HRMxD doesn't go far enough to ensure a good design will be forthcoming. All of the policies can be followed and the result can still be an ugly building. The Paramount is an example of a cheap ugly building that would fit HRMxD policies nicely. It steps back from the street and the materials just pass inspection. I don't think anyone would suggest that the Paramount is an acceptable design fronting on The Public Gardens yet there is no mechanism to address cheap ugly buildings. HRMxD sold out when they capped the height in the Cogswell St. Interchange area to 20+/- storeys. This area clearly should have been rampart maximum. I think this area could have been left out of the plan for now instead of selling it short to get the plan passed.

The NDP promised they would not increase taxes if elected because their overall policy is to protect the "little guy". Once elected they "pulled up the ladder" and jacked up the HST by 2%. How many more examples do you need?

I think the NDP have some good policies and some bad policies***, but their biggest problems come from failing to appreciate implicit costs to those who don't benefit from a particular policy. The same thing goes for special interests in Halifax.

For example, unions say it's good for them to get sweetheart deals because it creates a strong middle class of people with good disposable income. The downside that they fail to mention is that everybody else must pay, including in many cases people who are much poorer than those who benefit. For example, somebody working at Wal-Mart for minimum wage must pay extra when they take the bus to cover the high wages of bus drivers. The difference between a Wal-Mart worker and bus driver is mostly that the bus driver is luckier, not that they are more skilled or put up with a less desirable job. It is very difficult to argue convincingly that the Wal-Mart worker should be subsidizing the bus driver, but this is the situation we have right now.

Similarly the special interests in Halifax want things like a well-located, quiet neighbourhood to themselves. The downside to everybody else is that this increases sprawl and reduces the housing supply. Maybe 1,000 people would have moved into highrises nearby, but when the highrises are quashed those people have to find someplace less desirable to live. Some of the 1,000 will probably end up out in the suburbs, clogging streets and wasting their own time and energy commuting every day. This weighs heavily against the benefit to the few dozen homeowners who would get more "privacy" or a quieter street.

If this development fails because of special interests then the city will lose out on balance. The benefits of urban infill and public amenities heavily outweigh the vague prescriptions for what ought to be built downtown and the complaints about lost views from people who were never promised those views in the first place. If they wanted views they should have bought a street-facing condo.

***I should clarify that I was talking about the federal NDP. I think people in the thread are talking about the provincial NDP.. I don't really know enough about them to comment.

A uniformly applied tax--to the entire public-- isn't pulling up the ladder, I dare say. Instead of the HST hike, perhaps the NDP should have said no to things such as the Nova Centre?

(I joke.)

[QUOTE=someone123;5402711]I think the NDP have some good policies and some bad policies***, but their biggest problems come from failing to appreciate implicit costs to those who don't benefit from a particular policy. The same thing goes for special interests in Halifax.

For example, unions say it's good for them to get sweetheart deals because it creates a strong middle class of people with good disposable income. The downside that they fail to mention is that everybody else must pay, including in many cases people who are much poorer than those who benefit. For example, somebody working at Wal-Mart for minimum wage must pay extra when they take the bus to cover the high wages of bus drivers. The difference between a Wal-Mart worker and bus driver is mostly that the bus driver is luckier, not that they are more skilled or put up with a less desirable job. It is very difficult to argue convincingly that the Wal-Mart worker should be subsidizing the bus driver, but this is the situation we have right now.
QUOTE]

And this debate quickly branches into debates about why wages must go up, about the cost of living going up, etc...

I agree unions can be EXTREMELY annoying, mainly for corporations, but also for workers of corporations where unions don't exist.

This topic frustrates me because it seems as though there isn't a solution to make everyone happy--or even mostly everyone.

We are all way off topic now.

One thing is certain, this project will have the usual opponents + a few new people in the nearby condo buildings.

Overall, this project is a much better use of the site (with respect to the corner, land use, etc) and will provide significantly better facilities than the current YMCA.

This being said, haters gonna hate.

Considering the adjacent context, I can't see how this wouldn't get support by the majority of council. Even if it doesn't and some how fails, I think they'd have a great position to take an appeal to the URB. But I don't think this will fail.

Not surprisingly the proposal was panned by Parks Canada (which maintains the Citadel).

Brief Form
Detailed Form

Wow. This is an insane response from Parks Canada. Completely ignoring municipal issues and the massive impact - positive and negative - that they have on Halifax, then presenting this? I think its time to expropriate the Citadel from the Feds.

When they take pictures from the hill, I wish they'd take them from the top of the hill...not half way up the grass.

I think that the YMCA/CBC development will greatly enhance the southern view from the Citadel; especially at night, that view will be awe-inspiring (no sarcasm intended).

Meh, Parks Canada will be ignored by everybody but the STV types. They have no incentive to give a balanced opinion; all they care about is the Citadel. It's up to councillors to have a sense of perspective and realize that the "negative" impact is minimal while the benefits of infill in the core are enormous.

Unfortunate that tax dollars were spent on this, but at least we got a cool rendering out of it:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9...reenshotkr.png

I'm convinced there is someone at Parks Canada who is a member of an anti-development group, it seems odd that they would be so involved when they weren't against other developments in the vicinity.

Also, that rendering looks amazing!

I agree :)

I've never seen that rendering before! Where did you find it?

Is the rendering supposed to convince us this is a bad idea? I see the strengthening of the urban edge next to a public park. Makes sense to me.

It is TOO TALL... how will I be able to see the historic views of Cowie Hill?!?! LOL

Rendering looks great... I like the step down as it goes towards Sackville.

That is just a rendering I know, but that's not the final design is it?

You can see just as much of the gardens as before , the only thinh it would block is the view of other buildings...

Totally does!

I think their (Parks Canada et al.) sentiment is anti-urbanity though, height and the sense of being in a city are to be avoided at all costs.

This development not only provides needed downtown residential and recreational infrastructure, its attractive. However, the merit of it is thrown out the window by those who don't want to see tall buildings, plain and simple.

The way the parks Canada document was written looks like a university history paper... it wouldn't suprise me if its written by an HT member who works for Parks Canada.

Can anybody find out who the Parks Canada staff are and cross reference them with the anti-development group membership?