General Updates and News

[Colin May]

@counterfactual :Re siting of Halifax Treatment plant.
Land use in Halifax harbour : Starting at Fairview Cove container terminal, then on to land for terminal expansion, then on to Africville park - the 'sensitive area' , then on to port infrastructure for offshore and cargo vessels, then on to Halifax Shipyards, then on to DND and then we arrive at the casino, then on to Purdy's Wharf, Historic properties and the WDC lands and then the cruise ship terminal and more port facilities (jealously guarded by the port authority) and then Point Pleasant park. No land available.

RP+5 wants the Coast Guard base to remain Marine Industrial after the CG moves to BIO as the port authority wants yet more land reserved for possible future port use.
Where do you think the Halifax treatment plant should have been built to serve the peninsula and beyond the rotary ?
Other plants are in Mill Cove, Bedford; Dartmouth and Eastern Passage.

[Colin May]

Who bought the 155 (?) acres at Shannon Park ( PID 41404104) on March 5 2014 for $4,000,000 ? This sale was just 1 parcel.
It was assessed at $19,788,400

Halifax Regional School Board operates the French Immersion school property adjacent to this lot and has asked the province to buy it. Viewpoint.ca shows the school property (4.7 acres) was sold on the same day for $313,000.

At the April 23 2014 meeting of HRSB the capital budget listed purchase and renovation of Shannon Park as their #2 Priority and the report stated ;

" Shannon Park Elementary (1952) Purchase and Addition/Alteration Cost Estimate - $313,000 + $1,500,000

The lease agreement and Purchase and Sale agreement between HRSB and DND has expired effective April 1, 2013. DND has transferred the
property to Canada Lands Corporation (CLC). A final extension of both agreements has been granted until July 15, 2015. This funding supports the
purchase price ($313K) and betterment of the school facility ($1.5M). "

Also on the same day the DND property 6 Nootka,less than 0.33 acres, at Shannon Park was 1 of 2 parcels sold for $4,000,000.

It seems that all of these sales have been kept quiet pending announcements from the federal and provincial governments.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Who bought the 155 (?) acres at Shannon Park ( PID 41404104) on March 5 2014 for $4,000,000 ? This sale was just 1 parcel.
It was assessed at $19,788,400

Halifax Regional School Board operates the French Immersion school property adjacent to this lot and has asked the province to buy it. Viewpoint.ca shows the school property (4.7 acres) was sold on the same day for $313,000.

At the April 23 2014 meeting of HRSB the capital budget listed purchase and renovation of Shannon Park as their #2 Priority and the report stated ;

" Shannon Park Elementary (1952) Purchase and Addition/Alteration Cost Estimate - $313,000 + $1,500,000

The lease agreement and Purchase and Sale agreement between HRSB and DND has expired effective April 1, 2013. DND has transferred the
property to Canada Lands Corporation (CLC). A final extension of both agreements has been granted until July 15, 2015. This funding supports the
purchase price ($313K) and betterment of the school facility ($1.5M). "

Also on the same day the DND property 6 Nootka,less than 0.33 acres, at Shannon Park was 1 of 2 parcels sold for $4,000,000.

It seems that all of these sales have been kept quiet pending announcements from the federal and provincial governments.

That is interesting. Can you please provide a source of this information? I am not sure how to access such information.

Just out of interest I found this Shannon Park Infrastructure Assessment - http://issuu.com/brucemans/docs/spinfrastrcuture . It lists the available space as 420,916 square meters, which would be 104 acres.

[Haligonian88]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

That is interesting. Can you please provide a source of this information? I am not sure how to access such information.

Just out of interest I found this Shannon Park Infrastructure Assessment - http://issuu.com/brucemans/docs/spinfrastrcuture . It lists the available space as 420,916 square meters, which would be 104 acres.

They are listed on viewpoint.ca but the acreage is different from those mentioned above. You just have to click on the different properties and view sales history. Not sure if an account is required.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

That is interesting. Can you please provide a source of this information? I am not sure how to access such information.

Just out of interest I found this Shannon Park Infrastructure Assessment - http://issuu.com/brucemans/docs/spinfrastrcuture . It lists the available space as 420,916 square meters, which would be 104 acres.

The school sale is on viewpoint.ca but not on PVSC
Go to the PVSC site, choose 'Find an Assessment' and then choose 'Advanced search', and then accept the terms and conditions
Use the categories 'Halifax Regional Municipality' and choose 'Dartmouth' from the drop down menu and choose 'Commercial' and use the period Jan 1 2014 to April 25 2014 and you will see a list of just 40 properties.

The Shannon park properties are the 1st and 38th on the list
1 Algonquin Path and Nootka Avenue - then click on the blue AAN number for more details, which includes the area of the property. The purchaser is not identified. The Registry of Deeds identifies the seller and the buyer but that info requires a visit or a subscription.

When I put data in my posts I use public sources. Developers, real estate agents and PR people should be treated with scepticism.

[mcmcclassic]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Who bought the 155 (?) acres at Shannon Park ( PID 41404104) on March 5 2014 for $4,000,000 ? This sale was just 1 parcel.
It was assessed at $19,788,400

Halifax Regional School Board operates the French Immersion school property adjacent to this lot and has asked the province to buy it. Viewpoint.ca shows the school property (4.7 acres) was sold on the same day for $313,000.

At the April 23 2014 meeting of HRSB the capital budget listed purchase and renovation of Shannon Park as their #2 Priority and the report stated ;

" Shannon Park Elementary (1952) Purchase and Addition/Alteration Cost Estimate - $313,000 + $1,500,000

The lease agreement and Purchase and Sale agreement between HRSB and DND has expired effective April 1, 2013. DND has transferred the
property to Canada Lands Corporation (CLC). A final extension of both agreements has been granted until July 15, 2015. This funding supports the
purchase price ($313K) and betterment of the school facility ($1.5M). "

Also on the same day the DND property 6 Nootka,less than 0.33 acres, at Shannon Park was 1 of 2 parcels sold for $4,000,000.

It seems that all of these sales have been kept quiet pending announcements from the federal and provincial governments.

I ran that PID you provided into Property Online and I found a document that states that the land was transferred from DnD to a crown corporation called Canada Lands Company...

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by mcmcclassic

I ran that PID you provided into Property Online and I found a document that states that the land was transferred from DnD to a crown corporation called Canada Lands Company...

Thanks for the information. Here is an explanation of Canada Lands Company - http://www.clcl.ca/home . The following description is given.

Canada Lands Company Limited is an arms length, self-financing Crown Corporation reporting to the Parliament of Canada. The principal goal of the company's mandate as determined by Cabinet is:

"to ensure the commercially oriented, orderly disposition of surplus properties with optimal value to the Canadian taxpayer and the holding of certain properties."

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The school sale is on viewpoint.ca but not on PVSC
Go to the PVSC site, choose 'Find an Assessment' and then choose 'Advanced search', and then accept the terms and conditions
Use the categories 'Halifax Regional Municipality' and choose 'Dartmouth' from the drop down menu and choose 'Commercial' and use the period Jan 1 2014 to April 25 2014 and you will see a list of just 40 properties.

The Shannon park properties are the 1st and 38th on the list
1 Algonquin Path and Nootka Avenue - then click on the blue AAN number for more details, which includes the area of the property. The purchaser is not identified. The Registry of Deeds identifies the seller and the buyer but that info requires a visit or a subscription.

When I put data in my posts I use public sources. Developers, real estate agents and PR people should be treated with scepticism.

Thank you for the information Colin May.

[counterfactual]

Whoah.

Did you guys essentially just "scoop" a major news announcement long before it's publicly announced? ie: that there is going to be a stadium built at Shannon Park, with provincial and federal help?

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Whoah.

Did you guys essentially just "scoop" a major news announcement long before it's publicly announced? ie: that there is going to be a stadium built at Shannon Park, with provincial and federal help?

I think this is just standard protocol for surplus land with the Canada Lands Company and doesn't necessarily mean anything stadium.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by hokus83

I think this is just standard protocol for surplus land with the Canada Lands Company and doesn't necessarily mean anything stadium.

Doh.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for the information. Here is an explanation of Canada Lands Company - http://www.clcl.ca/home . The following description is given.

Canada Lands Company Limited is an arms length, self-financing Crown Corporation reporting to the Parliament of Canada. The principal goal of the company's mandate as determined by Cabinet is:

"to ensure the commercially oriented, orderly disposition of surplus properties with optimal value to the Canadian taxpayer and the holding of certain properties."

I looked at Canada Lands website before posting yesterday and they have details of properties in several provinces but nothing for Nova Scotia.
There is an outstanding First Nations claim to part of the property.
mccclassic has accessed the Registry of Deeds 'Property online' and that is the most accurate source. Canada Lands used to have a private individual acting for them but I think that arrangement is no longer in place.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I think *some* more significant height is warranted for this area, because we just don't have zoning for it anywhere else on the peninsula. This is it. This is all we have.

I'm not saying we need to plaster this with a bunch of condo towers-- it can be a mix-- but a bunch of midrise developments? Blah. Blah. Blah.

BTW, I'm all for consistent density and community building. I don't see it in this vision...

Question; Why the fixation on Height - From both Camps. the STV type dont want anything tall, which i get (but dont agree with), then there seems to be a camp that says things are not tall enough. You can get good density in 6-10 stories; why are 10-14 not enough?

is this some sort of inferiority complex? we are not a good city if we don't have tall buildings? Height is usually an expression of Ego.. Should a more modest scale better reflect our maritime values?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Question; Why the fixation on Height - From both Camps. the STV type dont want anything tall, which i get (but dont agree with), then there seems to be a camp that says things are not tall enough. You can get good density in 6-10 stories; why are 10-14 not enough?

is this some sort of inferiority complex? we are not a good city if we don't have tall buildings? Height is usually an expression of Ego.. Should a more modest scale better reflect our maritime values?

I don't know about Maritime values, but I agree there's a fixation from both sides. To me density is the important thing, and how much density can be achieved while keeping things realistic vis-a-vis market demand. (The Ekistics report basically says something, that the height of any buildings on the site should "be limited by the capacity of each building to provide required services."

it's all about planning, streetscaping, and design--as long as the density is high and the planning is urban, I don't care if the buildings are tall or not.

Bringing population downtown, fixing an aesthetically and urbanistically awful scar on the city, making it easier and safer to cross from the North End into downtown and vice-versa, revitalizing the area around Granville, etc, are all potential spin-offs. Some real landmark skyscrapers would be nice, and extend the skyline north a bit. If there are enough people to fill them, let's do it, but I'm a lot more excited about what's going to happen on the streets.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Question; Why the fixation on Height - From both Camps. the STV type dont want anything tall, which i get (but dont agree with), then there seems to be a camp that says things are not tall enough. You can get good density in 6-10 stories; why are 10-14 not enough?

is this some sort of inferiority complex? we are not a good city if we don't have tall buildings? Height is usually an expression of Ego.. Should a more modest scale better reflect our maritime values?

Why are you so against skyscrapers? is this some sort of insecurity? Having skyscrapers in Halifax is different. A big change. Fear of change is usually an expression of insecurity.. Should a more modest scale be used so we can feel less insecure changes happening in our city?

Are you afraid that as soon as we have a building over 14 storeys, we're all of a sudden going to be a different city? Our values will be corrupted and we'll no longer be a "good city"? We'll become... [ shudder ] "Toronto"?

...

Seems to me the only people with inferiority complexes, are those that feel the need to see their "modest values" reflected in every possible thing around them, from the height of buildings, to every new development proposal, to architectural design, to new city slogans, and logos, brands, etc.

In fact, if I didn't care so much about downtown renewal and densification-- which is what this debate is really about-- I like the notion of skyscrapers in this area for the very reason it disrupts the smug faux modesty of people who purport to speak for "maritime values" and identity.

You talk about 6-10 stories, like mid-rise developments in this city are popping up like weeds. Getting development built in this city over five storeys is a war. If you haven't figured that out by now, I'm not sure what fantasy world of modest maritime values you're living in.

I've actually never been dogmatic about height. There needs to be a mix, but the option should be there. I've always thought that Cogswell offers an opportunity for a kind of intense densification that we cannot get anywhere else in the city, that will really help re-populate the downtown, renew it, and sustain small and medium businesses in the core.

Also, the city has a major sprawl problem, that is not stopping anytime soon. The vast majority of growth, again, for the next 15 years will be in the suburbs and exurbs, exacerbating the problem. Our current strategies aren't working, we need some bold moves. I think more intense densification in certain areas, to create transit hubs, bring down the cost of condos / rentals for families, etc, are all a part of the solution.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Why are you so against skyscrapers? is this some sort of insecurity? Having skyscrapers in Halifax is different. A big change. Fear of change is usually an expression of insecurity.. Should a more modest scale be used so we can feel less insecure changes happening in our city?

Are you afraid that as soon as we have a building over 14 storeys, we're all of a sudden going to be a different city? Our values will be corrupted? We'll become... [ shudder ] "Toronto"?

I don't fear tall; nor am I necessarily against tall. I was merely attempting to understand the camp that immediately wishes any midrise was taller. It strikes me as the exact same as STV - A standard position taken on any development with no thought to its relevance. In fact I agree that the Cogswell Lands Are an Appropriate place for height, given Scotia Square, 1801 Hollis and Ocean Towers as precedents.

urbanists (Keesmat, Todrian) like to cite Scandinavian examples of good Urban communities, and they are predominantly mid-rise. I happen to think we generally fit this sort of model well, and should use it.

As for traditional maritime values - some are good and should stay, others are outmoded and should go. One can "be bold" by defending what you have. Jane Jacobs is seen as a bold urbanist - and she defended what she had in face of Modern Scientific Progress. We can Also be Bold by modernizing what we do now. I'd love to see a MLS concept for a Modern Vernacular Midrise for the site.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Whoah.

Did you guys essentially just "scoop" a major news announcement long before it's publicly announced? ie: that there is going to be a stadium built at Shannon Park, with provincial and federal help?

See Herald:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/12...-political-football#.U1-OCQTYBT0.twitter

Apparently HRSB Leases the school and land from DND, and wants to Outright own it. The transfer to Canada Lands was probably the first step in divesting it to HRSB

[Colin May]

Re Shannon Park : I just love scooping the politicians ! ( Not the first time, not the last. )

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/shannon-park-in-dartmouth-split-3-ways-by-dnd-1.2626083

here is a photo of the MicMac settlement at Turtle Grove :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mi%27kmaq_people_at_Tufts_Cove,_Nova_Scotia,_Canada,_ca._1871.jpg

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

here is a photo of the MicMac settlement at Turtle Grove :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mi%27kmaq_people_at_Tufts_Cove,_Nova_Scotia,_Canada,_ca._1871.jpg

I somehow doubt they had a deed.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I somehow doubt they had a deed.

I'll take that as humour.
The deal to pass the land to Millbrook is all done bar the signing and the press conference. And it avoids a long legal battle as well as affording the government the opportunity for positive publicity ahead of an election.

The bigger question which the media will be chasing pertains to the valuation of the largest piece; here is the history of the assessed value :

2008 $13,422,400
2009 $13,825,100
2010 $13,825,100
2011 $14,101,600
2012 $15,637,500
2013 $17,839,600
2014 $19,788,400

How does such a large fully serviced property in the centre of HRM suddenly be worth a mere $4,000,000 ?
Where is the appraisal document that describes how the property declined in value ?
And has the federal government been paying taxes based on the prior years' assessed value ?