Development Rumours - Page 130

Drybrain · #**2581** Posted **Oct 24, 2019, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Excellent commentary.

You should think about running for city council yourself.

If I was still living in Halifax, I would vote for you.

Thanks!

That picture above, too, shows what a vast amount of space there is to develop behind the footprint of the existing buildings. If the Mills and Dugger's structures were restored to something like their original appearance (both were marred by that awful fake stone a few years ago) it could create a great streetscape with loads of new square footage behind and above.

It would mean sacrificing some of the developable building envelope, and dealing with whatever old-building problems exist. But realistically, all of these structures have been completely gutted inside anyway, so there's no character left inside, and they may as well be turned into shells containing essentially a new structure, which would help manage that problem.

It would create a more varied and interesting street frontage with some historic character, and provide most, albeit not all, of the square footage that a wholly new project would allow. The Mills/Duggers buildings probably only occupy 30-40 percent of their respective lots, and you could only add a few more storeys directly at street-level anyway, so there's really not that much square footage at play when demolishing vs building all-new.

someone123 · #**2582** Posted **Oct 24, 2019, 7:51 PM**

Halifax doesn't really seem to have much in the way of planning rules that are designed to maintain character in a meaningful way. There are some bland HRM by Design guidelines but they don't result in facades as interesting as the average pre-war building. There's heritage protection but it's weak and it tends to be based on age or history as much as architectural character. The city is going through a kind of mass extinction event of mid-range character buildings right now, and it's being encouraged at the municipal planning level.

It wouldn't even be so bad if the standards for new buildings were better. It's not like it's impossible to build Dugger's level facades these days. But that's not what Spring Garden Road has been getting.

The North End has been a little better but even there I notice a lot of shortcuts on new buildings that could have been great with just a bit more effort. Imagine what Agricola would turn into if a Dugger's style facade were average for new development there.

Drybrain · #**2583** Posted **Oct 24, 2019, 8:02 PM**

In good historic-character news: IIRC, Dexel's demolition permits for those heritage buildings on Barrington expire this month, and all three are still occupied. So my understanding is that to demolish them they'd need to go through the whole procedure of applying for the permits, public hearings, and then waiting three years. My assumption, and I hope I'm right, is that this means the buildings are not going to be destroyed, and some kind of Centre Plan-friendly project is in the wings.

someone123 · #**2584** Posted **Oct 24, 2019, 8:16 PM**

That Barrington proposal was the kind of thing that would be considered beyond the pale in most cities in North America or Europe.

There's a lot of room to improve that block while respecting the historic architecture that's there. One of the old houses was already mangled so it could be restored for a net gain or redeveloped with no big downside. The others have low lot coverage so they could have unobtrusive rear additions. The lot size is probably why these properties were attractive to begin with.

IanWatson · #**2585** Posted **Oct 28, 2019, 12:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

In good historic-character news: IIRC, Dexel's demolition permits for those heritage buildings on Barrington expire this month, and all three are still occupied. So my understanding is that to demolish them they'd need to go through the whole procedure of applying for the permits, public hearings, and then waiting three years. My assumption, and I hope I'm right, is that this means the buildings are not going to be destroyed, and some kind of Centre Plan-friendly project is in the wings.

Old South suburb Heritage Conservation District is currently going through the final stages of the process, and the scuttlebutt is that HRM got it to the point where Dexel is happy with what they'll be able to do under the District, and don't feel pressured to demo (conservation districts make it possible to prohibit demolition entirely, rather than demo after three years of waiting).

Drybrain · #**2586** Posted **Oct 28, 2019, 2:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Old South suburb Heritage Conservation District is currently going through the final stages of the process, and the scuttlebutt is that HRM got it to the point where Dexel is happy with what they'll be able to do under the District, and don't feel pressured to demo (conservation districts make it possible to prohibit demolition entirely, rather than demo after three years of waiting).

I wonder if this has to do with why Old South Suburb has taken so long.

I think it's nuts that a city like Halifax has only one conservation district. A Spring Garden Road district would have been nice five or ten years ago, when there still might have been a point to it. I think there's a false idea that conservation districts are all about preserving museum-like, frozen-in-time areas. Both hardcore heritage advocates and developers may hold this opinion, so the heritage advocates see modern development as an affront to the district, whereas developers see them as overly restrictive.

When really they can be as flexible as needed. A Spring Garden district, for example, would obviously be in an area with a wide range of building ages, and could simply identify certain heritage resources and prohibit their demolition in whole or part, without preventing or stifling other development. That's the way it works in a lot of other places. (Downtown Yonge Street in Toronto is covered by at least one heritage district, IIRC, and also has 80-storey towers going up.)

Dmajackson · #**2587** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:50 AM**

Anybody know the what is planned for 2050 Gottingen Street? There is a sidewalk encroachment with full on construction barriers around this and the adjacent vacant lot on Falkland. There is only a demolition permit listed for the site at the moment.

For those unfamiliar this is on the west side of Gottingen Street at Falkland Street. Its the lot to the right of Salvation Army.

eastcoastal · #**2588** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 11:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Anybody know the what is planned for 2050 Gottingen Street? There is a sidewalk encroachment with full on construction barriers around this and the adjacent vacant lot on Falkland. There is only a demolition permit listed for the site at the moment.

For those unfamiliar this is on the west side of Gottingen Street at Falkland Street. Its the lot to the right of Salvation Army.

I'm not sure what that is... but I heard, and I can't remember where, that it's owned by the people who used to own Agricola Street Brasserie and who currently own Little Oak and The Ostrich Club.

someone123 · #**2589** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 5:11 PM**

Does it look like this will fill in everything up to the "squiggle"? I'd guess it's probably another as of right project similar to the handful built in the area over the last few years? Not sure what the as of right height limit is for that block.

Querce · #**2590** Posted **Nov 1, 2019, 2:16 AM**

2050 Gottingen is zoned for a FAR of 7.50 under the centre plan, probably lower currently, so maybe they're just waiting for the Centre Plan to go into effect before applying so they can go through as of right rather than a development permit?

midasmull · #**2591** Posted **Nov 1, 2019, 11:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I'm not sure what that is... but I heard, and I can't remember where, that it's owned by the people who used to own Agricola Street Brasserie and who currently own Little Oak and The Ostrich Club.

It's acutally owned by Adam Barrett - he's also doing the reno at 2172/2174 Gottingen and is trying to build an 8-storey building on Brunswick beside St. Patrick's Church.

someone123 · #**2592** Posted **Nov 1, 2019, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by midasmull

It's acutally owned by Adam Barrett - he's also doing the reno at 2172/2174 Gottingen and is trying to build an 8-storey building on Brunswick beside St. Patrick's Church.

It's great that Halifax has smaller developers taking on projects like this. Many developers seem to prefer sites with a large footprint but Halifax has many streets full of little holes, and lots of neighbourhoods where narrow medium height buildings are most appropriate.

atbw · #**2593** Posted **Nov 4, 2019, 1:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

It's great that Halifax has smaller developers taking on projects like this. Many developers seem to prefer sites with a large footprint but Halifax has many streets full of little holes, and lots of neighbourhoods where narrow medium height buildings are most appropriate.

^And these are the buildings that end up adding the most to the streetscape.

eastcoastal · #**2594** Posted **Nov 4, 2019, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by midasmull

It's acutally owned by Adam Barrett - he's also doing the reno at 2172/2174 Gottingen and is trying to build an 8-storey building on Brunswick beside St. Patrick's Church.

Thanks for the clarification... That sounds right and jogs my memory a bit.

midasmull · #**2595** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Anybody know the what is planned for 2050 Gottingen Street? There is a sidewalk encroachment with full on construction barriers around this and the adjacent vacant lot on Falkland. There is only a demolition permit listed for the site at the moment.

For those unfamiliar this is on the west side of Gottingen Street at Falkland Street. Its the lot to the right of Salvation Army.

When the lot was purchased, the developer indicated they'd be building a 5 or 6 storey building with 30 units and 1-2 building pads. The LUB apparently enables him to do it as-of-right.

someone123 · #**2596** Posted **Nov 5, 2019, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by midasmull

When the lot was purchased, the developer indicated they'd be building a 5 or 6 storey building with 30 units and 1-2 building pads. The LUB apparently enables him to do it as-of-right.

Isn't there a similar building under construction on the former Forbes site? Is that development on the combined footprint of 2172 and 2174?

Then there's another one to the south of 2171, probably almost complete now. And Velo 2.

Presumably the Mi'kmaq Friendship Centre will be sold too if the new complex is built.

Meanwhile the HTNS sites still seem to be in limbo.

teddifax · #**2597** Posted **Nov 9, 2019, 10:02 PM**

https://www.facebook.com/16131770121...type=3&theater
7037 Mumford Road, site work is underway

Querce · #**2598** Posted **Nov 21, 2019, 10:12 PM**

There's construction going on at 67 Tacoma Drive right now

Building permit says it will end up as a 56 housing unit building, but I can't really find anything other than that.

Building might be called Bowtie, if the building permit sign on the property is anything to go by

Edit: Village on Main has the as-of-right development details:

Quote:

67 TACOMA DRIVE
As of Right Development Opportunity
Property size: 31,084 sq ft
Building Footprint: 19,874 sq ft
Building Type: Commercial / Residential
Floors above ground: 8
Estimated sq footage: 158,996 sq ft

FuzzyWuz · #**2599** Posted **Nov 21, 2019, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Querce

There's construction going on at 67 Tacoma Drive right now

Building permit says it will end up as a 56 housing unit building, but I can't really find anything other than that.

Building might be called Bowtie, if the building permit sign on the property is anything to go by

Edit: Village on Main has the as-of-right development details:

what a dreary spot that would be to live.

Jstaleness · #**2600** Posted **Nov 22, 2019, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

what a dreary spot that would be to live.

Maybe for now. Main St. is expected to be improved over the next several years with low to mid rise housing expected to take over a lot of the current run down retail locations. They got it wrong with that Shell Gas station though. The last thing Main St. needed was another one. This would have been a perfect location for some new housing development.