oriented neighbourhoods are not the ideal locations for rooming houses (or would at least have more NIMBY opposition to them) so it seems like there should be more thought put into this by the government.

It seems like it shouldn’t be difficult to plan these out a little better, and maybe they already exist in the form of former hotels that were converted to homeless shelters. Or at least that type of building stock could be converted to little apartments that could be rented very cheaply. I also think that society has changed since then and building owners want to rent to a higher income clientele and thus don’t want to create space for low income renters. There are also more renters who will fork out a couple grand a month for a small studio apartment, mostly out of desperation, when in the rooming house days these type of apartments would be the next step up from a rooming house, not “premium living space”.

On the topic at hand, there is a lot happening already though, as I have seen some former small commercial buildings converted into apartments, and have seen some smaller houses being built in backyards recently. Not sure if this increased supply has jump started any lowering of rents (the real problem) as yet.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yeah that's definitely a mixed bag. Corporate investors make sense when it comes to apartment buildings, particularly larger ones, since the scale is out of reach to the consumer market. But I hate when corporations buy up small scale housing that could be purchased by individuals or families because it forces more and more people to be renters whether or not they want to be. But I do think rooming houses are sorely missing from the housing market. In one of the housing courses I took in planning school, they identified the decline of rooming houses as one of the pivotal moments that led to the contemporary homelessness crisis.

While "corporate investors" are likely more interested in apartment blocks, the sort of thing we are seeing here with single-family homes being rented room by room is much more of an entrepreneurial endeavor. Let me tell you a story.

A relative lived in a '60s subdivision in the suburbs in a modest 3-bed/1-bath bungalow. The other homes nearby were similar, some larger with 4 bedrooms or a den and an extra bathroom, but none were McMansions. The house across the street was one of those larger ones and had an attached 2-car garage as well. The longtime owner died and the house was eventually sold.

The new owner was a lady from Ontario who knocked on his door one day to introduce herself and in their conversation said it would be some time before she could move in, so asked him to keep an eye on the place, which he was glad to do. After some time had passed, vehicles began to appear in the driveway. He said he found it odd that they never used the front door but always came and went via the garage door even though they weren't using it for their vehicles. Eventually multiple vehicles filled the driveway and overflow parking used the front lawn. The light bulb finally went on when the Sheriff arrived one day to evict the tenants for non-payment of rent and according to him it was like someone had kicked over an anthill, with people he had never seen before abandoning ship. He said he counted 8 or 9, most of whom he had never seen before. Some were apparently sharing bedrooms and he said it looked like some were living in the garage too.

Here's where things take a bizarre turn. He was aging out and decided to sell his longtime home and move. It was bought by a relative who was an entrepreneur. You can guess what happened next. After some renos to update finishes on the main living level and add a bathroom and some spaces in the basement, that place suffered the same fate. One day the relative asked him to go back and check on something there, and he discovered the mattresses on the floor and all the usual things one sees these days in such situations. It is just sad, and HRM appears to always look the other way. We need some much tougher regulations since our current ones either are not being enforced or do not apply at all.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Most unfortunate story, Keith. Not to overreact, but it does feel like we’re in a bit of a downward spiral, doesn’t it?

[Keith P.]

The flood of unchecked immigration is very unsettling. Not because they are immigrants, because we have always had that and by and large they were a net plus both economically and culturally. But the ridiculous and apparently unmanaged numbers arriving are doing great harm to society. The other week I was at No Frills on Wyse Rd and I’m not exaggerating when I say I felt like I was the only native-born person in the place along with the only English-speaking customer based on the conversations I overheard in the aisles. It was jarring.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Most unfortunate story, Keith. Not to overreact, but it does feel like we’re in a bit of a downward spiral, doesn’t it?

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The flood of unchecked immigration is very unsettling. Not because they are immigrants, because we have always had that and by and large they were a net plus both economically and culturally. But the ridiculous and apparently unmanaged numbers arriving are doing great harm to society. The other week I was at No Frills on Wyse Rd and I’m not exaggerating when I say I felt like I was the only native-born person in the place along with the only English-speaking customer based on the conversations I overheard in the aisles. It was jarring.

I've noticed a radical change in my neighbourhood here in Saskatoon just in the past 18 months. It's a 1940s "street car" suburb similar to the West End in Halifax. Cute 3 Bed 1 Bath bungalows with families and retirees. Out of no where people who sold their houses must have sold to some kind of slumlord corporation because now these small houses are occupied by 9-10 adults. There are beatup cars strewn all up the street and alleys. It's like a domino effect where the first 2-3 people sold and now everyone wants out before their property values start dropping.

I myself am just considering just leaving all together and coming back to Nova Scotia this summer. I'm kind of sick of it.

[someone123]

Maybe it is getting a bit off from planning but I noticed a similar cultural trend going back to the 2010s here, when foreign buyers were very obviously driving up prices but honest well-meaning discussion was shut down using accusations of racism, often by real estate profiteers. There was an unholy union around 2016-2025 between left-progressive thought ("woke" being a term for extreme or silly versions of that) and neoliberal policies co-opting it (real estate developers, TFW hiring corps like Timmy Ho's, politicians), plus broad demographic trends relating to the baby boom (house prices going up makes the median voter happier, unlike say the price of gas).

I also think Canada was profoundly unserious recently and too focused on dubious abstract moral conundrums like whether people from the 1700s were good or bad according to the court of TikTok. Ostensibly this was often to protect or atone for sins against minorities, but the housing and productivity crises obviously are much more impactful on those groups and overall that kind of politics was a failure.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Maybe it is getting a bit off from planning but I noticed a similar cultural trend going back to the 2010s here, when foreign buyers were very obviously driving up prices but honest well-meaning discussion was shut down using accusations of racism, often by real estate profiteers. There was an unholy union around 2016-2025 between left-progressive thought ("woke" being a term for extreme or silly versions of that) and neoliberal policies co-opting it (real estate developers, TFW hiring corps like Timmy Ho's, politicians), plus broad demographic trends relating to the baby boom (house prices going up makes the median voter happier, unlike say the price of gas).

I also think Canada was profoundly unserious recently and too focused on dubious abstract moral conundrums like whether people from the 1700s were good or bad according to the court of TikTok. Ostensibly this was often to protect or atone for sins against minorities, but the housing and productivity crises obviously are much more impactful on those groups and overall that kind of politics was a failure.

Well said.

I think the TFW/population increase conundrum can be a difficult topic to approach, even now, for the fear of the dreaded “R” judgment. Meanwhile there have been many ways, some objective some subjective, that quality of life has declined for the average citizen as a direct result of all of this.

I do tend to question the notion that people were generally voting for a particular party because of some will by the majority that they will promote rising property values, although I am sure it’s true for some. My perception is that voting for a particular party usually involves some degree of alignment with a set of values, along with “side effects” that may not be desired, but may not be dealbreakers. Meanwhile the other party who may be intending to let the market drop may have untenable characteristics that are dealbreakers. I think, though, that what has happened with housing is as much about incompetence than design. Truly any thinking person with some sort of moral compass cannot think it’s acceptable to have housing unattainable for younger generations.

Regardless, having lived in more sensible, happier times, without the angst of social media and an abundance of negative, angry popular culture, along with international and local politics, I truly hope that this is cyclical and that things will improve. Otherwise it feels like we are happily on our way to life imitating art in the form of a dystopian sci-fi movie.

Let’s at least hope that the principles of supply and demand help to sort out the housing crisis very soon. Maybe as TFWs return home some of our young people might actually have access to some entry level jobs again. 🤞

[Nouvellecosse]

The main reason that there was unease about how much some people wanted to focus on immigration is that the issue is population growth in general rather than any specific source or cause of growth. Yes decreasing household size is also a factor, but growth is a much bigger one. Yet growth can be either from reproduction, from positive net immigration (more people moving in than leaving) or both. Yet it's common for people to treat growth from immigration differently even though all growth increases housing demand. And it's uncomfortable because even if the people focusing on immigration have no ill intent, immigrants are vulnerable to xenophobia or other forms of discrimination so presenting them as the central issue of a major problem can inadvertently cultivate negative feelings in others even when that isn't the intention. Which we'd just have to accept if it was necessary, but it isn't since one can simply discuss growth more generally.

For instance, one can say, "We've had population growth of X number of people per year over the last decade while we've averaged Y number of housing completions per year over the same time. So the government should try to either reduce growth or increase housing construction. While the problem with focusing on immigration is that humans seem to have a psychological tendency to think less positively about people who they see as being more different from them. So they're less likely to see new housing as a solution and more likely to see excluding newcomers as a solution. Which may very well be the best solution if the newcomers aren't offering enough benefit to offset the challenges, but people's biases will make them jump to the conclusion that this is the case delving into the details.

Fact is, people tend to form opinions based on what, if any, feelings the issue conjures in them. Once they have an initial feeling, they look for reasons to justify those feelings - both to themselves and others - making it seem as if the reasons were what caused the initial feelings rather than the reverse. So how one talks about an issue isn't just a matter of wokeness, it's a matter of communication skills. If you present an issue in a way that activates people's biases, it tends to result in a different outcome than if you're tactful enough to avoid that.

[OldDartmouthMark]

^ Which is why it tends to be a difficult topic to approach because it’s hard to single out perceived negative aspects of immigration vs population growth by other means because the conversations become loaded and the parallel perceptions follow along. For example entry level jobs used to be occupied by young people saving for school or wanting to make a few bucks for spending money, but now those jobs appear to be filled by adult TFWs trying to make a living in Canada while hoping to achieve permanent residence. They are probably holding down two other jobs as well trying to make ends meet. I can completely empathize with their situation as they were brought into untenable circumstances, possibly under unclear pretences.

While these circumstances are not ideal for everybody, we also recognize that a certain amount of immigration has always been a part of our society, and very healthy for it. However, as Keith mentioned, it’s the sheer number that has stressed our housing, services, employment situation, etc. The problem exists when trying to discuss as a specific issue there will always be those who believe that it’s a thinly veiled racist discussion. In fact sometimes there seems to be those who appear to seek it out.

Honestly, the 10 years of Trudeau reign feels like a waste of time and energy, and now we are scrambling to undo the damage, but we are in too deep for it to be a quick fix. So I can totally empathize with those who are unhappy with the situation. It has caused objective, palpable problems for many.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

^ Which is why it tends to be a difficult topic to approach because it’s hard to single out perceived negative aspects of immigration vs population growth by other means because the conversations become loaded and the parallel perceptions follow along. For example entry level jobs used to be occupied by young people saving for school or wanting to make a few bucks for spending money, but now those jobs appear to be filled by adult TFWs trying to make a living in Canada while hoping to achieve permanent residence. They are probably holding down two other jobs as well trying to make ends meet. I can completely empathize with their situation as they were brought into untenable circumstances, possibly under unclear pretences.

Without commenting on all related problems, I think the jobs issue is as much down to enforcement as it is sheer numbers. The intention behind TFWs is to fill important roles that are difficult or impossible to fill domestically. Bu when they start to saturate the general employment market including entry level jobs, that is completely counter to the intention. Yet there doesn't seem to be much of an enforcement mechanism to ensure that TFWs will be working in the type of position they're being permitted entry to fill. Same with foreign students. There doesn't seem to be much monitoring or enforcement in terms of how much they work or what type of work they do. And it also isn't clear how often people overstay either type of visa or permit since that doesn't seem to be monitored very well either.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Without commenting on all related problems, I think the jobs issue is as much down to enforcement as it is sheer numbers. The intention behind TFWs is to fill important roles that are difficult or impossible to fill domestically. Bu when they start to saturate the general employment market including entry level jobs, that is completely counter to the intention. Yet there doesn't seem to be much of an enforcement mechanism to ensure that TFWs will be working in the type of position they're being permitted entry to fill. Same with foreign students. There doesn't seem to be much monitoring or enforcement in terms of how much they work or what type of work they do. And it also isn't clear how often people overstay either type of visa or permit since that doesn't seem to be monitored very well either.

Good points. I don’t think that it would be a stretch to say that the situation has not been managed well.