HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 5:18 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 489
The CBRE property overview notes that the Ford lands would allow as-of-right development of two eight-storey towers, with a maximum height of 80 feet (not including penthouses) and streetwall height of 45 feet.

Ekistics Design developed a concept plan that includes an L-shaped tower with 24,000 SF of retail and 182,000 SF of residential and a second tower with 12,000 SF of retail and 90,000 SF of residential:


Source: CBRE 219 Main Street Information Memorandum

I suppose the eight-storey cap is reasonable, given that the site is now surrounded by low-rise institutional and by some single-family dwellings, but it also seems limiting given the prominence of this site and its importance as an anchor to any Main Street redevelopment. Not to mention the spectacular views that would come with additional height here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2022, 5:04 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 489
Now you see it, now you don't

A Main Street landmark disappeared over the last few days. The former porno palace/sex shop at 155 Main Street is now demolished. (I swear it was still there when I last passed by last Thursday; by Sunday morning all that was left was the foundation.)

https://goo.gl/maps/LKx6md6y4mxMsf7u8

Together with the adjacent lot at 157 Main, this makes for a large vacant parcel in a prominent place on Main Street. If there is anything proposed for the site(s), however, I'm not sure what it is. I don't recall discussion here about these lands and a quick search didn't turn up anything. Perhaps others have more insight/information here.

Rebooted Main Street has proven to be a long and mostly fruitless effort. Other proposals seem to have died or languished without any visible progress, including the redevelopment of the former Garden View lands (174 Main, now a weed-grown lot) and the proposed residential development at 139 Main). I was hopeful new development on the former Ford lands at the corner of Caledonia and Main, reportedly purchased last year by Ramia, would jump-start some needed action on these blocks but no proposal has emerged yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2022, 5:20 PM
JonHiseler JonHiseler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
A Main Street landmark disappeared over the last few days. The former porno palace/sex shop at 155 Main Street is now demolished. (I swear it was still there when I last passed by last Thursday; by Sunday morning all that was left was the foundation.)

https://goo.gl/maps/LKx6md6y4mxMsf7u8

Together with the adjacent lot at 157 Main, this makes for a large vacant parcel in a prominent place on Main Street. If there is anything proposed for the site(s), however, I'm not sure what it is. I don't recall discussion here about these lands and a quick search didn't turn up anything. Perhaps others have more insight/information here.

Rebooted Main Street has proven to be a long and mostly fruitless effort. Other proposals seem to have died or languished without any visible progress, including the redevelopment of the former Garden View lands (174 Main, now a weed-grown lot) and the proposed residential development at 139 Main). I was hopeful new development on the former Ford lands at the corner of Caledonia and Main, reportedly purchased last year by Ramia, would jump-start some needed action on these blocks but no proposal has emerged yet.
Is it related to the plans to extend Hartlen St. to Lakecrest Dr? Or is that a separate matter?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2022, 6:34 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonHiseler View Post
Is it related to the plans to extend Hartlen St. to Lakecrest Dr? Or is that a separate matter?
Not to my knowledge. That project did not proceed as expected. I understood Hartlen was to be fully extended, as you said; however only a pedestrian link was constructed. 155 Main is adjacent to that and is not aligned with Hartlen Street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2022, 11:07 AM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
I was hopeful new development on the former Ford lands at the corner of Caledonia and Main, reportedly purchased last year by Ramia, would jump-start some needed action on these blocks but no proposal has emerged yet.
The Ford lot was purchased by United Gulf.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2022, 11:24 AM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
The Ford lot was purchased by United Gulf.
Ahhh, good to know. Perhaps that explains why we've heard nothing since.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2022, 12:43 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Main St is going to be one tough case. As one of the main routes out of Dartmouth it is never going to be a sleepy, bucolic area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2022, 4:34 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,424
It's sounding like this was not very well thought out. Regardless of preference for built form, a small, active business on a single lot along a main street is still much better for the community than an empty lot growing weeds.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but from the descriptions it sounds like a combined failure of city planning and the development community. Makes me wonder if the city should create rules that penalize developers who create empty lots that become a blight on the city for years, and in some cases decades (the Texpark lot in the downtown comes to mind as well, some excavated and abandoned properties along the Bedford Highway, and many more).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2022, 11:59 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
It's sounding like this was not very well thought out. Regardless of preference for built form, a small, active business on a single lot along a main street is still much better for the community than an empty lot growing weeds.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but from the descriptions it sounds like a combined failure of city planning and the development community.
It think that goes without saying. Whomever at HRM Planning came up with the concept that this stretch could be transformed into something diametrically opposed to what it has been for generations must have been smoking the good stuff. It was an absurd idea from day one, as is far too typical for HRM Planning. That stretch of Main St is a blight either with the structures that are already there or with empty lots. You're never going to get little pink houses with white picket fences there.


Quote:
Makes me wonder if the city should create rules that penalize developers who create empty lots that become a blight on the city for years, and in some cases decades (the Texpark lot in the downtown comes to mind as well, some excavated and abandoned properties along the Bedford Highway, and many more).
Well, we already have too many rules, bylaws, and byzantine bureaucratic processes in HRM as far as planning is concerned, so somehow I doubt more of the same will have a beneficial effect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2022, 3:19 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Well, we already have too many rules, bylaws, and byzantine bureaucratic processes in HRM as far as planning is concerned, so somehow I doubt more of the same will have a beneficial effect.
Perhaps you're right, but maybe it doesn't have to be so complicated. Maybe it would be a matter of not issuing permits for demolition until everything is in place in terms of approvals, etc., and then put in place a more-than-reasonable schedule for substantial completion, after which fines will be levied every month. Like 5 years to substantial completion for a building that would normally take 2.

Or just simply install a property tax penalty for development sites where demolition occurs and is left vacant for more than a year, to negate the practice of tearing down a building to reduce the property assessment and thus pay less taxes.

I think we all understand that development can be complicated and developers like to line up their projects such that a completed project can help finance a new project, but there are literally sites around the city that have been vacant for 10+ years.

Or, maybe it's not an issue for most people. It bothers me to see lots lying vacant for many years, especially when a business could have been operating there or it could have functioned as a dwelling for a number of years, but maybe everybody else is okay with it? The Texpark site is simply a blight on the downtown and an embarrassment for Halifax, but that's another story entirely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2022, 12:25 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,222
The rules on Main Street are mildly convoluted, but overall they're perfectly fine; nothing anyone with experience in the development industry couldn't figure out. In fact, they're quite permissive when it comes to development on the lower end of the street closer to the Circ.

Having good rules is important, but it's not the only factor in getting development to happen. You also need to have (a) the right financial climate for it (B) demand in the area, and (c) landowners who actually want to develop their land.

We currently have (a). I suspect we haven't really had (b) on Main Street for the past little while, but as the supply of development opportunities in other areas dries up we will see this rapidly appear. I feel like (c) is more questionable. Some sites like the existing gas stations and the McDonalds are very successful businesses that probably have no incentive to redevelop at this time.

HRM was right to update the rules here, even if they were a little early in doing it. Better to have the good rules in place for when the other stars align than to be playing catch-up.

We are already seeing some movement in the area with the apartment building next to the McDonalds, and someone (can't remember off the top of my head) is assembling a bunch of the properties on the Long & McQuade block. If the financial climate holds I would say Main will look very different in five years.

As for the Garden View... that was a first-time developer who chose to make their first project as complicated as possible by proposing a unique building with a unique tenant mix (seniors and students) while trying to access a host of different government financial programs. I was a really cool idea and I wish it had worked out, but I wouldn't hold it up as an example of the failures of planning on Main Street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2022, 7:17 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
The rules on Main Street are mildly convoluted, but overall they're perfectly fine; nothing anyone with experience in the development industry couldn't figure out. In fact, they're quite permissive when it comes to development on the lower end of the street closer to the Circ.

Having good rules is important, but it's not the only factor in getting development to happen. You also need to have (a) the right financial climate for it (B) demand in the area, and (c) landowners who actually want to develop their land.

We currently have (a). I suspect we haven't really had (b) on Main Street for the past little while, but as the supply of development opportunities in other areas dries up we will see this rapidly appear. I feel like (c) is more questionable. Some sites like the existing gas stations and the McDonalds are very successful businesses that probably have no incentive to redevelop at this time.

HRM was right to update the rules here, even if they were a little early in doing it. Better to have the good rules in place for when the other stars align than to be playing catch-up.

We are already seeing some movement in the area with the apartment building next to the McDonalds, and someone (can't remember off the top of my head) is assembling a bunch of the properties on the Long & McQuade block. If the financial climate holds I would say Main will look very different in five years.

As for the Garden View... that was a first-time developer who chose to make their first project as complicated as possible by proposing a unique building with a unique tenant mix (seniors and students) while trying to access a host of different government financial programs. I was a really cool idea and I wish it had worked out, but I wouldn't hold it up as an example of the failures of planning on Main Street.
I appreciate the informative post.

I do question the idea that successful businesses like Mcdonald's and a service station should be redeveloped as a matter of course (if that's what you meant). My thinking is that if it is successful, then it is filling a need for residents and passers-through (I'm assuming this is a sizeable percentage of the business, since Main Street is a major commuter route - and will be for the foreseeable future). Of course it will always come down to the business case, so perhaps my question is unnecessary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2022, 9:30 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,678
I think the pedestrian walkway is temporary, and a proper sidewalk (concrete) will be done when the Hartlen St extension is completed. This area has been promised re-development for years. Now with XXX-citement gone or whatever it was called, it does open another location for infill, but we haven't even filled in or cleaned up the Gag and Puke Chinese Restaurant that's been leveled for 3 years
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2022, 12:04 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I do question the idea that successful businesses like Mcdonald's and a service station should be redeveloped as a matter of course (if that's what you meant). My thinking is that if it is successful, then it is filling a need for residents and passers-through (I'm assuming this is a sizeable percentage of the business, since Main Street is a major commuter route - and will be for the foreseeable future). Of course it will always come down to the business case, so perhaps my question is unnecessary.
Oh absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that those businesses should be redeveloped. Like you say, they are successful and clearly fill a need.

I was more commenting on the fact that people look at Main and see a failure of planning because there isn't more redevelopment activity, but I would suggest that one of the conditions needed for redevelopment activity is a desire on the part of land owners to sell their land or to redevelop it themselves, and the owners of the successful businesses likely have no desire at this time.

It's very possible that in 20 years conditions will have changed and the "best" use of those lands will be different, so we'll see redevelopment that better meets whatever the neighbourhood needs at that time. For example, there's a good chance those gas stations won't be needed to 20 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2022, 12:35 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
... It's very possible that in 20 years conditions will have changed and the "best" use of those lands will be different, so we'll see redevelopment that better meets whatever the neighbourhood needs at that time. For example, there's a good chance those gas stations won't be needed to 20 years.
Thanks - has given me some good stuff to think about. I also suspect that in the future, fast food and fuel may still be successful businesses, but the form/design of the buildings in which they're housed may change. It's not only about the stuff being sold, but the environment in which that stuff is sold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2022, 12:53 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
Oh absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that those businesses should be redeveloped. Like you say, they are successful and clearly fill a need.

I was more commenting on the fact that people look at Main and see a failure of planning because there isn't more redevelopment activity, but I would suggest that one of the conditions needed for redevelopment activity is a desire on the part of land owners to sell their land or to redevelop it themselves, and the owners of the successful businesses likely have no desire at this time.

It's very possible that in 20 years conditions will have changed and the "best" use of those lands will be different, so we'll see redevelopment that better meets whatever the neighbourhood needs at that time. For example, there's a good chance those gas stations won't be needed to 20 years.
The planning failure wasn't being seen as a result of the lack of development; it was seen as a folly when it came up with some of the "visions" seen on page one of this discussion with a street lined with residential buildings as it was transformed into a pedestrian-oriented area.

You can see more at notgonnahappen.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2022, 2:23 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
Oh absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that those businesses should be redeveloped. Like you say, they are successful and clearly fill a need.

I was more commenting on the fact that people look at Main and see a failure of planning because there isn't more redevelopment activity, but I would suggest that one of the conditions needed for redevelopment activity is a desire on the part of land owners to sell their land or to redevelop it themselves, and the owners of the successful businesses likely have no desire at this time.

It's very possible that in 20 years conditions will have changed and the "best" use of those lands will be different, so we'll see redevelopment that better meets whatever the neighbourhood needs at that time. For example, there's a good chance those gas stations won't be needed to 20 years.
Thanks! Makes total sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:22 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.