General Updates and News

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Honestly, I find it very doubtful that land prices anywhere in Halifax are such that a six-storey building can't be profitable. Structures of that scale are still being built in central parts of Toronto, Brooklyn, the main thoroughfares in Vancouver outside of the immediate downtown.

I'm not against a ten-storey buildings here, but the argument that such a height is necessary for a profitable development ring really false.

As for preserving heritage by permitting more height elsewhere: Sure, maybe. But market incentives to preserve heritage don't seem to be working as well here as in some other places. We need staightforward rules, including rules that developers might not like, and we need to enforce them.

Come on, Dry, it's silly to compare the housing market in Halifax to some of the most expensive in the world, literally -- Toronto, Brooklyn, Vancouver!

As someone123 says, a developer can obviously make more money out of a 6 storey building there, given they can sell the units for a million each, or rent them out for multiple times the rental rate they'd fetch in Halifax. It's simply not a fair or reasonable comparison. Nor is Paris or San Fran or anywhere else where you have super high density and higher housing prices at lower heights.

Originally Posted by someone123

This is true but the units in these boutique developments in expensive cities are often millions of dollars. Land costs alone are, say, $10M divided by 15 or 20 units. It is impossible for market-rate developments like this to be affordable. Vancouver is in the middle of a horrible, extremely unfair affordability crisis, and restrictive zoning has played a huge role in that. The local media give us "balanced" reports about public consultation where poor elderly Kitsilano folks worried about sunshine and traffic argue against rich developers. But these poor old folks are actually extremely privileged accidental multi-millionaires and they are fighting to prevent the creation of affordable housing.

Property owners will always tend to argue for restrictive zoning, because it drives up the value of their assets. Meanwhile working class poorer and younger people are harmed by policies and they don't have much of a voice in municipal politics. The people who couldn't move to a city because it became too expensive have no voice.

If planners are going to advocate for constraints on developers it would be nice if they at least explicitly had some economic model that acknowledged the trade-offs. Cut off 4 floors, sure, but at least be open about the fact that people are going to pay $30,000 more for their units (or looking at it another way, an average person will have to work for one whole extra year to get that amount after tax plus pay interest on their housing unit in this more carefully-planned area).

Agree on all counts!

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That would be me, and one or two other skyscraper members...

It's a good point, but I'm not sure we can assume that relationship. Downtown is where the majority of the at-risk heritage buildings are located, and coincidentally it is the same area that would be considered prime for higher-end residential, i.e. highest profit margin for developers.

I don't think that most condo buyers would consider a condo on Quinpool, for example, to have equivalent desirability to one on Barrington, for example.

We could build up surrounding areas, if there is a market for it, but the point of my post (which was a reflection of the facts that Ian presented) was to say that there is much more involved than just approving height on its own merit.

I would like to see those areas built up even more, but again, it's just that "I would like to see it"; not "I have done the calculations and created a cost/benefit study and determined that it is viable to plan in this fashion".

IMHO, the heritage issue could be easily solved by some stronger rules/laws such as those in place in other cities, but there still doesn't seem to be much political will to do it. Haligonians have long disregarded its own history, for some reason, and it still seems to be reflected in the lack of desire to preserve what is left of our built history.

So, I see centre plan height limits and protection of heritage properties as separate issues that may be related, but one doesn't guarantee a positive effect on the other.

As usual, Mark, all good points.

However, I'd also say I'm one of the posters on here concerned about heritage downtown -- even if I'm also one of the posters who often argues for more density and taller height allowances, because I don't think the two are mutually exclusive!

You're right there's no guaranteed relationship between higher allowances outside HRMxD and the downtown bulldozing, but I think if you allow for more density in places like Quinpool/Robie, then you'll see changes in that area that will make it more desirable to potential buyers (who are also looking around HRMxD places on Barrington). More density will bring more small businesses, more shopping, cafes, lifestyle services, etc, which is what may make a place on Barrington more desirable. Plus, the prices here may be cheaper than downtown and thus more attractive-- this is fine for the developer if more height is allowed and thus more units can be rented/sold compared to Barrington. Instead, now we're getting the opposite result, with lower heights and thus likely more expensive prices in this area.

If you get that more demand here, developers will look here as a very good alternative, than deal with view planes and congestion and the costs of building downtown and thus, decide *not* to buy up that plot and bulldoze that heritage building.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

My sense is that the CP will be changed in that democratic process, perhaps amended to allow for more heights and other allowances in certain areas, that may make certain proposals now being rejected, more feasible.

If CP is passed, site specific proposals won't be needed anyways. In short: let proposals go forward that meet CP criteria now, but allow those proposals that do not sit in abeyance until CP is finalized. Developers may still change proposals in the meantime, or democratically lobby for amendments to the CP through that process just like everyone else.

Alright, I'm with ya!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Come on, Dry, it's silly to compare the housing market in Halifax to some of the most expensive in the world, literally -- Toronto, Brooklyn, Vancouver!

As someone123 says, a developer can obviously make more money out of a 6 storey building there, given they can sell the units for a million each, or rent them out for multiple times the rental rate they'd fetch in Halifax. It's simply not a fair or reasonable comparison. Nor is Paris or San Fran or anywhere else where you have super high density and higher housing prices at lower heights.

Well, forgetting about today's absurd prices, which are detached from reality, let's travel back to Toronto circa 2012. You could find new-build townhouses in central Toronto for 600-700k, despite far higher land prices than along Quinpool, for example. That's what the market could bear. And today, we can look at realtor.ca and find examples of mid-rise and low-rise in less expensive cities than Halifax. Here's a low-rise in Winnipeg that's starting at 220k.

And here in Halifax we see some reasonably priced low-rise. I don't know how much the units in the NFB restoration will be, but I bet they won't start at a million. The Q Lofts start at 400k. The Keep starts at 335k. (I doubt knocking two floors off would cause those lower end units to double in price or something.) 3090 Oxford is five storeys and 27 units. Prices don't seem to be available yet, but I'm sure they'll considerably less than the downtown high-rises like the Roy and the Maple.

The line of argument on here seems to be that developers need to build into the double digits or it's next to impossible to build at affordable prices. Based on my experience of other cities, and what's happening right here, I don't think that's true. I'm pro-height, and certainly adding housing stock will assist in maintaining affordability. But to assert that mid-rise or townhouse developments are economically unfeasible is, well, not an argument that holds up. I'd actually be interested in a meta-comparison of Halifax condo prices relative to other cities with similar market fundamentals and average housing prices. I think we'd find that Halifax condos are already price rather highly.

[someone123]

Housing prices all across Canada are a bit detached from reality. One old rule of thumb for example used to be that you should borrow at most 3.5 times your gross income for housing. That works out to $300,000 as an upper bound for the average family in Halifax that earns $85,000 a year. A lot of households earn less than that.

Canadians from coast to coast are hugely weighed down with debt right now. The norms of property valuation and consumer spending in Canada assume easy credit and ever-growing debt.

My point isn't that the construction of tall buildings should be encouraged. I don't think highrises are necessarily cheaper, although they can sometimes be optimal depending on the site and level of demand. I simply argue that planning measures come at a cost that is usually ignored (try to find information about costs anywhere in the planning documents that talk about approving this height or that height), and we have seen an erosion in housing affordability across Canada.

Housing really should be falling in price over time, because construction technology is improving. It doesn't cost very much to build a simple condo; maybe $100,000. The price in most cities is dominated by the artificial cost imposed by planning regulations. This includes the higher profits that go to developers because of increased industry regulation that makes it harder for others to enter the market. Here in Vancouver people love to pretend that zoning is used to squeeze greedy developers but it's exactly the large, politically-connected developers that can navigate the political landscape here. They love the fact that construction is banned in most areas while they are allowed to make huge real estate plays in certain other areas. They are also careful to meter out the supply of new condos so that the price doesn't fall. That would not be possible in a more competitive industry; somebody else would see the opportunity and build.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

That would not be possible in a more competitive industry; somebody else would see the opportunity and build.

I think that's one of the reasons these mid-rise areas in Centre Plan are so important. As much as 20-story towers have their place, let's face it: there are only a handful of outfits in town who are capable of financing and constructing this type of development. But if you create a bunch of 6-story areas with easy approvals and a clear signal to landowners about what their land is worth (i.e. head off speculation) you open up the market to a lot of new entrants.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I think that's one of the reasons these mid-rise areas in Centre Plan are so important. As much as 20-story towers have their place, let's face it: there are only a handful of outfits in town who are capable of financing and constructing this type of development. But if you create a bunch of 6-story areas with easy approvals and a clear signal to landowners about what their land is worth (i.e. head off speculation) you open up the market to a lot of new entrants.

Couldn't it make for easy 6 story approvals without eliminating the opportunity for better land use on the larger lots?

I think there is a missed opportunity in some of these areas that isn't speculation based at all.

We could just fill up all existing land with lower densities, but I don't think this is going to help Halifax's distance-based issues or lack of competition in the apartment rental market.

[NDPer4life]

The TD builng and the BMO builngds on spring garden road are both short. They are perfect examples of why this entire arguement is foolish. These examples prove yo can build short and make money.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by NDPer4life

The TD builng and the BMO builngds on spring garden road are both short. They are perfect examples of why this entire arguement is foolish. These examples prove yo can build short and make money.

Which argument? I'm not against buildings of this height, I'm against arbitrary restrictions on certain lots.

Both lots you mention are very small and the density is perfect for them. The Ben's bakery lot on Quinpool might be a missed opportunity for more density and to reduce the outward sprawl of Halifax.

[NDPer4life]

[QUOTE=Keith P.;7887804 A 6-storey "acceptable" proposal may not exist as it likely does not have a business case to make it profitable.[/QUOTE]

I was referring to comments like this. Try to keep up to date worldly

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by NDPer4life

I was referring to comments like this. Try to keep up to date worldly

What would an "NDPer4life" know about a business case? It's not the kind that businessmen carry around to hold their important papers. NDPers only want to suck money out of the taxpayer.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What would an "NDPer4life" know about a business case? It's not the kind that businessmen carry around to hold their important papers. NDPers only want to suck money out of the taxpayer.

That's the kind of great constructive discussion that this board needs.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Franco401

That's the kind of great constructive discussion that this board needs.

Sorry, but I was just responding to this person's ongoing attacks.

[Jonovision]

Some new insulation which will lead to new cladding has gone up on the old Coast Guard base.

20170816_192113 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Dmajackson]

Argyle Street update;


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[robotropolis]

August 17, 2017 The Coast OPINION » VOICE OF THE CITY

A nightmare of evocation as Halifax falls to the wrecking ball

Halifax is surely and inexorably being destroyed by rampant developers and an obliging council.

By Larry Haiven


https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/a-nightm...to-the-wrecking-ball/Content?oid=8902578


"One of my dystopian nightmares (I know that term is redundant but I want to emphasize just how scared and disgusted it makes me) goes like this: At some point in the not-so-distant future, everything that makes Halifax livable, lovable and distinct (common lands, public spaces, historic buildings, heritage neighbourhoods) has been razed and replaced by a dead zone of tall buildings. "

[Keith P.]

I haven't been on Argyle in so long that I am confused by an establishment called the Grafton Tavern on what would logically seem to be the wrong street.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by robotropolis

August 17, 2017 The Coast OPINION » VOICE OF THE CITY

A nightmare of evocation as Halifax falls to the wrecking ball

Halifax is surely and inexorably being destroyed by rampant developers and an obliging council.

By Larry Haiven


https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/a-nightm...to-the-wrecking-ball/Content?oid=8902578


"One of my dystopian nightmares (I know that term is redundant but I want to emphasize just how scared and disgusted it makes me) goes like this: At some point in the not-so-distant future, everything that makes Halifax livable, lovable and distinct (common lands, public spaces, historic buildings, heritage neighbourhoods) has been razed and replaced by a dead zone of tall buildings. "

I have to say that I agree with many of his points, although some of the buildings he is referring to are on lots that had been leveled decades ago, or sites that contain(ed) unremarkable buildings (such as the one on the corner of Quinpool and Robie, or on the Queen's Marque site), so if the new building is named after something that was there before I don't think it's a bad thing. We can't erase the mistakes that our predecessors made 30+ years ago.

However he makes a good argument overall that we really need to think about how we are shaping our city and how much character we are potentially destroying in the name of density. i.e. We should be very careful where and how we build, in terms of maintaining the character of heritage properties & neighborhoods, and the quality of new buildings that we are allowing to be built.

I did chuckle at his comment about The Roy, as it kinda reflects my thoughts as well:

The Roy (22 storeys, at Barrington near Sackville, evoking the classic building that it replaces, and mocking us with its “outdoor museums” quote) and this right smack in the middle of the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District, no less.

Though ironically, of all the new buildings going up, The Roy has the potential to be one of the nicest. The point is not lost, though, as it appears that very early they abandoned their promise to reuse a substantial part of the materials salvaged from the old building.

, Take it for what it's worth.

[yal]

Originally Posted by robotropolis

August 17, 2017 The Coast OPINION » VOICE OF THE CITY

A nightmare of evocation as Halifax falls to the wrecking ball

Halifax is surely and inexorably being destroyed by rampant developers and an obliging council.

By Larry Haiven


https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/a-nightm...to-the-wrecking-ball/Content?oid=8902578


"One of my dystopian nightmares (I know that term is redundant but I want to emphasize just how scared and disgusted it makes me) goes like this: At some point in the not-so-distant future, everything that makes Halifax livable, lovable and distinct (common lands, public spaces, historic buildings, heritage neighbourhoods) has been razed and replaced by a dead zone of tall buildings. "

Perfect example of an elder, wealthy NIMBY in this region.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by yal

Perfect example of an elder, wealthy NIMBY in this region.

OK, from the pic, it appears that he is a little older. He's a professor, does that make him wealthy? Does his financial status matter?

But really, I don't understand how his views would be considered NIMBY. He seems to have concerns about the loss of history and character of the entire city. Could you explain how this is NIMBY? Not questioning your views, but I really want to understand.