General Updates and News

[Dmajackson]

Sorry about the darkness but heres a photo of Agricola@West;

[Jstaleness]

That's coming along nicely. I don't think they have a huge crew doing the work.

[someone123]

An article in ANS today talked about Starfish owning the recently-sold CD Plus building on Barrington and plans for a new 6 or 7 storey building.

Sounds great although I hope it is residential, not office, and that it gets built sooner rather than later. Most of the vacant storefronts on Barrington are in buildings that Starfish plans to redevelop.

[JustinMacD]

Originally Posted by someone123

An article in ANS today talked about Starfish owning the recently-sold CD Plus building on Barrington and plans for a new 6 or 7 storey building.

Sounds great although I hope it is residential, not office, and that it gets built sooner rather than later. Most of the vacant storefronts on Barrington are in buildings that Starfish plans to redevelop.

I agree. Residential all the way. Thanks for the update.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by JustinMacD

I agree. Residential all the way. Thanks for the update.

Build it as tall as possible - since that's right next door to the heritage trust.

[alps]

Business as usual: Subsidizing suburban sprawl
Heated debate about puny skating oval costs; no debate about millions for suburban highways.
POSTED BY TIM BOUSQUET ON MON, JAN 17, 2011 AT 3:17 PM

As the city wrangles with the question of whether it should subsidize the cost of operating the Common skating oval at an annual estimated cost of between $110,000 and $250,000, Halifax council is poised to blithely, unthinkingly, OK the expenditure of $2.8 million to subsidize suburban sprawl in Bedford, and an as-yet untold millions more to improve car access into the suburban Bayers Lake shopping district.

Tuesday, council will deal with two budget issues related to suburban sprawl. The first involves the new Larry Uteck Boulevard interchange on the Bicentennial Highway, which is designed to handle traffic generated by new subdivisions being built in Bedford West (roughly, the land between the BiHi, Hammond Plains Road and Kearney Lake Road) and Bedford South (roughly, the land between Oceanview Drive, the Bedford Highway, Larry Uteck Boulevard and the BiHi). Council is being asked to tweak the financing formula for the interchange, with total costs pegged at $10,332,771.

Only in 2002 did the city begin to ask for authority to offset some new roadway costs by charging subdivision developers some of the costs associated with the new roads; those charges—known as "capital cost contributions"—began to be collected in 2006.

Arguably, because we wouldn't need the new Larry Uteck interchange if Bedford West and Bedford South weren't being developed, the city should simply charge the developers for the entire cost of the interchange and leave it at that. But, explains Peter Duncan, the city's manager for infrastructure planning, the city is prohibited by the city charter from charging the full costs of the new interchange to the developers; instead, the city has had to complete a traffic study and determine how many cars using the interchange will come from the new subdivisions and how many will come from existing neighbourhoods elsewhere in HRM, and then charge the developers only for the percentage their subdivisions will generate.

This is silly: the existing traffic from elsewhere in HRM is already using existing roads that have been bought and paid for; they might use the new interchange, but it will be by no means necessary to do so, as they're getting around just fine now without it.

There's another wrinkle thrown in as well: the costs for extending water, sewer and natural gas lines into the new subdivisions are charged to Halifax Water and Heritage Gas (more on this in a moment). In total, the budget for the new interchange looks like this:



The bottom line is that the city will pay $2,795.250 straight out of the general tax fund to pay for the new intersection that is required only for the new neighbourhoods—that is, it is a direct $2.8 million subsidy to facilitate suburban development.

Halifax Water's costs

A letter from 2009 included in the council paperwork for this week says that the then-anticipated $900,000 costs to Halifax Water for the interchange will come from another, second, CCC arrangement with the developers. But it's unclear whether the increased costs—$700,000 additionally, bringing total costs to about $1.6 million—will simply be tacked on to that CCC or will come from ratepayers generally. As of this writing, Halifax Water managers haven't responded to my requests for more information on how they intend to recover their portion of the Larry Uteck costs. But it is precisely these sorts of suburban costs that led many to oppose Halifax Water's recent application for a rate increase—the argument was that Halifax Water was paying for new suburban construction by saddling existing water customers in the urban core with higher rates.

Washmill underpass

A second highway project is also coming before council this week—discussion of unexpected cost overruns for the Washmill Lake Court underpass beneath the BiHi, connecting Clayton Park to the Bayers Lake Industrial Park.

The city budgeted $10 million for the project through the economic stimulus program of 2009. The money was split evenly three ways between the city, provincial and federal governments, and the work was to be completed by March 31, 2011.

Fortunately for the city, because so many economic stimulus projects are running behind schedule, the federal government has rolled back the required completion date to October 31, 2011. Washmill Court is one of those projects; says a cryptic note in the paperwork: "Original $10M budget has been spent. Project can be completed in 2011 pending budget availability and Council approval."

Presumably, the entire cost overrun on this project will come out of the city's general budget—that is, once again we will be subsidizing suburban development.

How much? We don't know—the report to council on the Washmill Court cost overrun consists of a staff presentation to be given to councillors in secret at tomorrow's meeting. There is no justification given for the secrecy, and city staffers aren't returning my phone calls related to the issue.

There's no conceivable justification for the secrecy around Washmill Court. But since the continued subsidy of suburban development is pretty much a non-issue, we may as well not say anything about this example of it either, I guess.

But boy howdy, let's watch the sparks fly when someone suggests spending some chump change on the skating oval, which might help the downtown.

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...uburban-sprawl

[halifaxboyns]

This is what happens when a city focuses its growth through suburban development and not trying to push inner city densification to be much greater than it is.

Yes, I realize that emergency rooms would be flooded with people having heart attacks over all the projects for 10 storey towers all over the place; but still - if HRM had pushed inner city projects from 25% to 40% (and reduced the suburban development portion appropriately); this may not be such a big deal.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Meh, we are going to need this infrastructure regardless. This Tim guy is out to lunch.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Plus this guy was/is against the Nova Centre... which will actually bring people downtown.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Plus this guy was/is against the Nova Centre... which will actually bring people downtown.

I hate to say it, but I actually agree with Tim to a degree.
We're going through the same argument out here; which was on global news tonight. Mayor Nenshi ran on a platform that he wanted a better formula because out here, we (the city) pays for all the utility hookups and infrastructure; so as mayor nenshi points out - the cost to hook up one house will never be fully recovered over the taxation of that home for 30 years because the cumulative cost for the entire subdivision can be so intense.

Personally, I honestly don't know enough about the formulas out here to be able to say it should 50/50 or 25/75 (to the developer); same with Halifax. But certainly with higher density development - you probably wouldn't see as much being spent in the burbs for infrastructure. But this issue will come up more and more as growth is dealt with by suburban development.

[alps]

Eh, I agree with Bousquet on this one. TBH I don't think either of those projects were necessary at this time, and could think of a zillion ways the money could be better spent (or not).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by alps

Eh, I agree with Bousquet on this one. TBH I don't think either of those projects were necessary at this time, and could think of a zillion ways the money could be better spent (or not).

I can also think of many ways the money could be better spent but I'm not sure that's a useful comparison when the three levels of government are incapable or unwilling to undertake a wide variety of projects. They're also inept when it comes to setting good economic policies for the downtown.

[Dmajackson]

How did Bosque forget to mention the new Margeson Drive Interchange? If any of the three are pointless it is that one.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Good point.

Also, Washmill serves to reduce sprawl to an extent... its a connection between BL and CP and is to include a REAL sidewalk. Its within the current boundaries of the city and is quite close to Halifax.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This guy is against development downtown and against development in the burbs = anti development period.

[DigitalNinja]

Problem with saying you're against infrastructure improvements is that everyone is against them if there is no benefit to them directly. For example I live by the new margeson drive one. To me it is needed, have you not seen the traffic going out to middle/upper sackville during rush hour? Takes about 10-15 min to turn left at a light.

[halifaxboyns]

While WH makes a point about Tim - in this case (for me) you have to look beyond the writter to see the bigger picture. Essentially all the older developed parts of HRM are subsidizing the newer suburban communities of HRM and this is no different in any growing city I suspect. I know it's a huge problem here in Calgary - the only difference seems to be (and I'm going back to a comment DMJ posted in the Bedford West thread) that most of the new subdivisions seem to be hitting the minimum service threshold for public transit; where as in places like out here in Calgary they aren't.

I'd like to see a real un-biased study done to see just how much is being spent - I am sure it would be an eye opener.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

Problem with saying you're against infrastructure improvements is that everyone is against them if there is no benefit to them directly. For example I live by the new margeson drive one. To me it is needed, have you not seen the traffic going out to middle/upper sackville during rush hour? Takes about 10-15 min to turn left at a light.

Let me play devil's advocate though...

Is that not simply saying that infrastructure is needed because a poor planning process created a sprawl that now requires more and more tax dollars to deal with? New roads and interchanges have become "needed" because of a process and structure that not only allowed but encouraged sprawl to those regions to begin with.

I am loathe to agree with Tim Bousqet, and in fact think that the guy doesn't know what is really for or against because it makes no logical sense to be against densification and against sprawl.

But having said that, the immediate point is that a massive financial burden has been placed on this city's tax revenue to subsidize the infrastructure required to service these sprawling regions and to address things like 15 minute wait times at intersections. If we had rules and tax laws in place that incentivized densification within the core, not only would we not have these 15 minute left hand turn times, but the city would be way better off financially and/or property taxes would be lower as a whole.

The fact is, any system that allows you to build a McMansion in the 'burbs and pay less tax specifically because you live in a region that is far more expensive to service is fundamentally broken.

I have no problem with property taxes being upshifted to higher incomes, but I do have a major problem with my taxes going to subsidize new interchanges so that someone can knock 2 minutes off their commute time as they drive their Hummer out to their McMansion. That is just a poor use of tax dollars.

I am all for infrastructure that is needed, even if it is not something that I use myself, but I just don't think that the fact that sprawl exists is a justification for putting further tax money into making it even easier to drive out to the sprawling regions, thereby further perpetuating the sprawl.

PS: I do want to say that is NOT aimed at you DigitalNinja, especially since I know from your previous posts that you are all for high density developments that have been proposed... but just at the overall issue of sprawl in this city.

[DigitalNinja]

IMO what we are discussing is the past, what is done is done, there is sprawl everywhere in HRM. What should be done is to put a limitation on urban sprawl limiting the number of permits issued for dwellings and put out incentives to increase density downtown.

Bayers lake is the worst example of sprawl in Halifax, it is the worst place to drive around and impossible to get a bus out there, it takes about 2 hours from sackville on a good day. That is something that shouldn't happen when I can drive there in 15 minutes. Mind you once you get in they don't facilitate walking so you have to drive from store to store and so on. As I said, what is done is done, this money spent is spent on fixing mistakes but the problem is that these mistakes are being repeated with bedford west etc... Tokyo is an example of how you can get high density with relatively low rise buildings. Mind you Halifax doesn't need to be this extreme but just pointing out that the possibility is there.

My girlfriend is Chinese, when she came here she was surprised that grocery stores take up so much valuable real estate, a store in China for produce can be 2-3 floors high maximizing available land. But this doesn't happen here. It is honestly part of NA/Canada though. This urban sprawl doesn't happen in the rest of the world where they have a larger population and less land, we have to much land that it becomes cheap to buy the land, so people just build low rise low density buildings. Problem with this is that it is not cheap in the long run, roads and infrastructure become high costs and a burden on the rest of the city. High rise have high startup costs but no where near the long term infrastructure costs.

[beyeas]

yeah I totally agree that BLIP and DC are the absolute epitome of sprawl.

As far as grocery stores go... I have always also loved the model in some European cities where the grocery stores are smaller, located generally at the street level of a mid-rise residential building, and serves its immediate neighbourhood. It is so easy in those places to just walk to the store and pick things up, or just to pick up fresh groceries on the way home. It is so much more "neighbourhood oriented" than the huge 1 level stores that we have to drive to and pick up a weeks worth of stuff to make it worth it.