[Halifax] Shannex Parkland at the Gardens | 28 m | 8 fl | Completed

[someone123]

The NSUARB has ruled in favour of an eight-storey assisted living complex for College and Martello (formerly Tower Road).

Presumably we'll see renderings sometime soon.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

The NSUARB has ruled in favour of an eight-storey assisted living complex for College and Martello (formerly Tower Road).

Presumably we'll see renderings sometime soon.

Good - I didn't believe the decision made was sound from a planning perspective. Is there a link to the decision?

[-Harlington-]

here is the article for it:

Church gets OK for seniors complex

By BILL POWER Business Reporter
Wed. May 5 - 4:53 AM
It appears the way has been cleared for the Anglican Church in Halifax to build an eight-storey seniors care facility in downtown Halifax.


In a decision released Tuesday, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal quashed efforts by the city to block the project, slated for the corner of Martello and College streets.


The city initially denied the church’s building permit application to construct a 150-unit complex in April 2009 because its development officer felt the project would be too residential and therefore not allowed in an institutional zone.

The church appealed the decision to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, arguing that the residential component of the project would be dedicated to the institutionalized care of its residents.

The board, in a decision released last October, sided with the church and rejected the city’s position, saying the project met the requirements of an institutional zone. It ordered the municipality to issue a permit.

The city appealed the board’s decision because it felt the board had made a reviewable error by ordering the issuance of a building permit.

Writing on behalf of the Appeal Court, Justice Joel Fichaud rejected the city’s position. He said the Utility and Review Board’s decision did not misinterpret the city’s land use bylaw and "involved no reviewable error."

( bpower@herald.ca)

[halifaxboyns]

I spent the better part of my lunch hour trying to find the appeal court decision - I found the original URB decision, but not the one from the court. I always like to read the legal stuff; it's very interesting.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I spent the better part of my lunch hour trying to find the appeal court decision - I found the original URB decision, but not the one from the court. I always like to read the legal stuff; it's very interesting.

Peter Polley (Spice and Jazz Condos) here... didn't know there was a thread on this project...

I have copies of both the UARB decision and the Court of Appeal ... if anyone wants copies, send me an email and I will send them to you ... pp@polycorp.ca

I have skimmed them...it's not exactly light reading... but it gives you a better feeling for what the builders and developers in this City put up with on a daily basis. Unbelievable !!!!!!! The local legal community is busting a gut at the tone of the decisions... both UARB and Court of Appeal obviously have no time for what transpired on these ... I may be jaded, but this stuff doesn't look good on anyone at HRM - from the lowest levels to the highest...

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

[someone123]

It was actually kind of a dumb story because it all came down (the first time) to arguing over whether or not an old folks' home is an "institution" (how depressing). The second time was about a procedural error that didn't exist (way to go HRM! I love how on the other hand they complain about deficits and being overworked and on the other hand they always seem ready for a legal battle).

I personally think that HRM zoning regulations should be overhauled. There is no point to having institutional zones, for example. If the city needs public space, great, buy some land and put a park on it. Fighting over a property with houses on it where the owner wants to build an apartment building next to another apartment building is not productive. A seniors' complex is about the most innocuous thing somebody could build.

The same thing goes for a lot of zoning distinctions between residential and office or even light industrial - not necessary. Separating uses makes sense when talking about pork rendering plants or something but there are virtually none of those in HRM and, sadly, many of those sorts of places are *not* separated from residents. Tufts Cove is right next to residential, as are all kinds of port facilities and breweries.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

I personally think that HRM zoning regulations should be overhauled. There is no point to having institutional zones, for example. A seniors' complex is about the most innocuous thing somebody could build.

The same thing goes for a lot of zoning distinctions between residential and office or even light industrial - not necessary.

I agree and disagree with you on this one. I agree that the regulations should be overhauled. If you look - I believe there currently stands 23 zoning bylaws for HRM - all the various districts. Halifax has the old peninsula and mainland Bylaws, while Dartmouth has one for the downtown and then one for overwhere else, then one for Eastern Passage/Cowbay I believe. So certainly an overhaul and consolidation would be helpful; as I suspect the rural ones match up quite well (since they would've come from the Halifax County prior to immalgimation).

As to eliminating instiutional zones and distinctions between residential and say office or light industrial - I disagree. The problem here lies in the fact many of these bylaws are old and lack definitions for things - in this case, institutional use is allowed but not defined. So I'm not surprised they had some issue with this - because they probably thought 'what the heck does this use mean?'.

The age of many of these bylaws causes problems with modern day working concepts such as mixed use - but to remove seperations between industrial and residential is probably not going to happen. But it could be done much like Calgary's I-E (Industrial - Edge) district - which typically is on the edge of older industrial areas, which buffers industrial uses from low density residential. It's typically more commercial or non-obnoxious uses that wouldn't create odur or vibrations, etc.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The age of many of these bylaws causes problems with modern day working concepts such as mixed use - but to remove seperations between industrial and residential is probably not going to happen. But it could be done much like Calgary's I-E (Industrial - Edge) district - which typically is on the edge of older industrial areas, which buffers industrial uses from low density residential. It's typically more commercial or non-obnoxious uses that wouldn't create odur or vibrations, etc.

The term "industrial" is very loaded and conjures up images that are inconsistent with what most office park businesses actually do in a city like Halifax. There are software companies in places like Burnside, for example (most of them are there because it's cheap - most workers hate it because there's nothing out there). Bayers Lake is even newer, even less industrial, and even more of a planning disaster. The same mistakes have been repeated across North America.

The institutional zoning in Halifax makes even less sense. A lot of it is based on anachronisms like keeping the full original extent of the Commons "public". The only reason why they were public originally was that they were marshland on the edge of a small town in the 1700s (originally for grazing cattle and so on).

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

The term "industrial" is very loaded and conjures up images that are inconsistent with what most office park businesses actually do in a city like Halifax. There are software companies in places like Burnside, for example (most of them are there because it's cheap - most workers hate it because there's nothing out there). Bayers Lake is even newer, even less industrial, and even more of a planning disaster. The same mistakes have been repeated across North America.

The institutional zoning in Halifax makes even less sense. A lot of it is based on anachronisms like keeping the full original extent of the Commons "public". The only reason why they were public originally was that they were marshland on the edge of a small town in the 1700s (originally for grazing cattle and so on).

One thing that I like about how the Land Use Bylaw's typically work in Alberta is that each district (zone) has a purpose statement. So each district has a set of guidelines on how it should be applied. One thing that is unique with Calgary's LUB (1P2007) is that instead of having institutional districts, it has what are called 'Special Purpose Districts' - which is the same idea, but each one is different. Here are some examples of what this style of district works:

The S-R (Special Purpose - Recreation District) has purpose statements like:
To: accommodate a range of indoor and outdoor recreation uses; provide for complementary uses located within buildings occupied by indoor and outdoor recreation uses...

Then there is the S-CI (Special Purpose - Community Institution District) which is to: provide for large scale culture, worship, education, health and treatement facilities; provide for a wide variety of building forms located throughout the city...etc.

S-CRI (Special Purpose - City and Regional Infrastructure) has statements like: to provide for - infrastructure and utility facilities; vehicle maintenance, work depots and training centres related to infrastructure development and maintenance; facilities and systems for public transit and uses operated by Federal, Provicincial and Municipal levels of government.

It's an interesting and different way of regulating these types of uses. So typically a 'seniors home' or a church would end up S-CI, whereas DND facilities or the Airport would end up S-CRI.

[Dmajackson]

Just some before photos.

[fenwick16]

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

[Keith P.]

I wish I could pick up that garage and drop it on my property.

The two houses on Tower Road (or whatever it's called now) are very nice architecturally. I wonder if they would be candidates for relocation? Certainly they are more worth saving than the one from the Hollis/Morris development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

Yeah, I wish that I could just take one of these houses and put it on a piece of land outside the city.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

Yeah, I wish that I could just take one of these houses and put it on a piece of land outside the city.

Specifically the one on the corner... I'm actually happy to see the other two go.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Yeah, I wish that I could just take one of these houses and put it on a piece of land outside the city.

Specifically the one on the corner... I'm actually happy to see the other two go.

Same. I don't consider the others to be great treasures.

[JET]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

In a truly progressive city, these houses would be maintained and cherished. They look perfect across from the Trillium. JET

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by JET

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

In a truly progressive city, these houses would be maintained and cherished. They look perfect across from the Trillium. JET

These are just buildings they will eventually be gone one way or another. Wooden buildings don't last forever. However, If they were planning to tear them down and put up a parking lot then I would object also.

However, new architecture is not evil; it is just newer than what it is replacing. Should we live in sprawling cities just to save everything that is old? At what point do we draw a line and say what buildings should be saved and what should be replaced. Much of the old architecture in Halifax and many other larger cities are old and neglected and add nothing to a city. A good example of this - if you take the train from O'Hara airport in Chicago to downtown Chicago; you will travel past mile after mile of old run down buildings that look like ghettos.

In this case, in order to tear down these beautiful old homes, the developer should be forced to replace them with something that is even better. Replacing them with a bland featureless building should not be allowed.

[JET]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

These are just buildings they will eventually be gone one way or another. Wooden buildings don't last forever. However, If they were planning to tear them down and put up a parking lot then I would object also.

However, new architecture is not evil; it is just newer than what it is replacing. Should we live in sprawling cities just to save everything that is old? At what point do we draw a line and say what buildings should be saved and what should be replaced. Much of the old architecture in Halifax and many other larger cities are old and neglected and add nothing to a city. A good example of this - if you take the train from O'Hara airport in Chicago to downtown Chicago; you will travel past mile after mile of old run down buildings that look like ghettos.

In this case, in order to tear down these beautiful old homes, the developer should be forced to replace them with something that is even better. Replacing them with a bland featureless building should not be allowed.

My point is that tearing down 'beautiful old homes' should never be an option. They are not derelict or run down; just need a little TLC, and they will last longer than most newly built buildings.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by JET

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

In a truly progressive city, these houses would be maintained and cherished. They look perfect across from the Trillium. JET

yeah I have to agree... I actually like the contrast of these older homes across from a modern tower. Makes the street more interesting to have the diversity.

[someone123]

The zoning still mostly seems like pointless bureaucracy. Zoning alone does not change the actual state of a property. If a city wants a recreational district, for example, it needs to build things. Once these are built they are a de facto recreational area, just as All Saints is a de facto church site and would be a de facto residential area if replaced by an apartment. Neither of those options seems particularly terrible. Zoning often precludes perfectly acceptable buildings while never on its own directly encouraging development.

Another downside of zoning is that it often pushes development away when in many cases a better alternative would be to improve the quality of the development; having major polluters on the fringe of a city is not better than having better-regulated operations near residential areas. On balance, it is far from self-evident that zoning contributes positively to planning in modern cities.

I find in general that there is a problem with abstract planning, which is too easily driven by sentiment rather than practicality. Planning in Halifax is often dominated by bumper sticker ideas like "save our views!" rather than rational consideration of concrete ideas. Zoning often contributes to this by presenting people with straw man caricatures of possible future development.