General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

Not a fully fair comparison as the population scale is completely different, but dealerships in South Korea are more like a standalone showroom. There was a 5-storey BMW dealership where I lived. Not that I expect that right away, as I'm not even sure such things are anywhere outside maybe Toronto or Vancouver, but there's definitely a more efficient use of space here.

Well, of course here The Usual Suspects (TM Regd.) would object to such a proposal because It's TOO TALL!!

The Carvana operation in the US has interesting towers to show off their inventory:



The thing is, selling new cars isn't what's particularly profitable for dealers. It is the used car and service/parts part of the business where they make real money, which means you need a service department, which means you need considerable land. The service work is convenient to have near where people work each day. That's why the Centre Plan prohibition is so idiotic.

Most dealers on the peninsula (I can't speak for Steele) keep a lot of their inventory elsewhere than at the showroom site.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by atbw

Not a fully fair comparison as the population scale is completely different, but dealerships in South Korea are more like a standalone showroom. There was a 5-storey BMW dealership where I lived. Not that I expect that right away, as I'm not even sure such things are anywhere outside maybe Toronto or Vancouver, but there's definitely a more efficient use of space here.

Interestingly enough, the 'CBC building' on the corner of South Park and Sackville St was originally built, in 1933 IIRC, as an urban car dealership very similar to the concept you're describing.


Photo source

However, I believe that as land remained cheap and zoning rules remained lax, the dealership was not large enough or modern enough to continue to be competitive on that site, so it was moved to the much-maligned location on Robie Street, around 1971, IIRC. There may have been some requirement by GM to have their urban dealership maintain a standard appearance as well.

Regardless, it's not a new concept, but it lost favour for many decades until relatively recently. It's interesting how ideas come full circle sometimes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

But this is expansion, not just continuation of an existing operation. They took a street that used to be lined with rowhouses on both sides and tore down half of them then replaced them with a new industrial/commercial use that is out of keeping with the rest of the area. I am pretty sure they've even stated they plan on eventually redeveloping. Part of the problem may be a tax system that makes it practical to tear buildings down and hang onto land for many years in the hope of eventual profit.

This is a city where developers get fought tooth and nail over whether they put up a hotel vs. apartment building on a given site.

There's no incompatibility between having a car dealer and being in the city either. It's the large and expanding surface lot that is the problem.

I understand your point about it being perceived as an expansion, actually I stated it in my post as well.

I do think, however that the reaction to this was out of scale because houses were torn down to expand a car dealership. For example, if those same houses were torn down for exactly the same reason you describe in your post (which they may have been actually) - rip down the houses and leave the lots empty for many years to reduce tax costs and either develop or flip the land eventually for profit - I'm sure this would have received virtually no media coverage, protests, political involvement, etc. The fact that they paved the lots to store cars - actually using the land instead of leaving it as an empty lot - is what brought all of the negative attention.

I mean, where were all the protests and news stories when the old Piercey's building (which was originally a textile mill built by the Nova Scotia Cotton Manufacturing Company in the 1800s) was torn down and the lot left vacant? Crickets...

It just seems odd that creating empty lots and leaving them blank for long periods of time seems to be preferable to using the land for a business purpose which creates jobs for people and provides a service to citizens. I suspect you're in agreement on that point as well.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The thing is, selling new cars isn't what's particularly profitable for dealers. It is the used car and service/parts part of the business where they make real money, which means you need a service department, which means you need considerable land. The service work is convenient to have near where people work each day. That's why the Centre Plan prohibition is so idiotic.

Most dealers on the peninsula (I can't speak for Steele) keep a lot of their inventory elsewhere than at the showroom site.

This is my understanding as well.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

For example, if those same houses were torn down for exactly the same reason you describe in your post (which they may have been actually) - rip down the houses and leave the lots empty for many years to reduce tax costs and either develop or flip the land eventually for profit - I'm sure this would have received virtually no media coverage, protests, political involvement, etc. The fact that they paved the lots to store cars - actually using the land instead of leaving it as an empty lot - is what brought all of the negative attention.

Yes, I agree. I find a lot of the reporting in Halifax is not very economically literate. Of course this is a general media issue, not just a Halifax issue. There are bubbles, one being the business-y people and another being the anti-business people. The anti-business bubble tends to complain about gentrification but they tend not to try to understand the incentives the business people are working with. The business coverage often fails by becoming an echo chamber of rich people who pat each other on the back.

I blame HRM for the May Street situation, not the owner. As far as I know the owner followed the rules and the city issued the demo permits after spending years and years creating a plan for this area.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I understand your point about it being perceived as an expansion, actually I stated it in my post as well.

I do think, however that the reaction to this was out of scale because houses were torn down to expand a car dealership. For example, if those same houses were torn down for exactly the same reason you describe in your post (which they may have been actually) - rip down the houses and leave the lots empty for many years to reduce tax costs and either develop or flip the land eventually for profit - I'm sure this would have received virtually no media coverage, protests, political involvement, etc. The fact that they paved the lots to store cars - actually using the land instead of leaving it as an empty lot - is what brought all of the negative attention.

I mean, where were all the protests and news stories when the old Piercey's building (which was originally a textile mill built by the Nova Scotia Cotton Manufacturing Company in the 1800s) was torn down and the lot left vacant? Crickets...

It just seems odd that creating empty lots and leaving them blank for long periods of time seems to be preferable to using the land for a business purpose which creates jobs for people and provides a service to citizens. I suspect you're in agreement on that point as well.

The slogans used by activists could certainly give the impression that opposition was grounded in the anti-car movement, but I think when we consider all issues the demolition in the area touches on it makes sense why a political storm brewed. Briefly speaking, heritage groups, housing activists, anti-gentrification groups, those concerned with a car-oriented use of space, NIMBYs and even some YIMBYs formed a loose coalition because all felt their causes were threatened. I don’t think the Piercey’s is a comparable case because it only impacts one interest: heritage. There have been plenty of NIMBY tantrums over demolitions unrelated to the car: the Queen St. protests, Young avenue, the Spring Garden towers, and even a single house in King’s county. The May St. houses would have likely been demolished at some point in the future even if all the car dealerships left Robie, but for those who decry a car-oriented downtown it certainly plays into the image of cars dominating space.

From my point of view, if the public knew the site was being redeveloped and plans were announced which included some housing there still would have been some NIMBY-ism, but not to the level we’ve seen because housing groups and YIMBYs would have been more welcoming. Change brings many gems to the city, but I accept that comes at the cost of the occasional bad apple. The surrounding area is becoming denser, and a YIMBY like myself can be let down when a street corner is flattened with no plan in sight. I’ll try to remain optimistic and hope Steele has a good plan for the site. I think him not wanting an urban format shop could be a sign he plans to redevelop. We can say it’s a sacrifice made for the benefit of a local business, but a sacrifice nonetheless.

I have to agree with someone123 that the city bears a degree of responsibility for making it cheaper to hold onto empty land. I also know there are extra obstacles to insuring a heritage building.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, I agree. I find a lot of the reporting in Halifax is not very economically literate. Of course this is a general media issue, not just a Halifax issue. There are bubbles, one being the business-y people and another being the anti-business people. The anti-business bubble tends to complain about gentrification but they tend not to try to understand the incentives the business people are working with. The business coverage often fails by becoming an echo chamber of rich people who pat each other on the back.

I blame HRM for the May Street situation, not the owner. As far as I know the owner followed the rules and the city issued the demo permits after spending years and years creating a plan for this area.

Good points, especially about the anti-business bubble, and the fact that it was a car business probably makes it an ideal target - y'know, killing 2 birds with one stone...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

The slogans used by activists could certainly give the impression that opposition was grounded in the anti-car movement, but I think when we consider all issues the demolition in the area touches on it makes sense why a political storm brewed. Briefly speaking, heritage groups, housing activists, anti-gentrification groups, those concerned with a car-oriented use of space, NIMBYs and even some YIMBYs formed a loose coalition because all felt their causes were threatened. I don’t think the Piercey’s is a comparable case because it only impacts one interest: heritage. There have been plenty of NIMBY tantrums over demolitions unrelated to the car: the Queen St. protests, Young avenue, the Spring Garden towers, and even a single house in King’s county. The May St. houses would have likely been demolished at some point in the future even if all the car dealerships left Robie, but for those who decry a car-oriented downtown it certainly plays into the image of cars dominating space.

From my point of view, if the public knew the site was being redeveloped and plans were announced which included some housing there still would have been some NIMBY-ism, but not to the level we’ve seen because housing groups and YIMBYs would have been more welcoming. Change brings many gems to the city, but I accept that comes at the cost of the occasional bad apple. The surrounding area is becoming denser, and a YIMBY like myself can be let down when a street corner is flattened with no plan in sight. I’ll try to remain optimistic and hope Steele has a good plan for the site. I think him not wanting an urban format shop could be a sign he plans to redevelop. We can say it’s a sacrifice made for the benefit of a local business, but a sacrifice nonetheless.

I have to agree with someone123 that the city bears a degree of responsibility for making it cheaper to hold onto empty land. I also know there are extra obstacles to insuring a heritage building.

Many good points that I agree with. I do think the Piercey's case was a good example because a serviceable building was torn down to basically create an empty lot. I seem to recall that it was being used for overflow dealership parking at one point, ironically to our conversation, but I'm not sure if that's still the case as the last time I drove by there I was trying to figure out the new-to-me changes in the road function due to the newly added bus lanes. In many ways it surprises me that the public at large doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but that's been discussed already.

Other than the lineage to the Halifax Explosion, I don't think it was a huge loss for heritage fans as there was little of the building remaining in its original state (after the explosion, the top 3 floors were removed and the building continued as a single floor, which had been altered many times over the years). That said, I still considered it a loss, but that's only me.

I do think that there should be some programs available for buildings like this to continue to be used by non-profits until development of the lot is going to occur. It seems silly to both tear down a functional building and create the blight of an empty lot for the neighbourhood to endure for years as is currently the case.

Going back to the Colonial situation, I don't think it was completely an anti-car action, as surely the loss of functional housing (though admittedly run-down) was the main source of the discontent. However, I do feel it was amped-up by the anti-car crowd as there was certainly a lot of anti-car rhetoric being employed at the time, as you mentioned.

The main point I was thinking about when I posted was that this dealership has been in that location for almost half a century and now it seems that people would be only too happy to force it out, if they were able to - at least they certainly don't want to see it grow. I suspect that as land prices increase it will happen more organically, as the Steeles will see a business opportunity to profit from the land while moving the dealership to a better location, and they now have more property to bargain with.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Many good points that I agree with. I do think the Piercey's case was a good example because a serviceable building was torn down to basically create an empty lot. I seem to recall that it was being used for overflow dealership parking at one point, ironically to our conversation, but I'm not sure if that's still the case as the last time I drove by there I was trying to figure out the new-to-me changes in the road function due to the newly added bus lanes. In many ways it surprises me that the public at large doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but that's been discussed already.

Other than the lineage to the Halifax Explosion, I don't think it was a huge loss for heritage fans as there was little of the building remaining in its original state (after the explosion, the top 3 floors were removed and the building continued as a single floor, which had been altered many times over the years). That said, I still considered it a loss, but that's only me.

I do think that there should be some programs available for buildings like this to continue to be used by non-profits until development of the lot is going to occur. It seems silly to both tear down a functional building and create the blight of an empty lot for the neighbourhood to endure for years as is currently the case.

Going back to the Colonial situation, I don't think it was completely an anti-car action, as surely the loss of functional housing (though admittedly run-down) was the main source of the discontent. However, I do feel it was amped-up by the anti-car crowd as there was certainly a lot of anti-car rhetoric being employed at the time, as you mentioned.

The main point I was thinking about when I posted was that this dealership has been in that location for almost half a century and now it seems that people would be only too happy to force it out, if they were able to - at least they certainly don't want to see it grow. I suspect that as land prices increase it will happen more organically, as the Steeles will see a business opportunity to profit from the land while moving the dealership to a better location, and they now have more property to bargain with.

I think I see where you're coming from now; a landmark building is torn down and nobody bats an eye but when a car dealership up the road does the same to some houses the complaints come rolling in. I certainly don't intend to minimize the importance of Peircey's, and even in its one-storey form it could have been recycled into something larger like what was done around Toronto's enercare centre. I certainly agree the empty Peircey's lot is an excellent case of underused space, but I mainly also think fewer factions had cause for defending it given how housing has been the buzzword of the last few years.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Going back to the Colonial situation, I don't think it was completely an anti-car action, as surely the loss of functional housing (though admittedly run-down) was the main source of the discontent. However, I do feel it was amped-up by the anti-car crowd as there was certainly a lot of anti-car rhetoric being employed at the time, as you mentioned.

A lot of the rhetoric was stirred up by the EAC and their friends at the HCC. Given this is right on their doorstep they were probably louder than they otherwise would have been. To them car = evil.

To Mark's point, here is a picture of the site from the early 1960s when it was Hillcrest VW:

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Carvana operation in the US has interesting towers to show off their inventory:

[IMG]https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2018/...3f80-4dc3-835e-1dcd49fa84da-IMG_4857.JPG[/IMG]

I don't get the appeal of this at all. I've never once been impressed by a car that wasn't at eye level. A better way to promote your inventory would be a dot-matrix sign listing new arrivals and prices, this makes me think "man, having a car is a waste of time and money for an unnecessary machine" rather than "cars go fast and you can drive them wherever you want all year", the correct method of selling cars to someone like me. Granted, I'm not exactly their demo, but there's plenty of people who live their whole lives around their cars and feel the same way.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Franco401

I don't get the appeal of this at all. I've never once been impressed by a car that wasn't at eye level. A better way to promote your inventory would be a dot-matrix sign listing new arrivals and prices, this makes me think "man, having a car is a waste of time and money for an unnecessary machine" rather than "cars go fast and you can drive them wherever you want all year", the correct method of selling cars to someone like me. Granted, I'm not exactly their demo, but there's plenty of people who live their whole lives around their cars and feel the same way.

I don't get the whole 'purchase a used car off your phone' business method either. I usually never know whether I want to buy a car until I see it, walk around it, crawl under it (to check for condition), open the hood, check out the trunk space, sit in it... and drive it!

As for the Carvana layout above, it seems like an expensive way to store 10 cars, especially when the lot it's on would easily hold 10 cars in a surface parking lot. Not to mention the cost of operating and maintaining it... even more if it's heated in the winter. IMHO it's definitely there to catch the eye and be 'different', rather than to be some way to efficiently use the land in an urban sense.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I think I see where you're coming from now; a landmark building is torn down and nobody bats an eye but when a car dealership up the road does the same to some houses the complaints come rolling in. I certainly don't intend to minimize the importance of Peircey's, and even in its one-storey form it could have been recycled into something larger like what was done around Toronto's enercare centre. I certainly agree the empty Peircey's lot is an excellent case of underused space, but I mainly also think fewer factions had cause for defending it given how housing has been the buzzword of the last few years.

Agree. Definitely anything regarding housing gets peoples' attention - and rightly so given the vacancy rate problem we are experiencing now.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

A lot of the rhetoric was stirred up by the EAC and their friends at the HCC. Given this is right on their doorstep they were probably louder than they otherwise would have been. To them car = evil.

To Mark's point, here is a picture of the site from the early 1960s when it was Hillcrest VW:

Thanks Keith! I did not know that Hillcrest was in that location so long ago. This is great info for me as I have an interest in old car dealership locations.

On that subject, another example of an old dealership that was repurposed is that long building on Doyle Street, which was once the location of Citadel Motors, IIRC.


Source

The same location as it looks today:
https://goo.gl/maps/wbJxTgFdX54vPe1M7

[Citizen_Bane]

I believe Keith was bang on in identifying the EAC as the base camp for the Homes not Hondas thingamabob. Their fight for the 'we' was really more of a fight for the 'me' that I suppose exists in all of us to some degree. I lay the blame for the state of the May St area on city hall and in particular the city councilor for the area at the time. Does everyone remember the outlaw biker gang who were permitted to occupy the area? An employee of the dealership once remarked that occupied unmarked police cars were always present and that the humane needs of the citizens of the area was secondary to the wants of the police. Of course this is hearsay.

I would bet that redevelopment of the land as something other than a car dealership has always been the endgame. Spreading out over the existing empty space seems a logical temporary use of the space. IIRC, Steele will not be permitted to use the land once occupied by this latest tear-down for auto dealership purposes. It's not a large chuck of land but it seems the city might have a small ace up their sleeve in terms of negotiation power. I bring this up as this seems an opportune time (along with the Bloomfield site) for the city to gain a bit of transportation corridor width along this section of Robie (Almon to North) while causing little disruption.

[worldlyhaligonian]

A development like "The Elevation" on this site would be perfect.

The city could mandate any such redevelopment include units that would be reserved for their purchase (as provision as affordable housing - not accepting money from the developer to avoid this.)

I don't see why housing and development have to be at odds with eachother.

We should be thinking of increasing quality building stock and the city could be in the business of supporting locals in the market.

The narrative that old homes are necessarily appropriate (or historical in every case) is a bit flawed. The type of people that could afford them or be landlords are not the people that need support anyway. Firstly, there isn't enough space and secondly they are too big.

There is no vision, meanwhile prices will skyrocket as no appropriate supply comes online and people from other places arbitrage our, still, relatively low purchase prices.

[atbw]

A couple examples of urban car infrastructure from Korean street view:

First up a BMW dealership with two showroom floors and another showroom higher up. Assuming it has storage for models elsewhere, in addition to the car elevator we can see above the penthouse. Other smaller dealerships might just have a ground floor showroom in a building.


Next is a garage, taking up a relatively small footprint in a small neighbourhood.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Interesting. Does the BMW dealership have a service department?

Also, what is above the garage in the second photo - office space?

[atbw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Interesting. Does the BMW dealership have a service department?

Also, what is above the garage in the second photo - office space?

Unsure about the BMW service dept. From walking past the garage, at last one of those stories is false and is just open to the garage below. Above is probably the garage office + storage.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by atbw

Unsure about the BMW service dept. From walking past the garage, at last one of those stories is false and is just open to the garage below. Above is probably the garage office + storage.

Thanks! I was just wondering how the function of those urban dealerships and shops compare to what is currently normal here.