[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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 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.

[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.'

[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.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

I guess my point is that it would go a long way if developers would make an effort to make the community they are developing in a better place for the people who live there already, especially in the North End. Things would go a lot more smoothly, and I would argue the city would become a better place in general, if developers and community groups actually cooperated and worked on things together instead of bickering over abandoned lots. The baggers at Sobeys aren't actively changing the community, the developers are.

[fenwick16]

$10 million to $20 million for 74 units doesn't sound like luxury condos.

I can't understand all this gentrification talk. Isn't assuming that the North End should look poor and run-down just a stereotypical attitude? Why shouldn't the North End become more prosperous and upscale and the residents can enjoy a more upscale environment. Must poor people always remain poor?

In any case this is a development forum, so thumbs up to the developers who are changing the city. I would just like to see it happen more rapidly.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

$10 million to $20 million for 74 units doesn't sound like luxury condos.

I can't understand all this gentrification talk. Isn't assuming that the North End should look poor and run-down just a stereotypical attitude? Why shouldn't the North End become more prosperous and upscale and the residents can enjoy a more upscale environment. Must poor people always remain poor?

In any case this is a development form, so thumbs up to the developers who are changing the city. I would just like to see it happen more rapidly.

I don't think anybody wants the North End to look poor and run down, my point is just that as developers build new things and make it more prosperous and upscale, that these developments should include opportunities for the people who live there, be it jobs that they can work at or apartments that they could conceivably afford. It's one thing to simply add a lot of nice things for new people, it's a much better thing (IMO) to integrate a lot of nice things both for new residents and the people who already live there.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

$10 million to $20 million for 74 units doesn't sound like luxury condos.

I can't understand all this gentrification talk. Isn't assuming that the North End should look poor and run-down just a stereotypical attitude? Why shouldn't the North End become more prosperous and upscale and the residents can enjoy a more upscale environment. Must poor people always remain poor?

In any case this is a development forum, so thumbs up to the developers who are changing the city. I would just like to see it happen more rapidly.

Exactly. The comment about "gentrification" sounds similar to those decrying the eviction of the CAP criminals from the dump on the corner of Agricola and West prior to its demolition and redevelopment. Of course we now have a smartly-designed, good-looking building there in place of the previous slum. And some see that as a bad thing. Sad.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Exactly. The comment about "gentrification" sounds similar to those decrying the eviction of the CAP criminals from the dump on the corner of Agricola and West prior to its demolition and redevelopment. Of course we now have a smartly-designed, good-looking building there in place of the previous slum. And some see that as a bad thing. Sad.

I think it's undeniable, though, to say that the area is being gentrified. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The question we should be asking ourselves though is how can we ensure that 10, 20 years from now, once the gentrification process has run its course, the new developments have benefitted the community that exists there now, rather than simply scattering nice new things among an otherwise run-down, poor neighbourhood?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I guess my point is that it would go a long way if developers would make an effort to make the community they are developing in a better place for the people who live there already, especially in the North End. Things would go a lot more smoothly, and I would argue the city would become a better place in general, if developers and community groups actually cooperated and worked on things together instead of bickering over abandoned lots. The baggers at Sobeys aren't actively changing the community, the developers are.

Does it make sense to expect this of developers? They are building a product for a competitive marketplace. It is nice to provide affordable housing, but if that means that new units in the North End will cost $20,000 more then that neighbourhood will be less competitive and those developments will be less successful. People will take their $20,000 and buy an extra bedroom for their condo out in Clayton Park. Regardless of intentions, that's the economic reality.

I think it makes far more sense to take the tax dollars from these developments and invest them in projects like the housing planned for Gottingen.

All of that aside, it's also wrong to say that the developers aren't helping the neighbourhood. They bring in tax dollars, they bring in construction jobs, and they bring in new residents who can patronize new businesses. If more people move to the North End there will be more jobs for locals and more entrepreneurial opportunities than would otherwise exist.

And to add yet more to this, I think the whole "local vs. outsiders" dichotomy is bogus. I know all kinds of people who grew up in the North End. Maybe they want to move back. How is that desire less legitimate than locals who appear to want the government or private developers to simply give them stuff because they live nearby?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

Does it make sense to expect this of developers? They are building a product for a competitive marketplace. It is nice to provide affordable housing, but if that means that new units in the North End will cost $20,000 more then that neighbourhood will be less competitive and those developments will be less successful. People will take their $20,000 and buy an extra bedroom for their condo out in Clayton Park. Regardless of intentions, that's the economic reality.

I think it makes far more sense to take the tax dollars from these developments and invest them in projects like the housing planned for Gottingen.

All of that aside, it's also wrong to say that the developers aren't helping the neighbourhood. They bring in tax dollars, they bring in construction jobs, and they bring in new residents who can patronize new businesses. If more people move to the North End there will be more jobs for locals and more entrepreneurial opportunities than would otherwise exist.

And to add yet more to this, I think the whole "local vs. outsiders" dichotomy is bogus. I know all kinds of people who grew up in the North End. Maybe they want to move back. How is that desire less legitimate than locals who appear to want the government or private developers to simply give them stuff because they live nearby?

It doesn't make sense for developers to have this imposed on them without some sort of support from the municipality. The "Vancouver approach" for example might work well here, as in if development provides an obvious benefit to the community, then it should be bolstered by the opportunity to build more units or have some kind of tax incentive. The fact is that many "locals" who grew up in the North End and have spent their entire lives there have done so because they did not really have any other options. In this case it's not so much a right for "locals" to control their community (although I would say that this should exist in at least some capacity), it's about providing the option of upward mobility for the poor and marginalized in addition to making the community a more attractive place for other people to live. There are cases where market economics should not be the only consideration. There should also be an acknowledgement that many of the people who will want to move to the Peninsula over the next several years are tradespeople and recent graduates with massive student debts who will be looking for low-to-mid-price housing as they establish their careers.

[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.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I think it's undeniable, though, to say that the area is being gentrified. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The question we should be asking ourselves though is how can we ensure that 10, 20 years from now, once the gentrification process has run its course, the new developments have benefitted the community that exists there now, rather than simply scattering nice new things among an otherwise run-down, poor neighbourhood?

Gentrification is a term people use who don't understand the politics of development. The North End is at least 20 years from being "gentrified". What is happening now in the North End is the spread of a multitude of sub-standard buildings. Poor materials, poor design, and zero interaction with the neighbourhood. These buildings fly under the radar because they are moderately priced and require no thought from planning or council and many will be gone in 20 years or need extensive repairs.

To strike a good balance in this gem of an area we need higher quality buildings that can set the design bar a bit higher. The whole community will benefit from a more balanced approach to development in the north end. The Q-Lofts is exactly the counter-balance that is needed to improve the living experience in the North End for everyone.

North/Central Halifax....a diamond in the rough
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194210