General Updates and News

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Great piece by Paul Krugman in the New York Times taking on building heights as contributing to housing costs (that are pricing working families out of cities):

Cities for Everyone
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/opinion/cities-for-everyone.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it!

Fascinating to read that in New York City, the poster child for high towers and urban living, height restrictions and NIMBYism are still issues. In reading this forum one might be led to believe that these issues were unique to Halifax - seems it's not so.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it!

Fascinating to read that in New York City, the poster child for high towers and urban living, height restrictions and NIMBYism are still issues. In reading this forum one might be led to believe that these issues were unique to Halifax - seems it's not so.

Nobody in NYC calls a 5-storey building a high-rise though. We do.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Nobody in NYC calls a 5-storey building a high-rise though. We do.

[Drybrain]

CBC had a report on the Pacific Building today. Apparently the owners, Dongdu International (DDI), are doing exactly what they did to properties in Detroit. After promising to restore the building, they're now just sitting on it and refusing to fix leaks or do even basic maintenance. They're also installing permanent scaffolding outside to catch bits of the falling facade. They still say they want to turn the property into a boutique hotel, but given their work in other cities, and their totally bizarre business plan in Nova Scotia (turn Guysborough County into an international film production centre with a bunch of those weird ersatz Chinese model villages) it's probably safe to say the company is unreliable to say the least.

Hopefully the city will step in before the Pacific Building is too deteriorated to salvage, which I imagine is exactly what will happen, unless DDI sells it first.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

CBC had a report on the Pacific Building today. Apparently the owners, Dongdu International (DDI), are doing exactly what they did to properties in Detroit. After promising to restore the building, they're now just sitting on it and refusing to fix leaks or do even basic maintenance. They're also installing permanent scaffolding outside to catch bits of the falling facade. They still say they want to turn the property into a boutique hotel, but given their work in other cities, and their totally bizarre business plan in Nova Scotia (turn Guysborough County into an international film production centre with a bunch of those weird ersatz Chinese model villages) it's probably safe to say the company is unreliable to say the least.

Hopefully the city will step in before the Pacific Building is too deteriorated to salvage, which I imagine is exactly what will happen, unless DDI sells it first.

That doesn't sound good.

Really, if a foreign investment company buys a building, what can the city actually do to force them to maintain/restore the building? One would think that the grant money would be a good investment for them presuming that the value of the building will increase accordingly to the investment:

HRM $100K grant

Meanwhile, the Pacific Building has been recommended for a grant of $100,000 and a tax credit of not more than $160,500 as part of Halifax's Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District Financial Incentives Program.

This would help restore and renovate the building, including reinstating the original storefronts with new doors, windows and upper facade.

To get the money, DongDu would have to match the grant amount. To get the tax credit, the company must undertake work over $200,000 in value.

Read the full Halifax report recommending the Pacific Building receive a grant and tax credit

The grant money would be released only once the work is complete. There is no word on when DongDu International plans to begin the work.

However if their plan was only to buy it, sit on it for a few years and presumably flip it for profit, what can actually be done to ensure that the building has a future?

I'm doubtful that the city has much power at all to persuade them to do anything...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However if their plan was only to buy it, sit on it for a few years and presumably flip it for profit, what can actually be done to ensure that the building has a future?

I'm doubtful that the city has much power at all to persuade them to do anything...

If the city can't technically do anything about Rob Steele and his neighbourhood-destroying parking lot in the North End, what can they do about one building?

Nothing.

There's a serious reticence among Halifax councillors to actually go head-to-head with property owners when the latters' plans are legally permissible but fall afoul of good planning or the common good of the city.

This is not the case in every city, but here we get a lot of "what can you do, they're not technically doing anything wrong" shoulder-shrugging. So those of us who care will just have to watch this one, and hope DDI either makes an about-face and fixes the building (I strongly doubt it) or sells it to a more responsible owner soon enough to salvage it.

Ideally, a heritage designation would give the city the power to step in and make repairs in cases like this, ensuring a heritage building's basic aesthetic and structural integrity. Then the city could expenses those costs on to the owner. But good luck getting any kind of heritage regulation that tough in this province/city.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There's a serious reticence among Halifax councillors to actually go head-to-head with property owners when the latters' plans are legally permissible but fall afoul of good planning or the common good of the city.

That is a troubling statement.

Govts exist to pass laws, not pass seat-of-the-pants judgements about what property owners may or may not do to their property.

If there is an issue, they need to pass a law to resolve the issue, not exercise their will by fiat.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is a troubling statement.

Govts exist to pass laws, not pass seat-of-the-pants judgements about what property owners may or may not do to their property.

If there is an issue, they need to pass a law to resolve the issue, not exercise their will by fiat.

I don't think governments should just impose their will upon property owners above and beyond the law, but Halifax is unusually laissez-faire when it comes to ensuring commercial property owners abide by decent community standards.

In the case of Rob Steele, for example, the law permits him to rip down a neighbourhood for parking. The situation is so exceptionally awful that I think the government would be fully justified in withholding as-of-right demolition permits and passing some kind of protection for the district while the situation gets sorted out.

In the case of the Pacific Building, if it gets so bad that the buildings could become endangered, the city should fix it and send DDI the bill.

Neither of these would be particularly extreme solutions.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I don't think governments should just impose their will upon property owners above and beyond the law, but Halifax is unusually laissez-faire when it comes to ensuring commercial property owners abide by decent community standards.

In the case of Rob Steele, for example, the law permits him to rip down a neighbourhood for parking. The situation is so exceptionally awful that I think the government would be fully justified in withholding as-of-right demolition permits and passing some kind of protection for the district while the situation gets sorted out.

In the case of the Pacific Building, if it gets so bad that the buildings could become endangered, the city should fix it and send DDI the bill.

Neither of these would be particularly extreme solutions.

I'm sure a lot of the developers along Robie would also strongly oppose this. The area is an important one for densification, which is already beginning. And car dealership in the middle of it would be a planning disaster.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I'm sure a lot of the developers along Robie would also strongly oppose this. The area is an important one for densification, which is already beginning. And car dealership in the middle of it would be a planning disaster.

Yeah, probably 90 percent of Robie Street above North would be better off being torn down and redeveloped (and not as parking lots, obviously). I get the sense that a lot of property owners are happy with it being a big-box district for now, but surely that can't last forever.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I don't think governments should just impose their will upon property owners above and beyond the law, but Halifax is unusually laissez-faire when it comes to ensuring commercial property owners abide by decent community standards.

I guess this is a somewhat philosophical discussion about balancing the rights of the public with private property rights. One observation I'll make is that the property value gains that speculators cash in on are generated not so much by the speculators themselves but by general improvement to the area, which is the work of the government and more importantly a large number of engaged locals. We're not talking about people who just want to be left alone in their cabin on a deserted island, we're talking about (usually rich) profit maximizers. Also, the very idea of property ownership cannot exist without government support; it is not a purely "private" or ruggedly individualist thing to demand that the government protect and service a plot of urban land for you.

Another observation is that there aren't many nice laissez-faire cities out there. Most of the nice cities (New York, Boston, San Francisco, Paris, London, etc.) have fairly "activist" urban planning departments and/or neighbourhood associations. Cities like Houston, and I guess most of the Third World, are in the laissez-faire camp. Often development controls in big cities are taken too far and causes affordability problems but Halifax is nowhere near that point. There are so many neighbourhoods that could look great but instead remain dumpy because of a few property speculators or slumlords. Often the speculators make money off of gentrification that is happening in spite of rather than because of them. If the speculators/developers were banned from doing this they're just move on to some other investments and the neighbourhoods would be better off. There are plenty of good development opportunities in the city that don't involve sabotaging heritage buildings and cohesive residential neighbourhoods; the city planning department and regional council should be shepherding private investors around to coordinate this.

From a planning perspective, 90% of the city is more appropriate for the car dealership than this spot along North Street.

The situation gets even more absurd when we start talking about foreign-owned slumlord properties and flipping. Hopefully that's not what the Pacific Building situation is, but if so then there is no value to the city to be had there and it makes no sense for the municipality to bend over backward to please the owners. All temporary foreign slumlords do is cash in off of rising property values created by others, then take that money out of the local economy. It would be better even to have a local slumlord who's at least going to spend more of that money in the city. Let the speculators go and commodify the cultural and architectural heritage of some other city.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

I guess this is a somewhat philosophical discussion about balancing the rights of the public with private property rights. One observation I'll make is that the property value gains that speculators cash in on are generated not so much by the speculators themselves but by general improvement to the area, which is the work of the government and more importantly a large number of engaged locals. We're not talking about people who just want to be left alone in their cabin on a deserted island, we're talking about (usually rich) profit maximizers. Also, the very idea of property ownership cannot exist without government support; it is not a purely "private" or ruggedly individualist thing to demand that the government protect and service a plot of urban land for you.

Another observation is that there aren't many nice laissez-faire cities out there. Most of the nice cities (New York, Boston, San Francisco, Paris, London, etc.) have fairly "activist" urban planning departments and/or neighbourhood associations. Cities like Houston, and I guess most of the Third World, are in the laissez-faire camp. Often development controls in big cities are taken too far and causes affordability problems but Halifax is nowhere near that point. There are so many neighbourhoods that could look great but instead remain dumpy because of a few property speculators or slumlords. Often the speculators make money off of gentrification that is happening in spite of rather than because of them. If the speculators/developers were banned from doing this they're just move on to some other investments and the neighbourhoods would be better off. There are plenty of good development opportunities in the city that don't involve sabotaging heritage buildings and cohesive residential neighbourhoods; the city planning department and regional council should be shepherding private investors around to coordinate this.

From a planning perspective, 90% of the city is more appropriate for the car dealership than this spot along North Street.

The situation gets even more absurd when we start talking about foreign-owned slumlord properties and flipping. Hopefully that's not what the Pacific Building situation is, but if so then there is no value to the city to be had there and it makes no sense for the municipality to bend over backward to please the owners. All temporary foreign slumlords do is cash in off of rising property values created by others, then take that money out of the local economy. It would be better even to have a local slumlord who's at least going to spend more of that money in the city. Let the speculators go and commodify the cultural and architectural heritage of some other city.

Expropriation is our friend.
When HRM was discussing closing fire stations they referenced a 2 year old Fire Department report which mentioned over 90 properties used a boarding houses and uninspected & without permits. There has been no subsequent report on what action HRM has taken.

[OldDartmouthMark]

More...

DongDu International's Nova Scotia developments slow to take shape

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...-nova-scotia-plans-real-estate-1.3541493

[NorthDarksider]

Did anyone else attend the first open house for Dexel's Spring Garden West project last night? The presenter managed to get through introductions before the first two people stood up to complain about potential wind effects. (This building has no design yet, how could anyone assume anything about wind at this stage?) The second actually managed to point out that the presenter was from Vancouver, and since "this is Halifax", there was obviously noting to be learned from him.

The early project goals for SGW look promising, but the surrounding community looks like an utter embarrassment after last night.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by NorthDarksider

The early project goals for SGW look promising, but the surrounding community looks like an utter embarrassment after last night.

You thought? It was just that one cranky guy, it seems, and he got pretty quickly shut down. (There was another guy later who was kind of freaking out over the lack of green space, but again, it didn't feel to me like he had the room's sympathy.)

In fact, I didn't really hear anyone talk about height as if it was a problem in and of itself. People expressed concern over wind and sunlight, but no one seemed to object to tallness on principle, and it felt like most people accepted that it will be a tall building, and the conversation moved on to other design elements. I was pleasantly surprised by that.

One thing I thought is the developer talked a lot about how to step the project down as it meets SGR, in order to create a human-scaled streetscape rather than a massive wall. I really wish they'd consider using one or two of the existing structures to that end, especially the Coburg Apartments. It has such a great presence along Coburg Road, and it's one of the few pre-war apartment houses in the city. Most of the block can be demolished, no problem, but I think that building is well worth restoring. The hypothetical massing they showed depicted the building coming down to only four or five storeys on the corner anyway.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by NorthDarksider

Did anyone else attend the first open house for Dexel's Spring Garden West project last night? The presenter managed to get through introductions before the first two people stood up to complain about potential wind effects. (This building has no design yet, how could anyone assume anything about wind at this stage?) The second actually managed to point out that the presenter was from Vancouver, and since "this is Halifax", there was obviously noting to be learned from him.

The early project goals for SGW look promising, but the surrounding community looks like an utter embarrassment after last night.

Seriously?

This is pure Haligonia. Unbelievable.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Doesn't seem too crazy, except the Vancouver comment. It seems to me that if there is concern about potential wind effects, that now - in the design phase - is the time to deal with it. Not that the architect wouldn't be aware of it anyhow, but still not an unreasonable concern to be raised IMHO.

As has been mentioned on this forum many times over, NIMBYs are not unique to Halifax. Every city has them, and if I understand it correctly from other posters, in many cities they are worse than ours.

[Drybrain]

Just a re-up that the EAC is hosting a meeting tonight at 5 about the Colonial Honda plan to rip down the Fern Lane area and build a parking lot. It's mainly a local neighbourhood thing, but it's open to anyone, especially North Enders generally.

The councillor has been reticent to go too aggressive on the issue since it's permitted by zoning, but I think she can be swayed to take a harder stance. Again, I think an email to her plus the mayor would go a long way to edging things towards a firmer anti-Colonial Honda stance.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

One thing I thought is the developer talked a lot about how to step the project down as it meets SGR, in order to create a human-scaled streetscape rather than a massive wall. I really wish they'd consider using one or two of the existing structures to that end, especially the Coburg Apartments. It has such a great presence along Coburg Road, and it's one of the few pre-war apartment houses in the city. Most of the block can be demolished, no problem, but I think that building is well worth restoring. The hypothetical massing they showed depicted the building coming down to only four or five storeys on the corner anyway.

The Spring Garden Road facade of the apartment building isn't that impressive but the Robie side would look great if it were cleaned up a bit (and ideally painted something other than "about-to-be-demolished blue"). Over a decade ago the wooden facade of the Garden Crest apartments was preserved and they were built into a nice mixed-use development with a highrise component. That should be possible here too. The fact that the developer is asking for input before the plans have come out is encouraging.

I think 5950 and 5954 SGR should be preserved as well. Something could be done to either preserve the facade of the townhouse/apartment building to the right of 5954, or at least the bay window style could be added to a portion of the new building as a nod to one of the city's best vernacular styles. Imagine how nice it would be if there were a kind of competent reinterpretation of that building into a 4 or 5 storey apartment building similar in scale to what you might see in Brooklyn.

Something on this scale but in a style more typical of Halifax: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6874361,...xI7DNazOoVGTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

That would provide the transition to the heritage homes but then there would be modern elements and a highrise in behind.

[Keith P.]

I'm not sure the Garden Crest example is one you want to use. I have been in those units and they are not particularly attractive. Dark, because of the old facade design, and they feel enclosed and cramped.