View Single Post
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2011, 5:23 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
beyeas makes an interesting point...which made me wonder about the discussion Jono and I had about building height as well.

I've heard a few times that people equate height to fenwick, so fenwick = bad. But I wonder if that opinion would change once the work on fenwick is completed? Let's face it, fenwick is pretty bad as it stands now but when the recladding is done...would people feel the same way?

Another thought I had about height was this: Essentially everything in the regional core (inside the circ and peninsula halifax) is where the regional plan wants to concentrate 25% of the growth. The next regional plan, that might increase. If building height is such an issue - then perhaps what needs to be done is determine a context formula for building height?

You could set it up like this: In neighbourhoods where the prodominate building height does not exceed 2 stories (set some sort of distance around the site of a proposal); then the maximum height of any redevelopment project couldn't exceed say 5 to 7 stories. You could also set it up so that there are rare circumstances that it could go higher (say 9 stories) through a bonusing system.

Then if you have a neighbourhood like the hydrostone, where the context has buildings in the 5 to 9 storey range - then any infill could go up say 15, with bonuses up to 20.

This way, it's a gradual stepped approach to infill of the community. Calgary did that for the inner city when it came to infill houses. The maximum height and step forward of your new home depends on the context of the existing homes next to you. So if you are in a bungalow area - you can only get 8.6m. But if they are two stories, you could get a max building height between 8.6 to 10m. But no house can exceed 10m, unless a relaxation (variance) is granted.
Reply With Quote