The Centre Plan (Urban Core Regional Plan)

[Dmajackson]

This is going to be huge if it goes through. :D

I am still reading the documents but I thought I should provide them to the forum. This is part of the Regional Plan Review and looking at the timeline after an extensive public consultation period this should be in place around 2013.

THIS WILL BECOME THE REGIONAL PLANNING STRATEGY FOR THE URBAN CORE (excluding Downtown Halifax)! ALL OF THE PENINSULA AND DARTMOUTH WITHIN THE CIRC!

Presentation (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/111004cow3pres.pdf)

Staff Report (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/111004cow3.pdf)

[someone123]

Some of the statistics are interesting. They note that 16% of residential development from 2006-2011 happened in the regional core. That is low compared to the target 25% but not too bad. I believe that the city can hit 25% relatively easily with projects like King's Wharf.

Downtown office for 2008-2011 was at only 4%, which is terrible, but that number does not include areas like Bayers Road. It may also exclude buildings where the owner is the tenant. I think this period was a low point for the downtown but it may not improve much if the city continues to promote suburban office parks while downtown projects have to content with NIMBYs.

[spaustin]

Yeah the results for office for Downtown were dismisal. We do have the NSP project which is a bit of an odd one because it shows up in stats as a loss (i.e increased vacancy in Scotia Square) without the positive bump for new office construction because it's owner occupied. The only office I can think of in the Downtown that's happened is the reno of the Free Mason Hall on Barrington, Chadrawe's small project on Spring Garden and that neat building on Agricola. Nothing significant has happened. I really think we need to put aside the 1950s idea of a Central Business District. Office won't drive the Downtown. It just can't anymore, not with the business parks offering free parking, cheaper rents, lower taxes and all sorts of municipal subsidies in the form of infrastructure improvements. Fixing those issues will be tough as it requires significant political change. The simpler way for Downtown to complete, is to get more and more people living there. When the Downtown has more people, office will then be attracted back, particularly high-end office that caters to firms looking for younger employees who want to be Downtown because the Downtown is fun and offers the lifestyle they're looking for. It seems to have worked in Toronto.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1058962--why-toronto-businesses-are-moving-downtown

[fenwick16]

I hope that the HRMbyDesign Centre Plan won't be too conservative with regard to building height limits. I wouldn't expect it to specify tall buildings throughout the central core but I hope that clearly states that building heights can be exceeded with a development agreement granted through HRM Council consideration of worthy developments. I think that this is stated in the current downtown HRMbyDesign (in other wording) but it wasn't emphasized - is this correct, or is this an incorrect memory of mine?

[fenwick16]

Yeah the results for office for Downtown were dismisal. We do have the NSP project which is a bit of an odd one because it shows up in stats as a loss (i.e increased vacancy in Scotia Square) without the positive bump for new office construction because it's owner occupied. The only office I can think of in the Downtown that's happened is the reno of the Free Mason Hall on Barrington, Chadrawe's small project on Spring Garden and that neat building on Agricola. Nothing significant has happened. I really think we need to put aside the 1950s idea of a Central Business District. Office won't drive the Downtown. It just can't anymore, not with the business parks offering free parking, cheaper rents, lower taxes and all sorts of municipal subsidies in the form of infrastructure improvements. Fixing those issues will be tough as it requires significant political change. The simpler way for Downtown to complete, is to get more and more people living there. When the Downtown has more people, office will then be attracted back, particularly high-end office that caters to firms looking for younger employees who want to be Downtown because the Downtown is fun and offers the lifestyle they're looking for. It seems to have worked in Toronto.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1058962--why-toronto-businesses-are-moving-downtown

I completely agree. Promoting residential development downtown should eventually lead to more office demand.

In any case, I see no reason for not extending office development throughout the Halifax/Dartmouth central core. Having a mix of office and residential development throughout the urban core will give people more options on where to live and work. I am in favour of increasing density throughout the urban core, but have more of a residential/commercial mix at the same time. A more balanced approach might also help to reduce the requirements for a third harbour crossing (together with expanded metro transit).

[halifaxboyns]

I had a chance to get to talk to some people I knew at HRM about this briefly; it sounds very interesting and I skimmed the report very quickly.

I share Fenwick's concern that this could go one of two ways for building height: either conservatively like HbD (which I hope doesn't happen) or it could push things a bit higher in strategic locations.

My hope is that with this - they will really look at transportation as a key asset to increasing the density in the core, not just of Halifax but the whole core. Streetcars, deployed as mechanisms to encourage densification and revitalization could be the key to building a more robust transit network. Imagine a streetcar running through Highfield Park to Burnside from the new Bridge Terminal, with much larger towering apartments there - feeding the streetcar. Or a streetcar running from NSIT through the north end (perhaps down Agricola) and into and back out of the core, with all the tallest buildings in the city in that area (because hey, if the HT says that's where tall buildings should go - who am I to disagree?).

This is a big project - we all should keep an eye on this and contribute not just to the discussion on here, but to the project in general.

[Waye Mason]

Peter Kelly mentioned some time ago, around the Waterside development, that there is a million square feet of commercial space approved and not being built. I don't think it is NIMBYism that is driving people out of the core. I think it is cost structure. The highest commercial property tax in Canada has to be a part of it.

[someone123]

I really think we need to put aside the 1950s idea of a Central Business District.

Definitely. Even if Halifax were to develop a great 1950s style CBD it would be a boring place. The low point for downtown Halifax was right after all the new 1980s office buildings went in.

[Jstaleness]

The low point for downtown Halifax was right after all the new 1980s office buildings went in.

I was just a kid during this time. Do you mean that office space was over-saturated? Or the way in which they were designed to allow employees to stay in that central area and ultimately taking away business from the rest of the core?

[spaustin]

I was just a kid during this time. Do you mean that office space was over-saturated? Or the way in which they were designed to allow employees to stay in that central area and ultimately taking away business from the rest of the core?

I'm primarily talking about the idea that Downtown is, at heart, an office destination that everyone commutes to from the suburbs on expressways. Obviously the idea of a Central Business District has changed over time from the 1950-1960s ideal, but the notion that towering office skyscrapers are what makes or breaks Downtown has never really gone away. Office skyscrapers are great, but they're no longer the main driver for Downtown development. We need residential infill as a prerequisite to any significant office development. Office development is only one piece of a successful Downtown and a piece that can't exist without the rest. In the era of cheap gas and suburban business parks, office now follows rather than leads Downtown development.

Luckily, we have excellent fundamentals to build on. Our Downtown has a good mix of interesting shops, bars, restaurants, entertainment venues, heritage/character and green space. This is true on both sides of the harbour actually, although admittedly rock-bottom in Downtown Dartmouth was a lot worse than in Halifax. Downtown is an attractive place where people want to live. We just need to provide the opportunity.

[Empire]

I hope that the HRMbyDesign Centre Plan won't be too conservative with regard to building height limits. I wouldn't expect it to specify tall buildings throughout the central core but I hope that clearly states that building heights can be exceeded with a development agreement granted through HRM Council consideration of worthy developments. I think that this is stated in the current downtown HRMbyDesign (in other wording) but it wasn't emphasized - is this correct, or is this an incorrect memory of mine?


I would hope that HRMxD has learned from the Downtown Plan and make some adjustments for the Centre Plan strategy. Height limits were too restrictive in key areas like the Cogswell St. interchange. The Centre Plan calls for densification along transit routes but this will likey mean midrise at best in areas like Young St. and Windmill Rd.

Mid-rise is likely 10-12 storeys as shown in their document. This would be too restrictive in areas like Young/Kempt Rd. and all of Dartmouth within the Centre Plan. In order to get the plan passed there will be pressure to keep heights down. I think some key areas should be left out of the height equation and marked as future growth opportunity sectors. If a developer wants to build in these areas now then they would go through the existing process.

[Jonovision]

I wouldn't dismiss Dartmouth. I have a very strong feeling downtown Dartmouth will be a sea of cranes in a few years. I heard that the survey done by WDCL for their lot behind the Royal Bank got overwhelming support for the tallest of the massing concepts, which I believe was around 20 storeys. I believe once the view planes are corrected we will see a lot of development in the area.

[MonctonRad]

I agree with the comments about the 1980's feel of the downtown core. I lived in Halifax from 1979-89 and while the grouping of downtown skyscrapers was visually impressive, I always found Scotia Square and the banking cluster rather sterile and lifeless.

For the core to thrive, it has to feel alive. This means that people actually have to live in the area rather than commuting home to the suburbs after work. As residential infill occurs, shops and services will follow. I think that downtown Halifax (outside the central core) has made great strides in this regard in the last 10 years.

I agree with SPA that the concept of a central business district should be abandoned. Instead, business development should occur in a more distributed manner in other areas of the peninsula as well. This could be accompanied by residential and service developments in the adjacent neighbourhoods which would contribute to increased vibrancy throughout thr peninsula.

As an added benefit, more distributed growth might provide the pressure necessary to actually develop an LRT solution to peninsular public transit.

This could be a very important report when it is released....

[fenwick16]

I would hope that HRMxD has learned from the Downtown Plan and make some adjustments for the Centre Plan strategy. Height limits were too restrictive in key areas like the Cogswell St. interchange. The Centre Plan calls for densification along transit routes but this will likey mean midrise at best in areas like Young St. and Windmill Rd.

The Cogswell area has post-bonus heights of ramparts maximum and currently there is very little space available to build highrises so I don't think that area is negatively affected.

I was thinking of south Barrington and Spring Garden Road areas. Also areas directly downtown could have allowed more height.

[Empire]

The Cogswell area has post-bonus heights of ramparts maximum and currently there is very little space available to build highrises so I don't think that area is negatively affected.

I was thinking of south Barrington and Spring Garden Road areas. Also areas directly downtown could have allowed more height.

I guess I was suggesting that the Cogswell heights should have been rampart maximum without the red tape of height bonusing.

[halifaxboyns]

I guess I was suggesting that the Cogswell heights should have been rampart maximum without the red tape of height bonusing.

Personally, I think the Cogswell Area should've been exempted from the rampart height rule and allowed to go up as tall as they wanted. The area isn't in a viewplane and it's blocked from view from the citadell by Scotia Square and it's towers. The only time you'd see them is if they did a Skye type development and went up to 45 stories - then you could see them. Oh we could only hope.

One of my hopes for the regional centre plan is that you would have a pre and post bonus height system for the entire core. You could exempt certain areas (mainly the low density residential areas) if it was felt that protection of this was important and then only offer the bonusing heights for lots along major corridors so that they could be like Spirit Place (as an example) and infill with more density. The Toronto Avenues Study (http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midrisestudy.htm) really shows some promise for influencing how the Core Policy and LUB could work. I know a few planners are aware of the study, but haven't had a chance to look at it...my hope is that Spirit Place could be a shining example of what could be coming alone major corridors with primary transit in the next 20 years.

I see see huge potential for the communities of Albro Lake, Shannon Park, Highfield Park, Crichton Park, Brightwood Golf Course, Southdale and the industrial area around Mount Hope Drive for the Dartmouth side (in addition to downtown Dartmouth and around the Bridge Terminal) as being major infill communities on the Dartmouth Side (be it in the same height as Spirit Place) or even larger if good transportation is developed (LRT/Streetcar).

For the Halifax side, I will continue to advocate both Quinpool and Agricola as potential transit villages (with perhaps a streetcar or frequent bus service) but with the recent development proposal on Young, I see huge potential for that area around the Forum and I'm starting to change my tune about Kempt Road (with the towers proposed on Young). Of course, this is in addition to a potential plan for the Hydrostone. But I would also like to see some policy work done on the low density communities in the core to deal with the possibility of redevelopment to new single family homes. Inner city infilling is a day to day thing here in Calgary, but with the possibility of the ship building contract and potentially a huge influx of population associated with it - I suspect it's something that may take off in the near future. So I'd like to see how the plan deal with that issue as well.

My last major hope is that the plan/policy would have a definitive transportation map showing poential major transit corridors (existing and future) so that we have a guide to move forward. This way, if the city wanted to get back into streetcars or building an LRT - we know where the system could go, thus could begin the work to cost it out. Then we'd also know the areas where intensification for Transit Oriented Development would occur.

That also made me think about the universities - so here is my last comment. With the recent application by Dal, there needs to be some work done on potential growth of university residential uses around Dalhousie (mainly) but also with St. mary's too.

That is mainly my laundry list of what I hope the plan will deal with.

[halifaxboyns]

HRM Council approved the terms of reference for this project and funding.

[haligonia]

Deleted post.

[halifaxboyns]

I found the presentation (http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCcped/documents/PresentationAug11RPReview.pdf) to the HRM standing committee about this project.

What I find interesting (and is noted as DRAFT) is the urban character and structure map on page 24 of the presentation. If you look carefully, the draft concept has some interesting things to note:


The area around the forum and where the recent high density application has been designated an 'urban centre';
There appears to be some use of the Toronto Avenue's study ideas and many corridors area being suggested, such as Agricola, parts of Robie, Quinpool and Gottingen (I would note the residential behind Agricola appears to be preserved);
Robie (including the car lot) has been suggested as an 'urban corridor';
Connaught, Jubilee, the lower part of Quinpool, Windsor and Bayers Road appear to be designated 'neighbourhood corridor';
The Dartmouth Bridge Terminal Area and near by appears to be an 'urban centre'; and
Shannon Park is a Neighbourhood Corridor/Centre.


The presentation also notes that mid-rise forms would typically be in urban neighbourhood corridors, urban neighbourhood centres, urban corridors, urban centre and urban cores which high-rise forms would only occur in the urban centre/urban core designations. Keep in mind, this is only proposed.

[someone123]

Hmm.. seems like there's not enough "urban neighbourhood" on the peninsula. Areas like Quinpool sidestreets are general neighbourhood which according to the chart does not even support townhouses. Actually some of those side streets have rowhouses (e.g. Jubilee) or apartment houses that are around 100 years old. It seems crazy to me to call this a regional centre and then declare that half of it is off-limits to anything more than detached houses.

The "approved development" lists are interesting and I have seen them before. They mention 3 downtown projects in the pre-approval stage that have not yet been announced. They also have the big list of Barrington heritage renovation projects. Unfortunately, I don't think much if any work has actually happened as a result of the Green Lantern, NFB, or Farquhar grants.

[eastcoastal]

Hmm.. seems like there's not enough "urban neighbourhood" on the peninsula. Areas like Quinpool sidestreets are general neighbourhood which according to the chart does not even support townhouses. Actually some of those side streets have rowhouses (e.g. Jubilee) or apartment houses that are around 100 years old. It seems crazy to me to call this a regional centre and then declare that half of it is off-limits to anything more than detached houses.

The document lists detached houses as the predominant form, with continuous (row) and stacked (probably 3-4 storeys) as possible types (page 26). I feel like the area around Quinpool works pretty well - just needing a "high street," I guess what this classifies as "Urban Corridor" as a point of focus. While I think Quinpool could use some love and attention, I don't think that we should be looking for higher development everywhere around it. There is plenty of room to increase density in the other areas of the peninsula and Dartmouth.

[halifaxboyns]

Has there been any progress on this plan in terms of public meetings scheduled or mechanisms to submit comments?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Hmm.. seems like there's not enough "urban neighbourhood" on the peninsula. Areas like Quinpool sidestreets are general neighbourhood which according to the chart does not even support townhouses. Actually some of those side streets have rowhouses (e.g. Jubilee) or apartment houses that are around 100 years old. It seems crazy to me to call this a regional centre and then declare that half of it is off-limits to anything more than detached houses.

The "approved development" lists are interesting and I have seen them before. They mention 3 downtown projects in the pre-approval stage that have not yet been announced. They also have the big list of Barrington heritage renovation projects. Unfortunately, I don't think much if any work has actually happened as a result of the Green Lantern, NFB, or Farquhar grants.

That's what they want... there is a fear of urbanity, even though its what makes cities cities.

This mentality that Halifax is somehow different/better because we don't have alot of development is actually one of the worst aspects of living here.

[someone123]

A lot of people are confused in a pretty common way. They know what they like but they are not sure how to get it, so we get the classic misguided stuff like people asking for acres and acres of empty grass. This has all been exacerbated by the fact that a lot of developments we've gotten in recent decades have been awful, and a lot of planning practices have been wrong.

The way past this I think is a combination of education and credibility. If you have good past work you can say "trust us" when you are doing planning. Hopefully this will come as the city improves and there are more good example of modern buildings that people like.

[beyeas]

MARCUS GEE
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2011 8:44PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 12:07AM EST

The thickets of condominium towers growing up in Toronto are changing the face of the city at an astonishing pace. Less remarked on, but potentially as important, is the proliferation of mid-rise buildings on the city’s main streets.

It has been the dream of city planners for at least two decades to build up the “avenues” – streets like Queen, Dundas, Bloor and Eglinton. Outside the downtown core, they have traditionally been lined with two- or three-storey buildings with shops on the ground floor and apartments or offices upstairs. That urban form has remained much the same for decades.

If developers could be persuaded to build up those avenues, replacing old buildings and empty lots with structures of five, six, 10 or 11 storeys, it would do wonders for the city. Toronto is expected to grow by 500,000 people over the next 20 years, reaching a population of more than three million. If the city is to remain livable, planners want as many as possible to live on or near key main streets, close to transit and community services.

...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/citys-red-tape-slowing-vital-mid-rise-development/article2238946/

[Jstaleness]

Can't argue with that. Toronto can only sprawl for so long. Hopefully lessons being learned from Canada's bigger cities can help Halifax make the correct choices for our next growth period.

[RyeJay]

Can't argue with that. Toronto can only sprawl for so long. Hopefully lessons being learned from Canada's bigger cities can help Halifax make the correct choices for our next growth period.

Speaking of which, I recall urban planners from Toronto recently speaking at SMU (during late spring, I believe). Essentially, the advice they were trying to convey stressed the importance of urbanisation. Toronto's Greenbelt legislation is something, for example, we can examine.

The speakers warned that if Halifax stays on course with its sprawl, we could end up being another boring Buffalo, New York.

[halifaxboyns]

The regional plan 5 year review is looking for people on the community design advisory committee.
Find out here (http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/CDACvolunteerad.pdf) how to apply.

[Jstaleness]

The speakers warned that if Halifax stays on course with its sprawl, we could end up being another boring Buffalo, New York.

Uggghhhh!! Hey! We would have an NHL team though.

[someone123]

The speakers warned that if Halifax stays on course with its sprawl, we could end up being another boring Buffalo, New York.

I would take that with an enormous grain of salt.

It's great to have people from other places come to Halifax and talk about their experiences. Sometimes, however, these people make pronouncements about Halifax without knowing much about the local context. Planners are also particularly bad for presenting "soft" arguments without a lot of facts to back them up.

Halifax isn't completely unique by any stretch but it also doesn't have much in common with Rust Belt cities like Buffalo. The biggest problem in Buffalo and the US Rust Belt is deindustrialization, not suburban sprawl. The most important part of the economy picked up and moved elsewhere. Halifax was barely affected by this trend because it has almost zero manufacturing. It seems like a big stretch to think that continuing the status quo in Halifax will produce the same results, particularly when the urban population is still growing substantially...

[RyeJay]

I would take that with an enormous grain of salt.

It's great to have people from other places come to Halifax and talk about their experiences. Sometimes, however, these people make pronouncements about Halifax without knowing much about the local context. Planners are also particularly bad for presenting "soft" arguments without a lot of facts to back them up.

Halifax isn't completely unique by any stretch but it also doesn't have much in common with Rust Belt cities like Buffalo. The biggest problem in Buffalo and the US Rust Belt is deindustrialization, not suburban sprawl. The most important part of the economy picked up and moved elsewhere. Halifax was barely affected by this trend because it has almost zero manufacturing. It seems like a big stretch to think that continuing the status quo in Halifax will produce the same results, particularly when the urban population is still growing substantially...


I don't know if Buffalo was chosen as a comparison to Halifax for industrial measure. The comparison, as far as I know, was only along the lines of city planning--and how neither Halifax nor Buffalo puts amazing effort into long term goals. Both cities do have an overwhelming suburbia. Until recently, Halifax seemed on course for continued urban neglect.

But yes, the cities are supported by different economies.

[someone123]

The comparison, as far as I know, was only along the lines of city planning--and how neither Halifax nor Buffalo puts amazing effort into long term goals. Both cities do have an overwhelming suburbia.

To put things into perspective, I've read articles claiming that the vacancy rate for houses in Buffalo is around 25%. In 1950 it had 580,000 people and today it has around 260,000 people.

Maybe better planning might have saved Buffalo but it seems like a long shot, particularly when there are so many attractive US cities and Americans move around so readily.

[RyeJay]

To put things into perspective, I've read articles claiming that the vacancy rate for houses in Buffalo is around 25%. In 1950 it had 580,000 people and today it has around 260,000 people.

Maybe better planning might have saved Buffalo but it seems like a long shot, particularly when there are so many attractive US cities and Americans move around so readily.

Throw a link at me so I may read these articles, if you have them handy.
And I'm not sure what you're meaning by attractive US cities. They've maintained a decent number of tourist valued areas. Government buildings are usually well kept. Even though I've only seen half a dozen American cities in person, I've read about many more. Their cities are falling apart, while too much money from their municipal and state budgets goes toward rural and suburban infrastructural maintenance.

A majority of Americans don't live in a city, yet work there. So yes, many Americans have long commutes. Americans move around even more readily, thanks to foreclosure.

I may try to find a transcript to the SMU presentation I mentioned. I didn't know a Halifax-Buffalo comparison would spawn this, lol...

[fenwick16]

The Buffalo metro area has been around 1 million for a few decades. The decline in the city-proper population has been offset by an increase in suburban areas. So yes it does have urban sprawl, however, even the US-side of Niagara Falls is considered to be part of its metropolitan area (20 minutes to the north).

Buffalo has both an NFL & NHL team (they also had an NBA team back in the 1970's and also tried to lure the MLB Montreal Expos to the city in the 1990's). The reason it can support both the NHL and NFL is because of its metropolitan population and its location next to the Canadian border. The NHL team (Buffalo Sabres) draws a significant number of fans from St. Catharines to Hamilton. The NFL team (Buffalo Bills) draws a significant number of fans all the way from Toronto to St Catherines.

[someone123]

Here's a NYT article on Buffalo: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/nyregion/13vacant.html?pagewanted=all

This one says 23 percent of housing units are estimated vacant (there are a number of ways to do this -- for example, the USPS keeps track of the 18,000 or so houses there where nobody picks up mail anymore): http://www.buffalonews.com/city/special-reports/buffalos-abandoned-homes-gone-but-not-forgotten/article107563.ece

Things have gotten worse in the US lately but Buffalo and the Rust Belt were in bad economic shape even before the downturn. Lots of people moved to sunbelt areas which were sprawlier but also more economically successful (though perhaps unsustainable).

I've personally been to Buffalo and Detroit. They're very interesting cities but they don't resemble Halifax much. They're almost as different as it gets, since they were big centres of industry when Halifax was a small government/university/shipping town.

I don't know exactly what this person said in the talk. I just pointed this out because sometimes there are weirdly inapt comparisons between Halifax and other cities. It's usually worth looking at them critically.

[-Harlington-]

Supply and demand in HRM
December 10, 2011 - 4:37am By HOWARD EPSTEIN


Motorists battle their way through rush-hour traffic on Bayers Road. Halifax Chebucto MLA Howard Epstein argues increasing vehicle access to HRM’s Regional Centre would only encourage more urban sprawl. (ERIC WYNNE / Staff)

The marketplace principles of supply and demand can offer a useful way forward for Halifax Regional Municipality as it re-examines its 2006 regional plan.

That plan is a context for land-use decisions to be made by HRM council. It sets out a vision for the next 25 years of development. By its own terms, some review is necessary every five years. That process is now underway, with a target date for completion of September 2012.

HRM staff have suggested to council that only minor tinkering is needed. But there are some serious problems with the plan. Most problematic, it is written in a way that is ambiguous, and thus it allows decisions to be made that are inconsistent with what appear to be the main policies. Another way to think of this is that priorities are not clear enough in the plan.

The main inconsistency is between the policy of a more compact urban form, and the need to accommodate population migration to HRM.

The policy of a more compact urban form means, quite explicitly in the plan, more of the population living on the Halifax peninsula and in Dartmouth inside the Circumferential Highway, the area known overall as the Regional Centre.

The plan sets targets. It says that 25 per cent of the growth should be in the Regional Centre. Probably those numbers should be increased, but even without changes, current statistics show that the 2006 target has not nearly been met.

Most of the growth has been in the suburban areas, much more than the plan contemplates. This has happened because the 2006 plan did not make it explicit that the curtailing of sprawl should take precedence over allowing land development outside the Regional Centre.

This is what has to be changed in the plan review. Supply and demand can do it.

First, increase the supply of housing, especially family housing, in the Regional Centre. This should be done by allowing basement and attic apartments in the existing residential neighbourhoods and extensions at the rear of these houses. This can all be done without changing the height restrictions, so residential neighbourhoods still have their traditional look and feel.

Much of the employment is in the Regional Centre, along with other attractions such as hospitals, universities and government offices. Much can be done to lessen the transportation problems if people can live closer to where they want to go.

Second, restrict the supply of housing outside the Regional Centre. This means not allowing more big subdivisions or apartment buildings there until the population targets for the Regional Centre are being met. The sequencing of development is a standard land-use planning tool.

Third, increase the supply of employment nodes in the existing suburbs. Many already exist, but more are needed. This is necessary to reduce the demand for wider roads to take more cars into the Regional Centre.

This does not mean abandoning efforts to develop the central business district (CBD). But hard choices have to be made as to what the CBD is meant to be, as compared with the business parks, the shopping centres and the strip malls that council has allowed to proliferate.

Fourth, increase the supply of allowable home-based businesses. With electronic communication, many more people can work from their homes. Zoning rules should accommodate a lot of that.

Fifth, do not increase the supply of transportation corridors to the Regional Centre. That would only serve to increase the demand to create sprawl, which the original 2006 plan saw — correctly — as very undesirable.

What I have in mind is not to allow the private marketplace on its own to decide what HRM will look like. Unfortunately, that is essentially what the 2006 plan has allowed.

Council seems to have overlooked that it has a major role to play in guiding the private marketplace. It can do this, while not micro-managing, by taking seriously its job as overall steward of land use, and by keeping in mind the tools of supply and demand.

Howard Epstein is MLA for Halifax Chebucto, and a former member of Halifax city council and Halifax regional council.

[q12]

Supply and demand in HRM
December 10, 2011 - 4:37am By HOWARD EPSTEIN

First, increase the supply of housing, especially family housing, in the Regional Centre. This should be done by allowing basement and attic apartments in the existing residential neighbourhoods and extensions at the rear of these houses. This can all be done without changing the height restrictions, so residential neighbourhoods still have their traditional look and feel.


What a wingnut. :koko:

Yeah this is the best way to increase the population and density on the pennisula. Let's move people into basements and attics. God forbid the private sector put people to work building high rise condos and apartments.

These commies need to head back to the motherland.

[someone123]

So it looks like Epstein knows just enough about economics to be dangerous, as the saying goes. I wonder if he would be interested in moving his family into a basement.

Basement and attic apartments are not "family housing". They're mostly sought after by students, and South End NIMBYs already fight against adding units to existing properties. There might be some gains from these apartments or laneway houses in certain areas but they would not make much difference and they are definitely not going to stand in for thousands of new apartments constructed over the years in the suburbs.

Basically this article seems like a half-baked attempt to sell a self-serving agenda with little in the way of fact to back it up.

[Hali87]

Well, his comment about basement and attic apartments makes some sense - maybe not for families but certainly for students and others who want to live with 2 or 3 roommates. Consider the area between Coburg and Chebucto - many "single family houses" have been converted to flats, so many houses have as many as 10 residents instead of 4 or 5. This is a much more efficient use of space and probably more acceptable than razing half of the 1900-era houses and replacing them with actual apartments or condos. I agree that larger residential structures will have to be built elsewhere, but since this area in particular is supposed to stay lowrise, subdividing individual houses would probably be the simplest way to increase density.

[Keith P.]

Der Kommissar has decreed it! Ve must all moof into bazements and attix to serve der fatherland!! Next ve must all take up pix and shuvels and dig up ze evil Bayerz Road to save der core from ze evil suburbanitz!!! :koko::koko::koko:

[rkannegi]

Not wanting to widen any roads. Its nuts how some officials here think that there's no limit to how many people they can cram into a square kilometre of land. After a certain point, expansion has to be allowed, but not like what you get down in Florida (sprawl madness).

For instance, why in hell can't they just add bus lanes to Bayers Road and implement BRT along the 102, i.e. Route 182, similar to the BRT along Ottawa Road 174:

Here's a Google Streetview Image of what I'm talking about:

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=45.456829,-75.577183&spn=0.001012,0.001709&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.456885,-75.577036&panoid=23j5VHkZ1Lt_WaBpBedXuw&cbp=12,243.1,,1,5.12

At least they could get this done on Bayers Road east of the 102 viaduct in the short term and then extend it once a widened viaduct is built, while, having the Northwest Arm Drive Interchange (exit 1) converted to a roundabout diamond (Larry Uteck style) interchange and ram right-side bus/HOV lanes all the way up to Exit 4 in Bedford. Take a look at how the lanes are passed across the interchanges of Ottawa Road 174 (that design can be modified to also have the bus/HOV lane proceed straight across the overpasses with it briefly being an auxiliary lane in close proximity to the interchange merge and exit lanes.

About the HSC junction, I did recently send in a signal phasing plan to HRM that would theoretically allow the new bus lanes to be run right through the existing area (left turn lanes would become shared left/through lanes), with it's timings being similar to the Chain Lake/102 interchange and Burnside/111 interchange.

The mindless political rangling in HRM is a recipe for economic suicide, even with the shipbuilding contract.

[halifaxboyns]

Not sure if anyone noticed this on the upcoming Regional Council agenda but they are pushing back RP+5 and moving up work on the Regional Centre Plan.
Here (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/120228ca1022.pdf) is the report.

[halifaxboyns]

HRM's website has been updated to call the Regional Centre Plan "Plan HRM". It seems like everyone is using a similar title, since Saint John called their's "Plan SJ" and we called our City Plan "Plan It Calgary".

Still, there is a new link (http://halifax.ca/PlanHRM/) and there is a kick off event on March 1. It looks like they also have a twitter and facebook page.

[halifaxboyns]

Council has begun discussing this report.

[halifaxboyns]

Some good discussion - some concerns about the level of public engagement and concerns about the community visioning areas that are on going - but this will proceed.

[halifaxboyns]

Public Engagement dates:
March 19, 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm

St. Margaret's Centre - Rooms 1 & 2, 12 Westwood Blvd, Upper Tantallon


March 21, 6:30 - 9:00 pm

Atlantica Hotel - Guild Hall, 1980 Robie Street, Halifax


March 22, 7:00 - 9:30 pm

Millwood High School - Cafeteria, 141 Millwood Drive, Lower Sackville


March 26, 7:00 - 9:30 pm*

Oyster Pond Academy - Cafeteria, 10583 Hwy#7, Oyster Pond

March 28, 7:00 - 9:30 pm

Black Cultural Centre, 10 Cherry Brook Road, Cherry Brook

March 29, 6:30 - 9:00 pm*

Holiday Inn Harbourview - Harbourview Terrace, 110 Wyse Rd, Dartmouth

April 2, 6;30 - 9:00 pm*

Mount Saint Vincent University - Rosaria Student Centre, 2 Oceanview Dr., Bedford Highway

* is a date which will provide live streaming.

[halifaxboyns]

Anyone make it to the kick off event?
Their facebook page mentioned that there were 200+ people there.

[Hali87]

I was there. The main speaker was one of the architect/planners who worked on Toronto's Avenues plan, and discussed that plan in detail and how those principles could be applied here. The concepts were pretty well received, I would guess in large part because it allows the city to densify significantly without building anything over 12 floors.

The public seemed polarized over heights as always, and sadly, there were several speakers who got up and said "Is anyone thinking of the Citadel? That is why tourists come here. We shouldn't have tall buildings. We shouldn't try to be like Toronto". Etc. At the same time, others commented that the viewplanes and ramparts bylaw should at least be revisited, that we should be focusing MORE than 25% of growth in the core (what happens when gas is $5/L?) and what I thought may turn out to be the most important comment, is someone said "we throw around the word heritage all the time, but we never define it. We need to decide what we're actually talking about when we talk about heritage." Truth.

I asked the panel whether they thought HRM by Design should be revisited. I said that the YMCA controversy demonstrates that the height limits do not make economic sense and that even the developers who genuinely want to give back to the community can't afford to with the rules the way they are, simply because they cannot produce enough square footage with the current height limits. So recognizing this, should we revisit the height limits, taking into account the levels of density required for development to be viable, or should we leave them the way they are for the sake of clarity? The session was running late and there was only time for a response from one panel member, and she said no we shouldn't look at changing them. They don't have to break the rules just to break even; there's cheaper ways to build. :shrug:

However, it caused a bit of a buzz in the room and I'd be surprised if this doesn't come up in the next series of meetings. All in all I'm pretty optimistic about the process. There are certainly more than a couple STV representatives but I think if there is an appeal to reason, as there was with the Dartmouth Cove sessions, that the plan might not have the traditional no heights at all costs dogma. I certainly plan to, and I've been writing down my thoughts and trying to put things more eloquently (this post is not a good example as I'm very sleep deprived right now). I should mention that I'm not the type who just wants to see more tall buildings, I really just want to see more density. However, I don't think height should be the starting point for what is and is not allowed. And I think the ramparts bylaw is not the right approach - it looks great on paper and in theory, but it's absolutely a case of the city putting tourists before its own citizens, and thinking it knows what those tourists want, when really half the tourists who come here don't even know there's a fort.

[someone123]

The session was running late and there was only time for a response from one panel member, and she said no we shouldn't look at changing them. They don't have to break the rules just to break even; there's cheaper ways to build. :shrug:

There may or may not be cheaper ways to build, but the fact is that given the current rules enough developers are choosing to build in the suburbs that the city is missing its own densification targets. The planning rules are failing to produce the desired result, therefore something is wrong with them. It doesn't matter what the panelists think developers should be doing.

Who was the panelist? Bev Miller or something?

I believe that a lot of the planning in Halifax is lazy in that it puts off tough decisions to be dealt with later by HRM regional council and the NSUARB. It is very easy to pass a plan full of height restrictions but we must pay the price down the line. The job should be done properly the first time.

I agree completely about "heritage" and I've complained about sloppy use of the term in the past. Originally "heritage preservation" meant keeping old buildings around instead of demolishing them. That definition has slowly crept outward to include preserving the environment around heritage buildings and to include preserving views. The city needs to take a hard look at what these are actually worth. Halifax's best heritage buildings are worth a lot but preserving a full view of the sky from within the Citadel courtyard is worth considerably less. There's a reason why anti-development folks want this all to be sacrosanct; it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[halifaxboyns]

I'm posting this here since Someone123 talks about the cost of development and the relationship to height. I'm not sure if anyone went exploring around the website for the Gottingen Redevelopment that someone123 posted renderings for, but I found this (http://www.halifaxchamber.com/content/BV_September_2011) article through that website. Very interesting.

[halifaxboyns]

In regards to the opening; I'm not surprised this happened. I figured the HT would try to stack the room full of people, it sounds like they were successful to a degree, but that doesn't always mean they've 'won the war'.

I have found through my experience in public meetings and engagement there is often a very silent group that sits in the background and doesn't say much. I find those are the ones I make a direct line too once the meeting is over and try to talk with, because they say little to nothing and just take it all in.

The avenues plan is interesting - it does cap development to 12 stories along the major corridors, but as was pointed out in the Bosquet article about the Dartmouth cove work - you have to be able to have a certain amount of people to be able to make commercial work. While I think if you put 12 stories all along say Quinpool you might be okay, shorter areas like Agricola between North and Cornwallis might require more height because of the shorter stretch of commercial.

But certainly putting 12 storey buildings in places like Robie and Young makes no sense, when the existing provisions of the MPS (Schedule Q) allow for buildings up to 19. Personally I was a land owner and I ended up being downzoned or having that ability taken away, I would be quite upset. But 12 stories might be a good start for places like Highfield Park.

With the new attitude that seems to be occuring in Halifax; something tells me 12 stories might just be the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind, this is just the kick off - it's a long ways to public hearing!

[Hali87]

There may or may not be cheaper ways to build, but the fact is that given the current rules enough developers are choosing to build in the suburbs that the city is missing its own densification targets. The planning rules are failing to produce the desired result, therefore something is wrong with them. It doesn't matter what the panelists think developers should be doing.

Who was the panelist? Bev Miller or something?

It wasn't Bev Miller. I forget her name, the names of the panelists were posted on the RP+5 site for a day or two leading up to the event but they've been taken down. She was representing a coalition (again I forget what it was called) that represented several different community groups, and I believe was involved with the EAC as a transportation specialist. I agreed with most but not all of what she said. The way she handled the question about the YMCA site bothered me, it seemed implicit that she meant that cheap building materials are preferable over any flexibility in height.

[Hali87]

In regards to the opening; I'm not surprised this happened. I figured the HT would try to stack the room full of people, it sounds like they were successful to a degree, but that doesn't always mean they've 'won the war'.

I have found through my experience in public meetings and engagement there is often a very silent group that sits in the background and doesn't say much. I find those are the ones I make a direct line too once the meeting is over and try to talk with, because they say little to nothing and just take it all in.

The avenues plan is interesting - it does cap development to 12 stories along the major corridors, but as was pointed out in the Bosquet article about the Dartmouth cove work - you have to be able to have a certain amount of people to be able to make commercial work. While I think if you put 12 stories all along say Quinpool you might be okay, shorter areas like Agricola between North and Cornwallis might require more height because of the shorter stretch of commercial.

But certainly putting 12 storey buildings in places like Robie and Young makes no sense, when the existing provisions of the MPS (Schedule Q) allow for buildings up to 19. Personally I was a land owner and I ended up being downzoned or having that ability taken away, I would be quite upset. But 12 stories might be a good start for places like Highfield Park.

With the new attitude that seems to be occuring in Halifax; something tells me 12 stories might just be the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind, this is just the kick off - it's a long ways to public hearing!


This isn't really how it would work though; I probably should have explained it better. There wouldn't be any 12 storey buildings on Quinpool or likely any of the corridors in HRM, and a very select few even in Toronto.

The basic principle is that there should be a 1:1 ratio between the width of the street (or the distance between the buildings) and the height of the buildings. This ensures light penetration (one of the requirements for Toronto's plan was a minimum of 5 hours sunlight on all of the identified streets) and creates a very specific massing/aesthetic - Paris was often used as an example. So what you'd get on Quinpool is probably 6 or 7 storeys at its widest points. Maybe. The other thing to keep in mind is that there would be minimum heights as well, probably a couple storeys lower than the maximum heights. So again you can kind of see how dramatically it would increase density (and significantly change the appearance of the street) without allowing for high-rises.

This last point is what makes me think that this plan won't really fly in Halifax. People will want Quinpool to "keep its character" and replacing the existing buildings with sleek midrises would be a dramatic change. Also many of the streets that would logically be considered are too narrow to build anything over 2 or 3 storeys under this approach. The problem is, once there are too many compromises, you miss the whole point of the plan. The Dartmouth Cove sessions actually made reference to the 1:1 approach as well, but it works better in that specific case because they get to decide how wide the streets are going to be. So they basically determined that 18 storeys would be necessary to accommodate what the public wanted, and then designed a street/greenway that would be about as wide as the 18 storey buildings are tall.

[someone123]

Part of why it's important to have more height in Halifax is that so many potential development sites are totally off the table. If you want to increase density by 30% but only 5% of sites are available for development then those have to be higher density sites.

If the plan for Halifax is conservative midrises along major streets then the impact on densities won't be very substantial from a regional planning perspective. Over the next 10 years the population could easily grow by 50,000. Absorbing 25% of that in the urban core means perhaps 5,000 new housing units. That is about 60 new Trilliums, or 100 large midrise buildings. Putting a four- or six-storey building here or there (after 3 years of wrangling with locals and trips to the UARB) is not even remotely going to cut it.

[Hali87]

I agree completely about "heritage" and I've complained about sloppy use of the term in the past. Originally "heritage preservation" meant keeping old buildings around instead of demolishing them. That definition has slowly crept outward to include preserving the environment around heritage buildings and to include preserving views. The city needs to take a hard look at what these are actually worth. Halifax's best heritage buildings are worth a lot but preserving a full view of the sky from within the Citadel courtyard is worth considerably less. There's a reason why anti-development folks want this all to be sacrosanct; it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

For me the question is, what makes a heritage building a heritage building? Technically everything that we build is a part of our heritage.

[RyeJay]

Are economics banned from these meetings? Is this simply going to turn into a platform for people to come in and express how they feel the cityscape should be sculpted? 25% urban growth is absurd considering how much more unafforable the basics of life will be even by the end of this decade.

These meetings need to be less subjective and focus on what needs to be done -- not what we want.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Part of why it's important to have more height in Halifax is that so many potential development sites are totally off the table. If you want to increase density by 30% but only 5% of sites are available for development then those have to be higher density sites.


Haha, but aren't those sites off the table because of rules against height? It seems like there is a huge catch 22 here. Everything has been codified to the point where development isn't allowed, but there are planning goals for increased density.

We've been duped and legislated into a corner by the anti-development folks who sit on council, committees, and show up in unrepresentative numbers at public meetings... even when a development meets the planning requirements.

In most cases of opposition, the developer was following the rules in the first place. But the anti-development people claim the rules aren't strict enough.

In other cases the developer goes through the legitimate process of seeking an amendment which make the anti-development folks use the typical line "well the rules are out the window now". Unfortunately, their skewing and application of "rules" is only correct in their minds.

[fenwick16]

Hopefully the Centre Plan will have mostly 12 storey limits and up. As seen with the Citadel Hotel redevelopment, when building height limits are reasonable then major projects can proceed quickly with relatively little red-tape. The Citadel Hotel proposal stayed within the HRM_by_Design rules, which were a reasonable height for that location, and it was approved with very little red-tape.

[halifaxboyns]

As a planner in Calgary; I'm part of the volunteer committee that arranges monthly lunch talks out here in Calgary on planning issues. We had some people in a few months back to look at the economics side - how does a project make money and when does zoning create negative impacts to the economics. It was a really interesting discussion, because we had a bunch of local developers take us through a few hypothetical prospectus on various projects and then see how changes (like say reducing height from 20 stories to 15) change the costing. I'm sure if the PlanHRM team wanted to do something like that as part of an evening discussion setting - there are countless developers out there that could do it. I'm sure if some called Joe Metledge (Templeton Properties) he could do something. Would be interesting to hear.

One of the things I like to do when I travel is look at the areas where a city has encouraged change as a means to learn good and bad ways to redevelop and take that knowledge with me. Hopefully some day apply to another place, wherever I end up (I'm hoping Halifax some day).

One way I like to do that is through the photo threads here. I found a really great thrad on the Lincoln Park Neighbourhood in Chicago. I was recently informed that work wasn't going to send me to Los Angeles for the APA conference (we're still being cautious with the fragile economy) so I started saving up for the APA conference next year in Chicago. I may go on my own, even if work doesn't send me. But the Lincoln Park (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197981) area looks very interesting.

The single detached and row housing look amazing and I think it's photo 50 in the string that is a 5 storey infill, that has a best buy on the ground floor. I could easily see these types of row houses being behind some 12-15 storey developments along Agricola. Oh if only I had about 50 million in my pocket, I'd made it happen. :)

[someone123]

As a planner in Calgary; I'm part of the volunteer committee that arranges monthly lunch talks out here in Calgary on planning issues. We had some people in a few months back to look at the economics side - how does a project make money and when does zoning create negative impacts to the economics. It was a really interesting discussion, because we had a bunch of local developers take us through a few hypothetical prospectus on various projects and then see how changes (like say reducing height from 20 stories to 15) change the costing. I'm sure if the PlanHRM team wanted to do something like that as part of an evening discussion setting - there are countless developers out there that could do it. I'm sure if some called Joe Metledge (Templeton Properties) he could do something. Would be interesting to hear.

That sounds like a great type of event.

The adversarial relationship between the city/heritage people/developers is at the heart of a lot of Halifax's problems. Really the city should be talking to developers to find out what their requirements are and then that should figure highly into any plans that are made. Sometimes lip service is given to economic feasibility but that is insufficient. Without the economic foundation the plans don't work, regardless of how happy they make people at public consultations.

[halifaxboyns]

That sounds like a great type of event.

The adversarial relationship between the city/heritage people/developers is at the heart of a lot of Halifax's problems. Really the city should be talking to developers to find out what their requirements are and then that should figure highly into any plans that are made. Sometimes lip service is given to economic feasibility but that is insufficient. Without the economic foundation the plans don't work, regardless of how happy they make people at public consultations.

I found it very interesting because in one example; it was a project I dealt with. They didn't put it in to be mean, it was a great example of how NIMBY's really could effect the project and so a 20 storey building got shrunk to 12 stories. The costs really went up per unit.

[halifaxboyns]

(from the CH online)

When it comes to figuring out how to build a modern sustainable city, there are no definitive answers. But that doesn’t stop people from putting their ideas forward, nor should it.

Most suggestions come with the best intentions and are based on an element of common sense. However, even the best ideas are fraught with unintended consequences, and that’s where the debate really begins.

Halifax has started the public consultation part of the review of its regional plan and, already, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that much of the focus will be on height.

How does a city decide how high a building can be built? And what are the criteria for establishing such height limits?

Dubbed RP+5 by city staff, the first five-year review of the plan will supposedly shape the recommendations staff will pass along to city council.

To help focus the conversation, staff created some themes: livability, sustainability, vibrancy, mobility and prosperity.

Staff also determined this:

“Our future growth and development must focus on continuous improvement of our environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability.

“This must include standards for low-impact ‘green’ development, ensuring that new development pays its fair share to protect the tax rate, expanded tools for the provision of housing affordability and heritage protection, support for cultural programs, controlling overall resource and energy consumption, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

I wonder what might happen if the public input doesn’t match the goals established by city staff. Let’s face it; unless there is overwhelming support for an idea that comes from the public consultation, it isn’t likely to get the endorsement by the people who will make the report to council.

The city is also helping to form consensus by bringing in guest speakers to discuss regional planning. Calvin Brook, the first speaker at Thursday’s public meeting, endorses something called “mid-rise urbanism,” which is based on the philosophy that moderately sized buildings are just as effective as high rises in meeting the desire for greater density while maintaining liveability.

The rest of the story is here (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/70375-air-public-ponders-how-high-halifax-can-go). I have to say I agree with Roger - developers have to be able to recover their costs and if 12 storeys isn't going to cut it we'll be back redoing the plan to allow for more height. Let's get it right the first time and pick places where height can rip and then along corridors like Agricola and Quinpool, perhaps 15 storeys is the limit for now.

Either way, whatever the plan is, it should be re-reviewed in 5 years time to keep it current and if the heights aren't working - changed.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I have to say I agree with Roger - developers have to be able to recover their costs and if 12 storeys isn't going to cut it we'll be back redoing the plan to allow for more height. Let's get it right the first time and pick places where height can rip and then along corridors like Agricola and Quinpool, perhaps 15 storeys is the limit for now.

Either way, whatever the plan is, it should be re-reviewed in 5 years time to keep it current and if the heights aren't working - changed.

Yeah, I'd say create an environment where something can't just be shot down if it meets a height cap. I think 19 stories is a great cap.

[halifaxboyns]

Yeah, I'd say create an environment where something can't just be shot down if it meets a height cap. I think 19 stories is a great cap.

This is where I go back to the work Larry Beasley did for Vancouver - a lot of that thinking actually went into HbD, but it didn't go far enough. Larry thought that if you are going to build verticle villages (which are the same as sprawling suburbs, only vertical) the needs of the residents are no different. They need parks, recreation centres, transportation, schools, etc. But what Larry did was say that developers should contribute to the cost of all this. So if you look at Vancouver's rules, you actually can't build a very tall building as of right. But through bonusing (some things mandatory, somethings optional) you can. So you might have to contribute to paying for parks, a pathway, transportation (streetcar/lrt) and affordable housing as several mandatory things and then public art and decorative sidewalk pavers as your optional bonusing. So by right, you might only get 6 stories - but thanks to these options, you get up to 20.

This is what HbD does not, but the 'menu' of bonusing is quite small. My hope with this project is to expand the 'menu' to include transportation, affordable housing and parks contributions as a way to get up to whatever height. But if you are going to do that, you have to be prepared to allow for much greater height because the cost will increase to the developer.

[someone123]

This is what HbD does not, but the 'menu' of bonusing is quite small. My hope with this project is to expand the 'menu' to include transportation, affordable housing and parks contributions as a way to get up to whatever height. But if you are going to do that, you have to be prepared to allow for much greater height because the cost will increase to the developer.

Another big difference is that the price of condos or rentals in Halifax is much lower than prices in Vancouver. There isn't the same potential for developers to pay for amenities in Halifax. To some degree planners in Vancouver have an easy job because they have a windfall from foreign real estate investment to work with. It's not really that hard to make a neighbourhood of $1M condos livable. Actually I'd argue that Vancouver has not done a particularly good job of planning because housing here is horribly unaffordable. This city has its own NIMBY tendencies to deal with when it comes to stuff like building laneway houses or transit.

I'm also not so convinced that Peninsular Halifax needs a ton of money from developers, or that it's very good from the perspective of economic incentives. We already charge higher taxes in the core, and one of the main arguments for building in the urban core is that most of the required infrastructure is already in place.

My opinion is mostly just that the city needs to do its job and maintain the public realm that they are paid to maintain in the urban core. The cost of doing that isn't even very high, but the political will needs to be there.

[Jonovision]

The centre plan is starting soon. Find out more here. http://www.halifax.ca/planhrm/centreplan.html

[worldlyhaligonian]

I don't know how I feel about this... I like the areas that they are discussing though.

Basically, every time something gets codified in Halifax it becomes ammo for the anti-height crew... especially in the context of legal interpretation.

I think HRM by design, although has positives, as simply created an environment for anti-development sentiment to be justified in the context of "breaking the rules", even though there are bonus heights, etc. built in.

Look at this document... http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/ResponsetopubliccommentABCfinalpackage.pdf

I disagree with mostly all of these proposed changes! In fact, they are all mostly restrictive and normative.

[Hali87]

I don't know how I feel about this... I like the areas that they are discussing though.

Basically, every time something gets codified in Halifax it becomes ammo for the anti-height crew... especially in the context of legal interpretation.

I think HRM by design, although has positives, as simply created an environment for anti-development sentiment to be justified in the context of "breaking the rules", even though there are bonus heights, etc. built in.

Look at this document... http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/ResponsetopubliccommentABCfinalpackage.pdf

I disagree with mostly all of these proposed changes! In fact, they are all mostly restrictive and normative.

I disagree with most of them too, and a lot of what I would have wanted in there isn't there. The plan is really lacking in ambition (or even foresight) and almost everything is about either heritage, "it's too high", or creating more opportunities for appeal. Some of them said that we should adopt the Quebec City approach to heritage preservation (I would say it's too late for that) and complaining that downtown can't be a UNESCO heritage site like Lunenburg under the new plan (it wouldn't be with or without the plan unless we did something drastic and groundbreaking). It's also kind of frustrating because the "issues" are clearly just people's opinions and often contradict one another. A couple interesting passages:

ISSUE #55: Amend the wording of S. 8.4 of the DHSMPS......................................................46

ISSUE #56: Add performance measures............................................................................47

ISSUE #57: Amend S. 3.6.11 Precinct 4 Built Form Variance in the Design Manual........................48

ISSUE #58: Clarify the definitions in the LUB for “building width” and “building face”..................48

ISSUE #59: Clarify policy intent that the built form variances required to approve the
proposed Queen’s Landing project are sufficient for approval by the Design Review Committee .........49

ISSUE #60: Issues Raised in Heritage Trust Letter – May 8, 2009..............................................50

ISSUE #61: Additional Issues Raised in Heritage Trust Letter – May 21, 2009...............................51

ISSUE #62: There is a potential shortfall in growth capacity for office development
in the traditional Central Business District (CBD).................................................................59

Issues 60-62 are the best part but the rest gives you an idea of how long a letter that must have been, based on the page numbers.

Part of the Sustainability section:

ISSUE # 31: This plan reduces opportunities for solar heating. HRM has the greatest potential for using
passive solar than any city in Canada in the most important heating months. Work has been done by Solar
NS and Dal that well designed and sited buildings of 5-6 storeys can be passively heated by the sun.

ISSUE # 32: High-rise development is not sustainable.

ISSUE # 33: HRM has made serious commitments around climate change and sustainability yet they are
not upheld in HRMbyDesign. .......................................................................................86

ISSUE # 34: There has not been an adequate environmental impact assessment for such a bold change to our built form. .........................................................................................................87

ISSUE #35: There is sufficient legislative power to regulate green building design under the HRM Charter. .................................................................................................................87

ISSUE # 36: We should be conserving heritage buildings; buildings that have embodied energy already.
There are environmental benefits in redeveloping or restoring what we already have I like #33.

Anyway, /rant, the RP+5 crowd seems a lot more proactive (though also note that "heritage" wasn't a theme this time). A couple ideas that everyone seems to be ok with are LRT and mixed-use development. Everything else is still kind of all over the place. An interesting point of discussion tonight was the distinction between "providing affordable housing" and creating conditions where housing in general isn't unaffordable - which generally means adding more units. The head of Polycorp got up and called out the complete disregard for economics in recent decisions and it seemed to be a bit of a wakeup call for some.

[someone123]

The head of Polycorp got up and called out the complete disregard for economics in recent decisions and it seemed to be a bit of a wakeup call for some.

The "stop building all these fancy condos and start building affordable housing!" sentiment is sadly common despite being complete nonsense. It's good to hear that a developer is talking about it.

Heritage preservation efforts in the city are a mess. The idea that height restrictions will save heritage buildings is classic and totally wrong. Some developers are completely willing to tear down heritage buildings and put up cheap, stumpy replacements. Meanwhile, good projects like Barrington Espace suffer from the ill-conceived roadblocks. Height restrictions clearly are not the right tool for preserving old buildings. The city instead needs to do everything it can to encourage a combination of restoration and adaptive reuse, with a focus on preserving specific important building characteristics.

I wouldn't worry too much about the contradictions in the laundry list, because they clearly came from a bunch of different people. The important part is to make sure that the right items are weeded out.

[worldlyhaligonian]

The "stop building all these fancy condos and start building affordable housing!" sentiment is sadly common despite being complete nonsense. It's good to hear that a developer is talking about it.

Heritage preservation efforts in the city are a mess. The idea that height restrictions will save heritage buildings is classic and totally wrong. Some developers are completely willing to tear down heritage buildings and put up cheap, stumpy replacements. Meanwhile, good projects like Barrington Espace suffer from the ill-conceived roadblocks. Height restrictions clearly are not the right tool for preserving old buildings. The city instead needs to do everything it can to encourage a combination of restoration and adaptive reuse, with a focus on preserving specific important building characteristics.

I wouldn't worry too much about the contradictions in the laundry list, because they clearly came from a bunch of different people. The important part is to make sure that the right items are weeded out.

Nailed it!

[halifaxboyns]

Also keep in mind, that list was mainly about the downtown LUB/plan, not the Regional Centre Plan. Although I can bet you will likely see similar comments.

I mentioned this in the YMCA thread that the Calgary Events Committee for the Alberta Professional Planners Institute had Michael Ronkin come speak about complete streets - really great presentation. HRM is already doing a lot of what is needed for a complete street, adding people, requiring commercial but there is so much more. Making sure that businesses have access to the sidewalk, limiting parking. My favorite comment he made was he showed a massive 8 lane highway in Las Vegas that was 150' wide and then the same ROW in Paris. When you looked at the Paris street, it was way more beautiful and functional for people, bikes and cars were last. As he pointed out, it was congested and that's part of what we have to accept. If we are going to make great places, then sometimes it means it might take a few more minutes for cars to get through...

I mentioned him on the Plan HRM website - I hope they bring him in, because his presentation was very interactive.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Also keep in mind, that list was mainly about the downtown LUB/plan, not the Regional Centre Plan. Although I can bet you will likely see similar comments.


But what is any anti-height argument even based upon? Its purely arbitrary... especially considering some heritage buildings are taller than proposals that have been shot down that aren't even in heritage areas! The St. Joseph's proposal comes to mind.

[halifaxboyns]

But what is any anti-height argument even based upon? Its purely arbitrary... especially considering some heritage buildings are taller than proposals that have been shot down that aren't even in heritage areas! The St. Joseph's proposal comes to mind.

Yes it is - but the list is a good thing of what we can expect from the typical nimbys for this exercise. I suppose we'll have to wait and see...

[Hali87]

Downtown Living Not Attractive (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/77851-downtown-living-not-attractive)

Pretty straightforward article on RP+5. The mixed bag of comments following the article is pretty representative of the types of comments I heard at the meetings, though there are fewer blatant NIMBYs.

Edit: another relevant article:
Business Group: Look to Edmonton for Tax Lesson (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/77730-business-group-look-edmonton-tax-lesson)

[someone123]

Pretty straightforward article on RP+5.

That was a lazy article with a misleading headline. If downtown living is not attractive, then why were some downtown census tracts among the fastest-growing census tracts in the municipality? Why are prices on the peninsula so high?

I've seen maybe a dozen or more Herald articles pointing out that the city missed its urban infill growth targets but I don't think any of them have provided a detailed analysis of what happened.

Who is Jim Backman? Some random person they found? Why did they leave such an obviously misguided statement totally unchallenged? The article is basically an assortment of comments from people of varying degrees of ignorance. Determining the level of ignorance of the quoted is apparently left as an exercise for the reader.

The Bruce Smith comment is also pretty silly. It may be hard to find parking during the day downtown, but once commuters are gone it is not hard at all. If you're willing to talk the equivalent of half a Bayers Lake Wal-Mart parking lot you can probably find an on-street parking space downtown, and typically the parking garages are mostly empty (and if the thousands of spots downtown were full, wouldn't that mean that the area is busy?). The real story there is that many suburbanites either just don't like going downtown or are ignorant of the situation there, not that there's no parking to be found in the evenings.

[RyeJay]

This cheerful video about urban sprawl may have been previously posted here, as it's currently on the Canada page, but just to make sure:

http://vimeo.com/28464164

:D

[S-Man]

We shouldn't try to be like Toronto

Wow, the NIMBYs even use that as their argument in Halifax? I thought that thinking only got as far as Ottawa, where the battle against height is just stupid. (that said, we were able to get about 6 28-storey downtown buildings approved in the last couple of years).

The Toronto argument is also used against transit expansion, which is very annoying.

[Hali87]

Yup. It's a weird argument but definitely one of the most common. For some reason Downtown Toronto seems to represent everything bad about high-rise development, and is the only example of such development in Canada that is ever used. Obviously many other cities in Canada have high-rises (the NIMBYs refuse to acknowledge Vancouver, for example), but if we go that route, we'll stop looking anything like any of these cities - or ourselves - and look just like Toronto. Or maybe Detroit. Apparently Detroit is a prime example of why you shouldn't build anything over 10 storeys. Tall buildings, and not the collapse of the auto manufacturing sector, are the reason that Detroit is becoming a ghost town, apparently. Bear in mind that Halifax already has plenty of high-rise buildings, comparable to London ON.

When this argument comes up, I like to counter that I'd rather Halifax be like 416 Toronto than 905 Toronto. At the end of the day though, even if Halifax was building 70+ storey condos and giant corporate boxes downtown, there are so many other variables (topography, street grid, existing architecture, civic spaces, culture, climate) that Halifax would never look like Toronto. In fact I would say that the older parts of both cities look much more similar than anything built post-war. I think the same could be said of Ottawa.

[S-Man]

The problem with Ottawa (and it shares this with Toronto) is that the topography allowed for explosive and continuous sprawl out into the flat countryside starting in the 60s, leading to the downfall of downtown urban areas. This is a common theme seen in most if not all Canadian cities during this time.
The return of people to the core in the past decade forced Ottawa and other cities to suddenly have to take a look at new urbanism, which it had grown unfamiliar with, and recognize the need for taller buildings and transit in key areas.

The problem, however, is that the people who bought cheap into the urban areas being vacated by families rushing towards the suburbs got used to nothing ever changing. No new buildings, no real vibrancy (except for touristy parts of the city), etc, etc. Now those residents are older, almost all retired and spending lots more time at home, and suddenly other people want to move into the neighbourhood after the size of sprawl has made the city unsustainable.

Who are the community associations run by? People who have "lived somewhere 30 years" and are opposed to "rapid, extreme change". What they don't say is that they bought into an area of stagnancy and nothing has changed for decades, thus meaning that ANY change is big and extreme, and scary.

These people also delude themselves into thinking it is the return to the core, the rise of urban life (and tall buildings) that is raising their municipal taxes, not, in fact, the decades of costly sprawl that the urban influx is a reaction to.

A lot of misconceptions, untruths and lies being thrown about at meetings in Ottawa, with a lot of hysteria and entitlement, too. It seems quite similar to Halifax's situation. And of course, "we're not Toronto" is used to squash any progress thinking in urban planning. The LRT route the city has been trying (twice) to build under downtown gets this argument all the time, even though buses now jam the limited downtown street space and ridership is growing.

Ideology trumping reality.

[Hali87]

The problem with Ottawa (and it shares this with Toronto) is that the topography allowed for explosive and continuous sprawl out into the flat countryside starting in the 60s, leading to the downfall of downtown urban areas. This is a common theme seen in most if not all Canadian cities during this time.
The return of people to the core in the past decade forced Ottawa and other cities to suddenly have to take a look at new urbanism, which it had grown unfamiliar with, and recognize the need for taller buildings and transit in key areas.

The problem, however, is that the people who bought cheap into the urban areas being vacated by families rushing towards the suburbs got used to nothing ever changing. No new buildings, no real vibrancy (except for touristy parts of the city), etc, etc. Now those residents are older, almost all retired and spending lots more time at home, and suddenly other people want to move into the neighbourhood after the size of sprawl has made the city unsustainable.

Who are the community associations run by? People who have "lived somewhere 30 years" and are opposed to "rapid, extreme change". What they don't say is that they bought into an area of stagnancy and nothing has changed for decades, thus meaning that ANY change is big and extreme, and scary.

These people also delude themselves into thinking it is the return to the core, the rise of urban life (and tall buildings) that is raising their municipal taxes, not, in fact, the decades of costly sprawl that the urban influx is a reaction to.

A lot of misconceptions, untruths and lies being thrown about at meetings in Ottawa, with a lot of hysteria and entitlement, too. It seems quite similar to Halifax's situation. And of course, "we're not Toronto" is used to squash any progress thinking in urban planning. The LRT route the city has been trying (twice) to build under downtown gets this argument all the time, even though buses now jam the limited downtown street space and ridership is growing.

Ideology trumping reality.

This sounds almost exactly the same as Halifax's situation. The current goal is to funnel 40-50% of new population growth into the inner city (the Peninsula and central Dartmouth) but because this area is by definition made up of "existing communities", most of which are very averse to change, it's proving very difficult. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that people buy into stagnant areas and get used to things never ever changing. I remember one older gentleman at a public meeting I recently attended getting up and bragging about how he had successfully fought off developers trying to come in and build things in his North End neighbourhood (ie. ~2km from downtown) and then complaining about the need to stop students from coming in (as the major universities are also <5km away), subdividing single family houses into 10-room apartments, and "ruining his neighbourhood". A lot of people seemed to agree. I got up and politely countered that if we don't allow for new residential buildings, then there aren't really any options other than converting houses to flats, because the number of cheap but safe apartments in the inner city is very limited and few people my age can afford anything beyond that. I suggested that rather than "how do we keep change out of our neighbourhood" what we should be asking ourselves is "how do we protect what we love about our neighbourhoods and make sure that any change that development brings has a net positive effect?" The response was notably lukewarm - I think I heard about 2 people clap in a room of about 80.

The other big difference here is that heritage preservation trumps any other objectives, including sustainability, affordability, and the sense that the future matters in any way. This doesn't mean that it's hard to demolish heritage buildings (it actually isn't necessarily hard to do this at all) but any upgrading/renovations beyond brick-for-brick restoration based on original blueprints for example is seen as anti-heritage. Building high-rise buildings on vacant lots near heritage buildings is seen as anti-heritage. Highrise buildings that are tall enough to be seen from point x within the stone walls of the Citadel are ILLEGAL. I assume that this attitude is much more extreme in Halifax than elsewhere in Canada, though I can imagine there are similar weird insecurities revolving around the Parliament Buildings and the "Capital City Image" that Ottawa undoubtedly obsesses over, if it's anything like here.

I've heard that OC Transpo is significantly more expensive to operate than the TTC because of its reliance on buses, which need more drivers and energy per passenger than subway trains - but subways are a "Toronto" way of getting around, I suppose. Ironically the LRT tunnel would be much more like Edmonton's, but I guess Edmonton is just like Toronto too.

[Hali87]

BTW, the public consultations for the Centre Plan start tonight at NSCC Waterfront, 630 pm.

[someone123]

The other big difference here is that heritage preservation trumps any other objectives, including sustainability, affordability, and the sense that the future matters in any way. This doesn't mean that it's hard to demolish heritage buildings (it actually isn't necessarily hard to do this at all) but any upgrading/renovations beyond brick-for-brick restoration based on original blueprints for example is seen as anti-heritage. Building high-rise buildings on vacant lots near heritage buildings is seen as anti-heritage. Highrise buildings that are tall enough to be seen from point x within the stone walls of the Citadel are ILLEGAL.

This is one of the worst aspects of the situation in Halifax -- the draconian policies are not even successful when it comes to their narrow (purported) purpose. Halifax has not done a good job of preserving its heritage buildings. Even over the past few years we have seen the demolition of the Kelly Building, South Street rowhouses, and now it looks like the building by SMU is going to come down. Nobody saved the Birks building and who knows what will happen with the Dennis Building? Losing these structures destroys the city's unique character far, far more than construction on empty lots.

I agree that the "30 year" crowd is partly responsible for the flawed focus of the planning system, and I think there's something related but deeper at play in Halifax. Many people there are anti-developer, anti-wealth, and suspicious of anybody successful. It's not universal, but Halifax can be an unambitious backwater town. The difference from Toronto or Vancouver is striking, but unsurprising given that Halifax has had 30+ years of the most ambitious people leaving for greener pastures. Maybe this will change after another 10 or 20 years of reasonably strong economic growth. It's probably the worst and most insidious long-term consequence of a weak economy and outmigration.

[S-Man]

"Unambitious backwater town" is the image Ottawa has been trying to shake for decades, with various successes and failures. At least we're no longer a miltary camp at the edge of the frontier like in the early 1800s.

You're right that there are sightline (viewplane) policies that apply to Parliament Hill, though given the amount of urban development over the decades, this rarely comes into play during development proposals. A friend once had a 13 floor apartment a kilometer south of Parliament Hill, and the view was a solid wall of 20-plus storey buildings with the flag on top of the Peace Tower sticking up above that line. Yeah, some heritage view. Anyways,all the places you normally see it from are usually waterfront parks that are protected anyway.

I used to have to attend these development proposal (community consultation) meetings as part of my job, and the first place I'd go after leaving was a bar to have a stiff drink. I wanted to strangle some of the NIMBY protesters in the audience because their entitlement filled me with rage. But, that is what you can expect.

I must say - because in terms of planning Halifax looks a lot like Ottawa of 5-10 years ago - thatthe community benefit aspect of new urban development needs to be made known to people. Our last city council (2006-2011) couldn't decide how to tie its own shoelaces, and as a result, NIMBYs held the reigns of many councillors and planning committee meetings dragged on for hours (over a 3-storey building in a "heritage" area).

With the latest council, many of the old (and I should add, socialist-leaning and NIMBY-pandering) councillors got the boot and only a single stalwart remained. The intensification policy adopted by the previous council was explained better, and the city just recently passed 'Section 37', which makes the developer pay for "community benefits" in return for the approval of a project 25% higher (or more) of existing zoning.

While there is still plenty of strife, and NIMBYs never really go away, there has been a big increase in urban density, and a new plan for transit-oriented-development around the 13 stations that will make up a east-west light rail line. How that will pan out remains to be seen, but progress is being made due in part to showing people how their city will benefit, dropping a few dinosaur councillors, and enacting Section 37.

I never once bought the idea that 'heritage' means nothing new should ever go near an old building, lest it appear less old. That's just ridiculous. Functioning urban neighbourhoods should not be museums in the strict sense of the word, nor should they become ghost towns (thus wasting valuable urban land).

Even in Quebec City, which I spent time in last fall, there was noticeable (although very careful) development in the uppertown area, and more in the lowertown area. If they can infill at greater heights in the old areas and much greater heights in the less-old areas (St-Roch, St-Foy), than any city can do it.

[someone123]

Part of the problem in Halifax is that there are 23 councillors. They have tiny districts and it is easy for special interests or certain neighbourhoods to vote somebody in. It is common for councillors to run unopposed or win with a very small number of votes. The downtown councillor for example won with 1144 votes.

It's annoying that such uninformed opinions get so much airtime, but at the end of the day a ton of construction is happening in Halifax. There has been lots of infill over the past 10 years and the quality of new construction has gone up considerably. Halifax's urban core is also much stronger than that of most (probably all) other small Canadian cities even though locals complain about it constantly.

[Hali87]

Neighbours feel 'crowded out' (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/80373-neighbours-feel-crowded-out): case in point.

It's worth noting that the largest commercial building I can think of in this neighbourhood is the Hydrostone Market, which dates back to the 1920s and isn't even very big. Also, if we're going by the common definition of high-rise (10+ storeys) there aren't any high-rises in this neighbourhood. The closest one is an office building a few blocks away that was built sometime around the 1970s.

The flip side is that the area around that office building is one that has been identified by the municipality as a target area for intensification over the next several years.

[someone123]

Neighbours feel 'crowded out' (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/80373-neighbours-feel-crowded-out): case in point.

It's important to bear in mind that it's really easy to find somebody who claims to dislike just about anything, even if 99.9% of people love it. Some people will complain just to get in the paper or on TV. It's also really easy to find people who will casually oppose a development they have no real interest in, or don't stand to gain from, regardless of the development's merits.

The other perspective we tend not to see is that of the new residents. A growing neighbourhood is by definition more popular. For the one guy griping in the Herald there are hundreds of people who must not mind the "fishbowl", because they chose to move into those condos. None of those people were represented in the article.

Obviously there are people who have an unfounded negative attitude toward development, but they are the 5% or the 25% (who have the 1% or the 5% stake in a new development), even though they might send in 95% of the angry letters.

[Hali87]

If anyone's interested, the centre plan meeting for the Quinpool and Spring Garden sites is tonight at the Atlantica at 6:30. The Young St. sites will be discussed tomorrow at the Forum.

[someone123]

There was a bit of coverage of this in ANS tonight. They mentioned 75 metre or 20 floor height limits. I really like how they are talking about both the floor count and overall height. Setting height limits with no floor limits encourages low floor to ceiling heights and, in particularly bad cases, ground floors shoehorned in below street level. Of course, in either case height limits need to be liberal enough to make new development feasible. 20 seems like a reasonable ballpark since many developers choose to build in that height range.

As Halifax grows the definition of what is "downtown" is going to change. Pretty soon the most popular part of Spring Garden Road is basically going to be built out. Either new high-density districts will have to be created or the growth will end up out in the suburbs.

[Hali87]

The 75m or 20 floor limits were for the Spring Garden area. Public opinion generally seemed to be in favour of adopting this strategy - one of the two focus groups unanimously endorsed allowing high-rises in this area, and the other one (which I was a part of) was a mixed bag of opinions. There was a lot of concern about overwhelming Carleton Street (who would want to buy a house next to a high-rise?) and suggestions that high-rises might be more appropriate for the other side of the street (where, unfortunately, there isn't really any space for new buildings). Most of the debate actually was about massing (where setbacks should occur and at what ratio) and affordability (it was pointed out that since this is a high-end area, units will probably be expensive no matter what is built, and several people were emphatic that allowing taller buildings would not allow for lower unit prices). Most of the people in my focus group seemed to agree that there are fundamental differences between the Park Vic model of high-rise vs the Spring Garden Place model, with SGP style being the preferred option. I also pointed out that most of the high-rises that everyone loves to hate were built in an era where aesthetics and street-level experience were basically ignored in favour of internal functionality, and that a lot has changed since then in terms of both technology and design - and that seemed to resonate with most. One person complained about the Trillium generating so much wind that it practically lifts you off your feet when you walk by it - I've walked by it dozens of times and never experienced this. But all in all people didn't seem dead set against higher buildings, and when they were, it was generally for specific reasons that could probably be resolved through further design guidelines.

As for Quinpool, height would be capped at about 8 storeys (which some felt was too high). There was a push for a simpler two-tiered (podium + "tower") rather than the "pyramid" (podium + step back + step back + step back + step back) style that seems to be the default for most of these study areas. Andy Fillmore also mentioned that the east end of Quinpool might also accommodate high rises (since there are several already) but as far as I know this is being left until the next session.

I have mixed feelings about the Quinpool approach. It would be nice if more of the buildings could be preserved and simply have additions built on top, but this likely wouldn't be possible with the step back requirements. It's hard to tell what percentage of the study area is expected to be redeveloped, but I feel that redesigning Quinpool as a mid rise corridor would change the character of the neighbourhood a lot more than keeping it a low rise corridor with the occasional high-rise, since many more buildings would potentially need to be replaced.

[someone123]

Quinpool has very low quality buildings. There are only a few with moderate architectural value, and there's no reason why a new building couldn't exceed those in quality, particularly if it is allowed to go up to 8 floors.

I think a big part of the focus on preserving buildings is simply that people don't believe that the new ones can be as good as the old, at least as far as the public is concerned. That was a pretty good belief in the 1970's but it will probably fade as better buildings go up.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Capping Quinpool at 8 stories is horrific. Ughhhh. Fuck this public input shit.

[Hali87]

Quinpool has very low quality buildings. There are only a few with moderate architectural value, and there's no reason why a new building couldn't exceed those in quality, particularly if it is allowed to go up to 8 floors.

I think a big part of the focus on preserving buildings is simply that people don't believe that the new ones can be as good as the old, at least as far as the public is concerned. That was a pretty good belief in the 1970's but it will probably fade as better buildings go up.

For me it's not so much that I'm worried about the quality of new buildings, it's just the idea that if you replace every building on Quinpool, is it still Quinpool? The individual buildings might not be anything special but the streetscape is pretty unique. The only place I've ever been that really felt similar was Bloor West Village in Toronto. Hopefully if many of the older buildings are replaced, the rhythm of the streetscape is maintained (chop new buildings into several distinctive storefronts rather than having buildings like Cornwallis House on SGR that basically take up the entire block with one uniform facade)

[Hali87]

Capping Quinpool at 8 stories is horrific. Ughhhh. Fuck this public input shit.

8 storeys seems pretty reasonable. Even with the setbacks there's the potential to basically triple density along Quinpool. It also sounds like the height limits will step up towards the commons. I have to say though, I wish more people were open to the idea that since the old high-rises are so ugly, maybe we should be blocking the view of them with nicer new ones

[Keith P.]

The whole process seems to be a complete waste of time. I do not see developers lining up to develop lots along Quinpool at either 8 or 28 storeys. Seems like more needless bureaucracy at play here.

[Hali87]

Apparently all of the sites currently under study have had development proposals within the last year. The Centre Plan wasn't supposed to be ready until 2015 but council requested that they handle these sites sooner.

[Hali87]

The public comments from the first round of Centre Plan are up on the website (http://www.halifax.ca/planhrm/centreplan.html). All in all they look pretty promising, less NIMBYism and more constructive suggestions.

[Keith P.]

I read some of them - still far too much of the usual "It's TOO TALL!!!" nonsense and people making up excuses why development should not occur.

[beyeas]

An article on the planning sessions with respect to Robie/Young etc.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/94903-building-height-debate-continues-to-challenge-vision-of-halifax-future

There is also a vote thing on the page, which as of writing this has 231 votes with 82% voting for "We need more development in this city". The times they are a changin'.

[halifaxboyns]

Hi everyone - long time no post, been so busy!
I'm pleased with the comments coming from the Herald article and the vote is quite impressive.

I think the general direction that Andy Fillmore and his group are taking is a good start - I'm seeing this as more of a long range work project. Get the foundation work done now for these locations and the core and then another 10 or so years down the road, perhaps revisit it to encourage more - but that's just me.

24 stories along Robie is fine by me, although I would've pushed it to 30 personally.

[someone123]

At least they are talking about ballpark feasible heights now. Lots of developers have proposed stuff that's under 24 floors.

I wish the HT and Pacey would choose their battles a little more, but it's important to look at them as the narrow special interest group they are. Think of, say, a McDonald's PR person in an article about healthy eating. They will tell you to eat McNuggets or whatever (maybe they'll be more clever and veil it somehow) because all they care about is selling McDonald's. The HT really only care about heritage buildings, and even then seem to have a narrow, short-term economic perspective. The media often present them more as the foil of developers or planners but that's not correct.