View Single Post
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 10:35 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,624
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
The session was running late and there was only time for a response from one panel member, and she said no we shouldn't look at changing them. They don't have to break the rules just to break even; there's cheaper ways to build.
There may or may not be cheaper ways to build, but the fact is that given the current rules enough developers are choosing to build in the suburbs that the city is missing its own densification targets. The planning rules are failing to produce the desired result, therefore something is wrong with them. It doesn't matter what the panelists think developers should be doing.

Who was the panelist? Bev Miller or something?

I believe that a lot of the planning in Halifax is lazy in that it puts off tough decisions to be dealt with later by HRM regional council and the NSUARB. It is very easy to pass a plan full of height restrictions but we must pay the price down the line. The job should be done properly the first time.

I agree completely about "heritage" and I've complained about sloppy use of the term in the past. Originally "heritage preservation" meant keeping old buildings around instead of demolishing them. That definition has slowly crept outward to include preserving the environment around heritage buildings and to include preserving views. The city needs to take a hard look at what these are actually worth. Halifax's best heritage buildings are worth a lot but preserving a full view of the sky from within the Citadel courtyard is worth considerably less. There's a reason why anti-development folks want this all to be sacrosanct; it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Reply With Quote