General Updates and News

[alps]

That looks good! Are the church windows still boarded up?

Thanks for the pics.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

#1 The issue at Colonial Honda isn't the quality of the proposed housing, it's the replacement use.

#2 "Slums" are inhabited by people who require shelter.

#3 The area has clearly been gentrifying, as photos like this show. These two houses on the right were renovated in 2013-14.

In the country's larger cities we tend to see the fine-grained fabric of main streets much better respected by developers. No one is buying up blocks of Yonge Street or wherever and bulldozing them.

But they do here, and all it will take is two or three bad developments to destroy what makes Agricola successful and special, for example. A lot of Halifax developers simply don't have a clue what makes for good city-building, and our planning regime doesn't meaningfully enforce anything.

<Moved to this discussion to save the Roy Building discussion for that purpose>


Replacing run-down rooming houses and drug dens is a good thing. To pretend otherwise is folly. Yes, people need to live somewhere. But there comes a time when we as society tend to say "Enough!" when those shelters fall too far into disrepair. A couple of renos with fresh vinyl siding still was not enough to convince the owners of those properties to keep them. They sold, not with a 🞵🞵🞵 to their head, but of their own free will after reaching a price that was agreeable to them. This is the part of the discussion that absolutely astounds me. Nobody is forcing this. It is not like the properties have been expropriated.

The anti-Steele faction seems to be of the view that property ownership is of no value if it does not fit into their dogmatic view of the world. Land use is transitory, and always has been. In 10 years Steele may well sell and relocate. These same groups may well then protest the proposed gentrification of their neighborhood. Should we replace the crack houses and ramshackle housing at that point?

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

<Moved to this discussion to save the Roy Building discussion for that purpose>


Replacing run-down rooming houses and drug dens is a good thing. To pretend otherwise is folly. Yes, people need to live somewhere. But there comes a time when we as society tend to say "Enough!" when those shelters fall too far into disrepair. A couple of renos with fresh vinyl siding still was not enough to convince the owners of those properties to keep them. They sold, not with a 🞵🞵🞵 to their head, but of their own free will after reaching a price that was agreeable to them. This is the part of the discussion that absolutely astounds me. Nobody is forcing this. It is not like the properties have been expropriated.

The anti-Steele faction seems to be of the view that property ownership is of no value if it does not fit into their dogmatic view of the world. Land use is transitory, and always has been. In 10 years Steele may well sell and relocate. These same groups may well then protest the proposed gentrification of their neighborhood. Should we replace the crack houses and ramshackle housing at that point?

And if someone bought all your neighbours homes and knocked them down and turned the surrounding land around you into a parking lot for an auto port you'd be find with it I guess. You should go door to door and ask neighbours if they would mind their homes being knocked down for a parking lot. Or is that the wrong thing to do for a privileged contemptible inept person.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by hokus83

And if someone bought all your neighbours homes and knocked them down and turned the surrounding land around you into a parking lot for an auto port you'd be find with it I guess. You should go door to door and ask neighbours if they would mind their homes being knocked down for a parking lot. Or is that the wrong thing to do for a privileged contemptible inept person.

Well, thank you for that compliment.

I find it interesting how the anti lobby is calling it a parking lot. It is not a parking lot. Park your unicycle there and see how long it stays there. It is a new car dealership that is displaying their inventory. The more space they have, the more successful they can be. Of course among the urbanist class this is automatically a bad thing.

As for your theoretical question: if someone offered me and my neighbors cash money for our properties at what was likely a significant premium over the market you can damn well believe that most of us would take the money and run.

[TheNovaScotian]

In regards to Colonial Honda it's a done deal. Is it a step backwards? yes. Is it the end of the world? no. If the city can widen Robie in a deal with the Steeles, it is not a complete loss.

To argue these were "drug dens" is short sighted and shows your contempt for the lower classes Keith. I was always reminded growing up, that it is a long and hard fall off the tall horse of righteousness and I have not met many that are more self-righteous than you.

So as you look down your nose at these people, they deserve to know why the city failed them because they are taxpayers just like you. I'm sure if a company was doing the same thing in your area, you would be demanding answers. The city failed these citizens by not having the centre plan completed, it's long overdue and blame can largely be placed at Richards Butts feet. Not that the planning department is without blame but funding is out of their hands. They took on more than they could chew and in my opinion prioritized poorly.

Most of the people that sold were under the impression the homes they were selling were going to be occupied and be neighbors to the people already in the area. If they were told at the time your home will be demolished and turned into a parking lot, this would have probably turned out differently. Most thought that in 2016, we had modernized enough as a city and that this wasn't a possibility. This reeks of 1970's "urban renewal" especially since Steele used 2 different shell companies to buy up the properties under people's noses and tearing it down for a parking lot?! (It sounds like a terrible Scooby Doo mystery.)
It's 2016, in Japan right now there are car elevators garages. Wouldn't this system be great to use in car dealership designs? It would lower environmental damage on the vehicles during the winter and allow for the 101 better uses for the rest of that property.

[teddifax]

I have thought on this one as well and agree this site could be redesigned probably without doing a lot of what they have stated. I think a multi level operation such as BMW just built, would be much better and save expanding the lot's footprint by such a large scale. This building could have elevators, saving the size of the building and cars could be stored inside, saving snow removal and the cars would be well protected. I am surprised this hasn't been considered by them.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

In regards to Colonial Honda it's a done deal. Is it a step backwards? yes. Is it the end of the world? no. If the city can widen Robie in a deal with the Steeles, it is not a complete loss.

To argue these were "drug dens" is short sighted and shows your contempt for the lower classes Keith. I was always reminded growing up, that it is a long and hard fall off the tall horse of righteousness and I have not met many that are more self-righteous than you.

But some of them were that. Others were squalid run-down transitory rentals. A murder of a police officer occurred in one of them last year. Most of these were not nice properties by any measure.

So as you look down your nose at these people, they deserve to know why the city failed them because they are taxpayers just like you. I'm sure if a company was doing the same thing in your area, you would be demanding answers. The city failed these citizens by not having the centre plan completed, it's long overdue and blame can largely be placed at Richards Butts feet. Not that the planning department is without blame but funding is out of their hands. They took on more than they could chew and in my opinion prioritized poorly.

Most of the people that sold were under the impression the homes they were selling were going to be occupied and be neighbors to the people already in the area. If they were told at the time your home will be demolished and turned into a parking lot, this would have probably turned out differently. Most thought that in 2016, we had modernized enough as a city and that this wasn't a possibility. This reeks of 1970's "urban renewal" especially since Steele used 2 different shell companies to buy up the properties under people's noses and tearing it down for a parking lot?! (It sounds like a terrible Scooby Doo mystery.)

It is my understanding that most of the properties were occupied by renters, not owners. Where you get your information about what the owners were told is interesting, if not totally believable. It sounds like the kind of thing that gets circulated by people trying to rally support for a cause.

It's 2016, in Japan right now there are car elevators garages. Wouldn't this system be great to use in car dealership designs? It would lower environmental damage on the vehicles during the winter and allow for the 101 better uses for the rest of that property.

Do you really think Rob Steele wouldn't be aware of that? Don't you also think that land values in Japan are rather different than those on McCully St? Guys like Rob do what is best for their business. In this case it is a win-win: he assembles a large plot of land that is sure to go up in value, he gets to use it for adecade or so to improve his dealership's business, and when the time is right he can sell it for development. Which, no doubt, will be opposed by those in the neighborhood because it fails to meet their expectations, or because it represents gentification of the area.

I honestly don't know if the kind of foolishness we have seen over this is unique to Halifax or not. But we sure have a knack for making a mountain out of a molehill and opposing any kind of change.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But some of them were that. Others were squalid run-down transitory rentals. A murder of a police officer occurred in one of them last year. Most of these were not nice properties by any measure...
It is my understanding that most of the properties were occupied by renters, not owners.

This is something else that complicates the issue. It's one thing to say that "the owners willingly sold their properties, no one was forcing them to" (regardless of whether they would have sold knowing that the houses would be torn down), but if the houses were for the most part not owner-occupied, then the people bearing the negative effects (streetscape, residential density notwithstanding) are the tenants, who almost certainly had no say in any of this. Whether or not some of them used drugs (as many people in this city do) or were "the kind of people who live in squalid conditions", they still need to live somewhere.

I'm not saying that tenants should be able to veto property sales, but to frame this as "well everyone involved got what they wanted" is not really accurate, because most of the people who are/were actually living there do not seem to be getting what they want. It is true to a point if, again, you are looking at this from a market-uber-alles point of view, but there are consequences here that are not easily accounted for from a market perspective - where will the displaced residents go? (of course this is not your problem, but it is still a problem), what will be the effects on nearby businesses that were frequented by the displaced residents? What will be the effects on the city's efforts to increase residential density and the viability of non-automobile forms of transportation in core areas?

I honestly don't know if the kind of foolishness we have seen over this is unique to Halifax or not. But we sure have a knack for making a mountain out of a molehill and opposing any kind of change.

I'm fairly sure this would be seen as a negative in most cities in Canada at this point. The general trends, country-wide, are in favour of walkability, densification, etc. and the large-scale destruction of vernacular housing is generally seen as a bad thing. FWIW this particular case came up in the Canada section of SSP and the responses that I saw were universally negative (anecdotal, I know). I don't think that "we as a city" oppose change any more or less than other cities in Canada, the "opposing any kind of change" argument usually seems to mean "opposing changes that I support". The people unhappy with this decision aren't necessarily the "it's too tall" or "friends of whatever" crowd. There is also probably not a great deal of overlap between people who oppose this and people who opposed the Central Library, or bike lanes, which are also "change".

Do you really think Rob Steele wouldn't be aware of that? Don't you also think that land values in Japan are rather different than those on McCully St? Guys like Rob do what is best for their business. In this case it is a win-win: he assembles a large plot of land that is sure to go up in value, he gets to use it for adecade or so to improve his dealership's business, and when the time is right he can sell it for development. Which, no doubt, will be opposed by those in the neighborhood because it fails to meet their expectations, or because it represents gentification of the area.

The likely outcome here isn't what I would have liked to see, personally, but I'll concede that Steele is fully within its rights to demolish the houses and expand their display lot and that there doesn't really seem to be any kind of mechanism to intervene. I do think that there should be measures put in place to limit the extent to which this can happen in the future though, particularly in areas where the explicit goal is to increase density, walkability, etc.

Having the lot eventually redeveloped as residential would be a positive compared to it being paved over, but it does actually represent the worst effects of gentrification, because the existing residents are actively being pushed out of the area (because their homes are literally being destroyed).

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But some of them were that. Others were squalid run-down transitory rentals. A murder of a police officer occurred in one of them last year. Most of these were not nice properties by any measure.

Haha You're deplorable. You're going use the optics of a police officer being killed as if she was shot while on patrol to condemn a entire area as a crime ridden neighborhood rife with illegal activity. She was off duty on a date and what happened was unfortunate. So I get it, whatever it takes to support your argument will do. That argument falls flat, it wasn't a noticeably high crime area. I can't argue about the property rights because the Steele group did all their paperwork correctly, bought the properties and applied for the right permits. In a city that has it's 🞵🞵🞵🞵 together, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

It is my understanding that most of the properties were occupied by renters, not owners. Where you get your information about what the owners were told is interesting, if not totally believable. It sounds like the kind of thing that gets circulated by people trying to rally support for a cause.

They wouldn't have been told anything. The buyer doesn't have to divulge the future plans for the property. Just a price on a offer sheet.
I honestly have just a passing interest in the whole thing so my information is from CBC or other local rags.
You always seem oddly paranoid of peoples intentions in this situation. If these people choose to protest, who cares? It's not you, so you've done your job to perpetuate the status quo.

Do you really think Rob Steele wouldn't be aware of that? Don't you also think that land values in Japan are rather different than those on McCully St? Guys like Rob do what is best for their business. In this case it is a win-win: he assembles a large plot of land that is sure to go up in value, he gets to use it for a decade or so to improve his dealership's business, and when the time is right he can sell it for development. Which, no doubt, will be opposed by those in the neighborhood because it fails to meet their expectations, or because it represents gentrification of the area.

I honestly don't know if the kind of foolishness we have seen over this is unique to Halifax or not. But we sure have a knack for making a mountain out of a molehill and opposing any kind of change.

You prove my point in your own argument, He won't do much more than the bare minimum for that very reason. Why spend a lot of money on something that's going to be torn down in 10-15 years. He definitely won't be braking the mold on this design.

There needs to be people that care enough to protest if they want to, just the same as you who agree with it. c'est la vie.
I go back to my original statement
In regards to Colonial Honda it's a done deal. Is it a step backwards? yes. Is it the end of the world? no. If the city can widen Robie in a deal with the Steeles, it is not a complete loss.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, thank you for that compliment.

I find it interesting how the anti lobby is calling it a parking lot. It is not a parking lot. Park your unicycle there and see how long it stays there. It is a new car dealership that is displaying their inventory. The more space they have, the more successful they can be. Of course among the urbanist class this is automatically a bad thing.

As for your theoretical question: if someone offered me and my neighbors cash money for our properties at what was likely a significant premium over the market you can damn well believe that most of us would take the money and run.

no its a parking lot. full of shiny new cars - but its still a parking lot.
Honda Makes a finite number of Models - and even if you include all the trim levels, its still maybe 30 actual vehicles they need to show.

I walked the area last week. Some houses were 🞵🞵🞵🞵. much of fern lane appeared to be in good condition. I support Colonial Honda's expansion, bu more parking lot is not the way to do it.

[Phalanx]

Stumbled across this blog piece and found it relevant to the Honda dealership issue:

http://dalepollak.com/2011/03/03/size-shape-matter/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

no its a parking lot. full of shiny new cars - but its still a parking lot.
Honda Makes a finite number of Models - and even if you include all the trim levels, its still maybe 30 actual vehicles they need to show.

I walked the area last week. Some houses were 🞵🞵🞵🞵. much of fern lane appeared to be in good condition. I support Colonial Honda's expansion, bu more parking lot is not the way to do it.

Yeah, I think to be more accurate, it's really just a storage lot, so it's more convenient for them to access a particular unit for PDI or sales rather than to ferry the vehicles back and forth from a remote lot. The additional parking space is just to house more inventory rather than to have additional 'display' area (which is mainly the function of the showroom, FWIW). It would, however allow a customer to see a particular vehicle in a particular trim level and colour, rather than be told that it is in a remote lot somewhere and would take an hour or two to get somebody to bring it to the dealership, etc.

I find it interesting that the idea of multi-level parking has been tossed around. Dealers used to do that in the city. The (now demolished) Scotia Chev/CBC building was a prime example of that. Halifax Chrysler-Dodge used to have a multi-level storage lot when it was on Kempt Road as well. I think the availability of cheap land led to the demise of that practice sometime in the 1960s or 70s (Keith probably knows). I can't help but wonder if they did decide to build, say, a 5-level parking garage on their existing lot if there would be concerns expressed about it being an inappropriate structure for the neighborhood.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, I think to be more accurate, it's really just a storage lot, so it's more convenient for them to access a particular unit for PDI or sales rather than to ferry the vehicles back and forth from a remote lot. The additional parking space is just to house more inventory rather than to have additional 'display' area (which is mainly the function of the showroom, FWIW). It would, however allow a customer to see a particular vehicle in a particular trim level and colour, rather than be told that it is in a remote lot somewhere and would take an hour or two to get somebody to bring it to the dealership, etc.

I find it interesting that the idea of multi-level parking has been tossed around. Dealers used to do that in the city. The (now demolished) Scotia Chev/CBC building was a prime example of that. Halifax Chrysler-Dodge used to have a multi-level storage lot when it was on Kempt Road as well. I think the availability of cheap land led to the demise of that practice sometime in the 1960s or 70s (Keith probably knows). I can't help but wonder if they did decide to build, say, a 5-level parking garage on their existing lot if there would be concerns expressed about it being an inappropriate structure for the neighborhood.

I think you underestimate the value to the car business of having a large assortment of models. In this market where dealers are traditionally closed on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, there is a large amount of lot-browsing that goes on at those times where potential buyers can window-shop without being pestered by salespeople. I know if you go to the Mercedes dealer on a Sunday there are more people there than when they are open. This is something somewhat unique to us here unlike places elsewhere that are open 7 days a week.

The other thing to keep in mind that used car sales are far more profitable to a dealer than selling a new car. The new car profit comes from accessory, parts and after-sale service business rather than from the car itself. A used car, though, usually has a few thousand in pure profit attached to it. Being a used car, it is necessary for a potential buyer to look it over to see overall condition, wear and tear, any potential issues, etc. They are all different so a buyer needs to see them in person. This requires display space.

While Tesla and some other emerging manufacturers are trying to move the industry to a different sales model where inventory is not needed and in fact the dealership is a very different place, we are a long way from that yet for most buyers. I had no experience with the old Scotia Chev building with inventory on the roof, but I well remember the Halifax Chrysler Dodge facility on Kempt. They simply ran out of room and had the idea of building a deck above part of their lot for inventory. It was ready by the early 1970s if memory serves. I don't think it worked very well. The cars stored underneath were largely in the dark and so browsers could not get a good look at them. For whatever reason, after leaving the upper level accessible for a few years, at some point they fenced it off and locked it to make access outside of business hours impossible. Security issues I suppose. I guess they had problems. Anyway it eventually fell into disuse and of course the dealership was eventually sold and relocated.

Dartmouth Dodge, which is in a bad location off of Portland St, has rooftop storage of some of their inventory at present. You cannot access it as a customer. I am unsure what issues they might have had with it, good or bad.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Stumbled across this blog piece and found it relevant to the Honda dealership issue:

http://dalepollak.com/2011/03/03/size-shape-matter/

On top of the showroom is an open-air parking deck structure for customer parking and new and used car display. Unlike the high-cost prime real estate dirt, the air above the showroom is free from both acquisition cost and taxation. Further, the open-air parking deck structure provides dealers with very low-cost construction, maintenance and is completely free from heating and air conditioning.

Sounds familiar? Not a new idea...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think you underestimate the value to the car business of having a large assortment of models. In this market where dealers are traditionally closed on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, there is a large amount of lot-browsing that goes on at those times where potential buyers can window-shop without being pestered by salespeople. I know if you go to the Mercedes dealer on a Sunday there are more people there than when they are open. This is something somewhat unique to us here unlike places elsewhere that are open 7 days a week.

The other thing to keep in mind that used car sales are far more profitable to a dealer than selling a new car. The new car profit comes from accessory, parts and after-sale service business rather than from the car itself. A used car, though, usually has a few thousand in pure profit attached to it. Being a used car, it is necessary for a potential buyer to look it over to see overall condition, wear and tear, any potential issues, etc. They are all different so a buyer needs to see them in person. This requires display space.

While Tesla and some other emerging manufacturers are trying to move the industry to a different sales model where inventory is not needed and in fact the dealership is a very different place, we are a long way from that yet for most buyers. I had no experience with the old Scotia Chev building with inventory on the roof, but I well remember the Halifax Chrysler Dodge facility on Kempt. They simply ran out of room and had the idea of building a deck above part of their lot for inventory. It was ready by the early 1970s if memory serves. I don't think it worked very well. The cars stored underneath were largely in the dark and so browsers could not get a good look at them. For whatever reason, after leaving the upper level accessible for a few years, at some point they fenced it off and locked it to make access outside of business hours impossible. Security issues I suppose. I guess they had problems. Anyway it eventually fell into disuse and of course the dealership was eventually sold and relocated.

Dartmouth Dodge, which is in a bad location off of Portland St, has rooftop storage of some of their inventory at present. You cannot access it as a customer. I am unsure what issues they might have had with it, good or bad.

Good points. You seem to have a solid knowledge of the auto dealership business.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Good points. You seem to have a solid knowledge of the auto dealership business.

God forbid anyone here knows what they are talking about!

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can't help but wonder if they did decide to build, say, a 5-level parking garage on their existing lot if there would be concerns expressed about it being an inappropriate structure for the neighborhood.

Well, I think that goes without saying. The protesters and objectors don't want Colonial there, period. They just want them gone, banished to Kempt or Bayers Lake or elsewhere far away. They seem to think that there is no place in the immediate area for anything other than "fine-grained" housing and small commercial, which is of course never how the area was ever developed historically. There has always been a variety of both industrial and residential uses there. But the new world order for this part of town seems to be one of wanting all those other uses to go away. Not just Colonial, but the O'Regans facility, the Irving station, the Mazda dealer, Shoppers, Rona, etc., though I suspect the magic combo development of NSLC and Cyclesmith might get a free pass.

Personally I find this kind of thinking rather narrow-minded and self-serving, but maybe that's just me.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can't help but wonder if they did decide to build, say, a 5-level parking garage on their existing lot if there would be concerns expressed about it being an inappropriate structure for the neighborhood.

All together now, "IT'S TOO TALL!!!"

Seriously, I think even if Honda were to announce to skip out and move elsewhere, you would see the usual foot-dragging and bugaboos that would accompany whatever was proposed to replace the lot.

FWIW, some of the purchased houses on Fern are in the process of being knocked down as we type.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

All together now, "IT'S TOO TALL!!!"

Seriously, I think even if Honda were to announce to skip out and move elsewhere, you would see the usual foot-dragging and bugaboos that would accompany whatever was proposed to replace the lot.

FWIW, some of the purchased houses on Fern are in the process of being knocked down as we type.

Actually, the group opposing the demolition have asked Steele to pause the demolition and sit down with planners and neighbourhood representatives to consider a denser, more urban (i.e., taller) dealership expansion that will result in less demolition, and have received the equivalent of a "🞵🞵🞵🞵 off" from Steele.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Actually, the group opposing the demolition have asked Steele to pause the demolition and sit down with planners and neighbourhood representatives to consider a denser, more urban (i.e., taller) dealership expansion that will result in less demolition, and have received the equivalent of a "🞵🞵🞵🞵 off" from Steele.

This was what prompted my comment initially. Just speculating that, if they had first proposed building a multi-level parkade without ever talking about the possibility of razing the neighborhood to expand their lot, there would likely have been some opposition to the building of said parkade.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Actually, the group opposing the demolition have asked Steele to pause the demolition and sit down with planners and neighbourhood representatives to consider a denser, more urban (i.e., taller) dealership expansion that will result in less demolition, and have received the equivalent of a "🞵🞵🞵🞵 off" from Steele.

Rather like asking for horses after leaving the barn door open, don't you think?

Seriously, after the tantrums and character assassination the anti-Honda group undertook, they are lucky they even got a response.

To my amazement, aside from the incendiary headline, this item is far more balanced than I ever expected considering it is on the gawdawful Vice site:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/how-one-r...d-a-parking-lot?utm_source=vicetwitterca