General Updates and News

[JET]

Originally Posted by sdm

Historic Properties isn't facades

I was thinking more in terms of Founders Square, you are absolutely correct about Historic Properties. I sit corrected.

[fenwick16]

I have to agree with sdm. Ben McCrea was doing restorations back when it was not in the spotlight. Many developers wouldn't have gone to the trouble to maintain as much of the Founder Square block as Ben McCrea did. Without massive government subsidies to maintain these buildings as they are, then they will simply be neglected until they literally fall down.

I don't think that developers can make a profit on completely renovating old buildings. Often such renovations won't meet current building codes (insufficient exits, no fire sprinkler systems, etc.). Even restoring the facades will add cost to a development.

What is the status of the Waterside project - has any more work been done?

[halifaxboyns]

I think it's a matter of balance. I think that there is a general opinion that heritage is part of the character of HRM; but it comes to a choice of the developer. Fenwick, I think, is right - it's terribly cost prohibitive to restore older buildings to meet current codes and sometimes not possible.

Personally, I think the 3 year delay really won't matter because if the project involves removal of an old building - they will just wait. What I'd like to see (and I must admit that I haven't read the whole thing) a tax incentive or some funding that gives assistance if an old building is to be retained or restored. That I think can help or a mechanism to defer municipal taxes for a few years; that too can help.

But ultimately it comes down to the developer. McRae has done some good things; but I think the condition of some of the buildings for waterside really prevented restoration.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I have to agree with sdm. Ben McCrea was doing restorations back when it was not in the spotlight. Many developers wouldn't have gone to the trouble to maintain as much of the Founder Square block as Ben McCrea did. Without massive government subsidies to maintain these buildings as they are, then they will simply be neglected until they literally fall down.

I don't think that developers can make a profit on completely renovating old buildings. Often such renovations won't meet current building codes (insufficient exits, no fire sprinkler systems, etc.). Even restoring the facades will add cost to a development.

What is the status of the Waterside project - has any more work been done?

I know there is a lot of talk that the market for downtown is not in good shape and that tenants are not willing to look at higher priced longer commitment real estate. The 4th qtr stats from someone like CBRE are going to be a interesting read.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

What is the status of the Waterside project - has any more work been done?

Nope.

This won't move ahead until he has pre-leased most of it, and from what he has been griping about in the news it would seem that that has been impacted by the likelihood of the Nova Centre being built.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by sdm

Historic Properties isn't facades

Historic properties was really good, for a project in the 1970s. To bad about Founders Square and Waterside, too bad about the Heart and Thistle extension.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Historic properties was really good, for a project in the 1970s. To bad about Founders Square and Waterside, too bad about the Heart and Thistle extension.

The hart & thisle isn't bad, but i know personally the harbourside market was a money loser due to no traffic in the downtown after 5 or during the winter.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by sdm

If people where able to build height/ density then i believe you would see the consolidation of the lots, but as it stands now the price to purchase these properties would be extremely challenging to make a new development economically feasible due lack of density/height. Simply put, a new development can only carry so much in the way of land costs within the development proforma before it proves to be uneconomical.

So is the bylaw structure, as it stands, designed, delibarately or not, to lead to a slow inevitable decline on SGR?

...oh yay!

[someone123]

The land cost argument is a bit suspect though, since the price of lots can vary and depends primarily on what people believe the development potential is. In other words, if properties become subject to restrictions their value should eventually fall. This is bad if you're the owner but wouldn't necessarily result in less development.

Actually height limits often improve upon this situation, since when there are no limits there is a tendency for building owners to "hold out" for a big tower. In a Halifax context, this would mean waiting for a 20 or 30 storey building when only maybe 2 might be built downtown on a good year (removing restrictions does not create demand). This tends to leave downtown areas in a permanent half-developed state where they are half office tower (big payout) and half parking lot (buildings are torn down to avoid paying taxes while waiting 20 years for development). To some degree I'm sure this effect is at play with Halifax's absentee landowners. They don't pay attention to their property because they know they can sell it one day if they need to (or maybe they'll get a windfall sooner when a big developer comes knocking). This is really wasteful and something the city should try to discourage with regulation. Land use affects more people than just the property owner!

Another issue might be fixed costs associated with approval and so on, though supposedly this was fixed with HbD. If every development requires 2-3 years of red tape then the small developments become unappealing. It's not worth the fight a slightly larger commercial buildings but might be worth it for a highrise. I'm not sure how true this is these days, and it's worth noting that there are two small proposals for Spring Garden Road: the new TD building and City Centre Atlantic. There's also the Trillium and over a longer timeframe the library and perhaps the Brunswick/Queen block, YMCA/CBC, and Clyde Street. I don't think the area is doing badly.

Certainly the taxation rules also play a role since they encourage minimal property use, which is totally backward. This is obvious to a lot of people but for whatever reason never gets dealt with.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by sdm

The hart & thisle isn't bad, but i know personally the harbourside market was a money loser due to no traffic in the downtown after 5 or during the winter.

I would like them to make it a separate building from the old market and restore the old foot traffic pattern there. I think they made a colossal mistake when they did that renovation. Just tear down the doors and restore the wall to the old mall.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by sdm

Historic Properties isn't facades

No, but it isn't all that authentic either. It is quite Disneyfied.

In regard to the change in heritage legislation, I predict it will be a boon to arsonists who will now find themsleves in demand to start mysterious blazes in empty, decrepit old buildings that the owners want gone but cannot demolish.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by JET

It would be interesting to know if vacant bldgs, empty lots have a lower tax rate than developed properties. Having a high tax rate would be a motivator to maintain properties

This is one of the problems for sure. The assessment is lower with the building gone so it is indeed an incentive to demolish a building.
I think that if a registered heritage building is demolished then the assessment should not be lowered for that lot. It is far more expensive to renovated an older building then start from scratch and this is why tax incentives are a must. The tax rate for registered heritage buildings should be reduced if not eliminated. The heritage act would be strictly applied to these buildings but they would become a valued asset to own.

Originally Posted by sdm

Ben McCrea has done more for heritage buildings in this city then anyone else Empire.

Historic properties (Ben McCrea) is an example of what can be done with full restoration. Unfortunately it is very expensive and remains prohibitive for most buildings. This is where massive tax breaks are required. Founders Square (Ben McCrea) is an excellent development as well. However, not all of these buildings were registered buildings. The Morses Tea building beside Waterside is being fully renovated a kept intact so it is not impossible to do. The Waterside buildings were harded to renovate but the fact remains that we allow registered heritage buildings to be destroyed. The province and city need to step in and assist developers.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

The land cost argument is a bit suspect though, since the price of lots can vary and depends primarily on what people believe the development potential is. In other words, if properties become subject to restrictions their value should eventually fall. This is bad if you're the owner but wouldn't necessarily result in less development.

Actually height limits often improve upon this situation, since when there are no limits there is a tendency for building owners to "hold out" for a big tower. In a Halifax context, this would mean waiting for a 20 or 30 storey building when only maybe 2 might be built downtown on a good year (removing restrictions does not create demand). This tends to leave downtown areas in a permanent half-developed state where they are half office tower (big payout) and half parking lot (buildings are torn down to avoid paying taxes while waiting 20 years for development). To some degree I'm sure this effect is at play with Halifax's absentee landowners. They don't pay attention to their property because they know they can sell it one day if they need to (or maybe they'll get a windfall sooner when a big developer comes knocking). This is really wasteful and something the city should try to discourage with regulation. Land use affects more people than just the property owner!

Another issue might be fixed costs associated with approval and so on, though supposedly this was fixed with HbD. If every development requires 2-3 years of red tape then the small developments become unappealing. It's not worth the fight a slightly larger commercial buildings but might be worth it for a highrise. I'm not sure how true this is these days, and it's worth noting that there are two small proposals for Spring Garden Road: the new TD building and City Centre Atlantic. There's also the Trillium and over a longer timeframe the library and perhaps the Brunswick/Queen block, YMCA/CBC, and Clyde Street. I don't think the area is doing badly.

Certainly the taxation rules also play a role since they encourage minimal property use, which is totally backward. This is obvious to a lot of people but for whatever reason never gets dealt with.

I find your comment about taxation interesting, because as a planner in a city of sprawl; I'm constantly thinking trying to think of ways we can turn around the push of office development out of Calgary's core. Calgary is probably in the same situation to a degree (due in part to the economy).

Some buildings went ahead anyway because of leasing committments, but many didn't and the lots remain parking lots and developers beg for extentions to these parking lots just to recoup costs of holding the land.

Personally - I agree, that not having a height limit (if the viewplanes didn't exist) makes no difference, because people still wouldn't build much in terms of office (although I have a feeling we'd see a lot more residential).

I also get the impression that because land prices are so much higher in downtown that the only way to put them back on the same pace as suburban development is to create mechanisms to defer property taxes for a temporary period so that the initial costs of building are low and then slowly ramp up once the building is occupied. Combine that with an increase in property tax on suburban office development and restricting parking for such uses (instead of having a sea of parking); I think you could actually turn the movement back into the core. But it would be a huge experiment that I'm not sure I'd want to try on Halifax. Perhaps somewhere else; which had a more stable economy.

[bluenoser]

A good overview of some of the projects going on / proposed for downtown proper. I vaguely remember hearing something before about the St. Mary's parking lot being developed, but I didn't remember any details. I'm not sure what they would do with the courtyard in behind; it's kind of hard to access but it sounds interesting anyway.

----------------------------------------

Hold on to your hard hats; Downtown Halifax is under construction
By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnist
Fri, Dec 3 - 7:36 AM

The prospect of Halifax undergoing a makeover after more than two decades without any major construction is injecting some excitement back into the downtown area.

The linchpin for the whole thing, of course, is the proposed Nova Centre, which will include a convention centre, hotel, and office and retail space.

Work on the $500-million Argyle Street project is expected to begin early in the new year, but it isn’t the only downtown construction project planned for 2011.

Just down Grafton Street from the Nova Centre, which is being developed by Rank Inc., the company has another project on the go in conjunction with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Halifax.

The archdiocese signed a letter of intent last year with Rank to develop church-owned lands adjacent to Saint Mary’s Cathedral Basilica at the corner of Spring Garden Road and Grafton Street.

The plan for the residential building still hasn’t been revealed, but it is expected to involve the church parking lot, a courtyard behind the basilica and the building that now houses the diocese administration offices at 1521 Grafton St.

The church hopes development of the lands will create an income stream that could be used to help defray the cost of maintaining the cathedral and the historic glebe house.

Spring Garden Road has often been referred to as an upscale part of downtown, but that is debatable. With the amount of construction proposed for the area now, there is a chance the street will start to live up to its tony reputation.

Not a long walk up Spring Garden from the basilica, past the existing central library, people should see construction of the $55-million, 109,000-square-foot library begin early in the new year.

The distinctive architectural design to be built at the corner of Spring Garden Road and Queen Street is expected to be completed by early 2014.

The library’s book collection is expected to be 50 per cent larger than the one at the existing library. The new library will be set back from the street to provide space for public art and meeting space, which will play into the theme of having the library serve as a community centre.

Just across the street from the new library, developer Danny Chedrawe, president of Westwood Developments Ltd., has completed the final part of a land assembly for the block that fronts on Spring Garden Road between Brunswick and Queen streets.

It has been reported that he expects to redevelop that block over the next three or four years, with a boutique hotel on the Spring Garden side and retail space fronting on Doyle Street in the back.

Just up the street, however, Chedrawe has more immediate plans for another property he has assembled. He expects to start construction in February on a 25,000-square-foot glass structure at the corner of Spring Garden Road and Birmingham Street. TD Canada Trust will be the primary tenant, taking three floors in the four-storey building.

In other construction news, work on the WM Fares Group’s $41-million, 19-storey Trillium condominium building at the corner of Brenton Place and South Park Street is nearing completion, adding another dimension to that part of town.

The area’s facelift won’t end there.

The CBC building at the corner of Sackville and South streets has been sold and is expected to be redeveloped in association with the YMCA next door.

And once the new library is completed, the site of the former library on Spring Garden is expected to be sold for redevelopment. There is also a strong interest in developing the properties that are now used as parking lots behind the Spring Garden Road shops and running along Clyde Street.

Let’s not forget the former Halifax Infirmary property on Queen Street will also be developed and there will be plenty of development in the Barrington Street area, too.

( [email protected])

[reddog794]

A good article, if people read more about development, the more they get used to the fact DT is, and will continue, growing.

I found this article on infomonkey

http://spacingatlantic.ca/2010/12/02/events-guide-4funds-make-your-impact-halifax/

[DigitalNinja]

Good article, very positive. I would hate to see the old library sold, I think they should turn it into a War museum for Halifax for WW1 and WW2 would be interesting, or even just a museum for the history of Halifax.

[someone123]

I also remember hearing about the St. Mary's redevelopment but I don't know any details. Residential on that corner would be great. Developing the courtyard area doesn't seem particularly difficult - something could be built through the Maritime Hobbies space. It would be interesting if they went up to 6 or 8 storeys behind the Blowers Street buildings.

My hope is that they'll keep the brick buildings along Grafton, and that whatever goes up on the corner is carefully designed for the streetscape. The courthouse and St. Mary's are two of the nicest heritage buildings in the city.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

Good article, very positive. I would hate to see the old library sold, I think they should turn it into a War museum for Halifax for WW1 and WW2 would be interesting, or even just a museum for the history of Halifax.

They could make a museum and art gallery. There are over 2000 pieces of art going back 250 years in the HRM collection, most of which are sitting in a warehouse unseen.

[Phalanx]

That reminds me... Wasn't there some discussion of new renders with some significant changes for the YMCA redevelopment a few months back? Were those ever made available?

[Keith P.]

HRM is in anywhere from a $13 million to a $30 million hole right now. We do not need more money-losers, especially not on the prime retail street in eastern Canada. Sell the damn thing.