[Dartmouth] 307 Prince Albert Road | ? m | 16 fl | U/C

[worldlyhaligonian]

I love it... I think something like this downtown would work well.

How long before the public outcry? I bet it will start right around the time when the public process starts.

Posted this about a year ago... either I'm psychic or development in Halifax always goes this path.

[Dmajackson]

No surprise here but the developer appealed the HCC decision;

http://www.nsuarb.ca/images/stories/pdf/notices_of_hearing/12May/200521%20monaco%20investments.pdf

[halifaxboyns]

Someone should contact the UARB - that notice is wrong.
It wasn't the Development Officer that refused their application - it was the Harbour East Community Council. I'm not sure if that really matters, it's probably just a technicality, but still...since it's lawyers dealing with it I suspect the notice should be correct.

[DigitalNinja]

I got this E-mail about The Price Albert:

"Hello Everyone,

I'd like to take this opportunity to update you on the proposed The Prince Albert development. As many of you know, the community council process was shut down by three of the six councillors at first reading on January 17th. Dismissing our right to a fair and open hearing, and summarily dismissing the right of the public to participate in what was supposed to be a fair and open process, was a difficult pill to swallow.

I have heard from a great many people who were outraged by the results of the meeting and are watching this situation closely to see what it means to the future of urban development in HRM. The truth is, core areas of our city are clearly in decline and have been for a long time. With so many young people needing a real future in this region and so many older ones needing quality living options, rational development and growth will greatly determine our ability to turn potential into prosperity.

I've decided to take this project to the next level and have filed an appeal with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB). We were recently notified of the date of the hearing, and I am once again asking for your support. I believe it is incumbent upon each of us to use every means at our disposal to make the changes that are necessary for sustainable growth.

Please dedicate a small amount of your time to attend the public speaking session on Monday, May 7th at 6:30 pm.
You are required to submit notice of your intention to speak to the URAB in writing (email or fax) no later than Monday March 5th. You can also submit a written response by Monday March 19th (details for both in the attached document.) Also, please let me know if you are planning to participate in this process, so I can keep you informed as we go forward.

Our strong list of supporters demonstrates that a growing number of residents in HRM understand the broad benefits of increasing urban density in the city core, creating attractive residential buildings in smart mixed-use communities and the impact this will have on the future prosperity of our region.

Our application to the UARB is giving residents the opportunity to participate in an open, unbiased process - the very same process they were denied by three members of community council. Your attendance at the May 7th hearing would help to send a strong message that such actions should not be tolerated. Please lend your voice to this effort.

Thanks, Tony"

I really hope some of us can make it out to the meeting, if not please at least e-mail the UARB and show your support like Tony asks.

[Upwords]

I'm sending out a strong plea to anyone who can support this development by submitting a written response to the UARB. I live a block from the site - it's GOOD for the community for many, many reasons, most of which have been discussed here. I thank you for that, but I'm hoping some of you will put your words where they can count most - in a letter to the UARB.

The deadline is Monday, March 19. The email address is board@gov.ns.ca
The Case # is: M04790.

If you want help with the letter, you can count on me (no charge). I write for a living - I'm a former journalist and political speech writer, now a communications consultant. Just send me a personal message and we'll chat from there.

Thanks.

[kojak23]

has anyone attended the uarb hearing that has been going on for this project the last two days? looks like today is the last night for it.
any feedback as to how it is going

[Jringe01]

So...anyone have an update on this? Crossing my fingers that he wins his appeal and that in the end it gets built. :-)

[Jstaleness]

Still showing as pending on the UARB website.

[fenwick16]

So...anyone have an update on this? Crossing my fingers that he wins his appeal and that in the end it gets built. :-)


The hearing was scheduled for May 4th and May 7th. I looked up the case number (M04790) on the NSUARB site; here is the link - http://www.nsuarb.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=82 (just enter M04790 and click on the link)

No decision is posted but the post-hearing submissions are posted for an Intervenor, the HRM and Appellant (Monaco Investments Partnership). Also pre-hearing letters both in favour and against are posted.

[Jringe01]

The hearing was scheduled for May 4th and May 7th. I looked up the case number (M04790) on the NSUARB site; here is the link - http://www.nsuarb.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=82 (just enter M04790 and click on the link)

No decision is posted but the post-hearing submissions are posted for an Intervenor, the HRM and Appellant (Monaco Investments Partnership). Also pre-hearing letters both in favour and against are posted.

Thanks Fenwick. :-)
Hopin and prayin that he wins this.

[halifaxboyns]

Still shows pending...

[RaphEmer]

According to Haligonia.ca, the appeal has been turned down:

http://live.haligonia.ca/halifax-ns/thedside/24404-highrise-development-on-lake-banook-opposed-by-community-group.html

[cormiermax]

Simply retarded. One step forward two steps back.

[someone123]

I wonder if there will still be people scratching their heads over why the city isn't hitting its targets for increased density in the regional core. Inner Dartmouth in particular has a lot of obvious signs of decay related to low population density.

When somebody considers a 70 foot setback between a house and small highrise insufficient you have to wonder what sort of workable solution they'd be happy with. In my condo building there was some lady a while ago who had trouble sleeping so she wanted to ban turning any taps on or showering after 10 p.m. Thankfully in that instance her bloated sense of entitlement was tempered by the condo's legal advisor. It turns out you can't legally tell people they can't shower in their own home. Turns out that in Dartmouth you can prevent them from building just about anything though.

[halifaxboyns]

This is a step in the process - not the best step, but a step. There is still the possibility of a legal challenge (which I suspect might happen).

That said - wasn't this area identified in the HRM Regional Centre Plan? If so, it might be in their interest to wait and see what comes of that. While they may not get as much height as they had hoped - they could get something out of it.

[Keith P.]

Utter lunacy.

[Jringe01]

According to Haligonia.ca, the appeal has been turned down:

http://live.haligonia.ca/halifax-ns/thedside/24404-highrise-development-on-lake-banook-opposed-by-community-group.html


Oh my F***...after 25 mins I gave up, I can't read all that :koko: :shrug:

[kwajo]

Oh my F***...after 25 mins I gave up, I can't read all that :koko: :shrug:
I agree, I was particularly impressed by this gem:

Traffic is a significant concern. Studies show that critical improvements to metro transit require an increase from 1950’s style densities of 7-10 to a density of 10-15. After a level of density of 10-15 is achieved, there is no dramatic increase in the benefit to metro transit for added density. In fact, once density starts to approach 50 units per acre, then local residents reduce auto use because of traffic concerns. This has a devastating impact to independent living that allows many of the local seniors, with cars, to maintain an active quality of life while still in their own homes.

:banana:

[worldlyhaligonian]

I agree, I was particularly impressed by this gem:



:banana:

I don't really get the logic / what they are saying here? Are they implying that this development will void the ability of seniors to own cars?

[someone123]

It's particulary poor logic because those densities apply to neighbourhoods, not individual lots. Realistically, it is undesirable and probably not possible to rebuild all housing to bump up densities to 10-15 units per acre. The way to achieve those moderate densities while minimizing the impact on the neighbourhood is to allow pockets of higher density.

Even if we ignore the faulty premise the senior argument isn't very clear. Who's to say that the driving difficulties aren't more than offset by improved neighbourhood services and amenities that are only viable at higher densities? What about all the seniors who can't drive anymore?

[spaustin]

It's particulary poor logic because those densities apply to neighbourhoods, not individual lots. Realistically, it is undesirable and probably not possible to rebuild all housing to bump up densities to 10-15 units per acre. The way to achieve those moderate densities while minimizing the impact on the neighbourhood is to allow pockets of higher density.

Couldn't agree more. The argument that is being floated these days that we can achieve significant density to revive the urban core without some height is dubious. If you look around the world, cities that achieve density without high-rises do so with very dense wall-to-wall buildings that are at least several floors high. Think New York rowhouses or Paris streets. The old North End and Schmidtville are the only places in HRM where we come close to that type of model. Most of our neighbourhoods are made up of single-family housing. They're also quite charming and bulldozing them flat is a terrible idea. The only way to add density then is to make the most of infill opportunities and allow for well-designed height. I actually said this in the District 5 Candidate's Debate.
http://youtu.be/xX2B4hKDM2o

[Jringe01]

For me...most development projects are like "meh...whatever", like most of the stuff being thrown up in Clayton Park/Fairview etc, but this project...this project is, like spaustin said, making the most of space and was well designed. This was, for me at least a project to get excited about.

When I lived in Halifax I would spend a lot of time walking, to the point where I walked down a majority of streets in Halifax and at lest 1/2 of the ones in Dartmouth. Some of my fav walks in Dartmouth took place around the lakes and I always hoped that someone would come along and put up a well designed highrise (anywhere from 12-17 floors) in that area. Having seen it from so many different angles I feel that the geography alone cries out for one, not to mention the urban landscape.

I love highrises and skyscrapers and would love to see lots more of them. Not that I advocate Manhattans everywhere but if they are well designed, well built and positioned in the right place highrises can add an amazing, visually appealing mix of colour and contrast that many cities need. Sadly most such efforts either fail or fall flat (Cowie Hill being a prime example) which makes it doubly frustrating when idiot politicians are presented with the real deal...they suddenly can't see "the forest for the trees"

I really hope this guy continues his fight thru the courts and wins. This is a building that both needs to be and must be built.

[TheLittleGuy]

Map - 307 Prince Albert Road (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=&rlz=1B3GGLL_enCA362CA362&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=307+Prince+Albert+Road+halifax&fb=1&gl=ca&hnear=Milton,+ON&cid=0,0,955557609621162294&ei=1jGxTavYLYrn0QGryqH3Ag&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQnwIwAA) for Case 16898.

Here is the rendering (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/16898Renderings.pdf). It looks quite good but since this is so close to Lake Banook and requires rezoning, I imagine that it could take years to go through.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5945/307princealbertroad.jpg

I'm bringing this thread back for one reason only. It acts as a reminder of what happens when you allow anti-development types who hold the public at large hostage. A reminder for upcoming announcements on the Halifax side around the Quinpool Rd area and the Dartmouth area when it comes views lines for a golf course...

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'm bringing this thread back for one reason only. It acts as a reminder of what happens when you allow anti-development types who hold the public at large hostage. A reminder for upcoming announcements on the Halifax side around the Quinpool Rd area and the Dartmouth area when it comes views lines for a golf course...

I don't have time or inclination to read through that thread again, but since you have already: why was it turned down? Looked like a good project right next to a major transportation arterial.

I don't get your comment about golf course site lines, since the corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue aren't anywhere near a site line from Brightwood. Or are you talking about some project coming up that you fear will be cancelled for that reason?

[JET]

I don't have time or inclination to read through that thread again, but since you have already: why was it turned down? Looked like a good project right next to a major transportation arterial.

I don't get your comment about golf course site lines, since the corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue aren't anywhere near a site line from Brightwood. Or are you talking about some project coming up that you fear will be cancelled for that reason?

I believe that it was turned down by the Dartmouth Community Council, it didn't even get to a public meeting. It seemed fine to me.

[hokus83]

I'm scratching my head a b it about this one. What does the city expect to have in this area, what sits there now is just a empty gravel lot not being used for anything. This was a good proposal that should have went through.

[Colin May]

I'm bringing this thread back for one reason only. It acts as a reminder of what happens when you allow anti-development types who hold the public at large hostage. A reminder for upcoming announcements on the Halifax side around the Quinpool Rd area and the Dartmouth area when it comes views lines for a golf course...

There are no 'views lines' in Dartmouth, they were abolished in July 2013.
As for the project you brought back consider this :
Read the UARB decision where the Board slammed city staff and named and shamed them - they remain employed by HRM and received another beating from consultants in the CanEuro case.
Maurice Lloyd was the planning consultant for the objectors and his almost 50 years as a planner in Dartmouth,and elsewhere in the province, was the key in demolishing the appeal. Maurice wrote the first plan for Dartmouth back in 1965 and is very well regarded by his colleagues. The evisceration of the staff by Maurice and the Board is quite entertaining.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I believe that it was turned down by the Dartmouth Community Council, it didn't even get to a public meeting. It seemed fine to me.

Thanks! That is a head-scratcher...

[JET]

I think that it is also where the funeral home is, not where a gravel lot is located. The report referred to by Colin sound interesting; i don't think that I have seen it.

[halifaxboyns]

Here (http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/doc/2012/2012nsuarb155/2012nsuarb155.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGTW9uYWNvAAAAAAE) is the decision that was mentioned earlier.

[JET]

Here (http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/doc/2012/2012nsuarb155/2012nsuarb155.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGTW9uYWNvAAAAAAE) is the decision that was mentioned earlier.

Wow, I think I'll have to wait for the Cole's Notes version.

[Colin May]

I think that it is also where the funeral home is, not where a gravel lot is located. The report referred to by Colin sound interesting; i don't think that I have seen it.

NSUARB Decision November 2012 : http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/doc/2012/2012nsuarb155/2012nsuarb155.html

Quote : " Mr. Dickey was accepted as qualified to give opinion evidence in relation to planning matters. Mr. Dickey is an employee of HRM’s planning staff, and HRM’s principal planner in processing the Monaco applications. He was, however, called as a witness by Monaco in this proceeding, and gave evidence which was critical of Harbour East Community Council’s decision to refuse. As the Board will discuss later, his testimony at the Board hearing differed in at least one significant way from the opinions he had expressed previously (both in writing and orally) when advising Council. "

Quote : " Mr. Lloyd was qualified as an expert in land use planning, capable of giving expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters, including the intent of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy (DMPS) and Land Use By-Law (LUB) and the extent to which Council's decision with respect to the proposed Prince Albert Development reasonably carries out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
[23] Mr. Lloyd is qualified as a professional engineer and as a planner (he is a life member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Institute of Planners). He has testified previously in planning matters. While the Board inferred that Mr. Lloyd is largely retired, he has remained active in planning professional conferences.
[24] He volunteered his services to the Intervenors, and to HRM in this proceeding. He has a personal connection with the dispute at the centre of this proceeding: he has lived for many years on Cranston Avenue, within the neighbourhood (as Mr. Lloyd, but not the Appellant Monaco, would define it) of the proposed development "

Worth the time to read the whole decision but paras 100 - 146 are of particular interest; as is the issue of height and compatability, key factors in determining if the proposed building complied with the MPS. And the issue of densification is explored.
The 'Bonus Calculations' para 549-562.

More detailed information is included in the Documents filed with the Board : http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=UARBv12&-loadframes

[counterfactual]

Fun quotes from the usual HRM Council clowns in the decision (http://www.canlii.org/canlii-dynamic/en/ns/nsuarb/doc/2012/2012nsuarb155/2012nsuarb155.html#_Toc337802740).


[141] Councillor McCluskey persisted, arguing that if the vote ended in the motion being turned down then Council must state its reason for refusal. Ultimately, she did state for the record (and prior to the vote) the reasons that she intended to vote against first reading (and thus against the further consideration of Monaco’s proposed development).She said:
…that it is not compatible with the neighbourhood, it is surrounded by single-family homes all along the Lake, the shadow effect that it will have on properties there, the traffic that will be generated and the wind that it could create.Among other things, she also referred to her uncertainty about the implications of the 35-foot height limit. She said that when it was set there had been:
…no talk of how high a building could be before it could affect the Lake. Nobody knows. There was no talk of that.


Traffic. Wind. Height. Snore.

And now, clear evidence of Councillors shameless pandering to NIMBY complaints:

[144] Councillor McCluskey spoke at an evening session held by the Board in relation to the Monaco appeal. Her remarks to the Board included the following statement, in which she referred to local opposition to the project, of which she was aware at the time of the January 17th vote:
I will begin by saying that I voted against the Prince Albert Development proceeding to the next step, the public hearing. My reasoning is that I was satisfied that we heard from the public who would be directly affected by a petition of some 300 names, emails, phone calls, and many face-to-face conversations.

I mean, she doesn't even have a principled reason to vote against. No leadership. No perspective. She just counted heads. "You see, there's this petition, so..." As if a petition of 300 NIMBY are entitled to decide the future of downtown Dartmouth.

And for those who say that Council rarely defeat development proposals... well:

[589] While persons were clearly surprised and disappointed by Council’s action in rejecting the application at first hearing on January 17th, the Board notes that according to the evidence before it, the rejection of an application at first reading is not unprecedented. Three such instances, in recent memory, were referred to in the cross examination of Mr. Dickey by Counsel for HRM.

Forget about rejecting developments. At that time, in addition to *this* rejection, before even going to full Council, there were three other recent such rejections at first instance.

[counterfactual]

NSUARB Decision November 2012 : http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/doc/2012/2012nsuarb155/2012nsuarb155.html

Quote : " Mr. Lloyd was qualified as an expert in land use planning, capable of giving expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters, including the intent of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy (DMPS) and Land Use By-Law (LUB) and the extent to which Council's decision with respect to the proposed Prince Albert Development reasonably carries out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
[23] Mr. Lloyd is qualified as a professional engineer and as a planner (he is a life member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Institute of Planners). He has testified previously in planning matters. While the Board inferred that Mr. Lloyd is largely retired, he has remained active in planning professional conferences.
[24] He volunteered his services to the Intervenors, and to HRM in this proceeding. He has a personal connection with the dispute at the centre of this proceeding: he has lived for many years on Cranston Avenue, within the neighbourhood (as Mr. Lloyd, but not the Appellant Monaco, would define it) of the proposed development "

More detailed information is included in the Documents filed with the Board : http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=UARBv12&-loadframes

I'm sorry, but this suggests that the value or partiality of Lloyd's expert opinion should have been seriously questioned. He's not an objective witness or expert offering his opinion at all. Rather, the guy lives in the community. He had a vested personal interest in defeating the proposal; that's obvious from the fact he offered his "expert" opinion to HRM/Interveners for free.

The UARB can be a bit of a kangeroo court.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Wow, I think I'll have to wait for the Cole's Notes version.

:) That's what I was thinking...

[Keith P.]

And for those who say that Council rarely defeat development proposals... well:



Forget about rejecting developments. At that time, in addition to *this* rejection, before even going to full Council, there were three other recent such rejections at first instance.


One of those, I am pretty certain, was the proposal to redevelop the Brightwood Golf Club, which she torpedoed in the same way, not even letting it get to a hearing. In that case you already had the 600 or so members of Brightwood, almost all of whom are Dartmouth residents, support the proposal. But that support didn't trump Gloria not wanting to lose her golf course.

[Colin May]

You would be hard pressed to find a better expert witness than Maurice Lloyd.
Accepting a person as an 'expert' does not mean the person is unbiased.
Two other persons recognised by the UARB as 'expert witnesses' acted on behalf of the developer and were paid by the developer. Neither of them lived near the development and neither of them had the depth of knowledge of planning in Dartmouth.
Such persons are expected to be professional and provide professional opinions backed by their experience and knowledge of planning documents.
You could claim that those 'expert witnesses' appearing for the developer were seeking personal gain through a satisfactory outcome and a better reputation within the development community. I personally know the 4 expert witnesses acting for the developer and the neighbourhood and would never in more than 20 years have I had any reason to question their integrity.
Waiting for the Cole's version is a cop-out. I know it takes time to read the decision and the associated documents and commenting without a better understanding of all the evidence will lead to uninformed commentary. The witnesses for the developer tried to convince the Board that 1 Oak Street was 'in the neighbourhood' of the proposed development but the Board threw that out as would any other reasonable person.

[JET]

nothing wrong with a good cop-out. I rely on those who understand these things more than I do to provide succinct insight; I can then sift through those and develop an understanding of the issues. If I read the whole thing then it just gets lost in translation, a bit like talking to pharmacists, I lose them shortly after: 'So, take....".

[OldDartmouthMark]

nothing wrong with a good cop-out. I rely on those who understand these things more than I do to provide succinct insight; I can then sift through those and develop an understanding of the issues. If I read the whole thing then it just gets lost in translation, a bit like talking to pharmacists, I lose them shortly after: 'So, take....".

:yeahthat:

Firstly, I'll say that I don't really appreciate Colin's jab on that point. But, no biggie - I can look past that.

I will say that my interest wanes when it comes to the politics of these projects. In instead prefer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the project after it is approved and ground is broken - seeing how it is built and how it changes (and hopefully improves) the neighborhood. I also have an interest in the conceptual design phase as well as the planning/urban design aspects, but not the politics that follow it or are intertwined with it.

I'm not a retired politician and thus don't have the time or motivation to wade through all the jargon and details ad-nauseum - as JET aptly said, I leave that to those who have a keen interest, as well as the experience and knowledge on how to translate all that to a brief summary for those of us who just want to know the result, and not who said what and why and what they've done in the past... :slob:

So thanks to all those who process the vast quantities of information and translate it for the rest of us. :tup:

[Colin May]

It's back .......only 13 storeys this time :
http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/DetailsCase19501.php

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/195012980PrinceAlbertRoad-Sheet-A0-Perspectives.pdf

[JET]

I preferred the first design, this one just looks bizarre.

[hokus83]

Looks cheaper

[fenwick16]

It's back .......only 13 storeys this time :
http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/DetailsCase19501.php

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/195012980PrinceAlbertRoad-Sheet-A0-Perspectives.pdf



It is certainly different than the previous design but I like the new design.

[Colin May]

This should be great to watch.
Put a ring in the Sportsplex, sell popcorn and let her rip.
Any bets it won't reach community council until after the federal election ?
The planner in charge of this new application is not the planner who handled the previous application.

[terrynorthend]

It is certainly different than the previous design but I like the new design.

Agreed, Fenwick. Not sure what's "bizarre" or "cheaper" looking about it. I mostly like it. Reminds me of The Vic.

Still doubt it will get a green light given the neighbourhood opposition and proximity to the "world-class" canoe/kayak facilities of Lake Banook. (quote-marks denoting a touch of sarcasm- I agree the facilities and lake are world-class, but is a red-herring re. this development)

[Dmajackson]

If the materials used are similar to The Vic this project has potential to be very attractive.

https://40.media.tumblr.com/09517eb732804186f316418d5eb748a1/tumblr_nogvh2wXrZ1tvjdq8o1_1280.png
Paul Skerry Associates Architects (rendering from Halifax planing documents) (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/DetailsCase19501.php)

[Colin May]

In the 'Description' box of the 'Perspectives' there are 2 notations :

Issued for Development Agreement 09/13/14
Removed two floors 12/19/14

[Keith P.]

In the 'Description' box of the 'Perspectives' there are 2 notations :

Issued for Development Agreement 09/13/14
Removed two floors 12/19/14

That seems to be a standard requirement here. Saw it off, because It's TOO TALL!!!

Criminy! :koko:

[moody]

If the materials used are similar to The Vic this project has potential to be very attractive.

And if they aren't, it has the potential to be hideous. Yuck. The form looks fine but seafoam green hasn't been cool since '99.

[hokus83]

This look like some shit they would build in Vancouver only shorter imo , sorry it's a effiing ugly looking building

[Keith P.]

It might be useful to listen again to the Maritime Morning discussion with McCluskey and Fisher following the initial torpedoing by Glorious McCrusty. Amazed this is still online.

http://pmd.news957.com/podcasts/atlantic_talk_shows/maritime_mornings/MMWJM-012012-0830.mp3

[Jringe01]

This look like some shit they would build in Vancouver only shorter imo , sorry it's a effiing ugly looking building

I agree...the renders looks hideous. IMO the original concept was WAY nicer, it had much more class and in terms of ascetics, would have been a better fit for the area

[fenwick16]

This has been revised again but now it is down to 10 storeys tall - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/20269_2980princealbertroada1-a4_redacted.pdf (according to the drawings, it was resubmitted on Nov 24, 2015).

[Keith P.]

Typical for HRM - propose something 15, get rejected, saw it off and try again.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Strange that they would be worried about height there. I can't see any negative impacts to the surrounding area on that location.

Regardless, whatever they put there it will be better than what's there now, though I have to say the current drawings aren't exactly awe-inspiring.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6790514,-63.5510361,3a,75y,91.66h,90.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv8flI-1TX4yGIGPvWlyNFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Colin May]

The developer, Monaco Investments,wanted to build at the Walker funeral home on Prince Albert and was knocked back at UARB when staff were thoroughly embarrassed by evidence presented by experts. I'll lay money that a certain councillor lopped 5 storeys off the proposal.
The triangular block of Pleasant, Southdale and Prince Arthur should have been acquired by HRM and altered to provide one entrance/exit to/from Pleasant with the larger eastern section added to the Sobeys plaza lot where denser development is much more suitable. Closure of Prince Arthur would be the sensible option.

[Colin May]

PIM set for January 21 at Alderney School.
http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Applications/Case20269Details.php

The Banook Area Residents Association is plastering a very wide area with 2 messages : 'Save the fire station' and '10 storeys is too high' and 'Wait until center plan is approved' and 'Increased Traffic leads to costly sidewalks'.
This one will be approved.

[gypsy]

PIM set for January 21 at Alderney School.
http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Applications/Case20269Details.php

The Banook Area Residents Association is plastering a very wide area with 2 messages : 'Save the fire station' and '10 storeys is too high' and 'Wait until center plan is approved' and 'Increased Traffic leads to costly sidewalks'.
This one will be approved.

Has there been any news on this since the meeting?

[Colin May]

Has there been any news on this since the meeting?
No.
The developer is allowed to build a tall hotel but not an apartment/condo of the same height.
I went to the PIM, same arguments as before.

[OldDartmouthMark]

No.
The developer is allowed to build a tall hotel but not an apartment/condo of the same height.

This confounds me as I believe a nice apartment/condo tower would do more to improve the neighborhood than a hotel ever could.

[Jonovision]

This one has another iteration as of September. They have now purchased the lot behind the funeral home and are going for a shorter but longer building.

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/case20269details.php

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5733/22851713468_49824e0fd4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/APk1gN)PA2 (https://flic.kr/p/APk1gN) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5741/22851713608_9f5ec5a761_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/APk1jd)PA1 (https://flic.kr/p/APk1jd) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5501/30994568076_d23e3e4efe_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PdTgfL)PA (https://flic.kr/p/PdTgfL) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

[Colin May]

The 2 properties, 307 Prince Albert and 5 Glenwood were purchased December 15 2010.
The price was $0

[planarchy]

This one has another iteration as of September. They have now purchased the lot behind the funeral home and are going for a shorter but longer building.

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/case20269details.php

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5733/22851713468_49824e0fd4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/APk1gN)PA2 (https://flic.kr/p/APk1gN) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5741/22851713608_9f5ec5a761_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/APk1jd)PA1 (https://flic.kr/p/APk1jd) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5501/30994568076_d23e3e4efe_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PdTgfL)PA (https://flic.kr/p/PdTgfL) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

Wow. That's really not visually pleasing...

[Keith P.]

It looks like every other sawed-off proposal we have seen in the last couple of years. HRM has graduated from cheap precast like on the Vincent Coleman on Bayers to this sort of thing - not much progress. WTH can't architects do something a bit more creative?

[Metalsales]

They can, but it is the developer who has final say. An architect can propose the best of the best with great building materials, but if it costs any more than the previous building that the developer built, it is a no-go.

[someone123]

It looks like every other sawed-off proposal we have seen in the last couple of years. HRM has graduated from cheap precast like on the Vincent Coleman on Bayers to this sort of thing - not much progress. WTH can't architects do something a bit more creative?

I suggest they name this one the McCrusty.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Yuk! Yet another development with a multitude of non-matching cladding apparently picked up from the leftover bins at Happy Harry's... :gaah:

[Keith P.]

This one is back in the news, and so are the NIMBYs... :hell:

https://haligonia.ca/proposed-high-rise-development-by-lake-banook-worries-homeowners-in-neighbourhood-213377/

[Jstaleness]

This one is back in the news, and so are the NIMBYs... :hell:

https://haligonia.ca/proposed-high-rise-development-by-lake-banook-worries-homeowners-in-neighbourhood-213377/

Yep. A 9 Storey "high-rise" is terrifying the Neighbourhood again.

[Colin May]

Think of the canoe course !
Save the canoe course !
OMG, the wind from this building threatens the canoe course !
Don't mention the buildings on the opposite side of the lake - the 10 storey condo is 390 feet from the course; and the 7 storey building that is 370 feet from the course; and the 7 storey building that is 420 feet from the course.
The proposed building is 920 feet from the course.
Obviously this proposed building will inflict great harm on the world class canoe course.
Cough,cough.

[JET]

I had something in my mailbox about this, about 10,000 words on a double sided piece of paper, somebody has too much time on their hands. I see no problem with this proposal.

[Colin May]

I had something in my mailbox about this, about 10,000 words on a double sided piece of paper, somebody has too much time on their hands. I see no problem with this proposal.
Same person who handed out a similar screed at the PIM for the previous proposal. Gloria convinced he HEMDCC colleagues to not have first reading.
I'll be there on Thursday to see what happens. Don't know if Hendsbee and Karsten will give Sam the same deal as they gave Gloria.
The shadows are really not an issue.

[Keith P.]

Same person who handed out a similar screed at the PIM for the previous proposal. Gloria convinced he HEMDCC colleagues to not have first reading.
I'll be there on Thursday to see what happens. Don't know if Hendsbee and Karsten will give Sam the same deal as they gave Gloria.
The shadows are really not an issue.

Sam (as a private citizen posting here a few years ago) expressed dismay at how Gloria torpedoed the last proposal for this site, so there is hope for this.

Meeting is Thursday night at 6PM down in Alderney Gate. I might even go.

[Colin May]

Sam (as a private citizen posting here a few years ago) expressed dismay at how Gloria torpedoed the last proposal for this site, so there is hope for this.

Meeting is Thursday night at 6PM down in Alderney Gate. I might even go.
If the canoe people come out against the proposal the decision will be interesting. I think he believes almost all proposals should go to a public hearing and he does not have grandchildren that paddle !

[terrynorthend]

The thread title for this one should be changed to- "307 Prince Albert Road | ~27 m | 9 fl and shrinking | Proposed"

[Dartmouth]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155071973261787&set=pcb.10155071973586787&type=3&theaterThe most current renderings for the project

[kojak2317]

There is a facebook page for called the banook area residents association, which is the group against this proposal. You should see the information or should i say mis-information being posted here. Any individual who questions the facts stated on the page or actually likes the proposal is pretty much being bullied by the site admin.
https://www.facebook.com/Banook-Area-Residents-Association-1036487266402113/

they also give very good artistic renderings of the proposals.

https://www.facebook.com/1036487266402113/photos/fpp.1036487266402113/1683552361695597/?type=3&theater

[Dartmouth]

Sorry - here are the images

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v89rf5v2n86yof4/AAAr19-NqAWuPoCItRzjxQF4a?dl=0

Picture from BARA
Pictures showing what an 8 storey plus penthouse would look like using the 2012 design from Glenwood and the Lake
Picture of the new building

[Keith P.]

There is a facebook page for called the banook area residents association, which is the group against this proposal. You should see the information or should i say mis-information being posted here. Any individual who questions the facts stated on the page or actually likes the proposal is pretty much being bullied by the site admin.
https://www.facebook.com/Banook-Area-Residents-Association-1036487266402113/

they also give very good artistic renderings of the proposals.

https://www.facebook.com/1036487266402113/photos/fpp.1036487266402113/1683552361695597/?type=3&theater


The must have picked up the Blob from the old STV Coalition who tried to make renderings of Nova Centre appear to be Godzilla.

Whomever is posting in that forum on behalf of the BARA needs to take a chill pill. Criminy!

[Jstaleness]

The must have picked up the Blob from the old STV Coalition who tried to make renderings of Nova Centre appear to be Godzilla.

Whomever is posting in that forum on behalf og the BARA needs to take a chill pill. Criminy!

I have been posting on the site this am. I'm not being mean. I'm being realistic. Some of these folks sound like they'd fight a one storey building.

[Keith P.]

I have been posting on the site this am. I'm not being mean. I'm being realistic. Some of these folks sound like they'd fight a one storey building.

I see no posts on there dated today. You must have had had yours either deleted or not approved in the first place.

[kojak2317]

the administrator is a bully. he will delete all posts that shows any support for the project or questions his information.

this is what it has come to. this is exactly why more people should come out for support on this project.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The whole thing seems ridiculous to me.

Chuckling at the suggestion of wind tunnels - don't you need several buildings in place to create a "wind tunnel"?

Not that I find their rendering beautiful, but really there should be no problem in adding a few more such buildings - and related density - to that area.

[Keith P.]

Unfortunately most people do not visit here to see the actual renderings and are taking his blob image, which is ridiculously out of scale, and his contentions, at face value. I ran into one such person today who went on at length about how the "high rise" would destroy the paddling course, and render the lake useless for thousands of youth in the future. There was no reasoning with her about it, she simply took everything there as fact.

This is the latest instance where the not-yet-approved Centre Plan is being used as an excuse to torpedo a proposal. This is nuts.

[OldDartmouthMark]

But what about the paddlers?! They will no longer be able to use the lake if there is a tallish building in the general area...

[Keith P.]

Deferred again, with the developer told to saw off another few floors:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/prince-albert-road-proposed-development-dartmouth-1.4438911

This is the heart of the matter:

Developer Tony Maskine said he's made numerous changes to the design during seven years of applications and back and forth with municipal staff.

"We worked with staff. We entertained discussions with the community. We did all the things we were asked. We made numerous changes. So I'm just not sure how much more you can do to get to a conclusion. If the process requires this level of effort, then the process needs to be seriously examined."

He said "the process has some clearly broken issues. It's a difficult road."


Not only is that part of the process broken, but the public hearing process is a disaster. Last night was a mob scene. HRM should build a low-rise sewage treatment plant on the corner to give them what they want.

[Jstaleness]

I see no posts on there dated today. You must have had had yours either deleted or not approved in the first place.

You are correct. It would also appear that I have been blocked. Ridiculous!! Do they really think a 9 storey would make that much more of a difference as far as wind as a 6 storey. They are celebrating the 6 storey cap as a win. It was never about the wind...as always height.

[Colin May]

You are correct. It would also appear that I have been blocked. Ridiculous!! Do they really think a 9 storey would make that much more of a difference as far as wind as a 6 storey. They are celebrating the 6 storey cap as a win. It was never about the wind...as always height.
The wind is not an issue, except in the minds of the desperate.
And the prevailing winds interacting with the taller buiding would have no impact.

[Keith P.]

The Council member for the area weighs in:

http://www.samaustin.ca/prince-albertglenwood-development/

I think his reasoning is wrong but at least we have a full explanation of his thinking.

[yal]

The Council member for the area weighs in:

http://www.samaustin.ca/prince-albertglenwood-development/

I think his reasoning is wrong but at least we have a full explanation of his thinking.

Typical Halifax NIMBYism. And I feel like this council will stall the development of Halifax for another decade by constantly enabling those loud and grumpy minority. I am seriously thinking of getting out of this province and invest somewhere else.

[TheNovaScotian]

The Council member for the area weighs in:

http://www.samaustin.ca/prince-albertglenwood-development/

I think his reasoning is wrong but at least we have a full explanation of his thinking.

It seems, to get elected in HRM theses days you have to forsake all reason and oppose any building over 4 stories while espousing hypocritical positions to the contrary on the internet.
:hell::notacrook::hell:

[Colin May]

Typical Halifax NIMBYism. And I feel like this council will stall the development of Halifax for another decade by constantly enabling those loud and grumpy minority. I am seriously thinking of getting out of this province and invest somewhere else.
Bye.
Where do you live - in a condo, an apartment, a detached R-1 ?

[yal]

Bye.
Where do you live - in a condo, an apartment, a detached R-1 ?

This is exactly how you lose young professionals. Oh man, look at that snobbishness.

I own a condo close to downtown by the way.

[OldDartmouthMark]

This is exactly how you lose young professionals. Oh man, look at that snobbishness.

I own a condo close to downtown by the way.

Sorry you feel that way about Halifax, but surely you don't let what you read on an internet forum help you decide whether you want to live here or not.

Has your experience here been that bad?

[Colin May]

This is exactly how you lose young professionals. Oh man, look at that snobbishness.

I own a condo close to downtown by the way.
And where will you live if/when you form a family ?
Development in HRM has not been stalled by any measure of activity. Show the evidence to support your statement.
The Prince Albert Road decision is no reason to suddenly consider moving away to invest elsewhere. In Dartmouth you can pay less for more home and be close to lakes and the ocean. Few people in Halifax can see the Atlantic Ocean, but thousands of people in Dartmouth look out a window and see it every day. If we lose young professionals we'll gain other young people who are not so easily upset about an relatively inconsequential decision on one project.
We have lived in downtown Dartmouth for over 34 years and would not live in downtown Halifax or on the peninsula.

[JET]

And where will you live if/when you form a family ?

We have lived in downtown Dartmouth for over 34 years and would not live in downtown Halifax or on the peninsula.

Or (as in my case) could possibly afford to do so.

[spaustin]

Not something I can comment on too much since it's likely going to be the subject of a future public hearing, but Harbour East Community Council considered this project tonight (my supplemental report from the December public hearing was back before Council). We voted to (1) rezone the land, (2) rejected the 8 plus penthouse presented to us in December, and (3) asked staff to bring back a revised development agreement for the 7 plus penthouse that the developer is offering so that we can schedule a future public hearing. You can read the details on my site here http://www.samaustin.ca/prince-albertglenwood-development-2/

[spaustin]

Two new renderings of the 7 plus penthouse proposal that were supplied to HRM.

https://i2.wp.com/www.samaustin.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IMG_1827.jpg?resize=1024%2C656

https://i2.wp.com/www.samaustin.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IMG_1826.jpg?resize=1024%2C596

[Keith P.]

Saved from the devastation that would surely be caused by one extra floor!!!

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'm curious as to why the additional floor is an issue, but overall not a bad looking building for the area. The residents will certainly have a nice view of the lake.