General Updates and News - Page 213

someone123 · #**4241** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 3:20 AM**

Apparently $25M or so in capital improvements are being budgeted for the Spring Garden Road area in 2014. It sounds like the plan is to overhaul many aspects of the street at once: water, sewer, and the streetscape. Some money is also budgeted for the new plaza in front of the library.

It's about time. I wonder what the story is with Barrington and Argyle? To me it makes sense to get the improvements over with now since there are so many new projects underway. It doesn't make sense to wait until the Nova Centre is open and only then start tearing up Argyle.

beyeas · #**4242** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Apparently $25M or so in capital improvements are being budgeted for the Spring Garden Road area in 2014. It sounds like the plan is to overhaul many aspects of the street at once: water, sewer, and the streetscape. Some money is also budgeted for the new plaza in front of the library.

It's about time. I wonder what the story is with Barrington and Argyle? To me it makes sense to get the improvements over with now since there are so many new projects underway. It doesn't make sense to wait until the Nova Centre is open and only then start tearing up Argyle.

WAAAAYYYYY too logical. That sort of sound thinking is strictly against HRM policy. I believe the city actually commissioned a study on such thinking in 1984, and the Heritage Trust felt that if crappy infrastructure was good enough for our forefathers, then it should be good enough for us. In fact Pacey argued that, in the interests of historical accuracy, Barrington Street should undergo heritage reconstruction as a poorly graded dirt road open only to horse traffic.

halifaxboyns · #**4243** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

"Mini Vancouver" is kind of a strange thing to aspire to. Halifax is about 1/5 the size of metro Vancouver but its inner city, to me, feels more like maybe 1/3 the size, or maybe even a bit larger. Vancouver doesn't have a lot of interesting old residential neighbourhoods (the oldest ones are like the West End), and its universities are in isolated suburban locations. The bigger buildings in Halifax like the Maritime Centre or Fenwick would still be major buildings in Vancouver.

It's funny, I'm quite honest when I say that my vision for HRM would be to make it the 'Vancouver of the East'. Most people react in surprise, because they think that I mean tall towers everywhere, but that's not what I think of.
Considering the Vancouver is only about (for ease of math) about 120,000 people more than HRM (last time I checked), it's not far off, but most people look at the GVRD with over a 2 million +.

When I think of Halifax as the 'Vancouver of the East', I think a variety of things. I think about sustainability: Increased density (in a variety of forms from mid-rise to point towers), better investment in multi-modal transit options (bike, walk, car pool lanes, bus priority/queue jumps, high speed ferry, LRT, streetcar and regional rail), improved/new commercial corridors (along the lines of the Regional Centre Plan), improved parks and social amenities and in general a greener city.

I also see it as a really great region of potential. Peninsula Halifax, Dartmouth (inside the Circ) are the old grid approach for the most part. That makes it a lot easier to densify in logical locations which can be further supported by higher order transit (streetcar, LRT). Being an incrementalist, I think that if you are slowly going to change people's minds on the issue of building height - the approach going forward is fair, but we need to recognize that if a streetcar/lrt is approved in a corridor, the height should be increased to add more density to ensure the high order transit is a success. This way, we do eventually get to a point where 15+ stories may be the norm around here.

The other thing I see happening that will be Vancouver-esque is if we do get LRT/streetcars, there will end up being transit oriented development policies and you'll start seeing pockets of high density crop up throughout HRM. A good example of a surprisingly level of density (to me) is Larry Uteck Drive and all the condos/apartments along there. That may be a logical place to support at minimum a BRT or a future LRT station somewhere along there. The development for the motherhouse is another one...

I think the other stuff that we've all talked about that Vancouver does but HRM doesn't (like streetscaping and intervening) will come with time and confidence. The more the city begins to build up and grow up, the improved tax revenues, the more can happen. It will also happen when staff gains more confidence to be bold and really go for outside the box thinking, which I sense the regional centre plan is doing (we talk about how projects normally have height shaved - the RC plan is talking about tall, not everywhere but in many places).

That's just my two cents though...

halifaxboyns · #**4244** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Apparently $25M or so in capital improvements are being budgeted for the Spring Garden Road area in 2014. It sounds like the plan is to overhaul many aspects of the street at once: water, sewer, and the streetscape. Some money is also budgeted for the new plaza in front of the library.

It's about time. I wonder what the story is with Barrington and Argyle? To me it makes sense to get the improvements over with now since there are so many new projects underway. It doesn't make sense to wait until the Nova Centre is open and only then start tearing up Argyle.

Personally, seeing the value of the density bonusing mechanism, I would want to make a streetscape improvement fund a mandatory bonusing item to achieve post bonus heights in the corridors. We did that here in Calgary for the Hillhurst/Sunnyside TOD area around Kennsington - that you pay into a bonusing fund when you upzone to achieve the policy densities. The cost is minimum ($7.50/sq metre) - on a typical maximum site in the policy area I think someone said it worked out to about $25,000 cost to the developer. Considering the tallest projecting in the Kensington Area will be about 12-14 stories, you are looking at probably 10 Million $ to build? Pocket change.

Personally, I'd make a couple bonusing items (in the corridors) mandatory:

Mandatory contribution to streetscape improvements (cost be square foot of commercial and a flat rate for residential based on # of bedrooms);
Low income housing (would have to remain for the life of the development);
Parks contribution fund (to help improve any local parks or if none exists, build one - great for Agricola/Robie near the commons);
Transportation support (similar to the streetscape fund - flat rate per square metre for commercial/flat rate for residential based on # of bedrooms) to help recover costs of future transportation construction (if an LRT/streetcar/high speed ferry were proposed - only applicable in areas where fixed high level transit proposed; not for buses or BRT); and
'Social services' fund - something to help for daycare or a recreation centre in a corridor.

This would be in addition to any other mandatory requirements which exist already.

Drybrain · #**4245** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 8:36 PM**

I agree with a lot of those thoughts, especially about streetscape improvements, etc.

But when it comes to Vancouver-izing ourselves, it really is important to look at population, and population growth. Metro Vancouver has 2.5 million, with 9.3 per cent growth over the last five years. HRM is 400,000, with 4.5 per cent growth. (And a lot of those Vancouver condos are empty, owned by absentee foreign investors.)

That means the HRM, between 2006 and 2011, added about 18,000 people. Hopefully the next census sees a bigger increase, and hopefully there'll be greater retention of existing population, and more immigrants. But that modest population growth is why I'm skeptical about the prospect of towers. A few are nice as punctuation to the skyline, but mid-rise infill is really more realistic given the economics here. And that’s not a bad thing.

It lets us a chance to grow in a more deliberate, measured way. Toronto's chief planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, just sounded the alarm over over-intensification in that city's downtown, with way too many towers sprouting up in pockets of density, as halifaxboyns calls them, and insufficient development elsewhere, leading to a weirdly polarized city of ultra density in certain areas, mainly downtown, with stagnation and even decline in other neighbourhoods. We can envy Toronto’s skyline all we want, but the place is a dog’s breakfast, and the crush on infrastructure in growth nodes threatens to be unbearable. And other areas don’t get to join in on the boom.

With inner city living become increasingly popular in Halifax, we have a real chance to substantially urbanize, European-style, our entire peninsula plus Dartmouth—Quinpool, SGR, lower stretches of Hollis/Barrington, Gottingen and Agricola, Robie, etc. If we shoot our load with a few towers, so to speak, we lose that chance. I would love, for example to see Gottingen be an unbroken stretch of urbanity between Cogswell and the Hydrostone, and some of the proposed infill projects suggest that might be happening. Spreading population growth up and down the peninsular corridors is way better than having a few high-density pockets. It might look boring on a postcard, but it’d be a vastly more exciting and explorable city on the street.

halifaxboyns · #**4246** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 9:17 PM**

I've met Jennifer a few times at conferences, she's a smart cookie and will be a great value for Toronto. I think she's right and I think mid-rise along many of the corridors will be helpful. But I don't want the mid-rise to prevent that when the Regional Transportation Plan comes along (and a decision be made for higher order transportation - if it happens) prevents density/height limits from being modified to 'stack the deck'. In other words, if Agricola is 6 to 8 stories, I don't want it stuck at that level if a streetcar or LRT eventually gets built there because I'd rather push the heights up to 10-12 so that you can get more people, close to regular (and fast) transportation. This gives greater chances for such transportation to be successful.

That said, I see the Kempt Road/Young area as being hugely valuable to deal with the issue of tall buildings and that area be the 'big building' area for the peninsula. It would allow a complete redevelopment of the area, bulk up the density of the peninsula and the regional centre; could end up being a potential transit oriented development area (if lrt/streetcars go into the area) and use the land in a much more efficient way.

I agree with Jennifer's concern in Toronto and don't want it to be an issue for HRM. That was part of the reason why Skye was turned down, the fear was it would gobble up so much of the DT density that it would leave little left for other sites to build up. I think the RC plan is creating good balance, tall towers (in the 20-24 storey range) in many appropriate areas and smaller mid-rise in areas where redevelopment hasn't been happening. There are a few maps I'd change a little bit (Quinpool/Agricola) but for the most part I think if HRM builds up with a mid-rise focus, we achieve two important things:

(1) We balance the distribution of redevelopment in the corridors, so more parcels can be redeveloped thus spreading out 'the wealth' so that more parcels can change.
(2) We begin to get people used to the mid-rise form becoming common place and subliminally (over time) the mid-rise form becomes accepted and some of the height issues begin to fade away. That's something that will fade over a longer period of time, as the mid-rise form becomes more common place.

Drybrain · #**4247** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

(2) We begin to get people used to the mid-rise form becoming common place and subliminally (over time) the mid-rise form becomes accepted and some of the height issues begin to fade away. That's something that will fade over a longer period of time, as the mid-rise form becomes more common place.

Hopefully! Even in Toronto, where you have 80-storey buildings proposed downtown, mid-rise buildings still have the power to cause apoplectic NIMBYism just a couple of miles down the road.

Keith P. · #**4248** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 10:35 PM**

Jennifer Keesmaat? Why do I know that name? Was she once employed in Halifax?

coolmillion · #**4249** Posted **Jan 17, 2013, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Jennifer Keesmaat? Why do I know that name? Was she once employed in Halifax?

I think she led some of the HRMbyDesign visioning or the development of the plan. She was with Office for Urbanism which was engaged as a consultant.

halifaxboyns · #**4250** Posted **Jan 18, 2013, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolmillion

I think she led some of the HRMbyDesign visioning or the development of the plan. She was with Office for Urbanism which was engaged as a consultant.

That's right - just confirmed it on her linkedin profile. She also did work on the Moncton Downtown Plan too. She is now the Chief City Planner for the City of Toronto.

Empire · #**4251** Posted **Jan 18, 2013, 5:28 AM**

The Dennis Building - Birks / Truscan site would make a great location for a new Art Gallery. Remove every other floor in the Dennis building to allow for the required height and build new on the Birks / Truscan vacant land to create one large structure. Councillors would have to find alternate parking arrangements.

If this site isn't large enough then the Infirmary lands would be a good location. It's too bad the Library wasn't combined with an Art Gallery and a Performing Arts Centre. The Library could have been scaled back a bit to make it happen.

The current Art Gallery could become a Museum of Architecture showcasing Halifax and Nova Scotia architecture. There could be a major display on the Halifax explosion and how it changed the city.

Dennis building opportunity site:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...pUTxZtC49rIG9XJk0y4pQ&cbp=12,300.98,,0,0

Another good site would be the current WTCC once vacated.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...ED7rG3h-Cjv0Scijw&cbp=12,277.31,,0,-22.5

AGNS Business Plan:
http://www.artgalleryofnovascotia.ca/site-agns/media/agns/2012-2013%20Business%20Plan.pdf

someone123 · #**4252** Posted **Jan 18, 2013, 6:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

The Dennis Building - Birks / Truscan site would make a great location for a new Art Gallery. Remove every other floor in the Dennis building to allow for the required height and build new on the Birks / Truscan vacant land to create one large structure.

Interesting idea. I think that the Dennis Building is an example where most or all of the heritage value is in the facade, so it makes sense to be more creative with the interior.

Keith P. · #**4253** Posted **Jan 18, 2013, 11:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

It's too bad the Library wasn't combined with an Art Gallery and a Performing Arts Centre. The Library could have been scaled back a bit to make it happen.

Yeah, no kidding...

OldDartmouthMark · #**4254** Posted **Jan 18, 2013, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

That's right - just confirmed it on her linkedin profile. She also did work on the Moncton Downtown Plan too. She is now the Chief City Planner for the City of Toronto.

She's also done some commentary on CBC Radio, according to the link below:
http://southbayview.blogspot.ca/2012/07/stylish-out-front-woman-to-plan-city.html

OldDartmouthMark · #**4255** Posted **Jan 18, 2013, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

The Dennis Building - Birks / Truscan site would make a great location for a new Art Gallery. Remove every other floor in the Dennis building to allow for the required height and build new on the Birks / Truscan vacant land to create one large structure. Councillors would have to find alternate parking arrangements.

If this site isn't large enough then the Infirmary lands would be a good location. It's too bad the Library wasn't combined with an Art Gallery and a Performing Arts Centre. The Library could have been scaled back a bit to make it happen.

The current Art Gallery could become a Museum of Architecture showcasing Halifax and Nova Scotia architecture. There could be a major display on the Halifax explosion and how it changed the city.

Dennis building opportunity site:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...pUTxZtC49rIG9XJk0y4pQ&cbp=12,300.98,,0,0

Another good site would be the current WTCC once vacated.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...ED7rG3h-Cjv0Scijw&cbp=12,277.31,,0,-22.5

AGNS Business Plan:
http://www.artgalleryofnovascotia.ca/site-agns/media/agns/2012-2013%20Business%20Plan.pdf

All great ideas!