General Updates and News

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

It is you who does not have a clue because you have yet to explain, for buyers and the general public, why oversupply is bad for us?

More on the market that doesn't move will lead to lower prices... if it doesn't, I can't see how developers will be able to sit on properties given the costs.

Please explain, I'd love to hear it as a person looking to eventually buy in HRM. I'm all ears, seriously.

You posted earlier and referring to me : " Don't worry, this guy makes spurious claims based upon questionable information. "

and therefore I posted ' You don't have a clue'. You made a wild allegation, provided no evidence to support the allegation and when presented with the facts you have chosen to ignore them. Why not just agree to withdraw the sentence I quote and leave it at that.
Nowhere do I say oversupply is good or bad. I laid out the available units in one building and commented on King's Wharf developments. The data is freely available if you know where to look.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

It is you who does not have a clue because you have yet to explain, for buyers and the general public, why oversupply is bad for us?

More on the market that doesn't move will lead to lower prices... if it doesn't, I can't see how developers will be able to sit on properties given the costs.

Please explain, I'd love to hear it as a person looking to eventually buy in HRM. I'm all ears, seriously.

Oversupply doesn't typically mean lower prices, it just means no further development for a period of time. Unit prices are basically set by cost to build plus the developer's desired margin. If the market isn't there, the property owner will just sit on it - either continue taking in money from the existing building, or tear it down and rent as a parking lot.

This is basically what happened with the office market in DT Halifax. As much as people like to blame the HT for the last 20 years stagnation, it had more to do with the fact that there was an oversupply of office space. We've had a boom in recent years because easy financing has combined with the end date for a bunch of major leases, so developers are rushing to get new product on the market. With TD, Waterside, and the Nova Centre coming online we probably won't see many new office proposals for another 20 years, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't even see 22 Commerce Square get off the ground.

All that being said, it's not really the city's role to evaluate individual proposals based on whether there is demand or not. BUT it also means that there's no pressing need, beyond a fetish for tall towers, to open up the floodgates to projects of unlimited size.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Oversupply doesn't typically mean lower prices, it just means no further development for a period of time. Unit prices are basically set by cost to build plus the developer's desired margin. If the market isn't there, the property owner will just sit on it - either continue taking in money from the existing building, or tear it down and rent as a parking lot.

This is basically what happened with the office market in DT Halifax. As much as people like to blame the HT for the last 20 years stagnation, it had more to do with the fact that there was an oversupply of office space. We've had a boom in recent years because easy financing has combined with the end date for a bunch of major leases, so developers are rushing to get new product on the market. With TD, Waterside, and the Nova Centre coming online we probably won't see many new office proposals for another 20 years, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't even see 22 Commerce Square get off the ground.

All that being said, it's not really the city's role to evaluate individual proposals based on whether there is demand or not. BUT it also means that there's no pressing need, beyond a fetish for tall towers, to open up the floodgates to projects of unlimited size.

Huh? Come on, now. This is patently false stuff.

*Of course* oversupply also leads to lower prices in condo / housing market.

*Of course* oversupply in the rental market deters rent inflation and exerts downward pressure on rents overall.

Thus:

Toronto condo prices to fall amid ‘striking’ oversupply: TD


A new report from TD Economics published Monday takes a deeper look into the condo boom occurring in the country’s most populous city and backs up what some have been saying for some time.

Prices are headed for a correction.

By how much? TD’s call is for an eight per cent decline in prices by the end of 2015. The average condo price in the Greater Toronto Area sits at $353,665, according to the Toronto Real Estate Board.

A pullback of that magnitude could spell some meaningful downward revisions on prices on brand new units coming up for sale later this year or next.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1198221/td...ng-oversupply/

This applies to small markets as well:

Condo market rapidly cooling off in St. John's area

Janes said that translates to lower prices for people looking to buy a condo.

"Last year the average new condo price was down about eight per cent, so again a little bit because of that oversupply situation. And right now, the average existing condo price was down four per cent in 2013," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...area-1.2568741

BUILD, BUILD, BUILD, BUILD.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

I can assure you that one condo, 31 King's Wharf Place, sold very well.
The condo next to the train tracks, 15 King's Wharf Place did not sell well at all. ( Sales to independent buyers were very low. )

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're disputing?

Either they're sold out or they're not. Whether units in the second tower sold for less can be attributed to any number of factors-- market and non-market related- and, in any case, is neither here nor there. The fact that he's seeking to expand the broader KW development suggests that he's sold those units high enough to make money.

On the fact that both towers were sold out-- and expansion of the development-- see this piece in the CH a few days ago.

The piece also indicates a third tower-- not even build yet-- is 85% sold:

King’s Wharf could add up to a nearly billion-dollar development. Fares Inc. has approvals for a dozen buildings with 1,293 residential units, 200 hotel rooms and 120,000 square feet of commercial and office space in total.

Fares said there are plans to seek approvals for another three buildings. He says his vision is to create a small village of mixed-use buildings in the area.

The first two condominium towers have been completed and sold so far. A third building, under construction with a completion date for next spring, is 85 per cent sold.[
http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-wharf-project

This goes back to my original point: despite all the handwringing from detractors, claims for years "THERE'S NO MARKET! NO MARKET!", he's selling these units faster than he can build them.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're disputing?

Either they're sold out or they're not. Whether units in the second tower sold for less can be attributed to any number of factors-- market and non-market related- and, in any case, is neither here nor there. The fact that he's seeking to expand the broader KW development suggests that he's sold those units high enough to make money.

On the fact that both towers were sold out-- and expansion of the development-- see this piece in the CH a few days ago.

The piece also indicates a third tower-- not even build yet-- is 85% sold:



This goes back to my original point: despite all the handwringing from detractors, claims for years "THERE'S NO MARKET! NO MARKET!", he's selling these units faster than he can build them.

I agree with you on King's Wharf, and if Fares thinks he can fill a 40 story tower, I'd love to see it happen.

But I still maintain that Halifax is far too small a city to be expected to have numerous 50 and 60 story towers in its downtown as many people seem to want to imagine is possible.

There's not another city so small anywhere that does. I think there needs to be a critical mass of population to support that....where does it happen? 1 million people? 2? I don't know. But it's certainly not 300,000 urban / 420,000 metro.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're disputing?

Either they're sold out or they're not. Whether units in the second tower sold for less can be attributed to any number of factors-- market and non-market related- and, in any case, is neither here nor there. The fact that he's seeking to expand the broader KW development suggests that he's sold those units high enough to make money.

On the fact that both towers were sold out-- and expansion of the development-- see this piece in the CH a few days ago.

The piece also indicates a third tower-- not even build yet-- is 85% sold:

This goes back to my original point: despite all the handwringing from detractors, claims for years "THERE'S NO MARKET! NO MARKET!", he's selling these units faster than he can build them.

Sales at 15 King's Wharf were very poor and the developer is renting many units through associated companies. Potential tenants are given a hefty sales pitch as you are shown through various units and then at the last minute the agent offers a buyer the incentive of 12 months free condo fees. I have accessed all the sales data in 15 and 31 King's Wharf.
The claim of 85% sales in the 3rd tower cannot be independently verified as the building is not completed.
And in Halifax the moon does not set in the southwest.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I agree with you on King's Wharf, and if Fares thinks he can fill a 40 story tower, I'd love to see it happen.

But I still maintain that Halifax is far too small a city to be expected to have numerous 50 and 60 story towers in its downtown as many people seem to want to imagine is possible.

There's not another city so small anywhere that does. I think there needs to be a critical mass of population to support that....where does it happen? 1 million people? 2? I don't know. But it's certainly not 300,000 urban / 420,000 metro.

Who is talking about "numerous 50 and 60 story towers" ?

I'm not. How about *one* 50 story? Hell forget 50, how about a 40 story tower? Why not start there?

Because in Halifax, anything over 5 is a war.

Why is it that when someone proposes *one* skyscraper, this automatically means we are going to transform into Toronto and have a skyline of countless 50 and 60 story towers?

As for whether there is a market, your skepticism is common on here and in the city. All I can do, is point out that sales keep debunking this thinking in Halifax. People claimed Fares couldn't sell the first tower, because there's no market. He sold it out. They then said the second would never sell. Sold out too. Now he's onto the third, and the same detractors are being undercut by 85% sales of the third. Given some more time, it'll be sold out.

At some point, people need to accommodate the reality that there's demand for more downtown housing. Period.

And as for "smallish" Halifax; nearing half a million people, Halifax is no longer a quaint town on the ocean and we will never be again. We're a city.

Again: Halifax currently has 4 skyscrapers over 80m: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=66

Compare: Ottawa metro area has 800,000 people. The city has 84 towers over 80m: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=60

Compare: London, ON, has 470,000, population in metro. London currently has 15 skyscrapers over 80m: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=60

When talking skyscrapers (over 80m) by proportion of population, London has almost four times more skyscrapers than we do. Ottawa, essentially ten times.

The point is not that we need to start building Mirvish towers to catch up; just that we've been wholly modest in developing/building taller structures compared to other Canadian cities, and that maybe a few more *taller* towers downtown-- bringing more intense density-- will not be the end of the world.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Sales at 15 King's Wharf were very poor and the developer is renting many units through associated companies. Potential tenants are given a hefty sales pitch as you are shown through various units and then at the last minute the agent offers a buyer the incentive of 12 months free condo fees. I have accessed all the sales data in 15 and 31 King's Wharf.
The claim of 85% sales in the 3rd tower cannot be independently verified as the building is not completed.
And in Halifax the moon does not set in the southwest.

You have made some pretty serious allegations in this post.

I have cited my facts to an article in Nova Scotia's paper of record.

Do you have a credible independent source that you can cite here to back up your claim that Fares has blatantly lied to a news reporter that the towers are sold out (and that the reporter has not verified printed facts), but has, in fact, rented/sold units to "associated" companies (as in, companies he owns)?

Do you have a credible independent source that you can cite here to back up your claim that about the "hefty sales pitch" with "18 months free condo fees" ?

I ask, because to be quite honest, I'm worried your assertions are getting a little close to potentially defamatory claims about an identified individual. I'm no lawyer, but we're not talking about a public figure or group like HTNS here, nor corporate or government policy. This is a private citizen. Not trying to be difficult; but just raising a bit of a flag for your own benefit.

Also, these assertions just don't square with what is going on. Why would Fares move to expand the King's Wharf development by multiple towers, if he's losing his shirt on existing towers and sales? And why lie about it? How are you going to sell units if you pretend towers are already "sold out", including one not even built?

[counterfactual]

In other (good) news:

Halifax heritage buildings to get a financial boost

A program to help finance facelifts for properties in the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District Boundary is being extended.

Last week, city council voted to run the Barrington Street Heritage Incentives Program, which started in 2009, over another two years.

[..]

....the program still has approximately $400,000 available from projects that were approved but that never went ahead.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...inancial-boost

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Who is talking about "numerous 50 and 60 story towers" ?

I'm not. How about *one* 50 story? Hell forget 50, how about a 40 story tower? Why not start there?

Because in Halifax, anything over 5 is a war.

Why is it that when someone proposes *one* skyscraper, this automatically means we are going to transform into Toronto and have a skyline of countless 50 and 60 story towers?

As for whether there is a market, your skepticism is common on here and in the city. All I can do, is point out that sales keep debunking this thinking in Halifax. People claimed Fares couldn't sell the first tower, because there's no market. He sold it out. They then said the second would never sell. Sold out too. Now he's onto the third, and the same detractors are being undercut by 85% sales of the third. Given some more time, it'll be sold out.

At some point, people need to accommodate the reality that there's demand for more downtown housing. Period.

And as for "smallish" Halifax; nearing half a million people, Halifax is no longer a quaint town on the ocean and we will never be again. We're a city. Time to start adjusting to that reality too.

Again: Halifax currently has 4 skyscrapers over 80m: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=66

Compare: Ottawa metro area has 800,000 people. The city has 84 towers over 80m: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=60

Compare: London, ON, has 470,000, population in metro. London currently has 15 skyscrapers over 80m: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=60

When talking skyscrapers (over 80m), London has almost four times more skyscrapers than we do. Ottawa, essentially ten times.

The point is not that we need to start building Mirvish towers to catch up; just that we've been wholly modest in developing/building taller structures compared to other Canadian cities, and that maybe a few more *taller* towers downtown-- bringing more intense density-- will not be the end of the world.

Ottawa has over 880,000 people (city) and over 1.2 million (metro). It is about 4 times the size of Halifax by any measure, and in a much more densely populated part of the country. And I don't think the multiplier (4 times the population versus 10 times the building over a certain height) is a useful way to think about this. As I said above, if you want to apply that kind of math, then we'd say that a city of 100,000 should have a certain number of buildings over that height. And we would never expect to see a single building of that height in, I dunno, Sydney. There is a critical mass issue. Cities don't build significant numbers of skyscrapers until they are over a threshold. Maybe it's a million, something like that.

London is probably a closer comparison than Ottawa, although its population isn't so overstated by including rural people scattered throughout 5,000 square kilometres like Halifax (yes, over 5000 sq km). And again, part of the most densely populated part of the country.

The point I'm trying to make is that people seem to have a very inflated idea of how big Halifax is relative to other cities - I'm starting to think that's the worst effect of HRM amalgamation! Halifax is not a city of almost half a million people in any real sense. Realistically, if you want to compare Halifax to other cities, you should be looking at cities the size of the former City of Halifax - 140,000 city, 300,000 including surrounding urban areas, 420,000 if you include everything all the way to Timbuktu.

In any case, London also has a skyline that really isn't any more impressive than Halifax's:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londo...from_above.jpg

Again, I'll stand by my assertion that you will be very hard pressed to find any city with a similar population profile to Halifax that has a significantly denser or higher skyline. You just won't. Please, go do some research and prove me wrong. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

My second point then, is that all of the handwringing and moaning about how Halifax is severely underdeveloped and "behind the times" skyscraper-wise is based on a completely false premise. Halifax has a pretty decent stock of mid rise buildings and a pretty decent skyline for such a small city.

And none of that is to say that I don't want to see more. I do want to see more. I do think the Antidevelopment Trust has hampered Halifax developing an even more impressive downtown. I'm here at the skyscraperpage because I'm interested in development and tall buildings.

I'm just realistic about it and don't have starry-eyed visions of a futuristic Metropolis springing up downtown in a world where truly tall skyscrapers just don't exist in small cities like Halifax.

[someone123]

Many CMAs are as large as Halifax's CMA or larger. Ottawa's CMA, which is where that 1.2 million figure comes from, covers 5,700 square kilometres. The CMA boundaries themselves depend on commuting patterns, so if a district is included then that means that it is linked strongly to the nearby urban area.

It's likewise pretty misleading to say that Halifax's population is spread out over the full land area of the HRM. The vast majority of people live in the western third of the municipality; before the recent council shuffle, the eastern 2/3 had only one out of 23 councillors. It only has about 20,000 people and many of those people are suburban commuters. The HRM does not have a large rural population or an inflated overall population. It's on the order of 95% urban and suburban or exurban and 5% rural.

The 40 and 50 storey building stuff sounds like a straw man to me. It's possible that somebody somewhere is obsessed with this but it is not a very prominent opinion. I encounter way more people who seem preoccupied with pointing out why things won't work out in Halifax for one reason or another, what's wrong with it, etc. Personally, I prefer the unrealistically positive outlooks to the excessive pessimism.

I agree that there probably won't be demand to fill lots of 40+ storey buildings, but I don't think a single 40 storey building is that unrealistic. Southwest's Maple tower probably could have been a 40 storey building with a similar number of units had the view planes permitted. A lot of the tall buildings here in Vancouver have fewer units per floor than what you see in Halifax (Shangri la is about 300 units in 60+ floors and 700,000 square feet -- the Nova Centre has a greater floor area). It probably costs more to go higher but I doubt the 30 storey (Fenwick) to 40 storey transition is so prohibitive that such a building could never be viable in Halifax.

[portapetey]

I was comparing Halifax land area to London's. Nobody is saying Halifax's population is spread through 5000 sq km (speaking of straw men). But over a quarter of it is. The stats are here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax,_Nova_Scotia 300,000 urban, or roughly 75%, nowhere near 95.

In any case, I do feel strongly that people seem to think Halifax is a significantly bigger city than it really is, when they are always comparing it to cities much larger. Or they think other cities aren't nearly as big relative to Halifax as they are. Something like that; six of one, half a dozen of the other, I suppose. I'm just trying to compare apples to apples.

I don't think a single 40 story building is unrealistic.

But I don't think Halifax is seriously underdeveloed relative to other small cities its size either.

Once again, find me an urban area of 300,000 that is not part of a major metropolis with a significantly larger number of high rises, or significantly taller ones. They don't exist, as far as I can tell.

I'm not a pessimist at all - I just want to challenge the down-in-the-mouth, crying-poor, overwhelming negativity of how lousy Halifax is for not having more skyscrapers. It's a perfectly normal city for its size. We have it pretty good, and I wish people would recognize that instead of moaning about how much it sucks here.

Be patient. When our urban population hits 700,000 or so, long after all of us here are dead, a few 40 story buildings will go up. :-D

[someone123]

Here is one example, but it is a resort town: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benidorm

I don't personally think the 40 or 50 storey towers are that desirable beyond maybe having one or two signature buildings since they come at the expense of a larger number of smaller developments. I would rather see a larger number of holes filled downtown and in the North End.

For all the complaining on here, the current pipeline of projects happening in Halifax is pretty great. There's a nice mix of taller and shorter buildings planned, and many neighbourhoods are getting infill.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here is one example, but it is a resort town: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benidorm

I don't personally think the 40 or 50 storey towers are that desirable beyond maybe having one or two signature buildings since they come at the expense of a larger number of smaller developments. I would rather see a larger number of holes filled downtown and in the North End.

For all the complaining on here, the current pipeline of projects happening in Halifax is pretty great. There's a nice mix of taller and shorter buildings planned, and many neighbourhoods are getting infill.

I think we actually agree. :-D

I think we have a lot happening here, and I'd rather see 2 25 story towers filling some gaps in the downtown than one 50.

I had never heard of Benidorm; looks pretty cool. But as you already acknowledged in not so many words, quite an outlier. From Wikipedia:

"It has a population density of 1,915.5 inhab/km². The unique skyline formed by its numerous tall hotels and apartment buildings, which is unlike any other on the Costa Blanca (White Coast) Urban Age project, bears witness to the fact that Benidorm has the most high-rise buildings per capita in the world.[1]"

Now I want to go there!

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You have made some pretty serious allegations in this post.

I have cited my facts to an article in Nova Scotia's paper of record.

Do you have a credible independent source that you can cite here to back up your claim that Fares has blatantly lied to a news reporter that the towers are sold out (and that the reporter has not verified printed facts), but has, in fact, rented/sold units to "associated" companies (as in, companies he owns)?

Do you have a credible independent source that you can cite here to back up your claim that about the "hefty sales pitch" with "18 months free condo fees" ?

I ask, because to be quite honest, I'm worried your assertions are getting a little close to potentially defamatory claims about an identified individual. I'm no lawyer, but we're not talking about a public figure or group like HTNS here, nor corporate or government policy. This is a private citizen. Not trying to be difficult; but just raising a bit of a flag for your own benefit.

Also, these assertions just don't square with what is going on. Why would Fares move to expand the King's Wharf development by multiple towers, if he's losing his shirt on existing towers and sales? And why lie about it? How are you going to sell units if you pretend towers are already "sold out", including one not even built?

I have not claimed that any person 'blatantly lied to a news reporter'.
I have not said he ' is losing his shirt ' .
I am careful about what I write.

The 85 % sales figure for the 3rd building cannot be independently verified unless : a) the developer provides copies of the agreement of sale for the units, and that will never happen; and b) when the sales are registered at the registry of deeds and the condominium is registered.

I have all the sales data for 15 & 31 King's Wharf Place. The information is on the public record. All financing for the two buildings and the units is on the public record. Units in 15 King's Wharf Place are advertised for rental and purchase. I have looked at the units as a potential tenant and the agent kept extolling the virtues of purchase, including the 12 month deal on condo fees, and went so far as to point to 3 empty units in 31 King's Wharf Place describing them as purchased by an 'investor' who believed the condos were a good investment.

I do not know why the developer is building 2 more towers. I presume he has deep pockets and a longer view of the market than other people.

The associated companies are on the public record.
It is all on the public record
It is all verified by cross referencing several public sources.
If you have several hours you can find all the information.

And the moon does not set in the south west - pretty pictures are just pretty pictures.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by Colin May

...
I have all the sales data for 15 & 31 King's Wharf Place. The information is on the public record. All financing for the two buildings and the units is on the public record...

Out of curiosity, perhaps you could share the sources you're using? You say that they're free and publicly available, so I wouldn't think it would be an issue.

I'm not trying to argue or dispute what you say, but it's difficult to verify/interpret the data when it's all coming through a single person. It could also be of use to the rest of the people here. It would also mean that you'd have to spend less time repeating yourself when people can just go check for themselves.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I was comparing Halifax land area to London's. Nobody is saying Halifax's population is spread through 5000 sq km (speaking of straw men). But over a quarter of it is. The stats are here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax,_Nova_Scotia 300,000 urban, or roughly 75%, nowhere near 95.

In any case, I do feel strongly that people seem to think Halifax is a significantly bigger city than it really is, when they are always comparing it to cities much larger. Or they think other cities aren't nearly as big relative to Halifax as they are. Something like that; six of one, half a dozen of the other, I suppose. I'm just trying to compare apples to apples.

I don't think a single 40 story building is unrealistic.

But I don't think Halifax is seriously underdeveloed relative to other small cities its size either.

Once again, find me an urban area of 300,000 that is not part of a major metropolis with a significantly larger number of high rises, or significantly taller ones. They don't exist, as far as I can tell.

I'm not a pessimist at all - I just want to challenge the down-in-the-mouth, crying-poor, overwhelming negativity of how lousy Halifax is for not having more skyscrapers. It's a perfectly normal city for its size. We have it pretty good, and I wish people would recognize that instead of moaning about how much it sucks here.

Be patient. When our urban population hits 700,000 or so, long after all of us here are dead, a few 40 story buildings will go up. :-D

Who is being "negative" about Halifax not having enough skyscrapers? This whole debate started when another SSPer suggested that maybe some highrise towers could be developed at the site of the current St. Pat's school, and was subsequently mocked for so suggesting.

It seems to me the only "overwhelming" negative people that are "down-in-the-mouth" and "crying-poor" are those being negative about the potential for success of some modest high rise development in Halifax.

As for whether Halifax is a bigger or smaller city, here is a list of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Out of 100, Halifax places at 14. Our population is categorized as "Large urban".

We fall just below in the ranks, but are comparable to: St. Catherine's-Niagara, Kitchener, London, Victoria.

Cities below us on the list: Oshawa, Windsor, Saskatoon, Regina, Barrie, St. John's, Kelowna, Sherbrooke, Kingston, Guelph, Sudbury, Moncton, Brantford, Thunder Bay, Nanaimo, Lethbridge, Peterborough, New Westminister, Sarnia, Kamloops, etc, all fairly significant Canadian urban centers and cities.

We're a city. One of the biggest urban areas in Canada. We can support 40 story towers and more. In fact, we can do a lot of things, frankly, we think we're too small to do now...

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

I do not know why the developer is building 2 more towers. I presume he has deep pockets and a longer view of the market than other people.

Bingo. Perhaps we should also take a longer view and support taller, more dense, development.

[mcmcclassic]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Who is being "negative" about Halifax not having enough skyscrapers? This whole debate started when another SSPer suggested that maybe some highrise towers could be developed at the site of the current St. Pat's school, and was subsequently mocked for so suggesting.

It seems to me the only "overwhelming" negative people that are "down-in-the-mouth" and "crying-poor" are those being negative about the potential for success of some modest high rise development in Halifax.

As for whether Halifax is a bigger or smaller city, here is a list of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Out of 100, Halifax places at 14. Our population is categorized as "Large urban".

We fall just below in the ranks, but are comparable to: St. Catherine's-Niagara, Kitchener, London, Victoria.

Cities below us on the list: Oshawa, Windsor, Saskatoon, Regina, Barrie, St. John's, Kelowna, Sherbrooke, Kingston, Guelph, Sudbury, Moncton, Brantford, Thunder Bay, Nanaimo, Lethbridge, Peterborough, New Westminister, Sarnia, Kamloops, etc, all fairly significant Canadian urban centers and cities.

We're a city. One of the biggest urban areas in Canada. We can support 40 story towers and more. In fact, we can do a lot of things, frankly, we think we're too small to do now...

One interesting thing to note in this though when looking at the tallest buildings in some of these other cities above us is that Fenwick (our tallest at 98m) is taller than anything in Kitchener, Victoria, St. Catherines, and is only ~15m shorter than London's tallest.

Realisticly, the height of a building shouldn't matter - it should be based on if the market can handle the amount of units going up. Take for example:

Building A -16 units per floor @ 15 stories

Building B - 6 units per floor @ 40 stories

Both have the same number of units, but one just takes up less land. Imagine taking a Clayton Park special like Grand Haven Heights and taking its unit count and stretching it upward in somewhere like the North End.... We have the ability to support taller than Fenwick stuff, we just seem to enjoy demolishing forests and such to build stupid super wide 10-12 story buildings in suburbia.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Out of curiosity, perhaps you could share the sources you're using? You say that they're free and publicly available, so I wouldn't think it would be an issue.

Colin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect he's using Propery Online and the Registry of Joint Stocks to look that kind of thing up.