[Halifax] The Sister Sites | 2X29 m | 2X9 floors | Completed

[goldeneye77]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Fair points. Vancouver, I think, is one of the markets that seriously needs to look at limiting offshore property investment/ownership.

I've heard that the foreign ownership thing in Vancouver is likely more myth than reality with realtors sometimes exaggerating the facts or downright misleading / lying to buyers in order to stoke interest.

I know Garth Turner has stated this many times over the years on his blog.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/05/12/the-frauds/

[someone123]

He has some good ideas, like how it's important not to get too carried away and overspend on housing, but I'd take that blog with a grain of salt. The fact that he talked about Vancouver but posted data for Victoria demonstrates that he was overreaching with his argument.

I'm in an average part of the city and my building has become about half Korean (born in Korea, limited English). The previous owner of my unit accidentally bought a unit for their daughter that was too far from university, never having actually visited the city.

Asian buyers are contributing a significant amount of money and inflating prices. Interest rates are low. Locals get carried away and overspend. NIMBYs are driving up housing prices. These are a few of the relevant factors.

One bit of overlap is that there's a lot of talk in Vancouver about what locals ought to feel they can afford. Halifax is going through a less advanced stage of this right now as many new residential buildings are conspicuously catering to the city's upper class rather than the middle class. Maybe the Mary Ann is one of these.

[worldlyhaligonian]

The typical roommate scenario is that one person holds the lease and pays slightly more (and usually takes the best of the bedrooms). So if one person paid $1400 a month and the other paid $1000 on a month-to-month, it makes sense... Plus, this is the total amount in most cases... no condo fees and usually no utilities/water except for cable/internet.

I mean, its a brand new Sodasopa building with a view of historic Kenny's house (Schmidville).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

The typical roommate scenario is that one person holds the lease and pays slightly more (and usually takes the best of the bedrooms). So if one person paid $1400 a month and the other paid $1000 on a month-to-month, it makes sense... Plus, this is the total amount in most cases... no condo fees and usually no utilities/water except for cable/internet.

I mean, its a brand new Sodasopa building with a view of historic Kenny's house (Schmidville).

Don't forget that the porthole windows let it command much higher rents too.

[curnhalio]

I can attest to the roommate situation. I'm coming off a failed arrangement that has left my wife and I sharing a house (albeit a modest one) that we banked on four incomes spearheading a renovation. All members of the arrangement would have to be really, really close friends with each other in order for it to work. To borrow a betting term, it's like trying to hit four parlays; A+B from one couple with both A+B from the other. If one doesn't hit, then the whole thing will slowly. painfully fall apart.

As for those rents, yikes! One months rent is like my entire take home in a month. But there is a premium for being so close to Spring Garden and the whole of downtown. Consider that a two-bedroom out Larry Uteck way will fetch about $1600-1700 for comparable amenities.

[Jonovision]

The large stone panels have started being installed at the base. The frame for the large entrance canopy is going up and one of the top corners appears to be completed facade wise.



https://41.media.tumblr.com/88675ce14dd86fda7fa630d728feac07/tumblr_o1zpnymdRv1sk8kjeo2_1280.jpg[/img]

[IanWatson]

The green... ugh.

[someone123]

The city's architectural styles are evolving. Seafoam green has been replaced with a bolder Kermit the Frog green.

[Keith P.]

I keep hoping this thing will start to look better. So far I'm still hoping.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The further this continues, the more I'm likin' the construction materials they're covering up...

[mr.wheels]

They have a very big problem on this project. The stone panels they have been trying to install for three months don't fit. my oh my oh my.

[Dmajackson]

The appeal of The Margaretta was voted down by Regional Council tonight. There shouldn't be any more hurdles for this one before construction begins (hopefully this year).

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The appeal of The Margaretta was voted down by Regional Council tonight. There shouldn't be any more hurdles for this one before construction begins (hopefully this year).

Who was appealing The Margaretta?? And why?

[ Edit....]

Nevermind, I found out why. Just look at the ludicrous reasons that "four property owners" opposed this development:

But later, four property owners filed an appeal, citing: the area being unsuitable for increased pedestrian traffic; the building design clashing with existing infrastructure; the impact on wind; the potential for fewer outdoor parking spots for homeowners; the quality of life for area residents during construction, and concerns that putting permanent benches in the area might be a security concern.

Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...by-hrm-council

Of course, there's the usual throw-away NIMBY arguments in there, like the complaints about wind (yawn) or that it's inconsistent with the "character" of existing structures (double yawn).

But get a load of the other complaints: This area is "unsuitable" for more pedestrians? That the development leads to fewer parking spots and (temporary) annoyances during construction? And that "putting in permanent benches" would be a security concern?

Are you kidding me? You either must have a distinct sense of entitlement to make such selfish and silly complaints.

If this area is not a place for more pedestrians, then seriously *where* in the entire Province is more appropriate? It's a walkable neighborhood. It's what we're aiming for.

You can also see their prejudices shining through -- permanent benches being a security concern. Whatever could they mean? Do they mean people might be tripping over the benches? Of course not. This is code for concerns about either more young people hanging around or homeless folks taking advantage of benches in spring/summer. And homeless people and young people are a threat!

Shameful.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You can also see their prejudices shining through -- permanent benches being a security concern. Whatever could they mean? Do they mean people might be tripping over the benches? Of course not. This is code for concerns about either more young people hanging around or homeless folks taking advantage of benches in spring/summer. And homeless people and young people are a threat!

Shameful.

It's annoying that four bozos and their bozo complaints suck up valuable time and resources this way, but that's democracy, after all.

At least council basically told them to take a hike.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It's annoying that four bozos and their bozo complaints suck up valuable time and resources this way, but that's democracy, after all.

At least council basically told them to take a hike.

Yep. But you would think that social convention and norms like... shame... would prevent these bozos from wasting everyone's time, money, and resources.

In the meantime, Council could have been addressing REAL problems. You know, like debating Matt Whitman's tweets or something.

(couldn't help it. Too easy)

[ILoveHalifax]

Off topic but I did not start it.
Appalling that some body in government should criticize the police who operate like a gang protecting each other even killing innocent people (mainly black) without any scrutiny.
The whole council should resign for question the situation.
Brave Matt

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Who was appealing The Margaretta?? And why?

[ Edit....]

Nevermind, I found out why. Just look at the ludicrous reasons that "four property owners" opposed this development:



Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...by-hrm-council

Of course, there's the usual throw-away NIMBY arguments in there, like the complaints about wind (yawn) or that it's inconsistent with the "character" of existing structures (double yawn).

But get a load of the other complaints: This area is "unsuitable" for more pedestrians? That the development leads to fewer parking spots and (temporary) annoyances during construction? And that "putting in permanent benches" would be a security concern?

Are you kidding me? You either must have a distinct sense of entitlement to make such selfish and silly complaints.

If this area is not a place for more pedestrians, then seriously *where* in the entire Province is more appropriate? It's a walkable neighborhood. It's what we're aiming for.

You can also see their prejudices shining through -- permanent benches being a security concern. Whatever could they mean? Do they mean people might be tripping over the benches? Of course not. This is code for concerns about either more young people hanging around or homeless folks taking advantage of benches in spring/summer. And homeless people and young people are a threat!

Shameful.

I deal with appeals a lot in my work and I've heard lots of things - you would be surprised.

Thankfully my appeal record (compared to the person I replaced) is pretty much spotless. Granted; if I see our appeal board moving to make some changes to conditions or a development that would 'appease' the folks who appeal (and in my opinion aren't significant) then I help them go that route and I score that a success. I really enjoy when I get a 'unanimous decision' of the board - when that happens I know I did well.

[someone123]

It seems to me like the appeal worked pretty well in that, because the concerns weren't valid, they were rejected quickly. As others have alluded in a democratic society there needs to be an outlet for appeals like this to be made, even if they are silly. You can't tell if they're silly until you hear the appeal. The important thing is that they are handled efficiently and fairly.

In any case it's good to see that the Margaretta is moving forward. I think it will be a big improvement for the area.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

It seems to me like the appeal worked pretty well in that, because the concerns weren't valid, they were rejected quickly. As others have alluded in a democratic society there needs to be an outlet for appeals like this to be made, even if they are silly. You can't tell if they're silly until you hear the appeal. The important thing is that they are handled efficiently and fairly.

In any case it's good to see that the Margaretta is moving forward. I think it will be a big improvement for the area.

I agree on all points.

The only thing I would add is that sometimes, it seems, there are too many points where appeals can be made. In some ways, this is undemocratic because it undermines previous decisions... usually at the cost of the project as opposed to those initiating said appeals.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I agree on all points.

The only thing I would add is that sometimes, it seems, there are too many points where appeals can be made. In some ways, this is undemocratic because it undermines previous decisions... usually at the cost of the project as opposed to those initiating said appeals.

It sometimes has to do with established case law. That is one of the issues we have out here in Alberta - the two big cities deal with appeals of developments completely different and have two vastly different planning systems. Edmonton doesn't send anyone for the appeals (and if they do it is very rarely).

Calgary doesn't send anyone for certain appeals and then myself and a couple others handle the big stuff. In the case of Edmonton, a staff report is sent. The issue with that is there is no way to ask questions or seek clarification - so if the appeal body were to be able to do that, the decision might go differently. So what ends up happening is that some wacky decisions come out of Edmonton, they get appealed into the courts and then case law gets established that doesn't make a lot of sense, but the board here in YYC uses.

I suspect the same might happen in HRM - where some weird decisions from say Truro occur and establish case law and then HRM is bound to consider that decision moving forward. That could be coming from HRM's law department being cautious in order to insulate the city from any actions by the courts (in case someone took their decision to court of appeal).