HURST: How to rid downtown of its perpetual frown

[Keith P.]

This appeared in the Herald Friday, May 31. Gary Hurst is the longtime owner of the Dome and a number of downtown bars & restaurants.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1132538-hurst-how-to-rid-downtown-of-its-perpetual-frown


Halifax’s Barrington Street and many adjoining streets are now so desolate with vacancies, abandoned buildings, graffiti and failed businesses that the city has reached the point of “downtown catastrophe.”

Every citizen who cares about Halifax should take a 10-minute walk to observe Barrington from Blowers Street to George Street. For a city that promotes itself as progressive, the state of these streets is absolutely disgraceful.

Since 1998, fixing Barrington Street and downtown has been recommended by no fewer than eight studies.

Every single one has recommended transitioning downtown from an auto-dominated environment to a pedestrian-dominated one.

Every single one has recommended wider sidewalks, pedestrian amenities, such as benches and trees, restrictions on truck traffic and unloading, and design improvements and beautification.

Every single one was directed to City Hall with a reasonable expectation it would act. City Hall did not act.

The reasons for downtown decline indicate how City Hall has failed to provided leadership:

• No parking and transportation alternative

Downtown steadily declined over 40 years, as its retail sector could not compete with shopping centres in outlying areas that provided free and convenient parking. Limited downtown parking became increasingly used by office occupants who leave downtown at 5 p.m.

City Hall actually encouraged parking to decrease — on the waterfront where parking has been lost to residential and commercial development; at Spring Garden Road where popular above-ground parking is being replaced with less appealing underground parking; at Scotia Square where parking garage space is being converted to more office development; at RBC Waterside where a meagre 18 parking spaces are being provided, and at the city’s Metro Park, which is filled with monthly office parking.

As parking for business customers and tourists became inadequate, the cost of parking became unacceptable to its shrinking market. To add insult to injury, City Hall directed aggressive ticketing of parking violators. Result: “I don’t go downtown anymore!”

• No residential/pedestrian environment

Not enough people live downtown. The area has approximately 4,000 residents, about half the population of Bridgewater.

Residential developments in the waterfront area are examples of what we need in much greater numbers. Comparisons with Bedford, Cole Harbour and Clayton Park are close at hand. Downtown needs 15,000 residents to provide customers for a downtown economy and the vibrancy of a pedestrian community.



• An approval process that energetically resists development

The Halifax approval process is procedurally adversarial and without definition of what is permitted and what is not permitted. Approvals take too long and the end result is hopelessly uncertain.

Rather than certainty, City Hall provides a “consultative approval process” which results in the applicant incurring huge costs and the need to conclude matters by making concessions. Developers conclude, “I cannot afford this approval process. I will work elsewhere.”

What do we need from City Hall?

We need a visible start to a 10-year transformative revitalization of downtown Halifax.

This mess took 40 years to create and is not going to be fixed overnight. But it has been studied enough. With “perfect storm” conditions of spiralling downtown business failures and new developments being built that we desperately need to be successful, the time to proceed with the following revitalization proposals is now.

• Parking and connected free public shuttle transit

Parking garages should be sited in five locations: starting with Rainnie Drive for 1,000 cars; Queen Street for 500 cars; existing Metro Park for 500 cars; Cogswell for 500 cars; Marginal Road for 500 cars.

New developments downtown would be encouraged to provide less, not more, of their own parking. With fewer cars downtown, much more residential development, and free shuttle access from these parking garages and from a bus depot at new Cogswell, downtown Halifax transforms into a prosperous, pedestrian-friendly urban environment.



• Development bylaws

Bylaws have permitted Halifax Developments Limited to purchase the 30,000 square feet known as “the Triangle” (next to Cogswell Interchange) 40 years ago from the city for $3 per square foot, or $90,000, with density entitlement, and to hold it without developing it.

Bylaws have permitted Lou Resnick to amass a majority of the vacant, unimproved, graffiti-ridden Barrington Street properties and hold them without developing them.

We need bylaw changes to tax-penalize underdeveloped properties and tax-reward developments of distinction. Money is the medium that property owners understand in deciding whether or not to improve their properties

• Some designated historic properties

Important historic buildings add to our community. Marginally important historic buildings and historic buildings which have been abandoned, or become a blight, do not add to our community. They detract from it.

The reason for designating each of our historic buildings needs to be revisited and vetted objectively. Important historic buildings should be improved by property owners with public financial assistance and not be allowed to remain a blight.



• Design criteria for public space and streetscapes

Wider sidewalks, bump-outs, pedestrian amenities, truck restrictions and criteria for storefronts with canopies have already been thoroughly researched.



• The financial case

Market forces will cure the problems of downtown if the right conditions are put in place by the public sector. Cities across Canada and the United States, Europe and Asia have already proven it.

• Assessment and taxes

Halifax has $1.7 billion of downtown assessment, which generates $50 million annually in current taxes. An asset of this magnitude deserves protection, especially if it will increase in value. Given the international attention on leasing of current development projects and our new convention centre, this is the time for City Hall to signal a change in direction for downtown.

What is the actual cost of these measures? Highly regarded contractors have provided estimates. A 1,000-car parking garage at Rainnie Drive would cost $30 million, with excavation, concrete structure, ventilation, sprinkler, electrical/lighting and ramps.

A 500-car garage at Queen Street would cost $15 million, if not built underground. The city already owns Metro Park, for 500 cars. Allocate another $20 million for public shuttle and street and amenity improvements, and the total would be $65 million over 10 years, or, on average, $6.5 million per year for 10 years.

What businesses would thrive in a revitalized downtown? Wal-Mart, Canadian Tire, Kent and other big-box stores will never locate in downtown Halifax because they require too much space. Stores that require less space will locate in revitalized downtown Halifax — shoe stores, jewelry stores, specialty apparel stores, accessory stores, craft and gift stores and all manner of service businesses, from travel to restaurants to financial and high-tech firms.

A revitalized downtown Halifax with parking and free shuttle transit, a residential population of 15,000, a world-class convention centre, hotels, restaurants, entertainment district, Neptune and Metro Centre, becomes a very desirable place to do business.

Downtown already has the infrastructure of roads, water and sewer. What possible reason can there be not to proceed to revitalize the downtown with a 10-year transformative plan?

Halifax is fortunate to have a new mayor elected on a platform that included leadership in fixing downtown. We need Mayor Mike Savage and city council to act.



Gary Hurst is an entrepreneur who heads Grafton-Connor Group, which controls several downtown Halifax food and beverage businesses, including the Dome, Cheers Bar & Grill, Five Fishermen Restaurant & Grill and the Grafton Street Dinner Theatre.

[teddifax]

This appeared in the Herald Friday, May 31. Gary Hurst is the longtime owner of the Dome and a number of downtown bars & restaurants.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1132538-hurst-how-to-rid-downtown-of-its-perpetual-frown

VERY well said!!! The only thing I say against it is the need for huge parking garages, I thought we were trying to cut back on traffic and encourage the use of mass transit. Parking garages are not the most attractive type of building and stand out like a sore thumb.

[Drybrain]

A lot of this is really good.

He does seem to get a dig in at Reznick though (do they have some kind of beef?) and I'm not sure that the approvals process is any more onerous than in other cities, at least not since HRMxD.

And business owners are ALWAYS obsessed with parking, regardless of the context. (Not that parking isn't an issue, but as others have said on here, downtown actually has a decent amount of parking. The bigger problem is lack of residents.)

[Nouvellecosse]

VERY well said!!! The only thing I say against it is the need for huge parking garages, I thought we were trying to cut back on traffic and encourage the use of mass transit. Parking garages are not the most attractive type of building and stand out like a sore thumb.

True. If we are going to have more parking, then it should be in a place like near the Bridge Terminal or Woodside ferry terminal where people can park and take transit the rest of the way. There's already lots of parking near Mumford that could be used in such a manner.

[teddifax]

True. If we are going to have more parking, then it should be in a place like near the Bridge Terminal or Woodside ferry terminal where people can park and take transit the rest of the way. There's already lots of parking near Mumford that could be used in such a manner.

True again. Car parkades would take up too much valuable downtown land and outside the perimeter, using mass transit would be the best scenario.

[Haligonian88]

True. If we are going to have more parking, then it should be in a place like near the Bridge Terminal or Woodside ferry terminal where people can park and take transit the rest of the way. There's already lots of parking near Mumford that could be used in such a manner.

I'm not against public transit at all, but if someone is going to drive to the bridge terminal or Woodside ferry in a car from somewhere further out, they're going to be inclined to drive the few extra kilometers to get downtown. There are many people in Nova Scotia who do not like public transit, they are accustomed to driving their cars. (Changing habits and mentalities is a battle too big for city hall.) If you want the people who can afford to spend their money downtown to go down there, they need a convenient place to park. They are ways of making parking garages more attractive, and be incorporated into new developments, you just need to spend the money.

[Keith P.]

VERY well said!!! The only thing I say against it is the need for huge parking garages, I thought we were trying to cut back on traffic and encourage the use of mass transit. Parking garages are not the most attractive type of building and stand out like a sore thumb.

What he is suggesting actually makes sense in regard to parking. His suggestion to have a number of large parking garages on the edges of downtown with a shuttle making the circuit is one that people would be likely to accept if the shuttle runs frequently and especially if it is free and included in the cost of parking. Driving to Mumford Road, parking, waiting a half-hour to pay to get on a bus and then taking another half-hour for it to get you downtown is less appealing to most. Imagine you are going to the Metro Center for an event or to a downtown resto for a nice dinner. His concept is one that I think most people would accept. The idea of simply taking Transit, especially as it is run here with low frequency and poor routing, is a non-starter for many people. His solution keeps a lot of cars out of the core.

[someone123]

To me it seems like a lot of his points are off the mark. Starfish for example has restored a lot of buildings and has 2 developments under construction on Barrington right now. I'd say they're only really guilty of mishandling the Roy Building (admittedly, a major building). Authors lose me when they write stuff like "downtown catastrophe" during a period when there is more development happening than the city has seen in about 30 years. I don't think the tone of articles like this actually fits the situation.

Downtown is never going to compete with urban fringe areas like Dartmouth Crossing when it comes to parking, and a lot of the old retail uses that once existed downtown are now obsolete and would not be viable anywhere. HRM has already built the MetroPark right next to Barrington. It often has a lot of available spaces and it has had no noticeable impact on improving the street. Rather than focusing on suburban-style parking, a better approach is to leave it to developers to build underground lots while focusing on getting lots of residents downtown (the 15,000 number is about right) and improving transit so fewer visitors need to park vehicles.

I also think that smaller changes like taking the loud trucks and diesel buses off the streets, redoing streetscapes, and cleaning up a couple of bad properties like NFB would have a very noticeable impact on the downtown. These changes would make Barrington a much more pleasant place to be and would signal that the city is willing to invest in the area. Barrington's not dead, it is stuck in low gear; it doesn't necessarily need huge changes to work. The problem is that HRM has invested practically nothing there for nearly 20 years (the only exception I can think of is the heritage district tax breaks).

[Keith P.]

The more I think about a downtown shuttle the more I think it would make huge sense even without any new garages. Right now you have large parkades at the Casino, Purdy's, Scotia Square and MetroPark. In many cases the challenge, especially for people with mobility issues, are the hills. So if you had a frequent shuttle that made a loop along Water St from the Seaport Market to the Casino, up Cogswell, along Brunswick, down Duke, along Barrington and back to the Market that would cover a lot. If you could somehow work SGR into the loop without slowing down the frequency too much that would be a bonus. I guess this sounds something like the old "Fred" bus but I don't remember how that ran or how often. Frequency is the key with something like this.

[someone123]

Yeah, I agree. People could park around Scotia Square. I also think the city should build a major inter-model terminal in that area to tie in shorter downtown routes with suburban bus routes, ferries, commuter rail, LRT, or whatever else is implemented. The city should try to get away from the current "transit bingo"-style routing where suburban routes are randomly connected to urban destinations.

To work really well, I think part of the terminal would have to be underground. It would resemble a smaller scale version of the Seattle underground bus tunnel system; originally Seattle's tunnel was built just for buses but they've retrofitted it to support both buses and trains.

[ILoveHalifax]

Where is all the parking at Mumford? Shopping center parking is for shopping center customers.

[DigitalNinja]

One other problem is that his perspective I think it more on the night club/ late night crowd that goes down town as well. Public transit SUCKS at night. Metro transit doesn't run many routes past 11:30-12:00 which prohibits anyone wanted to go downtown for a night out to get the bus back home.

[ILoveHalifax]

One other problem is that his perspective I think it more on the night club/ late night crowd that goes down town as well. Public transit SUCKS at night. Metro transit doesn't run many routes past 11:30-12:00 which prohibits anyone wanted to go downtown for a night out to get the bus back home.

I think we need a number of A bus routes that run the main routes in and out of town, but do not serve every neighborhood. Herring Cove Rd, St Margaret's Bay Rd, Bedford Hwy to Middle Sackville, Main St, Cole Harbor Rd. These would run to all hours. Anybody using transit late at night should not expect service to their door but could walk a mile or so if necessary. For example Larry Uteck should not run late at nite and one should be pleased to get as close as the Bedford Hwy. 1 or 2 routes around the peninsula could also be A runs.

[someone123]

A lot of cities are like this. I have a feeling that the demand is there but that transit operators just don't like dealing with night service problems (late-night staffing, drunk people throwing up in buses, assault risk late at night...).

[connect2source]

As a resident of Vancouver and a former, long-time resident of Halifax, mostly in my younger years. I have fond memories of a very vibrant city centre, Scotia Square was like Pacific Centre in Vancouver, vibrant, a gathering place, always busy, I used to love the giant fountain, Zumburger, The Wharf Restaurant, Woolco and the Famous Players Theatre upstairs! Barrington had the Paramount and the very cool Capitol Theatres. There was no Bayer's Lake, no Dartmouth Crossing, the Halifax Shopping Centre, except for Eaton's, was very limited and Simpson's wasn't a huge draw for us.

As I still have two brothers in Halifax I've watched, with shock over the years, at the gradual and steady deterioration of the downtown and it's complete loss of vitality. Sure Argyle is a blast and Spring Garden Rd has managed to survive but downtown is no longer THE destination. From a Vancouver perspective, this can be blamed on parking issues or inadequate transit but what I see from my vantage point is the over-building of suburban, big- box oriented shopping at the expense of downtown but personally the ratio of suburban to urban shopping, for a metro of 400K, seems insane compared to our ratio in Vancouver. Bayer's Lake and Dartmouth Crossing are gigantic and would even be considered huge here in Vancouver. We have absolutely nothing that scale within such close proximity of downtown, let alone two centres of that scale!! Who, in their right mind, possibly thought the downtown area could survive such an onslaught of big box culture without a plan to keep the downtown vital while this was being done, seems so incredibly short-sighted?!

As I result I see a rather 'gutted' city centre when I visit, the funky coffee houses on Barrington and the small independent shops reflect that of a small town not a once vital centre of a 400K metro. And who possible thought 'anchor-less' centres like Scotia Square or Park Lane could possibly thrive? In Vancouver it's 'retail 101' .. the anchor is the draw and the rest follows. Pacific Centre ( our downtown mall ) has Holt's, Hudson's Bay and now Nordstrom, I know this wouldn't be realistic of a city the size of Halifax, but Victoria, almost the same size does manage to have Hudson's Bay anchor it's downtown centre and maintains a very vibrant core.

Luckily in Vancouver we've managed to add tens of thousands of residents to support our downtown retail, arts and restaurants but generally the powers-that-be always ensured 'big box' would never be placed too close and would never overwhelm our city centre. Heck, we just got the first Walmart within the city of Vancouver 3 years ago!

So parking and transit aside, Halifax needs large retail anchors badly!!! An urban Target in Scotia Square, even a Winner's or Homesense ( like the urban ones we have in downtown Vancouver ) on Barrington. That would be a start and would serve the city centre residents well, then perhaps a major urban style supermarket like our Urban Fares or Whole Foods. The rest would follow organically, it's simple economics. Give the mainstream a solid and easy reason to head downtown, it's a simple 'bait and switch', once they're downtown, they stay, linger, support the independents and more follows.

The HRM badly needs guidelines to limits the crazy pace of big box development at the expense of vital city centres.

[TheNovaScotian]

I live on SGR and have watched the whole area start the long overdue transformation that will spread to the rest of Downtown. Not to start pointing out the mistakes in his article, Scotia Square is not losing a single parking spot with the redevelopment, its being built over the language school on the corner of Duke and Abermarle. $30 million for a parking garage sounds too steep in a city that cant put together $100 million for a decent stadium. We had a shuttle called FRED that did the exact thing he is specifying. His concept of having parking around the core makes sense, but to say its the silver bullet that will save the Downtown. is short sighted. We need to make the draw into the downtown more than the perceived hassle of finding a parking spot and heaven forbid walk somewhere

[someone123]

I don't want to make it sound like Halifax is perfect but Spring Garden Road for example is actually very successful; it has some of the highest commercial rents in Canada, and the highest rents for any city under 1 million people. It also has Pete's, which is basically identical to Urban Fare, and lately there has been tons of new construction. I don't know how you could view this area as anything but successful compared to neighbourhoods in other parts of Canada, particularly when you factor in how neglected it has been by city hall.

I agree that Halifax has too many big box stores. HRM has seriously dropped the ball when it comes to regional planning. In fact, they just approved another expansion of Bayer's Lake, and they recently spend millions of dollars on an underpass there. They are actively subsidizing suburban retail, and they are sabotaging transit by subsidizing expensive service in rural areas.

The comparison between big box in Halifax and the city of Vancouver doesn't really make sense. If you go out to areas like Coquitlam or Langley, the equivalent of Bayers or Dartmouth Crossing, you will find exactly the same type of stores. The only difference is that in Halifax they are closer to downtown because the metro area is much smaller. This is also unfortunately a downside because it means that, even if you live downtown, it is much easier to get out to the big box stores. In Vancouver it is inconvenient to travel from a downtown condo to Coquitlam. I think the only way to fix this in Halifax is to dramatically increase the population density in inner neighbourhoods. If enough people move downtown, the stores will follow and people will not bother going out to the suburbs and they may choose to live without a car. If the overall mix of retail is stronger downtown, the area will also attract people from other neighbourhoods.

[gm_scott]

I think a good point to mention too is the availability of large space. Once some of the developments around SGR are complete along with Barrington I wouldn't be surprised to see an urban Winners or a H&M go in.

[Waye Mason]

I spoke to Gary before he wrote this. Parking is not an issue. Downtown within a five minute walk of Grand Parade has about 800 parking stalls off street at lunch most days. There are almost 1500 stalls available at lunch from Casino to South Park to Bishops Landing.

Even if they all started to fill, the city owns the Metropark and the monthly parkers can be reduced until all 500+ stalls are hourly. Right now it is about 55/45 monthly hourly. We will have a parking problem in 2-5 years as the WDCL surface lots get built out though, so we need a plan now to address that.

I also don't agree with the point about development speed. The evidence of our eyes is that downtown is finally developing after 25 years of no new buildings of note.

I'm writing a piece for next week that outlines the five priority areas for downtown revitalization - lots of stuff underway and lots more to come.

[someone123]

We will have a parking problem in 2-5 years as the WDCL surface lots get built out though, so we need a plan now to address that.

Are you talking about the Nova Centre blocks? Isn't there a decent amount of underground parking included in that project?

I think transit service is the only way to make a dramatic difference at this point, particularly when you factor in the drawbacks of structured parking (in the case of the MetroPark, half of a block is given up for cars). As cities grow, there's more demand for the most desirable areas and cars gradually become less viable as a way to move people around. Part of the issue right now is that residents of the city (some councillors, business owners, and average people) need to adjust their expectations, and the "where do we park?" question needs to be recast as "how do we help people get where they want to go as efficiently as possible?"

[Keith P.]

Are you talking about the Nova Centre blocks? Isn't there a decent amount of underground parking included in that project?


Waterfront Development Corporation parking lots.

[Keith P.]

I also don't agree with the point about development speed. The evidence of our eyes is that downtown is finally developing after 25 years of no new buildings of note.


When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

[Drybrain]

When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

Maybe—or maybe they're looking to be kowtowed to, knowing that if they kick up a fuss and blame the city for their troubles, there are a lot of citizens who will follow suit. It's not just in Halifax that (some, not all of course) developers believe the city should kowtow to them. Chedrawe even balked at DRC suggestions, and it's not like Halifax has an especially intense DRC.

[halifaxboyns]

I think Waye is meaning the waterfront parking lots owned by WDCL (Waterfront Development Corporation Limited) - as they disappear, there may be a parking problem.

Waye makes an interesting point and Someone123 also brings up something interesting. With the Nova Centre, there will be a significant 3 level parkade included with the proposal. So when you factor that Metro Park won't be leaving and then the 3 levels of parking with Nova Centre (in combination with the casino and the Scotia Square Parking) I'd be comfortable in saying there should be more than enough. If worse comes to worse, people can park at Park Lane and if I remember correctly the SGR parking lots actually have to replace the parking they will eventually take away.

I definitely disagree with using Cogswell for another parkade...that (frankly is a dumb idea)...given this is some of the most valuable land. Now if you wanted to require any development there to put in additional parking underground, then that's okay. But I remind everyone, we don't build cities for cars we build them for people. The downtown isn't just going to be fixed over night - it took us 40 years to destroy downtown, it will take just as long to fix it.

Waye's comment about the speed of development is also one I disagree with the writer about. For the most part, I think HbD is working and working well - but there is always that lag time between new rules coming into place and staff becoming comfortable with them. I think 90 days is frankly a really shallow time period and I don't know if that was the right amount. 3 months to process a 20 storey building seems to be a stretch from my perspective as a planner and that's assuming everything falls into place. I think 180 days is more reasonable, particularly if there are issues with contamination or other issues (since much of downtown had some industrial uses in the early 20's - contamination is a potential factor). This way, if it ends up that you do get stuff done in less than 180 days - that's a huge success. I suspect the same issue will come up once the Centre Plan is approved; there will be that lag time of learning.

The shuttle idea is interesting and quite timely considering that Metro Transit is proposing to cut the route 8 - the waterfront route due to poor ridership. That was Dawn Sloane's idea and frankly I think it's quite good, but ridership is a funny thing. My suggestion would be that if the downtown business association wants such a shuttle, they put their money where their mouth is and help fund it, specially if the ridership of the 8 is an indication of success. This may be an opportunity to revive FRED as a year round entity, assuming the DT Business Association and a few other cough up some $.

But where I do agree (either partially or completely) is with his points on heritage, the triangle lands and transportation alternatives. LRT typically doesn't really get financially viable until a population around 600,000 - I think you could make it work at 550, but then question becomes how well? We need to start planning for this now - that should be a part of the next RP update (frankly it should've been in the RP from the get go). Frankly, I think a new RP is necessary given we've already updated the population trends once already. I suspect at RP+10, we will be revising it upward again...so why not do a new plan. The current RP is good - it was a good first time plan (we never had an RP before)...but we've learned a lot since then and it needs and can be better (no plan is perfect). That or do a new transportation component, but something needs to be considered. Whether it's LRT, streetcars or fast ferries.

The triangle land is unfortunate and the fact is that cities in North America are stuck with parking lots because developers submit proposals and sit on them (lest we forget Twisted Sisters) because they make more $ with parking lots. So if we want them to develop - maybe they do need to be taxed higher in the core? That's one option... The other thing is heritage and I agree, it has to be a balance. If an owner won't maintain a building - is it really worth keeping in such poor condition? But if an owner is willing to maintain a heritage building or better yet designate it - then there should be some sort of reward. Is that more density? More height? I don't know - maybe a tax deferral during construction?

As a planner, I'm no expert on taxes but one thing I'd like to suggest for the Regional Core is some sort of study to see what impact there would be on properties that had their property taxes deferred for 3 years once construction of a new development commenced (meaning existing building demo'ed, underground footings put in and construction on the future building commenced). If that isn't a good stimulus for construction, I'm not sure what else would be.

[halifaxboyns]

When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

Is it really a problem - or was their some unique circumstances in these particular cases that were outside of the norm?

Better yet, did we setup an unreasonable expectation in the first place? Is it reasonable to assume that a building like the Roy/Trillium (15+ stories) can be approved in 90 days? Or are those more like 180 days?

Perhaps the scale should be adjusted depending on the complexity of the project. So something like Drum might fit within the 90-120 day mark, while a Trillium is 180 days. Setting targets is frankly dangerous because when the target isn't met with a couple one offs, the development community loses their minds. I think in these cases there was probably something that came up that was outside the norm...

I'd also say that staff are still learning the ropes of HbD as new regulation typically takes a least 2-3 good years of constant interpretation to finally get into memory. Not everyone is a freak like myself, who had most of the important sections of the Calgary Land Use Bylaw in memory within weeks. :)

[someone123]

Yeah, the Waye's WDCL post is perfectly clear to me now and relates directly to the article. I was just having some reading comprehension issues last night I guess.

I hope Halifax experiences the "problem" of disappearing waterfront parking lots. There's been comparatively little development of those lots since they were cleared in the 70's.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I hope Halifax experiences the "problem" of disappearing waterfront parking lots. There's been comparatively little development of those lots since they were cleared in the 70's.

Yeah, exactly my thoughts...

And high density development, that would be a miracle. I still can't believe they shut down the centennial development, it was actually likely to proceed.

My hope for Halifax is that it continues to develop with surprises like the Citadel hotel, but also development on empty lots.

[halifaxboyns]

Yeah, exactly my thoughts...

And high density development, that would be a miracle. I still can't believe they shut down the centennial development, it was actually likely to proceed.

My hope for Halifax is that it continues to develop with surprises like the Citadel hotel, but also development on empty lots.

I'm sure that Phil and his 'flock' had a small heart attack on that one...that's my hope as well and the dialogue drawing that was posted in another thread is an interesting interpretation of HbD's road layout and the potential future. If we saw even half of that occur, I'd be delighted.

But definitely the public transit angle has to be dealt with sooner rather than later...

[Waye Mason]

Are you talking about the Nova Centre blocks? Isn't there a decent amount of underground parking included in that project?

I think transit service is the only way to make a dramatic difference at this point, particularly when you factor in the drawbacks of structured parking (in the case of the MetroPark, half of a block is given up for cars). As cities grow, there's more demand for the most desirable areas and cars gradually become less viable as a way to move people around. Part of the issue right now is that residents of the city (some councillors, business owners, and average people) need to adjust their expectations, and the "where do we park?" question needs to be recast as "how do we help people get where they want to go as efficiently as possible?"

No, ooops - Waterfront Development lots. Just spent 5 days in Vancouver - subway, ferry, bus, bikelanes, and also - multistory car parks. One right hard up against gastown. Parking is part of the picture, but in an urban environment free parking on the street in front of the bar/restaurant/shop isn't.

[RyeJay]

I'm sure that Phil and his 'flock' had a small heart attack on that one...that's my hope as well and the dialogue drawing that was posted in another thread is an interesting interpretation of HbD's road layout and the potential future. If we saw even half of that occur, I'd be delighted.

But definitely the public transit angle has to be dealt with sooner rather than later...

Given Halifax's record, I have complete confidence that council will properly invest in transit and spend money on a stadium. ;)

[teddifax]

What Centennial development was shut down?

[someone123]

No, ooops - Waterfront Development lots. Just spent 5 days in Vancouver - subway, ferry, bus, bikelanes, and also - multistory car parks. One right hard up against gastown. Parking is part of the picture, but in an urban environment free parking on the street in front of the bar/restaurant/shop isn't.

I live in Vancouver. The old parkades along Water Street date to the 60's and 70's and stick out like a sore thumb. They've probably survived only because that area's a little rough and not very desirable (although it has improved post-Woodwards). It is common here for new buildings to incorporate underground or (rarely) above ground structured parking, but I'm not aware of any single-use parkades built here during the last decade. They are probably not permitted.

The key thing in Vancouver is that over 30% of commuters here take transit. Downtown that's more like > 50% transit, plus there's a much larger share of people walking to work (way, way more local residential) and biking (using real biking infrastructure). No amount of parkades could make up for this gap in modal shares with Halifax, and there would be no practical way to add the necessary road capacity. You just couldn't build a downtown Vancouver the way it is with the same nice mix of office/residential and public space if most people had to drive, but this is the situation Halifax is trapped in by its lack of transit infrastructure. I'm not against parking, but I think at this point it will only have a minor impact on the fate of the downtown compared to transit and residential infill. There probably also aren't many specific cases where the downtown would be better-served by a parkade than an apartment building or condo with more residential units and a smaller number of public underground spaces.

Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here.

[Waye Mason]

When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

Gary is not a developer. Danny got approval in 5.5 months. In cities that are booming, like Vancouver, they still have developers complaining about process, even though everywhere you look there is construction. Just because a developer is unhappy does not necessarily mean there is a system failure. Also, does not mean there is NOT a system failure. You need to be cautious. Sometimes planning working properly will result in a developer not being allowed to do what they want. It is not about satisfying the land owners every wish, it is about achieving outcomes.

And any transition to site plan approval is going to both upset the apple cart of heritage/anti development folks and some developers - they no longer can influence what happens on a building site as they once could under MPS amendments/DAs.

[halifaxboyns]

Gary is not a developer. Danny got approval in 5.5 months. In cities that are booming, like Vancouver, they still have developers complaining about process, even though everywhere you look there is construction. Just because a developer is unhappy does not necessarily mean there is a system failure. Also, does not mean there is NOT a system failure. You need to be cautious. Sometimes planning working properly will result in a developer not being allowed to do what they want. It is not about satisfying the land owners every wish, it is about achieving outcomes.

And any transition to site plan approval is going to both upset the apple cart of heritage/anti development folks and some developers - they no longer can influence what happens on a building site as they once could under MPS amendments/DAs.

Exactly what I was saying - although I still think a 90 day turn around is probably to low of a time. A higher timeframe for more complex files or even a general 180 day time frame seems more realistic.

I've always wondered why, even when the zoning is in place, an appeals process is available in the HbD but not in other areas. For those who may not be aware - when a site is zoned outside of HbD, if I apply as of right for a use allowed in the zone, there is no appeal rights to neighbours. If I meet all the rules and don't require variances, there is no appeal rights at all. Yet, in HbD (assuming you were to meet every rule) - you would have a right to appeal. That really doesn't make sense to me...but if the transition to site plan approval occurs, then there wouldn't be one...so I'm all for that.

This is something to keep on the radar for the Regional Centre plan as well - let's not add a complex layer when it doesn't exist now.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Excellent info here.

[beyeas]

This has actually been one of the more informative and constructive threads in a while! :-)

[Keith P.]

Gary is not a developer. Danny got approval in 5.5 months. In cities that are booming, like Vancouver, they still have developers complaining about process, even though everywhere you look there is construction.

Both have access to large sums of money and both own significant real estate in the downtown core. Those are the people that Council should be bowing and scraping to, doing everything in their power to get them to build something. Unlike Vancouver, we do not have construction happening everywhere you look.

Just because a developer is unhappy does not necessarily mean there is a system failure. Also, does not mean there is NOT a system failure. You need to be cautious. Sometimes planning working properly will result in a developer not being allowed to do what they want. It is not about satisfying the land owners every wish, it is about achieving outcomes.


Planning perfection for its own sake is not the objective here. The objective ought to be getting the bombed-out downtown less bombed-out. I get Gary's criticism of Reznick - sitting on the Roy Bldg for so long makes an entire block look like Detroit, especially when the other side has been under construction forever by the same developer. The same problem with the awful NFB/Khyber.empty lot stretch - simply disgraceful. Council should be doing whatever it takes to get developers moving, not sitting back and saying "we've got a good process, deal with it".

[Drybrain]

Both have access to large sums of money and both own significant real estate in the downtown core. Those are the people that Council should be bowing and scraping to, doing everything in their power to get them to build something. Unlike Vancouver, we do not have construction happening everywhere you look.


Council shouldn't be bowing and scraping to anyone. Waye is right--developers in every city everywhere in the world complain about the approvals process, just as residents in every neighbourhood in every city in the world can turn NIMBY in an instant when a project they don't like springs up on their block. Council should do more to facilitate and encourage development, but fast-tracking developments that aren't good enough isn't in the city's long-term interest.


Planning perfection for its own sake is not the objective here. The objective ought to be getting the bombed-out downtown less bombed-out. I get Gary's criticism of Reznick - sitting on the Roy Bldg for so long makes an entire block look like Detroit, especially when the other side has been under construction forever by the same developer. The same problem with the awful NFB/Khyber.empty lot stretch - simply disgraceful. Council should be doing whatever it takes to get developers moving, not sitting back and saying "we've got a good process, deal with it".


Again, downtown isn't bombed out. PLEASE go to Detroit.Once you see Detroit with your own eyes, you will never draw a Halifax-Motown comparison ever again.

But yes, you're right that more can be done on the city's part to encourage better and quicker development. BUT, that doesn't mean rubber stamping whatever Danny Chedrawe or Gary Hurst or anyone else want to build without casting a critical eye.

[someone123]

Council shouldn't be bowing and scraping to anyone. Waye is right--developers in every city everywhere in the world complain about the approvals process, just as residents in every neighbourhood in every city in the world can turn NIMBY in an instant when a project they don't like springs up on their block.

Complaining usually isn't related to whether or not somebody's getting a "fair" deal (note that "fair" is inherently subjective anyway), it's related to whether or not they think they can get a better deal, regardless of how good their current arrangement is. Private developers and NIMBYs will push until they get their way 100% of the time. San Francisco, NIMBY central, was down to a net increase of a couple hundred units in 2011 for a city with almost a million people.

The CRTC and cellular providers are a great example of the same phenomenon -- any attempt to reform the industry is met with opposition, even though it is much more heavily slanted against consumers in Canada than in other countries.

The gold standard when it comes to tracking the success of a development process is to look at how much construction is happening. Halifax has been seeing a lot of construction lately. The per capita value of building permits is actually in the same ballpark now as Vancouver, and this likely translates into a lot more building when you correct for the difference in housing prices.

[halifaxboyns]

Just to put some of the fights about HRM's evolution - have a look at this (http://youtu.be/oeeeKsuUGTg). Bet you never expected some of the comments coming out of this meeting to be people in Vancouver!

[halifaxboyns]

Interview on Global TV Morning about sprawl - here (http://globalnews.ca/video/627749/stopping-sprawl-in-hrm?utm_source=facebook-twitter&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=community&app_data=%7B%22pi%22%3A%2251b61246df0a5cfb1b000010%22%2C%22pt%22%3A%22wall%22%7D)

[Drybrain]

Just to put some of the fights about HRM's evolution - have a look at this (http://youtu.be/oeeeKsuUGTg). Bet you never expected some of the comments coming out of this meeting to be people in Vancouver!

Oh, despite the reputation within the city, Haligonians aren't remotely the best at being NIMBYs.

This weekend in Toronto, a bunch west-enders hosted a ludicrous performance-art "Suitman" sit-in (http://vimeo.com/68004963) to protest a SIX-STOREY building which they feel will destroy the creative vibe of their neighbourhood—which is really just a strip of restaurants and expensive clothing boutiques anyway, and not remotely the "creative soul" of the city, as one of them is fond of claiming. (The video description says they're "demanding" development, but it's supposed to be ironic. )

They're protesting gentrification and overdevelopment, despite that most of them are white-collar white folks who are, themselves, the gentrifiers of five to ten years ago, many of whom own homes far more costly than the condos will be.

I'd like to see Phil Pacey pull off this kind of stunt. The unholy meeting place of extreme NIMBYism, neighbourhood parochialism, and, in this case, a younger crowd who dig stuff like flash mobs.

[halifaxboyns]

Part of the issue people have with urban planning is that they don't take note of the notices in the community, newspapers (etc) when any type of community visioning is happening, so they don't get involved. But the moment some application comes along next to them (often implementing a vision approved by council, which hardly had any community interest) all hell breaks loose. This is a constant problem...

As a planner, I don't know what the solution to that is? Do we need to think about engaging people in different ways? Social media obviously helps to an extent, but is there another way?

One of the things that impressed me with the recent PlanSJ project was how they not only had their project office in a retail space in the downtown core of Saint John, but every festival that was happening in the city - they went too. They took out booths to engage people. Maybe that's part of the solution? But do I think that we will ever fully solve this problem - common sense says probably not.

[W.Sobchak]

Being in SJ while they were putting PlanSJ together, it was very much in the middle of a high traffic area. It is just before the pedway that connects the Hilton, Museum, Convention Centre, 3 popular restaurants, a lounge all a part of the city's festival centre boardwalk, a couple small retail spaces and offices, with the Mall, swimming centre, a Delta, City Hall, tons of parking, and the city Market. Somebody from every neighborhood walked by it every day, and were engaged to at least have look. And people talked about it.

For Halifax? A raffle. If you can offer a prize at the end of each meeting, be it a $100 voucher for DT, or a 50/50 for a charity. That's the first thought I had.

[someone123]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1136737-panel-downtown-on-rise

Good to hear Wadih Fares' comment about taxing parking lots. Right now the tax system downtown is backwards -- HRM charges lower taxes for surface parking even though it is the least-desirable permitted land use. An ideal fix to this would be to raise the surface lot taxes so that they are higher than the taxes of mid-sized or heritage buildings and then redistribute that tax money to developed properties.

The taxes collected from meters downtown should similarly be re-invested in the area. HRM collects about $3M from parking meters each year.

[halifaxboyns]

I agree. His comments were great for starting the discussion on downtown. Still so much work to do. Much like dt Calgary out here. I'm no on day 3 of being a refuge in my friends basement. The city offices are closed until at least Wednesday! The water just reached the edge of my building...


http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1136737-panel-downtown-on-rise

Good to hear Wadih Fares' comment about taxing parking lots. Right now the tax system downtown is backwards -- HRM charges lower taxes for surface parking even though it is the least-desirable permitted land use. An ideal fix to this would be to raise the surface lot taxes so that they are higher than the taxes of mid-sized or heritage buildings and then redistribute that tax money to developed properties.

The taxes collected from meters downtown should similarly be re-invested in the area. HRM collects about $3M from parking meters each year.