Downtown Halifax Building Height Restriction

[bedfordite_93]

Over the summer, I was sitting on citadel hill with a buddy of mine and we both realized we could barely see the harbour anyway. The Aliant Building at the end of Spring Garden blocks the view to the harbour entrance. So I think they should lift the height restriction to allow Halifax to build a few skyscrapers and actually put Halifax on the world map. Toronto has their CN Tower, New York has the Empire State Building, Dubai has their Burj Khalifa, Paris has the eiffel tower, London has Big Ben, hell, even Calgary has the Calgary tower and Seattle has the Columbia Center. I could go on, but why can't Halifax have a building that would make the city recognizable.

It would also bring in a few more tourists. :cool:

[bedfordite_93]

Halifax's tallest building is an apartment building that was formerly a Dalhousie residence, and Fenwick stand at what? 32 floors? That's kinda sad.

[halifaxboyns]

While I think it's good to talk about this - the time to have considered such a fundamental shift away from what has been a key concept for downtown would've been the regional plan.

Now that we are 5 years into it; we have 20 more to go. That being said - 20 years is a nice long period of time to begin figuring out how to go about doing this; what effects would be created and then how to logicaly and articulatly and ensure we can take down any opposition to the idea.

Personally, I see that in some areas retaining the viewplanes being of value. But there are some areas like the Cogswell lands, where maintaining the rampart heights rule is redundant.

[jslath]

I will counter by saying: why does Halifax need a skyscaper to put it on the world map? Quebec City has Old Quebec and Chateau Frontenac; Montreal has Habitat, Old Montreal, and Mount Royal; Ottawa has the Rideau Canal and Parliament; Paris has the Louvre; Toronto has the ROM.

Well I'm not opposed to a signature building, I question the preoccupation on height. I wonder what Freud would say about that? :haha:

The Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is looking for a new home. Halifax's signature building could be a modern art gallery on the waterfront.

[haligonia]

I will counter by saying: why does Halifax need a skyscaper to put it on the world map? Quebec City has Old Quebec and Chateau Frontenac; Montreal has Habitat, Old Montreal, and Mount Royal; Ottawa has the Rideau Canal and Parliament; Paris has the Louvre; Toronto has the ROM.

Well I'm not opposed to a signature building, I question the preoccupation on height. I wonder what Freud would say about that? :haha:

The Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is looking for a new home. Halifax's signature building could be a modern art gallery on the waterfront.

:previous: This.

Height is not everything. I don't choose to visit cities because they have tall buildings. I visit cities because they are interesting and have an appealing culture.

[halifaxboyns]

Height can be a double edged sword. One of the things that many cities have begun to figure out is that they can't fund every possible improvement to the public realm - they don't have the $. So many cities offer a bonusing system where you get a base height by right and then anything more is done through a bonusing system. HbD has done that and it has some good ideas to be able to get public art; but the list could be bigger.

So height is treated as a resource for HRM to leverage improvements that otherwise it may not have the money to do (beyond those which can be funded through general improvement charges or other levies/taxes).

Height is also closely connected to intensity of use. The more intense a property is used, the more property taxes the city earns. I suspect one of the reasons why HRM has money problems is that the amount of money it earns from downtown properties isn't as near as it could be because the intensity of the use of property is capped with height regulations.

Personally, I see a balanced approach. Exempt the cogswell lands from the rampart heights (as high as they can go through bonusing) and then do the same for lands around the citadell but outside the DT for mixed use (Agricola, Quinpool, Robie Corridors and the lands near the Forum). The retain the rampart rule for those sites not in a viewplane, but potentially ditch some viewplanes. Just not sure which ones.

[someone123]

Height is tied to intensity but often the highrises don't cover a significant portion of their lot, or are surrounded by parking lots or something similar. In Halifax there could be a huge increase in density from lowrise (say, < 12 storey) buildings. I do agree though that the height bonus is a great way to get public amenities. It is built into HbD somewhat but I think they were too conservative.

Personally I don't care that much either way about height. I mostly care about whether new buildings are attractively designed and functional or not.

One thing I do dislike though is when height is disallowed for emotional reasons that are not clearly articulated. Vague sentiment about hating tall buildings and developers has no place in the planning process. Demands for "feel good" regulations like the ramparts bylaws also need to be weighed against their impact in terms of permitted development -- that is a case where the city has imposed far-reaching restrictions in exchange for a very minor supposed heritage benefit. That bylaw should be tossed.

[Keith P.]

I will counter by saying: why does Halifax need a skyscaper to put it on the world map? Quebec City has Old Quebec and Chateau Frontenac;

Halifax has nothing comparable that is worth protecting.

Montreal has Habitat, Old Montreal, and Mount Royal;

Halifax has nothing comparable that is worth protecting.

Ottawa has the Rideau Canal and Parliament;

Halifax has nothing comparable that is worth protecting.

Paris has the Louvre;

Halifax has nothing comparable that is worth protecting.

Toronto has the ROM.

Halifax has nothing comparable that is worth protecting.

The phobia of some about tall buildings is really quite silly.

[jslath]

The phobia of some about tall buildings is really quite silly.

Let me correct you Keith P.: I'm not against tall buildings. I just question the mentality of building something tall for the sake competing with much larger cities. I was all for the Twisted Sisters... but that has been replaced by Skye. I am all for the King's Wharf signature tower and the Fenwick redevelopment.

You also say Halifax has nothing worth protecting... what about the Hydrostone district? What about the old post office building that is part of AGNS? What about Province House & Government House? Public Gardens? Citadel Hill? Point Pleasant Park?

Dismissing someone by calling them silly is also counterproductive to any discussion.

[Keith P.]

Aside from Citadel Hill, which would serve its greatest benefit to Halifax by being bulldozed and redeveloped, the rest are interesting curiosities that are not threatened in any way by adjacent tall buildings.

I didn't call YOU silly. I called the phobia about height that some people have silly. Do you have a height phobia?

[jslath]

Aside from Citadel Hill, which would serve its greatest benefit to Halifax by being bulldozed and redeveloped, the rest are interesting curiosities that are not threatened in any way by adjacent tall buildings.

I didn't call YOU silly. I called the phobia about height that some people have silly. Do you have a height phobia?

:rolleyes: That's some pretty fast backpedaling. This threat is about creating signature buildings and comparisons were made that Halifax needs something tall in order to have a signature building. I want to point out we don't need something tall. I stand by my comment that the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is looking for a new home. We could create a signature building to house the gallery.

[halifaxboyns]

Considering the height restrictions HRM has - I think we should be clear on the multiple layers that exist:


First there is the height restrictions indicated in each zone in the applicable land use bylaw. These can be 'relaxed' through a variance (typically);
Then there is height precincts which I believe are only in Halifax (mainland and peninsula) that further restrict height. Once you reach the limit of the precinct, if you wish to exceed it you must go through a development agreement;
Height Bands - to my knowledge only one exists, which is Band A along Brunswick Street below citadell hill. As I understand it; it's a hard and fast regulation like a viewplane, you can't exceed it;
Rampart rules - so regardless of the zoning/height precincts - if you can go tall, you will be capped (in the downtown area of Halifax) to the rampart height of the citadell;
Viewplanes - the designated protected views from viewpoints on Citadell hill and in Dartmouth which further cap height. These are absolute elevations above sea level - cannot be breached for any reason. I believe there is also a viewplane or height restriction around Grande Parade square as well, as I recall this came up with twisted sisters.

So if you thought the viewplanes concept was tough - there is the whole array of height rules. Not all would apply everywhere, but the HRM GIS can show you where the height bands and precincts would be. It's the height precincts that caught the low income housing on Gottingen as one side of the street is capped at 40' and the other at 50'.

[lmccabe55]

Hey guys, I don't know where else to put this so I guess I'm just gonna place it here. I'm writing an essay on the topic of development in Halifax - do any of you have any recommendations on books or resources on the benefits of high-rises on cities? Preferably ones I can get at a library or access online. Thanks in advance!

[Hali87]

Hey guys, I don't know where else to put this so I guess I'm just gonna place it here. I'm writing an essay on the topic of development in Halifax - do any of you have any recommendations on books or resources on the benefits of high-rises on cities? Preferably ones I can get at a library or access online. Thanks in advance!

If you're in post-secondary I'd recommend doing a NovaNet search with the following keywords: urban planning, urban design, urban renewal, highrise (or high-rise). Also, the Dal-Sexton library (near Barrington/Spring Garden) specializes in publications related to architecture, urban design, and engineering, so that would be a very good place to start. I wrote my honours thesis on public transit last year and that library was a friggin' goldmine. If you're still in high school I'm not sure you'd be able to access that library, but I'd imagine the public library system would have at least some books on the topic.

Edit: I think I see where you're going with this essay, and you might want to do a little research into other cities that have historically had similar height restrictions to Halifax - Vancouver, Montreal, Philadelphia and San Fran come to mind.

[lmccabe55]

Edit: I think I see where you're going with this essay, and you might want to do a little research into other cities that have historically had similar height restrictions to Halifax - Vancouver, Montreal, Philadelphia and San Fran come to mind.

Thanks for the response. I'm in first year at SMU, and my thesis was "The anti-development argument in Halifax substantiates the culture of defeat in Atlantic Canada" - I was able to use Philadelphia as an example :tup:

[Hali87]

Nice. What's the class?

[lmccabe55]

Making Sense of Atlantic Canada.

[alps]

"The Triumph of the City" by Edward Glaeser was recommended to me but I haven't read it. Looks like it can be found at the SMU library.

"The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric" by Barrie Shelton has a fair bit about the benefits of density in Hong Kong, although it's not totally tied to building height. Kowloon had a strict blanket height limit for many years due to the old airport, but still had some of the highest densities in the world due to the small unit sizes (my 37 sq. ft. room case in point.) Really interesting book in any case and is held by the Sexton library.

[coolmillion]

This is an essay by Jane M. Jacobs (not "the" Jane Jacobs, a different one) on what she calls "the fortunes of the highrise". It's theoretical but essentially she is arguing that highrises aren't as bad as anti-modernists make them out to be:
http://lac-repo-live7.is.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/819/1/jjacob001.pdf

Here's another paper about Taiwan:
http://envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=d3306

As a counterpoint, DC's extreme height restrictions have been somewhat successful.

[lmccabe55]

"The Triumph of the City" by Edward Glaeser

:worship: This book has been an amazing resource, a million thanks!

[Wishblade]

"The Triumph of the City" by Edward Glaeser was recommended to me but I haven't read it. Looks like it can be found at the SMU library.

"The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric" by Barrie Shelton has a fair bit about the benefits of density in Hong Kong, although it's not totally tied to building height. Kowloon had a strict blanket height limit for many years due to the old airport, but still had some of the highest densities in the world due to the small unit sizes (my 37 sq. ft. room case in point.) Really interesting book in any case and is held by the Sexton library.

37 sq ft??? Thats a freaking closet!

[alps]

37 sq ft??? Thats a freaking closet!

It's the same size as my mom's closet in Halifax. But you get used to it!

[fenwick16]

It's the same size as my mom's closet in Halifax. But you get used to it!

Amazing, so a bed would take up about 1/3 of the room. Do you have to share a common bathroom? Do you get a small window (I assume there isn't enough space for a balcony).

[alps]

Amazing, so a bed would take up about 1/3 of the room. Do you have to share a common bathroom? Do you get a small window (I assume there isn't enough space for a balcony).

Bed is more than half the room. Bathroom and kitchen are shared. There's a window, but not much of a view. :P

[christopher_chafe]

I will counter by saying: why does Halifax need a skyscaper to put it on the world map? Quebec City has Old Quebec and Chateau Frontenac; Montreal has Habitat, Old Montreal, and Mount Royal; Ottawa has the Rideau Canal and Parliament; Paris has the Louvre; Toronto has the ROM.

Well I'm not opposed to a signature building, I question the preoccupation on height. I wonder what Freud would say about that? :haha:

The Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is looking for a new home. Halifax's signature building could be a modern art gallery on the waterfront.



You belong in St. John's, for 99.9% of downtown the height is only 4 storey tall.

[kph06]

Here are a few photos I took today showing the Citadel Apartment and TD Bank cranes are both visible from the grounds inside the walls of the Citadel. I'm not sure how the rules work, presumably cranes are fine since they are temporary, but you can see the tops of a couple buildings (just the cell antenna's).

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7295/13018893065_7641678d22_b.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3559/13019271124_86f126913f_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7330/13019057473_a23da34295_b.jpg

[Drybrain]

I will counter by saying: why does Halifax need a skyscaper to put it on the world map? Quebec City has Old Quebec and Chateau Frontenac; Montreal has Habitat, Old Montreal, and Mount Royal; Ottawa has the Rideau Canal and Parliament; Paris has the Louvre; Toronto has the ROM.

Well I'm not opposed to a signature building, I question the preoccupation on height. I wonder what Freud would say about that? :haha:


This. Tall buildings aren't a prerequisite for density, nor do they put cities on any hypothetical map, unless they're exceptionally, record-settingly tall--which Halifax won't get anyway.

Toronto, Calgary, Seattle, etc. would have all the same benefits and drawbacks without their respective towers. And there's a long list of cities without tall, iconic structures. In Canada, Ottawa, Montreal, and Vancouver all come to mind, if you disregard the Peace Tower. (And Halifax already has taller buildings than that.)

Again, I'm pro skyscraper. I just think that the height fixation in Halifax works both ways: While the older, established Heritage Trust-ish crowd are fixated on height to a bizarre extent (to the point that they're ignoring more substantive heritage issues that would be more worth their time), the built-it-baby-no-questions-asked crowd is fixated on height as a panacea for urban problems. But tall buildings won't make or break the city. There are lots of great high-rise cities, and crappy high-rise ones, and lots of great low-rise cities, and crappy ones.

[someone123]

This. Tall buildings aren't a prerequisite for density, nor do they put cities on any hypothetical map, unless they're exceptionally, record-settingly tall--which Halifax won't get anyway.

I don't necessarily disagree with this but I think it's mostly a straw man. Very few people in Halifax think this way. The real argument tends to be that the city needs to promote development so that it can be more economically vibrant, retain more young people, etc. Some people who are against development don't like to argue against this very reasonable position so they make up something else that is easier to shoot down, shoot it down, and then pretend they shot down the real argument when they did not.

If you look closely at the arguments of the Tim Bousquets, Paceys, and Bev Millers, you will find very little in the way of plausible explanations of how their vision will lead to greater economic prosperity for the full range of people living in the city.

[eastcoastal]

Here are a few photos I took today showing the Citadel Apartment and TD Bank cranes are both visible from the grounds inside the walls of the Citadel. I'm not sure how the rules work, presumably cranes are fine since they are temporary, but you can see the tops of a couple buildings (just the cell antenna's)....

I think that there some tall buildings constructed pre-height regulations, which might result in what you've observed (and likely contributed to forming the regulations).