General Updates and News

[sdm]

Originally Posted by bluenoser

It could be the Gladstone Ridge developer? I remember talking to a manager there awhile ago and him mentioning that they would like to develop up to Almon.

On a side note, I used to really like that old Acadian Lines bus terminal on Almon but not so much these days.

Its Danny Chedware who developed Gladstone who bought the CNIB building and has since tore it down and is going before the planning advisory board soon with their plans.

I believe the design is commercial and residential.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by sdm

Its Danny Chedware who developed Gladstone who bought the CNIB building and has since tore it down and is going before the planning advisory board soon with their plans.

I believe the design is commercial and residential.

IT would certainly add to what he's already built.

[miesh111]

Originally Posted by gmanupnorth

Just wanted to chime in and see if anybody has any info on this development on Cedar Street

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/090428ca1113.pdf

Thanks in advance,


Gordon

This is a proposal for TH's by Galaxy Properties (the people that own the old Cafe Chianti building that burnt recently). They have been cooperating with the neighbours trying to get somthing going that pleases everyone. They had a meeting at council about three months ago and were on TV. I believe they are now proceeding with this project. This was discussed earlier in the thread, but perhaps it warrants its own page now that they are going ahead?

[gmanupnorth]

Thanks for the info Miesh111

[alps]

Uh oh -- I think one of my favourite buildings, the Life Sciences Centre at Dal, is on fire. Lots of fire engines going by tonight, I'm gonna go check it out.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by alps

Uh oh -- I think one of my favourite buildings, the Life Sciences Centre at Dal, is on fire. Lots of fire engines going by tonight, I'm gonna go check it out.

I certainly hope not. Isn't it mostly concrete? If there is a fire then hopefully there won't be much damage.

[alps]

I walked down to poke around and the fire seems to be out. Wasn't anything terribly damaging by the looks of it, although the sprinklers did go off. It may have had something to do with roofwork I heard, but it's an odd time for that. At this point they're wrangling with the building systems and clearing out the smoke.

[David1gray]

cbc's report on the fire

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/07/25/dalhousie-fire-damage.html

[beyeas]

Two interesting things in allnovascotia... and in a sense related.

Armco is putting a $18M development in BLIP, including 3 office towers.

And... downtown office vacancy is at a 5 year high, and rent prices for downtown space are down. /sigh/ Allnovascotia says that this is in part due to occupants moving to suburban buildings (e.g. the above in BLIP). No question in a sense as to why these downtown developments (like Waterside) aren't moving ahead. This will only be more true if Nova Centre goes ahead.

[beyeas]

Also just noticed a very good article that Fenwick will like, about why Halifax should have a stadium, given Moncton's.

Best statement was "Excessive caution has long been the common denominator between Halifax City Hall and Province House".

I did also get a chuckle at his calling it Halifax City Hall rather than HRM ;-)

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Also just noticed a very good article that Fenwick will like, about why Halifax should have a stadium, given Moncton's.

Best statement was "Excessive caution has long been the common denominator between Halifax City Hall and Province House".

I did also get a chuckle at his calling it Halifax City Hall rather than HRM ;-)

I actually read it and I thought that his comments were right on.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Two interesting things in allnovascotia... and in a sense related.

Armco is putting a $18M development in BLIP, including 3 office towers.

And... downtown office vacancy is at a 5 year high, and rent prices for downtown space are down. /sigh/ Allnovascotia says that this is in part due to occupants moving to suburban buildings (e.g. the above in BLIP). No question in a sense as to why these downtown developments (like Waterside) aren't moving ahead. This will only be more true if Nova Centre goes ahead.

I think at times that the Nova Centre might be overdoing it with the office component. They could consider converting the office tower to residential.

The suburban vacancy rate on the other hand is down to 8.5%. This shows the strategic mistake in the municipality making it so difficult to develop downtown. Businessmen will simply start developing in areas that have less red tape. I keep thinking about the old (28 storey?) Halkirk development that was stopped. Getting more people living downtown will also make it a more desirable office location. Developing the Queens's landing would also encourage more people to travel downtown.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I think at times that the Nova Centre might be overdoing it with the office component. They could consider converting the office tower to residential.

The suburban vacancy rate on the other hand is down to 8.5%. This shows the strategic mistake in the municipality making it so difficult to develop downtown. Businessmen will simply start developing in areas that have less red tape. I keep thinking about the old (28 storey?) Halkirk development that was stopped. Getting more people living downtown will also make it a more desirable office location. Developing the Queens's landing would also encourage more people to travel downtown.

It certainly makes one question how much too much?

We need new development downtown, but we can't upset the market like it was in the early 90's with Purdy’s' II came online. If something like this was to happen today, in this climate, it would take more then a decade to recover, and it could possibly cause the CBD to suffer worse then it already is.

That said, the CBRE market report is out today and unfortunately what I have been making comments on is happening.

Downtown vacancy in the "A" class sector is now at 10.1% and due to climb the remainder of this year. This amount of vacancy is climbing to levels seen in 2005. Absorption downtown is negative, meaning people are either moving or downsizing. In Q3 there will be a number of transactions that will increase this amount.

Converse, the suburb's posted a significant decrease in vacancy rate and will most likely spur new developments in that sector as it posted a year to date absorption of 260,000 sqft. However this number maybe misleading as its not true absorption as in new companies to the market, just people moving from one node to the other, and or growing.

Its certainly showing that companies are not looking to downtown, and that the downtown numbers, taking into account that emera is about to shed 130,000 square feet in March 2011, and is not included in these numbers, indicate that new construction will be a risky venture as existing product can undercut the price of new.

The main driver in companies looking to the burbs is parking and operational cost savings. Simply put, because the buildings that exist downtown are older they tend to be less efficient in operation. Therefore the newer product in the burbs can be as much as 50% cheaper in operational costs then downtown buildings. That’s a significant savings for a large user. For an example, say Emera moved to the burbs from the existing location. Take 130,000 sqft at 14.00 per square foot. That equals $1,820,000.00 in operating costs (not rent that’s on top of that). Now take the rate of a new development in the burbs (130,000 @ 9.00/sf) = $1,170,000. That’s a $650,000 per year savings. Over a 5 year lease term (typical industry standard) thats at total savings of $3.25 million. To me that is significant.

I certainly 100% agree with you, the market downtown needs more residential. Having people living in and around downtown is the only thing that will ever bring it back. I just wish they would allow greater height then what is within HRM by Design.

[halifaxboyns]

I've said it before and I agree with everyone who has said it - more residential leads to a better and more vibrant/active downtown.

I live in Calgary now and I pine to come home to Halifax and live downtown again because even with the population in downtown now - it's far more vibrant than Calgary's downtown after 6pm! This place dies and it gets so quiet; with the exception of the traffic going through downtown.

Empire has talked about having places like performing arts centres and fenwick has talked about football stadiums; these are great things to help make a downtown better. While I don't think the football stadium could fly; certainly as the years go by; the Metro Centre will need more upgrading and eventually replacement. If the goal for HRM is to get a CFL team - I don't see the goal of getting some sort of hockey team any less important as the population and market grows too - but that's down the road.

SDM mentioned taking some of the older office buildings and making them residential - that's an interesting way of retaining some of the older character buildings, without demolition. We've also talked about the new route 8 and how it will service the downtown, along with the new farmers markets - these are both good steps forward.

What needs to happen going forward is a concerted effort to push for more residential (higher density) in the downtown. Someone mentioned it before that the density maximum of the R-3 district on the peninsula is rather low. I forgot how low it really was; it's 250 pp/acre in the schedule A area and then drops to 150pp/acre elsewhere. That's really low. One thing we use here in Calgary is modifiers which are set at the time of land use; so in some of the zones which have no maximum - it's set at the time of Land use. So if you have an M-C1 zone; it might appear like this M-C1d750. So the density is 750pp/hectare. Definately if we want more people; we need the density changed.

But more people downtown will lead to it being a better place. More activity (supporting more festivals/parades); supporting more business and supporting transit (improving frequency on many routes and ferries). One thing I'm hoping for is that King's wharf will create such a demand on the ferry they will have to increase peak time freequency.

More people also support construction of other things like a performing arts centre and marine museum because they will be well used year round.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I've said it before and I agree with everyone who has said it - more residential leads to a better and more vibrant/active downtown.

I live in Calgary now and I pine to come home to Halifax and live downtown again because even with the population in downtown now - it's far more vibrant than Calgary's downtown after 6pm! This place dies and it gets so quiet; with the exception of the traffic going through downtown.

Empire has talked about having places like performing arts centres and fenwick has talked about football stadiums; these are great things to help make a downtown better. While I don't think the football stadium could fly; certainly as the years go by; the Metro Centre will need more upgrading and eventually replacement. If the goal for HRM is to get a CFL team - I don't see the goal of getting some sort of hockey team any less important as the population and market grows too - but that's down the road.

SDM mentioned taking some of the older office buildings and making them residential - that's an interesting way of retaining some of the older character buildings, without demolition. We've also talked about the new route 8 and how it will service the downtown, along with the new farmers markets - these are both good steps forward.

What needs to happen going forward is a concerted effort to push for more residential (higher density) in the downtown. Someone mentioned it before that the density maximum of the R-3 district on the peninsula is rather low. I forgot how low it really was; it's 250 pp/acre in the schedule A area and then drops to 150pp/acre elsewhere. That's really low. One thing we use here in Calgary is modifiers which are set at the time of land use; so in some of the zones which have no maximum - it's set at the time of Land use. So if you have an M-C1 zone; it might appear like this M-C1d750. So the density is 750pp/hectare. Definately if we want more people; we need the density changed.

But more people downtown will lead to it being a better place. More activity (supporting more festivals/parades); supporting more business and supporting transit (improving frequency on many routes and ferries). One thing I'm hoping for is that King's wharf will create such a demand on the ferry they will have to increase peak time freequency.

More people also support construction of other things like a performing arts centre and marine museum because they will be well used year round.

In all fairness to someone123, it is he that mention the fact of turning some of the old buildings into residentail. That said, i concur and agree with him.

In actual fact, in the late 80's and early 90's a number of the older and not so great buildings converted to residentail. That is how we got the Radison Downtown on Hollis street after all.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by sdm

In all fairness to someone123, it is he that mention the fact of turning some of the old buildings into residentail. That said, i concur and agree with him.

In actual fact, in the late 80's and early 90's a number of the older and not so great buildings converted to residentail. That is how we got the Radison Downtown on Hollis street after all.

OMG - did I get the poster reference wrong? Damn! Yes; you are absolutely right - it should be someone123 - whoops. My bad!

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

While I don't think the football stadium could fly; certainly as the years go by; the Metro Centre will need more upgrading and eventually replacement. If the goal for HRM is to get a CFL team - I don't see the goal of getting some sort of hockey team any less important as the population and market grows too - but that's down the road.

I feel like screaming when I read things like this. You have this reversed. Halifax doesn't need a new arena in the near future but it needs a stadium - the owner of the Halifax Mooseheads has even said as much regarding an arena. The Mooseheads are happy in the Metro Centre where 7,000 looks like a big crowd.

It is not just sports, Halifax doesn't have a suitable location for large concerts, unless people like using portable toilets on the Commons. Building a larger Metro Centre will only add about 4,500 seats, at most, over what Halifax already has.

No offense, but to be blunt, it is damaging to sports fans if non-sports fan have a say in such things. Unfortunately, I think there are too many non-sports fans on the HRM council.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Best statement was "Excessive caution has long been the common denominator between Halifax City Hall and Province House".

The big problem is not just caution, it's that there's caution about certain things like large projects and basically doing anything with the downtown core.

This is much worse than being cautious about all spending because it means that money is frittered away in other areas. When the HRM can't decide that it wants a stadium or if they should do streetscape improvements on Spring Garden Road because merchants complain, council just takes the money that would have been available and spends it on another interchange along the 102 or more suburban recreational buildings. Because taxation is almost totally separated from improvements and the cost of providing services, the competitiveness of some areas suffer - they continue to pay the highest taxes but do not see any investment.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Let's see Trinity built and tie the downtown into the north end. I think growth in the north end could improve downtown.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

The big problem is not just caution, it's that there's caution about certain things like large projects and basically doing anything with the downtown core.

This is much worse than being cautious about all spending because it means that money is frittered away in other areas. When the HRM can't decide that it wants a stadium or if they should do streetscape improvements on Spring Garden Road because merchants complain, council just takes the money that would have been available and spends it on another interchange along the 102 or more suburban recreational buildings. Because taxation is almost totally separated from improvements and the cost of providing services, the competitiveness of some areas suffer - they continue to pay the highest taxes but do not see any investment.

Well the arguement that they pay the highest taxes i.e. downtown is actually becoming factually wrong. Many of the suburban office buildings are paying higher per square foot taxes then similar sized downtown buildings.

Thats different however with retail. The rental rates on SGR are extremely high, therefore using the valuation process (which they do)they are going to get taxed more because they charge more.

Should they get more money for the area, sure, but what bothers me is that the statement is being spun out of wack in that its the entire downtown that is over taxed, which on the office side is not true.