[Halifax] Moxy Hotel & The Trinity (5415 Cogswell) | 64 m | 21 fl | U/C

[someone123]

Yes, it's the tax structure that's the problem. It was created as if land and property were some abstract investment when it isn't.

At this point, who knows what will happen with this proposal? There is a lot of uncertainty but I still don't think the situation is like it was around 1990, for example, when the local market was much worse and much more overbuilt (for office).

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, it's the tax structure that's the problem. It was created as if land and property were some abstract investment when it isn't.

At this point, who knows what will happen with this proposal? There is a lot of uncertainty but I still don't think the situation is like it was around 1990, for example, when the local market was much worse and much more overbuilt (for office).

True, the situation is different in the sense we are not overbuilt in the office market (less then 4% vacancy). The problem this time is the much needed money to fund these projects don't exist, therefore could create a totally different effect.

Hopefully Joe can find a way through.

[Jonovision]

I was on the bus the other day driving by the site and it has now been opened as a parking lot. I just hope it's not there for long.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I was on the bus the other day driving by the site and it has now been opened as a parking lot. I just hope it's not there for long.

Yep. It's that kind of thing that needs to end. The City should really adjust the tax structure to end at least some of the incentive to demolish before a project proceeds. If the Trinity ends up going ahead, it won't be a big deal in the end, but, if it doesn't, we've got a dead lot and we've lost a neat piece of architecture that might have found another use under a different owner. Some of the lots in this city that have been vacant for decades and we all wish had something on them started with a script exactly like this.

[someone123]

Too bad. I was hoping this one would get off the ground sooner since it's in a pretty key location. Would still be nice to see some renderings.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

Too bad. I was hoping this one would get off the ground sooner since it's in a pretty key location. Would still be nice to see some renderings.

Certainly a nice site, however the lending markets are extremely tight for money, unless the developer/owner is willing to pay the higher spreads that banks are commanding and therefore making the project questionable to proceed on.

Eventually this will correct and i am sure we will see a development.

[Dmajackson]

Well this doesn't surprise me really. Most major developments in Halifax have "parking lot" status somewheres in their lifespan. Just look at some others;

Salter St - a parking lot right now
Texpark (UG) - currently a parking lot
Alexander - a parking lot
IP - a parking lot
LSRC/Bio - was a parking lot

As sdm said it will most likely get off the ground when the banks correct themselves back to the way they used to be. In the meantime a parking lot does look better than a hole in the ground and it is profitable.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

Certainly a nice site, however the lending markets are extremely tight for money, unless the developer/owner is willing to pay the higher spreads that banks are commanding and therefore making the project questionable to proceed on.

Eventually this will correct and i am sure we will see a development.

Long term it may not even hurt the city since there are older developments still being absorbed. Eventually that has to happen or the new ones stall anyway regardless of the lending environment.

I'd like to see the Alexander happen also.. I've always hated that parking lot.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

In the meantime a parking lot does look better than a hole in the ground and it is profitable.

I believe under the MPS that it can be a parking lot, however no revenue can be produced from it without HRM granting a variance.

Might be wrong, but that has happened to a number of the Parking lots around the core.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by sdm

I believe under the MPS that it can be a parking lot, however no revenue can be produced from it without HRM granting a variance.

Might be wrong, but that has happened to a number of the Parking lots around the core.

The choice wasn't a hole in the ground or a parking lot it was an old church building or a parking lot. The demolition process in this city really needs to be rethought.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by spaustin

The choice wasn't a hole in the ground or a parking lot it was an old church building or a parking lot. The demolition process in this city really needs to be rethought.

Well, the choice was an EMPTY church building or a parking lot. The congregation has moved on to their new digs in Fairview.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by spaustin

The choice wasn't a hole in the ground or a parking lot it was an old church building or a parking lot. The demolition process in this city really needs to be rethought.

Maybe... but not in this situation. The church moved out to Clayton park and the developer was suppose to start construction soon after demolishion, but the then the financial crise hit. Nobody could predict that.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Maybe... but not in this situation. The church moved out to Clayton park and the developer was suppose to start construction soon after demolishion, but the then the financial crise hit. Nobody could predict that.

Exactly! "Soon" after demolition just isn't good enough. Over at the Trillium, they knocked down the old houses and were in the ground almost immediately. That's how it should be done. I concede that it would have been tough for the developer to have put the empty church building to use, but not impossible. Maybe they could have rented the space to someone. Held performances there perhaps. Who knows. Parking, unfortuantely, is just too lucrative and with an added tax reduction.

If this one goes ahead, it's no big deal. But if the developer ends up not going through with this project for a number of years or if they end up selling to another owner, we'll have lost the church building for no good reason. There has to be a better way of doing things. I don't fault the developer, they're just making a business decision within the existing regulations and in the current economic climate. It's up to the city to change the calculation by adjusting the tax structure or the available options by demanding more in development agreements or being more restrictive in demolition permits.

[someone123]

Allnovascotia is reporting that Canpark now has a five-year contract to operate a parking lot on this site, so it's unlikely that we'll see anything there for a while.

The idea is to focus on Fenwick, which is a good development (though will probably take years to be rezoned and approved...), but this is still a bad situation that should have been avoided. The problem is that there is little or no private cost for developers or the government to hold on to land, even though there is a public cost to having unsightly and underused empty lots. The tax structure should change to reflect the externalities and to give developers more of an incentive to develop sites in a timely manner.

[Dmajackson]

^Too bad to hear. This development would of been a great way to extend Downtown further north.

[sdm]

I am not sure i agree with this move as we don't need more parking lots downtown.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

Allnovascotia is reporting that Canpark now has a five-year contract to operate a parking lot on this site, so it's unlikely that we'll see anything there for a while.

The idea is to focus on Fenwick, which is a good development (though will probably take years to be rezoned and approved...), but this is still a bad situation that should have been avoided. The problem is that there is little or no private cost for developers or the government to hold on to land, even though there is a public cost to having unsightly and underused empty lots. The tax structure should change to reflect the externalities and to give developers more of an incentive to develop sites in a timely manner.

I concur, and very well said (as usual someone123)

[worldlyhaligonian]

Sad development day, unless whatever went to council was passed.

[Jonovision]

That is sad to hear. But I do think Fenwick will go at a good pace. I don't believe it will have a very large fight at council.

[worldlyhaligonian]

The church is still there in this imagery. It also shows how massive 3 buildings as a part of the Citadel will be for the streetscape.

http://binged.it/XRW32f