[Halifax] Promenade Robie South | 90 m | 31 & 30 fl | U/C

[Hadrian Laing]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sure, that all sounds great. I think most people here generally love seeing models of any new developments.

You could post them in the project threads in this section (and suburbs) or make a dedicated thread in "Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues".

Thanks Someone123 for the advice! I really want to make sure I'm following the rules as I move forward with this.

I can't think of a better community to be shown and help advise some of these models - I was happy to see how dedicated and connected this crew was the to the growth of our city!

[someone123]

This is a small portion of the overall development but the plan for the trio of Victorian houses is interesting:



They are to be moved closer together and joined into a larger complex.

[Jonovision]

Probably the biggest move to preserve and restore heritage in the city in recent years that I can think of. And the plan is to not just use them as facades but as intact and integrated buildings.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Probably the biggest move to preserve and restore heritage in the city in recent years that I can think of. And the plan is to not just use them as facades but as intact and integrated buildings.

There is so much potential for this style of development, adaptive reuse of older buildings while maintaining their character-defining elements. And the larger developments tend to have bigger budgets that make more ambitious reuse projects possible.

I feel like this is an area that traditionally fell between the cracks somewhat, since it spans both development and heritage preservation. The old heritage preservation model is that a building is registered or not registered and if you register it you try to make it look like how it was during some specific period. The basic goal for development is to maximize return and this is often not aligned with maintaining public-facing character.

I think most residents actually care about historic feel and interest/character more than accurate period recreation. Some people criticize this as "Disneyfication" but I think it depends on the quality. There is nothing wrong with traditional style buildings if they are done well.

The South End is a good place for this type of development since there are so many holes and lower density modern buildings mixed in with often quite impressive heritage buildings. Bearly's, Waverley Inn, the space out houses by the Waterford, half of Inglis, etc. The building blocks are there to create a really great district.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It seems like there are quite a few developments that could have been better using this philosophy. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Another aspect that I wonder about will be how future landlords will deal with the higher level of maintenance that the Victorians will require to keep them in good shape.

[Hadrian Laing]

Hi Folks, Just giving a quick update on the model I've made thus far for this and the adjacent developments. These were for some residents nearby (like saint Andrew's church) hence the "public hearing" call out.

Been trying to improve my representation - still a ton of work to do and improvements to be made - but I think it gets essence of the developments across clearly. These are pretty conventional views, what I want to do next is attempt street-level views of the street wall and towers.

Would love to hear feedback!

[MonctonRad]

There is also a "Future Canadian Skylines" thread in the main Canada section. It is dominated by Toronto projects, but people have been complaining recently, and want more pan-Canadian content. Your modelling would fit right in there.

[Saul Goode]

BTW, this project goes to (virtual) public hearing on 7 September:

https://www.halifax.ca/business/plan...arlton-streets

[mleblanc]

Looks good, albeit pretty snugly fit. If the towers were more slender it wouldn't be an issue, but these are pretty sizable.

Curious to see how it plays out. As always - great job, and thanks for the models Hadrian!

[Hadrian Laing]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

Looks good, albeit pretty snugly fit. If the towers were more slender it wouldn't be an issue, but these are pretty sizable.

Thanks mleblanc! I'm interested as well. While modeling it was cool to see how long and narrow they were. The East/South elevations look like different buildings haha but it's all due to the shape.

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

BTW, this project goes to (virtual) public hearing on 7 September:
https://www.halifax.ca/business/plan...arlton-streets

Yep! I'll be presenting my thoughts at the hearing - given I live nearby - but focusing on the modeling/affordable housing side of things. Case 20761 is never shown in renders with the adjacent development which I think doesn't paint an accurate picture. I've lived in the rentals being demolished and know the people. They house some residents that definitely can't afford much else around the area or in the new developments. I Would hate to see them get evicted and resort to living rough. The city may want to approve the proposal now, but postpone demos until alternatives are more available. [Sorry for the rant]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There is also a "Future Canadian Skylines" thread in the main Canada section. It is dominated by Toronto projects, but people have been complaining recently, and want more pan-Canadian content. Your modelling would fit right in there.

Great advice, thanks! I actually have been in touch with Eric (the guy doing many of the Ontario/Toronoto future models. I want to do a Collab!)

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. Really appreciate the warm welcome this forum has given me!

[pblaauw]

Spring Garden and Robie are not parallel to each other.

EDIT: there are also TWO Robie Sts in that diagram.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

Spring Garden and Robie are not parallel to each other.

EDIT: there are also TWO Robie Sts in that diagram.

Respectfully... huh?!?

Are you talking about Hadrians renderings? Because it's clearly two different pictures, and they are labelled correctly..

I honestly have zero clue what you're talking about

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

Respectfully... huh?!?

Are you talking about Hadrians renderings? Because it's clearly two different pictures, and they are labelled correctly..

I honestly have zero clue what you're talking about

There are two different images, one on top of the other. But, to be fair, the first time I looked at Mr. Laing’s impressive work it took me a moment to sort it out. A border between the two angles might have helped avoid confusion.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

There are two different images, one on top of the other. But, to be fair, the first time I looked at Mr. Laing’s impressive work it took me a moment to sort it out. A border between the two angles might have helped avoid confusion.

Same here at first glance without my morning coffee... hitting the return key between posting the two images would create a line space that would clear up the confusion.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

Yep! I'll be presenting my thoughts at the hearing - given I live nearby - but focusing on the modeling/affordable housing side of things. Case 20761 is never shown in renders with the adjacent development which I think doesn't paint an accurate picture.

That's a great point, and a concern I've had from the start. Each case was presented as though the other one didn't exist, and it was difficult to envision the cumulative impact that both projects would have on the neighbourhood, which I feel is not insignificant.

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

I've lived in the rentals being demolished and know the people. They house some residents that definitely can't afford much else around the area or in the new developments. I Would hate to see them get evicted and resort to living rough. The city may want to approve the proposal now, but postpone demos until alternatives are more available. [Sorry for the rant]

Thanks for bringing that up. I think it's important to understand the negative impacts that this type of activity can have on some people, especially in today's housing environment. I think there should be a requirement for people displaced by these (and similar) projects to be offered accommodations at similar price points in another location, as part of the development agreement. We need to become a society that lives "closer to the heart" (to quote the lyrics of the late great Neil Peart).

Thanks for sharing your work with us!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for bringing that up. I think it's important to understand the negative impacts that this type of activity can have on some people, especially in today's housing environment. I think there should be a requirement for people displaced by these (and similar) projects to be offered accommodations at similar price points in another location, as part of the development agreement.

I agree with the sentiment, but it does open up a can of worms. Where should they be asked to go? Does it have to be in that immediate area? How far away would be acceptable? And for how long should they be given rental costs approximating what they have been paying? A year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That's a great point, and a concern I've had from the start. Each case was presented as though the other one didn't exist, and it was difficult to envision the cumulative impact that both projects would have on the neighbourhood, which I feel is not insignificant.


Thanks for bringing that up. I think it's important to understand the negative impacts that this type of activity can have on some people, especially in today's housing environment. I think there should be a requirement for people displaced by these (and similar) projects to be offered accommodations at similar price points in another location, as part of the development agreement. We need to become a society that lives "closer to the heart" (to quote the lyrics of the late great Neil Peart).

Thanks for sharing your work with us!

We are in a housing crisis. There is no similar price point units to move tenants to. You're suggesting the developer has to pay above market prices to house tenants while it builds more units to fix the housing crisis we are in? That would exclude the builders that flip buildings to REIT's from ever being able to build. It would leave us with the few that manage their own portfolios, able to build.

It's oddly forgotten, that developers do provide a public service by creating our housing supply. Not that they can't be problematic and even criminal at times but they are an integral part of North America's economy.

Why penalize the people with the tools, manpower and expertise we need to build the 40 000 units our market needs. This project has 600 units, so we just need 67 more of these to fix the rental market as it sits today. This would only keep prices at the elevated rate they are now, not the affordable price point we used to be at but it would be a start.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

We need to become a society that lives "closer to the heart" (to quote the lyrics of the late great Neil Peart).

I don't disagree but our society is a complex system and when you build in bureaucratic dependencies (no doing X until Y is completed) it tends to break down. Development in Halifax is already slow with a lot of red tape and added costs.

Note that for this particular development we have posts from 2018. So these tenants were given about 3 years of notice so far. If they can't find alternate housing it might be because they're not paying market rates or not able to. Rent control would exacerbate these issues; it tends to create a two-tier system with some people paying super cheap rent (often well-off people with stable lives who are in nice apartments for decades) while people who have to move get hit with much higher rents. It's not just a matter of finding units for the tenants.

I agree the answer is more supply. Not just from developers like this one, who will not build affordable units, but government-led public housing too. Whatever happened to Shannon Park? Halifax has so many large underused public sites and it feels like there's little pressure to develop them. In the 1950's and 60's the city was growing at a pace similar to today while the standard of living increased for average or poorer people. There was vibrant private and public housing development.

Another aspect is that if the city really is in crisis then the easiest thing might be to put up new modular housing quickly on the urban fringe. Otherwise known as trailer parks, although sometimes they can be combined together into larger complexes. HRM council fought against trailer parks for many years.

[OldDartmouthMark]

So none of you people think that there is something wrong when there are people who have been living in a building for years at a price point that they can afford, and are now being dumped into a market where availability is slim to none and prices have probably doubled or tripled since they first moved there?

It was just an idea (and an ideal) that obviously has flaws and would involve a lot of effort and perhaps some sacrifices, yet the first thing we do is throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done. Then we wonder why tent cities are happening in Halifax, yet can't seem to make the connection. Sure we need balance the supply and demand situation, but that takes a long time for the market to balance financially.

I was just reading Hadrian's comments and thinking to myself: "maybe we are doing this all wrong... maybe there's a way to build density without penalizing those who will be pushed out of their neighbourhood and won't be able to afford the upgrade when it's done." Maybe we need to balance progress and financial gain for some with the needs of others who are being left out in the cold (literally).

Anyhow, it was just a thought. Let's just go back to blaming it all on the boomers...

[DigitalNinja]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So none of you people think that there is something wrong when there are people who have been living in a building for years at a price point that they can afford, and are now being dumped into a market where availability is slim to none and prices have probably doubled or tripled since they first moved there?

It was just an idea (and an ideal) that obviously has flaws and would involve a lot of effort and perhaps some sacrifices, yet the first thing we do is throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done. Then we wonder why tent cities are happening in Halifax, yet can't seem to make the connection. Sure we need balance the supply and demand situation, but that takes a long time for the market to balance financially.

I was just reading Hadrian's comments and thinking to myself: "maybe we are doing this all wrong... maybe there's a way to build density without penalizing those who will be pushed out of their neighbourhood and won't be able to afford the upgrade when it's done." Maybe we need to balance progress and financial gain for some with the needs of others who are being left out in the cold (literally).

Anyhow, it was just a thought. Let's just go back to blaming it all on the boomers...

Should another group be sacrificed to save another? There is no right answer. We need units here, there are people willing to move in, people who can afford more expensive units who can't find one. It's unfortunate that low income people will need to leave but also would be unfortunate for others to be essentially homeless or have to leave the city because they can't even find a place to live even though they have the means.

Our city council has created the problem. They have essentially blocked off a good portion of easily accessible land along the major highways that would have allowed easy bus routes etc. Instead making it parkland - I guess more urban parks > roofs over people's heads. It would solve the downtown density issue and developers tearing down lower income spots if they had more room to build closer to the city.

Instead developers have to go out to Lantz to get anything reasonable built - an area with no mass transit into the city. I posed a question to Waye on Reddit asking what the cities plan is for the 20,000+ more people who will be living outside HRM but commuting here, as they are making it more difficult for drivers. His response "That's a problem for Hants County, not our problem." LOL what a nincompoop. For someone who votes for and touts becoming a green city his solution for 10,000+ additional cars on the road causing more congestion and idling is doing nothing. I suppose they will expect people living in Lantz to bike into the city for work.