[Dartmouth] Shannon Park Redevelopment | ? m | ? fl | Approved

[Dmajackson]

Looks like Canada Lands Company has submitted a plan to Halifax Planning for the long anticipated redevelopment of Shannon Park. There's no information on the planning website for now.


Photo by David Jackson

[Dmajackson]

Many months later ....

The details are now up for Halifax Planning Case #22734.

"The proposed redevelopment of the former Shannon Park lands consists of:
• 26 new city blocks
• ~3,000 residential units (range of building forms)
• ~145,000 square feet of commercial space
• ~16.4 acres of public park space
• Proposed to be created in 4 phases
• Includes new public streets, municipal services such as water and sewer, and a new transit facility"

It should be noted that the development agreement will set the style and layout of the new community but the specific buildings will be based on the new zoning, height restrictions, land use requirements, and built form requirements that will be approved. Each building will have to go through the new approval process for Centre Plan projects. Basically CLC will build the infrastructure and establish clear rules for what can be built. Individual developers will be responsible for getting their buildings approved and construction permits issued.

[Citizen_Bane]

Given the current housing crisis and our government's (both municipal and provincial) willingness to let landlords shoulder both the blame and especially the burden, the information provided and the tone of the application letter in this submission leads one to shake their head in disbelief. Five years and counting just to come up with a plan to move forward?!! And what's up with Bloomfield? Where's our local press? I don't want to hear that we can't afford to hire the required staff because apparently we can afford AT projects. Aren't we serving the gravy before the meat is cooked?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Citizen_Bane

Given the current housing crisis and our government's (both municipal and provincial) willingness to let landlords shoulder both the blame and especially the burden, the information provided and the tone of the application letter in this submission leads one to shake their head in disbelief.

Halifax is pretty much just following the same old bad path many other cities have followed, basically uniformly unsuccessfully, where there's a big disconnect between housing demand on the one hand and then a heavy and slow planning process on the other that is mostly focused on placating people who already own property.

As much as the media focused on the apartment crisis, Halifax had an unusually large amount of rental construction. A 2% rent cap could easily kill that off and cause new construction to go condo. Which means that a lot of people at the low end of the market will be locked out or will go from renting from professional landlords to renting from DIY condo owner landlords. The cap will protect current but not future tenants.

[Dartguard]

A 2% rent cap could easily kill that off and cause new construction to go condo. Which means that a lot of people at the low end of the market will be locked out or will go from renting from professional landlords to renting from DIY condo owner landlords. The cap will protect current but not future tenants.[/QUOTE]

I spoke with a friend who owns ten rental units this evening and he is not happy. He had been renting 6 of his units at below market price as he always felt it was better to have happy, stable income than gouging people and high turn over. As he said tonight " you want me to fix what?" he is someone that was never afraid to properly invest in his units between tenants ( I have helped gut a couple of them) but now feels it may be time to let things slide until he sells them to finance his retirement despite the obvious market conditions.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I spoke with a friend who owns ten rental units this evening and he is not happy. He had been renting 6 of his units at below market price as he always felt it was better to have happy, stable income than gouging people and high turn over. As he said tonight " you want me to fix what?" he is someone that was never afraid to properly invest in his units between tenants ( I have helped gut a couple of them) but now feels it may be time to let things slide until he sells them to finance his retirement despite the obvious market conditions.

Yes, rent control seldom ever works and this is clearly a political response from a govt that has been backed into a corner and feels the need to "do something". But as is almost always the case with govt, they got it very wrong.

[Keith P.]

Having tried and mostly failed to read the Centre Plan document that Council apparently approved without reading it as they were rushing out the door prior to the election I wonder why and how any developer would be able to follow the ridiculous processes they have laid out. The level of minuscule detail they demand is simply absurd, right down to the font choice and size on the required signs that they require posting on-site. I truly believe you are looking at decades if anyone is foolish enough (and is willing to spend a ton of money) to try to follow all of the arcane requirements it imposes.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Having tried and mostly failed to read the Centre Plan document that Council apparently approved without reading it as they were rushing out the door prior to the election I wonder why and how any developer would be able to follow the ridiculous processes they have laid out. The level of minuscule detail they demand is simply absurd, right down to the font choice and size on the required signs that they require posting on-site. I truly believe you are looking at decades if anyone is foolish enough (and is willing to spend a ton of money) to try to follow all of the arcane requirements it imposes.

As someone who occasionally works on planning applications to the city, Centre Plan is a vast improvement over what came before. Yes, there are many requirements, but the nice thing about requirements is that you can read them and figure them out. Previous to this it was a crapshoot as to who you would get as the planner on the file, how the winds of politics would shift, and what out-of-the-blue hurdle HRM would create for you to next jump. Sure, the old system benefitted a few developers who had the resources and bull-headedness to fight through the politics and bureaucracy and community opposition, but for everyone else it was an exercise in pulling your hair out.

I can much more easily take the time to figure out that the application sign needs 24pt Times New Roman font than have to go back to the drawing board because Community Council told us to knock three floors off the building.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I can much more easily take the time to figure out that the application sign needs 24pt Times New Roman font than have to go back to the drawing board because Community Council told us to knock three floors off the building.

Now the planner just lop the floors off for them without asking?

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

Now the planner just lop the floors off for them without asking?

I think he was implying that was before the centre plan, I thought the whole point was that approvals would be streamlined if they meet the new guidelines for the area to avoid haphazard downgrades to the project. I do think that there should be some periods of review to accommodate larger developments in the future if growth accelerates. Perhaps every 5 years the city could evaluate whether it aligns with demographic trends or the needs of various stakeholders, and update accordingly. Although perhaps the planning growth outside the centre should be prioritized next. Thoughts?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I think he was implying that was before the centre plan, I thought the whole point was that approvals would be streamlined if they meet the new guidelines for the area to avoid haphazard downgrades to the project. I do think that there should be some periods of review to accommodate larger developments in the future if growth accelerates. Perhaps every 5 years the city could evaluate whether it aligns with demographic trends or the needs of various stakeholders, and update accordingly. Although perhaps the planning growth outside the centre should be prioritized next. Thoughts?

Yes, in theory this kind of review is supposed to happen. Part of the problem in Halifax is that amalgamation* created a planning department that was responsible for 20+ land use bylaws from the former municipalities. They got so bogged down just administering the old ones that they never stayed on top of updating and reviewing. And then to make things worse the older the documents got, the more people asked for one-off changes, and the more bandaids got slapped on the documents, making them more complicated, further taking time away from the big-picture updates and housekeeping. It was a planning death spiral that resulted in crucial land use documents being 40 years out of date.

Centre Plan isn’t perfect, but it’s the second step (Downtown Halifax Plan was 1st) in getting on track with planning post-amalgamation. If HRM can get it wrapped up soon and move onto Bedford (assuming politics doesn’t put the focus of he next planning efforts on the Eastern Shore instead) and get that done in a timely manner, there might actually be an opportunity to keep documents appropriately updated.

*This was an unfortunate outcome of amalgamation, but shouldn’t be used to suggest amalgamation was over all a bad idea.

[Good Baklava]

It’s definitely good to hear some signs of progress, I remember attending the meeting when it was unveiled a few years ago. Because of the extended timelines involved in planning the site, I’m really hoping to see a higher standard of development to reflect that. I think it’s worth waiting for the results before unleashing a tirade that reads like a cheap copy of an already downmarket Toronto Sun article.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

It’s definitely good to hear some signs of progress, I remember attending the meeting when it was unveiled a few years ago. Because of the extended timelines involved in planning the site, I’m really hoping to see a higher standard of development to reflect that. I think it’s worth waiting for the results before unleashing a tirade that reads like a cheap copy of an already downmarket Toronto Sun article.

To be clear I don't really have a problem with Shannon Park per se, and the slowness of planning may indeed make the outcome nicer (we can't really know from these documents so far). I see a pattern of these large developments taking unusually long in Halifax, sometimes a decade or longer, although it seems like there has been progress on a few of them. The speed of developments is linked to the housing supply which is linked to prices.

Given the scale of Shannon Park I'd guess that it alone could have significantly reduced pressure on rental rates in the metro area if it had been planned as non-luxury market rate rentals that has started to come online by 2018 or so with a bunch of streets having been laid out already to allow for scaling out the development faster as demand dictates.

Cogswell, the old school sites, Shannon Park, RCMP, etc. etc. They all add up to quite a lot of potential housing in areas that people want.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

To be clear I don't really have a problem with Shannon Park per se, and the slowness of planning may indeed make the outcome nicer (we can't really know from these documents so far). I see a pattern of these large developments taking unusually long in Halifax, sometimes a decade or longer, although it seems like there has been progress on a few of them. The speed of developments is linked to the housing supply which is linked to prices.

Given the scale of Shannon Park I'd guess that it alone could have significantly reduced pressure on rental rates in the metro area if it had been planned as non-luxury market rate rentals that has started to come online by 2018 or so with a bunch of streets having been laid out already to allow for scaling out the development faster as demand dictates.

Cogswell, the old school sites, Shannon Park, RCMP, etc. etc. They all add up to quite a lot of potential housing in areas that people want.

I agree that more supply can never hurt. With all the stages of approval required for federal and provincial projects, I’m sure the government employees tasked with them are also frustrated with delays to their timeline. I know many friends from abroad who like to joke about how long things take in Canada.

To clarify my position, it isn’t that these government sites aren’t taking too long. Rather, I don’t think it’s right to blindly build anything anywhere because some like to think “the government is always wrong”. We shouldn’t be over-simplifying the issue to lack of supply, because while that answers most questions it doesn’t answer every question in detail. Even if Shannon park had started to be developed a couple years ago, there would probably only be small sections completed by now since other privately owned projects of similar scale are still in very early stages despite being started years earlier. I also don’t think any one actor should be blamed entirely. It’s not “just the province” or “just the city” or “just the REIT”, I like to think each one of them contributes to the problem, or fails to act in one way or another.

On the topic of renovictions, I feel there needs to be a mix of conditions that leads to them. I know there was an epidemic of renovictions along the new LRT line in KW because it raised land values and landlords naturally capitalized on this potential. It wasn’t that the landlords were crooks, it was just that the value of their land radically shifted and there’s no way long-time tenants could have avoided that.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

It wasn’t that the landlords were crooks, it was just that the value of their land radically shifted and there’s no way long-time tenants could have avoided that.

And renting is generally a contract to live in an apartment for the period of the lease, typically 1 month or 1 year. The tenants are not entitled to live there affordably indefinitely and that is not reasonable in a city that is growing, where an apartment might actually be much more desirable after a 10 or 20 year period; effectively a completely different offering which may also then not be a good fit for what the tenant wants. Easy mobility and the ability to match families and individuals to different types of housing over time is one of the big benefits of renting. If you're a student you move near a university, if you're a busy professional you move near work, if you're a senior you can save money by living farther away from employment nodes you don't need to commute to every day.

The wider question is whether there's ANY affordable housing for some people in the metro area and this depends on unit costs, incomes, and transportation options, plus there are other options like housing vouchers which allow low income people to afford more expensive housing. It's also good to get people on the home ownership ladder which has been done with some affordable housing projects but only seems to happen at a boutique scale in Halifax while thousands of people would benefit from such programs.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

The tenants are not entitled to live there affordably indefinitely and that is not reasonable in a city that is growing

Of course not, but in these cases people who were independent may have to shift towards off-market housing or become homeless which each have their own costs to the taxpayer. It’s another aspect that has to be evaluated, and one that may seem insignificant now but have consequences down the road. It might not be preventable, but we should be prepared to deal with the impacts.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's also good to get people on the home ownership ladder which has been done with some affordable housing projects but only seems to happen at a boutique scale in Halifax while thousands of people would benefit from such programs.

I know that in some parts of the world social housing is mostly done to assist in achieving ownership. It helps families get richer in the long run, and they can rent out the social housing if they don’t want to sell it. Social housing that eventually puts people on their own feet: the gift that keeps on giving!

[Colin May]

I did the numbers on a rental project. The landlord would be making out like a bandit if the new rules were not in place. Now he'll just do very well. Cheap money is readily available, well under 2% for 5 year money. If any developer starts singing the blues ask him to provide the financial details. Or check the mortgage documents available at the Registry of Deeds, that is a good place to start. ( In Britain financial statements are available from filings with a government agency.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Colin May

I did the numbers on a rental project. The landlord would be making out like a bandit if the new rules were not in place. Now he'll just do very well. Cheap money is readily available, well under 2% for 5 year money. If any developer starts singing the blues ask him to provide the financial details. Or check the mortgage documents available at the Registry of Deeds, that is a good place to start. ( In Britain financial statements are available from filings with a government agency.)

This is not really getting at the problems of rent control, many of which affect tenants.

One problem is that it doesn't follow the tenant, so people get locked into specific apartments. Got a job at the other end of town? I guess you're taking the bus for an hour, because you won't want to move and get hit by a huge rent increase. Or maybe your household size changed and a different unit would suit you better? Too bad.

It also favours people who have lived in an apartment for a long time over new tenants, regardless of economic background. The middle aged wealthy South End renter will tend to get the biggest subsidy from this policy.

And as already mentioned it's a disincentive to improve units so once you move in to a place, maintenance and upgrades will be near nil. It's worse than just landlords not wanting to spend money because bad maintenance encourages turnover in tenants. You renovated and get a new tenant, then you let the place fall apart for 5-10 years, then they move out, then you renovate and get a new tenant. Good luck going after the landlord for this as a poor tenant.

As a builder you can avoid all this by building condo instead of rental. This is how it works in Toronto and Vancouver.

But most people will think of this in terms of how much money landlords "should" charge for rent.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is not really getting at the problems of rent control, many of which affect tenants.

One problem is that it doesn't follow the tenant, so people get locked into specific apartments.
As a builder you can avoid all this by building condo instead of rental. This is how it works in Toronto and Vancouver.
But most people will think of this in terms of how much money landlords "should" charge for rent.

I view it as a short-term fix. Reputable landlords don't do a quick reno and then double rents.
If you look around metro you can see who is gouging.