[Halifax] St. Patrick's Alexandra | ? m | ? fl | Proposed

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Just like Bloomfield, there is news today on this, and none of it is good:

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/the-projects...lexandra-redevelopment-on-hold-1.6405394

So the loud-mouthed locals want welfare housing as long as it is not more than 4-6 storeys. Certainly they do not want anything "nice" that might rent for something close to what other new developments around there are seeing. And of course they have no idea what the things they want actually cost or whether it makes sense for anyone to try doing it. HRM is far from blameless here too, with the absurd size/height restrictions they have placed arbitrarily on the site. Maybe Joe M. should just put a "For Sale: As-Is/Where-Is $20 million OBO" sign on the lot and walk away.

"At the end of the day, the city, ideologically, does not seem like it has an interest in maximizing housing."

Obviously!

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by kzt79

"At the end of the day, the city, ideologically, does not seem like it has an interest in maximizing housing."

Obviously!

I don't think that's really the case at all. There are lots of situations around the city (e.g. the Future Growth Nodes like Mic Mac Mall and West End Mall) where HRM is absolutely pushing housing to the max (and maybe beyond?).

Ideologically, what HRM is doing is trying to build a culture of sticking to the rules. For way too many years everything here was done on a one-off basis, and it dragged everything to a halt. I see HRM trying to push an overall system where the rules are reasonably good, where people buy knowing the rules, and then build to those rules.

We can debate whether the rules for this site are truly "right", but ultimately I see a real hesitation to do anything about it because that fuels the idea that people can change the rules and risks undermining everything that has been done to get to a more predictable, faster planning system.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

We can debate whether the rules for this site are truly "right", but ultimately I see a real hesitation to do anything about it because that fuels the idea that people can change the rules and risks undermining everything that has been done to get to a more predictable, faster planning system.

A slavish devotion to not changing the rules for ideological reasons when everything else - the housing market, the demand curve for different types of developments over time, the cost of construction, the cost of money, etc etc changes every day - is pure ostrich thinking. The idea that planning rules must be cast in stone is one of the many follies that afflict the planning profession.

[Empire]

This article demonstrates how dysfunctional policies and the HRM planning mindset are creating stagnate landscapes. Prime real estate in the city centre should not be subjected to unattractive low slung buildings that occupy 100% of the lot.

The city is obsessed with creating a squat, low quality environment in prime areas. Cogswell, Centennial Pool, St. Pats. Alexandra are a few examples. Affordable units would be great to have in prime sites but this just does not get off the ground with truly affordable units. For affordable units to be workable in a new build in a prime area, the city / province should be prepared to provide substantial subsides to the developer. Never a mention of upgrading or creating multiple affordable units in a logical area like Mulgrave Park.

St. Pats Alexandra:
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/the-projects...lexandra-redevelopment-on-hold-1.6405394

[Dmajackson]

Housing Accelerator Fund changes soundly shot down JONO Developments' requests for this site;

Request was for CEN-2 zoning with max height of 28 storeys.

• This site is located within the Brunswick Street proposed Heritage Conservation District, next to the St. George's Anglican Church / Round Church National Historic Site of Canada, and is identified as a Special Planning Area in the Centre Plan SMPS and LUB.
• Maitland Street is a narrow street, and the abutting Murray Warrington Park is a shadow protected site and the location of a community enterprise.
• Existing Policy framework in Centre Plan (IM-41) supports a development agreement option on this site for additional density subject to certain requirements. These requirements were developed after site specific consultation with the North End and African Nova Scotian community;
• Staff are not recommending zoning changes to the site.

Regional Centre Development Requests

[Dmajackson]

A development-only permit was submitted for this site for "townhouse-use" with no additional details provided. My best guess is they're subdividing the lot and the lands on the northern end is where the townhouses will be going.

Jono Development is wrapping up their work at The Trinity so this block is likely their next project.

[Dmajackson]

There is now construction equipment on the north-west edge of the site. They are located on a 6'000sq ft property that has been subdivided from the main lot with a civic address of 2333 Maitland Street. The permit that comes up for this PID is;

"Residential Building Permit - New Building - Issued - P.I.D. 41545641 - $1'000'000 - Dwelling - Multiple Units - 4 Floors - 3 Floors - "To construct 4 unit dwelling. Phase 1 -- 2277 Maitland St, Halifax, NS, B3K5K8"

The school is still standing, and just like Bloomfield, the developer seems to have zero plans to demolish it. Stranger still, the excavation work is taking place less than five feet from a sidewalk that is still open. There are no safety barriers (you can literally touch the machine).

Four units in this neighbourhood is a joke. I think this must be JONO DEVELOPMENT's way of skirting around the land buy-back agreement. They can't afford to demolish the school and want to keep the land but need to say they built something.

[ArchAficionado]

Gotta say I'm quite amused by JONO griefing the city with this mini project so as to hold on to the land. It is quite silly that the opportunity to add supply and meaningfully change the immediate neighborhoods of both St. Pats Alexandria and Bloomfield School are being squandered due to the stalemate between the developer and the city's forsaken guidelines.

Bloomfield, e.g., has been a derilect, decrepit heap of rubbish for as long as my memory can serve, and I'm almost 30! Furthermore, quality, dense developments are going up in its immediate surroundings, with more likely to come in the next decade (Piercey's site, Canada Post, etc). The city ought to have some vision. Such adherance to rules that in many cases are tantamount to obstructionism and/or deeply outdated modes of building suggest either incompetence (the rules are being adhered to but not actually thought about) or a blatant anti-height agenda - still!

[Dmajackson]

ANS article on this site. It has all of the backstory on this site but the quick version is JONO is starting construction on this 4-unit building to make sure that construction has started before the April deadline for the buy-back agreement.

I'm not sure at this point which developer is throwing HRM the biggest middle finger. United Gulf and it's 20 year old gravel pit downtown, JONO and it's four units here, or Banc Group and its "we're to poor" to demolish Bloomfield School despite having ~500 units under construction.

I really wish one of the better developers like Southwest, Dexel, or Westwood would of bought the school sites when they came up.

Also can someone remind me why St Pat's High School was demolished before being sold while other school sites like this and Bloomfield were sold as-is?

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

ANS article on this site. It has all of the backstory on this site but the quick version is JONO is starting construction on this 4-unit building to make sure that construction has started before the April deadline for the buy-back agreement.

I'm not sure at this point which developer is throwing HRM the biggest middle finger. United Gulf and it's 20 year old gravel pit downtown, JONO and it's four units here, or Banc Group and its "we're to poor" to demolish Bloomfield School despite having ~500 units under construction.

I really wish one of the better developers like Southwest, Dexel, or Westwood would of bought the school sites when they came up.

Also can someone remind me why St Pat's High School was demolished before being sold while other school sites like this and Bloomfield were sold as-is?

Banc cried poor around the same time it purchased the spring garden professional centre

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

ANS article on this site. It has all of the backstory on this site but the quick version is JONO is starting construction on this 4-unit building to make sure that construction has started before the April deadline for the buy-back agreement.

I'm not sure at this point which developer is throwing HRM the biggest middle finger. United Gulf and it's 20 year old gravel pit downtown, JONO and it's four units here, or Banc Group and its "we're to poor" to demolish Bloomfield School despite having ~500 units under construction.

I really wish one of the better developers like Southwest, Dexel, or Westwood would of bought the school sites when they came up.

Also can someone remind me why St Pat's High School was demolished before being sold while other school sites like this and Bloomfield were sold as-is?

I'm seeing a need for a 'bad actor' list of developers who have been proven to have a track record of activities such as this. Either they should be excluded from being able to purchase sites for development until they display an ability to complete the actual projects in a timely manner, or if they are allowed to purchase property, the contract should include hard timelines and severe penalties for not meeting deadlines.

It's so frustrating that companies like this can just walk in and do whatever works best for their financial benefit while competely thumbing their noses at the city and its citizens. It appears that these guys obviously don't give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the city and have no problem profiting from it while the people who live nearby and/or actually care about the city, suffer the consequences of their actions. You would think that they would have some pride in their companies, but IMHO they seem to be okay to take on the appearance of sleazy developers who are only in it for the money. It's hard to have any respect for these companies whatsoever.

[markbeaver]

I fought my way the other day past the sidewalk construction bypass at .the Elevation on Robie the other day and thought it appropriate to snap a pic of the sidewalk detour sign… still no sidewalk even though people have been living in the building for six months. Sigh.


.
Photo - Mark Beaver, via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/markbeaver/54337800933/in/dateposted-public/

[Dmajackson]

A demolition permit has been submitted for this site. I'm not sure if this is developer led or if HRM is being proactive here following a few fire calls over the last few months.

[bartekci]

There’s now fencing around the site.

[Wannabe Economist]

There is a small collection of crane sections piled neatly on site here. I'm sure other developers value having such a large staging area in such a prime location. Maybe it will soon become a parking lot or perhaps a place to sell RVs from this summer...