General Updates and News

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

This is part of the problem with a zoning system. Where things are 'as of right' most of the time; you can't apply such a condition to approving the development. You might be able to get away with it through a development agreement (which waterside was given) - but then you risk that the developer might walk away or try to have someone on council strike that requirement.

The land use system in most of the western provinces would label this type of development discretionary, so it would be approved by a Development Officer, but you could apply a variety of conditions on the permit (such as public realm improvements, landscaping letters of credit). But the catch is that any condition can be appealed; so there is no guarentee the condition would stand on appeal. I did a project where the landscaping required a letter of credit of 2.2 million $ (it was a huge project). The guy appealed the condition of approval for the letter of credit. He ended up having to pay an extra $100,000 on top of the 2.2, because the neighbours also appealed and the appeal board added a whole bunch of trees for privacy lol.

I think if staff were to take a report forward investigating such a bond; if council decided to go with it - then you wouldn't really see any opposition from developers, since council would've made the decision.

If we are talking about Waterside specifically then we are specifically talking about a weak Development Agreement. This is no doubt the worst case in recent history. We have half a block of registered heritage buildings gutted and left for dead. This demonstrates the flaws in the DA system. IMO it isn't unreasonable to insist that a developer deliver on his commitment. If the fear is that a developer might walk unless he can have everything his own way then he can walk. Vacant lots are different in that you can take more of a risk in terms of giving the developer more latitude. Waterside is unique and it has been mishandled by HRM and the developer.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

If we are talking about Waterside specifically then we are specifically talking about a weak Development Agreement. This is no doubt the worst case in recent history. We have half a block of registered heritage buildings gutted and left for dead. This demonstrates the flaws in the DA system. IMO it isn't unreasonable to insist that a developer deliver on his commitment. If the fear is that a developer might walk unless he can have everything his own way then he can walk. Vacant lots are different in that you can take more of a risk in terms of giving the developer more latitude. Waterside is unique and it has been mishandled by HRM and the developer.

I completely agree. I think a bond could work through a DA just not through a permit (for anything that is as of right). For me; I'd like to find a solution that works for both a DA and a permit. But in the mean time; if it can only apply to a da I won't be unhappy.

[JET]

Buildings that are being 'restored' should not be touched until the work to rebuild is ready to start. There was no need to proceed if there were still things up in the air. Doesn't look good for anyone.

[JET]

Mitchell's facade is down on Gottingen St. Nice view through the gap, of St. Patrick's church, while it lasts.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by JET

Buildings that are being 'restored' should not be touched until the work to rebuild is ready to start. There was no need to proceed if there were still things up in the air. Doesn't look good for anyone.

in the case specifically he did it in large part because he was pissed off and wanted to spit in the eye of people who opposed his development. Revenge is never exactly a good motivation for deciding to bomb out buildings like that before you even have financing or tenants for your development.

[fenwick16]

Ben McCrea stated that he went ahead with the expectation that he would get the easement necessary to proceed. That easement still hasn't been granted, as far as is known. Ben McCrea even went to the media a couple times to plead his case.

It seems as if everyone is ganging up on the developer here. It is turning into a kangaroo court with lots of speculation and few established facts. I sure that none of us would want to be tried in such a manner.

If we look at the facts, Ben McCrea has done more for heritage restoration in Halifax than most of the heritage proponents such as Phil Pacey.

I am just as peeved as anyone that this Waterside project is not proceeding. However, I am completely peeved with the HRM and some Councillors who have taken a hardball approach instead of taking a realistic approach. It should be obvious that Ben McCrea doesn't have much money to be made here. Even under the best of circumstances making money on development in downtown Halifax is a risky proposition with low lease rates. So expecting to force him into proceeding with an even more costly restoration is unrealistic.

Ben McCrea doesn't have the option of simply demolishing the buildings as the HRM did when they demolished the heritage registered Wanderers Grounds clubhouse (many will say it wasn't really worth saving and are probably right, but the HRM registered the building as a heritage building and then simply deregistered it - no developer can do such a thing).

[JET]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Ben McCrea stated that he went ahead with the expectation that he would get the easement necessary to proceed. That easement still hasn't been granted, as far as is known. Ben McCrea even went to the media a couple times to plead his case.

It seems as if everyone is ganging up on the developer here. It is turning into a kangaroo court with lots of speculation and few established facts. I sure that none of us would want to be tried in such a manner.

If we look at the facts, Ben McCrea has done more for heritage restoration in Halifax than most of the heritage proponents such as Phil Pacey.

I am just as peeved as anyone that this Waterside project is not proceeding. However, I am completely peeved with the HRM and some Councillors who have taken a hardball approach instead of taking a realistic approach. It should be obvious that Ben McCrea doesn't have much money to be made here. Even under the best of circumstances making money on development in downtown Halifax is a risky proposition with low lease rates. So expecting to force him into proceeding with an even more costly restoration is unrealistic.

Ben McCrea doesn't have the option of simply demolishing the buildings as the HRM did when they demolished the heritage registered Wanderers Grounds clubhouse (many will say it wasn't really worth saving and are probably right, but the HRM registered the building as a heritage building and then simply deregistered it - no developer can do such a thing).

The wanderers clubhouse is still there, looks terrible but is still there. Odd that there was a fire in the Public Gardens, but the clubhouse is still there.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Ben McCrea stated that he went ahead with the expectation that he would get the easement necessary to proceed. That easement still hasn't been granted, as far as is known. Ben McCrea even went to the media a couple times to plead his case.

It seems as if everyone is ganging up on the developer here. It is turning into a kangaroo court with lots of speculation and few established facts. I sure that none of us would want to be tried in such a manner.

If we look at the facts, Ben McCrea has done more for heritage restoration in Halifax than most of the heritage proponents such as Phil Pacey.

I am just as peeved as anyone that this Waterside project is not proceeding. However, I am completely peeved with the HRM and some Councillors who have taken a hardball approach instead of taking a realistic approach. It should be obvious that Ben McCrea doesn't have much money to be made here. Even under the best of circumstances making money on development in downtown Halifax is a risky proposition with low lease rates. So expecting to force him into proceeding with an even more costly restoration is unrealistic.

Ben McCrea doesn't have the option of simply demolishing the buildings as the HRM did when they demolished the heritage registered Wanderers Grounds clubhouse (many will say it wasn't really worth saving and are probably right, but the HRM registered the building as a heritage building and then simply deregistered it - no developer can do such a thing).

Oh I think there is much blame to spread around in this situation.

No question that this is not completely McCrea's fault. The city, as shown by the Jazz debacle, is responsible for a serious number of beaurocratic delays in the development process. How some of these people at city hall have kept their jobs over the years is beyond me.

However, that is not to say that he is without blame. He did actually state in an article once that he regrets knocking the buildings down, and that he did so out of anger. It is also potentially disingenuous of him to now simply point his finger at the easement issue and say that that is why he hasn't built. There has never been a single indication that if it weren't for the easement issue that he would be under construction. Just a year ago he was blaming the Nova Centre for using public money to make it too difficult for him to attract tenants.

I don't think that McCrea should be the scapegoat here, and he has done excellent projects in the past. But much as he can take credit for good things, I just think that he does also need to share in the blame for a bad situation.

[Empire]

Ben McCrae has been around a long time and he knows exactly how the game is played. This site is an extremely controversial one and everyone knows it. The fact that he is holding the public hostage for his little spat with the city is no going over very well. If the entire project hinged on getting a seawater lateral then he should have made the DA and entire project subject to that condition. It would appear that there are many other issues and this angle of leaving the site as eyesore is the easy way out.

- financing
- market conditions
- pre-signed tenants
- approval of the trade centre
- Queen's landing financing
- proposal for Mary Ann lot

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by JET

I'm not an ANS subscriber, so I have not read the info. When it was discussed awhile ago, there was mention of the dental offices on the corner, which would affect the streetscape. Can anyone copy the ANS info? thanks

Isn't that on the other side of the street? I thought we were talking about the south side of SGR before carleton? (I thought it was an investment firm or something on the south west corner at Carleton and SGR) Does this proposal even go completely to the corner?

[JET]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Isn't that on the other side of the street? I thought we were talking about the south side of SGR before carleton? (I thought it was an investment firm or something on the south west corner at Carleton and SGR) Does this proposal even go completely to the corner?

The brown buildings on the South-West corner used to be dental offices. When this was mentioned a number of months ago, it seemed like it was to go to the corner.

[Dmajackson]

5757 Inglis Street

This Heritage designated structure sits as one of Halifax’s oldest multi-unit houses. W. M. Fares Group has envisioned a plan to completely redevelop this beautiful site on one of the oldest streets in Halifax. The project encompasses a full renovation of the existing house, with the addition of six apartment units, and three townhouse units. Construction will begin May 2011, with the leasing commencing for May 2012.

The building will feature a mix of high-end rental units:

9 – Two bedroom apartment rental

1 – One bedroom apartment rental

3 – Two storey Townhouses comprised with three bedrooms

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

5757 Inglis Street

This Heritage designated structure sits as one of Halifax’s oldest multi-unit houses. W. M. Fares Group has envisioned a plan to completely redevelop this beautiful site on one of the oldest streets in Halifax. The project encompasses a full renovation of the existing house, with the addition of six apartment units, and three townhouse units. Construction will begin May 2011, with the leasing commencing for May 2012.

The building will feature a mix of high-end rental units:

9 – Two bedroom apartment rental

1 – One bedroom apartment rental

3 – Two storey Townhouses comprised with three bedrooms

This looks good to me. This pdf is from the halifax.ca website - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...8ca1042ppt.pdf . It seems to be a great way to densify and reuse a heritage property without outright demolition.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by JET

The wanderers clubhouse is still there, looks terrible but is still there. Odd that there was a fire in the Public Gardens, but the clubhouse is still there.

Correction: it is in the process of being demolished - http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/loca...relict-canteen . There was story in the allnovascotia.com about saving a few items and then it will come down within a month (source: Wanderers Field House Set to Tumble by Amy Pugsley Frazer, June 27, 2011)? I can't see this as being a great loss.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Oh I think there is much blame to spread around in this situation.

No question that this is not completely McCrea's fault. The city, as shown by the Jazz debacle, is responsible for a serious number of beaurocratic delays in the development process. How some of these people at city hall have kept their jobs over the years is beyond me.

However, that is not to say that he is without blame. He did actually state in an article once that he regrets knocking the buildings down, and that he did so out of anger. It is also potentially disingenuous of him to now simply point his finger at the easement issue and say that that is why he hasn't built. There has never been a single indication that if it weren't for the easement issue that he would be under construction. Just a year ago he was blaming the Nova Centre for using public money to make it too difficult for him to attract tenants.

I don't think that McCrea should be the scapegoat here, and he has done excellent projects in the past. But much as he can take credit for good things, I just think that he does also need to share in the blame for a bad situation.

Lets continue this discussion in the Waterside Centre thread - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...144928&page=52 . I would like to present a bit more evidence to illustrate my viewpoint (which is taken directly from the halifax.ca website).

[someone123]

Construction site for new four storey building at Gottingen and Cunard: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tvor/58...n/photostream/

Hopefully we will soon see construction of Gottingen Terrace and the two apartment buildings on the former Enviro Depot and Diamonds sites.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by someone123

Construction site for new four storey building at Gottingen and Cunard: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tvor/58...n/photostream/

Hopefully we will soon see construction of Gottingen Terrace and the two apartment buildings on the former Enviro Depot and Diamonds sites.

The Diamonds site has become something rarely found in Halifax ... a gravel-pay 'n-display parking lot.

I don't know the minimum amount of time these lots have to sign on for to become a parking lot but I imagine this puts the lot out of development possibility for this construction season. The other two could still go ahead though.

[Dmajackson]

A bit obstructed but 3150 Barrington does have an impact on the north-end skyline apparently (photo by me yesterday);

[Empire]

Bulldoze historic buildings yet again......
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1251501.html

[Dmajackson]

Some Downtown Dartmouth updates;

78 Shore Road - Townhouses Proposal
Site Location on Bing's Bird Eye

Case 16687 - 224-228 Portland Street DA
Site Location on Bing's Bird Eye (note photo is from before fire)