General Updates and News

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That is patently nonsense. What bothers me more than the ad is that all these media outlets are doing "oh the poor developers" stories. Jesus. Could we have a more juvenile and simplistic civic dialogue around these issues? (No, probably we couldn't.)

You don't think what Fare is saying here is true?

I absolutely think so. There's lately been some development certainty in the downtown core since HRMxD.

It's one of the reasons we're seeing so much development picking up so quickly since 2011. After a long cold winter for development-- where HT would sue anything and everything and block this and that, and you had many NIMBY councillors blocking, and approval was often 50/50 shot-- now, for the last few years, if you sought to build, and met the criteria, you'd likely get approval.

This no doubt led banks to be more willing to open the wallet and provide the necessary capital to move these projects forward. It's a *huge* factor in the life or death of the downtown. If the capital is not flowing from the banks to finance these projects, it all dies. Everything. Forget the Alexandra restoration. Forget a restoration of the Dennis.

Now, with HT out there suing again (22 Commerce Sq, Nova Centre, etc), *of course* banks are going to be wary of lending; and seek more collateral. They'd also likely put the screws on further lending by existing developments, etc.

I think his concerns are real and legitimate.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You don't think what Fare is saying here is true?

I absolutely think so. There's lately been some development certainty in the downtown core since HRMxD.

I don't really think it has to do with bank lending nervousness, but as you say, with that HRMxD certainty (and Halifax coming a bit late to the downtown revitalization thing).


I think the HT have put themselves in a position of relative powerlessness, so I doubt any bank is going to look at their efforts and get spooked. I could be wrong, but I strongly doubt there's much to back up that particular claim.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I don't really think it has to do with bank lending nervousness, but as you say, with that HRMxD certainty (and Halifax coming a bit late to the downtown revitalization thing).


I think the HT have put themselves in a position of relative powerlessness, so I doubt any bank is going to look at their efforts and get spooked. I could be wrong, but I strongly doubt there's much to back up that particular claim.

Nothing to back up the claim? Theres dozens of records of facts and cases of building amendments and difficulties because of the HT

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Call me crazy, but I get the sense you have a problem with Wadih Fares.

I don't. Like him or not, he's been a massive positive factor in building this city, as has the broader Lebanese community.

I have no problem with Mr Fares as a person.

I have a problem with his nonsensical view ' that once a council has made a decision that should be the end of it '.
The laws of Canada have never been like that. Our democracy has never been like that. Individuals and organisations have challenged governments in court for centuries. We have a system of checks and balances and it works quite well; frustrating at times but democracy, due process and the rule of law ensures we all get along. The claim by Ramia that delays are costing him million seems a tad hyper inflated. If he put out specific numbers we could ascertain the veracity of his claim, but until then I'll just take it as a hissy fit.

A developer has a right to appeal a planning decision and such right has frequently been exercised. I referenced sevral recent cases in metro.
Is Wadih Fares saying that Metlej should just pack up and forget his appeal ? Is Wadih Fares saying that he and other developers who are refused a project should just go back to the office, have a moan and go find another project ?
It is a stupid proposition.


HRM had no legal basis to give $2,000,000 to Seaport Farmers Market so the staff worked out a deal to give the Port of Halifax $2,000,000 and then the Port of Halifax gave the money to the market. At the time I told friends the payment was not allowed by law because you can't do by the back door what you cannot do through the front door. I never wrote to Mayor Kelly or my councillor because all the hype about the wonderful new market and what a great project it was ensured that HRM would give them the money no matter what anyone said. I also said the market was a crap idea and would not work all week and would go bust within a year. I was wrong, it took more than a year to go bust. It doesn't work all week. We use it every week and i know several of the investors who lost their money and even urged me to buy shares.
Subsequently the HRM auditor general examined the $2,000,000 payment to the Port of Halifax and told council they had no legal power to make the expenditure. They listened to him but does anyone believe that if any ordinary citizen had written to Mayor Kelly, the council and the CAO that they would have paid any attention ? Course not. They get crap opinions from lawyers who answer to the CAO, not the council, and the most recent example occurred when the city solicitor admitted that he didn't have much knowledge of the provisions of the Condominium Act when council discussed the closure and sale of Grafton Street and the issue of public access to the covered space when Nova Centre is complete. Hendsbee knew more about the condo legislation and warned staff and council that the act would prevent the land being designated as public space. Perhaps the city and Ramia will ask the province to change the act to suit the quest for public space.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You don't think what Fare is saying here is true?

I absolutely think so. There's lately been some development certainty in the downtown core since HRMxD.

It's one of the reasons we're seeing so much development picking up so quickly since 2011. After a long cold winter for development-- where HT would sue anything and everything and block this and that, and you had many NIMBY councillors blocking, and approval was often 50/50 shot-- now, for the last few years, if you sought to build, and met the criteria, you'd likely get approval.

This no doubt led banks to be more willing to open the wallet and provide the necessary capital to move these projects forward. It's a *huge* factor in the life or death of the downtown. If the capital is not flowing from the banks to finance these projects, it all dies. Everything. Forget the Alexandra restoration. Forget a restoration of the Dennis.

Now, with HT out there suing again (22 Commerce Sq, Nova Centre, etc), *of course* banks are going to be wary of lending; and seek more collateral. They'd also likely put the screws on further lending by existing developments, etc.

I think his concerns are real and legitimate.

The banks are worried about the dramatic slump in residential property sales in metro. The banks expected the construction loans for condos to be paid out shortly after completion.
In addition the changes in lending criteria and mortgage insurance brought in by the federal government have had a negative effect on property sales across the country.
Condo sales in metro are in the basement and developers are actively seeking rental clients in competition with larger businesses such as Killam.
Fares is diverting attention from the real issue and trying to shift it to HT. It may work in the very short term but once the press start looking at the data the story will change.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

Nothing to back up the claim? Theres dozens of records of facts and cases of building amendments and difficulties because of the HT

I think that we in Halifax often feel like we excel in the NIMBY department and being a developer is way harder here than elsewhere. Developers may corroborate that because, hey, why not? It might convince us to loosen restrictions.

But really, I'm not convinced it's so bad here.

I'll reference the city I know best, Toronto. Every time a development, even a five or six-storey one, gets proposes, even along a major corridor, this happens.

And very real delays result, with these cases dragging out for years and even ending up at the Ontario Municipal Board (a tribunal which can trump city council decisions). If anything

Or you have cases like the Mirvish-Gehry project, where city staff actually recommended scaling down the proposal with the adamant backing of the city's chief planner.

Or you have cases like this one, where something happened that I can't even imagine happening in Halifax: City council actually came in mid-way through the application process, in response to citizen outrage over the demolition of the old buildings on the site (the little cluster here) and declared them heritage, as council has the authority to do in that city.

City council waltzing in and telling developers NO and cases dragging on for years is surely the sort of thing that would scare investors, but it's just the cost of doing business. I don't think it's good that things take years to go through approvals, of course, but it's not unique to Halifax at all.

We might say, "Toronto can afford such obstruction" but that's like saying "were so poor, we can't afford proper planning and citizen inputs." And besides, this stuff long long predated the city's current boom.

There are countless more examples. They even inspired this parody Twitter account and stories like this in the press.

The Heritage Trust is definitely more active than their equivalents elsewhere, and there's definitely a case to be made that they're exceeding their mandate and getting involved where they have no place. But ultimately, I don't feel we're especially NIMBY-afflicted, or especially more difficult a city to work in, at least post-HRMxD. Of course developers will leverage the perception that we are.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

They won't lose their collective shirts to a bunch of crybabies.

Fares et al didn't complain when Louis Lawen appealed a community council decision to the UARB and delayed the 27 storey Can Euro tower. And Fares et al were silent when David Harrison the planning consultant for Lawen ripped the planning staff to shreds in the appeal hearing.

And Fares et al didn't complain when Monaco Investments appealed a community council decision to kill a planning application before any public hearing.
And Fares et all didn't complain when Monaco went to the UARB and planners hired by residents ripped to shreds the professional abilities of certain HRM planning staff.
You appear to prefer not to face facts.

You appear to have a real personal issue with developers Mr. May. I don't know why nor do I care. But your facts and reality seem to have only a casual relationship.

Go back and read the Bousquet article where he laid out the appoved developments that were never built, especially the Sobeys 25 year old permit for the MT land at Cogwell.

Is that where you get your "facts"? Bousquet? Well, that explains a lot. Jeezus! If you said you used a Ouija board I would give you more credit.

This conversation is over.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The banks are worried about the dramatic slump in residential property sales in metro. The banks expected the construction loans for condos to be paid out shortly after completion.
In addition the changes in lending criteria and mortgage insurance brought in by the federal government have had a negative effect on property sales across the country.
Condo sales in metro are in the basement and developers are actively seeking rental clients in competition with larger businesses such as Killam.
Fares is diverting attention from the real issue and trying to shift it to HT. It may work in the very short term but once the press start looking at the data the story will change.

Even accepting everything you say is true, isn't another scenario is just as reasonable? That is, with the slump in sales downtown, then there is even more pressure on developers. This, in turn, has made HT's meddling litigation and useless non-heritage obstructionism *that* much more of a danger, that much more of a problem, such that action had to be taken.

Isn't that just as likely? I'd say. That's probably what's going on here.

[JET]

Counterpoint is the argument that HRM not following it's policies and procedures (as identified by a provincial judge), and developers using heritage obstructionism and bullying tactics are the real problems that are present.
Interesting that we have not heard from Waye on this topic, perhaps because so much is before the courts...

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Even accepting everything you say is true, isn't another scenario is just as reasonable? That is, with the slump in sales downtown, then there is even more pressure on developers. This, in turn, has made HT's meddling litigation and useless non-heritage obstructionism *that* much more of a danger, that much more of a problem, such that action had to be taken.

Isn't that just as likely? I'd say. That's probably what's going on here.

The slump I reference is in metro. I looked at sales in Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford. The data is freely available. Too much product and not enough purchasers when combined with the changes by the federal government and the result is very slow sales. Al Demmings is the only real estate agent who talks to the media about the significant drop in sales.
Banks are more concerned about cash flow and HT opposition to a convention centre and a hotel is of no consequence to residential sales.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by JET

Counterpoint is the argument that HRM not following it's policies and procedures (as identified by a provincial judge), and developers using heritage obstructionism and bullying tactics are the real problems that are present.
Interesting that we have not heard from Waye on this topic, perhaps because so much is before the courts...

We actually have.

Waye wrote an op-ed about a month ago, basically telling all the nay-sayers on the Nova Centre to stick it, as it is too late to try to oppose this thing.

We're far beyond that stage.

[counterfactual]

So, remember these new commercial/retail expansion plans by the Halifax Airport?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1202632-airport-hopes-city-plan-will-fly

Quote:

Meanwhile, the so-called airport city could also include a commercial development close to the highway that would be geared toward airport-goers and the general public.

While Spurway said the development is still at the early conceptual stage, the airport’s 20-year master plan notes it could accommodate a variety of commercial services.

Roughly 46 hectares on the west side of the airport property, closest to Highway 102, are reserved for this commercial development, the master plan says.

But Spurway stressed that this larger-scale development is a long-term strategy.

Although critics have said the region already has enough large-scale commercial development parks, such as Bayers Lake, Bedford Commons and Dartmouth Crossing, Dalrymple said there is demand for commercial growth surrounding the airport.

He pointed to the rapid growth of the existing commercial parks as well as new growth in the East Hants are

Geez, Barry Dalrymple is a moron.

Anyways, pretty vague on the "airport city", right?

Well, in case you were wondering what Stanfield International Airport *really* had in store for its ridiculous plan to expand into another sprawl mall development, even worst than the other hell holes we have (ie Dartmouth Crossing), get a load of this:

Staples: Do we need a massive shopping complex way outside the city?

Aerotropolis’ plan highlights need for city to control development at EIA

EDMONTON - What the heck is going on at the Edmonton International Airport?

A number of Edmonton city councillors are starting to wonder about and question the so-called “aerotropolis” plan for commercial and industrial expansion in and around the airport.

The City of Leduc, population 26,000, and the County of Leduc, population 12,000, are in on the Edmonton Regional Airports Authority’s aerotropolis plan. The three are hoping to build a massive commercial development south of the airport and its runways, both on county and airport lands. The aerotropolis is to include outlet stores, hotels, restaurants, exhibition and conference centres, and manufacturing and distribution firms

[....]


Edmonton Regional Airports Authority spokesperson Traci Bednard says they are simply making best use of half of the airport’s 7,000 acres. There’s no need for 3,500 acres of the land for aviation purposes. If that land can be put to good commercial use, the revenues from lease and rent money from any new development can help pay for airport operations, Bednard says. “It’s one less dollar we have to charge to an air traveller or an airline to use the airport.”

The Edmonton region does not have a pure outlet mall yet, Bednard says, so The Landmark plan is filling that market niche.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Staples+n...357623950711&fb_action_types=og.comments

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Geez, Barry Dalrymple is a moron.

Pointing to East Hants' horrible business parks as an example to follow clinches that assessment.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Pointing to East Hants' horrible business parks as an example to follow clinches that assessment.

Truly, a champion of the people.

[mcmcclassic]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Pointing to East Hants' horrible business parks as an example to follow clinches that assessment.

Can you explain what's so bad about the parks in East Hants? They're industrial parks not really designed for commercial purposes. They just sort of ended up that way.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by someone123

Design for a new highrise at CFB Halifax. Not terribly exciting: https://twitter.com/RCN_MARLANT/status/453222458296791040/photo/1

Crane base is in for this project! The only vantage point is from the MacDonald Bridge bikeway so I'll try to remember to snap a photo during my commute next week.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'll reference the city I know best, Toronto. Every time a development, even a five or six-storey one, gets proposes, even along a major corridor, this happens.

And very real delays result, with these cases dragging out for years and even ending up at the Ontario Municipal Board (a tribunal which can trump city council decisions). If anything

Or you have cases like the Mirvish-Gehry project, where city staff actually recommended scaling down the proposal with the adamant backing of the city's chief planner.

Or you have cases like this one, where something happened that I can't even imagine happening in Halifax: City council actually came in mid-way through the application process, in response to citizen outrage over the demolition of the old buildings on the site (the little cluster here) and declared them heritage, as council has the authority to do in that city.

City council waltzing in and telling developers NO and cases dragging on for years is surely the sort of thing that would scare investors, but it's just the cost of doing business. I don't think it's good that things take years to go through approvals, of course, but it's not unique to Halifax at all.

We might say, "Toronto can afford such obstruction" but that's like saying "were so poor, we can't afford proper planning and citizen inputs." And besides, this stuff long long predated the city's current boom.

There are countless more examples. They even inspired this parody Twitter account and stories like this in the press.

I had heard of a NIMBY faction in Toronto, but I didn't realize how widespread it was. Really, NIMBY's are everywhere. New York has plenty of them too, believe it or not, and it sure hasn't stopped them from having some of the world's tallest buildings. Of course, NYC can use eminent domain to tell naysayers to stick it and build what they want. Barclays Center in Brooklyn is a good example of that. It doesn't seem like Toronto or Halifax have this option.

Ignoring the obvious population and km2 differences, Toronto and Halifax are more alike than we care to think. Toronto knocked down waterfront buildings and built an overhead expressway, and built really tall buildings and told Halifax to do the same. Outside of the direct downtown areas, both have large portions of the urban area taken up by single family detached homes, occupied by people hellbent on keeping them that way. Directly off of Bloor, there are tons of streetscapes that wouldn't look out of place in peninsular Halifax. I don't know this for a fact, but just looking at how the GTA has sprawled out, it looks easier to build upwards outside the centre, much like Halifax. Now there are no viewplanes in Toronto, so I think you can build tall directly downtown no problem. The issues seem to crop up just on the periphery, where heights have largely remained at house level. Driving down Bloor West, I was amazed that everything on the street is two or three storeys until you hit downtown.

If the degree of difficulty in developing is the same in either city, and Halifax was to suddenly relax some rules and "let height rip" in some areas, would that entice Toronto developers to buy and build here? Is that something we should even aim for?

[Colin May]

[QUOTE=counterfactual;6641796]So, remember these new commercial/retail expansion plans by the Halifax Airport?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1202632-airport-hopes-city-plan-will-fly
Look at the Airport Board of Directors : http://hiaa.ca/airport-authority/board-of-directors/

and here is the compensation paid to the Directors :

Board of Directors Total compensation in 2013
Chair: P. McDonough $ 67,500
Vice Chair: W. Fares $ 30,875
Secretary: J. S. Cowan $ 31,950
DIRECTORS:
R. Batherson* $ 3,700
B. Buckles $ 18,400
S. Dempsey $ 18,400
J. Hunt $ 25,788
M. Mullally $ 27,438
C. Newcombe $ 20,000
R. Wilber $ 16,600
M. Wood-Tweel $ 15,750
Notes: Amounts represent payments made in 2013
* R. Batherson joined the Board effective July 26, 2013

Nice work if you can get it. All meetings are private and the minutes are private.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

The issues seem to crop up just on the periphery, where heights have largely remained at house level. Driving down Bloor West, I was amazed that everything on the street is two or three storeys until you hit downtown.

Yeah, and it isn't even so much the periphery. Just go west of Bathurst or east of Jarvis (what many people would still consider downtown, and which is dedinitely the “old” city by any definition), and the city becomes very low-rise, with highrises heavily concentrated on arterial avenues and at major intersections. I know pepole who've are surprised, after first visting the city but having seen images of the huge downtown skyline, to find that the city's old neighbourhoods are mostly semi-attached and detached houses. There aren't even that many old, large apartment buildings. The skyscrapers are really a big cluster in the financial district, and then a thin line up along Yonge, as well as a bunch in inner suburban tower blocks. (Having said that, there are zillions of these, hence the large number of highrises in the city).

One key difference is, indeed, that there are no heigh restrictions downtown except those imposed by infrastructure limitations, which is part of why they kiboshed one of Gehry's mega-tall towers.

But most of the Victorian main streets are three, two, and in some stretches even one storeys. And the city protects those streetscapes, too. (In many place, the Victorian architecture is very rundown, and in others, they're not even old Victorians, but cruddy post-war storefronts. Most of Bloor and Dundas look like undistinguished bits of some second-rate town in New Jersey or something.)

But anyway, yeah—TO and HFX are obviously hugely different in many ways, but they're strikingly similar in some ways as well. The post-HRM urban-rural political schism here is very reminiscent of the downtown/inner suburb divide that's characterized politics there since the “megacity” amalgamation in 1998.

[Dmajackson]

May Street Townhouses (photo by me today);