Cogswell Interchange

[Keith P.]

Another interesting Jen Taplin article in the Herald today on HRM's plans to bungle the sale of the Cogswell lands:

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/hal...is-done-but-when-will-they-sell-the-land

A few snippets:

A major international hotel chain is interested. So are housing co-ops, non-profits and developers.

Dismantling the Cogswell District overpass and creating 6.5 hectares of prime real estate has taken five years and $1.38 billion, but it’s officially finished and ready for the next step: development.

So, now what?

Sarah Brannen, HRM spokesperson, said construction reached “substantial completion” in December 2025, but crews completed minor repairs this spring.

“The Cogswell project is now considered complete,” she said.

Originally, this summer, an interactive fog-making fountain was intended to be installed in the newly created Granville Park, but it was deemed too expensive. Instead, HRM is switching to a Plan B: a splashpad and temporary washrooms. It could be finished as early as 2027.

Reasons for why little progress on a sale seemingly has occurred are also outlined:

Two things need to happen before the properties can go up for sale: HRM has to install the land-use strategy for the area and the lands must be declared surplus.

Right now, staff are working on land-use policies to guide and regulate market development and create a strategy for long-term affordable housing. Public engagement for this was done in 2024 (and earlier) but more consultations are upcoming.

A staff report with recommendations for council is underway and will be presented to council. Before there’s a vote, there will be a public hearing, Brannen said.

But before that public hearing, which is to be determined, HRM posted that there will be a public hearing on July 14 at the Halifax regional council meeting. This is connected to a council vote on closing several municipal-owned parcels in the Cogswell District. This is a step toward declaring them surplus before putting them up for sale.

There has apparently been some interest in starting development, but HRM staff seem resistant:

Brannen said there have been no formal requests from private developers for opportunities in the Cogswell District.

But, informally, “some developers of residential and mixed-use developments have enquired when the lands may be available for sale,” she said.

“One major international hotel operator has also expressed interest in acquiring land in Cogswell. These conversations have not progressed beyond informal enquiries.”

One of the first to get going is expected to be major developer Crombie Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).

In budget discussions in February, John Spinelli, HRM’s executive director and chief project officer, told councillors that due to HRM’s land swap agreement with Crombie for Lot B, that will be the first one out of the gate. He said it’s his understanding that Crombie wants to focus on finishing the Marlestone, a 19-storey residential tower on Albemarle Street in Halifax. He said the company is looking to start planning for Cogswell toward the end of 2028.

Of course, there are several shoals to navigate that might wreck the good ship HRM on its journey to development:

Non-profit housing groups are also eager. In 2024, council voted to consider the requests of the New Roots Halifax North End Community Land Trust as part of the Cogswell District land-use planning and the associated land disposal process.

And earlier this year, Treno Morton, founder and president, urged HRM to agree to their plans for Parcel D in the Cogswell District. The community group has a plan to build 430 units of deeply affordable and mixed-income housing, retail spaces for Black-owned businesses, and community performance areas.

“Upcoming decisions on zoning and affordable housing, as well as market conditions at the time of sale will determine final revenues,” she said.

Last winter, Spinelli said the corporate real estate department was working on a plan, the lots are serviced and property values are being assessed. He estimated it would be close to covering the cost.

As the old saying goes, "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip", especially when HRM staff, multiple public hearings, and non-profits get involved.

[ArchAficionado]

What a joke. The land use business could have happened during the multiple years the area was under construction. These lots would already be built by now in a city run by anybody remotely competent.

[Drybrain]

Would like just one convincing reason this process could not have been concurrent with the actual construction work.

[Haliguy]

They should have been ready to go once the the Cogswell was complete. Halifax is in desperate need of hotel rooms. A new hotel could already be started by now.

[someone123]

There's an error that was apparently later corrected in the article. It cost $138M, not $1.38B. Most of that will be recovered through land sales and then in the long run it'll be hugely positive for the municipality due to tax revenues, despite the hand-wringing about how the city can't afford park infrastructure there.

The hotel point is interesting. Halifax used to be basically limited to older and mid-tier hotels, no Fairmont brand in the historic hotels, and it was thought that there wasn't demand for higher-end rooms. This has improved with Sutton Place, Muir, plus the Moxy and proliferation of boutique hotels offers something a bit different. Halifax could still use a luxury hotel brand (Germain, Intercontinental) or major downtown Hilton or Hyatt, something you see more in major tourism destinations and larger cities. It is a medium-sized city now and increasingly a solid tourism destination in an of itself.

There's a possibility for some kind of landmark office or mixed-use building here and I hope the municipality tries to encourage that instead of a bunch of 20 storey apartment buildings. It would be nice to see something with the ambition of Scotia Square or Purdy's Wharf in the current era. They should drop the ramparts rule and allow up to 40 floors here.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Agree with all of the above. Ridiculous.

[Empire]

Apparently, there are 6.5 hectares of prime development lots available at Cogswell. I would question that. 6.5 hectares = 16 acres. The Public Gardens is 16 acres. If you were to take the poorly laid out lots at Cogswell and superimpose them over the Public Gardens it might equate to 4 acres. Cogswell is poorly managed and the landscaping is abysmal. HRM landscapes by planting maple trees in an urban dense environment. Maple trees are too large for this application. The landscaped sections of Cogswell don’t appear to be very well maintained. Things need to change and fast.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I’m still getting over the disappointment of getting a splash pad instead of a fog fountain…

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

Apparently, there are 6.5 hectares of prime development lots available at Cogswell. I would question that. 6.5 hectares = 16 acres. The Public Gardens is 16 acres. If you were to take the poorly laid out lots at Cogswell and superimpose them over the Public Gardens it might equate to 4 acres. Cogswell is poorly managed and the landscaping is abysmal. HRM landscapes by planting maple trees in an urban dense environment. Maple trees are too large for this application. The landscaped sections of Cogswell don’t appear to be very well maintained. Things need to change and fast.

I agree with every one of your points.

One thing that would derail attempts at making this thing even coming close to paying for itself is the injection of non-profits and “affordable housing” interests into the process. The idea of affordable housing being located in the center of DT within throwing distance of the waterfront is utterly absurd. They were never a realistic part of the discussions when the project was originally being considered other than getting up on their hind legs at public hearings and braying that they wanted to be included. Someone should remind them that the project approval was based in part on it paying for itself via for-profit land sales to developers. Getting non-profits who want free or deeply discounted lots should be an instant invitation to depart the proceedings.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I agree with every one of your points.

One thing that would derail attempts at making this thing even coming close to paying for itself is the injection of non-profits and “affordable housing” interests into the process. The idea of affordable housing being located in the center of DT within throwing distance of the waterfront is utterly absurd. They were never a realistic part of the discussions when the project was originally being considered other than getting up on their hind legs at public hearings and braying that they wanted to be included. Someone should remind them that the project approval was based in part on it paying for itself via for-profit land sales to developers. Getting non-profits who want free or deeply discounted lots should be an instant invitation to depart the proceedings.

Goodness, one day it’s the immigrants, next day it’s the working poor. Who to bash next?

[JET]

Originally Posted by JET

Goodness, one day it’s the immigrants, next day it’s the working poor. Who to bash next?

Right, I forgot to mention the non-profits, never heard of them doing any good. Wealth and capitalism, that will save us all!

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by JET

Goodness, one day it’s the immigrants, next day it’s the working poor. Who to bash next?

Despite Keith's proclivity to be somewhat brash when speaking about disadvantaged groups (or cyclists), I strongly agree with him here. This project was never about affordable housing, it was about redeveloping the core of the city. There is no city in the world where the downtown core is an appropriate location for low-density non-market housing, or where the land values make sense as such. Capitalism is our reality like it or not; better to make it work for us than to work against us.

[JET]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Despite Keith's proclivity to be somewhat brash when speaking about disadvantaged groups (or cyclists), I strongly agree with him here. This project was never about affordable housing, it was about redeveloping the core of the city. There is no city in the world where the downtown core is an appropriate location for low-density non-market housing, or where the land values make sense as such. Capitalism is our reality like it or not; better to make it work for us than to work against us.

Can’t agree, everything should be about affordable housing. It benefits everyone.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

Can’t agree, everything should be about affordable housing. It benefits everyone.

There's only so much funding available, and spending money on expensive downtown land means less money for the housing itself.

One of the best things the city and province could do for affordable housing is to improve transit so people can get downtown or to more jobs while living in more affordable neighbourhoods without needing to own a car. And for the tens of millions in cost for a downtown lot you could build quite a bit of affordable housing in Spryfield, Cole Harbour, or Sackville.

Something else HRM can do is build free public amenities. For example a fog-making fountain that can be a $0 cost activity for a family with kids.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by JET

Can’t agree, everything should be about affordable housing. It benefits everyone.

"Affordable" doesn't necessarily mean priced for the poor. It can be defined in different ways but a common one tends to be something like no more than 30% of the median net income. But that's not accessible to the poor and is instead very middle class territory.

In terms of housing accessible to the poor, I agree that it doesn't necessarily need to be right downtown. But there should certainly be some in fairly central areas. There are a lot of people working low wage jobs downtown such as retail, hospitality, and janitorial positions, and it isn't practical to push them all out to the fringes where they're stuck with long commutes and poorer job or education options. And it's not just bad for them, but also bad for the organizations who hire them since the workers are more prone to delays and it's harder to find them to begin with. And it's bad for the city because those people end up needing transportation subsidies. Transit farebox recovery ratios tend to be much worst in outer suburban areas compared to in town, while poor people in town are often capable of walking or biking which saves the city money and improves the health of the poor. And really, suburban areas just don't have a good quality of life for people who don't have access to cars, and poor people have difficulty affording them.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Can’t agree, everything should be about affordable housing. It benefits everyone.

Your heart is bleeding all over the page. Please clean it up.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It’s an interesting debate with both sides making good points. One thing I wonder about is affordability for poorer people to live downtown, given that prices tend to be higher to capture tourist dollars as well as the tendency for higher end shops to locate there.

Also, if the city is spending premium money to put housing there (meaning less housing for the dollar) how do they choose who gets to live there? i.e. If some potential tenants already have jobs in the downtown, but have to commute from elsewhere, do they get priority over the person or family who is next in line? If we are aiming at a situation where people who work downtown can live downtown, that sounds like a situation that needs to be managed, which HRM has proven time and again that they are not capable of.

While suburban environments are often looked down upon, for a family of lesser income, the suburbs are usually where playgrounds, soccer fields, etc. are located, which is a zero to low cost way for kids to get entertainment and exercise. Downtown, with all the traffic, bars and other not-so-great things that go on, is a less than ideal place for kids to be out and about.

Lots to consider here…

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In terms of housing accessible to the poor, I agree that it doesn't necessarily need to be right downtown. But there should certainly be some in fairly central areas. There are a lot of people working low wage jobs downtown such as retail, hospitality, and janitorial positions, and it isn't practical to push them all out to the fringes where they're stuck with long commutes and poorer job or education options. And it's not just bad for them, but also bad for the organizations who hire them since the workers are more prone to delays and it's harder to find them to begin with. And it's bad for the city because those people end up needing transportation subsidies. Transit farebox recovery ratios tend to be much worst in outer suburban areas compared to in town, while poor people in town are often capable of walking or biking which saves the city money and improves the health of the poor. And really, suburban areas just don't have a good quality of life for people who don't have access to cars, and poor people have difficulty affording them.

Just yesterday I watched a video about NYC and how the Grand Central Terminal has become less about intercity rail (since there isn’t very much of it these days) and instead mostly used for commuters into the city. They profiled people making that trek twice a day, usually 90 minutes or more with transfers/connections along the way and different modes at either end. These were not poor people, just those working in Manhattan or Queens or Brooklyn. It sounded hellish but that’s the life choice they made. Some things cannot be fixed by the heavy hand of government given the choices individuals make.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Despite Keith's proclivity to be somewhat brash when speaking about disadvantaged groups (or cyclists), I strongly agree with him here. This project was never about affordable housing, it was about redeveloping the core of the city. There is no city in the world where the downtown core is an appropriate location for low-density non-market housing, or where the land values make sense as such. Capitalism is our reality like it or not; better to make it work for us than to work against us.

Exactly. If a lot, or two (one for each proponent) were awarded, how are these groups going to fund the developments? Hands out to all levels of government, I suppose along with years of fund-raising while the lots sit, like Bloomfield, like the Khyber building, like the school site between Gottingen and Brunswick (it's name escapes me)

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It’s an interesting debate with both sides making good points. One thing I wonder about is affordability for poorer people to live downtown, given that prices tend to be higher to capture tourist dollars as well as the tendency for higher end shops to locate there.

Also, if the city is spending premium money to put housing there (meaning less housing for the dollar) how do they choose who gets to live there? i.e. If some potential tenants already have jobs in the downtown, but have to commute from elsewhere, do they get priority over the person or family who is next in line? If we are aiming at a situation where people who work downtown can live downtown, that sounds like a situation that needs to be managed, which HRM has proven time and again that they are not capable of.

While suburban environments are often looked down upon, for a family of lesser income, the suburbs are usually where playgrounds, soccer fields, etc. are located, which is a zero to low cost way for kids to get entertainment and exercise. Downtown, with all the traffic, bars and other not-so-great things that go on, is a less than ideal place for kids to be out and about.

Lots to consider here…

Yeah the higher prices are a good example of why downtown itself might not be the best option, but there are a lot of central neighbourhoods where that's not really an issue. There are several conventional grocery stores and dollar stores on the peninsula for instance.

But with the playgrounds, I think it's easy to assume those things are more numerous or accessible than they actually are in suburban areas. There may be a lot in absolute numbers, but the suburbs are so large and geographically spread out by comparison that it makes travel distances much longer on average. If you have one area that's half the density of another place, the less dense place needs twice as much of a given amenity per person in order for it to be as physically close to each person on average. And that's just distance without even considering other aspects of pedestrian friendliness like the design of streets including crossings and intersections. It's easy for someone with a car to say, "Oh we have a such'n'such just 5 minutes from me" without realizing how different a short suburban drive can be for someone walking the same distance.