[Keith P.]

Interesting commentary on the failings of the Centre Plan:

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bu...e-ugly-363100/

Pretty consistent with what we have seen in the discussions here. Some snippets:

The plan fails in several ways to support its sweeping changes with fact, predictability or rigour. One example: the reasoning behind the plan’s 90-metre height restriction across large swaths of the city is not backed by science or evidence. It is factually inexplicable and caters only to the small percentage of the city’s population that consistently protests height with no rationale, rhyme nor reason.

I asked the question, if the CEO of IBM said, ‘I want to bring 750 jobs to Halifax, but I need a building that is 40 storeys or approximately 120 metres tall,’ would they be granted an exception? The response was a resounding, 'not without special approval of Council, Community Councils, etc.' What message does this send to investors? Developers? Our young people who we are desperately trying to retain? Not to mention the economic stimulus that this province needs to be sustainable!

Scale matters and logic must be applied. Plans like the Centre Plan must be evidence-based rather than cater to conjecture and the opinion of a vocal few. There needs to be space for reasonable discussion when an inevitable exception comes to the city that is clear in process, timelines and cost.

And this:

The Halifax peninsula is land-scarce. Generally, it is more cost-effective to build higher, allowing for greater flexibility in pricing and design. Height inevitably allows for more affordable square footage housing options. When developers are asked to reduce height, while simultaneously being asked for more landscaping, major setbacks, etc. it adds to the cost of the project. These added costs challenge investors to make projects feasible and often reduces the capacity to meet affordable housing targets. More flexibility and incentives, for example, to designate existing stock and tie it to new construction, could be considered. The density options proposed under this plan could potentially lead to even more urban sprawl, which we all know creates further problems.

Economically, we are in a period of prolonged and historically low borrowing costs. This has significantly contributed to the investments we have seen over the past decade. The Centre Plan does not consider borrowing rate increases in the future. This is troubling as a review will not take place for a decade from its adoption. As we all know, the rapid pace of technology, climate change, etc. that we are witnessing is unprecedented. A decade is far too long to redress the unintended consequences of flawed plans and policy. We need a review in as few as three years along with a joint committee of industry, city staffers and residents to oversee, track and measure the impacts of the plan. There needs to be a mandate to correct unintended outcomes and build on successful ones.

Regardless, the likes of Mason, Austin, Cleary and the planning cabal within the bureaucracy are jamming this thing through, and the rest of Council is just rolling over.