Halifax Housing Market

[q12]

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/...paign=trending

[q12]

Booming Halifax housing market shows no signs of slowing down


Emma Davie · CBC News · Posted: Oct 17, 2020 6:00 AM AT



This house on Connolly Street in Halifax was listed for four days at $649,000. After 12 offers, it sold for $128,000 more than the listed price ($777,000) . (Robert Guertin/CBC)

Read full story here:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...nues-1.5764853

[alps]

Depressing news for young people. I would perhaps like to move back someday and buy a place, but the goalposts keep moving farther away.

To the new council: MORE HOUSING PLEASE

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by alps

Depressing news for young people. I would perhaps like to move back someday and buy a place, but the goalposts keep moving farther away.

To the new council: MORE HOUSING PLEASE

This appears to be something happening in many cities worldwide, and in Halifax to a lesser extent. For example, I don't know how young people get a start in cities like Toronto, where you're usually talking about $1 million for a moderate buy-in. I'm not up on the market entirely, but I do know the daughter of a friend in Toronto recently purchased a small condo for half a million - a really small condo. I honestly don't know how they do it, other than accepting that they will be in debt their entire lives just to purchase a place to live in.

What is happening in Halifax appears to be more a temporary symptom of sudden growth, as our population is increasing at a much higher rate than I've ever witnessed (perhaps people who can't afford to live in Toronto?...).

I am encouraged, however, by the number of construction projects that I continue to see happening within the city. In fact just yesterday, while going to an appointment in an area of the city that I hadn't gone to in awhile, I noticed no less than 5 or 6 holes in the ground, where apartment/condo buildings are being constructed, that did not exist or were dormant the last time I drove through there just a few months ago. I think that more housing is on its way, it will just take some time to catch up with demand.

Single family homes, however, don't appear to be increasing at such a rate, as it appears that the city is now focused on building density as opposed to houses. There are subdivisions still being built a little further out, but you have to live in places like Lantz, where you will have to commute by car if you work in the city.

[OliverD]

I think the issue with single family housing is that any land that's available for development near the core is too expensive for low density.

As for places like Toronto, a lot of people start by living on the outskirts and commuting, or like your friend's daughter start with a tiny condo. Then they can at least build equity and perhaps upgrade a few years down the line as their career progresses.

I feel bad enough for my friends in Guelph who are spending $600k+ on tiny bungalows. Can't imagine trying to buy an actual house as a middle class thirty something in Toronto proper.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

What is happening in Halifax appears to be more a temporary symptom of sudden growth, as our population is increasing at a much higher rate than I've ever witnessed (perhaps people who can't afford to live in Toronto?...).

I don't know what will happen but we have a very "shallow" housing market in Canada with few alternatives for people (compared to say the US which has a mix of very expensive metros, cheap older metros, cheap Sunbelt metros, etc.). I think this is part of why housing is so expensive.

BC and the GTA are both very expensive and Ontario in general is getting expensive. Aside from those places we have the Prairies, which are mostly very cold, and Quebec, where it's hard to get a job if you don't speak French. This leaves Atlantic Canada and Halifax in particular as an attractive alternative. But it is tiny compared to those other markets so it's very easy for even a small shift in demand toward Halifax to cause prices to shoot up in a way that's hard to deal with by adjusting local supply. Halifax was oddly underdeveloped for a while in the 2010's but now it seems to have been discovered more.

I think it's good that HRM has moved to densify new development and allow infill but when the city's growing by 2% a year they should be approving suburban subdivisions too. I suspect Lantz is happening because it's not in HRM, and Hants will pick up a bit of the slack. But it would make more sense to put the suburbs closer to the city.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it's good that HRM has moved to densify new development and allow infill but when the city's growing by 2% a year they should be approving suburban subdivisions too. I suspect Lantz is happening because it's not in HRM, and Hants will pick up a bit of the slack. But it would make more sense to put the suburbs closer to the city.

I guess my question would be: where? South of the 103 in Goodwood and Otter Lake? Spryfield? Cow Bay?

Wherever you build suburbs you'll be adding stress onto the local road networks to and from the city. There's still a lot of potential on the peninsula for heavy densification and intensification.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Wherever you build suburbs you'll be adding stress onto the local road networks to and from the city. There's still a lot of potential on the peninsula for heavy densification and intensification.

Not everyone works downtown or on the peninsula. Many people work in areas like Burnside or Bayers Lake or at the airport. And not everybody prefers an urban environment to live in. It is impractical to try to force all new development onto the peninsula which currently only has around 1/5 of the population of the metro area. HRM does not build the housing directly and development depends on developers lining up the building sites, getting approval in place, etc. So the overall capacity to build on the peninsula is much lower than the current annual metropolitan population growth and it's probably pretty close to saturated right now, while tons of character buildings are getting demolished and housing prices are shooting up.

There have been lots of suburban development proposals that have gotten slowed down by NIMBYs just as with urban infill projects (e.g. Williams-Colpitt Lake; it's remarkable that there's a big empty area only about 3 km from downtown while similar lake areas get developed 30 km from downtown!).

Just as with transportation I think it is better to think of shares of development. 100% urban infill and maintaining the footprint of Halifax circa 2010 is an extreme approach and won't be successful. 30% urban infill puts Halifax in the upper end of North American metros and I think it might already be above that. There's also a certain proportion of "suburban infill" projects like Rockingham South. So a reasonable urban fringe proportion might be something like 30-40%. I am arguing that stuff should generally be closer to the city than Lantz, and that the Lantz development may be happening primarily because of a kind of regulatory arbitrage rather than because that's where people most want to live.

[Querce]

Originally Posted by someone123

And not everybody prefers an urban environment to live in. It is impractical to try to force all new development onto the peninsula which currently only has around 1/5 of the population of the metro area. HRM does not build the housing directly and development depends on developers lining up the building sites, getting approval in place, etc.

A lot more people want to live in an urban environment than are able to (see housing prices in urban environments). And even under the "new and improved" residential zones in the Centre Plan, in the majority of lots it's still illegal to have anything more than a single family home and a small secondary suite.

We shouldn't expect all the new housing in HRM to be urban infill, but we certainly should be allowing 4 and 6 unit buildings in what are by definition the most urban, walkable, lots in the city, with the most access to services and transit services, especially when they can fit in with the existing built form in those neighbourhoods.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Querce

A lot more people want to live in an urban environment than are able to (see housing prices in urban environments). And even under the "new and improved" residential zones in the Centre Plan, in the majority of lots it's still illegal to have anything more than a single family home and a small secondary suite.

We shouldn't expect all the new housing in HRM to be urban infill, but we certainly should be allowing 4 and 6 unit buildings in what are by definition the most urban, walkable, lots in the city, with the most access to services and transit services, especially when they can fit in with the existing built form in those neighbourhoods.

I agree with you about there being some changes like this that would be good. But in practice this concern is at odds with NIMBYs and heritage preservation, so making changes to planning rules can take many years and the eventual outcomes can be modest. Housing affordability is an immediate pressing issue.

In Vancouver there's been a piecemeal vision oriented around disparate different goals. Preserve residential neighbourhoods. Allow and support high immigration. Protect agricultural areas. Encourage transit over cars. There's nothing wrong with any of these goals per se and yet the equilibrium is $2M houses; the one thing that seems to always "give" here is housing affordability, because there is no simple lever or policy that can maintain it.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

There have been lots of suburban development proposals that have gotten slowed down by NIMBYs just as with urban infill projects (e.g. Williams-Colpitt Lake; it's remarkable that there's a big empty area only about 3 km from downtown while similar lake areas get developed 30 km from downtown!).

Just as with transportation I think it is better to think of shares of development. 100% urban infill and maintaining the footprint of Halifax circa 2010 is an extreme approach and won't be successful. 30% urban infill puts Halifax in the upper end of North American metros and I think it might already be above that. There's also a certain proportion of "suburban infill" projects like Rockingham South. So a reasonable urban fringe proportion might be something like 30-40%. I am arguing that stuff should generally be closer to the city than Lantz, and that the Lantz development may be happening primarily because of a kind of regulatory arbitrage rather than because that's where people most want to live.

I don't know many who would advocate for 100% urban infill development, but I know Williams Lake is a touchy subject because of the receeding water levels caused by upstream development. Lantz is definitely an extreme example, but other places farther "as the crow flies" may have similar travel times due to the presence of better transportation infrastructure or geography.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Querce

A lot more people want to live in an urban environment than are able to (see housing prices in urban environments). And even under the "new and improved" residential zones in the Centre Plan, in the majority of lots it's still illegal to have anything more than a single family home and a small secondary suite.

We shouldn't expect all the new housing in HRM to be urban infill, but we certainly should be allowing 4 and 6 unit buildings in what are by definition the most urban, walkable, lots in the city, with the most access to services and transit services, especially when they can fit in with the existing built form in those neighbourhoods.

I definitely agree.

Another potential issue is the lack of diversity in the forms of urban infill we see. Many seemed geared towards urban professionals or retirees, but you seldom see anything family oriented which isn't a single detached home.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree with you about there being some changes like this that would be good. But in practice this concern is at odds with NIMBYs and heritage preservation, so making changes to planning rules can take many years and the eventual outcomes can be modest. Housing affordability is an immediate pressing issue.

I think many confuse heritage preservation and conservation. Very few structures are worthy of "preservation", meaning perserving the structure as originally built. Any knowledgeable heritage professional knows it is bad practice to use the heritage process to interfere with another process, whether it be development, planning, or environmental assessment processes. Managing change through conservation, meaning building onto or converting the existing structure or district, is encouraged among professionals.

I am not speaking for community activists, but their results would be restricted by the current heritage trends mentioned above. Heritage is less and less of a volunteer-lead movement as it becomes more professionalized.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I think many confuse heritage preservation and conservation. Very few structures are worthy of "preservation", meaning perserving the structure as originally built. Any knowledgeable heritage professional knows it is bad practice to use the heritage process to interfere with another process, whether it be development, planning, or environmental assessment processes. Managing change through conservation, meaning building onto or converting the existing structure or district, is encouraged among professionals.

This is awfully vague. There is adaptive reuse, sure, and in particular in Halifax you see large lots with small footprint historic buildings that get new additions. But there are a lot of residential blocks on the peninsula that could not change much without seriously altering their character. Consider for example the Hydrostone or Jubilee area.

There are other neighbourhoods that might be less historic in the West End but I think there would still be opposition to widespread construction in them (covering a large area, not just some lots along main corridors). This is why people pushed for stable residential neighbourhood type zoning in these places. Not saying it's the ideal setup but that's how it is politically.

I am sure there's space for 10,000 or 30,000 or maybe even 50,000 new residents on the peninsula without changing the current makeup of the neighbourhoods too much. But 50,000 is about 5 or 6 years of current growth levels for metro Halifax. I don't think you will see much support, in practice, for Paris or Tokyo densities of redevelopment of the entire peninsula. Such construction might be possible but would make Halifax an extreme outlier, plus it would require lots of new infrastructure.

Note that there are also height limits to content with, which means spreading new construction out more. If the city allowed more 30 storey towers around the peninsula that would be less true but that's another planning change that would require time and political capital. I think raising densities in brownfield construction sites would be more palatable than opening up residential areas to larger scale development.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is awfully vague. There is adaptive reuse, sure, and in particular in Halifax you see large lots with small footprint historic buildings that get new additions. But there are a lot of residential blocks on the peninsula that could not change much without seriously altering their character. Consider for example the Hydrostone or Jubilee area.

To eliminate the vagueness, I am stating that heritage preservation refers to the treatment province house or the old burial ground receive. The hydrostone and Jubilee may not have changed much, but they have still been subject to additions and subdivisions over the years. The old south suburb, being closer to downtown, is a good example of growth that conserved important characteristics of local heritage. Sure, it hasn't been preserved to look the same way it did 20 years ago, but there are guidelines which keep it identifiable as a heritage district.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

To eliminate the vagueness, I am stating that heritage preservation refers to the treatment province house or the old burial ground receive. The hydrostone and Jubilee may not have changed much, but they have still been subject to additions and subdivisions over the years. The old south suburb, being closer to downtown, is a good example of growth that conserved important characteristics of local heritage. Sure, it hasn't been preserved to look the same way it did 20 years ago, but there are guidelines which keep it identifiable as a heritage district.

I'd guess the amount of living space around Jubilee is pretty similar to what it was in about 1950 (population likely lower today due to shrinking number of people per household), although it might be subdivided differently. A lot of the land area on the peninsula is used up by either areas like that or roads. Small scale changes to detached housing neighbourhoods would not be enough to move the dial the regional development level.

I don't think the South Suburb style development would be considered acceptable for an area like the Hydrostone. And I don't think it's been very successful. Although correcting the failures there (bad preservation, with many heritage buildings lost even in the last few decades) probably wouldn't have had to come at the expense of lower density.

Barrington/Hollis south is a good example of the limitations of zoning, which does not by itself make development happen. There are a bunch of underused lots around there that have been the way they are for decades and haven't changed much even with the current high level of development pressure in the city. I think figuring out these sites would be more fruitful than pushing into residential areas, both because of lower opposition and because of a greater potential for units built.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think the South Suburb style development would be considered acceptable for an area like the Hydrostone. And I don't think it's been very successful. Although correcting the failures there (bad preservation, with many heritage buildings lost even in the last few decades) probably wouldn't have had to come at the expense of lower density.

I don’t think the Hydrostone will see anything like the south suburb for quite some time. There’s still plenty of opportunity and activity along the current and proposed transit corridors. Robie/Young/Bayers is the latest hotspot cropping up to take advantage of the bus lanes, which tend to do favours for adjacent land values. Shannon Park, Cogswell, Harbour Isle and King’s Wharf are all still a long way to completion. With the newly proposed ferry we could finally see Mill Cove transform. These are ripe for the densities many of us crave.

That being said, the south suburb is a bad example of preservation because it is instead an exercise in conservation. I know the difference seems minute, yet preservation encapsulates the district in a certain era while conservation stipulates how and where changes can take place. Yes, some historic structures have been demolished, but others have been refurbished. The community’s heritage is part of what made it attractive, so there is some financial incentive to nurture historic elements. There have been some rotten eggs (Renaissance South), but overall I would characterize the relationship as symbiotic. What it all boils down to is that Heritage structures or districts can’t be used as Scapegoats for housing affordability.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

That being said, the south suburb is a bad example of preservation because it is instead an exercise in conservation. I know the difference seems minute, yet preservation encapsulates the district in a certain era while conservation stipulates how and where changes can take place. Yes, some historic structures have been demolished, but others have been refurbished. The community’s heritage is part of what made it attractive, so there is some financial incentive to nurture historic elements. There have been some rotten eggs (Renaissance South), but overall I would characterize the relationship as symbiotic. What it all boils down to is that Heritage structures or districts can’t be used as Scapegoats for housing affordability.

Yes although I wasn't blaming heritage districts for poor housing affordability, I'm just pointing out that the older building stock on the peninsula, much of which many people want to keep around, reduces how much can be built there. The conversation began with the suggestion that expanding the urban footprint of the metro is bad and that the older parts of the city and the peninsula in particular can or should absorb most or all of the growth that is happening. I think that brownfield development and adaptive reuse are good but they are not going to affordably supply 100% of new housing in a city growing at 2% a year.

There are some real gems in that area but development there gets maybe a C- in my books overall. No argument from me about Renaissance South but it's one of 4 ugly modern buildings (the modernist gymnasium gets a pass) taking up about 50% of that block of Barrington. The L-shaped group around Snappy Tomato is nice but the corner, the most prominent part, is vinyl siding and a parking lot, and a lot of the heritage buildings around there seem at risk or at least are currently crumbling. Unfortunately I don't feel like Halifax, for one reason or another, has managed to create many large and well-managed heritage areas. The recent heritage districts are a welcome change but it's a bit of a case of closing the doors to the barn after the horses are gone. Lots of damage has already been done.

[DigitalNinja]

I'm quite upset that Bedford West isn't more dense than it is. Looking at the area on google maps shows how ill used much of the space would be. However I believe it to be a product of the environment at the time it was approved...

It sucks that the Port Williams development isn't fast tracked more. The area between Caledonia and the Forest Hills Extension(107) along with on the other side is ripe for development. The 107 could be easily expanded to 4 lanes without much cause for a traffic burden as feeding into the 118 to the bridge for those that needed to go downtown would be easy.

Counsel is just focused on the peninsula development it seems & creating an arbitrary green belt around the city when smaller more accessible parks integrated into development should have been the priority. By this I mean the Blue Mountain park & Park around Williams and Colpitt lake should not have been as large as they are.

The city is also making it difficult for people who live off the peninsula to get there. Look at the changes to Young St. for example...

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

Counsel is just focused on the peninsula development it seems & creating an arbitrary green belt around the city when smaller more accessible parks integrated into development should have been the priority. By this I mean the Blue Mountain park & Park around Williams and Colpitt lake should not have been as large as they are.

The city is also making it difficult for people who live off the peninsula to get there. Look at the changes to Young St. for example...

Council is not just focused on peninsula development; Mill Cove, Wright’s Cove, Shannon Park, Seton Ridge, and Lovett Lake are all large-scale projects whose developers have barely touched a shovel. Even King’s Wharf isn’t close to halfway completed.

As for the wilderness areas, anything worth protecting can’t possibly survive in smaller parks. Habitat fragmentation is a primary culprit threatening SAR. Growth can still occur along corridors leading downtown. Not every city’s footprint is perfectly radial, nor should it be. Take my word, Haligonians of tomorrow will be happy not to have a sea of Mississauga-like suburbs.

Sure, young street makes it harder for drivers, but easier for transit users. Transit projects are land development projects as well. Much of the development along Robie and Young has been expedited by transit improvement.