[Halifax] Q Lofts | ? m | 6 fl | Complete

[someone123]

This thread is for Polycorp's 72-unit, LEED Platinum Q Lofts project at the corner of James and Roberts Street, near Agricola.

Herald story is here: http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...uction-halifax

YouTube for PolyCorp: http://www.youtube.com/user/HalifaxNewHomeCondo

I'll set the status to "U/C" now, but really they are doing site prep in anticipation of approval. No renderings are available right now.

[someone123]

Looking forward to renderings and floor plans for this one. It sounds like the plan is for 3 stacked levels of condo units that will each have 2 floors -- I don't think that's very common in Halifax (Grainery Lofts is another new building that is meant to have a loft feel). Halifax does not have a big supply of old abandoned industrial buildings to convert so it's not surprising to see these constructed from scratch.

As Polley mentions in the article and as people on this forum keep saying, this part of the city is an excellent spot for infill. It's well located, has lots of sites suitable for development, and has the sort of scaffolding needed to become a great neighbourhood. All that's missing right now is the population density.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

Looking forward to renderings and floor plans for this one. It sounds like the plan is for 3 stacked levels of condo units that will each have 2 floors -- I don't think that's very common in Halifax (Grainery Lofts is another new building that is meant to have a loft feel). Halifax does not have a big supply of old abandoned industrial buildings to convert so it's not surprising to see these constructed from scratch.

As Polley mentions in the article and as people on this forum keep saying, this part of the city is an excellent spot for infill. It's well located, has lots of sites suitable for development, and has the sort of scaffolding needed to become a great neighbourhood. All that's missing right now is the population density.

It's kind of sad to see Halifax embrace something purely for the sake of trendiness on this big of a scale. Projects like this and grainery lofts are sad attempts to mimic a much more authentic type of development. That being said the project sounds pretty good overall, although probably not very affordable. Even calling them something other than "lofts" would be a major step in the right direction IMO.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

It's kind of sad to see Halifax embrace something purely for the sake of trendiness on this big of a scale. Projects like this and grainery lofts are sad attempts to mimic a much more authentic type of development. That being said the project sounds pretty good overall, although probably not very affordable. Even calling them something other than "lofts" would be a major step in the right direction IMO.

It's just a marketing term. In the end the quality of the building itself is what matters. I'm not even so sure the term "loft" is being misapplied -- many people just understand the term to mean an apartment or condo with high ceilings and an open layout.

Affordable housing is important but not every development needs to be affordable, and even expensive developments put downward pressure on the market by increasing the housing supply. The worst market from the perspective of low income earners is one where NIMBYs artificially restrict the supply of new housing, limiting opportunities for new buyers and causing the value of existing properties to skyrocket.

Another advantage of expensive developments is that they provide the city and province with the tax base needed to provide low income housing and social assistance. The low income housing projects near Gottingen have only been made possible with government money and that comes disproportionately from top earners.

[halifaxboyns]

Keep in mind that in Vancouver - as part of the way to be able to build a tall building you must provide affordable housing. But that can only be done because of the legislative nature of Vancouver's Charter. If I'm not mistaken, the City Charter gives them the power to do this.

Now there is no reason why HRM couldn't get the Province to amend the HRM act to allow this. But keep in mind, when you look at the menu of items that developers have to provide to get a 30+ storey vertical village (essentially all the same things a developer would have to do for a sprawling suburban community) - it does push up the cost. So you get the public benefit of the affordable housing for low income families; but the prices of the units go up to recoupe the cost.

Just how much it goes up - I am not sure, but I'm sure there is some effect. But frankly, if getting things like money for parks, transportation, affordable/low income housing, recreation facilities and schools raises the price even 20% on a 250,000 condo ($50,000, to push the cost to $300,000) frankly I'm not upset with it. The city gets the benefit of all this private $ into public benefit and then double downs by increased property value.

[Keith P.]

Nice to see that the 5 Moes have secured long-term employment again!

The YouTube videos show just how productive they are. At their blistering pace, site prep should hopefully be completed before the end of the decade.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Now there is no reason why HRM couldn't get the Province to amend the HRM act to allow this. But keep in mind, when you look at the menu of items that developers have to provide to get a 30+ storey vertical village (essentially all the same things a developer would have to do for a sprawling suburban community) - it does push up the cost. So you get the public benefit of the affordable housing for low income families; but the prices of the units go up to recoupe the cost.

The problem here is an assumption that people here want "vertical villages" as long as units are affordable, the development is sustainable, and the public realm is enhanced. This is not really true. Here, the priority is making sure that there ARE NO vertical villages, and everything else is an afterthought. As in, '40% of the population can't afford to live downtown? Too bad for them, this is as affordable as we can make downtown living without destroying the view and undermining our heritage. These greedy come-from-aways are trying to turn us into Toronto.'

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

Affordable housing is important but not every development needs to be affordable, and even expensive developments put downward pressure on the market by increasing the housing supply. The worst market from the perspective of low income earners is one where NIMBYs artificially restrict the supply of new housing, limiting opportunities for new buyers and causing the value of existing properties to skyrocket.

Another advantage of expensive developments is that they provide the city and province with the tax base needed to provide low income housing and social assistance. The low income housing projects near Gottingen have only been made possible with government money and that comes disproportionately from top earners.

In this particular neighbourhood though, un-affordable housing perpetuates the stereotypes of gentrification: that developers are in it for themselves and not the community, that the poor will be pushed out of their own neighbourhood, that an "us-against-them" mentality is appropriate. If it weren't for this attitude, I think the St. Pat's-Alexandra case would have turned out very differently. When I talk about affordable housing I don't necessarily mean the 30% of income formula or however it's determined, I just mean housing that the average person would be able to afford, rather than luxury condos.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

In this particular neighbourhood though, un-affordable housing perpetuates the stereotypes of gentrification: that developers are in it for themselves and not the community, that the poor will be pushed out of their own neighbourhood, that an "us-against-them" mentality is appropriate. If it weren't for this attitude, I think the St. Pat's-Alexandra case would have turned out very differently. When I talk about affordable housing I don't necessarily mean the 30% of income formula or however it's determined, I just mean housing that the average person would be able to afford, rather than luxury condos.

Nobody is being pushed out for the Q Lofts. They are demolishing an empty warehouse. The developers probably are in it mostly for themselves. They work to make a profit, and maybe because they enjoy building housing for people. Do people ask the baggers at Sobeys if they are "in it for the community"? That whole concept is ludicrous.

St. Pat's-A also would have turned out very differently had the city not instituted a silly policy back in 2000. The correct solution there was to get rid of it, as they have done.

[fenwick16]

Hopefully it will be approved without any problems.

Here is the Google Map link - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=5666+ro...gl=ca&t=h&z=19

[worldlyhaligonian]

From the story:

Because Polley said his company is aiming to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum status, the highest standard for a green residential building, he feels it is important to involve the public.

“There are a lot of people out there who enjoy getting a lot more of the technical information that historically has never been available to them.”


Sounds like he's talking about us guys.

Fingers crossed HRM doesn't pull a document out of the depths of their vast planning material on sites where something hasn't been built/rebuilt and demand this site become a playground as well.

[someone123]

Tax incentives could work. As you say, it is up to the municipality to implement those. It might make sense for the municipality to invest more in the neighbourhood, but it does not make much sense to say that developers as such should "give back".

Unfortunately there isn't much political will when it comes to investing in the urban core. Maybe that will change in November.

Tradespeople could generally afford the sort of development that is being complained about in the North End. Theatre Lofts and 5505 Falkland had a bunch of sub-$200k condos. We are not going to see the northern half of the peninsula fill up with million dollar condos anytime soon. We will for sure see prices in the North End shoot up if there isn't much new construction.

[Hali87]

So how do we ensure that groups such as the Mic Mac Friendship Centre and the North End Clinic are able to continue operating in the area as property values go up? An obvious solution would have been for the city to provide incentives for the developer to include space in his project for these groups, and relax height limits (if applicable) in order to accommodate this extra space and maybe an extra floor of residential to make up for the increased construction costs. Unfortunately any opportunity for this to happen is likely long gone.

I realize this is getting off topic for this thread so I will just say that I don't think this project is bad but just wanted to illustrate how I think the perceived negative effects of gentrification (and I use the term loosely) can be mitigated with a bit of creativity and willingness to encourage positive change. This particular project doesn't do that in any direct way but as long as some do I think people's attitudes toward development will change for the better.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

So how do we ensure that groups such as the Mic Mac Friendship Centre and the North End Clinic are able to continue operating in the area as property values go up? An obvious solution would have been for the city to provide incentives for the developer to include space in his project for these groups, and relax height limits (if applicable) in order to accommodate this extra space and maybe an extra floor of residential to make up for the increased construction costs. Unfortunately any opportunity for this to happen is likely long gone.

The St Pats/Alexandra project proposed by Jono Developments would have done just that. Unfortunately those groups got greedy and felt entitled to the entire property. Once the court case plays itself out I see no reason why Jono should continue to offer to host them.

This is a private development on private property, unlike the St Pats situation. Why should a developer have to make additional investment without any return to host such groups, reducing the saleability of the development in the process (many prospective buyers would run away if the building included such organizations). Buyers can choose where they wish to live and without significant subsidies to the developer to offset the loss of saleability there should be no requirement to accommodate such organizations.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The St Pats/Alexandra project proposed by Jono Developments would have done just that. Unfortunately those groups got greedy and felt entitled to the entire property. Once the court case plays itself out I see no reason why Jono should continue to offer to host them.

This is a private development on private property, unlike the St Pats situation. Why should a developer have to make additional investment without any return to host such groups, reducing the saleability of the development in the process (many prospective buyers would run away if the building included such organizations). Buyers can choose where they wish to live and without significant subsidies to the developer to offset the loss of saleability there should be no requirement to accommodate such organizations.

I agree, If I was a developer I wouldnt want any of the baggage associated with these groups, and as a prospective tenant, the last place I'd want to raise my kids would be in a building that housed such groups. There is no question that catering to the non-profits diminishes the value of said property.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by scooby074

I agree, If I was a developer I wouldnt want any of the baggage associated with these groups, and as a prospective tenant, the last place I'd want to raise my kids would be in a building that housed such groups. There is no question that catering to the non-profits diminishes the value of said property.

Both the North End Health Centre and MFC are stable groups that have been active in the neighbourhood for years. I question how much "baggage" they actually have - and without them, your building may seem more attractive, but the neighbourhood as a whole may not.

If you choose to live in the city centre you are also choosing all that comes with it. The idea of social bonus zoning is that by bringing in such non-profit groups, increased density/FAR is granted, making your unit a bit more affordable (sometimes this doesn't quite work out, but that's the idea). It's a trade-off. And that's what city living is all about.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Both the North End Health Centre and MFC are stable groups that have been active in the neighbourhood for years. I question how much "baggage" they actually have - and without them, your building may seem more attractive, but the neighbourhood as a whole may not.

If you choose to live in the city centre you are also choosing all that comes with it. The idea of social bonus zoning is that by bringing in such non-profit groups, increased density/FAR is granted, making your unit a bit more affordable (sometimes this doesn't quite work out, but that's the idea). It's a trade-off. And that's what city living is all about.

Drive by the MFC on any work day and you can see the baggage that will come along with allowing them to reside in your building. Also look at the condition of the building itself and how well it's been maintained.

The Health Centre while the building is much neater the "clients" (a term i personally hate) arent. Junkies.Sick prostitutes, homeless etc. are not the people i want hanging in and around my multi-million dollar establishment.

Sorry if its not PC, maybe it's even heartless, but if these groups want a location to work out of, buy a piece of land at full cost and build your own building. Then you can do what you want and let in whomever you want.

Dont force me to carry that burden. If it was up to me I'd bulldoze most of that block and rebuild. Its prime land being underutilized. So as not to wreck this thread about a building that potentially could be a very nice improvement to the area, I'll stop.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by planarchy

If you choose to live in the city centre you are also choosing all that comes with it. The idea of social bonus zoning is that by bringing in such non-profit groups, increased density/FAR is granted, making your unit a bit more affordable (sometimes this doesn't quite work out, but that's the idea). It's a trade-off. And that's what city living is all about.

Are you making an argument about what is true, or an argument about what ought to be true? Density bonuses don't exist in the context of Q Lofts or that entire part of the city.

The attitude that condo owners in one neighbourhood should be forced to pay a heavy economic price upfront to fix the social ills near their new home does not make any economic sense, because people with money to buy high-end condos can afford to live where they like. If too much of a burden is placed on new condos in a neighbourhood like the North End then people that would have bought there will just buy a condo in Clayton Park, as most already do. It is very easy to attempt heavy-handed social engineering but at best those policies tend to result in Pyrrhic victories.

[someone123]

Regent Park in Toronto is a housing project similar to Uniacke Square that has been at least partially redeveloped with new, higher density buildings.


Source

Such a plan would probably be difficult to implement in Halifax, but that would be one way to substantially improve the Gottingen area. I believe that the biggest problem with that part of town is the high concentration of public housing and nonprofits. For a while the neighbourhood had approximately zero economic activity and therefore offered up zero employment prospects and was full of abandoned buildings.

Originally Posted by Hali87

Ultimately I'm not saying that having non-profits in the ground floor of a major residential development is the best-case scenario for all involved. What I AM saying is that the fact that so many people refuse to even entertain this idea is one of the main reasons that many north-end residents are so opposed to new development. Social factors might not matter as much as economic ones in the end, but they SHOULD matter to some extent.

Maybe we should start a new thread for this?

Actually we have a thread for 2215 Gottingen, which is a partially subsidized housing project. It of course is being held back by red tape at City Hall. It will be interesting to see if it is subject to the same old knee-jerk anti-gentrification and anti-development backlash.

[kph06]

Demolition is pretty much done, all the old concrete foundation is being crushed on site to be re-used. These are some photos I snapped today:






Fire truck training at the West Street HRFD HQ next door: