Suburban & Rural Developments & Discussion Thread

[Dmajackson]

^There is plenty of parkland and an extensive boardwalk around the entire area. There just won't be any Dewolfe-style parks.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Ambitious plan, mixed reviews

Bedford residents urge more green space, less concrete in waterfront development

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG

.
.
.
Bosko Loncarevic, a Bedford town councillor from 1973 to 1986, was on council when DeWolfe Park was created and he told the crowd that Bedford residents insisted on a large public space.

“If this is all free land, why don’t we have all that as a parkland?" Loncarevic asked to silence.

“It’s not free land," said project co-manager Terry Drisdelle, “because the revenues being generated are . . . also going towards building the infrastructure that’s required to support the development — the roads, the services, the underground wiring." “We wouldn’t need those if it was all parkland," Loncarevic replied to a burst of applause.

This seems like a very irresponsible statement coming from an ex-councillor. It is one thing to state that there should be more green space, but saying that it should be all parkland was just to solicit cheap applause (in my opinion). If this councillor owns property then why doesn't he convert his own property into public parkland?

[HRM]

This project as proposed will NEVER see the light of day. There are so many things wrong with it that it appears that a high-school class put it together.

[hfxtradesman]

Why was it your class?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by HRM

This project as proposed will NEVER see the light of day. There are so many things wrong with it that it appears that a high-school class put it together.

Are you referring to the Bedford proposal? Link - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4881620#post4881620

[HRM]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Are you referring to the Bedford proposal? Link - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4881620#post4881620

Yes in less than 10 characters.

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by HRM

Yes in less than 10 characters.

Then you have a very poor view of what good development is. I can't believe anybody would feel strongly against this. Sure it has a couple of problems such as a bit too much surface parking, but otherwise I think its fantastic. Whats your reasoning?

[Dmajackson]

Mount Hope Avenue Extension

It appears the extension of Mount Hope Ave from the interchange to Woodside Park is going ahead. Nothing over special to state from reading the report but it appears some bus routes will be rerouted after construction is complete to better service the park and Russell Lake West.

[HRM]

Originally Posted by Wishblade

Then you have a very poor view of what good development is. I can't believe anybody would feel strongly against this. Sure it has a couple of problems such as a bit too much surface parking, but otherwise I think its fantastic. Whats your reasoning?

When one does not have anything concrete to back up their opinion the easiest thing to do is attack the character of the person on the other side of the debate. You yourself did not offer any positive comments, only negatives. Perhaps you are excited to see just

This is not good development. Most people who discuss it actually agree. This is Lego development at its worst - like a bunch of over-sized Lego blocks were dropped haphazardly onto an artificial pad. There is nothing natural looking/feeling about this development at all.

This amount of commercial/residential coupled with a ferry terminal will make an already brutal traffic situation even worse. There simply doesn't appear to be sufficient and effecient access to the water/ferry terminal.

A great deal of the green spaces are on roof tops which will benefit only the residents/workers living and/or working in those buildings. Also a great deal of the remaining green space will be the property of condo owners. So area residents will have access to very little public green space fronting the basin that is not next to the major transportation artery of the development.

I'm assuming UG in the Phase 2C development (island) is United Gulf. Given their track record (twisted sisters) I wouldn't bet the farm on a timely start.

This project pushes development further from the core of the city, the peninsula - which is contrary to financially prudent development.

This project assumes a private company (Sobeys) will simply rebuild their existing structures to suit the "vision" WDCL has for Moirs Village of which the land is currently owned by Sobeys through Crombie REIT. Good luck to WDCL getting that to happen.

I couldn't care less about building height - the higher the better. But I'm pretty sure most people who live in the area there will not be happy.

I'm all for modern development with high quality components, but let's be real here - this is Halifax. It will be Parkland Drive or the shite being built by the new Uteck interchange only next to water. Most developers here cheap out and ruin everything they touch.

I'm not against development at this site. I'm only against badly designed development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I agree with your points... but I mean, I want to see Bedford develop into something instead of stagnate.

I hope that we get something of high quality, but quality will always diminish in Halifax development due to the costs of obstructionism.

[miesh111]

This is a constant argument regarding the quality of buildings, on nearly every city page on this forum site.

My suggestion for a development like this is to mandate the quality. Too often we get bogged down with height restrictions and NIMBY's going on, however we never talk about quality restrictions. Why does our council insist that a building must not exceed 50’, but they never talk about the fact that they could use purple vinyl siding as a finishing material? Why does the density of the building take all the attention, while the fact that it is an uninteresting concrete box with no architectural flavour never is discussed?

HRM by design should have talked about design principles, and mandated them. It should have been a requirement that buildings are interesting, and finished with specified materials, depending on the area.

In the meantime, there should be tax incentives for developers to build things of quality. If certain premium materials are used, it should be given as a credit on their tax bill.

Furthermore, if a developer is interested in building to other specified quality and community oriented guidelines (as set out by the city), there should be other allotted bonuses, in height, taxes, and services delivered by the city. For example, if a developer is willing to build to LEED standards, and build an iconic and architecturally interesting building, the city could promise a bus stop in front, lower taxes, and height bonuses, among other service offers. Meet these suggestions, and gain this much in height and service.

Instead of complaining about the quality of development on Parkland, Larry Uteck, Russell Lake and Sackville, we should be talking about incenting developers to not build these kinds of buildings. It should make economic sense to build the best possible buildings, and the city has to incent this. Right now, they are only concerned about generating a higher tax base and clawing as much out of council coffers in to their own districts.

[beyeas]

Well put!

[Dmajackson]

The new retirement place going up on Admiral Street in Dartmouth;

[dlandry]

Anyone have an idea what is being built in front of Home Depot on Lacewood? There are fences up and some digging happening, but I see no signs.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by dlandry

Anyone have an idea what is being built in front of Home Depot on Lacewood? There are fences up and some digging happening, but I see no signs.

I never looked into it but I remember there being a planning case about the Lacewood Home Depot on HRM's website so I'd look there first.

[dlandry]

I don't see anything at halifax.ca/planning. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by dlandry

I don't see anything at halifax.ca/planning. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Thanks to spending way too much time on HRM's website looking up information I managed to figure out where to find the report on this;

http://halifax.ca/Commcoun/ccc/documents/100201CCC1011.pdf

[miesh111]

According to the map in that document it is a seprate parcel owned by "Lacewood Holdings Inc.". A simple search of that firm shows a Michael Power as Principal.

No clue, anybody have any thoughts? The parcel calls for an L-Shaped building, probably minor retail or some sort of restuarant.

[dlandry]

It's likely a Tim Horton's After all, it's a whole 750m to the one in Bayer's lake and almost 1.5km to the one at Lacewood and Dunbrack.

Really though... I hope it's a restaurant with cheap lunch food. I work nearby and there's isn't a whole lot within a short walk. Chicken and breakfast food gets old fast!

[dlandry]

I just read the PDF from the Halifax site a bit more. On page 21, it says a Mr. Michael Power (previous page says he owns "the lot in front of Home Depot") plans to "build a medical clinic on this lot".

There is a Dr. Michael Power who works at Lacewood Medical Clinic next door in the plaza with Smitty's. Maybe they're moving.