[Halifax] Young & Windsor | 24-18-5 fl | ? m | Proposed

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

What's the deal with families? They're part of healthy neighbourhoods. The peninsula should not be reserved for retirees and students - it's just not a good mix for a great place to live.

A lot of Canadian city centres are becoming demographically lopsided, with a lot of young singles and couples, downsized retirees, and students. I agree, it's something we should be working to avoid, and affordability + new developments that are family-sized are the key to addressing it.

Like beyeas points out though, a lot of house-dominated neighbourhoods that are full of older people in houses will eventually turn over to younger families in those houses as the older people downsize (or die). I see the same thing in the Hydrostone right now.

But we can't rely on old the existing housing stock to cater to families, because A: The number of houses isn't going to grow as fast as the number of apartment units, and B: They're less affordable, generally.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by beyeas

I have mentioned this before, and with the same caveat that it is a small sample size, but there has been a very interesting trend on my street (which is within the former LeMarchant-StThomas elementary school district). Rather than becoming an area for retirees and students, it has instead seen a decrease in retirees and students and a replacement by young families with elementary school age children. I know this is different from whatever trends might exist in multi-unit taller buildings, as opposed to the predominantly single family homes that mostly exist on my street, but all the same I have found it interesting. When I first arrived on the street it was 100% either empty nesters (recently so) and students. As houses came up for sale, one by one they have almost exclusively gone to families with young children. In some cases, these were even homes that had not necessarily been updated and people were willing to buy them and put significant money in just to be able to live in an area that was walkable to school, walkable to stores, walkable to restaurants, etc. The micro-trend on this block then has been away from retirees and toward families. In some cases the retirees may have gone to condos, but certainly in multiple cases they moved to a sub-urban area on the water.

Absolutely.

This is healthy. Would be healthier, still, if we started seeing more family-appropriate units in taller buildings. Not a lot... I don't think families are as large as they used to be, and I don't know how popular they'd be... but some.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A lot of Canadian city centres are becoming demographically lopsided, with a lot of young singles and couples, downsized retirees, and students. I agree, it's something we should be working to avoid, and affordability + new developments that are family-sized are the key to addressing it.

To be honest I think this is mostly an overblown reflection of a cultural bias against anybody who's not in a traditional family, whether they're single (maybe single parents with a single child), childless, or anything else. People often also forget poor and working class families who cannot afford a large 3-bedroom apartment or house.

School-aged kids are around 16% of the Canadian population. There is nothing wrong with some neighbourhoods being built with the other 84% of the population in mind.

Couples with children are around 1/4 of Canadian households (https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...g3_2-1-eng.cfm). They are the third most common household type, after childless couples and singles. A huge amount of land on the peninsula is artificially reserved for "stable" detached housing neighbourhoods designed for this family type. Beyond the peninsula, most of the metro area is built this way too, and there is empty land available for people to build whatever they want if the existing housing doesn't suit them.

[worldlyhaligonian]

What are the odds of this being built given the Monaghan news?

[maxchristie]

Any one know when this project breaks ground?

[Jonovision]

This one was always intended to be rental so I don't see Monoghan having much of an impact as the new rental market seems to be perfectly healthy.

The development agreement for this one is still not approved. The final designs and DA still need to be finalised and brought to the public.

[Jonovision]

This case file was updated in January:
https://www.halifax.ca/business/plan...street-halifax

A full staff report should be coming in the next while.

The buildings are now proposed at 5, 18 and 24 stories.

WYA by Jonovision23, on Flickr

WYA2 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

WYB1 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

WYB2 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

WYC1 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

WYC2 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[alps]

622 parking spaces for 351 residential units and a small commercial building. Seems like an excess of parking, especially for a rental building on the peninsula...?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by alps

622 parking spaces for 351 residential units and a small commercial building. Seems like an excess of parking, especially for a rental building on the peninsula...?

Seems reasonable enough to me. Lots of 2-car families out there whether anti-car people like it or not. It's just the reality of the times.

Personally I wouldn't move into a building that didn't have 2 parking spaces, but maybe that's just me...

Maybe once my generation dies off, and 99% of the population uses the bus as their main source of transportation, then all those parking spaces can be converted to basement units?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Maybe once my generation dies off, and 99% of the population uses the bus as their main source of transportation, then all those parking spaces can be converted to basement units?

That and bicycles being a primary transportation form are a pipe dream that will never happen. People have kids, kids have activities, vehicles are necessary.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That and bicycles being a primary transportation form are a pipe dream that will never happen. People have kids, kids have activities, vehicles are necessary.

Tongue was firmly in cheek when I wrote that comment.

I did forget to mention self-driving cars, though, because they surely will be ubiquitous within the next year or so...

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Seems reasonable enough to me. Lots of 2-car families out there whether anti-car people like it or not. It's just the reality of the times.

Personally I wouldn't move into a building that didn't have 2 parking spaces, but maybe that's just me...

Maybe once my generation dies off, and 99% of the population uses the bus as their main source of transportation, then all those parking spaces can be converted to basement units?

No that is excessive and unusual. But it’s likely just a matter of how it worked out with the building footprint and number of parking levels. It’s a big lot. Same deal with Monaghan. We have waaaaay more parking that we need. The building is full and the parking garage is half empty. Especially the commercial level. Totally empty.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Takeo

No that is excessive and unusual.

In your opinion. But we all have opinions and mine is no more valid - and will be less popular here - than yours.

Standing by for the requisite barrage of hatred for cars and people older than 40...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In your opinion. But we all have opinions and mine is no more valid - and will be less popular here - than yours.

Well, the reality is that there's a wide variety of lifestyles out there. The 1950's nuclear family tends to be disproportionately brought up but only a small percentage of households are two adults with children, and in Halifax they tend to live in houses. We should let people choose what they want rather than telling them what they want. By extension, developers should have the flexibility to build what their tenants and buyers want.

A lot of households don't even have more than one person in them. Most single people living in small 1 bedroom apartments probably don't want to pay for 2 parking spots if they also get guest parking. Furthermore some people can't drive at all, and they shouldn't be forced to pay for underground spots they can't use (this is tens of thousands of dollars per space).

When it comes to parking the city has adopted heavy-handed parking minimums and forced developers to build regardless of if that's what tenants and buyers want or not. Questioning this isn't anti-parking or anti-car. The minimums weren't brought in for the building occupants either, they were brought in by NIMBYs who didn't want new construction around them and, if they had to tolerate it, wanted to prevent competition for on-street parking they are not entitled to.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well, the reality is that there's a wide variety of lifestyles out there. The 1950's nuclear family tends to be disproportionately brought up but only a small percentage of households are two adults with children, and in Halifax they tend to live in houses. We should let people choose what they want rather than telling them what they want. By extension, developers should have the flexibility to build what their tenants and buyers want.

A lot of households don't even have more than one person in them. Most single people living in small 1 bedroom apartments probably don't want to pay for 2 parking spots if they also get guest parking. Furthermore some people can't drive at all, and they shouldn't be forced to pay for underground spots they can't use (this is tens of thousands of dollars per space).

When it comes to parking the city has adopted heavy-handed parking minimums and forced developers to build regardless of if that's what tenants and buyers want or not. Questioning this isn't anti-parking or anti-car. The minimums weren't brought in for the building occupants either, they were brought in by NIMBYs who didn't want new construction around them and, if they had to tolerate it, wanted to prevent competition for on-street parking they are not entitled to.

I have no idea what the city's parking minimums are, and would be interested to see the data. That said, by the reactions here, this building will be way above the minimums, so... I see it as a choice as supported by your third sentence. Besides, the actual case is probably the point that Takeo brought up as being more of a business case necessitated by the footprint.

My opinion, as mentioned, is that it is good to have lots of parking available for those that want it, but it's not the best choice for everybody - however they can choose to live somewhere else. IMHO, that neighborhood is plenty walkable, for sure, but isn't located near any major centres of employment, and thus people living there will likely have some sort of commute to their place of employment. And... they might choose to use a car to do that, unless the city gets off its butt and vastly improves the transit system.

You're absolutely right, it's not about forcing your choices on anybody else, but as a free society having choices is a good thing, so why not allow people the choice of living somewhere where more than one person can have a car? And, why not have buildings with no parking for people who choose not to, or can't afford, or can't master the techniques of driving, or whatever.

FWIW, it's not limited to any particular lifestyle actually. Mulitiple car dwellings are not limited to 1950's style family situations. A car is a convenience, a luxury to some and a necessity to others, or even a hobby. But it is something that anybody, regardless of family situation or orientation, has the freedom to choose, if they can afford it. So it could be a standard family, or a couple, or roommates, or a single person who has a regular car for commuting and a sports car to enjoy on nice days. Pigeonholing people based on ones biases usually doesn't accurately describe what's actually happening out there...

I'm not really saying anybody is being anti-car, but a comment like mine is usually followed up with some sort of anti-car or anti-boomer or anti-whatever sentiment. I'm all for all types of mobiilty, whether it be walking, transit, bicycle, accessabus... or car. People are usually better off when they have the option of changing their location when they want or need to. However, oftentimes enthusiastic users of 'other methods of transportation' openly express anti-car opinions... so the elephant is in the room, why not mention it?

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That and bicycles being a primary transportation form are a pipe dream that will never happen. People have kids, kids have activities, vehicles are necessary.

Do a Google Image search for "Dutch family bicycle".

[stevencourchene]

I live in the city in a brand new building and have now lived in three new buildings with in just over three years in the northend of Halifax.
I walk everywhere anyday I am off and in spring and summer I use my bike a alternative means of transportation but I also work in bayers lake and Work 5 days some times six days a week and use my car on these days because to take the bus is a 45 mins to an hour when I’m the morning I can be there is 13 mins and on the way home 20 mins.

I any of the buildings I’ve lived in the city and in the northend never did I as a tanant have to pay for a parking spot if I Didn’t have one.

Ocean towers parking at the time was 50.00 per car for indoors
Scotia tower parking was 90.00 per car for indoors
Barrington narrows parking was 90.00 per car indoors
St Joseph square parking was 90.00 per car indoors
And at the velo parking is 75.000 per car

If I didn’t have a car I wouldn’t of had to pay this fee as it’s always a separate contract then your tenant lease.

As far as I’m aware no one is fourced to pay for parking if they don’t need it in the city for the rental buildings.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

Do a Google Image search for "Dutch family bicycle".

BREAKING: Halifax is not Holland and never will be.

[Jonovision]

That is an excessive amount of parking for any development. I can see there being possible demand for public parking in the area in the future.

That being said though, the developer does not have to build that much parking. And if they chose not to build that much, their overall costs would go down and that could in theory be passed down to the unit prices therefore making urban living more affordable? I would rather see unit prices go down then have extra public parking.

[musicman]

Originally Posted by stevencourchene

I live in the city in a brand new building and have now lived in three new buildings with in just over three years in the northend of Halifax.
I walk everywhere anyday I am off and in spring and summer I use my bike a alternative means of transportation but I also work in bayers lake and Work 5 days some times six days a week and use my car on these days because to take the bus is a 45 mins to an hour when I’m the morning I can be there is 13 mins and on the way home 20 mins.

I any of the buildings I’ve lived in the city and in the northend never did I as a tanant have to pay for a parking spot if I Didn’t have one.

Ocean towers parking at the time was 50.00 per car for indoors
Scotia tower parking was 90.00 per car for indoors
Barrington narrows parking was 90.00 per car indoors
St Joseph square parking was 90.00 per car indoors
And at the velo parking is 75.000 per car

If I didn’t have a car I wouldn’t of had to pay this fee as it’s always a separate contract then your tenant lease.

As far as I’m aware no one is fourced to pay for parking if they don’t need it in the city for the rental buildings.

It costs money to build a parking spot, tens of thousands actually. So yes even if you are not taking money out of your pocket every single month you are still indirectly paying for parking with the rent you are paying...