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

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

Should another group be sacrificed to save another?

Nobody was suggesting that, nor is there any doubt that there is a supply problem. I don't know how to explain further other than to express concern that 'business as usual' is leaving people behind at an increasing rate.

I'm happy to blame the city, if that's what it takes. Perhaps they are preventing the developers from performing their "public service"...

[Keith P.]

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.

Whoa, hold on there big fella...

At least in my case I agreed with the sentiment that perhaps special circumstances needed to be recognized for existing tenants but the the terms and conditions of that could be a potential can of worms, which they are. That does not mean that there is no way to do it. Some sort of "Affordable Housing Protection Bylaw" that would establish those terms and conditions when affordable units are proposed for redevelopment into the high-rent district could well be worth looking into. It would merely be a financial transfer, some amount of money per tenant displaced for some period of time.

It certainly does more for residents than the EAC's grand greenbelt plans which our "progressive" Council bought into so quickly without considering the implications.

[Keith P.]

Meanwhile, another series of lies and misleading claims from everybody's favorite, Peggy Cameron, in the Herald:

https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-ca...ects-100630811

HALIFAX, N.S. — A group formed two years ago to advocate for a different approach to urban development is calling on the city to defer approval of a two-tower development project until proper public consultation can be had.

Peggy Cameron, with Development Options Halifax, said one of two project slated for discussion during a special meeting of the Halifax and West Community Council on Tuesday evening involves two towers, one for 28 storeys plus a penthouse and the other for 29 storeys plus a penthouse, proposed to be built by developer Peter Rouvalis on the Carlton Street block.

Another project by Dexel, part of the Lawen Group, also slated for two similar towers of 16 and 30 storeys, respectively, is also in the works next to the Rouvalis one, so four big towers are proposed to take up the block, replacing older historic homes and backing on a municipally, provincially and federally designated heritage, rare early Victorian streetscape, Cameron said.

“We've been working on development options to try to improve public engagement through assisting with a lot of technical support like proper renderings of buildings in situ so that it shows the context and 3D modeling of buildings in situ with the context and then 3D print modeling because it gives the citizens as well as the planners and developers better options to understand what the context of where they're doing the development. And it really is able to illustrate different options,” Cameron said.

“We didn't start in opposition to this development. We started in questioning this development.”

The group did renderings of the towers and also designed options using existing available space instead of tearing down 12 to 14 buildings that contained 114 affordable small-scale housing and commercial units.

“We could add something like 550 units and only demolish one building,” she said, adding that this was intended to add another idea to the conversation.

Cameron, who has a background in environmental studies and is involved in the renewable energy industry, said the big concern is the climate crisis. She said the tower proposals would not help with affordable housing or climate protection.

“We commissioned a Toronto-based engineering firm to look at what a preliminary assessment of these two proposals together would be and they estimated it would be 31,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.”

This is because of the materials like concrete, steel and other things involved in the construction of the four towers.

“Everybody's been focusing on operational energy like lighting, heating, cooling once you get a building up and running, or transportation … but operation energy is different than embodied energy,” Cameron said.

“This kind of density is inflating the value of the property, so that inflates the rents and the property tax, it squeezes out neighbouring properties,” she said.

She said a better way to achieve densification goals and balance affordable housing with climate concerns would be to retrofit and repurpose existing buildings and add on to them using existing parking lots and other spaces.

The community council's virtual meeting begins at 6 p.m. Citizens who wanted to speak had to register for the Zoom conference by Friday. Cameron encouraged anyone who wishes to also share their views to write to clerks@halifax.ca.

“They should be asking the city to defer approval on these developments until there's a legitimate public consultation. There's really a moral imperative at this point for the city to build buildings wich don't destroy the city and which are not harming the climate.”

DOH also wants to enhance and improve public engagement by allowing presentation of 3-D renderings and calls for a pause on demolition permits for affordable units and for the rules around affordable housing to be clarified. The group also calls on the city to prioritize adapting and adding on to buildings or in-fill as a first course of action and to require a carbon budget for each new development, including a mandate to not approve buildings that are beyond carbon neutral.

“I hold out some hope because there are some new council members and they may be willing to hear what citizens' concerns are,” Cameron said

The session will concern the Rouvanis development as well as another proposed 23-storey tower development at 2038 to 2050 Robie Street across from the Halifax Common.

The Dexel project is not part of Tuesday's meeting.

Representatives of the developers were not immediately available for comment. Coun. Waye Mason, who represents the area on council, did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday.

Cameron said DOH is not opposed to development, they are simply offering another option that they feel better addresses affordability, such as duplexes, triplexes, mid-rise buildings up to six storeys that can be for families, young or old couples or individuals.

It is odd that she is speaking like her group is a developer themselves who would do this in a different way. It is also interesting to hear they are allegedly spending money on Toronto engineering expertise to support their concept. Where is her money coming from?

[ILoveHalifax]

There are so many things that could be done - those mini homes are interesting and could be built in a subdivision with parkland and amenities. Miniature apartments could be built - a bed, bath, kitchen all in a few hundred feet could be an option. There are furniture manufacturers making small places very comfortable. With proper controls they do not have to be slums but rather an enviable option - They could be individually owned leading to more care.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

There are so many things that could be done - those mini homes are interesting and could be built in a subdivision with parkland and amenities. Miniature apartments could be built - a bed, bath, kitchen all in a few hundred feet could be an option. There are furniture manufacturers making small places very comfortable.

You have just described a motel or hotel.

With proper controls they do not have to be slums but rather an enviable option - They could be individually owned leading to more care.

This is where it gets dicey. Those abusing meth, crack and other dangerous drugs, of afflicted with mental illness, will make any place they settle into a slum in short order. We need to speak of and keep those individuals apart from those who were rendered homeless simply through bad luck or financial setbacks.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Whoa, hold on there big fella...

At least in my case I agreed with the sentiment that perhaps special circumstances needed to be recognized for existing tenants but the the terms and conditions of that could be a potential can of worms, which they are. That does not mean that there is no way to do it. Some sort of "Affordable Housing Protection Bylaw" that would establish those terms and conditions when affordable units are proposed for redevelopment into the high-rent district could well be worth looking into. It would merely be a financial transfer, some amount of money per tenant displaced for some period of time.

It certainly does more for residents than the EAC's grand greenbelt plans which our "progressive" Council bought into so quickly without considering the implications.

Yes, you agreed with my sentiment, but then went on to list the reasons why we can't do it.

Perhaps surprisingly to you, I agree with your sentiment as well... it would be hard to do, and obviously not everybody agrees that we need to do anything. But I still think that we should try, as a society, to be better than we are.

FWIW, I naively just intended to comment on a statement made by a fellow forumer, and did not expect fallout, including a suggestion by another forumer that I don't understand the concept of supply and demand... but I should have known better...

I do appreciate your comments, though. This forum is all about having good discussions, and I think this is a good one to have.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

Agreed, but I would extend the idea this is a factor that is more attributed to other causes and failures of the system, rather than being bogged down by looking after those who are being pushed out of the market by high costs and lack of availability (which is another side effect of the red tape and added costs). Perhaps the city should be able to declare a 'state of emergency' for the housing crisis which requires them to prioritize development approvals (perhaps allowing them to build much taller than the Centre Plan currently specifies), if this is actually what is creating the problem. Then, however, you are still limited by construction capacity, and any building approved today is likely 2 to 3 years out from completion. Another possible 'side effect' would be buildings of lower quality that were rushed through the approval process, but I see this as less of a problem than just having places for people to live.

Originally Posted by someone123

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 think that sometimes we put too much focus on the people who might benefit from this (i.e. "rich boomers"), and thus tend to fall into letting the people who are actually having difficulty making ends meet (i.e. "do I pay the rent or buy food") fall by the wayside. My opinion is that these special cases of a well-off boomer benefiting from low rent is much more rare than you think it is. Most people who have worked all their lives and built up a sizeable financial nest egg are also realizing their mortality and thus want to 'spend it' by upgrading their living situation, or passing it on to their children (which will get the money back out into the economy... an overall benefit).

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

Shannon Park was actually military housing, but I understand the sentiment. Dartmouth has a plethora of underused lands just waiting to be built up, but for some reason developers continue to focus on peninsular Halifax (presumably because of their ability to attain higher profit margins while carrying out their "public service"?).

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

I agree. There needs to be a short-term solution while we wait for supply to increase. If it's trailer parks, then so be it, but then transit must be boosted so that we don't end up with more people being forced to commute by car, when in fact they would live better in a more urban environment such as the one they are being priced out of.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think that sometimes we put too much focus on the people who might benefit from this (i.e. "rich boomers"), and thus tend to fall into letting the people who are actually having difficulty making ends meet (i.e. "do I pay the rent or buy food") fall by the wayside.

I bring up these concerns not because I dislike some groups of people but because I believe public policies should be efficiently targeted (I count myself in a group that needs 0 government financial assistance for housing; I am a property owner). I gave rent control as an example of a policy that sounds good but doesn't work out well in practice. Unfortunately some people in NS still argue for rent control and haven't learned from how badly it worked out in other places, and there is a risk that it could be implemented due to political pressure.

I think a plan to shift responsibility for rehousing old tenants onto developers, over and above the terms of the lease, has the potential to cause similar problems. To me it sounds like a progression of the old trend that has caused development fees to amount to a large portion of new housing costs.

Something like a housing voucher scheme seems better although the city needs to be able to build new supply under that system too. There are two semi-distinct problems: (1) not enough housing, (2) some people do not have enough income to afford housing. You cannot really solve (2) without solving (1), but you can solve (1) without (2). Lots of people suffer because of (1) and demand solutions to (2).

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You have just described a motel or hotel.



This is where it gets dicey. Those abusing meth, crack and other dangerous drugs, of afflicted with mental illness, will make any place they settle into a slum in short order. We need to speak of and keep those individuals apart from those who were rendered homeless simply through bad luck or financial setbacks.

Obviously Keith you have no idea what I was talking about - the mini houses are shown on HGTV and the small apartments are NOT at all like a hotel - but maybe you stay in some cheap hotels with no space

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Obviously Keith you have no idea what I was talking about - the mini houses are shown on HGTV and the small apartments are NOT at all like a hotel - but maybe you stay in some cheap hotels with no space

Educate me on how the small apartments are all that different from a hotel. Hotel rooms come in all different sizes.

As for tiny homes, they are an absurd hipster affectation. The crew at Lake City Woodworkers built a few. They cost $60K apiece. Then you need some sort of foundation, utility hookup, etc. A mobile home solution would be far better.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Educate me on how the small apartments are all that different from a hotel. Hotel rooms come in all different sizes.

As for tiny homes, they are an absurd hipster affectation. The crew at Lake City Woodworkers built a few. They cost $60K apiece. Then you need some sort of foundation, utility hookup, etc. A mobile home solution would be far better.

You can do your own research - I have nothing to prove to you

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I bring up these concerns not because I dislike some groups of people

I did not expect that this was your motivation.

Regardless, there are many factors involved that will probably guarantee that nobody will ever give it more than lip service, but I've enjoyed the discussion just the same. The increase in supply should show some benefit within the next decade, but I think this will be dependent on how many people decide to move here to escape the housing situation of cities that have already let it go too far.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The increase in supply should show some benefit within the next decade, but I think this will be dependent on how many people decide to move here to escape the housing situation of cities that have already let it go too far.

I don't know what will happen but Halifax had a few factors that made it prone to a "perfect storm" of price appreciation:

- It was heavily underrated for many years around the country, so it was ready to be "discovered" quickly
- Immigration has gone up a lot and the boom years in Alberta are mostly gone. Immigration to NS was arguably artificially suppressed in the past.
- It is much smaller than more expensive cities like Toronto, so shifting demand can easily swamp the local market

On the plus side there is a lot of developable land available. IMO this is why the housing crisis is largely self imposed or regulatory in nature. I think it is not a true shortage in what can be built for people or what people could afford, but a disconnect between the regulatory environment in HRM and the level of demand. There's a considerable risk that this whole system could be ossified in its current state, without fixing the underlying issues to make the city better able to cope with future changes in demand. While it sounds nice to help out tenants I am not sure this will be sustainable with almost 10,000 people moving to the city every year. The demand for subsidy will grow and grow and as the proportion of people who seem to need help rises it will become less sustainable.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

You can do your own research - I have nothing to prove to you

And apparently nothing useful to add to the discussion.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And apparently nothing useful to add to the discussion.

I did add to the conversation but you in your narrow point of view think you know all about it because Lake City built a few mini houses - there is a lot more than Lake City

And I can drive on round a bouts

[Good Baklava]

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?.

Apparently many here admit it’s wrong but somehow refuse to look at what could be done other than “just move to some modular home on the periphery” at best or “the sacrifice is worth it to appease the market” at worst.

Let me make some things clear to a few folks here:

1) Local zoning is not a housing policy. Federal and provincial governments set that course, the municipality with all its councillors and planners are at the very end of the tunnel.

2) The main housing “policy” mentioned by many is only a half-baked version of Chicago-school economics. No mention of simple solutions such as RGI or off-market housing, and rent control gets mocked more than it ought to be.

3) New infrastructure runs into similar issues as upzoning or unlocking new lands: Build a new highway into the wilderness, much of that new housing will be unaffordable estate lots. Build a new transit line through a neighbourhood rich or poor, people living near stations loose a home while the lands go to the highest bidder, making way for far-from-affordable towers. Infrastructure, like zoning, needs to be accompanied by a housing policy.

4) Developers do not create a “public service”, they create use value which is quite frankly far more open to exchange than it should be.

5) Yes, the government is at fault and can’t be trusted, mostly because it has kowtowed industry interests by first creating loads of crappy projects meant to avoid competition with private real estate, then by restricting it to the “neediest” (Mulroney’s words not mine) to a point where tenants can’t pay for maintenance, before offloading that file to provinces. Now local governments and cooperatives can’t even maintain these boxes and sell them off to developers. Take it from David Hulchanski, not me.

6) Cash payment to tenants for rentals are not going to work because developers have themselves already received large cash incentives which have produced little to no new truly affordable housing. Cash payments are veering on UBI nonsense peddled by the Greens. Sure, you may give more freedom to choose, but does it secure any right to stay where you are? Far from it. They could be dispossessed so easily without some form of rent control.

7) To the S&D folks, sure, simple enough… but be careful. Countries have struggled to increase their housing supply by 2-3% annually at the best of times. Yes, there is a housing market with its rules but we have created it, so please, stop describing it as a force of nature.

This election matters a ton for housing, more than the provincial or municipal ones, so make your choice, any choice. But my final piece of advice is don’t count on the government to save us from “big bad business”, but in equal measure don’t expect the “entrepreneurial” real estate industry to fill the void of “inefficient bureaucracy”. The state and private interests are really more intertwined than frequently imagined.

[Hadrian Laing]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Meanwhile, another series of lies and misleading claims from everybody's favorite, Peggy Cameron, in the Herald:

It is odd that she is speaking like her group is a developer themselves who would do this in a different way. It is also interesting to hear they are allegedly spending money on Toronto engineering expertise to support their concept. Where is her money coming from?

Hey Keith, I can answer those questions. Development Options Halifax hired a carbon accounting firm in Toronto to do an embodied carbon estimate. The goal was to:
1. Quantify the amount of embodied carbon being produced by the developments
2. Quantify the amount of embodied carbon being produced by an alternative in-fill.
3. Compare per squarefoot embodied carbon of built technology (alternative massing vs proposed development).

As far as I've seen, embodied carbon is actually quite significant for these developments and is entirely untracked. This definitely needs to be taken into account when densifying the core in favor of more passive urban lifestyles. I'm glad DoH did it and also believe Halifax ought to require it of applicants.

Second question: Where is the money coming from? I HAVE NO IDEA! I'm helping out for free! hahaha

[Hadrian Laing]

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.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

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.

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.

I'm so sorry folks, I see now I've made a grave representational error! I left no border between images - I have become that which I sought to destroy!

Thanks for the heads up, I have such a hard time adding images on this forum.

[Hadrian Laing]

Hi All, Thanks for all the kind words!

Below I is a GIF that I thought you would all would enjoy.

PS: If you thought I had trouble with posting still images, just wait till you see how poorly I post this GIF! Click the link below and hopefully it works!

URL link if the image doesn't work:
https://i.imgur.com/DWvboCs.mp4

Image of Gif:

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

Hey Keith, I can answer those questions. Development Options Halifax hired a carbon accounting firm in Toronto to do an embodied carbon estimate.

This is quite interesting.

Often there's a lot of focus on say LEED certification but not on embodied carbon. While a new LEED building will have better operating characteristics than an old building, it's not a clear win on net if you're tearing down an old building; analysis is needed as well as assumptions about the future life cycle of buildings. I wonder what this sort of calculation would have looked like for the Ralston Building or Shannon Park, and if it was done, or if there was just a desire to start from a blank slate.