General Updates and News

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by someone123

Halifax has been pretty progressive with development, at least for a Canadian city, for a number of years now. It's true that in the media there was a lot of focus on a small number of NIMBY voices, but in practice lots of development did happen and the latest changes are interesting. Halifax had the fastest growing downtown population in Canada from 2016-2021, and that would not have happened the NIMBYs were effective.

I think Halifax is disappointing when it comes to heritage preservation. This is sometimes presented as being at odds with new development but it isn't, and density makes heritage preservation easier.

The big logjam I see how is that the province isn't doing much about transit and there doesn't seem to be a lot of effort going into planning how to overhaul the city's infrastructure to support the current population. This requires improvements in every area, whether it's transit, active transportation, or roads and highways. If Halifax's infrastructure were keeping up with population growth it would have major new features like new bridges, highways, and rail lines. The Burnside connector is the only example like that, and maybe the ferry eventually. I wonder if NS could somehow partner with another province like ON to take advantage in expertise in transit projects there.

Your post prompted me to check out the JRTA site for a progress update. The most recent update/news item is dated January 30, 2023. More than a year ago. Very discouraging. Oh, and they're looking to hire a summer student to assist in writing polices. There's obviously no urgency in dealing with our transportation issues. A complaint to the current govt. will result in a response such as 'we were elected to fix healthcare and that's our priority'. However, they do seem to be working hard on trying to eliminate my quarterly carbon rebate.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Your post prompted me to check out the JRTA site for a progress update. The most recent update/news item is dated January 30, 2023. More than a year ago. Very discouraging. Oh, and they're looking to hire a summer student to assist in writing polices. There's obviously no urgency in dealing with our transportation issues. A complaint to the current govt. will result in a response such as 'we were elected to fix healthcare and that's our priority'. However, they do seem to be working hard on trying to eliminate my quarterly carbon rebate.

It’s been more active than that; there was public engagement late last year, and an information session in February, and there’s more outreach/community events being held across the province this spring. The final plan is supposed to be announced in fall. Definitely agree though that they could be stepping on the gas more.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It’s been more active than that; there was public engagement late last year, and an information session in February, and there’s more outreach/community events being held across the province this spring. The final plan is supposed to be announced in fall. Definitely agree though that they could be stepping on the gas more.

It would be good if they released some very preliminary visions of the kind of improvements they are contemplating. Hopefully this includes higher-order transit beyond ferries.

I find the materials and some descriptions a bit "triggering". They talk a lot about how central NS is full of far-flung communities with special needs. But a huge amount of the congestion and in particular latent transit demand is concentrated in the inner city, while it will be impossible to achieve much cost recovery in villages in Hants County. It reminds me of 2000's era HRM materials about how the municipality is essentially an arbitrary collection of small communities when it's a metropolitan area with the usual challenges of a medium-sized city. And sure, it has some villages and rural areas around it where 5% of the people live; probably less of this than most metros surrounded by farmland.

[Jstaleness]

I had been browsing the Ottawa forums as well, and that city is still very much dealing with their height restrictions. Seems they are struggling to go above their averages as well.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

It would be good if they released some very preliminary visions of the kind of improvements they are contemplating. Hopefully this includes higher-order transit beyond ferries.

I find the materials and some descriptions a bit "triggering". They talk a lot about how central NS is full of far-flung communities with special needs. But a huge amount of the congestion and in particular latent transit demand is concentrated in the inner city, while it will be impossible to achieve much cost recovery in villages in Hants County. It reminds me of 2000's era HRM materials about how the municipality is essentially an arbitrary collection of small communities when it's a metropolitan area with the usual challenges of a medium-sized city. And sure, it has some villages and rural areas around it where 5% of the people live; probably less of this than most metros surrounded by farmland.

I’ve interacted online with some people who are involved with the planning on the city side who are optimistic about what’s coming out of it, but I really don’t know how much stock to put in that. It’s all very floaty right now.

[Colin May]

Danny Chedrawe offering 105 units at $1,722 a month ( circa $1,000 a month below normal cost) with federal government paying the subsidy.
CTV Halifax April 4 at 16:05 https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video/c2...inId=1.1145507

Location of units not disclosed, announcement made at Richmond Yards.

[Dmajackson]

^It's Building 'F' (Robie Street) at Richmond Yards. They submitted a building permit a few months back that said they would be finalizing the unit count after the number of affordable units was determined.

[kijoma]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Danny Chedrawe offering 105 units at $1,722 a month ( circa $1,000 a month below normal cost) with federal government paying the subsidy.
CTV Halifax April 4 at 16:05 https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video/c2...inId=1.1145507

Location of units not disclosed, announcement made at Richmond Yards.

Affordable based on median household income, but how big are these units going to be I wonder. Renters are more likely to be lower income as it is, because they tend to be people that can't afford to buy a home. If these are studio and one-bedroom apartments that only house 1 or 2 people those rents are still pretty horrendous.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by someone123

It would be good if they released some very preliminary visions of the kind of improvements they are contemplating. Hopefully this includes higher-order transit beyond ferries.

There's this video from February showing where they're at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjWd0o2DfaE&t=14s.

If you're hoping for rail, prepare to be disappointed.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by kijoma

Affordable based on median household income, but how big are these units going to be I wonder. Renters are more likely to be lower income as it is, because they tend to be people that can't afford to buy a home. If these are studio and one-bedroom apartments that only house 1 or 2 people those rents are still pretty horrendous.

"Affordable housing" projects like these tend not to be aimed at families on welfare but rather the "working poor". As an example you can look back to the subsidized home-buying program that led a pre-HRM Council Dawn Marie Sloane to purchase a newly-built house for herself on Creighton St because at the time she was working for a non-profit group of activists and making peanuts. Shortly thereafter she hit the jackpot when she got elected to HRM Council but was not disqualified from the subsidy program despite her income taking a huge jump. I remember her getting up on her hind legs at a Council meeting and telling everyone how she was entitled to that subsidy despite now living high on the hog courtesy of HRM taxpayers.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

There's this video from February showing where they're at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjWd0o2DfaE&t=14s.

If you're hoping for rail, prepare to be disappointed.

Thank you for posting this link. I wasn't aware of this. It's a bit of a painful watch. The thematic bundles and scoring system is interesting but I really don't see how a single score can be realistic to a region that hosts Halifax and Hantsport and all the area in between. There's a spot in the presentation where the presenter says that a score can't take the place of good judgement. I think this comment sums up the exercise.

[Dmajackson]

The Housing Accelerator Fund changes are on Heritage Advisory Committee's agenda for next week. It'll hit Regional Council on the 23rd.

April 17, 2024 Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

5 Floors | 50 Units | Mixed-Use | $9.5 M | 25 Crystal Drive, Dartmouth | Unknown


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

25 Crystal Drive had it's building permit issued last week.

[RoshanMcG]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

Don't think there is a thread for this but it appears to be called The Delmore

[terrynorthend]

Man that Suburban Site Specific request document is depressing. Staff has gutted most of the requests in the name of HA dogma. Eg. A request for multiple 12-18 story developments within 800 metres of the Bedford have been cut to maximum of 5 storys.

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The Housing Accelerator Fund changes are on Heritage Advisory Committee's agenda for next week. It'll hit Regional Council on the 23rd.

April 17, 2024 Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Man that Suburban Site Specific request document is depressing. Staff has gutted most of the requests in the name of HA dogma. Eg. A request for multiple 12-18 story developments within 800 metres of the Bedford have been cut to maximum of 5 storys.

The Boomer NIMBY groups are all over Facebook celebrating their victories and "progress" in the crusade against solving the housing crisis.

It's incredibly infuriating. These people are lobbying to create generations of pain and financial suffering for everyone who didn't ride the housing rocket to wealth and a comfortable retirement like they did.

They fight development at every opportunity even though, ironically, most of them will never even live long enough to see the developments they so vehemently oppose... The rest of us will certainly have to live with the fallout for decades/generations though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Ah yes... another installment of "us vs them" rhetoric on SSP. I was missing that as it seemed to have fallen off recently. All is right again.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Ah yes... another installment of "us vs them" rhetoric on SSP. I was missing that as it seemed to have fallen off recently. All is right again.

I agree that negativity is no fun but in this poster's defense the document is a discouraging read. This is especially true given that there is no rationale provided for denying what seems to be reasonable. My immediate take away after a first read through is that the top two reasons for denying requests for additional height are: 1, ensure there is not enough density along major routes to support mass transit and 2, cluster same-height buildings together to ensure the most boring and unattractive built-form possible.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I agree that negativity is no fun but in this poster's defense the document is a discouraging read. This is especially true given that there is no rationale provided for denying what seems to be reasonable. My immediate take away after a first read through is that the top two reasons for denying requests for additional height are: 1, ensure there is not enough density along major routes to support mass transit and 2, cluster same-height buildings together to ensure the most boring and unattractive built-form possible.

Absolutely. Then slam the document and leave out the ageism/culture war crap. It's not my place to tell people what to post, but crap like "most of them will never even live long enough to see the developments they so vehemently oppose" doesn't do anything to advance the discussion.

Just my opinion. I like to keep things more about the development and less about personal feelings towards particular groups of people.

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Absolutely. Then slam the document and leave out the ageism/culture war crap. It's not my place to tell people what to post, but crap like "most of them will never even live long enough to see the developments they so vehemently oppose" doesn't do anything to advance the discussion.

Just my opinion. I like to keep things more about the development and less about personal feelings towards particular groups of people.

I understand that the optics of my post are "controversial". But I consider my frustration to be completely warranted.

Given that your name is "OldDartmouthMark" I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you own a home, have a decently rent-capped apartment, or otherwise we're able to benefit from the previous decades of affordable housing and rental options to secure financial stability.

I appreciate that you're here supporting development, and enjoy uncontroversial discussion of the aesthetics and shape of housing development in our city. It is a privilege and a luxury to view housing development through that lens. I do not have that luxury.

Every canceled or dramatically limited developed further erodes my chances (and the chances of everyone who didn't get into the housing market pre-pandemic because they were too young or for any other reason) of ever owning a home or even simply surviving comfortably without the constant threat of renoviction.

I have an engineering degree. I make $70,000/yr. Yet between paying off my student loans, and paying for the car (that I need to reliably commute to my job) I cannot afford to live in this city. Hell I can barely afford to split a 2-bedroom apartment in this city if I want to contribute to my savings.

The situation is dire and getting worse by the day, so forgive me for being frustrated with people who (in their ignorance) are dead set on either making me (and people worse off than me) homeless or financially crippled for the rest of our lives by these absurd rental/housing prices.

Also, it is not ageism; it is simply a fact. I can start providing links to the Facebook community groups behind this anti-development lobbying if youd really like... The demographics are quite consistent, and unsurprising.

Most people my age can barely afford to survive. They certainly do not have the time to lobby the government to prevent new housing developments. These anti-developmemt groups are overwhelming comprised of Boomer and older Gen-X homeowners. It's a simple fact whether you like it or not.