[Halifax] 11Ninety (1190 Barrington) | ? m | 8 fl | U/C

[ArchAficionado]

There are still a pretty decent number of heritage buildings around this area. There certainly is a lot of potential for a flavourful, pedestrian-busy area that is being somewhat squandered by allowing bottom-dollar development in this spot. Not to mention, with it's proximity to the train station and to the cruise terminal, the building around this park almost serve as a "gateway" being the first things arriving tourists are likely to see. Why can't we do better?

Furthermore, I also have to mention how the suburban-format superstore is starting to look like a really poor use of space in this rapidly upzoning area. Hope they have some sort of a longer term plan to build some mixed density on that site while retaining the grocery store with underground parking for customers (a model we see a lot in Montreal, which can actually be better for taking groceries to your car in unpleasant weather).

The case for having higher standards for this specific build site go up again when considering the prominence of this spot if the train station ever becomes a commuter rail terminus.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

There are still a pretty decent number of heritage buildings around this area. There certainly is a lot of potential for a flavourful, pedestrian-busy area that is being somewhat squandered by allowing bottom-dollar development in this spot.

I wonder if a development like this is that much cheaper to build than some of the nicer ones in this area or if it merely comes down to vision and design skills. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end space in this building ends up being about as expensive as space in the building with the red balconies by Hollis and Morris or the shipping container inspired building. The Elmwood redevelopment looks good too. It's too bad they can't all be like that instead of being so hit or miss. There have also been mistakes with some demolitions. Not every old building needs to stay but it's a mistake to tear down above average, relatively scarce heritage buildings. One problem seems to be that the city doesn't do a good job of picking some midrange heritage buildings to keep to maintain character. If an area has a lot of midrange buildings they can all be neglected and lost to the point where a whole neighbourhood seriously loses character.

The city doesn't seem to have much planning vision either or ability to drive this area. It could be much much nicer with some comparatively modest renos to key heritage properties. I mean on the level of things like replacing vinyl siding, improving wood storefronts, and not painting rows of buildings in the same greyish or beige colours.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

There are still a pretty decent number of heritage buildings around this area. There certainly is a lot of potential for a flavourful, pedestrian-busy area that is being somewhat squandered by allowing bottom-dollar development in this spot. Not to mention, with it's proximity to the train station and to the cruise terminal, the building around this park almost serve as a "gateway" being the first things arriving tourists are likely to see. Why can't we do better?

Furthermore, I also have to mention how the suburban-format superstore is starting to look like a really poor use of space in this rapidly upzoning area. Hope they have some sort of a longer term plan to build some mixed density on that site while retaining the grocery store with underground parking for customers (a model we see a lot in Montreal, which can actually be better for taking groceries to your car in unpleasant weather).

The case for having higher standards for this specific build site go up again when considering the prominence of this spot if the train station ever becomes a commuter rail terminus.

I recall hearing somewhere that Superstore was planning urban format stores for their Barrington and Young St. locations, but they just repaved their Barrington parking lot so that doesn't give me hope it's happening anytime soon. A real shame.

Agreed on all points though. It's incredibly frustrating seeing the city spend all it's time arguing outdated height regulations while simultaneously approving these horrid designs.

[IanWatson]

Honest question though: how does a city effectively regulate design?

Architecture is contextual and is also so often a "I'll know it when I see it" kind of exercise that's simply impossible to put into precise regulation. And the places that do try often end up being sterile and mono-designed, because there's no way a regulatory document can allow for the breadth of interesting buildings that are possible.

Put another way, write me a set of regulations that allows Queen's Marque but doesn't allow Salter's Gate. Good luck!

Alternatives to regulation are design guidelines (zero teeth) and design review committees (also zero teeth, and add red tape).

Honestly, I think it's more a question of skill and experience in the architecture and development community, as well as economic conditions. There is of course a lot of crap still going up in HRM, but this year's crap is still wayyy better than the crap of yesteryear. And we, as a city, are seeing more and more truly excellent designs.

When it comes to the Municipality's role, I think the emphasis should be on upping our game when it comes to the public realm. A lot can be overlooked when it comes to crap buildings if they're set in a nice public realm. Go to a lot of European cities that people fawn over and look closely at the buildings themselves - a lot are nothing special. What allows them to give the impression of greatness is the "whole package" environment that you find yourself in when you're experiencing those buildings. Again, we're seeing it done much better in Halifax than in years previous, but there's lots more that could be done.

[Keith P.]

Maybe the way to do it is to not try to write hyper-detailed regulations specifying the type and color or finishes, etc, as HRM planners are wont to do. Requirements that specify more of a "spirit and intent" approach, either site-specific or more broadly, that call for things to be a certain standard will soon be understood by developers and designers and hopefully result in better proposals. It would take some creativity, rare in bureaucrats, but it can be sone.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Honest question though: how does a city effectively regulate design?

...


Honestly, I think it's more a question of skill and experience in the architecture and development community, as well as economic conditions. There is of course a lot of crap still going up in HRM, but this year's crap is still wayyy better than the crap of yesteryear. And we, as a city, are seeing more and more truly excellent designs.

I have to generally agree with that. A lot of the poor design we see is the result of poor builders rather than poor regulation. What makes this Barrington building mediocre isn't its basic form (a short tower with a mixed-use podium). It lies in the details. I don't think we want a situation in which the city begins micromanaging things like cladding materials and other details. I'm not at all an expert on this matter, and I'm sure there are things that can be done, but I'm also sure we don't want to over-regulate aesthetics.

I would also say that this building is exceptionally lame, not typical. Even the worst of what we see going up now is generally better than what was being constructed 20 years ago. It is disappointing that more than ten years after a building like the Vic Suites seemed to set a new standard, we're still seeing such a mixed bagm especially in such central areas. On the other hand, we're also seeing a lot of genuinely good stuff. Over

[OldDartmouthMark]

In this case, though, could the City not use the spirit of the Barrington heritage district to require the design of the new building to be done in the same style as the one it replaced? Or create some specific requirements to make it blend with the surrounding neighbourhood? I cringe a little when we collectively throw our hands in the air and say that nothing can be done because the builder isn’t capable of creating an attractive building. Sure, housing crisis, density and all that, but still most of the people in the area will have to look at it for decades to come. Not to mention the impression that it affords visitors to the city, as mentioned.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In this case, though, could the City not use the spirit of the Barrington heritage district to require the design of the new building to be done in the same style as the one it replaced? Or create some specific requirements to make it blend with the surrounding neighbourhood? I cringe a little when we collectively throw our hands in the air and say that nothing can be done because the builder isn’t capable of creating an attractive building. Sure, housing crisis, density and all that, but still most of the people in the area will have to look at it for decades to come. Not to mention the impression that it affords visitors to the city, as mentioned.

Unfortunately HRM is not helping in that regard. In their rush to get their hands on JT’s sack of federal gold in return for throwing the previous planning rules out the window, in my neighborhood, a 1950s development of modest homes on small 5000 sq ft lots, I just learned that my property is now approved to be the potential home of 6 dwelling units just like those of all my neighbors. That is beyond ridiculous.

The entire Council needs to get the boot at election time.

[egb]

1. I think the answer isn’t that nothing can be done, but that the costs of strict design requirements outweigh the costs of the occasional ugly building.

2. As for the dreaded six plex people often confuse an option with a requirement. Just because a six plex is legal doesn’t mean a street will get turned over in a short period of time. Even if it did, all that tells you is that the previous restrictions were highly costly and it was good to get rid of them.

If it makes you feel any better your house is now worth more without you having to do anything.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by egb

1. I think the answer isn’t that nothing can be done, but that the costs of strict design requirements outweigh the costs of the occasional ugly building.

2. As for the dreaded six plex people often confuse an option with a requirement. Just because a six plex is legal doesn’t mean a street will get turned over in a short period of time. Even if it did, all that tells you is that the previous restrictions were highly costly and it was good to get rid of them.

If it makes you feel any better your house is now worth more without you having to do anything.

Yes, that is correct. And I'm not sure why some residents feel entitled to control the type of buildings other property owners create. The right to choose what to do with your own property is much more foundational and logical in a free society. Which is very important since some people act like removing a restriction is almost the same as properties being expropriated by the government and forcefully redeveloped. Redevelopment only happens when someone who owns a property either chooses to redevelop it, or to sell it to someone else who chooses to redevelop it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

1. What are these costs? As has been said, it may not cost any more, or not significantly more to make the building fit into its surroundings a little better. It’s been mentioned that the difficulty is in how to define it. In this case there’s the heritage district, which should provide some opportunity to more easily define requirements so that they can build something that is not the rendering posted in this thread.

The cost of an ugly building is decades of ugliness, not measurable in dollars.

2. It’s always easy to downplay negative effects of planning decisions on an individual when you are not the one experiencing said negative effects.

I suppose increased value can be motivation to move out of the house you were happy in and didn’t plan to move from into some other overpriced house that, once you add in moving, real estate and legal costs, you might break even… that is, if you can actually find another house in an area that you want to be in. There’s always that.

In the meantime, let’s keep expanding our population at unprecedented rates without any meaningful infrastructure upgrades. It’s the LPC way…

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes, that is correct. And I'm not sure why some residents feel entitled to control the type of buildings other property owners create. The right to choose what to do with your own property is much more foundational and logical in a free society. Which is very important since some people act like removing a restriction is almost the same as properties being expropriated by the government and forcefully redeveloped. Redevelopment only happens when someone who owns a property either chooses to redevelop it, or to sell it to someone else who chooses to redevelop it.

To a point, but said restriction is considered when one chooses to live there. After the investment is made, it is still a let down if restrictions are removed that may take away the very reason you decided to move there in the first place.

There are two sides to every story, after all. On SSP, it’s common to criticize anyone who ‘selfishly’ wants to maintain the quality of life that they experienced for years, so I get it. The conversation will go as it will go.

[egb]

To be clear I’m sympathetic to having buildings that look nice but I think we have to be honest that rule making is incredibly difficult. It’s not that you shouldn’t ever try (that would just be giving up) but regulations can be highly costly if you’re not careful in what you choose to do.

On the second point I want to be careful here because message boards live on miscommunication and I really do sympathize. I also live in a similar neighbourhood and if the whole street got turned over it would probably make my life worse rather than better in many ways.

But I think it’s worth picturing who might benefit from a four plex being built down the street and the difference it would make in their lives. It’s not that there are no costs to neighbourhood change only that the benefits to others are so large that costs begin to seem rather small.

And this is not a debate about immigration to me. Unless you don’t want to see Halifax grow at all these kinds of changes we’re going to have to come one way or another.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In the meantime, let’s keep expanding our population at unprecedented rates without any meaningful infrastructure upgrades. It’s the LPC way…

The whole point of the Housing Accelerator Fund is that it's to be used to upgrade infrastructure.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

2. It’s always easy to downplay negative effects of planning decisions on an individual when you are not the one experiencing said negative effects.

The same thing could be said about preserving arbitrary zoning rules making it impossible to build more housing where we already have infrastructure in place. Easy to defend anti-new-housing zoning when you already own a home and don't care about housing unaffordability or homelessness.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In the meantime, let’s keep expanding our population at unprecedented rates without any meaningful infrastructure upgrades. It’s the LPC way…

Except in NS, where the Liberals want a stop to the Conservative plan to double the population...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...id%20Churchill.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by egb

To be clear I’m sympathetic to having buildings that look nice but I think we have to be honest that rule making is incredibly difficult. It’s not that you shouldn’t ever try (that would just be giving up) but regulations can be highly costly if you’re not careful in what you choose to do.

On the second point I want to be careful here because message boards live on miscommunication and I really do sympathize. I also live in a similar neighbourhood and if the whole street got turned over it would probably make my life worse rather than better in many ways.

But I think it’s worth picturing who might benefit from a four plex being built down the street and the difference it would make in their lives. It’s not that there are no costs to neighbourhood change only that the benefits to others are so large that costs begin to seem rather small.

And this is not a debate about immigration to me. Unless you don’t want to see Halifax grow at all these kinds of changes we’re going to have to come one way or another.

Fair points.

On the last one, it’s not about being anti-immigration or anti-change, it’s about the recent high rate of influx into the area that has exacerbated the housing crisis and resulted in forcing the hand of governments to upend everything just to have places where people can live and hopefully afford. Won’t get into the strain on healthcare, traffic congestion, etc., it was just a poorly planned move to try to increase GDP artificially, and everyone is paying the price, including those who immigrated here, expecting to find better circumstances than they are being faced with.

But yeah, it doesn’t need to be in this conversation. That is one butt ugly rendering, though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The whole point of the Housing Accelerator Fund is that it's to be used to upgrade infrastructure.

If it will actually be used in a meaningful way, then it appears to be purely reactionary, which seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Like very poor planning at the very least.

I could be missing something here, though. It wouldn’t be the first time.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

The same thing could be said about preserving arbitrary zoning rules making it impossible to build more housing where we already have infrastructure in place. Easy to defend anti-new-housing zoning when you already own a home and don't care about housing unaffordability or homelessness.



Except in NS, where the Liberals want a stop to the Conservative plan to double the population...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...id%20Churchill.

The first is a commonly used trope intended to make anybody who has a concern - any concern - look like the bad guy. Well played.

Regarding the second, the LPC is the federal govt, who have unexpectedly added something like 1.5 million new people per year, all looking for housing, to our country over the last few years (as you are aware, I’m sure). While I don’t agree with Houston’s plan either, as I think it is too much too soon, at least he appears to have a plan, whereas the feds did not seem to see any further than opening the floodgates and seeing what happens.

[Nouvellecosse]

There's a bit of a difference between the federal and provincial levels in that housing is not considered a federal responsibility while it does fall under the purview of the provincial and municipal governments. So while the federal government could have done a better job coordinating with the lower levels, it's ultimately up to those responsible for housing to adjust their policies in response to changing growth rates. The big problem there is that while the LPC uses rhetoric intended to paint itself as left-learning to protect its left flank from the NDP, it's very much a centrist, "faith in the market" party. As a result, they have faith in the power of a market to address whatever supply problems might arise. Which might work ok when the market is unrestrained, but not when it's strangled by regulations resulting in the majority of residential land being off-limits due to exclusionary zoning. So there's a bit of a federal blind spot there, but the feds seem to have realized that which is why they're trying to push municipalities to loosen the restrictions.

But it's absolutely true that there are good reasons for existing residents to be concerned about proposed changes or want to block development. But it's a very different question as to whether governments should side with them when making policy over the concerns of people who need housing or want the freedom to control their own land. It's similar to the way we make shoplifting illegal even though there are potentially many valid reason why someone would want to do it. Everything from the cliched "stealing bread to feed one's kids" to normal cost of living concerns or because a store ripped them off at some point and they want justice/revenge, etc. But we side with the protection of property rights because that's a higher priority.

So I don't agree with demonizing people for expressing concerns or reluctance over development. I remember there was a person, I believe on this sub forum, who mentioned how they or a friend/family member had been happily living in a house for years until a development went up beside them that robbed them of light and privacy. I genuinely felt bad for that person, much like i genuinely feel bad hearing some of the reasons people shoplift. But using government power to enforce exclusionary policies isn't the answer any more than legalizing shoplifting. There's just more potential for it to do harm than good.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The whole point of the Housing Accelerator Fund is that it's to be used to upgrade infrastructure.

The HRM planners would likely use the $70 million sack of gold to build a few bike flyovers and bike lanes, benefiting only a tiny but loud minority. We need a total purge at City Hall.