[Dartmouth] Emporium (115 Portland) | XX M | XX FL | Concept

[gunner1976]

I have a long history of lurking on this site and have enjoyed reading the takes on developments in HRM.

I am the owner of:
58-60 Queen St
101-103 Portland St
115 Portland St
117-119 Portland St
121-123 Portland St

I have centred this thread around 115 Portland as it was the first property I purchased on the block in April 2005.

My goal with this tread is to capture thoughts on what could (and should) ultimately be done with these properties to best encapsulate the needs of the city and downtown Dartmouth in particular.... rather than assuming I know best.

I am sensitive to the businesses and tenants and the team I have in place that have been invaluable over the years in allowing me to navigate real estate ownership in the province. This thread is not meant in any way to suggest a near term impact to these people or businesses... only a reflection of the belief I have in open source and the wisdom of the crowd to bring together the collective opinion of a diverse independent group of individuals to plan things for the future.

Though, ultimately, I may not have the wherewithal to take on this endeavour it has been my vision to eventually develop something that is unique, stylistically modern, wholistically energy conscious, technologically forward thinking, future flexible, and something people would find inspiring (as inpirational as a building(s) can be anyways )

Input is welcome (and really the point of the exercise). I am eager to see what the community in this forum thinks!

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66648...8192?entry=ttu

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by gunner1976

I have a long history of lurking on this site and have enjoyed reading the takes on developments in HRM.

I am the owner of:
58-60 Queen St
101-103 Portland St
115 Portland St
117-119 Portland St
121-123 Portland St

I have centred this tread around 115 Portland as it was the first property I purchased on the block in April 2005.

My goal with this tread is to capture thoughts on what could (and should) ultimately be done with these properties to best encapsulate the needs of the city and downtown Dartmouth in particular.... rather than assuming I know best.

I am sensitive to the businesses and tenants and the team I have in place that have been invaluable over the years in allowing me to navigate real estate ownership in the province. This tread is not meant in any way to suggest a near term impact to these people or businesses... only a reflection of the belief I have in open source and the wisdom of the crowd to bring together the collective opinion of a diverse independent group of individuals to plan things for the future.

Though, ultimately, I may not have the wherewithal to take on this endeavour it has been my vision to eventually develop something that is unique, stylistically modern, wholistically energy conscious, technologically forward thinking, future flexible, and something people would find inspiring (as inpirational as a building(s) can be anyways

Input is welcome (and really the point of the exercise). I am eager to see what the community in this forum thinks!

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66648...8192?entry=ttu

Buy 107 Portland and preserve the old fish and chip interior. Tear down the other properties across the street and have one linear development of residential and ground floor commercial. Go as high as you can with residential.
Gunners are doing well.

[Drybrain]

HRM only has a relatively few of these kinds of main drags, and Portland Street is the most important urban street in all of Dartmouth. I think owning property here is a big opportunity but also a huge responsibility; by far the most important thing, I think, is to ensure the fine-grained retail mix is preserved in any potential redevelopment. In other words, tearing down a block's worth of buildings, or even a half blocks' worth, and replacing them with one larger-footprint building is risky. I understand that's probably what would eventually happen, particularly on a stretch with minimal historic character, but any such new development should have at least as many storefronts and points of ingress and egress as the current stretch. One big commercial tenant dominating a large swath of sidewalk frontage would be very bad for the street. A mixture of smaller tenants is, from an urbanism perspsective, much better. And since Portland Street really only runs a few blocks, every block is important.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by gunner1976

I have a long history of lurking on this site and have enjoyed reading the takes on developments in HRM.

I am the owner of:
58-60 Queen St
101-103 Portland St
115 Portland St
117-119 Portland St
121-123 Portland St

I have centred this thread around 115 Portland as it was the first property I purchased on the block in April 2005.

My goal with this tread is to capture thoughts on what could (and should) ultimately be done with these properties to best encapsulate the needs of the city and downtown Dartmouth in particular.... rather than assuming I know best.

I am sensitive to the businesses and tenants and the team I have in place that have been invaluable over the years in allowing me to navigate real estate ownership in the province. This thread is not meant in any way to suggest a near term impact to these people or businesses... only a reflection of the belief I have in open source and the wisdom of the crowd to bring together the collective opinion of a diverse independent group of individuals to plan things for the future.

Though, ultimately, I may not have the wherewithal to take on this endeavour it has been my vision to eventually develop something that is unique, stylistically modern, wholistically energy conscious, technologically forward thinking, future flexible, and something people would find inspiring (as inpirational as a building(s) can be anyways )

Input is welcome (and really the point of the exercise). I am eager to see what the community in this forum thinks!

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66648...8192?entry=ttu

If I may ask, where do you reside as it is rare to have this type of outreach from investors. Most, for obvious reasons just want a return on investment but I have seen a real interest in our Atlantic communities from especially our Ontario cousins. The secret of Atlantic Canada is out and If you have come from away, welcome. Especially this outreach.

[Agricola]

Well, this is certainly breathe of fresh air. I would love to see something that addresses the housing issue but here may not be the place to do that.
I love the character and amenity combo that has been done here: https://brewerypark.ca/
I could see that working with the scale and vibe of the street.

[OldDartmouthMark]

IAs others have said, this part of Portland Street has taken on an interesting vibe in the past decade, and an integral part of it, IMHO has been extending the life and purpose of the buildings that have been there all along.

From the perspective of somebody who remembers it as being a somewhat vibrant area, a small-city downtown where a lot of people did their shopping and business, to seeing it decline and become almost seedy, to where it has rebounded to being what it is today... I think streetside presence has to be a priority. There are other tall buildings that are about to be built nearby, so perhaps height might not be overbearing if setback is handled well.

Normally, I might be suggesting incorporating the existing building into the mix, but I'm not sure this would be a great option, unless a complete restoration with appropriate siding and decorative elements were in the plans. In the pic below, from 1967, the building had been neglected for a long time, and actually looks better today. So... I'm not sure... some creativity would be necessary to make something of it.


Source

It will be interesting to see how this thread develops. Best of luck with it.

[JET]

The Canteen reno, the Sidehussle reno across the street, the proposed reno for the pawn shop;
those are all great, more of that with commercial on the first floor, and reasonably priced apartments above, with new facades would be great.
Really good to see something happen with the old fish and chip shop, such a waste, and it's all set up inside. Must be a great spot for growing tomatoes though.

[josh_cat_eyes]

This is so nice to see, that a developer actually cares what other people think. Also interesting that you’ve been accumulating properties for almost 20 years. That shows you have patience. I’m sure you will do the right thing when all the responses are taken in to account.

I’m not from HRM so I’m not an expert on the area by any means, however one trend I’d like to see you avoid is having surface parking as part of the development. All parking can be included underground, or in an aboveground structure that is behind other buildings. I’ve even seen some parking structures with street front retail units in them, an idea that I love.

I agree with what drybrain said about having the same amount of store fronts. That will be important in keeping the same sort of fabric that currently exists in the area. Love to see what comes of this!

[HalifaxRetales]

It is very important that the main street feel is maintained at street level,

and set back have a couple towers, I think there would be benefit if there was some sort of open space intergrated for events

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by HalifaxRetales

It is very important that the main street feel is maintained at street level,

and set back have a couple towers, I think there would be benefit if there was some sort of open space intergrated for events

I agree, any podium shouldn’t exceed 4 storeys in height.

[Hali902]

Originally Posted by gunner1976

I have a long history of lurking on this site and have enjoyed reading the takes on developments in HRM.

I am the owner of:
58-60 Queen St
101-103 Portland St
115 Portland St
117-119 Portland St
121-123 Portland St

I have centred this thread around 115 Portland as it was the first property I purchased on the block in April 2005.

My goal with this tread is to capture thoughts on what could (and should) ultimately be done with these properties to best encapsulate the needs of the city and downtown Dartmouth in particular.... rather than assuming I know best.

I am sensitive to the businesses and tenants and the team I have in place that have been invaluable over the years in allowing me to navigate real estate ownership in the province. This thread is not meant in any way to suggest a near term impact to these people or businesses... only a reflection of the belief I have in open source and the wisdom of the crowd to bring together the collective opinion of a diverse independent group of individuals to plan things for the future.

Though, ultimately, I may not have the wherewithal to take on this endeavour it has been my vision to eventually develop something that is unique, stylistically modern, wholistically energy conscious, technologically forward thinking, future flexible, and something people would find inspiring (as inpirational as a building(s) can be anyways )

Input is welcome (and really the point of the exercise). I am eager to see what the community in this forum thinks!

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66648...8192?entry=ttu

I also have a long history of lurking on this site, possibly to the extent that I'm not quite sure I hit the right button to reply to your thread. This sort of outreach has drawn me to my keyboard, knowing that you are both thoughtful and conscious in your ownership/development plans is wholly welcome and reassuring.

I live/own a home within a two minute walk of your properties. You own an incredibly exciting part of Downtown Dartmouth, a neighbourhood filled with character and community - but also one that is rapidly changing.

Both the heritage of certain buildings and the unique small businesses are what make the area so special. Like many have already said in this thread, the key points I would hope to see in any future development on Portland Street would be to maintain the current feel of the neighbourhood - an approachable street presence with appropriate setback, and a mixture of smaller tenants.

I also have a strong affinity for newer developments that incorporate a consideration of local heritage and materiality in design. Both sandstone and cedar shakes are traditional and found throughout newer and older buildings in the area. The old post office on Queen St. is would be an example of a notable sandstone building (as is being incorporated into the currently proposed development), as would many of the heritage buildings on the Halifax side. To their credit, the new Queen's Marque development incorporated sandstone throughout the facade and I find it fits the location very nicely.

I recommend spending a day taking the ferry from Halifax, strolling through the Alderney Landing market, grabbing a coffee in a local cafe, and stopping into the various and diverse businesses in the area. That's the character of the area and what makes it special, including the tomato grow-op of 107 Portland.

All the best in your plans!

[someone123]

Some things I notice on the more successful developments:

- They bring up the density, pedestrian orientation, and urbanism in the area rather than undermining it.
- They offer interest and complexity at street level (as judged over short distances traveled along the sidewalk) rather than removing it. More architectural detail and ornamentation, more shops, more colour.
- They have a sense of place and reinforce local character; they don't look like they could have been built anywhere.
- They use quality materials, particularly high quality materials on lower more visible floors and especially for entrances and storefronts. As Hali902 says some good local materials are wood shakes or sandstone. I'd put brick and granite in that bucket too.

I think height is generally overrated as a consideration and the stuff above matters far more than if a tower portion of a development is 8 or 30 storeys most of the time, although the HRM rules are what they are.

I think heritage preservation usually conflates 2 things, character preservation and historical preservation. The buildings you have express a certain local character but are likely not inherently historic (tied to famous events, people, or examples of unique historical construction). Hence replacing them with something with more character but less history is not a problem.

If it were up to me I would recreate the street-level character of that block but take things up a notch. Put all the facades together with no gaps. Add a floor or two here or there, but keep the integrity of the style (narrow distinct facades, rooflines, dormers, etc.). Use real wood, paint it vibrantly, and decorate the ground floor. There can be a shared structure and footprint. Put as much density mid-block as planning rules allow, and put as much structured parking as is reasonable but avoid surface parking.

[Empire]

It’s great see gunner’s forward-thinking approach for an important development site in Dartmouth. Unless the buildings on Portland St. have significant heritage value, I can see a complete replacement provided the new structures hold quality architectural merit. By doing a total replacement the new structures could incorporate undergrounding parking and services. I would suggest sandstone , brick, granite and copper with a typical commercial streetscape motif. This would help this area of Dartmouth gain a commercial feel and provide density. The streetscape building fronts should have a setback at the roof level to give them a stronger independent presence. A high-density building could rise closer to the street and be able to gain more square footage. I have provided a few examples of great commercial streetscapes in Halifax and the first is RBC Waterside on Lower Water St. This development was very difficult because the facades had to be supported and incorporated whereas with the Emporium it could be a clean build.

I think this concept would win immediate civic and resident approval. The Kelly Building is a perfect example of this type of streetscape interaction. The Kelly Building has been slow to lease but it adds to the historic commercial feel and this is what visitors expect to see. In addition to the Kelly Building and Waterside Centre, Founders Square and Queen’s Marque are good examples of utilizing built heritage or quality heritage materials such as brick, sandstone, granite and copper to enhance a development. The Dennis Building, The Roy, Green Lantern and Zellers Building also utilize heritage preservation or rebuilding.

Good luck with the development!

Google Maps Reference:

Waterside
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6495...8192?entry=ttu

Founders Square
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6475...8192?entry=ttu

Granville Mall 1
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6492...8192?entry=ttu

Granville Mall 2
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6493...8192?entry=ttu

Kelly Building
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6487...8192?entry=ttu

Dennis Building
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6484...8192?entry=ttu

[gunner1976]

I really appreciate all the feedback. Portland Street is certainly an eclectic place and I would hope to maintain and level up on the esthetic if I am able. I have inquired with the Halifax Planning folks about the relatively low FAR of 2.25 for the block and here is the response I received:

> Your enquiries pertaining to the following PIDs have been assigned to me:

PID 00108662
PID 00108647
PID 00108639
PID 00108621
PID 00108704


All the properties above are designated ‘Downtown’ under the Regional Centre Municipal Planning Strategy.

The properties are also zoned Downtown Dartmouth (DD) under the Regional Centre Land Use By-Law.


The subject property is located within the DOWNTOWN DARTMOUTH PRECINCT.

Additionally, the top 4 PIDS in the list are within the DOWNTOWN DARTMOUTH SPECIAL AREAS,

The portion of Portland that the top 4 PIDS in the list above front onto the PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMERCIAL STEET.

The maximum building height for all 5 PIDS in the list above is 90 M as per Schedule 15.

The maximum Floor Area Ratio within for all 5 PIDS above is 2.25.

The minimum required front and flanking yards for PID 00108704 is 0.5 M whereas the other 4 have a minimum front yard setback requirement of 2.5 m.

All 5 PIDS in the list above are within the Regional Centre proposed HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

All 5 PIDS are within the Downtown and Central Dartmouth BONUS RATE DISTRICT as per schedule 50.

All 5 PIDS are within the area of ELEVATED ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL.

All 5 PIDS are within the Regional Centre CONCEPTUAL GROWTH CENTRE.

Some statements in the MPS that explain F.A.R as it pertains to the subject properties have been listed below:


“Policy D-6 The Land Use By-law shall establish maximum FAR values for the Historic Dartmouth (HD) Precinct between 1.75 to 4.0, and on a limited number of vacant or under-utilized sites within the Precinct, the maximum FAR value shall be 6.25, as shown on Map 3.”

“Policy D-7 The Land Use By-law shall establish maximum FAR values for the Portland Street (PS) Special Area consistent with Map 3 and the policies contained in Parts 3 and 4 of this Plan.”

“Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the total floor area of all main buildings located on a lot, divided by its lot size. Maximum FAR requirements establish an allowable building scale, while providing flexibility in how a building floor area is distributed over a lot. It is a tool that supports varied building forms that is appropriate for the DD Zone within the Downtown Designation, and the Centre Designation, and implemented by allocating FAR precincts within these areas, as shown on Map 3.”

“Building Height is the maximum vertical distance between a structure’s average finished grade and its highest point. Maximum height requirements encourage the distribution of density on large lots. In the DH Zone of the Downtown Designation, and all other zones with the exception of the DD, CEN-2, and CEN-1 Zones, the densities of developments are primarily regulated by establishing maximum building heights together with other built form regulations, as shown on Map 4. The maximum FAR and maximum building height framework are intended to support strategic growth and the Urban Design Goals for the Regional Centre.”

“Overall, Downtown Dartmouth can accommodate increased density in mid-rise buildings to high-rise buildings integrated with existing development. Higher densities can also support the downtown’s function as a primary employment and cultural centre for the broader region. Density will be regulated by a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and with a maximum height of 90 metres. The area can largely accommodate growth by infilling existing vacant and under-utilized lands.’

“Maximum allowable FAR and building height ranges identified for sites within each designation and zone are outlined in Table 2 of this Part. Specific maximum FARs and maximum height precincts are identified on Map 3 and Map 4.

“Policy UD-3 The Land Use By-law shall establish Maximum FAR values for the DD, CEN-2, and CEN-1 Zones, based on local context and consistent with Map 3 and Table 2 of this Plan. The Land Use By-law may exclude certain uninhabitable portions of a building from the calculation of floor area.”

“Policy UD-6 The Land Use By-law shall establish maximum building height requirements for the DH Zone and all other zones, except for the DD, CEN-2 and CEN-1 Zones, based on local context and consistent with the maximum heights identified on Map 4 and Table 2 of this Plan.”

“Policy CHR-6 To support development that is sensitive to the architectural character and heritage value of registered heritage properties located outside of Heritage Conservation Districts, the Land Use Bylaw shall apply built form regulations for registered heritage properties that do not exceed: a) a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.25, within the DD Zone;”

“Policy CHR-11 To support development that is sensitive to the architectural character and heritage value of proposed Heritage Conservation Districts, as identified in Table 4 and on Map 20, the Land Use Bylaw shall apply the following regulations to properties located within Proposed Heritage Conservation Districts: b) a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.25, within the DD Zone;”

[Keith P.]

Bureaucratic bafflegab at its best, a great many words, providing very little useful information or clarity. Have you figured out yet what that means in terms of how tall a building you can erect? No wonder the province is trying to fix the planning dept problem within HRM.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Bureaucratic bafflegab at its best, a great many words, providing very little useful information or clarity. Have you figured out yet what that means in terms of how tall a building you can erect? No wonder the province is trying to fix the planning dept problem within HRM.

Hmmm? Begs the question...what would Mr. Lohr approve to be built on this site? Perhaps some intrepid reporter will pick up on this thread and ask him.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Hmmm? Begs the question...what would Mr. Lohr approve to be built on this site? Perhaps some intrepid reporter will pick up on this thread and ask him.

Yes, this is actually a great opportunity to try and cut through the BS and get things moving. It probably won't last forever!

[Saul Goode]

As those of you with AllNS subscriptions may have read this morning, Minister Lohr has said that he will likely interfere very rarely with actual HRM planning practices. One target he mentioned is inappropriate rejection of projects by community councils, which then forces developers to go to the UARB, causing unnecessary delay.

This topic has been discussed here before. Community councils often decline to approve projects for their own parochial/political reasons, and often based on anecdotal "evidence", while the only relevant criterion under law which they're supposed to consider is whether a development reasonably carries out the intent of the MPS.

So, they often wrongly reject projects which staff have thoroughly vetted and recommended for approval. Again, while it's their perfect right to reject a proposal which has been recommended for approval by staff, that denial has to be done for the correct legal reason.

Developers unjustly denied then have to appeal to the UARB, where HRM often - and quite rightly - offers no evidence. The UARB process can take a lot of time, frequently the better part of a year, and at considerable expense, only to get to the decision which the community council ought to have made in the first place.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

As those of you with AllNS subscriptions may have read this morning, Minister Lohr has said that he will likely interfere very rarely with actual HRM planning practices. One target he mentioned is inappropriate rejection of projects by community councils, which then forces developers to go to the UARB, causing unnecessary delay.

This topic has been discussed here before. Community councils often decline to approve projects for their own parochial/political reasons, and often based on anecdotal "evidence", while the only relevant criterion under law which they're supposed to consider is whether a development reasonably carries out the intent of the MPS.

So, they often wrongly reject projects which staff have thoroughly vetted and recommended for approval. Again, while it's their perfect right to reject a proposal which has been recommended for approval by staff, that denial has to be done for the correct legal reason.

Developers unjustly denied then have to appeal to the UARB, where HRM often - and quite rightly - offers no evidence. The UARB process can take a lot of time, frequently the better part of a year, and at considerable expense, only to get to the decision which the community council ought to have made in the first place.

It sounds like he won't be unreasonable. I enjoyed Peter Polley's comments. It's funny to see the city squawking like this after everything they've done to block development for so many years.

[Stuckinsky]

First off, this is great to see outreach before starting any planning with a project like this. You have quite a gem of a property considering how important the gentrification of Dartmouth has been in creating a new microcosm that is unique to Nova Scotia.

Just a few notes - this property is in the DD zone meaning you're allowed up to a building 90m. Unfortunately you won't get that height due to the FAR of 2.25 in the area. You're likely looking at something like ±3-4 stories, maybe ±5 if you can manage to twist the city's arm by possibly leaning on 'renovating a heritage building' despite it not being registered heritage. Otherwise, this site won't require underground parking as it sits in a DD zone. (I say this without digging too deep in the zoning bylaw)

Personally, I think it's important to maintain the mixed-use characteristics of Portland Street - more wonderful ground floor commercial tenants brings so much energy downtown. I think that rather than introducing parking, you could support more of the local-commuter mentality by integrating a good bike parking room off the ground floor or something like this and assuming the tenants will be commuting to work by ferry or by foot.

Looking at the other similar buildings further down towards Alderney, you can see modern timeless designs that blend well when refurbishing the existing older building. Also, there might be potential for views of the harbour from a roof top patio.