General Updates and News

[someone123]

Our intention is to use the space in a way that is financially sustainable, environmentally sensitive and for the good of our community.

I really dislike vacuous feel-good statements like this.

There's nothing particularly financially sustainable about demolishing a school and then turning it into a vegetable garden. It's also not particularly great environmentally to use valuable central land in the city for something like farming - what happens when you do this is that you spread everything out and people have to travel farther. I'm guessing the land's also not particularly great for agriculture, so suddenly they're buying and trucking in soil and fertilizer and so on.

Saying that something is "for the good of our community" is totally meaningless.

[bluenoser]

I feel like this is pretty meaningless but I'm posting it anyway...

Study: Urban core needs investment
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1190824.html

[JustinMacD]

I think the longterm plan for the QEH space is for an addition to the hospital so you can't really build high density there.. even though it would be an ideal place for a high rise.

This place is a joke. I actually screamed at the TV when Watts was bashing the widening of Bayers Road.

HEY LADY! Maybe if you guys actually approved high density in the city we wouldn't have to worry about this! Your goal of pushing everyone out of the city to the suburbs means you have to widen roads in order for them to get to work!

[MonctonRad]

I really dislike vacuous feel-good statements like this.

There's nothing particularly financially sustainable about demolishing a school and then turning it into a vegetable garden. It's also not particularly great environmentally to use valuable central land in the city for something like farming - what happens when you do this is that you spread everything out and people have to travel farther. I'm guessing the land's also not particularly great for agriculture, so suddenly they're buying and trucking in soil and fertilizer and so on.

Saying that something is "for the good of our community" is totally meaningless.

Well, to be fair, they are really just keeping the land in reserve untill it is needed for future hospital expansion. This will occur sometime in the next 10 years or so. The old VGH site badly needs a nuclear device to be planted somewhere in it's basement. Before the VGH is imploded however, they will need to make up at least (partial) capacity somewhere else first. I imagine they would expand the Infirmary before they detonate the VG.

So, this land won't remain vacant forever. In the meantime, if they want to plant vegetables there, that's OK with me. :)

I do agree though, the language they used in their press release did seem awfully touchy-feely. :yuck:

[fenwick16]

I feel like this is pretty meaningless but I'm posting it anyway...

Study: Urban core needs investment
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1190824.html

Yeah, what's the point? We all know what the problem is - there is just too much red tape unless developers want to restore heritage buildings with little financial incentive. (do they really need a committee to realize that).

[fenwick16]

More talk about refining the Dartmouth viewplanes and adding new ones according to allnovascotia.com. It states that recent developments such as the $300 million dollar King's Wharf is creating pressure to fine tune the viewplanes bylaws and possibly add new ones.

What is going on in the HRM? Why are developers treated like the enemy for spending money in the Halifax area? My biggest question is - why do anti-development councillors keep getting elected? Do Nova Scotians enjoy moving away to Ontario and Alberta? As soon as development comes along there is more talk about putting a stop to it. :???:

[fenwick16]

Looks like the vote passed. Apparently the amendment needs a public hearing and then there will be more for the development around Oct-Dec, then maybe more votes, appeals, and finally by 2030 Barrington will just be a pile of rubble and this won't be so much of an issue.

Sad to say that I'm really happy to have moved to Vancouver. Every time I go back I am disappointed by how little changes. Halifax is mostly spinning its wheels, at least when it comes to the downtown area.

It is sad. I started following Halifax area developments about 3 years ago when Halifax was awarded the Commonwealth Games bid. However, from following the Nova Scotia area news closely over the past 3 years, it seems that as soon as development and money starts flowing into Nova Scotia, then councillors and provincial politicians start thinking of ways to stop it. The only way these people will learn, is if they are the ones who are unable to find work and must move away. Maybe in the next municipal election (2012), it will finally be the time when residents send some of them packing (look out Ontario and Alberta). Maybe after living out of the province for 10 - 20 years some of them will understand how progressive cities function. Actually, all they have to do is move to Moncton for 10 - 20 years (although I personally would send them to Siberia).

My apologies for my negativism, I really want to see the Halifax area do well, but these backward thinking politicians really peeve me.

PS: Am I missing something. Are some councillors against highrise buildings because they are concerned with residents getting stuck in the case of fire? Is there a good reason? I don't see this sentiment in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and Hamilton. All of these cities have their share of 1960's and 1970's highrise concrete bunkers but they didn't become obsessively opposed to highrises.

[halifaxboyns]

CBC late-night ran a brief story about the viewplane change (along with Dan English's resignation).

Since there is already a viewplane thread, I will post the link there.

[JustinMacD]

It is sad. I started following Halifax area developments about 3 years ago when Halifax was awarded the Commonwealth Games bid. However, from following the Nova Scotia area news closely over the past 3 years, it seems that as soon as development and money starts flowing into Nova Scotia, then councillors and provincial politicians start thinking of ways to stop it. The only way these people will learn, is if they are the ones who are unable to find work and must move away. Maybe in the next municipal election (2012), it will finally be the time when residents send some of them packing (look out Ontario and Alberta). Maybe after living out of the province for 10 - 20 years some of them will understand how progressive cities function. Actually, all they have to do is move to Moncton for 10 - 20 years (although I personally would send them to Siberia).

My apologies for my negativism, I really want to see the Halifax area do well, but these backward thinking politicians really peeve me.

PS: Am I missing something. Are some councillors against highrise buildings because they are concerned with residents getting stuck in the case of fire? Is there a good reason? I don't see this sentiment in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and Hamilton. All of these cities have their share of 1960's and 1970's highrise concrete bunkers but they didn't become obsessively opposed to highrises.

Not that many people vote in these municipal elections. If you started some time of grass-roots movement (Everyone from these types of sites + your friends, etc.) you might actually be able to impact the vote.

[beyeas]

HEY LADY! Maybe if you guys actually approved high density in the city we wouldn't have to worry about this! Your goal of pushing everyone out of the city to the suburbs means you have to widen roads in order for them to get to work!

:previous:

Bingo

[fenwick16]

Not that many people vote in these municipal elections. If you started some time of grass-roots movement (Everyone from these types of sites + your friends, etc.) you might actually be able to impact the vote.

Another way would be to determine which potentially new and current councillors are progressive thinkers and then do a networking campaign to help them get elected in 2012.

[Jonovision]

Downtown development finally gets its due


Fourteen years after amalgamation, Hali fax regional council has been dragged, kicking and screaming into making a priority of what’s left of the downtown core.

It’s a pity that it took so long.

And while it’s not clear that a report approved by councillors on Tuesday is anything more than window-dressing, it at least provides hope and a potential vehicle for change.

The staff report calls for the creation of a decision-making body to deal with the downtown. It pulled no punches. It out lines the benefits a vibrant downtown core could bring to the entire region and warned of looming decline if no action is taken.

“Simply put, strategic urban invest ment creates regional prosperity," says the report. “A healthy urban core is the most powerful tool available for address ing the financial and environmental challenges facing all cities.

“A vital urban core creates the finan cial strength necessary to provide amen ities and services to all communities within a city region."

Council adopted the recommendations in the report, which include creating a group called the Strategic Urban Part nership that will include representatives from three levels of government, busi ness and other groups. The partnership will be tasked to “encourage" investment and development in urban initiatives.

But terms of reference for the group have yet to be drafted and it’s not clear how much clout it will have in terms of directing or making recommendations on spending decisions.

Getting Halifax regional council to at least endorse the partnership is a good first step, however. The staff report, filled with refreshingly blunt language, left very little political wiggle room for a regional government that has too often been divided by parochialism and local interests.

The result, in a region where down town councillors on both sides of the harbour have been heavily outnumbered by their suburban and rural counterparts, has been years of neglect. Boarded win dows, empty lots and an outmigration of residents are evident throughout what used to be known as “main" streets.

The Halifax region is hardly original in experiencing this situation. The regional core — which the report defines as pen insular Halifax and downtown Dart mouth — “is not positioned as a strategic economic asset by the municipal, pro vincial or federal levels of government.

“As a result, it has missed out on eco nomic development opportunities that would have benefitted all residents. Be cause its population is either stagnant or in decline, because businesses are strug gling and because several major ap proved developments have not proceed ed, the Regional Centre is at risk of ‘hol lowing out.’ “If we want it to be more like down town Boston (dense, liveable and pros perous) rather than like downtown De troit (hollowed-out, in decline) then expedient action is required," says the report.

The document also dispels a few myths about regional attitudes towards the downtown. It points out that redevel opment of the downtown was chosen as being among the top five capital project priorities in the 2010 citizens survey undertaken by the regional government.

It also noted than a large, region-wide survey by the Greater Halifax Partnership showed that 66 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement, “HRM spends too much money on downtown Halifax," while only 21 per cent agreed with it.

Results from a Conference Board of Canada report from 2006 are also in cluded in the report. The board’s report concludes that, compared to nine region al city centres across the country, the downtown core of the Halifax region is “under-funded."

The blueprint approved by council this week provides a means by which devel opment in the downtown core could be encouraged, rather than frustrated. It suggests a three-tier, decision-making body that could identify, approve and initiate projects to revitalize the economy in the urban core.

Residents can hope that the current council has the leadership, through clear and powerful terms of reference, to give this partnership the teeth it needs to be successful. After years of neglect, which must be laid directly at the feet of region al councils over the past decade, this capital plan is at least a start towards a thriving, vibrant downtown core that will bring benefits to the entire region.

(mstephenson@herald.ca)

[JustinMacD]

"Getting Halifax regional council to at least endorse the partnership is a good first step, however. The staff report, filled with refreshingly blunt language, left very little political wiggle room for a regional government that has too often been divided by parochialism and local interests."

lol

I need to see this report.

[JustinMacD]

The document also dispels a few myths about regional attitudes towards the downtown. It points out that redevel opment of the downtown was chosen as being among the top five capital project priorities in the 2010 citizens survey undertaken by the regional government.

It also noted than a large, region-wide survey by the Greater Halifax Partnership showed that 66 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement, “HRM spends too much money on downtown Halifax," while only 21 per cent agreed with it.


What a joke. It's amazing how much stock people put into the words of goofs like Pacey and all of these destructive councillors. Most people realize how important a vibrant downtown core is but the anti-development folk are louder and gain most of the attention.

The propaganda from these anti-development trolls needs to stop.

[MonctonRad]

Getting Halifax regional council to at least endorse the partnership is a good first step, however. The staff report, filled with refreshingly blunt language, left very little political wiggle room for a regional government that has too often been divided by parochialism and local interests.

The result, in a region where down town councillors on both sides of the harbour have been heavily outnumbered by their suburban and rural counterparts, has been years of neglect. Boarded win dows, empty lots and an outmigration of residents are evident throughout what used to be known as “main" streets.

Well put.

I have long felt that HRM is a bastard child that is far too large geographically and has too too many competing political agendas. The net result is political and institutional paralysis.

A new "City of Halifax" should be formed, consisting of "old" Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford, Sackville and whatever parts of the commuter watershed that make sense. Hopefully there would be some commonality of purpose in this new political entity that would allow it to avoid being as dysfunctional as the current monstrosity is.

Let the County of Halifax fend for itself...............long live the new City of Halifax!! :tup:

[Keith P.]

I really dislike vacuous feel-good statements like this.

Saying that something is "for the good of our community" is totally meaningless.

But "...it's the right thing to do". :yuck:

Talk about vacuous feel-good intellectually lazy bullshit, that catch phrase drives me crazy. Don't tell me what the right thing to do is, I can render that judgment myself, thankyouverymuch.

[sdm]

Downtown development finally gets its due


Fourteen years after amalgamation, Hali fax regional council has been dragged, kicking and screaming into making a priority of what’s left of the downtown core.

It’s a pity that it took so long.

And while it’s not clear that a report approved by councillors on Tuesday is anything more than window-dressing, it at least provides hope and a potential vehicle for change.

The staff report calls for the creation of a decision-making body to deal with the downtown. It pulled no punches. It out lines the benefits a vibrant downtown core could bring to the entire region and warned of looming decline if no action is taken.

“Simply put, strategic urban invest ment creates regional prosperity," says the report. “A healthy urban core is the most powerful tool available for address ing the financial and environmental challenges facing all cities.

“A vital urban core creates the finan cial strength necessary to provide amen ities and services to all communities within a city region."

Council adopted the recommendations in the report, which include creating a group called the Strategic Urban Part nership that will include representatives from three levels of government, busi ness and other groups. The partnership will be tasked to “encourage" investment and development in urban initiatives.

But terms of reference for the group have yet to be drafted and it’s not clear how much clout it will have in terms of directing or making recommendations on spending decisions.

Getting Halifax regional council to at least endorse the partnership is a good first step, however. The staff report, filled with refreshingly blunt language, left very little political wiggle room for a regional government that has too often been divided by parochialism and local interests.

The result, in a region where down town councillors on both sides of the harbour have been heavily outnumbered by their suburban and rural counterparts, has been years of neglect. Boarded win dows, empty lots and an outmigration of residents are evident throughout what used to be known as “main" streets.

The Halifax region is hardly original in experiencing this situation. The regional core — which the report defines as pen insular Halifax and downtown Dart mouth — “is not positioned as a strategic economic asset by the municipal, pro vincial or federal levels of government.

“As a result, it has missed out on eco nomic development opportunities that would have benefitted all residents. Be cause its population is either stagnant or in decline, because businesses are strug gling and because several major ap proved developments have not proceed ed, the Regional Centre is at risk of ‘hol lowing out.’ “If we want it to be more like down town Boston (dense, liveable and pros perous) rather than like downtown De troit (hollowed-out, in decline) then expedient action is required," says the report.

The document also dispels a few myths about regional attitudes towards the downtown. It points out that redevel opment of the downtown was chosen as being among the top five capital project priorities in the 2010 citizens survey undertaken by the regional government.

It also noted than a large, region-wide survey by the Greater Halifax Partnership showed that 66 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement, “HRM spends too much money on downtown Halifax," while only 21 per cent agreed with it.

Results from a Conference Board of Canada report from 2006 are also in cluded in the report. The board’s report concludes that, compared to nine region al city centres across the country, the downtown core of the Halifax region is “under-funded."

The blueprint approved by council this week provides a means by which devel opment in the downtown core could be encouraged, rather than frustrated. It suggests a three-tier, decision-making body that could identify, approve and initiate projects to revitalize the economy in the urban core.

Residents can hope that the current council has the leadership, through clear and powerful terms of reference, to give this partnership the teeth it needs to be successful. After years of neglect, which must be laid directly at the feet of region al councils over the past decade, this capital plan is at least a start towards a thriving, vibrant downtown core that will bring benefits to the entire region.

(mstephenson@herald.ca)


What is the downtown councilors history of voting on development applications?

I can only count one time they approved a development, which was emera's power station redevelop, of which was as of right development and didn't require council approval. I can quickly count no less then seven developments that have recieved "no" votes from the councilor from the area. So was bugs me is when the councilor for the area say in the local media that they want condo developers and businesses to develop downtown, yet they have voted almost every project to come to council in that area down.

Therefore council can only blame itself for the state of affairs downtown is in as a number of these developments could have gone ahead if they didn't require such a length approval process.

Coupled with this is councils allowance of massive density to be outside the core in places like clayton park and bedford to be developed.

As much as i like this paper, its contents and thoughts, i believe we need more action and less paper. Real estate development is market driven, miss the market demands and things get put on hold. Therefore time is of the esence and council should not be waiting six months to hear from the review.

[terrynorthend]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to eat anything grown on what was Queen Elizabeth High School. The beginning of that news article about its demolition suggested that the contractors had a huge job ahead of them, remediating the site before they even pulled down a single wall.

[DigitalNinja]

I am currently in Shanghai, and by god this city is amazing, after seeing what the Chinese can do with a city which was decrepit, and turning it into a vibrant living neighborhood with high technology and infrastructure where it counts is something that it seems like Halifax will never be able to do.

[fenwick16]

I am currently in Shanghai, and by god this city is amazing, after seeing what the Chinese can do with a city which was decrepit, and turning it into a vibrant living neighborhood with high technology and infrastructure where it counts is something that it seems like Halifax will never be able to do.

Maybe once Halifax is a decrepit, hollowed out city then the people preventing development will finally realize the problem with their strategy. The heritage buildings will be crumbling also since there won't be any money to renovate them.

[JustinMacD]

I am currently in Shanghai, and by god this city is amazing, after seeing what the Chinese can do with a city which was decrepit, and turning it into a vibrant living neighborhood with high technology and infrastructure where it counts is something that it seems like Halifax will never be able to do.

The Chinese will surpass everyone in no time. Beijing has a horrible rep for pollution but they've introduced some of the most environmentally friendly transit systems in the world.

They are innovative and DON'T JUST SIT AROUND SMELLING THE ROSES. They plan for the future and understand how important it is to have a leg up on your competition.

If the councillors of Halifax actually cared, this city could be a power house. Beautiful natural scenery, a good port, great universities.. All of this business going to Moncton and other cities would probably be coming here if they actually made an effort to cater to business people.

I look at a place like Membertou, the native reserve outside of Sydney. That place was a SHITHOLE. An absolute DUMP 10 years ago... And then they brought in a few smart business leaders (Terry Paul, Bern Christmas) and the place took off. Honest to god, you want to see development in NS.. go to Membertou. Beautiful new buildings popping up every month. Lots of jobs for the natives. It's incredible. All it took was leadership from a few guys with BUSINESS connections and BUSINESS smarts. They have private financing from all kinds of large investment firms.. they're ISO certfied.. It's incredible.

STOP ELECTING LAWYERS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE MAJORS. ELECT BUSINESSMEN.

[sdm]

Maybe once Halifax is a decrepit, hollowed out city then the people preventing development will finally realize the problem with their strategy. The heritage buildings will be crumbling also since there won't be any money to renovate them.

Well with the recent news of the offshore development coming to a halt this province better get its act together because if there is no new development then 1 royalities paid will decline, 2) jobs will suffer, 3) these organizations will not be required to have large offices here and therefore shed lots of space, and therefore compromise new developments.

Its time for some leadership around here.

[fenwick16]

STOP ELECTING LAWYERS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE MAJORS. ELECT BUSINESSMEN.

EXACTLY, that is what Halifax needs! I hope in the coming elections there will be that option of electing businessmen and technical people.

Halifax has lost another CAO in Dan English because the councillors wouldn't vote to extend his contract. So now they don't know who they will get (they have forced 3 CAO's out in the past 14 years - that certainly hasn't helped the city).

I wonder if Halifax could get the CAO that they ousted 10 years ago who said that dealing with the city councillors was "like herding seagulls" (I like his style). If the council could be reduced to 15 councillors then there would only be 15 to herd (and a few of them are probably intelligent enough to make rational decisions without an inteligent CAO).

[sdm]

EXACTLY, that is what Halifax needs! I hope in the coming elections there will be that option of electing businessmen and technical people.

Halifax has lost another CAO in Dan English because the councillors wouldn't vote to extend his contract. So now they don't know who they will get (they have forced 3 CAO's out in the past 14 years - that certainly hasn't helped the city).

I wonder if Halifax could get the CAO that they ousted 10 years ago who said that dealing with the city councillors was "like herding seagulls" (I like his style). If the council could be reduced to 15 councillors then there would only be 15 to herd (and a few of them are probably intelligent enough to make rational decisions without an inteligent CAO).

The individual you speak of is George McLellan who now runs Medavie EMS and is likely never to return to public service. He was by far one of the best at what he did during his turn at the helm.

George did leave early for the what i believe will be the same reasons we will eventually become known as to why Mr. English left early.

[DigitalNinja]

That's what I don't understand, they want to protect the heritage, and by protecting it seems the city means "Lets leave it until they all fall down instead of putting something nice up that would bring money to halifax."

[Jonovision]

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2010
Barrington Street poised for major makeover
Property owners take advantage of $1.2 million in historic preservation funding
POSTED BY TIM BOUSQUET ON TUE, JUL 6, 2010 AT 9:19 AM

http://www.thecoast.ca/imager/barrington-street-poised-for-major-makeover/b/original/1715173/3764/Picture_1.png

So much for Barrington Street as urban wasteland: Fully nine properties on the street have applied for funding to help rebuild building facades. And city staff is recommending that Halifax council provide the building owners with $200,000 in grant money and just over a million dollars in tax credits to make the renovations become reality. Council will vote on that recommendation today.
The projects recommended for funding are as follows:

Former National Film Board building (1572 Barrington): This is part of Costa Elles' and Chris Tzaneteas' project for the block stretching up to The Argyle on Argyle Street. Plans for the entire block have not been finalized, but the NFB portion of it will include commercial use on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors. The existing NFB facade will be restored (the building behind the facade was destroyed in a fire some years ago). Staff is recommending that this project receive a $100,000 grant and $376,625 in tax credits.

Sam The Record Man (the "red" Harrison building portion of it, 1652 Barrington): Owned by Louis Reznick's Starfish Properties, this project has the first approved by the new HRM By Design planning rules. There will be a one-storey addition set back from the street, with retail on street level and office space above. Staff is recommending a $90,602 and $114,079 in tax credits.

Same The Record Man (the "grey" Canada Permanent Trust portion of it, 1656 Barrington. Same project as the red portion. Staff recommends a $9,398 grant and $130,338 in tax credits.

The Farquahar building (with Venus Pizza at ground level, 1558 Barrington): This will be incorporated into the NFB/Argyle project above. Staff recommends $204,778 in tax credits.

Granite Brewery building (1662 Barrington): part of the Starfish project with Sam The Record Man. Staff recommends $157,273 in tax credits.

Nova Scotia Furnishings/Telus building (1668 Barrington): another Starfish property. Staff recommends $25,493 in tax credits for facade restoration.

Barnder Morris/Attica building (1566 Barrington): Also a Starfish property, staff recommends a $4,585 tax credit for facade restoration.

GM Smith/Girly Boutique building (1717 Barrington): Yet another Starfish property. Staff recommends $3,991 in tax credits.

The Tramway building (1598 Barrington). This is the former Frozen Ocean site. Brother and sister Christian and Heather Rankin are renting the ground floor and will soon open the Obladee Wine Bar (I'll have more on this in Shoptalk next week). They've been recommended for $1,524 in tax credits for constructing a wooden entry into the space.

See a bigger version of the map
http://www.thecoast.ca/general/pdfs/Barrington%20Map.pdf


The investment by both building owners and the city underscores a new positive attitude about Barrington. The grant money comes straight out of the city budget, and the tax credits are recorded as a loss for budget purposes, but clearly the projects will result in higher assessments, both for the particular projects and on the street generally, so they'll likely result in an increase, not a decrease, in tax revenue over time.

The heritage incentive program that makes the funds available is part of HRM By Design, which created a Barrington Historic District in part for the purpose of funding facade restoration.

There's no guarantee that the projects will actually get built. (Grants and tax credits are to be awarded after completion) and council today may change the formula for funding. If so, I'll update this post.

[coolmillion]

^ great news about Barrington. It's about time the city ponied up some funding. I really hope Starfish properties can get its act together upgrade and renovate in a timely fashion.
Regarding the previous mentions of the wonders of development in Chinese cities: I would hesitate to look to Chinese cities as examplars of planning and development for several reasons, but chiefly because of authoritarian political regime. Entire neighbourhoods are decimated (yes, they may be "decrepit", but are vibrant communities) and residents rehoused in faceless towers, often far from the places they frequent and transit options, without proper compensation. The worst is that they have absolutely no say in the matter and would be arrested if they tried to organize or speak out. Another reminder - the people driving development in China are the hundreds of millions of workers who make ipod parts and plastic toys for a pittance. Also around half of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China and this isn't going to change any time soon, in spite of green transit options.
I'm in Hong Kong right now where, interestingly and in contrast to the mainland, there is an amazingly vibrant social movement focused on, among other things, slowing down development, making better planning and design decisions and preserving older areas of the city.

[Keith P.]

I would hesitate to look to Chinese cities as examplars of planning and development for several reasons, but chiefly because of authoritarian political regime. Entire neighbourhoods are decimated (yes, they may be "decrepit", but are vibrant communities) and residents rehoused in faceless towers, often far from the places they frequent and transit options, without proper compensation. The worst is that they have absolutely no say in the matter and would be arrested if they tried to organize or speak out.

Ah, but the planning professionals must be so pleased... there is still a place where East Germany's planning principles as taught in planning school can be applied, and commie blocks can still be built.

With apologies to Shakespeare, "First thing we do, let's kill all the planners."

[planarchy]

I am currently in Shanghai, and by god this city is amazing, after seeing what the Chinese can do with a city which was decrepit, and turning it into a vibrant living neighborhood with high technology and infrastructure where it counts is something that it seems like Halifax will never be able to do.

Comparing the development of Shanghai to any North American city is ridiculous. Shanghai is built on the backs of millions of poor people who are not even permitted to move into the city. Shanghai is novelty city built to convey an image of China as a county of power and progress, and direct attention away from all their other problems.

Don't get me wrong, Shanghai is a great place to visit for the spectacle alone, but its development is anything but normal - it's actually completely artificial. If we want to look to other cities for examples of what CAN be done in regards to public transit, service infrastructure, high-quality building practices and urban design standards, we should probably avoid looking anywhere is Asia! I'd start with west coast of NA, Scandinavian countries, and parts of western Europe - France, Netherlands, Belgium in particular - where we share common challenges, similar climates and cultural norms.

Edit: Didn't see Coolmillion's post - similar thoughts. These aren't the urban utopia's that they are often shown to be.

[planarchy]

Ah, but the planning professionals must be so pleased... there is still a place where East Germany's planning principles as taught in planning school can be applied, and commie blocks can still be built.


Vietnam is no different. First year courses in university in any degree program still include Communist Theory and Ideology. Foreign universities with satellite campuses there are also required to include it in their curriculum.

Master Plans for all cities in Vietnam are handed down from a central planning authority in Hanoi.

[DigitalNinja]

Kicking people off land is the same thing that Canada did in our stages of development, in the 50's and 60's (Maybe before that I dunno) People got moved off for development, my great grandfather was out in sackville, his house was where the cloverleaf is for bedford sackville, and he got pennies for his place but was forced to move.
Anyway my point was that they have their act together over here, if your going to kick 5000 people out of their homes for a better area for everyone else, it's best for the greatest number of people.
The place I'm staying at right now is one of those areas talked about as being older and "vibrant" It is the dirtiest part of the city. (Location is great though around all the places to go)
I dunno different thought processes I guess, business drives the Chinese cities, apparently failed lawyers and poli-sci majors rule ours with their own agenda for the few people who want to protect the not so magnificent buildings.

Just a side note about pollution, it might be bad other parts of the year, but I don't really notice much of a difference breathing between here and Halifax, I have bad asthma as well so I thought the pollution would bring that up but nothing.

I'm heading to Pudong tomorrow I'll get some pics for you guys to see the development here.

[JustinMacD]

So when will this Barrington fix-up begin? 2015?

[DigitalNinja]

Did it pass council? I kinda expect it not to, someone will bring up something like "Our old buildings should not be used as new store fronts"

[sdm]

So when will this Barrington fix-up begin? 2015?

If not later.

The biggest mistake council has done is not putting a reasonable expiry time on these grants. Whats the sense of giving a grant if it doesn't spur construction.

[Keith P.]

Wait for it - the save the Halifax Common's people will be on this one like White on Rice. They've already been upset with it everytime the Common's Master Plan comes up.


Good call. To what should be the surprise of absolutely nobody, the loonies are calling for exactly what you predicted:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1191464.html

In 2008, HRM swapped 269,000 square feet for 131,330 square feet of provincial land and agreed to pay $1.9 million to the province. This gave the Queen Elizabeth High School, located on Halifax Common land, to the provincial government for Capital Health’s new hospital development. The deal contravened the 1994 Halifax Common Plan whereby the city is to retain existing Common land and seek opportunities to recapture Common land.

The plan is specific about city-owned land in the Common being preserved largely as public open space and mentions the high school as a property to be returned to the city when declared surplus by the school board. At 5.5 acres, it is the largest parcel of land that could have reverted to the Common.

Friends of the Halifax Common (FHC) didn’t object to the Infirmary Emergency expansion, but wanted the balance of the QEHS lands to be retained. FHC presented scientifically validated evidence as to the importance of public open space for mental and physical health. FHC congratulates Capital Health on its first proposed use of the QEHS land — an urban farm. Not using any former QEHS lands for parking and dissuading HRM from the proposed widening of Bell Road by 38 feet would be important next steps.

Peggy Cameron, Co-chair,
Friends of Halifax Common


Where do these people come from? Why are they genetically opposed to any change?

[fenwick16]

Where do these people come from? Why are they genetically opposed to any change?

They think that they are saving the planet by trying to convert Halifax into parkland. They can't comprehend that Haligonians will then have to move elsewhere. So all they are doing is shifting the problem elsewhere (in my opinion, it isn't a problem). Why can't these people understand that the best place for people to live is in a scenic areas instead of trying to preserve scenic areas and have people move elsewhere? All of Nova Scotia is a very scenic area, so it makes sense to me to have 1/3 of the county of Halifax as a urban area and preserve the rest of the province. Such an urban area could probably hold 2 million people, at least, without being too crowded.

[kinkydawg]

They think that they are saving the planet by trying to convert Halifax into parkland. They can't comprehend that Haligonians will then have to move elsewhere. So all they are doing is shifting the problem elsewhere (in my opinion, it isn't a problem). Why can't these people understand that the best place for people to live is in a scenic areas instead of trying to preserve scenic areas and have people move elsewhere? All of Nova Scotia is a very scenic area, so it makes sense to me to have 1/3 of the county of Halifax as a urban area and preserve the rest of the province. Such an urban area could probably hold 2 million people, at least, without being too crowded.

I don't think converting Halifax into parkland is anyone's goal. I'd love to see Halifax become a bustling metropolis but I would hate to have to buy a car and drive or spend 2 hours on a bus to find some trees and fresh air. There can be something for everyone right downtown, a mix of urban density and parkland. Who gets displaced by turning the old QEH back into Commons?

[fenwick16]

I don't think converting Halifax into parkland is anyone's goal. I'd love to see Halifax become a bustling metropolis but I would hate to have to buy a car and drive or spend 2 hours on a bus to find some trees and fresh air. There can be something for everyone right downtown, a mix of urban density and parkland. Who gets displaced by turning the old QEH back into Commons?

The Province likely has intentions of developing it into an expanded health care facility which is just as important as more green space. I agree that there should be a good mix of parkland and urban land that can be developed. But restrictive height controls and excessive parkland does lead to a more spread out city that means more commuting for the residents. I think that there is a great deal of parkland in the HRM that is not well utilized. How about having easier access to McNab's Island and George's Island (hopefully George's Island will be ready in the next couple of years). Also having better access to Point Pleasant Park would be a plus (I don't think that there is a direct route from downtown).

[DigitalNinja]

The number 9 goes close to PPP

And using the argument about traveling to find parkland, when they want to just extend existing parkland is not a very good argument, what they need is more small parks not lots of big ones.

[someone123]

I don't think converting Halifax into parkland is anyone's goal. I'd love to see Halifax become a bustling metropolis but I would hate to have to buy a car and drive or spend 2 hours on a bus to find some trees and fresh air. There can be something for everyone right downtown, a mix of urban density and parkland. Who gets displaced by turning the old QEH back into Commons?

What's usually forgotten is that there is an opportunity cost to parkland - money used to buy the land could have been used for other things (the QEH property is worth millions) and the land itself could have been used for other development.

The problem with the current situation is that this area is already fully of underused and underdeveloped parkland. The Public Gardens are great but are closed for half the year. The Commons are very poorly organized and do not have good modern amenities. The Grand Parade was a parking lot until recently and is still poorly planned. Point Pleasant Park hasn't been improved much post-Juan. The list goes on...

It makes far more sense to improve what the city has than it does to acquire more land without any particular goal in mind, further stretching maintenance budgets.

[kinkydawg]

The number 9 goes close to PPP

And using the argument about traveling to find parkland, when they want to just extend existing parkland is not a very good argument, what they need is more small parks not lots of big ones.

The Province likely has intentions of developing it into an expanded health care facility which is just as important as more green space. I agree that there should be a good mix of parkland and urban land that can be developed. But restrictive height controls and excessive parkland does lead to a more spread out city that means more commuting for the residents. I think that there is a great deal of parkland in the HRM that is not well utilized. How about having easier access to McNab's Island and George's Island (hopefully George's Island will be ready in the next couple of years). Also having better access to Point Pleasant Park would be a plus (I don't think that there is a direct route from downtown).

It's fortunate that Manhattan had the will to protect it's parkland regardless of the money to be made, otherwise there'd be little or no Central Park. They could have built big sprawling schools and hospitals and bus shelters on it but someone long ago had the good sense and vision not to.
The Halifax Commons is hardly a big park anymore. We'll likely regret having built things on it once the Phil Paceys of this city are safely locked away in retirement homes or insane asylums and large towers are finally allowed to rise.

[Canadian_Bacon]

I don't get them to be honest. They don't like to see big buildings go up, but yet when big buildings go up it takes less space then a few smaller buildings. Thus making more land available to build a park.

I mean if you have 3 small buildings that house 500 people lets say. This takes up 3 pieces of land, lets say 1 acre each. Now, instead of that, lets say 1 large tower was built that housed those 500 people that took up an acre. Now you have those other 2 acre lots that can be used as something else... Like parkland. So why are they against bigger buildings... It seems like they contradict themselves to me.

They don't want to see big buildings go up, but yet they want more land for parks... This philosophy doesn't work.

[fenwick16]

It's fortunate that Manhattan had the will to protect it's parkland regardless of the money to be made, otherwise there'd be little or no Central Park. They could have built big sprawling schools and hospitals and bus shelters on it but someone long ago had the good sense and vision not to.
The Halifax Commons is hardly a big park anymore. We'll likely regret having built things on it once the Phil Paceys of this city are safely locked away in retirement homes or insane asylums and large towers are finally allowed to rise.

In Halifax, there is Point Pleasant Park, the Commons, and the Citadel just on peninsula land area which I am sure is smaller than the land area of Manhattan. I am sure that Halifax has a much higher number of green acres per person than Manhattan (likely on the order of 25 - 50 times more, my quick estimate).

Since you want to use Manhattan as a comparison, you must want to abolish height restrictions within the city?

[kinkydawg]

I don't get them to be honest. They don't like to see big buildings go up, but yet when big buildings go up it takes less space then a few smaller buildings. Thus making more land available to build a park.

I mean if you have 3 small buildings that house 500 people lets say. This takes up 3 pieces of land, lets say 1 acre each. Now, instead of that, lets say 1 large tower was built that housed those 500 people that took up an acre. Now you have those other 2 acre lots that can be used as something else... Like parkland. So why are they against bigger buildings... It seems like they contradict themselves to me.

They don't want to see big buildings go up, but yet they want more land for parks... This philosophy doesn't work.

Their skewed logic doesn't work for me either. I think they long for the sepia coloured days of yesteryear when they were young and buildings were still made of twigs. Maybe they fear if big buildings are built, Halifax will be instantly transformed into Toronto where they'll be trampled on the sidewalks. :koko:

[kinkydawg]

In Halifax, there is Point Pleasant Park, the Commons, and the Citadel just on peninsula land area which I am sure is smaller than the land area of Manhattan. I am sure that Halifax has a much higher number of green acres per person than Manhattan (likely on the order of 25 - 50 times more, my quick estimate).

Since you want to use Manhattan as a comparison, you must want to abolish height restrictions within the city?

You may be right, I haven't compared the stats on the two areas. Might be an intersting exercise.
Abolish height restrictions in Halifax? Oh hell, yeah.

[fenwick16]

I actually like having heritage buildings and lots of green space in Halifax. Even some reasonable height controls make sense. However, I would like to see more of a balance with more highrises like the Trillium and United Gulf Texpark towers permitted.

[kinkydawg]

The quality in some of these heritage buildings will never be matched today and they look great along side good contemporary architecture. I'm not sure about the purpose of these arbitrary height restrictions, aside from making sure the Dartmouth refinery is visable from the Hill. Would enjoy seeing the Trillium and Twisted Sisters grow taller. The skyline is looking like some massive lawn mower cut it off at about 85m.

[beyeas]

In Halifax, there is Point Pleasant Park, the Commons, and the Citadel just on peninsula land area which I am sure is smaller than the land area of Manhattan. I am sure that Halifax has a much higher number of green acres per person than Manhattan (likely on the order of 25 - 50 times more, my quick estimate).

Since you want to use Manhattan as a comparison, you must want to abolish height restrictions within the city?

On the other hand I would bet that the % of parkland in NYC on an acreage basis is higher there than in Halifax!

To me the relavent part of that comparison is more simply the fact that building height/density saves parkland (as others have noted) as evidenced by all kinds of other cities, NYC included, and that really is the part that seems to get missed by the Save the Whateva folks.

[JustinMacD]

If anyone cares, the re-design of the main entrance area of SMU has really taken off. It's going to look great once it's all finished. The whole front lawn is dug up right now and the new design looks completely different. Much more open and welcoming whereas the old front lawn was pretty ugly.

I think after they finish this, they're starting a parking garage in the parking lot on the corner of Inglis/Robie.

I also saw a few of the campus planners looking over the old TESL building on Inglis/Tower this morning as well. I'm hoping that this building comes down and it makes way for a bigger one. When you think about it, that's basically like the most visible corner of SMU. I'd also assume that the new parking garage would allow them to tear up a lot of the existing parking lots to build some new academic buildings and the new rink.

[kph06]

There was a drill rig on the Cunard site between Bishops landing and the new NSP offices. I couldn't stare too long or I would have crossed the yellow lane and caused an accident, so I didn't catch the name of the company doing the work. Looked to me like they were taking core samples for geotech work. Maybe the WDCL will be looking at this site sooner rather than later.

[someone123]

Here's a comparison of Manhattan and Halifax from Google Earth:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5553/parkscomparenychali.png

Central Park is much larger but Manhattan is obviously much more built up. Like I said, I think it would be nice for Halifax to have more parks but they aren't needed by the Commons - small parks distributed throughout the city would be more useful.

There's also lots of room to improve existing parks. The Public Gardens are pretty well-maintained but most of the others are not.

The Cunard site "conceptual design" has been mentioned for a while on the WDCL website. Not sure how far off development would actually be.

[DigitalNinja]

Here's a comparison of Manhattan and Halifax from Google Earth:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5553/parkscomparenychali.png

Central Park is much larger but Manhattan is obviously much more built up. Like I said, I think it would be nice for Halifax to have more parks but they aren't needed by the Commons - small parks distributed throughout the city would be more useful.

There's also lots of room to improve existing parks. The Public Gardens are pretty well-maintained but most of the others are not.

The Cunard site "conceptual design" has been mentioned for a while on the WDCL website. Not sure how far off development would actually be.

I agree 100% more small parks would be nice than adding onto the commons.

[fenwick16]

Here's a comparison of Manhattan and Halifax from Google Earth:

Central Park is much larger but Manhattan is obviously much more built up. Like I said, I think it would be nice for Halifax to have more parks but they aren't needed by the Commons - small parks distributed throughout the city would be more useful.

There's also lots of room to improve existing parks. The Public Gardens are pretty well-maintained but most of the others are not.

The Cunard site "conceptual design" has been mentioned for a while on the WDCL website. Not sure how far off development would actually be.


Thanks for the image for comparison. I started doing a compilation of the acreage for each but then gave up. Central Park in Manhattan was 843 acres whereas the acreage for Point Pleasant Park was around 240 acres, the Commons was 200 acres (although it doesn't look that big) and I couldn't find the acreage for the Citadel and many other small parks. I was too lazy to do a complete total. But I agree with the idea of several smaller parks.

[fairviewdude]

What's usually forgotten is that there is an opportunity cost to parkland - money used to buy the land could have been used for other things (the QEH property is worth millions) and the land itself could have been used for other development.

The problem with the current situation is that this area is already fully of underused and underdeveloped parkland. The Public Gardens are great but are closed for half the year. The Commons are very poorly organized and do not have good modern amenities. The Grand Parade was a parking lot until recently and is still poorly planned. Point Pleasant Park hasn't been improved much post-Juan. The list goes on...

It makes far more sense to improve what the city has than it does to acquire more land without any particular goal in mind, further stretching maintenance budgets.

Don't Forget that the land QEH stands on was part of the Commons way back when.
Personally, I feel that it would be a waste of space to make that site parkland, when literally across the street is parkland. If it is to be developed as a hospital, then maybe incorporate some sort of healing gardens. I suspect patients and staff would find that very appealing and quite likely have some positive health impacts.

[Keith P.]

If it is to be developed as a hospital, then maybe incorporate some sort of healing gardens. I suspect patients and staff would find that very appealing and quite likely have some positive health impacts.

Plus, they could go there to smoke. ;)

[JET]

Plus, they could go there to smoke. ;)

Intere4sting that you should say that. The Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (in Toronto) have a reversal, in that they will be allowing some smoking areas on hospital grounds, rather than having patients/visitors/staff smoking on sidewalks and private and public property. I don't support smoking, but until the sale of cigarettes is banned.... JET

[hfxtradesman]

While I can remember, there is someone buying up property on Almon St from Robie up to Windsor on the same side.(across fom Can. Post). Maybe some new devp. in the next few years.

[worldlyhaligonian]

While I can remember, there is someone buying up property on Almon St from Robie up to Windsor on the same side.(across fom Can. Post). Maybe some new devp. in the next few years.

That is good news, that area along Almon could definitely become high density.

[bluenoser]

It could be the Gladstone Ridge developer? I remember talking to a manager there awhile ago and him mentioning that they would like to develop up to Almon.

On a side note, I used to really like that old Acadian Lines bus terminal on Almon but not so much these days.

[gmanupnorth]

Just wanted to chime in and see if anybody has any info on this development on Cedar Street

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/090428ca1113.pdf

Thanks in advance,


Gordon

[sdm]

It could be the Gladstone Ridge developer? I remember talking to a manager there awhile ago and him mentioning that they would like to develop up to Almon.

On a side note, I used to really like that old Acadian Lines bus terminal on Almon but not so much these days.

Its Danny Chedware who developed Gladstone who bought the CNIB building and has since tore it down and is going before the planning advisory board soon with their plans.

I believe the design is commercial and residential.

[halifaxboyns]

Its Danny Chedware who developed Gladstone who bought the CNIB building and has since tore it down and is going before the planning advisory board soon with their plans.

I believe the design is commercial and residential.

IT would certainly add to what he's already built.

[miesh111]

Just wanted to chime in and see if anybody has any info on this development on Cedar Street

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/090428ca1113.pdf

Thanks in advance,


Gordon


This is a proposal for TH's by Galaxy Properties (the people that own the old Cafe Chianti building that burnt recently). They have been cooperating with the neighbours trying to get somthing going that pleases everyone. They had a meeting at council about three months ago and were on TV. I believe they are now proceeding with this project. This was discussed earlier in the thread, but perhaps it warrants its own page now that they are going ahead?

[gmanupnorth]

Thanks for the info Miesh111

[alps]

Uh oh -- I think one of my favourite buildings, the Life Sciences Centre at Dal, is on fire. Lots of fire engines going by tonight, I'm gonna go check it out.

[fenwick16]

Uh oh -- I think one of my favourite buildings, the Life Sciences Centre at Dal, is on fire. Lots of fire engines going by tonight, I'm gonna go check it out.

I certainly hope not. Isn't it mostly concrete? If there is a fire then hopefully there won't be much damage.

[alps]

I walked down to poke around and the fire seems to be out. Wasn't anything terribly damaging by the looks of it, although the sprinklers did go off. It may have had something to do with roofwork I heard, but it's an odd time for that. At this point they're wrangling with the building systems and clearing out the smoke.

[David1gray]

cbc's report on the fire

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/07/25/dalhousie-fire-damage.html

[beyeas]

Two interesting things in allnovascotia... and in a sense related.

Armco is putting a $18M development in BLIP, including 3 office towers.

And... downtown office vacancy is at a 5 year high, and rent prices for downtown space are down. /sigh/ Allnovascotia says that this is in part due to occupants moving to suburban buildings (e.g. the above in BLIP). No question in a sense as to why these downtown developments (like Waterside) aren't moving ahead. This will only be more true if Nova Centre goes ahead.

[beyeas]

Also just noticed a very good article that Fenwick will like, about why Halifax should have a stadium, given Moncton's.

Best statement was "Excessive caution has long been the common denominator between Halifax City Hall and Province House".

I did also get a chuckle at his calling it Halifax City Hall rather than HRM ;-)

[fenwick16]

Also just noticed a very good article that Fenwick will like, about why Halifax should have a stadium, given Moncton's.

Best statement was "Excessive caution has long been the common denominator between Halifax City Hall and Province House".

I did also get a chuckle at his calling it Halifax City Hall rather than HRM ;-)

I actually read it and I thought that his comments were right on.

[fenwick16]

Two interesting things in allnovascotia... and in a sense related.

Armco is putting a $18M development in BLIP, including 3 office towers.

And... downtown office vacancy is at a 5 year high, and rent prices for downtown space are down. /sigh/ Allnovascotia says that this is in part due to occupants moving to suburban buildings (e.g. the above in BLIP). No question in a sense as to why these downtown developments (like Waterside) aren't moving ahead. This will only be more true if Nova Centre goes ahead.

I think at times that the Nova Centre might be overdoing it with the office component. They could consider converting the office tower to residential.

The suburban vacancy rate on the other hand is down to 8.5%. This shows the strategic mistake in the municipality making it so difficult to develop downtown. Businessmen will simply start developing in areas that have less red tape. I keep thinking about the old (28 storey?) Halkirk development that was stopped. Getting more people living downtown will also make it a more desirable office location. Developing the Queens's landing would also encourage more people to travel downtown.

[sdm]

I think at times that the Nova Centre might be overdoing it with the office component. They could consider converting the office tower to residential.

The suburban vacancy rate on the other hand is down to 8.5%. This shows the strategic mistake in the municipality making it so difficult to develop downtown. Businessmen will simply start developing in areas that have less red tape. I keep thinking about the old (28 storey?) Halkirk development that was stopped. Getting more people living downtown will also make it a more desirable office location. Developing the Queens's landing would also encourage more people to travel downtown.


It certainly makes one question how much too much?

We need new development downtown, but we can't upset the market like it was in the early 90's with Purdy’s' II came online. If something like this was to happen today, in this climate, it would take more then a decade to recover, and it could possibly cause the CBD to suffer worse then it already is.

That said, the CBRE market report is out today and unfortunately what I have been making comments on is happening.

Downtown vacancy in the "A" class sector is now at 10.1% and due to climb the remainder of this year. This amount of vacancy is climbing to levels seen in 2005. Absorption downtown is negative, meaning people are either moving or downsizing. In Q3 there will be a number of transactions that will increase this amount.

Converse, the suburb's posted a significant decrease in vacancy rate and will most likely spur new developments in that sector as it posted a year to date absorption of 260,000 sqft. However this number maybe misleading as its not true absorption as in new companies to the market, just people moving from one node to the other, and or growing.

Its certainly showing that companies are not looking to downtown, and that the downtown numbers, taking into account that emera is about to shed 130,000 square feet in March 2011, and is not included in these numbers, indicate that new construction will be a risky venture as existing product can undercut the price of new.

The main driver in companies looking to the burbs is parking and operational cost savings. Simply put, because the buildings that exist downtown are older they tend to be less efficient in operation. Therefore the newer product in the burbs can be as much as 50% cheaper in operational costs then downtown buildings. That’s a significant savings for a large user. For an example, say Emera moved to the burbs from the existing location. Take 130,000 sqft at 14.00 per square foot. That equals $1,820,000.00 in operating costs (not rent that’s on top of that). Now take the rate of a new development in the burbs (130,000 @ 9.00/sf) = $1,170,000. That’s a $650,000 per year savings. Over a 5 year lease term (typical industry standard) thats at total savings of $3.25 million. To me that is significant.

I certainly 100% agree with you, the market downtown needs more residential. Having people living in and around downtown is the only thing that will ever bring it back. I just wish they would allow greater height then what is within HRM by Design.

[halifaxboyns]

I've said it before and I agree with everyone who has said it - more residential leads to a better and more vibrant/active downtown.

I live in Calgary now and I pine to come home to Halifax and live downtown again because even with the population in downtown now - it's far more vibrant than Calgary's downtown after 6pm! This place dies and it gets so quiet; with the exception of the traffic going through downtown.

Empire has talked about having places like performing arts centres and fenwick has talked about football stadiums; these are great things to help make a downtown better. While I don't think the football stadium could fly; certainly as the years go by; the Metro Centre will need more upgrading and eventually replacement. If the goal for HRM is to get a CFL team - I don't see the goal of getting some sort of hockey team any less important as the population and market grows too - but that's down the road.

SDM mentioned taking some of the older office buildings and making them residential - that's an interesting way of retaining some of the older character buildings, without demolition. We've also talked about the new route 8 and how it will service the downtown, along with the new farmers markets - these are both good steps forward.

What needs to happen going forward is a concerted effort to push for more residential (higher density) in the downtown. Someone mentioned it before that the density maximum of the R-3 district on the peninsula is rather low. I forgot how low it really was; it's 250 pp/acre in the schedule A area and then drops to 150pp/acre elsewhere. That's really low. One thing we use here in Calgary is modifiers which are set at the time of land use; so in some of the zones which have no maximum - it's set at the time of Land use. So if you have an M-C1 zone; it might appear like this M-C1d750. So the density is 750pp/hectare. Definately if we want more people; we need the density changed.

But more people downtown will lead to it being a better place. More activity (supporting more festivals/parades); supporting more business and supporting transit (improving frequency on many routes and ferries). One thing I'm hoping for is that King's wharf will create such a demand on the ferry they will have to increase peak time freequency.

More people also support construction of other things like a performing arts centre and marine museum because they will be well used year round.

[sdm]

I've said it before and I agree with everyone who has said it - more residential leads to a better and more vibrant/active downtown.

I live in Calgary now and I pine to come home to Halifax and live downtown again because even with the population in downtown now - it's far more vibrant than Calgary's downtown after 6pm! This place dies and it gets so quiet; with the exception of the traffic going through downtown.

Empire has talked about having places like performing arts centres and fenwick has talked about football stadiums; these are great things to help make a downtown better. While I don't think the football stadium could fly; certainly as the years go by; the Metro Centre will need more upgrading and eventually replacement. If the goal for HRM is to get a CFL team - I don't see the goal of getting some sort of hockey team any less important as the population and market grows too - but that's down the road.

SDM mentioned taking some of the older office buildings and making them residential - that's an interesting way of retaining some of the older character buildings, without demolition. We've also talked about the new route 8 and how it will service the downtown, along with the new farmers markets - these are both good steps forward.

What needs to happen going forward is a concerted effort to push for more residential (higher density) in the downtown. Someone mentioned it before that the density maximum of the R-3 district on the peninsula is rather low. I forgot how low it really was; it's 250 pp/acre in the schedule A area and then drops to 150pp/acre elsewhere. That's really low. One thing we use here in Calgary is modifiers which are set at the time of land use; so in some of the zones which have no maximum - it's set at the time of Land use. So if you have an M-C1 zone; it might appear like this M-C1d750. So the density is 750pp/hectare. Definately if we want more people; we need the density changed.

But more people downtown will lead to it being a better place. More activity (supporting more festivals/parades); supporting more business and supporting transit (improving frequency on many routes and ferries). One thing I'm hoping for is that King's wharf will create such a demand on the ferry they will have to increase peak time freequency.

More people also support construction of other things like a performing arts centre and marine museum because they will be well used year round.

In all fairness to someone123, it is he that mention the fact of turning some of the old buildings into residentail. That said, i concur and agree with him.

In actual fact, in the late 80's and early 90's a number of the older and not so great buildings converted to residentail. That is how we got the Radison Downtown on Hollis street after all.

[halifaxboyns]

In all fairness to someone123, it is he that mention the fact of turning some of the old buildings into residentail. That said, i concur and agree with him.

In actual fact, in the late 80's and early 90's a number of the older and not so great buildings converted to residentail. That is how we got the Radison Downtown on Hollis street after all.

OMG - did I get the poster reference wrong? Damn! Yes; you are absolutely right - it should be someone123 - whoops. My bad! :(

[fenwick16]

While I don't think the football stadium could fly; certainly as the years go by; the Metro Centre will need more upgrading and eventually replacement. If the goal for HRM is to get a CFL team - I don't see the goal of getting some sort of hockey team any less important as the population and market grows too - but that's down the road.

I feel like screaming when I read things like this. You have this reversed. Halifax doesn't need a new arena in the near future but it needs a stadium - the owner of the Halifax Mooseheads has even said as much regarding an arena. The Mooseheads are happy in the Metro Centre where 7,000 looks like a big crowd.

It is not just sports, Halifax doesn't have a suitable location for large concerts, unless people like using portable toilets on the Commons. Building a larger Metro Centre will only add about 4,500 seats, at most, over what Halifax already has.

No offense, but to be blunt, it is damaging to sports fans if non-sports fan have a say in such things. Unfortunately, I think there are too many non-sports fans on the HRM council.

[someone123]

Best statement was "Excessive caution has long been the common denominator between Halifax City Hall and Province House".

The big problem is not just caution, it's that there's caution about certain things like large projects and basically doing anything with the downtown core.

This is much worse than being cautious about all spending because it means that money is frittered away in other areas. When the HRM can't decide that it wants a stadium or if they should do streetscape improvements on Spring Garden Road because merchants complain, council just takes the money that would have been available and spends it on another interchange along the 102 or more suburban recreational buildings. Because taxation is almost totally separated from improvements and the cost of providing services, the competitiveness of some areas suffer - they continue to pay the highest taxes but do not see any investment.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Let's see Trinity built and tie the downtown into the north end. I think growth in the north end could improve downtown.

[sdm]

The big problem is not just caution, it's that there's caution about certain things like large projects and basically doing anything with the downtown core.

This is much worse than being cautious about all spending because it means that money is frittered away in other areas. When the HRM can't decide that it wants a stadium or if they should do streetscape improvements on Spring Garden Road because merchants complain, council just takes the money that would have been available and spends it on another interchange along the 102 or more suburban recreational buildings. Because taxation is almost totally separated from improvements and the cost of providing services, the competitiveness of some areas suffer - they continue to pay the highest taxes but do not see any investment.

Well the arguement that they pay the highest taxes i.e. downtown is actually becoming factually wrong. Many of the suburban office buildings are paying higher per square foot taxes then similar sized downtown buildings.

Thats different however with retail. The rental rates on SGR are extremely high, therefore using the valuation process (which they do)they are going to get taxed more because they charge more.

Should they get more money for the area, sure, but what bothers me is that the statement is being spun out of wack in that its the entire downtown that is over taxed, which on the office side is not true.

[someone123]

When I say downtown I don't just mean office. Retail is actually in even worse shape and residential is what the city should most be encouraging. Servicing residents in a highrise condo downtown is much cheaper than providing services to suburban subdivisions for Burnside or Bayers Lake commuters.

We're also seeing a constant stream of public dollars for road building to service suburban office parks. This puts a burden on the road network of the entire city and it is never going to be possible to provide reasonable transit service to these new areas.

Partly it wouldn't be so bad even if the office parks were better planned.

[Empire]

Let's see Trinity built and tie the downtown into the north end. I think growth in the north end could improve downtown.

I think Trinity is the key to linking downtown to the extended downtown of the Gottingen district. It`s too bad Staples was allowed to destroy such a prime location.

[beyeas]

I think Trinity is the key to linking downtown to the extended downtown of the Gottingen district. It`s too bad Staples was allowed to destroy such a prime location.

Indeed. Staples is a primo example of poor urban planning in this city, and it never should have happened.

[halifaxboyns]

Indeed. Staples is a primo example of poor urban planning in this city, and it never should have happened.

But much like any site; it can be redeveloped. It's getting up there in age; it's what 15 years old now? At least - if someone comes along with the right price I'm sure it could be done over.

[Empire]

Indeed. Staples is a primo example of poor urban planning in this city, and it never should have happened.
If you were to ask councillors why this critical site on the corner of Cogswell and Gottingen was so porrly developed I would be willing to bet that they don't see a problem with it.

Very Ugly Staples:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halifax&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&ll=44.650673,-63.58007&spn=0,0.05137&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=44.650543,-63.580436&panoid=mBcmb-KQy96iq0V-sIvvRQ&cbp=12,349.76,,0,5

[beyeas]

If you were to ask councillors why tis critical site on the corner of Cogswell and Gottingen was so porrly developed I would be willing to bet that they don't see a problem with it.

Sadly true.

[Empire]

I think we should have a non-acceptable design thread. We could submit buildings that might qualify, like the two below, and then the forum could vote. If the forum votes to include a building it would get added to the site. The goal would be to get the attention of the owner and perhaps they would make improvements. Future developers may adopt better design practices to avoid making the list. There are enough qualified design critics on this forum to compile an accurate list. We could send HRMxD a link.



Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.667653,-63.563622&spn=0,0.012746&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.667889,-63.563839&panoid=UeXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halifax&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.650543,-63.580436&panoid=mBcmb-KQy96iq0V-sIvvRQ&cbp=12,349.76,,0,5&ll=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

[JustinMacD]

Just heard from my boss that the Homburg Centre (Saint Mary's new 40 million dollar fitness centre/rink/etc) will be started on August 18th.

A little background on Homburg and his generous gift: http://www.smu.ca/alumni/documents/MW_Fall_2007.pdf

It's going to completely change the northeastern part of campus.

[fenwick16]

Just heard from my boss that the Homburg Centre (Saint Mary's new 40 million dollar fitness centre/rink/etc) will be started on August 18th.

A little background on Homburg and his generous gift: http://www.smu.ca/alumni/documents/MW_Fall_2007.pdf

It's going to completely change the northeastern part of campus.

Thanks for the information. That is a significant project at $40 million. Can you post some drawings of the project? I wish that the refurbished Huskies Stadium was part of it.

PS: I found this one from this source - http://www.smu.ca/masterplan/east.html . Does anyone have a rendering?

http://www.smu.ca/masterplan/images/east.jpg

[halifaxboyns]

Sadly true.

Actually you would be surprised.
I remember having a conversation with Councillor Sloane about Gottigen street and my thoughts on Agricola. We talked about the staples site and from what I recall; her reaction at the time was that she was glad something got built there.

But now; as the street has evolved - she wanted better. The difficulty I think councillor's are put in (especially if you look at the tower down by the Hydrostone) is that not all residents want change and evolution. They sometimes have to vote with their residents; other times with their conscience.

I'm sure that if someone came along and proposed something that really was good (whatever that would be); you'd see council get behind it. That's part of the reason why downtown planning items go to Regional Council - the feeling was that all of the region should have a say.

[halifaxboyns]

I think we should have a non-acceptable design thread. We could submit buildings that might qualify, like the two below, and then the forum could vote. If the forum votes to include a building it would get added to the site. The goal would be to get the attention of the owner and perhaps they would make improvements. Future developers may adopt better design practices to avoid making the list. There are enough qualified design critics on this forum to compile an accurate list. We could send HRMxD a link.



Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.667653,-63.563622&spn=0,0.012746&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.667889,-63.563839&panoid=UeXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halifax&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.650543,-63.580436&panoid=mBcmb-KQy96iq0V-sIvvRQ&cbp=12,349.76,,0,5&ll=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I know a few developments I worked on here in Calgary that many thought were really wacko, but I really liked them.

[Empire]

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I know a few developments I worked on here in Calgary that many thought were really wacko, but I really liked them.

Yes you are right, I have heard that argument before.

[Empire]

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I know a few developments I worked on here in Calgary that many thought were really wacko, but I really liked them.


I agree that what one person thinks is a bad development others may like. My point is that I feel there are enough members on this forum that are knowledgeable in design and aesthetics to compile a list that most people would agree with. Would anyone really think the two buildings below are good developments? I think the goal of most on the forum is to promote development and good design. Part of the reason for opposition to some developments is because the design is just plain ugly.


Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.667653,-63.563622&spn=0,0.012746&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.667889,-63.563839&panoid=UeXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halifax&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.650543,-63.580436&panoid=mBcmb-KQy96iq0V-sIvvRQ&cbp=12,349.76,,0,5&ll=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

[halifaxboyns]

Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.667653,-63.563622&spn=0,0.012746&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.667889,-63.563839&panoid=UeXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halifax&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.650543,-63.580436&panoid=mBcmb-KQy96iq0V-sIvvRQ&cbp=12,349.76,,0,5&ll=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

I agree with you - that there should be enough; just that we aren't always going to agree! Btw, are you talking about the townhouses, the apartment building or both for PA and Portland?

I agree about staples; but I do believe there is a place for big box retail in or around the downtown core - if done right. Vancouver has some great examples (as does Toronto) of putting some of what we see as big box retail into a downtown core setting; without the same horrible designs.

Here is an example of Save on Foods, with a Home depot (apartments above). There is a Best buy and Canadian Tire (without units) to the north of the site (pan to the left).

Vancouver (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Cambie+Street,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia&sll=49.229817,-123.083611&sspn=0.067484,0.132008&g=Cambie+Street,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cambie+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia&ll=49.265347,-123.114671&spn=0,0.012317&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=49.264818,-123.114695&panoid=bSLj4h99GYTeCwGmxhFLEQ&cbp=12,140.32,,0,0.02)

Here is an example from Young Street in Toronto (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Young+Street,+Toronto&sll=49.264818,-123.114695&sspn=0.00404,0.012317&ie=UTF8&hq=Young+Street,&hnear=Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario&ll=43.656377,-79.38092&spn=0,0.012317&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.656914,-79.381159&panoid=ILo1hSlwbUg6BL6RFFCRQg&cbp=12,104.63,,0,-9.5) with a future shop. I believe there is a hotel above or offices, but could easily been apartments in another setting.

[Empire]

I agree with you - that there should be enough; just that we aren't always going to agree! Btw, are you talking about the townhouses, the apartment building or both for PA and Portland?

I agree about staples; but I do believe there is a place for big box retail in or around the downtown core - if done right. Vancouver has some great examples (as does Toronto) of putting some of what we see as big box retail into a downtown core setting; without the same horrible designs.

Here is an example of Save on Foods, with a Home depot (apartments above). There is a Best buy and Canadian Tire (without units) to the north of the site (pan to the left).

Vancouver (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Cambie+Street,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia&sll=49.229817,-123.083611&sspn=0.067484,0.132008&g=Cambie+Street,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cambie+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia&ll=49.265347,-123.114671&spn=0,0.012317&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=49.264818,-123.114695&panoid=bSLj4h99GYTeCwGmxhFLEQ&cbp=12,140.32,,0,0.02)

Here is an example from Young Street in Toronto (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Young+Street,+Toronto&sll=49.264818,-123.114695&sspn=0.00404,0.012317&ie=UTF8&hq=Young+Street,&hnear=Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario&ll=43.656377,-79.38092&spn=0,0.012317&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.656914,-79.381159&panoid=ILo1hSlwbUg6BL6RFFCRQg&cbp=12,104.63,,0,-9.5) with a future shop. I believe there is a hotel above or offices, but could easily been apartments in another setting.


I was talking about both, although some people like the Green Monster on Portland. Below is a link describing how MacDonald's has to comply with Savannah Historic Board if they want to locate in a certain area. In Halifax, the developers of big box outlets, KFC, MacDonald's etc. tell council that they can't change their design because no one would recognize them and it could hurt buisness and those are the only plans they have. Council here, of course, buys it hook, line & sinker. I heard that rationale for the Staples on Gottingen.


See link for article - http://savannahnow.com/news/2010-03-16/mcdonalds-planned-broughton-street

"McDonald's plans a complete overhaul of the building.

An architect for the corporation presented those plans to the Savannah Historic District Board of Review last Wednesday. The board failed to vote on the designs, continuing its decision to its April meeting to allow time to research the signage planned for the back of the building - a mural of the McDonald's logo - and the inclusion of a walk-up window along the Jefferson Street side of the building."

[JustinMacD]

Thanks for the information. That is a significant project at $40 million. Can you post some drawings of the project? I wish that the refurbished Huskies Stadium was part of it.

PS: I found this one from this source - http://www.smu.ca/masterplan/east.html . Does anyone have a rendering?

http://www.smu.ca/masterplan/images/east.jpg

Sorry not the greatest renderings.. but there are some in there:

http://www.homburg.nl/binaries/canada/homburg-charitable-foundation/donation-to-smu.pdf

It's not going to be very tall... but anything nice and new is always a positive. The old rink on campus is a dump.

[someone123]

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I think "taste" should be separated from the issue of whether or not a development functions properly and its effect on the surrounding area. Good or bad buildings can be built in a variety of styles (some styles are also more attractive than others but this is much harder to determine and less important).

The real problem with Staples is that it has inappropriate parking out in front of the building, unlike the vast majority of buildings on Gottingen. The parking destroys the pedestrian orientation of the street, pushing buildings apart and forcing pedestrians to navigate more vehicle crossings. Another issue is that Staples is only one storey while most of the neighbourhood is more densely developed.

[Empire]

Yet another example of poor planning.

SuperStore Barrington?
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.637555,-63.569705&spn=0,0.006266&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.637465,-63.569694&panoid=3WpmICBGJM127IEnXzWU3Q&cbp=12,25.1,,0,5

[halifaxboyns]

The excuse that places can't adapt always plays well in City's that don't really have any desire to depart from the norm. I agree that the Staples on Gottingen and the superstore site on Barrington (and I'd add the Sobeys on Queen) are bad examples of development. All could've been a great mix of the commercial element and residential units above and then the parking hidden from the street (make them a street oriented building).

One example of a forced market change here in Calgary was the Home Depot on 16 Avenue. The City of Calgary has implemented plans for that street to become a pedestrian oriented, commercial corridor over the next 30 years and all the buildings will be oriented to the street - so auto oriented uses have been excluded. For the HD - they still had a parking lot which faces the street; but the building is right up to the sidewalk and there is underground parking too.

I've copied the streetview photo and I am assuming it was taken in the fall because right now the trees are nice and lush; as are the plants in front. But this is an example of converting to suit the situation.

Home Depot Calgary (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=16+Avenue+Southeast,+Calgary,+Alberta&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=34.021494,67.587891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=16+Ave+SE,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.068585,-114.101118&spn=0,0.012317&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.067048,-114.103671&panoid=be4fOeTVRPyXlRCTGWxzWw&cbp=12,300.34,,0,9)

My view (on letting the big box retail into or near downtown) is that I have no problem with it; so long as controls are placed to prevent developments like Staples and the superstore from occuring. The buildings should be street oriented (much like the examples I showed in Vancouver and Toronto) and I have no problem with a parking lot as surface, but it must be at the rear and screened with vegitation (trees; shrubs). The building should also have residential above, served with underground parking that the commercial cannot use. OR; the commercial has a cash in lieu parking requirement to help pay for common (or two) parking garages near by.

[Empire]

The excuse that places can't adapt always plays well in City's that don't really have any desire to depart from the norm. I agree that the Staples on Gottingen and the superstore site on Barrington (and I'd add the Sobeys on Queen) are bad examples of development. All could've been a great mix of the commercial element and residential units above and then the parking hidden from the street (make them a street oriented building).

One example of a forced market change here in Calgary was the Home Depot on 16 Avenue. The City of Calgary has implemented plans for that street to become a pedestrian oriented, commercial corridor over the next 30 years and all the buildings will be oriented to the street - so auto oriented uses have been excluded. For the HD - they still had a parking lot which faces the street; but the building is right up to the sidewalk and there is underground parking too.

I've copied the streetview photo and I am assuming it was taken in the fall because right now the trees are nice and lush; as are the plants in front. But this is an example of converting to suit the situation.

Home Depot Calgary (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=16+Avenue+Southeast,+Calgary,+Alberta&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=34.021494,67.587891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=16+Ave+SE,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.068585,-114.101118&spn=0,0.012317&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.067048,-114.103671&panoid=be4fOeTVRPyXlRCTGWxzWw&cbp=12,300.34,,0,9)
.The building should also have residential above, served with underground parking that the commercial cannot use. OR; the commercial has a cash in lieu parking requirement to help pay for common (or two) parking garages near by.

Great points, I would go so far as to say add affordable housing residential above...the Staples example would have been perfect for 8 storeys of income assisted and regular housing.