HRM Planning Should Be Ashamed

[Keith P.]

My neighborhood is a good example of how things have changed in a relatively short time. A recently but modestly-renovated 2 story house up the street went on the market after COVID hit (not due to COVID but a marriage breakup instead) and was snapped up by a family moving here from Toronto at least partly due to the virus. They put some money into the place after paying a decent but not exorbitant price for it and now have what I presume is a very expensive property. Across the street an identical house to mine was bought by a single lady moving here from rural NS and she paid top dollar, a sum that made me happy for the value of mine should I ever sell it but which I doubt I will ever do. It also made me glad for the assessment cap as hers is assessed at close to what she paid.

[IanWatson]

I've said before in this thread that "you can't regulate taste". I want to clarify that that's not entirely true, it's more a shorthand for "you can't efficiently regulate taste".

In most North American planning systems you have two options for approvals:

• "As-of-right" - i.e. permitted development. You write an explicit set of rules (permitted uses, setbacks, maximum height, landscaping requirements, etc.). The Development Officer's job is to confirm that your proposal meets the requirements and issue you a permit if it does.
  
• "Discretionary" - e.g. in Nova Scotia this would include development agreements and Site Plan Approval (which used to be used in Downtown Halifax). You establish a set of qualitative criteria, and Council or another body such as a Design Review Committee are responsible for determining if the proposal reasonably meets the qualitative criteria.

It is very hard to fit design regulation into as-of-right permitting. Good design is not just a palate of materials or the presence of certain design features. It is much more about the relationship of various design choices. For every example of bad metal siding, there is a building out there that uses metal siding to great effect. If you prohibit metal siding on the basis that one building with it is ugly, you also prohibit all of the good uses of it.

The best place where as-of-right regulation works really well for design is in heritage contexts. In those situations you have very specific elements that are essential to the narrow character that you're trying to preserve and emulate. For example, you can make a nice metal-clad building, but it will never be appropriate in the context of a Victorian heritage district.

In theory, it's much easier to regulate design through discretionary processes. Now you have a group of people who can look not just at the elements in isolation, but in terms of how they work together and how they fit their surroundings. The problem with this is that it's slow. It takes time to evaluate and it takes time to adjust designs to respond to comments and feedback. Also, there needs to be an appeal process, since we're a society that belives in checks-and-balances on decision makers. The end results is that you're looking at months, if not years, for an approval. That can be reasonable for big, important developments but it's simply untenanble when it comes to small-scale development.

So TL;DR:

1. Regulate rigidly through as-of-right. Prevent a lot of good designs along with preventing bad.
2. Regulate through a discretionary process, which takes way more time than is reasonable for a small building. Can you imagine the outcry (especially in this housing market) if it took months or years to get a permit for a simple building?
3. Don't regulate taste. Yes, you'll get some bad stuff but you'll also get a lot of good.

[JET]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I've said before in this thread that "you can't regulate taste". I want to clarify that that's not entirely true, it's more a shorthand for "you can't efficiently regulate taste".

In most North American planning systems you have two options for approvals:

• "As-of-right" - i.e. permitted development. You write an explicit set of rules (permitted uses, setbacks, maximum height, landscaping requirements, etc.). The Development Officer's job is to confirm that your proposal meets the requirements and issue you a permit if it does.
  
• "Discretionary" - e.g. in Nova Scotia this would include development agreements and Site Plan Approval (which used to be used in Downtown Halifax). You establish a set of qualitative criteria, and Council or another body such as a Design Review Committee are responsible for determining if the proposal reasonably meets the qualitative criteria.

It is very hard to fit design regulation into as-of-right permitting. Good design is not just a palate of materials or the presence of certain design features. It is much more about the relationship of various design choices. For every example of bad metal siding, there is a building out there that uses metal siding to great effect. If you prohibit metal siding on the basis that one building with it is ugly, you also prohibit all of the good uses of it.

The best place where as-of-right regulation works really well for design is in heritage contexts. In those situations you have very specific elements that are essential to the narrow character that you're trying to preserve and emulate. For example, you can make a nice metal-clad building, but it will never be appropriate in the context of a Victorian heritage district.

In theory, it's much easier to regulate design through discretionary processes. Now you have a group of people who can look not just at the elements in isolation, but in terms of how they work together and how they fit their surroundings. The problem with this is that it's slow. It takes time to evaluate and it takes time to adjust designs to respond to comments and feedback. Also, there needs to be an appeal process, since we're a society that belives in checks-and-balances on decision makers. The end results is that you're looking at months, if not years, for an approval. That can be reasonable for big, important developments but it's simply untenanble when it comes to small-scale development.

So TL;DR:

1. Regulate rigidly through as-of-right. Prevent a lot of good designs along with preventing bad.
2. Regulate through a discretionary process, which takes way more time than is reasonable for a small building. Can you imagine the outcry (especially in this housing market) if it took months or years to get a permit for a simple building?
3. Don't regulate taste. Yes, you'll get some bad stuff but you'll also get a lot of good.

There is a difference at times between what is proposed and what is built.
The Lotus originally had a nice pyramid design with nice cladding. That was then changed to a boxy design with not very attractive cladding. That was disappointing.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not self-imposed at all. There have been many factors involved, including real estate prices in other parts of the country rising rapidly due mostly to foreign “investment” and lack of ambition from the feds to do anything about it (lots to it but won’t get into it), Covid created a perfect storm of people wanting to get away from the larger cities, ability to WFH, and relatively low real estate prices in quaint NS. The housing crisis was born in NS.

Then the feds opening the immigration floodgates for TFWs and anybody else who desired to live in Canada, causing huge population increases everywhere in the country, and exacerbating the housing crisis everywhere, including NS. The nail in the coffin if you will.

This caused a number of knee-jerk reactions from all levels of government, with Halifax getting some planning intervention from the province, one of the results being the subject of this discussion.

Not sure how we are supposed to blame ourselves for this, but if that works for you, fill your boots.

Sounds like we're on the same page but perhaps I worded my post poorly. My critique was more from the political side messups rather than it being a problem with HRM planning. There is nothing the planning staff can really do when the population artificially jumps 100k in a couple years from outside political influence or decisions.

Just trying to give some love to the planners everyone seems to hate

[someone123]

It is worth noting that these Jubilee examples arguably should be heritage areas, not generic development areas. The blocks of Jubilee near Robie are some of the nicest blocks of housing in the city. I don't think HRM has succeeded at creating a single really coherent, high-quality heritage district, even though there were and are good candidate districts and on paper they've studied them ad nauseam. The project happening around Jubilee only would have needed some small tweaks to achieve better aesthetics that would have been compatible with the area.

Barrington still could be a real gem yet it's just... kind of so-so, with some at-risk deteriorating buildings like the terracotta Pacific Building that could be really beautiful.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Sounds like we're on the same page but perhaps I worded my post poorly. My critique was more from the political side messups rather than it being a problem with HRM planning. There is nothing the planning staff can really do when the population artificially jumps 100k in a couple years from outside political influence or decisions.

Just trying to give some love to the planners everyone seems to hate

Fair enough! 👍🏻

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Just trying to give some love to the planners everyone seems to hate

Even if it is a planning issue it can be due to non-planner factors like council, the province, etc. I think one underrated HRM aspect is that there's only so much political capital and attention and very little gets done if you have a cat herding exercise of too many councillors constantly promoting different issues, asking for reports, getting cold feet and backing out then wanting a new report, then implementing the cheapest possible temporary bandaid, etc.

HRM council famously used to constantly debate cat bylaws.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I've said before in this thread that "you can't regulate taste". I want to clarify that that's not entirely true, it's more a shorthand for "you can't efficiently regulate taste".

In most North American planning systems you have two options for approvals:

• "As-of-right" - i.e. permitted development. You write an explicit set of rules (permitted uses, setbacks, maximum height, landscaping requirements, etc.). The Development Officer's job is to confirm that your proposal meets the requirements and issue you a permit if it does.
  
• "Discretionary" - e.g. in Nova Scotia this would include development agreements and Site Plan Approval (which used to be used in Downtown Halifax). You establish a set of qualitative criteria, and Council or another body such as a Design Review Committee are responsible for determining if the proposal reasonably meets the qualitative criteria.

It is very hard to fit design regulation into as-of-right permitting. Good design is not just a palate of materials or the presence of certain design features. It is much more about the relationship of various design choices. For every example of bad metal siding, there is a building out there that uses metal siding to great effect. If you prohibit metal siding on the basis that one building with it is ugly, you also prohibit all of the good uses of it.

The best place where as-of-right regulation works really well for design is in heritage contexts. In those situations you have very specific elements that are essential to the narrow character that you're trying to preserve and emulate. For example, you can make a nice metal-clad building, but it will never be appropriate in the context of a Victorian heritage district.

In theory, it's much easier to regulate design through discretionary processes. Now you have a group of people who can look not just at the elements in isolation, but in terms of how they work together and how they fit their surroundings. The problem with this is that it's slow. It takes time to evaluate and it takes time to adjust designs to respond to comments and feedback. Also, there needs to be an appeal process, since we're a society that belives in checks-and-balances on decision makers. The end results is that you're looking at months, if not years, for an approval. That can be reasonable for big, important developments but it's simply untenanble when it comes to small-scale development.

So TL;DR:

1. Regulate rigidly through as-of-right. Prevent a lot of good designs along with preventing bad.
2. Regulate through a discretionary process, which takes way more time than is reasonable for a small building. Can you imagine the outcry (especially in this housing market) if it took months or years to get a permit for a simple building?
3. Don't regulate taste. Yes, you'll get some bad stuff but you'll also get a lot of good.

Great summary. Thanks for that.

I guess with regard to specific areas, in the context of a housing emergency, I wonder if it would have a significant effect on the process if they were to create “as of right” requirements for general areas that may not be perfect solutions but would ensure that whatever is built isn’t a total dog (as in this case). So we might end up with some cookie-cutter buildings that reasonably blend in with the street even if the next block over has an almost-identical example. So uniqueness and adventurous design might be sacrificed a little, but the positives would be speedy approval and something that doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.

Fans of history might note that this isn’t the first time that Halifax (and other Canadian cities) has had to build vast amounts of housing in a short time. Another example was during WWII when street upon street of virtually identical small houses were built (without foundations!) to house the huge number of people who moved to Halifax to support the war effort. After the war they were sold off to citizens with the provision that they had to install foundations for approval.

I wasn’t alive at the time to monitor public sentiment, but I never heard any of the older people complain about them being eyesores or whatever. So it can be done if we use our heads and make reasonable decisions.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Great summary. Thanks for that.

I guess with regard to specific areas, in the context of a housing emergency, I wonder if it would have a significant effect on the process if they were to create “as of right” requirements for general areas that may not be perfect solutions but would ensure that whatever is built isn’t a total dog (as in this case). So we might end up with some cookie-cutter buildings that reasonably blend in with the street even if the next block over has an almost-identical example. So uniqueness and adventurous design might be sacrificed a little, but the positives would be speedy approval and something that doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.

If you look at the survey that HRM has put out, it would certainly seem that this is what they're teeing up to do. It will prevent the worst developments, but it's also going to prevent a lot of good ones. And at some point we'll all forget about this one bad building and there will be a CBC News story with some architect or landowner complaining about how the rules have prevented their good design, and some forum members will make a post about how HRM should be ashamed their bureacracy is stopping good development. On that day I will break out this thread, lol.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

If you look at the survey that HRM has put out, it would certainly seem that this is what they're teeing up to do. It will prevent the worst developments, but it's also going to prevent a lot of good ones. And at some point we'll all forget about this one bad building and there will be a CBC News story with some architect or landowner complaining about how the rules have prevented their good design, and some forum members will make a post about how HRM should be ashamed their bureacracy is stopping good development. On that day I will break out this thread, lol.

Ha! I think that is good insight. I will be amused when you have the opportunity to break out this thread again!

It brings to mind that the complexities of planning and building in unexpected circumstances must be extremely challenging. I hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel when supply/demand balances out and we can live in more normal times. Hopefully there will be some learned lessons that will improve processes at that time.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Fans of history might note that this isn’t the first time that Halifax (and other Canadian cities) has had to build vast amounts of housing in a short time. Another example was during WWII when street upon street of virtually identical small houses were built (without foundations!) to house the huge number of people who moved to Halifax to support the war effort. After the war they were sold off to citizens with the provision that they had to install foundations for approval.

I wasn’t alive at the time to monitor public sentiment, but I never heard any of the older people complain about them being eyesores or whatever. So it can be done if we use our heads and make reasonable decisions.

I have to wonder though. Weren't most of those homes built on greenfield or other vacant places like the old airport site? There's a big difference between building fast and hard when you have a mostly blank slate compared to doing infill. Yet Halifax is too large now to build a lot of greenfield because those areas are so much further out at this point and it would require a lot of infrastructure compared to infill housing. Particularly transportation infrastructure since it's much harder to built stuff out on the periphery without it being car-dependant and adding to traffic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I have to wonder though. Weren't most of those homes built on greenfield or other vacant places like the old airport site? There's a big difference between building fast and hard when you have a mostly blank slate compared to doing infill. Yet Halifax is too large now to build a lot of greenfield because those areas are so much further out at this point and it would require a lot of infrastructure compared to infill housing. Particularly transportation infrastructure since it's much harder to built stuff out on the periphery without it being car-dependant and adding to traffic.

It was just a nod to note that housing scarcity is nothing new to the city (historically, not to those not old enough to remember or those who don’t take an interest in history). Actually if you go back to the roots of Halifax it has happened many times (like in the fallout from the American Revolution for example). Each time a solution had to be found, some more eloquent than others but each appropriate to the era in which they happened).

The only reason I even mentioned it (other than to mention something that some may find interesting) is that in this case a standardized design was used and overall they weren’t considered ugly. Not sure if people ruminated over whether they were appropriate for whatever part of the city they were in, or whether they jibed with surrounding neighbourhoods, since it was a time of war and the situation was desperate, the future uncertain.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Oh for sure it seems like people were a lot more capable of dealing with major challenges at other times compared to now. I wonder if part of it is that Halifax wouldn't really have been considered historic back then since it was so much younger and therefore wouldn't have had as many areas that people felt should be "locked in" aesthetically. Or also, that people were so much more accustomed to adversity that it was easier to keep things in perspective. Adversity like the wars and explosion would have been felt or at least understood by everyone to some extent, while the effects of a housing shortage and high prices mostly just affect certain demographics. Some even benefit from it by it increasing the value of their own properties. So the biggest priority for some people - including some with degrees of power - is to isolate themselves from any changes.

Or perhaps it's just as simple as class dynamics. If the new housing in prior eras was mixed into fairly affluent and established areas rather than in the form of new districts, maybe there would have been just as much scrutiny.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I wonder if part of it is that Halifax wouldn't really have been considered historic back then since it was so much younger and therefore wouldn't have had as many areas that people felt should be "locked in" aesthetically.

I don't know about this. If anything it may have been the opposite since Halifax was already about 200 years old and so many places in North America were boomtowns from around 1900. Tourism materials from back then often talk of the "old world charm" of the city which had a lot more really old buildings before urban renewal and the postwar booms hit.

I think Halifax has lost a lot of its distinctiveness for a few different relatively recent social and political reasons. "We won't spend any public dollars on this" culture is one example, as are the many dubious social media based cultural trends primarily originating in the USA which are typically only semi-applicable. One funny one I notice is the very bland monochrome aesthetic that seems to have infected everything and has resulted in a lot of dreary paint jobs on old Halifax houses that would have been brighter in the 2000s.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yeah i suppose it was still old, but it seems like historical preservation wasn't considered as big a thing back then. Partly because of all the urban renewal stuff you mention that was allowed not only here in a lot of historic places, some much more so than here. But of course, most of the urban renewal stuff affected affected lower income areas that weren't considered valuable to people with influence leading to a lot of the "slum clearance" discourse.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I've been reading a book on Halifax history recently that was published in 1895 where the author describes significant historical buildings, so there was some reverence and respect for such things even back then.

The urban renewal fad was a mid 20th century thing that didn't get a foothold in Halifax really until the 1960s.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Great summary. Thanks for that.

I guess with regard to specific areas, in the context of a housing emergency, I wonder if it would have a significant effect on the process if they were to create “as of right” requirements for general areas that may not be perfect solutions but would ensure that whatever is built isn’t a total dog (as in this case). So we might end up with some cookie-cutter buildings that reasonably blend in with the street even if the next block over has an almost-identical example. So uniqueness and adventurous design might be sacrificed a little, but the positives would be speedy approval and something that doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.

Fans of history might note that this isn’t the first time that Halifax (and other Canadian cities) has had to build vast amounts of housing in a short time. Another example was during WWII when street upon street of virtually identical small houses were built (without foundations!) to house the huge number of people who moved to Halifax to support the war effort. After the war they were sold off to citizens with the provision that they had to install foundations for approval.

I wasn’t alive at the time to monitor public sentiment, but I never heard any of the older people complain about them being eyesores or whatever. So it can be done if we use our heads and make reasonable decisions.

Those prefabs were built largely on swaths of undeveloped land, much of it in the North End where the Explosion had destroyed most of the buildings a few decades prior. Some of what was lost was undoubtedly slummy but lots of what would now be considered historic architecture also disappeared as a result of the disaster. The replacements were simple little houses but cosmetically fit in with the other housing being built at the time save for the lack of dug foundations. They generally weren't considered eyesores that were parachuted in to fit small lots adjacent to existing older housing.

The problem here is that HRM Council was so greedy to get JT's $70 million sack of gold that they instructed staff to tear up existing restrictions without a whole lot of thought and to open the doors very wide for a lot of very unattractive and inappropriate things to be built. This holds true not just for the small-lot stick-built stuff that we have been talking about but perhaps more disturbingly, the blockbusting of existing single-family home districts by allowing 7-storey box apartments to be constructed in the middle of those previously single-family areas. A developer can now purchase a couple of adjacent homes, consolidate the lots and hey presto, you now have an el-cheapo box apartment looking into your previously secluded backyard and looming over adjacent houses. Good luck to a homeowner on the adjacent property who invested in a swimming pool or a secluded getaway there. An audit of what was done with that federal gold would be an interesting report.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

FWIW, taste and design are two completely separate things. Taste is subjective and design is a science taught in educational institutions worldwide. Taste can't be regulated but design can. The building in question seems to have been built based on a balance sheet alone ignoring design principals. Personally, I'm meh on the materials used. Material used is secondary to design. Folks often will pick up on materials used as their primary complaint because design ability is not everyone's bag...which is why we have a design industry which employs those who do have the talent and education to design. This developer maximized his profit at the expense of the community and blamed the housing crisis.

I've recently read a bit about how accumulated wealth is the biggest reason behind the high cost of housing. Things like inherited wealth leading to investment housing and 30%+ of down payments for housing purchases being funded by parents driving rising housing costs to the point of becoming completely untethered from earned wages. Googleable stuff and worth a read.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those prefabs were built largely on swaths of undeveloped land, much of it in the North End where the Explosion had destroyed most of the buildings a few decades prior. Some of what was lost was undoubtedly slummy but lots of what would now be considered historic architecture also disappeared as a result of the disaster. The replacements were simple little houses but cosmetically fit in with the other housing being built at the time save for the lack of dug foundations. They generally weren't considered eyesores that were parachuted in to fit small lots adjacent to existing older housing.

There was also some on the Dartmouth side in the Wyse/Albro Lake area, but I think that land was mostly undeveloped as well. It’s interesting to me to see how people will sometimes latch on to offhand comments that were really not the main point of a post and turn it into something that takes on a life of its own.

Anyhow the point was that the little prefabs, although simple and modest, still had some attention to their appearance and had little details to make them look like homes. They could have just as easily made them into little boxes that were functional but eyesores. Most everybody that I have ever heard talking about them referred to them as the little wartime houses, with sometimes even the term “cute” tossed in - nothing negative at all.

I think that those who say that the Jubilee buildings were simply a product of maximizing profit are bang on, and also agree with your point that the city was complicit in facilitating this to happen. As if someone couldn’t have predicted all of it before it came to this…

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I've recently read a bit about how accumulated wealth is the biggest reason behind the high cost of housing. Things like inherited wealth leading to investment housing and 30%+ of down payments for housing purchases being funded by parents driving rising housing costs to the point of becoming completely untethered from earned wages. Googleable stuff and worth a read.

It's totally true around here in Vancouver. It is a land of haves and have-nots where many families got windfalls in the millions from owning a house or two, and that translates into some buying condos for their kids or giving them down payments. Because housing in Canada doesn't function well as a competitive free market, that money source gets priced in so it's an uphill battle if you don't have assistance or a very high income. On top of this we had foreign buyers years ago but that seems to have slowed down. That trend caused ripple effects where somebody buys a mansion for $20M, then they and kids all buy houses and condos, move out to suburbs or rural BC, and on and on.

Halifax is maybe 30% of the way to this world now.