[Bedford] The Honeycote (1262 Bedford Highway) | 22 M | 8 FL | Proposed

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

It's this pic from the Herald story that I was referring to. And though I would agree that it's still a bit of a stretch, I see the role of a city councilor to use whatever they can to do what's best for the city rather than just cave to the will of the NIMBY. I'll also add that there's signage, landscaping, colour, lighting, etc. that can be used to highlight the heritage aspect of any development not to mention that this mid-rise is placed at the back of the property rather than being in more prominent position at the front of the property.


Honeycote by A.J. Forsythe, on Flickr

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

It's this pic from the Herald story that I was referring to. And though I would agree that it's still a bit of a stretch, I see the role of a city councilor to use whatever they can to do what's best for the city rather than just cave to the will of the NIMBY. I'll also add that there's signage, landscaping, colour, lighting, etc. that can be used to highlight the heritage aspect of any development not to mention that this mid-rise is placed at the back of the property rather than being in more prominent position at the front of the property.


Honeycote by A.J. Forsythe, on Flickr

Ah I see it now. Thanks! And I agree.

It should be built, and although I am still ambivalent towards the architecture in general, it appears that they at least made an effort to mimic the rhythm of older houses that might have populated that part of the street at some time.

It always amazes me that, in 2026, ‘we’ still can’t get our act together and come to a mutual understanding that is the best compromise for everyone (i.e. increasing sorely-needed housing stock while retaining character-adding heritage elements). Here we have a chance of having our cake and eating it too, but instead we have to dig in to one extreme side or another: one pigeonholed group described by an acronym vs a different pigeonholed group of an overused generalization, and we don’t seem to have the ability to get beyond that. “Yer either fer me or agin me” (stated with the worst angry hillbilly accent…).

Hopefully common sense will prevail (or at least some form of adhering to accepted processes) and this will continue as planned. Otherwise hang on for another rant about how nobody values heritage buildings around here again. I’m sure we’re all tired of that.

[ArchAficionado]

THe irony is also not lost in the NIMBY's decrying housing unaffordability while simultaneously working hard to make it worse by blocking reasonable developments such as this one. The idiocy really grinds my gears.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Despite popular opinion on here, I’m not convinced that this is a simple NIMBY situation, although I understand how easy and attractive it is to label it as such. One thing that does seem clear is whatever it is that “they” are trying to accomplish, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Or, in simpler terms, the end result will not be what anyone wants, and likely worse than if they had just taken the path of least resistance, regardless of whether their intentions are noble or selfish.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Despite popular opinion on here, I’m not convinced that this is a simple NIMBY situation, although I understand how easy and attractive it is to label it as such. One thing that does seem clear is whatever it is that “they” are trying to accomplish, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Or, in simpler terms, the end result will not be what anyone wants, and likely worse than if they had just taken the path of least resistance, regardless of whether their intentions are noble or selfish.

To be fair, I suspect many/most NIMBYs own their homes and (rightly or wrongly) expect to benefit from obstruction.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by kzt79

To be fair, I suspect many/most NIMBYs own their homes and (rightly or wrongly) expect to benefit from obstruction.

And I suspect that a healthy percentage of the activists/petition signers do not have intentions that align with the perceived NIMBY agenda. However I understand that this is a complex concept that doesn’t align very well with a headline-skimming society. Label them and move on. Don’t waste time trying to understand. It’s how we roll now.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I don't think that there's a lot to understand when it comes to NIMBYs. Fear of change is natural and normal in the human condition and is, in most cases, likely the basis of what they're about. This is why leadership is needed in times of change. In this case, the loss of the potential housing and all the costs and efforts put forward to date is, if reporting is to be believed, based on something so scientific as 'this doesn't go with that' and 'it'll look like a jagged tooth' (apologies to anyone with a jagged tooth). I joked a few times back in the Waye Mason days that he should organize a bus tour of all the devastation, lives lost and carnage etc. caused by one building being taller in the proximity of shorter buildings. Would there be any stops on the tour? We all likely know someone who stubbornly never changes there mind. Their stubbornness doesn't mean that they are right and should warrant any attention let alone build a city based on their behaviour. Again, leadership is required.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I don't think that there's a lot to understand when it comes to NIMBYs. Fear of change is natural and normal in the human condition and is, in most cases, likely the basis of what they're about. This is why leadership is needed in times of change. In this case, the loss of the potential housing and all the costs and efforts put forward to date is, if reporting is to be believed, based on something so scientific as 'this doesn't go with that' and 'it'll look like a jagged tooth' (apologies to anyone with a jagged tooth). I joked a few times back in the Waye Mason days that he should organize a bus tour of all the devastation, lives lost and carnage etc. caused by one building being taller in the proximity of shorter buildings. Would there be any stops on the tour? We all likely know someone who stubbornly never changes there mind. Their stubbornness doesn't mean that they are right and should warrant any attention let alone build a city based on their behaviour. Again, leadership is required.

I would question whether all of these reasons are classic “Not In My Back Yard” qualifiers, but we all have different interpretations, I suppose. I think we can simply agree that it would be better built than not, with the qualifier that the heritage home is restored. Even less-than-attractive architecture (as in this case) doesn’t seem to be a sufficient reason to try to stop it. I could certainly understand if it were to be like that mess on Jubilee, though. This one is bad, but not that bad, and it is functional housing, though it should be another 5 or so storeys taller.

Edit: Speaking of that building on Jubilee that was the subject of another thread, I really detest its featureless architecture and cheap finishing materials, and feel that it really detracts from the surrounding neighbourhood, even though it does add living spaces in the area. I don’t live in the area but care about the quality of new construction in the city because I care about the city. I could see myself signing a petition or speaking negatively about it if approached by the media because I think that something much better should have been built there, and feel that speaking out about it could result in better outcomes in the future for other buildings being constructed. Does that make me a NIMBY? It’s clearly not in my backyard…

[JET]

HRM council has rejected this plan.
Height guidelines for the area are two stories.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I have to say that 8 parking spaces for 8 floors in a suburban area isn’t ideal. In an old established neighbourhood without much on-street parking available, it will cause problems, and honestly will that many people living in Bedford be prepared to live car-free at the mercy of Metro Transit’s sketchy bus system?

I’m starting to question how well-thought-out this development is, TBH.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have to say that 8 parking spaces for 8 floors in a suburban area isn’t ideal. In an old established neighbourhood without much on-street parking available, it will cause problems, and honestly will that many people living in Bedford be prepared to live car-free at the mercy of Metro Transit’s sketchy bus system?

I’m starting to question how well-thought-out this development is, TBH.

Where did you get that number?

There are (I believe) 27 units involved so it is not huge, but I do see what looks like garage doors on the exterior renderings. Have to think it would have more then 8 spots.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Where did you get that number?

There are (I believe) 27 units involved so it is not huge, but I do see what looks like garage doors on the exterior renderings. Have to think it would have more then 8 spots.

Mark is correct, parking for 8 onsite for 30 units. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...t-say-8-storey-height-too-much-9.7257966

[Keith P.]

I suspect the article is incorrect.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I suspect the article is incorrect.

The Traffic Impact Statement dated Jan 27, 2025 (rev 2) states that as a 7 or 8 storey building with approx 25 units that it has “about 10” parking spaces.

I would assume there are newer documents that exist whereby “about 10” could potentially be exactly 8, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe the information stated in the article, unless you have accurate intel from a legit source that proves otherwise.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The Traffic Impact Statement dated Jan 27, 2025 (rev 2) states that as a 7 or 8 storey building with approx 25 units that it has “about 10” parking spaces.

I would assume there are newer documents that exist whereby “about 10” could potentially be exactly 8, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe the information stated in the article, unless you have accurate intel from a legit source that proves otherwise.

Actually that document makes clear what occurred. The proposal originally had about 25 underground parking spaces on two levels but required two different access points to access them since there was not enough area to allow for a ramp between the levels. That explains the two garage doors seen on the renderings. HRM made them bring it down to one level which reduced the amount of parking considerably.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Which presumably is fine because it will influence future residents to choose car-free living and use transit and active transportation to get around… which is great if you live downtown, but less attractive if you live in a suburban area like Bedford. Which leads me to believe that the majority of residents will choose to own a car, 10-15 of which will be parked on neighbourhood streets. Which brings the conversation full circle right back to the point of my original post. Could have saved a lot of time had you thought it through.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

HRM Transit isn't yet at a level where any buildings should be built without sufficient parking for all residents. This includes our most urban areas where rents are only really affordable by those who can also afford cars...a generalization perhaps. As Mark suggests, cars will park in any and all available spots nearby buildings without sufficient parking. This will create problems for existing residents in the areas affected. However, this wasn't a problem for the area councilor rather the building was simply too tall. And, another however here... this building is near to what is soon to be our most modern and expensive piece of transit yet. So there's that.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Could have saved a lot of time had you thought it through.

I could have saved even more time if I hadn’t bothered to read your condescending comment, but here we are.

You be you, though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I could have saved even more time if I hadn’t bothered to read your condescending comment, but here we are.

You be you, though.

Lol… I wasn’t meaning to be nasty, but it’s a little frustrating to have posts continually debated when the information is easy to find. i.e. arguing for the sake of arguing, aka “you being you”… I do sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings, though. In my defence, you often tend to post in a fairly gruff manner, and you don’t tend to hold back any punches when you believe that you are right. People read the room and give back what they get.

That said, you’re right in that I need to be better than that, and take the high road. Sorry about that… I will try to curb my enthusiasm in the future. The community is always better when we can be civil to one another.

[JET]

The Canal at Maple and Ochterloney (now working on the 4th floor) was to have 2 levels of parking but when they got down one level to the bedrock they decided to have one level of parking. Downtown Dartmouth is pretty good for transit, many can get by here without a car.