[Halifax] Moxy Hotel & The Trinity (5415 Cogswell) | 64 m | 21 fl | U/C

[Summerville]

Another factor is that most developers in the city have generally stuck to building apartments as opposed to condominium buildings. There isn’t enough of an incentive to build quality buildings that will entice someone to buy.

The only potential buyer for these types of building is a REIT or and insurance company that places greater weight on the efficiency of the building, units and overall potential to generate profit.

Hopefully, a result of the current demand on housing, will be a resumption of Halifax’s condo market. I’ve noticed that the resale of existing condos is following the same path has housing. Quick purchase for over-asking. And new condo developments are finally selling.

Developers of condo buildings will choose to build better looking buildings to attract purchasers.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Another factor is that most developers in the city have generally stuck to building apartments as opposed to condominium buildings. There isn’t enough of an incentive to build quality buildings that will entice someone to buy.

The only potential buyer for these types of building is a REIT or and insurance company that places greater weight on the efficiency of the building, units and overall potential to generate profit.

Hopefully, a result of the current demand on housing, will be a resumption of Halifax’s condo market. I’ve noticed that the resale of existing condos is following the same path has housing. Quick purchase for over-asking. And new condo developments are finally selling.

Developers of condo buildings will choose to build better looking buildings to attract purchasers.

I think the taxation is a big limit to condos, I know that has been the case with family and friends who have considered selling their house. The taxes are proportional to value, plus you have condo fees.

Condos need a certain percentage pre-sales, where as right now apartments seem easy to finance. This is an added uncertainty for financing from the developer, especially if the condo market is soft as it historically is here.

I've always assumed there is better build quality in apartments as typically the developer manages them themselves, therefore better quality build results in lower operating expenses. I see condos as a way for a quick payout.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by someone123

I've always thought of these old approvals as plans from another era that could have been inherited either in building or in approval form. I would guess that this is nicer than what would have been built in the past on that site given that approval. There's a fixed supply of these pre-approved sites but I have no idea how many exist. I think it's unrealistic to expect developers to go through with the new site plan approval process when it would add to costs and maybe reduce revenues. Maybe that would create better buildings but I don't think they will do it. They will use up the old approvals and land will be priced according to the approvals in place.

That being said, as a member of the Design Advisory Committee we are seeing a number of projects that had approvals under the old rules come forward with alternate designs under Centre Plan. I do believe in these cases they are able to get either the same or more floorspace however so it is a little different. The two that come to mind is M&R Apartments and the project on Pleasant and Chadwick St in Dartmouth (yet to come to the committee).

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by kph06

I've always assumed there is better build quality in apartments as typically the developer manages them themselves, therefore better quality build results in lower operating expenses. I see condos as a way for a quick payout.

This is generally the case. Condo buildings are quick flip with no incentive for quality build, just showy interiors. Look at the quality of Dexels builds which are all rental vs WM Fares which has been mostly condo. Dexel is far superior. Southwest would be similar. These are not built to sell but to hold and continuing to pull higher rents.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

That being said, as a member of the Design Advisory Committee we are seeing a number of projects that had approvals under the old rules come forward with alternate designs under Centre Plan. I do believe in these cases they are able to get either the same or more floorspace however so it is a little different. The two that come to mind is M&R Apartments and the project on Pleasant and Chadwick St in Dartmouth (yet to come to the committee).

Yep. My impression is not so much that the old approvals are guaranteed to allow more density or more economical building forms but that developers do the math and compare their options under the old DA and Centre Plan then generally pick the most economically favourable option. I suspect it's rare for developers to find that their profit will be lower under a Centre Plan approval but decide to go that route anyway because of urbanism or aesthetic concerns.

In the long run the Centre Plan proposals will tend to dominate in that planning area since that's the path the new projects will take.

I do find it interesting that there are some quite old (maybe even 70's and 80's in some cases) approvals that are much higher density than much newer controversial stuff from just before the Centre Plan era. Maybe partly because people got used to much less change in their neighbourhoods during the 90's and early 2000's? If you're a new person moving to say the North End today, you chose an area already undergoing change and that will be the norm for the foreseeable future.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is generally the case. Condo buildings are quick flip with no incentive for quality build, just showy interiors. Look at the quality of Dexels builds which are all rental vs WM Fares which has been mostly condo. Dexel is far superior. Southwest would be similar. These are not built to sell but to hold and continuing to pull higher rents.

I hadn’t considered that dynamic but that does make sense in my eyes. Dexel does produce some very nice stuff. I suspect that contrast would be stronger in neighbourhoods seeing the most reinvestment, since those areas are a safer long-term bet for retaining value.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

I do find it interesting that there are some quite old (maybe even 70's and 80's in some cases) approvals that are much higher density than much newer controversial stuff from just before the Centre Plan era. Maybe partly because people got used to much less change in their neighbourhoods during the 90's and early 2000's? If you're a new person moving to say the North End today, you chose an area already undergoing change and that will be the norm for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if that’s more a function of growth patterns (both the number of incoming people and their distribution within the city) influencing the need for density rather than anything to do with a “collective memory”.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I wonder if that’s more a function of growth patterns (both the number of incoming people and their distribution within the city) influencing the need for density rather than anything to do with a “collective memory”.

I think it's because council got hijacked a few years back (I'd say 2006 or so) and now, although there are standards, only some perspectives (anti-height) were baked into the system.

When Halifax runs out of land, it's going to be bad.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I think it's because council got hijacked a few years back (I'd say 2006 or so) and now, although there are standards, only some perspectives (anti-height) were baked into the system.

When Halifax runs out of land, it's going to be bad.

I mean as silly and arbitrary as council seems at times, it’s really the only body that can stop a bad development that your average Haligonian can influence. If they won’t stand up to developers at times, who will? A purely “anti-development” councillor running now would have a hard time being elected with today’s growing population, but could have had some success with that platform in 2006 when things were different. If people think the popular vote was “highjacked”, they are free to storm town hall.

The only way council can be “highjacked” is when councillors like Steve Adams sell themselves to developers, such as arguing for the removal of urban reserve status. I wonder how much “research” UDI produces other than stating what would make their developments more profitable.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I mean as silly and arbitrary as council seems at times, it’s really the only body that can stop a bad development that your average Haligonian can influence. If they won’t stand up to developers at times, who will? A purely “anti-development” councillor running now would have a hard time being elected with today’s growing population, but could have had some success with that platform in 2006 when things were different. If people think the popular vote was “highjacked”, they are free to storm town hall.

Well, they keep electing them. From Mason opposing most south end developments and engineering the height restrictions in HRMxD and the Centre Plan, to Smith seeming to be against most anything proposed in his area, to Austin trying to be the Chief Planner for Dartmouth, to Morse lurking as the NDP Critic for Urban Development and Evil Developer foe, there is no shortage of potential hijackers on Council. As we have seen in recent elections, most voters sleep through all of these things and elect people based upon those whose names they recognize or who have the prettiest and most eye-catching lawn signs.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I mean as silly and arbitrary as council seems at times, it’s really the only body that can stop a bad development that your average Haligonian can influence. If they won’t stand up to developers at times, who will? A purely “anti-development” councillor running now would have a hard time being elected with today’s growing population, but could have had some success with that platform in 2006 when things were different. If people think the popular vote was “highjacked”, they are free to storm town hall.

The only way council can be “highjacked” is when councillors like Steve Adams sell themselves to developers, such as arguing for the removal of urban reserve status. I wonder how much “research” UDI produces other than stating what would make their developments more profitable.

Well, I meant that word in the sense that the elected officials just decided on their own what constititues good development, regardless of public opinion. At that time, Jennifer Watts voted against every single development. Now, there are rules in place that are somewhat good, but have arbitrarily limited heights in key areas.

I don't think its a matter of "standing up to developers", I think its a matter of not applying blanket limits on things like height and focusing on actual design and materials requirements.

The original idea was that Cogswell and north end lands would be where the density will be made up, but as the RCMP lands show, even those areas are now subject to low density.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Well, I meant that word in the sense that the elected officials just decided on their own what constititues good development, regardless of public opinion. At that time, Jennifer Watts voted against every single development. Now, there are rules in place that are somewhat good, but have arbitrarily limited heights in key areas.

I don't think its a matter of "standing up to developers", I think its a matter of not applying blanket limits on things like height and focusing on actual design and materials requirements.

The original idea was that Cogswell and north end lands would be where the density will be made up, but as the RCMP lands show, even those areas are now subject to low density.

Pardon my initially cavalier attitude towards your response. - I do that sometimes

At the end of the day, you have a crowd of homeowners wanting to preserve their land values and developers wanting to tap into that value. Neither deserves praise, because it’s exchange value being prioritised on both ends.
While most NIMBYs are certainly very privileged, it would be unfortunate to lump the underprivileged in with the Camerons and Haivens.

Even when considering the mass of people desiring “human scale” which is ultimately out of scale with modern society, factors limiting the size of buildings are ultimately material rather than strictly a matter of councillor or constituent beliefs. Material not only in the sense of growing, declining or moving populations, but money as well.

The RCMP site becoming a school could be seen as a byproduct of success for development in the North End, since there are more families in the area than before. It could also catalyse growth nearby despite having no population on-site.

[kph06]

I noticed today that the shorter crane had been removed. Its interesting, I think its only been operational a few months, it probably was sitting here mast only and not complete longer than it was in use. It appears it was only used to get the hotel portion built. Based on the other sites with crane bases in, it was likely in higher demand elsewhere.

[SouthPawLaw]

I had a discussion with a planning student a while back about how the city or even the province is dropping the ball on housing stock, and it struck me that unlike when in New York, I cannot buy an apartment. I can buy a condo, in a condo building, but the idea of buying an apartment is totally foreign. At least as I have found, does anyone have any experience with this in Halifax?

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by SouthPawLaw

I had a discussion with a planning student a while back about how the city or even the province is dropping the ball on housing stock, and it struck me that unlike when in New York, I cannot buy an apartment. I can buy a condo, in a condo building, but the idea of buying an apartment is totally foreign. At least as I have found, does anyone have any experience with this in Halifax?

“Condominium” is a legal description and not a specific style of housing, i.e. ownership sharing a common area. If an apartment is sold by the landlord it’s considered a condo conversion. Definitely not unheard of in Canada, but it’s more of a looming threat to affordability rather than any form of liberation. New York has recently required there be a consensus among at least half of tenants before a building can be converted.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by SouthPawLaw

I had a discussion with a planning student a while back about how the city or even the province is dropping the ball on housing stock, and it struck me that unlike when in New York, I cannot buy an apartment. I can buy a condo, in a condo building, but the idea of buying an apartment is totally foreign. At least as I have found, does anyone have any experience with this in Halifax?

I think it’s just a matter of terminology. New Yorkers call every unit in a building an “apartment” whether rental, condo, or co-op.

You can in fact buy an entire apartment building, given enough $ of course =)

The co-op model is something that might be worth looking at in Halifax. I understand there are a few in Toronto.

[someone123]

Source

[someone123]

Source

[Dmajackson]

Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[worldlyhaligonian]

Slow, but steady here.