General Updates and News

[Colin May]

Non core office towers attracting investor interest :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...wers/article20954266/#dashboard/follows/

“Core strategies do make sense, but that doesn’t mean that other areas don’t grow as well,” Blair Welch said in an interview at the company’s offices Friday. While being close to downtown is attractive, there are reasons to like the suburbs.

“Union Station, subways – those matter. But the airport, major highways, those are pretty important pieces of infrastructure.”

He notes that 67 per cent of office properties in Canada do not fit into the definition of core. And demographically, much of Canada’s growth is in suburban areas. What’s more, buildings are so much cheaper that there is more protection should the real estate market go soft and rents underperform.

[Ziobrop]

Out of core office space can work, but it still needs to be concentrated in an area that can be serviced easily with supporting businesses. - kind of like a mini core. offices here and there throughout an industrial park isn't good for anyone.

I suspect that Halifax tried this - Solutions Drive and Innovation drive come to mind, but after one office was built, the rest became apartments.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Non core office towers attracting investor interest :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...wers/article20954266/#dashboard/follows/

“Core strategies do make sense, but that doesn’t mean that other areas don’t grow as well,” Blair Welch said in an interview at the company’s offices Friday. While being close to downtown is attractive, there are reasons to like the suburbs.

“Union Station, subways – those matter. But the airport, major highways, those are pretty important pieces of infrastructure.”

He notes that 67 per cent of office properties in Canada do not fit into the definition of core. And demographically, much of Canada’s growth is in suburban areas. What’s more, buildings are so much cheaper that there is more protection should the real estate market go soft and rents underperform.

Let's make a big planning mistake in response to another big planning mistake. That is, encouraging sprawl offices in order to service sprawl surburban development.

Sheer lunacy in terms of planning.

Sprawl is already costing us too much in this city-- billions and billions.

Are you not even aware of the Stantec report? And the last big battle at Council over the Regional Plan?

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2013/06/18/a-...regional-planning-and-sprawl-in-halifax/

It's already well established that you dislike pretty much all of the downtown developers in Halifax.

And that no one is actually living in any downtown developments, despite developers selling them.

And you think people *living* downtown are just a bunch of "yuppies"

And now you're advocating for sprawl offices.

Colin, do you live in a suburb in GTA or something? Seriously.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Let's make a big planning mistake in response to another big planning mistake. That is, encouraging sprawl offices in order to service sprawl surburban development.

Sheer lunacy in terms of planning.

Sprawl is already costing us too much in this city-- billions and billions.

Are you not even aware of the Stantec report? And the last big battle at Council over the Regional Plan?

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2013/06/18/a-...regional-planning-and-sprawl-in-halifax/

It's already well established that you dislike pretty much all of the downtown developers in Halifax.

And that no one is actually living in any downtown developments, despite developers selling them.

And you think people *living* downtown are just a bunch of "yuppies"

And now you're advocating for sprawl offices.

Colin, do you live in a suburb in GTA or something? Seriously.

I dont think Colin May could point to where Halifax is on a map

[JET]

Originally Posted by hokus83

I dont think Colin May could point to where Halifax is on a map

Manners, manners, no need to be insulting. Colin can easily point across the harbour.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Let's make a big planning mistake in response to another big planning mistake. That is, encouraging sprawl offices in order to service sprawl surburban development.

Sheer lunacy in terms of planning.

Sprawl is already costing us too much in this city-- billions and billions.

Are you not even aware of the Stantec report? And the last big battle at Council over the Regional Plan?

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2013/06/18/a-...regional-planning-and-sprawl-in-halifax/

It's already well established that you dislike pretty much all of the downtown developers in Halifax.

And that no one is actually living in any downtown developments, despite developers selling them.

And you think people *living* downtown are just a bunch of "yuppies"

And now you're advocating for sprawl offices.

Colin, do you live in a suburb in GTA or something? Seriously.

Nope. The whole post is lifted from the Globe; I added nothing. If you and another poster had read the link you would have realised it was all taken from the column.
I have never advocated for sprawl offices - that cat is long out of the bag. I'll remind you that HEMDCC ignored Tim Olive of Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission when they approved office development for Dartmouth Crosssing. And offices in downtown Dartmouth and Bedford are not sprawl. Blackberry chose Bedford for reasons unknow.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by JET

Manners, manners, no need to be insulting. Colin can easily point across the harbour.

I probably lived in Halifax before he, and many other posters, was born.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Let's make a big planning mistake in response to another big planning mistake. That is, encouraging sprawl offices in order to service sprawl surburban development.

Suburban expansion* is still going to happen to some degree as the city grows though. It doesn't make sense to force all office growth to be in Downtown Halifax when it is already reasonably hard to get to for people living off the peninsula. I'm not sure if some people expect Mainland Halifax, Bedford, Sackville, and 90% of Dartmouth to dry up into ghost towns as all the suburbanites move en masse to brand new condos on the Peninsula, or if they just have a "punish the suburbanites" mentality, but from what I can tell there will always be living in these places and it makes sense to make jobs available to them near where they live, rather than forcing them to commute deeper into the city where they will be adding to traffic. I'm not saying all office development should be in the suburbs, but there needs to be a balance (this does not necessarily mean 50/50 or any specific ratio). I'm not sure where you've learned all of these "planning 101" lessons, but good planning is never as simple as "downtown good, suburbs bad".

*This doesn't necessarily have to be "sprawl". A lot of new suburban communities are being designed as pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use, basically following new urbanist principles. The Motherhouse and/or Rockingham South are examples (I always get those two mixed up).

And you think people *living* downtown are just a bunch of "yuppies"

The young professional ones are, by definition.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

[miesh111]

What is the 'core'?

Is core only the downtown business district?

What about up Quinpool? Or up along Barrington and into Gottingen / Agrocilla? Is the the Young / Kempt area the limit? What about up Bayers Road into Fairview?

We need to reassess what we call the core of the city. To me, anywhere there is existing infrastructure with an already (relatively) high density, we are still talking about core areas.

The Bedford downtown project, the Kings Wharf project, The new Dutch Village skyline, these are all important contributions to creating vibrancy across the municipality. Just like we cannot focus on the sprawl only, we cant focus on the downtown only either.

[JET]

"The young professional ones are, by definition.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?"

If you have to ask; you're really not paying attention.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Suburban expansion* is still going to happen to some degree as the city grows though. It doesn't make sense to force all office growth to be in Downtown Halifax when it is already reasonably hard to get to for people living off the peninsula. I'm not sure if some people expect Mainland Halifax, Bedford, Sackville, and 90% of Dartmouth to dry up into ghost towns as all the suburbanites move en masse to brand new condos on the Peninsula, or if they just have a "punish the suburbanites" mentality, but from what I can tell there will always be living in these places and it makes sense to make jobs available to them near where they live, rather than forcing them to commute deeper into the city where they will be adding to traffic. I'm not saying all office development should be in the suburbs, but there needs to be a balance (this does not necessarily mean 50/50 or any specific ratio). I'm not sure where you've learned all of these "planning 101" lessons, but good planning is never as simple as "downtown good, suburbs bad".

*This doesn't necessarily have to be "sprawl". A lot of new suburban communities are being designed as pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use, basically following new urbanist principles. The Motherhouse and/or Rockingham South are examples (I always get those two mixed up).

Very well-thought-out, common-sense post.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Manners, manners, no need to be insulting.

I agree - no need to get personal. Stick to the information presented and leave personal attacks out of it, please.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree - no need to get personal. Stick to the information presented and leave personal attacks out of it, please.

us old guys have to stick together.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

us old guys have to stick together.

LOL... true enough, but professionalism and mutual respect should have no age boundaries.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

LOL... true enough, but professionalism and mutual respect should have no age boundaries.

Bah... the young whippersnappers need a cuff to the head or a boxing of the ears every now and then to keep them in line.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Bah... the young whippersnappers need a cuff to the head or a boxing of the ears every now and then to keep them in line.

I was attempting to recall without success your endearing term for the young'uns; ah, the memories.

[TheNovaScotian]

Colin, the problem I have with the article is a recurring issue. One of the issues an urban planner runs into, after going to school and being accredited is that economists, MBA's and other financial wizards seem to think that they know whats best simply due to the profit motive. The masses back in the 50's through till the 70's thought "housing projects" were the bee knees. So we bought into the model and created giant social issues because of them. The financial world doesn't weigh social issues into its calculations due to many of them are hard to quantify.
A MBA did his job right when he finds a company he can liquidate for a profit, an urban planner did his job right when he cut down your commute time, made the world a more beautiful place and figured out how to make everyone feel at home in a city. Who would you want planning your city?

So when he says suburban offices are more attractive to investors, he's speaking from a dollars and cents attitude. Most suburban offices developers use cheap materials and low end designs to keep costs down but that also makes areas less livable. When creating spaces for people in suburban settings, more time has to be taken to ensure we arent subsidizing the suburbs at the cost of the downtown with cheap unserviced land that will require a larger investment and lower return for the city.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

Colin, the problem I have with the article is a recurring issue. One of the issues an urban planner runs into, after going to school and being accredited is that economists, MBA's and other financial wizards seem to think that they know whats best simply due to the profit motive. The masses back in the 50's through till the 70's thought "housing projects" were the bee knees. So we bought into the model and created giant social issues because of them. The financial world doesn't weigh social issues into its calculations due to many of them are hard to quantify.
A MBA did his job right when he finds a company he can liquidate for a profit, an urban planner did his job right when he cut down your commute time, made the world a more beautiful place and figured out how to make everyone feel at home in a city. Who would you want planning your city?

So when he says suburban offices are more attractive to investors, he's speaking from a dollars and cents attitude. Most suburban offices developers use cheap materials and low end designs to keep costs down but that also makes areas less livable. When creating spaces for people in suburban settings, more time has to be taken to ensure we arent subsidizing the suburbs at the cost of the downtown with cheap unserviced land that will require a larger investment and lower return for the city.

I posted the article as it describes the reality of what we all face.
I was the only person who publicly spoke out against office buildings in Burnside and that was over 20 years ago. It did result in the buildings being restricted to 3 storeys. Ben Macrae, John Lindsay and others all new of my opposition and were among many who labelled my opposition as being against 'progress'.
Downtown Dartmouth was never of much concern to councillors or developers because Burnside was available at below cost courtesy of the city pouring millions into rock blasting, installation of sewer,water and streets streets and then selling the land at a loss; all designed to steal business from Halifax

[halifaxboyns]

One other option for office locations is to consider the multiple downtown theory. Since HRM was amalgamated there is technically 3 downtowns - Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford (I consider the Sunnyside mall area the 'dt' of Bedford).

So if we want to focus office locations in the typical 'downtowns' - then redo the zoning of those areas to facilitate large scale office/mixed use complexes in these locations. Then change the zoning in industrial parks so that the maximum floor area ratio for an office outside of the downtowns is lower.

Think of it this way:
If I have a site in Bayers Lake that is 50,000 square feet in area and as an office, I have a floor area ratio of 1 - then I can build a 50,000 square foot building but I can take that and place it however I want to meet the setback, parking and landscaping needs (so I might be a 5 storey building of 10,000 square feet each level). We if Bayers Lake is an area where I don't want office development to occur in great amount, set the FAR to 0.25. So now I can only build a 12,500 square foot office building.

Calgary has an industrial district call I-B (Industrial Business) which is where the prestige suburban office buildings can be located. But typically the FAR for those sites is 0.5 (half the total area). It hasn't fully slowed the desire of office location outside of the core; but we've been seeing a huge demand of office buildings dt anyway.

The other thing to keep in mind is that even if the downtowns are the place where office development should be focused - Halifax DT is likely going to run out of vacant sites first (there aren't many parking lots left). Dartmouth has more potential; as does Bedford but at some point they will building out either as office buildings or mixed use. So then what?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Suburban expansion* is still going to happen to some degree as the city grows though. It doesn't make sense to force all office growth to be in Downtown Halifax when it is already reasonably hard to get to for people living off the peninsula. I'm not sure if some people expect Mainland Halifax, Bedford, Sackville, and 90% of Dartmouth to dry up into ghost towns as all the suburbanites move en masse to brand new condos on the Peninsula, or if they just have a "punish the suburbanites" mentality, but from what I can tell there will always be living in these places and it makes sense to make jobs available to them near where they live, rather than forcing them to commute deeper into the city where they will be adding to traffic. I'm not saying all office development should be in the suburbs, but there needs to be a balance (this does not necessarily mean 50/50 or any specific ratio). I'm not sure where you've learned all of these "planning 101" lessons, but good planning is never as simple as "downtown good, suburbs bad".


*This doesn't necessarily have to be "sprawl". A lot of new suburban communities are being designed as pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use, basically following new urbanist principles. The Motherhouse and/or Rockingham South are examples (I always get those two mixed up).

Compared to other major cities in Canada, Halifax has among the lowest percentage of its overall office space located in the core. We already have more suburban office space than pretty much any other major or comparable city.

So while your rousing defense of the status quo is inspiring, we have balance. In fact, we're more than balanced-- to our detriment in terms of infrastructure costs.

The fact that most of our development is happening in the suburbs is a problem to battle with better planning, not to genuflect to, and serve, with sprawl service.

Our rate of suburban growth is just not sustainable, cost wise, whether its ugly concrete sprawl or little fake urban "walkable" streets like those in Dartmouth Crossing; if they Exurban or Suburban, they still need to be serviced by storm drainage, water, electricity, transit, streetscaping, policing, fire services, etc, etc, etc, all that costly infrastructure that we've been told, in study after study, and by experience everywhere else, it's not sustainable.

"Downtown good, surburbs bad" is not good planning. But neither is "balance" when "Balance" not only preserves but promotes status quo problems. Not sustainable.

Originally Posted by Hali87

The young professional ones are, by definition.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

Young professionals are not "by definition" yuppies. It depends on your definition of yuppie. There are lots. Most are derogatory.

I live on a farm in West Pubnico.