Halifax Retail

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Besides, wouldn't there be allowances for expansion of existing, "grandfathered" businesses? I realize that lines have to be drawn, and that rules have to be adhered to, but if you look at the satellite image below, the dealership lot in question (circled in red) is just a stones throw from a massive area of sprawling businesses with huge open lots (circled in yellow).

I think the existence of those businesses should be grandfathered (it's not fair to just chase them out of the area because planning priorities have changed). But permitting them to expand provides incentive to them to stay. And as Someone123 says, that's going in the wrong direction, even if it's a small change.

I don't think we're going to see these kinds of land use creep across the peninsula to any great degree. This is clearly an exception to the greater trend, which is towards intensification and density on the peninsula. (The Coast story mentions that Steele had to pay well above market value for the houses. Presumably, the low-density uses that blighted the neighbourhood in decades past were enabled in part because land and buildings were cheap. Now that the neighbourhood is gentrifying, it becomes a lot more expensive to assemble large collections of houses for demolition, so I don't imagine we're going to see it happening much anymore.)

But it's still terrible. I presume the Centre Plan will address this sort of thing, but it's not in place yet, and in the meantime there's basically nothing the city can do to prevent a property owner from making a boneheaded move lie this. Though I would like to see Watts, as councillor, give it a shot.

[planarchy]

I believe all this area, including all the res., is zoned C-2, the most permissive zone on the peninsula. This is the same as all the Kempt road lands and all the stuff being redeveloped under schedule q's on isleville. You can do any kind of commercial from car dealerships to recycling depots, autoshops, etc. Much of the north end is still under this zone. If the car dealership is non-conforming - which i don't think it is - you generally can't expand, only renovate or rebuild within original area.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think the existence of those businesses should be grandfathered (it's not fair to just chase them out of the area because planning priorities have changed). But permitting them to expand provides incentive to them to stay. And as Someone123 says, that's going in the wrong direction, even if it's a small change.

[essaysmith]

Dartmouth Costco was supposed to have a gas bar installed about 2 years ago according to the person that signed me up at that point, "before the year is out" and that was 2013 or 2014. Something happened and I thought it was blocked by some type of agreement Dartmouth Crossing had put together or something, not sure of the details.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But it's still terrible. I presume the Centre Plan will address this sort of thing, but it's not in place yet, and in the meantime there's basically nothing the city can do to prevent a property owner from making a boneheaded move lie this. Though I would like to see Watts, as councillor, give it a shot.

The Fern Lane/May Street area is actually a pretty special little neighbourhood of a type that isn't all that common in Halifax. It could be a great spot if it's meaningfully tied in with nearby development. Or it could easily be ripped apart in exchange for a slightly larger car dealership.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Or it could easily be ripped apart in exchange for a slightly larger car dealership.

To be frank, that already happened four decades ago when they let this happen.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To be frank, that already happened four decades ago when they let this happen.

True enough, but no reason to exacerbate the damage now.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Fern Lane/May Street area is actually a pretty special little neighbourhood of a type that isn't all that common in Halifax. It could be a great spot if it's meaningfully tied in with nearby development. Or it could easily be ripped apart in exchange for a slightly larger car dealership.

The irony of the expanded EAC building being opposite a car dealership is simply too delicious.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

True enough, but no reason to exacerbate the damage now.

Basically I agree with you. My thoughts on this were more on scale and impact.

Kind of like the Schmidtville situation, where arguably nicer heritage properties are going to be leveled to build a condo - which is OK according to everybody here. I conceded, that yes, perhaps it's not fair keep a business from looking after its interests for wanting to keep a few (nice) heritage properties.

Yet, God forbid, a car dealership wants to tear down 4 houses to make their lot bigger and it's a huge deal.

Again, I understand the concept and the principal, and I agree. I was just questioning whether this was worth all the energy it was getting, given that that block was already raped and pillaged 4 decades ago. You can see on the google satellite image I posted above shows Fern Ln. running right through the middle of the dealer's lot.

That's all.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Kind of like the Schmidtville situation, where arguably nicer heritage properties are going to be leveled to build a condo - which is OK according to everybody here. I conceded, that yes, perhaps it's not fair keep a business from looking after its interests for wanting to keep a few (nice) heritage properties.

An old property does not necessarily make it a "heritage" property as I understand the term. I believe there must be something notable regarding the design, architecture, or history to use that term. Most of the buildings here that always cause controversy when proposed for development are simply old, often run-down, have had much of what they once had stripped away, and in most cases were nothing special to begin with. The distinction between "old" and "heritage" is an important one we should not sully.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

An old property does not necessarily make it a "heritage" property as I understand the term. I believe there must be something notable regarding the design, architecture, or history to use that term. Most of the buildings here that always cause controversy when proposed for development are simply old, often run-down, have had much of what they once had stripped away, and in most cases were nothing special to begin with. The distinction between "old" and "heritage" is an important one we should not sully.

Regardless of the semantics, this doesn't change the point of my post.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree with your point on principal, but can't help thinking that perhaps this is being overblown a little.

Besides, wouldn't there be allowances for expansion of existing, "grandfathered" businesses? I realize that lines have to be drawn, and that rules have to be adhered to, but if you look at the satellite image below, the dealership lot in question (circled in red) is just a stones throw from a massive area of sprawling businesses with huge open lots (circled in yellow).

I'm wondering, given the scale involved, whether the city would be better off focusing their efforts on scaling back the massive wasteland in the yellow circle than singling out one dealership who is planning to tear down 4 structures to expand their existing lot.

I could certainly agree if somebody was planning to tear down a whole block to start a new car dealership in a residential area, but I can't help but think that this is much ado about nothing in this particular case.

I have to disagree - I feel like if we expand the dealership, we are actually expanding the boundary of the area you outlined in yellow.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

An old property does not necessarily make it a "heritage" property as I understand the term. I believe there must be something notable regarding the design, architecture, or history to use that term. Most of the buildings here that always cause controversy when proposed for development are simply old, often run-down, have had much of what they once had stripped away, and in most cases were nothing special to begin with. The distinction between "old" and "heritage" is an important one we should not sully.

They aren't run-down though; they're mostly in quote good shape, some clearly renovated fairly recently by homeowners.

In any case, it's not just the loss of the buildings, but the fact that they'd be replaced by...nothing, basically.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

They aren't run-down though; they're mostly in quote good shape, some clearly renovated fairly recently by homeowners.

The neighbourhood has seen a lot of great small scale, fine-grained improvement over the past few years. I think neighbourhoods that grow organically in this way end up being a lot more interesting than areas that see the construction of larger scale complexes.

If the organic development in the North End east of Robie doesn't get derailed, I predict that it will continue to dominate as the more vibrant area with more unique shops, bars, and restaurants, even if the area around Young Street gets lots of towers and becomes more densely populated.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

They aren't run-down though; they're mostly in quote good shape, some clearly renovated fairly recently by homeowners.

In any case, it's not just the loss of the buildings, but the fact that they'd be replaced by...nothing, basically.

If they were so great, one must question why the owners sold.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If they were so great, one must question why the owners sold.

Seems pretty obvious: Because they were offered three or four times what they paid, according to the Coast article. Given the appearance of some of the houses, I'd bet some of the occupants were young families treating these as starter houses. The local market will probably never get so Toronto/Vancouver crazy that they'd be able to sell at a later date and reap that kind of windfall, and with that kind of cash in hand they could afford to upgrade within the neighbourhood, right away (not to mention probably put themselves in much better financial shape generally).

I'd be damn tempted, even if I loved my house.

[ILoveHalifax]

I was in one of them a few years ago. I was a rooming house with lots of drugs. I was certain I would not live there

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'd be damn tempted, even if I loved my house.

I suspect you wouldn't, as you would look at the bigger picture of how your personal gain would negatively impact the neighborhood.

[q12]

Not sure where to post this:

Quality Inn & Suites Bayer's Lake on Parkland Dr. is now a Holiday Inn Express & Suites : Halifax - Bedford


Source ihg.com

Which is funny because the Holiday Inn Express across the street just recently became Château Bedford - Hotel & Suites


Source chateaubedbord.ca

[icetea93]

Kiehl's (an American cosmetics retailer) is opening in Halifax Shopping Centre this summer

[SpongeG]

how is the urban outfitters in halifax doing? we always hear of the openings but never follow ups