[Halifax] Presidio (5510 Macara) | 26 m | 8 fl | U/C

[Dmajackson]

Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[Dmajackson]

Demolition permit has been submitted for 2858 Gottingen (on left in post above). This site is actively being used as a staging area for NRTH Condos.

[kijoma]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Demolition permit has been submitted for 2858 Gottingen (on left in post above). This site is actively being used as a staging area for NRTH Condos.

Yep, just noticed it's gone since I last went by a few weeks ago.

[Dmajackson]

Residential Building Permit - New Building - Application Incomplete - 5518 MACARA STREET, HALIFAX - $12'000'000 - Dwelling - Multiple Units - 60 Units - 7 Floors - new apartment building

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Residential Building Permit - New Building - Application Incomplete - 5518 MACARA STREET, HALIFAX - $12'000'000 - Dwelling - Multiple Units - 60 Units - 7 Floors - new apartment building

Sounds like another Centre Plan 7-storey wonder.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sounds like another Centre Plan 7-storey wonder.

You know, at some point you have to wonder whether we would even have a housing crisis if there were no limitations on height and FAR. If developers were allowed to build to market demands (i.e. let’s say double the number of residential units per project), how much would our housing supply have increased over the past decade?

Honestly I understand how standardized limitations can provide clarity and potentially speed up the process, but every time I read about a new development here, it feels like we’re holding ourselves back.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

...every time I read about a new development here, it feels like we’re holding ourselves back.

Roger that. It frequently feels as if Halifax has tons of potential but just can't get out of its own way. Civic failure to launch syndrome.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You know, at some point you have to wonder whether we would even have a housing crisis if there were no limitations on height and FAR. If developers were allowed to build to market demands (i.e. let’s say double the number of residential units per project), how much would our housing supply have increased over the past decade?

It could also bring down costs. When more units and height are allowed, the land cost per unit goes down. There's a sweet spot for density from an economic perspective and there's no way for planners to know that ahead of time. Given inflation and the unpredictably high growth that's happened, I would expect those planning limits to be far below optimal economic point now. The idea of setting prescriptive heights for years or decades in the future is folly.

I think the argument for predictability and effective approval is a good one but it's true whether a given plot has a height limit of 6 floors or 60 floors, and it is important to be agile.

HRM is really shooting itself in the foot with the low height limits on land it owns and might sell like the Cogswell parcels. I wonder if council will realize that they could charge more if they were zoned for 40 floors or if they'll just sleepwalk through wasting millions more there. I doubt they would have implemented the ramparts rule if it had the true price tag attached!

Another thing to consider is that the living space provided by tents or tiny homes is miniscule compared to how much square footage HRM has cut off from projects. Or the living space of houses formerly occupying now empty lots. It's an epic fail IMO.

[kijoma]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You know, at some point you have to wonder whether we would even have a housing crisis if there were no limitations on height and FAR. If developers were allowed to build to market demands (i.e. let’s say double the number of residential units per project), how much would our housing supply have increased over the past decade?

Honestly I understand how standardized limitations can provide clarity and potentially speed up the process, but every time I read about a new development here, it feels like we’re holding ourselves back.

There are so many 7 to 11 storey buildings going up in this area, the amount of development is actually really impressive I think. Plus, there are so many houses on Macara, it would be kind of weird to build a skyscraper right next to them.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by kijoma

There are so many 7 to 11 storey buildings going up in this area, the amount of development is actually really impressive I think. Plus, there are so many houses on Macara, it would be kind of weird to build a skyscraper right next to them.

I actually agree with the first part of this, at least—there’s a lot of new density going up around here. The idea that this area is somehow lagging in new density doesn’t quite hold up; it’s densifying at an extremely fast pace with all these midrises. The census tract added 1,000 people between 2016-21–about a 40 percent increase, the fastest on the peninsula besides downtown itself (at 87 percent growth.) It’s hard to imagine that it won’t handily beat that between ‘21 and ‘26.

I think the failure is more what Someone123 indicated, around overly prescriptive height limits in general. Having said that, I also think it would make a lot more sense to open established residential areas—including and maybe especially in inner suburban areas with the potential to develop into truly urban areas—to midrise buildings, than to turn every midrise into a highrise.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Good points, but I was merely saying that artificially limiting height to an arbitrary level has to have reduced potential residential units overall, regardless of where they are in the city. Sure, there has been an impressive amount of development, but we are still in the middle of a housing shortage, which means that if more units had been built, the situation would be better.

The thing about limiting height is that once the building is built, that's it for probably 50 years on that lot. You could target SFH neighbourhoods for more density moving forward, but I guess the point I was trying to make was that if we weren't limiting heights then maybe this wouldn't even be necessary. Or maybe as the population continues to grow, at least there would be a good supply of housing - at reasonable prices - for all of the newcomers. I guess the question I'm asking is at the current rate, are we actually gaining ground or just treading water?

Regardless, it is what it is. Just musing, that's all.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Good points, but I was merely saying that artificially limiting height to an arbitrary level has to have reduced potential residential units overall, regardless of where they are in the city. Sure, there has been an impressive amount of development, but we are still in the middle of a housing shortage, which means that if more units had been built, the situation would be better.

Absolutely, no argument. It's sort of amazing to observe just how much development is occurring, yet how far behind we still remain. Context: Nova Scotia and BC are the only provinces which have experienced growth in urban housing starts in 2023. Between January and October, HRM had 3,500 housing starts, more than the 2,950 through the same period last year. 3,000 were multi-units. I believe that's actually a record (the highest level of annual starts ever was 2021, at about 3,800, so we're definitely on track for a record-breaking year.)

Halifax is also experiencing more starts per-capita than most cities, i.e., faster growth relative to popualtion size. But it's still not even keeping pace with growth. If the average household is 2.3 people, we're still not building half of what we need, even at a record-breaking pace.

[JET]

I guess if skyscrapers are not being built, many people are unhappy?
Did the developers of the seven floor buildings indicate an interest in going beyond 7 floors?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

It could also bring down costs. When more units and height are allowed, the land cost per unit goes down.

That's only true when you buy a piece of property and then change the zoning to up-zone it. If you buy a property for $1,000,000 and get it rezoned to allow twice the number of units then you cut the per-unit land cost in half.

However, when the municipality "pre-zones" land (like with Centre Plan) it does nothing to cut the per-unit land costs; the sellers just end up pricing the land at the going per-unit rate. Lots of landowners will get a concept development done to figure out exactly how many units are possible and then sell the land to developers at the appropriate price for that highest-and-best-use development.

If Centre Plan had allowed for twice the units it wouldn't cut the per-unit land cost in half, it would just double the base price of a piece of land.

Last time I was pricing land the market rate was around $35k/door, though that was quite a while ago and I'm sure it's gone up since then.

There are of course other potential savings with higher densities in terms of construction efficiencies, etc., but land costs isn't really one of them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

However, when the municipality "pre-zones" land (like with Centre Plan) it does nothing to cut the per-unit land costs; the sellers just end up pricing the land at the going per-unit rate.

This does happen but I'd argue it's because of the restricted supply. For an example where this dynamic wouldn't play out, imagine if CBRM zoned all land to 50 storeys and then rezoned it to 100 storeys. The value of land in CBRM wouldn't go up by 2x. It only works this way in Halifax because of the tiny supply of zoned high density sites in desirable locations. You could even say if it works this way then it's a sign there should be zoning for more density.

BC is considering legislation to up-zone large areas around transit hubs to 20 storeys. I have a feeling it's still too conservative, but we may see what the market looks like when the supply of zoned 20-storey sites exceeds the immediate demand. There are capacity planning issues to consider but that's why there are development fees and property taxes, and if we had fewer restrictions on building it would be easier to distribute the load on infrastructure. Instead, HRM has some areas like the deep South End that barely see any population growth despite the good location because new construction is largely banned.

[fromhali]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

If Centre Plan had allowed for twice the units it wouldn't cut the per-unit land cost in half, it would just double the base price of a piece of land.

A real life infinite money glitch

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

I guess if skyscrapers are not being built, many people are unhappy?

I would guess the unhappy ones are those who can't find a place to live, or can't move to a general area that they'd like to be due to lack of availability, or price. Or people who want to upgrade to a larger unit, or people who are first time buyers who weren't able to build up equity before housing prices skyrocketed.

Originally Posted by JET

Did the developers of the seven floor buildings indicate an interest in going beyond 7 floors?

I don't know any way to know the answer to that, but if we are seeing a whole bunch of new developments in the 7-floor zones that are being built exactly to the limits, then you'd have to think that at least some of them would have built higher had they been allowed.

[someone123]

There's the SSP type discussion around architecturally interesting tall buildings that push the envelope but I think that's different from the "sweet spot" housing conversation. The ideal housing supply building types on the peninsula given land and construction costs might be something like a bunch of simple 10-30 storey residential buildings, which is not all that sexy from a skyscraper perspective. Back in the 2000's it was more like 12-15 floors on the peninsula or midrise including wood frame in areas like Clayton Park.

If the developers are building up to the limit it's very likely they'd go higher if allowed. If they're not building up to the limit then you see what the ideal height is for developers. There will always be some who push the envelope but in Halifax pretty much everything goes up to the density limit and the density is obviously constrained by planning rules.

Part of the criticism isn't the building heights per se, it's that the plans take so long to implement and change that they're far out of date by the time they are adjusted. HRM by Design was launched in 2006. The possibilities are (1) it's been adjusted, (2) developers predicted what would happen 17 years into the future, or (3) it's out of date. Another criticism is that it tends to be NIMBY-driven rather than just capacity-driven and the highest goal is preserving low density in certain wealthy areas at the behest of a tiny proportion of the city's population, while other aspects like character preservation in the most popular parts of town were basically ignored.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by JET

I guess if skyscrapers are not being built, many people are unhappy?
Did the developers of the seven floor buildings indicate an interest in going beyond 7 floors?

It's right there in the name of this forum!

[Dmajackson]

NRTH Condos has cleaned up this site and is no longer using it as a laydown yard.

The Grade-Alteration Permit was approved for this last week.