General Updates and News

[Dmajackson]

A construction permit has been issued at 2373 MAYNARD STREET, HALIFAX for a 20-unit residential building. This is on the east side between Woodill and Harris. No renderings or information regarding the developer.

Google Streetview

[coastalkid]

AllNS reported today that Urban Capital (developer of Gorsebrook Park, NRTH) has secured the lot at 2183 Gottingen St from the Housing Trust. Plan is to build a 175-unit condo building called "Navy Lane". Soft marketing launch is expected this year, with sales campaign starting in March/April 2023. Huge for that section of the street.

[Jonovision]

So much happening today but not a single rendering

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

A construction permit has been issued at 2373 MAYNARD STREET, HALIFAX for a 20-unit residential building. This is on the east side between Woodill and Harris. No renderings or information regarding the developer.

Google Streetview

Just dropping in a pic for reference. I imagine that two houses and the auto repair shop on the corner will be demolished.

20221202_141104_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

[someone123]

It is impossible to judge this one without a render but the city should put more effort into preserving some of these old streetscapes and houses. There are some great streetscapes around there.

It would probably turn out better to have some 15-40 storey towers and more preserved houses rather than tearing everything down for 4-8 storey buildings. I think people often say in the abstract they'd rather have a short development than a tall one, but what if the tradeoff is also huge footprint vs. small footprint with a lot more ground-level construction disruption from the lowrises? I don't think this was captured well by the Centre Plan design process where everything was shown as massing diagrams. It would be a shame to tear down all of Agricola or Robie for some medium density boxes, and building just a few medium density boxes while retaining a lot of old buildings leads to low densities and poor neighbourhood amenities or walkability.

[Drybrain]

This one’s interesting since the two houses are in the ER zone, and the auto shop is in the corridor zone. Presumably the project is permitted to consolidate the lots, though I wonder if the portion in the lower-density zone will step down?

In any case, I don’t imagine we’ll see these residential streets consumed by midrises—if anything, the zoning in the neighbourhood is sort of contorted around them to add density on these industrial and commercial sites and restrict it where old houses are.

But yeah, the treatment of Robie and other main streets is somewhat cavalier re: historic character. I don’t know how you balance preserving what merits it with adding density on other sites, without getting a lot more prescriptive and choosy about what to protect and what not to, which the city seems loathe to do. Not sure how (or if) other comparable cities accomplish this, though I’m very curious.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is impossible to judge this one without a render but the city should put more effort into preserving some of these old streetscapes and houses. There are some great streetscapes around there.

Looking at that picture, I'm not sure what you want to save. There is an a auto body shop or garage and a couple of unremarkable square old wooden boxes that were not special they day they were first finished.

What is remarkable is the number of new developments happening in this area, which was previously a semi-industrial slummy part of town. Suddenly it seems to be a hot area. I am having a hard time getting my head around the concept that this is suddenly a desirable place to live but apparently many seem to think so. Perhaps it has passed the point where it no longer is place that brings to mind crack houses and dens of ill repute when you hear the street names.

[someone123]

Right across the street the blue house on the corner is quite nice, and if you move a bit south along Maynard toward Woodill there are some rare older houses (without registration plaques). Lots of history, character, and potential, and a fine-grained pedestrian scale that often gets watered down with new developments. Contrast these houses, the frontage lengths, setbacks, and amount of detail with the infill building on Harris. That one has a "plinth" design with a long concrete wall and setback and has no particular sense of place.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Looking at that picture, I'm not sure what you want to save. There is an a auto body shop or garage and a couple of unremarkable square old wooden boxes that were not special they day they were first finished.

What is remarkable is the number of new developments happening in this area, which was previously a semi-industrial slummy part of town. Suddenly it seems to be a hot area. I am having a hard time getting my head around the concept that this is suddenly a desirable place to live but apparently many seem to think so. Perhaps it has passed the point where it no longer is place that brings to mind crack houses and dens of ill repute when you hear the street names.

I remember those days almost fondly, and yes it does appear those times are passing. I agree there’s nothing here remotely worth “saving”.

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is impossible to judge this one without a render but the city should put more effort into preserving some of these old streetscapes and houses. There are some great streetscapes around there.

The entire west side of Carleton St, filled with derelict houses that still have heritage plaques affixed, suggests this would be pointless.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

The entire west side of Carleton St, filled with derelict houses that still have heritage plaques affixed, suggests this would be pointless.

I keep hearing people describe Carleton Street this way, and I still can't square the description with what I see on the same street--the houses aren't in perfect shape, but they're far from derelict. The only two that could fit that description are the two at the bottom of the block on the west side, but those are being prepared for incorporation into the new development there, hence being boarded up.

[IanWatson]

Short-term rental regs coming to Regional Council next week:

"The Regional Plan, MPS and LUB amendments include the following:

• limit STRs in residential zones to a host’s primary residence;
• allow STRs in commercial and mixed-use zones where tourist accommodations are already permitted;
• introduce a Short-term Bedroom Rental use which includes the STR of individual bedrooms within a dwelling unit to separate parties. This use will replace and standardize the approach to bed and breakfasts but will also include lodging house type uses or the renting of a spare room in a dwelling as a STR; and
• existing provisions related to parking, bedroom limits, and maximum signage requirements for bed and breakfasts will be extended to short-term bedroom rentals.

"

Full staff report here: https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/221213rc15111.pdf

[Dmajackson]

Major construction permits since November 27;

3675 JOSEPH HOWE DRIVE - 1-storey commercial service use building ($1.75M). This is in the Superstore parking lot.

2621 CLIFTON STREET - 8-storey, 53-unit residential building ($14M). This is the recently demolished lot at Clifton & North.

[JET]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Short-term rental regs coming to Regional Council next week:

"The Regional Plan, MPS and LUB amendments include the following:

• limit STRs in residential zones to a host’s primary residence;
• allow STRs in commercial and mixed-use zones where tourist accommodations are already permitted;
• introduce a Short-term Bedroom Rental use which includes the STR of individual bedrooms within a dwelling unit to separate parties. This use will replace and standardize the approach to bed and breakfasts but will also include lodging house type uses or the renting of a spare room in a dwelling as a STR; and
• existing provisions related to parking, bedroom limits, and maximum signage requirements for bed and breakfasts will be extended to short-term bedroom rentals.

"

Full staff report here: https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/221213rc15111.pdf

Across the street from me is what was originally a single family 100+ years old. It was renovated into 3 apartments and operated as such until 3 years when it was sold, residents of two apartments were evicted, and the apartments are now operated as Airbnb. Looking forward to the STR provisions being implemented. Too many people are being evicted for STR. Hopefully there will be no grand parenting.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I keep hearing people describe Carleton Street this way, and I still can't square the description with what I see on the same street--the houses aren't in perfect shape, but they're far from derelict. The only two that could fit that description are the two at the bottom of the block on the west side, but those are being prepared for incorporation into the new development there, hence being boarded up.

Plus it's a little sliver of remaining Victorian houses in an area that has mostly been torn down at this point. People are arguing over whether the last 10% should be preserved. The original houses around that used to be much nicer, and there were some decent demolished apartment buildings.

For the Garden Crest project, the developers tore down some apparently pre-war brick apartments for that small corner building with a faux front entrance. It could be worse I guess but seemed to ham-fisted. The preserved facade of the Garden Crest apartment building itself is not as nice as it used to look either (was bright blue). Across the street they tore down some large heritage homes for a private ersatz version of the Public Gardens that I have never seen anybody use.

When the development happened much of the discussion revolved around shadows on the graveyard and how construction materials from the project might poke into the graves. Maybe not completely bad concerns but the overall weight and discussion did not seem to capture what was most important for the local population.

[bartekci]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Major construction permits since November 27;

3675 JOSEPH HOWE DRIVE - 1-storey commercial service use building ($1.75M). This is in the Superstore parking lot.

I've noticed this being dug up lately. I don't want it to be, but I am speculating it's going to be a larger Starbucks w/ drive through. (and the one inside the Superstore will be eliminated)

[JET]

Originally Posted by someone123

Plus it's a little sliver of remaining Victorian houses in an area that has mostly been torn down at this point. People are arguing over whether the last 10% should be preserved. The original houses around that used to be much nicer, and there were some decent demolished apartment buildings.

For the Garden Crest project, the developers tore down some apparently pre-war brick apartments for that small corner building with a faux front entrance. It could be worse I guess but seemed to ham-fisted. The preserved facade of the Garden Crest apartment building itself is not as nice as it used to look either (was bright blue). Across the street they tore down some large heritage homes for a private ersatz version of the Public Gardens that I have never seen anybody use.

When the development happened much of the discussion revolved around shadows on the graveyard and how construction materials from the project might poke into the graves. Maybe not completely bad concerns but the overall weight and discussion did not seem to capture what was most important for the local population.

When Garden Crest was ‘rebuilt’ the requirement was that the facade be ‘maintained’ ; the developer tore everything off the front, except for the thickness of one board, 1 inch, everything behind the board was also removed. I walked by and was amazed that all that remained was the outline of the building, one inch thick. They did a nice job replacing the building to look like what was there. Better than what might have happened if even the ghost of the building was erased.
Better than what happened to the Hart House, tore down a beautiful building and replaced with grass and a gazebo.

[Northend Guy]

Originally Posted by fatscat

I've noticed this being dug up lately. I don't want it to be, but I am speculating it's going to be a larger Starbucks w/ drive through. (and the one inside the Superstore will be eliminated)

Rest easy friend. It is not a Starbucks.

[bartekci]

Originally Posted by Northend Guy

Rest easy friend. It is not a Starbucks.

Thank goodness! Now, what is it?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

When Garden Crest was ‘rebuilt’ the requirement was that the facade be ‘maintained’ ; the developer tore everything off the front, except for the thickness of one board, 1 inch, everything behind the board was also removed. I walked by and was amazed that all that remained was the outline of the building, one inch thick. They did a nice job replacing the building to look like what was there. Better than what might have happened if even the ghost of the building was erased.

Hmmm... for some reason I was left with the impression that they didn't do a good job of replicating the old facade, but I can't find any photos of the original building to compare. Perhaps I was just being too picky?

I'd love to see a pic of the old building to understand what I was thinking at the time...