[Dartmouth] The Post (53 Queen) | 90 m | 30 fl | U/C

[Keith P.]

I just spent some time counting the floors in the artist's rendition and I got 25, so presumably the real thing will be just a bit taller.

[Jstaleness]

I can't wait to see it myself.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I live nearby (a few blocks away) and think it'll look perfectly fine.

As long as they keep the step backs it will be just dandy.
The streets all slope down from this site so that will help with the visual.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

While the renderings may look the same, allNS reported this morning that the building will now include 214 units instead of 142. It will also have four more storeys, making it 30, albeit without increasing the building's height. This was achieved by widening the building and reducing storey height. Excavation for underground parking is supposed to start in August, with target building completion of Feb 2030.

Quotes in the story from the developer left me with the impression that the timelines are somewhat tentative and market-dependent. As Trump would say, we'll see what happens...

This is fairly typical of a project that is just getting underway in a cooling rent market. Redesign options to get the job to "pencil" can require decreasing unit SF / finishes / reducing floor heights to improve the cap rate. Often necessary to secure financing to get the job to go. All things which both the public and the government fail to understand is that developers are businesses, and they will not build if they don't think they will profit - nor should we expect them to.

[someone123]

The market is cooling, but I would guess rents are still much higher than when this development was first planned.

It's a bit like the "party's over" comments I would see on population growth in the city. Yes, the huge boom has cooled, but the city still added something like 8,500 people up to mid-2025, which would have been considered a boom year not too long ago, and is still adding housing pressure.

I think the Halifax area has seen a bit of a sea change in where it sits relative to other metros nationally.

[someone123]

The height limits often create these perverse outcomes, like making developers drop ceiling heights or make buildings wider to fit in more units and improve the bottom line.

In most cases I think the height limits are a negative and not really meaningful (as in this case where you're not even going to notice if they put 15 m more on the height) except in special cases like the view planes. Overall density and mass (FAR) are more relevant a lot of the time, and a taller, thinner tower with taller floors is often better, given a certain density allowance.

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by someone123

The height limits often create these perverse outcomes, like making developers drop ceiling heights or make buildings wider to fit in more units and improve the bottom line.

In most cases I think the height limits are a negative and not really meaningful (as in this case where you're not even going to notice if they put 15 m more on the height) except in special cases like the view planes. Overall density and mass (FAR) are more relevant a lot of the time, and a taller, thinner tower with taller floors is often better, given a certain density allowance.

Shorter floor also create havoc for the trades as well. Working on a building right now that was supposed to have 8’6” ceilings in all hallways. They are now 7’7”. Mechanical needs room.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

The height limits often create these perverse outcomes, like making developers drop ceiling heights or make buildings wider to fit in more units and improve the bottom line.

In most cases I think the height limits are a negative and not really meaningful (as in this case where you're not even going to notice if they put 15 m more on the height) except in special cases like the view planes. Overall density and mass (FAR) are more relevant a lot of the time, and a taller, thinner tower with taller floors is often better, given a certain density allowance.

One of the really nice changes to come out of the HAF amendments was a switch to storeys in many areas of the Regional Centre. However, Downtown Dartmouth, the east end of Quinpool, and the Carlton node stayed in metres. I can't recall what the rationale was for this.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

One of the really nice changes to come out of the HAF amendments was a switch to storeys in many areas of the Regional Centre. However, Downtown Dartmouth, the east end of Quinpool, and the Carlton node stayed in metres. I can't recall what the rationale was for this.

Is this site affected by the Brightwood viewplanes?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is this site affected by the Brightwood viewplanes?

Gawd, let’s hope we don’t get into another “saw it off!” situation…

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Gawd, let’s hope we don’t get into another “saw it off!” situation…

I highly doubt it.

I posed the question as it would make sense to specify height vs simple floor count if viewplanes were in play. I don’t even know if the Brightwood viewplanes are even still in play.

[IanWatson]

No, they ditched the Brightwood view planes quite a while ago (10+ years ago?) on the basis that they were a privatized benefit.

There are still some Dartmouth view planes from the Common, but they barely affect any land (you can see them here)

[IanWatson]

Just found the old staff report. This seems to be the justification for areas where 90 metres is used instead of a measurement in storeys:

However, 90 m height in centres is proposed to be maintained where existing or proposed heritage development agreements are enabled, and in areas indicated by NS Emergency Health Services that may impact emergency helicopter flights subject to additional analysis and cooperation with other levels of government;

So I'm guessing Downtown Dartmouth and Carlton node didn't change because there were heritage DAs there, while east end of Quinpool was due to Life Flight helicopter?

I can't quite understand the link between heritage DAs and keeping the height in metres, but preseumably there was a reason.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

No, they ditched the Brightwood view planes quite a while ago (10+ years ago?) on the basis that they were a privatized benefit.

There are still some Dartmouth view planes from the Common, but they barely affect any land (you can see them here)

Thanks!

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks!

With all the trees in Dartmouth Common now there is not much view of Halifax

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

With all the trees in Dartmouth Common now there is not much view of Halifax

It is interesting to see the differences between "Commons" in Halifax vs. Dartmouth. The Halifax Common is mostly open space with just a scattering of trees as accents, while in Dartmouth it resembles more of a forest and really doesn't seem like what I would consider a "Common". Of course removing some of them from the Dartmouth property would no doubt be hugely controversial.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

With all the trees in Dartmouth Common now there is not much view of Halifax

I haven't been there in a long time. There used to be some great views from the ball fields, the gazebo, etc. The part below Dartmouth High was always wooded, until the bus depot was placed there.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by someone123

The market is cooling, but I would guess rents are still much higher than when this development was first planned.

It's a bit like the "party's over" comments I would see on population growth in the city. Yes, the huge boom has cooled, but the city still added something like 8,500 people up to mid-2025, which would have been considered a boom year not too long ago, and is still adding housing pressure.

I think the Halifax area has seen a bit of a sea change in where it sits relative to other metros nationally.

We're also likely to see steady continued population growth, if not another boom in the coming years due to significant defense industry spending in the area.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is interesting to see the differences between "Commons" in Halifax vs. Dartmouth. The Halifax Common is mostly open space with just a scattering of trees as accents, while in Dartmouth it resembles more of a forest and really doesn't seem like what I would consider a "Common". Of course removing some of them from the Dartmouth property would no doubt be hugely controversial.

It's a shame because it makes it more 'shady', both figuratively and literally.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

We're also likely to see steady continued population growth, if not another boom in the coming years due to significant defense industry spending in the area.

Yes, I think there will be some positives as far as the economy plus the feds in the long run are likely to pursue something more like 1-2% a year immigration, not 0% with a shrinking population. This is meant as a temporary correction and it is a policy choice.

I've said before that I notice a negative bias in reporting in NS/Halifax relative to other places. The "party's over!" announcement in NS was much louder, but the growth for the last 2 years has been relatively robust compared to Toronto or Vancouver. Metro Toronto actually lost population going into 2025.