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

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

I'm helping out for free! hahaha

So, how did the public hearing go?

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

(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.

So you agree: rent control does not do favours for property owners… Especially not rental property owners.

[pblaauw]

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

Right, sorry. My bad, as the kids say.

[Keith P.]

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. 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.

Having never heard this term before, I looked it up:

Embodied carbon consists of all the GHG emissions associated with building construction, including those that arise from extracting, transporting, manufacturing, and installing building materials on site, as well as the operational and end-of-life emissions associated with those materials.

So essentially any new development is "bad" and will be decried by those inclined to wrap themselves in the climate change flag. It matters little if it is a large development like this, or a new house made of sticks. New = bad. An ideal thing for anti-development types like Cameron and her ilk to trumpet.

But the calculation of it is highly theoretical and complex, to the point where I would question if whatever results are trotted out actually mean anything.

Of course if your objective is to have Western society devolve back to living in caves (or as in this case, in run-down rotting wood frame Victorians), it is right up your alley.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

So essentially any new development is "bad" and will be decried by those inclined to wrap themselves in the climate change flag.

While I'm sure embodied carbon calculations will be used by some people to say "new is bad", we shouldn't write them off. The reality is that up-front carbon emissions can indeed be significant, and they happen right now when we drastically need to cut emissions. Much like money, there is a time-value to emissions.

Importantly, embodied carbon emissions vary widely based on building typology and construction methods. Concrete construction creates more emissions than wood, for example. Some forms of insulation actually create more emissions from their manufacture than they will ever save in reduced operational emissions. Per-dwelling-unit emissions also vary based on building typology and height. There's typically a decrease as you go from low density to medium and high density, but as you get into the super high range per-unit emissions actually go up because you have to have a higher percentage of the building dedicated to elevator cores and building structure.

The key to all of embodied carbon calculations though is that they're a data point that allows you to actually take a holistic look at the impact of a building or way of building. The question shouldn't just be "how much carbon does this building create in its construction?", but "how does the carbon emitted in the construction of a building compare versus building a different building, or building the same number of units elsewhere when transportation emissions are included?"

Of course, even such an analysis requires a lot of assumptions and hand waving. Are dwelling units actually fungible? E.g. if you don't build a proposed tower does that truly mean 500 single-detached units and all of their carbon impacts will be built somewhere else in the city? For such reasons I tend to find embodied carbon calculations more useful on the very high-level scale (making decisions during regional planning about the types of communities we should develop given our transportation network), and at the very small scale (making decisions about building design, such as what types of insulation to use). This mid-scale, where we use them to say "yay" or "nay" to a building in a relatively isolated decision-making process, doesn't seem all that productive to me and I would discourage any city from making it a requirement of a planning application process.

[Northend Guy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But the calculation of it is highly theoretical and complex, to the point where I would question if whatever results are trotted out actually mean anything.

This is likely the case. I have used modelling software from a building operations/energy consumption POV, and quite frankly, it is very easy to manipulate variables to get such software to spit out any result you wish. It would be very easy to skew such a model to one's own bias. For example, how many pieces of big equipment are involved in disassembling? Assume worst case. Have the emissions of the current building actually been assessed? No? Assume best case. Do we know what the new finishes will be? No? Assume worst case. You get the idea.

Of course, the opposite is also true. IMHO, such modelling is a waste of time & resources if done by a party with a vested (self-imposed or not) interest. That said, I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a completely unbiased and non-influenceable party that would have the skill set to do such a thing.

A big part of the problem is that to have this modelling done accurately, the design of the new development would need to be more or less complete before undertaking the model study...but often developers are locking in contracts and pricing at that point of design, so if they then need to submit for a review based on this modelling, by the time the review is done the economics will likely change and they will be revisiting products and pricing, which will likely change the model again.

As much as I like the idea of modelling this kind of stuff, there are so many unknown variables that the odds of producing an accurate assessment of what might be are just too low for for me to give much weight to any resulting conclusions.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

This mid-scale, where we use them to say "yay" or "nay" to a building in a relatively isolated decision-making process, doesn't seem all that productive to me and I would discourage any city from making it a requirement of a planning application process.

We also have carbon pricing (and increasingly offset programs) in Canada, implemented at the federal and provincial level. One can argue about how good the system is, but it also addresses the same concerns, arguably in a more natural way by making more polluting development more expensive. In a system that fully prices in the cost of the carbon emissions, there may be no point to doing another independent assessment of the cost of a new building.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

So you agree: rent control does not do favours for property owners… Especially not rental property owners.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Am I being cross-examined?

I don't think my own personal property ownership (I own a modest BC condo I live in, not a portfolio of NS rental properties) is relevant, and I don't think it follows that a policy that's bad for property owners is necessarily good for tenants. Rent control can certainly be bad for both at the same time. My feeling is that there are other policy options that are better for everyone. I think there should be many different types of housing and ownership/tenancy/financing models for different needs and people, and most blanket rules will be a net loss. Life-long low-cost rentals are just one small part of that, and are probably better served by a mix of public housing and subsidized ownership models (so low income people can accumulate capital too). If Halifax had a public housing authority with only a 3 year waiting list all of the low income tenants in these buildings about to be demolished could have been re-housed by now.

[Good Baklava]

You see, there’s this uncle of mine, we’ll call him Mose. He’s quite cosmopolitan, enjoys living downtown and hitting up locally famous restaurants and bars. Not rich by any measure but lives comfortably. Anyway, his story is relevant to this project because of his views on transit. These new buildings should have decent access to transit.

When Mose was younger and couldn’t yet afford a car, he would ride transit. He still does on occasion but mostly prefers his car. He would see visibly low-income people on the LRT quite often. He didn’t mind them at all, but was annoyed by how they paid a reduced fare to the city because of their low income status. He saw it as a two-tier system, where his transit rate was way too expensive because others paid a reduced rate. His position aligns very much with his self interest, to such a degree I think he killed any trace of humanism he once had. Even now, when he mostly uses his car and only uses transit on the rare occasion, he loves to vent on all sorts of online platforms against these subsidized transit users. He acts as if he’s a transit user trying to make transit fair, when in fact the opposite is true.

I wonder how much transit will be boosted here once there’s a larger mass of riders to serve.

[Good Baklava]

-

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

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.

...snipped the rest to make the reply more compact...

Thanks very much for your take on the situation. I always appreciate your perspective on such topics.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

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.

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but at least know I was genuinely trying to help. When posting multiple images I always make a point of hitting the return between the IMG code to add a blank line of space between images.

My second comment that you quoted was just referring to the fact that I appreciate your putting both projects on the same rendering, which I had not seen in the past. Not sure why it was included in your post is all.

[mleblanc]

This was approved today

Source

[DigitalNinja]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

This was approved today

Source

Good! Will be nice to see this one underway.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks very much for your take on the situation. I always appreciate your perspective on such topics.

Glad to know it peaked your interest, whether readers agree / disagree I'm happy to know it's sparking something. I know they may seem like oddball leftist ideas to many, so I thought I'd throw in some sources for anyone interested out there so they can formulate their own opinion:

I highly suggest chapter 11, it goes into unforgiving detail about the history of affordable housing in Canada: Policy Options for a Canadian Rental Housing Strategy

A basic rundown of what the different levels of government are responsible for on the housing front

Suburbanization of Poverty (Wealthiest blue sections are mostly clustered along transit routes seeing intensive development, newer maps of the same style for all major Canadian cities are available from a recent book but this one is free)

Being from the early 2000s they are not the most up-to-date, but they are still considered foundational readings providing concepts that help understand current phenomena.

[hoser111]

Halifax Council Approves Two Skyscrapers Despite Public Concerns

https://huddle.today/halifax-council...-concerns&ct=t

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by hoser111

Halifax Council Approves Two Skyscrapers Despite Public Concerns

https://huddle.today/halifax-council...-concerns&ct=t

Oh dear, I didn't realize we have another supposed planner on Council, as if we needed that. From the article:

Coun. Patty Cuttell evoked big developments of the past, like Scotia Square, and pointed out how many don’t believe they’ve stood the test of time.

She wondered if the two major developments slated for one block might fall into the same category.

“As an urban planner, I cannot say this is great planning. This simply is not. This is not something you would do on a single block,” she said.

She argued the transition from the heritage buildings to the main tower is too stark and that the impact of shadows of all four buildings is “unknown.”

“From an urban design perspective there are some real flaws in this building,” she said.

Will she end up being one of the anti-development gang?

I do find it curious that Mason apparently supported this for some reason while in the past decrying 10 floors as "Too TALL!". Perhaps the Rouvalis family has found the way to his heart.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Oh dear, I didn't realize we have another supposed planner on Council, as if we needed that. From the article:




Will she end up being one of the anti-development gang?

I do find it curious that Mason apparently supported this for some reason while in the past decrying 10 floors as "Too TALL!". Perhaps the Rouvalis family has found the way to his heart.

No question. Council for the most part hates any change or progress, and loves to block development as we have seen for decades. Then they turn around and wonder why there's a housing crisis... brilliant!

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Oh dear, I didn't realize we have another supposed planner on Council, as if we needed that.

I'm amazed that she managed to sneak through an election under your radar. That's not the Keith P. we're used to!

Seriously, though, I thought her background was fairly well known.

[Saul Goode]

Has the Rouvalis group given any indication of when they intend to get this project underway?

Hadrian? Bueller? Anyone....?