Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
I'm not gonna step up to defend Westwood, because I think that if they were better developers this wouldn't even be an issue. But, I do think they'd make good on a compromise if they were given the height elsewhere on the block.
Treating HRMxD as tablets brought down from the mountaintop is not the way to deal with planning disputes, especially those unforeseen in the plan. It's a good rulebook, overall, but there have been a lot of controversies stemming from it. The fact that we're going to permit such a massive blunder in the name of upholding HRMxD suggests strongly that the plan needs some tweaks.
|
I think Westwood is being unfairly criticized here (not necessarily by you but by the post you responded to, which I tried to multi-quote but could not get to work). They are not the architects of dumb planning rules. They are acting in a responsible manner, more so than, IMO, the councillor for the area. Westwood is not a charity. The realities of financing and returns to owners are just that - realities. If HRM wants to protect a view of the grain elevators or one of the top of the Citadel for the latte-sipping patrons of the library that is within their power. But they cannot also expect developers to then take less of a return on their own risky investments just to accommodate that whim when they propose developments that are within the rules that HRM created. HRM cannot have it both ways - especially when there is a possible solution that would satisfy everyone except for the handful that worship at the altar of HRMxD.